[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57426-57431]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se10-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0067; 92220-1113-0000-C5]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Reclassify the U.S. Breeding Population of Wood Storks
From Endangered to Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the United States (U.S.)
breeding population of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) from
endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
reclassifying the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork to
threatened may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the species' status to determine
if reclassification is warranted. To ensure that this status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding the U.S. breeding population of this
species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding
on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is
warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before November 22, 2010. After this
date, you must submit information directly to the Jacksonville
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below). Please note that if you are using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is Eastern Standard Time on this date.
We may not be able to address or incorporate information that we
receive after this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In
the Keyword box, enter Docket No FWS-R4-ES-2010-0067, which is the
docket number for this action. Then, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0067; Division of
Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Hankla, Field Supervisor,
Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way,
Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256, by telephone (904) 731-3336, or by
facsimile (904) 731-3045. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that reclassifying a species may be warranted,
we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status
review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we request information
from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties concerning the
status of the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork and other
populations of wood storks breeding in Central and South America. We
seek information on:
(1) The historical and current status and distribution of the wood
stork, its biology and ecology, and ongoing conservation measures for
the species and its habitat;
(2) The five factors that are the basis for making a listing/
delisting/
[[Page 57427]]
downlisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence;
(3) The genetics and taxonomy of the wood stork throughout its
entire range, including the range of the federally listed U.S. breeding
population of the wood stork; and
(4) Discreteness and significance of the wood stork in the
southeastern United States in light of our distinct population segment
(DPS) policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
(5) Discreteness, significance, and status of the wood stork in
other portions of its range.
(6) Differences or similarities in regulatory protection for the
wood stork outside of the southeastern United States.
(7) Whether or not climate change is a threat to the species, what
regional climate change models are available, and whether they are
reliable and credible to use as step-down models for assessing the
effect of climate change on the species and its habitat.
(8) Anything else that would assist us in determining whether the
wood stork is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information
via http://www.regulations.gov/, your entire submission--including any
personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If
you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information,
you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this
personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov/.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov/, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard
to a 90-day petition finding is ``that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that
substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species,
which is subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On May 28, 2009, we received a petition, dated May 27, 2009, from
the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the Florida Homebuilders
Association, requesting that the southeastern U.S. population of the
wood stork be reclassified as threatened under the Act as recommended
in our 2007 5-year status review. The petition clearly identified
itself as such and included the requisite identification information
for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a).
The petition presented, as sole supporting evidence, the 2007 5-
year status review as its supporting information. The petition
incorporated the status review by reference and summarized the five-
factor analysis contained in the status review. On July 9, 2009, we
sent a letter to the Pacific Legal Foundation informing them that we
received the petition.
On July 8, 2010, we received a letter, dated July 1, 2010, from the
Pacific Legal Foundation, notifying the Service of the Pacific Legal
Foundation's intent to commence civil litigation after 60 days if we
did not respond to the petition. This notice constitutes our initial
finding on the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
On February 28, 1984, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register listing the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork as
endangered under the Act due primarily to the loss of suitable feeding
habitat, particularly in south Florida (49 FR 7332). The endangered
status covered wood storks in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
and South Carolina, the breeding range of the species at that time. At
the time of listing, critical habitat was considered but not designated
for this species (49 FR 7332). We developed a September 9, 1986,
recovery plan for the U.S. breeding population. The recovery plan was
revised on January 27, 1997, and addressed new threats and species'
needs.
On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56882), we published a notice in the
Federal Register that we were conducting a 5-year review for all
endangered and threatened species listed before January 1, 1991,
including the wood stork. In this review, we simultaneously evaluated
the status of many species, with no in-depth assessment of the five
threat factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act as they pertain to the
individual species. The notice stated that we were seeking any new or
additional information reflecting the necessity of a change in the
status of any of the species under review. The notice indicated that if
significant data were available warranting a change in a species'
classification, we would propose a rule to modify the species' status.
We did not find a change in the wood stork's listing classification
under the Act to be warranted at that time.
