A 7(a) Lender may use a variable rate of interest for guaranteed loans. Currently, a 7(a) Lender may use either the Prime rate or the Optional Peg Rate as the base rate when determining the interest rate for such loans. Per 13 CFR 120.214(c), SBA is permitting the use of three “Alternative Base Rate” options (in addition to the Prime rate and the Optional Peg Rate) for loans made with a variable interest rate under the SBA 7(a) Loan Program: the 5-year Treasury Note Rate, the 10-year Treasury Note Rate, and the Secured Overnight Funding Rate (SOFR) (collectively, “Alternative Base Rates”). Lenders choosing to use one of the Alternative Base Rates must follow the guidance provided in SOP 50 10 found on sba.gov, which establishes the maximum interest rate allowed for a loan based on its amount. When using one of the Alternative Base Rate options, the maximum interest rate that can be charged by the Lender shall not exceed Prime plus the allowed spread for that loan amount.

The 5-year, and 10-year Treasury Note Rates that 7(a) Lenders may use as Alternative Base Rates will be adjusted monthly and based on the market rate at 5:00 p.m. Eastern on the final business day of the previous month.

SBA is allowing Lenders to use the Secured Overnight Financing Rate. SBA recognizes that financial institutions use a range of SOFR products to deliver an equivalent reference rate ( e.g., 30-day term SOFR and 30-day Average SOFR). Lenders may continue to use their established in-house SOFR reference rates of 30 days or less, as these rates closely correlate with the daily SOFR rate. The amount of interest SBA will pay to a Lender following a default will be calculated based on the daily SOFR rate reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and published by SBA on a monthly basis.

SBA will publish the 7(a) Alternative Base Rate options on SBA's website at https://catran.sba.gov/ftadistapps/ftawiki/ on a monthly basis, along with the Prime rate and SBA Optional Peg Rate.

The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 for the zone locations identified in paragraph (a)(6) of that regulation from 4 p.m. on February 24, 2026 to 2 a.m. on February 25, 2026. This action is being taken to protect government officials, mitigate potential terrorist acts and incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety and security immediately before, during, and after this event. Our regulation titled “Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and adjacent waters; Washington, DC,” § 165.508(a)(6), specify the location for this security zone as an area that includes all navigable waters described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), which includes areas designated as Zones 1, 2, and 3.

• Security Zone 1, paragraph (a)(1); all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the Francis Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, at mile 113, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, at 38°51′21.3″ N, 077°02′00.0″ W, eastward across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, including the waters of the Boundary Channel, Pentagon Lagoon, Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, and Roaches Run.

• Security Zone 2, paragraph (a)(2); all navigable waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue) Bridge, at mile 2.9, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38°50′52.4″ N, 077°01′10.9″ W, including the waters of the Washington Channel.

• Security Zone 3 paragraph (a)(3); all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, at 38°51′21.3″ N, 077°02′00.0″ W, eastward across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, thence southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38°50′52.4″ N, 077°01′10.9″ W, and bounded to the south by the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, at mile 103.8.

During the enforcement period, as specified in § 165.508(b), entry into or remaining in these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. Public vessels and vessels already at berth at the time the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels underway within the security zone should plan to have departed the regulated area by the time the enforcement period begins. To seek permission to transit the zone, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing this security zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene patrol personnel determines the security zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to suspend enforcement and grant general permission to enter the security zone.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is promulgating this final rule to revise certain regulatory deadlines and make other amendments that apply to owners and operators of coal combustion residual (CCR) units, particularly to owners and operators of CCR management units (CCRMU). In 2015, EPA established requirements for the disposal of CCR as solid waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) in landfills and surface impoundments (2015 CCR Rule) [80 FR 21302; April 17, 2015]. This 2015 CCR Rule applied to CCR units at active electric utilities and independent power producers but exempted from regulation similar units at inactive electric utilities and independent power producers. In 2024, the Agency published the Legacy CCR Surface Impoundments Final Rule (Legacy Final Rule) which amended the regulations and established requirements for inactive surface impoundments at inactive electric utilities and independent power producers (legacy surface impoundments) [89 FR 38950; May 8, 2024]. The Legacy Final Rule also established requirements to address the risks from the direct placement of CCR on the land that was exempt from regulation under the 2015 CCR Rule. This included inactive CCR landfills, as well as CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed prior to the effective date of the 2015 CCR Rule ( i.e., October 19, 2015). CCRMU can be located at both active and inactive electric utilities and independent power producers. The Legacy Final Rule referred to these newly regulated units as CCR management units.

After publication of the Legacy Final Rule, several issues were raised to EPA by members of the public including industry, non-governmental organizations, and state regulatory agencies. The Agency also identified several errors in the regulatory text of the Legacy Final Rule. In response, EPA issued two separate sets of direct final and proposed rules. The first set of actions published on January 16, 2025 [90 FR 4635 and 90 FR 4707], and the second set of actions on July 22, 2025 [90 FR 34358 and 90 FR 34409]. This current final rule takes final action on a subset of the issues raised in both of these sets of actions. Additional background information on the two proposals can be found in Unit III. of this preamble.

EPA is taking final action on the July 22, 2025 proposed rule [90 FR 34409] to provide additional time for owners and operators of active CCR facilities or inactive CCR facilities with a legacy CCR surface impoundment to complete the Facility Evaluation Report (FER) Part 1 and FER Part 2. This rule also provides owners and operators of CCRMU additional time to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements and also extends deadlines for other CCRMU requirements for which completion of the FER Part 2 is a prerequisite.

Table 1 summarizes the new compliance deadlines for CCRMU (“New final rule deadlines”), as discussed in Unit IV. of this preamble. The existing deadlines that are being revised by this action (“Legacy final rule deadlines”) are also shown for comparison.

EPA is also taking final action on some of the rule amendments that were proposed on January 16, 2025 [90 FR 4707] to correct errors and clarify the CCR regulations. These changes include fixing incorrect regulatory text citations and clarifying and adding provisions in the regulatory text to match what is clearly described in the preamble. EPA is still evaluating the remainder of the amendments proposed on January 16, 2025. Once EPA determines whether to finalize the remaining proposals, EPA will take final action in a subsequent Federal Register document. Given the number of corrections and revisions discussed in the direct final rule, table 2 provides the disposition of each issue and identifies those issues that are addressed in this final rule.

EPA establishes the requirements under RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) [42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3) and 6944(a)] without taking cost into account. [ Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al. v. EPA ( USWAG ) 901 F.3d 414, 448-49 (D.C. Cir. 2018)]. The following cost estimates are presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and summarized in this preamble for compliance with E.O. 12866 and consistent with OMB Circular A-4.

The RIA estimates that the annualized net cost savings ( i.e., cost savings minus disbenefits) of this final rule will be approximately $7.3-7.5 million per year when discounting at 3%. The RIA also estimates that the annualized net cost savings of this action will be approximately $24.0-27.0 million per year when discounting at 7%. Further information on the economic effects of this rule can be found in Unit VII. of this preamble.

This rule may be of interest to electric utilities and independent power producers that fall within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 221112. The reference to NAICS code 221112 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This discussion lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not described here could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in § 257.50 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

EPA is amending the regulations governing the disposal of CCR in CCR management units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D. CCR management units are “any area of land on which any noncontainerized accumulation of CCR is received, is placed, or is otherwise managed, that is not a regulated CCR unit . . .” [40 CFR 257.53]. Specifically, EPA is extending the deadlines for owners and operators of active CCR facilities or inactive CCR facilities with a legacy CCR surface impoundment to complete the FER Part 1 and FER Part 2. This rule also provides owners and operators of CCRMU additional time to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements, as well as extending deadlines for other CCRMU requirements for which completion of the FER Part 2 is a prerequisite ( i.e., the deadlines to complete closures, post-closure care plans, and CCRMU closure initiation).

EPA is also taking final action to correct errors and clarify the CCR regulations. These changes include fixing incorrect regulatory text citations, clarifying and adding provisions in the regulatory text to match what is clearly described in the preamble of the Legacy Final Rule, and improving rule implementation by adding a new section consolidating compliance deadlines for CCRMU.

EPA is publishing this rule under the authority of sections 1008(a)(3), 2002(a), 4004, and 4005(a), (d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, 42 U.S.C. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, 6945(a), and (d).

EPA establishes the requirements under RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) [42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3) and 6944(a)] without taking cost into account. [ Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al. v. EPA ( USWAG ) 901 F.3d 414, 448-49 (D.C. Cir. 2018)]. The following cost estimates are presented in the Regulatory Economic Assessment (REA) and summarized in this preamble for compliance with OMB Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. The requirements in this rule do not rely on these cost estimates.

The RIA estimates that the annualized cost savings of this action will be approximately $8.1-$9.5 million per year when discounting at 3%. The RIA estimates that the annualized cost savings of this action will be approximately $25.0-$30.0 million per year when discounting at 7%. The RIA estimates that the annualized reduction in benefits of this action will be approximately $0.8-$2.0 million per year when discounting at 3%. The RIA estimates that the annualized reduction in benefits of this action will be approximately $1.3-$3.3 million per year when discounting at 7%. Overall, the RIA estimates that the net annualized cost savings of this action will be $7.3-$7.5 million per year when discounting at 3%, and $24-$27 million when discounting at 7%. Further information on the economic effects of this action can be found in Unit VII. of this preamble.

On May 8, 2024, EPA published the Legacy Final Rule regulating inactive surface impoundments at inactive facilities (legacy CCR surface impoundments or legacy impoundments) under 40 CFR part 257, subpart D [89 FR 38950]. In addition, the Legacy Final Rule established requirements to address the risks from the direct placement of CCR on the land that was exempt from regulation under the 2015 CCR Rule. This included inactive CCR landfills, as well as CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed prior to the effective date of the 2015 CCR Rule; the final rule refers to these newly regulated units as CCRMU. The Legacy Final Rule added definitions for legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCRMUs, among other terms. It also established the regulatory requirements applicable to legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCRMUs, which largely consist of requiring compliance with certain existing CCR regulations, along with tailored compliance deadlines.

Owners or operators of an active facility or a facility with a legacy CCR surface impoundment are required to conduct a facility evaluation to identify and delineate any CCRMU at the facility and document the findings in two reports: FER Part 1 and FER Part 2 [§ 257.75(b)]. The FER Part 1 documents the thorough review of readily and reasonably available records regarding where CCR was either routinely and systematically placed on land or where facility activities otherwise resulted in measurable accumulations of CCR on land. The FER Part 2 documents the conclusions of a physical evaluation of the facility to address any data and information gaps identified in FER Part 1. Together, the FER Parts 1 and 2 give a complete picture of the historic use, placement, and the status of CCR at the facility, ultimately identifying any CCRMU of 1 ton or greater onsite. In addition, owners or operators of CCRMU must comply with the existing requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D for groundwater monitoring, corrective action (where necessary), and in certain cases, closure and post-closure care requirements.

On January 16, 2025, EPA published a direct final rule [90 FR 4635] and a parallel notice of proposed rulemaking [90 FR 4707] to correct errors and clarify several provisions published in the Legacy Final Rule. Due to the receipt of adverse comment, EPA withdrew the direct final rule on March 20, 2025 [90 FR 13084]. In this Federal Register document the Agency refers to this withdrawn action as the “withdrawn corrections direct final rule.” Because the withdrawn corrections direct final rule did not become effective, the Agency is proceeding with a final rule for certain issues based on the proposed rule. See table 2 in Unit I.B. of this Federal Register document for a summary of the issues being resolved in this final rule.

As explained in the January 16, 2025 actions, EPA proposed to correct several typographical errors in the regulatory text, correct regulatory text that does not conform to the Agency's stated positions in the Legacy Final Rule preamble, and revise regulatory provisions that, as drafted, have the potential to be ambiguous or confusing. In total the January 16, 2025 actions covered revisions to the following sections of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D: §§ 257.50 (scope and purpose), 257.53 (definitions), 257.75 (requirements for CCRMU), 257.80 (fugitive dust requirements), 257.90 (groundwater monitoring and corrective action applicability), 257.95 (assessment monitoring program), 257.100 (inactive and legacy CCR surface impoundments), and 257.102 (closure of CCR units).

On July 22, 2025, EPA published a direct final rule [90 FR 34358] with a parallel notice of proposed rulemaking [90 FR 34409] that would create an additional option for certain owners and operators to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and extend compliance deadlines for the remaining CCRMU provisions. On September 4, 2025, EPA withdrew the direct final rule [90 FR 42708] due to the receipt of adverse comment and is proceeding with a final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA refers to this direct final rule as the “withdrawn direct final rule” in the preamble to this final rule. In response to comments, EPA reopened the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking and announced an online public hearing which was held on September 12, 2025 [90 FR 42711]. A transcript of the public hearing is available in the rulemaking docket. 1

Specifically, EPA proposed to (1) establish an additional option to allow the two parts of the FER to be prepared concurrently so long as both reports are submitted no later than the current FER Part 2 deadline; (2) extend the deadline to prepare both FER Part 1 and Part 2 by 12 months; (3) extend the deadline for owners or operators of CCRMU to have designed and installed the groundwater monitoring system, developed the groundwater sampling and analysis plan, collected eight independent samples, and initiated detection and assessment monitoring; and (4) make conforming changes to the remaining CCRMU compliance deadlines to include: (a) the deadline to establish a public CCR website; (b) the deadlines to prepare the closure and post-closure care plans; and (c) the deadline to initiate closure of the CCRMU. [90 FR 34361-34264; July 22, 2025 and 90 FR 34409; July 22, 2025]

The Legacy Final Rule established a two-step process with associated compliance deadlines for owners and operators of active facilities with a currently regulated unit or inactive facilities with a legacy CCR surface impoundment. These owners and operators are required to conduct facility evaluations to confirm whether any CCRMU greater than 1 ton exist on-site and then if so, to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the CCRMU. Facility evaluations are documented through a FER Part 1 and FER Part 2. Facilities with one or more CCRMU are also subject to requirements and compliance deadlines for groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure, post-closure care, recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting.

In this action, EPA is extending the deadlines for owners and operators of CCR management units to prepare each part of the FERs by one year. In addition, the Agency is providing additional time for owners and operators of CCR management units to comply with the groundwater monitoring provisions. Complying with the groundwater monitoring provisions requires facilities to complete several actions, including installing the groundwater monitoring system, developing the groundwater sampling and analysis program, initiating the detection and assessment monitoring programs to include obtaining a minimum of eight independent samples for each monitoring well ( e.g., quarterly sampling), and begin evaluating the groundwater monitoring data. In this action, EPA is providing a total of 36 months to complete these groundwater monitoring activities, this time period starts from the deadline for the FER Part 2. Finally, as a consequence of revising the deadline to complete the groundwater monitoring requirement, the Agency is extending the deadlines for several successor provisions including those for preparing the first annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report, preparing the closure and post-closure care plans, and initiating closure of the CCR management unit. Table 1 in Unit I.B. of this preamble presents the new deadlines for these requirements. The rationale for these revisions is discussed below.

Several commenters supported extending the CCRMU deadlines due to the pending litigation [ i.e., City Utilities of Springfield v. EPA, Case No. 24-1200 (D.C. Cir.)] and EPA's broader reconsideration of the Legacy Final Rule. The comments received are discussed in Units IV.B., IV.C., and IV.D. of this preamble. In summary, these commenters stated that an extension is appropriate given the current abeyance in the litigation and EPA's stated intent to reconsider the Legacy Final Rule requiring a new round of notice-and-comment rulemakings.

EPA disagrees that either the pending litigation or EPA's reconsideration of the Legacy Final Rule provides a basis for extending the FER Part 1 and FER Part 2 deadlines. [See, e.g., Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, 906 F. 3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2018)]. However, for other reasons discussed in Units IV.B., IV.C., and IV.D. of this preamble, the Agency is extending the CCRMU deadlines.

Several commenters claimed that the proposed rule for this action was unclear whether the Agency intended to propose extensions identical to those in the withdrawn direct final rule or whether it intended to extend each deadline by 12 months as provided in table 1 of the proposed rule [90 FR 34411].

In the proposed rule, the Agency not only proposed the same deadline extensions discussed in the direct final rule but also sought comment on an additional alternative that would extend the deadlines to prepare both FER Part 1 and Part 2 by 12 months. Therefore, the Agency has considered all relevant comments received in both the withdrawn direct final rule and the proposed rule. See Units IV.B., IV.C., and IV.D. of this preamble for further responses to comment.

As currently codified in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, owners and operators of active and inactive facilities with one or more regulated CCR unit(s) are required to conduct a facility evaluation to confirm whether any CCRMU of 1 ton or greater exist on-site and if so, delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the unit(s). The Legacy Final Rule adopted a two-part facility evaluation process with two separate professional engineer (P.E.)-certified reports and compliance dates. The FER Part 1 includes the results of the available information collection and evaluation and has a compliance deadline of February 9, 2026 ( i.e., 15 months from the effective date of the Legacy Final Rule). The FER Part 2 addresses data and information gaps through a physical evaluation of the facility and has a compliance deadline of February 8, 2027 ( i.e., 12 months from the deadline for the FER Part 1). Together, the FER Part 1 and Part 2 give a complete picture of the historic use, placement, and the status of CCR at each facility, ultimately identifying and delineating the lateral and vertical extents of any CCRMU onsite.

In the Legacy Proposed Rule [88 FR 32020-32023; May 18, 2023], EPA proposed to require owners or operators of active or inactive facilities with one or more regulated CCR unit(s) to conduct a facility evaluation to confirm whether any CCRMU exist on-site and if so, delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the unit(s). EPA proposed that facilities prepare one report, to be completed in two consecutive steps, with a single deadline. As proposed, the first step would consist of a thorough review of available records in combination with a physical facility inspection and any necessary field work to fill any data gaps from the review of available records. The second step of the facility evaluation would be to generate a professional engineer-certified FER to document the findings of the facility evaluation. The proposed compliance deadline for the completion of the FER was no later than three months after the effective date of the final rule. The following paragraph summarizes the comments received during this rulemaking that are pertinent to this final rule.

Many commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal of a two-step process documented in a single report. Commenters stated that the FER process should not be documented in a single report and that these requirements should more closely follow the investigative process developed under the RCRA and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) programs. The commenters on the legacy proposed rule suggested that separating the information collection requirements from the physical evaluation requirements would provide a more thorough evaluation of the existing available information to better inform the physical evaluation to fill data gaps and properly identify CCRMU. [89 FR 39054; May 8, 2024] They instead suggested EPA split the information collection requirements from the physical evaluation requirements, stating the separation would provide a more thorough evaluation of existing available information to better inform the physical evaluation to fill data gaps and properly identify CCRMU. Commenters also stated that the proposed FER deadline was infeasible and did not allow sufficient time to gather the required information and conduct a physical inspection. Most commenters cited concerns regarding the accessibility of historic information or data, difficulty locating off-site record storage, the possible extensive volume of information, the possible iterative nature of field work and sampling, the impact of seasonal disruptions to field work, the lack of qualified field personnel and the timing to acquire their services through contracts. Multiple commenters also suggested allowing significantly more time to complete individual aspects of the FER requirements.

In responses to these comments, the Legacy Final Rule adopted a two-part facility evaluation process with two separate P.E.-certified reports and compliance deadlines [89 FR 39054-39059; May 8, 2024]. The FER Part 1 includes the results of the available information collection and evaluation and has a compliance deadline of February 9, 2026. The FER Part 2 addresses data and information gaps through a physical evaluation of the facility and has a compliance deadline of February 8, 2027. Together, the FER Part 1 and Part 2 will give a complete picture of the historic use, placement, and the status of CCR at each facility, ultimately identifying and delineating the lateral and vertical extents of any CCRMU onsite.

When determining the final compliance deadlines for the FERs, EPA relied heavily on the information provided by commenters citing the shortages and backlogs of qualified contractors, increased strain on those contractors related to the number of CCR units complying with the CCR rule simultaneously, difficulty accessing and reviewing historical documentation, potential seasonal disruptions, and time needed to perform quality control and quality assurance. After considering the information provided by the commenters, EPA extended the compliance dates and separated the FER into two parts with separate deadlines to prepare the reports. Specifically, the final rule required FER 1 to be completed by February 9, 2026 ( i.e., 15 months from the effective date), and FER 2 to be completed by February 8, 2027 ( i.e., 12 months from the deadline of the FER Part 1and 27 months from the effective date).

After the Legacy Final Rule went into effect on November 8, 2024, some members of the regulated community informed the Agency that they were facing challenges that would impact their ability to comply with specific compliance deadlines for CCRMU. The information that EPA received from the regulated community is available in the rulemaking docket and summarized below. The information provided by facilities includes that several companies are having difficulties preparing the FER Part 1 report by the current deadline because of difficulty in obtaining, accessing, and reviewing the historic documentation. The feedback provided to EPA includes that:

• It is taking facilities longer than expected to process voluminous historical records and information. One company with multiple facilities explained that it has records stored in various locations in different states, including off-site warehouses, filing cabinets at office and plant locations, and electronic records stored on various servers or in a file database system. This company indicated that it has located over a quarter million boxes of records stored at ten off-site warehouses, as well as over 5.8 million electronic records. Another company described locating nearly 600 boxes and 30 file cabinets of documents resulting in approximately 30,000 pages and nearly 4 gigabytes of information in need of review and assessment. Other facilities have stated that they have collected tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of documents thus far. Companies have reported that searching through these records is time consuming because of the sheer volume of information that must be reviewed. Additionally, narrowing the search is often complicated because the description of the contents of the boxes are vague or not detailed.

• Identifying relevant records maintained in electronic formats has presented challenges. These companies reported that in many cases electronic records do not contain many useful attributes on which to search so it has been difficult to identify what documents may provide useful information. One company described the difficulty of identifying relevant files that have been digitized and preserved on a hard drive for a facility that operated for 40 years. Another company stated that operating systems hosting documents have changed over time ( e.g., software systems for document management and storage), as well as some information being stored on out-of-date electronic filing systems. Moreover, some companies have found that subsequent conversions to newer operating systems were not seamless, thus creating issues in retrieving data. Finally, a company discussed the challenges with accessing and reviewing microfiche information, specifically that the process of digitizing microfiche information is time consuming.

