[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4394-4401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2485]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD45
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to
Designate the Whooping Cranes of the Rocky Mountains as Experimental
Nonessential and to Remove Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Designations
From Four Locations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to
designate the whooping crane population (Grus americana) in the Rocky
Mountains as an experimental nonessential population and to remove
whooping crane critical habitat designations from four national
wildlife refuges; Bosque del Apache in New Mexico, Monte Vista and
Alamosa in Colorado, and Grays Lake in Idaho. The private lands
involved are holdings inside refuge boundaries and a 1-mile buffer
around Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The Service proposes to use
this population, and captive-reared sandhill cranes and whooping
cranes, in experiments to evaluate methods for introducing whooping
cranes into the wild where migration is required.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by April
8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to Dr. James Lewis, Southwest Regional Office, 500 Gold Avenue SW,
Room 4000, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1306. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. James Lewis (See ADDRESSES section
above) at telephone 505/248-6663; or facsimile 505/248-6922.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, Pub. L. 97-304,
added a new section 10(j) to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that provides for the designation of specific
introduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' Under other authority of the Act, the Service already
was permitted to reintroduce populations into unoccupied portions of
the historic range of a listed species when it would foster the
conservation
[[Page 4395]]
and recovery of the species. However, local opposition to
reintroduction efforts, based on concerns about the restrictions and
prohibitions on private and Federal activities contained in sections 7
and 9 of the Act, hampered efforts to use reintroductions as a
management tool.
Under section 10(j) of the Act, past and future reintroduced
populations established outside the current range of a species may be
designated as ``experimental.'' Such designations increase the
Service's flexibility to manage such populations because they may be
treated as threatened species, which allows more discretion in devising
management programs than for endangered species, especially regarding
incidental and other takings. Experimental populations ``nonessential''
to the continued existence of the species are to be treated as if they
were only proposed for listing for purposes of section 7 of the Act,
except as noted below.
A ``nonessential'' experimental population is not subject to the
formal consultation requirement of section 7(a)(2) of the Act, except
that the full protections accorded a threatened species under section 7
apply to individuals found on units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System or the National Park System. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies to carry out programs to conserve listed
species, applies to all experimental populations. Individuals to be
reintroduced into an experimental population can be removed from an
existing source or donor population only if such removal is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species; a permit issued
in accordance with 50 CFR 17.22 is also required.
An experiment to reintroduce whooping cranes to historic range in
the Rocky Mountains began in 1975, testing the ``cross-fostering''
technique of placing whooping crane eggs in nests of greater sandhill
cranes. On May 15, 1978, whooping crane critical habitat was designated
in four areas to benefit the whooping cranes being reintroduced into
the Rocky Mountains (43 FR 20938).
Section 10(j) requires the Secretary of the Interior to determine
whether populations already reintroduced in 1982 were experimental and
essential to the continued existence of the species. The population
which migrates between the Gulf Coast of Texas and Northwest
Territories, Canada, (Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population) then contained
73 birds (including 17 pairs). The only captive flock (at Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center) contained 35 birds but only 5 egg-laying
females. The whooping crane population in the Rocky Mountains (Rocky
Mountain Population) contained 14 birds, was increasing through
releases, and breeding was expected in the near future. It appeared the
reintroduction might soon be an operational success rather than an
experiment and the Service considered the population essential to
existence of the species. Consequently, the Service did not designate
the Rocky Mountain Population as experimental when the Act amendments
first provided that opportunity.
Since that time, however, the cross-fostering program was
terminated because the birds were not pairing and the mortality rate
was too high to establish a self-sustaining population. Currently only
four nonbreeding adults remain in the Rocky Mountain region. At the
same time, the total population of whooping cranes has increased to
approximately 260 individuals. The wild population now numbers
approximately 163 individuals, including 43 experienced breeding pairs.
Four captive populations have also been established with approximately
96 whooping cranes, including 14 breeding pairs and another 21 pairs
expected to begin breeding over the next few years. These are among the
factors discussed below that allow the Secretary to now find the Rocky
Mountain Population no longer essential to the continued existence of
the species.
