Report on Whooping Crane Recovery Activities

2018 breeding season-2019 spring migration

By Wade Harrell, Whooping Crane Recovery Coordinator, US Fish & Wildlife Service

and Mark Bidwell, Whooping Crane Recovery Coordinator, Canadian Wildlife Service

March 2020

Executive Summary

Whooping cranes are one of the most rare, highly endangered and intensively monitored bird

species in North America. The Aransas-Wood Buffalo population (AWBP), which breeds in

northern Canada and winters in Texas, is the only remaining wild, self-sustaining migratory

population of whooping cranes. In summer 2018, surveys of the AWBP detected 87 nests (May)

and 24 chicks (August) resulting in an average number of chicks fledged per nest (0.28) that was

well below the 20-year long-term average of 0.49 but within the long-term natural range of

variation. In winter 2018-2019 (Feb) the peak population size of the AWB on the primary

wintering grounds was estimated as 504 birds (95% confidence interval [CI] 162.7–263.3; CV =

0.124) and additional birds were located outside the survey area. Other populations of

reintroduced whooping cranes exist in Wisconsin, Florida, and Louisiana due to the efforts of

many government agencies and non-governmental organizations, including the captive breeding

centers where whooping cranes are reared for reintroduction. By the end of 2018 there were

approximately 504 birds in the AWBP, 174 birds in active reintroduced populations and about

153 birds held in captivity for a total global whooping crane population of about 800 birds (Table

2). Nearly all of the growth in the global population, however, occurred in the AWBP, as

reintroduced populations continued to see low levels of wild recruitment and population size was

maintained via captive chick introduction.

Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP)

Overview

The Aransas-Wood Buffalo population (AWBP) of whooping cranes is the only remaining wild,

self-sustaining, migratory whooping crane (Grus americana) population. The AWBP breed and

summer in and around Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) in the Canadian jurisdictions of

Alberta and the Northwest Territories and migrate >2,400 miles through the Canadian prairies

and US Great Plains to the mid-coast of Texas to spend the winter. Whooping cranes from the

AWBP was reduced to a mere 15 individuals in 1941 and has rebounded to about 504 this

winter, representing a > 4% annual growth rate. The ongoing recovery of this whooping crane

population is perhaps one of the greatest endangered species success stories. A wide variety of

1 | P a g e

local, state, federal and private conservation organizations are actively involved in planning and

implementing whooping crane conservation efforts.

AWBP breeding grounds update

For the full update, see the attached report prepared by Canadian Wildlife Service

During the 2018 breeding season, water levels in the whooping crane nesting area were above

average. Annual precipitation at Fort Smith, Northwest Territories preceding the breeding season

(May 2017 to April 2018) was 77% of the 60-year average), and it is thought that pond levels

reflect a high water table built-up over recent years of average or above average precipitation.

Precipitation during the breeding season (May to September) was 91% of the 60-year average,

however precipitation during the month of June was 187% of the 60-year average. Heavy rainfall

during hatch or in the first few weeks following can have significant implications on whooping

crane chick survival, and it is suspected that extensive rainfall in June contributed to low

productivity of AWBP whooping cranes in 2018.

Wildfire affected 24,629 ha or 0.54% of WBNP (below the 25-year average of 1.60%). No fires

burned inside the area designated as Critical Habitat (CH) under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.

No nests occurred directly within fire perimeters, however three nests were within one kilometer

of fires. While it is unknown if fires affected breeding success for nesting birds, all breeding

pairs in close proximity to fires were observed without juveniles during August surveys.

In May 2018, aerial surveys detected 87 nests and 27-29 pairs without nests. Because most

cranes are not individually banded yet may move during the duration of the survey, the range of

pairs reflects the possible number of unique pairs. Of the 87 nests identified, 16 were outside the

area designated as CH and eight of these were also outside WBNP. Of the 79 nests in WBNP,

eight were outside the area of the park identified as CH and of the eight nests outside WBNP,

where CH has not yet been identified, six were north of the Nyarling River and two nests were

on Salt River First Nation reserve lands (i.e., Lobstick Creek) east of WBNP. In August, aerial

surveys detected 24 pairs with one juvenile each and 77-80 pairs without juveniles. Using

information collected during the breeding pair and juvenile surveys, we determined that annual

productivity was 0.28 juveniles per nest, below the 20-year average of 0.49 but within the long-

term natural range of variation of about 0.20 to 0.80.

AWBP migration update – Whooping Crane Tracking Partnership

In 2009, a multi-agency, collaborative research and monitoring project to capture and mark

whooping cranes was initiated in order to quantify behavior, movement and habitat use of cranes

during all aspects of their annual cycle. That project, which continued through 2016, was carried

out by the Whooping Crane Tracking Partnership (WCTP, Phase 1), a cooperative effort between

2 | P a g e

five core partners: CWS, US Geological Survey (USGS), US Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), the Crane Trust and Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, with additional

support from Parks Canada Agency (PCA), the International Crane Foundation (ICF), and the

Gulf Coast Bird Observatory. Specific objectives were to: 1) advance knowledge of breeding,

wintering, and migration ecology including threats to survival and population persistence; 2)

disseminate research findings in reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed literature to provide

reliable scientific knowledge for conservation, management, and recovery of whooping cranes;

and 3) minimize negative effects of research activities to whooping cranes.

During Phase 1 of the WCTP, captured birds were fitted with a GPS/PTT (Global Positioning

System/Platform Transmitting Terminal) satellite transmitter mounted on a two-piece leg band.

Transmitters were programmed to record each bird’s spatial location four times daily, recording

both daytime and nighttime locations throughout the annual cycle. From December 2009 to

February 2014, 68 whooping cranes were captured and marked with satellite transmitters; 37

adults and two juveniles were marked on the Texas Gulf Coast wintering grounds and 31

juveniles were marked during the breeding season in WBNP. Transmitters are expected to

function for three to five years but the number and frequency of GPS transmissions declines over

time. By 2018, most transmitters were offline, but during the migrations of spring and fall, 2018,

four and three cranes marked with PTT transmitters provided telemetry data, respectively.

Additional information on this project is available here:

https://www.platteriverprogram.org/PubsAndData/Pages/ProgramLibrary.aspx (search under

Target Species/Whooping Crane). Several scientific publications have resulted from Phase 1 of

the WCTP, with additional publications currently under review. Please see literature cited for list

of current publications.

In August 2017, a renewed effort was made to capture whooping cranes to mark them with

satellite transmitting devices. This work is being undertaken by Phase 2 of the WCTP which

consists of four core partners: CWS, PCA, USFWS, and USGS, with additional support from

ICF, and the Calgary Zoo. Capture and marking of cranes in Canada is supported by Joint

Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Monitoring funding to Environment and Climate Change Canada. The

main goal of Phase 2 of the WCTP is to investigate potential risk to whooping cranes from

industrial development (e.g., extraction of oil and gas, mining, and wind power).

During the first year Phase 2 of the WCTP, captured birds were fitted with a GPS/GSM

(GPS/Global System for Mobile Communication) cellular transmitter (Cellular Tracking

Technology LLC, Rio Grande, NJ) with Global Positioning System capabilities mounted on a

two-piece leg band. GPS/GSM transmitters were programmed to collect up to 48 GPS locations

daily at equal time intervals and to upload location data to the GSM system every 24 hours; this

schedule allows for highly detailed information on diurnal and nocturnal (roosting) habitat use

during all stages of the annual cycle, and on migratory behavior in spring and fall. In January and

February of 2019 FWS and WCTP partners marked 12 adult whooping cranes on the Texas Gulf

3 | P a g e

Coast. Information collected through this phase will build on existing baseline monitoring

conducted via satellite telemetry of whooping cranes since 2010.

AWBP wintering grounds update

Additional information from this past winter can be found here:

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Aransas/wwd/science/updates.html

2018 winter habitat conditions

The first marked whooping cranes arrived on the Texas coastal wintering grounds in and around

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge the week of 22 October 2018. Fall arrivals have been about 2

weeks later than normal the last several years. The 2018 precipitation total (52.48 inches

recorded at Aransas NWR RAWS) was above the annual average of 38 inches for the Refuge

(USFWS Aransas NWRC CCP, 2010), with the wettest month of the year (17.54 inches)

occurring in September of 2018. All traditional freshwater wetlands and ponds on and around

Aransas NWR maintained water during the wintering season, with standing water covering much

of the uplands throughout the winter. San Antonio Bay salinities remained low, generally staying

at 15 ppt or less, with several time periods maintaining bay salinities <5 ppt following freshwater

inflow events and never exceeding 25 ppt during the 2017-2018 wintering season

(http://lighthouse.tamucc.edu/pq/). Precipitation the first portion of 2019 was average, with

January–May 2019 rainfall totaling 10.35 inches.

Staff at Aransas NWR were not able to use prescribed fire to improve whooping crane foraging

opportunities and overall prairie upland condition during the 2018-2019 winter season due to wet

conditions that persisted all year long.

2018 winter abundance survey

For the full 2018-19 report, see attached prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There is also

more information available here: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/112868

Summary from full report:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the abundance of whooping cranes in the Aransas-

Wood Buffalo population for the winter of 2018–2019. Survey results indicated 504 whooping

cranes (95% CI = 412.4–660.3; CV = 0.122) inhabited the primary survey area (Figure 1). This

estimate included at least 13 juveniles (95% CI = 10.4–18.8; CV = 0.156) and 198 adult pairs (95%

CI = 162.7–263.3; CV = 0.124). Recruitment of juveniles into the winter flock was 2.3 chicks

(95% CI = 2.2–3.4; CV = 0.101) per 100 adults.

4 | P a g e

Figure 1. The sampling area used to monitor whooping crane abundance on their wintering grounds

along the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico, USA.

This season (winter 2018–2019), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continued to use a Quest Kodiak aircraft and surveys were conducted in mid-February. The primary survey area (approximately 153,950 acres; Figure 1) was surveyed multiple times during February 9–14, 2019. San Jose Island, West Marsh, Lamar-Tatton, Matagorda Island Central, and Welder Flats-Dewberry were surveyed 4 times and Blackjack was surveyed 5 times. Due to logistical constrains and poor weather conditions, the secondary survey areas (approximately 169,300 acres; Figure 1) were not surveyed this winter. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted the survey later than planned which likely resulted in underestimates of recruitment due to late season changes in plumage coloration.

The long-term growth rate in the whooping crane population has averaged 4.5% (n = 95; 95% CI

= 1.77–6.98%). The population remained stable from winter 2017–2018 to winter 2018–2019

(Table 1). In summer 2018, the Canadian Wildlife Service reported 24 whooping crane chicks

were fledged at Wood-Buffalo Nation Park which is lower than normal. Recruitment was low this

year resulting in no population growth.

5 | P a g e

Reintroduced flocks

Florida non-migratory flock

Current status and future plans

Reproduction milestones for the Florida project include the first nest established in 1996, the first

eggs laid in 1999, the first egg hatched in 2000 and the first chick reared to fledging in 2002.

Intensive monitoring of the flock was discontinued in June 2012 by the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Commission. Since then, monitoring efforts have been opportunistic and have relied heavily on

public observations. Florida’s non-migratory whooping crane population was approximately 11

individuals at the start of 2019. The flock is comprised of three pairs, one 19-year-old female,

and four wild-hatched chicks ranging in ages from 3- to 15-years-old. Given there are no plans

for future reintroductions into this flock, biologists from Florida, Louisiana, and the USFWS

decided to try and translocate some of the wild-hatched chicks and single cranes to Louisiana to

help in recovery efforts. Translocating wild-hatched/wild-reared cranes has not been attempted

with previous whooping crane reintroductions. Adding the genetics and life experiences of a

wild-reared individual to a population of captive-reared birds could help the overall population.

In late January, biologists from the International Crane Foundation and Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission trapped the 19-year-old female and a 4-year-old wild-hatched female.

The cranes were given a health check and quarantined approximately 2-weeks by our partners at

the White Oak Conservation Foundation. They were driven to Louisiana’s White Lake Wetlands

Conservation Area after being medically cleared. Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

biologist released the cranes on 7 February 2019. Both remain alive eight months later.

The remaining Florida population has fluctuated since the translocations. A pair that had never

successfully bred hatched a chick in May. The chick has since fledged; however, the male of the

pair disappeared in June and is presumed dead. The current Florida population is made up of

nine cranes: two pairs (2000 male/1993 female & 2000 male/1999 female), a 19-year-old female,

a 15-year-old wild-hatched female, twin 2016 wild-hatched chicks, and 2019 wild-hatched chick.

Louisiana non-migratory flock

For the full 2018-19 report, see attached prepared by Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries

Executive Summary from full report:

Twelve juvenile whooping cranes were received in November 2018 from the International Crane

Foundation (ICF; n = 7) and the Freeport-McMoRan Audubon Species Survival Center (ASSC;

n = 5). The two groups were housed next to each other in the top-netted section of the release pen

6 | P a g e

at the Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge (RWR) in Cameron Parish, prior to being released together. A

thirteenth juvenile, who had been reared by a captive pair of cranes at ASSC, but initially held

back for medical reasons, was hard-released in the vicinity of older cranes on property near the

White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area (WLWCA) in mid-January. Additionally, all five

chicks that hatched in the wild in 2018 survived to independence and separated from their

parents in January and February.

The maximum size of the Louisiana non-migratory population at the end of the report period was

71 individuals (33 males, 37 females, and 1 unknown), with 55 birds located in Louisiana, 15 in

Texas, and 1 in Oklahoma. Based on location data generated via remote transmitters, we

documented cranes in 24 parishes throughout Louisiana, with five of those parishes accounting

for 69% of the data points. Louisiana whooping cranes were also documented using five

different states, although one crane alone accounts for the points located in four of the five states

outside of Louisiana. One-fifth of the location data points are in Texas as a result of 43% of the

population spending some time there. Many of these data points represent short, exploratory trips

typically made by young cranes; however, cranes from multiple cohorts have spent considerable

amounts of time in southeast Texas where habitats are similar to those in southwest Louisiana.

Fortunately, our partners with other state and federal agencies work closely with us to document

such occurrences and provide updates on the status of cranes in their vicinity.

In late 2018, years after the idea was first proposed, and with approval from the International

Whooping Crane Recovery Team (WCRT), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and

the states of Florida and Louisiana, plans were initiated to capture several of the remaining

Florida non-migratory whooping cranes and transfer them to Louisiana. In mid-January, two

adult females were captured and held in captivity for two weeks prior to being translocated to

Louisiana. Both individuals survived through the end of the report period and the younger female

has consistently associated with a number of different Louisiana cranes since shortly after her

release.

During the 2019 breeding season, 13 nesting pairs initiated 27 nests in seven different parishes.