• Multiple companies have found that many of the historical engineering and construction documents and drawings stored in boxes at offsite warehouses are in poor condition. These companies reported that documents are torn or otherwise damaged, making them illegible or difficult to use. Older drawings or documents that have been scanned and saved electronically have poor resolution or are faint and difficult to read. These companies have stated that document condition and completeness has slowed the review process.

• Several commenters discussed that there is not sufficient time provided in the current FER Part 1 deadline for facilities owned and operated by affiliate companies to collaborate. These companies further stated that such coordination is time-consuming, but necessary to ensure uniformity across different companies and facilities.

• Several companies are using contractors to complete the facility evaluation process, including the drafting of the report documenting compliance with part 1 of the facility evaluation requirements ( i.e., FER Part 1). These companies have identified shortages and backlogs in qualified contractors resulting from the simultaneous demand for contractors.

To address these challenges, EPA published the now withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34358; July 22, 2025 and 90 FR 42708; September 4, 2025] with a parallel proposed rule [90 FR 34409]. The direct final rule would have allowed facilities to complete the FER Part 1 by the FER Part 2 deadline but would not have extended the FER 2 deadline. The withdrawn direct final rule offered this option because, in reviewing the information submitted by these facilities, EPA noted that many of the specific difficulties presented to the Agency primarily related to the information gathering tasks required under FER Part 1. In addition, some companies suggested that one way to address these concerns was to provide companies with additional flexibility to complete the FER Part 1 by the FER Part 2 deadline. This suggestion was also consistent with the Agency's original proposal for the Legacy Rule, which as stated above commenters generally did not support at that time.

In the withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34358; July 22, 2025], EPA concluded that the information that had been provided by the companies did not provide sufficient support for a direct final rule extending the FER Part 2 deadlines because many of the specific difficulties presented to the Agency primarily related to the information gathering tasks required under FER Part 1. This conclusion was made despite that EPA stated in the withdrawn direct final rule that the activities involved in achieving compliance with the FER Parts 2 ( e.g., coordinating with local, state, and federal authorities; collecting samples; conducting field work; receiving lab results) are susceptible to factors outside of a facility's control ( e.g., extreme weather events, shortages of qualified contractors) and warrant greater flexibility [90 FR 34362; July 22, 2025], that (2) the FER Part 1 is the work plan is required to conduct the FER Part 2 facility evaluation work [90 FR 39054; May 8, 2024], and (3) that merging the deadlines would remove the transparency intended in the Legacy Rule by allowing the public the opportunity to see the work plan for the FER Part 2 prior to the completion of the FER Part 2 work [90 FR 39054; May 8, 2024].

In the parallel proposal published on July 22, 2025 [90 FR 34410], EPA also sought comment on an alternative proposal to resolve the challenges discussed above. Specifically, the EPA sought comment on whether to extend each of the FER compliance deadlines by 12 months, even though the Agency stated that the regulated community had not substantiated the need to extend the FER Part 2 deadline in addition to the FER Part 1 deadline. This alternative proposal coupled a 12-month extension with the option to allow the two parts of the FER to be prepared concurrently. This alternative proposal would have allowed facilities to either (1) complete the FER Part 1 by February 8, 2027 and the FER Part 2 by February 8, 2028 or (2) complete FER Parts 1 and 2 by February 8, 2028. Under this alternative proposal, the requirement to prepare a report documenting compliance with part 1 of the facility evaluation ( i.e., FER Part 1) would remain. As discussed above in this section, this alternative proposal was based on feedback EPA received that some owners and operators found the FER Parts 1 and 2 compliance deadlines infeasible and that an extension of 12 months for both FER Part 1 and Part 2 was necessary to provide sufficient time for data and information collection, review, field work, and completion of the reports given the challenges mentioned above.

The Agency received many comments on the contemplated changes to the FER deadlines discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule and parallel proposed rule [90 FR 34358 and 34409; July 22, 2025]. This Unit of the preamble contains EPA's summary of the comments.

The Agency received many comments in response to the withdrawn direct final rule and parallel proposed rule [90 FR 34358 and 34409; July 22, 2025] which stated that there is a need for at least a 12-month extension for each of the FERs. The comments supporting the 12-month extensions generally stated that facility owners and operators have been diligently undertaking the necessary facility evaluations to identify CCRMUs at their regulated sites but are unable to meet the deadlines for the preparation of the FER Parts 1 and 2. These commenters provided the following information to support the need for the extensions: assertions that approximately half of the regulated facilities are unable to complete the FER process in accordance with the current timeframes due to voluminous records that need to be reviewed, contractor shortages and backlogs of qualified contractors, coordination concerns regarding contractors working at facilities, coordination issues pertaining to affiliate companies working to ensure uniformity across the different companies and facilities, and inadequate time to delineate CCRMU with uncertain boundaries. One commenter stated that CCRMUs are unlike the CCR units regulated under the original 2015 regulations, because for the most part those units had well-defined and discrete boundaries, while CCRMU can be areas of historic placement that lack clear delineation and thus the amount of work is greatly increased for these units. One commenter supported the extensions stating that the extensions are proactive steps to ensure that CCRs are being managed properly by recognizing the operational challenges that utilities are facing, but further stated that these extensions should not turn into a loophole of continued delays and requested firm and enforceable deadlines. Similarly, another commenter supported the extensions stating that the control of CCR needs to be more serious, and people need to be more attentive to it, therefore it is very important to have the time to do proper safety protocols and regulations. Some commenters stated that the extensions will have no adverse environmental effects and others positioned that the extensions are necessary to protect the environment and human health. Another supporting commenter stated that the proposed extensions do not in any way jeopardize human health and the environment and requested common sense revisions that better balance protecting human health and the environment with American industry.

Some commenters specifically supported the extension of FER Part 2, in addition to the extension to FER Part 1. These commenters supported the position that the FER Part 1 and Part 2 cannot be completed concurrently and were designed to be consecutive steps. These commenters further stated that FER Part 1 is intended to inform the FER Part 2, that FER Part 2 is intended to address any gaps identified in the FER Part 1 process, and that the FER Part 1 report must include a work plan for the FER Part 2 process. These commenters concurred with EPA's position in the Legacy Final Rule, that it is appropriate to provide 12 months following the FER Part 1 for the FER Part 2 process.

Some of the commenters provided information to demonstrate that there are numerous factors outside of a facility's control that can impact its ability to comply with the requirements by the existing deadlines. These reasons include that: facilities need time to install equipment or infrastructure to conduct sampling ( e.g., drilling boreholes, laboratory delays); there may be delays from significant weather events which could create unsafe conditions or otherwise make borehole locations temporarily inaccessible; time is needed to have qualified personnel to carry out necessary fieldwork; time is needed to account for permitting or approval requirements to include federal seasonal restrictions for endangered species as well as state and local requirements for permits and formal approvals; and facilities may have issues accessing CCRMUs if confined in multiple areas by streams, public roads, railroad rights-of-way, and adjacent properties not owned by the regulated facilities. Some commenters stated that the FER Part 2 also includes complex and time-intensive tasks which are susceptible to the same contractor and weather delays as the FER Part 1. These commenters discussed that to complete the FER Part 2 the regulated entities must conduct a comprehensive on-site inspection of the entire property, and that while it may be a straightforward process for some facilities, other facilities have complicating factors such as size ( e.g., some facilities span several hundred acres), site complexity ( e.g., undeveloped lands and natural features that limit access ( i.e., wetlands, steep slopes, densely vegetated areas)), and the number of regulated units requiring evaluation. These commenters provided their opinion that without the corresponding extension to the FER Part 2, the flexibility intended by the FER Part 1 extension would be significantly undermined. One commenter also stated that identification and delineation of the CCRMUs is not necessarily a “one-and-done” exercise, providing that field investigations verify information data gaps which then may need additional follow-up sampling and investigations that are also susceptible to delays affiliated with weather and permitting.

But numerous other commenters broadly opposed the extensions and many of these commenters provided reasons for their opposition. Some opposing commenters requested that the compliance dates be shortened to end CCR accumulation in unlined surface impoundments. Some of these commenters opposing the extensions stated that 91% of power plants that have coal ash pits are contaminating groundwater and some of these commenters provided reference to the supporting industry data. Similarly, many of these commenters cited concerns about delays in the process endangering or continuing to contaminate sources of drinking water for numerous communities throughout the country. Some of these commenters were also concerned about impacts to ecosystems, the environment, surface waters, and recreational uses. Some commenters expressed concern about specific facilities affecting or potentially affecting their communities and stated that CCRMUs have contaminated or may contaminate drinking water in exceedance of the federal drinking water standards or surface waters in a way that would otherwise affect human health and/or the environment. Other opposing commenters expressed concerns with the costs of cleaning up contamination, improving drinking water, and medical care that will be incurred by extending the deadlines. Similarly, another commenter opposed the extensions for economic reasons, stating that the fossil fuel damages exceed the gross domestic product of the country. Many commenters expressed specific concerns about metals and other toxic coal ash constituents leaching into groundwater and surface water effecting human health and the environment. Some of these commenters referred to EPA risk assessments for these constituents. Many opposing commenters discussed that EPA had already extended deadlines in the Legacy Final Rule and feel that industry has been given enough time. Some commenters requested that EPA dismiss comments made by the regulated industry. Several opposing commenters pointed to the units regulated under the 2015 CCR Rule and the 100% compliance rate to install groundwater monitoring systems, perform the initial rounds of assessment monitoring, and issue their reports on time as evidence that extensions are not needed for CCRMUs. One of these commenters disputed claims made by industry that they need more time to complete the FERs and stated that the EPA's Proposed rule docket entries for these comments fail to provide evidence of the existence, scope, or impact of the alleged shortage of contractors; that the deadlines should not be extended because even if large companies have more documents, they also have more resources; and disputes that a $1.14M estimate for the sampling events at one facility is unsubstantiated, further pointing out that RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) [42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3) and 6944(a)] prohibit EPA from taking costs into account. Many of the opposing commenters expressed concern that the toxins in coal ash are harming human health and negatively impacting communities and workers. One of these commenters stated that communities near coal plants will likely be harmed by the proposed rule, since it delays investigation, closure and cleanup of these areas of toxic waste.

The Agency has considered the comments and information provided and is convinced that the existing deadline for the FER Part 1 report does not provide sufficient time for facilities to comply because of difficulty in obtaining, accessing, and reviewing historical documentation. EPA's existing deadline assumed that owners and operators could evaluate that historical documentation by the deadline of February 9, 2026. However, it is evident that EPA underestimated the timeline to complete these tasks, particularly considering that many of these power plants have operated for decades requiring these owners and operators to identify and evaluate voluminous historical records. The Agency agrees with commenters that these provisions are more complicated than the original 2015 regulation's provisions, because most of the existing CCR units which complied with the 2015 regulations had well-defined and discrete boundaries. By contrast CCRMU are generally areas of historic placement and more work is sometimes necessary for identification and delineation.

A thorough evaluation of the historical records, such as engineering drawings or other construction-related information of the CCRMU as part of the FER Part 1 process is an important step informing subsequent tasks including the facility inspection as part of the FER Part 2 and installation of the groundwater monitoring system. Providing the necessary time to review and assess available historical records will better inform the physical facility inspection and any necessary field work as part of the FER Part 2. Furthermore, as EPA acknowledged in the Legacy Final Rule, proper site characterization is critical to designing the groundwater monitoring system for the CCRMU [89 FR 39064; May 8, 2024]. While EPA anticipates that some facilities will have adequate information for site characterization, many of these facilities, especially inactive facilities, may need to conduct more extensive site reconnaissance and field work to obtain the necessary information due to the widespread use of noncontainerized CCR across facilities. Providing the necessary time to properly conduct the FER Part 1 will better ensure that all available relevant records are identified. EPA further recognizes that groundwater monitoring systems that are designed based on inadequate data are more likely to be unable to properly monitor groundwater quality coming from the unit and therefore not protective of human health and the environment.

The Agency further agrees that the FER Part 1 and Part 2 were designed to be consecutive steps. Since the FER Part 2 is intended to address any gaps identified during the FER Part 1 process and that the FER Part 1 report must include a workplan to guide the FER Part 2 process, the Agency is reaffirming its position taken in the Legacy Final Rule that it is appropriate to provide 12 months following completion of the FER Part 1 for the FER Part 2 process. EPA discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule that FER Part 2 activities ( e.g., coordinating with local, state, and federal authorities; collecting samples; conducting field work; and receiving lab results) are susceptible to factors outside of a facility's control ( e.g., extreme weather, contractor shortages, and permitting or approval delays) and need additional flexibility to be completed by their deadlines [90 FR 34361]. The FER Part 2 requires that the owners and operators conduct a physical evaluation of their facilities, including where necessary field sampling [§ 257.75(d)(1)]. More specifically, the owners and operators are required to conduct the following activities which may require field work: (1) § 257.75(d)(1)(iv) requires a description of the physical and engineering properties of the foundation and abutment materials on which each CCRMU was constructed. This may require that facilities conduct field sampling events. (2) § 257.75(d)(1)(vi) requires evidence of structural instability of each CCRMU. This may require that facilities conduct structural integrity testing. (3) § 257.75(d)(1)(viii) requires the size of each CCR management unit, including the general lateral and vertical dimensions and an estimate of the volume of CCR contained within the unit. This may require field sampling and resampling to fully verify. (4) § 257.75(d)(1)(viii) requires identification of the types of CCR in each CCRMU. This may require field sampling of each CCRMU to verify constituents.

Since the FER Part 2 requires varying levels of field work in multiple climates, the Agency agrees that owners and operators of facilities may encounter factors outside of their control during the FER Part 2 process that could jeopardize their ability to meet the compliance deadline. These include that: facilities need time to install equipment or infrastructure to conduct sampling ( e.g., drilling boreholes, laboratory delays); there may be delays from significant weather events which could create unsafe conditions or otherwise make borehole locations temporarily inaccessible; time is needed to have qualified personnel to carry out necessary fieldwork; time is needed to account for permitting or approval requirements to include federal seasonal restrictions for endangered species as well as state and local requirements for permits and formal approvals; facilities may have issues accessing CCRMUs when confined in multiple areas by streams, public roads, railroad rights-of-way, and adjacent properties not owned by the regulated facilities; and there may be other site specific factors such as size ( e.g., some facilities span several hundred acres), site complexity ( e.g., undeveloped lands and natural features that limit access ( i.e., wetlands, steep slopes, densely vegetated areas), and the number of regulated units requiring evaluation. The Agency agrees with commenters who stated that industry did not fully substantiate the shortage of contractors. However, the Agency believes that some facilities may be experiencing staffing difficulties and finds that the other factors discussed in this paragraph may warrant additional time to ensure protection of human health and the environment. The Agency anticipates that some of the more complex facilities will need more time to fully delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the CCRMUs. EPA must ensure that the facilities nationwide can achieve regulatory compliance and finds that these factors warrant additional time to achieve compliance. And since at this time CCRMU requirements are not within a tailored site-specific permit program, the EPA finds that these extensions are required to provide adequate time for all facilities to meet the requirements. EPA acknowledges that the FER Part 2 requires field work that may require facilities to obtain federal, state, and local permits; install equipment or infrastructure to conduct sampling; procure the appropriate expertise; and various other region- and season-specific items that may jeopardize the ability to comply by the existing deadline. The Agency did not appreciate that these factors which are outside of the facilities control would inhibit compliance with the FER Part 2 deadline when it published the now withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34358] and the accompanying proposed rule [90 FR 34409; July 22, 2025].

Further, the Agency agrees with the commenters that expressed the importance of adequate time to properly manage the CCRMUs, as well as the numerous commenters who are concerned about impacts from CCRMUs to human health and the environment. The Agency appreciates the concerns submitted by commenters who are troubled by the potential negative impacts that these extensions may have on communities, groundwater, surface water, human health, and the environment. These extensions are necessary to limit human exposure of any metals and toxins in the coal ash. As EPA explained above, providing the necessary time to conduct each step of the facility evaluation process will ensure the proper delineation of each CCRMU, which in turn will better support the design and installation of a groundwater monitoring network protective of human health and the environment. The Agency believes that providing these extensions protects the American public. EPA will continue to evaluate the CCRMU regulatory framework to ensure that chemicals and other exposures from CCRMU comply with RCRA.

The Agency disagrees with commenters advocating to take cost into account as a factor when establishing these deadlines because EPA establishes the requirements under RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) [42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3) and 6944(a)] without taking cost into account. [ USWAG, 901 F.3d at 448-49]

In this final rule, EPA is extending the deadlines for owners and operators of CCRMU to prepare each part of the FER by one year. The Agency finds this extension is supported by the information submitted by the commenters as discussed above and finds that this one-year extension for both the FER Part 1 and Part 2 is sufficient based on the representations by the majority of commenters from the regulated community that a 12-month extension will address their concerns. Accordingly, the revised deadline to complete FER Part 1 is February 9, 2027, and the deadline for FER Part 2 is February 8, 2028. The revised deadlines to complete FER Part 1 and FER Part 2 are codified in § 257.75(c)(1) and (d)(1), respectively.

As discussed above, in both the July 22, 2025 direct final rule (now withdrawn) and the parallel proposed rule [90 FR 34358 and 34409], EPA offered a regulatory option under which a facility could prepare both FER Part 1 and Part 2 by February 8, 2027 ( i.e., the existing deadline for FER Part 2). This option of a single deadline for FER Part 1 and Part 2 (as opposed to two separate deadlines) allowed flexibility to complete tasks, such as reviewing historical documentation and conducting field work to confirm the presence of CCRMU. EPA explained that this option would address many of the specific difficulties presented to the Agency, which primarily related to the information gathering tasks required under FER Part 1. EPA also reasoned that the activities involved in achieving compliance with the facility evaluation requirements (FER Parts 1 and 2) ( e.g., coordinating with local, state, and federal authorities; collecting samples; conducting field work; receiving lab results) are susceptible to factors outside a facility's control ( e.g., extreme weather events, shortages of qualified contractors, and permitting or approval delays), and therefore warrant greater flexibility. Additionally, required activities can be restricted depending on the time of year and the location of the facility ( e.g., due to seasonality, protected species, site clearing restrictions). Because all the CCRMU requirements build upon the FER, EPA must ensure that facilities nationwide can achieve regulatory compliance by the deadline. EPA believed that utilizing a single deadline for the facility evaluation requirements would allow facilities to make reasonable accommodations for facility-specific challenges in a way that the current sequential deadlines do not.

Under both the withdrawn direct final rule and the proposed rule, compliance with the existing provisions (that require completion of the FER Parts 1 and 2 by separate deadlines) would have remained as an option because most commenters on the legacy proposed rule had raised concern with a two-step process documented in a single report, and suggested that EPA split the information collection requirements from the physical evaluation requirements to provide a more thorough evaluation of existing available information to better inform the physical evaluation to fill data gaps and properly identify CCRMU. EPA believed that establishing an alternative compliance option would address concerns and provide facilities with flexibility to account for their individual circumstances.

The Agency received a couple comments opposing the additional regulatory option to allow concurrent submission of the FER Part 1 by the FER Part 2 deadline. One commenter provided that further delays to reporting for coal ash dumps and landfills will inevitably slow cleanup, and communities will be exposed to years more toxic ash pollution. Another commenter specifically opposed the option, cited the sequential nature of the FERs, and recommended that the Agency extend the FER Part 1 and Part 2 deadlines each by 12 months. This commenter stated that simply collapsing the FER Part 1 and Part 2 deadlines would not provide any actual relief because the FER Part 2 must build directly on the findings of the FER Part 1. This commenter further discussed that the regulatory text and structure confirm that two reports are intended and provided the example that FER Part 1 identifies and narrows the areas of a facility that an owner and operator must investigate during the second part of the FER Process. Both opposing commenters stated concern that merging of the FER deadlines will remove the transparency that was intended by the separate compliance dates and allowed the public the opportunity to see the work plan ( i.e., the FER Part 1 report).

Conversely, other commenters generally supported the proposed rule and therefore the additional regulatory option which would allow concurrent submission of the FER Parts 1 and 2. The Agency received several comments that specifically support the concurrent submission of the FER Part 1 with FER Part 2; however, many of these commenters further explained that there is a need for an extension to FER Part 2 because the FERs are sequential and cannot be completed concurrently. The commenters who specifically supported the option for concurrent submission of the FERs provided the following justifications: that eliminating the separate phase 1 and phase 2 and requiring a combination report just makes sense because a single report would be more concise and will not delay the cleanup schedule; that affected facilities would appreciate the flexibility to choose a combined compliance deadline that can account for budget cycles, delays bid specifications, and the ability provide qualified contractors and equipment; and that it can hardly be viewed as controversial since it would still require the FER Part 2 to be completed within the timeline established in the Legacy Final Rule. The commenters who requested extensions for FER Part 2 based on the sequential nature of the FERs stated that the FER Part 1 and Part 2 cannot be completed concurrently and were designed to be consecutive steps. These commenters further stated that FER Part 1 is intended to inform FER Part 2, that FER Part 2 is intended to address any gaps identified in the FER Part 1 process, and that the FER Part 1 report must include a work plan for the FER part 2 process. Many of these commenters concurred with the EPA's position in the Legacy Final Rule, that it is appropriate to provide 12 months following the FER Part 1 for the FER Part 2 process.

The Agency has considered the information provided by these commenters and agrees that the FER Part 1 and Part 2 are sequential steps, that the option for concurrent FERs does not provide relief for the FER Part 2 deadline, that allowing concurrent submission of the FER Part 1 by the FER Part 2 deadline will delay reporting ( i.e., the internet posting of the FER Part 1 as required per § 257.107), and that it is appropriate to provide 12 months to complete the FER Part 2 after completion of the FER Part 1. Therefore, the final rule does not allow concurrent submission of the FER Parts 1 and 2. As discuss in the previous paragraph, the Agency found that many of the commenters who supported the option for concurrent submission of the FERs often also provided evidence that was contrary to the option while stating the need for additional time for the FER Part 2 report. Further, the Agency disagrees with the suggestion that there should only be a single FER report required or that there should be a single deadline for the FER Part 1 and the FER Part 2 because it is contrary to many comments received in response to the legacy proposed rule and this proposed rulemaking which state that the activities required to the complete the reports are sequential, that the FER Part 1 report is necessary to inform the FER Part 2 process, and that the process should more closely follow the investigative process developed under the RCRA and CERCLA processes. The Agency finds that the majority of comments received in this rulemaking affirm the determinations in the Legacy Final Rule [89 FR 390540], that the two-step approach to facility evaluation will reduce the need for rework and the overall burden for both facility owners or operators and contractors who may be hired to complete this work. As EPA stated in the Legacy Final Rule, facilities must conduct a physical site inspection of the entire facility as part of the FER Part 2 [89 FR 39057]. This physical site inspection must consist of a visual inspection of the entire facility to look for evidence that CCR is currently being managed on the land to include addressing all data gaps identified as part of the FER Part 1. Additionally, EPA again concludes that this approach increases transparency by allowing the public the opportunity to see the work plan developed by the owner or operator. If the Agency had proceeded with finalizing the single deadline for the submission of both FER Part 1 and 2, the public may not have seen the FER Part 2 work plan until after the FER Part 2 work was already completed. Therefore, the Agency is not proceeding with the additional option to allow the two parts of the FER to be prepared concurrently.