The Service proposes removing whooping crane critical habitat
designations from four national wildlife refuges; Bosque del Apache in
New Mexico, Monte Vista and Alamosa in Colorado, and Grays Lake in
Idaho. The only private lands involved are private holdings inside
refuge boundaries and a 1-mile buffer around Grays Lake National
Wildlife Refuge. These critical habitats were established to provide
food, water and other nutritional or physiological needs of the
whooping crane; particularly potential nesting, rearing and feeding
habitat at Grays Lake, roosting and feeding habitat during migration
through Alamosa and Monte Vista, and winter roosting and feeding
habitat at Bosque del Apache. If critical habitat designations are
rescinded and the Rocky Mountain Population is designated as
nonessential, section 7(a)(1) of the Act will still apply to Federal
agencies and both sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) as required for
``threatened species,'' will apply on National Wildlife Refuges.
Federal agencies will still be required to carry out programs to
conserve this population and the Act's consultation and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Refuge compatibility requirements will still
apply on National Wildlife Refuges.
The proposed actions involve the following States and Service
Regions--Pacific Region (Idaho), Southwest Region (Arizona and New
Mexico), and Mountain-Prairie Region (Colorado, Montana, Utah, and
Wyoming). The principal use areas of this population are the middle Rio
Grande Valley of New Mexico, the lower San Luis Valley of Colorado, and
summering areas in southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Southeastern
Arizona, northeastern Utah, southwestern Montana, northwestern
Colorado, and northern New Mexico are only occupied temporarily during
migration or infrequently by a single whooping crane in summer or
winter. The portion of the middle Rio Grande Valley involved includes a
few miles on either side of the Rio Grande ranging from the town of
Belen, New Mexico, to Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, 15
mines south of Socorro, New Mexico. The portion of the San Luis Valley
involved is 15 miles on either side of a line running north-northwest
from Capulin, Colorado, to Saguache, Colorado.
On March 11, 1967, (32 FR 4001) and again on June 2, 1970, (35 FR
8495) the whooping crane was listed as endangered. Its status resulted
from hunting and specimen collection, human disturbance, and conversion
of the primary nesting habitat to hay, pastureland, and grain
production (Allen 1952) in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The
whooping crane is in the family Gruidae, Order Gruiformes, and is the
tallest bird in North America. Males approach 1.5 meters (96 inches) in
height and captive adult males average 7.3 kilograms (16 pounds), and
females 6.4 kilograms (14 pounds). Adult plumage is snowy white except
for black primaries, black or grayish alulae, sparse black bristly
feathers on the carmine crown and malar region, and a dark gray-black
wedge-shaped patch on the nape.
Adults are potentially long-lived with an estimated maximum
longevity in the wild of 22 to 24 years (Binkley and Miller 1980) and
27 to 40 years in captivity (McNulty 1966). Mating is characterized by
monogamous life-long pair bonds. Individuals remate following death of
a mate. Fertile eggs are occasionally produced at 3 years of age, but
more typically at 4 years of age (Ernie Kuyt, Canadian Wildlife
Service, pers. comm. 1991). Experienced pairs
[[Page 4396]]
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 (Kuyt 1981).
Although two eggs are laid, whooping cranes infrequently fledge two
chicks.
The whooping crane first appeared in fossil records from the early
Pleistocene (Allen 1952) and probably was most abundant during that 2-
million-year epoch. They 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). 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. Some
nesting occurred at other sites such as western Wyoming in the 1900's
(Allen 1952, Kemsies 1930). A nonmigratory population still existed in
southwestern Louisiana in the 1940's (Allen 1952, Gomez 1992). Through
the use of two independent techniques of population estimation, Banks
(1978) derived estimates of 500 to 700 whooping cranes in 1870. By
1941, the migratory population contained only 16 individuals.
Whooping cranes currently exist in three wild populations and four
captive locations, totalling 260 individuals. The largest captive
population of 41 birds, including nine breeding pairs, is located near
Laurel, Maryland. Another six pairs here should begin producing eggs in
the next 3 years. This site was staffed and administered by the Service
as Patuxent Wildlife Research Center until October 1993 when it became
part of National Biological Service and was renamed Patuxent
Environmental Science Center. A captive flock of 31 birds is maintained
by the Service at the International Crane Foundation (Foundation), a
private foundation near Baraboo, Wisconsin. The Foundation flock
contains five breeding pairs and another five pairs that should enter
production in the next 3 years. A third captive site is being developed
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, at the Calgary Zoo Ranch. This flock,
under the oversight of the Canadian Wildlife Service, contains 19
cranes transferred from captive flocks in the United States (1991-
1995). Ten pairs at Calgary should begin breeding by late this decade.
