[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35-47]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31450]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD62


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California 
Condors in Northern Arizona

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the 
Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, proposes to reintroduce California condors (Gymnogyps 
californianus) into northern Arizona. This reintroduction will achieve 
a primary recovery goal for this endangered species, establishment of a 
second non-captive population, spatially disjunct from the non-captive 
population in southern California. This population is proposed to be 
designated a nonessential experimental population in accordance with 
Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 
Captive-reared condors will be released in early 1996 (target date) and 
additional releases will occur annually thereafter until a self-
sustaining wild population is established. The reintroduction will use 
tested release techniques developed in previous releases in southern 
California and will be managed in accordance with the provisions of 
this special rule. The potential impacts associated with this proposed 
rule were assessed in an Environmental Assessment completed in November 
1995. This California condor reintroduction does not conflict with 
existing or anticipated Federal or State agency actions or traditional 
land uses on public or private lands.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by 
February 1, 1996. Public hearings will be held at Flagstaff High School 
on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm and Kanab High 
School on Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 
Services, Arizona State Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, 
Phoenix, Arizona. Comments and materials received will be available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
above address. The public hearings will be held at the Main Auditorium, 
Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm Street, Flagstaff, Arizona and 
Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East Red Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office, 2493 Portola Road, 
Suite B, Ventura, California, 93003 (Telephone: 805/644-1766; 
Facsimile: 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    1. Legislative. Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act) enables the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to designate 
certain populations of federally listed species that are released into 
the wild as ``experimental.'' The circumstances under which this 
designation can be applied are--(1) The population is geographically 
disjunct from nonexperimental populations of the same species (e.g., 
the population is reintroduced outside the species' current range but 
within its historical range); and (2) the Service determines the 
release will further the conservation of the species. This designation 
can increase the Service's flexibility to manage a reintroduced 
population, because under section 10(j) an experimental population is 
treated as a threatened species regardless of its designation elsewhere 
in its range and, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has 
greater discretion in developing management programs for threatened 
species than it has for endangered species.
    Section 10(j) of the Act requires that when an experimental 
population is designated, a determination be made by the Service 
whether that population is either ``essential'' or ``nonessential'' to 
the continued existence of the species, based on the best available 
information. Nonessential experimental populations located outside 
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) or National Park Service (NPS) lands are 
treated, for the purposes of section 7 of the Act, as if they are 
proposed for listing. Thus, only two provisions of section 7 would 
apply outside NWR and NPS lands--section 7(a)(1), which requires all 
Federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve listed species, 
and section 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to informally 
confer with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a proposed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 
which requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

[[Page 36]]
a listed species, would not apply except on NWR and NPS lands. 
Experimental populations determined to be ``essential'' to the survival 
of the species would remain subject to the consultation provisions of 
section 7 of the Act. Activities undertaken on private lands are not 
affected by section 7 of the Act unless the activities are authorized, 
funded or carried out by a Federal agency.
    Individual animals that comprise a designated experimental 
population may be removed from an existing source or donor population 
only after it has been determined that such a removal is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species; the removal must be 
conducted under a permit issued in accordance with the requirements of 
50 CFR 17.22.
    2. Biological. The California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) was 
listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, (32 FR 4001) in a final rule 
published by the Service. The Service designated critical habitat for 
the California condor on September 24, 1976, (41 FR 41914). Long 
recognized as a vanishing species (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur 
1978), the California condor remains one of the world's rarest and most 
imperiled vertebrate species.
    California condors are among the largest flying birds in the world 
(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Adults weigh approximately 10 
kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) and have a wing span up to 2.9 meters 
(m) (9 1/2 feet (ft)). Adults are black except for prominent white 
underwing linings and edges of the upper secondary coverts. The head 
and neck are mostly naked, and the bare skin is gray, grading into 
various shades of yellow, red, and orange. Males and females cannot be 
distinguished by size or plumage characteristics. The heads of 
juveniles up to 3 years old are grayish-black, and their wing linings 
are variously mottled or completely dark. During the third year the 
head develops yellow coloration, and the wing linings become gradually 
whiter (N.J. Schmitt in litt. 1995). By the time individuals are 5 or 6 
years of age, they are essentially indistinguishable from adults 
(Koford 1953, Wilbur 1975, Snyder et al. 1987), but full development of 
the adult wing patterns may not be completed until 7 or 8 years of age 
(N.J. Schmitt in litt. 1995).
