[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14107-14119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5821]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH46


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To 
Establish a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in 
the Eastern United States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reintroduce whooping cranes (Grus americana) into historic habitat in 
the eastern United States with the intent to establish a migratory 
flock that would summer and breed in Wisconsin, and winter in west-
central Florida. We propose that this reintroduced population be 
designated a nonessential experimental population (NEP) according to 
section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. 
We also announce the availability of the draft environmental assessment 
for this action. The area proposed for NEP designation 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. We are considering including the States of Connecticut, 
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont within the eastern 
United States NEP area.
    The objectives of the reintroduction are: to advance recovery of 
the endangered whooping crane; to further assess the suitability of 
Wisconsin and west-central Florida as whooping crane habitat; and to 
evaluate the merit of releasing captive-reared whooping cranes, 
conditioned for wild release, as a technique for establishing a self-
sustaining, migratory population. The only natural wild population of 
whooping cranes remains vulnerable to extirpation through a natural 
catastrophe or contaminant spill, due primarily to its limited 
wintering distribution along the Texas gulf coast. If successful, this 
action will result in the establishment of an additional self-
sustaining population, and contribute towards the recovery of the 
species. No conflicts are envisioned between the whooping crane's 
reintroduction and any existing or anticipated Federal, State, Tribal, 
local government, or private actions such as agricultural practices, 
pesticide application, water management, construction, recreation, 
trapping, or hunting.

DATES: Comments on both the proposed rule and the draft environmental 
assessment must be received by April 23, 2001. We will hold public 
hearings at the following locations within the proposed NEP area on the 
dates indicated.
    1. Stevens Point, Wisconsin on April 5, 2001 at the Laird Room in 
the University Center at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 
1015 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
    2. Indianapolis, Indiana on April 4, 2001 at the Holliday Park 
Nature Center, 6345 Spring Mill Road--2 blocks west of the Meridian and 
64th Street intersection, Indianapolis, Indiana
    3. Nashville, Tennessee on April 3, 2001 at the Union Station 
Hotel, 1001 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee
    4. Crystal River, Florida on April 2, 2001 at the Plantation Inn 
and Golf Resort, 9301 West Fort Island Trail, Crystal River, Florida
    We will hold public informational open houses at the same locations 
prior to each public hearing. The informational open houses will be 
held from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The public hearings will be held from 
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. See additional information on these public 
hearings in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on this proposed rule or on the draft 
environmental assessment to Janet M. Smith, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 1015 Challenger Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin 
54311. You may also send comments by facsimile equipment to 920-465-
7410 or by email to the following address: [email protected]. We 
request that you identify whether you are commenting on the proposed 
rule or draft environmental assessment. Comments and materials received 
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the above address. You may obtain copies of the draft 
environmental assessment from the above address or by calling 920-465-
7440, or from our World Wide Web site at http://midwest.fws.gov/whoopingcrane.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet M. Smith, Field Supervisor, 
Green Bay Field Office, (telephone 920-465-7440, facsimile 920-465-
7410). Additional information is also available on our World Wide Web 
site at http://midwest.fws.gov/whoopingcrane.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative

    Congress made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act), with the addition of section 10(j), which 
provides for the designation of specific reintroduced populations of 
listed species as ``experimental populations.'' Previously, we had 
authority to reintroduce populations into unoccupied portions of

[[Page 14108]]

a listed species' historical range when doing so would foster the 
conservation and recovery of the species. However, local citizens often 
opposed these reintroductions because they were concerned about the 
placement of restrictions and prohibitions on Federal and private 
activities. 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.''
    Under the Act, species listed as endangered or threatened are 
afforded protection primarily through the prohibitions of section 9 and 
the requirements of section 7. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take 
of a listed species. ``Take'' is defined by the Act as harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt 
to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the 
procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally 
listed species and protect designated critical habitats. It mandates 
all Federal agencies to determine how to use their existing authorities 
to further the purposes of the Act to aid in recovering listed species. 
It also states that Federal agencies will, in consultation with the 
Service, insure 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.
    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. Threatened designation gives us more discretion in developing 
and implementing management programs and special regulations for a 
population, such as this rule, and allows us to develop any regulations 
we consider necessary to provide for the conservation of a threatened 
species. In situations where we have experimental populations, most of 
the section 9 prohibitions that apply to threatened species no longer 
apply, and the special rule contains the prohibitions and exceptions 
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. An experimental population that is 
essential to the survival of the species is treated as a threatened 
species. An experimental population that is nonessential to the 
survival of the species is also treated as a threatened species. 
However, for section 7 interagency cooperation purposes, if the NEP is 
located outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, it is 
treated as a species proposed for listing. Regulations for NEPs may be 
developed to be more compatible with routine human activities in the 
reintroduction area.
    For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, in situations where there 
is an NEP located within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park 
(treated as threatened), section 7(a)(1) and the consultation 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. Section 7(a)(1) 
requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve 
listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies consult 
with the Service before authorizing, funding, or carrying out any 
activity that would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species or adversely modify its critical habitats. When NEPs are 
located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, only two 
provisions of section 7 would apply: section 7(a)(1) and section 
7(a)(4). Federal agencies are not required to consult with us under 
section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to 
informally confer with the Service on actions that are likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing. 
However, since we determined that the 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.
    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.

2. Biological

    The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as an endangered 
species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). The whooping crane is 
classified in the family Gruidae, Order Gruiformes. 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. The 
bill is dark olive-gray which becomes lighter during the breeding 
season. The iris of the eye is yellow; legs and feet are gray-black.
    Adults are potentially long-lived. Current estimates suggest a 
maximum longevity in the wild of 22 to 24 years (Binkley and Miller 
1980). Captive individuals are known to have survived 27 to 40 years 
(McNulty 1966, Moody 1931). Mating is characterized by monogamous 
lifelong pair bonds. Individuals re-mate following death of their mate. 
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, Kuyt 1981). 
Although two eggs are laid, whooping crane pairs infrequently fledge 
two chicks. Only about one of every four hatched chicks survives to 
reach the wintering grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986)
     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, Nesbitt 1982). 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. A nonmigratory breeding population existed in southwestern 
Louisiana until the early 1900s (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. The whooping crane population decline in the 19th and 
early 20th century 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, Erickson 
& Derrickson 1981).
    Allen (1952) described several historical migration routes. One of 
the most important led from the principal