In summary, EPA is extending the deadlines for owners and operators of CCRMU to prepare FER Part 1 and FER Part 2 by one year. Table 3 shows the new deadlines to complete these activities.

The Legacy Final Rule established a new requirement in § 257.90(b)(3) for owners or operators of CCRMU to install a groundwater monitoring system, develop a groundwater sampling and analysis program to include selection of the statistical procedures to be used for evaluating groundwater monitoring data, collect eight independent samples, and initiate detection and assessment monitoring no later than May 8, 2028. This existing deadline of May 8, 2028 is 42 months from the effective date of the Legacy Final Rule (November 8, 2024 to May 8, 2028) and is 15 months after the existing deadline for owners and operators to complete FER Part 2 (February 8, 2027 to May 8, 2028) [89 FR 39061-69; May 8, 2024]. EPA explained in the Legacy Final Rule that the May 8, 2028 deadline took into account several considerations, including: the potential size of the CCRMU universe; seasonality; required local and state approvals to clear vegetation or drill wells; need to coordinate with local or state regulatory authorities; the national labor shortage and contractor and laboratory backlogs; and the impact of overlapping compliance deadlines. Overall, EPA found the information provided regarding the infeasibility of the groundwater monitoring compliance deadlines in the proposed Legacy Rule convincing, therefore promulgated the existing deadline of May 8, 2028, for facilities to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements of § 257.90(b)(3).

On July 22, 2025, EPA issued a direct final rule along with a parallel proposed rule to revise the groundwater monitoring compliance deadlines [90 FR 34358 and 34409, and 90 FR 42708; September 4, 2025]. The direct final rule was subsequently withdrawn on September 4, 2025 [90 FR 42708] due to the receipt of adverse comment. EPA refers to this direct final rule as the “withdrawn direct final rule” in the preamble to this final rule. The withdrawn direct final rule and proposed rule are further discussed below followed by a summary of the public comments received in response to these actions.

EPA explained in the withdrawn direct final rule that since publication of the Legacy Final Rule, members of the regulated community raised concerns that the existing deadline is infeasible for many owners or operators of CCRMU [90 FR 34363; July 22, 2025]. These entities stated that the compliance timeframes in the Legacy Final Rule incorrectly assume that the FER process can proceed concurrently with the first tasks required to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. They contend that the first tasks to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements ( i.e., the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system) cannot begin until all CCRMU onsite are identified and delineated, which in many cases will be ongoing through late 2026. One organization specifically pointed out that it is impossible to design a groundwater monitoring system that accurately represents the groundwater passing the CCRMU's waste boundary and the quality of background groundwater, as required in § 257.91, before the unit is fully delineated thru the facility evaluation process. Furthermore, the CCR regulations allow for the use of multiunit groundwater monitoring systems, which requires a complete knowledge of all CCR units onsite prior to design of a multiunit system.

These parties also stated that they use third parties to complete tasks required to comply with the groundwater monitoring provisions, including the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring network and the collection and analysis of samples. These companies identified shortages and backlogs in qualified contractors and laboratories resulting from the increased demand on these resources and existing backlogs and labor shortages as discussed in the Legacy Final Rule. One organization suggested EPA provide 30 months to complete the groundwater monitoring requirements from the existing deadline to complete the FER Part 2, because this would allow as much time as was granted under the 2015 CCR Rule ( i.e., 24 months), 2 plus an additional six months to account for contractor backlogs.

EPA further explained that it reviewed the information provided and was convinced that because owners or operators will be delineating CCRMU late into 2026 ( i.e., late into the FER process), the existing deadline does not provide sufficient time for facilities both (1) to design and install a groundwater monitoring system capable of meeting the standards at § 257.91 and (2) to collect and analyze the eight independent samples for each background and downgradient well, as required by§ 257.94(b). EPA acknowledged in the Legacy Final Rule that the deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements must account for the amount of time owners or operators need to locate CCRMU as part of the FER [89 FR 39063]. Based on the amount of time typically needed to design and install a groundwater monitoring system and to collect and analyze the eight independent samples, and the information provided by commenters regarding the timeframe in which CCRMU will be delineated, EPA concluded in the withdrawn direct final rule that the existing CCRMU groundwater compliance deadline ( i.e., May 8, 2028) does not provide a sufficient amount of time to come into compliance. Nor do the existing deadlines adequately account for delays related to the shortage of qualified contractors. Therefore, EPA calculated that an extension of 15 months of the Legacy Final Rule deadline would provide sufficient time for owners or operators to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements [90 FR 34363-64]. This 15-month extension would have provided owners or operators of regulated CCRMU up to a total of 30 months from the completion of the FER Part 2 to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. EPA stated in the withdrawn direct final rule that 30 months is six months longer than was provided under the 2015 CCR Rule to mitigate impacts mentioned by commenters regarding the current labor shortages and backlogs experienced by third-parties necessary to accomplish tasks involved in complying with the groundwater monitoring requirements.

As discussed previously, the July 22, 2025 parallel proposed rule solicited comment on extending the deadline to prepare both FER Part 1 and Part 2 by 12 months [90 FR 34411]. The Agency further stated that if EPA extends the FER Parts 1 and 2 deadlines, EPA would make conforming changes to the remaining CCRMU compliance deadlines because the FER serves as the prerequisite for all other CCRMU deadlines, including the groundwater monitoring deadlines. Specifically, EPA would extend the deadlines to comply with the existing groundwater monitoring requirements (and the remaining CCRMU deadlines) by 12 months to match the FER Parts 1 and 2 extensions. Id. This comment solicitation also included a table comparing compliance deadlines that showed the compliance deadlines under this 12-month extension. With respect to the groundwater monitoring requirements under the comment solicitation, the table showed a compliance deadline of May 8, 2029 [90 FR 34411, table 1], which was calculated as a 12-month extension from May 8, 2028 (existing deadline under § 257.90(b)(3)).

The Agency received many comments on the contemplated changes to the groundwater monitoring requirement deadlines discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule and parallel proposed rule. This Unit of the preamble contains EPA's summary of the comments.

EPA received many comments broadly opposing the extensions to the groundwater provisions. Some commenters stated specific opposition to extending the deadlines for CCRMU groundwater monitoring. These commenters raised concerns with human health to include cancer, heart damage, lung disease, birth defects, and potential premature death. These commenters stated that the proposed extensions increase the risk that drinking water sources will be polluted by hazardous contaminants like mercury and arsenic and stated that without robust regulations communities will lack access to information to protect themselves from the toxins. Some of these commenters further expressed concern that the proposed extensions would result in lost economic benefits achieved by the Legacy Final Rule, and adverse effects on property values if the CCR contaminated land is not remediated and redeveloped. Other commenters opposed the groundwater extensions stating that the Legacy Final Rule already delays the groundwater report to provide more than four years and since the 2015 CCR rule only provided 2 years for the same work, then the existing deadlines are entirely feasible. One commenter stated that delays to groundwater monitoring and the corrective actions contingent upon it would have serious consequences and that a one- or two-year delay will mean one- or two-years' worth of contaminants escaping into the environment and increasing exposure, risks, and clean-up costs. This commenter disputes industry's comments and states that the extensions are arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by evidence.

Some commenters specifically expressed support for the proposed rule's 12-month extension. However, many of the commenters stated that proposed rule's 12-month extension for the groundwater monitoring provisions would not provide adequate time to design and install the groundwater monitoring system, collect eight independent samples, and conduct statistical analysis. Some commenters noted that the groundwater deadline in the proposed rule provides the same amount of time from the completion of FER Part 2 as does the Legacy Final Rule, thus would not be an extension at all. Many commenters supported the extension in the withdrawn direct final rule, which provided a 15-month extension to allow owners and operators a total of 30 months from the completion of the FER Part 2 to comply with the groundwater monitoring provisions. Many of these commenters stated that a 12-month extension does not provide the amount of time between the completion of FER Part 2 and the groundwater monitoring deadlines that EPA stated was necessary in the withdrawn direct final rule. One of these commenters stated that 30 months is a more feasible timeline and that the current timeline does not allow the completion of the groundwater monitoring tasks in a technically and scientifically reliable and accurate manner. Some commenters stated that companies will find it infeasible or face logistical and financial challenges to meet the groundwater monitoring deadlines by the existing deadline of May 8, 2028. Commenters provided logistical challenges including that one facility identified 39 areas that need to be evaluated as potential CCRMUs, estimating that approximately one-third of these will be CCRMUs, which would double the number of regulated CCR units managed by this company. Another company estimated costs up to $1.14M per site for background sampling, based on nine sampling events for all CCRMUs. These commenters posit that it is necessary to extend the deadlines due to the burdensome work and financial obligations required to comply with the CCRMU regulations. Some of these commenters stated that 30 months is the minimum amount of time necessary to install groundwater monitoring networks and complete initial sampling and noted that providing only a 12-month extension will require companies to begin installing the networks before the identification and delineation work has been completed and documented. Many commenters pointed to the sequential nature of the CCRMU provisions and noted that FER Part 2 is intended to serve as a prerequisite for the groundwater monitoring requirements, so the groundwater monitoring deadlines need to be based on the FER Part 2 deadline. Some commenters stated that EPA should not assume that the groundwater sampling can start before the completion of FER Part 2, because FER Part 2 results are needed before groundwater monitoring systems can be designed and installed, then once the system is installed a minimum of 24 months is necessary to collect and analyze eight independent groundwater samples, and then the 3 months provided by the current regulations to conduct the statistical analyses is still needed.

Some of the commenters who stated that the proposed rule's 12-month extension for the groundwater monitoring provisions provides an inadequate amount of time also stated that the 15-month extension in the withdrawn direct final rule would be inadequate. Some commenters supported a deadline of 35-months from the completion of the FER Part 2 to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. These commenters stated that this 35-month period is consistent with EPA's intent in the withdrawn direct final rule to provide facilities 6 months longer than the Legacy Final Rule to mitigate impacts associated with contractor shortages and noted that the proposed rule does not implement the intent provided in the withdrawn direct final rule. One of these commenters stated the FERs should be completed to delineate the CCRMUs before installing wells and completing the eight required independent sampling events. These commenters stated that 35 months would provide owners and operators with 8 months to conduct groundwater modeling and complete preliminary activities ( i.e., establish flow pathways, design the monitoring system, develop workplans for monitoring well installation and locations, contract well drillers, obtain necessary permits and approvals, and prepare for detection monitoring), a minimum of 24 months to collect the eight required samples, and 3 months to analyze the data. These commenters stated that the groundwater monitoring requirements are highly susceptible to unpredictable delays caused by the facility's control to include weather events, permitting and approval requirements, construction restrictions, and contractor shortages and backlogs. One of these commenters provided that shorter deadlines will force facilities to collect samples on an abbreviated timeline, thereby skewing statistical results. Additionally, one of these commenters further requested an additional 18-month extension to the groundwater monitoring provisions due to the impending changes to the CCRMU regulations over the next 12-14 months to ensure that facilities have adequate time after the revisions to assess the revisions and conduct the compliance activities under the new requirements. Another commenter specifically requested that 36 months from the deadline for completing the FER Part 2 process be provided to allow for contractor shortages, seasonal challenges, and potential rule changes. This commenter additionally requested that another 12-month extension be provided to help review of the CCR Legacy Rule changes and potentially avoid issuing additional extensions.

After considering the comments received, EPA finds that the existing deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements ( i.e., May 8, 2028), as well as the deadlines discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule ( i.e., August 8, 2029) and its parallel proposed rule ( i.e., May 8, 2029), are not feasible for owners and operators of CCRMU. EPA is persuaded that these deadlines do not provide sufficient time for facilities to both (1) design and install a groundwater monitoring system capable of meeting the standards at § 257.91 and (2) collect and analyze the eight independent samples for each background and downgradient well, as required by § 257.94(b), for the reasons discussed below.

First, the Agency agrees with commenters that it is not appropriate to establish the deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements based on the assumption that the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system can be initiated prior to the full lateral and vertical delineation of the CCRMU is complete under the FER Part 2 provisions. EPA acknowledged in the Legacy Final Rule that the deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements must account for the amount of time owners and operators need to locate CCRMU as part of the FER [89 FR 39063]. Furthermore, as the Agency stated in the Legacy Final Rule, proper site characterization is the foundation for designing a groundwater monitoring system [89 FR 39064]. To complete the installation of the groundwater monitoring system the regulations require that the owner or operator of a CCRMU ensure that the monitoring system consists of a sufficient number of wells both upgradient and downgradient of the CCR unit, installed at appropriate locations and depths, to yield groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that accurately represent the quality of background groundwater and groundwater passing the downgradient waste boundary of the CCR unit, and monitoring of all potential contaminant pathways. 40 CFR 257.91(a)(1) through (2). The number and placement of the monitoring wells is critical to proper characterization of the groundwater. Thus, the specific number, spacing, and depth of the monitoring wells must be determined based on site-specific information, including but not limited to the thorough characterization of aquifer thickness, groundwater flow rate, groundwater flow direction throughout seasonal and temporal fluctuations, the unit's geological setting, and the unit's hydrogeological setting. Therefore, the owner or operator of a CCRMU must know the full lateral and vertical delineation of the CCRMU before an appropriate groundwater monitoring system can be designed and installed.

This final rule establishes February 10, 2031 as the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. See revised § 257.90(b)(3). This new deadline is 33 months later than the existing deadline of May 8, 2028, and provides owners and operators a total of 36 months after the FER Part 2 is completed to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. As explained below, EPA is basing this revised deadline on the same task duration provided to existing CCR units under the 2015 CCR Rule to complete the groundwater monitoring requirements ( i.e., 30 months) plus 6 months to mitigate the impacts regarding the current labor shortages and backlogs discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule.

To determine the compliance deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements, the final rule is mostly adopting the approach discussed in the withdrawn final rule with some changes. The important change is that the final rule deadline acknowledges that the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system cannot be initiated prior to the full delineation of the CCRMU is complete under FER Part 2 provisions.

The withdrawn direct final rule proposed to extend the existing deadline to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements by 15 months [90 FR 34363]. The Agency explained that this 15-month extension would allow owners and operators of CCRMU a total of 30 months from the completion of the FER Part 2 to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. Id. EPA further explained that this is “six months longer than was provided under the 2015 CCR Rule to mitigate impacts mentioned by commenters regarding the current labor shortages and backlogs experienced by third-parties necessary to accomplish tasks involved in complying with the groundwater monitoring requirements.” Id.

The 2015 CCR Rule required existing CCR units to install the groundwater monitoring system, develop their groundwater sampling and analysis procedures, develop background levels for appendix III and appendix IV constituents, and begin detection monitoring (§ 257.90 through § 257.94) within 24 months of the effective date of that rule [80 FR 21398]. However, the duration EPA alloted to complete these groundwater monitoring actions was actually 30 months, not 24 months. This is because in 2015, EPA assumed that facilities would be able to start installing the groundwater monitoring systems on the rule's publication date, rather than its effective date, which was 6 months after publication. EPA made this clear in the rule's preamble, stating that the “groundwater monitoring regulations require that the owner or operator of existing CCR units must comply with § 257.90-§ 257.94 within 30 months of the date of publication of the rule. Essentially, that means that by the end of 30 months, the owner or operator must (1) install the groundwater monitoring system; (2) document the sampling and analysis procedures; (3) establish which statistical tests will be used to determine exceedances; (4) sample all wells to have a minimum of 8 samples for all appendix III and IV parameters; and (5) determine if there is a statistically significant exceedance of any appendix III parameter, which would trigger assessment monitoring.” [80 FR 21408]

Unlike the compliance deadline for groundwater monitoring requirements for existing CCR units, the owners and operators of CCRMU must complete the FER Part 2 actions ( e.g., finish delineating the lateral and vertical extent of the CCRMU) before installing groundwater monitoring wells at the CCRMU. That is, the clock for completing the groundwater monitoring requirements for CCRMU cannot start before the deadline to complete the FER Part 2. By accounting for the total time needed to complete the groundwater monitoring requirements ( i.e., 30 months; without considering any additional time alloted to mitigate labor shortages and backlogs discussed immediately below), EPA is ensuring that the facilities nationwide are reasonably able to achieve regulatory compliance with the new compliance deadline.

As mentioned earlier, EPA intended to provide an additional 6 months beyond the 30 months provided in 2015 to mitigate impacts from labor shortages and backlogs experienced by third-parties necessary to accomplish tasks supporting the groundwater monitoring requirements. The Agency continues to believe this time is needed to address identified shortages and backlogs in qualified contractors and laboratories resulting from the increased demand on these resources.

The revised deadline in this final rule addresses commenters' concerns that the proposed deadlines would require the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system to begin prior to the deadline to complete FER Part 2. These new deadlines will provide sufficient time to ensure that the background samples are statistically independent and that compliance with the groundwater monitoring requirements is technically feasible. Furthermore, this approach recognizes the importance of proper site characterization as the foundation for designing a groundwater monitoring system and acknowledges that sufficient historical documentation for site characterization may not be available for some CCRMU. In these situations, owners and operators of CCRMU may need to conduct more extensive site reconnaissance and field work to obtain the necessary information to design the groundwater monitoring system. Lastly, EPA recognizes that groundwater monitoring systems designed using inadequate data would be unable to properly monitor groundwater quality coming from the unit and therefore would not be protective of human health and the environment.

EPA disagrees with commenters that requested further extensions of the compliance deadline until after EPA finalizes any additional revisions to the CCRMU regulations to allow facilities to assess the revisions and conduct their compliance activities under any new requirements. Some of these commenters went on to state that extending the deadline to comply with groundwater monitoring requirements is further justified because companies are facing burdensome work and financial obligations in order to comply with the existing CCRMU regulations. First, EPA disagrees that a potential future regulatory revision by itself is a valid basis to extend existing regulatory deadlines for reasons discussed in Unit IV.A.1. of this preamble [ Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, 906 F. 3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2018)]. Second, the Agency disagrees with commenters advocating to take cost into account as a factor when establishing these deadlines because EPA establishes the requirements under RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) [42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3) and 6944(a)] without taking cost into account. [ USWAG, 901 F.3d at 448-49]

In summary, EPA is extending the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements by 33 months to no later than February 10, 2031. See revised §§ 257.90(b)(3) and 257.95(b)(l)(ii). This new deadline is based on the Agency's assessment of the time required to complete the groundwater monitoring requirements and to provide time for unforeseen and facility-specific delay, accounting for delays such as procuring qualified personnel on contractors, seasonal and regional weather, and permitting and approval needs. Therefore, because EPA is convinced by information from the commenters that facilities would be unable to conduct all the steps necessary to design and install a groundwater monitoring system capable of meeting the standards in § 257.91 by the existing deadline, EPA has extended the deadline to no later than February 10, 2031.

The FERs serve as the prerequisite for all other CCRMU requirements as explained in the Legacy Final Rule [89 FR 39060; May 8, 2024] and the now withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34363; July 22, 2025]. EPA also stated in these same actions that the deadline for owners and operators to establish the publicly accessible CCR website is tethered to the FER Part 1 deadline because the FER Part 1 is the first document that needs to be posted to a facility's CCR website. Similarly, the Agency explained that installing the groundwater monitoring system, developing the sampling and analysis program, and initiating the detection and assessment monitoring programs is also a prerequisite for completing the initial annual groundwater monitoring report, preparing the written closure and post-closure care plans, and initiating closure of the CCRMU.

In the now withdrawn direct final rule, EPA explained that conforming changes would be made to the remaining CCRMU compliance deadlines based on any finalized changes to the deadlines for the FER Parts 1 and 2 and the groundwater monitoring system requirements. For example, the Agency put forward an additional option in the withdrawn direct final rule for the FER Part 1 to be completed along with the FER Part 2 [90 FR 34364]. EPA therefore discussed providing owners and operators the option to establish the public CCR website by no later than either February 9, 2026 (the existing FER Part 1 deadline) or February 8, 2027, to correspond to when the owner or operator would complete the FER Part 1 under the additional option. Id. Regarding the deadline to complete the initial groundwater monitoring and corrective action report, EPA would have extended the deadline to complete this report to no later than January 31 of the following calendar year, January 31, 2030, because the Agency was considering extending the groundwater monitoring compliance deadlines by 15 months to August 8, 2029. Id. Finally, regarding the deadline to complete the written closure and post-closure care plans and the deadline to initiate closure of the CCRMU, in the withdrawn direct final rule, EPA sought to extend the deadline to prepare these plans and to initiate CCRMU closure by 15 months to February 8, 2030 and August 8, 2030, because the deadline of the predecessor activity ( i.e., the groundwater monitoring compliance deadline) would have been extended by 15 months. Id. As EPA explained, these plans and actions should be informed by available groundwater monitoring data.

The Agency received many comments on the contemplated changes for the conforming revisions to other CCRMU compliance deadlines discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule and parallel proposed rule. This Unit of the preamble contains EPA's summary of the comments.

The Agency received numerous comments which generally opposed the extensions, and therefore also oppose these extensions. No comments that specifically opposed the conforming extensions were received.