    The California condor is a member of the family Cathartidae or New 
World vultures, a family of seven species, including the closely 
related Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) and the sympatric turkey vulture 
(Cathartes aura). Although the family has traditionally been placed in 
the Order Falconiformes, some contemporary taxonomists believe that New 
World vultures are more closely related to storks (Ligon 1967, Rea 
1983, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990).
    The fossil record of the genus Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000 
years to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch (Brodkorb 1964). Fossil records 
also reveal that the species once ranged over much of the southern 
United States, south to Nuevo Leon, Mexico and east to Florida 
(Brodkorb 1964), and two well preserved fossil bones were reported from 
a site in upstate New York (Steadman and Miller 1987). There is 
evidence indicating that California condors nested in west Texas, 
Arizona, and New Mexico during the late Pleistocene. The disappearance 
of the California condor from much of this range occurred about 10,000-
11,000 years ago, coinciding with the late Pleistocene extinction of 
the North American megafauna (Emslie 1987).
    By the time European man arrived in western North America, 
California condors occurred only in a narrow Pacific coastal strip from 
British Columbia, Canada, to Baja California Norte, Mexico (Koford 
1953, Wilbur 1978). California condors were observed until the mid-
1800s in the northern portion of the Pacific Coast region (Columbia 
River Gorge) and until the early 1930s in the southern extreme, 
northern Baja California (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1973, Wilbur and Kiff 
1980). Prior to 1987, California condors used a wishbone-shaped area 
encompassing six counties--Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San 
Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Kern, just north of Los Angeles, California 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    Courtship and nest site selection occurs from December through the 
spring. Breeding California condors normally lay a single egg between 
late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and 
hatches after approximately 56 days. Both parents share 
responsibilities for feeding the nestling. Feeding usually occurs daily 
for the first two months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. At 
two to three months of age, condor chicks leave the nest cavity but 
remain in the vicinity of the nest where they are fed by their parents. 
The chick takes its first flight at about six to seven months of age, 
but may not become fully independent of its parents until the following 
year. Parent birds occasionally continue to feed a fledgling even after 
it has begun to make longer flights to foraging grounds (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1995a).
    Because of the long period of parental care, it was formerly 
assumed that successful California condor pairs normally nested 
successfully every other year (Koford 1953). However, this pattern 
seems to vary, possibly depending mostly on the time of year that the 
nestling fledges. If a nestling fledges relatively early (in late 
summer or early fall), its parents may nest again in the following 
year, but late fledging probably inhibits nesting in the following year 
(Snyder and Snyder 1989).
    The only wild California condor (a male) of known age bred 
successfully in the wild in 1986 at the age of six years. Recent data 
collected from captive birds, however, demonstrates that reproduction 
may occur, or at least be attempted, at earlier ages. A four-year old 
male was the youngest condor observed in courtship display, and the 
same bird subsequently bred successfully at the age of five years (M. 
Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1993).
    California condors nest in various types of rock formations 
including crevices, overhung ledges, potholes, and more rarely, in 
cavities of giant sequoia trees (Sequoia giganteus) (Snyder et al. 
1986).
    California condors are opportunistic scavengers, feeding only on 
carcasses. Typical foraging behavior includes long-distance 
reconnaissance flights, lengthy circling flights over a carcass, and 
hours of waiting at a roost or on the ground near a carcass (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1995a). Condors may feed immediately, or wait 
passively as other California condors or golden eagles (Aquila 
chrysaetos) feed on the carcass (Wilbur 1978). Most California condor 
foraging occurs in open terrain. This ensures easy take-off and 
approach and makes food finding easier. Carcasses under brush are hard 
to see, and California condors apparently do not locate food by 
olfactory cues (Stager 1964). Condors maintain wide-ranging foraging 
patterns throughout the year, an important adaptation for a species 
that may be subjected to unpredictable food supplies (Meretsky and 
Snyder 1992).
