Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75947

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR you use a telecommunications device • When the continental U.S. breeding for the deaf (TDD), please call the population of wood stork was listed in Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Information Relay Service 1984, the population was known to (FIRS) at 800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, occur only in Florida, Georgia, South 50 CFR Part 17 7 days a week. Carolina, and Alabama. Based on new [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0020; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information about where the population 92220–1113–0000–C6] is found and where nesting is occurring, Executive Summary the population is now known to occur RIN 1018–AX60 Why We Need To Publish a Rule in North Carolina and Mississippi in addition to Florida, Georgia, South Endangered and Threatened Wildlife • In September 2007, we completed a Carolina, and Alabama. and Plants; Reclassification of the 5-year status review, which included a • The best available scientific and Continental U.S. Breeding Population recommendation to reclassify the commercial data indicate that since the of the Wood Stork From Endangered to continental U.S. breeding population of continental U.S. breeding population of Threatened the wood stork from endangered to wood stork was listed as endangered in threatened. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984, the population has been • In May 2009, we received a petition Interior. increasing and its breeding range has to reclassify the continental U.S. ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of expanded significantly. breeding population of wood stork; the • Downlisting criteria from the petition finding. petition incorporated the Service’s 5- recovery plan have been met or SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and year review as its sole supporting exceeded. We have had 3-year information. population averages of total nesting Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), • propose to reclassify the continental On September 21, 2010, we pairs of wood storks higher than 6,000 United States (U.S.) breeding population published a 90-day finding that the nesting pairs since 2003. However, the of wood stork from endangered to petition presented substantial 5-year average number of nesting pairs threatened under the Endangered information indicating that reclassifying is still below the benchmark of 10,000 Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). the wood stork may be warranted (75 FR nesting pairs identified in the recovery 57426). plan for delisting. In addition, We find that the best available scientific • and commercial data indicate that the This proposed rule, in accordance productivity, even though variable, is endangered designation no longer with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the sufficient to support a growing correctly reflects the current status of Endangered Species Act (Act), population. • the continental U.S. breeding constitutes our 12-month finding on the As a result of continued loss, population of the wood stork due to a petition we received. fragmentation, and modification of substantial improvement in the species’ Summary of the Major Provisions of wetland habitats in parts of the wood overall status. This proposed rule also This Proposed Rule stork’s range, we find that the constitutes our 12-month finding on the continental U.S. wood stork DPS meets • We propose to reclassify the petition to reclassify the species. the definition of a threatened species continental U.S. breeding population of under section 3 of the Act. DATES: We will accept comments on this wood stork from endangered to proposed rule received or postmarked threatened. Public Comments on or before February 25, 2013. We must • This proposed rule constitutes our We intend that any final action receive requests for a public hearing, in 12-month petition finding. resulting from this proposed rule will be FOR writing at the address shown in the • We determine that the continental as accurate and as effective as possible. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, U.S. breeding population of wood stork Therefore, we are requesting comments by February 11, 2013. meets the criteria of a distinct from other concerned governmental ADDRESSES: You may submit comments population segment (DPS) under our agencies, Native American Tribes, the by one of the following methods: 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722). scientific community, industry, or any • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// • We propose to amend the List of other interested party concerning this www.regulations.gov. Follow the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed rule. We particularly seek instructions for submitting comments (50 CFR 17.11(h)) to reflect that the U.S. information and comments concerning: on Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0020. wood stork DPS is found in the States (1) The historical and current status • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and distribution of the wood stork, its Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4– North Carolina, Alabama, and biology and ecology, and ongoing ES–2011–0020; Division of Policy and Mississippi. conservation measures for the species Directives Management; U.S. Fish and and its habitat. The Basis for Our Action Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, (2) Wood stork nesting colony Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. • The continental U.S. breeding location data (latitude/longitude in We will post all comments on population of wood stork was listed decimal degrees to confirm or improve http://www.regulations.gov. This under the Act in 1984, prior to our location accuracy); nest census generally means that we will post any publication of the joint policy of the counts and survey dates; years when a personal information you provide us National Marine Fisheries Service and colony was active or not; years and (see the Public Comments section below U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dates when a colony was abandoned for more information). (Services) regarding the recognition of (fully or partially); and annual FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: distinct vertebrate population segments productivity rates (per total nest starts Field Supervisor, North Florida (61 FR 4722). We find that the and per successful nests) and average Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 continental U.S. breeding population of chicks per nest estimates from Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, wood stork meets the discreteness and continental U.S. colonies. Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone 904– significance elements of the Services’ (3) Current or planned activities 731–3336; facsimile 904–731–3045. If DPS policy and is a valid DPS. within the geographic range of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

continental U.S. breeding population of and reports, including the revised also occasionally consume crustaceans, the wood stork that may impact or recovery plan for the continental U.S. amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, benefit the species, including any breeding population of the wood stork and arthropods (Coulter et al. 1999, p. acquisition of large tracts of wetlands, (USFWS 1997), The Birds of North 7). Wood storks forage in a variety of wetland restoration projects, planned America Online species account for shallow wetlands, wherever prey developments, roads, or expansion of wood stork (Coulter et al. 1999), and the concentrations reach high enough agricultural or mining enterprises, South Florida Multi-Species Recovery densities, in water that is shallow and especially those near nesting colonies Plan (USFWS 1999). open enough for the birds to be and surrounding suitable foraging successful in their hunting efforts Taxonomy and Species Description habitats. (Ogden et al. 1978, pp. 15–17; Browder Prior to issuing a final rule on this The wood stork (Mycteria americana) 1984, p. 94; Coulter and Bryan 1993, p. proposed action, we will take into is one of 19 species of storks that make 59). Fish populations reach high consideration all comments and up the family Ciconiidae (Coulter et al. numbers during the wet season, but additional information we receive. Such 1999, p. 3). It is one of three species of become concentrated in increasingly information may lead to a final rule that storks found in the western hemisphere restricted habitats as drying occurs. differs from this proposal. All comments (Coulter et al. 1999, p. 3) and the only Typical foraging sites include and recommendations, including names stork that breeds north of Mexico freshwater marshes, swales, ponds, and addresses, will become part of the (Ogden 1990, p. B–3). The wood stork hardwood and cypress swamps, narrow administrative record for the final rule. shows no obvious morphological tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, and You may submit your comments and differentiation across its range, and no artificial wetlands (such as stock ponds; materials concerning this proposed rule subspecies have been proposed. shallow, seasonally flooded, roadside or by one of the methods listed in the The wood stork is a large, long-legged agricultural ditches; and ADDRESSES section. If you submit a wading bird, with a head-to-tail length impoundments) (Coulter and Bryan comment via http:// of 85–115 centimeters (cm) (33–45 1993, p. 59; Coulter et al. 1999, p. 5). www.regulations.gov, your entire inches (in)) and a wingspread of 150– The wetland foraging areas near a comment, including any personal 165 cm (59–65 in- or roughly 5 to 5.5 nesting colony play a vital role during identifying information, will be posted feet). The plumage is white, except for the nesting season (Cox et al. 1994, p. on the Web site. Please note that iridescent black primary and secondary 135). Nesting wood storks generally use comments submitted to this Web site are wing feathers and a short black tail. foraging sites that are located within a not immediately viewable. When you Storks fly with their necks and legs 30- to 50-kilometer (km) (18- to 31-mile submit a comment, the system receives extended. On adults, the rough, scaly (mi)) flight range of the colony; it immediately. However, the comment skin of the head and neck is unfeathered successful colonies are those that have will not be publicly viewable until we and blackish in color, the legs are dark, options to feed during a variety of post it, which might not occur until and the feet are dull pink. The bill color rainfall and surface water conditions several days after submission. If you is also blackish. Immature storks, up to (Coulter 1987, p. 22; Bryan and Coulter mail or hand deliver hard copy the age of about 3 years, differ from 1987, p. 157; Coulter et al. 1999, pp. 17– comments that include personal adults in that their bills are yellowish or 18; Herring 2007, p. 60; Bryan and identifying information, you may straw-colored and there are varying Stephens 2007, p. 6; Meyers 2010, p. 5; request at the top of your documents amounts of dusky feathers on the head Lauritsen et al. 2010, p. 3; Tomlinson that we withhold this information from and neck. During courtship and early 2009, p. 30). Early in the nesting season, public review. However, we cannot nesting season, adults have pale salmon the short-hydroperiod wetlands supply guarantee that we will be able to do so. coloring under the wings, fluffy coverts most of the forage, whereas later, the To ensure that the electronic docket for (feathers under the base of a bird’s tail) long-hydroperiod wetlands supply the this rulemaking is complete and all that are longer than the tail, and toes prey needed to successfully fledge the comments we receive are publicly that brighten to a vivid pink. offspring (Fleming et al. 1994, p. 754). available, we will post all hard copy Life Span Mating and Reproduction comments on http:// www.regulations.gov. Wood storks are considered a long- Wood storks are seasonally lived species with delayed breeding, monogamous, probably forming a new Public Hearing with first breeding generally occurring pair bond every season. There is The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for 3- to 4-year old birds. The greatest documented first breeding at 3 and 4 provides for one or more public recorded longevities are 17+ years for a years old. Nest initiation varies hearings on this proposal, if requested. wild adult wood stork caught and fitted geographically. Wood storks lay eggs as We must receive your request for a with a satellite tag and leg bands in early as October and as late as June in public hearing within 45 days after the 1998, and recently documented at the Florida (Rodgers 1990, pp. 48–51). date of this Federal Register publication Harris Neck nesting colony in 2011 Wood storks in north Florida, Georgia, (see DATES). Such requests must be (Larry Bryan, SREL, pers. comm., 2011), and South Carolina initiate nesting on a made in writing and addressed to the and 27.5 years for a captive bird seasonal basis regardless of Field Supervisor (see FOR FURTHER (Brouwer et al. 1992, p. 132). environmental conditions (USFWS INFORMATION CONTACT section above). 1997, p. 6). They lay eggs from March Feeding to late May, with fledging occurring in Background The specialized feeding behavior of July and August. Historically, nest Much of the basic biological the wood stork involves tactilocation, initiation in south Florida was in information presented in this section is also called grope feeding, where the December and January; however, in based upon existing literature published stork uses its bill to find small fish. response to the altered habitat on the continental U.S. breeding Wood storks feed primarily on fish conditions (wetland drainage, population of the wood stork. This between 2 and 25 cm (1 and 10 in) in hydroperiod alteration) in south Florida, section summarizes information found length (Kahl 1964, pp. 107–108; Ogden wood storks nesting in Everglades in a large body of published literature et al. 1976, pp. 325–327). Wood storks National Park and in the Big Cypress

