### MANAGEMENT PLAN

OF THE

PACIFIC AND CENTRAL FLYWAYS

FOR THE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN POPULATION OF

GREATER SANDHILL CRANES

Prepared for the: Pacific Flyway Council Central Flyway Council Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

March 2007This management plan is one of a series of coopera tively developed plans for managing various species of migratory birds of the Pacific and Central Flyways. I nquiries about this plan may be directed to member states of the Pacific and Central Flyway Councils or to the Pacific Flyway Representative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/MBMO, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181, or to the Central Flyway Representative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce/MBMO, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 496B, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.

Suggested Citation : Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Great er Sandhill Cranes. 2007. Management plan of the Pacific and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. [Joint] Subcommittees, Rocky Mountain Populati on Greater Sandhill Cranes, Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Tech. Committee [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, OR. 97pp.

iiiiiiv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. IN TRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. ........ 1

II. NATUR AL HISTORY.......................................................................................................... .... 2 Physical Char acteris tics ...................................................................................................... ... 2

Food Habits ............................................................................................................... ............. 3 Reproduction ............................................................................................................... ............ 4 Population Dynamics ........................................................................................................ ...... 6 Habitat Requirements....................................................................................................... ....... 8 Breeding ....................................................................................................................... .. 8 Migration...................................................................................................................... .. 8

Winter......................................................................................................................... .... 9

III. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ ............ 12

IV. STATUS..................................................................................................................... ................ 15

Distribution ................................................................................................................. ............... 15 Summer Range .............................................................................................................. ......... 15 Fall Pre-migration Staging Areas............................................................................................ . 16 Migration Staging and Stopover Areas................................................................................... 16 Wintering Areas ............................................................................................................ .......... 24 Number and Population Counts ................................................................................................ 27

Habitat ....................................................................................................................... ................. 29 Breeding Areas............................................................................................................. ........... 29 Fall Pre-migration Staging Areas........................................................................................... . 30 Migration Stopover Areas................................................................................................... .... 30 Wintering Areas ............................................................................................................ .......... 30 Management and Research (Current Programs)........................................................................ 31

V. PROBLEMS.................................................................................................................. ............. 42v VI. RECOMMENDED MANAGEME NT PROCEDURES.......................................................... 47

Habitat ....................................................................................................................... ................. 47

Habitat Conservation...................................................................................................... ........ 47 Inventory of Habitat ...................................................................................................... ......... 54

Uses of Cranes................................................................................................................ ............ 54 Interpretive Programs..................................................................................................... ........ 54 Hunting (harvest a llocation and guidelines).......................................................................... 55 Crop Damage Control ......................................................................................................... ............ 62 Hunting Seasons........................................................................................................... .......... 62 Supplemental Feed Crop and Direct Feeding Programs ....................................................... 62 Hazing and Harassment .................................................................................................... ..... 63 Habitat Manipulation ...................................................................................................... ....... 63

Extension Services ........................................................................................................ ......... 63

Lethal Control ........................................................................................................... ............. 63 Population Surveys ........................................................................................................... ......... 64 Annual Recruitment Survey................................................................................................. .. 64 Fall Population Survey.................................................................................................... ....... 64 Funding................................................................................................................... ................ 65

Research ..................................................................................................................... ............... 67

Refinement of Adult and J uvenile Survival Estimates ......................................................... 67 Spring Food Supplies and Wetland Availability in the SLV .......................................... ..... 67 Techniques for Controlling Crop Damage ........................................................................... 68

VII. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PLAN AND REPORTING .............................................................. 68

VIII. REFERENCES CITED......................................................................................................... ..... 69

IX. ACRONYMS USED ........................................................................................................... ...... 76vi Appendix A -- RMP Sandhill Crane Harvest Summary, 1981-2005 ...................................................... 77 Appendix B -- Summary of Experimental Spring Surveys from 1984 -96 in SLV, CO......................... 80 Appendix C -- Whooping Crane Introduction Experiment Summary.................................................... .. 81 Appendix D -- Rationale for Modifying th e Harvest Allocation Formula ........................................ ......... 82 Appendix E – Summary of July 2006 Revisions ............................................................................... 84

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 -- Distribution of RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes........................................................ ............... 11 Figure 2 -- September Survey Locations for RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes........................................... 23 Figure 3 -- Migration Chronology of RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes............................................... ....... 25

Table 1 -- RMP Pre-migration Staging Areas and Associated September Estimates.............................. 18 Table 2 -- Peak Winter Counts of all Subsp ecies in the Rio Grande Valley, NM................................... 26 Table 3 -- Recruitment of RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes in the San Luis Valley, CO ........................... 29

Table 4 -- Annual RMP Greater Sandhill Cran e Base Allocation and harvest........................................ 611 I. INTRODUCTION

Five populations of greater sandhill cranes (Grus canaden sis tabida) have been identified in North America. These include the Eastern, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley, and Central Valley populations (Braun et al. 1975, Lewis 1977), and more recently, th e Gulf Coast subpopulation of Mid-continent sandhill cranes (Tacha et al. 1984). Recent research in Texa s (Ballard et al. 1997) indicates the Gulf Coast subpopulation may contain up to 36,000 greaters. That would make the Gulf Coast subpopulation largest, followed by the Eastern, Rocky Mountain, Central Valley, and the Lower Colorado River Valley. The Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) numbered more than 20,000 in September 2005. Currently, hunting is allowed only on the Rocky Mountain and Gulf Coast populations.

The numbers and distribution of RMP cranes, while re duced from historic levels, expanded markedly from 400-600 birds in the mid-1940s (Walkinshaw 1949) to 10,000-15,000 birds by 1971 (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). Its current breeding range extends from central and western Montana south through central and eastern Idaho, western and central Wyoming, northern and central Utah, and northwestern Colorado (Fig. 1). Recent records confirm breeding in extreme southwestern Alberta, which probably involve RMP pioneers following the Rocky Mountain Front northward from Montana (Semenchuk in Drewien et al. 2001). The major spring and fall migration staging area is the Sa n Luis Valley (SLV), Colorado, where virtually the entire population spends 3-4 months annually (Dre wien and Bizeau 1974, Kauffeld 1982). Several important overnight stopovers are used by RMP cran es during spring and fall migration including Harts Basin and the Grand Valley, Colorado, and the Green Ri ver near Jensen to Ouray National Wildlife Refuge in Utah (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Peterson and Dr ewien 1997) and Cochiti and Jemez reservoirs, New Mexico (Stahlecker 1992). The principal wintering area is the Middle Rio Grande Valley (MRGV), New

Mexico. Smaller numbers winter in northeastern and southwestern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona, and the northern highlands of Mexico (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Perkins and Brown 1981, Drewien et al. 1996). On winter areas, RMP cranes mix with the Mi d-continent population (MCP), and cannot be managed separately from, Canadian (G . c . rowani ) and the more abundant lesser (G . c . canadensis ) sandhill cranes2 (Lewis 1977, Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Drewien et al. 1996). Based on harvest data collected in Arizona and New Mexico, the proportion of Canadian cranes in th e harvest has been about 6% and 8% respectively. Harvest in areas outside of the MRGV is mainly comprised of lesser sandhill cranes.

Attempts were made to introduce whooping cranes in th e Rocky Mountain region. The first attempts used RMP greater sandhill cranes as foster parents. (Appendix C).

This plan is a revision of the July 1997 RMP cran e plan. Its purpose is to establish guidelines for managing RMP sandhill cranes. The plan addresses habita ts (breeding range, fall staging areas, migration routes, fall and spring stopover areas, and winter areas), status, uses, current management, problems associated with the population, and crane hunting guidelines.

II. NATURAL HISTORY

Physical Characteristics Sandhill cranes are among the oldest existing species of birds (2.5 million years) (Tacha et al. 1992, Tacha et al. 1994). Sandhill cranes have heavy bodies and long necks and legs (Walkinshaw 1949, Tacha et al. 1992). Height extends to 1.2 m, wingspan to 2 m (Tacha and Lewis 1979), and weight may reach 6.85 kg (Schmitt and Hale 1997). The bill is elongate a nd strong. The feet have four toes with sharp hooked claws, while the hallux is small and elevated . Sexes are monochromatic gray and generally indistinguishable even with cloacal examination (Tacha and Lewis 1979). Juveniles have a feathered crown, brown nape feathers (Tach a and Vohs 1984) and buff-colored sec ondary wing coverts (Drewien et al. 1995). Adults have red, pappilos skin on the cr own and gray nape feathers (Walkinshaw 1949, Tacha et al. 1992). The greater sandhill crane (greaters) is the largest subspecies. Female greaters weigh an average 4,928 g (10.9 lb) and males average 5,554 g (12.2 lb). Wing chord measurements for greaters average 514 mm for females and 538 mm for males. Posterior culmen measurements average 97.7 mm for females and 103.6 mm for males. The tarsus measurement averages 228 mm for females and 239 mm for males (Schmitt and Hale 1997). Morphological data collected in Wyoming female greaters averaged3 4,845 g, wing chord 524 mm, tarsus 231 mm, and posterior culmen 99 mm. Greater males averaged 5,430 g, wing chord 545 mm, tarsus 239 mm, and pos terior culmen 105 mm (Lockman et al. 1987).

Food Habits Sandhill cranes are opportunistic foragers, which allows them to adapt to changes in food availability (Mullins and Bizeau 1978, Reinecke and Krapu 1986). Th e specific diet depends on food availability in different seasons and/or locations (Tacha et al . 1992). Sandhill cranes exploit foods by probing subsurfaces with bills and by gleaning seeds and othe r foods on the land surface or in shallow marshes (Walkinshaw 1949, Tacha et al. 1992). Cranes probe at a depth greater than 15 cm to obtain nut-grass tubers (Guthery 1975).

Food items eaten by marsh-nesting cranes incl ude roots, browsed vegetation, snails ( Helisoma spp.), crayfish ( Cambarus spp.), small mammals, birds, frogs ( Hyla crucifer, Rana pipiens ), snakes, toads ( Bufo spp.) and various insects (Walkinshaw 1973). Cranes w ill attempt to take any potential food item of the proper size, including waterfowl eggs, ducklings (Armbruster 1987), and le mmings (Reed 1988). Young cranes (colts) feed almost exclusively on animal food during the preflight period (Lewis 1977).

During migrations, cultivated grains are major food items (Lewis 1977, Kauffeld 1982, Tacha et al. 1994). Cranes often feed in grain fields in the spring be fore nest sites thaw and again in late summer after the young fledge (Armbruster 1987). Important grains include barley in Idaho and Wyoming (Drewien 1973, Lockman et al. 1987) and wheat in Colorado (Bieniasz 1979). Cultivated grains provide the necessary fat stores required during migrations and are accessible with minimum energy expenditures (Tacha et al. 1987). At staging areas macroinvertebra tes (e.g., earthworms, snails, beetles) provide essential proteins and calcium not obtained from othe r sources and are the foods in shortest supply (Reinecke and Krapu 1986).4 During winter, waste corn is the primary food of cranes in the MRGV and southwestern New Mexico. Other important foods eaten by cranes include chuf a tubers, sorghum, alfalf a, grasshoppers, and isopods (Walker and Schemnitz 1987).

Reproduction Sandhill cranes are perennially monogamous with pa ir bonds maintained outside the breeding season (Walkinshaw 1949, Tacha et al. 1992, Tacha et al. 1994). Greaters have successfully nested in their third year (Lewis 1977). However, the most productive RMP greaters were > 7-8 years old (Drewien et al. 2001). Pair bonds may form and dissolve before successful reproduction occurs (Nesbitt and Wenner 1987). Following successful reproduction, mate changes are rare unless a mate dies (Tacha 1988, Nesbitt 1989). RMP cranes arrive at Grays Lake, Idaho duri ng late March or early April when the valley is still snow covered. In mid-April as weather moderates a nd snow levels decline, pairs disperse to breeding territories (Drewien 1973).

After arrival, most breeding pairs establish territories 2-4 weeks before nest building and egg laying starts (Drewien 1973). Pairs become aggressive toward thei r young of the previous year and proclaim their territory with loud, synchronized unison calls (Wal kinshaw 1973). Pairs return to the same territory annually and both members assist in territorial defense. Pairs maintain mutually exclusive territories, and maximum aggressive behavior occurs during th e prenesting period as adjacent pairs reestablish boundaries and drive off trespassing non-territorial cranes (Drewien 1973). The male is the most active in territory defense and females are less likely to reta in the territory after loss of mates (Nesbitt and Tacha 1997).

Most daily requirements are found within territories, including nest, feed, roost sites, escape cover, and water. These components can be supplied by large marsh complexes (Drewien 1973); smaller, scattered marshes (Walkinshaw 1973; Armbruster 1987); bogs in northern boreal forests (Taylor 1976); intermittent streams in sagebrush parklands (Bieniasz 1979); and mountain meadows, beaver ( Castor5 canadensis ) ponds, and subirrigated wet meadows along ri parian zones (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). Families use territories partially or entirely during prenesting, nesting, br ood, and post-brood periods (Drewien 1973). RMP cranes at Grays Lake, Idaho, have the highest reported nesting density with a mean territory of 17 ha (Drewien 1973). Isolati on from human activity appears to be an important criterion for selection and use of nesting territories by cranes. Sandhill cranes have the propensity to desert their nests or territories due to human disturbances (Walkinshaw 1973, Drewien 1973, Boise 1976).

Nests may be established on dry-land sites with almost no nest material but are more often in water on piles of emergent aquatic plants, sticks, grass, mud, and sphagnum (Lewis 1977). Nest size and complexity vary by location; those on dry sites are sm all and contained little material while those in water were larger and usually contain considerable nest material (Drewien 1973). At Grays Lake, RMP greaters nest from late April through early July (Drewien 1973).

Clutches contain usually two, occasionally one, or rarely three eggs (Lewis 1977). Average clutch size is 1.9 but is smaller in more northern-breeding bird s (Nesbitt 1989, Tacha et al. 1994). Incubation begins after the first egg is laid (Drewien 1973, Lewis 1977). Both sexes incubate; males and females share daylight incubation duties about equally, but the female is the primary nest attendant at night (Drewien 1973, Nesbitt 1989). Nest success varies among years and locations. It averages about 50% but has been as high as 78% (Tacha et al. 1992, Tacha et al. 1994, Drewien 1973). After 28-31 days of incubation, eggs hatch asynchronously (Drewi en 1973, Lewis 1977). Sandhill cranes raise a single brood per year but will renest following loss of eggs in northern nes ting populations or loss of e ggs or young in southern populations (Tacha et al. 1994).

Hatching takes 24 to 36 hours. The precocial colt is dry in a few hours and is walking the next day. After the colt or colts hatch, the family moves to open upla nds or meadows for feeding. The family returns to the marsh each night to roost, and it may return to the nest or the parents may build a platform for roosting (Lewis 1977). Both parents feed the young, but females do most post-hatch brooding (Tacha et6 al. 1994). The colts’ diet during the preflight period appears to be almost exclusively animal food, but fledged young feed readily on agricultural grains in autumn (Lewis 1977). RMP greaters fledge at 67-75 days (Drewien 1973). RMP greaters post-fledging brood size averages 1.31 (range 1.21-1.35) at Grays Lake, Idaho. Young are usually separated from the pa rental care at about 10 months of age (Drewien 1973, Drewien et al. 2001, Tacha et al. 1994).

Population Dynamics

The sandhill crane is the most abundant of the wo rld’s cranes (Meine and Archibald 1996). However, sandhill cranes have the lowest known recruitment (per cent juvenile in fall) of any avian species hunted in North America (Drewien et al. 1995). For RMP greaters at Grays Lake, Idaho, nonbreeders comprise 31-39 percent of the total popula tion annually (Drewien 1973).

Most sandhill cranes lay two eggs but usually raise only one young. Sibling aggression by the dominant

colt increases when there is food stress. This enhances the survival of the dominant colt at the expense of its brood mate by dominating the food made available by the parents (Drewien 1973). The availability of food and water, weather and predation on the breeding grounds, not innate behavior, appear to primarily influence brood size (Drewien et al. 1995).

Annual fall recruitment in RMP greaters is 7.9% (Drewien 2005). The mean brood size is 1.35. About 20% of RMP recruitment comes from extra young in broods with 2 or rarely 3 young (Drewien et al. 1995).

Adult cranes are long lived, but mortality can be high for eggs and young. Crows ( Corvus brachyrrhynchos ) and striped skunks ( Mephitis mephitis ) are primarily egg predators while ravens ( Corvus corax ), raccoons ( Procyon lotor ), and coyotes ( Canis latrans ) prey on eggs and young (Armbruster 1987, Littlefield and Thompson 1987, L ittlefield and Lindstedt 1992). Golden eagles7 ( Aquila chrysaetos ) may be a significant mortality factor as attacks have been observed on sandhill cranes (Armbruster 1987, Drewien et al. 2001, Mitchusson 2003).

Estimated annual survival rates for RMP cranes from 1972-1985 was 95% (Drewien et al. 1995). With expanded hunting throughout the RMP ra nge, current annual RMP crane adult survival is estimated at 89%. Most (>70%) mortality is due to human causes. Legal and illegal shooti ng accounts for 58.3% with hunting (53.9%) the single most important mortality factor. Other mortality factors are by unknown causes (24.4%), power line and fence collisions or enta nglements (10.0%), and other factors (7.3%). The proportion of cranes lost to shooting increases with age, whereas non-shooting mortality declines with age, suggesting older cranes learn to avoid ma ny forms of non-shooting mortality (Drewien et al. 2001).

Avian botulism ( Clostridium botulinum ) and avian cholera ( Pasteurella spp.) are leading causes of nonhunting mortality (Windingstad 1988, Tacha et al. 1994). Avian tuberculosis ( Mycobacterium avium ), aspergillosis ( Aspergillus spp.) and lead poisoning are other causes of mortality (Tacha et al. 1992, Tacha et al. 1994). Hail storms and lightning are notable but localized environmental causes of crane mortality (Windingstad 1988).

