Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33903

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 01–6,

adopted May 30, 2001, and released

June 8, 2001. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Ohio, is amended by

removing Steubenville, Channel 278B.

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Pennsylvania, is

amended by adding Burgettstown,

Channel 278B.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–15977 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH46

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Establishment of a

Nonessential Experimental Population

of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern

United States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), will

reintroduce whooping cranes (Grus

americana) into historic habitat in the

eastern United States with the intent to

establish a migratory flock that would

summer and breed in Wisconsin, and

winter in west-central Florida. We are

designating this reintroduced

population as a nonessential

experimental population (NEP)

according to section 10(j) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),

as amended. The geographic boundary

of the NEP includes the States of

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,

Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee,

Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The objectives of the reintroduction

are: To advance recovery of the

endangered whooping crane; to further

assess the suitability of Wisconsin and

west-central Florida as whooping crane

habitat; and to evaluate the merit of

releasing captive-reared whooping

cranes, conditioned for wild release, as

a technique for establishing a selfsustaining, migratory population. The

only natural wild population of

whooping cranes remains vulnerable to

extirpation through a natural

catastrophe or contaminant spill, due

primarily to its limited wintering

distribution along the Texas gulf coast.

If successful, this action will result in

the establishment of an additional selfsustaining population, and contribute

towards the recovery of the species. No

conflicts are envisioned between the

whooping crane’s reintroduction and

any existing or anticipated Federal,

State, Tribal, local government, or

private actions such as agricultural

practices, pesticide application, water

management, construction, recreation,

trapping, or hunting.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is

June 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The complete

administrative file for this rule is

available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the Green Bay Field Office, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1015

Challenger Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin

54311.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janet M. Smith at the above address

(telephone 920–465–7440).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative

Congress made significant changes to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), with the addition of

section 10(j), which provides for the

designation of specific reintroduced

populations of listed species as

‘‘experimental populations.’’ Previously,

we had authority to reintroduce

populations into unoccupied portions of

a listed species’ historical range when

doing so would foster the recovery of

the species. However, local citizens

often opposed these reintroductions

because they were concerned about the

placement of restrictions and

prohibitions on Federal and private

activities. Under section 10(j), the

Secretary of the Interior can designate

reintroduced populations established

outside the species’ current range, but

within its historical range, as

‘‘experimental.’’

Under the Act, species listed as

endangered or threatened are afforded

protection primarily through the

prohibitions of section 9 and the

requirements of section 7. Section 9 of

the Act prohibits the take of a listed

species. ‘‘Take’’ is defined by the Act as

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or

attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Section 7 of the Act outlines the

procedures for Federal interagency

cooperation to conserve federally listed

species and protect designated critical

habitats. It mandates all Federal

agencies to determine how to use their

existing authorities to further the

purposes of the Act to aid in recovering

listed species. It also states that Federal

agencies will, in consultation with the

Service, insure that any action they

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of

a listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

designated critical habitat. Section 7 of

the Act does not affect activities

undertaken on private lands unless they

are authorized, funded, or carried out by

a Federal agency.

Section 10(j) is designed to increase

our flexibility in managing an

experimental population by allowing us

to treat the population as threatened,

regardless of the species’ designation

elsewhere in its range. Threatened

designation gives us more discretion in

developing and implementing

management programs and special

regulations for a population, such as

this rule, and allows us to develop any

regulations we consider necessary to

provide for the conservation of a

threatened species. In situations where

we have experimental populations,

certain section 9 prohibitions that apply

to threatened species may no longer

apply, and the special rules contain the

prohibitions and exceptions necessary

33904 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

and appropriate to conserve that

species.

Based on the best available

information, we must determine

whether experimental populations are

‘‘essential,’’ or ‘‘nonessential,’’ to the

continued existence of the species. An

experimental population that is

essential to the survival of the species

is treated as a threatened species. An

experimental population that is

nonessential to the survival of the

species is also treated as a threatened

species. However, for section 7

interagency cooperation purposes, if the

NEP is located outside of a National

Wildlife Refuge or National Park, it is

treated as a species proposed for listing.

Regulations for NEPs may be developed

to be more compatible with routine

human activities in the reintroduction

area.

For the purposes of section 7 of the

Act, in situations where there is an NEP

located within a National Wildlife

Refuge or National Park, the individuals

of the NEP are treated as threatened and

section 7(a)(1) and the consultation

requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the

Act would apply. Section 7(a)(1)

requires all Federal agencies to use their

authorities to conserve listed species.

Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal

agencies consult with the Service before

authorizing, funding, or carrying out

any activity that would likely jeopardize

the continued existence of a listed

species or adversely modify its critical

habitat. When NEPs are located outside

a National Wildlife Refuge or National

Park, only two provisions of section 7

would apply: Section 7(a)(1) and section

7(a)(4). Federal agencies are not

required to consult with us under

section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires

Federal agencies to informally confer

with the Service on actions that are

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a species proposed for

listing. However, since we determined

that the NEP is not essential to the

continued existence of the species, it is

very unlikely that we would ever

determine jeopardy for a project

impacting a species within an NEP.

Individuals used to establish an

experimental population may come

from a donor population, provided their

removal is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species, and

appropriate permits are issued in

accordance with our regulations (50

CFR 17.22) prior to their removal.

2. Biological

The whooping crane (Grus

americana) was listed as an endangered

species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001).

The whooping crane is classified in the

family Gruidae, Order Gruiformes. It is

the tallest bird in North America; males

approach 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet (ft)) tall.

In captivity, adult males average 7.3

kilograms (kg) (16 pounds (lb)) and

females 6.4 kg (14 lbs). Adult plumage

is snowy white except for black primary

feathers, black or grayish alulae, sparse

black bristly feathers on the carmine

(red) crown and malar region (side of

the head), and a dark gray-black wedgeshaped patch on the nape. The bill is

dark olive-gray, which becomes lighter

during the breeding season. The iris of

the eye is yellow; legs and feet are grayblack.

Adults are potentially long-lived.

Current estimates suggest a maximum

longevity in the wild of 22 to 24 years

(Binkley and Miller 1980). Captive

individuals are known to have survived

27 to 40 years (McNulty 1966, Moody

1931). Mating is characterized by

monogamous lifelong pair bonds.

Individuals re-mate following death of

their mate. Fertile eggs are occasionally

produced at age 3 years but more

typically at age 4. Experienced pairs

may not breed every year, especially

when habitat conditions are poor.

Whooping cranes ordinarily lay two

eggs. They will renest if their first clutch

is destroyed or lost before midincubation (Erickson and Derrickson

1981, Kuyt 1981). Although two eggs are

laid, whooping crane pairs infrequently

fledge two chicks. Only about one of

every four hatched chicks survives to

reach the wintering grounds (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1986)

The whooping crane first appeared in

fossil records from the early Pleistocene

(Allen 1952) and probably was most

abundant during that 2-million-year

epoch. They once occurred from the

Arctic Sea to the high plateau of central

Mexico, and from Utah east to New

Jersey, South Carolina, and Florida

(Allen 1952, Nesbitt 1982). In the 19th

century, the principal breeding range

extended from central Illinois northwest

through northern Iowa, western

Minnesota, northeastern North Dakota,

southern Manitoba, and Saskatchewan

to the vicinity of Edmonton, Alberta. A

nonmigratory breeding population

existed in southwestern Louisiana until

the early 1900’s (Allen 1952, Gomez

1992).

Through the use of two independent

techniques of population estimation,

Banks (1978) derived estimates of 500 to

700 whooping cranes in 1870. By 1941,

the migratory population contained only

16 individuals. The whooping crane

population decline in the 19th and early

20th century was a consequence of

hunting and specimen collection,

human disturbance, and conversion of

the primary nesting habitat to hay,

pastureland, and grain production

(Allen 1952, Erickson and Derrickson

1981).

Allen (1952) described several

historical migration routes. One of the

most important led from the principal

nesting grounds in Iowa, Illinois,

Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba

to coastal Louisiana. Another went from

Texas and the Rio Grande Delta region

of Mexico northward to nesting grounds

in North Dakota and the Canadian

Provinces. A route through west Texas

into Mexico probably followed the route

still used by sandhill cranes (Grus

canadensis). These whooping cranes

would have wintered in the interior

tablelands of western Texas and the

high plateau of central Mexico.

Another migration route crossed the

Appalachians to the Atlantic Coast.

These birds apparently nested in the

Hudson Bay area of Canada. Coastal

areas of New Jersey, South Carolina, and

river deltas farther south were the

wintering grounds. The latest specimen

records or sighting reports for some

eastern locations are Alabama, 1899;

Arkansas, 1889; Florida, 1927 or 1928;

Georgia, 1885; Illinois, 1891; Indiana,

1881; Kentucky, 1886; Manitoba, 1948;

Michigan, 1882; Minnesota, 1917;

Mississippi, 1902; Missouri, 1884; New

Jersey, 1857; Ohio, 1902; Ontario, 1895;

South Carolina, 1850; and Wisconsin,

1878 (Allen 1952, Burleigh 1944,

Hallman 1965, Sprunt and Chamberlain

1949).

Atlantic coast locations used by

whooping cranes included the Cape

May area and Beesley’s Point at Great

Egg Bay in New Jersey; the Waccamaw

River in South Carolina; the deltas of

the Savannah and Altamaha Rivers, and

St. Simon’s Island in Georgia; and the

St. Augustine area of Florida. Gulf coast

locations include Mobile Bay, Alabama;

Bay St. Louis in Mississippi; and

numerous records from southwestern

Louisiana, where the last bird was

captured in 1949. Coastal Louisiana

contained both a nonmigratory flock

and wintering migrants (Allen 1952,

Gomez 1992).

There is evidence to suggest that

whooping cranes occurred in Florida,

perhaps well into the 20th century

(Nesbitt 1982). Nesbitt described various

sighting reports including one by O. E.

