[Federal Register: August 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 160)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51223-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19au10-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0057; 92220-1113-0000-C3]
RIN 1018-AX23
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Endangered Whooping Cranes in
Southwestern Louisiana
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
reintroduce whooping cranes (Grus americana), a federally listed
endangered species, into habitat in its historic range in southwestern
Louisiana with the intent to establish a nonmigratory flock that lives
and breeds in the wetlands, marshes, and prairies there. We propose to
classify the flock as a nonessential experimental population (NEP)
according to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),
as amended. Releases will be within the historic breeding area in
southwestern Louisiana near White Lake in Vermilion Parish. This
proposed rule provides a plan for establishing the NEP and provides for
allowable legal incidental take of whooping cranes within the defined
NEP area. The objectives of the reintroduction are to advance recovery
of the endangered whooping crane. No conflicts are envisioned between
the reintroduction and any existing or anticipated Federal, State,
Tribal, local government, or private actions such as oil/gas
exploration and extraction, aquacultural practices, agricultural
practices, pesticide application, water management, construction,
recreation, trapping, or hunting.
DATES: We request that you send us comments on the proposed rule and
the draft environmental assessment by the close of business on October
18, 2010, or at the public hearings. We will hold public informational
open houses from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., followed by public hearings from 7
p.m. to 9 p.m., on September 15 and 16, 2010, at the locations within
the proposed NEP area identified in the ADDRESSES section.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments on the proposed
rule by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0057 and follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4- ES-2010-0057; 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 the proposed rule on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Procedures
section below for more details).
You may submit comments on the draft environmental assessment (EA)
by one of the following methods:
E-mail to: LouisianaCranesEA@fws.gov.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Lafayette Field Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400,
Lafayette, LA 70506.
Please see the draft EA for additional information regarding
commenting on that document.
Copies of Documents: The proposed rule and EA are available by the
following methods. In addition, comments and materials we receive, as
well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection:
(1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search
Documents box, enter FWS-R4-ES- 2010-0057, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the
screen, select the type of documents you want
[[Page 51224]]
to view under the Document Type heading.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the documents, comments, and materials in person at the Lafayette
Field Office, Lafayette Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, LA 70506, telephone 337-
291-3100, facsimile 337-291-3139. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Public Hearing: We will hold public hearings at the following
locations:
1. Gueydan, Louisiana, on September 15, 2010, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
at the Gueydan Civic Center, 901 Wilkinson Street, Gueydan, LA 70542;
and
2. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 16, 2010, from 7 p.m. to 9
p.m. at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2000 Quail
Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808. Each public hearing will be preceded by a
public informational open house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. For information
on reasonable accommodations to attend the informational open houses or
the hearings, see the Public Hearings section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Fuller, Lafayette Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (337-291-3100, facsimile 337-
291-3139) or Bill Brooks, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (904-731-3136, facsimile 904-731-3045).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comment Procedures
To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you
send relevant information for our consideration. Please make your
comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In
addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to
allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you
reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning the
following:
(1) The geographic boundary for the NEP;
(2) Information related to whooping crane itself as it relates
specifically to this reintroduction effort; and
(3) Effects of the reintroduction on other native species and the
ecosystem.
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action and
determining whether to prepare a finding of no significant impact or an
Environmental Impact Statement, we will take into consideration
comments and additional information we receive. Such information may
lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments and
recommendations, including names and addresses, will become part of the
administrative record for the final rule.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you
submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. Please note that comments submitted to this Web site are not
immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it
immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until
we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that include personal
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic
docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are
publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on http:/
www.regulations.gov.
Public Hearings
We will hold public hearings at the locations listed above in
ADDRESSES. Each public hearing will last from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on
September 15, 2010, and September 16, 2010. Before each hearing, we
will hold a public informational open house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. to
provide an additional opportunity for the public to gain information
and ask questions about the proposed rule. These open house sessions
should assist interested parties in preparing substantive comments on
the proposed rule. All comments we receive at the public hearings, both
verbal and written, will be considered in making our final decision on
the proposed establishment of the NEP. Persons needing reasonable
accommodations in order to attend and participate in a public hearing
should contact Deborah Fuller or Bill Brooks, at the address or phone
number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as
possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please
call no later than one week before the hearing. Information regarding
this proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.
Background
Previous Federal Actions
The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as an endangered
species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). We have previously designated
NEPs for whooping cranes in Florida (58 FR 5647, January 22, 1993); the
Rocky Mountains (62 FR 38932, July 21, 1997); and the Eastern United
States (66 FR 33903, June 26, 2001). See also ``Recovery Efforts''
below.
Legislative
Congress made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with the addition in
1982 of section 10(j), which provides for the designation of specific
reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' Under the Act, species listed as endangered or
threatened are afforded protection largely through the prohibitions of
section 9 and the requirements of section 7 and corresponding
implementing regulations.
Section 7 of the Act outlines the procedures for Federal
interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and
protect designated critical habitats. Under Section 7(a)(1), all
Federal agencies are mandated to determine how to use their existing
authorities to further the purposes of the Act to aid in recovering
listed species. Section 7(a)(2) states that Federal agencies will, in
consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does
not affect activities undertaken on private lands unless they are
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency.
Under section 10(j), the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior can designate reintroduced populations established outside the
species' current range, but within its historical range, as
''experimental.'' Section 10(j) is designed to increase our flexibility
in managing an experimental population by allowing us to treat the
population as threatened, regardless of the species' designation
elsewhere in its range. A threatened designation allows us discretion
in devising management programs and special regulations for such a
population. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of endangered
species. ``Take'' is defined by the Act as ``harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
[[Page 51225]]
attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' Section 4(d) of the Act allows
us to adopt whatever regulations are necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of a threatened species. In these situations, the
general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to
threatened species do not apply to that species, and the 10(j) rule
contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to
conserve that species.
Based on the best available information, we must determine whether
experimental populations are ``essential,'' or ``nonessential,'' to the
continued existence of the species. Both an experimental population
that is essential to the survival of the species and an experimental
population that is not essential to the survival of the species are
treated as a threatened species. However, for section 7 interagency
cooperation purposes, if a nonessential experimental population
(``NEP'') is located outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National
Park, it is treated as a species proposed for listing.
For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, in situations where an
NEP is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, the
NEP is treated as threatened and section 7(a)(1) and the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply.
When NEPs are located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or
National Park Service unit, we treat the population as proposed for
listing and only two provisions of section 7 apply-- section 7(a)(1)
and section 7(a)(4). In these instances, NEPs provide additional
flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to consult with
us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to
confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to
be listed. The results of a conference are in the form of conservation
recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or
authorize activities. However, since an NEP is not essential to the
continued existence of the species, it is very unlikely that we would
ever determine jeopardy for a project impacting a species within an
NEP. Regulations for NEPs may be developed to be more compatible with
routine human activities in the reintroduction area.
Individuals used to establish an experimental population may come
from a donor population, provided their removal is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and appropriate
permits are issued in accordance with our regulations (50 CFR 17.22)
prior to their removal. If this proposal is adopted, we would ensure,
through our section 10 permitting authority and the section 7
consultation process, that the use of individuals from donor
populations for release is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the species in the wild.
Biological Information
The whooping crane is a member of the family Gruidae (cranes). It
is the tallest bird in North America; males approach 1.5 meters (m) (5
feet (ft)) tall. In captivity, adult males average 7.3 kilograms (kg)
(16 pounds (lb)) and females 6.4 kg (14 lbs). Adult plumage is snowy
white except for black primary feathers, black or grayish alulae,
sparse black bristly feathers on the carmine (red) crown and malar
region (side of the head), and a dark gray-black wedge-shaped patch on
the nape.
Adults are potentially long-lived. Current estimates suggest a
maximum longevity in the wild of 32 years (Stehn, USFWS, 2010 pers
comm.). Captive individuals are known to have survived 27 to 40 years.
Mating is characterized by monogamous lifelong pair bonds. Fertile eggs
are occasionally produced at age 3 years but more typically at age 4.
