PROPOSED APEX & EDF WIND FARMS WHOOPING CRANE …s3.amazonaws.com/windaction/attachments/3395/Final... · blair wildlife consulting, llc 3815 dacy lane, kyle, tx 78640 512.415.9772

BLAIR WILDLIFE CONSULTING, LLC 3815 DACY LANE, KYLE, TX 78640 512.415.9772 blairwildlife.com

PROPOSED APEX & EDF WIND FARMS WHOOPING CRANE HABITAT ASSESSMENT

CLAY, JACK, & MONTAGUE COUNTIES, TEXAS

PROJECT NO. 191101

APRIL 10, 2020

1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulates the take of endangered and threatened species under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 3 of the ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” is further defined as any act that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife or that results in habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife. However, the ESA provides exceptions for take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities on non-federal lands via the issuance of a Section 10 incidental take permit or a Section 7 consultation.

Texas state law prohibits the take of state-listed species and these species may be listed as threatened or endangered under the authority of state law and/or under the ESA. Additionally, a species listed as state threatened or endangered does not also have to be federally listed or vice versa. State laws pertaining to threatened and endangered species are located in Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code and in Sections 65.171 – 65.176 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code.

The North Texas Heritage Association, LLC (NTHA) is a is an organization of rural landowners in Clay and Montague Counties, often ranchers, dedicated to the preservation of their traditional rural way of life. NTHA seeks to encourage the preservation of their values, traditions, environment and rural economy as stewards of their beautiful countryside. NTHA seeks to encourage supportive civic government and community involvement, and to actively promote passing these values on to future generations.

NTHA is concerned about the environmental, cultural and human impacts of two wind farms (Black Angus Wind Farm (BAWF) and a currently unnamed wind development) proposed to be built across Clay, Jack, & Montague counties, Texas (the Study Area). The BAWF is being developed by Black Angus Wind, LLC (BAW), APEX Clean Energy, Inc. (APEX), and related companies. The currently unnamed wind development proposed to be built is being developed by EDF Renewables Development, Inc. (EDF) and related companies.

PROPOSED APEX & EDF WIND FARMS WHOOPING CRANE HABITAT ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 191101

BWC © 2020 PAGE 2

According to the APEX website (www.blackanguswind.com), the proposed BAWF is planned to be located on approximately 30,000 acres of active farmlands in Clay and Montague counties1 (Figure 1) and capable of producing up to 350 megawatts (MW) of energy. The BAWF is expected to consist of approximately 100 wind turbines spaced approximately ¼ to ½ mile apart, with each turbine including the access road typically requiring less than a half an acre of land.

No information regarding the proposed EDF wind farm was available from their website.

Figure 1. Location of the proposed APEX Black Angus Wind Farm. (www.blackanguswind.com)

1 Apex’s website (www.blackanguswind.com), states that “Rural Clay and Montague counties were selected by Apex Clean Energy after a thorough examination of many candidate sites within Texas for the following reasons: Verified wind resource, Expansive commercial farmland, Existing network of state highways, Avoids sensitive military and environmental areas, and Strong local landowner and community support.”

http://www.blackanguswind.com/




BWC © 2020 PAGE 3

2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

In order to identify and document the impacts likely to occur to this federally endangered species within and surrounding the proposed wind energy development sites, BWC compiled and analyzed available data on species observations and suitable habitats for the whooping crane (Grus americana). This endangered species habitat assessment covers the known properties associated with the proposed APEX & EDF wind farms (the Study Area) within Clay, Jack, & Montague counties, Texas (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Table 1, and Table 2). The findings of the habitat assessment presented in this report are based on available information regarding habitat characteristics and occurrence data within and surrounding the Study Area for the federally endangered whooping crane.

PROJECT NAME: APEX & EDF Wind Farms (the Study Area) SIZE OF STUDY AREA: An approximately 35 x 35‐mile area encompassing approximately 750,000

acres (includes the APEX and EDF lease properties and private lands in the surrounding vicinity) (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Table 1, and Table 2).

COUNTY: Clay, Jack, & Montague counties, Texas USGS 7.5’ QUAD: Deer Creek, TX, Bluegrove, TX, Bellevue, TX, Stoneburg, TX, Scotland SE, TX,

Joy, TX, Vashti, TX, Brushy Mound, TX, Bowie, TX, Postoak, TX, Newport, TX, and Selma, TX

CLIENT: North Texas Heritage Association LLC

Attn. Mr. Bryon Barton 2249 Bugscuffle Road Bowie, Texas 76230

SUBJECT SPECIES: Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

Known leased properties associated with the proposed APEX & EDF wind farms (the Study Area) located within Clay, Jack, & Montague counties, Texas were identified from available public records and known properties with pending leases were identified from various other sources. As of December 31, 2019, a total of 40 lease agreements covering approximately 15,620 acres have been executed and recorded (Table 1). An additional 5 pending leases are known at this time which cover an additional 3,372 acres (Table 2). Locations of the proposed APEX & EDF wind farms and lease status are depicted in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 4

TABLE 1. KNOWN LEASE AGREEMENTS FROM CLAY, JACK, & MONTAGUE COUNTIES PUBLIC RECORDS2.

GRANTOR ABSTRACT / LEGAL

DESCRIPTION FILE DATE

(DOC DATE) FILE NUMBER | VOL.-PAGE ACRES

BLACK ANGUS WIND, LLC TOTAL ACREAGE LEASED: 6,526.66

PULLEN CARLA MAYFIELD PULLEN CARLA TRUST PULLEN CARLA SUE

TE&L CO 654 CERT 3293 DORSEY WM H 118 CERT 1994 MAYBEE GEORGE 329 SAUNDERS STEPHEN P 427 CERT 2017 3 BELLEVUE 2 A93 1 BELLEVUE 2 A94 1 BELLEVUE A94 22 JACK CO SCHOOL LAND 23 JACK COSCHOOL LAND 25 JACK CO SCHOOL LAND

10/8/2018 (4/4/2018)

19675 | 128-65 1,529.92

CAMARGO RANCH LLC ARRONS ALLISON A-2 CERT 88 TE&L 661 CERT 1101

10/8/2018 (2/14/2018)

19674 | 128-56 1,896.36

J K BRITE, III 2012 TRUST BRITE JAMES K

MILLY BERRY 23 BBB & C RR CO 93 AJ BYARS 114 ETRR CO 244 LITTLE 422 TE&L CO 798 TE&L CO 799 TE&L CO 810 DC HARRIS 1235 SL EZELL 1286 JASEFA DIAZ 183 TE&L CO 800

10/9/2018 (4/25/2018)

3,100.38

EDF RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT, INC TOTAL ACREAGE LEASED: 9,092.12

LIGGETT SANDRA L LIGGETT KENNETH E

TE&L CO 603 CERT 3242 FREESTONE COUNTY SCHOOL LAND 144

4/18/2018 2/16/2018)

18490 | 119-735 460.00

LIGGETT ELWYN TE&L CO 615 CERT 3254 TE&L CO 628 CERT 3268 TE&L CO 630 CERT 3269 TE&L CO 629 CERT 3268

4/18/2018 (3/27/2018)

18491 | 119-741 615.00

PERKINS JANET PERKINS ERNEST E

TE&L CO 609 CERT 3248 8/30/2018 (810/2018)

19412 | 126-91 90.00

GILL JACKIE GILL JACKIE R GILL ANNA

TE&L CO 612 CERT 3251 9/17/2018 (8/17/2018)

19535 | 127-173 182.80

ALLEN R J JR ALLEN RICHARD J JR ALLEN RICHARD J ALLEN RICHARD

TE&L CO 582 CERT 3221 TE&L CO 583 CERT 3222 RAINS CO SCH LAND 772 CERT 1

9/27/2018 (8/27/2018)

19603 | 127-498 436.69

TATE CARY WILLIAM SR TATE CARY W SR

TE&L CO 604 CERT 3243 9/27/2018 (8/27/2018)

19605 | 127-509 53.00

ALLEN LARRY TE&L CO 584 CERT 3223 TE&L CO 594 CERT 3233

9/27/2018 (8/27/2018)

19604 | 127-504 420.00

LIGGETT JON ELWYN TE&L CO 630 CERT 3269

10/12/2018 (9/18/2018)

19698 | 128-192 80.00

SCHMITTOU LISA G SCHMITTOU RONALD G MORROW GAIL MORROW JIM BILL

WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 705 82 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 705 84 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 705 83

1/28/2019 (1/8/2019)

20274 | 132-444 400.00

SCHMITTOU LISA G SCHMITTOU RONALD G

WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 705 82 1/28/2019 (1/8/2019)

20273 | 132-437 30.00

2 https://www.texasfile.com/search/texas/clay-county/county-clerk-records/. Records search was available for documents recorded through January 15, 2020. https://www.texasfile.com/search/texas/jack-county/county-clerk-records/. Records search was available for documents recorded through December 31, 2019. https://www.texasfile.com/search/texas/montague-county/county-clerk-records/. Records search was available for documents recorded through January 22, 2020.

https://www.texasfile.com/search/texas/clay-county/county-clerk-records/

https://www.texasfile.com/search/texas/jack-county/county-clerk-records/

https://www.texasfile.com/search/texas/montague-county/county-clerk-records/


BWC © 2020 PAGE 5





MORROW GAIL MORROW JIM BILL

COFFEY SEED COMPANY R DAILEY 107 CERT 2828/2829 705 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND

1/31/2019 (1/17/2019)

20311 | 132-711 1,384.05

BROOKS BELINDA GEORGE F LAWRENCE 299 CERT 9454

1/31/2019 (11/26/2018)

20312 | 132-718 54.45

BROWNING GLOVER RAY GEORGE F LAWRENCE 299 CERT 9454

1/31/2019 (11/14/2018)

20315 | 132-743 54.45

MOORE MARY LAINE SIMMONS MARY LAINE MOORE OLA ELIZABETH MOORE JOSEPH E IV MOORE MICHAEL LEE MOORE FONDA MOORE BRENDA SIMMANS RANDY D