Two pairs are maintained at the San Antonio Zoological Gardens and
Aquarium in San Antonio, Texas, and should begin breeding in the next
few years.
The Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population, the only self-sustaining
natural wild population, contains 133 individuals that nest in the
Northwest Territories and adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada, primarily
within the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park. The migration
route is similar in spring and fall. It passes through northeastern
Alberta, south-central Saskatchewan, northeastern Montana, western
North Dakota, western South Dakota, central Nebraska and Kansas, west-
central Oklahoma, and east-central Texas. These birds winter along the
central Texas Gulf of Mexico coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
and adjacent areas. Whooping cranes adhere to ancestral breeding areas,
migratory routes, and wintering grounds, leaving little possibility of
pioneering into new regions. The Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population can be
expected to continue utilizing its current nesting location with little
likelihood of expansion, except on a local geographic scale. The flock
recovered from a population low of 16 birds in 1941, and now contains
131 individuals. Forty-five pairs nested in 1993, but of a potential
43-46 pairs, only 28 pairs nested in 1994, due to a late winter and
possibly to poor food conditions on their wintering grounds. This was
the first time in over 50 years that such a high percentage of the
potential pairs failed to nest. This population remains vulnerable to
destruction through a natural catastrophe (hurricane), a red tide
outbreak, or contaminant spill, due primarily to its limited wintering
distribution along the intracoastal waterway of the Texas coast
(Service 1994).
The reintroduced population in Florida consists of 26 subadult
captive-produced whooping cranes released in 1993-1995, in the
Kissimmee Prairie. In this experimental effort designed to develop a
nonmigratory self-sustaining population designated as experimental
nonessential, annual releases of 20 or more birds have been planned for
up to 7 more years. Project success will be evaluated annually (58 FR
5647; January 22, 1993).
The whooping crane population of the Rocky Mountains is proposed to
be designated a nonessential experimental population according to the
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act. The Service further proposes to
rescind the designation of whooping crane critical habitat in Colorado,
Idaho, and New Mexico. The Rocky Mountain Population consists only of a
male and three female adult cross-fostered cranes surviving from an
experiment to establish a migratory, self-sustaining population. These
birds are termed cross-fostered because they were reared by sandhill
cranes at Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, a 8,900-hectare marsh in
southeastern Idaho.
These cranes winter in the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico
at Belen State Game Refuge and Bosque del Apache National Wildlife
Refuge from November-February. In February-March, they migrate north to
south-central Colorado where they spend 4-6 weeks in the San Luis
Valley before continuing north into southeastern Idaho and western
Wyoming. The main crane use area in the valley is Monte Vista National
Wildlife Refuge, 10 kilometers south of the town of Monte Vista. The
whooping cranes spend April-September on their summer grounds in
southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming. In September-October, before
migration, they flock with sandhill cranes at Grays Lake and other
wetlands and pastures before migrating southeast through northeastern
Utah and western Colorado where they remain in the San Luis Valley for
4-6 weeks. They migrate through northern New Mexico and arrive at the
wintering area in early November.
From 1975-1988, 289 eggs were transferred in the reintroduction
experiment (including 73 eggs from the captive flock at Patuxent); 210
hatched, and 85 chicks fledged (Drewien et el. 1989). Population growth
was slow due to small numbers of fertile eggs in some years and high
mortality of young before fledging. The losses of chicks and fledged
individuals, and the absence of breeding, resulted in a peak population
of only 33 individuals in winter 1984-85.
By 1985, biologists began to suspect the absence of pairing might
be due to improper sexual imprinting, particularly by female whooping
cranes. Sexual imprinting of a foster-reared species on the foster-
parent species had been confirmed in raptors, waterfowl, gulls,
finches, and gallinaceous birds (Bird et al. 1985, Immelmann 1972).
Older female whooping cranes frequently did not return in spring to
Grays Lake or other areas occupied by males on their territories. In
1981, 1982, and 1989, captive-reared adult female whooping cranes were
released at Grays Lake to enhance pairing activities and determine if
adult males recognize conspecifics as mates. These experiments
indicated that some cross-fostered males recognized conspecific females
as appropriate mates. Improper sexual imprinting behavior seemed to be
stronger in the cross-fostered females than in the males.