Experienced pairs may not breed every year, especially when habitat
conditions are poor. Whooping cranes ordinarily lay two eggs. They will
renest if their first clutch is destroyed or lost before mid-incubation
(Erickson and Derrickson 1981, p. 108; Kuyt 1981, p. 123). Although two
eggs are laid, whooping crane pairs infrequently fledge two chicks
(Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
6). Approximately one of every four hatched chicks survives to reach
the wintering grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, p. 14).
The whooping crane once occurred from the Arctic Sea to the high
plateau of central Mexico, and from Utah east to New Jersey, South
Carolina, and Florida (Allen 1952, p. 1; Nesbitt 1982, p. 151). In the
19th century, the principal breeding range extended from central
Illinois northwest through northern Iowa, western Minnesota,
northeastern North Dakota, southern Manitoba, and Saskatchewan to the
vicinity of Edmonton, Alberta. There was also a nonmigratory population
breeding in coastal Louisiana (Allen 1952, p. 28; Gomez 1992, p. 19).
Banks (1978, p. 1) derived estimates that there were 500 to 700
whooping cranes in 1870. By 1941, the migratory population contained
only 16 individuals. The whooping crane population decline between
these two estimates was a consequence of hunting and specimen
collection, human disturbance, and conversion of the primary nesting
habitat to hay, pastureland, and grain production (Allen 1952, p. 28;
Erickson and Derrickson 1981, p. 108).
Allen (1952, pp. 18-40, 94) described several historical migration
routes. One of the most important led from the principal nesting
grounds in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba to
coastal Louisiana. Other historic Gulf coast wintering locations
included Mobile Bay in Alabama, and Bay St. Louis in Mississippi. A
route from the nesting grounds in North Dakota and the Canadian
Provinces went southward to the wintering areas of Texas and the Rio
Grande Delta region of Mexico. Another migration route crossed the
Appalachians to the Atlantic Coast.
Gomez (1992, p. 19) summarized the literary references regarding
whooping cranes in southwestern Louisiana. This included Olmsted's
mention of an ``immense white crane'' on the prairies of Louisiana
(1861, p. 31); Nelson (1929, pp. 146-147) reporting on wintering
whooping cranes near Pecan Island; and McIlhenny (1938, p. 670)
describing the small flock of resident cranes at Avery Island and
speculating on the reasons for the species' decline. Simons (1937, p.
220) included a photograph; Allen (1950, pp. 194-195) and Van Pelt
(1950, p. 22) recounted the capture of the last member of the Louisiana
nonmigratory flock; and Allen's whooping crane monograph (1952) is the
main source on whooping crane ecology in southwest Louisiana.
Records from more interior areas of the Southeast include the
Montgomery, Alabama, area; Crocketts Bluff on the White River, and near
Corning in Arkansas; in Missouri at sites in Jackson County near Kansas
City, in Lawrence County near Corning, southwest of Springfield in
Audrain County, and near St. Louis; and in Kentucky near Louisville and
Hickman. It is unknown whether these records represent wintering
locations, remnants of a nonmigratory population, or wandering birds.
Status of Current Populations
Whooping cranes currently exist in three wild populations and
within a captive breeding population at 12 locations. The first
population, and the only self-sustaining natural wild population, nests
in the Northwest Territories and adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada,
primarily within the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park. These
birds winter along the
[[Page 51226]]
central Texas Gulf of Mexico coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) and adjacent areas (referred to later as the Aransas-Wood Buffalo
population, or AWBP). From their nesting areas in Canada, these cranes
migrate southeasterly through Alberta, Saskatchewan, and eastern
Manitoba, stopping in southern Saskatchewan for several weeks in fall
migration before continuing migration into the United States. They
migrate through the Great Plains States of eastern Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The winter
habitat extends 50 kilometers (km) (31 miles) along the Texas coast
from San Jose Island and Lamar Peninsula on the south to Welder Point
and Matagorda Island on the north, and consists of estuarine marshes,
shallow bays, and tidal flats (Allen 1952, p. 127; Blankinship 1976, p.
384). Their spring migration is more rapid, and they simply reverse the
route followed in fall. Sixty-two pairs from this population nested in
2009, and 263 whooping cranes were reported from the wintering grounds
in January 2010. The flock is recovering from a population low of 15 or
16 birds in 1941.
The second population, the Florida nonmigratory population, is
found in the Kissimmee Prairie area of central Florida (see Recovery
Efforts section for further details on this population and the Eastern
population). Between 1993 and 2004, 289 captive-born, isolation-reared
whooping cranes were released into Osceola, Lake, and Polk Counties in
an effort to establish this nonmigratory flock. The last releases took
place in the winter of 2004-2005. As of January 2010, only 26
individuals are being monitored, which include 9 pairs and 1 fledgling
from 2009. Since the first nest attempt in 1999, there have been a
total of 72 nest attempts, 33 chicks hatched and only 10 chicks
successfully fledged. One pair has produced and fledged three of these
chicks. Problems with survival and reproduction, both of which have
been complicated by drought, are considered major challenges for this
flock.
The third population of wild whooping cranes is referred to as the
Eastern Migratory Population (EMP). The EMP has been established
through reintroduction and currently numbers 97. During the 2009 spring
breeding season, all 12 first nests of the season were abandoned, as
have all first nests during the previous years. From 2005-2009, there
have been a total of 41 nests (including 7 renests); only 2 renests
have hatched chicks, and only 1 chick has been successfully fledged. As
of July 27, 2010, a total of 9 pairs nested. Five of those pairs
hatched chicks and two chicks remain alive as of July 27, 2010. Nesting
failure is currently the EMP's foremost concern. There is compelling
evidence of a correlation with presence of biting insects at the nests
suggesting they may play a role in nest abandonment (Stehn, USFWS, 2009
pers. com.).
The whooping crane also occurs in a captive-breeding population.
The whooping crane captive-breeding program, initiated in 1967, has
been very successful. The Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service
began taking eggs from the nests of the wild population (AWBP) in 1967,
and raising the resulting young in captivity. Between 1967 and 1998,
program officials took 242 eggs from the wild to captive sites. Birds
raised from those eggs form the nucleus of the captive flock (USFWS
2007, p. C-2). The captive-breeding population is now kept at five
captive-breeding centers: Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; the
International Crane Foundation; the Devonian Wildlife Conservation
Center, Calgary Zoo in Alberta, Canada; the Audubon Species Survival
Center in New Orleans, Louisiana; and the San Antonio Zoo, Texas. The
total captive population as of January 2010 stands near 150 birds in
the captive-breeding centers and at other locations for display
(Calgary Zoo in Alberta, Canada; Lowery Park Zoo in Tampa, Florida;
Homosassa Springs State Wildlife Park in Homosassa, Florida;
Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens in Jacksonville, Florida; Audubon Zoo in
New Orleans, Louisiana; Milwaukee Zoo in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and
Sylvan Heights Waterfowl Park in Scotland Neck, North Carolina).
Whooping cranes adhere to ancestral breeding areas, migratory
routes, and wintering grounds, leaving little possibility of pioneering
into new regions. The only wild, self-sustaining breeding population
can be expected to continue utilizing its current nesting location with
little likelihood of expansion, except on a local geographic scale.
Even this population remains vulnerable to extirpation through a
natural catastrophe, a red tide outbreak, a contaminant spill, and sea
level rise due primarily to its limited wintering distribution along
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway of the Texas coast. This waterway
experiences some of the heaviest barge traffic of any waterway in the
world. Much of the shipping tonnage is petrochemical products. An
accidental spill could destroy whooping cranes and/or their food
resources. With the only wild breeding population being vulnerable, it
is urgent that additional wild self-sustaining populations be
established.
There have been three reintroduction projects to date.
Reintroduction using cross-fostering with sandhill cranes in the Rocky
Mountains occurred from 1973-1988, and was discontinued due to
excessive mortality and failure of the birds to pair and breed. No
cranes remain in this population. The Florida nonmigratory population
numbers 26 birds (10 males, 16 females). Only two pairs attempted to
breed during the 2009 drought, and one pair fledged a chick. In 2010,
there are nine nests and one pair fledged a chick so far. Currently,
the EMP numbers 97 birds and nine pair nested in 2010.