[[Page 14109]]

nesting grounds in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and 
Manitoba to coastal Louisiana. Another went from Texas and the Rio 
Grande Delta region of Mexico northward to nesting grounds in North 
Dakota and the Canadian Provinces. A route through west Texas into 
Mexico probably followed the route still used by sandhill cranes (Grus 
canadensis). These whooping cranes would have wintered in the interior 
tablelands of western Texas and the high plateau of central Mexico.
    Another migration route crossed the Appalachians to the Atlantic 
Coast. These birds apparently nested in the Hudson Bay area of Canada. 
Coastal areas of New Jersey, South Carolina, and river deltas farther 
south were the wintering grounds. The latest specimen records or 
sighting reports for some eastern locations are Alabama, 1899; 
Arkansas, 1889; Florida, 1927 or 1928; Georgia, 1885; Illinois, 1891; 
Indiana, 1881; Kentucky, 1886; Manitoba, 1948; Michigan, 1882; 
Minnesota, 1917; Mississippi, 1902; Missouri, 1884; New Jersey, 1857; 
Ohio, 1902; Ontario, 1895; South Carolina, 1850; and Wisconsin, 1878 
(Allen 1952, Burleigh 1944, Hallman 1965, Sprunt and Chamberlain 1949).
    Atlantic coast locations used by whooping cranes included the Cape 
May area and Beesley's Point at Great Egg Bay in New Jersey; the 
Waccamaw River in South Carolina; the deltas of the Savannah and 
Altamaha Rivers, and St. Simon's Island in Georgia; and the St. 
Augustine area of Florida. Gulf coast locations include Mobile Bay, 
Alabama; Bay St. Louis in Mississippi; and numerous records from 
southwestern Louisiana, where the last bird was captured in 1949. 
Coastal Louisiana contained both a nonmigratory flock and wintering 
migrants (Allen 1952, Gomez 1992).
    There is evidence to suggest that whooping cranes occurred in 
Florida, perhaps well into the 20th century (Nesbitt 1982). Nesbitt 
described various sighting reports including one by O. E. Baynard, a 
respected field naturalist, who stated that the last flock of whooping 
cranes (14 birds) he saw in Florida was in 1911 near Micanopy, southern 
Alachua County. Two whooping cranes were reported east of the Kissimmee 
River on January 19, 1936, and a whooping crane was shot (and 
photographed) north of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, in 1927 or 1928 
(Nesbitt 1982).
    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.
    The historic breeding range of the whooping crane in the United 
States included Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota, with the 
largest number of confirmed nesting records in Iowa (Allen 1952). There 
are at least five reliable reports from Wisconsin; although there are 
no confirmed records of nesting in Wisconsin, there is a nesting record 
from Dubuque County, Iowa (Allen 1952), which is adjacent to Grant 
County, Wisconsin.
    Whooping cranes currently exist in three wild populations and at 
six captive locations. 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 central Texas Gulf of Mexico coast at 
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent areas. Fifty pairs from 
this population nested in 2000, and 187 adult whooping cranes were 
reported in spring 2000. The flock recovered from a population low of 
15 or 16 birds in 1941. This population is hereafter referred to as the 
Aransas/Wood Buffalo National Park population (AWP).
    The second largest wild population is found in the Kissimmee 
Prairie area of central Florida. We designated this population as an 
experimental nonessential population in January 1993 (58 FR 5647-5658). 
Since 1993, 233 isolation-reared whooping cranes have been released in 
this area, in an ongoing reintroduction effort to establish a 
nonmigratory flock. As of October 2000, there are 75 surviving 
individuals in the project area. Birds in this population have reached 
breeding age within the past several years. During the 2000 nesting 
season, a total of 15 pairs defended territories, 3 pairs laid eggs, 
and 2 of these pairs failed prior to hatching. The remaining pair 
hatched both eggs, but no chicks survived to fledging.
    The third wild flock consists of two remaining individuals from an 
effort to establish a migratory population in the Rocky Mountains 
through cross-fostering with greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis 
tabida) (Drewien and Bizeau 1977, Bizeau et al. 1987), and an 
experiment in 1997 when four whooping cranes were led behind an 
ultralight aircraft between Idaho and New Mexico (Clegg et al. 1997). 
The cross-fostering project began in 1975 and has failed to produce any 
chicks or mated pairs (Ellis et al. 1992a). The term, ``cross-
fostering'' refers to the foster rearing of the whooping crane chicks 
by another species, the sandhill crane. The cross-fostered whooping 
cranes have never bred with other whooping cranes. The females in that 
group may be improperly sexually imprinted on male sandhill cranes. As 
a consequence of the lack of breeding, and the inordinately high 
mortality experienced by this population, the project was phased out.
    The whooping crane captive breeding program, initiated in 1967, has 
been very successful. The Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service 
(CWS) began taking eggs from the nests of the wild population in 1967, 
and raising the resulting young in captivity. Between 1967 and 1993, 
181 eggs were taken from the wild to captive sites. Birds raised from 
those eggs form the nucleus of the captive flock (USFWS 1994). The 
captive population is now located at three primary locations: Patuxent 
Wildlife Research Center in Laurel, Maryland; the International Crane 
Foundation (ICF) in Baraboo, Wisconsin; and the Calgary Zoo in Alberta, 
Canada. An additional captive population was started in 1998 at the 
Audubon Species Survival Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    The total captive population as of September 2000 stood at 146 
birds, with 135 birds present in the 3 primary captive breeding 
centers, and an additional 11 birds present at 3 other locations. Six 
whooping cranes are located at the San Antonio Zoological Gardens, 
Texas; four at the Audubon Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana; and one 
at the Lowery Park Zoo in Tampa, Florida.
    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. 
This population remains vulnerable to destruction through a natural 
catastrophe (hurricane), a red tide outbreak, or a contaminant spill, 
due primarily to its limited wintering distribution along the 
intracoastal waterway of the Texas coast. The Gulf Intracoastal Water 
Way (GIWW) experiences some of the heaviest barge traffic of any 
waterway in the world. Much of the shipping tonnage is

[[Page 14110]]

petrochemical products. An accidental spill could destroy whooping 
cranes and/or their food resources. With the only wild breeding 
population so vulnerable, it is urgent that additional wild self-
sustaining populations be established as soon as practical.