Baynard, a respected field naturalist,

who stated that the last flock of

whooping cranes (14 birds) he saw in

Florida was in 1911 near Micanopy,

southern Alachua County. Two

whooping cranes were reported east of

the Kissimmee River on January 19,

1936, and a whooping crane was shot

(and photographed) north of St.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33905

Augustine, St. Johns County, in 1927 or

1928 (Nesbitt 1982).

Records from more interior areas of

the Southeast include the Montgomery,

Alabama, area; Crocketts Bluff on the

White River, and near Corning in

Arkansas; in Missouri at sites in Jackson

County near Kansas City, in Lawrence

County near Corning, southwest of

Springfield in Audrain County, and near

St Louis; and in Kentucky near

Louisville and Hickman. It is unknown

whether these records represent

wintering locations, remnants of a

nonmigratory population, or wandering

birds.

The historic breeding range of the

whooping crane in the United States

included Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota,

and Minnesota, with the largest number

of confirmed nesting records in Iowa

(Allen 1952). There are at least five

reliable reports from Wisconsin;

although there are no confirmed records

of nesting in Wisconsin, there is a

nesting record from Dubuque County,

Iowa (Allen 1952), which is adjacent to

Grant County, Wisconsin.

Whooping cranes currently exist in

three wild populations and at six

captive locations. The only selfsustaining natural wild population nests

in the Northwest Territories and

adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada,

primarily within the boundaries of

Wood Buffalo National Park. These

birds winter along the central Texas

Gulf of Mexico coast at Aransas

National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent

areas. Fifty pairs from this population

nested in 2000, and 176 adult whooping

cranes were reported in spring 2001.

The flock recovered from a population

low of 15 or 16 birds in 1941. This

population is hereafter referred to as the

Aransas/Wood Buffalo National Park

population (AWP).

The second largest wild population is

found in the Kissimmee Prairie area of

central Florida. We designated this

population as an experimental

nonessential population in January 1993

(58 FR 5647–5658). Since 1993, 228

isolation-reared whooping cranes have

been released in this area, in an ongoing

reintroduction effort to establish a

nonmigratory flock. As of February

2001, there are 86 surviving individuals

in the project area. Birds in this

population have reached breeding age

within the past several years. During the

2000 nesting season, a total of 15 pairs

defended territories, 3 pairs laid eggs,

and 2 of these pairs failed prior to

hatching. The remaining pair hatched

both eggs, but no chicks survived to

fledging.

The third wild flock consists of two

remaining individuals from an effort to

establish a migratory population in the

Rocky Mountains through crossfostering with greater sandhill cranes

(Grus canadensis tabida) (Drewien and

Bizeau 1977, Bizeau et al. 1987), and an

experiment in 1997 when four

whooping cranes were led behind an

ultralight aircraft between Idaho and

New Mexico (Clegg et al. 1997). The

cross-fostering project began in 1975

and has failed to produce any chicks or

mated pairs (Ellis et al. 1992a). The

term, ‘‘cross-fostering’’ refers to the

foster rearing of the whooping crane

chicks by another species, the sandhill

crane. The cross-fostered whooping

cranes have never bred with other

whooping cranes. The females in that

group may be improperly sexually

imprinted on male sandhill cranes. As

a consequence of the lack of breeding,

and the inordinately high mortality

experienced by this population, the

project was phased out.

The whooping crane captive breeding

program, initiated in 1967, has been

very successful. The Service and the

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) began

taking eggs from the nests of the wild

population in 1967, and raising the

resulting young in captivity. Between

1967 and 1993, 181 eggs were taken

from the wild to captive sites. Birds

raised from those eggs form the nucleus

of the captive flock (USFWS 1994). The

captive population is now located at

three primary locations: Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center in Laurel,

Maryland; the International Crane

Foundation (ICF) in Baraboo,

Wisconsin; and the Calgary Zoo in

Alberta, Canada. An additional captive

population was started in 1998 at the

Audubon Species Survival Center in

New Orleans, Louisiana.

The total captive population as of

February 2001 stood at 120 birds, with

109 birds present in the 3 primary

captive breeding centers, and an

additional 11 birds present at 3 other

locations. Six whooping cranes are

located at the San Antonio Zoological

Gardens, Texas; four at the Audubon

Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana; and

one at the Lowery Park Zoo in Tampa,

Florida.

Whooping cranes adhere to ancestral

breeding areas, migratory routes, and

wintering grounds, leaving little

possibility of pioneering into new

regions. The only wild, self-sustaining

breeding population can be expected to

continue utilizing its current nesting

location with little likelihood of

expansion, except on a local geographic

scale. This population remains

vulnerable to destruction through a

natural catastrophe (hurricane), a red

tide outbreak, or a contaminant spill,

due primarily to its limited wintering

distribution along the intracoastal

waterway of the Texas coast. The Gulf

Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW)

experiences some of the heaviest barge

traffic of any waterway in the world.

Much of the shipping tonnage is

petrochemical products. An accidental

spill could destroy whooping cranes

and/or their food resources. With the

only wild breeding population so

vulnerable, it is urgent that additional

wild self-sustaining populations be

established as soon as practical.

3. Recovery Efforts

The first recovery plan developed by

the Whooping Crane Recovery Team

(Team) was approved January 23, 1980.

The first revision was approved on

December 23, 1986, and the second

revision on February 11, 1994. The

short-term goal is to downlist the

whooping crane from endangered to

threatened. The criteria for attaining this

downlisting goal is achieving a

population level of 40 nesting pairs in

the AWP and establishing 2 additional,

separate, and self-sustaining

populations consisting of 25 nesting

pairs each. The recovery plan

recommends these goals should be

attained for 10 consecutive years before

the species is reclassified to threatened.

These new populations may be

migratory or nonmigratory.

In 1985, the Director-General of the

Canadian Wildlife Service and the

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service signed a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) entitled

‘‘Conservation of the Whooping Crane

Related to Coordinated Management

Activities.’’ The MOU was revised and

signed again in 1990 and 1995. It

discusses disposition of birds and eggs,

postmortem analysis, population

restoration and objectives, new

population sites, international

management, recovery plans,

consultation and coordination. All

captive whooping cranes and their

future progeny are jointly owned by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Canadian Wildlife Service.

Consequently, both nations are involved

in recovery decisions.

4. Reintroduction Sites

In early 1984, pursuant to the

recovery plan goals and the

recommendation of the Team, potential

whooping crane release areas were

selected in the eastern United States. At

that time the prognosis was favorable for

successfully establishing a western

population by use of the cross-fostering

technique. Consequently, key

considerations in selecting areas to

33906 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

evaluate for the eastern release were (1)

large areas of potentially suitable

wetland habitat; (2) a healthy sandhill

crane population sufficient to support

recovery using the cross-fostering

technique; (3) public and State agency

support for such a recovery effort in the

release locale; (4) low-to-moderate

levels of avian disease pathogens,

environmental contaminants, and

powerlines; (5) the potential of the

habitats to simultaneously support

whooping cranes and sandhill cranes;

and (6) a reasonable certainty that the

new population would not have contact

with the AWP.

The areas identified were the Upper

Peninsula of Michigan and adjacent

areas of Ontario, the Okefenokee Swamp

in southern Georgia, and three sites in

Florida. The Michigan site was

projected to eventually support a

migratory population. The Georgia and

three Florida sites would each support

a nonmigratory population. The

Michigan/Ontario wetlands are

occupied by greater sandhill cranes that

winter in Florida and the Okefenokee

Swamp of Georgia. The wetlands in

Georgia and Florida are occupied by the

nonmigratory Florida sandhill crane

(Grus canadensis pratensis) and in

winter by greater sandhill cranes, which

nest primarily in southern Ontario,

Michigan, eastern Minnesota, and

Wisconsin. Three-year studies were

initiated at each site in October 1984 to

evaluate their respective suitabilities.

Results of the studies were presented

in written final reports to the Whooping

Crane Recovery Team in fall 1987

(Bennett and Bennett 1987, Bishop

1988, McMillen 1987, Nesbitt 1988) and

in verbal reports in February 1988. By

1988, the Team recognized that crossfostering was not working to establish a

migratory population in the West. The

possibility of inappropriate sexual

imprinting associated with crossfostering, and the lack of a proven

technique for establishing a migratory

flock influenced the Team to favor

establishing a nonmigratory flock. A

nonmigratory population has features

that make it easier to achieve success:

(1) Released birds do not face the

hazards of migration (over one half of

the losses of fledged, cross-fostered

birds occurred during migration); and

(2) released birds inhabit a more

geographically limited area year-round

than do migratory cranes, which

increases the opportunity for the cranes

to find a compatible mate.

Studies of whooping cranes (Drewien

and Bizeau 1977) and greater sandhill

cranes (Nesbitt 1988) have shown that,

for these species, knowing when and

where to migrate is learned rather than

innate behavior. Captive-reared

whooping cranes released in Florida

were expected to develop a sedentary

population.

In summer 1988, the Team selected

Kissimmee Prairie in central Florida as

the area most suitable for the next

experiment to establish a self-sustaining

population. Since 1993, captive-reared

birds have been released annually in an

attempt to establish a resident,

nonmigratory flock. We expect releases

to continue for the foreseeable future.

In 1996, the Team decided to

investigate the potential for another

reintroduction site in the eastern United

States, with the intent of establishing an

additional migratory population.

Following a study of potential wintering

sites by Dr. John Cannon (Cannon 1998),

the Team selected the Chassahowitzka

NWR /St. Martin’s Marsh Aquatic

Preserve as the top wintering site for a

new migratory flock of whooping

cranes. Based on concerns that a

reintroduced population in

Saskatchewan or Manitoba might mix

with the wild AWP, the Team requested

that Dr. Cannon see if suitable

summering sites were present in

Wisconsin, an area well east of the AWP

migration corridor. The location of the

release area was chosen to fulfill the

criteria set forth by the Whooping Crane

Recovery Team, that is, to establish a

new migratory flock in a location where

there would be a minimal chance of

contact with the existing natural wild

flock. This criterion was established out

of concern for adverse impacts to the

wild flock due to exchange of disease or

undesirable behavior between any

newly established migratory flock and

the existing wild flock.