Conversely, the Agency received many comments which generally supported the extensions and therefore also support the conforming revisions to the other CCRMU compliance deadlines. Some commenters specifically supported these extensions by simply stating that they are necessary and that the current deadlines do not provide sufficient time for companies to come into compliance. Other commenters provided a rationale based on the sequential nature of the CCRMU provisions, stating that groundwater monitoring requirements are prerequisites for the remaining CCRMU requirements to include the requirements to prepare the initial and subsequent annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action reports, prepare written closure and post-closure plans, and initiate closure of any CCRMUs. Similarly, other commenters supported the extension stating that the requirements should be predicated on the completion of the FER process. And other commenters requested that these extensions be based on the withdrawn direct final rule, stating that the timeline in the proposed rule does not provide sufficient time to complete the groundwater monitoring provisions and discussing the sequential nature of the provisions. Some of these commenters provided that the deadline for the initial groundwater monitoring and corrective action report should be extended to no later than January 31 of the year following the completion of the groundwater monitoring requirements; the deadlines for the closure and post-closure plans should be six months from the completion of the groundwater monitoring requirements; and the deadlines to initiate closure and implement closure activities should similarly be extended. Some commenters expressed support for these conforming extensions, due to the uncertainties associated with potential upcoming changes to the Legacy Final Rule. One of these stated that because of the Legacy Final Rule revisions the EPA should provide an additional 12-months on top of the proposed extensions to help with review of the Legacy Final Rule changes and potentially avoid issuing additional extensions, this commenter also stated that this will provide time for education and operational flexibility. Similarly, another commenter requested an additional 18-month extension to these provisions due to the impending changes to the CCRMU regulations over the next 12 to 14 months to ensure that facilities have adequate time after the revisions to assess the revisions and conduct the compliance activities under the new requirements. Some commenters stated that the conforming extensions should be based on the final extended groundwater provisions deadline, which should be based on the deadline for the FER Part 2.

The Agency agrees that conforming extensions are necessary. In this final rule, EPA is extending the deadlines for owners and operators of a CCRMU to establish a CCR website, complete the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report, complete the initial written closure and post-closure care plans, and initiate closure of the CCRMU, as discussed below.

EPA is extending the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to establish a public CCR website by 12 months to February 9, 2027 from February 9, 2026. This deadline matches the revised deadline to complete the FER Part 1, which, as discussed in Unit IV.B. of this preamble, is also being extended by 12 months to February 9, 2027. Tying the deadline to establish the CCR website to the completion of the FER Part 1 is appropriate because the FER Part 1 is the first reporting requirement for CCRMU. This is also consistent with the rationale discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34364]. See the revised § 257.75(c)(4).

This final rule also extends the deadline to complete the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report to no later than January 31, 2032 from January 31, 2029. This revised deadline is established based on the first January 31 following the year that the prerequisite groundwater monitoring requirements are completed, which include the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system, development of the groundwater sampling and analysis program, and the initiation of the combined detection and assessment monitoring programs. As discussed in Unit IV.C. of this preamble, the new compliance deadline for the prerequisite groundwater monitoring requirements is February 10, 2031. Because the prerequisite groundwater monitoring requirements will be completed in 2031, the new deadline to complete the initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report is January 31, 2032. This approach to establishing the deadline to complete initial annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report is based on EPA's preference to have the annual report cover an entire calendar year versus portions of two calendar years. This is also consistent with the rationale discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34364]. See revised § 257.90(e).

Finally, this final rule extends the deadlines to complete the written closure and post-closure care plans by 33 months to August 11, 2031 from November 8, 2028. Similarly, the Agency is also extending the deadline to initiate closure of the CCRMU by the same 33 months to February 9, 2032 from May 8, 2029. EPA is extending these deadlines so that preparation of the plans and subsequent initiation of closure can be informed by the groundwater monitoring data and information. As explained in Unit IV.C. of this preamble, the new compliance deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements under § 257.90(b)(3) is February 10, 2031, which equates to a 33-month extension of the existing compliance deadline of May 8, 2028. Because the groundwater monitoring compliance deadlines have been extended by 33 months, EPA is extending the deadline to complete the written closure and post-closure care plans and the deadline to initiate closure by the same 33-month period to August 11, 2031 and February 9, 2032, respectively. This approach to establishing the extension duration is consistent with the rationale discussed in the withdrawn direct final rule [90 FR 34364]. See revised §§ 257.l0l(f)(l), 257.102(b)(2)(iii), and 257.104(d)(2)(iii).

On January 16, 2025, EPA published a direct final rule [90 FR 4635] and a parallel notice of proposed rulemaking [90 FR 4707] to correct errors and clarify several provisions published in the Legacy Final Rule. During the 60-day public comment period for these actions, EPA received eleven public comment submissions. The Agency subsequently withdrew the direct final rule on March 20, 2025 [90 FR 13084] due to the receipt of adverse comment. In this Federal Register document the Agency refers to this withdrawn action as the “withdrawn corrections direct final rule.”

As explained in the January 16, 2025 actions, EPA proposed to correct several typographical errors in the regulatory text, correct regulatory text that does not conform to the Agency's stated positions in the Legacy Final Rule preamble, and revise regulatory provisions that as drafted have the potential to be ambiguous or confusing. In total, the January 16, 2025 actions covered revisions to the following sections of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D: §§ 257.50 (scope and purpose), 257.53 (definitions), 257.75 (requirements for CCRMU), 257.80 (fugitive dust requirements), 257.90 (groundwater monitoring and corrective action applicability), 257.95 (assessment monitoring program), 257.100 (inactive and legacy CCR surface impoundments), and 257.102 (closure of CCR units).

Because the withdrawn corrections direct final rule did not become effective, the Agency is proceeding with this final rule for a subset of issues based on the proposed rule of January 16, 2025 [90 FR 4707]. EPA is primarily focusing on making corrections to provisions that apply to legacy CCR surface impoundments. In general, the Agency is not taking final action in this final rule on CCRMU-specific corrections due to EPA's ongoing review of the CCRMU requirements in the Legacy Final Rule. Specifically, EPA is taking final action on the following amendments that were discussed in the withdrawn corrections direct final rule:

• Correcting a typographical error in § 257.75(d)(1);

• Revising several paragraphs in § 257.100(f), (g), and (h); and

• Correcting errors in § 257.102(e) and (f).

EPA is not taking final action in this final rule on the remaining issues raised in the withdrawn corrections direct final rule. The Agency may do so in a separate final rule and will respond to significant comments in that separate action. See table 2 in Unit I.B. of this Federal Register document for a summary of the issues being resolved in this final rule.

EPA proposed to correct an error in the first sentence of § 257.75(d)(1) that included an incorrect cross-reference ( i.e., the reference to paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) included an incorrect third paragraph designation). See Unit IV.C.3. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4639]. EPA did not receive any comments opposing these revisions. This final rule corrects this part of the first sentence of paragraph § 257.75(d)(1) to read: “information specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) of this section . . .”

In addition, § 257.75(d)(1) also includes several references to the FER Part 2; however, the text included in the Legacy Final Rule is uncapitalized. This final rule capitalizes these terms to read “Facility Evaluation Report Part 2” to be consistent with other uses of the term.

Given EPA's ongoing review of the CCRMU requirements finalized in the Legacy Final Rule, the Agency is generally not taking final action at this time on CCRMU-specific issues included in the withdrawn corrections direct final rule [90 FR 4635; January 16, 2025]. However, EPA is finalizing the corrections to § 257.75(d)(1) described in the preceding paragraphs in this final rule because the Agency is already revising this paragraph to extend the deadline for facilities to complete the FER Part 2 as described in Unit IV.B. of this preamble.

Section 257.100(f)(1) requires owners and operators of legacy CCR surface impoundments to prepare an applicability report by the effective date of the Legacy Final Rule. These provisions also established procedures to provide owners and operators with additional time to complete the legacy impoundment applicability report should the owner or operator elect to conduct a field investigation to assess the impoundment for the presence or absence of free liquids [§ 257.100(f)(1)(iii)]. For facilities that elect to conduct a field investigation, the regulations include provisions to extend deadlines for subsequent requirements. As explained in the proposal, the Legacy Final Rule failed to extend the deadline for all subsequent requirements ( e.g., the facility evaluation report requirements for facilities with a legacy impoundment), and therefore EPA proposed to apply the extension to the mistakenly omitted requirements. See Unit IV.G.2. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4640].

EPA received no comments opposing this rule revision and therefore is finalizing this amendment. This final rule revises the third sentence of § 257.100(f)(1)(iii)(A) by replacing the phrase “the compliance timeframes for the requirements specified under paragraphs (f)(2) through (5) of this section are adjusted” with the phrase “the compliance timeframes for all other applicable requirements under this subpart are adjusted.”

EPA proposed to correct a typographical error in the introductory text of § 257.100(f)(1)(iii)(A)( 3 ) that omitted the word “all.” See Unit IV.G.3. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4640]. EPA received no comments opposing this revision and therefore is finalizing it. This final rule corrects the error so that the regulatory text now reads: “The details of a written field investigation work plan, including all of the following:”

EPA proposed to correct a typographical error in § 257.100(f)(4)(iv), which specifies when the first annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report is due for legacy CCR surface impoundments. As explained in Unit IV.G.5. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4640], EPA realized that this deadline was one year too soon. EPA received no comments opposing this rule revision and therefore is finalizing it. This final rule revises the deadline for owners and operators of legacy impoundments to prepare the initial groundwater monitoring and corrective action report from January 31, 2027 to January 31, 2028.

EPA proposed to revise the certification of closure by removal provision in § 257.100(g) by adding a sentence that exempts owners and operators of legacy CCR surface impoundments that complete the certification from any further requirements under 40 CFR part 257, subpart D. EPA explained in Unit IV.G.6. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4640-41] that the Legacy Final Rule preamble clearly stated that these impoundments are not subject to any further requirements. EPA received no comments opposing this rule revision and therefore is finalizing it. This final rule corrects the error by adding the following sentence to § 257.100(g): “If the owner or operator meets all the requirements of this paragraph (g), no further requirements under this subpart apply.”

EPA proposed to correct a typographical error in § 257.100(g)(6)(vii) that mistakenly references “paragraph (g)(3) of this section,” rather than paragraph (g)(6). See Unit IV.G.7. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4641]. EPA received no comments opposing this revision and therefore is finalizing it. This action finalizes this change to § 257.100(g)(6)(vii) by replacing the reference to “paragraph (g)(3)” with “paragraph (g)(6).”

EPA proposed to simplify § 257.100(h) by replacing a cross-reference to a compliance date with the actual compliance date found in this paragraph. See Unit IV.G.8. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4641]. EPA received no comments opposing this revision and therefore is finalizing it. This action finalizes this change to § 257.100(h) by replacing the phrase “the date listed in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section” with “November 8, 2024.”

EPA proposed to amend the regulations to clarify that legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCRMU are not eligible for the idling provisions under the criteria for conducting closure or retrofit of CCR units in § 257.102(e). See Unit IV.H.1. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4641]. EPA received no comments opposing this revision and therefore is finalizing it. This final rule amends § 257.100(e)(4) by adding new paragraphs (e)(4)(vi) and (vii).

EPA proposed to amend the closure provisions to include legacy CCR surface impoundments to the list of CCR units that are provided five years to complete closure to correct a regulatory text drafting error in the Legacy Final Rule. See Unit IV.H.2. of the withdrawn corrections direct final rule's preamble [90 FR 4641]. EPA received no comments opposing this revision and therefore is amending § 257.102(f)(1)(ii) to add legacy CCR surface impoundments to the list of CCR units provided five years to complete closure.

EPA is making this rule effective immediately as “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 553(d)(1) [5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)]. This action relieves restrictions by revising certain of the 2024 rule's compliance deadlines.

Section 559 of the APA provides that section 553(d) applies in the absence of a specific statutory provision establishing an effective date [5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 559]. EPA has determined there is no specific provision of RCRA addressing the effective date of regulations that would apply here, and thus the APA's effective date applies.

EPA has previously interpreted section 4004(c) of RCRA [42 U.S.C. 6944(c)] to generally establish a six -month effective date for rules issued under subtitle D [80 FR 37988, 37990; July 2, 2015]. After further consideration, EPA interprets section 4004(c) to establish an effective date solely for the regulations that were required to be promulgated under subsection (a). Section 4004(c) is silent as to subsequent revisions to those regulations.

Section 4004(c) states that the prohibition in subsection (b) shall take effect six months after promulgation of regulations under subsection (a). Subsection (a), in turn provides that “[n]ot later than one year after October 21, 1976 . . . [EPA] shall promulgate regulations containing criteria for determining which facilities shall be classified as sanitary landfills and which shall be classified as open dumps within the meaning of this chapter.” As noted, section 4004(c) is silent as to revisions to those regulations.

In response to Congress's mandate in section 4004(a), EPA promulgated regulations on September 13, 1979 [44 FR 53438]. EPA interprets section 4004(c) to establish an effective date applicable only to that action, and not to future regulations the Agency might issue under this section. In the absence of a specific statutory provision establishing an effective date for this rule, APA section 553(d) applies.

There is no indication in RCRA or its legislative history that Congress intended for the Agency to have less discretion under RCRA subtitle D than it would have under the APA to establish a suitable effective date for subsequent rules issued under section 4004(c). Consistent with EPA's interpretation of the express language of section 4004, EPA interprets statements in the legislative history, explaining that section 4004(c) provides that the effective date is to be 6 months after the date of promulgation of regulations, as referring to the initial set of regulations required by Congress to be promulgated not later than 1 year after October 21, 1976. These statements do not mandate a 6-month effective date for every regulatory action that EPA takes under this section. This rule contains specific, targeted revisions to rules issued in 2015 and 2024, and the legislative history regarding section 4004 speaks only to the initial 1976 mandated regulations.

This reading allows the Agency to establish an effective date appropriate for the nature of the regulation promulgated, which is what EPA believes Congress intended. EPA further considers that making this rule effective immediately as “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” under APA section 553 is reasonable in this circumstance. This action relieves restrictions by revising the 2024 rule's 2026 and subsequent compliance deadlines.

EPA estimated the costs and benefits of this final rule in a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket for this action.

The Universe of facilities and units affected by this final rule consists of two categories. The first is composed of facilities with CCRMU. The RIA identifies 183 CCRMU at 95 facilities. The second category is composed of CCRMU at “other active facilities,” (OAFUs in the Legacy CCR final rule). The RIA identifies 15 CCRMU at six OAFUs. Most of these facilities correspond to NAICS code 221112.

The baseline costs of this action consist of all reporting and recordkeeping costs mandated by the Legacy final rule for facilities with CCRMUs. The RIA for the Legacy final rule estimated these costs to be an annualized $1.73 million when discounting at 3% and an annualized $3.68 million when discounting at 7%.

The RIA estimates that the annualized cost savings of this action will be approximately $8.1-$9.5 million per year when discounting at 3%. The RIA estimates that the annualized cost savings of this action will be approximately $25.0-$30.0 million per year when discounting at 7%. The RIA estimates that the annualized reduction in benefits of this action will be approximately $0.8-$2.0 million per year when discounting at 3%. The RIA estimates that the annualized reduction in benefits of this action will be approximately $1.3-$3.3 million per year when discounting at 7%. Overall, the RIA estimates that the net annualized cost savings of this action will be $7.3-$7.5 million per year when discounting at 3%, and $24-$27 million when discounting at 7%.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule,” is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in Unit VII. of this preamble.

This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. An ICR covering the information collection activities contained in the existing Legacy Final Rule has been submitted for OMBs approval under the temporary OMB control number 2050-0231.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. EPA estimates that 175 small entities operate in NAICS 221112 and that of these five may incur costs in excess of one and three percent of annual revenues under the 2024 Legacy/CCRMU final rule. This rule relieves burden by establishing an additional option for owners or operators of CCRMU to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and extending the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with groundwater monitoring requirements. This delay affords all entities, including small entities, more time to comply, and reduces compliance costs by pushing them into the future. EPA estimates that the overall annualized cost savings of this rule will range from approximately $8.1-$9.5 million per year when discounting at 3% to approximately $25.0-$30.0 million per year when discounting at 7%. EPA expects that small entities will realize a portion of this savings in proportion to the number of CCRMU located at facilities owned and operated by small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The rule relieves burden by establishing an additional option for owners or operators of CCRMU to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and extending the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with groundwater monitoring requirements. This rule does not impose any additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

In the 2024 Legacy/CCRMU Final Rule RIA, EPA conducted a geographic analysis of the location of facilities containing Legacy CCR SIs and CCRMUs in relation to children under the age of 5. That analysis found that the population within one mile of plants in the universe of Legacy CCR SIs and CCRMUs did not include an increased higher-than-average proportion of children under age 5 compared with the national proportion of children under age 5. The final rule reduces benefits to populations living near CCRMU (and OAFU) sites as it allows compliance activities to begin later. Therefore, the final rule may result in incremental health risk to children (and other populations) equal to the exposure risks of delay in compliance activity implementation at facilities with CCRMUs and OAFUs. However, as these facilities are located near populations with proportions of children roughly consistent with the national average, the effects specific to children are not anticipated to be disproportionate.

However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available under “Children's Environmental Health” in the Supplementary Information section of this preamble.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Further, the Agency has concluded that this action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because the rule simply extends deadlines for owners and operators of active CCR units or inactive facilities (not generating electricity) with a legacy CCR surface impoundment.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, 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 an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). The Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork is listed as threatened, and we are delisting it. 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 final rule delists the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork based on its recovery.

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 scientific and commercial data available, that the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e) identify four reasons why we might determine a species shall be delisted: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; (3) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; or (4) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows 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 has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; therefore, we are delisting it.

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). On June 30, 2014, we finalized a rule downlisting the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork from endangered to threatened and establishing the Southeast U.S. breeding population in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina as a distinct population segment (DPS) (79 FR 37078). On February 15, 2023 (88 FR 9830), we published a proposed rule to delist the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork based on recovery.

Please refer to the February 15, 2023 (88 FR 9830), proposed rule for a detailed description of the previous Federal actions concerning this species. In the interest of conciseness, throughout the rest of this document we will refer to the Southeast U.S. DPS of wood stork simply as “wood stork” or “DPS.”

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the wood stork, which has been updated with recent data and analyses (Service 2024, entire). 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 species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

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 and recovery actions under the Act ( https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf ), we solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in the wood stork SSA report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to six independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022- 0099. The SSA report was also submitted to multiple Federal, State, municipal, and conservation partners for technical review. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found in the proposed rule (88 FR 9830 at 9832, February 15, 2023).

We made several changes in this final rule in response to public comments we received on the February 15, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 9830). In incorporating the primary changes resulting from public input:

• We updated our discussion of the future effects of sea level rise to wood stork habitat, which includes an analysis of the latest sea level rise projections (Sweet et al. 2022, entire).

• We updated our future condition discussion both in this final rule and in the updated (version 1.1 of the) SSA (Service 2024, chapter 6) to include an analysis of suitable habitat availability for future expansion of wood storks within their breeding range, population growth projections based upon current trends and peak counts, and other additional relevant information.

• We added new demographic data, including total number of nesting pairs (from 2022), and productivity rates (for 2020, 2021, and 2022).

• We added information regarding nesting colony turnover in wood storks and colony location records.

• We made minor, nonsubstantive changes and corrections, and minor editorial changes throughout the preamble of our final rule to improve readability.

The information we received during the comment period for the proposed rule did not change our previous analysis of the magnitude or severity of threats facing the wood stork or our determination that the wood stork is no longer a threatened or endangered species.

In the proposed rule published on February 15, 2023 (88 FR 9830), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by April 17, 2023. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. In preparing this final rule, we reviewed all comments we received for substantive issues and new information regarding the information contained in the proposed rule. We made minor, nonsubstantive changes and clarifications to this document in response to comments we received, as appropriate. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

(1) Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the wood stork should not be delisted because not all of the recovery criteria from the recovery plan have been met.

Our Response: Recovery plans provide roadmaps to species recovery, but meeting recovery criteria and accomplishing recovery actions are not required to achieve recovery of a species or to evaluate it for delisting. In addition, recovery plans are nonbinding documents that may rely on voluntary participation from landowners, land managers, and other recovery partners, but are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process that is not limited to the guidance recommended in a recovery plan.

A determination of whether a species should be delisted is made solely on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether the species meets the Act's definitions of “endangered” or “threatened,” regardless of metrics outlined in the recovery plan. For example, we may determine that due to positive demographic, ecological, or conservation gains, the species' viability is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In this case, although one of the recovery targets outlined in the wood stork recovery plan has not been fully achieved as specifically described in the recovery plan, we have determined that the current and projected future viability of the wood stork reflected by range expansion, demonstrated adaptive capacity, breeding population trends, total breeding population number, and productivity, indicates the species has recovered to the point that listing under the Act is not warranted (see Recovery Criteria and Determination of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the Wood Stork's Status for details).

(2) Comment: Several commenters stated that wood storks should not be delisted until Everglades restoration goals have been achieved.

Our Response: As stated above, a determination of whether a species meets the Act's definitions of “endangered” or “threatened” is made solely on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available. The wood stork's wide distribution, expanded breeding range, breeding population numbers, and productivity indicate that the population has recovered, irrespective of Everglades restoration goals. Regardless, delisting the wood stork will not reduce the Service's focus and involvement in Everglades' restoration. For example, the Service is committed and invested in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), which is a Federal, State, Tribal, and local partnership. One of the CERP's goals is restoring a robust and successful wood stork breeding population in the Greater Everglades (Everglades National Park, Water Conservation Areas, Big Cypress, Fakahatchee Strand, Picayune Strand, and Corkscrew Swamp). The CERP initiative was provided through guidance by Congress, which was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. ), and continues to be a national conservation priority for the Service. This initiative will continue regardless of the wood stork's status under the Act.

(3) Comment: We received several comments suggesting that, without protections provided under the Act, State regulatory mechanisms and those related to Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) section 404 permitting would be inadequate to protect wood stork foraging and nesting habitat. Specifically, one commenter stated that the State of Florida was unlawfully excluding certain waterways from CWA section 404 regulation by continuing to apply the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which was vacated in August 2021. They also expressed concern that, due to the transfer of CWA authority to the State of Florida, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) analysis would not occur for individual project permits, and that the State may not be able to adequately fulfill the requirement under section 7 of the Act to ensure that permitted activities do not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat.

Our Response: The comment regarding Florida's implementation of the CWA and NEPA is not relevant given the current regulatory landscape. On February 15, 2024, a Federal court in the District of Columbia issued a ruling formally vacating the EPA's December 2020 decision to allow the State of Florida to assume permitting authority for section 404 of the CWA and the Service's biological opinion related to that decision. Accordingly, implementation of the CWA and NEPA again rests with the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, the United States is currently appealing the District Court's decision.