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75949

region of Florida have delayed initiation average of 2.29 fledglings per nesting breeding population of wood storks is of nesting to February or March in most attempt in 2009, with average annual also in transition. The wood stork years since the 1970s. Colonies that start rates ranging from 0.00 (abandonment) appears to have adapted to changes in after January in south Florida risk to 2.55 (2001–2010). habitat in south Florida in part by having young in the nests when May– nesting later, nesting in colonies in the Habitat June rains flood marshes and disperse interior Everglades system (Ogden 1994, fish, which can cause nest Wood storks use a wide variety of p. 566), and by expanding its breeding abandonment. freshwater and estuarine wetlands for range north into Georgia, South Females generally lay a single clutch nesting, feeding, and roosting Carolina, and North Carolina (Brooks of two to five eggs per breeding season, throughout their range and thus are and Dean 2008, p. 58). but the average is three eggs. Females dependent upon a mosaic of wetlands sometimes lay a second clutch if nest for breeding and foraging. For nesting, Distribution failure occurs early in the season wood storks generally select patches of The wood stork occurs in South (Coulter et al. 1999, p. 11). Average medium to tall trees as nesting sites, America from northern Argentina, clutch size may increase during years of which are located either in standing eastern Peru, and western Ecuador, favorable water levels and food water such as swamps, or on islands north into Central America, Mexico, resources. Incubation requires about 30 surrounded by relatively broad expanses Cuba, Hispaniola, and the southern days and begins after the female lays the of open water (Ogden 1991, p. 43). United States. The breeding range first one or two eggs. Nestlings require Colony sites located in standing water includes the southeastern United States about 9 weeks for fledging, but the must remain inundated throughout the in North America, Cuba and Hispaniola young return to the nest for an nesting cycle to protect against in the Caribbean, and southern Mexico additional 3 to 4 weeks to be fed. Actual predation and nest abandonment. A through Central America (Figure 1). In colony production measurements are wood stork tends to use the same colony South America, the breeding range is difficult to determine because of the site over many years, as long as the site west of the Andes south from Colombia prolonged fledging period, during remains undisturbed, and sufficient to western Ecuador, east of the Andes which time the young return daily to the feeding habitat remains in the from Colombia south through the colony to be fed. surrounding wetlands. Wood storks may Amazonas in Brazil to eastern Peru, Wood storks experience considerable abandon traditional wetland sites if northern Bolivia and northern Argentina variation in production among colonies, changes in water management result in east to the Atlantic coast through regions, and years in response to local water loss from beneath the colony Paraguay, Uruguay, and north to the and regional habitat conditions and food trees. Guianas (Figure 1; Coulter et al. 1999, p. availability (Kahl 1964, p. 115; Ogden et Typical foraging sites include a 2). The winter range in Central and al. 1978, pp. 10–14; Clark 1978, p. 183; mosaic of shallow water wetlands. South America is not well studied, but Rodgers and Schwikert 1997, pp. 84– Several factors affect the suitability of wood storks are known to occur year- 85). Several recent studies documented potential foraging habitat for wood round as a resident throughout the production rates to be similar to rates storks. Foraging habitats must provide breeding range. published between the 1970s and 1990s. both a sufficient density and biomass of Rodgers et al. (2008, p. 25) reported a forage fish and other prey and have At the time of listing in 1984, the combined production rate for 21 north- vegetation characteristics that allow range of the continental U.S. breeding and central-Florida colonies from 2003 storks to locate and capture prey. Calm population of wood storks was Florida, to 2005 of 1.19 ± 0.09 fledglings per nest water, about 5 to 40 cm (2 to 16 in) in Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. attempt (n = 4,855 nests). Rodgers et al. depth, and free of dense aquatic Breeding was restricted primarily to (2009, p. 3) also reported the St. Johns vegetation, is preferred (Coulter and peninsular Florida (22 colonies in River basin production rate of 1.49 ± Bryan 1993, p. 61). During nesting, these 1983), with only four colonies occurring 1.21 fledglings per nest attempt (n = areas must also be sufficiently close to in Georgia and South Carolina. The 3,058 nests) and for successful nests an the colony to allow storks to deliver current breeding range includes average fledgling rate of 2.26 ± 0.73 prey to nestlings efficiently. Hydrologic peninsular Florida (48 colonies in fledglings per nest attempt (n = 2,105 and environmental characteristics have 2010), the coastal plain and large river nests) from 2004 to 2008. Bryan and strong effects on fish density, and these systems of Georgia (21 colonies) and Robinette (2008, p. 20) reported rates of factors may be some of the most South Carolina (13 colonies), and 2.3 and 1.6 fledged young per nesting significant in determining foraging southern North Carolina (1 colony). The attempt in 2004 and 2005, respectively, habitat suitability. breeding range also extends west to for South Carolina and Georgia. Murphy Alterations in the quality and amount south-central Georgia and the and Coker (2008, p. 5) reported that of foraging habitats in the Florida panhandle of Florida to the since the wood stork was listed in 1984, Everglades and extensive drainage and Ochlockonee River system. The South Carolina colonies averaged 2.08 land conversions throughout south nonbreeding season range includes all young per successful nest with a range Florida led to the initial decline of the of Florida; the coastal plains and large of 1.72 to 2.73. The Palm Beach County wood stork nesting population. Since river systems of Alabama, Georgia, (PBC) Solid Waste Authority colony (M. listing under the Act, wood stork South Carolina; and southern North Morrison, PBC, pers. comm., 2011) was nesting and winter counts appear to be Carolina and eastern Mississippi. documented with 0.75 fledgling per increasing slightly in south Florida and Wood storks are not true migrants, but nesting attempt in 2010, with annual the Everglades (Newman 2009, p. 51; some individuals do undergo lengthy rates ranging from 0.11 to 1.49 (2003 to Alvarado and Bass 2009, p. 40), but the inter-regional travel in response to 2010). The Corkscrew Sanctuary colony timing and location of nesting has resource availability (Coulter et al. 1999, in Naples, Florida (J. Lauritsen, changed in response to alterations in p. 3; Bryan et al. 2008, p. 39). Generally, Audubon, pers. comm., 2011), hydrology and habitat (Ogden 1994, p. wood storks disperse following documented no nesting in 2010, but an 566). The overall distribution of the breeding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

As the rainy season begins in May in the coastal plain and coastal marshes in et al. 1999, p. 65; Bryan et al. 2008, pp. south Florida and the Everglades, post- the southeast United States in July to 39–41). Wood storks are seasonal breeding wood storks, fledglings, and August after the breeding season. Most visitors in Texas, Louisiana, the lower juveniles disperse throughout wood storks in this population winter in Mississippi Valley, and California. peninsular Florida and many move south and central Florida and along the These are post breeders and juveniles northward along the coastlines and coast of peninsular Florida, Georgia, and from Central America (Rechnitzer 1956, coastal plain of Georgia, South Carolina, South Carolina. These inter-regional p. 431; Coulter et al. 1999, pp. 4–5). North Carolina and westward along movements have been documented Bryan et al. (2008, pp. 39–40) suggest large river basins in Alabama and through color marking, banding, radio- that wood storks observed in western eastern Mississippi. Individuals from telemetry and satellite-telemetry studies Mississippi and Louisiana originate northern Florida, Georgia, and South (Comer et al. 1987, p. 165; Ogden 1996, from Central America, and wood storks Carolina colonies also disperse across p. 34; Coulter et al. 1999, p. 4; Savage found in eastern Mississippi originate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with EP26DE12.000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75951

from the continental U.S. population. thought to be decreasing, the decline is not wood storks likely did not breed. In the Behaviorally, wood storks are not thought to be sufficiently rapid to reach initial 26-year period of listing under predisposed to travel across the open critical thresholds to threaten the species the Act (1984 to 2010), 17 surveys of all waters like the Gulf of Mexico, as they (BirdLife 2009: A ‘‘vulnerable’’ population known nesting colonies of the wood exhibits a >30% decline over 10 years or use thermals for soaring flight for long- three generations). Population size estimates stork in the continental U.S. distance movements. The lack of for South America range from 50,000– population’s breeding range (Florida, thermals over open water restricts 100,000 wood storks (Byers et al. 1995) and Georgia, South Carolina, and North movements back and forth across the approximately 48,000–70,000 wood storks in Carolina) were completed. Eleven of Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Central Central and North America (Kushlan et al. those resulted in counts exceeding 6,000 and South America or the Caribbean. 2002). pairs. Seven of those higher counts Rangewide Status and Demographics The continental U.S. wood stork occurred during the past 10 years (2002, population decline between 1930 and 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010, At the global level, the International 1978 is attributed to reduction in the Table 1, Service 2010). Two counts of Union for Conservation of Nature food base necessary to support breeding over 10,000 pairs have occurred during (IUCN) classifies the wood stork as a colonies, which is thought to have been the past 5 years, and the count of 12,720 species of ‘‘least concern.’’ This is due related to loss of wetland habitats and pairs in 2009 is the highest on record to the apparent demographic stability changes in hydroperiods (Ogden and since the early 1960s. This population documented in its large range that Nesbitt 1979, p. 521; Ogden and Patty estimate along with a conservative encompasses portions of North, Central, 1981, p. 97; USFWS 1997, p. 10; Coulter estimate of 4,000 pre-breeding age birds and South America (IUCN 2010, p. 1). et al. 1999, p. 18). The continental U.S. suggest 30,000 storks were inhabiting Bryan and Borkhataria (2010, p. 2) breeding population is considered the United States in 2009 (Bryan and compiled and summarized the regionally endangered by IUCN due to Borkhataria 2010, p. 2). From 2009 to conservation status for wood storks in habitat degradation (IUCN 2011). Ogden 2011 there was a decline in observed Central and South America and provide (1978, p. 143) concluded the continental wood storks likely due to drought. It the following description with regard to U.S. wood stork breeding population in should be noted that the wood stork is the rangewide status of the wood stork: the 1930s was probably less than a long-lived species that demonstrates The IUCN Red List/BirdLife International 100,000 individuals, or between 15,000 considerable variation in nesting listing classifies the wood stork as a species and 20,000 pairs. The estimated population numbers in response to of ‘‘least concern’’ for its entire range continental U.S. population of breeding changing hydrological conditions. This (BirdLife International 2008, 2009). This wood storks throughout the long reproductive lifespan allows wood classification is based on breeding/resident southeastern United States declined storks to tolerate reproductive failure in range size, population trends, population from 15,000–20,000, to about 10,000 some years, and naturally occurring size. This classification is due in part to an extremely large global breeding range pairs in 1960, to a low of 2,700–5,700 events have undoubtedly always (estimated at 14,000,000 km2) and a pairs between 1977 and 1980 (Ogden et affected the breeding success of this moderately small to large population al. 1987, p. 752). The low of 2,700 species, causing breeding failures and estimate (38,000–130,000 birds). Although nesting pairs was documented in 1978, variability in annual nesting (USFWS the species’ global population trend is during the severe drought when many 1997, p. 11) and productivity.

TABLE 1—WOOD STORK NESTING DATA IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES (SERVICE 2011).

TOTAL FLORIDA GEORGIA SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA YEAR Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies

1975 ..... 9,752 27 9,610 24 142 3 ...... 1976 ..... 5,310 17 5,294 16 16 1 ...... 1977 ..... 5,263 25 5,125 21 138 4 ...... 1978 ..... 2,695 18 2,595 16 100 2 ...... 1979 ..... 4,648 24 3,800 22 55 2 ...... 1980 ..... 5,063 25 4,766 20 297 5 ...... 1981 ..... 4,442 22 4,156 19 275 2 11 1 ...... 1982 ..... 3,575 22 3,420 18 135 2 20 1 ...... 1983 ..... 5,983 25 5,600 22 363 2 20 1 ...... 1984 ..... 6,245 29 5,647 25 576 3 22 1 ...... 1985 ..... 5,193 23 4,562 30 557 5 74 1 ...... 1986 ...... ** ...... 648 4 120 3 ...... 1987 ...... ** ...... 506 5 194 3 ...... 1988 ...... ** ...... 311 4 179 3 ...... 1989 ...... ** ...... 543 6 376 3 ...... 1990 ...... ** ...... 709 10 536 6 ...... 1991 ..... 4,073 37 2,440 25 969 9 664 3 ...... 1992 ...... ** ...... 1,091 9 475 3 ...... 1993 ..... 6,729 43 4,262 29 1,661 11 806 3 ...... 1994 ..... 5,768 47 3,588 26 1,468 14 712 7 ...... 1995 ..... 7,853 54 5,523 31 1,501 17 829 6 ...... 1996 ...... ** ...... 1,480 18 953 7 ...... 1997 ...... ** ...... 1,379 15 917 8 ...... 1998 ...... ** ...... 1,665 15 1,093 10 ...... 1999 ..... 7,768 71 6,109 51 1,139 13 520 8 ...... 2000 ...... ** ...... 566 7 1,236 11 ...... 2001 ..... 5,582 44 3,246 23 1,162 12 1,174 9 ......

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—WOOD STORK NESTING DATA IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES (SERVICE 2011).—Continued

TOTAL FLORIDA GEORGIA SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA YEAR Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies Pairs Colonies

2002 ..... 7,855 70 5,463 46 1,256 14 1,136 10 ...... 2003 ..... 8,813 78 5,804 49 1,653 18 1,356 11 ...... 2004 ..... 8,379 93 4,726 63 1,596 17 2,057 13 ...... 2005 ..... 5,572 73 2,304 40 1,817 19 1,419 13 32 1 2006 ..... 11,279 82 7,216 48 1,928 21 2,010 13 125 1 2007 ..... 4,406 55 1,553 25 1,054 15 1,607 14 192 1 2008 ..... 6,118 73 1,838 31 2,292 25 1,839 16 149 1 2009 ..... 12,720 86 9,428 54 1,676 19 1,482 12 134 1 2010 ..... 8,149 94 3,828 51 2,708 28 1,393 14 220 1 2011 ..... 9,579 88 5,292 45 2,160 19 2,031 23 96 1 ** No survey data available for North and Central Florida.