After preliminary data were gathered,

a decision was made in 1998 to focus on

three potential release sites in

Wisconsin: Crex Meadows State

Wildlife Management Area (WMA),

central Wisconsin including Necedah

NWR and several Wisconsin WMAs,

and Horicon NWR.

Detailed analysis was presented at the

Team’s meeting in September 1999

(Cannon 1999), and the Team then

recommended that releases be started in

central Wisconsin. This

recommendation was based on the

presence of suitable habitat and food

resources, favorable local attitudes, and

geographic separation from the AWP

population. The recommendation also

was contingent upon the results of

studies to further clarify the level of risk

to cranes at this location from two

separate sources. These were risks from

local contaminants in the form of

agricultural chemicals, and the

disturbance caused by aircraft

overflights associated with operations at

the nearby Hardwood Air-to-Surface

Bombing Range. The two issues were

investigated to the satisfaction of the

Team with results indicating a minimal

likelihood of occurrence for both

concerns, although the Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center may conduct

noise impact studies on whooping crane

chicks. The wintering site is the

Chassahowitzka NWR in Florida.

The objectives of the reintroduction

are: (1) To implement a primary

recovery action for a federally listed

endangered species; (2) to further assess

the suitability of Wisconsin and the Gulf

coast of Florida as whooping crane

habitat; and (3) to evaluate the

suitability of releasing captive-reared

whooping cranes, conditioned for wild

release, as a technique for establishing

a self-sustaining, migratory population.

Information on survival of released

birds, movements, behavior, causes of

losses, reproductive success, and other

data will be gathered throughout the

project. Project progress will be

evaluated annually.

The likelihood of the releases

resulting in a self-sustaining population

is believed to be good. Whooping cranes

historically occurred in the Upper

Midwest, and the release area is similar

to that which supported nesting

whooping cranes in adjacent Illinois

and Iowa. The minimum goal for

numbers of cranes to be released

annually is based on the research of

Griffith et al. (1989). As captive

production increases, annual release

numbers will be increased, dependent

upon availability. For a long-lived

species like the whooping crane,

continuing releases for a number of

years increases the likelihood of

reaching a population level that can

sustain fluctuating environmental

conditions. The rearing and release

techniques have proven successful in

building the wild population of the

endangered Mississippi sandhill cranes.

It is expected that whooping cranes

released in Wisconsin and wintering in

Florida will eventually interact with the

existing flock present in the Kissimmee

Prairie area. Whooping cranes led to

Chassahowitzka NWR behind the

ultralight aircraft may choose not to stay

in the coastal saltmarsh when released,

or may return to the Kissimmee Prairie

the following winter and interact with

the nonmigratory flock. The

nonmigratory population is prone to

wander considerable distances, and has

been observed outside of the area where

introduction efforts are under way

(Marty Folk, pers. comm.). Some

interaction during winter between

migratory and nonmigratory cranes is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33907

expected to occur. This raises the

possibility that individual birds of each

of the two flocks may acquire either

migratory or nonmigratory behavior

through association, especially if pairs

form between members of the different

populations. However, research with

sandhill cranes in Florida has shown

that migratory and nonmigratory

populations mix during winter and yet

maintain their own migratory and

nonmigratory behaviors. The same

would be expected with whooping

cranes. In light of this knowledge, we

expect that any shift in individual

migratory behavior would be limited.

Therefore, we expect that, even though

individuals of the two populations may

associate, the two flocks will remain

distinct and each will represent a

separate population as specified in the

Whooping Crane Recovery Plan

(USFWS 1994). As such, while the

levels of protection will be the same, the

two populations may be managed

differently.

We may select additional release sites

later during the project life to increase

potential breeding range. Multiple

release areas may increase the

opportunity for successful pairing

because females tend to disperse from

their natal site when searching for a

mate. Males, however, have a stronger

homing tendency towards establishing

their nesting territory near the natal area

(Drewien et al. 1989). When captivereared cranes are released at a wild

location, the birds may view the release

site as a natal area. If they do, females

would disperse away from the release

area in their search for a mate. In such

a circumstance it may be advantageous

to have several release sites to provide

a broader distribution of territorial

males. It is impossible, however, to

predict which areas will be chosen by

the birds. To allow for adapting release

techniques that will maximize the

chances for success, some flexibility

will likely be necessary in the future.

Therefore, it is possible that we will

pursue future releases at other sites,

which we may select based upon

dispersal patterns observed in the

cranes from initial releases. Several

areas previously examined for

suitability that may be candidates for

future releases (Cannon 1999) include

Horicon NWR and Crex Meadows State

WMA in Wisconsin, and Seney NWR in

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

This project has been coordinated

with potentially affected State and

Federal agencies, private landowners,

and the general public. The Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

manages several wildlife management

areas in the primary release area; the

Wisconsin DNR will be actively

involved as a cooperator in releases, and

has actively endorsed the project. The

Canadian Wildlife Service, a partner

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

as noted in the Memorandum of

Understanding, has approved the

project. The project also was

coordinated with both of the State of

Florida’s natural resource management

agencies, particularly regarding

migration and wintering aspects of the

project. The Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission (FWCC), the

State agency with responsibility for

management of fish and wildlife

resources, has expressed its support of

the project. The Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) is

charged with environmental protection

and administration of Florida’s public

conservation and recreation lands. We

coordinated with the Florida DEP and

received approval for use of the St.

Martin’s Marsh Aquatic Preserve during

the overwintering phase of the sandhill

crane migration experiment conducted

in 2000–2001. We do not anticipate

further involvement by the Florida DEP

for the whooping crane reintroduction.

If use of State lands becomes necessary

in the future, we will coordinate further

to obtain additional approvals.

We also have coordinated with the

Department of Defense (Hardwood Airto-Surface Bombing Range), which

conducts training flights in the vicinity

of Necedah NWR, and other landowners

near the release site to advise them of

the proposed whooping crane

reintroduction and obtain their input.

All have been cooperative and generally

supportive of the project.

5. Reintroduction Protocol

We will conduct an initial release of

10 to 25 juvenile, captive-reared

whooping cranes in the central

Wisconsin area. These birds will be

captive-reared to 20–40 days of age at

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in

Laurel, Maryland, the International

Crane Foundation in Baraboo,

Wisconsin, and at other captive-rearing

facilities. They will then be transferred

to facilities at the Wisconsin release site,

and conditioned for wild release to

increase post-release survival (Ellis et

al. 1992b, Zwank and Wilson 1987) and

adaptability to wild foods. The cranes

will be radio-tagged at release and

monitored to discern movements,

habitat use, other behavior, and

survival. Whooping cranes would be

released in the fall. The primary

technique associated with migration

will be leading the cranes by ultralight

aircraft to the wintering site in Florida.

If results of this initial release are

favorable, releases will be continued

with the goal of releasing up to 30

whooping cranes annually for about 10

years. Total numbers available for

release will be dependent upon

production at captive propagation

facilities and the future need for

additional releases into the Kissimmee

flock.

Since the migration route is a learned

rather than an innate behavior, captivereared whooping cranes released in

Wisconsin, or other northern areas of

suitable habitat, will need to be taught

where to migrate in order to develop the

habit of migrating to a suitable

wintering area. Captive-reared cranes

are conditioned for wild release by

being reared in isolation from humans;

by use of conspecific role models

(puppets), and by exercising with

animal care personnel in crane

costumes to avoid imprinting on

humans (Ellis et al. 1992a, Horwich

1989, Urbanek and Bookhout 1992).

This technique has been successful in

supplementing the population of

endangered nonmigratory Mississippi

sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis pulla)

(Zwank and Wilson 1987, Ellis et al.

1992b). Aircraft motor sounds are

played to young crane chicks to get

them acclimatized to engine noise. The

‘‘following’’ instinct of crane chicks is

utilized to get them conditioned to walk

behind motorized vehicles and/or

aircraft. Once acclimatized, the cranes

will follow the taxiing ultralight aircraft

and soon learn to fly behind the

ultralight. Using this technique (Clegg et

al. 1997, Lishman et al. 1997), sandhill

cranes were led in migration between

Ontario and Virginia in 1997; four

whooping cranes and eight sandhill

cranes were taught a migration between

Idaho and New Mexico in 1997. In a

further migration experiment, eleven

sandhill cranes were led from

Wisconsin to Florida by ultralight

aircraft in the fall of 2000. At least nine

of the eleven cranes returned on their

own to the release site in Wisconsin in

the spring of 2001. The status of the

other two cranes is unknown; they have

not been sighted, nor were their radiotransmitted signals recorded as of May

2001. They may have returned as well,

but were not detected because their

radio transmitters may have

malfunctioned, or because they returned

to a remote area unmonitored.

Several different strategies for

accomplishing migration to the Florida

wintering site may be utilized: (1)

Leading the cranes using an ultralight

aircraft that the birds have been

conditioned to follow; (2) allowing the

released whooping cranes to migrate

guided by wild sandhill cranes

33908 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(Urbanek and Bookhout 1994), or after

the first year, guided by previously

released whooping cranes; or (3) some

combination of these two techniques.

The rationale is to use the technique

that is thought to have the highest

probability of success, but to retain the

option of using another potentially

promising technique if conditions

warrant. As the project proceeds, the

intent is to use techniques that seem

reasonable in light of present

understanding of whooping crane

biology. However, for the first fall

migration season, the primary technique

is expected to be use of the ultralight

aircraft to lead the cranes to the chosen

wintering site in Florida; birds not

trainable to follow aircraft may be

released with wild sandhills and then

relocated to the appropriate wintering

area or returned to captivity.