    Prior to the arrival of European man, California condor food items 
within interior California probably included mule deer (Odocoileus 
hemionus), tule elk (Cervus nannodes), pronghorn (Antilocapra 
americana), and smaller mammals. Along the Pacific shore the diet may 
have included whales, sea lions, and other marine species (Emslie 1987, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Koford (1953) listed observations 
of California condors feeding on 24 different mammalian species within 
the 

[[Page 37]]
last two centuries. He estimated that 95 percent of the diet consisted 
of the carcasses of cattle, domestic sheep, ground squirrels 
(Spermophilus beechyi), mule deer, and horses. Although cattle may be 
the most available food within the range of the condor, deer appear to 
be preferred (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1972, Meretsky and Snyder 1992). 
California condors appear to feed only one to three days per week, but 
the frequency of adult feeding is variable and may show seasonal 
differences (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    Depending upon weather conditions and the hunger of the bird, a 
California condor may spend most of its time perched at a roost. 
California condors often use traditional roosting sites near important 
foraging grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Although 
California condors usually remain at roosts until mid-morning, and 
generally return in mid- to late afternoon, it is not unusual for a 
bird to stay perched throughout the day. While at a roost, condors 
devote considerable time to preening and other maintenance activities. 
Roosts may also serve some social function, as it is common for two or 
more condors to roost together and to leave a roost together (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1984). Cliffs and tall conifers, including dead 
snags, are generally used as roost sites in nesting areas. Although 
most roost sites are near nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost 
sites are located throughout the range. There may be adaptive as well 
as traditional reasons for California condors to continue to occupy a 
number of widely separated roosts, such as reducing food competition 
between breeding and non-breeding birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1984).
    Condor censusing efforts through the years have varied in intensity 
and accuracy. This has led to conflicting estimates of historical 
abundance, but all have indicated an ever-declining California condor 
population. Koford (1953) estimated a population of about 60 
individuals in the late 1930s through the mid-1940s, apparently based 
on flock size. A field study by Eben and Ian McMillan in the early 
1960s suggested a population of about 40 individuals, again based in 
part on the validity of Koford's estimates of flock size (Miller et al. 
1965). An annual October California condor survey was begun in 1965 
(Mallette and Borneman 1966) and continued for 16 years. Its results 
supported an estimate of 50 to 60 California condors in the late 1960s 
(Sibley 1969, Mallette 1970). Wilbur (1980) continued the survey 
efforts into the 1970s and concurred with the interpretations of the 
earlier October surveys. He further estimated that by 1978 the 
population had dropped to 25 to 30 individuals.
    In 1981, the Service, in cooperation with California Polytechnic 
State University at San Luis Obispo, began census efforts based on 
individual identifications of birds through flight photography (Snyder 
and Johnson 1985). Minimum summer counts from these photo-censusing 
efforts showed a steady decline from an estimated minimum of 21 wild 
condors in 1982, 19 individuals in 1983, 15 individuals in 1984, and 9 
individuals in 1985. Although the overall condor population increased 
slightly after 1982 as a result of double clutching, the wild 
population continued to decline. By the end of 1986, all but two 
California condors were captured for safe keeping and genetic security 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    On April 19, 1987, the last wild condor was captured and taken to 
the San Diego Wild Animal Park (SDWAP). Beginning with the first 
successful captive breeding of California condors in 1988, the total 
population has increased annually and now stands at 103 individuals, 
including 90 in the captive flock and 13 in the wild (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1995a).
    Causes of the California condor population decline have probably 
been numerous and variable through time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1984). However, despite decades of research, it is not known with 
certainty which mortality factors have been dominant in the overall 
decline of the species. Relatively few dead condors have been found, 
and definitive conclusions on the causes of death were made in only a 
small portion of these cases (Miller et al. 1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder 
and Snyder 1989). Poisoning, shooting, egg and specimen collecting, 
collisions with man-made structures, and loss of habitat have 
contributed to the decline of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1984).
    3. Recovery Efforts. The primary recovery objective as stated in 
the California Condor Recovery Plan (Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1995a), is to reclassify the condor to threatened status. The 
minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance 
of at least two non-captive populations and one captive population. 