Unfortunately, two experienced breeding pairs were lost prior to the 2019 nesting season due to

the death of one member of the pair. In both cases, however, the surviving member re-paired in

time to nest this year. Seven pairs consisted of individuals who each had previous nesting

experience, three contained one member with previous experience, and three were nesting for the

first time. In 2019, six chicks hatched to six pairs; three hatched naturally to their biological

parents and three hatched from fertile eggs that were swapped into wild nests as eggs or newly

hatched chicks. Chicks disappeared at 2-22 days old, despite four of the six pairs having

previously raised offspring to independence. Due to ongoing, significant embryo mortality, we

continued submitting adult blood and egg content samples for heavy metal and toxicology

screening. Additionally, we continued to deploy data-logging eggs in nests to gather nest

environment and incubation data. We plan to continue with these new research initiatives to

7 | P a g e

learn more about factors that influence reproductive success, and use that knowledge to increase

the productivity of Louisiana whooping cranes.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) continues to educate the public

about the whooping crane reintroduction program through a variety of means. Public outreach

efforts consisted of LDWF staff participating in festivals and outreach events around the state

where literature and other information were disseminated to the public. LDWF staff also

presented information on the reintroduction effort to various clubs and organizations throughout

the year.

Our media campaign continued to focus on raising public awareness regarding both positive and negative aspects of the program, including re-emphasizing the issue around illegal shootings involving whooping cranes which accounts for almost 25% of the confirmed or suspected mortality in the population where a cause of death could be determined. The media plan once again utilized an assortment of methods including billboards, television, and radio.

Now in its ninth year, the Louisiana whooping crane reintroduction has made much positive

progress but still has challenges to overcome. We are determined to continue making strides

towards our ultimate goal of establishing a self-sustaining population in the state.

Eastern migratory population

For the full 2018-19 report, see attached prepared by Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership.

There is also more information available here: www.bringbackthecranes.org

Introduction from full report:

The Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) implements its activities through coordinated

efforts by partners working with state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over the

whooping cranes and/or the habitats they use. The partnership works through a team approach:

key areas of WCEP activity and day-to-day decisions are addressed by one or more project teams

that include individuals from partners with expertise in that area.

Where is WCEP with respect to its fundamental goal of creating a self-sustaining Eastern

Migratory Population (EMP) of whooping cranes? The minimal benchmark in the 2007 Third

revision of the International Recovery Plan for a second population such as the EMP is a self-

sustaining flock comprised of 100 birds and 25 breeding pairs. We continued to meet the goal, in

part, for Criterion 1 this year: the maximum size of the eastern migratory population in

December 2018, was 101 birds (45 Female, 53 Male, 3 Unknown) and there were 17 breeding

pairs this year.

While releases have continued into the EMP, lack of natural recruitment continues to be a major

impediment to achieving the goal of a self-sustaining population. In spring, there were a total of

8 | P a g e

23 nests by 17 breeding pairs of cranes, from which 10 chicks hatched. Six of these chicks made

it to fledging, and five wintered with their parents and completed their first fall and spring

migrations. In August, one family group (two adults and two juveniles) were released at Horicon

National Wildlife Refuge, and in October, two additional parent-reared chicks were released at

White River Marsh State Wildlife Area in areas where there were other Whooping Cranes. The

size of the EMP has remained relatively flat in recent years and additional birds are necessary to

provide resilience, so that the number of nesting pairs may remain stable in the face of

environmental and demographic variation in the coming years.

Two major changes in 2018 were the closure of the Whooping Crane breeding program at

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and Operation Migration’s departure from the partnership.

Although the loss of Patuxent as a major breeding center was difficult, we feel that the change

will ultimately make the partnership stronger and more resilient. The closure of the Patuxent

program resulted in the transfer of their birds to new partners, including White Oak Conservation

in Florida and the Dallas Zoo in Texas. These partners bring new resources and energy to

WCEP, as we work together to develop a healthy and self-sustaining Eastern Migratory

Population. Operation Migration was a valued partner in WCEP for two decades, contributing

countless hours, resources, and talent to our shared goal of returning a migratory population of

Whooping Cranes to the eastern United States. Together, we have been very successful in

reintroducing Whooping Cranes back to the Eastern United States, teaching them to migrate,

form pairs, and hatch chicks successfully. As we look forward to the future, we still believe that

a healthy and self-sustaining Eastern Migratory Population of Whooping Cranes is achievable.

9 | P a g e

Table 2. Estimated size of wild whooping crane populations in winter 2018-19.

Population

Aransas-Wood Buffalo

Male Female Unknown Total

504

Breeding Pairs

87

Eastern Migratory

Louisiana Non-migratory

Florida Non-migratory

45

36

52

38

3 100

74

11

Total in wild populations 689

Table 3. Number of whooping cranes held at institutional members of the Species Survival Program (SSP) in March 2019. Institutions denoted with a star are designated by the International Whooping Crane Recovery Team and the SSP as captive breeding centers.

Institution Male Female Total International Crane Foundation, Wisconsin* 23 21 44 Audubon Zoo, Louisiana* 19 19 38 Calgary Zoo, Alberta* 15 14 29 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Virginia* 5 6 11 White Oak Conservation Center, Florida* 5 5 10 San Antonio Zoological Gardens and Aquarium, Texas* 2 2 4 Abilene Zoo, Texas 1 1 2 Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park, Florida 1 1 2 Jacksonville Zoo, Florida 1 1 2 Milwaukee County Zoo, Wisconsin 1 1 2 Oklahoma City Zoo, Oklahoma 1 1 2 Omaha Zoo, Nebraska 1 1 2 Sylvan Heights Bird Park, North Carolina 1 1 2 Zoo New England, Massechusetts 1 1 2 Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Maryland* 1 0 1 Dallas Zoo, Texas* 0 0 0 Houston Zoo, Texas 0 0 0 Total in captive population 78 75 153

10 | P a g e

Acknowledgments

No one organization or individual is capable of providing all the necessary elements to recover

the magnificent whooping crane. We see this recovery effort not only successful due to the great

increase in the whooping crane population over the last 60 + years, but also the great deal of

cooperation and collaboration that takes place amongst a wide variety of private, state and

federal organizations alongside a slew of highly dedicated individuals. If not for everyone’s

continued effort to assist in the recovery of this species, it is likely that the species would have

been extinct long ago. Our hope, as the biologists tasked by our respective agencies with the

coordination of the recovery of this revered species, is that we can all continue to work together

to ensure that the species is able to be removed from the endangered species list as recently

occurred for the US national bird, the bald eagle. As the population continues to grow, a greater

portion of the public will have opportunities to view and appreciate the majesty of the species.

We want to thank all the organizations and individuals that contributed to this report along with

the wide range of recovery efforts being undertaken.

11 | P a g e

Literature Cited

Butler MJ and Harrell W. 2019. Whooping Crane Survey Results: Winter 2018–2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austwell, Texas. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/112868

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping crane. Ottawa: Recovery of the Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 162 pp.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 2018. Recovery and Ecology of Endangered Whooping Cranes: Monitoring of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population during the 2018 Breeding Season and Fall Migration. 12pp.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2018. Historical Climate Data. Meteorological Service, Government of Canada. Retrieved in Nov 2018 from: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/index_e.html#access

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Coastal and Non-game Resources. 2017-18 Louisiana Whooping Crane Report. 27pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2010. Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.

U.S. Geological Survey. Remote Tracking of Aransas-Wood Buffalo Whooping Cranes: 2014 -2015 Update. 9pp.

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. 2018 Annual Report. 23pp.

Publications resulting from Phase I of WCTP:

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. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 120:343–356. doi:10.1650/CONDOR-17-80.1

Pearse, A.T., D.A. Brandt, W.C. Harrell, K.L. Metzger, D.M. Baasch, and T.J. Hefley. 2015. Whooping crane stopover site use intensity within the Great Plains, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1166, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151166.

Pearse, A.T., M.J. Harner, D.M. Baasch. G.D. Wright, A.J. Caven, and K.L. Metzger. 2017. Evaluation of nocturnal roost and diurnal sites used by whooping cranes in the Great Plains, United States. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016– 1209, https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161209.

12 | P a g e

Pearse, A.T., M. Rabbe, L.M. Juliusson, M.T. Bidwell, L. Craig-Moore, D.A. Brandt, and W. Harrell. 2018. Delineating and identifying long-term changes in whooping crane (Grus americana) migration corridor. PLoS ONE 13:e0192737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192737

Pearse, A.T., D.A. Brandt, B.K. Hartup, and M.T. Bidwell. 2018. Mortality in Aransas-Wood Buffalo whooping cranes: timing, location, and causes. Pages 125–138 in J.B. French, Jr., S.J. Converse, and J.E. Austin, editors, Whooping Cranes: Biology and Conservation. Biodiversity of the World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

13 | P a g e

APPENDICES

14 | P a g e

Recovery and Ecology of Endangered Whooping Cranes: Monitoring of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population during the 2018 Breeding Season and Fall Migration

Mark Bidwell and John Conkin

Canadian Wildlife Service Prairie Region, Environment and Climate Change Canada

Government of Canada

Summary Annual monitoring of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) of whooping

cranes (Grus americana, hereafter cranes), which numbers approximately 505 individuals (95% CI: 439.2 to 576.6), is a key element of Canada’s efforts to recover the species under the Species at Risk Act. In 2018, the Canadian Wildlife Service and Parks Canada conducted surveys for whooping cranes in breeding areas in southern Northwest Territories and northern Alberta, in and adjacent to Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP). Breeding pair surveys in May detected 87 nests, 16 of which were outside the area designated as critical habitat and eight of which were outside WBNP; 27-29 pairs without nests were also observed. Surveys in August detected 24 juveniles; all family groups had one juvenile. Annual productivity was 0.28 juveniles per nest, well below the 20-year average of 0.49 but within the long-term natural range of variation. Of three banded adult cranes observed with juveniles in August and later observed in September-November, all were re-sighted with juveniles so apparent survival during this period was 100%. This outcome is consistent with data collected since 2012 that indicates survival of juvenile cranes during this period is high. Results from monitoring of the AWBP in 2018 highlight the continued increase in the breeding population, although it is still well below Canadian and international recovery goals, and emphasizes the ongoing use of breeding habitat not currently designated as critical habitat.

Background and Rationale The Government of Canada and its partners, via implementation of the Recovery Strategy

for the Whooping Crane in Canada (hereafter RS; Environment Canada 2007) and the joint US-Canada International Recovery Plan (hereafter IRP; CWS and USFWS 2007), aims to protect, restore, and manage the whooping crane (Grus americana) to be self-sustaining in the wild by establishing 1,000 individuals in North America by 2035 (Environment Canada 2007). By reaching this goal and achieving other recovery criteria, the species may be considered for re-designation from Endangered to Threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in Canada, and under the Endangered Species Act in the United States. Coordination of activities designed to recover the species, including establishment and operation of a joint International Recovery Team, is governed by a memorandum of understanding between the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Parks Canada Agency (PCA), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the US Geological Survey (USGS).

The only naturally occurring population of whooping cranes, the migratory Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP), which numbers about 505 individuals (95% CI: 439.2 to 576.6; USFWS 2018), spends half of its annual cycle in Canada. During the summer breeding season (May to September), breeding adults and some non-breeding sub-adults reside in and adjacent to Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) in Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

1

During fall (September and October), adults, sub-adults, and juveniles spend up to 4-6 weeks staging in central Saskatchewan before migrating to the Texas Gulf Coast, where they spend winter (November to March) in and near the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. During spring migration (March and April), cranes return to WBNP and adjacent areas via Saskatchewan, for initiation of breeding in May.

Annual monitoring of the AWBP by CWS and our partners is a key element of Canada’s implementation of the RS and IRP, and is specified in those recovery documents as an activity required to achieve recovery goals. Data collected annually are used to (1) track progress towards recovery goals by estimating the abundance and productivity of breeding pairs annually; (2) identify and designate areas as critical habitat (i.e., areas vital to the survival or recovery of cranes) under SARA; and (3) predict future population dynamics and range expansion of the AWBP. Most breeding pairs nest inside WBNP, but the population has expanded its range outside the national park with up to six pairs nesting annually in the Northwest Territories, and up to two pairs on Salt River First Nation reserve lands.

Given the population’s small size, we monitor almost all breeding individuals by conducting annual aerial surveys of the abundance of (1) breeding pairs and nests in late spring and (2) juveniles in mid-summer. Information obtained from both surveys is used to derive metrics required by the RS and IRP to track progress towards recovery (i.e., number of breeding pairs, annual productivity). Aerial surveys are conducted in the core breeding areas within WBNP, and in areas outside the national park. This monitoring work has been conducted annually since 1966 by CWS, and in close cooperation with PCA since 2011.

Habitat Conditions in Breeding Areas During the 2018 breeding season, water levels in the whooping crane nesting area were

above average. Annual precipitation at Fort Smith, Northwest Territories preceding the breeding season (May 2017 to April 2018) was 77% of the 60-year average (Figure 1; Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018), and it is thought that pond levels reflect a high water table built-up over recent years of average or above average precipitation. Precipitation during the breeding season (May to September) was 91% of the 60-year average (Figure 1, Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018), however precipitation during the month of June was 187% of the 60-year average. Heavy rainfall during hatch or in the first few weeks following can have significant implications on whooping crane chick survival (Chavez-Ramirez and Wehtje 2012), and it is suspected that extensive rainfall in June contributed to low productivity of AWBP whooping cranes in 2018.

Wildfire affected 24,629 ha or 0.54% of WBNP (below the 25-year average of 1.60%). No fires burned inside the area designated as critical habitat. No nests occurred directly within fire perimeters, however three nests were within one kilometer of fires. While it is unknown if fires affected breeding success for nesting birds, all breeding pairs in close proximity to fires were observed without juveniles during August surveys.

Abundance of Breeding Pairs and Juveniles In 2018, aerial surveys to estimate abundance of breeding pairs with and without nests

were conducted from May 25-29 using methods described in Johns (2010). Observers detected 87 nests and 27-29 pairs without nests (Table 1, Figure 2). Because most cranes are not individually banded yet may move during the duration of the survey, the range of pairs reflects the possible number of unique pairs. Of the 87 nests identified, 16 were outside the area

2

designated as critical habitat and eight of these were also outside WBNP. Of the 79 nests in WBNP, eight were outside the area of the park identified as critical habitat. Of the eight nests outside WBNP, where critical habitat has not yet been identified, six were north of the Nyarling River and two nests were on Salt River First Nation reserve lands (i.e., Lobstick Creek) east of WBNP. In 2018, breeding pair surveys were conducted by John Conkin (CWS), Sharon Irwin (PCA), and Lori Parker (PCA) over 24.8 hours using an EC-120 helicopter piloted by Felix Erner of Phoenix Heli-flight (Fort McMurray, AB).

Aerial surveys to estimate abundance of juveniles were conducted from August 10-13, 2018. Observers detected 24 pairs with one juvenile each and 77-80 pairs without juveniles (Table 1). Using information collected during the breeding pair and juvenile surveys, we determined that annual productivity was 0.28 juveniles per nest, below the 20-year average of 0.49 but within the long term natural range of variation of about 0.20 to 0.80 (Figure 3). In 2018, juvenile surveys were conducted by John Conkin (CWS; Aug 10-13), Sharon Irwin (PCA; Aug 10-13), Lori Parker (PCA; Aug 11-13), and Roberta Bondar (The Roberta Bondar Foundation; Aug 10-11) over 22.2 hours using an EC-120 helicopter piloted by Felix Erner of Phoenix Heli-flight (Fort McMurray, AB).