On September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56545), we published a notice in the
Federal Register that we were initiating a 5-year status review of 37
southeastern U.S. species, including the wood stork. We
[[Page 57428]]
solicited information from the public concerning the status of the
species, including the status and trends of species threats under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We completed the 5-year status review for
the wood stork on September 27, 2007. The 5-year status review,
completed in accordance with section 4(c)(2) of the Act, contains a
detailed description of the species' natural history and status,
including information on distribution and movements, behavior,
population status and trends, and factors contributing to the status of
the U.S. breeding population. It also presents a detailed analysis of
the five factors that are the basis for determination of a species'
status under section 4(a) of the Act. A copy of the 5-year status
review is available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/
docs/five_year_review/doc1115.pdf.
Species Information
The wood stork is a large, long-legged wading bird, with a head-to-
tail length of 85-115 centimeters (cm) (33-45 inches (in)) and a
wingspread of 150-165 cm (59-65 in). The plumage is white, except for
iridescent black primary and secondary wing feathers and a short black
tail. Storks fly with their necks and legs extended. On adults, the
rough, scaly skin of the head and neck is unfeathered and blackish in
color, the legs are dark, and the feet are dull pink. The bill color is
also blackish. Immature storks, up to the age of about 3 years, differ
from adults in that their bills are yellowish or strap colored and
there are varying amounts of dusky feathers on the head and neck.
During courtship and early nesting season, adults have pale salmon
coloring under the wings, fluffy undertail coverts that are longer than
the tail, and toes that brighten to a vivid pink.
Wood storks feed almost entirely on fish between 2 and 25 cm (1 and
10 in) in length (Kahl 1964, pp.107-108; Ogden et al. 1976, pp. 325-
327). They also occasionally consume crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles,
mammals, birds, and arthropods. Fish populations reach high numbers
during the wet season, but become concentrated in increasingly
restricted habitats as drying occurs. Consumers such as the wood stork
are able to exploit high concentrations of fish in drying ponds and
sloughs.
Mating and Reproduction
Wood storks are seasonally monogamous, probably forming a new pair
bond every season. There is documented first breeding at 3 and 4 years
old, but the average age at first breeding is unknown. Nest initiation
varies geographically. Wood storks lay eggs as early as October and as
late as June in Florida (Rodgers 1990, pp. 48-51). In general, earlier
nesting occurs in the southern portion of Florida (< 27 [deg]N). Wood
storks in Georgia and South Carolina initiate nesting on a seasonal
basis regardless of environmental conditions. They lay eggs from March
to late May, with fledging occurring in July and August. In response to
deteriorating habitat conditions in south Florida, wood storks nesting
in Everglades National Park and in the Big Cypress region of Florida
delayed initiation of nesting to February or March in most years since
the 1970s. Colonies that start after January in south Florida risk
having young in the nests when May-June rains flood marshes and
disperse fish.
Females lay a single clutch of two to five eggs per breeding
season, but the average is three eggs. Females sometimes lay a second
clutch if nest failure occurs early in the season (Coulter et al. 1999,
p.11). Average clutch size may increase during years of favorable water
levels and food resources. Incubation requires about 30 days, and
begins after the female lays the first one or two eggs; the eggs
therefore hatch at different times and young nestlings in a single nest
vary in size. Nestlings require about 9 weeks for fledging, but the
young return to the nest for an additional 3 to 4 weeks to be fed.
Actual colony production measurements are difficult to determine
because of the prolonged fledging period, during which time the young
return daily to the colony to be fed. It appears that colonies
experience considerable variation in production among years and
locations, apparently in response to differences in food availability.
Range and Distribution
The wood stork is one of 17 species of storks occurring worldwide,
and is the only stork regularly occurring in the United States. It
occurs from northern Argentina, eastern Peru, and western Ecuador,
north to Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Hispaniola, and the
southeastern United States. The breeding range of the species extends
from the southeastern United States south through Mexico and Central
America, Cuba and Hispaniola, and through South America to western
Ecuador, eastern Peru, Bolivia, and northern Argentina (Coulter et al.
1999, p. 2). The species uses a variety of freshwater and estuarine
wetlands for nesting, feeding, and roosting. Throughout its range in
the southeastern United States, the wood stork is dependent upon
wetlands for breeding and foraging. Winter foraging habitat is also
important to the recovery of the species, as it may determine the
carrying capacity of the U.S. breeding population.
