Rule2026-02588
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Southeast U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Wood Stork From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 10, 2026
Effective
March 12, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the Southeast U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that delisting the species is warranted. Our review indicates that the threats to the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 4 and 7, will no longer apply to the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5826-5855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02588]
[[Page 5826]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099; FXES11130900000FEDR-267-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BF53
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Southeast U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Wood Stork From the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
the Southeast U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of the wood stork
(Mycteria americana) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data
available, we find that delisting the species is warranted. Our review
indicates that the threats to the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork
have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer
meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Accordingly, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the
Act, particularly through sections 4 and 7, will no longer apply to the
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork.
DATES: This rule is effective March 12, 2026.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Comments and materials we received are available
for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2022-0099.
Availability of supporting materials: This rule and supporting
documents, including the Recovery Plan, post-delisting monitoring plan,
and the species status assessment (SSA) report, are available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikki Colangelo, Supervisor, Division
of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Ecological Services Office; telephone: 772-226-8138;
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ad4f3f1f1f3c5d9f5f6fbf4fdfff6f5dafcede9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0eec9cbcbc9ffe3cfccc1cec7c5cccfe0c6d7d38ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, 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.
Previous Federal Actions
On February 28, 1984, we listed the U.S. breeding population of the
wood stork as an endangered species under the Act because it had
declined by more than 75 percent over a 50-year time period starting in
the 1930s (49 FR 7332). 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.''
Peer Review
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 (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-
[[Page 5827]]
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).
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
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:
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> We added new demographic data, including total number of
nesting pairs (from 2022), and productivity rates (for 2020, 2021, and
2022).
<bullet> We added information regarding nesting colony turnover in
wood storks and colony location records.
<bullet> 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.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
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.
Public Comments
(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.
[[Page 5828]]
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
[[Page 5829]]
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
[[Page 5830]]
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.
Background
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).
Distribution, Ecology, and Life History
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).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 5831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE26.001
Figure 1. Wood stork breeding regions, active colony sites, large
colony sites, and wetland habitat suitable for wood stork occupancy.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
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
[[Page 5832]]
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 <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8477">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8477</a> and at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2022-0099).
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all 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):
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> Criterion 2: A 5-year average regional productivity (in
each of four breeding regions) of greater than 1.5 chicks per nest per
year.
<bullet> 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).
Table 1--Moving 5-Year Averages of Nesting Pairs in the U.S. Wood Stork Breeding Population (i.e., Across the Entire DPS)
[As indicated by nest counts from 2014 (year of reclassification) to 2022. Numbers in bold are those that meet the recovery criterion.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9,226 9,941 10,171 10,650 11,012 10,582 * 10,713 * 11,139 * 11,224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2020 COVID protocols precluded a survey of all the nesting colonies in 2020. Thus, the averages in 2020, 2021, and 2022 are 4-year averages using the
appropriate 5-year timeframe but lacking data from 2020.
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)
[[Page 5833]]
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).
Table 2--Moving 5-Year Averages of Wood Stork Productivity (Chicks Fledged per Nest per Year) by Breeding Region, 2014-2022
[Note: No productivity data was collected for the Northwest Breeding Region in 2022. Numbers in bold are those that meet the recovery criterion (1.5
chicks fledged/nest/year).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding region 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast............................................ 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 * 1.8 * 1.8 * 1.8
Northwest............................................ 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 * 1.6 * 1.6
Central.............................................. 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 * 1.8 * 1.8 * 1.6
South................................................ 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 * 0.8 * 1.1 * 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2020 COVID protocols precluded a survey of all the nesting colonies in 2020. Thus, the averages in 2020, 2021, and 2022 are based off incomplete data
sets, but represent the best available information.
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).
Table 3--Moving 5-Year Averages of Wood Stork Nesting Pairs in the South Breeding Region, 2012-2022
[Numbers in bold are those that meet the recovery criteria.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,116 2,650 2,021 2,048 1,941 3,033 2,895 2,576 2,722 3,088 2,786
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 5834]]
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.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
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
[[Page 5835]]
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.
Analytical Framework
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
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.
Species Needs
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
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).
Habitat Loss, Conversion, and Degradation
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
[[Page 5836]]
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).
Climate
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
[[Page 5837]]
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
[[Page 5838]]
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.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
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:
<bullet> 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).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 5839]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE26.002
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Figure 2. Conservation lands and easements within the breeding range of
the wood stork, which includes the current core foraging area (CFA),
occupy 17.4 million acres including 9.2 million acres of wetlands.
<bullet> 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
[[Page 5840]]
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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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).
[[Page 5841]]
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
Cumulative Effects
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.
Current Condition
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.
Current Resiliency
Demographic factors such as abundance, adult survival, reproductive
success, juvenile recruitment, and population growth influence wood
stork resiliency. To assess the current condition of the wood stork, we
focused on those factors that contribute to resiliency, including
nesting population size (number of pairs/nests), population growth
trend, number of large, persistent nesting colonies (colonies that
consistently support 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).
Table 4--Wood Stork Population Condition Categories Based on Population Metrics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population metric Low condition Moderate condition High condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population size (nests/pair)......... <1,500................. 1,500-2,499............ >2,500.
Large persistent colonies............ 0-1.................... 2-4.................... 5 or more.
Productivity......................... <1.3................... 1.3-1.7................ >1.7.
Population trend..................... Declining.............. Stable................. Increasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 5842]]
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).
Table 5--Current Condition of Each Wood Stork Breeding Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large persistent Overall demographic
Breeding region Population size Population trend colonies Productivity condition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast.......................... High.................. High.................. High................. High................. High.