Recovery Efforts
The first recovery plan developed by the U.S./Canadian Whooping
Crane Recovery Team (Recovery Team) was approved January 23, 1980. The
first revision was approved on December 23, 1986, the second revision
on February 11, 1994, and the third revision on May 29, 2007. The
short-term goal of the recovery plan, as revised, is to reclassify the
whooping crane from endangered to threatened status. The criteria for
attaining this reclassification goal are (1) achieving a population
level of 40 nesting pairs in the AWBP and (2) establishing two
additional, separate, and self-sustaining populations consisting of 25
nesting pairs each. These new populations may be migratory or
nonmigratory. If only one additional wild self-sustaining population is
reestablished, then the AWBP must reach 100 nesting pairs and the new
population must consist of 30 nesting pairs. If the establishment of
two additional wild self-sustaining populations is not successful, then
the AWBP must be self-sustaining and remain above 250 nesting pairs for
reclassification to occur. The recovery plan recommends that these
goals should be attained for 10 consecutive years before the species is
reclassified to threatened.
In 1985, the Director-General of the Canadian Wildlife Service and
the Director of the Service signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
entitled ``Conservation of the Whooping Crane Related to Coordinated
Management Activities.'' The MOU was revised and signed again in 1990,
1995, and 2001 and is expected to be renewed in 2010. It discusses
disposition of birds and eggs, postmortem analysis, population
restoration and objectives, new population sites, international
management, recovery plans, consultation, and coordination. All captive
whooping cranes and their
[[Page 51227]]
future progeny are jointly owned by the Service and the Canadian
Wildlife Service. Consequently, both nations are involved in recovery
decisions.
Reintroductions
In early 1984, pursuant to the Recovery Plan goals and the
recommendation of the Recovery Team, potential whooping crane release
areas were selected in the eastern United States. By 1988, the Recovery
Team recognized that cross-fostering with sandhill cranes was not
working to establish a migratory population in the Rocky Mountains. The
term ``cross-fostering'' refers to the foster rearing of the whooping
crane chicks by another species, the sandhill crane. The possibility of
inappropriate sexual imprinting associated with cross-fostering, and
the lack of a proven technique for establishing a migratory flock
influenced the Recovery Team to favor establishing a nonmigratory
flock.
Studies of whooping cranes (Drewien and Bizeau 1977, pp. 201-218)
and greater sandhill cranes (Nesbitt 1988, p. 44) have shown that, for
these species, knowing when and where to migrate is learned rather than
innate behavior. Captive-reared whooping cranes released in Florida
were expected to develop a sedentary population. In summer 1988, the
Recovery Team selected Kissimmee Prairie in central Florida as the area
most suitable to establish a self-sustaining population. In 1993, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (formerly the
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission) began releasing captive-
reared chicks from the breeding population in an attempt to establish a
resident, nonmigratory flock. Eggs laid at the captive-breeding
facilities were sent to the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to be
hatched and reared in isolation. The chicks were brought to Florida in
the fall where they were ``gentle released,'' a technique that involves
a protracted period of acclimation in a specially constructed release
pen followed by a gradual transition to life on their own in the wild.
This release methodology has helped to establish a wild resident,
nonmigratory flock of whooping cranes in central Florida.
In 1996, the Recovery Team decided to investigate the potential for
another reintroduction site in the eastern United States, with the
intent of establishing an additional migratory population as the third
flock to meet recovery goals. Following a study of potential wintering
sites (Cannon 1998, p. 1-19), the Recovery Team selected the
Chassahowitzka NWR/St. Martin's Marsh Aquatic Preserve in Florida as
the top wintering site for a new migratory flock of whooping cranes. A
detailed analysis was presented at the Recovery Team meeting in
September 1999 (Cannon 1999, p. 1-38), and the Recovery Team then
recommended that releases for an EMP target central Wisconsin at
Necedah NWR as the core breeding area with the wintering site along the
Gulf coast of Florida at the Chassahowitzka NWR.
In January 2001, the Recovery Team met at the Audubon Center for
Research on Endangered Species in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. Highlights
of the meeting included genetic management recommendations for the
captive flock, an overflight of crane habitat in southwestern
Louisiana, including the White Lake and Marsh Island areas, and the
recommendation to proceed with a migratory reintroduction of whooping
cranes in the eastern United States. Following the Recovery Team
meeting, the Louisiana Crane Working Group was formed to help with
research and information needed to assess the potential for releasing
whooping cranes in Louisiana.
In the spring of 2001, eggs laid at the captive-breeding facilities
were sent to the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to be hatched and
reared in the spring. The chicks were brought to the Necedah NWR in
central Wisconsin in the early summer and were trained to fly behind
ultralight aircraft by Operation Migration. In the fall of 2001, the
Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership's (WCEP) first historic whooping
crane migration led by ultralights from central Wisconsin to the
central Gulf coast of Florida was completed by Operation Migration.
This release methodology has established a wild migrating flock of
whooping cranes with a core breeding/summering area at Necedah NWR in
central Wisconsin and a primary wintering area in west-central Florida
(Pasco and Citrus Counties and at Paynes Prairie in Alachua County).
Portions of this population also winter at Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge in
central Tennessee, Wheeler NWR in northern Alabama, and the Ashepoo,
Combahee, and South Edisto Basin (ACE Basin) in coastal South Carolina.
Since 2005, additional captive chicks reared at the International Crane
Foundation have been released directly into groups of older whooping
cranes in central Wisconsin prior to the fall to follow older cranes
during migration.
In 2004, the Florida FWC and the Recovery Team made the decision to
postpone additional releases in Florida. Between 1993 and 2004, program
members released 289 captive-reared birds in an attempt to establish a
Florida nonmigratory flock. Problems with survival and reproduction,
both of which have been complicated by drought, were considered major
challenges for this flock. The Florida FWC postponed releases to focus
their resources to study these issues.
In 2005, two members of the Recovery Team met with Louisiana DWF
and the Louisiana Crane Working Group to develop a plan to investigate
the feasibility of a whooping crane reintroduction in Louisiana. In
February 2007, a Recovery Team meeting was held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, to assess the status of whooping crane recovery efforts.
This meeting included updates and recovery action recommendations for
the AWBP, Florida, and EMP populations. In addition, the Recovery Team
also came to Louisiana to further evaluate the interest in releasing
whooping cranes in Louisiana. A preliminary assessment of the habitat
for a resident nonmigratory flock and wintering habitat for a migratory
flock was conducted during field visits to White Lake and Marsh Island.
The Recovery Team endorsed a plan that could lead to a reintroduction
of whooping cranes in Louisiana. The Recovery Team recommended the U.S.
Geological Survey, Louisiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, conduct a habitat assessment and food availability study at White
Lake as a potential release area for a nonmigratory population and
Marsh Island as a potential wintering area for a migratory flock of
whooping cranes. Additional research on sandhill crane migration
patterns for cranes that winter in Louisiana was also recommended. The
Recovery Team also requested the Whooping Crane Health Advisory Team
prepare a report on the potential health risks if whooping cranes
reintroduced into Louisiana were to mix with cranes in the AWBP.
In 2008, scientists from Florida FWC and major project partners
conducted a workshop to assess the current status and potential for
success of establishing the resident, nonmigratory population of
whooping cranes in Florida. The Recovery Team used the workshop
findings and other considerations, and in 2009 recommended there be no
further releases into the Florida flock. The water regimes produced by
periodic droughts in Florida make it extremely unlikely that
reproduction in wild-hatched Florida whooping cranes will ever achieve
production rates adequate for success. The Florida FWC continues to
study and monitor the remaining nonmigratory whooping cranes to gather
[[Page 51228]]
information that may prove valuable for future recovery efforts.
Nesting failure is currently the EMP's foremost concern. WCEP's
nest monitoring efforts and additional studies initiated in 2009 have
provided compelling but not conclusive evidence of a correlation with
presence of biting insects at the nests as contributing factor to nest
abandonment. In August of 2009, the Service met with the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) to discuss establishing a
possible resident nonmigratory population of whooping cranes in
Louisiana.