On September 8, 2023, a final rule (88 FR 61964) became effective that amended the “Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' ” to conform key aspects of the CWA regulatory text to the U.S. Supreme Court's May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). The revised definition means that some of the previously jurisdictional wetlands used by wood storks are now considered non-jurisdictional under the CWA and may not receive the same level of Federal oversight under the CWA than prior to the rule change. In addition, recent changes in North Carolina State regulations mirror those resulting from the Sackett decision, and mean that isolated wetlands in North Carolina are no longer State-regulated. However, many wetland types that support wood storks are still considered jurisdictional and will therefore continue to receive protections from the CWA after the species is delisted and protections of the Act are removed. In addition, the Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms section below (see also Service 2024, chapter 5.3) describes multiple mechanisms that are in place that positively impact wood storks and the wetland habitats on which they depend, regardless of the wood stork's status under the Act. We evaluated the wood stork's status and found that the species has recovered, and that any forces acting on the species now or projected to do so in the future (including the effect of dynamic regulatory mechanisms) are not expected to negatively influence the wood stork's viability to such an extent that it would meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species. In summary, we expect that current conservation measures, which are unrelated to the Act and provided by Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, are adequate to maintain wood stork viability into the foreseeable future.

Further, the wood stork post-delisting monitoring plan includes a 10-year monitoring window with protocols to specifically monitor changes to wood stork nesting colony wetlands. Post-delisting monitoring will allow us to track the wood stork's status for at least 10 years to ensure its viability is maintained. Regardless, at any time the Service may decide to reevaluate the wood stork's status.

(4) Comment: Several commenters stated that the northern breeding range expansion may not be sustainable into the future. The commenters specifically had concerns that potential threats such as increased pollution and predation, sea level rise, and storm damage, and other factors such as prey availability, had not been adequately assessed in the northern part of the wood stork's current range.

Our Response: Concurrent with the population decline in the South Breeding Region ( i.e., southern Florida), the wood stork breeding range expanded northward into the Central, Northeast, and Northwest Breeding Regions ( i.e., central and northern Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina; see figure 1) from the 1960s through the 1980s, and then into North Carolina in 2005. This northward expansion has continued since, with increasing numbers of colony sites and nesting pairs becoming established in the Northeastern and Northwestern Breeding Regions annually (Service 2024, chapter 3.1). This northward expansion has been occurring increasingly since the 1960s, indicating that the establishment of these northern regions as part of the wood stork's breeding range is sustainable and will continue to positively contribute to the overall status of the species.

Many wading bird species similar to the wood stork have historically bred, and continue to successfully breed, within the northern extent of the wood stork's current range. As described under the Distribution, Ecology, and Life History section below, nest colony site turnover is a natural ecological phenomenon for wood storks, as it is for many other species of colonial nesting waterbirds. Wood storks have historically made use of new and different geographical locations to nest and forage to exploit optimal habitat conditions from year to year. The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the northern part of the wood stork's breeding range supports a highly productive segment of the wood stork breeding population, and suitable habitat there is abundant. We have no evidence to indicate that the species responds differently in the northern part of the DPS, nor do we have any other reason why wood storks would not continue to exploit the northern part of the DPS for nesting and foraging habitat into the future.

Further, the mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently listed species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants) is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. We examined the effects of multiple wood stork stressors including storms (hurricanes), predation, and contaminants (pollution) in our SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 5.2). However, the best scientific and commercial data available does not indicate that these stressors have negative population-level impacts on wood storks now or into the foreseeable future. We also assessed the threat of sea level rise and incorporated those impacts into our projections of future resiliency for the wood stork, and that assessment included the northern part of the species' range (see Future Condition below; and Service 2024, chapter 6).

(5) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the negative impacts of sea level rise on salt marsh habitat availability, the potential shift in the biotic community of salt marsh habitat, and the resulting impact to wood storks.

Our Response: As presented in our SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 6) and in this final rule, we evaluated the potential effects of sea level rise on the wood stork, including impacts on salt marsh habitat, and determined that the best scientific and commercial data available at this time does not indicate that sea level rise is negatively affecting or will negatively affect wood storks to the extent and magnitude that would result in an endangered or threatened status for the species. As a result of sea level rise, marsh habitat may be lost in some areas, and may migrate upslope in other areas (Kirwan et al. 2016a, p. 253), and marsh migration models that apply to the region where wood storks breed actually project an overall net gain in marsh habitat (Kirwan et al. 2016b, p. 4366). Further, habitat availability does not appear to be limiting wood stork resiliency currently, and ample suitable wood stork habitat will likely remain available even if high projections of sea level rise in the future prove accurate (Service 2024, chapter 6.2).

(6) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we overemphasized the importance of urban wetlands to wood storks in our proposed delisting rule.

Our Response: Our discussion in the proposed rule was intended to acknowledge that wood storks use disturbed wetlands including those in urban and suburban areas as well as natural wetlands, rather than to overstate the importance of these wetlands to maintaining wood stork viability. While wood storks forage, breed, and roost in natural wetland habitats, they have also adapted to artificial and even highly disturbed wetlands, which can provide novel and supplementary breeding habitat and foraging opportunities (Evans et al. 2022, entire). Wood storks do not discriminate by wetland type for use in foraging, breeding, and sheltering, but they do discriminate in relation to available resources and overall habitat conditions. Urban and suburban habitats meet the wood storks' needs in many areas and tend to augment habitat opportunities for the species rather than detract.

(7) Comment: One commenter stated that while population numbers and range expansion confirm that delisting is the appropriate action, threats to the wood stork remain and necessitate the post-delisting monitoring of wood stork populations and their wetland habitats.

Our Response: A determination that the wood stork does not warrant listing under the Act does not mean that no threats remain; rather, it means that the threats are ameliorated such that the species is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Additionally, under section 4(g)(1) of the Act, we are required to monitor all species that have been recovered and delisted for at least 5 years post-delisting; in the case of the wood stork there will be a 10-year monitoring period. The ten-year period was chosen because of the species' long life span (more than 22 years documented in the wild), long period of parental care (80 days), long age-to maturity (reaching reproductive age at 4 years), and a potential lag in time to detect changes in nesting population trends in response to changes in habitat or other threats. This period will allow us to monitor two generations of wood storks to detect any demographic trend changes related to any threats or conditions on the landscape. This will also allow us to assess any potential impacts of construction and implementation of hydrological infrastructure projects ( e.g., CERP projects in South Florida). On February 15, 2023, we published our proposed rule to delist the wood stork (88 FR 9830) and announced a public comment period for the proposed rule and the availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for public review and comment. The wood stork PDM plan includes population monitoring, as well as the monitoring of physical and environmental changes to colony sites with respect to regulatory protections and impacts. Following final delisting, we will meet with the Wood Stork Research and Monitoring Working Group to discuss implementation details of the PDM plan.

(8) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the extent to which climate change threatens the wood stork through increased evapotranspiration, hydrology alteration, and the consequent risk of predation.

Our Response: We reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available when analyzing the threat of climate impacts to wood storks. We summarize the effects of potential increased evapotranspiration, hydrology alteration, and subsequent nest predation on wood storks under Threats, below, as well as in our proposed rule (88 FR 9830, February 15, 2023). These factors will have negative effects on wood storks in some cases ( e.g., prolonged drought that decreases wood stork prey populations), and positive effects in others ( e.g., periods of drying that concentrate wood stork prey (Evans et al. 2023, entire)), but the best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that they are drivers of wood stork viability. Further, we evaluated the current and future condition of the wood stork, including effects to the wood stork associated with the ecological dynamics of climate change, and determined that the wood stork does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species.

(9) Comment: One commenter stated the Service failed to adequately explain the delisting determination given expected declines in wood stork resiliency projected in our future scenarios analysis in the SSA report.

Our Response: As the commenter stated, in version 1.0 of our SSA report (Service 2021, entire), we projected declines in future resiliency for wood storks based on impacts to habitat within the current core foraging area (or CFA, which consists of the currently-occupied breeding colony sites and the immediately adjacent habitat where foraging by wood storks is most concentrated) resulting from sea level rise, development, and conservation mechanisms. However, we also acknowledged that our model did not account for important factors—such as the current and future availability of suitable occupied wood stork habitat outside of the current CFA, and the well-documented behavioral and ecological plasticity the species has demonstrated—that would likely lead to the establishment of new colonies and future population growth and expansion (Service 2021, table 48). As a result of considering both our projected declines related to habitat within the current CFA footprint, as well as other factors such as the wood stork's demonstrated behavioral plasticity evidenced by its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions and exploit novel habitat types and food resources, the abundance of suitable habitat, and that habitat does not appear to be limiting wood stork resiliency, in our proposed rule we found the wood stork not to be in danger of extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future (88 FR 9830, February 15, 2023).

For this final rule, we have updated our future condition analysis in version 1.1 of the SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 6) by incorporating the latest sea level rise projections and the most recent wood stork breeding and abundance data, as well as additional analyses of habitat availability as affected by potential sea level rise, and demographic factors such as productivity requirements and colony site turnover. These additional evaluations further reinforce our assessment that, despite habitat impacts within the current footprint of the CFA, the wood stork's future viability will not significantly decline such that it would meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species (see further discussion under Future Condition and Status Throughout All of Its Range, below).

(10) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about our evaluation of wood stork viability throughout a significant portion of its range. The commenter stated, among other things, that the Service implied that the South Breeding Region may have a different status from the others but failed to present evidence that the region's status is more stable than implied by the unachieved recovery target.

Our Response: We have revised for clarity our discussion of the wood stork's status below, under Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range. Specifically, we clarify that while the 5-year average productivity rate in the South Breeding Region is lower than in other regions, this difference does not indicate that the South Breeding Region is a portion of the range that is in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.

(11) Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the threat of invasive Asian swamp eels to wood stork habitat in the Everglades.

Our Response: The Service agrees that Asian swamp eel is an emerging issue that could pose a future threat to the wood stork (Service 2018, entire) because Asian swamp eels have been observed to outcompete and reduce populations of forage fish species that wading birds, including wood storks, prey upon (Pintar et al. 2023, entire). Current data indicates that the Asian swamp eel's geographic distribution in the United States is limited by thermal tolerance (Service 2018, p. 4). Therefore, while the Asian swamp eel is currently present in some areas of Florida, it is not present in the other States that comprise most of the wood stork's range, and the long-term establishment of its invading populations may never extend north of Florida.

At this time, it is not clear whether an Asian swamp eel invasion would significantly impact prey resources of the wood stork to the extent that would result in wood stork population decline. Wood stork populations will be monitored for at least 10 years after the species is delisted, per the PDM plan. Accordingly, we will monitor the threat of Asian swamp eel invasion, and we are instructed by the Act to make prompt use of our emergency listing authority to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of any recovered species. However, at this time the best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that Asian swamp eels pose a threat to wood storks at the scale and magnitude that would put the wood stork at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.

Below, we present a review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall status of the wood stork, referencing data where appropriate from the SSA report that was finalized for the species in April 2021 (Service 2021, entire), updates to those data since 2021 that were included in the proposed rule (88 FR 9830, February 15, 2023), and new data and analyses since 2021 that were incorporated into the updated SSA (Service 2024, entire).

The historical range of the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork ( Mycteria americana ) encompasses the southeastern U.S. coastal plains of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the current range has expanded to also include Mississippi and North Carolina. Genetic analyses 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; Zimmerman 2023, p. 1). When the wood stork was listed, breeding primarily occurred in south and central Florida (19 colonies), with only limited breeding activity occurring in north Florida (5 colonies), coastal Georgia (2 colonies), and South Carolina (1 colony). Since listing (specifically, from 1984 to 2022), wood storks have nested at 332 different locations. Currently, at least 100 breeding colonies of various sizes are annually active ( e.g., in 2022 there were 51 in Florida, 22 in Georgia, 28 in South Carolina, and 5 in North Carolina). Breeding colonies are clustered into four regions, hereinafter referred to as the South, Central, Northwest, and Northeast Breeding Regions (Service 2024, chapter 3.2; figure 1).

Wood storks are colonial breeders, typically nesting with conspecifics (other members of their own species) and other wading bird species in wetlands within the southeastern U.S. coastal plains landscape that contain sufficient wetland foraging habitats nearby. Suitable foraging wetlands generally contain aquatic prey that is concentrated by decreasing water levels ( e.g., tidal creeks at low tide, ephemeral ponds, edges of ponds and lakes, shallow wetlands, and forested flood plains during seasonal dry down). Primary prey species vary geographically and include fish (predominantly), crustaceans, amphibians, insects, snails, and reptiles (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). Wood stork nesting colonies also occur in natural wetlands and within human-influenced areas, including impounded, managed, enhanced, reconfigured, and manmade wetlands; in water treatment wetlands; and on small islands (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). A large proportion of the nesting colonies in Georgia and South Carolina occur in proximity to the expansive coastal salt marshes in these States, and foraging during the breeding and post-breeding season depend upon both freshwater wetlands as well as the highly productive estuarine and salt marsh wetland ecosystems (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated).

Wood stork nest colony sites are, as they are for most colonial waterbirds, ephemeral in nature, and colony site turnover ( i.e., the process by which old colony sites are abandoned and new colony sites are established) is a common trait in wading bird ecology (Frederick and Meyer 2008, entire). Colony site turnover occurs periodically, such that conditions becoming less favorable at one colony site often leads to the establishment of new colony sites (Clem and Duever 2019, p. 370; Hall et al. 2017, p. 52). However, some colony site transitions are gradual and may take years before completion (Frederick and Ogden 1997, pp. 320-321), and large colonies tend to have greater longevity (Frederick and Meyer 2008, p. 16; Tsai et al. 2016, p. 643). Wood stork nesting colony turnover has occurred historically, indicating that wood storks will continue to move to new colony locations when currently occupied colony sites become less optimal than suitable habitat in other potential colony sites (Service 2024, chapter 2.7.1).

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 generally breed annually (typically one brood per season) and exhibit extensive parental care, with nesting and brooding lasting approximately 4 months of the year. Typically, wood storks 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 and wetlands are thus drying down, which concentrates prey during the nesting period (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). After the nesting period when wood storks are no longer associated with the foraging wetlands near their nesting colony site, they can exhibit intra-regional and regional movements in response to environmental conditions ( e.g., changes in the availability of shallow foraging habitat) (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated).

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the wood stork is presented in the SSA report (Service 2024, entire; available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8477 and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099).

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 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 the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

The recovery plan for the wood stork outlines the following criteria that we estimated could, if met, result in a determination that the wood stork no longer warrants listing under the Act (Service 1997, p. 17):

• Criterion 1: An annual average calculated over 5 years (5-year average) of 10,000 nesting pairs (which constitutes 50 percent of the historical population).

• Criterion 2: A 5-year average regional productivity (in each of four breeding regions) of greater than 1.5 chicks per nest per year.

• Criterion 3: As a subset of the 10,000 nesting pairs, a 5-year average of 2,500 or more successful nesting pairs must occur in the Everglades and Big Cypress systems ( i.e., the South Breeding Region).

Criterion 1 for delisting, which is a 5-year average of 10,000 nesting pairs, has been met since 2016 (table 1).

We note that criterion 1 also implies that the wood stork should 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 nesting pairs at a rate of 153 pairs per year. The current trend during the past 10 years (5-year averages from 2010 to 2019) shows an increase in nesting pairs at a rate of 344 pairs per year.

Criterion 2 for delisting is a 5-year average productivity of 1.5 chicks fledged per nest per year in each breeding region. This productivity metric has been achieved or exceeded in each region except for the South Breeding Region since 2018 or earlier (table 2).

Criterion 3, which requires that a minimum of 2,500 pairs (5-year average) nest in the South Breeding Region, has been achieved in each of the past 6 years (2017-2022) (table 3).

Although criterion 2 has not been fully 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 become available since the recovery criteria were established.

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 as the core of the entire breeding population. However, since then, wood storks have adapted to use new wetland complexes and habitat types, and have expanded their breeding range north to include three new breeding regions. Coastal salt marsh and the adjacent freshwater wetlands of the coastal plain in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina are now exploited by wood storks and support a large part of the breeding population (more than 5,000 pairs annually). Therefore, while productivity in the South Breeding Region is slightly below the target defined in the recovery plan, wood storks are now reproducing successfully and using a combination of wetland types in multiple regions additional to where they bred historically, which has led to consistently higher productivity throughout most of their range than that targeted by the recovery criterion (table 2).

The coastal wetlands of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina provide year-round foraging for wood storks, as salt marsh prey concentrations are tidally dependent and less impacted by the environmental factors that dictate prey availability in the freshwater wetlands. Many South Breeding Region wood storks disperse north during the post-breeding season to the freshwater and coastal saltmarsh of Georgia and South Carolina and others to coastal plain wetlands of central Alabama and northeastern Mississippi (Service 2024, chapters 2.5.4, 2.6, and figure 5).

Wetlands do not appear to be limiting wood stork resiliency. The U.S. southeastern coastal plain's 48 million acres of wetlands are abundant and widespread from Florida north to Virginia and west to Mississippi and represent the largest concentration of estuarine and palustrine wetlands in the continental United States (Sucik and Marks 2015, p. 11). The combination of expansive freshwater wetlands and salt marshes in the Northeast Breeding Region provides previously (pre-1980) unexploited breeding season food resources and nesting habitat that result in higher productivity. Approximately one third of the number of wood stork colonies that exist today existed at the time that the recovery criteria were established in 1986, as multiple breeding colonies are now present in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, where few or none had existed historically (figure 1). The expansion of the wood stork's breeding range, and the species' novel exploitation of other abundant wetland habitat types for breeding, indicate that it is no longer as dependent on the Everglades system as once thought. Presently there are four breeding regions that contribute equally to its resiliency and viability. In addition, central and south Florida provide breeding and overwintering habitat for wood storks comparable to that which the Everglades provides in the South Breeding Region and are contributing equally to recovering a robust wood stork breeding population.

Wood stork productivity in the South Breeding Region is highly variable on an annual basis, and under the 5-year average target set originally as a recovery criterion; 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. Further, the productivity rate of 1.5 chicks/pair was targeted in the original 1986 wood stork recovery plan to ensure sufficient population growth at a time when the population was at its lowest. This target was estimated based upon European white stork demographics because adequate wood stork demographic data were not available at the time. Conceptually, to maintain a population at a stable level, a productivity rate of 2.0 (two chicks fledged per nest) would be needed to keep a population stable, assuming two fledglings survive to breeding age and each pair of adults will reproduce only once in their lifetime. This scenario would result in one-to-one replacement of adults by the new generation. Wood storks are relatively long-lived and generally breed annually, and thus most individuals have multiple chances to replace themselves. As such, a wood stork productivity rate near or even below 1.0 should also lead to a stable or slow-growing population. For example, the 5-year average productivity that had been maintained at the time of recovery for both the bald eagle and the brown pelican, two species similar to the wood stork in diet, aquatic habitat, and longevity, did not exceed 0.9 (74 FR 59444, November 17, 2009; 72 FR 37346, July 9, 2007). Like the wood stork, not all the demographic metrics originally identified for the brown pelican and bald eagle were met as specifically defined in their recovery plans, and yet these species both have fully recovered and continue to thrive today.

In addition, the averaging metric for productivity can mask large annual reproductive gains, especially in areas like the South Breeding Region where wood stork productivity can naturally fluctuate greatly among years based on natural cycles and normal environmental stochasticity. It appears that productivity is sufficient for wood stork viability, as it continues to support a growing population across the wood stork's range. We consider the population's wide distribution, breeding population numbers, and productivity as indicators that the population is recovered and sustainable. Thus, although criterion 2 has not been fully realized in the manner specifically identified in the recovery plan, we conclude that the intent of the criterion that productivity is sufficient for the long-term viability of the wood stork has been satisfied. Due to the overall range and breeding range expansion; ability to move to new breeding locations when a colony site is no longer suitable; continued population growth; four equally important breeding regions that greatly increase redundancy, representation, and resiliency; and use of diverse and extensive wetland habitats throughout the coastal plain of the southeast U.S., it does not appear that foraging, overwintering, or breeding habitat is a limiting factor to the resiliency of the wood stork. As discussed, we consider the population's wide distribution, ability to utilize a mosaic of wetlands (for foraging, nesting, and roosting), population numbers, and productivity as indicators that the threats have been reduced such that the population is recovered and sustainable.

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 threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, we 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 what criteria we apply when designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 23919). This final rule is now in effect and is incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for this decision applied our current regulations. Given that we proposed delisting this species under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether the decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations and we concluded that the decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov.

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 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.

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, which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf ). The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Service can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best scientific and commercial data available and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.

The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be delisted. 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 wood stork 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 species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used 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.

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report (Service 2024, 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 scientific and commercial data available gathered since that time, both of which have informed this decision.

Wood storks are a wetland-dependent species that use a wide variety of freshwater, brackish, and estuarine wetlands for nesting, feeding, and roosting throughout their range (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). Wood storks feed on many aquatic animal species, but primarily fish such as sunfish (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). They forage most efficiently in shallow wetlands where prey is concentrated, and as such their intra-regional movements during the breeding and non-breeding seasons are typically in response to the availability of shallow wetlands (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). Local hydrologic conditions also correlate to annual nesting effort (Klassen et al. 2016, pp. 1450-1460) and breeding success.

Wood storks are colonial breeders, and nest in trees over or surrounded by water in natural and human-influenced freshwater, brackish, and estuarine habitats (Rodgers et al. 1996, pp. 18-19). Breeding colonies occur within landscapes containing sufficient shallow wetlands for foraging, in proximity to wetlands with suitable emergent or island tree and shrub species for breeding (nest substrate) as well as for roosting outside of the breeding season. Wood storks use both native and nonnative trees for nesting substrate (Rodgers et al. 1996, pp. 2-17).

Wood storks feed in natural, managed, created, and human-altered wetlands, both freshwater and estuarine, where water depths are appropriately shallow and the habitat is not densely vegetated (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). The presence of wood storks in human-influenced landscapes and wetlands has become common (Evans and Gawlik 2020, p. 1), and wood storks will make use of any wetland (natural or anthropogenic) that produces good foraging opportunities.

Threats to wood storks are described in detail in the SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 5). The threats that affect the species at the population level are habitat loss, conversion, and degradation (acting on populations currently and into the future), and the effects of warming temperatures, drought, precipitation changes, and sea level rise (which act on populations primarily in the future).