Previous Federal Action movements, behavior, population status warranted but precluded from and trends, and factors contributing to immediate proposal by other pending On February 28, 1984, the Service the status of the continental U.S. proposals of higher priority and published a final rule listing the breeding population. It also presents a expeditious progress is being made to continental U.S. breeding population of detailed analysis of the five factors that add qualified species to the Lists. This the wood stork as endangered under the are the basis for determination of a proposed rule constitutes our 12-month Act, due primarily to the loss of suitable species’ status under section 4(a)(1) of finding that the action sought by the feeding habitat, particularly in south the Act. A copy of the 5-year status May 28, 2009, petition is warranted. Florida, and a declining population (49 review is available on our Web site Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment FR 7332). The endangered status covers (http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/ Analysis wood storks in the States of Alabama, five_year_review/doc1115.pdf) and Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina includes a recommendation to reclassify On February 7, 1996, we published in (the known range of the continental U.S. the continental U.S. breeding the Federal Register our ‘‘Policy breeding population at the time of population of the wood stork from Regarding the Recognition of Distinct listing). We developed a recovery plan endangered to threatened. Vertebrate Population Segments Under in 1986 for the continental U.S. We received a petition to reclassify the Endangered Species Act’’ (DPS breeding population of the wood stork. the continental U.S. breeding Policy) (61 FR 4722). For a population The recovery plan was revised on population of the wood stork as to be listed under the Act as a distinct January 27, 1997, and addressed threatened on May 28, 2009, from the vertebrate population segment, three existing and new threats and species Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of elements are considered: (1) The needs. the Florida Homebuilders Association. discreteness of the population segment We published a notice in the Federal The petition presented the Service’s in relation to the remainder of the Register on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 2007 5-year status review as its sole species to which it belongs; (2) the 56882) that we were conducting a 5-year supporting information. The petition significance of the population segment review for all endangered and incorporated the status review by to the species to which it belongs; and threatened species listed before January reference, including a summary of the (3) the population segment’s 1, 1991, including the wood stork. The five-factor analysis contained in the conservation status in relation to the notice indicated that if significant data status review, which included a Act’s standards for listing, (i.e., is the were available warranting a change in a recommendation to reclassify the population segment, when treated as if species’ classification, we would species. We found that the petition it were a species, endangered or propose a rule to modify the species’ presented substantial information threatened). The Act defines ‘‘species’’ status. We did not recommend a change indicating that reclassifying the to include ‘‘* * * any distinct in the wood stork’s listing classification continental U.S. breeding population of population segment of any species of under the Act at that time. On the wood stork to threatened may be vertebrate fish or wildlife which September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56545), we warranted. We published a notice interbreeds when mature’’ (16 U.S.C. published a notice in the Federal announcing our 90-day finding and 1532(16)). The best available scientific Register that we were initiating another initiation of the species’ status review in information supports recognition of the 5-year status review for the wood stork. the Federal Register on September 21, continental U.S. breeding population of We solicited information from the 2010 (75 FR 57426). the wood stork as a distinct vertebrate public concerning the status of the population segment. We discuss the species, including the status and trends Current Federal Action discreteness and significance of the of threats to the species under section Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires population segment within this section; 4(a)(1) of the Act. We completed the 5- that for any petition to revise the Lists the remainder of the document year status review on September 27, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife discusses the status of the continental 2007. Completed in accordance with and Plants (Lists) that presents U.S. wood stork DPS. section 4(c)(2) of the Act, the 5-year substantial information, we must make status review contains a detailed a finding within 12 months of the date Discreteness description of the species’ natural of the receipt of the petition, on whether The DPS policy states that a history and status, including the requested action is (a) Not population segment of a vertebrate information on distribution and warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) species may be considered discrete if it

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75953

satisfies either one of the following Lengthy inter- and intra-regional storks, indicating that either the conditions: movements, related to food availability, populations were only recently (1) It is markedly separated from other to the wetlands of the Mississippi River separated or that gene flow continues to populations of the same taxon as a Basin and adjacent coastal plain river occur at low levels, and the haplotype consequence of physical, physiological, basins have been documented from both network analysis indicated low levels of ecological, or behavioral factors. the continental U.S. population and gene flow between populations that Quantitative measures of genetic or Central American wood storks (Coulter were closely related in the past (Lopes morphological discontinuity may et al. 1999, p. 5; Bryan et al. 2008, pp. et al. 2011, p. 1911). Genetic studies provide evidence of this separation; or 40–41). These studies suggest post- indicate that there are nonsignificant (2) It is delimited by international breeding dispersal occurs along the differences between continental U.S. governmental boundaries between coastal plain, not across the Gulf of and Brazilian wood storks. However, which significant differences exist in Mexico, and that wood storks observed satellite tracked movements of U.S. and control of exploitation, management of in eastern Mississippi originate from the Central American wood storks indicate habitat, conservation status, or southeast United States, and those that U.S. and Brazilian birds likely do regulatory mechanisms that are observed in western Mississippi and not interbreed (Hylton 2004; Hylton et significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) Louisiana originate from Central al. 2006; Bryan et al. 2008; Borkahatria of the Act. America. A small percentage of wood 2009; Lauritsen 2010). Based on the Globally, wood storks occur only in storks from both the United States and genetic information, we conclude that a the Western Hemisphere and are Central America apparently overlap past demographic decline has led to the comprised of a mosaic of breeding during this post-breeding season reduced levels of genetic variability in populations in North, Central, and dispersal within Mississippi. There may all populations of wood stork that were South America, and the Caribbean, each be some small but unknown level of studied, that continental U.S. and other with unique nesting sites, foraging mixing between continental U.S. and populations were only recently areas, and seasonal movement patterns Central American breeding populations separated, that the southeastern U.S. in response to regional environmental in Mississippi (Bryan et al. 2008, pp. populations act as a single population, factors. Historically, wood storks nested 40–41; R. Borkhataria, University of and there is negligible or very low gene in all Atlantic and Gulf coastal United Florida, pers. comm., 2010). However, flow between populations in the United States from Texas to South Carolina based upon satellite-telemetry studies States and Brazil. (Bent 1926; Cone and Hall 1970; Dusi (e.g., Hylton 2004; Hylton et al. 2006; Consequently, we conclude based on and Dusi 1968; Howell 1932; Oberholser Bryan et al. 2008; Borkahatria 2009; the best available information that the 1938; Oberholser and Kincaid 1974; Lauritsen 2010) and other marking continental U.S. breeding population of Wayne 1910), although the colonies studies, mixing appears negligible. the wood stork is markedly separated outside Florida formed irregularly and Based on the above information, if the from wood stork populations in the contained few birds (Ogden and Nesbitt continental U.S. population were Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, 1979, p. 512). and South America based on physical Currently, the continental U.S. extirpated, it is our assessment that repopulation from the Central American separation and wood stork dispersal breeding population of wood storks is behavior. documented only in Mississippi, wood storks would not be sufficient to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South replenish the depleted population in the Significance Carolina, and North Carolina. The foreseeable future. The DPS policy states that continental U.S. wood stork population Genetic data support the conclusion populations that are found to be discrete represents the northernmost extent of that wood storks occurring in the will then be examined for their the wood stork’s range and the only southeastern United States function as biological or ecological significance to population breeding in the continental one population. Stangle et al. (1990, p. the taxon to which they belong. This United States (USFWS 1997, p. 1; 15) employed starch gel electrophoretic consideration may include evidence Coulter et al. 1999, pp. 2–3) The techniques to examine genetic variation that the loss of the population would continental U.S. population’s breeding in Florida wood stork colonies. The create a significant gap in the range of range is separated by the Strait of study did not indicate significant the taxon. The continental U.S. breeding Florida from the nearest nesting allozyme differences within or between population of the wood stork represents population, which is located in Cuba, colonies. Van Den Bussche et al. (1999, the northernmost portion of the species’ 151 km (94 mi); it is approximately 965 p. 1083) used a combination of DNA or range in the world (Coulter et al. 1999, km (600 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico allozyme approaches and found low p. 2) and the only population breeding from the nearest North American levels of genetic variability and allelic in the United States. Loss of this nesting colony, which breeds in diversity within Georgia and Florida population would result in a significant southern Mexico. However, wood storks colonies, suggesting one population of gap in the extent of the species’ range. are not behaviorally predisposed to wood storks in the southeastern United Because the nearest populations in the travel across the open ocean. Wood States. A genetic comparison using Caribbean and North America would storks use thermals for soaring flight for mtDNA between continental U.S. and not likely be able to naturally long-distance movements. The lack of Brazilian wood storks (the north and repopulate the continental U.S. breeding thermals over water may restrict south ends of the geographic range) population if it were extirpated, wood movements from Florida to the reveals that either a demographic storks would no longer breed in the Caribbean or to Mexico and Central and decline or a recent evolutionary Everglades and in the salt and fresh South America (Coulter et al. 1999, p. bottleneck reduced the levels of water wetlands of Florida, Georgia, 4). The available evidence does not mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variability South Carolina, and North Carolina. suggest that wood storks have crossed of the continental U.S. population Maintaining a species throughout its the Florida Straits between the (Lopes et al. 2011, p. 1911). The genetic historical and current range helps Caribbean islands and the United States structuring assessment revealed ensure the species’ population viability or crossed the Gulf of Mexico to or from nonsignificant differentiation between and reduce impacts to species as a Central and South America. the continental U.S. and Brazilian wood whole due to localized stochastic

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

events. Therefore, we find that loss of et al. 2008; Borkahatria 2009; Lauritsen enhanced and restored 150,000 acres of continental U.S. breeding population of 2010) are helping to update marsh (SJRWMD 2011). These and other the wood stork, whose range has conservation information and tools that large-scale wetland restoration projects expanded to include Mississippi and are used to identify, prioritize, protect, are significantly contributing to wood North Carolina (USFWS 2007, p. 11), restore, and acquire important wood stork recovery by reducing the threat of would constitute a significant gap in the stork habitats. Core foraging areas near habitat loss. Management plans such as range of the species as a whole. large colonies on protected lands, like State wildlife action plans (http:// Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Florida, Summary www.wildlifeactionplans.org/) help to Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge in identify important habitats on which to Based on the above analysis, we Georgia, and Washo Plantation in South focus conservation efforts. Other conclude that the continental U.S. Carolina, have been identified. management plans such as the North breeding population of wood storks However, alteration and loss of foraging American Waterfowl Management Plan meets both the discreteness and habitat continues as a threat to recovery, (USFWS 2011) also help to identify significance elements of the 1996 DPS as such habitat continues to be lost focus areas for conservation. By policy. Therefore, we recognize this today through the continual expansion highlighting important habitats or areas, population as a valid DPS. of the human environment, resulting in such as the ACE Basin and Winyah Bay Recovery Actions new development and associated roads in South Carolina, funds and and other infrastructure. The Service conservation initiatives are directed We published the original recovery has developed a brochure, Wood Stork plan for the continental U.S. breeding towards restoring these important Conservation and Management for Land habitat areas and contribute to recovery population of wood stork on September Owners, to assist public and private 9, 1986, and revised it on January 27, by reducing the threat due to loss of land managers in protecting and habitat. Thousands of acres are being 1997 (Service 1997). The recovery plan restoring wood stork habitat (Service identifies four primary recovery actions protected, enhanced, restored, and 2001). The wood stork habitat brought under conservation easements for the continental U.S. breeding management guidelines are also being population of the wood stork. Species- to assist in wildlife conservation updated (Bryan 2006) and are an through programs such as the Wetland focused recovery tasks include: (1) important conservation tool to provide Reserve Program (WRP) and the Farm Protect currently occupied habitat, (2) guidance on protecting wood storks and Bill, including 70,000 acres of wetlands restore and enhance habitat, (3) conduct their habitats. In an effort to minimize in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, applied research necessary to loss of wetland habitats important to Mississippi, North Carolina, and South accomplish recovery goals, and (4) wood stork recovery, like those within Carolina in 2010 (NRCS 2011). The WRP increase public awareness. These the core foraging area of a nesting is a voluntary program offering primary recovery actions have been colony, the Service’s South and North landowners the opportunity to protect, initiated. Many of the actions listed Florida Ecological Services Field Offices restore, and enhance wetlands on their under these categories are of high have also developed a ‘‘May Affect’’ key property. The U.S. Department of priority to implement and are ongoing. to assist regulators with review of Recovery Task (1): Protect currently wetland dredge and fill permit Agriculture, Natural Resources occupied habitat. At a minimum, for applications. Conservation Service (NRCS) provides continued survival of the continental Recovery Task (2): Restore and technical and financial support to help U.S. breeding population, currently enhance habitat. A prerequisite for landowners with their wetland occupied nesting, roosting, and foraging recovery of the wood stork in the restoration efforts. The goal of the NRCS habitat must be protected from further southeastern United States is the is to achieve the greatest wetland loss or degradation. Watersheds restoration and enhancement of suitable functions and values, along with supporting natural nesting habitat habitat throughout the mosaic of habitat optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre should remain unaltered, or be restored types used by this species. Recovery enrolled in the program. This program to function as a natural system if actions include: (2.1) Restore the offers landowners an opportunity to previously altered. Recovery actions Everglades and Big Cypress system, (2.2) establish long-term conservation and under this recovery task include: (1.1) enhance nesting and roosting sites wildlife practices and protection, and Locate important habitat, (1.2) prioritize throughout the range, and (2.3) enhance therefore provides some benefits to habitat, (1.3) work with private foraging habitat by modifying wood stork recovery. In Florida, the landowners to protect habitat, (1.4) hydrologic regimes in existing artificial WRP program has restored over 200,000 acquire land, (1.5) protect sites from impoundments to maximize use by acres of wetlands (Simpkins, Service, disturbance, and (1.6) use existing wood storks. pers. comm., 2011) and over 115,000 regulatory mechanisms to protect Wood storks depend upon a mosaic of acres in Alabama, Georgia, and South habitat. wetlands throughout the coastal plain of Carolina. A majority of the Florida Recent habitat models (e.g., Gawlik the southeastern United States for WRP-restored acres have been within 2002; Herring 2007; Borkhataria 2009; breeding and foraging. Ecosystems and the Everglades and Big Cypress systems. Rodgers et al. 2010); ongoing annual wetlands are being restored throughout A 2006 WRP restoration of 200 acres of monitoring of nesting colonies (e.g., the southeastern United States through farmland in Camilla, Georgia, now Cook and Korboza 2010; Brooks and programs such as the Comprehensive supports the newest Georgia wood stork Dean 2008; Murphy and Coker 2008; Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) colony, with over 100 nesting pairs Winn et al. 2008; Frederick and Meyer (RECOVER 2009); Kissimmee River annually. This task will be complete 2008); surveys of nesting colony core Restoration Project, which includes a once viable nesting occurs throughout foraging areas in Florida, Georgia, and goal to restore over 40 square miles of the range of this DPS. The most South Carolina (e.g., Herring 2007; river and floodplain ecosystem significant wetland restoration goal for Bryan and Stephens 2007; Lauritsen including 43 miles of meandering river wood storks is to recover viable nesting 2010; Tomlinson 2009; Meyer 2010); channel and 27,000 acres of wetlands subpopulations in the traditional and satellite-telemetry studies (e.g., (USACE 2011); and Upper St. Johns Everglades and Big Cypress nesting Hylton 2004; Hylton et al. 2006; Bryan Basin Restoration Project, which has areas as outlined by CERP. Overall,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75955