TE&L CO 604 CERT 3243 1/31/2019 (11/16/2018)

20313 | 132-725 148.63

SCOTT CHARLENE T REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SCOTT CHARLENE T

JOHN G HADNOT 194 CERT 1254 1/31/2019 (11/14/2018)

20316 | 132-750 200.00

HUYEN HA TN NGUYEN VUONG


20314 | 132-736 121.87

BUTLER TWAIN BUTLER MISTY

TE&L CO 632 CERT 3271 1/31/2019 (12/13/2018)

20317 | 132-757 61.07

BROWNING MARK H GEORGE F LAWRENCE 299 CERT 9454

2/15/2019 (12/21/2018)

20406 | 133-514 149.64

ERNST LILLIAN RUTHANN FREESTON CO SCHOOL LAND 144 4/1/2019 (1/11/2019

20739 | 135-787 89.73

BROCK KIMBERLY K BROCK BRIAN DUANE

R C CLARK 6 HIRAM WILLIAMS 704 CERT 551 R C CLARK 7 HIRAM WILLIAMS 704 CERT 551

4/1/2019 (1/11/2019)

20738 | 135-781 294.00

BROWNING BILLY BOB SMITH TERESA D BROWNING LOIS M


20814 | 136-311 320.00

BROWNING LOIS BROWNING LOIS M

JOHN T COLLINGSWORTH 96 CERT 1860, WEBB SUB 1 SAN AUGUSTINE UNIVERSITY LEAGUE 403

4/11/2019 (3/7/2019)

20812 | 136-299 50.35

BROWNING BILLY BOB J T COLLINGSWORTH 96 CERT 1860 4/11/2019 (3/7/2019)

20813 | 136-306 100.00

FARRIS TERRIE FARRIS MICHAEL W FARRIS MICHAEL

WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 705 R DALLEY 107 CERT 2828/2929

4/25/2019 (4/8/2019)

20929 | 137-114 618.98

WEST CARRIE W A FARRIS 147 CERT 2409/2510 6/10/2019 (5/23/2019)

21177 | 138-779 69.43

COGGIN ROBERT WESLEY JR IRREVOCABLE TRUST ST ANDRE WHITNEY

TE&L CO 632 CERT 3271 TE&L CO 653 CERT 3292

7/15/2019 (6/10/2019)

21403 | 140-550 210.19

HAIGOOD ALEC GLEN HAIGOOD ALEC

JJ HAND 175 CERT 72 8/29/2019 (6/25/2019)

21730 | 142-764 290.85

BELL BENNY BERRY ANGELA CHRISTINE BELL BENNY JOE

R DAILEY 107 CERT 2828/2929 9/11/2019 (8/15/2019)

21807 | 143-383 492.43

PAARUP MICHAEL INDV & EXCTR PAARUP CAROLYN DECD

R DAILEY 107 CERT 2828/2929 9/11/2019 (8/15/2019)

21806 | 143-378 91.46

KEEN TEENA KEEN RICHARD

TE&L CO 571 CERT 3210 TE&L CO 572 CERT 3211 TE&L CO 573 CERT 3212 TE&L CO 574 CERT 3213

9/11/2019 (8/21/2019)

21805 | 143-370 393.97

MARTIN FRANKIE MARTIN WILLIAM MARTIN WILLIAM A JR

FORRIS WILLIS DECD 146 CERT 2409/25 1146 1146

9/25/2019 (9/9/2019)

21900 | 144-60 156.64


BWC © 2020 PAGE 6





HAIGOOD ALEC GLEN HAIGOOD ALEC

WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 875 16 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 875 17 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 875 28

12/20/2019 (6/25/2019)

2020000028 | 1076-204

244.85

BRAGG LEE ALAN TE&L CO 670 CERT 3249

12/23/2019 (10/16/2019)

22426 | 147-676 80.00

ROLAND BILLY BERT ROLAND BILLY ROLAND AMEE MARCINE INDV ROLAND AMEE INDV

WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 71 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 72 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 79 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 80 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 90

12/23/2019 (10//30/2019)

22427 | 147-686 103.50

ROLAND ELIZABETH SUZANN ROLAND BILLY BERT ROLAND BILLY ROLAND AMEE MARCINE INDV ROLAND AMEE INDV

WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 80 WOOD CO SCHOOL LAND 71

12/23/2019 (10//30/2019)

22428 | 147-686 165.00

RUBY ANGELU DUNCAND DECD PETTIT WARREN E EXCTR

R DAYLEY 107 CERT 2828/2929 12/23/2019 (10//30/2019)

22429 | 147-692 62.00

TEICHMAN KENNETH TEICHMAN WANDA

FOREST WILLIS DECD 146 CERT 2409/25

12/23/2019 (11/23/2019)

22430 | 147-697 402.10

See Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 for locations of executed leases throughout the Study Area.

TABLE 2. KNOWN PENDING LEASES FROM CLAY, JACK, & MONTAGUE COUNTIES.

PROPERTY OWNER ABSTRACT / LEGAL

DESCRIPTION COUNTY ACRES

BLACK ANGUS WIND, LLC TOTAL ACREAGE WITH PENDING LEASES:

2,859.11

CANTWELL

MULTIPLE TRACTS CLAY & MONTAGUE 894.39

DENSON

MULTIPLE TRACTS CLAY & MONTAGUE 1,964.72

EDF RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT, INC TOTAL ACREAGE WITH PENDING LEASES:

512.34

BROWNING

MULTIPLE TRACTS CLAY 254.85

COGGIN


MARTIN


See Figure 3 and Figure 4 for locations of known pending leases throughout the Study Area.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 7

Figure 2. Location of the Proposed APEX & EDF Wind Farms.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 8

Figure 3. Proposed APEX Black Angus Wind Farm.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 9

Figure 4. Proposed EDF Unnamed Wind Farm.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 10

3.0 WHOOPING CRANE

3.1 BIOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY Whooping cranes are the tallest birds in North America and are known for their call, size, and white

plumage. They are long-lived birds, with individually marked wild birds known to have reached 28 years of age and a captive male having been 38 years old when he died (CWS and USFWS 2007). Whooping cranes mature at 3 to 4 years of age, and most females are capable of producing eggs by 4 years of age (Campbell 2003).

These birds are monogamous, forming life-long pair bonds, and both parents contribute to raising chicks (COSEWIC 2010). Following the death of a partner, however, individuals will re-mate. While mortality rates are relatively low for adults on their breeding and wintering grounds, 60% to 80% of annual losses are estimated to occur during the spring and fall migration periods (CWS and USFWS 2007). Whooping cranes have low annual reproductive output. Pairs construct their nest out of bulrush and one to three eggs are laid in late April to early May. Females typically lay two eggs, but only 10 percent of families arrive on the winter grounds with two chicks, as rates of chick mortality are high, particularly for birds less than 2 weeks old (CWS and USFWS 2007, USFWS 2016).

On the breeding grounds, the whooping crane diet includes large nymphal or larval forms of insects, frogs, rodents, small birds, minnows, and berries (Bergeson et al. 2001, CWS and USFWS 2007, and Novakowski 1966). Frogs, crayfish, insects, berries, and fish make up their primarily food sources during the summer and migration period (USFWS 2012c). Whooping cranes also depend on fruits of the Carolina wolfberry (Lycium carolinianum) early in the winter as a food source to regain energy after they arrive on their wintering grounds (USFWS 2012a). On the wintering grounds, important food sources also include blue crabs and a variety of clams (Blankinship 1976, COSEWIC 2010).

Whooping cranes undertake a 5,000-mile round-trip migration from the breeding area in Canada to the wintering area in Texas every year. Normally, migration occurs as single individuals, pairs, family groups, or in small flocks, sometimes accompanying sandhill cranes (Antigone canadensis) (Campbell 2003, CWS and USFWS 2007, Johns 1992). Flocks of up to 10 sub-adults have been observed feeding at stopover areas during migration (Campbell 2003). Whooping cranes depart the breeding ground in Canada, travel south through Alberta, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to their wintering ground on the Texas coast.

Whooping cranes are diurnal migrants and primarily fly by using static soaring, but low-level flapping flight may be used when conditions dictate. Migration is initiated after the air has warmed and thermal updrafts are present. Individuals spiral upwards on thermals of warm air to heights of 1,000 to 6,000 feet (Kyut 1992), then enter into long, descending glides. This process is repeated throughout the day until suitable habitat is reached. Static soaring is energy efficient as birds seldom flap after they are airborne. Whooping cranes can travel between 200 and 400 miles a day; however, they do not regularly migrate during unfavorable weather conditions such as a strong headwind, rain or other precipitation, or overcast conditions. When visibility is poor, individuals use flapping flight at lower altitudes until they reach suitable roosting or feeding habitat. During the end of the migration flight, individuals will enter long descending glides reaching speeds as great as 62 miles per hour (Campbell 2003) and use flapping flight at lower altitudes until they reach suitable roosting and feeding habitat. Whooping cranes, during average conditions, may travel up to 250 miles per day (Stehn and Wassenich 2008).

Fall migration is somewhat protracted, with most birds leaving their breeding grounds in mid-September and arriving on their wintering grounds between late October and mid-November (CWS and USFWS 2007). During fall migration, birds may stay at traditional stop-over sites for 7 to 10 days but stays as long as 6 weeks have been documented (CWS and USFWS 2007). The majority of whooping cranes reach the wintering grounds


BWC © 2020 PAGE 11

by mid-November. In Texas, most migration sightings occur from early October to early November; peak migration occurs around mid-October (Austin and Richert 2001).