Land change and conversion due to urban and suburban development, agriculture, silviculture, and mining impact wood storks through habitat fragmentation, loss, degradation, and conversion (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated; Service 2024, chapter 5). This threat directly reduces the availability and quality of breeding and roosting habitat, and indirectly impacts foraging habitats and food resources (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). One of the primary reasons for the historical decline of the wood stork was the dredging of canals and draining of wetlands to accommodate the settlement of south Florida, promote agriculture, 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). Human-caused changes to wetland hydrology (annual cycle and water table levels) and drainage of wetlands throughout the wood stork's range resulted in degradation, fragmentation, and loss of habitat available to wood storks. The rate of wetland conversion has slowed from that which occurred historically (Lang et al. 2024, pp. 6-7), likely due primarily to laws and regulations designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands; however, wetland loss continues today, including an increase during the past decade when compared to the previous decade (Lang et al., 2024, p. 9).

Other factors that contribute to degradation of wood stork habitat include increased water consumption; construction of stormwater management ponds, lakes, and flow-ways; changes in hydrological regimes that alter the water table; and reduced fire frequency that creates drier wetland conditions and can exacerbate the encroachment of woody vegetation into wetlands. However, the best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that these factors are occurring at such a magnitude to cause an overall population decline for wood storks.

Despite the historical and ongoing threats to wetland habitats, natural wetlands of the southeastern U.S. coastal plains are extensive (Service 2024, chapter 6.2; Lang et al. 2024, p. 10). In addition, wetland restoration efforts are established and underway throughout the wood stork's range, and loss of natural wetlands is avoided, minimized, and mitigated through existing wetland laws and regulations (Service 2024, chapter 5.3). Further, wood storks use habitat opportunistically and exploit natural and human-influenced urban, suburban, rural, and agricultural environments, and even use human-created wetlands for foraging, roosting, and nesting (Evans and Gawlik 2020, p. 1). Wood storks target specific wetland environmental conditions that afford advantageous foraging, roosting, or breeding opportunities, regardless of whether a wetland is natural or manmade. The abundance and distribution of human-influenced wetlands has increased, and wood storks can be found foraging and nesting in these wetland types throughout their range. Though the body condition of chicks produced in natural wetlands were found to be slightly healthier than those produced in urban environments, that of nesting adults does not differ, and overall urban wetlands appear to help boost wood stork productivity during periods of suboptimal conditions in nearby natural wetlands (Evans and Gawlik 2020, pp. 1-2, 5).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has devised a system to project plausible future greenhouse gas concentrations in various scenarios (termed “representative concentration pathways” or RCPs). Climate predictions suggest overall warming temperatures under all greenhouse gas emission scenarios throughout North America, including throughout the range of the wood stork (IPCC 2022, pp. 4-19). An increase of 3.6 degrees Farhenheit (2 degrees Celsius) compared to pre-industrial levels (IPCC 2019, pp. 23-24) is more likely than not to be exceeded by the year 2100 under the RCP4.5 climate scenario, and likely to be exceeded under the RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Some habitat and ecological changes, such as sea level rise, increased intensity of storm events, and range expansion northward beyond the historical breeding range, have already been observed.

Warming temperatures are likely one of the factors that is leading to the expansion of the wood stork's breeding range beyond its historical boundaries (including breeding in North Carolina), as has been documented for many other bird species in Florida, North America, and other parts of the world (Hitch and Leberg 2007, p. 534).

Climate effects are causing a variety of changes to the various ecosystems and wetland habitats that wood storks depend upon throughout their life cycle, thereby having the potential to affect the wood stork's demographic rates (nest success, and juvenile and adult survival) and resulting viability. Warming may contribute to changes in nesting phenology (timing) and the extension of the breeding season, as evidenced by asynchronous nesting that is being now documented throughout the wood stork's 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 areas of the range. Warming temperatures may also affect hurricane and tropical storm intensity, precipitation changes (annual and large rain events), drought, and sea level rise, all of which are factors that may impact wood stork habitat and, in turn, wood stork resiliency. However, effects of climate may have both negative and positive influences on wood stork resiliency.

Changes in hurricane patterns —The warmer climate is projected to 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 tropical storm events is not common, and although damage to nesting vegetation at colony sites has been documented to occur, the large amount of rain generally benefits colony site vegetation, and nesting generally continues in following years (Cook and Baranski 2019, p. 1). In many cases, wood storks will have a very productive breeding season in the year following a hurricane because the additional precipitation improved wetland hydrologic conditions and led to larger prey base for the following breeding season (Cook and Baranski 2019, p. 1). Hurricanes also commonly act as an erosional agent and 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). The best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that hurricane impacts are limiting wood stork resiliency, nor do we expect that they will in the future.

Changes in precipitation —An overall increase in rainfall is expected throughout much of the wood stork's range. Relative to 1981-2010, the 50th percentile (median) for annual mean precipitation under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 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). However, scaled-down models indicate that precipitation increases will vary across the region. The timing and amount of precipitation in wood stork habitat has always had a strong influence on wood stork prey development, availability, and dispersion. Adequate precipitation can help maintain good hydrologic conditions and offset drought conditions, which can help bolster wood stork survival and productivity. However, excessive rainfall can have a negative impact by dispersing prey and effectively inhibiting wood stork nutrient consumption, and this phenomenon is magnified during the breeding season in the South Breeding Region when it can result in nest abandonment and/or reduced chick survival caused by inadequate provisioning of chicks by adults (Cook and Baranski 2021, p. 5). Excessive rainfall deficit on the other hand, especially in combination with warming temperatures, could contribute to drying and drought conditions, which are discussed below. While precipitation is likely one of the primary drivers that cause segments of the wood stork population to shift or migrate depending upon local and regional habitat conditions, the best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that precipitation impacts are limiting wood stork resiliency, nor do we expect them to in the future.

Drought/Drying —Rising temperatures are expected to increase evaporation, meaning that wood storks could face increased drought-like conditions (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire; IPCC 2023, p. 5). Prolonged drought conditions generally lead to poor nesting success and productivity (Borkhataria et al. 2012, p. 524; Gaines et al. 2000, p. 64). In addition, drought conditions can increase wood stork colony predation by making it easier for terrestrial predators to access nests and chicks (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated; Gabel et al. 2021, pp. 1-2). However, initially drought periods can consolidate and increase the availability of prey and can therefore be beneficial to wood storks (Service 2024, chapter 6.3). Dry conditions may concentrate prey and lead to increased wood stork productivity in a given year, but a multiyear drought could lead to lower wood stork productivity if prolonged low-water conditions inhibit the regeneration of prey species. This type of hydrological regime can lead to a boom or bust nesting dynamic, where years with poor hydrologic conditions result in many unsuccessful nesting efforts, while other years with optimal hydrologic conditions lead to large nesting events and high productivity (Frederick and Ogden 2001, pp. 484-485; Frederick et al. 2009, p. 85). Dry conditions can result in both positive and negative outcomes for wood storks, and the best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that drought is limiting wood stork population resiliency, nor do we expect it to in the future.

In summary, changes in hurricane and precipitation patterns, hydroperiod, and drying conditions may influence habitat availability and associated wetland forage resources for wood storks, but that influence 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 conditions will affect wood stork resiliency. In addition, wood stork ecology has evolved to respond to short- and long-term habitat change, and nesting colony turnover is a common trait for wading birds including wood storks, which means that individuals will shift among colony sites with changing environmental conditions to optimize breeding and foraging opportunities. In general, projected changes in precipitation and drying will vary among breeding regions, and even among colonies in a single breeding region, and could result in either positive or negative effects on wood stork breeding success from year to year.

We have limited our predictions of future wood stork resiliency related to climate to those associated with sea level rise, because the long-term negative effects from sea level rise to suitable wood stork habitat and the wood stork's response to these effects can be projected with reasonable certainty. See Future Conditions Methodology below for further discussion.

Sea level rise —Warming temperatures, coupled with other factors such as the melting of continental ice, will cause sea levels to rise (Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009, entire; Sweet et al. 2022, entire). Because wood storks mainly forage in water less than 20 in (50 cm) deep, projected sea level rise would make portions of the currently occupied coastal habitat unusable. As such, sea level rise and the associated flooding of coastal wetlands may result in upslope successional change of wetland habitats from freshwater, to brackish, to estuarine wetlands, which may lead to some loss and degradation of both foraging and coastal nesting habitats (Service 2024, chapter 6.2). Sea level rise is also likely to increase the impacts of storm surge potential along major coastlines (Collins et al. 2017, p. 611).

While sea level rise is expected to cause the degradation and loss of existing coastal wetland habitats in some areas, marsh migration models also project that new salt marsh habitat will be created as coastal marshes migrate upslope along the coastal upland and water interface (Kirwan et al. 2016a, p. 253), resulting in a net expansion of salt marsh habitat in response to sea level rise in some areas (Kirwan et al. 2016b, p. 4366). In some areas, coastal marsh habitat may remain stable or transgress upslope, and freshwater marshes may be converted into brackish or salt marsh depending upon whether the rate of horizontal erosion of the salt marsh from the ocean side (trailing edge) due to rising water is compensated or exceeded by the rate at which material accumulates vertically ( e.g., trapping of sediment carried by flood tides, accumulation of root material in marsh soils), which causes its landward expansion upslope (Colombano et al. 2021, p. 1639). As such, in some areas, wetland habitat will shift and elevate rather than be lost, as sea level rise causes wetland migration landward, with seaward erosion and upslope transgression shifting the location and extent of each coastal wetland habitat type (Colombano et al. 2021, p. 1639). Therefore, although we can project through modeling where wood stork habitat within the core foraging area (CFA) are likely to be inundated by sea level rise, it is less clear where and how much brackish and saltmarsh habitat suitable for wood stork use will be created in the future as coastal estuarine marshes migrate upslope in response to sea level rise (Fagherazzi, et al. 2020, entire). Regardless, a salt marsh ecosystem will continue to exist along the coastline, and the negative impacts to wood stork resiliency caused by habitat loss or degradation due to wetland habitat inundation by sea level rise is likely to be mitigated at least in part by newly created salt marsh and landward salt marsh migration (Kirwan et al. 2016a, pp. 258-259; Kirwan et al. 2016b, p. 4366). Other mitigating factors include wood storks' use of all coastal marshes (fresh or estuarine), available suitable habitat outside the current footprint of the CFA, and the ecological trait of moving to other or new nesting locations when a colony site is no longer suitable. In summary, sea level rise will result in the loss of some currently occupied wood stork habitat, even as new habitat is created.

Wetland habitat throughout the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork's breeding range is widely available and is not considered to be a limiting factor. 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). The CFA that supports currently active wood stork nesting colonies includes over 10.8 million acres of suitable wetland habitat, and an additional 15.4 million acres of suitable wood stork habitat is available outside of the current CFA associated with active nest colonies but within the range of the wood stork (Service 2024, table 31). Wetland habitat loss or degradation due to draining or changing the hydrology was the main historical 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 percent, 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, 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 in combination with extensive adjacent freshwater, and even human-influenced and managed wetlands. Suitable breeding and foraging habitat is widely available across the species' current range. Further, individual regional peak annual nest numbers are often significantly higher than the corresponding 5-year averages, indicating that each region can support a larger nesting population than evident by the average alone. In summary, though conditions that lead to the degradation and conversion of wetland habitat used by wood storks for nesting and foraging may increase, habitat availability does not currently appear to be limiting wood stork resiliency.

Wetland conservation efforts, both voluntary and regulatory, are a key element in the recovery of the wood stork. 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 and ongoing management actions that address stressors to foraging and breeding habitats include maintenance, management and protection of existing wetlands, enhancement and creation of new wetland habitats, and restoration of previously impacted habitats. Details of conservation efforts can be found in the SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 5.3), but are summarized with updated information below:

• Lands with natural and manmade wetlands that contribute to wood stork recovery have and continue to be targeted for acquisition and easements for conservation through Federal, State, and private acquisition and private lands programs (figure 2). For example, 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 in Florida. Conservation easements and acquisition purchases for the 150,000-acre approved acquisition boundary are underway, and will provide additional conservation benefits to wood storks. Florida's Wildlife Corridor also facilitates partnerships that result in conservation land acquisitions (Florida Wildlife Corridor 2022 and Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan (FSWAP) 2019, entire). Land acquisition for conservation most often includes property with wetlands, and of the 10 million acres (31 percent) in Florida managed as conservation land, 2.6 million acres have been purchased through land acquisition programs such as the Florida Forever and P2000 programs. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi also have their own unique initiatives to preserve wildlife and natural resources including wetlands and are described within their State Wildlife Action Plans (Georgia's State Wildlife Action Plan (GSWAP) 2015, South Carolina State Wildlife Action Plan (SCSWAP) 2015, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2015, Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (ASWAP) 2015, and Mississippi State Wildlife Action Plan (MSWAP) 2015, entire).

• Large-scale watershed and wetland ecosystem restoration and protection initiatives with regionwide impacts have helped and continue to help restore wetland ecosystems throughout the Southeastern United States, including the Everglades via the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Under the CERP, the 6,500-acre Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir was created to store and clean water from Lake Okeechobee. The water will go south to restore natural freshwater flow through the Florida Everglades, Picayune Strand (50 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 been completed with more than 40 miles of river floodplain ecosystem and 20,000 acres of wetlands restored), 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 Basin (over 160,000 acres of upland and wetland habitat protected). Since the initiation of the CERP in 2000, wood stork demographic measures have continued to improve under its water management guidance.

One goal of the CERP is to restore a robust and successful breeding population of wood storks within the greater Everglades, including the Big Cypress and Corkscrew Swamp, and the CERP's target of supporting 1,500-2,500 nesting pairs of wood storks in the mainland Everglades (water conservation areas and Everglades National Park) is frequently achieved (Cook and Barnanski 2023. p. 27). This reflects the favorable hydrologic conditions of those years and the continued improvement of water management practices in supporting nesting wading birds like the wood stork and the overall health of the Everglades ecosystem. CERP conservation initiatives are independent of the wood stork's status under the Act, and, therefore, will continue as conservation goals after delisting.

• On March 11, 2024, the Department of the Interior and the Service announced the newest large-scale initiative, the Everglades to Gulf Conservation Area (EGCA), which will help to facilitate conservation within 4,045,268 acres of Southwest Florida using tools like voluntary conservation easements. “Conservation Areas” consist primarily or entirely of conservation easements on private lands in cooperation with landowners. The EGCA is expansive and spans 12 southwest and central Florida counties west of Lake Okeechobee from Lakeland south to Naples. It borders the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge Conservation Area and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and primarily includes rural ranches, farms, and other large plots of land that are primarily privately owned by constituents willing to protect the wildlife in and around their properties. This Conservation Area will enhance and support the conservation objectives of the Everglades Restoration program, including wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration.

• State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) receive Federal funding through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program and include plans for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and the habitat upon which they depend. A primary theme in each SWAP throughout the wood stork's range is wetland conservation (ASWAP 2015, FSWAP 2019, GSWAP 2015, MSWAP 2015, NCWRC 2015, and SCSWAP 2015, entire). Colony sites have been and continue to be managed, enhanced, restored, and created, resulting in improved wood stork nesting conditions, recolonization, and establishment of new colony sites ( e.g., 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), many of which are included in SWAPs.

• Wetland conservation strategies are also developed for each State through Wetland Program Plans (EPA 2025, unpaginated). These plans summarize the status of wetlands in each State and include information on how wetlands are regulated and efforts developed to restore and/or mitigate wetland loss.

• In addition to being regulated through the Clean Water Act (CWA) and section 404 permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida also has independent authority over wetlands under its Florida Water Resources Act (chapter 373 Florida Statutes (F.S.)) and through its State-owned submerged lands program (Chapter 18-21 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)): Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management; 253.03(7) F.S.) which is analogous to the CWA's section 404 program. Florida's jurisdiction encompasses a broader definition of wetlands than that of the CWA by recognizing and regulating a larger variety of wetlands than does the CWA section 404 program. For example, Florida jurisdictional wetlands include any lands that are “inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support . . . a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils” (chapter 62-340.200(19) F.A.C.). For such wetlands, Florida regulates dredging and filling, as well as the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, repair, abandonment, and removal of storm water management systems, dams, impoundments, reservoirs, and their associated structures. The wood stork is also listed by the State of Florida as a State threatened species (chapter 68A-27 F.A.C.). This status provides conservation measures and permitting guidance related to protecting and minimizing impacts to State-listed species and their habitat, such as some wading bird species and the hydrology and vegetation of their foraging and nesting wetland habitat. Moreover, the Florida Imperiled Wading Bird Action Plan (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2013, entire) includes conservation actions for high-priority nesting colonies that are subject to disturbance, establishes management recommendations to protect and manage nesting colonies, and prioritizes the top nesting colonies and associated foraging habitat based on each species' needs for protection and management.

• Smaller scale, more localized wetland restoration projects on individual public, private, industrial, and agriculture properties within the range of the wood stork have and continue to improve wood stork habitat, through various programs and regulations including: National Coastal Wetlands Program, Wetland Reserves Program (restored over 325,000 acres across several States, with one site now supporting a nesting colony), Partners for Wildlife, Forest Stewardship Program, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and North American Wetlands Conservation Act (77 projects across several States affecting 250,000 acres of wetlands), and the Food Security Act. On private agricultural lands, wetlands are protected through the Food Security Act by removal of incentives for farmers to convert wetlands to crop fields.

• Colonies and 9.2 million acres of wetlands occurring on State and Federal lands ( e.g., the Service's National Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service lands, National Forests, Department of Defense lands, National Aeronautics and Space Administration lands, State Parks, State Wildlife Management Areas, and State Forests) within the breeding range are and will continue to be afforded some protection from development and other large-scale habitat disturbance through State and Federal regulations. These regulations include the Coastal Zone Management Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, NEPA, National Forest Management Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the Sikes Act, and others. Mitigation and wetland restoration may also be regulated through the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, and the Executive Order (E.O.) 11990 Protection of Wetlands.

• Suitable foraging wetlands have been and continue to be created within diked “impoundments,” through modifications of existing impoundments, restoration of impacted wetlands, creation of impoundments, and water storage areas, often creating seasonal shallow wetlands through hydrologic management (Service 2024, chapter 5.3).

• 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. By staggering drawdowns in managed impoundments and by tides in former impoundments, concentrated prey is being made available to wood storks throughout the breeding and post-breeding seasons (Service 2024, chapter 5.3).

• 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). Each of these managed wetland systems have been documented to support a large variety of wetland-dependent species including wood storks (with nesting now occurring at three sites). As noted above, the 6,500-acre Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir will store and clean water from Lake Okeechobee, will provide wood stork foraging habitat along the reservoir's edges and in shallow areas during periods of drawdown, and will improve conditions of wetlands with appropriately timed water releases in the Everglades (Service 2024, chapter 5.3).

• 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 (Service 2024, chapter 5.3). Wetland restoration initiatives to restore thousands of acres of wetlands afflicted by woody and willow encroachment during the past 15 years have been implemented at: Blue Cypress Marsh, Blue Spring State Park, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, Emeralda Marsh, Fort Drum Marsh, Jonathan Dickinson State Park, Lake Apopka North Shore, Moccasin Island Marsh, Ocklawaha Prairie, Paynes Prairie, River Lakes, St. Johns Marsh, Sunnyhill, Sweetwater, Three Forks Marsh, Upper Ocklawaha River Basin, Upper St. Johns River Basin, Water Conservation Area 3A, Frances Taylor Wildlife Management Area, and Everglades National Park.

• Wood stork colonies are protected through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which aims to ensure the sustainability of populations through prohibition of take including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Service.

• Partnerships developed through conservation easements, wetland restoration projects, and other conservation means, occurring throughout the southeast U.S. coastal plains, have and will continue to minimize potential loss of colony sites.

We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, 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 species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

The U.S. breeding population of wood storks 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; Zimmerman 2023, entire). As `partial migrants,' some individuals remain relatively permanent residents to an area or region, while others are seasonal migrants, and still others move between regions based upon environmental and habitat conditions ( i.e., “facultative migration”) (Picardi et al. 2020, p. 1). Within the breeding range, wood stork colonies cluster into the South, Central, Northwest, and Northeast breeding regions (figure 1), which do not function as discrete populations but rather as geographical concentrations of breeding activity. These clusters vary by climate, geography, and landscape features such as wetlands, as well as their influences on wood stork ecology, habitat, and behavior.

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 more than 200 pairs) and productivity (fledged chicks per nest), which are all described in greater detail in the SSA report (Service 2024, 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 (table 4).

As described above under Recovery Criteria, the productivity targets we used to categorize condition were likely overly conservative, as our estimates of the productivity rates adequate to maintain stable or growing populations of wood stork were overestimated. As evidence, the productivity rate of less than one has led to population growth adequate to recover similar species such as the bald eagle and brown pelican (which are both long-lived fish-eating bird species like the wood stork, and fully recovered with productivity rates below wood stork productivity rates) (74 FR 59444, November 17, 2009; 72 FR 37346, July 9, 2007; Service 1989, p. 7).

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 (table 5).

Because suitable wetland habitat throughout the wood stork's breeding range is widely available, and habitat does not appear to be limiting wood stork resiliency, 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). Currently, 10.8 million acres of suitable wood stork wetland habitat within the CFA (Service 2024, table 31) supports an annual breeding population of 10,000 to 14,000 pairs (Service 2024, figure 18). There are an additional 15.4 million acres of suitable wetland habitat within the breeding range but outside the current footprint of the CFA (Service 2024, table 31). Further, the peak annual counts of nesting pairs during the past 15 years indicate that wood stork habitat within the CFA could, during years with favorable conditions, support a significantly greater number of nesting pairs than is evident from the 5-year averages (table 6), which is another indicator that habitat is not limiting to the wood stork population.

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, to assess redundancy in our analysis of current and future condition, we identified four breeding regions (figure 1) as defined by the clustering of nesting colonies and nesting numbers (within and across the geographic borders) among the four States, 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). When conditions at a colony site become less favorable for nesting, wood storks tend to establish new colony sites or move to other established colony sites that offer more favorable conditions at that time. 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 wood stork, 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, persistent colonies as anchors within each breeding region provides resiliency within a 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 (during the early and mid-1900s) was a major contributor to the population decline that led to the listing of the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork, but these anthropogenic environmental changes to south Florida also may have influenced the regional shift in abundance of nesting storks northward (1980s to present).