future wetland restoration efforts in the Nelson 2010, p. 40; D. Hall, SJRWMD, (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/ Southeast U.S. will be beneficial to pers. comm., 2008). Annual nesting Woodstork.pdf), University of Florida wood stork recovery. colony surveys help to monitor the (http://www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/ Recovery Task (3): Conduct applied status of the breeding population. Per frederickp/woodstork/), Audubon research necessary to accomplish Recovery Action 3.3, recent productivity Society (http://birds.audubon.org/ recovery goals. Recovery efforts for the research and monitoring efforts have species/woosto), Corkscrew Sanctuary wood stork will be more effective with documented productivity rates to be Swamp (http:// a better understanding of population similar to rates documented between the www.corkscrewsanctuary.org/Wildlife/ biology, movement patterns of 1970s and 1990s (Rodgers et al. 2008; Birds/profiles/wost.pdf), and others. continental U.S. and neighboring Bryan and Robinette 2008), and Rodgers Opportunities for the public to view populations of wood storks, foraging et al. (2008, p. 25) suggest the need to wood storks in the wild include almost ecology and behavior, the importance of develop an unbiased estimator of all National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and roost sites, and the possible impacts of productivity that takes into National Parks and Preserves in Florida contaminants. Recovery actions include: consideration the lack of nesting during and coastal Georgia and South Carolina, (3.1) Determine movement patterns of some years to more accurately estimate including the Everglades National Park, continental U.S. and neighboring wood stork productivity at the regional Ten Thousand Island NWR, J.N. Ding populations of wood storks, (3.2) level. A genetic structuring and Darling NWR, Loxahatchee NWR, determine population genetics, (3.3) haplotype network analysis comparison Pelican Island NWR, Merritt Island monitor productivity of stork indicates that either a demographic NWR, Harris Neck NWR, and ACE Basin populations, (3.4) monitor survivorship decline or a recent evolutionary NWR. Several wood stork nesting of stork populations, (3.5) determine bottleneck reduced the levels of genetic colonies can also be seen at public extent of competition/cooperation variability in the continental U.S. observation areas that do not disturb the between wood storks and other wading population (Lopes et al. 2011, p. 1911) colony, such as Audubon’s Corkscrew birds in mixed nesting colonies, (3.6) is research addressing Recovery action Swamp Sanctuary, Parotis Pond in determine foraging ecology and 3.2. The genetic structuring assessment Everglades National Park, Pelican Island behavior, (3.7) determine the revealed nonsignificant differentiation, NWR, St. Augustine Alligator Farm, importance of roost sites, and (3.8) indicating that continental U.S. and Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, and determine the impacts of contaminants Brazilian wood stork populations were Harris Neck NWR. on wood stork populations. The only recently separated or that gene following is a summary of several recent flow between these populations Recovery Achieved monitoring and research findings. continues to occur at low levels. The The South Florida Wading Bird haplotype network analysis indicated The recovery criteria for the Report (1996–2010) annually reports on low current levels of gene flow between continental U.S. breeding population habitat monitoring and research with populations that were closely related in DPS of wood storks state that respect to the CERP and foraging and the past (Lopes et al. 2011, p. 1911). reclassification from endangered to nest monitoring projects for wood storks Recovery Task (4): Increase public threatened could be considered when and wading birds utilizing the awareness. Wood storks utilize a wide there are 6,000 nesting pairs and annual Everglades and Big Cypress systems. variety of wetland habitats. They are average regional productivity is greater This report provides an annual visually unique and generate interest than 1.5 chicks per nest per year (both assessment on the Restoration from the public. These factors have calculated over a 3-year average). Coordination and Verification Program made the wood stork the subject of Although variable, productivity appears (RECOVER), the system-wide science many environmental education to be sufficient to support continued arm of the CERP. Per Recovery Action materials and programs. There are many population growth as evidenced by the 3.1 and 3.6, satellite-telemetry studies brochures, videos, and educational increasing nesting population and range are providing new insight into packets available. Recovery actions expansion. movement patterns (e.g., Hylton 2004; include: (4.1) Increase awareness and 1. Nesting pairs. The continental U.S. Bryan et al. 2008; Borkhataria 2009; appreciation through educational breeding population of the wood stork Lauritsen 2010). Surveys to determine materials, and (4.2) provide has been increasing since it was listed foraging distances from nesting colonies opportunities for the public to view in 1984 (Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 58; and satellite-telemetry research are wood storks in captivity. Borkhataria 2009, p. 34). Regional helping to update our understanding of Examples of such wood stork nesting surveys to census wood stork wood stork foraging ecology and of core educational efforts to increase public colonies have been continuous in south foraging areas (e.g., Herring 2007; Bryan awareness can be found on our Web site Florida and Georgia since 1976, and in and Stephens 2007; Borkhataria 2009; (http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/ South Carolina since 1981. Nest Meyers 2010; Lauritsen 2010; WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm) and the censuses of the entire breeding range Tomlinson 2009). Satellite-telemetry Web sites of many of our recovery were conducted in 1975–1986, 1991, data and banding studies are helping to partners, including the Everglades 1993–1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001–2010 refine survival estimates (Borkhataria National Park (http://www.nps.gov/ever/ (Table 1). The 3-year average for nesting 2009, pp. 63–64) for population naturescience/woodstork.htm), Florida pairs has exceeded the reclassification modeling (Borkhataria 2009) as Fish and Wildlife Conservation criterion of 6,000 every year since 2003 identified under Recovery Action 3.4. Commission (http://myfwc.com/ (Table 2). However, the nesting pair Ongoing systematic reconnaissance research/wildlife/birds/wood-storks/), average is well below the 5-year average flights of the Everglades, Kissimmee Georgia Department of Natural of 10,000 nesting pairs (a benchmark for River, water conservation areas, Big Resources (http:// delisting), and the 5-year averages for Cypress National Preserve, and Upper www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/ nesting in the Everglades and Big St. Johns River are monitoring wood files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/ Cypress Systems are below 2,500 stork abundance and distribution in accounts/birds/mycteria_ nesting pairs (another benchmark for south Florida (Cheek 2010, pp. 22–26; americana.pdf), South Carolina delisting), as nesting in south Florida Alvarado and Bass 2010, pp. 30–39; Department of Natural Resources remains variable (Table 2).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—WOOD STORK NESTING DATA IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES AND 3-YEAR AVERAGES (SERVICE 2011).

Total South FL Central/North FL GA SC NC Year Nesting 3yr Nesting 3yr Nesting 3yr Nesting 3yr Nesting 3yr Nesting 3yr pairs Avg pairs Avg pairs Avg pairs Avg Pairs Avg pairs Avg

1981 ...... 4,442 ...... 2,428 ...... 1,728 ...... 275 ...... 11 ...... 1982 ...... 3,575 ...... 1,237 ...... 2,183 ...... 135 ...... 20 ...... 1983 ...... 5,983 4,667 2,858 2,174 2,742 2,218 363 258 20 17 ...... 1984 ...... 6,245 5,268 1,245 1,780 4,402 3,109 576 358 22 21 ...... 1985 ...... 5,193 5,807 798 1,634 3,764 3,636 557 499 74 39 ...... 1986 ...... 643 895 ...... 648 584 120 72 ...... 1987 ...... 100 514 ...... 506 570 194 129 ...... 1988 ...... 755 499 ...... 311 488 179 164 ...... 1989 ...... 515 457 ...... 543 453 376 250 ...... 1990 ...... 475 582 ...... 709 521 536 364 ...... 1991 ...... 4,073 ...... 550 513 1,890 ...... 969 740 664 525 ...... 1992 ...... 1,917 981 ...... 1,091 923 475 558 ...... 1993 ...... 6,729 ...... 587 1,018 3,675 ...... 1,661 1,240 806 648 ...... 1994 ...... 5,768 ...... 741 1,082 2,847 ...... 1,468 1,407 712 664 ...... 1995 ...... 7,853 6,783 1140 823 4,383 3,635 1,501 1,543 829 782 ...... 1996 ...... 1215 1,032 ...... 1,480 1,483 953 831 ...... 1997 ...... 445 933 ...... 1,379 1,453 917 900 ...... 1998 ...... 478 713 ...... 1,665 1,508 1,093 988 ...... 1999 ...... 2,674 1,190 ...... 1,139 1,394 520 843 ...... 2000 ...... 3,996 2,383 ...... 566 1,123 1,236 950 ...... 2001 ...... 5,582 ...... 2,888 3,186 358 ...... 1,162 956 1,174 977 ...... 2002 ...... 7,855 ...... 3,463 3,449 2,000 ...... 1,256 995 1,136 1,182 ...... 2003 ...... 8,813 7,417 1,747 2,699 4,057 2,138 1,653 1,357 1,356 1,222 ...... 2004 ...... 8,379 8,349 1,485 2,232 3,241 3,099 1,596 1,502 2,057 1,516 ...... 2005 ...... 5,572 7,588 591 1,274 1,713 3,004 1,817 1,689 1,419 1,611 32 ...... 2006 ...... 11,279 8,410 2,648 1,575 4,568 3,174 1,928 1,780 2,010 1,829 125 ...... 2007 ...... 4,406 7,086 696 1,312 857 2,379 1,054 1,600 1,607 1,679 192 116 2008 ...... 6,118 7,268 344 1,229 1,494 2,306 2,292 1,758 1,839 1,819 149 155 2009 ...... 12,720 7,748 5,816 2,285 3,612 1,988 1,676 1,674 1,482 1,643 134 158 2010 ...... 8,141 8,993 1,220 2,460 2,600 2,571 2,708 2,225 1,393 1,571 220 168 2011 ...... 9,579 10,147 2,131 3,056 3,161 3,124 2,160 2,181 2,031 1,635 96 141

2. Productivity. There is also a need manpower constraints, rangewide, remained stable in south Florida and the to systematically determine Statewide, and regional monitoring of number of colonies in central and north reproductive success (number of fledged wood stork productivity only has Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and young per nest and number of fledged occurred episodically (e.g., early 1980s North Carolina continue to increase young per successful nest) for a majority and 2000s). As there are now over 80 (Ogden et al. 1987, p. 754; Brooks and of the colonies in the same year(s) to wood stork colonies, Rodgers et al. Dean 2008, p. 54; Table 1). The nesting better estimate productivity of the (2008, p. 32) identifies the need to range continues to expand with new breeding population (USFWS 1997, p. develop a long-term program of colonies documented in North Carolina 24). The Service acknowledges that the monitoring that relies on monitoring of and western Georgia. Although variable productivity dataset is incomplete, with fewer colonies. (particularly in south Florida) and not less than 25 percent of the colonies Based upon the nesting population yet well documented, productivity surveyed for productivity during the criteria in the recovery plan, we can appears to be sufficient to support past 4 years and 50 percent surveyed consider the continental U.S. breeding continued population growth, as between 2003 and 2007. Brooks and population of the wood stork for evidenced by the increasing population Dean (2008, p. 56) indicate the average reclassification to threatened status at and range expansion described above. productivity rate for all colonies this time because wood storks and their Population trends suggest that the monitored in the southeastern United habitat would continue to receive the overall population may approach the States was 1.5 chick/nest attempt protections of the Act, and management delisting benchmark of 10,000 nesting between 2004 and 2006; 1.2 chick/nest efforts continue to maintain, enhance, pairs during the next 15 to 20 years. attempt between 2003 and 2005; and 1.5 and restore the amount and quality of Nesting numbers suggest a stable or chick/nest attempt between 2003 and available habitat to support a growing increasing population, however, data 2006 (Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 56). population. For the following reasons, are not available to evaluate the Rodgers et al. (2008, p. 25) found that we believe that the continental U.S. productivity criterion of 1.5 chicks per colonies farther north in Florida breeding population of the wood stork nest per year. exhibited greater productivity, and that has surpassed the recovery criteria colonies in northeastern and outlined as necessary for Summary of Factors Affecting the northwestern Florida had greater reclassification. As shown in Table 2 of Species fledging rates than colonies farther this document, the nesting population is Section 4 of the Act and its south in central Florida. Bryan and increasing and well above the implementing regulations (50 CFR part Robinette (2008, p. 20) found Georgia reclassification benchmark (Brooks and 424) set forth the procedures for listing, and South Carolina rates similar to Dean 2008, p. 58; Table 2). The total reclassifying, or removing a species North Florida rates. Due to funding and number of nesting colonies has from, the Federal Lists of Endangered