Status of Reintroduced Population

We determine this reintroduction to

be nonessential to the continued

existence of the species according to the

provisions of section 10(j) of the Act.

This designation is justified because no

adverse effects to extant wild or captive

whooping crane populations will result

from release of progeny from the captive

flock. We also have a reasonable

expectation that the experiment will

result in the successful establishment of

a self-sustaining, migratory flock, which

will contribute to the recovery of the

species. The special rule is expected to

ensure that this reintroduction is

compatible with current or planned

human activities in the release area.

We have concluded that this

experimental population is nonessential

to the continued existence of the

whooping crane for the following

reasons:

(a) For the time being, the AWP and

the captive populations will be the

primary species populations. With

approximately 120 birds in captivity at

6 discrete sites, and approximately 176

birds in the AWP, the experimental

population is not essential to the

continued existence of the species. The

species has been protected against the

threat of extinction from a single

catastrophic event by gradual recovery

of the AWP and by increase and

management of the cranes at the captive

sites. Loss of the experimental

population will not jeopardize the

species’ survival.

(b) For the time being, the primary

repository of genetic diversity for the

species will be the approximately 296

wild and captive whooping cranes

mentioned in (a) above. The birds

selected for reintroduction purposes

will be as genetically redundant as

possible with the captive population,

hence any loss of reintroduced animals

in this experiment will not significantly

impact the goal of preserving maximum

genetic diversity in the species.

(c) Any birds lost during the

reintroduction attempt can be replaced

through captive breeding. Production

from the extant captive flock is already

large enough to support the release of

birds for this project, in addition to

continued releases into the Kissimmee

Prairie flock, with over 30 juveniles

available annually. We expect this

number to increase to over 40 as young

pairs already in captivity reach breeding

age. This illustrates the potential of the

captive flock to replace individual birds

proposed for release in reintroduction

efforts.

The hazards and uncertainties of the

reintroduction experiment are

substantial, but a decision not to

attempt to utilize the existing captive

breeding potential to establish a second,

wild, self-sustaining population could

be equally hazardous to survival of the

species in the wild. The AWP could be

annihilated by catastrophic events such

as a Gulf coast hurricane or a

contaminant spill on the wintering

grounds that would necessitate

management efforts to establish an

additional wild population. The

recovery goal of 3 self-sustaining wild

populations—consisting of 40 nesting

pairs in the AWP and 2 additional,

separate and self-sustaining,

populations consisting of 25 nesting

pairs each—should be in existence

before the whooping crane can be

downlisted to threatened status.

Dependent upon future events, the

nonmigratory Florida population would

potentially be the second such

population. An eastern U.S. migratory

flock could be the third population. If

this reintroduction effort is successful,

conservation of the species will have

been furthered considerably by

establishing another self-sustaining

population in currently unoccupied

habitat. It would also confirm that

captive-reared cranes can be used to

establish a migratory, wild population.

Location of Reintroduced Population

Section 10(j) of the Act requires that

an experimental population be

geographically separate from other

populations of the same species. The

designated NEP area covers most of the

eastern United States, with the

expectation that most whooping cranes

would be concentrated within the States

of Wisconsin and Florida, as well as

adjacent States, and those States within

the migration corridor. States within the

NEP area include Alabama, Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North

Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and

Wisconsin. All of these States are

considered to be within the probable

historic range of the species. Any

whooping crane found within this area

will be considered part of the

experimental population. Initial releases

are planned for central Wisconsin, with

plans for a wintering location on the

Florida Gulf coast. It is difficult to

predict where individual whooping

cranes may disperse following release

within the project area. Designation of

this NEP allows for the possible

occurrence of cranes anywhere within

most of the eastern United States.

a. Potential Release Areas

The potential release areas in

Wisconsin include Necedah NWR,

Horicon NWR, and Crex Meadows State

Wildlife Management Area. Initial

releases will be at the Necedah NWR in

Juneau County, Wisconsin. The location

of future releases will depend upon

habitat use and dispersal patterns of

released cranes.

A majority of the movements of the

released cranes are expected to occur

within the central Wisconsin area,

which comprises approximately 2,000

square kilometers characterized by a

mosaic of forest and open wetlands.

Numerous small streams cut across the

landscape, many of which have been

ditched for purposes of agricultural

drainage. Much of the landscape is

forested, consisting of mixed forests

interspersed with open expanses of

sedge and shrub wetlands, small

streams and ponds.

On surrounding private lands, a

significant amount of historic wetland

habitat has been converted to cranberry

culture. Land ownership includes a

number of larger private holdings

devoted to cranberry production and six

large public ownerships totaling 83,222

hectares (ha) (205,651 acres). Countyowned lands within the four-county

area surrounding Necedah NWR include

significant acreage, primarily devoted to

forestry, totaling 65,810 ha (162,624 ac).

The principal private land uses are

forestry, cranberry culture and other

agriculture, and recreational hunting.

Upland forests are managed for

sawtimber and firewood production, on

either a clear-cut rotational basis or

selective harvest, dependent upon forest

type and management objectives.

Wetland habitat utilized for cranberry

culture is managed mainly through the

manipulation of water regime, in the

form of seasonal flooding. The public

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33909

lands are managed for wildlife values,

recreation, water conservation, and to

maintain natural habitat conditions.

Compared to other areas in Wisconsin,

the central Wisconsin area has

experienced limited human population

growth over the past 30 years due to its

distance from major population centers

and low suitability for agriculture. The

presence of large public land holdings is

at least in part a result of unsuccessful

agricultural development. Cannon

(1999) has estimated that approximately

37,000 ha (92,000 ac) of suitable

whooping crane habitat exists in the

central Wisconsin area.

b. Primary Wintering Area

The primary wintering site is on the

Chassahowitzka NWR, of which 55

percent (6,908 ha or 17,070 ac) is

suitable crane habitat. The refuge

comprises over 12,500 ha (31,000 ac) of

saltwater bays, estuaries, and brackish

marshes with a fringe of hardwood

swamps along the eastern boundary.

Dispersed throughout the salt marsh in

a jigsaw puzzle fashion is 4,048 ha

(10,000 ac) of estuarine habitat in the

form of shallow bays and tidal streams;

the largest of the streams being the

Chassahowitzka and Homosassa Rivers.

Because of three transitional salinity

stages (ranging from fresh spring water,

to brackish, and then to the saline

waters of the Gulf of Mexico), a wide

range of aquatic plant and animal life

flourishes within all parts of the system.

A wintering site study (Cannon 1998)

rated Chassahowitzka NWR as an

excellent site for wintering whooping

cranes based on available habitat,

adjacent expansion possibilities,

adequate isolation, and abundant food

resources.

Adjacent to the Chassahowitzka NWR,

are two State of Florida-owned

properties that support suitable crane

habitat the wintering cranes may

occasionally use. These areas are the

36,000-acre (14,568 ha) St. Martin’s

Marsh Aquatic Preserve and the 9,308

ha (23,000 ac) Crystal River State Buffer

Preserve. Both sites contain habitats

similar to those in Chassahowitzka

NWR.

Management

a. Monitoring

Whooping cranes will be intensively

monitored by project personnel prior to

and after release. The birds will be

observed daily while they are in the

conditioning pen. Facilities for captive

maintenance of the birds will include

the same facilities used for sandhill

cranes during an experimental

migration project in 2000; these

facilities were modeled after facilities at

the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) and

the International Crane Foundation.

They conform to standards set forth in

the Animal Welfare Act and Florida

Wildlife Code (Title 39.6 F.A.C). To

further ensure the well-being of birds in

captivity and their suitability for release

to the wild, facilities incorporate

features of their natural environment

(e.g., feeding, loafing, and roosting

habitat) to the extent possible. Prerelease conditioning will occur at

facilities near the release site.

To ensure contact with the released

birds, each crane will be equipped with

legband-mounted radio telemetry

transmitters. Subsequent to gentlerelease, the birds will be monitored

regularly to assess movements and

dispersal from the area of the release

pen. Whooping cranes will be checked

regularly for mortality or indications of

disease (e.g., listlessness, social

exclusion, flightlessness, or obvious

weakness). Social behavior (e.g., pair

formation, dominance, cohort loyalty)

also will be evaluated.

A voucher blood serum sample will

be taken for each crane prior to its

arrival in Wisconsin. A second sample

will be taken just prior to release. Any

time a bird is handled after release, a

blood sample may be taken to monitor

disease exposure and physiological

condition. One year after release, when

possible, all surviving whooping cranes

may be captured and an evaluation

made of their exposure to disease/

parasites through blood, fecal, and other

sampling regimens. Monitoring will

continue, opportunistically, for multiple

years whenever cranes are recaptured to

replace radio transmitters. If

preliminary results are favorable, the

releases will be continued annually,

with the goal of releasing up to 30 birds

per year for about 10 years and then

evaluating the success of the recovery

effort.

b. Disease/Parasite Considerations

Both sandhill and whooping cranes

are known to be vulnerable, in part or

all of their natural range, to avian herpes

(inclusion body disease), avian cholera,

acute and chronic mycotoxicosis,

eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), and

avian tuberculosis. Additionally,

Eimeria spp., Haemogroteus spp.,

Leucocytozoon spp., avian pox, lead

poisoning, and Hexamita sp. have been

identified as debilitating or lethal

factors in wild or pre-release, captive

populations.

A group of crane veterinarians and

disease specialists have developed

protocols for pre-release and pretransfer health screening for birds

selected for release to prevent

introduction of diseases and parasites

into the eastern flyway. Exposure to

disease and parasites will be evaluated

through blood, serum, and fecal analysis

of any individual crane handled postrelease or at the regular monitoring

interval. Remedial action will be taken

to return to good health any sick

individuals taken into captivity. Sick

birds will be held in special facilities

and their health and treatment

monitored by veterinarians. Special

attention will be given to EEE because

an outbreak at the PWRC in 1984 killed

7 of 39 whooping cranes present there.