Monitoring of Marked Whooping Cranes and Juvenile Survival during the Period of Fall Migration from the Breeding Grounds to Saskatchewan

In 2009, a multi-agency, collaborative research and monitoring project to capture and mark whooping cranes was initiated in order to quantify behaviour, movement and habitat use of cranes during all aspects of their annual cycle. That project, which continued through 2016, was carried out by the Whooping Crane Tracking Partnership (WCTP, Phase 1), a cooperative effort between five core partners: CWS, USGS, USFWS, the Crane Trust and Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, with additional support from PCA, the International Crane Foundation (ICF), and the Gulf Coast Bird Observatory. Specific objectives were to: 1) advance knowledge of breeding, wintering, and migration ecology including threats to survival and population persistence; 2) disseminate research findings in reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed literature to provide reliable scientific knowledge for conservation, management, and recovery of whooping cranes; and 3) minimize negative effects of research activities to whooping cranes.

During Phase 1 of the WCTP, captured birds were fitted with a GPS/PTT (Global Positioning System/Platform Transmitting Terminal) satellite transmitter and unique colour leg bands. Transmitters were programmed to record each bird’s spatial location four times daily, recording both daytime and nighttime locations throughout the annual cycle. From December 2009 to February 2014, 68 whooping cranes were captured and marked with transmitters; 37 adults and two juveniles were marked on the Texas Gulf Coast wintering grounds and 31 juveniles were marked during the breeding season in WBNP. Transmitters are expected to function for three to five years but the number and frequency of GPS transmissions declines over time. By 2018, most transmitters were offline, but during the migrations of spring and fall, 2018, three and one cranes marked with PTT transmitters provided telemetry data, respectively. For additional information on this project, see USGS (2016).

In August 2017, a renewed effort was made to capture whooping cranes to mark them with satellite transmitting devices. This work is being undertaken by Phase 2 of the WCTP which consists of four core partners: CWS, PCA, USFWS, and USGS, with additional support from ICF, Calgary Zoo and the Oil Sands Monitoring program of the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. The main goal of Phase 2 of the WCTP is to investigate potential risk to

3

whooping cranes from industrial development (e.g., extraction of oil and gas, mining, and wind power).

During the first year Phase 2 of the WCTP, captured birds were fitted with a GPS/GSM (GPS/Global System for Mobile Communication) cellular transmitter (Cellular Tracking Technology LLC, Rio Grande, NJ) with Global Positioning System capabilities and colour leg bands. GPS/GSM transmitters were programmed to collect up to 48 GPS locations daily at equal time intervals and to upload location data to the GSM system every 24 hours; this schedule allows for highly detailed information on diurnal and nocturnal (roosting) habitat use during all stages of the annual cycle, and on migratory behaviour in spring and fall. In August 2017, CWS and WCTP partners marked 10 juvenile whooping cranes during the breeding season in WBNP and in January 2018 USFWS and WCTP partners marked seven adults on the Texas Gulf Coast. Information collected through this phase will build on existing baseline monitoring conducted via satellite telemetry of whooping cranes since 2010.

In 2018, 34 individual whooping cranes marked with colour leg bands were re-sighted: 15 during nesting surveys in May, 19 during fledging surveys in August, and 26 during ground-based staging surveys in September-November in Saskatchewan. Data are used to estimate apparent juvenile survival during the period of fall migration from the breeding grounds to Saskatchewan. Of three banded adult cranes observed with juveniles in August and later observed in September-November, all were re-sighted with juveniles so apparent juvenile survival during this period was 100%; this outcome is consistent with data collected since 2012 that indicates survival of juvenile cranes during this period is high (Table 2). In 2018, fall surveys that confirmed apparent juvenile survival were conducted by John Conkin (CWS).

Management Considerations We confirmed nesting by 87 pairs in late spring, producing an average of 0.28 juveniles

per nest by mid-summer. While the number of confirmed nests has increased steadily since surveys began in 1966, it also varies annually (Figure 3) possibly in response to environmental conditions during the breeding season. The ratio of juveniles to nests, which is an estimate of breeding success for the population, also varies annually (Figure 3) in response to environmental conditions but also in a periodic manner that tracks the 10-year boreal hare-lynx cycle (Boyce et al. 2005) likely because of periodicity in abundance of potential predators (e.g., wolves, lynx, red fox).

The four highest annual nest counts have occurred during the past five years, highlighting the gradual but steady increase in the breeding population over the last sixty years (Figure 3). Even so, the AWBP is many years away from achieving the Canadian down-listing goal of 250 pairs (COSEWIC 2010). Recovery of the species currently depends on growth of the AWBP, so monitoring should continue until recovery goals are reached (CWS & USFWS 2007).

Sixteen breeding pairs were detected outside the area designated as critical habitat (Environment Canada 2007) under SARA, and eight of these were also outside WBNP, highlighting the ongoing expansion of the AWBP’s breeding range. The first nest outside WBNP was detected in 1982 on reserve lands of the Salt River First Nation, east of WBNP, and in 1998 cranes were detected nesting north of WBNP, in the Northwest Territories. Currently, up to 20% of nests and 35% of the nesting range occur outside critical habitat annually and, although cranes and their nests are protected under SARA and the Migratory Birds Convention Act wherever they occur, breeding habitat is not protected unless it is identified as critical habitat. In particular, SARA prohibits destruction of critical habitat in federal protected areas (e.g., WBNP) and

4

includes measures that could protect critical habitat in other areas. Moreover, up to 11% of nests occur outside WBNP annually, and these nests and associated habitat are not protected under the Canada National Parks Act or related regulations. Because the breeding range of whooping cranes has expanded outside the critical habitat, including into areas which could be impacted by human development, ECCC intends to undertake work to update the critical habitat to ensure it more closely corresponds to current and probable future breeding ranges of the species.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to colleagues who conducted fieldwork, including Sharon Irwin, Lori

Parker, Roberta Bondar, and Felix Erner. We thank other colleagues and members of the public who provided locations of whooping cranes or offered other useful information.

This work was supported by Joint Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Monitoring funding to Environment and Climate Change Canada. Additional financial and logistical support was provided by Parks Canada, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, the International Crane Foundation and the Calgary Zoo. Activities were conducted under Environment and Climate Change Canada Scientific/SARA permit NWT/AB/SK/MB-SCI-16-01, Environment and Climate Change Canada Western & Northern Animal Care Committee Permit 18MB01, Northwest Territories Wildlife Research Permit WL500612 and Parks Canada Agency Research and Collection Permit WB-2017-23857.

5

Literature cited

Boyce M.S., Lele S.R. & Johns B.W. 2005. Whooping crane recruitment enhanced by egg removal. Biological Conservation, 126:395-401.

Chavez-Ramirez, F. and W. Wehtje. 2012. Potential impact of climate change scenarios on whooping crane life history. Wetlands 32 (1):11-20.

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Whooping Crane Grus americana in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved in Oct 2015 from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr Whooping%20Crane_0810_e.pdf

CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping crane. 162 pp. Retrieved in Oct 2015 from: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Aransas/wwd/science/intl_recovery_plan.html

Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Whooping Crane (Grus americana) in Canada. vii + 27 pp. Retrieved in Oct 2015 from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_whooping_crane_final_1007_e.pdf

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2018. Historical Climate Data. Meteorological Service, Government of Canada. Retrieved in Nov 2018 from: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/index_e.html#access

Johns, B. 2010. Aerial survey techniques for breeding whooping cranes. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 11:83-88.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2018. Whooping Crane Survey Results: Winter 2017-2018. Retrieved in Aug 2018 from: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WHCR%20Update%20Winter%202017-2018.pdf

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2016. Remote tracking of Aransas-Wood Buffalo Whooping Cranes: 2015-2016 Project Update.

6

Table 1. The number and type of observations of whooping cranes that were detected during breeding pair and juvenile surveys in May and August 2018, respectively.

Observation type May August

Nests 87 n/a

Adults on or near nests 124 n/a

Pairs without nests 27-29 n/a

Pairs with juveniles n/a 24

Juveniles n/a 24

Pairs without juveniles n/a 77-80

Lone cranes 30 10

Grouped cranes 9 6

Total cranes 217-221 242-248

Notes:

(i) Because cranes may move over the duration of the survey, ranges reflect the possible number of unique individuals or unique pairs. The main objectives of the surveys are to obtain estimates of (a) nests and (b) pairs with juveniles, which are reported with more precision.

(ii) Many lone cranes observed in May are likely mates of adults detected on nests.

(iii) Grouped cranes refer to three or more cranes at one location. In 2018, the maximum number of adults observed at one location was three.

Table 2. Apparent juvenile survival during the period of fall migration from the breeding grounds to Saskatchewan, 2012 to 2018.

Year

Juveniles of banded families

detected on breeding grounds

Juveniles of banded families re-sighted during

fall

Banded families re-sighted

without young

Banded families not re-sighted

during fall

Apparent juvenile survival

2012 8 8 0 0 100

2013 7 5 0 0 100

2014 14 12 0 0 100

2015 11 9 1 1 90

2016 13 11 0 2 100

2017 16 8 2 6 75

2018 5 3 0 2 100

7

Figure 1. The amount of the whooping crane nesting area burned by wildfire annually (left vertical axis, dashed red line represents 25-year mean), and the total precipitation recorded at Fort Smith, Northwest Territories before (October-April) and during (May-September) the breeding season (right vertical axis, dashed blue lines represent 60-year means), 1958 to 2018.

8

Figure 2. The density per 100 km2 of whooping crane pairs, with and without nests, detected during the breeding pair survey in May 2018.

9

Figure 3. The number of whooping crane nests, and juveniles per nest, detected during aerial surveys from 1999-2018. The number of nests and juveniles are estimated during breeding pair (April-May) and juvenile (July-August) surveys, respectively; the number of juveniles per nest is calculated using information from both surveys.

10

Appendix A. List of Acronyms used in this report.

Acronym Description

AWBP Aransas-Wood Buffalo Population

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CWS Canadian Wildlife Service

ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada

GPS Global Positioning System

GSM Global System for Mobile communication

ICF International Crane Foundation

IRP US-Canada International Recovery Plan

PCA Parks Canada Agency

RS Recovery Strategy for the Whooping Crane in Canada

SARA Species at Risk Act

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WBNP Wood Buffalo National Park

11

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership

2018 Annual Report

Table of Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2

WCEP Organizational Chart........................................................................................................ 3

Operations Team ....................................................................................................................... 4

Rearing and Release Team......................................................................................................... 5

Monitoring and Management Team .......................................................................................... 7

Communications and Outreach Team...................................................................................... 17

1 | Page

IntroductionThe Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) implements its activities through coordinated efforts by partners

working with state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over the whooping cranes and/or the habitats they use.

The partnership works through a team approach: key areas of WCEP activity and day-to-day decisions are addressed by

one or more project teams that include individuals from partners with expertise in that area.

Where is WCEP with respect to its fundamental goal of creating a self-sustaining Eastern Migratory Population (EMP) of

whooping cranes? The minimal benchmark in the 2007 Third revision of the International Recovery Plan for a second

population such as the EMP is a self-sustaining flock comprised of 100 birds and 25 breeding pairs. We continued to

meet the goal, in part, for Criterion 1 this year: the maximum size of the eastern migratory population in December

2018, was 101 birds (45 Female, 53 Male, 3 Unknown) and there were 17 breeding pairs this year.

While releases have continued into the EMP, lack of natural recruitment continues to be a major impediment to

achieving the goal of a self-sustaining population. In spring, there were a total of 23 nests by 17 breeding pairs of cranes,

from which 10 chicks hatched. Six of these chicks made it to fledging, and five wintered with their parents and

completed their first fall and spring migrations. In August, one family group (two adults and two juveniles) were released

at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, and in October, two additional parent-reared chicks were released at White River

Marsh State Wildlife Area in areas where there were other Whooping Cranes. The size of the EMP has remained

relatively flat in recent years and additional birds are necessary to provide resilience, so that the number of nesting pairs

may remain stable in the face of environmental and demographic variation in the coming years.

Two major changes in 2018 were the closure of the Whooping Crane breeding program at Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center and Operation Migration’s departure from the partnership. Although the loss of Patuxent as a major breeding

center was difficult, we feel that the change will ultimately make the partnership stronger and more resilient. The

closure of the Patuxent program resulted in the transfer of their birds to new partners, including White Oak

Conservation in Florida and the Dallas Zoo in Texas. These partners bring new resources and energy to WCEP, as we

work together to develop a healthy and self-sustaining Eastern Migratory Population. Operation Migration was a valued

partner in WCEP for two decades, contributing countless hours, resources, and talent to our shared goal of returning a

migratory population of Whooping Cranes to the eastern United States. Together, we have been very successful in

reintroducing Whooping Cranes back to the Eastern United States, teaching them to migrate, form pairs, and hatch

chicks successfully. As we look forward to the future, we still believe that a healthy and self-sustaining Eastern Migratory

Population of Whooping Cranes is achievable.

2 | Page

Rearin

atio

WCEP Organizational Chart

Operations Team

Guidance Team

Monitoring and

Management Team

g and

Release Team

Recovery Team

Communic ns and

3 | Page

Operations TeamSarah Warner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Davin Lopez, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Each WCEP operational team is intended to have co-chairs. These co-chairs make up the Operations Team. Project decisions that cannot be made within a team or between teams are made by the Operations Team. Building off the redevelopment of the Operations Team functionality that began in 2015, the Operation Team is continuing to attempt to have more input and discussion between teams in order to capitalize on each team’s strengths and expertise. The Operations Team Co-chairs are also charged with updating the Guidance Team on the project needs, operations, and decisions. Beginning in 2015, to help facilitate communications between the Guidance Team and the Operations Team, the Operations Team Co-chairs sit in on the monthly Guidance Team calls. To further integrate the two teams, 2018 saw the initiation of a joint one hour Guidance Team and Operations Team call, with the Operation Team meeting before the joint call, and the Guidance Team after the joint call. While this format proved to be effective, scheduling issues were a problem and many calls had to be cancelled. As in the past, when joint team decisions needed to be made, If the Operations Team was unable to come to agreement on a decision that involves multiple teams, they sought the support of the Guidance Team. In 2018, the Operations Team accomplishments include:

Monthly conference calls to discuss project operations held on the first Thursday of each month; summary notes of the call are posted to the WCEP Google Drive.

2017 WCEP Annual Report was drafted by Operational Teams Co-chairs; compiled by the Communications and Outreach Team; reviewed and edited by the Operations Team and Guidance Team; finalized and posted on the BringBacktheCranes.org website. Drafting of 2018 Annual Report was initiated in March 2019.

Continued efforts to more fully engage with the Guidance Team.

Assisted the Rearing and Release Team with fully implementing Parent Rearing as the preferred chick rearing method.

Continued to work with the Guidance Team on improving efficiencies across WCEP.

Helped the Guidance Team and COT team through the transition of losing founding partner Operation

Migration.

4 | Page

Rearing and Release TeamKim Boardman, International Crane Foundation Scott Tidmus, Disney’s Animal Kingdom

Rearing and Release Team Annual Report 2018 Captive rearing efforts for EMP releases were significantly impacted by the closing of USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 2018. Based on the 2016 USFWS guidance document, parent rearing methods were used for all releases into this population. Parent rearing occurred at International Crane Foundation, White Oak (as an experimental repairing), and the Calgary Zoo. Rearing management goals were to:

Promote natural behaviors of chicks through pen management as outlined in 2016 work plan (i.e. access to water for roosting, maintaining low vegetation to promote flight, minimizing human disturbance/handling)

If chicks are to be socialized prior to transfer, remove from parents so cohort can acclimate. This acclimation time period should be no less than 2 weeks and can be longer based on birds and behavior.