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75957

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. survivorship for wood storks than storks from nesting or cause colony Under section 3 of the Act, a species is previously known. Wetlands that wood failure. ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of storks use for foraging are being lost While habitat loss, fragmentation, and extinction throughout all or a through permitted activities where degradation continue to occur ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is mitigation is provided. However, it is throughout the range of the continental ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become not known if wood stork foraging U.S. population of wood stork, there are endangered within the foreseeable wetlands are being replaced with like- also protection, acquisition, and future throughout all or a ‘‘significant quality foraging wetlands within the restoration efforts in progress. Natural portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’ core foraging area of an impacted wetlands are being targeted for refers to the range in which the species colony. Lauritsen (2010, pp. 4–5) acquisition to be protected through the currently exists, and the word suggests that today’s mitigation management of public lands for wildlife ‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that practices lead to a disproportionate loss and water conservation (NRCS 2006, p. portion of the range being considered to of short hydroperiod wetlands. The 1). In Florida, the Wetlands Reserve the conservation of the species. The impacts of the loss of short hydroperiod Program has restored over 200,000 acres ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the period of (isolated) wetlands, which supply most of wetlands and over 115,000 acres in time over which events or effects of the food energy for initiating Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina reasonably can or should be anticipated, reproduction (Fleming et al. 1994, p. during the past 18 years. Thousands of or trends extrapolated. A species may be 754), may result in abandonment of nest acres of wetlands are also being determined to be an endangered or colonies by wood storks (e.g., Corkscrew protected on private lands to assist in threatened species due to one or more Swamp Sanctuary). Frederick and habitat and wildlife protection through of the five factors described in section Meyer (2008, p. 15) suggest that the restoration in conjunction with 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or decline in colony size in Florida reflects establishing conservation easements threatened destruction, modification, or the increasingly fragmented nature of (Dahl 2006, p. 16). Wetland losses are curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Florida’s wetlands resulting from being avoided, minimized, and overutilization for commercial, development. mitigated through the regulatory process recreational, scientific, or educational The decline of south Florida’s (Votteler and Muir 2002, pp. 1–2). purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Everglades and Big Cypress ecosystems Large-scale restoration projects like the the inadequacy of existing regulatory is well-documented (e.g., Davis and CERP, Kissimmee River Restoration mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Ogden 1994). Prior to 1970, a majority Project, and St. Johns River Headwaters manmade factors affecting its continued (70 percent) of the wood stork Restoration Project are significant existence. population nested south of Lake conservation efforts that greatly benefit The following analysis examines all Okeechobee and declined from 8,500 wood stork recovery. five factors currently affecting or that nesting pairs in the early 1960s to Additionally, the species’ response to are likely to affect the wood stork within around 500 pairs in the late 1980s and the threat of habitat loss and the foreseeable future: early 1990s (Service 1997). The primary degradation indicates its ability to adapt cause of this decline was the loss of and seek out new nesting and foraging A. The Present or Threatened wetland function of these south Florida areas. Since 1980, wood storks have Destruction, Modification, or ecosystems that resulted in reduced expanded their breeding range north Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range prey availability or loss of wetland into Georgia, South Carolina, and North Throughout its range in the habitats (Service 1997, p. 10). Carolina, and the total number of southeastern United States, wood storks Wood storks use manmade wetlands breeding adults is now approaching the are dependent upon wetlands for for foraging and breeding purposes. delisting criterion set out in the species’ breeding and foraging. Preventing loss Manmade wetlands include, but are not recovery plan. Seventy percent of the of wood stork nesting habitat and limited to, storm water treatment areas population now breeds north of Lake foraging wetlands within a colony’s core and ponds, golf course ponds, borrow Okeechobee and the Everglades (Brooks foraging area is of the highest priority. pits, reservoirs, roadside ditches, and Dean 2008, p. 53). These positive In addition, winter foraging habitat is agricultural ditches, drainages, flow- indicators throughout the range suggest important to recovery, as it may ways, mining and mine reclamation that the viability of the continental U.S. determine the carrying capacity of the areas, and dredge spoil sites. The wood stork DPS may no longer be as continental U.S. wood stork DPS. While impacts can be positive in certain closely tied to the health of the the immediacy and the magnitude of scenarios as these wetlands can provide Everglades for reproduction. this factor are substantially reduced protected foraging and nesting habitat, With regard to important wood stork when compared to when this species and may offset some losses of natural habitats, a number of the nesting was originally listed, the destruction, wetlands caused by development. A colonies occur on Federal conservation fragmentation, and modification of its significant number of wood stork lands and are consequently afforded wetland habitats continues to occur and colonies are located where water protection from development and large- could accelerate in the absence of the management practices can impact the scale habitat disturbance. Wood stork protections of the Act. nesting habitat negatively. Colonies that colonies also occur on a variety of State- Hefner et al. (1994, p. 21) estimated are perpetually flooded will have no owned properties, and existing State that 1.3 million acres of wetlands lost in tree regeneration. Draining surface and Federal regulations provide the southeastern United States between waters of a colony’s wetland or pond protection on these sites. However, the mid 1970s and mid 1980s were will prevent wood storks from nesting, approximately half of known wood located in the Gulf-Atlantic Lower and lowered water levels after nest stork colonies occur on private lands. Coastal Plain, an area upon which wood initiation facilitate raccoon predation. Through conservation partnerships, storks are dependent. Ceilley and Lowering surface water or water table colonies can be protected through the Bartone (2000, p. 70) suggest that short may occur through water control owners’ stewardship. In an effort to hydroperiod wetlands provide a more structures, manipulating adjacent minimize potential loss of colony sites, important pre-nesting food source and wetlands, or water withdrawals from the partnerships have been developed provide for a greater early nestling local aquifer and can prevent wood through conservation easements,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

wetland restoration projects, and other expected to adversely impact wood malaria has recently been documented conservation means. Also, the wetland stork recovery or present a threat to the in continental U.S. wood storks, but the areas near nesting colonies play a vital species. available information does not indicate role in the success of a nesting colony. Wading birds and other waterbird that avian malaria is a significant factor Due to the regulatory status of wetlands, species, including wood storks, can affecting the DPS. conservation of wetlands shown to be impact production at fish farms. A Adequate water levels under nesting important to wood storks can be largely Georgia catfish farmer located trees or surrounding nesting islands achieved through the application of approximately 25 miles west of the deter raccoon predation of wood stork existing wetland laws, such as the Clean Chewmill and Birdsville colonies in colonies. Water level manipulation that Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Jenkins County, Georgia, has keeps levels too low can facilitate the interagency cooperation provisions documented hundreds of woods storks raccoon predation of wood stork nests. of the Act. aggregating and foraging on the littoral In many cases, colonies also have a In summary, loss, fragmentation, and edges of the ponds during the late population of alligators nearby that modification of wetland habitats summer in recent years. U.S. deter raccoon predation (Coulter and continue as threats to wood storks. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Bryan 1995, p. 242), and removal of Changes in local habitat conditions are Services Division (Wildlife Services) has alligators from a nesting colony site known to impact wood storks. Based on documented hundreds of wood storks, could lead to increased raccoon the best available scientific information, and in one case 1,000 wood storks, predation. Human disturbance may it is our assessment that the species is roosting on fish pond dikes in the cause adults to leave nests, exposing the showing the ability to respond to these eastern Mississippi, west-central eggs and downy nestlings to predators threats through expansion of its range, Alabama area (J. Taylor, U.S. (e.g., fish crows), sun, and rain. Great adjusting reproductive timing, and Department of Agriculture, pers. comm., horned owls have been documented utilizing a variety of wetlands for 2007). Wildlife Services found that the nesting in and near colonies and likely foraging, roosting, and breeding, wood storks were generally loafing, and impact the colony to some degree. including manmade wetlands. if they were feeding, they were taking A breeding population of Burmese Historically, the core of the wood stork diseased and oxygen-deprived fish and pythons has been documented in the breeding population was located in the not impacting production. Nonetheless, Florida Everglades, and a recent study Everglades and Big Cypress systems of operators of fish farms often respond to documented that pythons had preyed south Florida. Populations there had such activities by taking wood storks. upon wood storks (Dove et al. 2011, p. diminished because of deterioration of Unpermitted wood stork take has been 128). If these snakes or other species of the habitat. In recognition of the documented at a Mississippi catfish nonnative reptiles become established importance of the Everglades and Big farm and a Florida tropical fish farm. in additional areas within the south Cypress systems to wood stork recovery, Each of these incidents ended in Florida ecosystem, they could pose a the recovery plan stated that, as a prosecution for shooting wood storks. threat to nesting wood storks and other prerequisite for full recovery, these However, wood stork take at species of colonial-nesting water birds ecosystems should once again provide aquaculture facilities likely still occurs. but at the present time pythons do not the food resources that are necessary to To what extent this type of take occurs pose a significant factor affecting the support traditional wood stork nesting is unknown. Migratory Bird Treaty Act continental U.S. breeding population of patterns at historical nesting areas. (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) wood stork. However, current data show that the depredation permits assist in As summarized above, we have a few breeding range has now almost doubled minimizing unauthorized take. documented instances of disease and in area and shifted northward along the Depredation permits are issued to allow predation within range of the Atlantic coast as far as southeastern the take of migratory birds that are continental U.S. wood stork DPS. North Carolina. As a result of their range causing serious damage to public or However, this information does not expansion, dependence of wood storks private property, pose a health or safety indicate that disease or predation occur on any specific wetland complex has hazard, or are damaging agricultural at a level that would threaten the been reduced. Even though habitat crops or wildlife. Wildlife Services continental U.S. wood stork DPS, now destruction and modification are still a provides expert technical advice and or in the foreseeable future. We will threat to recovery, the improved wood information regarding hazing and continue to work closely with our State stork population statistics suggest that harassment techniques. and Federal wildlife agency partners, wetland habitat is not yet limiting the Research permits are issued to those who monitor wildlife diseases in population, at least at the landscape eliminate or minimize impacts to wood the wild, and those conducting research level (USFWS 2007, p. 16). Habitat loss, storks from scientific research. of wood storks in order to monitor these fragmentation, and modification of Overutilization was not identified as a potential threats. wetland habitats continue around threat at the time of listing in 1984, and D. The Inadequacy of Existing nesting colonies and core foraging areas, we conclude that overutilization for Regulatory Mechanisms and are a significant factor affecting the commercial, recreational, scientific, or viability of the continental U.S. wood educational purposes is not a threat to In addition to the Act, the MBTA stork DPS. the continental U.S. wood stork DPS provides Federal protection to the now or in the foreseeable future. continental U.S. wood stork DPS. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Recreational, Scientific, or Educational C. Disease or Predation Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi Purposes There is limited information regarding wildlife laws also list and protect wood Monitoring of and research on wood potential impacts from disease or storks. These Federal and State laws storks over the past 20 years has parasites. Hematozoa (blood parasites) prohibit the taking of a wood stork, their increased. A small number of scientific have been documented to a limited nests, or their eggs, except as authorized research permits with potential to harm extent in wood storks in Florida and through permitted activities such as individual wood storks have been Georgia (Forrester et al. 1977, p. 1273; scientific research and depredation issued. This level of take/harm is not Fedynich et al. 1998, p. 166). Avian permits. However, the MBTA and State