Objectives of Proposed Reintroduction
The objectives of this proposed reintroduction into Louisiana are
to: (1) Implement a primary recovery action for the whooping crane; (2)
further assess the suitability of southwestern Louisiana as whooping
crane habitat; and (3) evaluate the suitability of releasing captive-
reared whooping cranes, conditioned for wild release, as a technique
for establishing a self-sustaining, nonmigratory population.
Information on survival of released birds, movements, behavior, causes
of losses, reproductive success, and other data will be gathered
throughout the project. This reintroduction project's progress will be
evaluated annually.
The likelihood of the releases resulting in a self-sustaining
population is believed to be good. Whooping cranes historically
occurred in Louisiana in both a resident, nonmigratory flock and a
migratory flock that wintered in Louisiana. The proposed release area,
White Lake, is the location where whooping cranes were historically
documented raising young in Louisiana (Gomez 1992, p. 20). The minimum
goal for numbers of cranes to be released annually is based on the
research of Griffith et al. (1989, pp. 477-480). If results of this
initial proposed release are favorable, releases will be continued with
the goal of releasing up to 30 whooping cranes annually for about 10
years. For a long-lived species like the whooping crane, continuing
releases for a number of years increases the likelihood of reaching a
population level that can sustain fluctuating environmental conditions.
The rearing and release techniques to be used have proven successful in
supplementing the wild population of the endangered Mississippi
sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla).
We may select additional release sites later during the efforts to
reintroduce non-migratory whooping cranes to Louisiana to reduce the
risk of catastrophic loss of the population. Additional release sites
could also increase the potential breeding range in Louisiana. Multiple
release areas may increase the opportunity for successful pairing
because females tend to disperse from their natal site when searching
for a mate. Males, however, have a stronger homing tendency toward
establishing their nesting territory near the natal area (Drewien et
al. 1983, p. 9). When captive-reared birds are released at a wild
location, the birds may view the release site as a natal area. If they
do, females would likely disperse away from the release area in their
search for a mate. Therefore, it may be advantageous to have several
release sites to provide a broader distribution of territorial males.
As a result, it is possible that we will pursue future releases at
additional sites. These additional sites would be selected based on the
observed dispersal patterns of birds from the initial releases.
The Louisiana DWF has discussed this proposed experimental
population with the Mississippi Flyway Council. The Service has
discussed this proposed experimental population with the Central Flyway
Council. During that discussion, the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department representative expressed interest in having two coastal
counties in Texas included as part of the area for this proposed
experimental population to avoid possible closures of waterfowl hunting
if whooping cranes from the proposed experimental population were to
wander into the area. This proposed regulation does not include those
two counties as the Service believes that expansion of the endangered
AWBP into the two coastal counties is an essential aspect of achieving
recovery of the species. The Service and Louisiana DWF will coordinate
with the Mississippi, Central, and Atlantic Flyway Councils during the
public comment period for this proposed regulation and will contact the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to obtain additional input on the
potential for reintroduction of a nonmigratory whooping crane
population in southwestern Louisiana. The Louisiana DWF has also made
presentations and facilitated discussions with numerous organizations
and potentially affected interest groups and government representatives
in southwestern Louisiana.
Louisiana DWF and the Service have conducted extensive
coordination, both formal and informal, with constituents related to
the proposed nonmigratory NEP. All have been asked to provide comments
on this proposed rule. The Canadian Wildlife Service, a partner with
the Service as noted in the Memorandum of Understanding, has approved
the proposed project.
An extensive sharing of information about the effort to reintroduce
a nonmigratory flock to Louisiana and the species itself, via
educational efforts targeted toward the public throughout the NEP area,
will enhance public awareness of this species and its reintroduction.
We will encourage the public to cooperate with the Service and
Louisiana DWF in attempts to maintain and protect whooping cranes in
the release area.
Reintroduction Protocol
We propose to initially gentle-release four to eight juvenile
whooping cranes in the White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area in
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana. These birds will have been captive-reared
at one of the captive-rearing facilities, then transferred to
facilities at the Louisiana release site, and conditioned for wild
release to increase post-release survival (Zwank and Wilson 1987, p.
166; Ellis et al. 1992b, p. 147; Nesbitt et al. 2001, p. 62) and
adaptability to wild foods. Before release, the cranes will be banded
for identification purposes, tagged with radio and/or GPS solar-powered
satellite transmitters at release, and monitored to discern movements,
habitat use, other behavior, and survival. Numbers of birds available
for release will depend on production at captive-propagation facilities
and the future need for additional releases into the EMP. The Species
Survival Center in New Orleans has received Federal funding to
construct a hatchery and chick- rearing facility so that whooping
cranes produced for release in this project could be hatched and reared
in Louisiana.
Captive-reared cranes are conditioned for wild release by being
reared in isolation from humans, by use of conspecific role models
(puppets), and by exercising with animal care personnel in crane
costumes to avoid imprinting on humans (Horwich 1989, pp. 380-384;
Ellis et al. 1992a, pp. 137-138; Urbanek and Bookhout 1992, pp. 122-
123). This technique has been used to establish a population of
nonmigratory whooping cranes in Florida (Nesbitt et al. 2001, pp. 62-
63). This technique has also been successful in supplementing the
population of endangered nonmigratory Mississippi sandhill cranes in
Mississippi (Zwank and Wilson 1987, p. 165; Ellis et al. 1992b, p.
147). Facilities for captive maintenance of the birds will be modeled
after facilities at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and the
International Crane Foundation and will
[[Page 51229]]
conform to standards set forth in the Animal Welfare Act regulations (9
CFR) and Louisiana Wildlife Code. To further ensure the well-being of
birds in captivity and their suitability for release to the wild,
facilities will incorporate features of their natural environment
(e.g., feeding, loafing, and roosting habitat) to the extent possible.
The gentle release-conditioning pens will be similar to those used
successfully to release whooping cranes in the Florida and EMP
populations, as well as release of Mississippi sandhill cranes. Pens
help new birds acclimate to their surroundings; provide a degree of
protection against predation, and supplemental food resources if
needed. Pre-release conditioning will occur at facilities near the
release site.
Since migration is a learned rather than an innate behavior,
captive-reared whooping cranes released in Louisiana will likely adhere
to their release area rather than disperse into new regions. Sixteen
Florida nonmigratory whooping cranes have been documented in five
States other than Florida; seven returned to the reintroduction area,
and nine have not been seen again (Folk et al. 2008, pp. 7-12).
Proposed Reintroduced Population
In 2001, we designated the State of Louisiana as part of a
geographic area where whooping cranes within its boundaries would be
considered nonessential experimental. We are proposing with this
regulation to clarify that the reintroduced nonmigratory flock of
whooping cranes in southwestern Louisiana will also be fully considered
as an NEP according to the provisions of section 10(j) of the Act. This
designation can be justified because no adverse effects to extant wild
or captive whooping crane populations will result from release of
progeny from the captive flock. We also have a reasonable expectation
that the reintroduction effort into Louisiana will result in the
successful establishment of a self-sustaining, resident, nonmigratory
flock, which will contribute to the recovery of the species. The
special rule contained within this proposal is expected to ensure that
this reintroduction is compatible with current or planned human
activities in the release area.
We have concluded that this experimental population of nonmigratory
birds is not essential to the continued existence of the whooping crane
for the following reasons:
(a) For the time being, the AWBP and the captive populations will
be the primary species populations. With approximately 150 birds in
captivity at 12 discrete sites (5 main facilities and 7 other
locations), and approximately 250 birds in the AWBP, the experimental
population is not essential to the continued existence of the species.
The species has been protected against the threat of extinction from a
single catastrophic event by gradual recovery of the AWBP and by an
increase in the numbers and management of the cranes at the captive
sites.
(b) For the time being, the primary repository of genetic diversity
for the species will be the approximately 400 wild and captive whooping
cranes mentioned in (a) above. The birds selected for reintroduction
purposes will be as genetically redundant as possible with the captive
population; hence any loss of reintroduced animals in this experiment
will not significantly impact the goal of preserving maximum genetic
diversity in the species.
(c) Any birds lost during the reintroduction attempt can be
replaced through captive breeding. Production from the extant captive
flock is already large enough to support wild releases with
approximately 30 juveniles available annually. We expect this number to
increase to over 40 as young pairs already in captivity reach breeding
age.