Spring migration is typically completed more quickly, presumably because the birds are eager to reach their nesting grounds. North-bound birds typically complete spring migration in 2 to 4 weeks with first departure dates from the wintering grounds normally occurring between March 25 and April 15, and the last birds usually leaving by May 1 (CWS and USFWS 2007). Traditional stop-over sites that are used in fall are also used in spring. However, individuals spend fewer days at stop-over sites during spring migration. Whooping cranes travel through Texas from mid-March to early April; peak migration occurs around the beginning of April (Austin and Richert 2001). Occasionally, whooping cranes will over-summer on their wintering grounds, with some of these birds known to have been ill or crippled, or the mates of crippled birds (CWS and USFWS 2007).

The primary causes of whooping crane mortality in general, as well as causes of mortality suffered during migration are clouded by very low rates of carcass recovery. The CWS and USFWS (2007) report that as of that date, 13 carcasses of migrant whooping cranes had been recovered, with five of those birds determined to have collided with power lines, four of the birds having died from trauma suffered from collision or gunshot injuries, two may have died from disease or infection, one died from gunshot, and one died from getting caught in a muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) trap. Thus, of those 13 cranes, at least 84.6% died from anthropogenic-related causes. Two of eight birds that died on the wintering grounds over the period of 1950–1987 were lost to natural causes (one to avian predation and one to tuberculosis); the remaining six birds died from being shot on the wintering grounds or from what was believed to be trauma induced by gunshot wounds or other injuries suffered during fall migration (CWS and USFWS 2007).

A mortality analysis of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) was conducted by Butler et al. (2014) and determined that approximately 50% of variation in the annual population growth could be explained by variation in annual mortality. The most recent study focusing on timing, location and causes of mortality in the AWBP was conducted from 2010 to 2015 by Pearse et al. (2019). Among 68 whooping cranes marked with transmitters and included in the study, Pearse et al. (2019) confirmed deaths of 17 cranes between June 12, 2011 and March 30, 2015 by recovering remains using location information provided by the satellite transmitters. Mortalities occurred in all seasons and over a wide time frame within summer and winter. However, for 13 of the 17 confirmed mortalities (76.5 percent), cause of death could not be determined because of the advanced state of scavenging and/or decomposition (Pearse et al. 2019).

Lewis et al. (1992) and Stehn and Haralson-Strobel (2014) identified migration as a time when 60–80% of AWBP deaths occur. However, the most recent findings of Pearse et al. (2019) indicate that migration contributed the least proportionally to annual mortality while also representing the smallest proportion of the annual cycle. Pearse et al. (2019) determined that migration posed a nearly equal rather than greater risk to whooping cranes as compared with other times of the year, because daily survival rates were similar among seasons. However, it should be noted that the time period of the study coincided with consistent drought conditions on the wintering grounds3 and prior studies by Butler et al. (2014) reported that winter mortality was influenced by drought conditions and the percentage of mortality occurring during the winter could increase up to 43% during extreme drought conditions (Pearse et al. 2019).

3 Pearse et al. (2019) reported the climatic conditions for the study duration as follows: “winter 2011–12 was classified as extreme drought, winter 2012–13 as severe drought, winter 2013–14 as moderate drought, and winter 2014–15 as mild drought (Palmer, 1965; National Climatic Data Center, 2007).”


BWC © 2020 PAGE 12

3.2 HABITAT AND HABITAT USE Whooping cranes formerly occurred much more widely across North America, with the wild birds today

essentially a relict population that nests and winters in very localized areas compared to their distribution in historical times (CWS and USFWS 2007). As a result, the habitats used by wild whooping cranes today do not reveal the full suite of habitats that once were used by the species for breeding and over-wintering purposes. For example, whooping cranes once wintered in grasslands of the high plateaus of central Mexico (CWS and USFWS 2007).

HABITATS USED DURING MIGRATION

Whooping cranes require foraging and roosting habitats when they stop during migration. Past research has identified major riverine systems and palustrine wetlands as important roosting habitats for migrating Whooping Crane (Faanes and Bowman 1992, Weddle 1996, Van Schmidt et al. 2014, Hefley et al. 2015). Other studies have found wetlands throughout the migration corridor to be important habitats for Whooping Crane (Howe 1989, Armbruster 1990, Kuyt 1992, Austin and Richert 2001, Austin and Richert 2005, Pearse et al. 2017).

Austin and Richert (2001) reviewed 1,014 whooping crane site evaluation records4 made during the period of 1977 through 1999, identifying that whooping cranes roost predominantly in palustrine or riverine wetland systems during migration, with these types of wetlands accounting for 91.5% of the roost sites recorded. Remaining roost sites were mostly lacustrine wetlands (7.8% of recorded roost sites) or flooded cropland (2.8% of recorded roost sites). Other studies of migrating whooping cranes reveal that 75% of wetlands used for roosting are generally less than 10 acres in size and 40% are less than 1.24 acres, and that sites chosen for roosting generally occur within 0.62 mile of feeding areas (Howe 1987, Howe 1989; Johns et al. 1997, USFWS 2009). Studies cited by USFWS (CWS and USFWS 2007) suggest landscapes characterized as “wetland mosaic” provide the most suitable migration stopover habitat. When using riverine habitat, whooping cranes typically roost on submerged sandbars in wide, unobstructed channels that are isolated from human disturbance and, presumably, comparatively secure from predation (Armbruster 1990). Approximately 97.9% of the riverine roosts reviewed by Austin and Richert (2001) were recorded in Nebraska. Outside of Nebraska, more than 75% of whooping crane roosts were recorded in palustrine wetlands. Most palustrine roost sites were adjacent to cropland or grassland (Austin and Richert 2001).

Diurnal habitat selection by the whooping crane throughout the U.S. portion of the migration corridor was assessed using data collected from 42 whooping crane individuals that included 2,169 diurnal use locations within 395 stopover sites evaluated during spring 2013 to fall 2015 (Baasch et al. 2019). Baasch et al. (2019) found that wetland land-cover types (i.e., open water, riverine, and semi-permanent wetlands) and lowland grasslands were selected by whooping cranes for diurnal activities over all other land-cover types evaluated, including croplands. The study also identified that whooping cranes generally avoid roads, with avoidance varied based on land-cover class (Baasch et al. 2019).

3.3 RANGE, DISTRIBUTION, AND ABUNDANCE Historically, over 10,000 whooping cranes once populated North America, ranging east of the Rocky

Mountains from Canada to Mexico and the Rocky Mountains to the East Coast. Population declines were caused primarily by shooting and destruction of habitat in the prairies from agricultural development (CWS and USFWS 2007). Only an estimated 1,400 whooping cranes survived in North America by the mid-1800s. By the mid-1900s, only a few birds remained that nested in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) and wintered in South Texas at what is now the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). WBNP and the ANWR are separated by a

4 Site evaluation records used in Austin and Richert (2001) contained information regarding the physical characteristics of the site where the cranes were observed. Data collected for site evaluation records included, among others, wetland type and size, substrate type, water depth at roost or feeding sites, visibility, vegetation, distance to nearest disturbance, and land cover.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 13

distance of approximately 2,400 miles. Ironically, the steadfast use of a traditional summer area that appears to have saved the whooping crane as a small, relict breeding population in WBNP prevents its voluntary return to what was once its principal nesting range. Re-colonization of these historic breeding areas remains unlikely unless humans assist with habitat restoration and reintroductions (CWS and USFWS 2007, USFWS 2012c).

All whooping cranes alive today have come from the all-time low of 15 whooping cranes wintering at ANWR in 1941 (CWS and USFWS 2007). Since then, conservation efforts, to include a combination of strict legal protection, habitat preservation, and continuous international cooperation between Canada and the United States, have resulted in a slow increase of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP). As of 2019, conservation efforts have allowed the AWBP whooping cranes, which are the only remaining wild, migratory population, to increase to an estimated 504 individuals (Figure 5).

Figure 5. 2019 Global Population Estimate for the Whooping Crane (ICF 2020).

Table 3 identifies the estimated AWBP population over the last nine winters (Stehn (2011), Bradley and Butler (2012), Harrell and Bidwell (2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016) and Butler and Harrell (2017, 2018, and 2019). Butler and Harrell (2019) reported that the long-term growth rate in the AWBP population has averaged 4.5 percent, with the population remaining stable from winter 2017–2018 to winter 2018–2019. However, due to lower than normal fledging at WBNP, recruitment into the AWPB population was low in 2018, resulting in no population growth for the 2018-2019 season (Butler and Harrell 2019).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 14

TABLE 3. WHOOPING CRANE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE AWBP.

SURVEY WINTER

ABUNDANCE IN PRIMARY SURVEY AREA

BIRDS ASSUMED OUTSIDE OF THE

PRIMARY SURVEY AREA TOTAL* ADULTS YOUNG

2010 – 2011 238 45 2 283

2011 – 2012 214 39 13 254

2012 - 2013 224 33 22 257

2013 – 2014 265 39 6 304

2014 – 2015 269 39 6 308

2015 – 2016 291 38 8 329

2016 – 2017 381 50 6 431

2017 – 2018 456 49 21 505

2018 – 2019 491 13 12 504 *Total does not include cranes believed to be present outside of the primary wintering area covered by surveys.

Whooping cranes migrate during spring and fall through a relatively narrow corridor across the Great Plains between WBNP and ANWR (Figure 6, Mirande and Harris 2019). The migration corridor as drawn in the United States by Pearse et al. (2018) is depicted on Figure 7 and Figure 8, along with U.S. records of whooping crane observations held by the USFWS5 (2020a and 2020b) and other public information sources. The U.S. migration corridor was drawn to encompass 95% of whooping crane observations made in the United States, and the 50% and 75% core migration areas were also delineated (Pearse et al. 2018).

5 The following disclaimers apply to the use of the USFWS Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office whooping crane datasets (USFWS 2020a and USFWS 2020b), including occurrences displayed on figures and discussions included herein pertaining to whooping crane occurrences within the migration corridor.