Since the 1980’s, incidences of avian cholera and av ian tuberculosis in cranes have increased in the MRGV, and have been associated with increases in winter populations of lesser snow geese ( Chen

caerulescens ) and Ross’s geese ( Chen rossii ) (Snyder et al. 1987, Taylor and Kirby 1990, Drewien et al. 2001). Outbreaks of avian cholera in cranes at Bo sque del Apache NWR (Bosque) have occurred in 9 winters during 1984-1999 including a peak loss of 110 cranes in 1993-1994 (Drewien et al. 2001).

Maximum known age of a wild RMP greater sandhill crane is 35.5 years (R. Drewien, per. comm.).8 Habitat Requirements The single most-important factor regulating sandhill cr ane populations is habitat availability (Tacha et al. 1992). Thus, maintenance of essential ha bitats is the primary need for sa ndhill cranes (Tacha et al. 1994). Sandhill cranes are primarily birds of open freshwate r wetlands and shallow marshes, but use a broad range of habitat types from bogs, se dge meadows, and fens to open gr asslands and cultivated lands (Tacha et al. 1992).

Breeding – RMP sandhill cranes nest in isolated, well-wa tered river valleys, marshes, and meadows at elevations mainly above 1, 500 m in the northern and central Rocky Mountain states (Drewien 1973, Drewien and Bizeau 1974). Most nests are in wet meadow-shallow marsh zones along the marsh edge (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). After hatching, broods tend to feed in moist areas along the water’s edge or in adjacent meadows, using d eeper water mainly for escape and occasional roosting (Drewien 1973). In Colorado, br oods moved away from the willow dr ainage bottoms, upslope to the sagebrush ridges and the fringes of the aspen stands (Bieniasz 1978). Nonbreeding adults feed in wet meadows and grain fields adjacent to a roosting area. In August, cranes feed in alfalfa fields with large numbers of insects present. Use of grain fields increases during fall pre-migration staging where nearly all cranes observed are in grain fields (Rowland et al. 1992). Prior to migration, RMP greaters gather at staging areas near their summering site. The major attraction at staging areas is the availability of grain located in proximity to shallo w lakes, marshes, and river bottoms that are used as roosting sites, and they feed primarily on barley near adjacent wetlands (Drewien and Bizeau 1974).

Migration - Habitats along migration routes tend to be large open palustrine and riparian wetlands near agricultural areas (Krapu et al. 1984). Wet m eadows and native lowland grassland habitats are important as they provide an important source of macroinvertebrates for cranes (Reinecke and Krapu 1986). At the spring and fall staging sites in the Sa n Luis Valley (SLV), Colo rado, roosting locations9 are ponds and sloughs where the birds use water up to 0.3 m deep. Loafing areas are wet meadows of baltic rush ( Juncus balticus ), sedges ( Carex spp.), spikerush ( Eleocharis spp

. ), greasewood ( Sarcobatus vermiculatus ) and a variety of grass species. These meadows do not have to be very wet to attract cranes; 2 to 4 cm of water is satisfactory. Cranes will sometimes use dry meadows as long as a ditch with water or a stream is nearby. Although some feeding activity occurs in meadows, they are primarily used for resting, preening, a nd other social activities. The other major habitat used is grain fields during morning and evening. Barley is the primary crop so cranes use it most frequently, but will also utilize wheat, field peas, and potato fields. Primary feeding activity in potato fields is searching for insects and grubs (Kauffeld 1982).

Winter - The quality of winter habitat is important because cranes congregate in high densities and are dependent on limited resources. Cranes are vul nerable to disturbance and habitat alteration caused by changes in water and cropland management (Iverson et al. 1985b). Cranes wintering in the MRGV roost in shallow river areas, lake areas, or artificial impoundments on state and federal refuges and spend most of the day in irrigated cr oplands and pastures. The riparian community is dominated by cottonwoods ( Populus fremonii ), Russian olive ( Elaeagnus angustifolia ), saltcedar ( Tamarix chinensis ), and willow ( Salix spp

. ). State and federal refug es border the river and consist of riparian woodlands, cultivated fields, and artificial impoundments where water levels are manipulated for waterfowl and shorebirds. Im poundments having water throughout the year support plants such as hardstem bulrush ( Scirpus acutus ), spikerushes ( Eleocharis spp

. ), rushes ( Juncus

spp

. ), and cattails ( Typha spp

. ). Impoundments that are drawn down in spring produce above and below ground wetland food resources such as chufa ( Cyperus esculentus ), nodding smartweed ( Polygonum lapathifolium ), bearded sprangletop ( Leptochloa facicularus ), barnyard grass ( Echinochloa crusgalli ), yellow bristlegrass ( Seteria glauca ), cupgrass ( Eriochloa spp.), Johnson grass ( Sorghum halepense ), and fall panicum ( Panicum dichotomiflorum ) (Taylor and Smith 2003). The remainder of the valley consists mostly of irrigated cr oplands. Cranes use the irrigated croplands for feeding and loafing. Common crops include alfalfa, chile, corn, cotton, and sorghum10 (Walker and Schemnitz 1987). In the MRGV, the acreage of corn and small grains has decreased, causing cranes to concentrate on refuges and dairy farms where grains are raised. Wetlands are scarce because of drainage projects carried out by the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) (Lewis 1977). Some of the RMP sandhill cranes migrate from th e MRGV to areas in southwestern New Mexico, the Sulfur Springs Valley, AZ and the Northern highlands in Mexico (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). However, numbers wintering in southwestern NM are much reduced compared to the 1970’s due to the loss of sorghum crops (Drewien et al. 1996, Mitchusson 2003).

Roosts sites used regularly by wintering birds ge nerally are in shallow water several meters from shore. Physical features that characterize roosts are level terrain, shallow water bordered by a shoreline either lacking vegetation or only sparsel y vegetated and an isolated location that reduces the chance of disturbance by humans. The ground sl opes gradually into the water and a large area of 10 to 20 cm deep water is present several meters from the shore, providing standing room for a

flock. The shallow water between the cranes and the shoreline, level terrain and sparse vegetation permit a clear field of vision that provides some protection against predators. Optimal roost sites are located within 16 km (10 miles) of feeding areas (Lewis 1976). However, cranes fly approximately

27 miles from Caballo Lake to cornfields in the Uv as Valley and return to roost on Caballo Lake (R. Drewien, per. comm., Mitchusson 2003).

.11 Figure 1. Distribution of the Rocky Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes (adapted from Drewien et al. 2001).12 III. OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this plan is to manage th e RMP for numbers and distribution that will provide maximum direct benefits to the public and for the in trinsic values of the bird s themselves. Objectives

include:

A. Manage for a stable population index of 17,000-21,000 cranes determined by an average of the 3 most recent, reliable September (fall pre-migration) surveys (see Table 1).

Interpretation A crane population of 19,000 (+ 10%) provides numerous opportunities to view birds, recreational hunting, and does not result in intolerable crop damage in most areas. There is currently sufficient habitat to support the population objective. An RMP in excess of 21,000 cranes may significantly increase the probability of crop damage, disease and overcrowding, particularly in the primary MRGV

winter area.

Most RMP cranes stage in specific locations thr oughout the summer range states during late August to early October, but migration chronology can vary be tween years. The September pre-migration survey is the best opportunity to survey the population. The objectives of this plan will be based on the September surveys. To minimize the potential effect of a poor count during a single year, population management decisions will be based on an average of the 3 most recent, reliable fall surveys. The survey team will provide insight into the reliability of the estimate based on survey timing, survey coverage and weather conditions. If a count is judged poor, it will be excluded from the average and the latest reliable 3-year average will be used for th at year. All reliable surveys will be used towards the harvest allocation formula. However, if a prior survey is determined to be poor, such as if there was large decline in the population index followed the next year with a biologically unfeasible13 population increase; the count estimated prior to th e poor survey and current year survey will be averaged and used for the crane harv est allocation formula.

B. Maintain and protect suitable habitats in sufficient quantity and quality to support population objectives and spatial distribution, while enc ouraging population expansion where desirable.

Interpretation Sufficient breeding, wintering, and migration habitat is required to maintain a stable population. Some areas of historic range suitable for nesting pairs are currently not occupied, and some staging and wintering areas are overcrowded. Breeding birds pioneering into unoccupied areas should be encouraged to expand, and migra ting and wintering birds may be encouraged to use alternate areas through various management pr actices (e.g., creation of food plots, ne w roost sites, or protected areas). Cooperative management plan development between state management areas and federal refuges could significantly improve crane spatial distributi ons and habitat management across wide regions.

Increasing human impacts on crane habitats will likely result in short and long-term habitat loss. As habitat is lost along with changing agricultural pr actices and crops, cranes are restricted to fewer areas. Food supply, roost sites and overcrowdi ng are becoming priority concerns for population maintenance, especially on winter areas.

C. Provide for recreational uses of RMP cranes.

Interpretation Due to their large size and palatability sandhill cranes have long been hunted for food. Crane

remains were found in ancient kitchen middens at Wupatki Pueblo, Arizona and in Rio Grande pueblos (Walkinshaw 1949). C rane hunting is the primary tool fo r reducing localized crop damage.14 In most states demand exceeds the availability of permits (Lockman et al. 1987). Crane hunting alleviates many potential depredation complaints and garners support for crane management.

Interest in watching and photographing sandhill cranes is a popular activity. General wildlife watching and other nonconsumptive uses account for the majority of all wildlife associated recreation (U.S. Department of the Interior 1996). Crane festivals attract birders from across the country and other nations to view and photograph wildlife, and partic ipate in other wildlife-related events contributing to the local economies (Mitchusson 2003).

D. Minimize crop depredations by RMP cranes.

Interpretation Large numbers of sandhill cranes utilize private lands in the Rocky Mountain region. RMP cranes forage primarily in agricultural areas causing si gnificant damage to agricultural crops. Some landowners tolerate crane use on private lands, while others have been quite vocal and have filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agricultu ral-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services (Wildlife Services) and state agencies. Hunting seasons are the most effective means to reduce sandhill crane depredations, provide recr eational opportunity and improve crane spatial distributions. Crane hunting along with hazing and timed crop manipulations on refuges can be used to encourage crane use on refuges and reduce agricultural damage (Taylor 1999).

While agricultural producers may be satisfied with the depredation control work, a growing number of landowners do not support the program. These are ge nerally small landowners who do not derive the majority of their income from agricultural produc tion and enjoy the sights and sounds of cranes on their property. Balancing depredation control work, particularly when such properties are adjacent to one another can be a delicate task for field pe rsonnel (Taylor 1999). Increasing urbanization will likely exacerbate this conflict.15 IV. STATUS

Distribution Summer Range Historically, RMP cranes nested in suitable habita ts throughout the central and northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Basin from northeastern Arizona, central Utah and western Colorado north through western Wyoming, Idaho, western Montana, and probably Albe rta. Reports from explorers and settlers indicate cranes were common to abundant throughout this area un til late in the nineteenth century (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). By the early 1900s, cranes had become unc ommon to rare or were extirpated within this region. The dramatic decline is attributed to a comb ination of factors but was principally due to habitat alteration, increased human intrusion on breeding ar eas, and subsistence harvest. The current summer distribution is shown in Figure 1.

Numbers of RMP cranes increased from an estimated 150-200 breeding pairs in the mid-1940s (Walkinshaw 1949:134) to an estimated spring population of 20, 382 in 1985 (Benning et al. 1997). The 2005 fall premigration survey estimated a population of 20,865 (Dre wien and Thorpe 2005). Much of their former nesting range has been reoccupied, except western Colorado, northeastern Arizona and Alberta. Recent records confirm breeding in extreme southwestern Alberta, which probably involve RMP pioneers following the Rocky Mountain Front northward from Montana (Semenchuk in Drewien et al. 2001). During the 1970s-80s, Grays Lake NWR in southeastern Idaho supported the larges t nesting concentration (on a per acre basis) with about 250-300 pairs. The population recovery was attributed to protection from unregulated hunting, expansion of small grain agricu lture, and establishment of refuges and management areas throughout most of the RMP Range.16 Observations indicate RMP cranes are returning to the ma rshes of the Great Salt Lake Basin, river valleys in south-central Utah, and suitable habita ts in eastern mountain valleys in Ut ah and western Colorado. Nesting pairs have pioneered east of the Continental Divide in Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado.

We lack reliable estimates of breeding pair numbers ove r much of the summer range due to the difficulty of locating widely dispersed birds. Considering the estimated numbers of RMP cranes (about 20,000), their age structure, and recruitment rate, it is reasonabl e to expect at least 4,700 breeding pairs exist.

Also, considerable breeding habitat for RMP cranes is located in the Rocky Mountain "Over-thrust Belt," a primary gas and oil extraction area where human intr usion has increased greatly in recent years and continues to increase at a rapid pace.

Fall Pre-migration Staging Areas Staging areas used in fall prior to migration have b een identified in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and Colorado (Table 1, Fig. 2). Most staging areas are a ttractive to cranes because of the availability of grain crops and other forage. Damage to unharvested small grains is comm on and damage to unharvested seed potatoes is serious in some locations of eastern Idaho. Maintenance of staging areas will require specific plans for controlling and alleviating crop dama ge (see Problems and Recommended Management Procedures sections). Normally, crane numbers peak at specific staging areas in September but timing varies somewhat by area and year. Not all cranes migrate fro m their staging locations at the same time. Changing land uses and agricultural cr ops have altered staging ar eas resulting in some areas being less suitable as crane habitat (e.g., Star Valley and Bear River Valley, WY).

Migration Staging and Stopover Areas During spring and fall migration, many RMP cranes st op overnight or for several days at locations in western Colorado, northern New Mexico and northeastern Utah. Sightings of color-marked cranes indicate many consistently use 4 locations in addition to the SLV, Colorado; (1) the Green River Valley between17 Jensen and Ouray NWR, Utah, (spring and fall), (2) Ha rt’s Basin near Eckert, Colorado (spring) (Peterson and Drewien 1997); 3) Grand Valley, Colorado (near Grand Junction); and 4) northern New Mexico (Stahlecker 1992). Smaller numbers of migrating cran es stop at other localities, notably sites in the Gunnison and White River Valleys, Colorado.

The SLV is the only major migratory staging area for the RMP. In the SLV, RMP cranes mix with other crane subspecies from the MCP. P eak use occurs from late September to early November (ranging from late August to mid-December) and from late February to ear ly April (ranging from late January to early May).