This illustrates the potential of the captive flock to replace
individual birds proposed for release in reintroduction efforts. Levels
of production are expected to be sufficient to support both this
proposal and continued releases into the EMP.
The hazards and uncertainties of the reintroduction experiment are
substantial, but a decision not to attempt to utilize the existing
captive-breeding potential to establish an additional, wild, self-
sustaining population could be equally hazardous to survival of the
species in the wild. The AWBP could be lost as the result of a
catastrophic event or a contaminant spill on the wintering grounds that
would necessitate management efforts to establish an additional wild
population. The recovery plan identifies the need for three self-
sustaining wild populations--consisting of 40 nesting pairs in the AWBP
and 2 additional, separate and self-sustaining populations consisting
of 25 nesting pairs each--to be in existence before the whooping crane
can be reclassified to threatened status.
Due to the survival and reproductive issues faced by the Florida
nonmigratory flock, it is extremely unlikely that reproduction in wild-
hatched Florida whooping cranes will ever achieve production rates
adequate for success. Depending on whether the reproductive issues can
be overcome, the EMP has the potential to become the second self-
sustaining, wild population needed to move toward recovery.
Establishing a Louisiana nonmigratory flock as the third recovery
population has become a recovery priority. Whooping cranes historically
occurred in Louisiana in both a resident, nonmigratory flock and a
migratory flock that wintered in Louisiana. The proposed release area,
White Lake, is the location where whooping cranes were historically
documented raising young in Louisiana (Gomez 1992, p. 20). If this
reintroduction effort is successful, conservation of the species will
have been furthered considerably by establishing another self-
sustaining population in currently unoccupied habitat. Because
establishment of other populations has not yet been entirely
successful, establishing a Louisiana nonmigratory flock would also
demonstrate that captive-reared cranes can be used to establish a
nonmigratory, wild population.
Location of Reintroduced Population
The proposed release site, White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area
(WLWCA), encompasses part of the area historically occupied by a
nonmigratory, breeding population of whooping cranes (Allen 1952, p.
30; Gomez 1992, p. 19). WLWCA (formerly known as the Standolind Tract),
located in Vermilion Parish, was owned and managed by BP America
Production White Lake (BPWL) until 2002 when BPWL donated the property
to the State of Louisiana. At that time a cooperative Endeavor
Agreement between the State of Louisiana and White Lake Preservation
Inc., was executed for management of the property. In 2005, according
to the terms of that agreement, the Louisiana DWF received total
control for management of this area. BP retained the mineral rights to
WLWCA.
The WLWCA is located within the Mermentau Basin, along the north
shore of White Lake, in southwestern Louisiana. Natural drainage within
the basin has been interrupted by manmade features. The major source of
hydrological change in this basin has been the conversion of two
estuarine lakes (Grand and White Lakes) into freshwater reservoirs for
agricultural (rice) irrigation in the surrounding areas. There are
several large areas of public ownership in the general vicinity. The
WLWCA is located approximately 11 km (7 miles) north of the State-owned
Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge and Game Preserve (30,773 hectares (76,042
acres)) and
[[Page 51230]]
approximately 32 km (20 miles) east of Cameron Prairie NWR (3,893
hectares (9,621 acres)). The area north of WLWCA is primarily used for
agriculture although it was historically the panicum (paille fine)
marsh that Allen (1952, p. 30) reported as being used by whooping
cranes. Nonagricultural areas surrounding WLWCA consist of brackish to
intermediate marshes, privately owned and primarily used for waterfowl
hunting.
WLWCA comprises approximately 28,722 contiguous hectares (70,970
acres) and is divided into several management units. Approximately
7,690 hectares (19,000 acres) are in agricultural use, primarily in the
northeastern portion (Management Units A and F), and the rest of the
area is wetlands. The wetland portions are nearly bisected by Florence
Canal (Gomez 1992, p. 21). Approximately 12,100 hectares (29,900 acres)
east of Florence Canal (Management Unit B) consist of maidencane marsh,
and water levels are passively managed. The wetland areas west of
Florence Canal (Management Areas E and C), were formerly a sawgrass
marsh (until a die-off in the late 1950s) and now consist of west
bulltongue (Gomez 1992, p. 21). Water levels are actively managed using
pumps on approximately 1,943 hectares (4,800 acres) (Unit C).
The proposed release site (Unit E), consists of approximately 7,028
hectares (17,365 acres) of wetlands on which the Louisiana DWF actively
manages water level using pumps and weirs. Water level management
consists of providing habitat for wintering waterfowl by gradual
flooding in the fall with the deepest water (0.61 to 0.76 m (2 to 2.5
ft)) generally occurring at the western end. The area is kept flooded
for approximately 6 weeks and then drawn down in the spring. Boat
traffic occurs in the Florence Canal (the eastern border of this unit).
Limited, controlled waterfowl hunting occurs on the WLWCA. Occasional,
controlled, nonconsumptive activities (e.g., boating) periodically
occur in the spring and summer. The Louisiana DWF has facilities
adjacent to WLWCA where monitoring personnel would be housed.
Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population
be geographically separate from other populations of the same species.
The NEP area already identified in the eastern United States for the
EMP (66 FR 33903) will include, if this rule is finalized, nonmigratory
whooping cranes reintroduced in Louisiana. The expectation is that most
whooping cranes will be concentrated within wetlands at the proposed
release site. Dispersal within the NEP area may include areas in
Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, and Cameron Parishes. The marshes and
wetlands of southwestern Louisiana are expected to receive occasional
use by the cranes and may be used in the event of future population
expansion. However, any whooping crane found within Louisiana will be
considered part of an experimental population. Although experience has
shown that most birds show an affinity to the release area after gentle
release, it is impossible to predict where individual whooping cranes
may disperse following release within the project area. A majority of
the whooping cranes released within Florida stayed within the NEP. One
pair of whooping cranes from the Florida flock is known to have
traveled to Illinois and Michigan during the severe drought of 2000 and
a second pair dispersed to Virginia, but surviving members of the pairs
returned to the core reintroduction area in Florida. Designation of the
Louisiana nonmigratory NEP allows for the possible occurrence of cranes
in a larger area of Louisiana.
Whooping cranes released in southwestern Louisiana are not expected
to interact with the AWBP flock along the Texas coast as Aransas NWR is
approximately 482 km (285 miles) southwest of the proposed release
area. However, if the Recovery Team were to consider having EMP
whooping cranes winter in Louisiana, some interaction between EMP
migratory and Louisiana nonmigratory cranes would be expected to occur.
The possibility that individual birds from either flock would acquire
either migratory or nonmigratory behavior through association,
especially if pairs form between members of the different populations,
is not likely. Research with sandhill cranes in Florida has shown that
migratory and nonmigratory populations mix during winter and yet
maintain their own migratory and nonmigratory behaviors. The same holds
true for whooping cranes. Individuals of the Florida nonmigratory
population and the EMP have associated during the winter; however, the
two flocks have remained discrete and each represents a separate
population as specified in the Recovery Plan (Canadian Wildlife Service
and USFWS 2007, p. xii). As such, while the levels of protection are
the same, the two populations may be managed differently.
Released whooping cranes might wander into the eastern counties of
Texas adjacent to the expected dispersal area and outside the proposed
Louisiana NEP area. We believe the frequency of such movements is
likely to be very low. Any whooping cranes that leave the proposed
Louisiana NEP area but remain in the eastern United States NEP will
still be considered as experimental nonessential. Any whooping crane
that leaves the Louisiana and eastern United States NEP will be
considered endangered. However, for any whooping cranes that move
outside the Louisiana and eastern United States NEP areas, including
those that move west towards the AWBP wintering area, attempts will be
made to capture and return them to the appropriate area if a reasonable
possibility exists for contact with the AWBP population or if removal
is requested by the State which they enter.
Birds from the AWBP flock have never been observed in Louisiana and
rarely been observed in any of the States within the eastern United
States NEP area except as a result of an extreme weather event. They
are not expected to be found in the Louisiana NEP. Any whooping cranes
that occur within the Louisiana NEP area will be considered to be part
of the NEP and will be subject to the protective measures in place for
the NEP. However, because of the extremely limited number of incidents
anticipated, the decreased level of protections afforded AWBP cranes
that cross into the NEP is not expected to have any significant adverse
impacts to the AWBP.