After the outbreak, a vaccine was

developed for use on captive cranes. In

1989, EEE was documented in sentinel

bobwhite quail and sandhill cranes at

the PWRC. No whooping cranes became

ill, and it appears the vaccine may

provide protection. EEE is present in

Wisconsin, so the released birds may be

vaccinated. Other strains of encephalitis

(St. Louis, Everglades) also occur in

Wisconsin. The vaccine for EEE may

also provide protection against these

arboviruses.

When appropriate, other avian species

may be used to assess the prevalence of

certain disease factors. This could mean

using sentinel turkeys for ascertaining

exposure probability to encephalitis or

evaluating a species with similar food

habits for susceptibility to chronic

mycotoxicosis.

c. Genetic Considerations

The ultimate genetic goal of the

reintroduction program is to establish

wild reintroduced populations that

possess the maximum level of genetic

diversity available from the captive

population. Early reintroductions will

likely consist of a biased sample of the

genetic diversity of the captive gene

pool, with certain genetic lineages overrepresented. This bias will be corrected

at a later date by selecting and reestablishing breeding whooping cranes

that, theoretically, compensate for any

genetic biases in earlier releases.

d. Mortality

Although efforts will be made to

minimize mortality, some will

inevitably occur as captive-reared birds

adapt to the wild. Collision with power

lines and fences are known hazards to

wild whooping cranes. No major power

lines cross the release or wintering sites.

Tall woven-wire and barbed-wire

fencing is commonly used in the central

Wisconsin area and presents some

collision hazard. If whooping cranes

begin regular use of areas traversed by

power lines or fences, the Service and

33910 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Wisconsin DNR will consider placing

markers on the obstacles to reduce the

probability of collisions.

Wolves are known predators of adult

sandhill cranes and would be potential

predators of adult whooping cranes, as

would coyotes and bald eagles. Red fox,

bobcats, owls, and raccoons are

potential predators of young cranes.

Natural mortality from predators,

fluctuating food availability, disease,

and wild feeding inexperience will be

reduced through predator management,

vaccination, gentle release,

supplemental feeding for a post-release

period, and pre-release conditioning.

This conditioning will include teaching

the habit of roosting in standing water.

Predation by bobcats has been a

significant source of mortality in the

Kissimmee Prairie, Florida flock, and

teaching this roosting behavior to young

birds should help to reduce losses to

wolves, coyotes, and bobcats. Humancaused mortality will be reduced by

information and education efforts

directed at landowners and land users,

and review and management of human

activities in the area.

Recently released whooping cranes

will need protection from natural

sources of mortality (predators, disease,

and inadequate foods) and from humancaused sources of mortality. We will

minimize human-caused mortality

through a number of measures such as:

(a) Placing whooping cranes in an area

with low human population density and

relatively low development; (b) working

with and educating landowners, land

managers, developers, and recreationists

to develop means for conducting their

existing and planned activities in a

manner that is compatible with

whooping crane recovery; and (c)

conferring with developers on proposed

actions and providing recommendations

that will reduce any likely adverse

impacts to the cranes.

e. Special Handling

The Service, State employees, and

their agents are authorized to relocate

whooping cranes to avoid conflict with

human activities; relocate whooping

cranes that have moved outside the

appropriate release area or the NEP area

when removal is necessary or requested;

relocate whooping cranes within the

NEP area to improve survival and

recovery prospects; and aid animals that

are sick, injured or otherwise in need of

special care. If a whooping crane is

determined to be unfit to remain in the

wild, it will be returned to captivity.

The Service, State employees, and their

agents are authorized to salvage dead

whooping cranes.

f. Potential Conflicts

Conflicts have resulted in the central

and western United States from the

hunting of migratory birds in areas

utilized by whooping cranes,

particularly the hunting of sandhill

cranes and snow geese (Chen

cerulescens), which to novice hunters

may appear similar to whooping cranes.

In recent years, only two to three

crane mortalities have been documented

incidental to hunting activities. Sandhill

cranes are not hunted in Wisconsin

although a future hunting season is

being considered, and snow geese are an

uncommon migrant and have not been

present in large numbers. Sandhill

cranes and snow geese are not hunted

in the area of the wintering site in

Florida. Accidental shooting of a

whooping crane in this experimental

population occurring in the course of

otherwise lawful hunting activity is

exempt from take restrictions under the

Act in this special regulation.

Applicable Federal penalties under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or State

penalties, however, may still apply. We

will minimize mortality due to

accidental shootings by providing

educational opportunities and

information to hunters to assist them in

distinguishing whooping cranes from

legal game species. There will be no

federally mandated hunting area or

season closures or season modifications,

including conservation order seasons,

resulting from the establishment of the

eastern U.S. whooping crane NEP.

We established a conservation order

in a final rule published in the

December 20, 1999, Federal Register

(Volume 64, Number 243). The

conservation order is aimed at reducing

the populations of lesser snow geese

(Anser caerulescens caerulescens) and

Ross’ geese (Anser rossii) that breed,

migrate, and winter in the midcontinent portion of North America,

primarily in the Central and Mississippi

Flyways. These geese are referred to as

mid-continent light geese (MCLG). We

established the order allowing take of

the geese to prevent further habitat

degradation by the MCLG population,

which had reached such a high level

that the geese were seriously injuring

their arctic and subarctic breeding

grounds through their feeding actions.

We set a management goal to reduce the

MCLG by 50 percent by the year 2005.

The conservation order can be

implemented in the States, or portions

of States, contained within the

boundaries of the Central and

Mississippi Flyways, including

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and

Wyoming.

The bulk of traditional hunting in the

primary release area has been for deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), turkey

(Meleagris gallopavo), and small game.

Conflict with traditional hunting in the

release area is not anticipated. Access to

some limited areas at release or

wintering sites and at ultralight

migration stopover points could be

temporarily restricted at times when

whooping cranes might be particularly

vulnerable to human disturbance (i.e.,

around rearing and training facilities in

the spring/summer and conditioning

and holding pens in the fall/winter).

Any temporary restricted access to areas

for these purposes will be of the

minimum size and duration necessary

for protection of the NEP cranes, and

will be closely coordinated with and at

the discretion of the respective States.

Any such access restrictions will not

require Federal closure of hunting areas

or seasons.

States within the NEP area maintain

their management prerogatives

regarding the whooping crane. They are

not directed by this rule to take any

specific actions to provide any special

protective measures, nor are they

prevented from imposing restrictions

under State law, such as protective

designations, and area closures. None of

the States within the NEP area have

indicated that they would propose

hunting restrictions or closures related

to game species because of the

whooping crane reintroduction.

Overall, the presence of whooping

cranes is not expected to result in

placement of constraints on hunting of

wildlife or to affect economic gain

landowners might receive from hunting

leases. The potential exists for future

hunting seasons to be established for

other migratory birds that are not

currently hunted in some of the States

within the NEP area. The action will not

prevent the establishment of future

hunting or conservation order seasons

approved for other migratory bird

species by the Mississippi or Atlantic

Flyway Councils.

The principal activities on private

property adjacent to the release area are

agriculture and recreation. Use of these

private properties by whooping cranes

will not preclude such uses. The special

regulation accompanying this rule

authorizes incidental take of the

whooping crane in the NEP area when

the take is accidental and incidental to

an otherwise lawful activity.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33911

An additional issue identified as a

possible conflict is the potential for crop

depredation. There is evidence that

some sandhill cranes have caused

locally significant losses of emerging

corn in some areas in Wisconsin. It is

possible that whooping cranes could

engage in this type of behavior as well.

Whooping cranes are socially less

gregarious than sandhill cranes, and

tend to restrict the bulk of their foraging

activities to wetland areas. Therefore,

they are believed to be less likely to

cause significant crop depredations. If

such depredations occur, they can be

eliminated through use of bird scaring

devices and other techniques. Ongoing

research on seed treatments as a

deterrent to corn depredation is

promising (Blackwell, Helon and

Dolbeer, in press).

Other agricultural crops found in the

release area include cranberries. Some

concern has been expressed that

whooping cranes may consume

cranberries. Although potential habitat

is present near cranberry operations,

cranberries are not likely to be an

attractive food item as compared to

animal matter, during most of the time

period that whooping cranes would be

present in Wisconsin. Cranberry beds

are flooded at harvest time, and when

large numbers of berries are gathered

they could be more vulnerable to

depredation. However, this event occurs

in late fall, after whooping cranes would

have departed for their wintering

grounds. In addition, the numerous

sandhill cranes in Wisconsin have not

caused cranberry crop depredation.

Therefore, we do not expect that

whooping cranes will pose a significant

threat to crop depredation on

cranberries.

Released whooping cranes might

wander into other States or other

locations in the eastern United States

outside of the expected migration

corridor, or even outside the NEP area.

We believe the frequency of such

movements is likely to be low. Any

whooping cranes that leave this

experimental population area will be

considered endangered. However, for

any whooping cranes known to be from

the eastern United States NEP, that

move outside the NEP area, including

those that move into the migration

corridor of the AWP, attempts will be

made to capture and return them to the

appropriate area if a reasonable

possibility exists for contact with the

AWP population or if removal is

requested by the State which they enter.

Birds from the AWP flock have rarely

been observed in any of the States

within the NEP area except as a result

of an extreme weather event; they are

expected to be in the NEP area very

infrequently and only temporarily. Any

whooping cranes that occur within the

NEP area will be considered to be part

of the NEP and will be subject to the

protective measures in place for the

NEP. Because of the extremely limited

number of incidents anticipated, the

decreased level of protections afforded

AWP cranes that cross into the NEP is

not expected to have any significant

adverse impacts to the AWP.

For at least the first year of project

life, whooping cranes will be led to the

Florida wintering site utilizing ultralight

aircraft and stopping at a series of

previously chosen stopover locations en

route. During subsequent migration

periods, it will be difficult to predict

which specific sites will be utilized by

the birds, and some cranes may use

stopover sites with which they have no

previous experience. Whooping cranes

that appear in undesirable locations

while in migration will be considered

for relocation by capture and/or hazing

of the birds. Possible conflicts with

recreational and agricultural interests

within the migration corridor will be

minimized through an extensive public

education program.

