57426 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

unacceptable for distribution by the 

National Eagle Repository, or those that 

the National Eagle Repository does not 

typically distribute to Native Americans 

for religious ceremonial purposes (such 

as some skeletal parts), all nonliving 

eagle specimens possessed under this 

permit must have been lawfully 

acquired before March 30, 1994. The 

Regional Director for the Region where 

the applicant resides may authorize 

exceptions on a case-by-case basis for 

important resource needs with 

compelling justification. 

(5) Prior to acquiring or transferring 

any eagle or specimen thereof, you must 

submit a FWS Form 3–202–12 to your 

migratory bird permit issuing office and 

receive authorization from the office for 

the transfer. 

(6) To transport nonliving eagle 

specimens out of or into the United 

States for educational purposes, you 

must submit your application for a 

transport permit to the Division of 

Management Authority. Your 

application must contain all the 

information necessary for the issuance 

of a CITES permit. You must also 

comply with all the requirements in part 

23 of this subchapter before undertaking 

international travel. Mail should be 

addressed to the Division of 

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203– 

1610. 

(i) Eagle specimens may be 

transported out of or into the United 

States on a temporary basis only. You 

must return the permitted specimens to 

the originating country within the 

timeframe specified on the face of the 

permit, not to exceed 3 years. 

(ii) We will not issue a permit under 

this section that authorizes the 

transportation out of or into the United 

States of any live bald eagle or golden 

eagle or viable egg of these species. 

(7) You must send all bald eagle and 

golden eagle carcasses of eagles that die 

in your possession, and all molted eagle 

primary and secondary feathers and 

retrices (tail feathers) not needed for 

imping (replacing a damaged feather 

with a molted feather) to the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Eagle 

Repository, Building 128, Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, CO 

80022. You can contact the Repository 

at 303–287–2110. 

(8) You must submit an annual report 

for the preceding calendar year to your 

migratory bird permit issuing office by 

the date specified on your permit. You 

may complete FWS Form 3–202–13 or 

a report from a database you maintain, 

provided your report contains all, and 

only, the information required by FWS 

Form 3–202–13. 

Dated: July 1, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23342 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

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/ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57428 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

°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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57430 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 manmade 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 100903415–04–02] 

RIN 0648–XW96 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; 90–Day Finding on 

a Petition to List Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 

as Threatened or Endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: 90–day petition finding; request 

for information. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90– 

day finding for a petition to list Atlantic 

bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to 

designate critical habitat concurrently 

with a listing. We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted. We will 

conduct a status review of Atlantic 

bluefin tuna to determine if the 

petitioned action is warranted. To 

ensure that the review is 

comprehensive, we solicit information 

pertaining to this species from any 

interested party. 

DATES: Information related to this 

petition finding must be received by 

November 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–XW96, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1