Captive breeding centers are encouraged to implement additional management that promotes natural behaviors based on their environment & facilities. (Example – seeing if one pair can rear a set of two crane chicks in a captive setting.) 2018 Parent Rearing Summary Three chicks were hatched and reared at ICF; however, only 2 survived to be release candidates. 76-11 was banded on 20 September and released on 2 Oct 2018. 77-18 was banded on 25 September and released on 11 Oct 2018. Both birds were released at White River Marsh State Wildlife Area in the vicinity of the same target pair, 67-15/5-12; however different release sites were used for each bird. White Oak hatched 2 chicks and successfully twinned them with parents. This family unit (16-11/18-12 and offspring 73-18, 74-18) were transferred to WI for release at Horicon Marsh. This release effort was led by Monitoring and Management Team as part of an experimental resocialization attempt with 18-12/16-11 started in fall 2016.

Diagram 1. Release locations in WI of 2018 WCEP birds

The Calgary Zoo also successfully twinned a pair of chicks and produced 2 chicks for release efforts; however, a transfer couldn’t be coordinated in time for a fall release. Options to incorporate these birds into a release program will continue to be evaluated.

5 | Page

Table 1. Summary of 2018 Parent Reared Releases

Bird Sex Band date Release Release Releas Target

ID County Date e Time adults

Death Note Fall Migration Notes

Left WI on 18 Nov

16- with 16-11,

73_18 F 26-Jul-18 Dodge 25-Aug-18 6:05

11/18-

12

wintered in Jasper

Co, IN

Left WI on 18 Nov

16- with 16-11,

74_18 M 26-Jul-18 Dodge 25-Aug-18 6:05

11/18-

12

wintered in Jasper

Co, IN

67-

Green 15/5- 12 Oct 2018

76_18 F 20-Sep-18 Lake 2-Oct-18 17:20 11 Predation

Left WI on 15 Nov.

77_18 M 25-Sep-18

Green

Lake 11-Oct-18 16:36

67-

15/5-

12

Migrated with

SACR, wintered in

Sarasota Co, FL

6 | Page

Monitoring and Management TeamAnne Lacy, International Crane Foundation Davin Lopez, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Prepared by Hillary Thompson and Jeannie van Vianen, International Crane Foundation

During 2018, there were about 101 Whooping Cranes in the Eastern Migratory Population. The majority spent the summer in Wisconsin, with the exception of 10 birds that spent all or part of the summer in Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, or Illinois (Fig. 1). We recorded a total of 23 nests by 17 breeding pairs of cranes, from which 10 chicks hatched. Six of these chicks made it to fledging, and five wintered with their parents, and completed their first fall migration. In August, one family group (two adults and two juveniles) were released at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, and in October, two additional parent-reared chicks were released at White River Marsh State Wildlife Area in areas where there were other Whooping Cranes. There was one mortality in the 2018 cohort (female 76-18) from predation in Wisconsin prior to migration. There were five adult mortalities during 2018, due to predation, emaciation, and unknown causes. Members of the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership captured two adult Whooping Cranes during 2018 for transmitter replacement, as well as 5 wild-hatched juveniles and one wild-hatched adult for initial transmitter deployment, which will help us track individuals in this population to inform our management decisions and future releases.

Highlights related to monitoring and management of the EMP from 2018 include:

This year we recorded a total of 23 nests by 17 different pairs breeding in Wisconsin. Due to weather and other unforeseen circumstances we had reduced nest monitoring this year. The numbers reported here are the total we observed but there may have been a few missed short-term nests, or chicks who only lived a few days. One first nest had two eggs removed as part of the active nest management protocol. Four additional nests (two first nests, two re-nests) had one of the two eggs removed for captive rearing. 10 nests failed due to predation, a snow storm, or unknown causes. Two nests were incubated full term, and three nests had unknown outcomes but the pairs were confirmed later without chicks. 10 chicks hatched from 4 first nests and 3 re-nests. Six wild-hatched chicks made it to fledging and five survived their first fall migration (Table 1).

Two adults were captured for transmitter replacement, and five wild-hatched chicks and one wild-hatched adult were captured for initial banding.

There were six mortalities confirmed during 2018: four in Wisconsin, one in Illinois, and one in Kentucky. We released one family group (two adults, two juveniles) at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in August

(see below), and two parent-reared juveniles at White River Marsh State Wildlife Area in Green Lake County in October. One of the juveniles died in Green Lake County from predation prior to migration.

In 2016, we captured male 16-11 after he had nested with a Sandhill Crane and brought him to White Oak Conservation in Yulee Florida with a female Whooping Crane (18-12 or Hemlock) who had been slated for a DAR release in 2012 but was never released. The two formed a pair bond in captivity and in 2018 hatched two of their own chicks, 73-18 and 74-18. The family group was released at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in August 2018. The female, 18-12, died due to emaciation at Horicon prior to migration. 16-11 and the two juveniles migrated to northwestern Indiana, where they spent the winter.

7 | Page

Figure 1. Summer distribution of the Eastern Migratory Population of Whooping Cranes during 2018

Winter 2017/2018

The maximum population size as of 31 December 2017 was 110 birds (57 males, 50 females, 3 unknown). The final wintering locations of Whooping Cranes in the EMP during winter 2017/2018 were as follows (Figure 2):

Wisconsin – 1 Indiana – 32 Illinois – 7 Kentucky – 8-10 Tennessee – 8-9 Louisiana – 2 Alabama – 26 Georgia – 2 Florida – 5 Unknown – 16-19

8 | Page

Figure 2. Distribution of the Eastern Migratory Population of Whooping Cranes during winter 2017-2018

Captures and Banding

Five pre-fledged wild-hatched chicks at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge were captured and outfitted with transmitters for a chick survival study in coordination with University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh and University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. Three wild-hatched chicks (W5-18, W6-18, and W10-18) were re-captured for placement of permanent bands and transmitter at Necedah NWR. Two other wild-hatched chicks (W1-18 and W3-18) were captured on private property for placement of bands and transmitter. In addition, the remaining 2017 chick that was not yet banded was captured on 17 July and had bands and a transmitter placed.

Captures for transmitter replacement: 4-13 Marquette County 16 May 36-09 Necedah NWR 10 September

Winter distribution as of 7 January 2019

The maximum population size as of 7 January 2019 was 101 (45 Female, 53 Male, 3 Unknown). The distribution of these birds at this time is as follows (Figure 3):

Indiana – 33 Illinois – 11 Kentucky – 9

9 | Page

Tennessee – 6 Alabama – 18 Georgia – 2 Florida – 5 Unknown – 17

Figure 3. Distribution of wintering Whooping Cranes in the Eastern Migratory Population as of 7 January 2019.

Survival

As of 31 December 2018, there have been 291 Whooping Cranes released since the beginning of the reintroduction in 2001. This number does not include the 17 HY2006 ultralight-led juveniles that died during confinement in a storm and one HY2007 ultralight-led juvenile that was removed from the project prior to release. There have been twenty-one wild-hatched chicks that survived to fledging, eighteen of which have been recruited to the EMP (see Reproduction section below). The total released or wild-hatched chicks in this population since 2001 is 309 (Figure 4), of which 101 (32.7 %) may be alive in the EMP as of 7 January 2019 (Figure 5).

There were six confirmed mortalities recorded in 2018 (not including wild-hatched chicks born in 2018): 30-17 – 19 April, predation

10 | Page

39-16 – 22 August, cause unknown 71-16 – 31 August, cause unknown 18-12 – 22 September, emaciation 76-18 – 12 October, predation 36-17 – 19 November, cause unknown

Figure 4. Cumulative number of cranes added to the Eastern Migratory Population by rearing method since 2001. As of 2018, there have been 167 UltraLight led, 86 Direct Autumn Release, 38 Parent Reared, and 18 Wild Hatched Whooping Cranes added to the EMP.

11 | Page

Figure 5. Population size of EMP by rearing method. As of 7 January 2019 there were 101 birds recorded in the EMP (left axis; 53 males, 45 females, 3 unknown). Black line indicates the total birds released into the population cumulatively (right axis; same number as figure 4, above).

Reproduction

This year we recorded a total of 23 nests by 17 different pairs breeding in Wisconsin. Due to weather and other unforeseen circumstances we had reduced nest monitoring this year. The numbers reported here are the total we observed but there may have been a few missed short-term nests, or chicks who only lived a few days.

One first nest had two eggs removed as part of the active nest management protocol. Four additional nests (two first nests, two re-nests) had one of the two eggs removed for captive rearing.

10 nests failed due to predation, a snow storm, or unknown causes. Two nests were incubated full term, and three nests had unknown outcomes but the pairs were confirmed later without chicks.

10 chicks hatched from 4 first nests and 3 re-nests (Table 1). Six wild-hatched chicks made it to fledging, and five migrated south (Table 2).

To date, there have been a total of 299 nests (230 first nests, and 69 re-nests), leading to 115 chicks hatched in the wild and 21 fledged chicks. As of 31 December 2018, eleven wild-hatched birds survive in the wild (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 1. Nesting summary for 2018. Asterisks indicate a re-nest.

Female Male Nest outcome Date

completed

County Chick(s) Notes

36_09 18_03 Failed 4/15/18 Juneau Abandoned during snow

storm

9_03 3_04 Failed 4/15/18 Juneau Abandoned during snow

storm

12 | Page

13_03 9_05 Failed 4/15/18 Juneau Abandoned during snow

storm

W1_06 1_10 Failed 4/15/18 Juneau Abandoned during snow

storm

16_07 1_04 Failed 4/15/18 Juneau Abandoned during snow

storm

24_08 14_08 Active nest

management

4/30/18 Juneau Both eggs collected. One

egg hatched, the other

died during hatching

process - both in captivity

on 22 May.

59_13 1_11 Failed Estimated

5/3/18

St. Croix Nesting dates estimated

based on bird behavior but

nest never observed.

12_11 5_11 Hatched (2 of 2) Estimated

5/4/18

Confirmed

5/7/18

Juneau W1-18,

W2-18

W1-18 fledged and

migrated south with

parents

27_14 10_11 Failed 5/7/18 Marquette Believed to be flooded out

42_09 24_09 Hatched (2 of 2) Estimated

5/27/18

Confirmed

6/5/18

Adams W3-18,

W4-18

Hatch date estimated

based on chick age. Chicks

confirmed 5 June.

W3_10 8_04 Hatched (1 of 1) 5/30/18 Juneau W5-18 Second egg was collected

on 23 April and hatched in

captivity 30 May

13 | Page

32_09 19_10 Incubated full term 6/5/18 Juneau Took one egg for captive

rearing. Collected 23 April

and hatched 30 May.

Second egg found on nest

5 June with a hole the size

of two quarters and rotting

goop inside. No sign of

developing colt.

16_07 1_04 Hatched (1 of 1)* 6/3/18 Juneau W6-18 Collected second egg for

captive rearing on 23 April,

which hatched in captivity

on 5 June.

3_14 4_12 Unknown Estimated Green Lake Nest was due to hatch

6/2/18 early June but pair was

seen 6 June with no chicks.

Confirmed

6/6/18

May have hatched and

only survived a few days.

Nest was not visible from

anywhere.

36_09 18_03 Incubated full

term*

6/12/18 Juneau Took one egg for captive

rearing on 23 April which

was infertile. Second egg

pulled after they sat 10

days past full term.

7_11 3_11 Unknown Estimated Adams Nest was due to hatch

6/6/18 early June but pair was

seen 29 June with no

Confirmed

6/29/18

chicks. May have lost

young chicks but nest was

not visible to confirm.

5_10 28_08 Unknown Estimated Marathon Nest was due to hatch

6/6/18

Confirmed

7/17/18

early June but pair was

seen 17 July with no chicks.

May have been brooding

on 29 June, but no chicks

were confirmed. May have

lost young chicks but nest

was not visible to confirm.

25_09 2_04 Failed 6/7/18 Juneau Predated

14 | Page

9_03 3_04 Hatched (2 of 2)* 6/13/18 Juneau W7-18,

W8-18

Chicks hatched 11 June

(W7) and 13 June (W8).

Neither survived to

fledging.

24_08 14_08 Hatched (1 of ?)* 6/14/18 Juneau W9-18 Unknown how many eggs

were laid but confirmed

one hatch. 14-08

disappeared (and is

presumed dead) before

chick fledged. W9-18 was

old enough to have

fledged, but flight was not

observed. W9-18 died

prior to migration.

27_14 10_11 Failed* 6/12/18 Marquette Nest failed two days prior

to estimated hatch

59_13 1_11 Failed* 6/7/18 St. Croix Nesting dates estimated

based on bird behavior but

nest never observed.

23_10 4_08 Hatched (1 of 1) 6/20/18 Juneau W10-18 W10-18 survived to fledge

and migrated south with

parents.

Table 2. Nest initiation dates, number of nests, number of chicks hatched, and number of chicks fledged 2005-2018

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

First Nest 16 5-6 3 Apr 7 Apr 2 Apr <1 3-4 <26 15 7 Apr 1-3 29- 30 8

Initiation Apr Apr Apr Apr Mar Apr Apr 31 Mar April

Mar

# First

Nests

2 5 4 11 12 12 20 22 21 25 27 27 25 17 230

#

Renests

0 1 1 0 5 5 2 7 2 3 10 16 11 6 69

Total

Nests

2 6 5 11 17 17 22 29 23 28 37 43 36 23 299

#

Hatched

0 2 0 0 2 7 4 9 3 13 24 23 18 10 115

15 | Page

#

Fledged

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 3 3* 2 6* 21

*One chick was old enough to have fledged when it died, but flights were never observed.

Table 3. Pairs that have successfully fledged chicks with years of fledging

Sire Dam Year(s)

11_02 17_02 2006

3_04 9_03 2010 2013 2015

12_02 19_04 2010 2012 2014

9_05 13_03 2012

10_09 17_07 2015

2_04 25_09 2015

29_09 12_03 2016

1_04 8_05 2016

12_02 4_11 2016*

14_08 24_08 2017 2018**

24_09 42_09 2017 2018

5_11 12_11 2018

4_08 23_10 2018

8_04 W3_10 2018

1_04 16_07 2018

*12-02 died before chick fledged. Chick was old enough to have fledged when it died, but flights were never observed. 4-11 was found shot at her wintering area at the beginning of 2017.

** 14-08 disappeared before chick fledged and 14-08 is believed to be dead. The chick (W9-18) was old enough to have fledged when it died, but flights were never observed.

16 | Page

Communications and Outreach TeamSara Gavney Moore, International Crane Foundation Trina Soyk, US-Fish and Wildlife Service

The WCEP Communications and Outreach Team (COT) is responsible for all external communications on behalf of WCEP.

It also functions to improve internal communication among the functional teams that make up WCEP, and is the main

group responsible for compiling and maintaining the internal monthly minutes newsletter and WCEP Google Drive, the

main repository for notes and documents generated by the various WCEP teams.

WCEP Website

The partnership website bringbackthecranes.org had 4,826 unique visitors in 2018. This represents a decrease of 41%

from 2017 when the site had 11,771 visitors. The decrease in the number of visitors and other metrics are likely due to

a change in search ranking caused by the launch of the new website. Over time, the search ranking will increase and

these metrics should stabilize to pre-2018 numbers.