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75959

laws do not prohibit clearing, alteration, Guidelines (Ogden 1990), that active both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types or conversion of wetland foraging colony sites be protected from local of changes in climate can have direct or habitats or nesting colony sites during hydrologic changes and from human indirect effects on species. These effects the non-nesting season. activities (e.g. timber harvesting, may be positive, neutral, or negative, The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates vegetation removal, construction, and and they may change over time, dredge and fill activities that would other habitat-altering activities) which depending on the species and other adversely affect wetlands, which are likely to be detrimental to the colony relevant considerations, such as the constitute wood stork habitat. Section (Service 1997, p. 18). The Service also effects of interactions of climate with 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge recommends that feeding sites be other variables (e.g., habitat of dredged or fill materials into protected to the maximum extent fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, wetlands. Discharges of dredged or fill possible. The Service’s South Florida 18–19). In our analyses, we use our materials are commonly associated with and Jacksonville Ecological Services expert judgment to weigh relevant projects to create dry land for Field Offices have developed ‘‘May information, including uncertainty, in development sites, water-control Affect’’ keys to assist regulators with our consideration of various aspects of projects, and land clearing. The U.S. review of wetland dredge and fill permit climate change. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and applications and in an effort to The IPCC concluded that evidence of the Environmental Protection Agency minimize loss of wetland habitats warming of the climate system is (EPA) share the responsibility for important to wood stork recovery, like unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30). implementing the permitting program those within the core foraging area of a Numerous long-term changes have been under section 404 of the CWA. These nesting colony. observed, including changes in arctic federal actions must not jeopardize the In summary, there are a number of temperatures and ice, widespread continued existence of any species regulatory mechanisms implemented by changes in precipitation amounts, ocean protected under the Act. Federal and State agencies to protect salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of When impacts to wetlands cannot be wood storks and conserve their habitat. extreme weather, including droughts, avoided or minimized, wetland Take of wood storks is illegal under heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the mitigation is often employed to replace both the Act and MBTA. The CWA intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC an existing wetland or its functions by minimizes impacts on jurisdictional 2007b, p. 7). While continued change is creating a new wetland, restoring a wetlands that are important to Wood certain, the magnitude and rate of former wetland, or enhancing or Storks, however the CWA alone is not change is unknown in many cases. preserving an existing wetland. This is sufficient to eliminate all impacts, as Species that are dependent on done to compensate for the authorized discussed in Factor A. Whether existing specialized habitat types, are limited in destruction of the existing wetland. As habitat protections and conservation distribution, or are located in the discussed earlier, it is not known if mechanisms are inadequate can only be extreme periphery of their range will be wood stork foraging wetlands are being assessed by monitoring the status of the most susceptible to the impacts of replaced with like-quality foraging wood stork population. Recent trends climate change. Such species would wetlands within the core foraging areas indicate that the range is expanding and currently be found at high elevations or of impacted colonies. the breeding population has increased, in extreme northern/southern latitudes, There is currently little protection for suggesting that the combination of the or are dependent on delicate ecological isolated wetland habitats under section CWA, the Act, MBTA, and state interactions or sensitive to nonnative 404 of the CWA. A 2001 U.S. Supreme regulations are adequate to protect competitors. Wood storks nest in a wide Court opinion (Solid Waste Agency of jurisdictional wetlands to allow variety of natural and human made Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. US population growth. However, non- habitats (e.g., fresh water wetlands to Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 estuarine environs, cypress strands to (2001)) substantially reduced the jurisdictional wetlands continue to be lost to development due to lack of mangrove islands, lake edges to river jurisdiction of the Federal Government edges, impoundments to borrow pits); in regulating isolated wetlands. While existing regulatory mechanisms, and therefore, loss of these wetlands they are not dependent upon many States in the southeastern United specialized habitat. They nest in trees continues as a threat to this species. States regulate those activities affecting and shrubby vegetation (native to wetlands that are not protected by E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors exotic) where water is surrounding section 404 of the CWA, Florida is the Affecting Its Continued Existence (island) or water is underneath the only State known to regulate isolated nesting vegetation and where there is Climate Change wetlands. In South Carolina, Georgia, suitable foraging habitat nearby (shallow Alabama, and North Carolina, there are The terms ‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate water wetlands). The marshes and no State laws that protect isolated change’’ are defined by the wetlands they use may be impacted by wetlands. The EPA and the Corps have Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate change depending on their developed draft guidance for Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the location but wood storks have been determining whether a waterway, water mean and variability of different types shown to find other habitat if existing body, or wetland is protected by the of weather conditions over time, with 30 locations become unavailable. CWA (76 FR 24479, May 2, 2011). If years being a typical period for such Information on the subject of climate implemented, the guidance will measurements, although shorter or change in our files is not specific to the increase the extent of waters over which longer periods also may be used (IPCC wood stork. While predictions of the agencies assert jurisdiction under 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ increased drought frequency, intensity, the CWA and thus would provide thus refers to a change in the mean or and duration suggest that nestling protection to additional wood stork variability of one or more measures of survival could be a limiting factor for foraging wetlands that are currently climate (e.g., temperature or the wood stork due to increased unprotected from modification or precipitation) that persists for an predation or possible loss or shift in the elimination. extended period, typically decades or location of coastal colonies due to sea The Service recommends, through its longer, whether the change is due to level rise, the species possesses other Wood Stork Habitat Management natural variability, human activity, or biological traits, like adaptability to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

changing habitat conditions that provide in the eastern part of the restoration area also recommends similar guidance for resilience to this threat. Wood storks are (Rauschenberger 2007, p. 16). cell phone towers and wind turbines. already responding to habitat changes Mercury, heavy metals, and other Other Threats by altering their nest locations. This has contaminants that may impair been seen in the recent expansion from reproduction and cause other health The following is a list of threats that Everglades colony locations in Florida issues are being studied in wood storks have also been documented to occur, to other areas in the southeastern United and many other wading bird species but we have concluded that due to low States (Brooks and Dean 2008). These (Bryan et al. 2012; Gallaher et al. 2011; incident numbers and minimal expansions are in response to annual Martin 2010; Frederick and Jayasena documentation, the impacts at this time cycles; nest locations depend upon 2010; Brant et al. 2002; Bryan et al. are very low and do not impede availability. Abandonment of old 2001; Gariboldi et al. 2001). Also, recovery. colonies and formation of new ones is exposure to contaminants by foraging in Human disturbance is known to have a typical and fairly rapid process in manmade wetlands may pose a a detrimental effect on wood stork wood storks (Frederick and Meyer 2008 potential risk to wood stork health and nesting (Service 1997, pp. 10, 12). Wood p.12). Most wood stork colonies in the reproduction. On the other hand, storks have been documented to desert Southeast U.S. have relatively short pesticide contamination has not nests when disturbed by humans, thus survival histories and only a handful of generally been considered to adversely exposing eggs and young birds to the colonies have survived more than 20 affect wood stork reproduction elements and to predation by gulls and years and the large numbers of short- (Ohlendorf et al. 1978, p. 616). fish crows (Coulter et al. 1999, p. 19). Documentation of road kill mortalities lived colonies indicate that wood stork Algal Blooms (Red Tide Events) colony abandonment and novel colony of wood storks has increased (B. Brooks, initiation seems to be typical of the Harmful algal blooms, specifically red USFWS, pers. comm., 2010). This may species (Tsai et al. 2011, p. 2). The wood tide events, have become more be due to better reporting or more storks storks’ ability to seek out new locations prevalent along Florida’s coast. using roadside ponds, ditches, swales, for nesting would seem to indicate that Brevitoxicosis was documented in 2005 and flow-ways as foraging habitat. they will respond in a similar fashion to as the cause of death of a wood stork Stochastic events, such as severe changes in habitat availability that (Spalding 2006). Wood storks can be thunderstorms and hurricanes, pose a result from sea level rise. exposed to harmful microalgae and their potential risk. Loss of nesting trees due Although many species already listed toxins through a variety of mechanisms, to hurricanes can have a negative as endangered or threatened may be including aerosolized transport (i.e., impact on nesting habitat. Severe local particularly vulnerable to negative respiratory irritation in mammals, storm events have impacted individual effects related to changes in climate, we turtles, birds); bioaccumulation through colonies, causing chick mortality and also recognize that, for some listed consumption of prey containing toxins even blowing nests out of trees. species, the likely effects may be or toxic cells (crustaceans, gastropods, The invasion of exotic plants into positive or neutral. At this time, we fish, birds, turtles, mammals); and natural wetland areas can prevent wood have no evidence that climate changes mechanical damage by spines, setae, or storks from foraging due to high density observed to date have had any adverse other anatomical features of the cells and canopy cover of the plants (USFWS effect on the wood stork or its habitat; (FWC 2007, p. 1). In addition to dead 2010, p. 127). Invasion into natural this long-lived species is expected to fish, large numbers of aquatic birds, nesting habitats by exotic species, adapt to future changes in habitat particularly double-crested cormorants including Brazilian pepper (Schinus availability that may result from climate (Phalacrocorax auritus), red-breasted terebinthifolius), melaleuca (Melaleuca change. mergansers (Mergus merganser), and quinquenervia), and Australian pine lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), were (Casuarina equisetifolia), may present a Contamination Events found moribund or dead in red tide problem; however, wood storks are Contamination events can be triggered areas during the Florida west coast using exotic species for nesting habitat by restoration or natural events, such as Karenia brevis red tide of October 1973 at many manmade wetland colony sites, hurricanes or flooding, that can expose to May 1974 (FWC 2007). such as borrow pits. Even though concentrations of contaminants. For Electrocution wetlands overgrown with exotics may example, from November 1998 through preclude wood storks from foraging early April 1999, a bird mortality event Electrocution mortalities of wood within, they do have a conservation occurred on the north shore of Lake storks from power lines have been benefit as they flood during the wet Apopka, Florida, on former farmlands documented and reported to us by season and provide a prey source to that had been purchased by the St. power companies and by State and adjacent wetlands. Wood storks are also Johns River Water Management District Federal wildlife law enforcement. In documented utilizing Brazilian pepper and NRCS. An estimated 676 birds died most cases, when a problem location is as nesting substrate (USFWS 1999, p. 4– on-site, mostly white pelicans identified, it is retrofitted using 396). (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) and standard avian protection guidelines to A small number of sacred ibis various species of wading birds, prevent electrocutions. The guidelines (Threskiornis aethiopicus) escaped from including the wood stork. Of the recommend using heavily insulated a south Florida zoo and established a estimated 1,991 wood storks present in wire, spreading the wires apart to small breeding population in south the area, 43 died on-site prevent grounding as body parts touch Florida. They may compete with wood (Rauschenberger 2007, p. 16). The cause the wires, or burying the wires storks for nesting space within south of death was attributed to underground. The Service’s Wood Stork Florida colonies. organochlorine pesticide (OCP) Habitat Management Guidelines (Ogden toxicosis (Rauschenberger 2007, p. 16). 1990) include recommendations that Summary of Factor E The birds were exposed to OCPs by new transmission lines be at least 1 mile In summary, other natural or eating OCP-contaminated fish, which away from colony sites and tall manmade factors affecting the wood became easy prey as fish moved from transmission towers no closer than 3 stork’s continued existence, such as ditches into the flooded fields, located miles from active colonies. The Service contaminants, harmful algal blooms,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75961