Management
a. Monitoring
Whooping cranes will be intensively monitored by Louisiana DWF
project and other personnel prior to and after release. The birds will
be observed daily while they are in the gentle-release/conditioning
pen.
To ensure contact with the released birds, each crane will be
equipped with a legband-mounted radio transmitter and/or a solar-
powered GPS satellite transmitter. Subsequent to being gentle released,
the birds will be monitored regularly to assess movements and dispersal
from the area of the release pen. Whooping cranes will be checked
regularly for mortality or indications of disease (listlessness, social
exclusion, flightlessness, or obvious weakness). Social behavior (e.g.,
pair formation, dominance, cohort loyalty) will also be evaluated.
A voucher blood serum sample will be taken for each crane prior to
its arrival in Louisiana. A second sample will be taken just prior to
release. Any time a bird is handled after release into the wild (e.g.,
when recaptured to replace transmitters), samples may be
[[Page 51231]]
taken to monitor disease exposure and physiological condition. One year
after release, if possible, all surviving whooping cranes may be
captured and an evaluation made of their exposure to disease/parasites
through blood, fecal, and other sampling regimens. If preliminary
results are favorable, the releases will be continued annually, with
the goal of releasing up to 30 birds per year for about 10 years and
then evaluating the success of the recovery effort.
b. Disease/Parasite Considerations
A possible disease concern has been the probable presence of
Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) in the Central Flyway. Progress has
been made on determining whether IBD is likely to affect whooping
cranes. An IBD-like virus was isolated from an AWBP juvenile whooping
crane that died at Aransas in February 2009. The U.S. Geological
Survey's National Wildlife Health Center is studying this virus to
classify it more precisely. Blood samples from sandhill cranes
collected on the Platte River, Nebraska, in March 2009 found that 12 of
19 had antibodies to IBD. It appears that sandhill cranes and whooping
cranes have been exposed to IBD in the Central Flyway and that whooping
cranes are likely not seriously affected by IBD. Thus, it is unlikely
that the reintroduction of whooping cranes into Louisiana poses any
significant risk to the AWBP whooping cranes in regard to transfer of
IBD.
Both sandhill and whooping cranes are also known to be vulnerable,
in part or all of their natural range, to avian herpes (inclusion body
disease), avian cholera, acute and chronic mycotoxicosis, eastern
equine encephalitis (EEE), and avian tuberculosis. Additionally,
Eimeria spp., Haemoproteus spp., Leucocytozoon spp., avian pox, and
Hexamita spp. have been identified as debilitating or lethal factors in
wild or pre-release, captive populations.
A group of crane veterinarians and disease specialists have
developed protocols for pre-release and pre-transfer health screening
for birds selected for release to prevent introduction of diseases and
parasites. Exposure to disease and parasites will be evaluated through
blood, serum, and fecal analysis of any individual crane handled post-
release or at the regular monitoring interval. Remedial action will be
taken to return to good health any sick individuals taken into
captivity. Sick birds will be held in special facilities and their
health and treatment monitored by veterinarians. Special attention will
be given to EEE because an outbreak at the Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center in 1984 killed 7 of 39 whooping cranes present there. After the
outbreak, the equine EEE vaccine has been used on captive cranes. In
1989, EEE was documented in sentinel bobwhite quail and sandhill cranes
at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. No whooping cranes became
ill, and it appears the vaccine may provide protection. EEE is present
in Louisiana, so the released birds may be vaccinated. Other
encephalitis diseases have not been documented as occurring or causing
morbidity or mortality in cranes.
When appropriate, other avian species may be used to assess the
prevalence of certain disease factors. This could mean using sentinel
turkeys for ascertaining exposure probability to encephalitis or
evaluating a species with similar food habits for susceptibility to
chronic mycotoxicosis.
c. Genetic Considerations
The ultimate genetic goal of the reintroduction program is to
establish wild reintroduced populations that possess the maximum level
of genetic diversity available from the captive population. Early
reintroductions may consist of a biased sample of the genetic diversity
of the captive gene pool, with certain genetic lineages
overrepresented. This is because certain pairs within the captive flock
are very good breeders and are managed to produce multiple clutches
thereby maximizing the number of cranes for release. This bias will be
corrected over time by selecting and reestablishing breeding whooping
cranes that compensate for any genetic biases in earlier releases.
d. Mortality
Although efforts will be made to minimize mortality, some will
inevitably occur as captive-reared birds adapt to the wild. Collisions
with power lines and fences are known hazards to wild whooping cranes.
If whooping cranes begin regular use of areas traversed by power lines
or fences, the Service and Louisiana DWF will consider placing markers
on the obstacles to reduce the probability of collisions. Potential
predators of adult and young whooping cranes include bobcats, coyotes,
bald eagles, and alligators. Red fox, owls, and raccoons are also
potential predators of young cranes.
Recently released whooping cranes will need protection from natural
sources of mortality (predators, disease, and inadequate foods) and
from human-caused sources of mortality. Natural mortality will be
reduced through pre-release conditioning, gentle release, supplemental
feeding for a post-release period, vaccination, and predator control.
Predator control conditioning will include teaching young cranes the
habit of roosting in standing water. Predation by bobcats has been a
significant source of mortality in the Eastern Migratory and Florida
nonmigratory flocks, and teaching appropriate roosting behavior to
young birds should help to reduce losses to coyotes and bobcats. We
will minimize human-caused mortality through a number of measures such
as: (a) Placing whooping cranes in an area with low human population
density and relatively low development; (b) working with and educating
landowners, land managers, developers, and recreationalists to develop
means for conducting their existing and planned activities in a manner
that is compatible with whooping crane recovery; and (c) conferring
with developers on proposed actions and providing recommendations that
will reduce any likely adverse impacts to the cranes. As mentioned
above in ``Monitoring'', the whooping cranes will be closely monitored
as the reintroduction effort progresses. We will work closely with the
State and local landowners in monitoring and evaluating the
reintroduction effort and in adaptively managing any human-caused
mortality issues that arise.
e. Special Handling
Service employees, Louisiana DWF employees, and their agents will
be authorized to relocate whooping cranes to avoid conflict with human
activities; relocate whooping cranes that have moved outside the
appropriate release area or the NEP area when removal is necessary or
requested; relocate whooping cranes within the NEP area to improve
survival and recovery prospects; and aid cranes that are sick, injured
or otherwise in need of special care. If a whooping crane is determined
to be unfit to remain in the wild, it will be returned to captivity.
Service employees, Louisiana DWF and their agents will be authorized to
salvage dead whooping cranes.
f. Potential Conflicts
In the central and western United States, conflicts have resulted
from the hunting of migratory birds in areas utilized by whooping
cranes, particularly the hunting of sandhill cranes and snow geese
(Chen cerulescens), because novice hunters may have difficulty
distinguishing whooping cranes from those species. In recent years,
three crane mortalities
[[Page 51232]]
have been documented incidental to hunting activities. In Louisiana,
snow geese are hunted; however, sandhill cranes are not. Accidental
shooting of a whooping crane in this experimental population occurring
in the course of otherwise lawful hunting activity is exempt from take
restrictions under the Act in this proposed special regulation.
Applicable Federal penalties under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or
State penalties, however, may still apply. There will be no federally
mandated hunting area or season closures or season modifications for
the purpose of protecting whooping cranes. We will minimize mortality
due to accidental shootings by providing educational opportunities and
information to hunters to assist them in distinguishing whooping cranes
from other legal game species.
The bulk of traditional hunting in the White Lake Wetlands
Conservation Area release area has been for waterfowl and migratory
bird species, turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and small game. Conflict with traditional hunting in the
release area is not anticipated. Access to some limited areas at
release sites and at times when whooping cranes might be particularly
vulnerable to human disturbance (i.e., at occupied nesting areas) may
be temporarily restricted. Any temporary restricted access to areas for
these purposes will be of the minimum size and duration necessary for
protection of the proposed NEP cranes, and will be closely coordinated
with the Service and at the discretion of Louisiana DWF. Any such
access restrictions will not require Federal closure of hunting areas
or seasons.