3. Recovery Efforts

    The first recovery plan developed by the Whooping Crane Recovery 
Team (Team) was approved January 23, 1980. The first revision was 
approved on December 23, 1986, and the second revision on February 11, 
1994. The short-term goal is to downlist the whooping crane from 
endangered to threatened. The criteria for attaining this downlisting 
goal is achieving a population level of 40 nesting pairs in the AWP and 
establishing 2 additional, separate, and self-sustaining populations 
consisting of 25 nesting pairs each. The recovery plan recommends these 
goals should be attained for 10 consecutive years before the species is 
reclassified to threatened. These new populations may be migratory or 
nonmigratory.
    In 1985, the Director-General of the Canadian Wildlife Service and 
the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 and 1995. 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 
future progeny are jointly owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Consequently, both nations are 
involved in recovery decisions.

4. Reintroduction Sites

    In early 1984, pursuant to the recovery plan goals and the 
recommendation of the Team, potential whooping crane release areas were 
selected in the eastern United States. At that time the prognosis was 
favorable for successfully establishing a western population by use of 
the cross-fostering technique. Consequently, key considerations in 
selecting areas to evaluate for the eastern release were (1) large 
areas of potentially suitable wetland habitat; (2) a healthy sandhill 
crane population sufficient to support recovery using the cross-
fostering technique; (3) public and State agency support for such a 
recovery effort in the release locale; (4) low-to-moderate levels of 
avian disease pathogens, environmental contaminants, and powerlines; 
(5) the potential of the habitats to simultaneously support whooping 
cranes and sandhill cranes; and (6) a reasonable certainty that the new 
population would not have contact with the AWP.
    The areas identified were the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and 
adjacent areas of Ontario, the Okefenokee Swamp in southern Georgia, 
and three sites in Florida. The Michigan site was projected to 
eventually support a migratory population. The Georgia and three 
Florida sites would each support a nonmigratory population. The 
Michigan/Ontario wetlands are occupied by greater sandhill cranes that 
winter in Florida and the Okefenokee Swamp of Georgia. The wetlands in 
Georgia and Florida are occupied by the nonmigratory Florida sandhill 
crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) and in winter by greater sandhill 
cranes, which nest primarily in southern Ontario, Michigan, eastern 
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Three-year studies were initiated at each 
site in October 1984 to evaluate their respective suitabilities.
    Results of the studies were presented in written final reports to 
the Whooping Crane Recovery Team in fall 1987 (Bennett and Bennett 
1987, Bishop 1988, McMillen 1987, Nesbitt 1988) and in verbal reports 
in February 1988. By 1988, the Team recognized that cross-fostering was 
not working to establish a migratory population in the West. The 
possibility of inappropriate sexual imprinting associated with cross-
fostering, and the lack of a proven technique for establishing a 
migratory flock influenced the Team to favor establishing a 
nonmigratory flock. A nonmigratory population has features that make it 
easier to achieve success: (1) released birds do not face the hazards 
of migration (over one half of the losses of fledged, cross-fostered 
birds occurred during migration); and (2) released birds inhabit a more 
geographically limited area year-round than do migratory cranes, which 
increases the opportunity for the cranes to find a compatible mate.
    Studies of whooping cranes (Drewien and Bizeau 1977) and greater 
sandhill cranes (Nesbitt 1988) 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 Team selected Kissimmee Prairie in central 
Florida as the area most suitable for the next experiment to establish 
a self-sustaining population. Since 1993, captive-reared birds have 
been released annually in an attempt to establish a resident, 
nonmigratory flock. We expect releases to continue for the foreseeable 
future.
    In 1996, the Team decided to investigate the potential for another 
reintroduction site in the eastern United States, with the intent of 
establishing an additional migratory population. Following a study of 
potential wintering sites by Dr. John Cannon (Cannon 1998), the Team 
selected the Chassahowitzka NWR /St. Martin's Marsh Aquatic Preserve as 
the top wintering site for a new migratory flock of whooping cranes. 
Based on concerns that a reintroduced population in Saskatchewan or 
Manitoba might mix with the wild AWP, the Team requested that Dr. 
Cannon see if suitable summering sites were present in Wisconsin, an 
area well east of the AWP migration corridor. The location of the 
proposed release area was chosen to fulfill the criteria set forth by 
the Whooping Crane Recovery Team, that is, to establish a new migratory 
flock in a location where there would be a minimal chance of contact 
with the existing natural wild flock. This criterion was established 
out of concern for adverse impacts to the wild flock due to exchange of 
disease or undesirable behavior between any newly established migratory 
flock and the existing wild flock.
    After preliminary data were gathered, a decision was made in 1998 
to focus on three potential release sites in Wisconsin: Crex Meadows 
State Wildlife Management Area (WMA), central Wisconsin including 
Necedah NWR and several Wisconsin WMAs, and Horicon NWR.
    Detailed analysis was presented at the Team's meeting in September 
1999 (Cannon 1999), and the Team then recommended that releases be 
started in central Wisconsin. This recommendation was based on the 
presence of suitable habitat and food resources, favorable local 
attitudes, and geographic separation from the AWP population. The 
recommendation also was contingent upon the results of studies to 
further clarify the level of risk to cranes at this location from two 
separate sources. These were risks from local contaminants in the form 
of agricultural chemicals, and the disturbance caused by aircraft 
overflights associated with operations at the nearby Hardwood Air-to-
Surface Bombing Range. The two issues were investigated to the 
satisfaction of the Team with results indicating a minimal likelihood 
of occurrence for both