Most cranes concentrate on the western side of the Valley, near the Monte Vista NWR, the Higel and Rio Grande State Wildlife Areas, and private lands adjacen t to the Rio Grande between the towns of Alamosa and Monte Vista (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Kauffeld 1982, Drewien et al. 1995, 2001). Other areas in the valley, primarily the eastern and southern portions of the SLV, including the Alamosa NWR, are used to a lesser degree. Crane roosting and foraging is increas ing in northern portions of the Valley, which is probably due to the increase in the number of shallow water wetlands now available as roosts. Crane use is increasing at Russel Lakes State Wildlife Area (SWA). Private wetlands around the towns of Hooper and Mosca provide crane habitat. Also there is more crane use north of the Alamosa NWR on the newly acquired Baca National Wildlife Refuge and The Na ture Conservancy wetlands on the Zapata-Medano Ranch. Crane-use days on the Monte Vist a NWR between 1976 and 1981 ranged from 281,000-509,600 and averaged 386,000 when the population was approxi mately 15,000 (Kauffeld 1982). Crane use days on the Alamosa NWR ranged from 8,900-53,100 and averaged 29,800. The majority of crane use on the 2 refuges occurs in the spring. Small grains are not harv ested in the fall but left standing until spring to feed migrating cranes and other migratory birds when wast e grain is in short supply elsewhere in the valley.20Table 1. RMP Pre-migration Staging Areas and Associated September Estimates.Survey Area 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Colorado(1) Yampa Valley(includes Hayden area and Morgan Bottom) 412 955 463 584 1,200 401 526 641 778 693 223 318(2) Lower Elk River (combined with YampaV. from 1998-2002, possibly in 1996-97)3718 0 210(3) Delta Co. - Fruitgrower's Res.\Hart's Basin 00 9Delta Co. – other52(4) San Luis Valley 2,769 1,292 792 1,020 73 701 223 25 577 34 1,135 515Subtotal3,181 2,284 1,255 1,604 1,273 1,102 749 666 1,355 745 1,410 1,052Idaho(1) American Falls Reservoir 0 14 8 NS 44 74 97 104 66 168 96 67(2) Ashton-St. Anthony(area combined in 1995) 898 1,076 1,659 1,844 987 1,516 1,405 1,485 1,876 1,180 1,337 716(3) Bear Lake Valley(combined w/Bear River Valley in 2000) 594 116 476 403 416 439Bear River Valley568 617 668 760 734 1,267 815 790 1,188 946 1,436(4) Blackfoot Reservoir 310 2,110 1,388 1,232 1,626 1,188 1,168 698 441 773 228 467(5) Camas NWR 131 229 212 418 268 192 429 257 331 347 381 532(6) Camas Prairie(combined with Carey for 1995 survey) 0 0 0 2 93 25 17 137 0 0 0 0(7) Carey Lake area(combined with Silver Creek in '92,'96,'97and Camas Prairie in '95 surveys. 264156 87 0 8 0 6 2 0 0 0(8) Chesterfield Reservoir 0 196 249 273 218 355 149 170 86 38 7 138(9) Grays Lake 343 636 606 747 1,156 1,144 1,529 1,734 1,467 1,430 1,728 1,384(10) Henrys Lake Flats 0 139 633 539 532 695 436 31 102 21 58 35(11) Island Park Reservoir NS 30 0 4 5 2 0 0 13 2 0 2(12) Kilgore 2 121 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 NS NS 0(13) Market Lake WMA 13 NS 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 0(14) Marsh Valley NS 182 45 172 244 324 284 192 277 202 120 245(15) Mud Lake WMA 257 NS 50 50 130 62 105 94 172 371 164 100(16) Oxford Slough-Swan Lake 0 330 47 316 52 418 94 143 242 93 220 145(17) Silver Creek(combined with Carey Lake Area in '92,'96, '97 surveys, see Carey Lake Area forestimates)111486 115 524 385 327 466 240 567(18) Teton Basin 2,989 1,006 2,186 1,360 1,048 1,470 1,831 907 1,504 1,543 1,626 1,834Subtotal5,801 6,864 8,334 8,132 8,067 8,761 9,337 7,160 7,698 7,822 7,152 7,66821Rich County(see Bear River V. and Round Valleyafter ‘92) 599 418(5) Morgan County316 NS NS18 NS 18 30 32Survey Area 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Montana(1) Blackfoot/Ovando Valley(includes Helmville) 343 422 385 167 561 246 258 272 453 514 57 361(2) Cascade-Ulm 0 NS NS NS 94 NS 146 87 135 124(3) Centennial Valley 35 20 3 NS 33 3 2 8 12 46 0 2(4) Deadman's Basin(may have been listed underMussellshell R. in '99) 80 329 284 164 400 655 481 160 336(5) Dillon-Twin Bridges 2,568 971 1,434 1,334 971 1,464 1,058 1,918 1,350 1,681 1,788 1,443(6) Gallatin Valley(includes Belgrade) 200 229 258 213 232 35 327 273 340 411 412 NS(7) Helena Valley 125 111 100 30 89 73 134 146 164 170 104 56(8) Melville(Otter Cr. and Melville reportedcombined in '99) 257 224 NS 420 470 289 134 375 581 42 881(9) Musselshell River(Includes Harlowtown)(Melville/Otter Cr./Musselshell Riverreported together in '97) 440 456 NS 1037 248 297 679 377 59 202 246 226(10) Otter Creek(Otter Cr. and Melville reportedtogether in '99, see Melville for estimate) 112 290 377 8 4 0(11) Teton River - Eureka Res. 336 358(12) Toston-Townsend 234 229 106 158 183 NS NS NS 297 306 544 577(13) Upper Madison Valley(includes Ennis, Ennis estimate of239 added to this estimate for 1992) 244 86 114 31 77 74 71 139 82 120 121 298(14) Warm Springs 287 224 221 156 NS 139 261 116 137 71 40 180(15) White Sulphur Springs 309 709 353 405 229 NS NS 360 227 175 487 442(16) Whitehall 142 NS NS 64 43 56 149 152 169 111 161 304Subtotal5,264 3,681 2,974 3,595 3,415 3,141 3,598 4,585 4,843 4,964 4,637 5,588Utah(1) Cache County 1,067 608 694 702 851 807 637 646 566 701 252 862(2) Box Elder County 222 255 225 457 402 576 288 338 362 425 381 327(3) Davis County 16 46 39 148 121 117 44 133 82 87 42 87(4) Weber County 46 57 47 49 96 23 37 15 39 148 79 4322NS = nosurveyA shaded cell indicates that the area was notlisted in the report for that year, the name has been changed/discontinued, or the area has been dropped from the survey.Survey Area19921995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Utah(6) Bear River Valley484 548 458 254 329 110 218 298 54 252(7) Round Valley65 31 16 7 8 9 30 52 59 43(8) Summit County 135 138 121 113 102 24 80 78 108 39 55 32Uintah County(see Jensen, Pelican Lake, LelandBench after ‘98) 632 NS 174 402 139(9) Jensen (Uintah Co)459 933 114 446 747 1,195 922(10) Pelican Lake area (Uintah Co)25 60 0 18 21 74 4(10) Leland Bench (Uintah Co)61 0 10 18 42Utah County 620 0 NS NSSubtotal2,810 1,528 1,849 2,450 2,185 2,292 2,416 1,522 1,869 2,546 2,239 2,646Wyoming(1) Baggs 60 NS NS 10 NS 0 0 2 3 4 0 5(2) Bear River Valley 526 197 83 102 73 133 115 324 246 233 149 96(3) Greybull River-Otto 208 0 363 161 411 524 585 207 286 439 179 437(4) Shoshone River-Ralston (see Powell,Park Co. in 1992) 429 365 476 258 466 1,023 802 268 414 742 680 938Other Bighorn Basin15(5) Big Piney 0 NS NS 0 55 399 0 135 40 174 58 3(6) Bridger Valley NS 27 42 140 8 57 0 3 33 125 43 273(7) Farson 388 323 806 895 1,192 889 1,367 890 1,051 813 1,256 1,382(8) Hams Fork 73 NS NS 0 NS 11 0 6 0 4 24 161(9) Pinedale-Cora 2 NS NS 5 6 17 29 12 2 2 2 35(10) Seedskadee NWR 0 NS 2 10 12 5 5 6 6 2 3 0(11) Saratoga(Upper North Platte Valley) 43 NS NS 58 87 28 0 NS 0 193 85 2(12) Jackson Hole 0 NS NS 36 48 41 69 72 121 117 84 40(13) Star Valley(includes Lincoln Co, Salt River) 477 543 493 254 549 515 519 408 304 316 234 191(14) Hidden Valley(includes Boysen-Riverton area) 9 93 56 311 255 187 223 33 58 39 119 43(15) Ocean Lake 8 123 205234 176 240 433 229 113 96(16) Riverview Valley142 0 20 41 14 43 209Yellowstone Park 25Subtotal2,248 1,671 2,526 2,255 3,162 4,205 3,890 2,626 3,038 3,446 3,072 3,911Totals19,30416,02816,93818,03618,10219,50119,99016,55918,80319,52318,51020,86523 1 2

3 4

5 6 7

8 9

10 12

13 14 15 16

1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12

13

14 15

16 17 18

2 1

3 4 5 6

7

8 9 1 2 3 4

5

6 7 8 9

10

11 12

13 14 15 16

1-2

4 Montana

Idaho

Wyoming

Utah Colorado

San Luis Valley n = > 500 cranes

n = < 500 cranes

Fig. 2. September Survey Locations for the Rock y Mountain Population of Gr eater Sandhill Cranes. See Table 1 for location names and numbers (adapted from Drewien and Thorpe 2005). 10 11

324 Wintering Areas From northern staging areas, most RMP cranes funnel through the SLV, Colorado, into the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico, southwestern New Me xico, southeastern Arizona, and northern Mexico (Fig. 1). Figure 3 shows the chronology of migration. Most RMP cranes terminate migration in Valencia and Socorro counties of the MRGV, New Mexico. Sma ller numbers winter in southwestern New Mexico (Sierra, Grant, Dona Ana, and Luna counties) and the Pecos Valley in eastern New Mexico, including Las Vegas NWR, Maxwell NWR, and the Sulphur Springs Va lley in Cochise County, Arizona. There appears to be an increasing trend of RMP cranes winteri ng on Las Vegas NWR and Maxwell NWR. About 10% continue into Chihuahua and Durango, Mexico, where they mix with the more abundant lesser and some Canadian sandhill cranes (Drewien et al. 1996).

On all winter areas, RMP cranes mix with other subs pecies. In the MRGV, Gila River Valley, Las Vegas NWR and Maxwell NWR, RMP cranes comprise the major ity of winter flocks. The proportion of lesser and Canadian sandhill cranes wintering in the MRGV has been increasing in recent years. In other winter localities, especially southwestern New Mexico, sout heastern Arizona, and Mexico, smaller subspecies predominate. In 2004, Arizona counted 31,443 cranes in the Sulfur Springs Valley. Of those, 20-30% are

estimated to be RMP cranes. The total number of RMP cranes wintering in this area has increased markedly in this area within the last 20 years although the percen tage of RMP has remained relatively constant. Some of this may be due to declining ha bitat conditions in Mexico and changi ng agricultural crops in southwestern New Mexico. Current estimates of the number of wintering cranes vary between years in the middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico (Table 2).

Of the greater sandhill cranes that wintered in New Mexico and Arizona during the 1980s, 6,000-13,000 wintered on Bosque NWR. Peak winter counts in the MRGV are summarized in Table 2. Use of state waterfowl management areas varied from 5,000-19,000 cranes.25 In some years, from 2,000-12,000 cranes winter from Si erra County, New Mexico southwest to the Mexican border. In the late 1980s, an average of approximately 2,500 cranes wintered in this region. Areas of heaviest use include Caballo Lake, Uvas Valley and the Gila River Valley (Schmitt and Hale 1997). Crane use in Luna County has declined substantially due to agricultural changes in crops from grain to cotton and chile (Mitchusson 2003). In 1970, nearly 8,000 cranes wi ntered near Columbus, New Mexico (Drewien and Bizeau 1974), where few are found today. Numbers vary widely among years, but they are predominately lesser sandhill cranes (76.9%), followed by greater ( 18.7%) and Canadian (4.3%) sandhill cranes, except in the Gila Valley where greaters predominate. Moving southwest from the Rio Grande Valley to the Uvas Valley and to Guzman Basin near Deming and Columbus, the percentage of lessers increases from 63.2% to 88.6%, while greaters decrease from 28.9% to 10.0% a nd Canadians decrease from 7.8% to 1.3% (Schmitt and Hale 1997). Recent crane harvest data from Arizona and southwest New Mexico indicate the percentage

of Canadians has increased.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Aug . 1 5 Se

pt

. 1 S

e p t

. 1

5 Oct . 1 Oct . 1

5 Nov . 1 Nov. 15 Dec . 1 De

c . 15 Jan. 1 Jan. 15 Feb. 1 F

e b. 1 5 Mar. 1 Mar . 1

5

Apr. 1 Apr. 15 1-Ma y 15

-M

ayPercentage of Annual Peak CraneNumbers Present 

### Gray's Lake, ID Monte Vista NWR, CO Bosque del Apache NWR, NM

Figure 3. Migration Chronology of RMP Greater Sa ndhill Cranes From Breeding Grounds to Migration Stopover and Winter Ranges and Return (adapted from Drewien and Bizeau 1974).26 Table 2. Peak Winter Sandhill Crane Counts (all s ubspecies) in the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Counts include 3 subspecies from the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent Populations.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Bosque del Apache N D J 1 Year National Wildlife Refuge Off-Refuge Count Total Mean 1967 5,100 197 5,297 - 1968 5,500 661 6,161 - 1969 6,100 1,238 7,338 - 1970 9,800 2,171 11,971 - 1971 10,000 3,920 13,820 - 1972 10,500 2,476 12,976 - 1973 12,300 3,548 15,848 - 1974 8,500 4,951 13,451 - 1975 7,500 10,472 17,972 - 1976 9,900 5,549 15,449 - 1977 14,400 4,998 19,398 - 1978 11,800 2,747 14,547 - 1979 12,500 4,883 17,383 - 1980 13,928 5,409 19,337 - 1981 12,900 7,702 19,864 - 1982 12,000 10,864 22,864 - 1983 14,400 10,930 25,330 - 1984 10,900 5,529 16,429 *15,056 1985 11,000 6,029 17,029 *12,751 1986 2 4,629 18,430 23,059 *19,168 1987 2 8,334 20,282 29,126 19,421 1988 2 11,302 12,056 23,358 20,809 1989 2 6,196 10,357 16,553 15,383 1990 2 13,810 10,660 24,470 19,037 1991 2,3 12,900 10,280 23,180 17,064 1992 2,3 11,160 10,300 21,460 18,412 1993 2,3 10,570 15,200 25,770 23,030 1994 2,3 15,700 9,200 24,900 21,162 1995 2,3 15,312 10,200 25,512 19,753 1996 2,3 13,000 8,250 21,250 18,093 1997 2,3 10,440 10,740 21,180 17,133 1998 2,3 12,950 15,400 28,350 24,203 1999 2,3 11,900 15,240 27,140 21,103 2000 2,3 12,200 18,690 30,890 21,023 2001 2,3 11,090 21,065 32,155 23,510 2002 2,3 13,500 16,565 30,065 23,399 2003 2,3 12,490 19,560 32,050 22,685 2004 2,3 13,941 14,813 28,754 22,876 2005 2,3 12,000 15,250 27,250 23,093

___________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Average population during November, December, and January.

2 Beginning in 1986, Bosque del Apache NWR was included in the Rio Grande transect. Previously, data consisted of ground counts

by personnel of Bosque del Apache NWR.

3 1991-96 counts were based on weekly gr ound surveys during November-February. * Denotes a year when data from ground count were used to determ ine the NDJ average.27 Number and Population Counts

Historically, the SLV in March was the best location to census the RMP. Virtually the entire population is in the valley between 5-15 March. Beginning in Marc h 1984, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) annually counted cranes in the SLV using a systematic aerial transect survey with a photographic correction factor (Benning et al. 1997). Adverse weather cond itions, including partial s now cover and high winds, occasionally reduced visibility, producing some count s of questionable accuracy. During 13 counts (1984- 96) the estimated number of RMP cranes averaged 17,725 and during 7 years of good survey conditions, averaged 19,869 (Appendix B).

During early years of the March survey, a small number of Mid-Continent lesser sandhill cranes (<5%) mixed with the RMP. Ground surveys provided an i ndex of the presence of lesser sandhills, and the RMP counts were adjusted accordingly. In recent years, le sser and Canadian sandhill cranes have increased to 22- 33% of the March crane population. Due to our inability to accurately distinguish the mid-sized Canadian subspecies through ocular surveys or track measur ements, a reliable estimate of the RMP is no longer possible in the SLV in March.

The Subcommittees concurred with the assessment by Drewien and Benning (1996, pers. comm.) that spring counts do not provide a reliable population estimate for the RMP. The spring survey was abandoned in 1997 and has been replaced with a September pre-migration survey in the summer range states. The time period in September for a reliable survey is relatively brief and is weather-dependent, a nd is not confounded by the presence of other subspecies. Coordinated surveys must be done within a minimal time frame to avoid duplicate counting or missing birds that move.

Carefully coordinated surveys of the RMP on fall pre- migration staging areas provide a minimum estimate of the population at that point in the biological year. Some hunting mortality has already occurred during early September seasons. Additional hunting mortality takes place during mid- and late September seasons,28 and during later hunting seasons in winter range states . Limited overwinter mortality is also expected on wintering grounds and during spring return migration.

Population estimates derived from fall pre-migrati on surveys in 1995-97 ranged from 16,000-18,000, but are considered minimal due to organizational problems and protocol associated with initiating a new survey. Recent satellite telemetry research confirmed no other known crane population co-mingles with RMP cranes during the September pre-migration survey (G. Kr apu, per. comm.). Mid-continent cranes are present in the SLV during October. Therefore, fall surveys in the pre-migration areas form a solid basis to derive population indices for management decisions.

In a 1969-71 study of RMP cranes nesting at Gray s Lake, Idaho, Drewien (1973) found that certain information on production could, with caution, be extr apolated to the population elsewhere. Clutches averaged 1.9 eggs, and nest success was 78%. Cranes we re capable of renesting when clutches were lost prior to mid-incubation. Mean brood sizes at hatc hing and fledging were 1.77 and 1.35, respectively. RMP greaters post-fledging brood size averages 1.31 (range 1.21-1.35) (Drewien et al. 1995).

Recruitment rates at Grays Lake were high, 13-14% during 1961-71. However, population recruitment rates recorded in the SLV declined during the late 1980s -mid 1990s (Drewien et al. 1995). The 1982-85 average recruitment of young was 8.3% and the 1986-95 average was 5.2%. Drewien's studies indicate decreased production was caused by a drought in recent years, during which predation on young increased. An apparent increase of predation by coyotes coincided with changes in predator control practices including elimination of compound 1080 by the FWS beginning in 1972.

Below normal recruitment from 1986-1995 had reduced the population from the 1985 level of 20,382. Habitat deterioration (long-term dr ought and poor wetland conditions) and pr edation are cited as the primary factors impacting recruitment (Drewien et al. 1995). Ch anges in farming practices in the SLV may also be impacting food availability to pre-nesting cranes dur ing the spring migration. However, recruitment29 rebounded to 9.4% in 1996, in res ponse to improved wetland conditions on breeding areas. Recruitment from 2000-2005 averaged 8.0%. Recruitment from 1972-2005 averaged 7.9% (Table 3). Hunting in the northern states occurs prior to the SLV recruitment su rvey in addition to other mortality factors occurring during migration. This may influence observed recr uitment, as juveniles have higher mortality rates (Drewien et al. 2001).

Habitat Breeding Areas Typical nesting habitat occurs in the river valleys , marshes, and wet meadows of northern Colorado, northern and central Utah, western and central Wyomi ng, southeastern and central Idaho, and central and western Montana, particularly in ranching country where human populations are low, but increasing. Increases in home development and subdivisions are nega tively impacting some habitats in portions of eastern ID, western WY, and southwestern MT (Drewien and Thorpe 2005). Suitable, vacant crane habitat may be available in western Alberta where th e possibility for population expansion may exist. Table 3. Recruitment (% juv.)in Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes, San Luis Valley, CO, 1972-2005 (adapted from Drewien 2005).

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 141972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 (Mean = 7.9%)% Juveniles30 Fall Pre-migration Staging Areas Staging sites associated with production areas serve as ga thering locations prior to fall migration. Necessary components of staging habitat are grain fields for feed ing in close proximity to roosting sites in shallow lakes, marshes, or river bottoms (Drewien and Bizeau 1974).

Increases in home development and subdivisions are negatively impacting some premigration staging habitats in portions of eastern ID, western WY, a nd southwestern MT. The explosion of subdivisions adjacent to the Salt River crane and goose habitat in lower Star Valley, WY, has reached the point where it is becoming difficult to conduct an aerial survey. Numbers of cranes and Canada geese using this area have declined substantially in recent years. Severa l other premigration staging sites are following this trend (Drewien and Thorpe 2005).