The number of “pageviews” decreased with 20,330 versus 30,879 (2017). This represents a drop of 34 percent. A

“pageview” is defined as the total number of pages viewed. Repeated views of a single page are counted.

Our “sessions” total likewise decreased for 2018 with 9,547 vs 15,279 in 2017. A “session” is the period when a

user is actively engaged with multiple pages on a website.

Partnership websites are also a source of information on program activities. As an example, the International Crane

Foundation’s website savingcranes.org received 46,733 pageviews relating to Whooping Crane content in 2018.

WCEP Media Releases/Articles

The COT issued ad hoc press releases throughout the year in response to important milestones, including: “Whooping Cranes will soon return to Wisconsin,” “Endangered Whooping Crane chicks hatch at White Oak Conservation,” “Whooping Crane family of four flown north to Horicon Marsh” and “Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership sees best year yet for wild-hatched chicks.” We also covered the closing of the Whooping Crane program at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and Operation Migration’s departure from the Partnership on our social media.

Monthly Project Updates produced by the International Crane Foundation were shared via WCEP and partner’s social

media channels and websites.

Traditional Media Coverage

Coverage of Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (keyword) appeared in the following outlets during 2018.

Sixty-one total media stories with total reach: 56,479,158

Headline Source Reach

Western whooping crane population tops 500 MySouTex.com 6,468

17 | Page

Flocking to the Festival El Defensor

Chieftain

2,788

Fifty-year whooping crane program will close at Patuxent refuge The Washington

Post

31,542,172

Day trip: Whooping Cranes return to Indiana Cincinnati Enquirer 835,995

Whooping crane era coming to an end at Patuxent research center, as

budget cuts cancel 50-year-old breeding program

The Baltimore Sun 1,435,689

End of an era: 50-year-old whooping crane breeding program coming to

a close at Maryland&apos;s Patuxent refuge

The Baltimore Sun 13,79,317

Whooping crane era coming to an end at Patuxent research center, as

budget cuts cancel 50-year-old breeding program

CapitalGazette.com 116,586

Whooping crane era coming to an end at Patuxent research center, as

budget cuts cancel 50-year-old breeding program

Carroll County Times 31,083

Correction: Whooping Cranes story Firenews 77,279

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive The Farmington

Independent

1,274

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive Hastings Star

Gazette

4,039

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive Woodbury Bulletin 5,653

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive Hudson Star

Observer

8,189

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive Republican Eagle 5,852

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive South Washington

County Bulletin

4,027

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive Rosemount Town

Pages

459

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive New Richmond

News

7,208

18 | Page

Operation Migration helped whooping cranes survive Rosemount Town 1,053

Pages

Correction: Whooping Cranes story The Washington 3,136,120

Times

Correction: Whooping Cranes story HeraldCourier.com 85,253

Correction: Whooping Cranes story The Middletown 34,408

Press

Correction: Whooping Cranes story Merced Sun-Star 63,598

Correction: Whooping Cranes story The Olympian 90,688

Correction: Whooping Cranes story Centre Daily Times 68,275

Correction: Whooping Cranes story Associated Press 4,974,939

Correction: Whooping Cranes story The News Tribune 261,732

Correction: Whooping Cranes story Macon Telegraph 144,309

Correction: Whooping Cranes story Madison.com 290,795

Correction: Whooping Cranes story The Journal Times 89,986

Online

Correction: Whooping Cranes story WiscNews 57,105

Correction: Whooping Cranes story GazetteXtra.com 36,866

Correction: Whooping Cranes story The Kansas City Star 1,496,049

Correction: Whooping Cranes story La Crosse Tribune 123,356

Correction: Whooping Cranes story AP (Hosted) 312,082

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes Greater Milwaukee 11,351

Today

19 | Page

Researchers help whooping cranes The Eau Claire 59,849

Leader Telegram

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes CBS 58 News 89,641

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes Fox6now.com 452,383

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes Laredo Morning 223,239

Times

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes StarTribune.com 1,764,194

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes Associated Press 4,974,939

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes GazetteXtra.com 36,866

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes Clay Center Dispatch 4,306

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes WiscNews 57,105

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes Madison.com 290,795

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes La Crosse Tribune 123,356

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes The Journal Times 89,986

Online

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes AP (Hosted) 312,082

Wisconsin researchers work to help whooping cranes The Republic 34,704

Whooping crane story continues in Wisconsin The Country Today 655

Operation Migration to dissolve IronMountainDailyN 10,498

ews.com

'Craniacs' conservation group Operation Migration shutting down after Madison.com 427,037

25 years

'Craniacs' conservation group Operation Migration shutting down after Chippewa Herald 25,310

25 years

20 | Page

'Craniacs' conservation group Operation Migration shutting down after

25 years

La Crosse Tribune 79,962

'Craniacs' conservation group Operation Migration shutting down after

25 years

WiscNews 51,099

Buresh Blog: Dry spell... The Players Action News Jax 393,861

Whooping crane chicks hatch at White Oak in conservation milestone Jacksonville.com 202,392

Whooping crane chicks hatch at White Oak in conservation milestone News-

JournalOnline.com

1,277

Endangered Whooping Crane Chicks Hatch at White Oak Fernandina

Observer

2,925

Experience calendar: Fond du Lac County events for February 2018 Fond Du Lac

Reporter

20,622

What's Next in The Effort To Save Whooping Cranes? Northern Public

Radio

8,032

The themes highlighted in our media outreach our illustrated below, with the larger phrases representing a higher

number of mentions:

WCEP Social Media Sites

WCEP has social media accounts on both Twitter and Facebook. We currently have 363 Twitter followers and 2,305

Facebook followers. We post updates on Facebook, as well as articles related to other endangered species recovery

efforts and linking to WCEP partner projects. Social media sites provide WCEP with an additional tool to better reach

new and existing audiences about the project and its partners.

21 | Page

Education and outreach programs and events

WCEP partners conducted many programs and outreach events designed to raise awareness about Whooping Cranes

and the EMP reintroduction project. We continued to work with our core audience, as well as building our following

with outreach events and materials designed to reach non-traditional audiences. Presentations about Whooping Cranes

were given at schools, zoos, state parks, birding groups, assisted living facilities, and other venues.

Birding and crane-specific festivals are an important part of WCEP outreach. This year WCEP partners tabled and

presented at the Whooping Crane Festival in Port Aransas, Texas; the Whooping Crane Festival in Princeton, Wisconsin;

the Sandhill Crane Festival in Lodi, California; International Migratory Bird Day in Florida; and the Festival of the Cranes

in Decatur, Alabama; the Biggest Week in American Birding in Ohio; and Marsh Madness in Indiana.

In 2018, ICF continued a fourth year of outreach in Wisconsin. ICF repeated many of the previous year’s activities, with

outreach events, presence at gun shows and nature festivals, and K-12 education. ICF’s Whooping Crane outreach intern

lead the program. ICF participated in 30 events and reached over 2,900 people in Wisconsin in 2018.

The winter of 2018-19 was the second year of ICF’s Whooping Crane outreach program in Indiana. ICF was able to hire

seasonal employees in both Alabama and Indiana. Between the two programs, we had interactions at 125 outreach

events. This does not include traditional and social media. We had more programs in Tennessee this year, after

drumming up some enthusiasm from the Tennessee Ornithological Society at their annual chapter meeting.

22 | Page

Locations of outreach events conducted by ICF in the eastern migratory flyway in 2018.

23 | Page

2018-2019 Louisiana Whooping Crane Report

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Coastal and Nongame Resources

1 July 2018 through 30 June 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Twelve juvenile whooping cranes were received in November 2018 from the International Crane Foundation (ICF; n = 7) and the Freeport-McMoRan Audubon Species Survival Center (ASSC; n = 5). The two groups were housed next to each other in the top-netted section of the release pen at the Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge (RWR) in Cameron Parish, prior to being released together. A thirteenth juvenile, who had been reared by a captive pair of cranes at ASSC, but initially held back for medical reasons, was hard-released in the vicinity of older cranes on property near the White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area (WLWCA) in mid-January. Additionally, all five chicks that hatched in the wild in 2018 survived to independence and separated from their parents in January and February.

The maximum size of the Louisiana non-migratory population at the end of the report period was 71 individuals (33 males, 37 females, and 1 unknown), with 55 birds located in Louisiana, 15 in Texas, and 1 in Oklahoma. Based on location data generated via remote transmitters, we documented cranes in 24 parishes throughout Louisiana, with five of those parishes accounting for 69% of the data points. Louisiana whooping cranes were also documented using five different states, although one crane alone accounts for the points located in four of the five states outside of Louisiana. One-fifth of the location data points are in Texas as a result of 43% of the population spending some time there. Many of these data points represent short, exploratory trips typically made by young cranes; however, cranes from multiple cohorts have spent considerable amounts of time in southeast Texas where habitats are similar to those in southwest Louisiana. Fortunately, our partners with other state and federal agencies work closely with us to document such occurrences and provide updates on the status of cranes in their vicinity.

In late 2018, years after the idea was first proposed, and with approval from the International Whooping Crane Recovery Team (WCRT), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the states of Florida and Louisiana, plans were initiated to capture several of the remaining Florida non-migratory whooping cranes and transfer them to Louisiana. In mid-January, two adult females were captured and held in captivity for two weeks prior to being translocated to Louisiana. Both individuals survived through the end of the report period and the younger female has consistently associated with a number of different Louisiana cranes since shortly after her release.

During the 2019 breeding season, 13 nesting pairs initiated 27 nests in seven different parishes. Unfortunately, two experienced breeding pairs were lost prior to the 2019 nesting season due to the death of one member of the pair. In both cases, however, the surviving member re-paired in time to nest this year. Seven pairs consisted of individuals who each had previous nesting experience, three contained one member with previous experience, and three were nesting for the first time. In 2019, six chicks hatched to six pairs; three hatched naturally to their biological parents and three hatched from fertile eggs that were swapped into wild nests as eggs or newly hatched chicks. Chicks disappeared at 2-22 days old, despite four of the six pairs having previously raised offspring to independence. Due to ongoing, significant embryo mortality, we continued submitting adult blood and egg content samples for heavy metal and toxicology screening. Additionally, we continued to deploy data-logging eggs in nests to gather nest environment and incubation data. We plan to continue with these new research initiatives to learn more about factors that influence reproductive success, and use that knowledge to increase the productivity of Louisiana whooping cranes.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) continues to educate the public about the whooping crane reintroduction program through a variety of means. Public outreach efforts consisted of LDWF staff participating in festivals and outreach events around the state where literature and other information were disseminated to the public. LDWF staff also presented information on the reintroduction effort to various clubs and organizations throughout the year.

Our media campaign continued to focus on raising public awareness regarding both positive and negative aspects of the program, including re-emphasizing the issue around illegal shootings involving whooping cranes which accounts for almost 25% of the confirmed or suspected mortality in the population where a cause of death could be determined. The media plan once again utilized an assortment of methods including billboards, television, and radio.

Now in its ninth year, the Louisiana whooping crane reintroduction has made much positive progress but still has challenges to overcome. We are determined to continue making strides towards our ultimate goal of establishing a self-sustaining population in the state.

RECENT COHORT SUMMARIES, PEN MANAGEMENT, AND RELEASE

2018 Cohort Arrival and Release Summary On 19 November 2018, 12 costume-reared juvenile cranes (6 females, 6 males) were received for release in southwest Louisiana at Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge (RWR). Five of the cranes, reared in captivity at the Freeport-McMoRan Audubon Species Survival Center (ASSC) in New Orleans, were transported by vehicle that morning. Upon arrival at RWR, the cranes were brought by boat to the release area where each one was examined by a wildlife veterinarian, banded with a numbered metal band and a unique combination of colored plastic leg bands, and was fitted with one or two leg-mounted tracking devices before being placed in the top-netted section of the release pen. The remaining seven cranes were transported by a Windway Capital Corporation airplane from the International Crane Foundation (ICF) in Baraboo, WI to the Chris Crusta Memorial Airport in Abbeville, LA in the afternoon. This group was then driven to RWR where each crane was examined and subsequently banded. The seven cranes were placed in an adjacent, but separate section of the top-netted pen so the two groups could socialize while minimizing any potential conflicts between them. No observations of aggression or fighting through the divider fence were ever made and for the most part, the two groups appeared to ignore each other. During this time, the cranes were routinely monitored by costumed staff and provided supplemental food.

The juvenile cranes were released from the top-netted section of the pen on 3 December at which time they had access to the open portion of the pen and the surrounding marsh. They immediately had to contend with the presence of older cranes who returned to the pen site. The day of the release, a male (L13-16) and female (L10-17) flew into the pen and ate from the feeders provided for the juveniles. The older cranes displayed aggressive behaviors towards costumed staff and several of the juveniles. These two cranes left the pen site by 17 December but additional cranes arrived a few days later. Male L24-16, who first arrived at the pen on 28 November but left prior to the release of the juveniles, returned to the pen with female L14-17 on 21 December. That same day another pair, male L6-16 and female L16-17, arrived at the pen site but did not remain there after being chased away by the other pair. L24-16 and L14-17 also displayed aggressive behaviors towards some of the juveniles and even began building a nest platform inside the pen on 23 December. Another male crane (L23-16) arrived on 26 December but was quickly chased away by the pair.

Despite setting up additional feeders, unavailability of the pelleted food, whether due to the territorial behavior of the adults, more time between filling of the feeders due to reduced monitoring, or food running out faster due to the continued issue of grackles consuming large amounts, may have contributed to the juveniles leaving the pen site around 1 January 2019. The group of seven juveniles received from ICF left the refuge on 4 January and moved into Vermilion and Acadia parishes. Around the same time, most of the other juveniles moved into Calcasieu Parish then separated into different parts of Jefferson Davis Parish. Groups of five and three juveniles remained together in Texas and Louisiana respectively through the end of the report period. One additional juvenile has been associating with older whooping cranes since the end of January and the remaining three died during the report period.

A juvenile female (L8-18) was observed alone at the pen with a right leg injury on 3 January. She was not at the pen the following day but was captured by hand on the levee of an adjacent management unit on the refuge on 7 January. Her leg injury greatly restricted her mobility as she was unable to put any weight on her right leg. She was returned to the pen and kept in the top-netted section overnight. The following day, L8-18 was transported to the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine in Baton Rouge where radiographs were taken of her leg. There were no broken bones but her tendon and tendon sheath were infected. She was taken to ASSC for further evaluation and treatment. Unfortunately, after initially improving, her condition deteriorated and due to a poor prognosis for recovery and re-release, she was euthanized on 23 January.

An additional juvenile male (L13-18), a parent-reared crane who had initially been held back due to on-going treatment for a leg injury, was transported from the ASSC to the White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area (WLWCA) on 15 January. He was banded and subsequently released on private property near WLWCA in the vicinity of a group of 13 older cranes. He never attempted to join the group but shortly thereafter, was observed with an older female (L1-12) for a brief period of time. Since then he has not associated with other cranes as of the end of the report period.