[[Page 4397]]
An experiment to test for improper sexual imprinting due to foster
rearing among crane species occurred at the Foundation in 1987 (Mahan
and Simmers 1992). Sandhill cranes were foster-reared by red-crowned
cranes (sample n=1), white-naped cranes (n=2), and Siberian cranes
(n=1). They were then observed from the age of 12 to 24 months, the
period when pairing typically begins in sandhill cranes. They were
placed in pens adjacent to an opposite-sexed, same-aged bird of the
foster species on one side and an opposite-sexed, same-age conspecific
on the other side. Each test bird socialized more with the foster
species than with a conspecific and the preference was most apparent
for females. A cross-fostered young would have to prefer a conspecific
in order to obtain an appropriate mate. Thus, the cross-fostering
technique does not appear to be suitable for reintroducing a crane to
historical habitat.
The cross-fostering experiment was ended because these birds were
not pairing and the mortality rate was too high to continue (Garton et
al. 1989). Several experiments to encourage pair formation were carried
out from 1986 through 1992 without success (Service 1994). By fall of
1994, cross-fostered adult female whooping cranes of ages 4 through 13
years had passed through a nesting season on 42 occasions without
pairing. In 1992, a wild male cross-fostered whooping crane and female
sandhill crane paired and produced a hybrid chick. This pairing is
believed to be a consequence of improper sexual imprinting which
resulted from the cross-fostering process. This is the first known
instance of cross-species pairing despite frequent association of these
two species in North America.
The cross-fostered cranes exhibited various parental behaviors on
summer territories at Grays Lake and in a pen nearby. These activities
and chick adoptions at the United States captive facilities suggested
that some cross-fostered whooping cranes might adopt or bond with and
rear a whooping crane chick. Such bonding experiments could occur in
open pens with wild-captured adults and would theoretically result in a
captive-reared juvenile imprinted on conspecifics and exhibiting some
wild qualities. Wild cross-fostered adults were captured and placed
with chicks in pens. When the young reached fledging age, all birds
were released to the wild to learn from their foster parents where to
migrate and spend the winter. This approach was tested without
significant success in 1993 and 1994.
The United States Whooping Crane Recovery Plan was approved January
23, 1980, and revised December 23, 1986, and February 11, 1994. In
1985, the Director-General of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the
Director of the Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding entitled
``Conservation of the Whooping Crane Related to Coordinated Management
Activities.'' The Memorandum of Understanding was revised and signed in
1990, and is scheduled for renewal in 1995. It discusses cooperative
recovery actions, dispositions of birds and eggs, population
restoration and objectives, new population sites, international
management, recovery plans, and consultation and coordination. All
captive whooping cranes and their future progeny are jointly owned by
the Service and Canadian Wildlife Service and both nations are involved
in recovery decisions.
The recovery plan's criteria for downlisting the whooping crane
from the endangered to threatened category require maintaining a
population level in excess of 40 pairs in the Aransas/Wood Buffalo
Population and establishing two additional, self-sustaining populations
each consisting of at least 25 nesting pairs (Service 1994). The
experimental reintroduction underway in Florida, if successful, would
provide the first additional population. The first priority for
establishing the second reintroduction population is a migratory flock
within historic nesting habitat in the prairie provinces of Canada
(Edwards et al. 1994). The Canadian Wildlife Service and provincial
wildlife agencies are cooperating in field studies to identify such a
release area. By late in this decade the three principal captive flocks
should be capable of producing enough whooping cranes to simultaneously
support reintroduction in Florida and Canada, but there is no technique
for introducing captive-reared cranes in a migratory situation so they
will use an appropriate migration route and wintering location.
The Service proposes to use wild whooping cranes of the Rocky
Mountain Population and captive-reared sandhill cranes and whooping
cranes to evaluate methods of introducing captive-reared whooping
cranes into a wild migratory situation. The research proposed within
the range of the Rocky Mountain Population is needed to identify a
technique for establishing a wild migratory population of whooping
cranes in Canada. Such a technique is essential if the Service is to
achieve recovery goals for downlisting (Task 31 of the Whooping Crane
Recovery Plan; Service 1994--58). The requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act and the section 7 requirements of the Act have
been fulfilled for the proposed action.
The Rocky Mountains are the preferred location for research on
techniques for establishing a migratory flock because a small
experimental population has been present there for 20 years. A large
data base on whooping crane and sandhill crane habitats and behaviors
exists for this area which provides a comparative baseline for future
research in the same geographical area. The Service prefers to avoid
experimentation in other United States areas of the historic migratory
range until late in this decade when a reintroduction site is selected
in Canada. The Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements
are fulfilled for those portions of the United States that would be
involved as migration and winter areas.