Migration Stopover Areas The major fall and spring migration stop for the RMP is in the SLV, Colorado. Most roosting areas are on the Monte Vista NWR, (up to 15,000), Higel SWA, Rio Grande SWA, the channel of the Rio Grande and private marshes and wet meadows along the river from th e town of Monte Vista to the Alamosa NWR. In fall, most cranes feed in private, harvested small-grain (wheat, barley and triticale) fields; in the spring, many cranes feed on refuge grain fields at Monte Vista NWR.

Wintering Areas The primary winter range is the Middle Rio Grande Va lley, New Mexico. Cranes roost on sandbars in the river near grain fields on private lands, and in the river and managed wetlands on federal refuges and state waterfowl management areas (WMAs). Historically, the largest number wintered on Bosque NWR. Since 1997, the state WMAs and private lands have attracted mo re cranes, on average wintering 50% of the cranes

in the MRGV. Smaller numbers winter in similar situa tions and on playas (closed basins) in other areas in New Mexico, southeastern Arizona, and in the Northe rn Interior Highlands of Mexico, primarily in Chihuahua, Mexico. Mexico’s significance for winteri ng RMP cranes has greatly diminished due to wetland31 drainage in the Galeana Valley and changing crops in the Ascencion Valley and elsewhere (R. Drewien, per. comm., Drewien et al. 2003).

Management and Research

Current Programs

Arizona . In 1996, the Arizona Game and Fish Departme nt (AGFD) acquired a major sandhill crane roost site in the Sulphur Springs Valley near McNeal (Wh ite Water Draw Wildlife Area). In 2004 the Department finished a 40-acre moist soil project to provide food for cranes and waterfowl. Those units are flooded in the spring and fall. The AGFD also pumps water to ma intain a roost near Willcox (Willcox Playa Wildlife Area) when the primary roost (Willcox Playa) is dry. AGFD has also enacted a cooperative agreement with a power company near the playa to ensu re maintenance of another important crane roost site near the plant. With this activity substantial increases in roost sites have been made av ailable for cranes. Production of both corn and sorghum present the greatest foraging opportun ities for wintering cranes in the Sulfur Springs Valley. Changes in agricultural crops to alfalfa and a ltered management practices such as cutting grain crops for silage will reduce areas available for foraging.

The January count for cranes has increased from 4, 300 in 1981 to 29,200 in 2006. In January 2004, a record count of over 31,000 was recorded. We speculate that e fforts to assure consistent roost sites (addition of Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area, pumping water into Wilcox Playa) has short-stopped large numbers of

cranes from Mexico. There is evid ence that some cranes wintering in Arizona use Bosque del Apache in New Mexico as a stopover.

Arizona has conducted limited permit, recreational hunts on sandhill cranes each November since 1981. Permits, which allow each successful applicant to take 2 cranes per season, are allocated by random drawing. During the initial 4 years of the hunt, 100 permits were issued. Permits were increased to 150 in 1985, 30032 in 1987, and 365 in 2005. Total harvest ranged from 42 in 1981 to 277 in 2005. Those harvests include

MCP Cranes. Mean harvest of RMP cranes since the inception of the hunt is 30 cranes with a high of 61 RMP cranes harvested in 1993. In 2005, Ariz ona harvested an estimated 50 RMP cranes.

Colorado . Greater sandhill cranes were designated by th e state as endangered on the nesting range and nongame throughout the remainder of the state. An incr easing number of nesting pairs in the early 1990s has enabled the population to be down lis ted from endangered to threatened status. However, production has remained below the objective of the state recovery plan and must be improved befo re complete delisting of the population. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) continues to work with land management agencies and private landowners on im proving nesting habitat. Intensive surveys in the nesting range are conducted periodically.

Conditions on fall pre-migration staging areas have improved with The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) purchase of a ranch that includes a portion of a major roost for cranes along the Yampa River near Hayden. The cranes still forage in wheat and barley grown on private lands near the roosts. Cranes are counted on the fall staging areas in conjunction with the coordi nated RMP fall population survey. Age ratios are determined periodically on the staging areas.

Managing habitat to support sandhill cranes is an objec tive of the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs in the SLV. At Monte Vista, practices include (1) planting sm all grains such as barley and wheat which remains standing through the fall to discourage use and is mowed in February for spring crane and migratory bird use and, (2) water management, often including pumping. Irrigating wet meadows and other wetland types to provide foraging and loafing sites as well as providing open water for r oosting sites, particularly during periods of drought and/or in the spring when mo st other water in the valley is frozen.

Additionally, the FWS recently established the Baca NW R, in Saguache and Alamosa counties and has an approved acquisition boundary of approximately 92,500 acres. This ref uge at the base of the Sangre de33 Cristo Mountains and adjoining TNC’ s Medano-Zapata wetlands to the sout h, has a variety of wetland types conducive to sandhill crane roosting, foraging, and res ting. Managing for a variety of healthy wetland types and conditions is a management priority, which will support the RMP (FWS, Conceptual Management Plan: Baca NWR, 2005). It is postulated by many biologi sts and mangers that we tland and upland habitat conditions found on the Baca NWR may best represent thos e used by cranes in the SLV prior to European settlement. Additionally with these habitats now unde r federal ownership there are excellent management opportunities to provide roost sites in the northern porti on of the SLV, which may allow for cranes to feed on waste grain in private fields that are currently unde rutilized due to the long distance to traditional roost in the central portion of the SLV. It has been found in th e SLV that most cranes do not travel more than 7 miles from the roost to foraging sites. Also manage ment on Baca NWR may be able to provide and support the conditions conducive to the production of the “natural ” foods cranes utilize versus the agricultural crops cranes have become dependent upon in other parts of the SLV. Incidental observations have indicated that cranes roosting on the Baca NWR may not leave the area to forage in neighboring farm fields, but are perhaps, foraging in refuge habitats. The Baca NWR, as a large, continuous piece of land with a mosaic of habitat conditions, may serve as an excellent test, and then opportunity, of being able to feed cranes in nonagricultural habitats.

Spring food for cranes is becoming a critical issue in the SLV. For one, the amount of waste grain on private lands is being reduced by the increase in fall tilling and irrigation of harvested grain fields. Farmers implement these practices to encourage the growth a nd then subsequent freezing of waste seeds to get a clean field for subsequent spring planting. Secondly the amount of acres in the small grain production has dramatically reduced beginning in the late 1990’s by the replacement of alfalfa. It is unknown how cranes will or will not forage in alfalfa fields; incidental obs ervations indicate that cranes may forage on insects and other invertebrates in alfalfa fields that are being i rrigated. The reduction of waste grain availability in spring may be intensifying competition among RMP cranes , an increasing segment of lesser and Canadian cranes, and waterfowl populations. In March 1997, th e Pacific Flyway Council requested the CDOW and FWS to address the issue of spring food supplies for the RMP.34 In a response to the decline in food resources for spring migrating cranes, the FWS leased private farm fields around areas of high crane use (north and south of the to wn of Monte Vista). Farmers were paid by the acre to not till and irrigate stubble fields so that waste grain would be available through the fall and spring for sandhill cranes. Private farmers willingly participated ; however, the funding for these efforts was unplanned and opportunistic, and therefore not always availabl e especially during limited budgets. Refuge staff collected data on the amount of waste grain present be fore, during and after spring and fall migrations to document use of food by cranes and ot her migratory birds. In general, between 80-95% of the waste grain on leased fields in early September was gone by the end of the next year’s spring migration.

The FWS’ Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has actively been promoting the development and management of shallow water wetlands on private lands throughout the SLV, but in particular areas commonly used by cranes, to provide more roost sites. Wildlife biologists and managers, have assumed that one of the limiting factors to dispersing high numbers of cranes throughout the SLV, is the lack of roost sites, therefore, the development of these roost site s has been encouraged. Since the development of a few private wetlands in the north-central part of the valley, there has been an increase in all migratory waterbird use and in particular cranes. It is believed that thes e cranes are able to forage on nearby wetlands and the waste grain in private fields that they would not normally use from more traditional roost sites on the Rio

Grande to the south.

Conservation for sandhill cranes is strong for the Na tural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in the SLV because of issues involving changes in agricultura l practices, loss of wetlands, and the fact that cranes utilize private lands extensively. Through U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs and partnership efforts, NRCS is able to provide technical and financial support to private landowners wishing to protect, restore, and manage lands for sandhill cr anes. Projects on private lands include; restoration and enhancement of shallow wetlands as forage a nd potential roost sites, lands protection, securing unharvested small grain crops during drought, and by providing incentives to agricultural producers to35 incorporate leaving more small grain crop residues into their long-term management operations. Eliminating conflicting strategies such as promoting fall tilling and irrigating harvested grain fields to germinate waste grain would benefit cranes.

Through 1996, cranes were censused in spring in the SLV by FWS personnel and the results utilized as the best estimate of population size for management purposes . These counts were discontinued in 1997. Early fall migrating RMP cranes are counted in the SLV dur ing the coordinated fall count in September. The young:adult ratio (recruitment) is estimated for the entire population through classification counts in the SLV during late October. Mean recruitment from 1972-2004 is 7. 9% (Table 3). Some mortality occurs prior to this survey due to hunting in the summer states and hazards during migration.

Idaho . During the mid-1990’s, eastern Idaho farmers becam e increasingly intolerant of crane damage and on numerous occasions requested relief from the Idaho Depa rtment of Fish and Game (IDFG). In the Ashton area of Fremont County, damage occurs primarily in sp ring and summer before September 1. The damage is generally caused by family groups rather than large fl ocks. The crop most frequently damaged is potatoes, usually seed potatoes. Small grain crops are also da maged at times, but damage is generally minor. Crop damage in the remainder of eastern Idaho typically occu rs in late summer and early fall, generally early to mid-August until mid-September. Family groups a nd non-breeders in small to large groups cause the damage. The crops most frequently damaged are small grains, mainly barley. Damage can range from very

minor to severe.

In July, 1996, the IDFG reclassified the sandhill cran e from “protected nongame” to “migratory game bird”

and established the State’s first recreational hunt usi ng a 20-bird harvest allocation and 30 randomly-selected permittees.36 Since 1995, the IDFG has gathered data on summer popula tions and September staging areas to comply with management plan requirements. Since 1996 the IDFG has offered sport hunting s easons with annual harvest averaging about 200 cranes.

Crop damage complaints are serviced by both th e IDFG and Wildlife Services. A memorandum of understanding directs the IDFG to service minor comp laints involving less than 100 cranes between 1 May and 15 August, and directs Wildlife Servi ces to service all other complaints.

The FWS manages approximately 200 acres of grain plante d as supplemental feed at Bear Lake, Camas, and Grays Lake NWRs to help alleviate crop damage on ad jacent private properties. Most often, barley is planted as supplemental feed.

Mexico (Chihuahua and Durango ). Details of any specific management practices should be solicited from

Secretaria del Medio Ambi ente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Minimal information is available on

harvest rates of RMP cranes in Mexico. Lafón and Soto (1991) estimated a 2.3% harvest rate among all sandhill crane subspecies. At Laguna de Babicora the ha rvest rate may be 3% but, in other areas, harvest is insignificant. Drewien et al. (1996) observed more incidents of subsistence hunting than recreational hunting during winter crane surveys from 1970-1993. Local residents attempted to take cranes with rifles and pistols making them very wary and more difficult to approach than on winter grounds in New Mexico and Arizona. Mid-continent lesser subspecies comprise most cranes wintering in Mexico, and the majority of the harvest. On average, 88.9% of the cranes counted on 6 study sites in Chihuahua, Mexico, were lessers. Drewien et al. (1996) postulate 25% of the cran es classified as greaters were actually Canadians. This means about 8% of the cranes on the 6 study sites may have been greaters. Although the primary wintering area in Mexico includes the Northern Interior Highland states of Chihuahua, Durango and Zacatecas only small numbers of RMP greaters are found south of central Chihuahua; most occur in

northwestern Chihuahua near the New Mexico border. Currently, the most important winter site for RMP cranes is the Ascension Valley, Chihuahua. Formerly the Santa Maria river valley near Galeana, Chihuahua37 was an important winter area for RMP cranes (Drewi en et al. 1996). However in the 1990’s the primary crane roost site, a large marsh near Galeana, was drained and only a few cranes currently winter in the area.

Crane distribution has shifted markedly since the 1950s and early 1960s in response to changing agricultural practices and wetland degradation cause d by deforestation, overgrazing, water diversions, water pollution, and other effects of human population growth (Drewien et al. 1996). Most crane wintering habitats in Mexico are vulnerable to further, adverse habitat modifications. In the 1990’s, the Mexican federal government proposed to drain much of the Babicora Basin to improve agriculture and flood control (Drewien et al. 1996). This important wetland area in west-central Chihuahua supports the highest winter concentrations of cranes, primarily lesser subsp ecies, in Mexico (Buller 1982, Drewien et al. 1996)( 0 = 12,614, range 1,470 – 25,680). From 1995-1998, the University of Chihuahua, with f unding and support from other partners, developed a c onservation management plan for La guna de Babicora (A. Lafón per. comm., Drewien et al. 1996). Currently, the drainage pr oposal has been deferred. Drainage of this wetland would eliminate the most important sandhill crane wintering site in Mexico.

Montana . Pre-migration staging counts are annually conducted by personnel from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), the FWS, and private volunteers on occasion. Hunting seasons on the RMP were initiated in 1992 and currently include 3 hunt units in the Pacific Flyway portion of the state and 1 hunt unit in the Central Flyway portion of the state. In 2004, the Dillon hunt area was expanded north along the Jefferson River to Whitehall. In recent year s, there have been approximately twice as many crane-hunting applicants as available permits.

Intermountain West and Prairie Pothole Joint Ventur e partners have identifie d flood plains and other wetland habitats as priorities for enhancement and conservation. These ongoing conservation efforts will continue to benefit RMP crane breeding habitats.38 New Mexico . Populations of sandhill cranes are monitored by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) during monthly aerial surveys conduc ted from mid-October through early January. FWS personnel on Maxwell NWR and Las Vegas NWR conduct weekly ground counts monitoring cranes.

MRGV sandhill crane management is guided by a cooperative agreement, A Plan for the Management for Waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes, and other Migratory Birds (MRGV Plan), between the NMDGF, FWS, and Wildlife Services. The MRGV Plan goal is maintain a mean monthly population of 17,000- 22,000 sandhill cranes during November- February. This popul ation level ensures viability within food supplies and depredation complaints that are not excessive. Th e objectives are to maintain a refuge distribution of 60% of the wintering birds at Bosque NWR and 40% on NMDGF WMAs, and minimize problems associated with sandhill crane crop depredations. Weekly ground surveys are conducted by the FWS to monitor the population and a FWS aerial survey is conducted in December to assess crop depredation potential on private lands (Taylor 1999). In 2005, the FWS aerial survey counted 79% of the MRGV wintering crane flocks on federal or state re fuges and 21% on private lands. The 1999-2001 MRGV mean population was 21,879 wintering sandhill cranes. The 2001 average population was 23,510 cranes with a peak count of 32,156 (Mitchusson 2003). The 2005 average population in the MRGV was 20,926 cranes with a peak count of 27,250. The proportion of sandhill cranes wintering on refuges during 1999- 2001 averaged 50% on Bosque NWR and 50% on NMDGF WMAs (FWS, Bosque del Apache, 2002). Flock distribution objectives have not been met since 1989 (Taylor 1999, Mitchusson 2003). The proportion of sandhill cranes wintering on refuges during 2005-2006 averaged 57% on Bosque NWR and

43% on NMDGF WMAs.

An objective of Bosque NWR is to manage habitat for wintering greater sandhill cranes. Management activities include growing about 290 acres of corn and mo re than 750 acres of alfalfa for sandhill cranes and waterfowl. An additional 70 acres are being developed to grow cereal crops. Open shallow water marshes are maintained for feeding, roosting and loafing. Moist soil impoundments grow chufa providing another39 food source for sandhill cranes. River roost sites ha ve been recreated through salt cedar removal and mechanically widening the river channel.

Management of agricultural crops on NMDGF WMAs was originally directed primarily at waterfowl. Recent management actions have increased the empha sis towards sandhill cranes. The Ladd S. Gordon Complex composed of 4 WMAs in the MRGV totals appr oximately 5,900 acres of irrigated agricultural land and wetlands. An annual goal of 1. 2 million pounds of grain (primarily corn) are produced on the WMAs to provide sufficient food reserves to support wintering cranes and light geese. Wetland developments are providing additional crane roost sites.

An experimental hunting season for sandhill cranes in the MRGV was first conducted during October 1986. This experimental hunt has been conducted annually and became operationa l in 1990. Experimental hunting

seasons for sandhill cranes in southwestern New Mexico were conducted in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1989, and 1991-1996. Schmitt and Hale (1997) summarized these hunts. The crane season in southwestern New Mexico is operational. An experimental sandhill cr ane season in the Estancia Valley began in 2001 and soon will become operational. Schedu ling the southwest and Estancia Valle y hunts in late October limits the RMP crane harvest while offering sport crane hunting and minimizing crane depredation complaints. The majority of the harvest is comprised of MCP lessers ta king advantage of peak migration periods prior to the arrival of RMP cranes. January southwest hunts have a higher percentage of RMP cranes in the harvest but are buffered by the lessers that winter in this re gion and those returning north from Mexico (Mitchusson 2003).