Wood storks select patches of medium-to-tall trees as nesting
sites, which are located either in standing water such as swamps, or on
islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water (Ogden
1991, p. 43). Colony sites located in standing water must remain
inundated throughout the nesting cycle to protect against predation and
nest abandonment. A wood stork tends to use the same colony site over
many years, as long as the site remains undisturbed, and sufficient
feeding habitat remains in the surrounding wetlands. Wood storks may
abandon traditional wetland sites once local or regional drainage
schemes remove surface water from beneath the colony trees.
Population Demographics
Alterations in the quality and amount of foraging habitats in the
Florida Everglades and extensive drainage and land conversions
throughout South Florida led to the initial decline of the wood stork
nesting population. Since listing under the Act, wood stork nesting has
increased in South Florida and the Everglades, but the timing and
location of nesting have changed in response to alterations in
hydrology and habitat. The overall distribution of the breeding
population of wood storks is also in transition. The wood stork appears
to have adapted to changes in habitat in South Florida in part by
expanding its breeding range north into Georgia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina.
The estimated total population of nesting wood storks throughout
the southeastern United States declined from 15,000-20,000 pairs during
the 1930s, to about 10,000 pairs in 1960, to a low of 4,500-5,700 pairs
in most years during the period between 1977-1980 (Ogden et al. 1987,
p. 752). In the 23-year period from the time of listing (1984) to 2006,
13 surveys of the entire breeding range were completed. Eight of those
resulted in counts exceeding 6,000 pairs. Five of those higher counts
occurred during the past 8 years. In summary, annual nest counts have
increased significantly, from 6,245 pairs to 11,279 pairs in 2006
(Brooks and Dean, 2008, pp. 53-54), indicating the population is stable
or increasing across the southeastern United States (Borkhataria et al.
2008, p. 48).
The recovery plan's population objectives are 6,000 nesting pairs
[[Page 57429]]
(calculated over a 3-year average) for consideration to reclassify from
endangered to threatened. The 1993-1995 surveys averaged 6,783 nesting
pairs. The 3-year averages from 2001 through 2006 also exceeded 6,000
pairs for all combined years.
Three-year averages calculated from nesting data from 2001 through
2006 indicate that the total nesting population has been consistently
above the threshold of 6,000 nesting pairs and productivity of 1.5
chicks per nest per year (2004-2006) required before the species can be
reclassified to threatened. The average number of nesting pairs has
ranged from 7,400 to over 8,700. The first wood stork colony in North
Carolina was documented in 2005, with 32 nesting pairs. In 2006, the
same North Carolina colony increased to 132 nesting pairs.
The 2006 nesting totals indicated that the wood stork population
reached over 11,000 nesting pairs documented in Florida, Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina during the 2006 breeding season.
Information in our files indicates that fewer than 6,000 nesting pairs
were documented in 2007 and 2008. These lower nesting numbers were
likely related to severe drought conditions in Florida. In 2009, the
number of nesting pairs once again surpassed 10,000, with over 12,000
nesting pairs recorded.
Since the time that the species was listed as endangered under the
Act, the number of nesting pairs in the United States is increasing
overall, the number of nesting colonies in the United States is
increasing, and the nesting range in the United States is growing.
Evaluation of Listable Entities
Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any
species, including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, or plants, or any DPS
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). Such entities are considered eligible for listing under the
Act (and, therefore, are referred to as listable entities), should we
determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
The Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries) developed a joint
policy that addresses the recognition of DPSes of vertebrate species
for potential listing actions (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). To
determine whether a population qualifies as a DPS; this requires a
finding that the population is both: (1) Discrete in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it belongs; and (2) biologically and
ecologically significant to the species to which it belongs. If the
population meets these criteria, we then proceed to evaluate the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing as an endangered or threatened species. These
three elements are applied similarly for additions to or removals from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Our evaluation of significance is made in light of Congressional
guidance (see Senate Report 151 of the 96th Congress, 1st Session) that
the authority to list DPSes be used ``sparingly,'' while encouraging
the conservation of genetic diversity. If we determine that a
population segment meets the discreteness and significance standards,
then the level of threat to that population segment is evaluated based
on the five listing factors established by the Act to determine whether
listing the DPS as either endangered or threatened is warranted.