This document or presentation includes Whooping Crane migration use data from the Central Flyway stretching from Canada to Texas, collected, managed and owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Data were provided to Blair Wildlife Consulting, LLC as a courtesy for their use. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not directed, reviewed, or endorsed any aspect of the use of these data. Any and all data analyses, interpretations, and conclusions from these data are solely those of Blair Wildlife Consulting, LLC. This document or presentation sourced the Provisional Whooping Crane Telemetry Database from the Central Flyway stretching from North Dakota to Texas. The data is managed and owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Telemetry Database was provided to Blair Wildlife Consulting, LLC. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not directed, reviewed, or endorsed any aspect of the use of the Telemetry Database. Any and all data analyses, interpretations, and conclusions drawn from these data are solely those of Blair Wildlife Consulting, LLC.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 15

Figure 6. Whooping Crane Range Map (Mirande and Harris 2019).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 16

Figure 7. Whooping Crane Migration Corridors (Pearse et al. 2018, USFWS 2020a, 2020b).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 17

Figure 8. Whooping Crane Migration Corridor Observations (Pearse et al. 2018, USFWS 2020a, 2020b).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 18

The locations of whooping crane observations made in Texas as shown on Figure 7 are depicted in greater detail on Figure 8, with the observations on Figure 8 indicating whether they were made in spring, fall, or winter. As shown on Figure 7 and Figure 8, most observations of whooping cranes made in Texas away from the coastal counties have occurred, as expected, in the traditional migration corridor, with observations occurring seasonally during both the spring and fall migrations.

3.4 THREATS AND HISTORIC TRENDS Primary threats to whooping cranes include habitat loss, powerline collision, illegal hunting, and human

disturbances (CWS and USFWS 2007). Current threats to the species as identified in The International Whooping Crane Recovery Plan (CWS and USFWS 2007) are as follows: human settlement/development, insufficient freshwater inflows, shooting, disturbance, disease, predation, severe weather, loss of genetic diversity, climate change, red tide, chemical spills, collisions with power lines, collisions with fences, collisions with other structures, collisions with aircraft, and pesticides.

WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT / COLLISIONS

Wind energy development is increasing in the United States, with much of the highest wind energy potential occurring in the Great Plains region, which includes the migration corridor used by the AWBP whooping cranes (USFWS 2009) (Figure 9 and Table 4). As of September 2019, 10,627 turbines (17.5% of all wind turbines within the United States) occur within the 95% core migration corridor and 2,081 turbines (3.4%) occur within the 50% core migration corridor (Table 4). Prior to 2012, annual wind turbine development within the 95% core migration corridor ranged between 0% to 16% of all turbines erected annually. Since 2012, erection of new wind turbines within the 95% core migration corridor has ranged between 11.4% to 45.2% of all new turbines built annually throughout the United States (Table 4).

Direct mortality of whooping cranes may occur as whooping cranes encounter turbines in bad weather or low light conditions at the beginning or end of migration flights, or when flying between roosts and foraging areas at stopover sites (USFWS 2009). Whooping crane mortality as a result from collision with a wind turbine has not been reported to date, however, the lack of confirmation of mortality as a result from collision with a wind turbine does not discount the potential for such mortality to have already occurred or occur in the future.

The primary indirect effect of concern is complete avoidance by whooping cranes of stopover habitat, habitat fragmentation, loss of stopover habitat, and disruption of life cycles due to behavioral tendencies of many wildlife species to avoid vertical structures including wind turbines (USFWS 2009). Although the reaction of whooping cranes to wind turbines on the landscape is not fully known, the primary indirect effect of wind energy development may be that whooping cranes avoid wind turbines and do not use otherwise suitable stopover habitat located in wind farm areas (USFWS 2009).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 19

Figure 9. Existing Wind Turbines within the Whooping Crane Migration Corridor.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 20

TABLE 4. ANNUAL WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE US (USWTDB 2019)*

YEAR

TOTAL NEW WIND TURBINES CONSTRUCTED

AWBP MIGRATION CORRIDOR1 ANNUAL GROWTH US

50% CORE %

75% CORE %

95% CORE %

UNKN 246 15 6.1% 18 7.3% 56 22.8% -

1981-1985 3,779 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -

1986-1989 876 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -

1990-1994 438 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -

1995-1998 293 0 0.0% 2 0.7% 2 0.7% -

1999 1,006 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16%

2000 82 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1%

2001 1,876 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 175 9.3% 22%

2002 461 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 3 0.7% 5%

2003 1,153 46 4.0% 140 12.1% 182 15.8% 12%

2004 327 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3%

2005 1,655 22 1.3% 240 14.5% 278 16.8% 14%

2006 1,506 33 2.2% 33 2.2% 158 10.5% 11%

2007 3,200 32 1.0% 32 1.0% 117 3.7% 19%

2008 5,048 0 0.0% 149 3.0% 604 12.0% 23%

2009 5,780 166 2.9% 328 5.7% 514 8.9% 21%

2010 2,960 174 5.9% 197 6.7% 443 15.0% 10%

2011 3,506 165 4.7% 319 9.1% 402 11.5% 10%

2012 6,773 579 8.5% 1,131 16.7% 1,841 27.2% 17%

2013 610 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 1.3% 1%

2014 2,512 110 4.4% 429 17.1% 791 31.5% 6%

2015 4,300 229 5.3% 356 8.3% 1,434 33.3% 9%

2016 3,827 298 7.8% 847 22.1% 1,730 45.2% 7%

2017 3,181 129 4.1% 250 7.9% 898 28.2% 6%

2018 3,293 81 2.5% 256 7.8% 775 23.5% 6%

20192 1,888 0 0.0% 82 4.3% 216 11.4% 3%

TOTAL 60,576 2,081 3.4% 4,813 7.9% 10,627 17.5% *Database included turbine locations in which the construction date is not known or was not provided to USWTDB. Out of the 60,576 records, 246 records (0.4%) did not have the year of construction included.

1: Total turbines constructed within the 50%, 75%, and 95% core migration areas including 95% confidence interval bands as defined in Pearse et al. (2018) and corresponding percentage of overall wind turbines constructed for that year

2: Records for turbines constructed in 2019 were only available through October 2, 2019.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 21

COLLISIONS WITH POWERLINES

According to Stehn and Wassenich (2008), collision with power lines is the greatest source of mortality for fledged whooping cranes in the AWBP. Collisions with both electric transmission and distribution lines have been responsible for the death or serious injury of at least 45 whooping cranes since 1956 (Stehn and Wassenich 2008). Of the 45 collisions, nine (20%) were incurred within the AWBP. Seventeen of the 45 collisions (37.8%) were with transmission lines and 23 (51.1%) were with distribution lines, while the type of power line involved in the other five collisions was not recorded. Of the nine collisions involving birds from the wild population, one collision was with a transmission line and eight were with distribution lines and at least seven of the eight collisions with distribution lines resulted in death of the birds (Stehn and Wassenich 2008). Transmission lines throughout the US, including those which cross through the migration corridor used by the AWBP whooping cranes is shown on Figure 10.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 22

Figure 10. Existing Transmission Lines within the Whooping Crane Migration Corridor.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 23

HUMAN SETTLEMENT / DEVELOPMENT & DISTURBANCE

One of the primary reasons for the historic decline of the whooping crane was the settlement of the prairie pothole region, including the conversion of wetlands to agricultural production (Allen 1952) making historic nesting habitat unsuitable for whooping cranes (USFWS 2012c). The USFWS (2012c) indicated that drainage of wetlands also resulted in a “tremendous” loss of migratory habitat available to whooping cranes and that losses are continuing. The USFWS (2012c) also stated that construction of roads, buildings, power lines, towers, and wind turbines have all negatively impacted the whooping crane and increasing development on the Texas coast has encroached on the salt marsh habitats used by whooping cranes in winter. On-going development of coastal areas is expected to limit the availability of wintering habitat and limit the potential for expansion of the AWBP (USFWS 2012c).

Whooping cranes are considered relatively sensitive to human disturbance (CWS and USFWS 2007). Whooping cranes typically respond to disturbances by moving away from the source of the disturbance, with such movements having ability to temporarily displace cranes from preferred feeding areas and potentially impair fitness (CWS and USFWS 2007).The birds appear to be more tolerant of humans when on their wintering grounds, although they have exhibited sensitivity to low-flying aircraft, airboats, and humans on foot, while showing much less sensitivity to carefully operated boats and land vehicles (CWS and USFWS 2007).

SHOOTING / EGG COLLECTING

Shooting and egg collecting was major contributing factor to the early decline of the whooping crane in the 1800s and early 1900s was. A total of 389 whooping cranes known to have died from gunshot or other causes from colonial times to 1948 (Allen 1952). Whooping crane deaths resulting from gunshots are increasingly rare in more recent times largely due to the passage of the MBTA and the ESA and increased public education. Deaths from shooting presently are a result of acts of vandalism or associated with misidentification of the whooping crane during hunting of other migratory birds (USFWS 2012c). A juvenile crane of the AWBP was accidentally shot while a person was hunting on the Texas coast in January 2013 (Harrell and Bidwell 2013). Members of the non-essential experimental populations in Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, as well as members of the AWBP in Texas have also been purposefully shot by people in recent years (Associated Press 2011, 2015; Smith 2016; USFWS 2012c, USFWS 2017).

DISEASE & PREDATION

Although not frequently documented, disease may be an important factor in whooping crane mortality given the overall small population of the species. Diseases noted in dead whooping cranes include avian tuberculosis, avian cholera, and acute lead poisoning (USFWS 2012c). Other disease issues of possible significance include West Nile virus, the H5N1 strain of avian influenza, aflatoxin and other molds growing on farm crops, and the toxin produced by red tide phytoplankton blooms (USFWS 2012c).