The Louisiana DWF will maintain its whooping crane management
authorities regarding the whooping crane. It is not directed by this
rule to take any specific actions to provide any special protective
measures, nor is it prevented from imposing restrictions under State
law, such as protective designations, and area closures. Louisiana DWF
has indicated that it would not propose hunting restrictions or
closures related to game species because of the proposed whooping crane
reintroduction.
Overall, the presence of whooping cranes is not expected to result
in constraints on hunting of wildlife or to affect economic gain
landowners might receive from hunting leases. The potential exists for
future hunting seasons to be established for other migratory birds that
are not currently hunted in Louisiana. The proposed action will not
prevent the establishment of future hunting seasons approved for other
migratory bird species by the Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils.
The principal activities on private property adjacent to the
release area are agriculture, aquaculture, oil and gas exploration and
extraction, water level management as part of coastal restoration
projects, and recreation. Use of these private properties by whooping
cranes will not preclude such uses. Offshore oil exploration and
extraction activities as well as the Deep Horizon spill and cleanup are
not expected to affect whooping cranes in the NEP area because the
release area is more than 15 miles from the coast in a fresh to
brackish marsh system. The Louisiana DWF recently completed a risk
assessment associated with this reintroduction and does not anticipate
spill impacts from the Deepwater Horizon/MC252OS Spill Area into the
whooping crane restoration site at WLWCA or into the surrounding
habitats in southwestern Louisiana. The WLWCA is located over 200 miles
from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill release site and 17 miles north of
the Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Additionally, there are multiple physical
barriers to stop crude oil from entering WLWCA such as the Gulf of
Mexico Beach Rim, Levees, Water Control Structures, Locks, and Spill
Control Equipment. The proposed special regulation accompanying this
proposed rule authorizes take of the whooping crane in the proposed NEP
area when the take is accidental and incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity.
An additional issue identified as a possible conflict is the
potential for crop depredation. There is evidence that some sandhill
cranes have caused losses of emerging corn in Wisconsin (Blackwell,
Helon and Dolbeer, 2001. p. 67). It is possible that whooping cranes
could engage in this type of behavior on planted crops in Louisiana as
well. However, whooping cranes are socially less gregarious than
sandhill cranes, and tend to restrict the bulk of their foraging
activities to wetland areas. Therefore, they are believed to be less
likely to cause significant crop depredations.
Whooping cranes are known to use ranchlands and pasture with no
known impacts to cattle operation practices. Among the primary sandhill
and whooping crane habitats in Florida are ranchlands and pastures
associated with cattle operations (Nesbitt and Williams, 1990. p. 95).
AWBP whooping cranes are also known to utilize the cattle ranchlands
adjacent to Aransas National Wildlife Refuge as wintering habitat
(Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS 2007. p. 14). We do not anticipate
that the presence of whooping cranes on ranchlands or pastures in
Louisiana would cause any impacts to cattle operations.
Like other wading bird species, whooping cranes will forage along
lake and pond edges, and may forage along the edges of ponds used for
crawfish production, but this is not likely to cause significant stock
depredations on crawfish. However, water levels of crawfish ponds are
lowered at certain times for management purposes. These lowering of
water depths, called draw downs, do attract large numbers of wading
birds as aquatic organisms become concentrated and vulnerable to
depredation during the lower water depths. If such depredations occur
due to whooping cranes, they can be minimized through use of bird
scaring devices and other techniques. Therefore, we do not expect that
whooping cranes will pose a significant threat to stock depredation on
crawfish. Another concern is that whooping cranes may choose to nest in
an area with an ongoing crawfish operation. If whooping cranes nest in
such a situation, it would indicate that those birds have acclimated to
those activities and it is anticipated that the activities would not
likely impact a nesting attempt.
If whooping cranes use National Wildlife Refuges in Louisiana, the
management programs on the refuges will continue as identified in the
individual refuges approved Comprehensive Conservation Plans, step-down
management plans, Annual Work Plans, and via customary and traditional
accouterments. Activities of existing mineral rights owners, which
include exploration, mining, marketing, and production, will continue
to be managed by the Service in accordance with existing Refuge Special
Use Permit Conditions currently used for the protection of migratory
birds. All other mineral operations will further be managed in
accordance with approved Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
Under the existing rules currently in place for the protection of
all fish and wildlife, including the numerous wading birds and other
migratory birds in the Louisiana coastal zone, mineral exploration and
extraction activities on private and/or State-owned lands can continue
without additional impacts from the presence of reintroduced birds.
Whooping cranes, like other wading birds, will flush due to close
proximity of helicopters or airboats. No Federal rule changes would be
implemented in the NEP area regarding such matters. Current practices
by private, State, and Federal land managers will minimize
[[Page 51233]]
unnecessary harassment of all wildlife during such activities.
This reintroduction effort will gentle-release captive-born,
isolation-reared whooping crane chicks at White Lake Wetlands
Conservation Area in Vermilion Parish in an attempt to establish a
Louisiana resident, nonmigratory population of whooping cranes. It will
be difficult to predict which specific sites will be utilized by the
birds, and some cranes may use habitats with which they have no
previous experience. Whooping cranes that appear in undesirable
locations will be considered for relocation by capture and/or hazing of
the birds. Possible conflicts with hunting, recreation, agriculture,
aquaculture, oil and gas exploration/extraction, and water management
interests within the release area will be minimized through an
extensive public education program.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34270), we will provide copies of this proposed rule to
three or more appropriate and independent specialists in order to
solicit comments on the scientific data and assumptions underlying this
proposed NEP designation. The purpose of such review is to ensure that
the proposed NEP designation is based on the best scientific
information available. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment
during the public comment period and will consider their comments and
information on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
determination.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O.
12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We certify that this rule would not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The
following discussion explains our rationale.
If this proposal is adopted, the area affected by this rule
includes the State of Louisiana. Because NEP designation does not
establish substantial new regulation of activities, we do not expect
this rule would have any significant effect on recreational,
agricultural, or development activities. Although the entire proposed
NEP boundary encompasses a large area, the section of the proposed NEP
area where we can anticipate the establishment of an experimental
population of nonmigratory whooping cranes is mainly public land owned
by the State of Louisiana. Because of the regulatory flexibility for
Federal agency actions provided by the NEP designation and the
exemption for incidental take in the special rule, we do not expect
this rule to have significant effects on any activities within Tribal,
Federal, State, or private lands within the proposed NEP.
On National Wildlife Refuges and units of the National Park System
within the NEP, Federal action agencies would be required to consult
with us, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, on any of their activities
that may affect the whooping crane. In portions of the NEP outside of
National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands, in regard to
section 7(a)(2), the population is treated as proposed for listing and
Federal action agencies are not required to consult on their
activities. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather
than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a proposed species. But because the NEP is,
by definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species,
conferring will likely never be required for the whooping crane
population within the NEP area. Furthermore, the results of a
conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict agencies from
carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities.
In addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their
authorities to carry out programs to further the conservation of listed
species, which would apply on any lands within the NEP area. As a
result, and in accordance with these regulations, some modifications to
proposed Federal actions within the NEP area may occur to benefit the
whooping crane, but we do not expect projects to be halted or
substantially modified as a result of these regulations.
The principal activities on private property near the expected
reestablishment area in the NEP are agriculture, ranching, oil and gas
exploration and extraction, and recreation. The presence of whooping
cranes would likely not affect the use of lands for these purposes
because there would be no new or additional economic or regulatory
restrictions imposed upon States, non-Federal entities, or members of
the public due to the presence of whooping cranes. Therefore, this
rulemaking is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts to
recreation, agriculture, oil and gas exploration or extraction, or any
development activities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(1) This rule would not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that, if adopted, this
rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State governments or private entities. A Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. Small governments would not be
affected because the proposed NEP designation would not place
additional requirements on any city, county, or other local
municipalities.