In this case, the petitioners attached our 5-year status review of
the species, and incorporated it by reference into the petition. The
U.S. breeding population of the wood stork was listed in 1984 under the
Act, 12 years prior to the DPS policy. The 5-year status review did not
include a DPS analysis. However, it indicates that we believe the
original listing of the U.S. breeding population of wood storks likely
meets the current standards of the DPS policy for the following
reasons: The population is physically separated from the adjacent
populations that breed in southern Mexico. The loss of the U.S.
breeding population would result in a significant gap in the range of
the species, as there would no longer be wood storks breeding in the
United States. As applied to information contained in the petition and
available in our files, we will conduct a DPS analysis for the wood
stork as part of the status review process initiated under this 90-day
petition finding.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the southeastern U.S. population of the wood
stork, as presented in the petition and other information available in
our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is
presented below. On pp. 2-3 of the petition, the petitioner summarized
the five-factor analysis contained in our 2007 5-year review of the
species, which was also included as an attachment to the petition.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Factor A. is discussed on p. 2 of the petition and on pp. 14-16 in
our 5-year review of the species. Please refer to the 5-year review
document for additional information.
The petition and our 5-year review of the species presented
information regarding the threats to the wood stork from the loss,
fragmentation, and modification of wetland habitats. We found the
petition and information in our files presented substantial information
that activities that destroy or modify wetland habitat continue to
threaten the wood stork. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification
are known to impact the species, but the significance of these threats
cannot be quantified. The overall threat to the species is reduced, not
necessarily because of habitat conservation programs, but rather due to
an increase in wood storks and expansion of the range of the species.
Historically, the core of the wood stork breeding population in the
southeastern United States was located in the Everglades of south
Florida. Populations there had diminished because of deterioration of
the habitat. However, the breeding range has now almost doubled in
extent and shifted northward along the Atlantic coast as far as
southeastern North Carolina. Therefore, dependence of
[[Page 57430]]
wood storks on any specific wetland complex has been reduced.
In summary, we evaluated the petition and information in our files
and find that substantial information has been presented in the
petition or is available in our files to indicate that reclassifying
the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork to threatened may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of the species' habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Factor B. is discussed on p. 2 of the petition and on pp. 16-17 in
our 5-year review of the species. Please refer to the 5-year review
document for additional information.
As described in our 5-year review, a small number of scientific
research permits with potential to harm individual wood storks have
been issued. This level of take/harm is not expected to adversely
impact wood stork recovery. Wading birds can impact production at fish
farms. To minimize the impacts, the Service issues depredation permits
to aquaculture facilities for herons, egrets and other water bird
species. It is likely that wood stork take at aquaculture facilities
occurs. To what extent this type of take occurs is unknown.
After a review of information in our files and in the petition, we
do not find substantial information to indicate that overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a
threat to the wood stork.
C. Disease or Predation
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Factor C. is discussed on p. 3 of the petition and on pp. 17-18 in
our 5-year review of the species. Please refer to the 5-year review
document for additional information.
Colonies with adequate water levels under nesting trees or
surrounding nesting islands deter raccoon predation. If the water level
remains too low or alligators are removed from the nesting site, this
could facilitate raccoon predation. Human disturbance may cause adults
to leave nests, exposing eggs and nestlings to predators. A breeding
population of Burmese pythons has been documented in the Florida
Everglades. If this snake becomes established, it could pose a threat
to nesting water bird populations, including the wood stork. However,
there has been limited documentation of predation and disease in wood
storks.
After a review of information in our files and in the petition, we
find substantial information to indicate that disease or predation is a
threat to the wood stork, but that the threat is localized and not
occurring at significant levels.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Factor D. is discussed on p. 3 of the petition and on pp. 18-19 in
our 5-year review of the species. Please refer to the 5-year review
document for additional information.
There are a number of regulatory mechanisms implemented by Federal
and State agencies to protect wood storks and conserve their habitat.
Recent trends indicate that the range of the wood stork is expanding
and breeding populations have increased, suggesting that the current
conservation measures are sufficient to allow population growth.