[[Page 14111]]

concerns, although the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center may conduct 
noise impact studies on whooping crane chicks. The proposed wintering 
site is the Chassahowitzka NWR in Florida.
    The objectives of the reintroduction are: (1) To implement a 
primary recovery action for a federally listed endangered species; (2) 
to further assess the suitability of Wisconsin and the Gulf coast of 
Florida as whooping crane habitat; and (3) to evaluate the suitability 
of releasing captive-reared whooping cranes, conditioned for wild 
release, as a technique for establishing a self-sustaining, migratory 
population. Information on survival of released birds, movements, 
behavior, causes of losses, reproductive success, and other data will 
be gathered throughout the project. Project 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 the Upper Midwest, and the release area is similar to that 
which supported nesting whooping cranes in adjacent Illinois and Iowa. 
The minimum goal for numbers of cranes to be released annually is based 
on the research of Griffith et al. (1989). As captive production 
increases, annual release numbers will be increased, dependent upon 
availability. 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 have proven successful 
in building the wild population of the endangered Mississippi sandhill 
cranes.
    It is expected that whooping cranes released in Wisconsin and 
wintering in Florida will eventually interact with the existing flock 
present in the Kissimmee Prairie area. Whooping cranes led to 
Chassahowitzka NWR behind the ultralight may choose not to stay in the 
coastal saltmarsh when released, or may return to the Kissimmee Prairie 
the following winter and interact with the nonmigratory flock. The 
nonmigratory population is prone to wander considerable distances, and 
has been observed outside of the area where introduction efforts are 
under way (Marty Folk, pers. comm.). Some interaction during winter 
between migratory and nonmigratory cranes is expected to occur. This 
raises the possibility that individual birds of each of the two flocks 
may acquire either migratory or nonmigratory behavior through 
association, especially if pairs form between members of the different 
populations. However, 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 
would be expected with whooping cranes. In light of this knowledge, we 
expect that any shift in individual migratory behavior would be 
limited. Therefore, we expect that, even though individuals of the two 
populations may associate, the two flocks will remain distinct and each 
will represent a separate population as specified in the Whooping Crane 
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994). As such, while the levels of protection 
will be the same, the two populations may be managed differently.
    We may select additional release sites later during the project 
life to increase potential breeding range. 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 towards establishing their 
nesting territory near the natal area (Drewien et al. 1989). 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 
disperse away from the release area in their search for a mate. In such 
a circumstance it may be advantageous to have several release sites to 
provide a broader distribution of territorial males. It is impossible, 
however, to predict which areas will be chosen by the birds. To allow 
for adapting release techniques that will maximize the chances for 
success, some flexibility will likely be necessary in the future. 
Therefore, it is possible that we will pursue future releases at other 
sites, which we may select based upon dispersal patterns observed in 
the birds from initial releases. Several areas previously examined for 
suitability that may be candidates for future releases (Cannon 1999) 
include Horicon NWR and Crex Meadows State WMA in Wisconsin, and Seney 
NWR in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
    The proposed rule is being coordinated with potentially affected 
State and Federal agencies, private landowners, and the general public. 
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources manages several wildlife 
management areas in the primary release area, will be actively involved 
as a cooperator in releases, and has actively endorsed the project. The 
Canadian Wildlife Service, a partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service as noted in the Memorandum of Understanding, has approved the 
proposed project. We have informed the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection, the Department of Defense (Hardwood Air-to-
Surface Bombing Range), and other entities about the proposed release, 
and these parties are aware of the possibility that whooping cranes may 
be introduced on or move to their project areas.

5. Reintroduction Protocol

    We propose an initial release of 10 to 25 juvenile, captive-reared 
whooping cranes in the central Wisconsin area. These birds will be 
captive-reared to 20-40 days of age at Patuxent Wildlife Research 
Center in Laurel, Maryland, the International Crane Foundation in 
Baraboo, Wisconsin, and at other captive-rearing facilities. They will 
then be transferred to facilities at the Wisconsin release site, and 
conditioned for wild release to increase post-release survival (Ellis 
et al. 1992b, Zwank and Wilson 1987) and adaptability to wild foods. 
The cranes will be radio-tagged at release and monitored to discern 
movements, habitat use, other behavior, and survival. Whooping cranes 
would be released in the fall. The primary technique associated with 
migration will be leading the cranes by ultralight aircraft to the 
proposed wintering site in Florida. 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. Total 
numbers available for release will be dependent upon production at 
captive propagation facilities and the future need for additional 
releases into the Kissimmee flock.
    Since the migration route is a learned rather than an innate 
behavior, captive-reared whooping cranes released in Wisconsin, or 
other northern areas of suitable habitat, will need to be taught where 
to migrate in order to develop the habit of migrating to a suitable 
wintering area. 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 (Ellis et al. 1992a, Horwich 
1989, Urbanek and Bookhout 1992). This technique has been successful in 
supplementing the population of endangered nonmigratory Mississippi 
sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis pulla) (Zwank and Wilson 1987, Ellis 
et al. 1992b). Aircraft motor sounds are played to young crane chicks 
to get them acclimatized to engine noise. The ``following'' instinct of 
crane chicks is

[[Page 14112]]

utilized to get them conditioned to walk behind motorized vehicles and/
or aircraft. Once acclimatized, the cranes will follow the taxiing 
ultralight aircraft and soon learn to fly behind the ultralight. Using 
this technique (Clegg et al. 1997, Lishman et al. 1997), sandhill 
cranes were led in migration between Ontario and Virginia in 1997; four 
whooping cranes and eight sandhill cranes were taught a migration 
between Idaho and New Mexico in 1997. Cranes led south in the fall have 
returned north on their own the following spring.
    Several different strategies for accomplishing migration to the 
Florida wintering site may be utilized: (1) Leading the birds using an 
ultralight aircraft which the birds have been conditioned to follow; 
(2) allowing the released birds to migrate guided by wild sandhill 
cranes (Urbanek & Bookhout 1994), or after the first year, guided by 
whooping cranes; (3) some combination of these two techniques. The 
rationale is to use the technique that is thought to have the highest 
probability of success, but to retain the option of using another 
potentially promising technique if conditions warrant. As the project 
proceeds, the intent is to use techniques that seem reasonable in light 
of present understanding of whooping crane biology. However, for the 
first fall migration season, the primary technique is expected to be 
use of the ultralight aircraft to lead the cranes to the chosen 
wintering site in Florida; birds not trainable to follow aircraft may 
be released with wild sandhills and then relocated to the appropriate 
wintering area.

Status of Reintroduced Population

    We proposed to designate all whooping cranes in the eastern U.S. 
NEP area (see Nonessential Experimental Population Area, below) 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 experiment will result in the successful establishment of a 
self-sustaining, migratory 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 is nonessential 
to the continued existence of the whooping crane for the following 
reasons:
    (a) For the time being, the AWP and the captive populations will be 
the primary species populations. With approximately 146 birds in 
captivity at 6 discrete sites, and approximately 187 birds in the AWP, 
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 
AWP and by increase and management of the cranes at the captive sites. 
Loss of the experimental population will not jeopardize the species' 
survival.
    (b) For the time being, the primary repository of genetic diversity 
for the species will be the approximately 333 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 the wild release with over 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 Kissimmee flock.
    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 a second, wild, self-sustaining 
population could be equally hazardous to survival of the species in the 
wild. The AWP could be annihilated by catastrophic events such as a 
Gulf coast hurricane or a contaminant spill on the wintering grounds 
that would necessitate management efforts to establish an additional 
wild population. We believe 3 self-sustaining wild populations--
consisting of 40 nesting pairs in the AWP and 2 additional, separate 
and self-sustaining, populations consisting of 25 nesting pairs each--
should be in existence before the whooping crane can be downlisted to 
threatened status. Dependent upon future events, the nonmigratory 
Florida population would potentially be the second such population. An 
eastern U.S. migratory flock could be the third population. 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. It would also 
confirm that captive-reared cranes can be used to establish a 
migratory, wild population.