Access to whooping cranes may be

temporarily restricted in limited areas

near rearing and acclimatization

facilities and at ultralight migration

stopover locations to minimize

disturbance at times of greatest

vulnerability and sensitivity. Any

temporarily restricted access to areas for

these purposes will be, (1) of the

minimum size and duration necessary

for protection of the NEP cranes, (2) will

not require Federal closure of hunting or

conservation order areas or seasons, and

(3) will be closely coordinated with and

at the discretion of the respective States.

Previous Federal Action

We held public meetings in Florida in

December of 1997 and in Wisconsin in

May of 1999, to determine public

interest and concerns regarding the

potential reintroduction of a migratory

flock of whooping cranes to the eastern

United States. In 1999, the Service, the

Wisconsin DNR, and International

Crane Foundation representatives met to

identify issues and concerns related to

whooping crane reintroduction.

The Wisconsin and Florida

informational meetings offered the

general public an opportunity to review

and offer informal comments on the

proposed action. The public has

appeared extremely supportive of the

proposed action, provided it does not

interfere with existing lifestyles and

current and potential income. We

attempted to notify all known or

determinable affected parties and other

interested agencies, groups, and

individuals of the opportunity to

comment on this rule. We held four

public hearings during the public

comment period as a further measure to

encourage public input on the proposed

action. We have incorporated those

comments into this final rule.

We have made presentations to

numerous organizations and potentially

affected interest groups, government

representatives of States along the

potential migration route, the Atlantic

and Mississippi Flyway Councils and

their Technical Sections, the Wisconsin

Natural Resources Board, the Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission (FLFWCC), and other

interested agencies to obtain input on

the potential for reintroduction of a

migratory whooping crane population in

the eastern United States. We have

conducted extensive coordination, both

formal and informal, with all States

within the NEP area. We asked all States

to give their formal endorsement to the

project prior to implementation, and we

have received the concurrence and

support of all States within or adjacent

to the expected migration corridor.

An extensive sharing of information

about the program and the species, via

educational efforts targeted toward the

public throughout the NEP area and

nationally, will enhance public

awareness of this species and its

reintroduction. We will encourage the

public to cooperate with the Service,

Wisconsin DNR, and the Florida FWCC

in attempts to maintain and protect

whooping cranes in the release areas

and wintering area.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the March 9, 2001, proposed rule

(66 FR 14107), we requested comments

or recommendations concerning any

aspect of the proposal that might

contribute to development of the final

decision on the proposed rule. A 45-day

comment period was provided. We sent

copies of the rule and other

informational materials about the

project to State and Federal agencies,

Congressional representatives, Tribes,

Flyway Councils, conservation and

hunting groups, and numerous private

citizens who had expressed an interest

in receiving further information on the

project.

Changes in the final rule as a result

of public comments: Minor changes

have been made to the special rule as a

result of comments received. These

additions or changes do not alter the

predicted impact or effect of the final

rule:

33912 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1. We amended 50 CFR 17.84(h)(8) to

include conservation order seasons to

clarify areas where there will be no

federally mandated closures of areas or

closures or modification of hunting

seasons for protection of this NEP.

2. We also clarified, within

§ 17.84(h)(8), that we would remove

clearly marked individuals of this NEP

from States outside of the boundaries of

the NEP, when requested by the State.

We held four public hearings to

receive comments on the proposed rule,

at locations along the expected

migration corridor. We received a total

of 116 responses on the proposed rule,

including 16 oral and 100 written

comments. Of these comments, 14 were

from State, county, or city governments,

87 were from individuals, 14 were from

organizations and industry, and 1 was

from Canada. Of these commentors, 94

supported the proposal of designating a

nonessential experimental population, 9

expressed support under certain

conditions, 10 disagreed with certain

aspects of the proposal, 3 expressed no

position, and none expressed direct

opposition. Analysis of the comments

revealed 11 issues that are identified

and discussed below.

Issue 1: Reintroduction should be

pursued in the Rocky Mountain States,

along a migration corridor that was

utilized in previous reintroduction

attempts. The Service should not forget

the Rocky Mountain flyway, and should

keep this option open for some future

reintroduction effort.

Our Response: The current proposal

for reintroduction in the eastern United

States reflects the most recent

recommendation of the International

Whooping Crane Recovery Team. This

recommendation was arrived at only

after complete and careful consideration

of all factors likely to influence the reestablishment of another self-sustaining

flock of whooping cranes, to contribute

towards recovery of the species. Some of

these factors are discussed within the

‘‘Background’’ section in this rule.

Factors addressed include the presence

of suitable breeding and wintering

habitat and food resources, geographic

separation from the existing natural

wild flock, and support from States and

the public. All States within the NEP

area have gone on record as supporting

the project. While some segments of the

western public continue to be very

supportive of reintroduction efforts in

the western United States, not all the

States within the Rocky Mountain

flyway are supportive of reintroduction

of the whooping crane in that area.

Some aspects of reintroduction in the

Rocky Mountain States hold promise,

and the area will remain under

consideration for a future reintroduction

when conditions are more favorable for

the effort.

Issue 2: No closures of hunting areas

should occur due to the presence of NEP

whooping cranes. In addition, the

Service should include conservation

order seasons when discussing hunting

seasons.

Our Response: We will not mandate

any closure of areas, including National

Wildlife Refuges, during hunting

seasons or closure or modification of

hunting seasons for the purpose of

avoiding take of the NEP. While this

will preclude federally mandated

closures within the NEP area, States still

retain the power to impose closures at

their discretion. However, no States

have indicated any desire to institute

such closures. We agree that adding

conservation seasons is more in line

with our intent of this section of the

rule. We have modified the final rule to

include conservation order seasons.

Issue 3: The Act should be modified

to provide protections against ‘‘citizen

lawsuits’’ to prevent groups or

individuals from filing suit at some

future date forcing the Service to

institute protective measures for this

NEP that adversely affect private

property rights.

Our Response: We have made every

effort to ensure that the reintroduction

proposal covered by the rule does not

interfere with private property rights.

This rule provides that take of

whooping crane that is accidental and

incidental to an otherwise lawful

activity is not prohibited. Activities

such as agricultural practices, pesticide

application, water management,

construction, recreation, trapping, or

hunting, if performed in the above

described manner, should continue as

before. We are the Federal agency given

responsibility for administration of the

Act; however, we do not have

independent authority to revise the Act

to provide protection from citizen

lawsuits; that would require an act of

Congress.

Issue 4: Eastern U.S. NEP cranes or

their offspring could stray into the

Central Flyway States at some future

date resulting in adverse effects to the

AWP, or to ongoing human activities.

All released cranes, and all their future

progeny, should be permanently marked

so they could be monitored, and

removed from any undesirable areas

(i.e., Central Flyway States).

Our Response: We will mark all

released cranes with color bands and/or

radio or satellite transmitters, and

implant coded electronic microchips

under the skin which will allow

identification of these birds even if the

transmitters or bands are lost. In

addition, we will make every effort

within the 10-year life of the project, to

capture and similarly apply color bands

to any future offspring of reintroduced

NEP whooping cranes. This would be

accomplished by capturing and marking

offspring prior to fledging. With little

nesting expected during the early phase

of the project, we believe that nearly all

young birds would be captured and

marked. Later in the project, however, it

may become more difficult to mark

offspring if increased nesting occurs in

remote locations. For at least the 10-year

life of the reintroduction project, the

color banding of all offspring will

include attempts to capture any

unmarked juvenile cranes that migrate

with, and are clearly part of, NEP family

groups.

Issue 5: Any whooping crane

originating from eastern U.S.

reintroduction efforts should maintain

the NEP status, even if one occurs

outside the designated NEP area.

Our Response: If one or more

whooping cranes from the eastern U.S.

NEP moves out of the designated eastern

U.S. NEP area, the status of those birds

would then be considered endangered.

Section 10(j) of the Act, which provides

for the establishment of experimental

populations, directs that experimental

populations be delineated by geographic

boundaries, and that an NEP cannot

overlap or include currently occupied

range of the species. In the event that

one of the eastern U.S. NEP whooping

cranes wanders into the Central Flyway,

we will immediately initiate discussions

with the involved State or States to

determine the appropriate action to

take. This action could include nonintervention if the crane is moving

through on migration and no adverse

impacts are expected, or some form of

intervention to attempt to remove or

relocate the bird or birds, if determined

necessary by us or if requested by the

involved State. As provided for in

paragraph (8)(i) and (ii) of this final rule,

the course of action will not include

closure of hunting areas or seasons,

including those pertaining to

conservation orders, for the purpose of

protecting individual cranes known to

have originated from the eastern U.S.

whooping crane NEP.

The Service, the recovery team, and

the reintroduction partnership, in

consultation with the States, will

constantly evaluate the behavior of all

reintroduced cranes and will attempt to

remove or relocate birds that exhibit

unsatisfactory behavior. In addition, we

will reevaluate the eastern U.S.

whooping crane reintroduction if

significant numbers of cranes move into

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33913

the Central Flyway on a routine basis,

or if any mixing with the AWP

population occurs. The reevaluation

could result in modifications to the

project, or termination if warranted.

Mixing of the AWP and eastern U.S.

reintroduced population is undesirable

due to the potential for disease

transmission or other adverse impacts

and was a primary reason for the

recovery team recommendation to

pursue the Wisconsin-to-Florida

migration route. Based upon research

with sandhill cranes, and migration

behavior of the AWP population, it is

believed that any mixing which may

occur will be extremely rare. However,

we agree to manage eastern U.S. NEP

whooping cranes that move into the

Central Flyway to the maximum extent

possible to prevent disruption of human

activities, but still meet the

requirements of the Act.