Large numbers of sandhill cranes winter on private lands in the MRGV. Some landowners have tolerated crane use on private lands, while others, particularly in the Socorro area, have been quite vocal and have filed complaints with Wildlife Services. In 1993, complaints reached an all time high prompting congressional response and informal hearings. Annua l agricultural damage caused by sandhill cranes in the MRGV was in excess of $100,000 per year. As a result, Wildlife Services received funding40 specifically to provide more personnel to answer depredation complaints in the MRGV. Wildlife Services personnel use pyrotechnics to disperse floc ks and assign crane hunters to private lands with depredation complaints. MRGV sandhill crane hunting seasons are scheduled to reduce depredation and provide recreational opportunity. These methods along with timed crop manipulations on the refuges are used to encourage cranes remain on the refuges and reduce agricultural damage (Taylor 1999). The average annual confirmed depredation loss in th e MRGV since 1993 is approximately $500 (A. May, Wildlife Services, per. comm.). The proportion of sandhill cranes using private lands during 1989-2001 has ranged from 9% to 35% and averaged 23% (USFW S, Bosque del Apache, 2002). The proportion of sandhill cranes using private lands during 2005-2006 was 21%.

In 2003, the NMDGF developed a state sandhill crane mana gement plan to direct agency activities regarding sandhill cranes (Mitchusson 2003). Suitable and potential sandhill crane habitat has not been quantified in New Mexico but appears to be declining. Geogra phic Information Systems (GIS) technology and habitat suitability models will be used to obtain this information.

Utah . The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) annually collects data on crane recruitment, summer and fall population numbers, and hunt er harvest. Control of crop damage is necessary each year in all northern counties and in portions of the Uintah Ba sin, and supplemental food crops are being planted on several UDWR-controlled management areas. Damage is greatest in spring when cranes consume germinating corn crops, but some damage occurs to unha rvested grain crops in fall. Breeding pairs as well as non-breeding flocks are responsible for the dama ge and are present throughout the summer months in

most northern Utah counties.

Since 1989, the UDWR has held a crane hunt in Cache and/or Rich counties, with the exception of 1992 when the Utah Wildlife Board suspended the hunting of cranes for 1 year. In subsequent years the hunt expanded into Box Elder and Uintah counties, and interest is growing for a hunt in several central Utah

counties.41 Wyoming . Since 1982, the Wyoming Game and Fish Depa rtment (WGFD) have held a hunting season on RMP cranes (Lockman et al. 1987). Hunting, suppl emental feed crops, and conventional methods of controlling crop damage were evaluated from 1979 to 1984.

Since 1982, the WGFD has documented and mapped spring, summer, and fall crane distribution. All crane observations have been logged usi ng the Department’s computerized "Wildlife Observation System." Historically, annual data were collected on distributi on, staging area densities, fledged chick recruitment, habitat use, harvest, hunter effort, and crane distribu tion during the hunting season. In recent years, data collection has been confined to fall premigration stagi ng surveys and harvest surveys. Pre-migration staging counts are conducted by personnel from the WGFD, FWS and private volunteers on occasion. Occurrence continues to be documented opport unistically throughout the year.

Marking studies to determine migration and moveme nts were conducted in c ooperation with the Idaho Wildlife Research Institute, Moscow. The characteristics of seasonal crane habitats and other data have been summarized by Lockman et al. (1986) and Rowland et al. (1992).

The WGFD initiated an experimental crane hunt in Park and Big Horn counties in fall, 1996. Twenty-five permits were made available for the new hunt through a redistribution of permits from 4 existing hunt areas. The redistribution did not affect Wyoming’s overall harvest allocation.

Cranes nesting in Yellowstone and Gr and Teton National Parks are passively managed in that their habitat is preserved. Surveys were initiated in 1984 to determine the status of birds in these areas. Preliminary findings were summarized by Drewien et al. (1987, 2001).

Wyoming has documented that staging cranes shift their distribution in response to hunting (Lockman 1988). This behavior is apparently learned over a period of 3-4 years once hunting begins in an area.42 Cranes displace outside the hunt area and move to other staging locations. By the time formal pre-migration surveys are done in mid to late September, much of th is redistribution has already taken place. Therefore, surveys conducted at that time may not accurately reflect the distribution of resident birds in summer range states. Thus, additional surveys (possibly pre-hunt) may be required.

There is concern by some with declining fall staging c ounts in the Bear River Valley and Star Valley. It is believed that the major cause for the d ecline is due to changes in habitat. The main factor being these areas are changing from agricultural to urban use. If flocks c ontinue to decline, permit numbers will be reduced or

the hunt eliminated in these two areas.

V. PROBLEMS

Problems affecting RMP cranes vary among regions. The various seasonal habitats c ontinue to be impacted from a variety of causes, including housing and industria l developments, changing agricultural practices, oil and gas exploration and developmen t, drought, flood control projects, and wetland drainage. Competition for limited resources on wintering areas by RMP cran es, high snow and Ross’s goose populations, and other crane populations have caused agricultural damage in so me regions. Shrinking habitats in fall staging and wintering areas, particularly wetland roosting areas, increase the risk of disease outbreaks due to overcrowding of birds. Avian tuberculosis, choler a, botulism, and lead poisoning have caused crane mortality in wintering areas and in the SLV, Colora do (Kauffeld 1987, Snyder et al. 1987, Drewien et al. 2001). Hazards, such as transmission lines (Brown et al. 1987, Brown and Drewien 1995, Drewien et al. 2001) and even stock fences, contribute to annual morta lity. While predators may influence recruitment in some locations, predation is not considered a signifi cant problem for the population. Increases in population densities, whether produced by normal recruitment or forced concentrations of birds due to shrinking habitats, contribute to increases in damage to priv ate agricultural crops. Some of these problems are alleviated by habitat improvement projects on state and federal lands and thr ough carefully-designed and regulated sport hunting programs in the United States' portion of the RMP range.43 More specific problems by state follow:

Arizona . With the success in providing roost sites, a potential exists for cranes to damage newly-planted grain crops and to exhaust limited supplies. Additionally, there is a shift from grains, corn, and sorghum towards alfalfa and co tton. Cranes consume alfalfa only when the plants are small; cotton is of no value to cr anes. Arizona has implemented a cooperative agreement with several local farmers to grow co rn and leave stubble for cranes. There remains a concern that should agricultural practices change, forage availability could become a problem in the future. Under current conditions, roosting hab itat is secure, but forage supplies may become limiting.

Botulism is potentially a problem on the Willcox Playa, the major roost area. A minor outbreak occurred in 1980. The Department has attempted to mitigate this problem with additional roost areas at Crane Lake (within Wilcox Playa itself) and Whitewater Draw.

Colorado . Much of the crane nesting habitat on privat e land is located in areas that are attractive to home development. Programs informing privat e landowners about the ne eds of nesting cranes must be continued. Crane food supplies on prem igration staging areas in northwestern Colorado are unstable, limited, and subject to crop depredation.

The lowering of the water table in the SLV ha s resulted in loss of foraging wetlands, forcing cranes to become primarily dependent on grain crops for nutrition. Fall tilling and irrigation of harvested small grain fields in the SLV has reduced the supply of grain available in the spring for

cranes and waterfowl. Additional food sources may be developed to maintain body condition and reproductive potential of cranes returning to nesting areas.44 Idaho . With a major segment of the RMP nesting in eastern Idaho and nearly 40% of the population staging there in September, grain and potato farmers are becoming increasingly intolerant of damage caused by cranes. Some operators claim farming economics are such that they can no longer afford to feed cranes. On numerous occasions, they have requested relief from the IDFG as well as the Idaho Congressional delegation. Urban development in the Teton Basin, Teton County, is consumi ng habitat traditionally used by RM P cranes; this is reducing the area’s capacity to support summering and staging cranes and is increasing the potential for crop damage complaints. In addition, crane use of the Grays Lake NWR has declined over the past 10-15 years because of changes in habitat manageme nt. This decline in crane use contributed to crop damage problems in the Blackfoot Reservoir area in the 1990’s.

Mexico . Additional information for this sec tion should be solicited from SEMARNAT. Crop damage during the winter period may be a probl em. Though potential excessive subsistence and recreational harvests of cranes is unlikely, bette r harvest information is desirable. The loss of wetland habitats is likely to continue and in crease from a variety of land developments. Principle causes of wetland degradation throughout Mexico include water diversions, pollution, deforestation, overgrazing, and other effects a ssociated with human population growth (Drewien et al. 1996, 2003). The greatest threat could be the proposal by the Mexican government to drain much of the Babicora Basin in west-central Chihuahua, the most important crane wintering location in Mexico. Babicora Basin’s importance is greatest for the lesser subspecies. However loss of this wetland would eliminate potential use by RMP greaters. The Galeana area in northwest Chihuahua was formerly an important RMP winter area during the 1970’s-90’s (Drewien et al. 1996). The primary roosting wetla nd was recently drained, resulting in greatly

reduced crane use of this winter site.

Montana . Damage to unharvested cereal grain crops can be significant, especially in the vicinity of the higher-elevation pre-migration staging areas where harvest is often delayed until45 September. Breeding areas especially in in termountain valleys are experiencing increased

urbanization and subdivision encroachment. This results in additional power lines and greater potential for aerial collisions.

New Mexico . Increasing urbanization, changes in ag ricultural crops and water management have negatively impacted sandhill crane habita t. Urban development in portions of the MRGV from Los Lunas to San Antonio has eliminated many winter sites and more will be lost in the near future. In 2006, an important agricultural winter site near Los Lunas was sold and will be converted to housing. This pr operty supported up to 1000 cranes and 7100 geese.

These birds will be forced to use crowded state or federal refuges. As habitat is lost wintering cranes and waterfowl are restricted to fewer areas. Food supply and overcrowding are becoming priority concerns for population maintenance. Houses built on the MRGV floodplain now prevent the very large spring fl ows necessary to scour the riverbed and alter the river channel to maintain suitable unvegetate d roost sites. As lands are converted from agricultural uses to urban areas more hazards for sandhill cranes in the form of power lines and fences will be created. Currently, urbaniza tion does not pose as large threat to the other wintering areas, but there is the potential conflict as agricultural lands and water supplies are diverted from agricultural practices to urban uses.

Use of the San Acacia Diversion Canal has resulte d in loss of roost habitat on the Rio Grande, which affects winter distribution of cranes. During many years this diversion plus irrigation

demands de-waters the Rio Grande. Increasing water conflicts between urban, agricultural, interstate stream compacts and endangered sp ecies management, such as the silvery minnow ( Hybognathus amarus ); especially during drought periods, can adversely impact crane habitats. Without the regular high flows to scour river vegetation, roost sites become overgrown concentrating birds into fewe r open areas. Spring floods occurred in 2005 improving crane roost sites in the MRGV.46 Periodically depredations by cranes have been severe in Valencia, Socorro, Sierra, Dona Ana,

and Luna counties. As habitat is lost and winter ing waterfowl and cranes are restricted to fewer areas, food supply and overcrowding are b ecoming priority concerns for population maintenance. Changes in crop patterns in most locations has reduced feeding habitat in New Mexico (less grain and more alfalfa, cotton and chile).

Utah . Urban expansion along the Wasatch Front , Cache and Summit counties continues to consume natural and agricultural habitats importa nt to breeding and staging crane populations. Depredations on remaining agricultural areas ar e consequently growing in some areas and tolerance for cranes can be problematic.

Wyoming . RMP cranes stage near several agricultura l projects in central and western Wyoming during late summer to early fall, where crop dama ge can be a problem. The damage is often compounded by feeding activities of RMP Canada gees e that also congregate in the same areas. Controlled hunts in September effectively disperse cranes and geese from grain fields. However, new damage situations occasionally arise as agri cultural practices change and crane distribution

shifts.

Agricultural interests have voiced concern a bout fall crop damage by RMP cranes in all hunt areas and the Bridger Valley. Food resources in pre-migration staging areas are limited and therefore crop depredations occur. Expansion of barley production in the Farson-Eden area, the last 7 years, has not resulted in an increase in crop damage by cranes and geese. Staging by several hundred to a thousand cranes along the Gr eybull and Shoshone Rivers in Park and Big Horn counties is a fairly recent development, wh ich has caused some crop damage complaints in that region. During the last decade, the Boys en-Riverton area had the highest number of crop depredation complaints. . Except on the Ocean Lake Habitat Unit, the WGFD does not plant47 supplemental feed to attract cranes or geese aw ay from private grain fields. Farm operators continue to request additional pe rmits and longer seasons to alle viate crop damage. Damage to newly planted row crops in the spring is a more difficult issue, which cannot be addressed by controlled hunting seasons.

Valley floor development throughout Wyoming seriously threatens many of the State’s most limited and important wildlife hab itats. Ongoing development in the Star Valley has impacted preferred crane roost sites. The explosion of subdivisions in the lower Star Valley, has reached the point where it is becoming difficult to conduc t an aerial survey. Numbers of cranes using this area have declined substantially in recen t years (Drewien and Thorpe 2005)(see Table 1).

VI. RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

The following management procedures are recommended. The degree and timing of their implementation by the various lead agencies will be influenced by manpower and fiscal and legislative constraints beyond the scope of this plan. Whenever possible and appropr iate, plans for other species and populations of Pacific and Central Flyway birds should also consider th e management procedures in this plan. Improved coordination between state and federal refuges thr oughout the region would greatly enhance sandhill crane

management.

Habitat

1. Habitat Conservation . Maintain and enhance important cran e habitats as follow:

Arizona . Work with local landowners to assure that sufficient forage remains available for the large wintering population of sandhill cranes in the Sulfur Springs Valley.

Lead agencies: AGFD.48 Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing.

Colorado . In recent years, changing agricultural practi ces in the SLV have diminished small grain availability and increased competition among the RMP, other crane subspecies, and waterfowl during the spring migration period. There is concern limited food supplies may impact body condition and reproductive potential of RMP cranes returning to their summer range. A baseline study conducted during 1997-2001 indicated that waste grain abundance on fields with typical post-harvest practices is substantially lower than on fields left in stubble (5.97 kg/ha versus > 200 kg/ha), but RMP cranes appeared to gain fat reserves during the spring stopover period in the SLV (Gammonley and Laubhan, in review). The Councils encourage further inves tigation of this problem, including the extent to which limited food resources may be impacting main tenance and growth of the population. Another component of this research may include investig ating the feasibility of augmenting food supplies by developing natural forage sites through wetland creation and enhancement. Increasing acreages of small grain production on refuges would augment di minished food availability on private lands.

Lead agencies: RMP Crane Subcommittees. Participating: FWS, Monte Vista NWR, C DOW, academic institutions, and consultants with applicable expertise. Priority: high. Schedule: Continuing.



### Communicate with local NRCS offices regarding their recommended farm practices on private grain fields. If appropriate or feasib le, recommend that some fields in high crane use areas be encouraged to not till and irrigate fields after fall harvest to allow for adequate amounts of waste grain on soil surface through fall and early spring migration.49 

### FWS, CDOW, NRCS, and other natural resource agencies continue to communicate and collaborate on habitat management techniques and conservation actions that support sandhill crane habitat. These techniques include; providing a mosaic of roost sites throughout the SLV to encourage a wider distribution of cranes throughout, and the production of foods in wetland and upland habitats to potentially offset current foraging dependency on small grains.

Continue to work with local utility companies to mark power lines to reduce lethal crane strikes. Of special concern recently developed shallow-water wetlands developed on private lands through the FWS’ Partners Program and other agencies that then provide

roost sites. During range-wide drought when it is probable that waste grain supplies are limited, seek funding to lease stubble fields from privat e farmers to provide for waste grain.

Lead agencies: FWS, CDOW and NRCS

Provide about 500 acres of wet hay meadow and grai n fields along the Yampa and Elk rivers in Routt County to ensure adequate st aging and foraging habitats.

Lead agencies: FWS and CDOW. Participating: Other state and federal agencies and citizen organizations will be invited to participate. Priority: high. Schedule: In progress.50 Monitor new and/or underutilized habitats in th e northern and southern portions of the SLV.

Lead agencies: FWS and CDOW. Participating: Other state and federal agencies and citizen organizations will be invited to participate. Priority: high. Schedule: In progress.

Idaho . The IDFG, in cooperation with other st ate and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private parties, will work to annually provide 600-1,000 acres of supplemental feed crops in strategic locations to help alleviate crop damage. Funding for this program will come primarily from the interest earned by a Lure Crop Endowment established from private contributions. The IDFG, in cooperation with other agencies, nongovernmental organizati ons, and Teton County, will work to protect remaining crane habitat, includi ng roosting sites, loafing sites, and feeding areas along the Teton River to alleviate depredations and provide adequate staging habitat.

Lead Agencies: IDFG and FWS. Participating: Other state and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private parties. Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing

Mexico (Chihuahua) . Specific habitat needs or surveys to ascertain those needs should be identified through consultation with SEMARNAT. Four laguna s in the Ascension Valley, Chihuahua are of particular importance to wintering RMP cranes and deserves special protection. Wetland drainage in the Santa Maria River Valley near Galeana, Chihuahua has virtually eliminated this area’s importance as crane habitat. A recent effort was developed by the University of Chihuahua, with funding and support from other partners, to im prove and operate a conservation management plan for Laguna de Babicora (A. Lafón per. comm., Drewien et al. 1996). La guna de Babicora importance is primarily51 for the lesser subspecies, but is used by limited numbers of RMP gr eaters. The subcommittees support

this effort.

Lead Agencies: SEMARNAT, University of Chihuahua, FWS and PROFAUNA A.C.. Participating: RMP Crane Subcommittees, nongovern mental organizations, and private parties. Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing.

Montana . Work through the Intermountain and Prairie Pothole Joint Ventures, utilizing a variety of wetland protection and enhancement strategies to conserve and improve we tland complexes used by breeding cranes on both private and public land. Wo rk with private landowners in the areas of the major premigration staging sites and implement st rategies designed to reduce depredation problems when they occur. A majority of the crane habitat occurs on privat e land and trends in federal farm programs, intensity of agricultural activities, and urban development will in large measure determine long-term trends in crane numbers.