(2) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million
or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a
[[Page 51234]]
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act). This proposed NEP designation for whooping crane would not impose
any additional management or protection requirements on the States or
other entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does
not have significant takings implications. This rule would allow for
the taking of reintroduced whooping cranes when such take is incidental
to an otherwise legal activity, such as recreation (e.g., fishing,
boating, wading, or swimming), agriculture, oil and gas exploration and
extraction, and other activities that are in accordance with Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, we do not believe the
reintroduction of whooping cranes would conflict with existing human
activities or hinder use of private and public lands or hinder
subsurface mineral rights such as oil and gas exploration and
extraction within the proposed NEP area.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule:
(1) Would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property, and (2) would not deny all economically
beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This
rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest
(conservation and recovery of a listed bird species) and would not
present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of
private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered
whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have
determined that a Federalism assessment is not required. This rule
would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we
requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed
rule with the affected resource agencies in Louisiana. Achieving the
recovery goals for this species will contribute to its eventual
delisting and return to State management. No intrusion on State policy
or administration is expected, roles or responsibilities of Federal or
State governments would not change, and fiscal capacity would not be
substantially directly affected.
The proposed special rule operates to maintain the existing
relationship between the State and the Federal Government and is being
undertaken in coordination with the State of Louisiana. We have
cooperated with LDWF in the preparation of this proposed rule.
Therefore, this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism
effects or implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 13132.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996; 61 FR
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would
not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the requirements
of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320,
which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB
before collecting information from the public. A Federal agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. This proposed rule does not include any new collections
of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. OMB has approved our collection of information
associated with reporting the taking of experimental populations (50
CFR 17.84(p)(6)) and assigned control number 1018-0095, which expires
March 31, 2011.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. It is
available from the Lafayette Field Office (see ADDRESSES) and http://
www.regulations.gov.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 229511), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have considered possible
effects on and have notified the Native American Tribes within the NEP
area about this proposal. They have been advised through verbal and
written contact, including informational mailings from the Service. If
future activities resulting from this proposed rule may affect Tribal
resources, a Plan of Cooperation will be developed with the affected
Tribe or Tribes.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866)
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Lafayette Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The principal authors of this rule are Bill Brooks, of the
Jacksonville, Florida, Field Office; and Deborah Fuller, of the
Lafayette, Louisiana, Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
[[Page 51235]]
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S. C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the existing entry for ``Crane,
whooping'' under ``BIRDS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------ population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Crane, whooping................. Grus americana..... Canada, U.S.A. Entire, except E 1, 3 17.95(b) NA
(Rocky Mountains where listed as
east to an experimental
Carolinas), population.
Mexico.
Do.............................. ......do........... ......do.......... U.S.A. (AL, AR, XN 487, 621, NA 17.84(h)
CO, FL, GA, ID, 710, ----
IL, IN, IA, KY,
LA, MI, MN, MS,
MO, NC, NM, OH,
SC, TN, UT,
VA,WI, WV,
western half of
WY).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(h) Whooping crane (Grus americana).
(1) The whooping crane populations identified in paragraphs
(h)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section are nonessential experimental
populations (NEPs) as defined in Sec. 17.80.
(i) The only natural extant population of whooping cranes, known as
the Aransas/Wood Buffalo National Park population, occurs well west of
the Mississippi River. This population nests in the Northwest
Territories and adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada, primarily within the
boundaries of the Wood Buffalo National Park, and winters along the
Central Texas Gulf of Mexico coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge.
(ii) No natural populations of whooping cranes are likely to come
into contact with the NEPs set forth in paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through
(iv) of this section. Whooping cranes adhere to ancestral breeding
grounds, leaving little possibility that individuals from the extant
Aransas/Wood Buffalo National Park population will stray into the NEPs.
Studies of whooping cranes have shown that migration is a learned
rather than an innate behavior.
(2) No person may take this species in the wild in the experimental
population areas except when such take is accidental and incidental to
an otherwise lawful activity, or as provided in paragraphs (h)(3) and
(4) of this section. Examples of otherwise lawful activities include,
but are not limited to, oil and gas exploration and extraction,
aquacultural practices, agricultural practices, pesticide application,
water management, construction, recreation, trapping, or hunting, when
such activities are in full compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations.
(3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under Sec. 17.32 may take whooping cranes in the
wild in the experimental population areas for educational purposes,
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the
species, and other conservation purposes consistent with the Act and in
accordance with applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws
and regulations.
(4) Any employee or agent of the Service or State wildlife agency
who is designated for such purposes, when acting in the course of
official duties, may take a whooping crane in the wild in the
experimental population areas if such action is necessary to:
(i) Relocate a whooping crane to avoid conflict with human
activities;
(ii) Relocate a whooping crane that has moved outside any of the
areas identified in paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section,
when removal is necessary or requested and is authorized by a valid
permit under Sec. 17.22;
(iii) Relocate whooping cranes within the experimental population
areas to improve survival and recovery prospects;
(iv) Relocate whooping cranes from the experimental population
areas into captivity;
(v) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned whooping crane; or
(vi) Dispose of a dead specimen or salvage a dead specimen that may
be useful for scientific study.
(5) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this
section must be immediately reported to the National Whooping Crane
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 100, Austwell,
Texas 77950 (Phone: 361-286-3559), who, in conjunction with his
counterpart in the Canadian Wildlife Service, will determine the
disposition of any live or dead specimens.
(6) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any such species from the
experimental populations taken in violation of these regulations or in
violation of applicable State fish and wildlife laws or regulations or
the Endangered Species Act.
(7) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in
paragraphs (h)(2) through (6) of this section.
[[Page 51236]]
(8) The Service will not mandate any closure of areas, including
National Wildlife Refuges, during hunting or conservation order seasons
or closure or modification of hunting or conservation order seasons in
the following situations:
(i) For the purpose of avoiding take of whooping cranes in the NEPs
identified in paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section;
(ii) If a clearly marked whooping crane from the NEPs identified in
paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section wanders outside the
designated NEP areas. In this situation, the Service will attempt to
capture the stray bird and return it to the appropriate area if removal
is requested by the State.
(9) All whooping cranes found in the wild within the boundaries
listed in paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section will be
considered nonessential experimental animals. Geographic areas the
nonessential experimental populations may inhabit are within the
historic range of the whooping crane in the United States and include
the following:
(i) The entire State of Florida (the Kissimmee Prairie NEP). The
reintroduction site is the Kissimmee Prairie portions of Polk, Osceola,
Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties. The experimental population
released at Kissimmee Prairie is expected to remain mostly within the
prairie region of central Florida.
(ii) The States of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, and the
western half of Wyoming (the Rocky Mountain NEP).
(iii) That portion of the eastern contiguous United States which
includes the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin (the Eastern Migratory NEP). Whooping
cranes within this population are expected to occur mostly within the
States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia,
and Florida. The additional States included within the experimental
population area are those expected to receive occasional use by the
cranes, or which may be used as breeding or wintering areas in the
event of future population expansion.
(iv) The entire State of Louisiana (the Louisiana Nonmigratory
NEP). The reintroduction site is the White Lake Wetlands Conservation
Area of southwestern Louisiana in Vermilion Parish. Current information
indicates that White Lake is the historic location of a resident,
nonmigratory population of whooping cranes that bred and reared young
in Louisiana. Whooping cranes within this nonmigratory population are
expected to occur mostly within the White Lake Wetlands Conservation
Area and the nearby wetlands in Vermilion Parish. The marshes and
wetlands of southwestern Louisiana are expected to receive occasional
use by the cranes and may be used in the event of future population
expansion.
(v) A map of all NEP areas in the United States for whooping cranes
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AU10.000
(10) The reintroduced populations will be monitored during the
duration of the projects by the use of radio telemetry and other
appropriate measures. Any animal that is determined to be sick,
injured, or otherwise in need of special care will be recaptured to the
extent possible by Service and/or State wildlife personnel or their
designated agent and given appropriate care. Such animals will be
released back to the wild as soon as possible, unless physical or
behavioral problems make it necessary to return them to a captive-
breeding facility.
(11) The Service will reevaluate the status of the experimental
populations periodically to determine future
[[Page 51237]]
management needs. This review will take into account the reproductive
success and movement patterns of the individuals released within the
experimental population areas.
* * * * *
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Jane Lyder,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-20522 Filed 8-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P