We evaluated the petition and information in our files and find
that substantial information has been presented in the petition or is
available in our files to indicate that the existing regulatory
mechanisms appear to be adequate based on the increasing number of
nesting pairs and nesting colonies in the United States, and the
expanding nesting range in the United States. However, we cannot
determine whether regulatory mechanisms are adequate until the habitat
base is shown to be either sufficient or insufficient to minimize risk
of extinction in all or a significant portion of the range of wood
storks in the southeastern United States.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Factor E. is discussed on p. 3 of the petition and on pp. 19-21 in
our 5-year review of the species. Please refer to the 5-year review
document for additional information.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a,
p. 30). Numerous long-term changes have been observed, including
changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in
precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of
extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves,
and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). Species that
are dependent on specialized habitat types, are limited in
distribution, or are located in the extreme periphery of their range
will be most susceptible to the impacts of climate change. Such species
would currently be found at high elevations, extreme northern/southern
latitudes, or are dependent on delicate ecological interactions or
sensitive to nonnative competitors. While continued change is certain,
the magnitude and rate of change is unknown in many cases.
The petition did not present specific information on whether global
climate change has affected or is likely to affect the wood stork.
Additionally, information on the subject of climate change in our files
is not specific to the wood stork. While predictions of increased
drought frequency, intensity, and duration suggest that nestling
survival could be a limiting factor for the wood stork due to increased
predation, the species possesses other biological traits (i.e.,
adaptability to changing habitat conditions) to provide resilience to
this threat. We have no evidence that climate changes observed to date
have had any adverse impact on the wood stork or its habitat. Without
additional information, the effect of long-term climate change on the
wood stork is unclear. However, we will seek additional information
regarding any potential effects of climate change during the status
review process initiated under this 90-day petition finding.
Contaminants, harmful algal blooms such as red tide events,
electrocution mortalities from power lines, road kill, invasion of
exotic plants and animals, human disturbance, and stochastic events
such as severe thunderstorms and hurricanes may affect the wood stork,
but are not significant.
After a review of information in our files and in the petition, we
find substantial information to indicate that other natural or manmade
factors are a threat to the wood stork, but that the threat is not
significant, except that without additional information, the effect of
long-term climate change on the wood stork is unclear. However, we will
seek additional information regarding any potential effects of climate
change during the status review process.
Finding
The petition and supporting information in our files presents
[[Page 57431]]
substantial information on several factors affecting wood storks in the
southeastern United States, including: Impacts of habitat modification
and disruption of water regimes (Factor A); predation (Factor C); and
contaminants, harmful algal blooms such as red tide events,
electrocution mortalities from power lines, road kill, invasion of
exotic plants and animals, human disturbance, and stochastic events
(Factor E).
Of the five listing factors, Factor A (habitat destruction and
modification) continues to be the leading threat to wood stork
recovery. However, magnitude of this threat may be reduced due to the
increase in wood storks and expansion of the breeding range from
Florida into Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. There are a
number of regulatory mechanisms implemented by Federal and State
agencies to protect wood storks and conserve their habitat. Whether
habitat protection and conservation regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate can only be assessed in terms of the wood stork population,
and recent trends indicate that the range is still expanding and the
breeding population has increased, suggesting that current conservation
measures are sufficient to allow population growth. Other threats such
as disease and predation and other natural or man-made factors (i.e.,
contaminants, electrocution, road kill, invasion of exotic plants and
animals, disturbance, and stochastic events) are known to occur but are
not significant. We believe that the conclusions of the 5-year review
regarding the listing factors and the recommended change in status of
the species from endangered to threatened, as presented in the petition
and as modified by any information in our files, still apply.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms
are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical
proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted.
The information must contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
Because we have found that the petition, as well as other
information in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that reclassifying the wood stork in the
southeastern United States to threatened may be warranted, we are
initiating a status review to determine whether reclassifying the wood
stork in the southeastern United States to threatened under the Act is
warranted. We will issue a 12-month finding as to whether the
petitioned action is warranted. As part of our status review, we will
examine newly available information on the threats to the species and
make a final determination on a 12-month finding on whether the species
should be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. To ensure
the status review is complete, we are requesting scientific and
commercial information regarding the wood stork throughout its entire
range (as described under the Request for Information section).
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff of the Jacksonville
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 23, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-23138 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P