Lead Agencies: MFWP, FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing

New Mexico . Protect crane habitat, including river sa ndbars, Bosque (riparian wooded areas), and well-drained irrigable cropland to perpetuate objectiv e levels of use by cranes in the MRGV. Create additional roosting habitat on NMDGF WMAs and Bosque NWR.

Encourage water management agencies to allow o ccasional high flows in the Rio Grande to benefit roost sites and keep water in the riverbed instead of the San Acacia Diversion Canal. Siltation of Elephant Butte Reservoir in the future could preclude crop production on the Bosque NWR because of52 a rising water table, and could reduce the area's impor tance to cranes. The latest drought and resulting low lake levels has reduced this potential problem.

Obtain maximum production of wildlife crops on NM DGF and federal agricultural lands. Investigate possible acquisition of additional agricultural lands a nd irrigation water rights to offset loss of habitat to urban expansion. Encourage programs that prom ote grain production on private lands. Continue to

coordinate activities between federal and NMDGF properties in the MRGV.

Identify and quantify the amount and distribution of current suitable and potential sandhill crane habitat to protect and/or manage in orde r to support desired crane population goals.

Control non-native invasive vegetati on to promote native wetland conditions suitable as crane habitat.

Lead agencies: FWS, NMDFG, NRCS, BoR, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and N.M. State Forestry. Participating: Other state and federal agencies and citizen organizations will be invited to participate. Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing

Utah . Through acquisitions, easements, or lease agr eements, protect 500 acres of farmland along the Bear River in Rich County and an additional 500 acres in Cache Valley to provide staging and breeding habitat. Lead agencies will be responsib le for identifying habitat presently important to cranes and locating willing sellers or those willing to enter into cooperative agreements to protect

these lands.

Continue to provide cereal and food crops on stat e managed-wildlife areas in Cache, Box Elder,

Weber and Salt Lake counties. C ontinue to coordinate with Wildlife Services and the agricultural53 community to provide technical advice on dealing with depredation. Develop and improve the farming programs at Ouray NWR to provide habita t during spring and fall for migrating cranes and waterfowl. Protect key crane habitat in the Jensen area through land acquisition, cooperative agreements, and participation in local government planning activities.

Lead agencies: FWS, Wildlife Services and UDWR. Participating: Other federal and state agencies and citizen organizations will be invited to participate. Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing.

Wyoming . Protect sufficient habitat on primary fall premigration staging areas, including roosting sites, loafing sites, and feeding areas to suppor t 4,000 - 6,000 cranes. These areas include the Salt River, lower Bear River, Farson-Eden Agricultu re Project; the Wind River Irrigation Project; the Shoshoni River in Park County, and the Greybull River in Big Horn County. This should be accomplished in cooperation with private landowners, county planning groups, etc.

Provide sufficient grain croplands annually on the WGFD’s Ocean Lake Wildlife Habitat Management Unit to support 600-1,000 sandhill cranes in the fall premigration staging period (August 10-October 25).

In cooperation with private landow ners, FWS and WGFD, develop a long- term strategy to protect and

enhance wetlands on the lower Bear River and Sa lt River for crane production and staging, and continue to support developm ent of Cokeville Meadows NWR on the lower Bear River.

Utilize recreational hunting to regulate crane numbers and to minimize fall depredation to private croplands.54 Lead agencies: FWS and WGFD. Participating: Other federal and state agencies and citizen organizations will be invited to participate. Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing.

2. Inventory of Habitat . Encourage to identify, classify, rank, and catalog habitats used by the RMP throughout its range to facilitate the protection of important habitat through acquisition, easement, cooperative agreements, special-use permits, a nd mitigation exchanges and developments.

Classification would include but not be limited to am ount and quality of habitat, spatial distribution, relative importance, potential for enhancement, la nd use and ownership, a nd threats to continued suitability of habitat. Rationale should be developed to prioritize pr otection of specific parcels of lands. All interested agencies, groups, and individua ls should be encouraged to participate in this effort. Currently, there is such an investigation being conducted by T. Perkins and L. H. Fredrickson evaluating RMP crane habitat conditions along the Intermountain West. This study’s goal is to understand changes in the availability, distributi on, and nutrient characteristics of wetland and agricultural habitats important to RMP cranes for foraging, loafing and roosting throughout their annual cycle. The focus of this study will be on habitats in Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico and Mexico’s Northern Highlands.

Lead agencies: FWS, SEMARNAT and state wildlife agencies. Priority: high. Schedule: Ongoing.

Uses of Cranes

1. Interpretive Program . Observing greater sandhill cranes is an important recreation throughout the birds' ranges. “Crane festivals” are attended by thousands of people annually at several staging locations including Socorro, NM in November, Willc ox, AZ in January and Monte Vista, CO in55 March. Promoting increased awareness and understandi ng of cranes is essential to the well being of the RMP and is therefore an integral part of this plan. Individual state wildlife agencies and the FWS will cooperatively develop and distribute information on the life history of RMP cranes and important management issues.

Lead agencies/groups: State wildlife management agencies and FWS. Priority: moderate. Schedule: Ongoing.

2. Hunting (harvest allocation and guidelines) . In addition to the other uses of RMP cranes, it is biologically feasible to allow recreational hunti ng. The population is hunted annually in Arizona, Idaho, Mexico, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wy oming (Table 4 and Appendix A). In Mexico, subsistence and recreational hunters pursue cranes. Recreational hunting is allowed only in registered

UMAS 

### (Unidad de Manejo para la Conservacion de Vida Silvestre – Management Unit for the Conservation of Wildlife)

.

Fall pre-migration staging areas, fall migration st opover areas, and selected wintering areas provide the best opportunities to harvest cranes and are locations where hunting can help alleviate crop damage problems. Hunting can direct harvest at sp ecific segments of the local population that damage crops. Any state within the range of the RMP may choose to hunt cranes provided the hunts meet the conditions of this plan.

Recreational hunting of the RMP will be permitte d when the fall population index exceeds 15,000. A conservative harvest allocation is prescribed wh en the fall population inde x is between 15,000 and 18,000 cranes to allow for population growth. If th e fall population index is less than 15,000, hunting may be permitted to meet specific management obj ectives, including alleviation of localized crop damage and distribution concerns. The fall population index will be the average of the 3 most recent,56 reliable surveys (Objective A) conducted on Septem ber pre-migration staging areas in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.

Because portions of the RMP range overlap with ot her subspecies, strategies intended to harvest RMP

cranes will result in the harvest of other subs pecies at some locations. States hunting mixed populations will estimate the racial composition of the hunted population based on measurements of wing chord, tarsus, and posterior na res to bill tip of harvested cranes (Schmitt and Hale 1997) or other appropriate methods. Othe r subspecies harvested will not be in cluded in the RMP allocation described in this plan. States may monitor the racial composition of the harvest once every 3 years in operational hunt areas, and use that data for estima ting the racial composition in the subsequent 2 years. States that consider all harvested cranes in a hunt area as RMP greaters are not required to monitor racial composition.

The allowable annual harvest of RMP cranes w ill be calculated and allocated among hunting states based on the following procedure:

a. The total allowable harvest for the entire population will be based on the formula:

H = C x P x R x L x f

where: H = total allowable harvest; C = the average of the 3 most recent, reliable fall population indices. The fall population index will be the fall pre-mi gration staging survey (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming); P = the average proportion of fledged chicks in the fall population in the SLV during the most recent 3 years for which data are available (see Appendix A);57 R = estimated recruitment of fledged ch icks to breeding age (current estimate is 0.5); L = retrieval rate of 0.80 (allowance for an estimated 20% crippling loss based on hunter interviews); and f = (C/16,000) 3 (a variable factor used to adjust the total harvest to achieve a desired effect on the entire population -- see Appendix D)

This formula will be reviewed every 2 years by the Subcommittees and revised as needed. It may require periodic adjustments based on prac tical application and accumulated data. The Subcommittees may seek alternate methods to determine the base allocation.

b. The allowable harvest will be allocated am ong states based on approxi mate, relative abundance by seasonal range as follows: 1) Summer range states - 55%, to be divided as follows:

% of Summer Allocation % of Base Allocation Alberta (potential) 0%

Colorado 5% 2.7%

Idaho 40% 22.0%

Montana 26% 14.3%

Utah 12% 6.6% Wyoming 17% 9.4% Any allocation not used by a state will be made available to summer range states.58 2) Winter range and migration stopover states - 45%, to be divided as follows:

% of Winter Allocation % of Base Allocation

Arizona 13% 5.8% Colorado (SLV) 13% 5.8%

New Mexico 62% 28%

Mexico 6% 2.7%

Utah 6% 2.7% Any allocation not used by a state will be ma de available to winter range and migration

stopover states.

3) This allocation will be reviewed ever y 5 years by the Subcommittee and revised as

needed.

The Subcommittees evaluated the crane harvest allocation in March 2006, using 5 consecutive years (2001-2005) of fall pre-migration data.

Wyoming has documented that staging cranes shift their distribution in response to hunting (Lockman 1988). This behavior is a pparently learned over a period of 3-4 years once hunting begins in an area. Cranes displace outside the hunt area and move to other staging locations. By the time pre-migration surveys are done in mid- to late September, much of this redistribution has already taken place. Therefore, surveys conducted at that time may not accurately reflect the distribution of resident birds in summer range states. Thus, additional surveys (possibly pre-hunt) may be required to adjust harvest allocations. The Subcommittees will investigate other methods to derive an unbiased assessment of

crane distribution for harvest allocation.59 c. Prior to the Subcommittee's approval of a state's first hunt for an area, the requesting state must provide, where applicable, at least 3 consecutive y ears of data (usually, the most recent 3 years) on RMP numbers in the proposed hunt area, The state must demonstrate a commitment to continued monitoring of pre-migration, staging and winter areas.

d. The following information for hunting seasons must be collected and reported to the Subcommittees at the March meeting following each hunt: 1) Number of cranes harvested; 2) Racial composition of the harvest (Schmitt a nd Hale 1997) unless all harvest is considered RMP; 3) Age composition of the harvest; 4) Crippling-loss rates (number of cranes lo st/[number of cranes lost + retrieved]). Crippling loss will be defined as cr anes knocked down, but not retrieved. 5) Number of hunters participating; 6) Number of hunter days; 7) Hunter success rate; and 8) An assessment of the effectiveness of the hunting season.

e. Hunting will be permitted in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. State hunting seasons must: 1) Be between September 1 and January 31; 2) Have a daily bag limit not to exceed 3 cranes; 3) Be permitted only on a limited quota (permit) basis; 4) Be consistent with the goals, objectives, a nd harvest allocations identified in this plan; and 5) Be approved by both the Central and Pacific Flyway councils.60 f. A state requesting a new hunting seasons, majo r changes in an existing season, or changes that

would affect the harvest allocations identified in this plan, must notify the Subcommittees, Pacific Flyway Study Committee, and Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical Committee (CFWMGBTC) in writing of its intentions at least 30 days prior to the Subcommittee's March meetings.

h. At the annual March meeting of the RMP Cran e Subcommittees, the total allowable harvest and the allocation by state for the coming hunt seas on will be determined using the formula and criteria presented above. The allocation will become a permanent record (Appendix A and meeting minutes).

Lead agencies: FWS and states. Priority: high. Schedule: Develop proposals a nd initiate seasons as appropriate61 Table 4. Annual RMP Greater Sandhill Crane Base Allocation and RMP Harvest.

Year Base AZ ID MT NM UT WY TOTAL Allot.* 1981 20 20 1982 9 143 152 1983 35 154 189 1984 33 101 134 1985 40 138 178 1986 23 195 218 1987 60 190 250 1988 40 310 128 478 1989 800 51 483 54 125 713 1990 374 9 79 35 58 181 1991 800 44 47 48 101 240 1992 800 39 42 147 168 396 1993 780 61 45 297 28 115 546 1994 864 27 40 416 34 150 667 1995 547 33 41 270 27 77 448 1996 545 27 20 49 236 32 84 448 1997 632 22 136 62 114 30 82 446 1998 693 37 135 59 180 34 93 538 1999 974 21 190 71 198 54 124 658 2000 1141 37 193 91 257 69 163 810 2001 1175 26 278 87 288 77 142 898 2002 833 42 194 51 160 60 132 639 2003 668 34 146 50 169 57 72 528 2004 656 35 142 51 189 53 124 594 2005 906 50 189 49 236 62 116 702 2006 1321 * Includes Mexico’s portion of the base allotment.62 Crop Damage Control

The Subcommittees will consider problem situations and recommend options to the appropriate state agencies for reducing or eliminating crop damage. Various individuals, nongovernme ntal organizations, and other agencies will be encouraged to suggest solutions. Options include:

1. Hunting Seasons . Hunting seasons should be conducted in a manner that will either reduce the number of cranes to management plan objective leve ls or harass problem cranes from areas of damage to areas where either damage is tolerated, food is specifically provided for cranes, or both. Hunting to control specific damage problems will be allowe d even when the population index is below 15,000 birds; these hunts must be designed to relieve a specific problem and where necessary, coordinated among the states for effective dispersal. Limite d quota permits will be required and issued for use only in those specific locations where hunting is desi red. All other criteria previously detailed for "hunting" must be followed. Closely-regulated, hun ting has been used effectively in Wyoming since 1982 to manage cranes and Canada geese causing crop damage (Lockman et al. 1987). Regulated hunting has greatly reduced depredation complaints in New Mexico. The timing of season dates and assistance from Wildlife Services personnel placing hunt ers in areas experiencing crane depredations reinforces hazing programs and encourages cr ane movements onto state and federal refuges (Mitchusson 2003).

2. Supplemental Feed Crop and Direct Feeding Programs . Use of supplemental feed crops (strategically located crops planted specifically as crane food) or directly feeding grain to cranes, either in conjunction with or without hunting seasons, can e ffectively reduce crop damage. State and federal refuges can have a major role towards contributi ng increasing grain crops for crane use. These programs are effective when used in conjunction w ith hunting seasons, hazing, harassment, etc. or

when other methods are infeasible.63 3. Hazing and Harassment . Aircraft, explosive devices, or other deterrents may be used to move birds from croplands and adjacent roost sites.

4. Habitat Manipulation . In certain situations, it may be possi ble to encourage landowners to change farming practices to reduce the attractiveness of crops to cranes, eliminate roosts, or make crop plantings available for cranes near roosts. Appli cation of proven methods shoul d be used in order to predict and alleviate problems.

5. Extension Services . State and federal agencies, in coope ration with key stakeholders, may find it beneficial to provide field demonstrations of me thods available to reduce crop damage by cranes.

6. Lethal Control . Hunting is a management alternative that is available to every state in the range of the RMP. The available harvest allocation is very lim ited, even during years of high recruitment, and public demand exceeds the availability of permits in all states that hunt cranes. Therefore, the

Councils believe the harvest alloca tion should be used to meet the public’s demand for sport hunting. Permits for hunts must be distributed to the public through a random process. Non-lethal management alternatives are outlined in options 2-5 to help alleviate crop damage problems in states that for political or social reasons choose not to implement hunts. Other lethal control must be consistent with the following: 1) Depredation control programs are subject to RMP sandhill crane management plan objective levels and should include c onsultations with all affected ag encies and stakeholders within the RMP sandhill crane range; 2) Public hunting is the preferred method of population control for reducing agricultural depredation; 3) When public hunting is not possible and non-lethal control options have been exhausted, ot her lethal control methods should be implemented. Other lethal population reduction methods should be determined on a case-by-case basis.64 Population Surveys

1. Annual Recruitment Survey . Young:adult ratios are obtained each October in the SLV, Colorado, by ground surveys. Since 1972, the survey has been done by R. Drewien, who is reimbursed from Pacific Flyway funds. Survey methods are described in Drewien et al. (1995). Additional personnel should be trained to conduct this survey.

Lead agencies: FWS. Priority: high. Schedule: Annually.

2. Fall Population Survey . Population surveys are to be done each September when peak numbers of cranes are present on pre-migration staging areas in summer range states. These fall surveys replaced the spring survey in the SLV to measure population tre nds. The average of the 3 most recent, reliable surveys, described in Objective A, will be used in the harvest allocation formula.

The September survey will be done from both th e air and ground, as appropriate, during a 5-day window between 5-25 September each year, as identifie d by the FWS consultant count coordinator. An effort will be made to complete the count dur ing 3 consecutive days within the 5-day window. If conditions prevent a state cooperator from meeting this schedule, counts must be completed as soon thereafter as conditions permit. The 5-day wi ndow will be timed to obtain the maximum count possible and generally prior to any substantial crane movement from staging areas. The FWS will assign its Flyway Biologist and Division of Migrat ory Bird Management (DMBM) aircraft to conduct the survey over assigned staging areas. Coopera ting states will conduct counts on the remaining staging areas during the same period. A qualified cons ultant will be retained by the DMBM, to assist the FWS biologist in conducting aerial surveys. Th e consultant’s costs will be reimbursed from the

FWS Administrative Fund.65 The FWS crew will schedule the 5-day survey window by mid-August based on an evaluation of habitat conditions, breeding season chronology, clim atic patterns, weather forecasts, and crane movements. The FWS’s Flyway biologist will contact each state and specify the count period at the earliest possible date, but not later than 2 weeks prior to the survey. An effort will be made to select a 3-day target period within the 5-day window. States are encouraged to make an effort to count RMP cranes outside the identified staging areas to locate additional concentrations and to address distribution shifts, provided such surveys are also conducted within the 5-day count window.

The Flyway biologist will maintain a current list of state contacts for this crane survey. Unless indicated otherwise, these contacts shall be th e respective Subcommittee members representing the cooperating states. State cooperators will forward results of any surveys they conduct to the FWS Flyway biologist by 30 September each year

.