Predation is also a large threat to the species. In general, healthy adult whooping cranes have low susceptibility to predation, and members of the AWBP are much less susceptible to predation than members of the experimental populations derived from captive-raised stock (CWS and USFWS 2007). At WBNP, whooping crane eggs and chicks suffer depredation from a variety of mammalian predators, including black bear (Ursus americanus), wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), gray wolf (Canis lupus), red fox (Vulpes fulva), mink (Mustela vison), and lynx (Lynx canadensis), as well as from common ravens (Corvus corax) (CWS and USFWS 2007). Predation is also known to occur by bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) on sick or injured whooping cranes at the ANWR, but overall predation rates among the AWBP in winter are considered to be very low (CWS and USFWS 2007). In March 2018, a predation attempt by a juvenile bald eagle was documented for the first time during migration in Nebraska (Rabbe et al. 2019).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 24

CLIMATE CHANGE

Pearse et al. (2018) states that defining and identifying changes to seasonal ranges of migratory species is required for effective conservation, and as part of recovery efforts evaluated the migration corridor of the AWBP using historic sightings and telemetry locations. Their analysis detected easterly movements in locations over time, primarily due to locations west of the median shifting east and a modest narrowing of the migration corridor as a whole (Pearse et al. 2018).

With their historic range encompassing the Great Plains of North America (i.e., Canadian Prairies and United States Great Plains) and beyond, the species experienced an extreme range reduction along with near extinction (Allen 1952). Monitoring movements during migration and identifying and protecting essential habitat have been identified as a recovery action for whooping cranes (CWS and USFWS 2007).

Pearse et al. (2018) identified that changes in the AWBP migration corridor over the past 8 decades suggest that agencies and organizations interested in recovery of this species may need to modify where conservation and recovery actions occur. Whooping cranes showed apparent plasticity in their migratory behavior, which likely has been necessary for persistence of a wetland-dependent species migrating through the drought-prone Great Plains. Behavioral flexibility will be useful for whooping cranes to continue recovery in a future of uncertain climate and land use changes throughout their annual range.

Pearse et al. (2018) further discussed that changes in conditions over part or all of their range can result in distribution shifts. Such shifts can manifest as an increase or decrease in area, or include different geographic space with no net change in range size. Many species have experienced range contractions due to habitat loss and conversion of land to uses and habitat types that no longer support them (e.g., effects of conversion of grasslands to croplands on grassland birds; Askins et al. 2007). Along with land use change, climate change has been identified as causing range shifts (Chen et al. 2011).

3.5 REGULATORY STATUS

FEDERAL AND STATE PROTECTIONS

The whooping crane was originally listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967, following establishment of the Endangered Species Preservation Act on October 15, 1966 and is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (32 FR 4001, USFWS 1967, USFWS 2007). The species is also protected under the MBTA and is protected as an endangered species by the State of Texas (Campbell 2003).

CRITICAL HABITAT

Critical habitat for the whooping crane was designated by the USFWS in 1978 and consists of areas within the species’ wintering grounds and migration route and includes five sites in four states (USFWS 1978). Critical habitat along the migration route consists of more than 74,160 acres along the Platte River bottoms between Lexington and Denman, Nebraska; Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Management Area and Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas; and Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. The wintering grounds designated as critical habitat include approximately 472,435 acres within and adjacent to ANWR in Texas (43 FR 20938–20942).

4.0 METHODS

Available background information, including topographic maps, stream and wetland maps, aerial imagery, and other available data within and surrounding the Study Area were reviewed as part of this assessment. Publicly available records were also requested for review and analysis in order to determine the


BWC © 2020 PAGE 25

occurrence of suitable habitat and occurrence of the species of concern within and in the vicinity of the Study Area.

5.0 FINDINGS

The Study Area is located entirely within the 50% core area of the AWBP migration corridor and the Study Area is bisected by the AWBP migration corridor centerline (Figure 8).

During migration, suitable stopover sites for the whooping crane are essential because they provide places for resting and energy intake (Haig et al. 1998, Webb et al. 2010). The quality of available stopover sites likely influences the probability of survival during migration and body condition going into the breeding/wintering seasons (Myers 1983, Moore et al. 1995, Farmer and Parent 1997, Carey 2012). The quality of available stopover sites may be especially important for critically endangered, long-distance migrants such as the Whooping Crane because the survival of individuals maintains important genetic diversity and has disproportionate influence on the long-term population growth rate (Meine and Archibald 1996, CWS and USFWS 2007).

Whooping cranes require suitable foraging and roosting habitats when they stop during migration. Past research has identified palustrine wetlands and major riverine systems as important roosting habitats for migrating Whooping Crane (Faanes and Bowman 1992, Weddle 1996, Van Schmidt et al. 2014, Hefley et al. 2015, Howe 1989, Armbruster 1990, Kuyt 1992, Austin and Richert 2001, Austin and Richert 2005, Pearse et al. 2017). Furthermore, whooping cranes select wetland land-cover types (i.e., open water, riverine, and semi-permanent wetlands) and lowland grasslands for diurnal activities over all other land-cover types evaluated, including croplands; and cranes generally avoid roads, with avoidance varied based on land-cover class (Baasch et al. 2019).

Areas of suitable stopover habitats for the whooping crane within and surrounding the Study Area based on the 2016 National Land Cover Dataset are shown on Figure 11. Areas of suitable stopover habitats as mapped by the Texas Ecological Systems Database (TXESD) are shown on Figure 12.

Baasch et al. (2019) states “Wetlands are an integral part of Whooping Crane migration habitat needs, which is supported by the notion that it selects landscapes with diverse wetland features (Niemuth et al. 2018). However, there has been considerable alteration of the natural wetlands, rivers, and streams (Myers 1983, Tiner 1984, Farmer and Parent 1997, Samson et al. 2010) that serve as potential roosting and foraging sites for migrating Whooping Crane. Given recent droughts, the uncertainty associated with climate change, and the likelihood of future land use changes within the migration corridor, directing conservation efforts toward protecting wetland stopover habitat may prove critical (Myers 1983, Haig et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2010). Wetland losses from development and drought associated with global climate change pose an additive risk to both wetland connectivity and wildlife migration broadly, limiting the ability of many species, potentially including Whooping Crane, to respond to environmental conditions (Opdam and Wascher 2004, McIntyre et al. 2014). As quality habitat patches are lost and accessibility declines, Whooping Crane may be constrained to settle in suboptimal habitats or migrate farther each day to locate suitable stopover sites. Identification and protection of stopover habitat along the migratory route is an important aspect for recovering the endangered Whooping Crane (Meine and Archibald 1996, CWS and USFWS 2007). Future studies of the AWBP of Whooping Crane should focus on wetland land-cover classes throughout the migration corridor to precisely identify management actions that could be taken to protect or even enhance these imperiled landcover types. Protection of suitable migratory stopover habitat and reduction of crane mortality are critical for the continued growth of the last remaining wild population of Whooping Crane.”

Areas of suitable stopover habitats for the whooping crane within and surrounding the Study Area based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Dataset and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) are shown below on Figure 13.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 26

Figure 11. Suitable Stopover Habitats within and surrounding the Study Area as Mapped by the NLCD.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 27

Figure 12. Suitable Stopover Habitat Areas within and surrounding the Study Area as Mapped by TXESD.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 28

Figure 13. Wetland Habitats within and surrounding the Study Area.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 29

To assist in species recovery and planning efforts, Pearse et al. (2015) identified stopover sites and categorized occupied areas based on density of stopover sites and the amount of time cranes spent in the area. The assessment resulted in four categories of stopover site use: unoccupied, low intensity, core intensity, and extended-use core intensity (Figure 14). Although provisional, this evaluation of stopover site use intensity offers a tool to identify landscapes that may be of greater conservation significance to migrating whooping cranes (Pearse et al. 2015). According to Pearse et al. (2015), the majority of the Study Area occurs within areas mapped as core intensity stopover habitat, with two small portions of similar proportion classified as low intensity and unoccupied, respectively (Figure 14).

Migration strategies of the AWBP whooping cranes were evaluated by Pearse et al. (2020). Pearse et al (2020) found that “Time spent at stopover sites was positively associated with migration bout length and negatively associated with time spent at previous stopover sites, indicating Whooping Cranes acquired energy resources at some stopover sites that they used to fuel migration. Whooping Cranes were faithful to a defined migration corridor but showed less fidelity in their selection of nighttime stopover sites; hence, spatial targeting of conservation actions may be better informed by associations with landscape and habitat features rather than documented past use at specific locations.”

Pearse et al. (2020) evaluated migration space use in order to identify core use areas within the AWBP whooping crane migration corridor. Locations with ≥3 identified stopover sites (i.e. locations used by a bird for ≥1 day) were determined to be core stopover areas, and represented 25 percent of the stopover sites within the migration corridor. According to Pearse et al. (2020) stopover site intensity of areas used by migrating whooping cranes, the majority of the Study Area occurs within areas mapped as core stopover areas, with only a small proportion of the Study Area classified as peripheral areas (Figure 15).

Pearse et al. (2020) also evaluated spatial overlap and consistency with respect to migration space use within the AWBP whooping crane migration corridor and found that 45 percent of the stopover sites were used by multiple birds across all migration seasons (spatial overlap), with the greatest use by multiple birds occurring in Analysis Zone 2 and greatest site fidelity (spatial consistency) by whooping cranes occurring in Analysis Zones 2 and 5. Site fidelity also was more pronounced in a southern section of the migration corridor (Analysis Zone 2), where core use sites were fewer (Figure 15 and Figure 16), which may be an indication of more limited suitable site availability (Pearse et al. 2020). Fewer choices for suitable stopover areas likely promoted higher fidelity to sites in Analysis Zone 2 of the migration corridor (Pearse et al. 2020). The Study Area occurs within Analysis Zone 2 (Figure 16) as classified Pearse et al. (2020).

Understanding that whooping cranes respond to seasonal conditions or conspecific attraction in choosing stopover sites across most of the migration corridor more so than relying on knowledge of sites used in previous years, potential impacts to the species during migration should documented stopover site conditions (i.e. landscape and habitat features) rather than geographic locations used by the species in different parts of their migration corridor (Pearse et al. 2020).