These populations must (1) each number at least 150 individuals, (2) 
each contain at least 15 breeding pairs and (3) be reproductively self-
sustaining and have a positive rate of population growth. The non-
captive populations also must (4) be spatially disjunct and non-
interacting, and (5) contain individuals descended from each of the 14 
founders. When these five conditions are met, the species should be 
reclassified to threatened status.
    The recovery strategy to meet this goal is focused on increasing 
reproduction in captivity to provide condors for release, and the 
release of condors to the wild. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    a. Captive Breeding. The years 1983 and 1984 were critical in 
formation of the captive California condor flock at the SDWAP and Los 
Angeles Zoo (LAZ). In 1983, two chicks and four eggs were brought in 
from the wild. The chicks went to the LAZ, and the eggs were hatched 
successfully at the San Diego Zoo (SDZ). Three of the chicks were taken 
to the SDWAP and one to the LAZ to be reared. In 1984, one chick and 
eight eggs were taken from the wild. The chick went to the LAZ and six 
of the eight eggs were successfully hatched at SDZ. Five of the chicks 
went to the LAZ and one went to the SDWAP to be reared. In 1985, two 
eggs were taken from the wild and hatched successfully, one at the SDZ 
and the other at the SDWAP. Both of these chicks were taken to the LAZ 
to be reared. In 1986, the last egg was brought in from the wild and 
hatched at the SDWAP, where it was kept for rearing. By 1986, only one 
pair of condors existed in the wild and the last free-flying condor was 
captured on April 19, 1987, bringing the captive population to 27. The 
first successful breeding in captivity occurred in 1988, when a chick 
was produced at the SDWAP by a pair of wild-caught condors. Four more 
chicks were produced in 1989. The number of chicks produced by captive 
condors continues to increase annually and the captive population has 
grown from the original 27 in 1987 to 90 in 1995, with 13 additional 
captive-reared condors that are now in the wild. In 1993, the captive 
breeding program was expanded to include a facility at The Peregrine 
Funds World Center for Birds of Prey (WCBP) in Boise, Idaho (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    b. Releases. In October 1986, the California Condor Recovery Team 
(Team) recommended that criteria be satisfied before a release of 
captive-bred California condors could take place. These included having 
three actively breeding pairs of condors, three chicks behaviorally 
suitable for release, and retaining at least five offspring from each 
breeding pair contributing to the release. The Team added a provision 
to the third criterion to retain a minimum of seven progeny in 
captivity for founders that were not reproductively 

[[Page 38]]
active (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    The 1991 breeding season produced two condor chicks that met the 
Team's criteria for release, a male from the SDWAP and a female from 
the LAZ. However, attempting to apply the Team's third criterion to the 
1991 chicks also revealed that it would not be practical in the future, 
because several founders had died without producing five progeny. The 
Team, therefore, recommended choosing genetically appropriate chicks 
for future releases based on pedigree analyses developed for genetic 
management of captive populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1995a).
    Prior to capture of the last wild California condor in 1987, the 
Team recognized that anticipated future releases of captive-reared 
condors would pose the problem of reintroducing individuals of an 
altricial bird into habitat devoid of their parents and other members 
of their own species. Thus, the Team recommended initiation of an 
experimental release of Andean condors. Research objectives for the 
experimental release were to refine condor release and recapture 
techniques; test the criteria being used to select condor release 
sites; develop written protocols for releases, monitoring, and 
recapture of condors; field test rearing protocols being used, or 
proposed for use to produce condors suitable for release; evaluate 
radiotelemetry packages; supplemental feeding strategies; train a team 
of biologists for releasing condors; and identify potential problems 
peculiar to the California environment. The Andean condor experiment 
began in August 1988 and concluded in December 1991. During that period 
three release sites where tested and a total of 13 female Andean 
condors were released. Only one mortality occurred in the field when an 
Andean condor collided with a power line (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1995a).
    In 1991, two California condor chicks were released into Sespe 
Condor Sanctuary, Los Padres National Forest, Ventura County on January 
14, 1992. The male died from ingesting ethylene glycol in October of 
the same year. The next release of California condors occurred on 
December 1, 1992, when six more captive-produced California condors 
chicks were released at the same Sespe Condor Sanctuary site. 