Location of Reintroduced Population

    Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population 
be geographically separate from other populations of the same species. 
The proposed NEP area will involve a large part of the eastern United 
States, with the expectation that most whooping cranes would be 
concentrated within the States of Wisconsin and Florida, as well as 
adjacent States, and those States within the migration corridor. States 
within the NEP area include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. All of these States are 
considered to be within the probable historic range of the species. Any 
whooping crane found within this area will be considered part of the 
experimental population. Initial releases are planned for central 
Wisconsin, with plans for a wintering location on the Florida Gulf 
coast. It is impossible to predict where individual whooping cranes may 
disperse following release within the project area. One pair of 
whooping cranes from the Kissimmee Florida flock is known to have 
traveled as far away as Illinois and Michigan during the summer of 
2000. Designation of this NEP allows for the possible occurrence of 
cranes in a large area of the eastern United States.
    The whooping cranes also occurred in, or migrated through, the 
remaining northeastern States not proposed for inclusion in the NEP 
area. However, this occurrence is not as well documented as it is for 
other eastern States. Given the propensity for the species to wander 
and the potential future dispersal of the proposed whooping crane 
population in the eastern United States, we are considering including 
the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont within the eastern United States NEP area.

a. Potential Release Areas

    The proposed potential release areas in Wisconsin include Necedah 
NWR, Horicon NWR, and Crex Meadows State

[[Page 14113]]

Wildlife Management Area. Initial releases are proposed for the Necedah 
NWR in Juneau County, Wisconsin. The location of future releases will 
depend upon habitat use and dispersal patterns of released cranes.
    A majority of the movements of the released cranes are expected to 
occur within the central Wisconsin area, which comprises approximately 
2,000 square kilometers characterized by a mosaic of forest and open 
wetlands. Numerous small streams cut across the landscape, many of 
which have been ditched for purposes of agricultural drainage. Much of 
the landscape is forested, consisting of mixed forests interspersed 
with open expanses of sedge and shrub wetlands, small streams and 
ponds.
    On surrounding private lands, a significant amount of historic 
wetland habitat has been converted to cranberry culture. Land ownership 
includes a number of larger private holdings devoted to cranberry 
production and six large public ownerships totaling 83,222 hectares 
(ha) (205,651 acres). County-owned lands within the four-county area 
surrounding Necedah NWR include significant acreage, primarily devoted 
to forestry, totaling 65,810 ha (162,624 ac).
    The principal private land uses are forestry, cranberry culture and 
other agriculture, and recreational hunting. Upland forests are managed 
for sawtimber and firewood production, on either a clear-cut rotational 
basis or selective harvest, dependent upon forest type and management 
objectives. Wetland habitat utilized for cranberry culture is managed 
mainly through the manipulation of water regime, in the form of 
seasonal flooding. The public lands are managed for wildlife values, 
recreation, water conservation, and to maintain natural habitat 
conditions. Compared to other areas in Wisconsin, the central Wisconsin 
area has experienced limited human population growth over the past 30 
years due to its distance from major population centers and low 
suitability for agriculture. The presence of large public land holdings 
is at least in part a result of unsuccessful agricultural development. 
Cannon (1999) has estimated that approximately 37,000 ha (92,000 ac) of 
suitable whooping crane habitat exists in the central Wisconsin area.

b. Primary Wintering Area

    The proposed primary wintering site is on the Chassahowitzka NWR, 
of which 55 percent (6,908 ha or 17,070 ac) is suitable crane habitat. 
The refuge comprises over 12,500 ha (31,000 ac) of saltwater bays, 
estuaries, and brackish marshes with a fringe of hardwood swamps along 
the eastern boundary. Dispersed throughout the salt marsh in a jigsaw 
puzzle fashion is 4,048 ha (10,000 ac) of estuarine habitat in the form 
of shallow bays and tidal streams; the largest of the streams being the 
Chassahowitzka and Homosassa Rivers. Because of three transitional 
salinity stages (ranging from fresh spring water, to brackish, and then 
to the saline waters of the Gulf of Mexico), a wide range of aquatic 
plant and animal life flourishes within all parts of the system. A 
wintering site study (Cannon 1998) rated Chassahowitzka NWR as an 
excellent site for wintering whooping cranes based on available 
habitat, adjacent expansion possibilities, adequate isolation, and 
abundant food resources.
    Adjacent to the Chassahowitzka NWR, are two State of Florida-owned 
properties that support suitable crane habitat the wintering cranes may 
occasionally use. These areas are the 36,000-acre (14,568 ha) St. 
Martin's Marsh Aquatic Preserve and the 9,308 ha (23,000 ac) Crystal 
River State Buffer Preserve. Both sites contain habitats similar to 
those in Chassahowitzka NWR.