TRANSLOCATION AND RELEASE OF FLORIDA BIRDS

Beginning in 1993, captive-reared juvenile whooping cranes were released annually in central Florida in an effort to

establish a non-migratory flock. Unfortunately, high adult mortality, poor reproductive success, and low probability of the population ever becoming self-sustaining led to the suspension of releases after 2004. In 2008, the WCRT recommended that no further releases occur and in 2012 the intensive, routine monitoring of the remaining 18 birds was discontinued. Due to a skewed sex ratio in favor of females and the continued loss or lack of habitat suitable for nesting (due to development and drought), the likelihood of lone females pairing and breeding was low. Of the remaining members of the small population, several birds had previously been successful in hatching and raising chicks and several of those wild reared chicks remained alive.

With approval from the WCRT, the USFWS, and the states of Florida and Louisiana, and after an Environmental Assessment and 30-day public comment period concluded, plans were initiated to capture several of the remaining Florida whooping cranes and transfer them to Louisiana.

On 22 January, a 21-year-old female (LF1-98) was caught and transferred to White Oak Conservation in Yulee, Florida for temporary holding prior to transfer to Louisiana. This female and her mate were the first pair to fledge a chick in the wild in the United States since 1939, being successful on their first attempt in 2002. She nested 22 additional times, hatched a total of 13 chicks, and raised nine to fledging from 2002-2016. One of those fledged chicks, a four-year-old female (LFW12-15) was caught and transferred to White Oak on 23 January. Since leaving her parents she had remained alone or with sandhill cranes and had never been documented encountering another whooping crane due to the small number remaining in Florida.

On 6 February, both cranes were transported by van to Louisiana where they were examined and banded. They were held separately overnight and released the next morning on WLWCA property. Both made small local movements in the days following their release until LFW12-15 found feeders at a captive deer facility on private property about five miles northwest of where she had been released. Several days later, LF1-98 found additional feeders at this location and then joined LFW12-15. On 21 February, L10-17, a two-year-old female, joined the two Florida cranes at the deer feeders and all three remained mainly at this location, taking advantage of this plentiful and easily accessible food source for the next two weeks before L10-17 and LFW12-15 left on 6 March. Neither crane returned to the feeders despite remaining or returning to the surrounding area. In late March, L13-17, a two-year-old male joined LF1-98 at the deer feeders but after several weeks, he left and did not return. LF1-98 left the deer feeders at the end of May and is believed to be molting since she has remained in the same small area since mid-June. Movements of both cranes since their release in Louisiana are shown in Figure 1.

DISTRIBUTION

Whooping cranes were monitored via remote tracking devices and in real time via very high frequency (VHF) transmitters in order to record movements, assess behaviors indicative of nesting and molting, and document the general health of the population. Remote monitoring was accomplished through the use of two types of GPS transmitters developed by Microwave Telemetry, Inc.: 22-g solar Argos/GPS platform transmitter terminals (PTT) and 25-g solar Global System for Mobile Communications/GPS transmitters (GSM). The PTTs are programmed to collect data three times per day (06:00, 14:00, and 22:00 GMT) and transmit data every 48 hours. The GSM transmitters collect numerous location points throughout the day and transmit data every day when cranes are within range of cell towers. However, to avoid skewing data towards the more numerous GSM points, only points that match those collected via PTTs as closely as possible are included in the dataset. When GPS data are unavailable, high quality Doppler readings from the PTTs are used to indicate location. Doppler readings are included in the distribution analysis but account for only 0.03% of the location data.

Remote tracking devices transmitted just over 40,000 data points between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019. Of these, 69.1% were located in five parishes in Louisiana (Table 1; Fig. 2, 3). Another 7.1% were distributed across 19 additional parishes, 21.5% occurred in Texas, and the remaining 2.3% occurred in other states.

Use of Out-of-State Locations Thirty-one individuals from the Louisiana population were documented (via remote transmitter data or visual observations) using areas outside of Louisiana during the report period (Table 2), and an additional four cranes are assumed to have used out-of-state areas based on group associations and movements. Twelve of the confirmed cranes had not previously been documented leaving the state and included three hatch-year (HY) 2017 and eight HY 2018

individuals. All four of the cranes assumed to have left also had not previously been documented outside of Louisiana, and included three HY 2017 and one HY 2018 individual.

Cranes from the Eastern Migratory Population (EMP) EMP male no. 20-15, whose remote transmitter stopped functioning in 2018, returned to his wintering area in St. Martin Parish by 14 January 2019. He remained here through at least 4 March and was confirmed back in Wisconsin on 1 April. He has wintered in Louisiana every year since his release in 2015.

MOLTING

In 2019, molting was confirmed in three individuals; L22-17 (two-year-old male) and L5-16 (three-year-old female) in Texas and L19-16 (three-year-old male) in Louisiana. We suspect a number of other cranes also may have molted during the report period based on extended periods of limited movement. These include: LF1-98, L11-11, L8-13, L10-15, L9-16, L23-16, L25-16, and/or L11-17.

CAPTURES

Eighteen captures of released cranes were made on 27 days of attempts from 1 November 2018 – 6 February 2019, including 4 of 5 wild-fledged juveniles. Despite repeated attempts, we were unable to capture the fifth wild-fledged juvenile who was one of a set of siblings. Nine captures were hand grabs and eight were via a leg noose. Two untargeted cranes were caught in the leg noose intended for another crane in the vicinity. They were briefly restrained to remove the noose and immediately released. While the majority of captures were for the purpose of banding or transmitter replacement, two captures were due to injury or illness and ultimately both cranes were euthanized as a result of their injuries. More information can found in Table 3.

PAIRING AND REPRODUCTION

Twenty-seven nests by 13 pairs were initiated in seven parishes (Acadia, Allen, Avoyelles, Calcasieu, Cameron, Jefferson Davis and Vermilion) in central and southwestern Louisiana in 2019 (Fig. 4), the sixth year of nesting by the Louisiana flock. Seven pairs consisted of individuals who each had previous nesting experience, three pairs contained one member with previous experience, and three pairs were nesting for the first time. Seventeen nests from six pairs were located on private property in actively fished crawfish fields while the remaining 10 nests from seven pairs were located in marsh habitats – four pairs nested in the WLWCA marsh and three nested in privately owned marsh. First nesting attempts were initiated in February (6) and March (7). Re-nesting attempts were initiated an estimated average of 17 days after the first nest attempt was completed and occurred during March (1), April (5) and May (2). Third nesting attempts occurred in April (2) and May (2) and two fourth nesting attempts were initiated in May. Third and fourth attempts were initiated an average of 11 days after failure of the previous attempt.

A minimum of 46 eggs were produced in 2019, 45 confirmed by visual observation or discovery of eggshells and one not directly observed but presumed due to a mated pair sitting on a nest platform for a minimum of two weeks. For the first time in Louisiana, one pair produced a rare, three-egg clutch. Three-egg clutches have previously been documented in the western, wild flock of whooping cranes, however, of 500 nests where clutch size was determined, only three (0.6%) contained three eggs. Twenty eggs were confirmed fertile; 13 died prior to hatch (4 early dead, 1 mid-dead, 8 late dead) and seven successfully hatched either in the wild or in captivity. Ten eggs were determined to be non-viable and the remaining 16 eggs were of unknown fertility and viability, with most disappearing or breaking at the nest.

The 2019 nesting season was plagued by frequent, extremely heavy, flooding rains, which likely contributed to the failure of at least five nests and the death of two very young chicks. Seven nests were incubated to, or past, full term with no hatch, and the remaining failed for various reasons, including a snake attempting to eat the egg (Fig. 5), human disturbance due to attempted camera deployment, abandonment, failed egg swaps (embryo deaths prior to hatch) and unknown reasons.

Summary of breeding history by pair from 2014-2019 is displayed in Table 4, and complete nesting histories can be found in Appendix A.

Pair Information Pair, as used in this section, refers to consistent association between a male and a female that were observed copulating, nest building, or were together mainly exclusive of other individuals for at least 30 days. Pairs that both formed and nested during the report period are indicated by an asterisk (*).

Formed: Dissolved: L3-13/L8-14*, July L7-11/L8-11, July, death of male L13-16/L10-17, October L2-12/L12-14, January L6-16/L16-17*, December L8-15/17-16, January L24-16/L14-17, December L3-14/L6-13, January, male-male pair L7-11/L11-17*, January L13-16/L10-17, January L2-12/L3-14*, January L6-12/L8-13, February, death of female L8-15/L12-14*, January L13-16/L10-17, January L13-16/L14-16*, January L12-14/L8-15, June, disappearance of male L1-17/L3-17, January L1-17/L3-17, June L11-11/L8-13*, February L6-13/L16-16, February L8-16/L22-17, March L26-16/L8-17, March L12-17/L20-17, March L15-17/L23-17, March

In addition to the thirteen pairs who laid eggs in 2019, one other pair was observed building nest platforms inside the Rockefeller WR release pen. A male-male pair who had built nest platforms together the previous two breeding seasons, split in the spring of 2019 and both paired with females. Two additional associations (not listed above) may result in a pairing, as defined in this section. One consists of a one-year-old wild hatched female (LW4-18) and a two-year-old male (L2-17). They were first found together just past the end of the report period however association between them may have started as early as late May. Both are only equipped with VHF transmitters. Four-year-old female L8-15 was confirmed with male L1-17 also just past the end of the report period, however association between the two likely started in mid-June, when L12-14 is believed to have gone missing.

Current Population Structure The population contained a maximum of 71 individuals as of 30 June 2019.

Adult confirmed breeding pairs (i.e., have produced eggs): 12 L2-11/L13-11, L3-11/L1-13, L7-11/L11-17, L11-11/L8-13, L2-12/L3-14, L3-13/L8-14, L5-14/L12-16, L7-14/L2-15, L13-14/L6-15, L10-15/L19-16, L6-16/L16-17, L13-16/L14-16

Pairs that built nest platforms in 2019: 1 L24-16/L14-17

Subadult or newly formed pairs: 7 L6-13/L16-16, L8-15/L1-17, L8-16/L22-17, L26-16/L8-17, L10-17/L13-17, L12-17/L20-17, L15-17/L23-17

Currently unpaired adult males: 5 L17-16, L23-16, L2-17, L9-17, L21-17

Currently unpaired adult females: 11 LF1-98, L1-12, L11-15, LFW12-15, L9-16, L25-16, LW3-17, L3-17, L4-17, L5-17, L17-17

Missing/suspected dead: 1 L12-14

Yearlings (HY2018): 7 males, 6 females, 1 unknown

Nest Monitoring Known and potential breeding pairs were monitored more frequently, primarily through transmitter data, for signs of nest initiation beginning in late January. Once a nest was confirmed it was monitored for its duration and if the eggs failed to hatch, they were collected and examined to determine fertility. Six of the 13 pairs selected actively fished crawfish ponds for their nest locations while seven pairs selected freshwater marsh environments.

In 2019, a total of 16 three-hour nest-monitoring sessions (48 observation hours) were conducted on six nesting attempts; five first nests and one second nest. As in previous years, nest monitoring was alternated among three time periods: morning, midday, and late afternoon.

Overall, the mean nest attendance time was 2 hours, 54 minutes per 3-hour observation period during the 2019 nesting season. Female nest attendance averaged 1 hour, 47 minutes while males averaged 1 hour, 7 minutes. Summary of nest monitoring sessions conducted from 2014-2019 can be found in Table 5.

Camera Deployments For the fourth year in a row, trail cameras were deployed near a subset of nests to help supplement nest-monitoring efforts. Cameras, programmed to photograph the nest every minute, were deployed at six different nests seven to eleven days into the incubation period. An additional two deployments were made on nests at seven and fifteen days of incubation, however both pairs abandoned their nests due to the presence of the camera or the disturbance caused by deployment. Camera data continues to show that Louisiana whooping cranes tend to exhibit good nest attendance and incubation behaviors, which matches what we have observed during nest monitoring sessions as described above.

Use of Data-logging Eggs Previous studies led by the Calgary Zoo have used data-logging eggs (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc.) to collect real-time incubation data in captive populations of whooping cranes. The eggs collect temperature and humidity readings, as well as positional rotation of the egg and are constructed to mimic real whooping crane eggs in both weight and appearance. We continued the use of data-logging eggs in Louisiana nests in 2019 with the goal of collecting additional nest environment data that may provide insight into the high level of embryo mortality documented in Louisiana whooping crane eggs. Eggs were deployed into nests at the same time trail cameras were set up, and pairs were selected based on previous tolerance of brief disturbance at their nest. One new pair was tried in 2019 but did not return to normal incubation behavior following egg and camera deployment. Since it was unclear what they were reacting to, both the camera and the data-logging egg were removed and no attempts were made to give them a data-logging egg on their subsequent nesting attempts. If a pair had two real eggs, one egg was removed and replaced with the data-logging egg. Eggs removed from nests were transported to ASSC for continued incubation or to LDWF’s incubator. Information on data-logging egg deployment can be found in Table 6.

Toxicology Screening In an effort to explore potential reasons for the infertility and large numbers of embryonic deaths found in Louisiana whooping crane eggs, we began screening adults and wild fledged juveniles for lead, mercury, and arsenic in 2017. Additionally, in 2018 we began submitting egg content samples to the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory for pesticide and herbicide screening. Thus far, all results have been within normal limits except for two breeding age females that were at the “high-normal” range for mercury. In 2019, two eggs from two different females nesting in different types of habitat tested positive for Bifenthrin at low or trace levels. Bifenthrin is a pyrethroid insecticide that is highly toxic to aquatic organisms and is used for mosquito control and against the red imported fire ant. Nothing has been detected in the 32 other Louisiana eggs that have been submitted for testing in 2018-2019. LDWF plans to continue toxicology screening in future breeding seasons to gather additional data.

Breeding by Young Birds To date, four two-year-old males have been documented pairing with older females who have then produced eggs, one in 2015, two in 2018, and one in 2019. In 2018, one two-year-old male (L12-16) produced two fertile eggs with his four-year-old mate; that pair produced fertile eggs again in 2019. Also in 2019, we documented another two-year-old male (L11-17) producing at least one fertile egg with his eight-year-old mate. Of note, his mate had never produced fertile eggs in the five years she nested with her previous mate who was shot and killed in July 2018. Additionally, for the first time in

the Louisiana reintroduction, a two-year-old female (L16-17) produced two eggs with her three-year-old mate in their first nesting attempt. These eggs did not hatch and broke before they could be collected for further examination.

Chicks The five chicks that hatched in 2018 all survived to independence. They fledged between 78-85 days of age and separated from their parents at 8.25-9.5 months of age mainly in January. Interestingly, one chick remained with her parents through mid-February, even as they were building a nest platform.

In 2019, six chicks hatched to six pairs; three hatched naturally to their biological parents and three hatched from fertile eggs that were swapped into wild nests. Two of these eggs hatched or were nearly hatched prior to placement into nests; both pairs had previous experience with chicks and one had accepted a fully hatched chick the previous year. Unfortunately, all chicks disappeared at 2-22 days old, despite four of the six pairs having previously raised offspring to independence. Severe storms that produced flooding rains likely contributed to the death of two of these chicks when they were two and three days old.

SURVIVAL

As of 30 June 2019, 138 whooping cranes have been released as juveniles since the reintroduction began in 2011. The addition of seven wild-hatched and fledged juveniles (1 each in 2016 & 2017 and 5 in 2018) plus two adult females relocated from Florida resulted in a total of 147 reintroduced individuals during the 8.5 years of the project, of which 71 (48.3%) of those individuals may have survived at the end of the report period (Table 7).