Socialization with the remaining female from the first release 
proceeded well, and the ``flock'' appeared to adjust well to the wild 
conditions. However, there was continuing concern over the tendency of 
the birds to frequent zones of heavy human activity. Indeed, three of 
these birds eventually died from collisions with power lines between 
late May and October 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    Because of the tendency for the remaining condors to be attracted 
to the vicinity of human activity and man-made obstacles, especially 
power lines, another California condor release site was constructed in 
a more remote area, Lion Canyon, in the Los Padres National Forest near 
the boundary of the San Rafael Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara County. 
Five hatch year condors were released at the new site on December 8, 
1993. In addition, the four condors that had been residing in the Sespe 
area were moved to the new site. They were re-released over a period of 
several weeks in hopes that this approach would reduce the probability 
that they would return to the Sespe area. Nevertheless, three of these 
condors eventually moved back to the Sespe area in March 1994, where 
they resumed the high risk practice of perching on power poles. Because 
of general concern about the tameness of these birds and the 
possibility that their undesirable behavior would be mimicked by 
younger California condors, these condors were retrapped on March 29, 
1994 and added to the captive breeding population. On June 24, one of 
the 1993 California condors died when it collided with a power line. A 
second condor that was in the company of this condor at the time of its 
death, was trapped and returned to the LAZ. The three remaining wild 
condors continued to frequent areas of human activity and were trapped 
and returned to the zoo the same week the first 1995 release took place 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).
    As a result of the deaths due to collisions with power lines and 
the attraction of newly released young condors to humans and their 
activities, the 14 young California condors scheduled for release in 
1995 were subjected to aversion training in the zoo environment. An 
electrified mock power pole and natural snag perches were constructed 
in a large flight pen holding the release candidates. When the young 
condors landed on the electrified pole they were given a negative 
experience in the form of a mild shock. When they landed on the natural 
snag perches they received no shock. After only a few attempts at 
landing on the electrified power pole and receiving a mild shock, they 
all avoided the power pole and used the natural perches exclusively (M. 
Wallace, The Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1995).
    This group of California condors was also subjected to a series of 
human aversion exercises. Aversion maneuvers were staged in which a 
person would appear in view of a group of condors at a distance of 
approximately 100 meters (300 yds). Once it was determined that the 
condors spotted the person, they would be ambushed and captured by a 
hidden group of biologists. These condors were then placed in sky 
kennels, and later released after nightfall (M. Wallace, The Los 
Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1995). The goals of this exercise were to 
condition the condors to associate this negative experience with humans 
and increase the distance in which they would flush in future 
encounters with humans. Six of these young condors were released to the 
wild on February 8, 1995, at the Lion Canyon release site. To date none 
of these condors have attempted to land on a power pole and, although 
they have roosted near campgrounds, they have not approached humans. 
The one exception was a young condor of this group that was lured into 
a campground by campers that placed food and water out for it. This 
condor was subsequently trapped and brought into the zoo. The remaining 
five continue to avoid both power poles and human activities. On August 
29 the remaining eight California condors of this group were released 
at the Lion Canyon Site. There are now 13 condors flying free in 
southern California.
    4. Proposed Reintroduction Sites. To satisfy the objectives of the 
Plan, at least one subpopulation of non-captive California condors must 
be established in an area disjunct from the subpopulation already being 
reestablished in the recent historical range in California. Following a 
widely publicized solicitation for suggestions for suitable condor 
release sites outside of California, the Team recommended in December 
1991 that California condor releases be conducted in northern Arizona. 
Because this area once supported California condors, still provides a 
high level of remoteness, ridges and cliffs for soaring, and caves for 
nesting, the probability of a successful reintroduction is very good. 