Pearse et al. (2020) found that whooping cranes showed consistency in migration initiation, but variation increased with completion of the migration, suggesting that certain behaviors are controlled innately, which may reduce capacity for adaptation in the face of changing conditions. Furthermore, the different temporal migration dynamics by age classes and protracted migrations of the AWBP whooping cranes resulted in individuals migrating for approximately 20 percent of the year (2.5 months) whereas, from the perspective of the entire population, at least some birds were in migration status for approximately 40 percent of the year (5 months) (Pearse et al. 2020). Although migrations may make up the shortest life stage each year for individual whooping cranes, the occurrence of incompatible land uses within the migration corridor can affect the population for nearly half the year (Pearse et al. 2020).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 30

Figure 14. Whooping Crane Stopover Site Use Intensity (Pearse et al. 2015).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 31

Figure 15. Stopover Site Intensity of Areas Used by Migrating Whooping Cranes in the Great Plains, Prairie Canada, and Southern Boreal Regions, 2010–2016 (adapted from Figure 1 in Pearse et al. 2020).


BWC © 2020 PAGE 32

Figure 16. Spatial and temporal patterns of spring and autumn migrations of Whooping Cranes in the Great Plains, Prairie Canada, and southern boreal region, 2010–2016. (adapted from Figure 2 in Pearse et al. 2020).

Pearse et al (2020) found that the average migration flight bouts between stopover sites for the whooping crane were similar seasonally and comparable to distances observed in other species with thermal soaring migration flight and that the time whooping cranes spent at stopover sites was positively related with their subsequent flight distance. Understanding these flight capabilities is essential in evaluating potential impacts to the species during migration and how location selection for incompatible land uses will impact the spacing and distribution of stopover habitat necessary for completion of successful migrations.

Time spent at stopover sites, not in flight, constitutes the majority of the time in the migratory period; therefore, to minimize total time in migration (Hedenström and Alerstam 1997), Whooping Cranes should limit length of migration stops, a behavior observed in other crane species (Kanai et al. 2002). During autumn migration, the correlation between length of stop and length of subsequent stops (e.g., shorter stops were followed by longer stops) indicated energy expenditure was an important consideration in autumn (Nilsson et al. 2013). Pearse et al (2020) also suggested that greater need for extended stays before longer migration flights in autumn also could be because the birds in autumn had just finished breeding and may be in poorer body condition when initiating migration as compared to birds initiating spring migration. Increases in migration flight bouts between stopover sites would require greater energy expenditure, further exacerbating the effects of poorer body conditions and reduced fitness, ultimately increasing the potential for mortality during or shortly after migration.

For the AWBP whooping cranes, the impacts of actions on the birds during migration will be inherently more challenging than actions at other times of the year. Whooping cranes spread out over a much larger area in migration compared to their much more limited and predictable use of areas during breeding or wintering seasons (Allen 1952, Kuyt 1992). In addition, greater than 50 percent of lands used by whooping cranes on


BWC © 2020 PAGE 33

summering and wintering grounds have some level of land protection (CWS and USFWS 2005), as compared to 10 percent in migration (Pearse et al. 2015). Therefore, conservation protection in the migratory corridor remains a priority (Pearse et al. 2020). Because most land across the core migration corridor is in private ownership and most stopover sites occurred on these lands (Pearse et al. 2017), working with landowners and project developers to limit impacts to the species during migration is crucial.

The findings in Pearse et al. (2020) indicate that whooping cranes have a relatively large migration distribution and revisit sites rarely. Therefore, the species will have a continued need for a variety of well-distributed stopover habitats available along the migration corridor. To meet this need, careful consideration and thorough evaluation of a projects potential impacts to the species is necessary. Land protection programs over extensive areas, such as through easement programs, may be more beneficial than intensive conservation actions at specific locations (Pearse et al. 2020). Distances whooping cranes were able to migrate each day can provide partial insight as to the distribution of these habitats, although redundancy and diversity of wetlands may help mitigate pressures associated with seasonal and interannual dynamics, such as drought and fluctuating water levels (Pearse et al. 2020).

The ability for a species to adapt to change is partially dependent on variation in its behavior. Pearse et al (2020) found that Whooping Cranes had flexible aspects to their migration strategy that will be necessary as the landscape continues to undergo conversion, such as from oil and gas extraction (Allred et al. 2015), wind energy development (Wiser and Bolinger 2017), and cropland expansion (Lark et al. 2015). However, it is important to note that even with this flexibility, whooping cranes and other wetland obligate species likely have little ability to adapt to large-scale loss of wetlands and will continue to require an adequate network of wetlands to persist (Pearse et al. 2020). Continued adaptation to climate change will remain necessary and, although whooping cranes have shown the ability to modify migration timing (Jorgensen and Brown 2017), their continued ability to adapt to intensified future climate change scenarios is unknown, as it is for numerous other species worldwide (Bellard et al. 2012, Pearse et al. 2020).

Because of the high level of concern regarding whooping cranes, the ability to evaluate the risk to the species is a critical component to understanding the environmental impacts of a proposed wind project or projects. As discussed above and summarized below, it is reasonably foreseeable that development of the proposed APEX & EDF wind farm sites would adversely impact the AWBP whooping cranes through direct, indirect and cumulative impacts:

The proposed APEX & EDF wind farm sites are located entirely within the 50% core area of the AWBP migration corridor and the Study Area is bisected by the AWBP migration corridor centerline.

The proposed APEX & EDF wind farm sites contain large areas of suitable stopover habitat for whooping cranes.

The proposed APEX & EDF wind farm sites contain known stopover habitat areas occupied and utilized by whooping cranes over multiple years during both spring and fall migrations.

The two most likely impacts of wind development on whooping cranes within the proposed APEX & EDF wind farm sites are:

1) direct mortality of whooping cranes due to collisions with transmission lines, turbines, or other facilities; and/or

2) avoidance of the area around the facilities by whooping cranes.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 34

In light of the especially sensitive location of these two proposed wind farm developments being contained entirely within the 50 percent core area of the whooping crane migratory corridor and bisected by the whooping crane migration corridor centerline -- coupled with the unique physiological characteristics of the whooping crane affecting its flight maneuverability and the species' grueling biannual migration that significantly depletes its energetic resources -- it is our professional opinion, based on the best available scientific evidence, that these proposed wind farm development projects, both individually and in combination, are virtually certain to result in the "take6" of whooping cranes through lethal and/or non-lethal means.

Given the precarious status of the whooping crane, significant threats to the species continuance and recovery, and the existing baseline of incidental take authorizations already issued by the USFWS7, the additive take from each of these proposed wind development projects may well impair the recovery prospects of this species. Accordingly, based on the locality and existing characteristics of the proposed wind farm development sites, the available literature and data for the species, and our scientific expertise, we conclude that construction and operation these two proposed wind farm developments must obtain incidental take authorization from the USFWS, and in the process of obtaining such authorization must demonstrate that the construction and operation of these proposed wind development projects would not jeopardize the species, as that term is defined by the ESA.

Although there is limited information on the role of wind turbines as a threat to whooping cranes, there is substantial evidence of the threat to all species of cranes from electric transmission lines (Janss and Ferrer 2002, Sundar and Choudhury 2005, Stehn and Wassenich 2006, Wright et al. 2009, Shaw et al. 2010). This is concerning given the large area of preferred stopover habitat that is already impacted by existing transmission lines and the increasing density of wind energy development within the core migratory path of the AWBP whooping cranes over the last several years (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Further, the current lack of documentation of direct mortality does not mean whooping cranes are safe from future wind turbine expansion, which was known to kill hundreds of thousands of birds annually at past build-out levels (Smallwood 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Erickson et al. 2015), a number that likely increases with each turbine built.

The location of the proposed APEX & EDF wind farms occurs within one of the last remaining largely undeveloped areas within this portion of north central Texas. The construction of the wind turbines, access roads, and distribution and transmission lines, if built, would further reduce the already limited stopover habitats in this area or the migration corridor. Wind development would likely displace the migrating cranes that utilize this area, requiring them to continue further north in search of suitable stopover habitat (possibly to the stopover areas north of Oklahoma City), as wind developments have already been constructed within the 50% core migration corridor to the north, east, and west (Figure 17). Furthermore, there are at least an additional ten wind sites currently proposed between the stopover areas within the proposed APEX & EDF wind farm sites and Oklahoma City, that, if constructed, would interconnect with the existing wind facilities further extending the hazards already faced (Figure 17).

6 Section 3 of the ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” is further defined as any act that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife or that results in habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife. 7 At least 13 project authorizations have been approved and issued by the USFWS permitting the incidental take of this species and/or the adverse modification of the species federally designated critical habitat areas located throughout the migration corridor and wintering grounds. Additional information on USFWS authorized impacts is available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/ad-hoc-creator?catalogId=species&reportId=bo&columns=%2Fbo@activity_codes,final_date,activity_titles,lead_agencies;%2Fbo%2Fspecies@cn&sort=%2Fbo@final_date%20asc&filter=%2Fbo%2Fspecies@cn%20%3D%20%27Whooping%20crane%27.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/ad-hoc-creator?catalogId=species&reportId=bo&columns=%2Fbo@activity_codes,final_date,activity_titles,lead_agencies;%2Fbo%2Fspecies@cn&sort=%2Fbo@final_date%20asc&filter=%2Fbo%2Fspecies@cn%20%3D%20%27Whooping%20crane%27




BWC © 2020 PAGE 35

Figure 17. Potential Impacts to the Whooping Crane within and in the surrounding vicinity of the Study Area.


BWC © 2020 PAGE 36

6.0 SIGNATURES

This report was prepared by a certified wildlife biologist at Blair Wildlife Consulting, LLC. permitted through USFWS and TPWD to perform habitat assessments and surveys for federal and state listed endangered or threatened species and in conformance with the methods and limitations described herein. The findings of this assessment are completely and accurately documented in this report.

PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: SIGNATURE

JENNIFER BLAIR, CWB PRINCIPAL BIOLOGIST PRINTED NAME

APRIL 10, 2020 DATE

7.0 REFERENCES

Allred, B. W., W. K. Smith, D. Twidwell, J. H. Haggerty, S. W. Running, D. E. Naugle, and S. D. Fuhlendorf. 2015. Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science 348:401–402.

Allen, R.P. 1952. The whooping crane. National Audubon Society Resource Report 3. 246 pp.

Armbruster, M.J. 1990. Characterization of habitat used by whooping cranes during migration. Biological Report 90(4): 1-16.

Askins RA, Chavez-Ramirez F, Dale BC, Haas CA, Herkert JR, Knopf FL, et al. 2007. Conservation of grassland birds in North America: understanding ecological processes in different regions. Ornitho Monogr. 64: 1±46.

Associated Press. 2011. 2 Rare Whooping Cranes Shot in Louisiana, Authorities Say. Published in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on October 11, 2011. Available at: http://www.nola.com/pets/index.ssf/2011/10/2_rare_whooping_cranes_shot_in.html. Accessed January 2020.

Associated Press. 2015. Whooping Crane Shot in Louisiana; $10,000 Reward for Info. Available at: http://klfy.com/2015/01/22/whooping-crane-shot-in-louisiana-10000-reward-for-info/. Accessed January 2020.

Austin, JE and AL Richert. 2001. A comprehensive review of observational and site evaluation data of migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 1943-1999. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/unnumbered/93805/report.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Austin, JE and AL Richert. 2005. Patterns of habitat use by whooping cranes during migration: summary from 1977-1999 site evaluation data. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop. 9: 79-104.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. Available at: http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2634/APPguidelines_final-draft_Aprl2005.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Baasch, D. M., P. D. Farrell, A. T. Pearse, D. A. Brandt, A. J. Caven, M. J. Harner, G. D. Wright, and K. L. Metzger. 2019. Diurnal habitat selection of migrating Whooping Crane in the Great Plains. Avian

http://www.nola.com/pets/index.ssf/2011/10/2_rare_whooping_cranes_shot_in.html

http://klfy.com/2015/01/22/whooping-crane-shot-in-louisiana-10000-reward-for-info/

https://pubs.usgs.gov/unnumbered/93805/report.pdf

http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2634/APPguidelines_final-draft_Aprl2005.pdf

http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2634/APPguidelines_final-draft_Aprl2005.pdf


BWC © 2020 PAGE 37

Conservation and Ecology 14(1):6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01317-140106. Accessed January 2020.

Bellard, C., C. Bertelsmeier, P. Leadley, W. Thuiller, and F. Courchamp. 2012. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters 15:365–377.

Bergeson, D.G., M. Bradley, and G. Holroyd. 2001. Food items and feeding rates for wild whooping crane colts in Wood Buffalo National Park. Proc. N. Am. Crane Workshop 8:36-39.

Blankinship, D.R. 1976. Studies of whooping cranes on the wintering grounds. Pages 197-206 in J.C. Lewis, ed. Proc. International Crane Workshop, Oklahoma State Univ. Press, Stillwater.

Bradley SN and Butler MJ. 2012. WHOOPING CRANE NUMBERS IN NORTH AMERICA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austwell, Texas. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/153696. Accessed January 2020.

Butler MJ and Harrell W. 2013. 2012–2013 Winter Whooping Crane Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austwell, Texas. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/153695. Accessed January 2020.

Butler MJ and Harrell W. 2014. Winter 2013‐2014 Whooping Crane Survey Results. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austwell, Texas. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/153691. Accessed January 2020.

Butler MJ and Harrell W. 2015. Whooping Crane Survey Results: Winter 2014–2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austwell, Texas. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/153692. Accessed January 2020.


Butler, M.J., and W. Harrell. 2017. Draft Whooping Crane Survey Results: Winter 2016-2017. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/153694. Accessed January 2020.



Butler, M.J., Metzger, K.L., Harris, G., 2014. Whooping crane demographic responses to winter drought focus conservation strategies. Biol. Conserv. 179, 72–85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.021. Accessed January 2020.

Campbell, L. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas – Their Life History and Management. Austin, Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2005. International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), Ottawa, ON, Canada, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM, USA.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 162 pp.

Carey, C., editor. 2012. Avian energetics and nutritional ecology. Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0425-8

Chen I-C, Hill JK, Ohlemueller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD. 2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science. 333: 1024±1026. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206432 PMID: 21852500

https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01317-140106

https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/153696








https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.021

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0425-8

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206432


BWC © 2020 PAGE 38

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Whooping Crane (Grus americana) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 36 pp. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Whooping%20Crane_0810_e.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Erickson, R.C., and S. R. Derrickson. 1981. The Whooping Crane. Crane Research Around the World. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel MD. pp 104-118. Available at: https://www.savingcranes.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/CRAW_Pages_102-134_Whooping.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Erickson, W.P., Wolfe, M.M., Bay, K.J., Johnson, D.H., and Gehring, J.L. 2014. A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. Plos One: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107491

Faanes, C. A., and D. B. Bowman. 1992. Relationship of channel maintenance flows to Whooping Crane use of the Platte River. Pages 111-116 in D. A. Wood, editor. Proceedings 1988 North American Crane Workshop, Feb. 22–24, 1988. State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Lake Wales, Florida, USA. [online] URL: https://www.savingcranes.org/proceedings-1988-north-american-crane-workshop/

Farmer, A. H., and A. H. Parent. 1997. Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99:698-707. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1370481

Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12:749-758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97102.x

Harrell, W., and M. Bidwell. 2013. Report of Whooping Crane Recovery Activities (2012 breeding season – 2013 spring migration). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WCRecoveryActivitiesReport_Sept-April2013_24Sept2013_Sub_508%20(1).pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Harrell, W., and M. Bidwell. 2014. Report of Whooping Crane Recovery Activities (2013 breeding season – 2014 spring migration). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WC%20Recovery%20Activities%20Report_Sept-April%202014_Sub4.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Harrell, W., and M. Bidwell. 2015. Report of Whooping Crane Recovery Activities (2014 breeding season – 2015 spring migration). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/2014-2015%20WHCR%20Recovery%20Report.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Harrell, W., and M. Bidwell. 2016. Report on Whooping Crane Recovery Activities (2015 breeding season – 2016 spring migration). Available at: http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/recv15a.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Hefley, T. J., D. M. Baasch, A. J. Tyre, and E. E. Blankenship. 2015. Use of opportunistic sightings and expert knowledge to predict and compare Whooping Crane stopover habitat. Conservation Biology 29(5):1337-1346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12515

Hedenström, A., and T. Alerstam. 1997. Optimum fuel loads in migratory birds: Distinguishing between time and energy minimization. Journal of Theoretical Biology 189:227–234.

Houston Advanced Research Center. 2006. The role of freshwater inflows in sustaining estuarine ecosystem health in the San Antonio Bay Region. Contract Number 05-018. Available at: http://cybrary.fomb.org/pages/FreshwaterInflows-good.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Howe, M.A. 1987. Habitat use by migrating whooping cranes in the Aransas-Wood Buffalo corridor. In Proceedings 1985 Crane Workshop, edited by J.C. Lewis and J.W. Ziewitz, pp. 303-311. Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, Nebraska.

Howe, M.A. 1989. Migration of radio-marked whooping cranes from the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population: patterns of habitat use, behavior, and survival. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 21. 33 pp.

International Crane Foundation. 2020. Whooping Crane Infographic. Bamboo, Wisconsin, USA.

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Whooping%20Crane_0810_e.pdf

https://www.savingcranes.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/CRAW_Pages_102-134_Whooping.pdf

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107491

https://www.savingcranes.org/proceedings-1988-north-american-crane-workshop/

https://www.savingcranes.org/proceedings-1988-north-american-crane-workshop/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1370481

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97102.x

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WCRecoveryActivitiesReport_Sept-April2013_24Sept2013_Sub_508%20(1).pdf

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WCRecoveryActivitiesReport_Sept-April2013_24Sept2013_Sub_508%20(1).pdf

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WC%20Recovery%20Activities%20Report_Sept-April%202014_Sub4.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WC%20Recovery%20Activities%20Report_Sept-April%202014_Sub4.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/2014-2015%20WHCR%20Recovery%20Report.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/2014-2015%20WHCR%20Recovery%20Report.pdf

http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/recv15a.pdf

http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/recv15a.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12515

http://cybrary.fomb.org/pages/FreshwaterInflows-good.pdf


BWC © 2020 PAGE 39

Janss G.F.E., and Ferrer M. 2000. Common crane and great bustard collision with power lines: Collision rate and risk exposure. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:675–680.

Johns; B.W. 1992. Preliminary identification of whooping crane staging areas in prairie Canada. Pages 61-66 in D.A. Wood, ed. Proc. 1988 N. Am Crane Workshop. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.

Johns; B.W., E.J. Woodsworth, and E.A. Driver. 1997. Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 7:123-131.

Johnson, W. C., B. Werner, G. R. Guntenspergen, R. A. Voldseth, B. Millett, D. E. Naugle, M. Tulbure, R. W. H. Carroll, J. Tracy, and C. Olawsky. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. Bioscience 60:128-140. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.7

Jorgensen, J. G., and M. B. Brown. 2017. Temporal migration shifts in the Aransas–Wood Buffalo population of Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) across North America. Waterbirds 40:195–206.

Kanai, Y., M. Ueta, N. Germogenov, M. Nagendran, N. Mita, and H. Higuchi. 2002. Migration routes and important resting areas of Siberian Cranes (Grus leucogeranus) between northeastern Siberia and China as revealed by satellite tracking. Biological Conservation 106:339–346.

Kyut; E. 1992. Aerial radio-tracking of whooping cranes migrating between Wood Buffalo National Park and Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, 1981-84. Occ. Pap. 74, Canadian Wildl. Service, 53 pp.

Lark, T. J., J. M. Salmon, and H. K. Gibbs. 2015. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 10:044003.