Mortality and Morbidity The following nine mortalities were recorded during the report period:

L18-17: male, Jefferson County, Texas, 4 July, powerline collision L8-11: male, Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, 23-24 July, gunshot L3-16: male, Walker County, Texas, 2-3 November, unknown cause L6-12: female, Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana, 11-13 February, powerline collision L3-18: male, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, 22 February, powerline collision L19-17: male, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, 23 March, powerline collision LW5-18: male, Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana, 25 April-21 May, unknown cause L4-18: female, Robertson County, Texas, 20 May, powerline collision L5-16: female, Chambers County, Texas, 27 June, in molt - suspected predation

Two cranes were found alive but with injuries that ultimately resulted in their deaths:

L21-16: Suspected to be dead based on transmitter data but found alive with a broken left wing on 2 November. Caught and transported to ASSC for examination and possible treatment but euthanized due to severity of injury. Radiographs revealed metal fragments around the fracture site confirming he had been shot. Investigation is on-going.

L8-18: Observed alone at the release pen with a right leg injury on 3 January. She was not found at the pen the following day but was captured by hand on a levee of an adjacent management unit on 7 January and was unable to bear any weight on the injured leg at that time. She was placed in the top-netted pen overnight and transported to the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine in Baton Rouge the following day where she was examined and radiographs were taken. No broken bones were found but her tendon and tendon sheath were infected and in need of treatment so she was taken to ASSC. After initially improving, her condition deteriorated and she was euthanized on 23 January.

Additionally, one long-term missing cranes (mortality unconfirmed) was also removed from the population totals during the report period:

L10-13: female, removed from totals in November 2018. Last observed 17 November 2017 in Cameron Parish.

Two additional cranes were observed with minor injuries that resolved on their own and did not require intervention:

L19-17: observed with a large area of dried blood on his right wing on 16 July L13-17: observed with left leg lameness on 24 July

Through the end of the reporting period, there have been 76 mortalities since the start of the reintroduction; 60 confirmed by recovery of remains and 16 others inferred based on supporting evidence or long-term missing status. Of mortalities where remains were recovered, the primary contributing factor of death could not be determined in 15 cases (25.0%) due to degraded or minimal remains. The primary known or suspected cause of mortality in the remaining cases (n = 45) was trauma (26.7%) followed by gunshot (23.3%) and predation (16.7%). Twelve trauma mortalities (20.0% of mortalities where remains were recovered) are attributed to collisions with power lines or fences. The highest number of mortalities has occurred in May and to juvenile cranes less than nine months after release (Figs. 6, 7).

EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND MEDIA

Outreach LDWF staff participated in over 20 festivals and outreach events where literature and information were delivered or made available to the public. An estimated 1,500 individuals were exposed to information regarding whooping cranes in Louisiana. Outreach efforts typically consist of whooping crane exhibits with related items and literature at various festivals and events. Participation in state-wide events is vital to both inform and update the residents of Louisiana about the reintroduction project. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries-Whooping Crane Facebook page continues to grow in popularity. This method of outreach has been well received with over 9,000 individuals following the page since its creation in August 2015.

Due to changes in staffing and priorities as well as the popularity of the Facebook page, a decision has been made to discontinue the newsletter. Project information and updates will continue to be available on LDWF’s website and the Facebook page.

Thanks to a generous donation from the Woman’s Club of Lafayette, a new traveling display is currently in the final stages of design and development. The display will rotate on a monthly basis between parish libraries, focusing on areas where the cranes are most frequently reported. This form of outreach will allow multiple facets of the project to be presented to its viewers while requiring minimum staff time. Topics of the traveling display include whooping crane facts, identification, their history in Louisiana, and areas used by the reintroduced population. The display will also provide information on how the general public can provide support for the project, including making a donation and reporting violations. The current draft of the display is shown in Figure 8.

Media and Public Awareness The LDWF public outreach media plan included the use of billboard space provided by Lamar Advertising and a mix of television and radio spots airing on several outdoor and sportsman shows.

LDWF purchased vinyl signs from Lamar with sizes ranging from 11 x 36 to 12 x 40 feet. They were displayed in three markets around the state on billboard space donated by Lamar. The targeted markets (and number of boards per market) included Alexandria (2), Lafayette (2) and Lake Charles (2). The signs were placed in high traffic areas, including on I-10 between Iowa and Jennings and on I-49 in Alexandria at the intersection with heavily traveled MacArthur Boulevard. These billboards resulted in excess of 650,000 weekly views by the traveling public during the timeframe all signs were in place. The new design used in 2019 featured a photograph of a dead whooping crane and an anti-poaching message along with phone numbers to call to report poaching or injuring of whooping cranes (Fig. 9).

The television and radio spots in the whooping crane media buy raised awareness about protecting whooping cranes, reporting poaching and the generous partnership between Chevron Corporation and the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Foundation. They were broadcast on the Outdoors Show with Don Dubuc on the Radio Network heard on Saturday mornings from 5-7 a.m. as well as live streaming at www.dontheoutdoorsguy.com. Staff from LDWF and ICF participated in a live interview on the Don Dubuc radio show to help raise awareness about the numerous illegal shootings of whooping cranes in Louisiana and elsewhere. A 30-second spot was recorded for each of the 264 Bayou Wild television shows airing over 44 weeks. They were also available at the www.bayouwildtv.com website.

RESEARCH PRODUCTS

Publications Vasseur, P.L., S.E. Zimorski, E.K. Szyszkoski, J.M. LaCour, J.S. Lankton, and L.A. Granger. Wing abnormality in a Wild-hatched Whooping Crane (Grus americana) Chick from the Nonmigratory Population in Louisiana, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases (accepted February 2019, anticipated publication October 2019).

Table 1. Distribution of location data points collected via remote tracking devices for the Louisiana non-migratory whooping crane population, 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019. Numbers of individuals contributing to location data totals are given in parentheses.

Cohort (by hatch year)

No. of Location

Data Points Acadia Allen

No. of points in Louisiana by Parish

Jefferson Cameron

Davis Vermilion

Other Parishesa

No. of points outside

Louisianab

HY1998 (1) 427 - - 6 61 360 - -

HY2011 (3) 1856 - 543 2 1043 3 265 -

HY2012 (3) 2357 - - 114 277 1966 - -

HY2013 (2) 1237 - 1057 125 9 46 - -

HY2014 (4) 2291 - - 291 355 1645 - -

HY2015 (5) 3685 1422 - 165 52 1821 221 4

HY2016 (12) 9854 2053 - 790 1221 1269 306 4215

HY2017 (15) 13870 176 1094 1129 1402 4335 1079 4655

HY2018 (10) 4555 330 - 995 1308 282 968 672

Totals 40132 (55) 3981 (20) 2694 (6) 3617 (36) 5728 (33) 11727 (36) 2839 (29) 9546 (25)

Table 2. Time spent out-of-state by crane groups in the Louisiana non-migratory population, 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019. * denotes females.

Crane ID(s) Trip no.

Date left Louisiana

Locations visited (roost locations only; as indicated by GPS or high precision Doppler)a

Date returned to Louisiana

Consecutive nights spent out-of-state

L9-17b, W1 & 12-18 1 13 May Liberty, Jefferson Counties, Texas 24 May 11

L1, 2*b, 4*c, 5b, 6 & 7-18* 1 2 Apr Orange County, Texas 8 Apr 6

2 26 Apr Orange, Robertson, Rusk, San Augustine Counties, Texas 3 June 38

L1, 2*b, 5b, 6 & 7-18* 1 13 June Limestone & Orange Counties, Texas NA 18

L2b & 5-17* & W3-18b 1 9 Apr Jefferson County, Texas 10 Apr 1

2 5 May Liberty & Newton Counties, Texas 15 May 10

L4-17* 1

NA; began out-of-state

Wagoner, Sequoyah, Le Flore Counties, OK; Johnson, Pope, Monroe, Prairie, Arkansas Counties, AR; Lee, Calhoun, Holmes Counties, MS; Morgan, AL

4 Mar 246

2 24 Mar Ashley County, AR 25 Mar 1 3 9 Apr Miller County, AR; Creek, Okmulgee, Okfuskee, Tulsa Counties, OK NA 83

L12* & 20-17b 1 16 Apr Jefferson County, Texas 18 Apr 2

L18-17c

L22-17 L15 & 23-17*

1 NA; began out-of-state

Jefferson County, Texas NA; died 3

Chambers, Jefferson, Liberty Counties, Texas NA 365

20 Mar 262

L15 & 23-17* 1 2 Apr Chambers, Jefferson, Orange Counties, Texas 9 Apr 7 2 26 Apr Chambers & Jefferson Counties, Texas NA 66

L5-16*c

L8-16*, L9* & 25-16*b

1 NA; began out-of-state

Jefferson, Montgomery, Newton Counties, Texas NA; died 361

NA 365 Jefferson, Montgomery, Newton Counties, Texas 29 Mar 271

L6-16, 14* & 16-17*b 1 11 Oct Orange County, Texas 13 Oct 2 2 11 Nov Orange County, Texas 12-26 Nov 1-15

L9* & 25-16*b 1 30 Mar Hunt, Marion, Montgomery, Newton 13 Apr 14 2 14 Apr Chambers, Jefferson, Montgomery, Tyler Counties, Texas NA 78

L3-16c 1 NA; began out-of-state

Walker County, Texas NA; died 125

L23, 26-16 & 8-17* 1 18 Feb Chambers, Jefferson, Liberty Counties, Texas 20 Mar 30

L24, 13-16b & 10-17* 1 NA; began out-of-state

Jefferson County, Texas 26 Oct 117

L24-16 1 3 Nov

Jefferson County, Texas 26 Nov 23

2 3 Dec 20 Dec 17

L24-16 & 14-17* 1 16 Jan

Jefferson County, Texas 24 Feb 39

2 21 Apr 13 May 22

L26-16 & 8-17*

1 23 Mar Jefferson County, Texas

19 April 27 2 21 April 6 May 15 3 8 May 24 May 16 4 3 June Chambers & Jefferson Counties, Texas 12 June 9

L11-15*, W3-17*b, 9-17b & 12-18*

1 27 June Jefferson & Orange Counties, Texas NA 4

a For individuals or groups using multiple locations and spending over 5 consecutive nights out-of-state, area with most roost points are indicated in bold. b Indicates individuals with VHF only or nonfunctional remote transmitter. Out-of-state time estimated based on visual tracking data or movement of known associates. c Indicates cranes that died while out-of-state.

Table 3. – Summary of captures of free-flying Whooping Cranes in the Louisiana non-migratory population, 1 July 2018 - 30 June 2019.

ID Sex Date Method Reason Location Notes

LW5-18 M 11/1/2018 leg noose initial banding Jefferson Davis Parish

L21-16 M 11/2/2018 hand grab injury Acadia Parish broken wing

L7-14 F 11/5/2018 leg noose transmitter replacement Vermilion Parish

LW3-18 F 11/8/2018 leg noose initial banding Allen Parish

LW4-18 F 11/15/2018 leg noose initial banding Acadia Parish

L10-15 F 11/15/2018 hand grab transmitter replacement Acadia Parish w/chick

L23-16 M 12/6/2018 leg noose transmitter replacement Vermilion Parish

L7-11 F 12/11/2018 leg noose transmitter replacement Jefferson Davis Parish

L14-17 F 12/24/2018 hand grab transmitter replacement Cameron Parish at pen

L8-18 F 1/7/2019 hand grab injury Cameron Parish at pen

L8-13 M 1/10/2018 leg noose none Jefferson Davis Parish accidental

L5-14 F 1/10/2019 hand grab transmitter replacement Jefferson Davis Parish

L6-15 F 1/15/2019 hand grab transmitter replacement Vermilion Parish

L2-11 M 1/16/2019 hand grab transmitter replacement Allen Parish

LW1-18 M 1/24/2019 leg noose initial banding Jefferson Davis Parish

L6-16 M 1/24/2019 hand grab transmitter replacement Calcasieu Parish

L8-15 F 1/30/2019 leg noose none Vermilion Parish accidental

L1-13 M 2/5/2019 hand grab transmitter replacement Allen Parish at platform

Table 4. Breeding history of egg laying pairs in the Louisiana non-migratory population of whooping cranes through 30 June 2019.

Male Female Pair

formed

# of nest attempts/year Chicks Egg information Pair dissolved

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Hatched Fledgedf Infertile/

nonviable Fertile

Unka

Dead Hatch

L8-11 L7-11 Dec 2013 2 2 2 3 3 1b 22 2 July 2018c

L10-11 L11-11 Dec 2013 2 2 1 1b 1 1 3 2 Mar 2018c

L1-11 L6-11 Jan 2015 1 1 0 2 1 July/Aug 2017d

L2-11 L13-11 Apr 2015 1 2 4 1 2 1b 6 3 2 5 L1-13 L3-11 May 2015 1 2 3 2 3 2b 1 4 9e 1 7 L3-13 L11-12 Nov 2015 2 0 1 1 1 Dec 2017c

L8-13 L6-12 Jan 2016 1 2 1 4 3 1 1 4 1 Feb 2019c

L14-12 L2-12 Mar 2016 1 1 1 May 2017c

L12-16 L5-14 Jan 2018 2 4 2 1 3 2 3 L13-14 L6-15 Jan 2018 1 1 0 4 L2-15 L7-14 Jan 2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L19-16 L10-15 Feb 2018 1 4 2b 1 5 3 1 L3-13 L8-14 July 2018 2 0 3 L6-16 L16-17 Dec 2018 1 0 2 L3-14 L2-12 Jan 2019 1 0 1 1 L12-14 L8-15 Jan 2019 2 0 1 2 June 2019d

L13-16 L14-16 Jan 2019 1 0 1 L11-17 L7-11 Jan 2019 2 0 2 1 2 L8-13 L11-11 Feb 2019 3 1 1 4

Totals 2 5 9 18 13 27 16 7 48 30 13 36 a Includes eggs that disappeared, were broken, or fertility could not be determined upon examination. b Hatched from fertile egg(s) swapped into the nest while the pairs own eggs were removed. c Death or injury of one member of the pair. d Disappearance of one or both members of the pair. e One fertile/viable egg pulled at day 8-10 died while hatching at captive center. f Fledging date may be after the end of the report period.

Table 5. Nest monitoring data compiled by pair for the Louisiana non-migratory whooping crane population, 2014-2019. Monitoring sessions consisted of 3-hr observation periods alternated among 3 time periods – morning, midday, and late afternoon.