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 brackish and freshwater wetlands, and old rice impoundments in Georgia and South Carolina offered greater stability, and an option for foraging to support reproduction during the breeding season; the result was that the wood stork population center shifted north. A second shift in wood stork nesting occurred in southwest Florida and is likely related to degradation of the hydrology of the Corskscrew Swamp watershed due to adjacent agricultural practices and intensive adjacent development (Clem and Duever 2019, p. 370). These anthropogenic changes appear to have led to a local shift in abundance of nesting away from Corkscrew Swamp and simultaneous colonization of new nesting sites nearby and north into the Caloosahatchee River, Peace River, Myaka River, and Sarasota Bay basins.

The wood stork now consistently breeds in four distinctive regions of the coastal plains 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). Hereinafter we will refer to these four regions collectively as the southeast U.S. coastal plains. Further, current wood stork nesting in North Carolina appears to indicate range expansion that is likely a response related to changes in climate, as has been documented in multiple other bird species worldwide (Hitch and Leberg 2007, p. 534). Thus, the wood stork's colony turnover trait, its shift of 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 seasonal migratory movements among breeding regions and other areas in Alabama and Mississippi, and others employ both strategies depending upon habitat conditions ( i.e., facultative migration; Picardi et al. 2020, p. 9). In response to cooler temperature conditions in the fall and winter, many wood storks migrate 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 also 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 anthropogenic wetlands such as canals, ditches, impounded ponds and lakes, and other urban and suburban habitats rangewide, which they were not known to use historically. Wood storks were once thought to be intolerant of human disturbance (Burleigh 1958, p. 119). However, with the increase in use of urban and suburban wetland habitats, wood storks appear more tolerant of human activity, to the extent that they will forage and nest in human-populated areas like stormwater management lakes and ponds within housing developments, commercial shopping areas, and adjacent to 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 human-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 changing and deteriorating wetland conditions on a daily, seasonal, annual, and long-term basis, and to exploit novel habitat types such as human-influenced and -created 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 and suburban wetlands, managed wetlands, impounded wetlands, restored wetlands, and also exploit the coastal salt marshes in combination with the adjacent freshwater wetlands 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 wood stork.

To analyze the wood stork's viability, we used population demographics to measure the current condition of each breeding region, and 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.

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 for wood storks 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. 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 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. However, at this time we do not have information that would allow us to reliably predict these impacts and their effects on the wood stork.

To project the future condition of each breeding region, we considered potential future impacts to the current footprint of the CFA habitat that support nesting colonies, and developed three future scenarios based on projections for development/urbanization, sea level rise, and the continuation or discontinuation of ongoing beneficial conservation actions. We assessed habitat condition based on the percentage of acres remaining after projected urbanization impacts on the CFA; percentage of the wetlands, nesting colonies, and large persistent colonies remaining within the CFA after sea level rise; and varying degrees of conservation implementation.

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, and within the recently updated climate change forecasts (Sweet et al. 2022, entire) that cover the Southeastern United States. 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.

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 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 suitable habitat is available throughout the range of the wood stork, and the effects on 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. 2022, 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).

The future scenarios we assessed include varying timeframes 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 information available at this time. Details on future scenarios can be found in the SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 6.1). 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 (table 7).

The projections of future CFA habitat condition described above are based upon habitat within the current footprint of the CFA, and how the major threats may reduce or degrade that habitat. However, the analysis of future threats to habitat within the current CFA does not account for the response of wood storks to changing habitat conditions, such as relocation of nesting colonies into other suitable occupied habitat acres outside the current footprint of the CFA. The expansion of wood stork breeding regions and the overall breeding range, and the establishment of new colonies in response to wood stork population growth and changing habitat, is a phenomenon that has been underway since the 1980s. 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 favorable habitat conditions and either locate other active colony sites or pioneer new colony sites. Based on recent and current trends, we expect that the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork will continue to grow, shift, and respond to changing environmental and habitat conditions, and to anthropogenic degradation, conversion, restoration, or creation of wetland habitats on small and large scales as they have in recent history.

In addition, our analysis of threats to habitat within the current footprint of the CFA does not account for the availability of suitable habitat that is currently occupied by wood storks but outside the current footprint of the CFA. We know that suitable habitat that is occupied by wood storks but outside the current footprint of the CFA is extensive (Service 2024, table 31), and that marsh migration models actually predict upslope migration and a net increase in salt marsh habitat in some areas in response to rising sea levels (Kirwan et al. 2016b, p. 4366). As such, projections of wood stork resiliency based solely upon impacts to habitat witin the current CFA underestimate wood stork future condition.

Therefore, for this final rule we also considered ecological and demographic characteristics that influence how the wood stork will respond to the modeled changes in habitat. For example, we incorporate into our analysis the behavioral trait of partial migration, the ecological record of the species' response to short- and long-term changes to habitat condition, wood stork population projections based upon current trends, breeding region peak counts, and the availability of suitable wood stork wetland habitat projected to occur in the future given updated sea level rise projections in 2050 and 2080 (Sweet et al. 2022; Service 2024, chapter 6.2). More detail on how we assessed each of these metrics can be found in the SSA report (Service 2024, chapter 6).

This updated analysis replicates the habitat-based approach we used to project the future condition of the current CFAs in each breeding region by employing the condition of required wood stork habitat as a proxy for the condition of the wood stork breeding region, or its resiliency. CFAs are suitable foraging wetlands within a set distance from each colony site that is based on the documented regional daily distance that wood storks travel from their colony sites during the breeding season: 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).

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 2024, chapter 6). We have also updated sea level rise projections (Sweet et al 2022, entire) and added a future projection of available suitable foraging habitat (both inside and outside the CFA) given sea level rise, and future population projections based on current population trends and recent peak nesting counts within each breeding region (Service 2024, chapter 6).

All future scenarios we considered in each breeding region project some impact to breeding season colony CFA wetlands and colonies from sea level rise, and a reduction in acres within the current footprint of the CFA. However, the analysis does not account for suitable habitat created by the same sea level rise conditions that result in the loss of some of the suitable habitat in the CFA ( i.e., marsh migration; Kirwan et al. 2016a, p. 253). Further, these scenarios do not account for how wood storks respond to the changing habitat conditions. For example, we expect that in some cases individuals displaced by lost habitat will pioneer new colony sites in occupied habitat outside the current CFA, either within the same or another breeding region; however, the quantification of acres within the current footprint of the CFA inundated due to sea level rise does not reflect these outcomes (see Suitable Breeding Habitat, Population and Colony Turnover Trends, and Future Resiliency Considerations, below). As such, future projections of wood stork resiliency which are based solely upon the amount of current CFA habitat inundated by sea level rise understimate wood stork future condition, because the true future resiliency of the wood stork will depend just as much upon suitable occupied acres available to wood storks to use as CFA habitat and the faculty of the species to exploit those available acres.

South Breeding Region —Currently, there are 3,840,486 acres of wetland habitat within the South Breeding Region CFA that support 36 colonies, of which 5 are designated as large, persistent colonies.

Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 17 and 21 percent of the wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA by 2050 and 2080, respectively; and that area impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level rise will include 12 (33 percent) of the 36 colony sites by 2050 and 2080. Two of the current five (40 percent) large, persistent colonies will be impacted by sea level rise in both the 2050 and 2080 timeframes. Land conversion will increase from 18 percent to 24 and 30 percent of the CFA 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, and mitigate impacts to wetlands, remain at least at current levels under Scenario 1, making Scenario 1 similar to Scenario 2, and better than Scenario 3 in terms of conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms.

Under Scenarios 2 and 3, sea level rise is projected to result in loss of 21 and 25 percent of wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA by 2050 and 2080, respectively. Of the current 36 active colony sites, 12 and 13 (33 and 36 percent) will be impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level rise in both the 2050 and 2080 timeframe projections. Two of the current five large, persistent colonies (40 percent) will be impacted by sea level rise in either timeframe. Land conversion in the CFA 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 within the current CFA due to sea level rise and development trends) and therefore are not likely to have a significant influence over the difference in overall future condition between Scenarios 2 and 3 in the South Breeding Region.

As such, the future condition of habitat in the South Breeding Region would be similar under Scenarios 2 and 3, and slightly better under Scenario 1. Overall, we expect resiliency in this breeding region to decline to some degree under all three future scenarios, but to be offset by positive metrics described below under Suitable Breeding Habitat and Population and Colony Turnover Trends.

Central Breeding Region— Currently, there are 2,302,543 acres of wetlands in the Central Breeding Region CFA that support 48 colonies, of which 3 are designated as large, persistent colonies.

Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 8 and 11 percent of the wetlands within the current boundary of the CFA by the 2050 and 2080 future timeframe projections, respectively; the area impacted by (and therefore potentially lost to) sea level rise will include 14 of the 48 currently active colony sites in the 2050 projection (29 percent), and 15 of the 48 current colony sites in the 2080 projection (31 percent). One of the current 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 CFA under the 2050 and 2080 timeframe projections, respectively. Conservation efforts are maintained at least at current levels under Scenario 1, making the future condition in terms of conservation under Scenario 1 similar to that under Scenario 2 and better than that under Scenario 3.

Under Scenarios 2 and 3, sea level rise is projected to result in losses of 11 and 13 percent of wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA by 2050 and 2080, respectively. Of the 48 currently active colony sites, 15 (31 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 current three large, persistent colonies will be impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level rise in both future timeframe projections. Land conversion in the CFA 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 mitigate negative influence factors, resulting in a slightly better future condition in terms of conservation and regulatory mechanisms 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. However, we expect some of that decline in resiliency to be offset by positive metrics described below under Suitable Breeding Habitat and Population and Colony Turnover Trends.

Northwest Breeding Region— Currently, there are 1,286,773 acres of wetlands within the Northwest Breeding Region CFA that support 30 colonies, of which one is designated a large, persistent colony.

Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 3 and 6 percent of the wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA by 2050 and 2080, respectively; the area impacted by sea level rise will not include any of the 30 currently active colony sites in either future timeframe projection. The one currently active 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 CFA under the 2050 and 2080 timeframe projections, respectively. Conservation efforts are at least at current levels under Scenario 1, making the future outlook in terms of conservation and regulatory mechanisms under Scenario 1 similar to that under Scenario 2, and better than that under Scenario 3.

Under Scenarios 2 and 3, sea level rise is projected to result in the loss of 3 and 7 percent of wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA in the 2050 and 2080 time projections. Of the 30 currently active 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 currently active large, persistent colony will not be impacted by sea level rise in either future timeframe projection. Land conversion in the CFA 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 within the current CFA due to sea level rise and development trends), and therefore are not likely to have a significant influence over the difference in overall future condition between Scenarios 2 and 3 in the Northwest Breeding Region.

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. However, we expect some of that decline in resiliency to be offset by positive metrics described below under Suitable Breeding Habitat and Population and Colony Turnover Trends.

Northeast Breeding Region —Currently, there are 3,607,715 acres of wetlands within the Northeast Breeding Region CFA that support 76 colonies, of which 6 are designated large, persistent colonies.

Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 32 and 37 percent of the wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA by 2050 and 2080, respectively; the area impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level rise will include 2 of the 76 currently active colony sites in the 2050 projection (3 percent), and 11 of the 76 current colony sites in the 2080 projection (14 percent). None of the currently active 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 CFA under the 2050 and 2080 timeframe projections, respectively. Conservation efforts are maintained at least at current levels under Scenario 1, making the future outlook in terms of conservation and regulatory mechanisms under Scenario 1 similar to that under Scenario 2 and better than that under Scenario 3.

Under Scenarios 2 and 3, sea level rise is projected to result in losses of 35 and 40 percent of wetlands within the current footprint of the CFA by 2050 and 2080, respectively; the area impacted by (and therefore potentially lost to) sea level rise will include 4 of the 76 currently active colony sites in the 2050 projection (5 percent), and 27 of the 76 current colony sites in the 2080 projection (36 percent). None of the currently active large, persistent colonies will be impacted by sea level rise by 2050 or 2080, and land conversion in the CFA 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 within the current CFA due to sea level rise and development trends), and therefore are not likely to have a significant influence over the difference in overall future condition between Scenarios 2 and 3 in the Northeast Breeding Region.

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. However, we expect some of that decline in resiliency to be offset by positive metrics described below under Suitable Breeding Habitat and Population and Colony Turnover Trends.

Suitable Breeding Habitat— Currently, there are 26.2 million acres of wetland habitat suitable for wood storks within the breeding range of the coastal plains of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Service 2024, chapter 6.2; table 8; figure 3). Forty-two percent (10.8 million acres) is within the CFA and supports an annual breeding effort of 10,000-14,000 breeding pairs at more than 100 colony sites. There are an additional 15.4 million acres of wetland habitat in the coastal plains that are suitable as breeding and foraging habitat for wood storks. Even under the highest projections of sea level rise (4 feet in 2080), approximately 7.3 million of the 10.8 million acres of breeding habitat within the CFA will remain intact. Another 13.3 million additional acres of wetland habitat currently occupied by wood storks but outside the current CFA will remain unimpacted by sea level rise and suitable for breeding and foraging (table 8; figure 3).

In summary, while we project in our future condition analysis that sea level rise will result in the loss of some of the occupied habitat within the current footprint of the CFA, as illustrated above, a substantial amount of suitable habitat remains in the CFA. Further, we also estimate that even under the highest projections of sea level rise that there will remain approximately 13 million acres of occupied suitable breeding and foraging habitat outside the current CFA available for wood storks to use (table 8). Thus, habitat loss due to sea level rise is not likely to limit the resiliency of wood storks in the foreseeable future.

Population and Colony Turnover Trends— The ecological record shows that wood storks respond to environmental change. The wood stork's nesting colony site record shows that they will abandon a colony site when it is no longer suitable, or when other suitable potential colony sites provide more advantageous conditions than do currently occupied sites, as evidenced by their use of over 300 different colony locations since listing (Service 2024, chapter 2.7.1). 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 in following years (Service 2024, chapter 6.2). Wood storks may shift their 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, or in a reduction in the number of breeding pairs present rangewide, but rather a shift in location of individuals from current to new colony sites in some cases. We expect that this phenomenon will continue to occur and that the wood stork population and breeding range will continue to grow, shift, and expand into the amply available suitable habitat that is currently occupied by wood storks but outside the current footprint of the CFA.

We project that the wood stork's current long-term trend of positive population growth will continue into the foreseeable future, as habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor. Though the current rangewide population of wood storks is estimated at approximately 11,000 individuals (table 1), peak nest counts from each region sum to nearly 18,000 nesting pairs, demonstrating the potential occupancy that the current habitat can support (table 6). Without limiting factors, a linear regression based upon the trend from the past 10 years projects that the future population would surpass 15,000 nesting pairs by mid-century and 20,000 pairs by the end of the century (figure 4).

We also project that wood storks will vacate some currently occupied colony sites and pioneer new colonies, and that the number of active colonies will continue to grow as has been the trend since the 1980s (table 9; figure 5), resulting in the expansion of the breeding range continuing.

Future Resiliency Considerations— For our original analysis in the SSA report (version 1.0: Service 2021, entire), we projected future impacts to wood stork habitat using projections of future development, conservation actions, and the best sea level rise projections available at that time (Sweet et al. 2017, entire). We estimated the number of acres of habitat within the currently known footprint of the CFA that would be impacted by these influence factors in the future and used that as a proxy for wood stork future resiliency in the four breeding regions. Our updated SSA report (version 1.1: Service 2024, entire) employs updated sea level rise projections (Sweet et al. 2022, entire) as well as updated demographic information, such as the most recent survey data and considerations regarding nest colony site turnover and the productivity necessary to maintain populations, to project the future condition of the wood stork breeding regions.

The best scientific and commercial data available (Sweet et al. 2022, entire) indicate that our original assessment of CFA acreage that would be lost to sea level rise projections (Sweet et al. 2017, entire) was overestimated in version 1 of our SSA report (Service 2021, chapter 6). Our updated wood stork SSA report (version 1.1: Service 2024, entire) also incorporates estimates of the amount of currently occupied suitable wood stork habitat, not restricted to the current footprint of the CFA, that would be lost to future sea level rise compared with that which would remain available under high future projections of sea level rise. This updated analysis provides a more accurate representation of suitable habitat availability for wood storks in the future in relation to sea level rise, and further reinforces our assessment that habitat will not be a limiting factor for wood storks in the future.

The latest available field survey data that we incorporated into our SSA report update is consistent with previous breeding seasons, and further maintains the stable to increasing trend that has been demonstrated in wood stork abundance and productivity across the breeding regions. We also considered the productivity recovery criteria that were necessary to achieve recovery in other bird species that are similar to the wood stork in biology and ecology and determined that productivity targets necessary for recovery in the wood stork recovery plan were overestimated. Although the wood stork recovery plan criterion targets productivity of 1.5, productivity of 0.8 to 1.0 is likely adequate to maintain stable or increasing wood stork breeding populations, as it was for the bald eagle and brown pelican. This range of productivity has been achieved or exceeded by all the wood stork breeding regions, which helps account for the increase in abundance and number of breeding colonies that continues to be documented. Further, the consideration of colony site turnover, which is an ecological trait of wood storks that is shared by many other colonial waterbird species, also helps account for the demonstrated increases in numbers and breeding sites over time despite unfavorable environmental changes that have occurred at some of the historical colony sites.

Our consideration of updated information as well as important additional factors that have influenced, and will continue in the future to influence, wood stork resiliency has provided a more holistic and rigorous assessment of wood stork viability into the future. While the more simplified analysis of negative impacts to habitat within the current footprint of the CFA projected a reduction in wood stork resiliency based on declines in CFA habitat condition (Service 2021, entire), we did not find these projected declines substantial enough to drive current or future wood stork viability to population decline (88 FR 9830, February 15, 2023). Our updated analysis incorporates the most recently available projections of sea level rise and wood stork survey data and includes additional wood stork habitat metrics and important demographic information to help evaluate future resiliency without relying solely upon CFA habitat metrics, all of which collectively serves to further illustrate that wood stork breeding regions will maintain adequate resiliency into the future.

In summary, wood storks have demonstrated adaptability to environmental and demographic changes through range expansion, facultative migration, and the adoption of novel foraging opportunities. We expect that the habitat and behavioral plasticity characteristics of this species will continue to allow it to respond to a dynamic and constantly changing environment into the future despite changes that occur within the current footprint of the CFA. Further, even given extreme scenarios of climate change, adequate suitable habitat for the wood stork will be available within the current CFA, and an abundance of suitable habitat will be available in currently occupied habitat outside the current CFA, indicating sustained resiliency of wood stork populations into the foreseeable future.

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; climate effects such as changing precipitation patterns and prolonged droughts; and reduced reproductive success. We expect that each breeding region will maintain most of the large, persistent nesting colony sites, as well as multiple other colonies, and that there will be no major reduction in the wood stork's overall range even with some of the acres within the current footprint of the CFA lost due to sea level rise. No extirpation of any of the breeding regions is anticipated. Local losses of current core foraging habitat and colony sites (CFA) due to environmental, anthropogenic, or stochastic changes are likely to continue to cause shifts in concentrations of 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 occupied habitat outside the current CFA, 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 impacts to some sites within the CFA 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.

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 southeast U.S. coastal plains 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 in habitat, 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.

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 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 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.

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, the wood stork in the Southeast U.S. DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 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 currently in existence as there were at the time of listing (108 in 2022 compared to 27 in 1984), indicating that redundancy in the population has been increasing over time. Suitable wood stork habitat is also currently abundant, with approximately 10.8 million suitable wetland acres within the CFA (figure 3; table 8) and an additional 15.4 million acres of suitable wood stork habitat outside the CFA available for breeding and foraging. Wood storks have nested at 332 different locations historically, and there are currently over 100 colonies spread throughout the wood stork's historical breeding range and beyond that are active each year. Generally, the wood stork is distributed broadly, demonstrates plastic use of breeding colony sites, and would likely be able to recolonize any portion of its range that could be lost due to a catastrophic event. As such, the wood stork currently demonstrates a high level of redundancy.

The shift in concentration of the wood stork population from primarily south Florida northward to include 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 the adjacent freshwater wetlands of Georgia and South Carolina, and inland freshwater wetlands of southwest Georgia, in addition to manmade wetlands. They are also using both native and exotic vegetation as nesting substrate and foraging on native and exotic introduced 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 also use coastal, tidally influenced fresh, brackish, and salt marsh as well, means that it is less reliant on favorable climate and weather patterns, and less vulnerable to unfavorable anthropogenic influences, all of 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 as approximately 2080, as that is the timeframe in which we can make reasonably reliable predictions about both the threats to the wood stork and the wood stork's response to those threats. Two time-steps (2050 and 2080) 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 plains (Terando et al. 2014, entire), are within the climate change forecasts that cover the Southeastern United States (Sweet et al. 2022, entire), and represent 7 and 15 wood stork generations, respectively, which allows 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 coastal foraging and breeding habitat in the future. However, sea level rise will also create new tidally influenced marsh habitats that wood storks will be able to exploit, as coastal wetland ecosystems will migrate upslope and continue to occupy the ocean-land interface. 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 estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine wetlands, accounting for more than 43 percent of the Nation's palustrine and estuarine wetlands (Sucik and Marks 2015, p. 11). In 2080, high sea level rise projections of 4 feet would impact 3.5 of the 10.8 million acres of wood stork habitat within the CFA, leaving 7.3 million acres of suitable habitat within the CFA intact, and an additional 13.3 million adjacent acres of suitable habitat outside the current footprint of the CFA intact (figure 3; table 8). Thus, while sea level rise will render some currently suitable habitat unusable for wood storks, the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that there will be ample suitable habitat available for use within the foreseeable future even under scenarios of future sea level rise.

Wood storks exhibit behavioral plasticity, with some individuals readily responding to changing environmental conditions by employing facultative migration and optimizing use of breeding and foraging habitat within and among colony sites, breeding regions, and breeding years. In addition, colony site turnover, or the periodic establishment of new colonies in sites that offer more advantageous conditions than old ones, is a behavioral trait of wood storks that is also shared by many other colonial waterbird species. The wood stork's behavioral flexibility suggests that the species will have the ability to adjust to changing habitat conditions into the future, just as they currently do and have done historically, in response to anthropogenic changes to the Greater Everglades. Therefore, we expect that, wood storks in the Southeast U.S. DPS will be able to tolerate and respond to shifts in suitable habitat within the foreseeable future.