Issue 6: It is inappropriate to allow for

penalties less than those of the Act in

the event of an accidental shooting.

Current restrictions against the illegal

take of protected migratory birds, as

well as those restrictions in place for the

Mexican wolf, a federally listed

endangered species, dictate that the

hunter is responsible for identification

of their quarry before shooting.

Our Response: We stated in the

proposed rule that in the event an

accidental shooting occurred in the

course of an otherwise lawful activity

(i.e., hunting in accordance with all

laws and regulations), Endangered

Species Act penalties would not apply;

however, applicable Federal penalties

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

and/or State penalties may still apply.

The incidental take provision was

proposed in an effort to allay concerns

of hunters and other sectors of the

public. They were concerned that their

property rights, business, or recreational

activities would be negatively impacted

by Federal restrictions and penalties if

a whooping crane was injured or killed

accidentally as a result of an activity

they were carrying out legally. We do

not believe this provision of our

regulation is likely to lead to the

increased incidence of illegal shooting

of whooping cranes. In recent years,

shootings, intentional or otherwise, of

wild whooping cranes from the AWP

flock or the reintroduced Florida

nonmigratory NEP have been rare. We

believe that mortality to the eastern U.S.

whooping crane NEP from shooting,

even with the relaxation of penalties in

place, is likely to be low. Substantial

outreach efforts will be made to seek the

cooperation of the hunting public and

emphasize species identification to

minimize potential mishaps. In the

event a whooping crane is shot

intentionally, (for example, if shot

deliberately when no hunting season

was open), the penalties of the Act

would still apply.

Issue 7: Tax dollars should not be

spent on this project or any other

endangered species recovery effort.

Our Response: We are responsible for

the protection and recovery of federally

listed threatened and endangered

species, as mandated by the Act. The

Act does not provide us with the

discretion to refuse to pursue recovery

of any individual species; rather, we are

mandated to apply our resources in an

effective manner to accomplish the

recovery of all federally listed species.

This project is being coordinated with

the multiple-partner Whooping Crane

Eastern Partnership (WCEP), a

collaborative group of government and

non-government entities working

together to accomplish the

reintroduction of the whooping crane to

the eastern United States. The WCEP is

committed to raising over 50 percent of

the project budget from private sources.

This will reduce the amount of Federal

tax dollars necessary to implement the

project.

Issue 8: Wild sandhill cranes should

not be used to guide released whooping

cranes to the wintering area. The

Service has not demonstrated the ability

to retrieve whooping cranes from the

central Florida sandhill crane wintering

grounds and bring them to the desired

wintering location at Chassahowitzka

NWR.

Our Response: We agree that it may

prove difficult to retrieve whooping

cranes that migrate to central Florida

and relocate them to Chassahowitzka

NWR. However, we support the

recovery team’s recommended approach

that multiple reintroduction methods be

available so that strategies may be

adapted to a wide range of possible

scenarios in accomplishing this

reintroduction. We will not use the wild

sandhill crane guided migration method

for the first year of the project. As

indicated in the ‘‘Reintroduction

Protocol’’ section, we will use ultralight

aircraft to lead the initially released

whooping cranes in migration to

Florida. In the future, before we

consider using wild sandhill cranes to

guide released whooping cranes in

migration, we will consult with the

State of Florida and obtain the State’s

concurrence before proceeding with that

approach.

Issue 9: It is appropriate to expand the

proposed NEP area to include the 11

additional northeastern States discussed

in the proposed rule. To do so at this

time would be an efficient use of the

Service’s rulemaking resources, rather

than putting off this action until a later

date.

Our Response: In the proposed rule,

we specifically asked for comments on

the appropriateness of including 11

additional States in the northeastern

United States in the designated eastern

U.S. whooping crane NEP area. This

action could help minimize potential for

conflicts with human activities that may

result from an eastern United States

NEP whooping crane wandering into

one of those States, where the status of

such birds would be considered as

endangered. During the comment period

we received one comment about adding

the States to the NEP. No comments

were received from any of the 11

northeastern States. After further

consideration, we have decided that

including those States within this NEP

area is not necessary at this time. We

believe the likelihood that a whooping

crane from the eastern U.S. NEP will

stray into those States is slight. If future

movements of whooping cranes indicate

that including the northeastern States

within the eastern United States NEP

area would be prudent, we will consult

with the affected States and propose

adding them through a separate

rulemaking.

Issue 10: Why are species still

considered endangered when humans

can clone animals and any living thing?

Our Response: While cloning

techniques have advanced significantly

during the past few years, and it is now

technically possible to clone higher

organisms, the technology is far from

being perfected to a point where it could

be applied on an operational scale. In

addition, extensive questions and issues

still remain from many standpoints

including science, genetics, ethics,

economic feasibility, as well as national

and international laws and policies. As

such, it is premature to consider cloning

as a viable strategy for restoring

endangered species. Even if cloning

does prove to be effective in the future,

it is not likely that cloning would be

implemented exclusively as the only

method used to achieve species’

recovery. In addition, the purpose of the

Act goes beyond restoring the number of

individuals but is to conserve

populations in the wild and the

ecosystems upon which they depend.

Issue 11: Whooping cranes should not

be released in Wisconsin because of the

potential for agricultural damage by the

birds. Reintroduction efforts should be

pursued using release sites in Michigan.

Our Response: We believe the

potential for adverse impacts to

agriculture by whooping cranes is low

due to the small number of birds that

33914 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

will be present and the habitat and food

preferences of whooping cranes.

Because they prefer shallow, open-water

marsh habitat and food is primarily

aquatic animal matter (e.g., aquatic

insects, invertebrates, minnows, frogs),

the whooping cranes are not likely to

cause agricultural damage. In the

Environmental Assessment, we

analyzed all reasonable alternatives for

conducting the whooping crane

reintroduction into the eastern United

States, including establishing release

sites in Michigan. Based upon careful

consideration of all factors associated

with the reintroduction, we have

determined that the preferred

alternative is to release the whooping

cranes in Wisconsin.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with the criteria in

Executive Order 12866, this final rule to

designate NEP status for the whooping

crane reintroduction into the eastern

United States is not a significant

regulatory action subject to Office of

Management and Budget review. This

rule will not have an annual economic

effect of $100 million and will not have

an adverse effect upon any economic

sector, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, or other units of

government. Therefore, a cost-benefit

economic analysis is not required.

Lands where releases would be

conducted include Necedah and

Horicon National Wildlife Refuges, and

the Crex Meadows State Wildlife Area

in Wisconsin. The wintering site in

Florida is primarily Chassahowitzka

National Wildlife Refuge and may

include the adjacent St. Martin’s Marsh

Aquatic Preserve and Crystal River State

Buffer Preserve. Following release, birds

from the NEP are likely to utilize private

lands adjacent to both the release areas

and the wintering site. Because of the

substantial regulatory relief provided by

NEP designations, we do not believe the

reintroduction of whooping cranes will

conflict with existing human activities

or hinder public or private use of lands

within the NEP area. Likewise, no

governments, individuals, or

corporations will be required to manage

specifically for reintroduced whooping

cranes.

This rule will not create

inconsistencies with other agency’s

actions or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another

agency. Because of the substantial

regulatory relief provided by NEP

designations, we do not believe the

presence of whooping cranes will

obligate any agency or government to

take an action which would conflict

with their existing authorities or

activities within the NEP area. This rule

will allow any agency or citizen to

conduct otherwise legal activities under

provisions of the Act.

This rule will not materially affect

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan

programs or the rights or obligations of

their recipients. This rule will not raise

novel legal or policy issues. We have

previously designated an experimental

population of whooping cranes in

Florida and for other species at

numerous locations throughout the

nation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior

certifies that this document will not

have a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The area affected by

this rule includes 20 States within the

eastern United States. We do not expect

this rule to have any significant effect

on recreational, agricultural, or

development activities within the NEP

area. There will be no federallymandated closures of seasons or areas to

hunting or conservation order actions

for protection of the NEP. We expect

only temporary access restrictions to

limited areas in the vicinity of rearing

and release facilities at times during the

spring/summer rearing period, during

migration with ultralight aircraft, or at

the wintering site. In the primary release

area, these closures are not expected to

occur outside of existing, longestablished closed areas on Necedah

NWR. Any temporarily restricted access

to areas will be of the minimum size

and duration necessary to provide for

protection to the NEP cranes during

rearing or release activities, and will be

conducted in close coordination with

the States. Because any such access

restrictions will be of short duration and

will not require Federal closure of

hunting areas or seasons, we do not

expect any significant effect on

recreational activities. Because no new

or additional economic or regulatory

restrictions will be imposed upon

States, Federal agencies, or members of

the public due to the presence of

members of the NEP, this rulemaking is

not expected to have any significant

adverse impacts to recreation,

agriculture, or any development

activities. The designation of an NEP in

this rule will significantly reduce the

regulatory requirements regarding the

reintroduction of these whooping

cranes, will not create inconsistencies

with other agency actions, and will not

conflict with existing or proposed

human activity, or State, Tribal, or

private use of lands within the NEP

area.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule will not have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or more

for reasons outlined above. It will not

cause a major increase in costs or prices

for consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions. The

rule does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The NEP designation will not place

any additional requirements on any city,

county, or other local municipalities.

The NEP designation has been endorsed

by all of the States within the NEP area.

A Small Government Agency Plan is not

required. Because this rulemaking does

not require that any action be taken by

local or State government or private

entities, we have determined and certify

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that

this rulemaking will not impose a cost

of $100 million or more in any given

year on local or State governments or

private entities (i.e., it is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’).

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the rule does not have significant

takings implications. We do not expect

this rule to have a potential takings

implication under Executive Order

12630 because it would exempt

individuals or corporations from

prosecution for take that is accidental

and incidental to an otherwise lawful

activity. In addition, private entities

would also be exempt from any

restrictions imposed by consultation

requirements under section 7(a)(2) of

the Act, as consultation will not likely

be conducted except on National

Wildlife Refuges or National Parks.