Female Male No. of nests

monitored

No. of sessions

Mean Nest Attendance

(min)

Mean Time Unattended

(min)

Mean Time <50m from nest

(min)

Mean Time >50m from nest

(min)

Female Male Female Male Female Male

L7-11 L8-11 9 40 90.8 80.8 7.3 29.2 24.0 58.8 74.1

L3-11 L1-13 6 21 93.3 71.6 15.1 25.5 29.6 61.2 78.8

L11-11 L10-11 5 22 101.5 76.8 1.7 31.4 46.1 47.0 57.1

L13-11 L2-11 5 14 97.5 68.6 13.9 37.6 77.8 44.0 33.6

L6-12 L8-13 4 15 88.7 87.5 3.8 29.2 28.4 62.1 64.1

L11-12 L3-13 2 5 93.8 82.6 3.6 22.6 44.4 63.6 53.0

L5-14 L12-16 3 9 104.4 74.8 0.89 36.1 29.9 39.4 75.3

L10-15 L19-16 3 6 104.2 58.7 17.2 13.3 18.5 62.5 94.5

L7-11 L11-17 1 3 132.0 40.7 7.3 2.0 21.3 46.0 118

L11-11 L8-13 1 3 88.0 92.0 0 7.7 31.0 84.3 57

L16-17 L6-16 1 3 99.7 80.0 0.33 15.0 21.3 65.3 78.7

TOTALS 40 141 99.4 74.0 6.5 22.7 33.8 57.7 71.3

Table 6. Data-logging egg deployments in Louisiana whooping crane nests, 2019.

Female Male Egg deployed Egg removed Days deployed

L3-11 L1-13 24 February 12 March 16

L5-14 L12-16 24 February 12 March 16

L7-11 L11-17 25 February 20 March 23

L10-15 L19-16 25 February 26 February* 1

L3-11 L1-13 10 April 17 April 7 *Pair did not return to normal incubation following deployment.

Table 7. Maximum post-release survival of captive hatched cranes released in Louisiana as juveniles by hatch year (HY) over time. Does not include translocated Florida cranes or wild-hatched. Green cells represent survivorship through 30 June 2019.

Time post-release HY 2010 HY 2011 HY 2012 HY 2013 HY 2014 HY 2015 HY 2016 HY 2017 HY 2018

At release 10 16 14 10 14 11 27 23 13

3 months 8 15 13 10 14 9 26 22 10

6 months 7 14 12 9 12 5 24 21 9a (69.2%)

9 months 3 12 11 8 10 5 20 20

12 months 3 12 10 7 10 5 17 20

15 months 2 12 10 7 7 5 17 20

18 months 2 12 10 7 7 5 16 19 (82.6%)

21 months 2 12 9 6 7 5 16

24 months 2 12 9 6 7 5 14

2.5 years 1 10 9 5 6 5 13 (48.1%)

3 years 0 (0.0%) 10 9 5 6 5

3.5 years 9 8 5 6 5 (45.5%)

4 years 9 6 4 6

4.5 years 9 4 4 6 (42.9%)

5 years 9 4 4

5.5 years 9 3 4 (40%)

6 years 7 3

6.5 years 6 2 (14.3%)

7 years 5

7.5 years 5 (31.3%) aDoes not include one crane still alive at the end of the report period but released <6 months.

Figure 1. Location data from remote transmitters (7 February – 30 June 2019) of two adult female whooping cranes translocated to Louisiana from Florida and released at WLWCA in Vermilion Parish.

Figure 2. Location data collected from remote transmitters on reintroduced whooping cranes, 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019.

Figure 3. Location data of reintroduced whooping cranes in Louisiana by hatch year, 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019.

Figure 4. Approximate locations of Louisiana whooping crane nests in 2019.

Figure 5. Trail camera photos documenting a snake predating a whooping crane nest, Allen Parish. The egg was made of plaster and placed in the nest on 22 April after a previous egg failed to hatch. The pair had not yet been sitting for a full 30 days, so the plaster egg was given to them in an effort to keep them as a viable pair for a possible future egg swap.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Nu

mb

er

of

mo

rtal

itie

s

Figure 6. Whooping crane mortalities by time of year throughout the entirety of the project, 2011-July 2019.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Nu

mb

er

of

mo

rtal

itie

s

Months after release

Figure 7. Whooping crane mortalities by months after release.

Figure 8. Mock-up of new traveling whooping crane display.

Figure 9. New anti-poaching billboard design used in 2019.

APPENDIX A: Complete Louisiana Whooping Crane Nesting History

First nests of the season by Whooping Crane pairs in the reintroduced Louisiana non-migratory population, 2014-19.

Year Male Female Parish Initiation No. eggs

Outcome of nest, fate of eggs Days of

incubation Days to renest

2014 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 24 Mar 2 Full term, collected 30 Apr, both infertile 37 18

2015 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 28 Feb 2 Full term, collected 9 Apr, both infertile 40 18

2015 L1-11 L6-11 Vermilion 3/4 Apr 2 Flooded by/on 13 Apr, 1 intact (EDE) & fragments coll. 16 April 9-10 No renest

2015 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 6-14 May 1-2 Failed, shell fragment collected 12 June 27-37 No renest

2015 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 16-28 May 2 Abandoned by ~13 June PM, 1 coll. 17 June, (unk, likely infertile) 16-28 No renest

2016 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 12 Feb 2 Full term, collected 21 Mar, both fertile – 1 MDE, 1 LDE 39 17-21

2016 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 28 Feb 2 Full term, collected 5 Apr, both infertile 38 18

2016 L8-13 L6-12 Jefferson-Davis ~12 Mar 2 Hatched 11 & 13 Apr 33 No renest

2016 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 8-14 Mar 1 Failed/collected 4 Apr (human disturbance), LDE 22-28 31-36

2016 L10-11 L11-11 Jefferson-Davis 1-4 Apr 1 Full term, no fragments/eggs found 3 May 30-33 15-16

2017 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 11 Feb 2 Full term, collected 17 Mar, both infertile 34 19-20

2017 L8-13 L6-12 Jefferson-Davis 11-14 Feb 2 Full term, 1 broke 19 Mar, 2nd coll. 20 Mar, infertile 34-37 26-28

2017 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 17 Feb 1 Full term, collected 22 Mar, infertile 33 17-18

2017 L10-11 L11-11 Jefferson-Davis 18-21 Feb 1 Full term, collected 27 Mar, fertile - LDE 34-37 18-21

2017 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 4-15 Mar 1-2 Failed ~23 Mar, 1 infertile egg found in water 19 April 8-19 17-18

2017 L3-13 L11-12 Vermilion 15-17 Mar 1 Full term, collected 25 Apr, infertile 39-41 20

2017 L14-12 L2-12 Vermilion ~27 Mar 1 Hatched ~26 Apr 30 No renest

2017 L1-11 L6-11 Vermilion 16 Mar-4 Apr 1-2 Failed/abandoned by 18 April, 1 coll. 18 Apr, EDE 14-33 No renest

2018 L10-11 L11-11 Jefferson-Davis 10-12 Feb 2 Full term, DL egg 19 Feb-20 Mar, 1 coll. 19 Feb (MDE); 1 gone 16 Mar 36-38 No renest

2018 L12-16 L5-14 Jefferson-Davis 16-19 Feb 1-2 Full term; eggs disappeared by ~24 Mar 32-35 15

2018 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 21-22 Feb 2 Full term; DL egg 28 Feb-28 Mar, 1 coll. 28 Feb; 1 coll. 28 Mar (2 infertile) 34-35 18

2018 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 25-27 Feb 2 DL egg 6 Mar-3 Apr, 1 coll. 6 Mar (EDE); 1 coll. 3 Apr (EDE) 35-37 18

2018 L2-11 L13-11 Allen ~15 Mar 2 Failed by 3 Apr; 1 found in water (MDE), 2nd broken on nest ~19 No renest

2018 L8-13 L6-12 Jefferson-Davis ~20-21 Mar 2 Hatched 18 & 20 Apr ~30-31 No renest

2018 L19-16 L10-15 Acadia ~15 Apr 2 Coll. 3 May (inf); gave hatched chick/shell & non-viable egg (L7/8-11’s) 18 No renest

2018 L13-14 L6-15 Vermilion ~7 May 2 Abandoned 4 June, both broken 11 June (unk fertility) 28 No renest

2018 L2-15 L7-14 Vermilion ~8 May 2 Abandoned 25 May, collected 30 May (infertile, EDE) ~17 No renest

2019 L12-16 L5-14 Jefferson-Davis 13 Feb 2 Full term; DL egg 24 Feb-12 Mar, 1 viable removed & ret. to nest 12 Mar

(LDE), 1 hatch 17 Mar 33

~16 (after chick)

2019 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 14 Feb 2 Full term; DL egg 24 Feb – 12 Mar, 1 viable removed & ret. on 12 Mar but

LDE, 1 broke 15 Mar, abandoned by 17 Mar 29-30 16

2019 L19-16 L10-15 Acadia 18 Feb 2 Abandoned/coll. 25 Feb (human disturbance) 7 11

2019 L2-15 L7-14 Vermilion 18 Feb 2 Full term; 1 hatched 20-21 Mar, 2nd gone by 29 Mar 30-31 No renest

2019 L11-17 L7-11 Avoyelles 18 Feb 3 Full term; DL egg 25 Feb-20 Mar, two pulled, 1 viable ret. to nest 20 Mar

but failed to hatch & disappeared 25-26 Mar ~35-36 18-20

2019 L3-13 L8-14 Vermilion 14-26 Feb 1 Full term; failed to hatch, 1 egg collected 1 Apr ~34 14-22

2019 L6-16 L16-17 Calcasieu 9/10 Mar 2 Full term; failed to hatch, shells found in water 16 Apr Up to 37 No renest

2019 L8-13 L11-11 Jefferson-Davis 15 Mar 2 Full term, 1 hatch 16 Apr, 1 broke & chick died 18 Apr 34 19

2019 L3-14 L2-12 Vermilion 15-17 Mar 2 Abandoned 12 Apr, 2 eggs (1 viable later LDE) collected 15 Apr 26-28 No renest

2019 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 19 Mar 1 Abandoned/coll. 3 Apr (human disturbance), MDE 15 18

2019 L12-14 L8-15 Vermilion 22 Mar 2 Flooded/abandoned ~5 April, coll. 8 Apr, 1 EDE, 1 no dev 13-14 27

2019 L13-14 L6-15 Vermilion 24 Mar 2 Failed due to unk reasons (possibly deer?) 10 Apr, frags coll. 12 Apr 19 No renest

2019 L13-16 L14-16 Cameron 22-29 Mar unk Failed due to unk reasons 12-22 April, no frag found 14-30 No renest

Subsequent nesting attempts by Whooping Crane pairs in the reintroduced Louisiana non-migratory population, 2014-19.

Year Male Female Parish Initiation No. eggs

Outcome of nest, Fate of eggs Days of

incubation Days to

next nest

Second nest attempts (renests)

2014 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 19 May 2 Full term, collected 26 June, both infertile 38 No 3rd nest

2015 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 28 Apr 2 Full term, collected 4 June, both infertile 37 No 3rd nest

2016 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 8-11 Apr 2 Full term, 1 gone ~12 May, 2nd gone 15 May; 1 LDE coll. from water, 16 May 33-37 No 3rd nest

2016 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 24 Apr 2 Full term, failed/abandoned 26-28 May; 1 coll. From water 1 June, infertile 32-34 No 3rd nest

2016 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 6-11 May 2 Poss. full term, failed/abandoned 3-6 June; 1 infertile coll. from water 6 June 23-31 No 3rd nest

2016 L10-11 L11-11 Jefferson-Davis 18/19 May 1 Full term, collected 21 June, infertile 34-35 No 3rd nest

2017 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 5/6 Apr 2 Egg swap 12 Apr; pulled 2 infertile, gave pipped egg 6-7 15-16

2017 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 8/9 Apr 2 Failed/abandoned 3/4 May likely due to flooding rains, eggs disappeared 24-26 15-17

2017 L2-11 L13-11 Allen ~9 Apr 2 Failed 16/17 Apr, 1 intact infertile egg & 1 broken coll. from water 19 Apr ~7-8 12-16

2017 L10-11 L11-11 Jefferson-Davis 14-17 Apr 1 Swap 5 May, pulled egg (F but died – malpositioned), gave pipped egg 18-21 No 3rd nest

2017 L8-13 L6-12 Jefferson-Davis 15-17 Apr 1 Full term, collected 19 May, 1 LDE (malpositioned) 32-34 No 3rd nest

2017 L3-13 L11-12 Vermilion ~15 May 2 Full term, collected 23 June, 1 fertile mid-late DE & egg shell in water 39 No 3rd nest

2018 L12-16 L5-14 Jefferson-Davis 8 Apr 2 Full term; DL egg 12 Apr-3 May, coll. 1 & put back 3 May (LDE), 1 hatch 9 May 33 No 3rd nest

2018 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 15 Apr 2 Failed 25-26 April, nest very small; both infertile 10-11 8-9

2018 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 21 Apr 2 Egg swap/hatch 1 May, 2 coll. – 1 EDE, 1 F LDE -died while hatching at ASSC 10 No 3rd nest

2019 L19-16 L10-15 Acadia 8 March 1 Full term, collected 12 Apr (no dev) 35 14

2019 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 2 April 2 Gave peeping egg 17 Apr, LDE, replaced with plaster egg 22 Apr. Failed due to

snake predation 23 Apr. DL egg 10-17 April. 21 ~15

2019 L11-17 L7-11 Avoyelles 15 April 2 Full term, disappeared on/by 16 May 30 No 3rd nest

2019 L3-13 L8-14 Vermilion 15-23 April 2 Full term, coll. 24 May (no dev) 31-39 No 3rd nest

2019 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 21 April 2 Egg swap 6 May, LW4-19 hatched 7 May, pulled eggs both hatched in captivity 16 No 3rd nest

2019 L12-16 L5-14 Jefferson Davis 23 April 1 Flooded 25 April, 1 egg found 2 1

2019 L12-14 L8-15 Vermilion ~2 May 1 Abandoned by 21 May, poss. due to flooding 19 May 17-19 No 3rd nest

2019 L8-13 L11-11 Jefferson Davis 7 May 2 Flooded 10 May, abandoned by 11 May, frags coll. 31 May 3-4 12-13

Third nest attempts

2017 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 29 Apr-2 May 2 Failed 3-5 May, collected 9 May, 1 infertile & shell fragment 2-6 12-14

2017 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 15 May 2 Full term, egg swap 20 June, abandoned 21 June, 2 pulled eggs infertile 37 No 4th nest

2017 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 19/20 May 2 Full term, floated 15 June - 1 infertile removed, 1 coll. 26 June (infertile) 37-38 No 4th nest

2018 L8-11 L7-11 Avoyelles 4 May 2 Abandoned AM 11 May; egg swap unsuccessful; 1 inf, 1 unk (put in 10-15 nest) 7 No 4th nest

2019 L12-16 L5-14 Jefferson Davis ~26 April 1 Failed, likely clutch mate of single renest egg, coll. 31 May (broken) 1 ~14

2019 L19-16 L10-15 Acadia 26 April 2 Egg swap 3 May, failed by 4 May possibly due to storms, 1 EDE, 1 hatch ASSC 7-8 11

2019 L1-13 L3-11 Allen 8 May 2 Egg/chick (LW6-19) swap 22 May, 1 unk, 1 hatch at WO 14 No 4th nest

2019 L8-13 L11-11 Jefferson Davis 23 May 1-2 Failed unk reasons 28 May, frag coll. 31 May 5 No 4th nest

Fourth nest attempts

2017 L2-11 L13-11 Allen 17 May 2 Full term, collected 20 June, both infertile 34

2019 L12-16 L5-14 Jefferson Davis 9/10 May 1-2 Failed unk reasons 28-30 May, fragments coll. 31 May 18-20

2019 L19-16 L10-15 Acadia 15 May 2 Chick (LW5-19) swap 20 May, both LDE 5