Management

a. Monitoring

    Whooping cranes will be intensively monitored by project personnel 
prior to and after release. The birds will be observed daily while they 
are in the conditioning pen. Facilities for captive maintenance of the 
birds will be modeled after facilities at the U.S. Geological Survey's 
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) and the International Crane 
Foundation. They will conform to standards set forth in the Animal 
Welfare Act and Florida Wildlife Code (Title 39.6 F.A.C). 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 conditioning pens will be similar to those 
being used successfully to release Mississippi sandhill cranes. Pre-
release conditioning will occur at facilities near the release site.
    To ensure contact with the released birds, each crane will be 
equipped with legband-mounted radio telemetry transmitters. Subsequent 
to gentle-release, 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 Wisconsin. A second sample will be taken just prior to 
release. Any time a bird is handled after release, a blood sample may 
be taken to monitor disease exposure and physiological condition. One 
year after release, when 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. Monitoring will 
continue, opportunistically, for multiple years whenever cranes are 
recaptured to replace radio transmitters. 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

    Both sandhill and whooping cranes are 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., Haemogroteus spp., Leucocytozoon spp., avian pox, lead 
poisoning, and Hexamita sp. 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 into the eastern flyway. 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 PWRC in 1984 killed 7 of 39 whooping cranes present 
there. After the outbreak a vaccine was developed for use on captive 
cranes. In 1989, EEE was documented in sentinel bobwhite quail and 
sandhill cranes at the PWRC. No whooping cranes became ill, and it 
appears the vaccine may provide protection. EEE is present in 
Wisconsin, so the released birds may be

[[Page 14114]]

vaccinated. Other strains of encephalitis (St. Louis, Everglades) also 
occur in Wisconsin. The vaccine for EEE may also provide protection 
against these arboviruses.
    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 will likely consist of a biased sample of the genetic 
diversity of the captive gene pool, with certain genetic lineages over-
represented. This bias will be corrected at a later date by selecting 
and re-establishing breeding whooping cranes that, theoretically, 
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. Collision 
with power lines and fences are known hazards to wild whooping cranes. 
No major power lines cross the proposed release or wintering sites. 
Tall woven-wire and barbed-wire fencing is commonly used in the central 
Wisconsin area and presents some collision hazard. If whooping cranes 
begin regular use of areas traversed by power lines or fences, the 
Service and Wisconsin DNR will consider placing markers on the 
obstacles to reduce the probability of collisions.
    Wolves are known predators of adult sandhill cranes and would be 
potential predators of adult whooping cranes, as would coyotes and bald 
eagles. Red fox, bobcats, owls, and raccoons are potential predators of 
young cranes. Natural mortality from predators, fluctuating food 
availability, disease, and wild feeding inexperience will be reduced 
through predator management, vaccination, gentle release, supplemental 
feeding for a post-release period, and pre-release conditioning. This 
conditioning will include teaching the habit of roosting in standing 
water. Predation by bobcats has been a significant source of mortality 
in the Kissimmee flock, and teaching this roosting behavior to young 
birds should help to reduce losses to wolves, coyotes, and bobcats. 
Human-caused mortality will be reduced by information and education 
efforts directed at landowners and land users, and review and 
management of human activities in the area.
    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, vaccination, 
and predator control. 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 
recreationists 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.

e. Special Handling

    The Service, State 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 animals 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. The Service, 
State employees, and their agents will be authorized to salvage dead 
whooping cranes.

f. Potential Conflicts

    Conflicts have resulted in the central and western United States 
from the hunting of migratory birds in areas utilized by whooping 
cranes, particularly the hunting of sandhill cranes and snow geese 
(Chen cerulescens), which to novice hunters may appear similar to 
whooping cranes.
    In recent years, only two to three crane mortalities have been 
documented incidental to hunting activities. Sandhill cranes are not 
hunted in Wisconsin although a future hunting season is being 
considered, and snow geese are an uncommon migrant and have not been 
present in large numbers. Sandhill cranes and snow geese are not hunted 
in the area of the proposed wintering site in Florida. 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 (see Protection, below). 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 primary release area has 
been for deer (Odocoileus virginianus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 
and small game. Conflict with traditional hunting in the release area 
is not anticipated. Access to some limited areas at release or 
wintering sites and at ultralight migration stopover points could be 
temporarily restricted at times when whooping cranes might be 
particularly vulnerable to human disturbance (i.e., around rearing and 
training facilities in the spring/summer and conditioning and holding 
pens in the fall/winter). 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 and at the discretion of the respective States. Any such access 
restrictions will not require Federal closure of hunting areas or 
seasons.
    States within the NEP area maintain their management prerogatives 
regarding the whooping crane. They are not directed by this rule to 
take any specific actions to provide any special protective measures, 
nor are they prevented from imposing restrictions under State law, such 
as protective designations, and area closures. None of the States 
within the NEP area have indicated that they would 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 placement of 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 some of the States 
within the NEP area. The proposed action will not prevent the 
establishment of future hunting seasons approved for other migratory 
bird

[[Page 14115]]

species by the Mississippi or Atlantic Flyway Councils.
    The principal activities on private property adjacent to the 
release area are agriculture and recreation. Use of these private 
properties by whooping cranes will not preclude such uses. The proposed 
special regulation accompanying this proposed rule authorizes 
incidental 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 locally significant losses of emerging corn in some 
areas in Wisconsin. It is possible that whooping cranes could engage in 
this type of behavior as well. 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. If such 
depredations occur, they can be eliminated through use of bird scaring 
devices and other techniques. Ongoing research on seed treatments as a 
deterrent to corn depredation is promising (Blackwell, Helon and 
Dolbeer, in press).
    Other agricultural crops found in the release area include 
cranberries. Some concern has been expressed that whooping cranes may 
consume cranberries. Although potential habitat is present near 
cranberry operations, cranberries are not likely to be an attractive 
food item as compared to animal matter, during most of the time period 
that whooping cranes would be present in Wisconsin. Cranberry beds are 
flooded at harvest time, and when large numbers of berries are gathered 
they could be more vulnerable to depredation. However, this event 
occurs in late fall, after whooping cranes would have departed for 
their wintering grounds. In addition, the numerous sandhill cranes in 
Wisconsin have not caused cranberry crop depredation. Therefore, we do 
not expect that whooping cranes will pose a significant threat to crop 
depredation on cranberries.
    Released whooping cranes might wander into other States or other 
locations in the eastern United States outside of the expected 
migration corridor, or even outside the NEP area. We believe the 
frequency of such movements is likely to be low. Any whooping cranes 
that leave this experimental population area will be considered as 
endangered. However, for any whooping cranes that move outside the 
eastern United States NEP area, including those that move into the 
migration corridor of the AWP, attempts will be made to capture and 
return them to the appropriate area if a reasonable possibility exists 
for contact with the AWP population or if removal is requested by the 
State which they enter.
    Birds from the AWP flock have rarely been observed in any of the 
States within the NEP area except as a result of an extreme weather 
event; they are expected to be in the NEP area very infrequently and 
only temporarily. Any whooping cranes that occur within the NEP area 
will be considered to be part of the NEP and will be subject to the 
protective measures in place for the NEP. Because of the extremely 
limited number of incidents anticipated, the decreased level of 
protections afforded AWP cranes that cross into the NEP is not expected 
to have any significant adverse impacts to the AWP.
    For at least the first year of project life, whooping cranes will 
be led to the Florida wintering site utilizing an ultralight aircraft 
and stopping at a series of previously chosen stopover locations en 
route. During subsequent migration periods, it will be difficult to 
predict which specific sites will be utilized by the birds, and some 
cranes may use stopover sites with which they have no previous 
experience. Whooping cranes that appear in undesirable locations while 
in migration will be considered for relocation by capture and/or hazing 
of the birds. Possible conflicts with recreation and agriculture 
interests within the migration corridor will be minimized through an 
extensive public education program.
    Access to whooping cranes may be temporarily restricted in limited 
areas near rearing and acclimatization facilities and at ultralight 
migration stopover locations to minimize disturbance at times of 
greatest vulnerability and sensitivity. Any temporarily restricted 
access to areas for these purposes will be of the minimum size and 
duration necessary for protection of the proposed NEP cranes, will not 
require Federal closure of hunting areas or seasons, and will be 
closely coordinated with and at the discretion of the respective 
States.