Lead agencies: FWS and all states with breeding cranes. Priority: high. Schedule: Annually. FWS will report to the Subcommittees by 1 December each year

.

Staging areas to be surveyed annually are listed belo w. Areas designated for coverage by the FWS aerrial survey crew are underlined. Surveys in the remaining areas are the responsibilities of the states, FWS refuge personnel and other cooperators.

3. Funding . The costs of the FWS portion of the fall pre-migr ation survey are shared among the FWS and states with RMP cranes. The FWS pays for an airplane and one pilot/observer. A consultant is retained by the FWS to assist with aerial surveys, ground counts, and data compilation. The consultant’s costs are paid from the

FWS Administrative Account.66 States with assigned coverage areas during the fall pre-migration staging counts pay for their own personnel and equipment costs to complete the survey s. A consultant is retained by the Pacific Flyway Council to conduct the October recruitment su rvey and data compilation. The consultant’s costs are negotiated periodically and paid from the Pacific Flyway Administrative Account.



### Colorado Montana Wyoming

Lower Elk River Blackfoot/Ovando ValleyHelmville Baggs Yampa Valley (includes Hayden) Cascade-Ulm Bear River Valley Delta Co. - other Centennial Valley Greybull River/Otto (Fruitgrower's Res.\Hart' s Basin, Delta Co.) Deadman’s Basin Shoshone River/Ralston San Luis Valley Dillon-Twin Bridges Big Piney Gallatin Valley- includes Belgrade Bridger Valley Helena Valley Farson Melville Hams Fork 

### Idaho Musselshell River - inc. Harlowtown Pinedale-Cora

Otter Creek Seedskadee NWR Amer. Falls Res. Teton River-Eureka Res. Saratoga (Upper N. Platte Valley) Ashton-St. Anthony Toston-Townsend Jackson Hole Bear Lake Valley Upper Madison Valley – inc. Ennis Star Valley (Salt River) Blackfoot Res. Warm Springs Hidden Valley (Boysen-Riverton) Camas NWR White Sulphur Springs Ocean Lake Camas Prairie Whitehall Riverview Valley Carey Lake area Chesterfield Res. 

### Utah Grays Lake NWR Henrys Lake Flats Cache Co. Island Park Res. Box Elder Co. Kilgore Davis Co. Market Lake WMA Weber Co. Marsh Valley Bear River Valley (Rich Co.) Mud Lake WMA Round Valley (Rich Co.) Oxford Slough-Swan Lake Summit Co. Silver Creek Jensen (Uintah Co.) Teton Basin Pelican Lake area (Uintah Co.) Leland Bench (Uintah Co.) Morgan Co.67 Research

As appropriate, the Subcommittees will develop re search proposals, recommend needed research, and review research proposals. In these actions, the S ubcommittees will give prior ity to research conducted on the RMP or regional flocks/subpopulations, rather than lo cal projects. If sufficient resources are available, the flyway councils, on recommendation of the S ubcommittees, may help fund such research.

1. Refinement of Adult and Juvenile Survival Estimates . Recruitment of fledged colts to breeding age is an important component of the formula used to calcula te allowable harvest. The current figure, 0.5, is an approximation based on limited data. The Counc il encourages development of a more accurate

recruitment estimate and better documentation based on an analysis of historic banding and color marking data.

Lead agency/group: RMP Crane Subcommittees. Participating: FWS, academic institutions, and consultants with applicable expertise. Priority: High. Schedule: Continuing.

2. Spring Food Supplies and Wetland Availability in the SLV . In recent years, changing agricultural practices in the SLV have diminished food ava ilability and increased competition among the RMP, other crane subspecies, and waterfowl during the sp ring migration period. There is concern limited food supplies may impact body condition and reproduc tive potential of RMP cranes returning to their summer range. Research indicates this currently is not a problem (Gammonley and Laubhan, in review). The Councils encourages further investiga tion of this problem, including the extent to which limited food resources may be impacting maintena nce and growth of the population. Another component of this research may include investig ating the feasibility of augmenting food supplies by developing natural forage sites through we tland creation and enhancement.68 Lead agency/group: RMP Crane Subcommittees. Participating: FWS, Monte Vista NWR, C DOW, academic institutions, and consultants with applicable expertise. Priority: High. Schedule: Continuing.

3. Techniques for Controlling Crop Damage . The Subcommittees encourages development and testing of techniques that will reduce or eliminate crop damage by cranes. If sufficient resources are available, the Subcommittees may help fund such research.

Lead agencies: Wildlife Services. Participating: States having depredation problems. Priority: high. Schedule: Continuing.

VII. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PLAN AND REPORTING

The Subcommittees will meet annually or as needed to re view progress toward achieving the goals and objectives of this plan and to recommend revisions to the Paci fic Flyway Study Committee and the CFWMGBTC. The CFWMGBTC and the Pacific Flyway Study Committee will subm it all proposed revisions to this management plan to both the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils for approva l. As appropriate, the Subcommittees will also report on accomplishments and shortcomings of its cooperative management efforts to both councils, those state and federal agencies having management responsibilities, and those agenci es and organizations either interested or cooperating in the management of cranes.69 VIII. REFERENCES CITED

Armbruster, M.J. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: greater sandhill crane. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.140). 26pp. Ballard, B.M., J.E. Thompson, M.T. Merendino, J.D. Ra y, J.A. Roberson, T.C. Tacha. 1997. Demographics of the Gulf Coast subpopulation of Mid-continent sa ndhill cranes. Paper presented at the 4th Ann. Conf. of The Wildlife Society. Snowmass Village, CO, Sept 21-27, 1997 Benning, D.S., R.C. Drewien, D.H. Johnson, W.M. Brown, and E.L. Boeker. 1997. Spring population estimates of Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes in Colorado. Proceedings North American Crane Workshop 7: 165-172. Bieniasz, K.A. 1978. Biology of the greater sandhill crane in Routt County, Colorado. M.A. Thesis, Univ. Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. 72pp. Bieniasz, K.A. 1979. The greater sandhill crane in Routt County, Colorado, pp. 197-203 in J.C. Lewis, editor. Proceedings 1978 Crane Workshop. Colora do State University Printing Service, Ft. Collins, CO. Boise, C.M. 1976. Breeding biology of the lesser sandhill crane Grus canadensis canadensis (L.) on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. M.S. thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 79pp. Braun, C.E., R.C. Drewien, C.D. Littlefield, and L.H. Walkinshaw. 1975. Conservation committee on status of sandhill cranes. Wilson Bulletin. 87(2):297-302. Brown, W.M., and R.C. Drewien. 1995. Evalua tion of two powerline markers to reduce crane and waterfowl collision mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23:217-227. Brown, W.M., R.C. Drewien, and E.G. Bizeau. 1987. Mortality of cranes and waterfowl from powerline

collisions in the San Luis Va lley, Colorado. Pages 128-136 in J.C. Lewis and J.W. Ziewitz, eds. Proceedings 1985 Crane Workshop. The Platte River Whooping Crane Trust and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Grand Is., NE.70 Buller, R.J. 1982. Distribution of sandhill cranes wintering in Mexico. Pages 266-272 in J.C. Lewis, ed. Proc. 1981 crane workshop. Nationa l Audubon Society, Tavernier, FL. Drewien, R.C. 1973. Ecology of Rocky Mountain great er sandhill cranes. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 152 pp. Drewien, R.C. 2005. October 2005 Recruitment survey of the Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. Special Report in the files of the Central Flyway Representative. Denver, CO. 2pp. Drewien, R.C., and E.G. Bizeau. 1974. Status and distri bution of greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 38:720-742. Drewien, R.C., and E.G. Bizeau. 1978. Cross-fosteri ng whooping cranes to sandhill crane foster parents. Pages 201-222 in S.A. Temple, ed. Endangered birds: management techniques for preserving threatened species. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison. Drewien, R.C., and J.C. Lewis. 1987. Status and distribution of cranes in North America. Pages 469-477 in G.W. Archibald and R.F. Pasquier, eds. Pro ceedings 1983 International Crane Workshop. Int. Crane Foundation, Baraboo, WI. Drewien, R.C., W.M. Brown, and D.S. Benning. 1996. Distribution and abundance of sandhill cranes in Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60(2):270-285. Drewien, R.C., W.M. Brown, and J.D. Varley. 1987. The greater sandhill crane in Yellowstone National Park: a preliminary survey. Pages 27-38 in J.C. Lewis and J.W. Ziewitz, eds. Proceedings 1985 Crane Workshop. The Platte River Whooping Crane Trust and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Grand Is.,

NE. Drewien, R.C., W.M. Brown, and W.L. Kendall. 1995. Recruitment in Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes and comparisons with other populations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59(2):339-356. Drewien, R.C., W. M. Brown, D.C. Lockman, W.L. Kendall, K.R. Clegg, V.K. Graham, S.S. Manes. 2001. Band recoveries, mortality factors, and survival of Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes. Unpublished report, Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Bozeman, MT. (on file, DMBM office, UWFWS, Denver, CO).71 Drewien, R.C., A. Lafón T., J. P. Taylor, J. M. Ochoa B., and R. E. Shea. 2003. Status of lesser snow geese and Ross’s geese wintering in the Interior Hi ghlands of Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin

31:417-432. Drewien, R.C., and P.P Thorpe. 2005. September 2005 survey of the Rocky Mountain population of the greater sandhill cranes. Special Report in the fil es of the Central Flyway Representative. Denver, CO. 8pp. Gammonley, J.H., and M.K. Laubhan. In review. Spring feeding ecology and body condition of Rocky Mountain Population sandhill cranes in Colorado. Guthery, F.S. 1975. Food habits of sandhill cranes in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management

39:221-223. Iverson, G.C., P.A. Vohs, and T.C. Tacha. 1985b. Habitat use by sandhill cranes wintering in western Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:1074-1083. Kauffeld, J.D. 1982. Management of migratory crane habitat on Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges. Pages 117-121 in J.C. Lewis, ed. Proceedings 1981 Crane Workshop, Nat. Audubon Soc., Tavernier, FL. Kauffeld, J.D. 1987. An avian cholera epizoo tic among sandhill cranes in Colorado. Pages 145-148 in J.C. Lewis, ed. Proceedings 1985 crane workshop. Pl atte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maint. Trust, Grand Island, NE. Krapu, G.L., D.E. Facey, E.K. Fritzell, and D.H. Johnson. 1984. Habitat use by migrant sandhill cranes in Nebraska. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:407-417. Lafón A. and D.M. Soto. 1989. Evaluacion del aprov echamiento cinegético en el estado de Chihuahua. Reporte Final NAWCA-SEDUE-U.S. F&WS. Lewis, J.C. 1976. Roost habitat a nd roosting behavior of sandhill cranes in the southern Central Flyway. Pages 93-104 in J. C. Lewis, editor. Proceedings 1975 Crane Workshop. Oklahoma State University Publishing and Printing, Stillwater, OK.72 Lewis, J.C., Chairman. 1977. Sandhill crane. Pages 4-53 in G. C. Sanderson, editor. Management of migratory shore and upland game birds in North Am erica. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. Littlefield, C.D. and S.M. Lindstedt. 1992. Survival of juvenile greater sandhill cranes at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, OR. Pages 21-31 in D.A. Wood, ed. Proc. 1988 North Am. Crane workshop. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm. Nongame W ildlife Program Tech. Rep. 12. Tallahassee, FL. Littlefield, C.D. and S.P. Thompson. 1987. Distribu tion and status of the Central Valley Population of greater sandhill cranes. Pages 113-120 in J.C. Le wis, ed. Proc. 1978 crane workshop. Colorado State Univ. Printing Serv., Fort Collins, CO. Lockman, D.C. 1988. Summary of early sandhill crane and Canada goose hunting, 1982-87, sandhill crane management, and recommendations for 1988. Dept . Rept. WY Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 18pp + Appendices. Lockman, D.C., M. Rowland, and R.C. Drewien. 1986. Progress report, Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes -- Wyoming portion. WY. Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne, WY. 22 pp. Lockman, D.C., L. Serdiuk, and R.C. Drewien. 1987. An experimental greater sandhill crane and Canada goose hunt in Wyoming. Pages 47-57 in J.C. Lewis and J.W. Ziewitz, eds. Proc. 1985 Crane Workshop. The Platte River Whooping Crane Trus t and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Grand Is., NE.Manes, S.S., R.C. Drewien, J.D. Huener, T.W. Aldrich, and W.M. Brown. 1992. Distribution of colormarked greater sandhill cranes banded in Utah. Pages 55-60 in D.A. Wood, ed. Proc. 1988 North Am. Crane workshop. Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Nongame Wildl. Program Tech. Rep. 12, Tallahassee, FL. Meine, C.D. and G.W. Archibald, editors. 1996. Th e cranes: - Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 294pp. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Mitchusson, T.E., 2003. Long-range plan for the mana gement of sandhill cranes in New Mexico. NM Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. 46pp. Mullins, W.H., and E.G. Bizeau. 1978. Summer foods of sandhill cranes in Idaho. Auk 95:175-178.73 Nesbitt, S.A. 1989. The significance of mate loss in Florida sandhill cranes. Wilson Bulletin 101:648-

651. Nesbitt, S.A., and T.C. Tacha 1997. Monogamy and productivity in sandhill cranes. Proceedings North American Crane Workshop 7:10-13. Nesbitt, S.A., and A.S. Wenner. 1987. Pair forma tion and mate fidelity in sandhill cranes, pp. 117-122 in J.C. Lewis, editor. Proceedings 1985 Crane Work shop. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, NE. Perkins, D.L., and D.E. Brown. 1981. The sandhill cran e in Arizona. AZ. Game and Fish Dept. Spec. Pub. 11, Phoenix. 47pp. Peterson, M.K., and R.C. Drewien. 1997. Hart’s Basin, Colorado, a spring migration stopover area for Rocky Mountain sandhill and whooping cranes. Proceedings North American Crane Works hop

7:153-156. Reed, J.R. 1988. Arctic adaptations in the breed ing biology of sandhill cranes, Grus canadensis, on Banks Island, Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(4): 643-648. Reinecke, K.J., and G.L. Krapu. 1986. Feeding ecology of sandhill cranes during spring migration in Nebraska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:71-79. Rowland, M.W., L. Kinter, T. Banks, and D.C. Lockma n. 1992. Habitat use by greater sandhill cranes in Wyoming. Pages 82-85 in D.A. Wood, ed. Proc. 1988 North Am. Crane Workshop. Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Nongame Wildl. Pr ogram Tech. Rep. 12, Tallahassee, FL. Schmitt, C.G., and B. Hale. 1997. Sandhill crane hunts in the Rio Grande Valley and southwest New Mexico. Proceedings North American Crane Workshop. 7: 219-231. Snyder, S.B., M.J. Richard, R.C. Drewien, and J.C. Lewi s. 1987. Pasteurella multocida infestation in a whooping crane associated with an avian cholera outbreak. Pages 149-155 in J.C. Lewis, ed. Proceedings 1985 crane workshop. Platte River Whooping Crane Hab itat Maint. Trust, Grand Island, NE. Stahlecker, D.W. 1992. Crane migration in northern New Mexico. Pages 1-7 in D.A. Wood, ed. Proc. 1988 North Am. crane workshop. Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fi sh Comm., Nongame Wildl. Program Tech. Rep. 12. Tallahassee, FL.74 Tacha, T.C. 1988. Social organization of sandhill cr anes from mid-continental North America. Wildlife Monographs 99. Tacha, T.C., and J.C. Lewis. 1979. Sex determinati on of sandhill cranes by cloacal examination. pp. 81-

83 in J.C. Lewis, editor. Proceedings 1978 Crane Wo rkshop. Colorado State University Printing Service, Ft. Collins, CO. Tacha, T.C., S.A. Nesbitt, and P.A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill crane. In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill. Editors. The birds of North America, 31. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Tacha, T.C., S.A. Nesbitt, and P.A. Vohs. 1994. Sandhill crane. pp. 76-94 in T.C. Tacha and C.E. Braun, editors. Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North America. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. Tacha, T.C., and P.A. Vohs. 1984. Some population parameters of sandhill cranes from mid-continental North America. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:89-98. Tacha, T.C., P.A. Vohs, and G.C. Iverson. 1984. Migration routes of sandhill cranes from Mid-continent North America. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(3):1028-1033. Tacha, T.C., P.A. Vohs, and G.C. Iverson. 1987. Time and energy budgets of sandhill cranes from midcontinental North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:440-448. Taylor, J.P. 1999. A plan for the management of wate rfowl, sandhill cranes, and other migratory birds in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 51pp. Taylor, J.P., and R.E. Kirby. 1990. Experimental dispersal of wintering snow and Ross’ geese. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:312-319. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servi ce, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996. National survey of fishing, hunti ng and wildlife-associated recreation-New Mexico. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 47pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Baca NWR con ceptual management plan. San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Unpublished management plan, Alamosa, CO.75 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001-2002 sandh ill crane populations, middle Rio Grande Valley. Bosque del Apache NWR. Unpublished report, San Antonio, NM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping crane recovery plan. Albuquerque, NM. 92pp. Walker, D.L., and S.D. Schemnitz. 1987. Food habits of sandhill cranes in relationship to agriculture in central and southwestern New Mexico. pp. 201-212 in J.C. Lewis, editor. Proceedings 1985 Crane Workshop. Platte River Whooping Crane Hab itat Maintenance Trust, Grand Island, NE. Walkinshaw, L.H. 1949. The sandhill cranes. Cranbrook Inst. Sci., Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Bull. 29. 202pp. Walkinshaw, L.H. 1973. Cranes of the world. Winchester Press, New York. Windingstad, R.M. 1988. Nonhunting mortality in sa ndhill cranes. Journal of Wildlife Management

52:260-263.76 IX. ACRONYMS USED

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department

BoR Bureau of Reclamation Bosque Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CFWMGBTC Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical Committee FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game MCP Mid-continent population MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks MRGV Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico MRGV Plan A Plan for the Management for Waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes and other Migratory Birds NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service RMP Rocky Mountain Population of greater sandhill cranes SEMARNAT Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales SLV San Luis Valley, Colorado TNC The Nature Conservancy

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Services U.S. Dept. of Agricultural-Animal Plant Health Inspection Services WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WMA Waterfowl Management Area USDA U.S. Dept. of Agriculture77 APPENDIX A.