Northwest.......................... Low................... Moderate.............. Low.................. High................. Moderate.
Central............................ Moderate.............. Low................... Very Low............. Moderate............. Moderate-Low.
South.............................. High.................. Moderate.............. High................. Low.................. High-Moderate.
Southeast U.S. DPS................. High-Moderate......... Moderate.............. Moderate............. High-Moderate........ High-Moderate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Table 6--5-Year Average and Maximum Nesting Pair Counts 2008-2022 by
Breeding Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding region 5-Year average Maximum count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast......................... 4,187 4,700
Northwest......................... 1,510 2,100
Central........................... 2,690 4,800
South............................. 2,106 6,300
Southeast U.S..................... (10,493) (17,900)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Redundancy and Representation
As previously described, the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork
is a wide-ranging, single population, with all breeding occurring in
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. However, 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
[[Page 5843]]
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.
Future Condition Methodology
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
[[Page 5844]]
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).
Table 7--Three Potential Future Scenarios for the Southeast U.S. DPS of
the Wood Stork Based on Climate Change, Land Use, and Conservation
Efforts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land use change/ Conservation
Climate change development actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1--Intermediate sea level rise; no change in conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea-level rise: NOAA SLEUTH 2050 & 2080 Wetland habitat
``intermediate'' projection. Nesting colony protections,
core foraging conservation,
area habitat management,
impacted by acquisitions, and
development (70 restoration
percent efforts at least
probability or at current
greater) by 2050 levels.
and 2080.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 2--High sea level rise; no change in conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea-level rise: NOAA ``high'' SLEUTH 2050 & 2080 Wetland habitat
projection. Nesting colony protections,
core foraging conservation,
area habitat management,
impacted by acquisitions, and
development (70 restoration
percent efforts at least
probability or at current
greater) by 2050 levels.
and 2080.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 3--High sea level rise; reduced conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea-level rise: NOAA ``high'' SLEUTH 2050 & 2080 Wetland habitat
projection. Nesting colony regulatory
core foraging protections,
area habitat conservation
impacted by management, and
development (70 acquisitions
percent decreased due to
probability or changes in
greater) by 2050 regulatory
and 2080. mechanisms and
lower funding
levels
Restoration: No
longer targeting
benefits for wood
storks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 5845]]
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).
Future Condition
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
[[Page 5846]]
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
[[Page 5847]]
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).
Table 8--Wood Stork Breeding Habitat in the Southeast U.S. Coastal Plain by 2080 Under High Sea Level Rise (SLR)
Projections: Total Suitable Wetland Habitat and Habitat Either Impacted or Unimpacted by SLR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total suitable Suitable acres Unimpacted
Southeast U.S. coastal plain wetlands wetland acres impacted by SLR suitable acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding range total................................... 26,245,187 5,715,903 20,529,284
Total within current core foraging area (CFA).......... 10,808,704 3,531,743 7,276,961
Total outside current CFA.............................. 15,436,483 2,184,170 13,252,323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 5848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE26.003
Figure 3. Suitable wetland habitat, including that within the current
core foraging area (CFA), available for wood storks in 2080 given high
(4 feet) sea level rise (SLR) projections across the wood stork's
breeding range in the southeast U.S. coastal plain.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
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
[[Page 5849]]
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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE26.004
Figure 4. Long-term (1975-2022) wood stork population growth trend
illustrated by annual wood stork nesting pair counts and projected out
to 2100.
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.
Table 9--Number of Wood Stork Nesting Colonies That Became Active or Inactive During Four 10-Year Periods and
the 10-Year Annual Average Number of Colonies During That Timeframe
[Note: There have been 322 different nesting sites since 1982.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood stork colonies 1982-1991 1992-2001 2002-2011 2012-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New............................................. 37 90 76 47
Became inactive................................. 22 34 55 58
10-year annual average.......................... 25 43 85 97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 5850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE26.005
Figure 5. Active wood stork colonies 1975-1979 (left) and 2015-2019
(right); and wetland habitat generally suitable for wood storks
(right).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
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
[[Page 5851]]
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.
Future Resiliency
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.
Future Redundancy
Overall, the future scenarios project either the continuation of
current conditions or some deteriorated conditions within each of the
four breeding regions. We project that overall wood stork breeding
conditions will be adequate and all of the breeding regions (as
currently defined) will be maintained despite varying degrees of
potential habitat loss, conversion, or degradation; 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.
Future Representation
No behavioral, genetic, morphological, or observable variations
have been described within or among the breeding regions in the
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork. However, current representation
is thought to be high due to the wood stork's historically demonstrated
ability to continuously respond to changing habitat conditions and
maintain and increase abundance while expanding its range northward. If
current trends continue, it would be expected that the wood stork's
range will continue to shift and expand. The large majority of the
breeding range, which extends across four States, is predicted to
maintain resiliency into the future, and thus we expect that the wood
stork will continue to be represented within the 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.
Determination of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the Wood Stork's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
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
[[Page 5852]]
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.);
[[Page 5853]]
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.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
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
[[Page 5854]]
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.
[[Page 5855]]
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the
definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be
invalid.
Determination of Status
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.
Effects of This Rule
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.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species 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.
Required Determinations
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal
Governments;'' 59 FR 22951, 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.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2022-0099 and upon request from the Florida Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by removing the entry for ``Stork, wood [Southeast
U.S. DPS]'' under BIRDS.
Brian Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-02588 Filed 2-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 10, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.