Lewis, J.C., Kuyt, E., Schwindt, K.E., Stehn, T.V. 1992. Mortality in fledged whooping cranes of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population. In: Wood, D.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1988 North American Crane Workshop, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Technical Report 12, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 145–148.

Loss, S.R., Will, T., and Marra, P.P. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168: 201–209.

McIntyre, N. E., C. K. Wright, S. Swain, K. Hayhoe, G. L. Frank, W. Schwartz, and G. M. Henebry. 2014. Climate forcing of wetland landscape connectivity in the Great Plains. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:59-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120369

Meine, C. D., and G. W. Archibald. 1996. The cranes: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Mirande, CM and Harris, JT, editors. 2019. Whooping Crane Range Map: Crane Conservation Strategy. Bamboo, Wisconsin, USA: International Crane Foundation.

Moore, D., Lacy, A. Hutchins, M. and Parr, M. 2017. Whooping Crane Migration Stopover Habitat Assessment Tool for Wind Energy and Power Line Development. Baraboo, WI and Washington, DC: International Crane Foundation and American Bird Conservancy.

Moore, F. R., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., P. Kerlinger, and T. R. Simons. 1995. Habitat requirements during migration: important link in conservation. Pages 121-144 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, editors. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Myers, J. P. 1983. Conservation of migrating shorebirds: staging areas, geographic bottlenecks, and regional movements. American Birds 37:23-25.

Niemuth, N. D., A. J. Ryba, A. T. Pearse, S. M. Kvas, D. A. Brandt, B. Wangler, J. E. Austin, and M. J. Carlisle. 2018. Opportunistically collected data reveal habitat selection by migrating Whooping Cranes in the U.S. Northern Plains. Condor 120:343-356. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-17-80.1

Nilsson, C., R. H. G. Klaassen, and T. Alerstam. 2013. Differences in speed and duration of bird migration between spring and autumn. The American Naturalist 181:837–845.

Novakowski, N. 1966. Whooping crane population dynamics on the nesting grounds, Wood Buffalo National Park, Northwest Territories, Chanad. Canadian Wildlife Service, Res. Rept. Ser. 1, 20 pp.

Opdam, P., and D. Wascher. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation 117:285-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.008

https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120369

https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-17-80.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.008


BWC © 2020 PAGE 40

Pearse AT, Harner MJ, Baasch DM, Wright GD, Caven AJ, Metzger KL. 2017. Evaluation of nocturnal roost and diurnal sites used by whooping cranes in the Great Plains, United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Report No. 2016-1209.

Pearse, AT, M Rabbe, LM Juliusson, MT Bidwell, L Craig-Moore, D Brandt, W Harrell. 2018. Delineating and identifying long-term changes in the whooping crane (Grus americana) migration corridor. PLoS One 13(2):e0192737. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192737. Accessed November 2019.

Pearse, A. T., D. A. Brandt, M. T. Bidwell, K. L. Metzger, M. J. Harner, D. M. Baasch, and W. Harrell. 2019. Data from: Characterization of Whooping Crane migrations and stopover sites used in the Central Flyway, 2010–2016: U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9NRAY6F

Pearse, Aaron T., Kristine L Metzger, David A Brandt, Mark T Bidwell, Mary J Harner, David M Baasch, Wade Harrell. 2020. Heterogeneity in migration strategies of Whooping Cranes, The Condor, Volume 122, Issue 1, 3 February 2020, duz056. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duz056. Accessed March 2020.

Rabbe, Matthew R.; Caven, Andrew J.; and Wiese, Joshua D. 2019. First description of a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) attempting depredation on an adult Whooping Crane (Grus americana) of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population," Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 11 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mwnan/vol11/iss1/3. Accessed January 2020.

Robertson, S., T. Stehn, and J. Magera. 1993. Oil spill contingency plan for Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas. USFWS, Region 2. 25 pp.

Samson, F. B., F. L. Knopf, and W. R. Ostlie. 2010. Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32 (1):6-16. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2004)32[6:GPEPPA]2.0.CO;2

Shaw J.M., Jenkins A.R., Smallie, J.J., Ryan, P.G. 2010. Modelling power-line collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis 152:590–599.

Smallwood, S.K. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37 (1): 19–33.

Smith, S. 2016. The Beaumont Man Who Killed Two Whooping Cranes Fined and Barred from Owning Firearms for Five Years. Texas Monthly (The Daily Post). Available at: https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/beaumont-man-killed-two-whooping-cranes-fined-barred-owning-firearms-five-years/. Accessed January 2020.

Stehn, T.V. 2009. Whooping crane recovery activities- October, 2008—October, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Corpus Christi, Texas.

Stehn T. 2011. Whooping crane recovery activities: October, 2010 - August, 2011. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/58217. Accessed January 2020.

Stehn, T.V., Haralson-Strobel, C.L. 2014. An update on mortality of fledged whooping cranes in the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 12, 43–50.

Stehn, T. V., and T. E. Taylor. 2008. Aerial census techniques for whooping cranes on the Texas coast. In Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 10:146–151.

Stehn, T., and T. Wassenich. 2008. Whooping Crane Collisions with Power Lines: an issue paper. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 10:25-36.

Strobel, B.N., and M.J. Butler. 2014. Monitoring whooping crane abundance using aerial surveys: Influences on detectability. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38: 188–195. doi:10.1002/wsb.374.

Sundar, K.S.G., and Choudhury, B.C. 2005. Mortality of Sarus Cranes (Grus antigone) due to electricity wires in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental Conservation 32:260–269.

Tacha, M. 2009. United States Whooping Crane Migration Corridor. Geographic Information System shapefile provided to SWCA Environmental Consultants by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nebraska Field Office, Wood River, Nebraska. November 17, 2009.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 1998. Freshwater inflow recommendation for the Guadalupe Estuary of Texas. Coastal Studies Technical Report No. 98-1. Austin, TX. 61 pp. Available at: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/bays/major_estuaries/guadalupe/doc/Freshwater_Inflow_Recommendation_for_the_Guadalupe_Estuary.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192737

https://doi.org/10.5066/P9NRAY6F

https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duz056

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mwnan/vol11/iss1/3

https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2004)32%5b6:GPEPPA%5d2.0.CO;2

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/beaumont-man-killed-two-whooping-cranes-fined-barred-owning-firearms-five-years/

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/beaumont-man-killed-two-whooping-cranes-fined-barred-owning-firearms-five-years/


http://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/bays/major_estuaries/guadalupe/doc/Freshwater_Inflow_Recommendation_for_the_Guadalupe_Estuary.pdf

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/bays/major_estuaries/guadalupe/doc/Freshwater_Inflow_Recommendation_for_the_Guadalupe_Estuary.pdf


BWC © 2020 PAGE 41

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2013. Whooping Crane Migration Watch Gets Under Way: News Release. Available at: http://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20130320c. Accessed January 2020.

Tiner, R. W. Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1967. Office of the Secretary, Native Fish and Wildlife: Endangered Species. Federal Register. March 11, Vol. 32, No. 48, 4001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Whooping Cranes and Wind Development – An Issue Paper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regions 2 and 6. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/documents/te_species/wind%20power/whooping%20crane%20and%20wind%20development%20fws%20issue%20paper%20-%20final%20%20april%202009.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Aransas National Wildlife Refuge; Wolfberry Production. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Aransas/wwd/science/i_m/wolfberry.html. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. Aransas-Wood Buffalo Whooping Crane Abundance Survey (2011-2012). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/FY12_ANWR_WWCAS_Review_01OCT12-508.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012c. Whooping Crane 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Austwell, Texas and Corpus Christi Ecological Service Field Office, Texas. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3977.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Whooping Crane Updates (February 7, 2013). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/nwrs/threecolumn.aspx?id=2147510968. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. North Florida Ecological Services Office. Species Status and Fact Sheet Whooping Crane. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/whoopingcrane/whoopingcrane-fact-2001.htm. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Reward Offered in Indiana Whooping Crane Shooting Case. Press Release available at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/862.html. Accessed January 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. Whooping Crane Tracking Database. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office, Wood River, Nebraska. Received January 28, 2020

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020b. Provisional Whooping Crane Telemetry Project Database. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office, Wood River, Nebraska. Received January 28, 2020.

Van Schmidt, N. D., J. A. Barzen, M. J. Engels, and A. E. Lacy. 2014. Refining reintroduction of Whooping Cranes with habitat use and suitability analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:1404-1414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.789

Webb, E. B., L. M. Smith, M. P. Vrtiska, and T. G. Lagrange. 2010. Effects of local and landscape variables on wetland bird habitat use during migration through the Rainwater basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:109-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-577

Weddle, B. J. 1996. Restoring crane habitat along the Platte River of Nebraska. Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. [online] URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11299/58428

Wiser, R. H., and M. Bolinger. 2017. 2016 wind technologies market report. Electricity Markets & Policy Group. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2016-wind-technologies-market-report

Wright, G.E., Smith, T.J., Murphy, R.K., Runge, J.T., and Harms, R.R. 2009. Mortality of cranes (Gruidae) associated with powerlines over a major roost on the Platte River, Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 41:116–120.

http://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20130320c

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/documents/te_species/wind%20power/whooping%20crane%20and%20wind%20development%20fws%20issue%20paper%20-%20final%20%20april%202009.pdf



https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Aransas/wwd/science/i_m/wolfberry.html

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/FY12_ANWR_WWCAS_Review_01OCT12-508.pdf

https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3977.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/nwrs/threecolumn.aspx?id=2147510968

https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/whoopingcrane/whoopingcrane-fact-2001.htm

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/862.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.789

http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-577

http://hdl.handle.net/11299/58428

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2016-wind-technologies-market-report


BWC © 2020 PAGE 42

Documents

PROPOSED APEX & EDF WIND FARMS WHOOPING CRANE …s3.amazonaws.com/windaction/attachments/3395/Final... · blair wildlife consulting, llc 3815 dacy lane, kyle, tx 78640 512.415.9772