Adult cranes teach their young where to migrate and spend the
winter. A promising topic of research in the Rocky Mountains is the use
of ultralight aircraft to teach captive-reared cranes an appropriate
migration route and wintering area. In 1993, Mr. Bill Lishman reared
Canada geese in Ontario, trained them to follow an ultralight aircraft,
and in fall led 18 on a 600 kilometer route to Virginia where they
spent the winter. The following spring at least 13 returned to Ontario
on their own initiative. In 1994, Mr. Kent Clegg reared six sandhill
cranes and taught them to follow an ultralight aircraft in local
flights within Idaho. As the next step in this research Mr. Clegg
proposes in 1995 to rear a group of sandhill cranes and lead them in
fall migration from southeastern Idaho to Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. If successful with sandhill cranes, the
technique would then be tested in 1996, with 6-8 captive-reared
whooping cranes. Research may be required on some alternative technique
if experimentation with ultralight aircraft indicates it is not a
promising reintroduction technique for the Canadian site.
The Rocky Mountain Population qualifies as being nonessential to
the continued existence of the whooping crane because:
(1) The four cross-fostered whooping cranes of the Rocky Mountain
Population are not breeding and all members will likely die in the next
10 years. They are not contributing to the long-term existence of the
species in the wild. None of the cross-fostered whooping cranes have
paired and they appear to be behaviorally sexually
[[Page 4398]]
neutered. Loss of such individuals will not deter recovery of the
species.
(2) There are approximately 110 whooping cranes in captivity at
four discrete locations and about 150 whooping cranes elsewhere at two
locations in the wild. This species has been protected against the
threat of extinction from a single catastrophic event by gradual
recovery of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population (average increase of
4.6 percent per year for the past 50 years (Mirande et al. 1993)), and
by increase and management of the cranes at the captive sites. If the
average growth rate continues the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population will
reach 500 by about 2020. The standard deviation in growth is almost
double the mean growth so in some years the population will decline
temporarily, although long-term growth continues to be good. Captive-
produced birds which die during the experiments can be replaced through
captive breeding or by transfer of eggs from the wild population in
Canada. Eggs have been transferred to captivity from the Aransas/Wood
Buffalo Population for building the captive flocks or experimental
reintroductions since 1967. The wild population has continued to grow
during this interval despite the egg transfers. Since 1985, biologists
involved in the egg transfer have endeavored to ensure that one viable
egg remains in each nest. Such egg switching within the Park provides
infertile pairs the opportunity to raise a chick. These egg switches
have increased flock growth and the potential for species recovery by
an estimated 16-19 percent (Kuyt, pers. comm. 1991). Whooping cranes of
the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population have the highest long-term
recruitment rate (13.9 percent) of any North American crane population
(Drewien et al. 1995).
Egg and chick production doubled in the captive flocks in 1992, and
continued to increase in 1993 and 1994. Production of fertile eggs by
captive birds increased 66 percent in 1994. Within the captive
population there also are 23 young pairs expected to enter the breeding
component of the population over the next 5 years. Wild- and captive-
flock increases illustrate the potential of the species to replace
individual birds which might die during the experimentation.
(3) The repository of genetic diversity for the species will be the
approximately 260 wild and captive whooping cranes mentioned in (2)
above. Any birds selected for research on reintroduction techniques in
a migratory situation will be as genetically redundant as practical,
hence any loss of reintroduced animals in the experiments will not
significantly impact the goal of preserving maximum genetic diversity
in the species.
(4) Research in the Rocky Mountain Population will further the
conservation of the species. Such research is essential to recovery and
downlisting the species to threatened status. The beneficial result of
identifying a suitable reintroduction technique for placing captive-
produced whooping cranes in a migratory circumstance outweigh any
negative effects of the experiments. If a suitable reintroduction
technique is identified it will expedite recovery and downlisting/
delisting of the whooping crane.
Management
Effect on the Rocky Mountain Population
After captive-reared whooping cranes are released to the wild in
the proposed experiments, the Service does not propose to recover and
return them to captivity. Avian tuberculosis has been a significant
disease problem among whooping cranes in the Rocky Mountains and is
very difficult to detect. To protect captive flocks from this disease,
the Service will not take a whooping crane from the wild and place it
in captive flocks. Wild birds also pose a greater danger because; (1)
self-inflicted injury may occur as they attempt to escape, (2)
potential injury to caretakers, and (3) they are more prone to injury
when handled for health checks.