Because of the substantial regulatory

relief provided by NEP designations, we

do not believe the reintroduction of

whooping cranes would conflict with

existing human activities or hinder

public use of lands within the NEP area.

None of the States within the NEP area

will be required to manage specifically

for reintroduced whooping cranes, and

all of those States have endorsed the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33915

NEP designation. A takings implication

assessment is not required.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. As stated above,

designation of this population as

nonessential experimental will preclude

any additional regulatory burdens on

public and private entities within the

NEP area. A Federalism assessment is

not required.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that the rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

Government-to-Government

Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and E.O.

13175, we have notified the Native

American Tribes within the

nonessential experimental population

area about this proposal. They have

been advised through verbal and written

contact, including informational

mailings from the Service. Information

was also sent to the Great Lakes Indian

Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1854

Authority, Chippewa Ottawa Resource

Authority, and Native American Fish

and Wildlife Society. If future activities

resulting from this rule may affect Tribal

resources, a Plan of Cooperation will be

developed with the affected Tribe or

Tribes.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains information

collection activity for experimental

populations. We have OMB approval for

the collection under OMB Control

Number 1018–0094. The Service may

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is

not required to respond to, a collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have prepared an environmental

assessment as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. It is available from

Service offices identified in the

ADDRESSES section.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued

Executive Order 13211 on regulations

that significantly affect energy supply,

distribution, and use. Executive Order

13211 requires agencies to prepare

Statements of Energy Effects when

undertaking certain actions. As this rule

is not expected to significantly affect

energy supplies, distribution, or use,

this action is not a significant energy

action and no Statement of Energy

Effects is required.

Effective Date

We find good cause under the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3)) to make this rule effective

upon publication. The prompt release of

currently available captive-reared

whooping cranes is necessary because:

(1) There is a limited time during which

chicks will hatch in the captive

whooping crane flock and be available

for rearing; (2) the facilities in which the

crane chicks are held are not designed

to hold the birds for extended periods;

and (3) the young cranes become less

suitable for wild release if they are held

in captivity for too long. If young cranes

cannot be transported to Wisconsin by

late June or early July 2001 for further

stages of rearing and to begin training

for the migration process, the

reintroduction will likely have to be

delayed until next year. Therefore, good

cause exists for this rule to be effective

immediately upon its publication.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

in this final rule is available upon

request from the Green Bay Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

The principal authors of this rule are

Joel Trick and Janet Smith, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Green Bay, WI

(Phone: 920–465–7440); Tom Stehn,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Austwell, TX (Phone 361–286–3559);

and Linda Walker, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, FL

(Phone: 904–232–2580).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the

existing entry for ‘‘Crane, whooping’’

under ‘‘BIRDS’’ to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

BIRDS

*******

Crane, whooping Grus americana Canada, U.S.A. (Rocky

Mountains east to

Carolinas), Mexico.

Entire, except where

listed as an experimental population.

E 1, 3 17.95(b) NA

Do ...................... ......do ............... ......do ............................ U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL,

GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY,

LA, MI, MN, MS, MO,

NC, NM, OH, SC, TN,

UT, VA, WI, WV, WY).

XN 487, 621,

710

NA 17.84(h)

33916 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

3. Amend § 17.84 by revising

paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(4)(ii),

(h)(4)(iii), (h)(4)(iv), (h)(5), (h)(6), (h)(8),

(h)(9), and (h)(10), adding paragraph

(h)(11), and adding a map at the end of

paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates.

* * * * *

(h) Whooping crane (Grus americana).

(1) The whooping crane populations

identified in paragraphs (h)(9)(i)

through (iii) of this section are

nonessential experimental populations.

(2) No person may take this species in

the wild in the experimental population

areas except when such take is

accidental and incidental to an

otherwise lawful activity, or as provided

in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this

section. Examples of otherwise lawful

activities include, but are not limited to,

agricultural practices, pesticide

application, water management,

construction, recreation, trapping, or

hunting, when such activities are in full

compliance with all applicable laws and

regulations.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) Relocate a whooping crane that

has moved outside the eastern U.S.

population area identified in paragraph

(h)(9)(iii) of this section, or the

Kissimmee Prairie or Rocky Mountain

range of the experimental populations,

when removal is necessary or requested

and is authorized by a valid permit

under § 17.22;

(iii) Relocate whooping cranes within

the experimental population areas to

improve survival and recovery

prospects;

(iv) Relocate whooping cranes from

the experimental population areas into

captivity;

* * * * *

(5) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs

(h)(3) and (4) of this section must be

immediately reported to the National

Whooping Crane Coordinator, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 100,

Austwell, Texas 77950 (Phone: 361–

286–3559), who, in conjunction with his

counterpart in the Canadian Wildlife

Service, will determine the disposition

of any live or dead specimens.

(6) No person shall possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export by any means whatsoever, any

such species from the experimental

populations taken in violation of these

regulations or in violation of applicable

State fish and wildlife laws or

regulations or the Endangered Species

Act.

* * * * *

(8) The Service will not mandate any

closure of areas, including National

Wildlife Refuges, during hunting or

conservation order seasons or closure or

modification of hunting or conservation

order seasons in the following

situations:

(i) For the purpose of avoiding take of

the nonessential experimental

population identified in paragraph

(h)(9)(iii) of this section;

(ii) If a clearly marked whooping

crane from the nonessential

experimental population identified in

(h)(9)(iii) wanders outside the

designated NEP area. In these situations,

the Service will attempt to capture the

stray bird and return it to the

appropriate area if removal is requested

by the State.

(9) All whooping cranes found in the

wild within the boundaries listed in

paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through (iii) of this

section will be considered nonessential

experimental animals. Geographic areas

the nonessential experimental

populations may inhabit include the

following—

(i) The entire State of Florida. The

reintroduction site is the Kissimmee

Prairie portions of Polk, Osceola,

Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties.

Current information indicates that the

Kissimmee Prairie is within the historic

range of the whooping crane in Florida.

(A) No other natural populations of

whooping cranes are likely to come into

contact with the experimental

population at Kissimmee Prairie. The

only natural extant population, known

as the Aransas/Wood Buffalo National

Park population occurs well west of the

Mississippi River. This population nests

in the Northwest Territories and

adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada,

primarily within the boundaries of the

Wood Buffalo National Park, and

winters along the Central Texas Gulf of

Mexico coast at Aransas National

Wildlife Refuge. The only other extant

eastern U.S. population is the

nonessential experimental population

described in paragraph (h)(9)(iii) of this

section. Remnant individuals of the

Rocky Mountain nonessential

experimental population occur in the

western United States as described in

paragraph (h)(9)(ii) of this section.

(B) Whooping cranes adhere to

ancestral breeding grounds, leaving

little possibility that individuals from

the extant Aransas/Wood Buffalo

National Park population will stray into

Florida or the Rocky Mountain

Population. Studies of whooping cranes

have shown that migration is a learned

rather than an innate behavior. The

experimental population released at

Kissimmee Prairie is expected to remain

mostly within the prairie region of

central Florida.

(ii) The States of Colorado, Idaho,

New Mexico, Utah, and the western half

of Wyoming. Wooping cranes in this

area do not come in contact with

whooping cranes of the Aransas/Wood

Buffalo Population; and

(iii) That portion of the eastern

contiguous United States which

includes the States of Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West

Virginia, and Wisconsin. (See map

following paragraph (h)(11) of this

section). Whooping cranes within this

population are expected to occur mostly

within the States of Wisconsin, Illinois,

Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia,

and Florida, which is within the historic

range of the whooping crane in the

United States. The additional States

included within the experimental

population area are those expected to

receive occasional use by the cranes, or

which may be used as breeding or

wintering areas in the event of future

population expansion. Whooping cranes

in this population are not expected to

come in contact with whooping cranes

of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo National

Park Population.

(10) The reintroduced populations

will be monitored during the duration of

the projects by the use of radio

telemetry and other appropriate

measures. Any animal that is

determined to be sick, injured, or

otherwise in need of special care will be

recaptured to the extent possible by

Service and/or State wildlife personnel

or their designated agent and given

appropriate care. Such animals will be

released back to the wild as soon as

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33917

possible, unless physical or behavioral

problems make it necessary to return

them to a captive breeding facility.

(11) The status of the experimental

populations will be reevaluated

periodically to determine future

management needs. This review will

take into account the reproductive

success and movement patterns of the

individuals released within the

experimental population areas.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–15791 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 061901D]

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Closure

of the Spring Commercial Red Snapper

Component

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial

fishery for red snapper in the exclusive

economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of

Mexico. NMFS has determined that the

spring portion of the annual commercial

quota for red snapper will be reached on

July 6, 2001. This closure is necessary

to protect the red snapper resource.

DATES: Closure is effective noon, local

time, July 6, 2001, until noon, local

time, on October 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil

Steele, telephone 727–570–5305, fax

727–570–5583, e-mail

Phil.Steele@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef

fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is

managed under the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP).

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of

Mexico Fishery Management Council

and is implemented under the authority

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act by

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Those

regulations set the commercial quota for

red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico at

4.65 million lb (2.11 million kg) for the

current fishing year, January 1 through

December 31, 2001. The red snapper

commercial fishing season is split into

two time periods, the first commencing

at noon on February 1 with two-thirds

of the annual quota (3.10 million lb

(1.41 million kg) available, and the

second commencing at noon on October

1 with the remainder of the annual

quota available. During the commercial

season, the red snapper commercial

fishery opens at noon on the first of

each month and closes at noon on the

10th of each month, until the applicable

commercial quotas are reached.

Under 50 CFR 622.43 (a), NMFS is

required to close the commercial fishery

for a species or species group when the

quota for that species or species group

is reached, or is projected to be reached,

by filing a notification to that effect in

the Federal Register. Based on current

statistics, NMFS has determined that the