electrocution, road kill, invasion of to deteriorate should the Act’s Two recent district court decisions exotic plants and animals, human requirements to consult on all federal have addressed whether the SPR disturbance, and stochastic events, are actions affecting the species’ habitat or language allows the Service to list or all documented at minimal levels to the prohibition on take (including protect less than all members of a affect wood storks. The wood stork significant habitat modification) be defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife utilizes a wide variety of habitats removed. v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. throughout its range in the southeastern Other threats such as overutilization Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s United States; this ability to use of the species for commercial, delisting of the Northern Rocky alternative habitats (as evidenced by the recreational, scientific, or educational Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April wood storks expansion from the purposes; disease and predation; and 2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v. Everglades of Florida into marshes and other natural or manmade factors (e.g., Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 tidal areas throughout the southeastern contaminants, harmful algal blooms, (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the United States (Brooks and Dean 2008)), electrocution, road kill, invasion of Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to helps to buffer this species from some exotic plants and animals, human list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR of the impacts to its habitat through disturbance, and stochastic events) are 6660, February 5, 2008). The Service natural or manmade threats. We known to occur but are not significant. had asserted in both of these conclude that other natural or manmade While there continue to be ongoing determinations that it had authority, in factors are not a significant factor threats, the continental U.S. wood stork effect, to protect only some members of affecting the continental U.S. wood DPS is increasing and expanding its a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by the Act (i.e., stork DPS, now or in the foreseeable overall range. Population criteria for species, subspecies, or DPS), under the future. reclassification have been exceeded Act. Both courts ruled that the with 3-year population averages higher determinations were arbitrary and Conclusion than 6,000 nesting pairs since 2003 capricious on the grounds that this Whether a species is currently on the (range of 7,086 to 8,996 nesting pairs). approach violated the plain and brink of extinction in the wild depends Delisting criteria of 10,000 nesting pairs unambiguous language of the Act. The on the life history and ecology of the (5-year average) has not been achieved. courts concluded that reading the SPR species, the nature of the threats, and The wood stork population has language to allow protecting only a the species’ response to those threats. exceeded 10,000 nesting pairs twice portion of a species’ range is Loss, fragmentation, and modification of during the past 5 years (2006 and 2009), inconsistent with the Act’s definition of wetland habitats continue as threats to and the 2009 count of 12,720 nesting ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that continental U.S. wood storks. Based on pairs represents the highest count since once a determination is made that a the best available scientific information, the early 1960s. Productivity, though species (i.e., species, subspecies, or it is our assessment that the species is variable, is sufficient to support a DPS) meets the definition of showing the ability to respond to these growing population. Based on the ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened threats through expanding its range, analysis presented above and the fact species,’’ it must be placed on the list adjusting its reproductive timing, and that downlisting criteria have been met, in its entirety and the Act’s protections utilizing a variety of wetlands, we believe the continental U.S. wood applied consistently to all members of including manmade wetlands, to forage, stork DPS is not presently in danger of that species (subject to modification of roost, and breed. Current data show that extinction throughout its range. protections through special rules under the breeding range has now almost However, because loss, fragmentation, sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). doubled in extent and shifted northward and modification of wetland habitats Consistent with that interpretation, along the Atlantic coast as far as continue around nesting colonies and and for the purposes of this proposed southeastern North Carolina. As a result, core foraging areas, and because rule and finding, we interpret the phrase dependence of wood storks on any delisting criteria have not been met, we ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ in the specific wetland complex has been conclude that the continental U.S. wood Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered reduced. Even though habitat stork DPS is likely to become species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ to destruction and modification are still a endangered within the foreseeable provide an independent basis for listing threat to recovery, the improved wood future and therefore should be a species in its entirety; thus there are stork population statistics also suggest reclassified as threatened under the Act. two situations (or factual bases) under that wetland habitat is not yet limiting Significant Portion of the Range which a species would qualify for the population, at least at the landscape listing: A species may be endangered or Analysis level. threatened throughout all of its range; or A number of regulatory mechanisms Having determined that the a species may be endangered or are being implemented by Federal and continental U.S. wood stork DPS meets threatened in only a significant portion State agencies to protect wood storks the definition of threatened, we must of its range. If a species is in danger of and conserve their habitat. Take of next consider whether there is a extinction throughout an SPR, it, the wood storks is illegal under both the Act significant portion of the range where species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ and MBTA. Whether habitat protection the wood stork is in danger of The same analysis applies to and conservation mechanisms are extinction. The phrase ‘‘significant ‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the inadequate must be assessed in terms of portion of its range’’ (SPR) is not consequence of finding that a species is the wood stork population. Recent defined by the statute, and we have endangered or threatened in only a trends indicate that the range of the never addressed in our regulations: (1) significant portion of its range is that the continental U.S. wood stork DPS is The consequences of a determination entire species will be listed as expanding and that the breeding that a species is either endangered or endangered or threatened, respectively, population has increased, suggesting likely to become so throughout a and the Act’s protections will be that existing regulatory mechanisms are significant portion of its range, but not applied across the species’ entire range. adequate to allow population growth. throughout all of its range; or (2) what We conclude, for the purposes of this However, we remain concerned that the qualifies a portion of a range as proposed rule and finding, that status of this species would be expected ‘‘significant.’’ interpreting the SPR phrase as providing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

an independent basis for listing is the some habitat types are less susceptible The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in best interpretation of the Act because it to certain threats, contributing to this proposed rule and finding carefully is consistent with the purposes and the resiliency (the ability of the species to balances these concerns. By setting a plain meaning of the key definitions of recover from disturbance). None of these relatively high threshold, we minimize the Act; it does not conflict with concepts is intended to be mutually the degree to which restrictions would established past agency practice (i.e., exclusive, and a portion of a species’ be imposed or resources expended that prior to the 2007 Solicitor’s Opinion), as range may be determined to be do not contribute substantially to no consistent, long-term agency practice ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions species conservation. But we have not has been established; and it is consistent under any one of these concepts. set the threshold so high that the phrase with the judicial opinions that have For the purposes of this proposed rule ‘‘in a significant portion of its range’’ most closely examined this issue. and finding, we determine if a portion’s loses independent meaning. Having concluded that the phrase biological contribution is so important Specifically, we have not set the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ that the portion qualifies as threshold as high as it was under the provides an independent basis for ‘‘significant’’ by asking whether, without interpretation presented by the Service listing and protecting the entire species, that portion, the representation, in the Defenders litigation. Under that we next turn to the meaning of redundancy, or resiliency of the species interpretation, the portion of the range ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold would be so impaired that the species would have to be so important that for when such an independent basis for would have an increased vulnerability current imperilment there would mean listing exists. to threats to the point that the overall that the species would be currently Although there are potentially many species would be in danger of extinction imperiled everywhere. Under the ways to determine whether a portion of (i.e., would be ‘‘endangered’’). definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in this a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we Conversely, we would not consider the proposed rule and finding, the portion conclude, for the purposes of this portion of the range at issue to be of the range need not rise to such an proposed rule and finding, that the ‘‘significant’’ if there is sufficient exceptionally high level of biological significance of the portion of the range resiliency, redundancy, and significance. (We recognize that if the should be determined based on its representation elsewhere in the species’ species is imperiled in a portion that biological contribution to the range that the species would not be in rises to that level of biological conservation of the species. For this danger of extinction throughout its significance, then we should conclude reason, we describe the threshold for range if the population in that portion that the species is in fact imperiled ‘‘significant’’ in terms of an increase in of the range in question became throughout all of its range, and that we the risk of extinction for the species. We extirpated (extinct locally). would not need to rely on the SPR conclude that a biologically based We recognize that this definition of language for such a listing.) Rather, ‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms under this interpretation we ask that is relatively high. On the one hand, to the purposes of the Act, is consistent whether the species would be given that the consequences of finding with judicial interpretations, and best endangered everywhere without that a species to be endangered or threatened ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for portion, i.e., if that portion were in an SPR would be listing the species the purposes of this proposed rule and completely extirpated. In other words, throughout its entire range, it is finding, a portion of the range of a the portion of the range need not be so important to use a threshold for species is ‘‘significant’’ if its important that even being in danger of contribution to the viability of the ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not extinction in that portion would be species is so important that, without be meaningful or appropriate to sufficient to cause the remainder of the that portion, the species would be in establish a very low threshold whereby range to be endangered; rather, the danger of extinction. a portion of the range can be considered We evaluate biological significance ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible complete extirpation (in a hypothetical based on the principles of conservation increase in extinction risk would result future) of the species in that portion biology using the concepts of from its loss. Because nearly any portion would be required to cause the redundancy, resiliency, and of a species’ range can be said to remainder of the range to be representation. Resiliency describes the contribute some increment to a species’ endangered. characteristics of a species that allow it viability, use of such a low threshold The range of a species can to recover from periodic disturbance. would require us to impose restrictions theoretically be divided into portions in Redundancy (having multiple and expend conservation resources an infinite number of ways. However, populations distributed across the disproportionately to conservation there is no purpose to analyzing landscape) may be needed to provide a benefit: Listing would be rangewide, portions of the range that have no margin of safety for the species to even if only a portion of the range of reasonable potential to be significant withstand catastrophic events. minor conservation importance to the and threatened or endangered. To Representation (the range of variation species is imperiled. On the other hand, identify only those portions that warrant found in a species) ensures that the it would be inappropriate to establish a further consideration, we determine species’ adaptive capabilities are threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too whether there is substantial information conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and high. This would be the case if the indicating that: (1) The portions may be representation are not independent of standard were, for example, that a ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be each other, and some characteristic of a portion of the range can be considered in danger of extinction there or likely to species or area may contribute to all ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that become so within the foreseeable future. three. For example, distribution across a portion result in the entire species’ Depending on the biology of the species, wide variety of habitats is an indicator being currently endangered or its range, and the threats it faces, it of representation, but it may also threatened. Such a high bar would not might be more efficient for us to address indicate a broad geographic distribution give the SPR phrase independent the significance question first or the contributing to redundancy (decreasing meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in status question first. Thus, if we the chance that any one event affects the Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 determine that a portion of the range is entire species), and the likelihood that F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75963

determine whether the species is the time of listing in 1984 ranges from Kobza (2010, p. 2) report a general shift endangered or threatened there; if we 457 to 3,449 pairs, with considerable of colony locations to the coast in recent determine that the species is not variability. These observed fluctuations years. endangered or threatened in a portion of in the nesting between years and nesting Although the variability of habitat its range, we do not need to determine sites have been attributed primarily to conditions affects the nesting efforts in if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In variable hydrologic conditions during south Florida and at times there is total practice, a key part of the portion status the nesting season (Crozier and Gawlik failure of a colony or little to no nesting, analysis is whether the threats are 2003, p. 1; Crozier and Cook 2004, pp. we do not believe such variability will geographically concentrated in some 1–2). Frequent, heavy rains during cause extirpation of wood storks in way. If the threats to the species are nesting can cause water levels to south Florida. Wood storks are a long- essentially uniform throughout its increase rapidly. The abrupt increases lived species that demonstrate range, no portion is likely to warrant in water levels during nesting, termed considerable variation in population further consideration. Moreover, if any reversals (Crozier and Gawlik 2003, p. numbers in response to changing concentration of threats applies only to 1), may cause nest abandonment, re- hydrological conditions (USFWS 1997, portions of the species’ range that nesting, late nest initiation, and poor p. 10). We are not aware of any other clearly would not meet the biologically fledging success. For example, optimal threat within this portion of the range based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such foraging conditions in 2006 resulted in that would act synergistically and portions will not warrant further high nesting success, but the 2-year heighten our level of concern for the consideration. drought that followed in 2007 and 2008 wood stork population. Consequently, Applying the process described resulted in no nesting success in the although we recognize that it is above, we evaluated the continental Corkscrew Sanctuary rookery (Lauritsen desirable to improve the nesting success U.S. wood stork DPS’s range to 2007, p. 11; Lauritsen 2008, p. 12). of wood storks in south Florida, we determine if any areas could be However, 2009 nesting data for conclude that the present level of considered a significant portion of its Corkscrew Sanctuary rookeries noted habitat threat, when combined with the range, and a key portion of that 1,120 nests producing 2,570 nestlings restoration efforts of CERP, is not of a determination is whether the threats are (Lauritsen 2009, p. 13). Similar magnitude that leads us to delineate the geographically concentrated in some rebounds in nesting activity were wood storks in and around south manner. As detailed in the threat recorded for other south Florida Florida as being more in danger of analysis in this proposed rule and rookeries in 2009, with possibly the extinction than wood storks breeding in finding, the primary threat to the wood largest number of nest starts since 1975, central/north Florida through North stork—habitat loss, fragmentation, and estimated at about 4,000 nests Carolina, nor as being a significant modification—is a relatively uniform throughout the Everglades and Big portion of the range of the continental threat across the species’ range. Cypress Systems (Newman 2009, p. 51) U.S. wood stork DPS. It could be argued that at the time of In summary, the primary threat to the and a total of 5,816 nesting pairs (Table listing, the threat of habitat destruction continental U.S. wood stork DPS— 2) in south Florida. and fragmentation to the continental habitat loss, fragmentation, and U.S. wood stork DPS at one time was The CERP established performance modification—is relatively uniform concentrated in south Florida. With the measures and related goals for wood throughout the DPS’s range. We have current habitat regimes, nesting wood storks and other wading bird species. determined that none of the existing or storks have persisted in south Florida Metrics include the number of pairs of potential threats currently place the with nesting numbers below historic nesting wood storks and the location of continental U.S. wood stork DPS in counts but also varying annually from the wood stork colonies. The timing of danger of extinction throughout all or a hundreds to several thousand in many nesting, which shifted from historical significant portion of its range. years (Table 2). Even though we share periods of November through December Available Conservation Measures above that no concentration of threats to January through March, is also a currently occurs in the range of this metric. There have been some recent Conservation measures provided to DPS, we provide here more detail on positive measures in Everglades species listed as endangered or south Florida to show further why it is restoration regarding these metrics. threatened under the Act include not a significant portion of range Restoration predicts that the return of recognition, recovery actions, because of the emphasis on south natural flows and hydrologic patterns requirements for Federal protection, and Florida in the wood stork recovery plan. will result in large, sustainable breeding prohibitions against certain practices. The wood storks nesting in south wading bird populations, with large Recognition through listing increases Florida (the region south of Lake colonies in the coastal zone of the public awareness of threats to the Okeechobee from Lee County on the Everglades and a return to natural continental U.S. breeding population of west coast to Palm Beach County on the timing of nesting, with wood stork nest the wood stork, and promotes east coast, and the Everglades and Big initiation in November or December. conservation actions by Federal, State, Cypress systems) now represent Cook and Kobza (2010, p. 2) suggest that and local agencies, private approximately 25 percent of the Everglades National Park may be more organizations, and individuals. The Act breeding wood storks in the United attractive to nesting birds in recent years provides for possible land acquisition States during the past 10 years (Tables and that the 2009 breeding season was and cooperation with the State, and for 1 and 2). Total nesting pairs in this the best nesting year in south Florida recovery planning and implementation. region have been quite variable, but since the 1940s. The 2009–2010 nesting The protection required of Federal showed a general pattern of decline year did show an improvement in nest agencies and the prohibitions against during the 1970s and remained low timing with wood stork nesting in taking and harm are discussed, in part through the mid 1980s. However, wood January, which is earlier than previous below. stork nesting increased in south Florida years, but which is still outside the A number of the nesting colonies of from the mid 1990s (an average of 400 nesting onset target of November to the continental U.S. wood stork DPS to 500 pairs) to a high of 5,816 pairs in December (Newman 2009, p. 52; occur on Federal conservation lands and 2009. A 3-year running average since Gottlieb 2010, p. 42). Also, Cook and are consequently afforded protection