The release of six or more captive-reared whooping cranes in 1996
into this population may slightly prolong its existence. The numbers
proposed, including small additional numbers if additional research is
required, will be far below the numbers required to have any
substantial effect on survival of the population. The additional birds
in the wild will provide some viewing opportunities for bird watchers,
and some enjoyment for those participating in the annual crane
festivals at Monte Vista, Colorado, and Socorro, New Mexico.
Potential Conflicts
The release of additional whooping cranes in the Rocky Mountains
will not alter sandhill crane hunting activities along the migration
pathway and wintering sites. Sandhill cranes and snow geese (Chen
caerulescens) are species that look somewhat like whooping cranes.
Hunters of these species might misidentify a whooping crane and shoot
it, believing it is a legal target. Sandhill cranes are hunted in some
areas and precautions are taken to reduce the likelihood that whooping
cranes might be mistaken for sandhill cranes and shot. Sandhill crane
hunting is not permitted in Idaho and Colorado nor on the national
wildlife refuges involved in this proposed rule. Sandhill crane hunting
is permitted in the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, in
northeastern Utah, and a small area in southwestern Wyoming and has
occurred for these cranes and snow geese for the past decade without
causing the known loss of a whooping crane within the Rocky Mountain
Population. In New Mexico the whooping cranes generally stay on Bosque
del Apache National Wildlife Refuge or State game refuges during fall/
winter.
Special Handling
Under the proposed special regulation, which is promulgated under
authority of section 4(d) of the Act, and which accompanies this
proposed rule for experimental population designation, Federal and
State employees and agents would be authorized to relocate whooping
cranes to avoid conflict with human activities and relocate whooping
cranes that have moved outside the appropriate release areas when
removal is necessary or requested. Research activities may require
capture in the wild of cross-fostered or captive-reared and released
whooping cranes. These individuals will be captured using the night-
lighting technique which has been used successfully to capture 269
cranes without injury (Drewien and Clegg 1992). Cranes utilized in the
experiments will be equipped with a legband-mounted radio telemetry or
satellite transmitter and periodically monitored to assess movements.
They will be checked for mortality or indications of disease
(listlessness, social exclusion, flightlessness, or obvious weakness).
Mortality
Although efforts will be made to reduce mortality, some will
inevitably occur as captive-reared birds adapt to the wild. Collision
with powerlines and fences, predators, and disease are known hazards to
wild whooping cranes in the Rocky Mountains. Human-caused mortality
will be minimized through public education. The Service anticipates the
proposed actions may affect the whooping crane due to the potential
death of one or more wild, cross-fostered and captive-reared
individuals during the experiments. Such losses are not unique to this
experiment, but could result during
[[Page 4399]]
normal life experiences of wild whooping cranes and of whooping cranes
retained in captivity. Standard avicultural precautions taken in
shipping, handling, and capture, should keep losses to a minimum.
Recently released whooping cranes will need protection from natural
sources of mortality (predators,disease, inadequate foods) and from
human-caused sources of mortality. Natural mortality will be reduced
through prerelease conditioning, gentle release, and vaccination.
Human-caused mortality will be minimized through conservation education
programs.
Health Care
As a consequence of the proposed experiments, disease could be
transferred from a captive facility to the wild. Precautions taken to
ensure that no disease is transferred will be those measures approved
in previous transfers when the captive whooping crane flock was split
between Patuxent and the Foundation; when birds were shipped from 1992-
1994, to Calgary Zoo Ranch to start the captive flock for Canadian
Wildlife Service; and when birds were transferred for the
reintroduction to the wild in Florida. Health screening procedures have
been developed for release of captive-reared whooping cranes in the
wild and have proven effective in avoiding disease or parasite
transfers in multiple shipments in 1993 and 1994. Such techniques have
proven effective in previous transfers between captive sites and
between captive sites and the wild.
Captive Facilities
Facilities for captive maintenance of the birds were constructed
for earlier studies and are designed similar to facilities at Patuxent
and the Foundation. They conform to standards set forth in Animal
Welfare Act. To further ensure the well-being of birds in captivity and
their suitability for release to the wild, the pens will include water
where the cranes can feed and roost.