Habitat conversion due to urbanization (Factor A) is the other population-level threat to the wood stork. Land use modeling shows that urban and suburban 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, and wood storks have adapted to human landscapes successfully in many areas throughout their range.

Regulatory and voluntary conservation programs are ongoing and benefit wood stork foraging and breeding habitat, and include efforts to maintain and protect existing wetlands and colony sites, acquire wetland habitat for maintenance and protection, create new wetland habitat, and restore previously impacted habitat. These efforts have been implemented for years and have been demonstrated to be effective. There are many Federal laws and regulations for the restoration, management, and protection from alteration, degradation, and destruction of wetland resources (Votteler and Muir 2002, entire), including, but not limited to: the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); 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. ); Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. ); Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq. ); National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ); National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq. ); Sike Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq. ); and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd).

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 and one of Florida's primary wetland conservation initiatives. The CERP includes performance goals for wood storks, such as achieving 1,500 to 3,000 nesting pairs annually and that the initiation of breeding shifts back to winter months each year to maximize successful productivity. Contributions of the CERP are evidenced by the large reproductive effort in 2009 when 6,452 pairs of wood storks nested in south Florida, and thousands of chicks fledged before the onset of the rainy season (Cook and Kobza 2009, pp. 1-2). As such, this unique Federal/State partnership drives Everglades and Big Cypress restoration efforts, and we anticipate will continue to support and lead to a robust wood stork breeding population within the foreseeable 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 compared with other 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, and peak nest counts from each region (summing to more than 18,000 nesting pairs, collectively) indicate that the habitat can support this growth. We also expect that wood storks will continue to pioneer new colony sites within the four breeding regions, and that the expansion of the breeding range will continue as the number of colonies continues to grow as has been the trend since the 1980s. 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 will continue to demonstrate high adaptive capacity (representation) by making use of its 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 commercial and scientific data available, we conclude that the wood stork is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all 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 within 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 within the foreseeable future ( i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which 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. 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 species' range.

In undertaking this analysis for the 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 the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. For the wood stork, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in the rest of the range such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined sea level rise and other threats associated with climate change, and urbanization, including cumulative effects.

We focused our analysis on the four wood stork breeding regions described in the SSA report (Northwest, Northeast, Central, and South) (Service 2024, chapter 3.2). At the outset we note that all of the wood stork recovery targets originally established in the recovery plan have been met or exceeded in the Northwest, Northeast, and Central breeding regions. The productivity metric alone in the South Breeding Region has not been fully achieved in the manner specifically identified in the recovery plan. The target set in the recovery plan for productivity is a 5-year average of 1.5 chicks fledged per nest per year, and that metric for the South Breeding Region has fluctuated between 0.8 and 1.1 for the past 5 years and has been relatively stable just below 1 for over a decade. This level of productivity has been shown to reflect stable or growing populations for other similar species. Further, annual productivity less than 1 is to be expected for a long-lived species like the wood stork where an individual needs to reproduce successfully only once in its lifetime to replace itself, but often has multiple attempts throughout its life to do so. For example, both the brown pelican and bald eagle are similarly long-lived, fish-eating birds associated with aquatic environments that fully recovered with annual productivity rates that were less than 1. In conclusion, productivity appears to be sufficient in maintaining a relatively stable breeding population in the South Breeding Region. Accordingly, we consider the intent of the recovery criteria for productivity as having been met for the South Breeding Region. More importantly for our determination though, the South Breeding Region's 5-year average productivity rate of approximately or slightly below one chick/nest/year does not indicate an endangered or threatened status for the individuals that breed in the South Breeding Region ( i.e., does not indicate that the individuals that breed in that portion of the range are at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future).

In addition to the intent of the recovery criteria in the South Breeding Region being satisfied either effectively or explicitly as defined in the recovery plan, the South Breeding Region supports a robust and growing wood stork population. While the breeding population in the South Breeding Region continues to fluctuate naturally as it has historically (Frederick and Ogden 2001, pp. 484-485; Frederick et al. 2009, p. s85), it has been stable or increasing for over a decade (table 3) and appears to be contributing to the overall expansion and growth of the DPS as a whole (table 1; figure 5). In summary, there is no indication that individuals in the South Breeding Region are in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

In addition to determining that each region has met (or effectively met) its recovery criteria, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the wood stork are greater in any portion of its range than in the rest of the range such that the wood stork is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion.

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 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 scientific and commercial data available 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 feet expected by 2050 across all breeding regions, and 3 to 4 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 is also likely to become available, as marsh migration models indicate a net expansion in coastal marshes in response to sea level rise in many places (Kirwan et al. 2016b, p. 4366). Further, we know that even with the highest sea level rise projections (4 feet by 2080) that only 32 percent of suitable habitat within the current footprint of the CFA will be impacted, and 13.3 million adjacent acres of suitable habitat will be unimpacted by sea level rise and available for continued use by wood storks. Thus, even under this future scenario, the wood stork would retain sufficient resiliency.

Further, 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 suitable habitat that still exists in this region, we expect the wood storks in the Northeast Breeding Region will continue to form new colonies within their occupied range in response to the effects of sea level rise. Accordingly, we expect that the Northeast Breeding Region will not only remain sufficiently resilient, but also a valuable and productive part of the wood stork's distribution into the future. Therefore, despite changes to habitat that result from sea level rise, wood storks in this breeding region are not likely to have a different status.

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 CFA 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 and, consistent with discussions above, wood storks populations in the various breeding regions are expected to retain sufficient resiliency that the species does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species in any individual region. 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 2024, chapter 5.3).

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 into the foreseeable future across the breeding regions so that the future status of wood storks among breeding regions does not differ. 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.

In conclusion, we found no portion of the wood stork's range where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' range.

Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. 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.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that 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 wood stork has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we are removing the wood stork from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the wood stork from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. On the effective date of this rule (see DATES , above), the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies will 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 this species, so there will be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95. Removal of the wood stork from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not affect the protection given to all migratory bird species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

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 that have been recovered. 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.

We have prepared a PDM plan for the wood stork. We published notification of the availability of a draft PDM plan with the proposed delisting rule (88 FR 9830, February 15, 2023), and we did not receive any comments on the plan. Therefore, we consider the plan final. As discussed in the proposed rule, the PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of the wood stork at the time of proposed delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered status of the wood stork.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (“Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments;” 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (“Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation;” 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with S.O. 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. We informed the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Indian Tribe of Florida in November 2019 that the wood stork assessment had been initiated, and invited their participation. In February 2021, we contacted affected Tribes with an opportunity to review the draft SSA report and received no responses. FWS received no comments from Tribes during the public comment period on the proposed delisting rule.

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099 and upon request from the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

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

Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). ATCA is the implementing statute for binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by the ICCAT and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 mt (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area). The baseline quotas for the Longline and Reserve categories are 209.3 mt and 38.2 mt, respectively. The Longline category quota is intended to be used for incidental catch of BFT as longline vessels must use IBQ to account for their incidental BFT landings and dead discards while fishing for swordfish, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna ( see § 635.15).

Separate from this action, NMFS is working on a rulemaking that would implement the 2025 ICCAT recommendation (Recommendation 25-05) regarding western BFT management. Consistent with that recommendation, the separate rulemaking action would consider increasing the baseline U.S. BFT quota from 1,316.14 mt to 1,509.98 mt and adjusting any subquotas as needed accordingly. In the next few months, NMFS expects to issue a proposed rule regarding the overall quota increase and resulting subquota calculations. Any final rule implementing ICCAT Recommendation 25-05 would likely be effective in mid-2026 or later.

Under § 635.27(a)(8), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories after considering determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(7). In this action, NMFS is transferring 30.8 mt from the Reserve category to the Longline category. This transfer results in 240.1 mt (209.3 mt + 30.8 mt = 240.1 mt) being available for the Longline category through December 31, 2026, or until the Longline category quota is reached, whichever comes first. This transfer also results in 7.4 mt (38.2 mt—30.8 mt = 7.4 mt) being available in the Reserve category through the remainder of 2026 fishing year, unless modified in another action. As required and described below, NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer.

Unlike transfers made to avoid a closure (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ii)), this transfer is instead a proactive measure to increase flexibility in the availability of IBQ early in the year within the current quota levels. In recent years, NMFS has received feedback from some vessel owners that pelagic longline fishery participants may be taking less fishing trips at the beginning of the year due to higher abundances of BFT on fishing grounds that could result in more BFT interactions. Under this scenario, vessels may be concerned that they will not have enough IBQ to account for BFT retained or discarded dead later in the year. The ability of pelagic longline vessel owners to account for BFT with allocated quota or to lease IBQ at an affordable price is key to the success of the IBQ Program and thus to optimize fishing opportunities. Note, as part of the IBQ Program, Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders may lease available quota allocations to other permit holders that either received or did not receive IBQ allocation ( see 635.15(g)). As such, this proactive transfer could optimize current fishing opportunities (§ 635.27(a)(7)(x)), and facilitate quota accounting (§ 635.27(a)(7)(xi) and (xii)). Specifically, this quota transfer would contribute to full accounting of BFT catch by vessels that accrue quota debt ( i.e., reduce quota debt), enhance the likelihood that share recipients will lease IBQ to others in order to avoid quota debt, and reduce uncertainty in the pelagic longline fishery as a whole. Furthermore, this transfer considers variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of BFT (§ 635.27(a)(7)(vii). Transferring quota early in 2026 helps to address the diversity of the fishery with respect to the timing of those fishing earlier in the year when there tends to be more BFT available on fishing grounds. As discussed in more detail in the section below, the additional quota will be distributed to vessels with recent fishing activity in the Longline category to help vessel owners account for BFT catch while fostering conditions in which permit holders become more willing to lease IBQ to other vessels through the IBQ system.

Longline vessels must use IBQ to account for their incidental BFT landings and dead discards while fishing for swordfish, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna. Under § 635.15(f)(2), vessels in the pelagic longline fishery account for bycatch of BFT using IBQ on a quarterly basis. For the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter, as defined at § 635.15(f)(2), a vessel is not allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear if it does not have the minimum IBQ allocation available ( i.e., 276 lb ww (0.125 mt ww) to depart on a fishing trip in the Atlantic and 551 lb ww (0.25 mt ww) to depart on a fishing trip in the Gulf of America). Transferring 30.8 mt of quota from the Reserve category and distributing that quota to vessels with recent fishing activity in the Longline category could provide limited additional opportunities to harvest swordfish, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna without exceeding the U.S. BFT quota available to account for incidental BFT catch during those operations.

Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the Longline category to harvest the additional amount of BFT quota transferred before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iii)), NMFS considered Longline category BFT landings over the last several years and landings to date this year. Since BFT landings in the Longline category are incidental in nature, landings are highly variable and depend on access to target species (swordfish, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna), fishing conditions, and the area being fished, among other factors. By transferring quota now, NMFS anticipates that the Longline category permit holders would have quota sufficient to encourage leasing between permit holders, without limiting NMFS' ability to meet other needs with the Reserve quota for the remainder of the year. Specifically, transferring more quota now may provide permit holders more certainty that they will have enough IBQ to account for BFT retained or discarded dead throughout the year, which may result in more leases of IBQ to other vessels that need IBQ to go fishing for target species earlier in the year.

NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(7)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2026 landings and dead discards (§ 635.27(a)(7)(xi)). With the exception of 2024, the total U.S. BFT landings in recent years are typically below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. When total U.S. BFT landings are above the available U.S. quota, the United States reduces the next year's quota by the overharvest amount. NMFS will need to account for 2026 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do that. This quota transfer, which is within current quota levels, would reduce the likelihood of vessels using all their IBQ allocation early in the year, enhance the likelihood that share recipients will lease some of their IBQ allocation to others, and reduce uncertainty in the pelagic longline fishery as a whole.

NMFS also considered the effects of the transfer on the BFT stock and on accomplishing the objectives of the HMS FMP (§ 635.27(a)(7)(v) and (vi)). This transfer would be within the established quotas and subquotas, which are implemented consistent with ICCAT recommendations, ATCA, and the objectives of the HMS FMP and amendments. In establishing these quotas and subquotas and associated management measures, ICCAT and NMFS considered the best scientific information available, objectives for stock management and status, and effects on the stock. This quota transfer is in line with the established management measures and stock status determinations.

Another consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the available Longline category quota without exceeding the annual BFT quota, based on the objectives of the HMS FMP and its amendments, including the National Standard 1 requirement to achieve optimum yield from each fishery on a continuing basis. An inseason transfer of quota to the Longline category at this time would optimize fishing opportunities for the pelagic longline fishery, allow more efficient access to target species ( e.g., swordfish and yellowfin tuna), contribute to full accounting for BFT landings and dead discards, and reduce uncertainty in the pelagic longline fishery as a whole, thus facilitating the achieving of optimum yield. Quota transferred from the Reserve category and distributed directly to vessels with recent fishing activity should reduce situations where fishing opportunities for target species such as swordfish and yellowfin tuna are constrained by a vessel not having its own IBQ allocation or by a fishery participant not finding affordable quota (or sufficient quota) for lease.

Under § 635.15(e)(2), NMFS may distribute quota that is transferred inseason to the Longline category to all IBQ shareholders or to all permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline vessels that are determined to have any recent fishing activity in the previous year. Also under § 635.15(e)(2), any distribution of quota transferred inseason will be equal among eligible IBQ shareholders or active vessels. As described below, NMFS has considered all of the relevant factors provided under § 635.15(e)(2) to determine the distribution of quota in this inseason quota transfer. After considering all of the relevant factors, NMFS has decided to distribute the 30.8 mt of quota transferred from the Reserve category to Atlantic Tunas Longline vessels with recent fishing activity as these vessels most likely need quota in order to account for BFT interactions. These participants should receive their equal distribution of 893 lbs (0.4 mt) in their IBQ account shortly.

In 2022, NMFS published a final rule for Amendment 13 to the HMS FMP (Amendment 13), which among other things, implemented an annual dynamic determination of IBQ shares based upon each individual permitted vessel's fishing effort using the number of pelagic longline sets, relative to the total amount of pelagic longline sets fishery-wide. NMFS has considered all relevant data sources consistent with § 635.15(e)(2), and has determined that 76 vessels have recent fishing activity in the pelagic longline fishery. These 76 vessels have already received a 2026 IBQ allocation.

In reviewing the previous and current BFT landings and dead discards in the longline fishery, preliminary data indicate that these 76 pelagic longline vessels continuously interact with BFT across the year. NMFS expects that these vessels and any vessels that lease IBQ will likely also interact with BFT early in 2026. These 76 vessels account for BFT catches using IBQ, as required by the regulations at § 635.15(f)(3)(i). Distributing quota to active vessels provides a focused and efficient distribution of quota to those that need it and will help reduce uncertainty and facilitate better business decisions and a more effective leasing program for the remainder of the year. Alternatively, distributing quota to permitted vessels that have not actively fished recently and do not otherwise have 2026 IBQ allocation would reduce the amount of IBQ given to each vessel and therefore may not provide the benefits expected by the transfer as stated above.

Regarding the annual amounts of IBQ allocation and the amount of BFT quota in Reserve category quota, NMFS considered that the annual amount of Longline category quota allocated in the IBQ system for 2025 and 2026 is the baseline Longline category quota of 209.3 mt (not including the 25 mt for the NED). The Reserve category quota totals 38.2 mt. Although this transfer will reduce the Reserve category quota to 7.4 mt, NMFS anticipates having sufficient quota available in the Reserve category for any future transfers, as appropriate. As described above, NMFS is currently working on a rulemaking to implement ICCAT Recommendation 25-05. This rulemaking would consider an increase to the U.S. BFT quota and subquotas, including the Reserve and Longline category quotas, as appropriate.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, pelagic longline vessel owners are required per § 635.35(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT through VMS. Longline category permit holders are reminded that all BFT discarded dead must be reported through VMS, and accounted for in the online IBQ system, consistent with requirements at § 635.15(a).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to provide comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason adjustments and quota transfers, including for the longline category, to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, the regional variations in the BFT fishery, and the need to optimize fishing opportunity. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and a quota transfer needs to happen early in the year to facilitate effective leasing and more certainty in operational decisions. Delaying this action could result in adverse impacts for those permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to reduce or resolve quota debt, lease quota to other vessels, as well as delay potential beneficial effects like the ability for vessel operators to make plans for their participation in target fisheries for other species later this year. Additionally, a delay in implementing this transfer would preclude the fishery from harvesting target species that are currently available on fishing grounds ( i.e., due to IBQ constraints). This action does not raise conservation and management concerns and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. Transferring quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category does not affect the overall ICCAT-allocated U.S. BFT quota. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the IBQ program, U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the FMP prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA set the 2026 Pacific cod TAC at 22,235 metric tons (mt) in the GOA (90 FR 12468, March 18, 2025). In December 2025, the Council considered and recommended updated 2026 specifications for Pacific cod as part of the final 2026 and 2027 harvest specifications. As recommended by the Council in December 2025, the overfishing limit (OFL) was set at 36,459 mt for the GOA-wide stock and the apportionment of the allowable biological catch (ABC) was set at 8,182 mt, 19,263 mt, and 2,748 mt for the Western Gulf Regulatory Area (WGOA), Central Gulf Regulatory Area (CGOA), and the Eastern Gulf Regulatory Area (EGOA), respectively. In December 2025, the Council also recommended a 2026 Pacific cod TAC of 21,826 mt for the GOA, which is less than the 22,235 mt established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The decrease in TAC was due to the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)'s increase in the State of Alaska (State) guideline harvest level (GHL) from 30 to 35 percent for the WGOA in October 2025.

NMFS adjusted the 2026 Pacific cod TAC to 21,826 mt (90 FR 60022, December 23, 2025) consistent with the Council's recommendation. Because the GHL had increased for the WGOA, the WGOA TAC and GOA-wide TAC were adjusted to account for that increase to ensure that the sum of all Pacific cod removals from State and Federal waters in the GOA do not exceed the Pacific cod ABC.

Stock assessments were not completed in 2025 due to the lapse in Federal appropriations and resulting government shutdown from October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025. The December 2025 Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC's) recommendations for Pacific cod in the GOA were informed by the Groundfish Plan Team's recommended OFL and ABC from their November 2024 meeting as well as a review of the most recent Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report dated November 2024.

In December 2025, the Council requested the Alaska Fisheries Science Center update the stock assessment for Pacific cod in the GOA and provide the assessment to the Groundfish Plan Team for review. In January 2026, the Groundfish Plan Team reviewed the assessment and recommended OFL and ABC based on the updated Pacific cod stock assessment. At the February 2026 Council meeting, the SSC reviewed the updated stock assessment and made their own recommendations for OFL and ABC. The Council then recommended a 2026 Pacific cod TAC based on the SSC's OFL and ABC recommendations. As recommended by the SSC and Council in February 2026, the OFL is 49,782 mt and the ABC is 41,520 mt for the GOA-wide stock. The apportionment of the ABC is 10,297 mt, 28,732 mt, and 2,491 mt for the WGOA, CGOA, and EGOA, respectively. The TACs are adjusted from the ABC to account for the State's GHL for each subarea to ensure that the sum of all Pacific cod removals from State and Federal waters in the GOA do not exceed the Pacific cod ABC. These adjustments account for the GHL increase from 30 to 35 percent for the WGOA established by the BOF in October 2025 and an increase from 25 to 27 percent for the EGOA established by the State's recommendation and Council's motion in February 2026. There were no GHL changes for the CGOA, which remains at 25 percent. As a result, total TAC is set at 30,053 mt, and TACs are 6,693 mt, 21,549 mt, and 1,811 mt for the WGOA, CGOA, and EGOA, respectively.

Steller sea lions occur in the same location as Pacific cod fisheries and are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Pacific cod are one of the predominant prey species for Steller sea lions in the GOA. Regulations implementing Steller sea lion protection measures include regulations at § 679.20(a)(12)(i) that specify, for each sector, the seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod TAC in the WGOA and CGOA.

In accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(iv), the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that, based on the best scientific information available for this fishery, the 2026 Pacific cod TACs and subsequent sector allocations and seasonal apportionments are incorrectly specified, as they are not using the most recent data available, which is the updated Pacific cod stock assessment and OFL and ABC reviewed by the Plan Team in January 2026 and the SSC and Council in February 2026. NMFS also has determined it is necessary to adjust the Pacific cod TACs and sector allocations and seasonal apportionments to prevent harvest of the Pacific cod TACs that are incorrectly specified based on the 2024 stock assessment.

Consequently, the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2026 GOA Pacific cod TAC to 30,053 mt. This determination is based on the most recent GOA Pacific cod stock assessment and SSC recommendations for OFL and ABC, which is the best available scientific information on biological stock status. The adjustment to TAC is reasonably related to the change in biological stock status as reflected in the most recent Pacific cod stock assessment and OFL and ABC. This determination is also based on TAC recommendations by the Council at the February 2026 meeting, and in consideration of the increase in the State GHL for the State waters fishery in the WGOA. The adjustments are necessary to ensure that the Pacific cod TACs are seasonally apportioned among sectors consistent with Steller sea lion protection measures set forth in regulation (§ 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A) and (B)).

Pursuant to § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2026 GOA Pacific cod TAC to 30,053 mt. Therefore, table 2 and 6 of the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (90 FR 12468, March 18, 2025) and inseason adjustment (90 FR 60022, December 23, 2025) is revised consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to §§ 679.25(a)(1)(iii), 679.20(a)(6)(ii), and (a)(12)(i), table 6 of the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (90 FR 12468, March 18, 2025) and inseason adjustment (90 FR 60022, December 23, 2025) is revised consistent with this adjustment. Note that regulations at § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and (a)(12)(i) require NMFS to allocate TACs to gear and operational types using the sector percentages specified in regulation.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data and information in a timely fashion and would not allow all available A season Pacific cod TAC to be harvested based on the most recent information available. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data and information only became available as of February 5, 2026, which is the date the Council took action to recommend 2026 Pacific cod specifications following the SSC's review February 2 and the Plan Team's review January 21. This action must be effective as soon as possible, to ensure harvests of Pacific cod that are within TACs set using the best available scientific information and that are consistent with seasonal apportionments for Pacific cod that are based on regulations implementing Steller sea lion protection measures.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod in the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above ADDRESSES section until February 25, 2026.

There is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this action effective immediately upon filing with the Office of the Federal Register. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.