Previous Federal Action

    Public meetings were held in Florida in December of 1997 and in 
Wisconsin in May of 1999, to determine public interest and concerns 
regarding the potential reintroduction of a migratory flock of whooping 
cranes to the eastern United States. In 1999, the Service, the 
Wisconsin DNR, and International Crane Foundation representatives met 
to identify issues and concerns related to whooping crane 
reintroduction.
    The Wisconsin and Florida informational meetings offered the 
general public an opportunity to review and offer informal comments on 
the proposed action. The public has appeared extremely supportive of 
the proposed action, provided it does not interfere with existing 
lifestyles and current and potential income. We will attempt to notify 
all known or determinable affected parties and other interested 
agencies, groups, and individuals of the opportunity to comment on this 
proposed rule. We will hold a series of public hearings during the 
public comment period as a further measure to encourage public input on 
the proposed action. We will incorporate information and comments into 
the final rule.
    The Service has made presentations to numerous organizations and 
potentially affected interest groups, government representatives of 
States along the potential migration route, the Atlantic and 
Mississippi Flyway Councils and their Technical Sections, the Wisconsin 
Natural Resources Board, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FLFWCC), and other interested agencies to obtain input on 
the potential for reintroduction of a migratory whooping crane 
population in the eastern United States. We have conducted extensive 
coordination, both formal and informal, with all States within the 
proposed NEP area. All States have been asked to give their formal 
endorsement to the project prior to implementation.
    An extensive sharing of information about the program and the 
species, via educational efforts targeted toward the public throughout 
the NEP area and nationally, will enhance public awareness of this 
species and its reintroduction. We will encourage the public to 
cooperate with the Service, Wisconsin DNR, and the Florida FWCC in 
attempts to maintain and protect whooping cranes in the release areas 
and wintering area.

Public Comments Solicited

    Whooping crane chicks intended for wild release are transported to 
field release facilities at about 20-40 days of age, where they are 
then conditioned for wild release. Because of the nesting phenology 
(recurring natural phenomena) of the captive breeding pairs at the 
rearing facilities, these chicks are ready for transport to field 
facilities on or about May 1 in any given year. In order to facilitate 
the timely initiation of this reintroduction project

[[Page 14116]]

and not delay whooping crane recovery efforts, we must expedite this 
nonessential experimental rulemaking process. Therefore, we are 
providing a 45-day comment period on this rule, instead of the standard 
60 days.
    We want the final rule to be as effective as possible and the 
environmental assessment on the proposed action to effectively evaluate 
all potential issues associated with this action. Therefore, we invite 
the public, concerned Tribal and government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry and other interested parties to submit comments or 
recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule and the 
draft environmental assessment. Comments should be as specific as 
possible. To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action and 
to determine whether to prepare a finding of no significant impact or 
an environmental impact statement, we will take into consideration all 
comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications 
may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal.
    In particular, we are seeking comments on the appropriateness of 
including the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont within the eastern U.S. NEP area.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we will withhold a 
respondent's identity from the rulemaking record, as allowable by law. 
If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state 
this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we 
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their 
entirety.

Public Hearings

    The purpose of the public informational open houses is to provide 
additional opportunities 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 hearings, both verbal and 
written, will be considered in making our final decision on the 
proposed NEP.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the 
proposed rule to designate NEP status for the whooping crane 
reintroduction into the eastern United States is not a significant 
regulatory action subject to Office of Management and Budget review. 
This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million and 
will not have an adverse effect upon any economic sector, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. 
Therefore, a cost-benefit economic analysis is not required.
    Lands where releases are proposed include Necedah and Horicon 
National Wildlife Refuges, and the Crex Meadows State Wildlife Area in 
Wisconsin. The proposed wintering site in Florida is Chassahowitzka 
National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent St. Martin's Marsh Aquatic 
Preserve and Crystal River State Buffer Preserve. Following release, 
birds from the NEP are likely to utilize private lands adjacent to both 
the release areas and the wintering site. Because of the substantial 
regulatory relief provided by NEP designations, we do not believe the 
reintroduction of whooping cranes would conflict with existing human 
activities or hinder public or private use of lands within the NEP 
area. Likewise, no governments, individuals or corporations will be 
required to manage specifically for reintroduced whooping cranes.
    This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agency's 
actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency. Federal agencies most interested in this rulemaking are 
primarily other Department of the Interior bureaus (e.g., National Park 
Service). The action proposed by this rulemaking is consistent with the 
policies and guidelines of other Interior bureaus.
    This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. 
This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. We have 
previously designated an experimental population of whooping cranes in 
Florida and for other species at numerous locations throughout the 
nation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document 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.). 
The area affected by this rule includes 20 States within the eastern 
United States. We do not expect this rule to have any significant 
effect on recreational, agricultural, or development activities within 
the NEP area. There will be no federally mandated closures of seasons 
or areas to hunting for protection of the proposed NEP. We expect only 
temporary access restrictions to limited areas in the vicinity of 
rearing and release facilities at times during the spring/summer 
rearing period, during migration with ultralight aircraft, or at the 
wintering site. In the primary release area, this is not expected to 
occur outside of existing, long-established closed areas on Necedah 
NWR. Any temporarily restricted access to areas will be of the minimum 
size and duration necessary to provide for protection to the proposed 
NEP cranes during rearing or release activities, and will be conducted 
in close coordination with the States. Because any such access 
restrictions will be of short duration and will not require Federal 
closure of hunting areas or seasons, we do not expect any significant 
effect on recreational activities. Because there will be no new or 
additional economic or regulatory restrictions imposed upon States, 
Federal agencies, or members of the public due to the presence of 
members of the proposed NEP, this rulemaking is not expected to have 
any significant adverse impacts to recreation, agriculture, or any 
development activities. The designation of an NEP in this rule will 
significantly reduce the regulatory requirements regarding the 
reintroduction of these whooping cranes, will not create 
inconsistencies with other agency actions, and will not conflict with 
existing or proposed human activity, or State, Tribal or private use of 
lands within the NEP area.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule will not have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more for reasons 
outlined above. It will not cause a major increase in costs or prices 
for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local 
government agencies, or geographic regions. The rule does not have 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises.