Coordination With Agencies and Interested Parties
In October 1992, the Canadian and United States Whooping Crane
Recovery Teams recommended uses for the cross-fostered whooping cranes
surviving in the Rocky Mountain Population. Both teams suggested using
the remaining birds in further experimentation. Information about the
recovery teams' recommendations was mailed to the involved Service
Regions, States, and special interest groups for their review and
comments.
In February 1993, the Southwest Region of the Service sent a
memorandum to the State wildlife agency director in each of the
affected States; the chairman and members of the Central Flyway
Technical Committee; the crane subcommittee of the Pacific Flyway
Council; representatives of the National Audubon Society; the president
and trustees of the Whooping Crane Conservation Association; to
managers of national wildlife refuges involved; and to crane festive
groups in Socorro, New Mexico, and Monte Vista, Colorado, requesting
their views on actions being considered for the Rocky Mountain
Population of whooping cranes. In addition, Technical Committees of the
Pacific and the Central Flyway Councils expressed opinions on the
actions. Some recipients responded by mail and others provided only
verbal comments by telephone.
Refuge managers at the three locations anticipated no problem with
removal of the critical habitat designation and changing the
designation to experimental nonessential. All involved States, the
Pacific Flyway crane subcommittee, the Central Flyway Technical
Committee, the Central Flyway Council, and the Pacific Flyway Council
favored the change in designation. The Whooping Crane Conservation
Association and Chairman of the Crane Festival in Colorado supported
the changes. National Audubon Society representatives expressed mild
concern about possible increased hazards in whooping cranes as a
consequence of the experimental designation but favored additional
experimentation.
A majority of the responses supported taking some birds into
captivity and endorsed further experimentation. The Service then
decided in 1993, to leave all the birds in the wild so there would be a
greater likelihood of having sufficient birds for experimentation.
Whenever the research is completed, a majority of the respondents favor
leaving some of the whooping cranes in the wild for public education,
viewing, and research.
The Canadian Wildlife Service endorses the actions described in
this proposed rule. The members of the Canadian Whooping Crane Recovery
Team and the United States Whooping Crane Recovery Team, professional
biologists working with State, provincial, Federal, and private groups
have expertise in research or management of cranes, also endorse the
changes. The Whooping Crane Conservation Association and World Wildlife
Fund-Canada provided funding support for the guide bird experimentation
in 1993 and 1994, indicating their endorsement of such experimental
efforts and uses of the Rocky Mountain whooping cranes.
On June 24, 1993, the Service announced the availability of the
draft revised recovery plan for the whooping crane for review and
comment (58 FR 34269). Review copies were mailed to the involved
States, Federal agencies, special interest groups, and others. The plan
described further proposed experimentation with the Rocky Mountain
Population. Favorable comments were received on the plan and all
comments were supportive of the proposed research.
Public Comments Solicited
Comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed
rule are hereby invited (see ADDRESSES section) from State, public, and
government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party. Comments should be as specific as possible. Final
promulgation of a rule to implement this proposed action will take into
consideration the comments for any additional information received by
the Service. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs
from this proposal.
National Environmental Policy Act
An Environmental Assessment prepared under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, is available to the public
at the Service Office identified in the ADDRESSES section. The Service
determined that this action is not a major Federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
Required Determinations
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the
information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and
private activities within the experimental population area, significant
economic impacts will not result from this action. Also, no direct
costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or record keeping
requirements are imposed on small entities by this action, and the rule
contains no record keeping requirements, as defined under the
[[Page 4400]]
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule
does not require a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612
because it would not have any significant federalism effects as
described in the order.
The Service has determined that this action would not involve any
taking of constitutionally protected property rights that require
preparation of a takings implication assessment under Executive Order
12630.
References Cited
Allen, R.P. 1952. The whooping crane. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rept.
3, 246 pp.
Banks, R. 1978. The size of the early whooping crane populations.
Unpubl. Rept. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. files. 10 pp.
Binkley, C. S., and R. S. Miller. 1980. Survivorship of the whooping
crane (Grus americana). Ecology 61:434-437.
Bird, D.M., W. Burnham, and R. W. Fyfe. 1985. A review of cross-
fostering in birds of prey. ICBP Tech. Publ. 5:433-438.
Drewien, R.C., and K. R. Clegg. 1992. Capturing whooping cranes and
sandhill cranes by night-lighting. Proc. North American Crane
Workshop 6:43-49.