RMP SANDHILL CRANE POPULATION ESTIMATES, RECRUITMENT, AND HARVEST SUMMARIES, 1981-2005. *

SURVEY ARIZONA

Year March Total San Luis Valley September Total Pre-migration % Juvenile Fall, San

Luis Valley Recruitment Rate 5-Year Mean Total Allowable Harvest Harvest Allocation Actual Harvest

1981 NC 7.6 20 1982 NC 8.8 9 1983 NC 11.6 35 1984 13,125 8.1 33 1985 20,429 9.0 9.0 40 1986 15,382 5.8 8.6 23 1987 15,121 17,481 5.4 8.0 60 1988 19,135 3.4 6.3 166 40 1989 17,303 4.1 5.5 800 96 51 1990 20,868 6.5 5.0 374 39 9 1991 16,519 5.3 4.9 800 85 44

1992 20,014 (ground count) 19,297 5.2 4.86 800 82 39

1993 17,597 (poor conditions) 6.1 5.4 780 76 61 1994 15,063 3.9 5.36 864 84 27 1995 11,939-18,557 16,028 6.4 5.34 547 65 33 1996 10,341-18,458 16,938 9.4 6.20 545 65 27

October Total San Luis Valley September Total Pre-migration 3-Year Mean

1997 13,620-24,056 18,036 9.7 8.5 632 56 22

1998 18,202 11.2 10.1 693 50 37

1999 19,501 8.4 9.9 974 64 21

2000 19,990 6.7 8.8 1,141 75 37

2001 16,559 5.8 7.0 1,175 77 26

2002 18,803 5.2 5.9 833 55 42

2003 19,523 7.1 6.0 668 44 34

2004 18,510 9.4 7.2 656 43 35

2005 20,865 10.8 9.1 906 59 5078 APPENDIX A. (continued) * Appendix A includes the historic data used to calculate allowabl e harvest, as it was recorded in this plan. Appendix B is a rework of the SLV spring survey data by Benning et al. (1997). The discre pancies in spring survey data resulted from their application o f correction methods.

 Ranges are minimum and maximum estimates of RMP greaters ba sed on the numbers of cranes in the overlap range for RMP greaters and mid-size cranes.

WYOMING UTAH NEW MEXICO

Year Harvest Allocation Actual Harvest Harvest Allocation Actual Harvest Harvest Allocation Middle Rio Grande Southwest 1981 1982 143 1983 154 1984 101 1985 138 1986 195 1987 190 1988 212 128 793 190 120 1989 128 125 68 54 454 483 0 1990 70 58 49 35 184 79 0 1991 150 101 70 48 450 34 13 1992 154 168 80 0 388 126 21 1993 120 115 70 28 415 277 20 1994 152 150 73 34 401 406 10 1995 100 77 46 27 268 ≅ 198 12 1996 100 84 50 32 252 236 4



### * Middle Rio Grande Valley (MRGV), Southwes t New Mexico (SW), Estancia Valley (EV) *MRGV *SW *EV 1997 100 82 45 30 198 111 3 N/A 1998 110 93 35 34 242 173 7 N/A 1999 140 124 69 54 305 189 9 N/A 2000 170 163 80 69 358 248 6 3 2001 170 142 83 77 386 290 9 0 2002 132 132 66 60 261 154 13 0 2003 106 72 53 57 210 169 3 0 2004 104 124 52 53 206 172 15 2 2005 144 116 74 62 284 225 10 179 APPENDIX A. (continued)

MONTANA COLORADO IDAHO

Year Harvest Allocation Actual Harvest Harvest Allocation Actual Harvest Harvest Allocation Actual Harvest TOTAL HARVEST (excluding

Mexico) 1981 20 1982 152 1983 189 1984 134 1985 178 1986 218 1987 250 1988 478 1989 760 1990 181 1991 240

1992 59 42 382

1993 45 704 1994 69 40 667 1995 44 41 0 0 0 0 388 1996 54 49 0 0 20 20 417

1997 66 62 0 0 148 136 446 1998 65 59 0 0 170 135 538 1999 78 71 40 40 248 190 698 2000 110 91 40 20 273 193 830 2001 110 87 40 0 273 278 898 2002 81 51 0 0 213 194 643 2003 64 50 0 0 171 146 528 2004 63 51 0 0 168 142 594 2005 88 49 0 0 231 189 70280 APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL SPRING SURV EYS CONDUCTED FROM 1984-96 IN THE SAN LUIS VALLEY, COLORADO *

Year/Date Raw Aerial Estimate Adjusted for Estimation Bias(EstimateSE) Crew Estimation Error Proportion of Lessers Adjusted to Remove Lessers a(EstimateSE) RMP Cranes Outside Survey Area Aerial Survey Conditions Population Index 1984/ 14-15 10,962 14,488 + 918 -24.3 % n=42 b 6.4 % c 13,562 + 859 550 (NM-500) (CO-50) Poor 14,112 1985/ 13-14 18,393 21,773 + 1,403 -15.5 % n=75 6.4 % c 20,382 + 1,314 0 Good 20,382

1986/ 8-9 14,031 d d n= 8 6.4 % c 13,135 + 17 20 (WY) Poor 13,155 1987/ 14 13,561 15,661 + 778 -13.4 % n=21 6.4 % n=5,056 14,660 + 729 0 Poor 14,660 1988/ 3-4 17,510 d d n= 2 6.5 % n=7,617 16,381 + 21 22 (UT) Poor 16,403 1989/ 11 17,302 18,389 + 963 - 5.9 % n=50 7.5 % n=6,795 17,004 + 891 0 Good 17,004 1990/ 14 20,851 24,593 + 1,341 -15.2 % n=83 13.7 % n=8,298 21,221 + 1,157 275 (CO) Good 21,496 1991 9 19,990 18,405 + 685 + 8.6 % n=69 12.8 % n=9,406 16,045 + 598 175 (CO) Good 16,220 1992/ 14 23,516 e d d n= 0 15.0 % n=5,998 19,999 + 28 9 (CO) Poor e 20,008 1993/ 11 17,576 d d n=0 6.3 % n=5,698 16,478 + 18 1,260 (CO-70) (NM-1,190) Poor 17,738

1994/ 6 17,229 16,035 + 884 + 7.4 % n=33 6.1 % n=7,353 15,063 + 831 203 (NM-137) (CO-66) Fair 15,266

1995/ 7 25,276 23,390 + 1,215 + 8.1 % n=70 12.6 % n=7,448 20,229 + 1,052 0 Good 20,229

1996/ 11 23,019 26,379 + 1,780 -14.5 % n=47 13.8 % n=9,561 22,737 + 1,535 1,010 (CO) Good 23,747 x (13 yr) 10 18,401 19,902 + 1,107 - 7.5 % n=38 10.1% f n=7,323 17,454 + 696 271 All Years 17,725 x (7 yr) g 11 21,192 22,155 + 1,231 - 6.1 % n=66 11.7 % n=7918, 19,660 + 939 243 Good Years 19,869

a Calculated after re moving estimation bias.

b Number of flocks in photographic sample.

c Adjusted with 1987 value as no surveys to dete rmine proportion of lessers were conducted in 1984-86

d No adjustment made (sample too small).

e Ground counts on feeding sites (n=13).

f Years 1984 - 86 not included.

g Includes 7 years considered comparab le (1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, and 1996). * Source: Benning, D.S., R.C. Drewien, D. H. Johnson, W.M. Brown, and E.L. Boeker. 1997. Spring population estimates of Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes in Colorado. Pr oc. North Am. Crane Workshop. 7:165-172.81 APPENDIX C.

WHOOPING CRANE EXPERIMENTS IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION In 1975, RMP sandhill cranes known to winter in the MR GV were used experimentally as foster-parents in an attempt to establish a second free flying, mi gratory population of whooping cranes (Drewien and Bizeau 1978). From 1975-88, 288 eggs were transfe rred to sandhill crane nests, 210 hatched and 87 fledged. The RMP whooping crane population peaked at 35 in 1984-85. Additional efforts to introduce captive female whooping cranes or chicks into male territories were unsuccessful. Failure to produce any chicks or mated pairs and high mortality resulted in discontinuing the program in 1994 (USFWS 1994). In 1997, an experiment was c onducted to evaluate the feasibility of im parting learned migration behavior to captive-reared whooping cranes by imprinting them on, and leading them with, an ultra-light aircraft and its pilot. This technique was later applied to reintr oduction efforts within the central and eastern U.S. Antecedent to this research, a similar project was done in 1995-96 using surrogate sandhill cranes. Eleven sandhills were captive reared in 1995 at a location in southeast Idaho and led 800 miles to Bosque del Apache NWR in central New Mexico. Four survived and migrated north in spring. Three of the 4 returned to Bosque del Apache NWR in fall, 1996. The research was repeated using 8 sandhills in 1996 to refine the technique. The whooping crane experiment began in summer, 1997, with 7 captive chicks (USFWS 1997). FWS published a final rule in the Federal Register on 21 July, 1997, designating the Rocky Mountain population of whooping cranes experimental/nonessen tial. The research proposal was to lead the cranes with an ultralight aircraft following a migration route from southeas t Idaho to Bosque del Apache in late summer/early fall, then to see if the birds migrate north independently in the spring. Four whooping cranes and 8 sandhills were part of the experiment following an u ltralight aircraft to Bosque del Apache NWR. Two whooping cranes were lost to predators at Bosque NWR and two migrated north in the spring. The last RMP whooping crane was seen the winter of 2001-02 in the Casa Colorada WMA, NM area. There are no plans to introduce additional whoopi ng cranes into the Rocky Mountain region (U.S. Department of Interior, USFWS 2001). The presence of whooping cranes required adjustme nts to the MRGV sandhill crane and light goose hunting programs and required hunters pass a bird identif ication course to participate. These education programs were successful, as no RMP whooping cranes were lost to hunting.82 APPENDIX D.

RATIONALE FOR REVISING THE HARVEST ADJUSTM ENT FACTOR “f” IN THE FORMULA TO CALCULATE ALLOWABLE ANNUAL HARVEST The subcommittee discussed whether the population goals and thresholds formerly established for the spring survey would be appropriate for fall surveys. The committee recognized fall surveys would not provide complete counts because cranes are more dispersed and some ingress and egress can occur during the count . Therefore, fall surveys are considered a minimum estimate and more appropriately treated as an index. A ccordingly, the committee felt revisions of the population goals, thresholds, and harves t criteria were warranted. The population objective range was changed from 18,000-22,000 to a fall survey index of 17,000-21,000. The minimum threshold for approving a hunting season was changed from 16,000 to 15,000. The harvest adjustment factor in the original allocation formula was initially revised as follows:

f = a variable factor used to adjust the total harvest to achieve a desired effect on the entire population (C) when: Original Harvest Adjustments Revised Harvest Adjustments C < 16,000 -- f = 0.0 C < 15,000 -- f = 0.0 C = 16,000-18,000 -- f = 1.5 C = 15,000-16,000 -- f = 1.0 C = 18,000-22,000 -- f = 2.0 C = 16,000-18,000 -- f = 1.5 C = 22,000-24,000 -- f = 2.4 C = 18,000-20,000 -- f = 2.0 C > 24,000 -- f = 3.0 C > 20,000 -- f = 2.4 This modification would have enabled some harvest at populations under 16,000, maintained the same allocation at 16,001 to 18,000, provided a 5 % more restrictive allocation between 18,001 and 20,000 (C = 19,000 instead of 20,000), and provided at least 20 % more liberal allocation above 20,000 (f = 2.4 instead of 2.0 and C = actual population instead of 20,000).

The original harvest adjustment factor and the above revi sion are step functions. The step function approach produces relatively stable regulations within discrete popul ation ranges. However, drastic changes in allowable harvest happen at the break-off points. In addition, highe r harvest rates are prescribed at the lower end of a population interval, and lower harvest rate s at the upper end of the same interval . This is counterintuitive. On the other hand, a continuous, exponential harv est rate avoids the instability cause d by sharp changes in harvest over very short population increments. The first approximation of a continuous “f” was developed by fitting a curve to the mid-points of the revised step intervals defined above. The continuous “f” function increased exponentially, reflecting the need for higher exploitation rates at higher population levels. The function was: f = [C/15,000] 3

This function would have enabled the allowable harvest ra te to gradually increase from 2.5 % at C=15,000 to 5.9 % at C=20,000. Based on 5-year average population paramete rs ending in 1996, this harvest function would have produced a population equilibrium around 17,400. Recognizing the uncertainties involved with the new fall surveys and harvest fo rmula, the subcommittee decided to define an “f” function which prescribed sli ghtly more conservative harvest rates. A 2 nd alternate formula (the one ultimately adopted) was devel oped using 16,000 instead of 15,000 in the de nominator of the “f” function (Fig 1). Table A. is a summary of potential harvest allocations comparing the original formula with the second (adopted) revision based on the following harvest factor:

f = [C/16,000] 383 Table A. Comparison of allowable harvests based on the original crane plan formula and the revised formula using a continuous, exponential “f” (harvest factor) function. a

_ __________________________________________________________________________________

Original Revised Formula with Crane Plan f = Fn(C) = (C/16,000) 3 Formula and C = Actual Count C = Population Fall H H Estimate Pop Allowable Harvest Allowable Harvest or Index b Estimate c f Harvest Rate f Harvest Rate 15,000 (15,991) 0.00 000 0.00 % 0.82 307 2.01 % 16,000 (17,058) 1.50 632 3.71 % 1.00 397 2.42 % 17,000 (18,124) 1.50 632 3.49 % 1.20 506 2.89 % 18,000 (19,190) 2.00 992 5.17 % 1.42 636 3.41 % 19,000 (20,256) 2.00 992 4.90 % 1.67 789 3.99 % 20,000 (21,322) 2.00 992 4.65 % 1.95 969 4.62 % 21,000 (22,388) 2.00 992 4.43 % 2.26 1,178 5.31 % 22,000 (23,454) 2.40 1,309 5.58 % 2.60 1,419 6.06 % 23,000 (24,520) 2.40 1,369 5.58 % 2.97 1,694 6.86 % 24,000 (25,586) 3.00 1,786 6.98 % 3.38 2,009 7.72 % 25,000 (26,652) 3.00 1,860 6.98 % 3.81 2,365 8.64 % 26,000 (27,719) 3.00 1,934 6.98 % 4.29 2,767 9.62 %

___________________________________________________________________________________

a All calculations assume the 1996 5-year recruitment average @ 0.0620. b Spring or fall count used in formula.

c Fall recruitment added to the spring count only.84 APPENDIX E.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR JULY 2006 REVISIONS

Revision Page

Update Central Flyway technical committee name................................................. ii

References to the Gulf Coast subpopulati on were changed to the Texas Coastal subpopulation to match literature citati ons.......................................................... 1

Include Alberta as confirmed RMP greater sandhill crane breeding range...................... 1

Include RMP greater sandhill crane natural history................................................ 2-10

Remove section pertaining to the whooping crane experi ment and included as Appendix C.. 2

Update distribution ma p................................................................................ 11

Terminate the San Luis Valley fall population survey and direct efforts to the fall premigration survey to estimate the population and determine annual harvest allocation...................... 12

Define fall premigration survey reliability.......................................................... 12

Objectives B and C were combined into Objective B.............................................. 13

Objective C included wildlife watchi ng and other nonconsumptive uses in recreational uses.. 13

Minimizing crane crop depredations was included as Objective D............................... 14

Update population counts, locati ons and problems in the Distribution section................. 15-25

September premigration estimates in Table 1 were updated and includes current survey sites....................................................................................................... 20

Include map of September premigration survey sites as Figure 2................................. 2385 Update peak MRGV winter counts in Table 2...................................................... 26

Update Number and Population Counts section..................................................... 27-29

Insert San Luis Valley annual recruitment estimates as Table 3.................................. 29

Update Habitat section................................................................................. 29-31

Update state sections under Manage ment and Research.......................................... 31-42

Update responsible Mexico agency.................................................................. 36

Update state sections under Problems................................................................ 43-47

Update state sections under Habitat.................................................................. 47-54

Update Use of Cranes section........................................................................ 54-61

Changed requirement that states annually monito r racial composition in operational hunt areas to once every 3 years..................................................................................... 56

Remove requirement that states monitor racial composition if 100% of the harvest is considered RMP greaters................................................................................ 56

Eliminated the floating allocation with half going to summer states and half to winter/migration states...................................................................................................... 58

Revised formula for allocating unused state allocations............................................ 57-58

Review state allocations every 5 years using the recent 5-year pre-migration surveys to determine summer state locations....................................................................... 58

Revised data that must be reported to the Subcommittees......................................... 59

Standardized definition for crippling loss............................................................ 5986 Eliminate 30-day season and 9-crane season limit.................................................. 59

Delete reference to whooping crane conti ngency plan requirements.............................. 60

Update Crop Damage Control section................................................................ 62-63

Deleted spring and October surveys in the San Luis Valley and midwinter surveys to monitor population................................................................................................ 64

Updated fall pre-migration survey sites............................................................... 66

Updated Research section............................................................................... 67-68

Deleted the whooping crane/ultra-light experi ment under Research section and included under Appendix C.............................................................................................. 68

Removed Pacific Flyway subcommittee chairman rotation........................................ 68

Updated Appendix A. RMP sandhill crane population estimates, recruitment, and harvest summaries................................................................................................ 77