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

from development and large-scale exceptions apply to agents of the existence of the continental U.S. wood habitat disturbance. Wood stork Service and State conservation agencies. stork DPS. colonies also occur on a variety of State- We may issue permits to carry out If this proposed rule is made final and owned properties, and existing State otherwise prohibited activities the continental U.S. wood stork DPS is and Federal regulations provide involving threatened wildlife species reclassified as threatened, recovery protection on these sites. There is also under certain circumstances. actions directed at the wood stork a significant number of wood stork Regulations governing permits are would continue to be implemented as colonies that occur on private lands, codified at § 17.32 for threatened outlined in the recovery plan (Service and through conservation partnerships, species. Such permits are available for 1997). Highest priority recovery actions many of these colonies are protected scientific purposes, to enhance the include: (1) Locate nesting habitat; (2) through the owners’ stewardship. In propagation or survival of the species, locate roosting and foraging habitat; (3) many cases these partnerships have and for incidental take in the course of inform landowners; (4) protect (nesting) been developed through conservation otherwise lawful activities. For sites from disturbance; (5) use existing easements, wetland restoration projects, threatened species, permits are also regulatory mechanisms to protect and other conservation means. The fact available for zoological exhibition, habitat; and (6) monitor productivity of that wood stork habitat is primarily educational purposes, and special stork populations. Other recovery wetlands also assures the opportunity purposes consistent with the purposes initiatives also include appointing a for conference or consultation on most of the Act. recovery team to update the recovery projects that occur in wood stork habitat Questions regarding whether specific plan to ensure the recovery criteria and under the authorities described below. activities will constitute a violation of actions reflect the most current Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, section 9 of the Act should be directed information on the demographics, range, requires Federal agencies to evaluate to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and habitat needs of the species. their actions with respect to the North Florida Ecological Services Field Finalization of this proposed rule continental U.S. breeding population of Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION would not constitute an irreversible the wood stork. If a Federal action may CONTACT section). Requests for copies of commitment on our part. affect the wood stork or its habitat, the the regulations regarding listed species Reclassification of the continental U.S. responsible Federal agency must consult and inquiries about prohibitions and wood stork DPS from threatened status with the Service to ensure that any permits may be addressed to the U.S. back to endangered status would be action authorized, funded, or carried out Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological possible if changes occur in by such agency is not likely to Services Division, 1875 Century management, population status, or jeopardize the continued existence of Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 habitat, or if other factors detrimentally the wood stork. Federal agency actions (telephone 404–679–7313, facsimile affect the DPS or increase threats to the that may require consultation with us species’ survival. include Corps’ involvement in projects 404–679–7081). such as residential development, mining Effects of This Rule Peer Review operations, construction of roads and In accordance with our policy bridges, or dredging that requires This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR dredge/fill permits. Protecting and 34270), we will solicit the expert restoring wetlands that wood storks are continental U.S. wood stork DPS from endangered to threatened on the List of opinions of at least three appropriate dependent upon through the and independent specialists for peer environmental regulatory review Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This proposed rule discusses how the review of this proposed rule. The process is the most important action purpose of such review is to ensure that that Federal, State, and local regulatory continental U.S. wood stork DPS is no longer in danger of extinction decisions are based on scientifically agencies can undertake and is key to sound data, assumptions, and analysis. wood stork recovery. throughout all or a significant portion of its range. However, this reclassification We will send peer reviewers copies of The Act and its implementing this proposed rule immediately regulations set forth a series of general would not significantly change the protection afforded this species under following publication in the Federal prohibitions and exceptions that apply Register. We will invite peer reviewers to all endangered and threatened the Act. Based on new information about the range of the continental U.S. to comment, during the public comment wildlife. As such, these prohibitions period, on the specific assumptions and would be applicable to the wood stork. wood stork DPS and where nesting is conclusions regarding the proposed These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 now occurring, this rule, if made final, reclassification to threatened. We will (17.31 for threatened wildlife species), would also revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to summarize the opinions of these make it illegal for any person subject to reflect that the range of the continental reviewers in the final decision the jurisdiction of the United States to U.S. wood stork DPS has expanded from document, and we will consider their ‘‘take’’ (including to harass, harm, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South input, and any additional information pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, Carolina to also include North Carolina we receive, as part of our process of capture, collect, or to attempt any of and Mississippi (see Distinct Vertebrate making a final decision on the proposal. these) within the United States or upon Population Segment Analysis section Such communication may lead to a final the high seas, import or export, deliver, above). receive, carry, transport, or ship in Anyone taking, attempting to take, or regulation that differs from this interstate or foreign commerce in the otherwise possessing a wood stork, or proposal. course of a commercial activity, or to parts thereof, in violation of section 9 of Required Determinations sell or offer for sale in interstate or the Act is subject to a penalty under foreign commerce, any endangered section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 wildlife species. It also is illegal to section 7 of the Act, all Federal agencies This rule does not contain any new possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or must ensure that any actions they collections of information that require ship any such wildlife that has been authorize, fund, or carry out are not approval by the Office of Management taken in violation of the Act. Certain likely to jeopardize the continued and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75965

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). They have been advised through a Florida Ecological Services Field Office This rule will not impose recordkeeping written informational mailing from the (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). or reporting requirements on State or Service. If future activities resulting Authors local governments, individuals, from this proposed rule may affect businesses, or organizations. An agency Tribal resources, a Plan of Cooperation The primary authors of this document may not conduct or sponsor, and a will be developed with the affected are the staff members of the North person is not required to respond to, a Tribe or Tribes. Florida Ecological Services Field Office collection of information unless it (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). displays a currently valid OMB control Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866) number. We are required by Executive Orders List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 12866 and 12988 and by the National Environmental Policy Act Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Endangered and threatened species, We have determined that we do not 1998, to write all rules in plain Exports, Imports, Reporting and need to prepare an environmental language. This means that each rule we recordkeeping requirements, assessment or environmental impact publish must: Transportation. statement, as defined in the National (a) Be logically organized; Proposed Regulation Promulgation Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 (b) Use the active voice to address U.S.C 4321 et seq.), in connection with readers directly; We propose to amend part 17, regulations adopted pursuant to section (c) Use clear language rather than subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We jargon; Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth published a notice outlining our reasons (d) Be divided into short sections and below: for this determination in the Federal sentences; and Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR (e) Use lists and tables wherever PART 17—[AMENDED] 49244). possible. If you feel that we have not met these 1. The authority citation for part 17 Government-to-Government requirements, send us comments by one continues to read as follows: Relationship With Tribes of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. In accordance with the President’s section. To better help us revise the 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– memorandum of April 29, 1994, rule, your comments should be as 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations specific as possible. For example, you with Native American Tribal should tell us the numbers of the 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive sections or paragraphs that are unclearly entry for ‘‘Stork, wood’’ under ‘‘BIRDS’’ Order 13175, and the Department of the written, which sections or sentences are in the List of Endangered and Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we too long, the sections where you feel Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: have considered possible effects on and lists or tables would be useful, etc. have notified the Native American § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. Tribes within the range of the References Cited continental U.S. breeding population of A complete list of references cited is * * * * * the wood stork about this proposal. available upon request from the North (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When list- Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened ed habitat rules

******* BIRDS

******* Stork, wood ...... Mycteria americana U.S.A. (CA, AZ, TX, U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, T 142, NA NA to Carolinas), MS, NC, SC). Mexico, C. and S. America.

*******

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 75966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * and may be used as a reference for requires that persons hold and assign a Dated: December 14, 2012. allocations in a future management license to each vessel that is used to fish Rowan W. Gould, program that is consistent with the in federally managed fisheries, with Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Council’s objectives and applicable some limited exemptions. The preamble [FR Doc. 2012–30731 Filed 12–21–12; 4:15 pm] Federal laws. to the final rule implementing the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: groundfish LLP provides a more Rachel Baker: 907–586–7228 or detailed explanation of the rationale for [email protected]. specific provisions in the LLP (October DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1, 1998; 63 FR 52642). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS Over the course of the past few years, National Oceanic and Atmospheric manages the groundfish fisheries in the the Council has recommended Administration U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of amendments to the FMP to reduce the the GOA under the Fishery Management use of PSC in the GOA fisheries. Under 50 CFR Part 679 Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Amendment 93 to the FMP, the Council Alaska (FMP). The Council prepared, recommended, and NMFS approved, [Docket No. 121121645–2645–01] and NMFS approved, the FMP under Chinook PSC limits in the GOA pollock RIN 0648–BC80 the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens (Theragra chalcogramma) trawl Fishery Conservation and Management fisheries (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012). Control Date for Qualifying Landings Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. In June 2012, the Council recommended History in the Central Gulf of Alaska Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and an FMP amendment to reduce halibut Trawl Groundfish Fisheries implementing the FMP appear at 50 PSC limits for the trawl and longline CFR parts 600 and 679. fisheries in the Central GOA and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries This advance notice of proposed Western GOA. This series of actions Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and rulemaking would apply to owners and reflects the Council’s commitment to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), operators of catcher vessels and catcher/ reduce PSC in the GOA fisheries. Commerce. processors participating in Federal Participants in these fisheries, ACTION: Advance notice of proposed fisheries prosecuted with trawl gear in particularly the Central GOA trawl rulemaking (ANPR); control date. the Central Reporting Area of the GOA. fisheries, have raised concerns that the The Central Reporting Area, defined at SUMMARY: At the request of the North current limited access management § 679.2 and shown in Figure 3 to 50 CFR system creates a substantial disincentive Pacific Fishery Management Council part 679, includes the Central (Council), this notice announces a for participants to take actions to reduce Regulatory Area (Statistical Areas 620 PSC usage, particularly if those actions control date of December 31, 2012, that and 630). may be used as a reference for future could reduce target catch rates. The Council and NMFS annually Additionally, any participants who management actions applicable to, but establish biological thresholds and not limited to, qualifying landings and choose not to take actions to reduce PSC annual total allowable catch limits for usage stand to gain additional target permit history for an allocation-based groundfish species to sustainably catch by continuing to harvest management or catch share program in manage the groundfish fisheries in the groundfish at a higher catch rate, at the the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) trawl GOA. To achieve these objectives, expense of any vessels engaged in PSC groundfish fisheries. This date NMFS requires vessel operators avoidance. In October 2012, the Council corresponds to the end of the fishing participating in GOA groundfish unanimously adopted a purpose and year for this fishery, so that the full fisheries to comply with various need statement, and goals and catch history for 2012 may be restrictions, such as fishery closures, to objectives, to support the development considered in any such future maintain catch within specified total of a management system that would management actions. We also expect allowable catch limits. The GOA remove this disincentive to reduce PSC that this notice will publish close to the groundfish fishery restrictions also usage. control date of December 31, 2012, and include prohibited species catch (PSC) The Council intends to develop a so will not either prompt speculation in limits for species that are generally management program that would advance of the control date, or required to be discarded when replace the current limited access disadvantage any fishers regarding their harvested. When harvest of a PSC management program with allocations fishing activity after the control date, species reaches the specified PSC limit of allowable harvest (catch shares) to but before publication. This notice is for that fishery, NMFS closes directed individuals, cooperatives, or other intended to promote awareness of fishing for the target groundfish species, entities. The goal of the program is to possible rulemaking and provide notice even if the total allowable catch limit for improve stock conservation by creating to the public that any accumulation of that species has not been harvested. vessel-level and/or cooperative-level landings history in the Central GOA The Council and NMFS have long incentives to control and reduce PSC, trawl groundfish fisheries occurring sought to control the amount of fishing and to create accountability measures after the control date may not be in the North Pacific Ocean to ensure for participants when utilizing target, credited for purposes of making any that fisheries are conservatively secondary, and PSC species. The allocation under a future management managed and do not exceed established Council also intends for the program to program. This notice is also intended to biological thresholds. One of the improve operational efficiencies, reduce discourage speculative entry into the measures used by the Council and incentives to fish during unsafe fisheries while the Council considers NMFS is the license limitation program conditions, and support the continued whether and how allocations of fishing (LLP) which limits access to the participation of coastal communities privileges should be developed under a groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries that are dependent on the fisheries. The future management program. in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Council intends to develop an analysis DATES: December 31, 2012, shall be and the GOA. The LLP is intended to of alternatives for a catch share known as the control date for the limit entry into federally managed management program that meets its Central GOA trawl groundfish fisheries fisheries. For groundfish, the LLP goals and objectives. In developing the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 06:27 Dec 22, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with