Drewien, R.C., W. Brown, and E. Bizeau. 1989. Whooping crane cross-
fostering experiment. Unpubl. report to U.S. Whooping Crane Recovery
Team. 10 pp.
Drewien, R.C., W. Brown, and W. L. Kendall. 1995. Recruitment in
Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes and comparison with other
North American crane populations. J. Wildlife Management (at press).
Edwards, R., S. Brechtel, R. Bromley, D. Hjertas, B. Johns, E. Kuyt,
J. Lewis, N. Manners, R. Stardom and G. Tarry. 1994. National
recovery plan for the whooping crane. Report No. 6. Ottawa: Recovery
of Nationally Endangered Wildlife committee, 39 pp.
Garton, E. O., R. C. Drewien, W. M. Brown, and E. G. Bizeau. 1989.
Survival rates and population prospects of whooping cranes at Grays
Lake NWR. Final report, in files U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Albuquerque, NM. 47 pp.
Gomez, G. M. 1992. Whooping cranes in southwest Louisiana: History
and human attitudes. Proc. N. Am. Crane Workshop 6:19-23.
Immelmann, K. 1972. Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting
in birds and other species. Pages 147-174 in D. S. Lehrman et al.
(eds.) Advances in the study of behavior. Vol. 4, Academic Press,
New York.
Kemsies, E. 1930. Birds of the Yellowstone National Park, with some
recent additions. Wilson Bulletin 42:198-210.
Kuyt, E. 1981. Clutch size, hatching success, and survival of
whooping crane chicks, Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. Pages
126-129 in J. C. Lewis and H. Masatomi (eds.), Crane Research Around
the World. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
Mahan, T. A., and B. S. Simmers. 1992. Social preference of four
cross-foster reared sandhill cranes. Proceedings Sixth North
American Crane Workshop 6:114-119.
McNulty, F. 1966. The whooping crane: The bird that defies
extinction. E. P. Dutton and Co. Inc., New York, New York. 190 pp.
Mirande C., R. Lacy, and U. Seal (eds.). 1993. Whooping crane (Grus
americana) conservation viability assessment workshop report.
Captive Breeding Specialist Group, International Union for
Conservation of Nature, Apple Valley, Minnesota. 119 pp. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping crane recovery plan.
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 92 pp.
Author
The primary author of this document is Dr. James Lewis (See
ADDRESSES section above) at telephone 505/248-6663; or facsimile 505/
248-6922.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes 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. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the 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 Americanus..... Canada, U.S.A. Entire, except E 1.3 17.95(b) NA
(Rocky Mountains where listed as an
East to Carolinas) experimental
Mexico. population.
Do........................... ......do............ ......do........... U.S.A. (FL)........ XN 487 NA 17.84(h)
Do........................... ......do............ ......do........... U.S.A. (CO, ID, NM, XN NA 17.84(h)
UT, WY).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 17.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(3),
(h)(4)(ii), and adding paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (h)(8)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) The whooping crane populations identified in paragraphs
(h)(8)(i) and (h)(8)(ii) of this section are nonessential experimental
populations.
* * * * *
(3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under Sec. 17.32 may take
[[Page 4401]]
whooping cranes in the wild in the experimental population area 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) * * *
(ii) Relocate a whooping crane that has moved outside the Kissimmee
Prairie or the Rocky Mountain range of the experimental population when
removal is necessary or requested;
* * * * *
(8) Geographic areas that nonessential experimental populations
inhabit include the following--
(i) The entire State of Florida. The reintroduction site will be
the Kissimmee Prairie portions of Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and
Okeechobee counties. Current information indicates that the Kissimmee
Prairie is within the historic range of the whooping crane in Florida.
There are no other extant populations of whooping cranes that could
come into contact with the experimental population. The only two extant
populations occur well west of the Mississippi River. The Aransas/Wood
Buffalo National Park 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. Whooping
cranes adhere to ancestral breeding grounds leaving little possibility
that individuals from the extant population will stray into Florida or
the Rocky Mountain Population. Studies of whooping cranes have shown
that migration is learned rather than innate behavior. The experimental
population released at Kissimmee Prairie is expected to remain within
the prairie region of central Florida; and
(ii) The State of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, and the
western half of Wyoming. Birds in this area do not come in contact with
whooping cranes of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population.
* * * * *
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
4. Section 17.95(b) is amended by deleting the maps and
descriptions of critical habitat for the whooping crane in the States
of Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico.
Dated: October 20, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-2485 Filed 2-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M