[[Page 14117]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The NEP designation will not place any additional requirements on 
any city, county, or other local municipalities. The proposed NEP 
designation has been endorsed by all of the States within the proposed 
NEP area. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Because this 
rulemaking does not require that any action be taken by local or State 
government or private entities, we have determined and certify pursuant 
to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this 
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given 
year on local or State governments or private entities (i.e., it is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'').

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. We do not expect this rule to have a 
potential takings implication under Executive Order 12630 because it 
would exempt individuals or corporations from prosecution for take that 
is accidental and incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. In 
addition, private entities would also be exempt from any restrictions 
imposed by consultation requirements under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 
as consultation will not be conducted except on National Wildlife 
Refuges or National Parks. Because of the substantial regulatory relief 
provided by NEP designations, we do not believe the reintroduction of 
whooping cranes would conflict with existing human activities or hinder 
public use of lands within the proposed NEP area. None of the States 
within the proposed NEP area will be required to manage specifically 
for reintroduced whooping cranes, and all of those States have endorsed 
the proposed NEP designation. A takings implication assessment is not 
required.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment. This rule will 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. As stated 
above, designation of this population as nonessential experimental will 
preclude any additional regulatory burdens on public and private 
entities within the NEP area. A Federalism assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Executive Order.

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 22951) and E.O. 13175, we have notified the Native 
American Tribes within the nonessential experimental population area 
about this proposal. They have been advised through verbal and written 
contact, including informational mailings from the Service. Information 
was also sent to the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 
1854 Authority, Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, and Native American 
Fish and Wildlife Society. 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection activity for 
experimental populations. The Fish and Wildlife Service has Office of 
Management and Budget approval for the collection under OMB Control 
Number 1018-0094. The Service 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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have prepared a draft environmental assessment as defined under 
the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It is 
available from Service offices identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Clarity of This Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as 
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) 
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with 
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided 
into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in 
the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule 
easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. You 
may also e-mail the comments to this address: [email protected].

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Green Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authors

    The principal authors of this rule are Joel Trick and Janet Smith, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay, WI (Phone: 920-465-7440); 
Tom Stehn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austwell, TX (Phone 361-286-
3559); and Linda Walker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, 
FL (Phone: 904-232-2580).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

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) * * *

[[Page 14118]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Species                                                  Vertebrate population
----------------------------------------------------------     Historic range      where endangered or     Status        When      Critical     Special
            Common name                Scientific name                                  threatened                      listed      habitat      rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
 
BIRDS
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
 
Crane, whooping...................  Grus americana.......  Canada, U.S.A. (Rocky  Entire, except where           E         1, 3    17.95(b)          NA
                                                            Mountains east to      listed as an
                                                            Carolinas), Mexico.    experimental
                                                                                   population.
    Do............................  ......do.............  ......do.............  U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO,           XN         487,          NA    17.84(h)
                                                                                   FL, GA, ID, IL, IN,                621, ____
                                                                                   IA, KY, LA, MI, MN,
                                                                                   MS, MO, NC, NM, OH,
                                                                                   SC, TN, UT, VA, WI,
                                                                                   WV, WY).
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), 
(h)(4)(ii), (h)(5), (h)(8), (h)(9), and (h)(10), adding paragraph 
(h)(11), and adding a map at the end of 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), (h)(9)(ii), and (h)(9)(iii) of this section are nonessential 
experimental populations.
    (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, agricultural practices, pesticide application, 
water management, construction, recreation, trapping, or hunting, when 
such activities are in full compliance with all applicable laws and 
regulations.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Relocate a whooping crane that has moved outside the eastern 
U.S. population area identified in paragraph (h)(9)(iii) of this 
section, or the Kissimmee Prairie or Rocky Mountain range of the 
experimental populations when removal is necessary or requested and is 
authorized by a valid permit under Sec. 17.22.
* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (8) The Service will not mandate any closure of areas, including 
National Wildlife Refuges, during hunting seasons or closure or 
modification of hunting seasons for the purpose of avoiding take of the 
nonessential experimental population identified in paragraph 
(h)(9)(iii) of this section.
    (9) All whooping cranes found in the wild within the boundaries 
listed in paragraph (h)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section will be 
considered nonessential experimental animals. Geographic areas the 
nonessential experimental populations may inhabit include the 
following--
    (i) The entire State of Florida. The reintroduction site is 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. No other 
natural populations of whooping cranes are likely to come into contact 
with the experimental population. The only natural extant population 
occurs 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. The only 
other extant eastern U.S. population is the nonessential experimental 
population described in paragraph (h)(9)(iii) of this section. Remnant 
individuals of the Rocky Mountain nonessential experimental population 
occur in the western United States as described in paragraph (h)(9)(ii) 
of this section. 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 a learned rather than an 
innate behavior. The experimental population released at Kissimmee 
Prairie is expected to mostly remain within the prairie region of 
central Florida.
    (ii) The States 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; and
    (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 (see map). Whooping cranes within this 
population are expected to mostly occur within the States of Wisconsin, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, which is 
within the historic range of the whooping crane in the United States. 
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. Whooping cranes in this population are not 
expected to

[[Page 14119]]

come in contact with whooping cranes of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo 
National Park Population.
    (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 status of the experimental populations will be reevaluated 
periodically to determine future management needs. This review will 
take into account the reproductive success and movement patterns of the 
individuals released within the experimental population areas.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09MR01.000


    Dated: March 5, 2001.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 01-5821 Filed 3-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U