The Service endorsed this recommendation on April 2, 1992. In 
collaboration with the Federal initiative to designate a release site 
in Arizona, the Arizona Game and Fish Department began evaluating a 
possible California condor reintroduction in 1989. The Arizona Game and 
Fish Department determined the reestablishment as appropriate and 
feasible in steps 1 and 2 of the Department's ``Procedures for 

[[Page 39]]
Nongame Wildlife and Endangered Species Re-establishment Projects,'' a 
12-step process specifying the protocol for a nongame reintroduction to 
take place (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).
    a. Site Selection Process. Potential release sites in northern 
Arizona were evaluated through aerial reconnaissance, site visits, and 
discussions with agency personnel familiar with the sites being 
evaluated. This evaluation process resulted in selection of four 
potential release sites. As required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Service, in cooperation with the Arizona 
Game and Fish Department and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 
produced an Environmental Assessment titled--``Release of California 
Condors at the Vermilion Cliffs, 1995,'' in which the potential release 
sites were thoroughly examined and objectively evaluated. The NEPA 
process resulted in selection of a preferred release site at the 
Vermilion Cliffs located on BLM lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1995b).
    The suitability of the Vermilion Cliffs as a California condor 
release site was further evaluated using the Service's ``The Condor 
Release Site Evaluation System''. This system uses 25 working criteria 
divided into three priority classes--priority 1 includes features 
critical to releasing and establishing condors in the wild, priority 2 
includes features that are necessary but not critical, and priority 3 
includes features that would add or detract from suitability but are 
not critical. The working criteria are grouped into working factors 
that include: site suitability, logistics, man-made threats/hazards, 
and suitability of adjacent lands (for population expansion). Each 
working criterion is assigned a quantitative value and weighted 
according to assigned priority criteria. The sum from the three 
priority classes gives the total value for a site. This rating system 
verified the Vermilion Cliffs (the preferred alternative) as a suitable 
release site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).
    b. Vermilion Cliffs Release Site. The Vermilion Cliffs 
reintroduction site is on the southwestern corner of the Paria Plateau 
approximately 100 meters from the edge of the Vermilion Cliffs, 
Coconino County, Arizona, as shown on the following map:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 40]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP02JA96.000



BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 41]]

    The Paria Plateau is characterized by relatively flat, undulating 
topography dominated by pinyon-juniper/blue grama (Pinus edulis-
Juniperus osteosperma/Bouteloua gracilis) communities and mixed shrub 
communities dominated by sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) on sandy upland 
soils. To the south and east of the Plateau lies the steep precipice of 
the Vermilion Cliffs, rising over 1,000 feet from the floor of House 
Rock Valley. Uplifting and differential erosion has created complex 
geologic structures and a diverse variety of habitats in a small 
geographic area. The cliffs are sharply dissected by canyons and 
arroyos and the lower slopes are littered with enormous boulders. 
Numerous springs emerge from the sides of the cliffs (U.S. Bureau of 
Land Management and Arizona Game and Fish Department 1983).
    5. Reintroduction Protocol. In general, the reintroduction protocol 
will involve an annual release of captive-reared California condors 
until recovery goals, as outlined in the Plan, are achieved (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1995b). These reintroduction protocols were 
developed and tested in the current southern California condor release 
project.
    a. Condor Release. The reintroduction is designed to release a 
cohort of captive-reared California condors once each year, beginning 
in early 1996 (target date). Three captive breeding facilities (LAZ, 
SDWAP, and WCBP), are producing condors for release to the wild. The 
size of each release cohort will depend on the number of hatch-year 
condors produced during the late winter to early spring of that year, 
but releases will likely involve up to 10 hatch-year condors. These 
condors will be hatched in captivity and raised by a condor look-alike 
hand puppet, or by their parents, until they are approximately four 
months of age. They will then be placed together in a single large pen 
so they will form social bonds. At approximately 6 months of age they 
will be moved to a large flight pen and undergo aversion training to 
humans and power poles for one to two months. After the training has 
been completed the young condors will be transported by helicopter to 
the release site at Vermilion Cliffs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1995b).
    At the release site they will be placed in a temporary release pen 
and will remain there for an acclimation period, of approximately one 
to two weeks. This structure will be approximately 16 ft by 8 ft and 6 
ft high. Netting will cover the front of the pen, allowing the young 
condors to view and become accustomed to the surrounding area. The 
release pen will be pre-fabricated, delivered to the release site by 
helicopter, and removed from the site after the young condors have 
fledged (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).
    Meanwhile, biologists will remain near the release pen 24 hours a 
day observing the young condor's behavior and guarding against 
predators or other disturbance. After the initial adjustment period and 
when all the young condors can fly, the release will take place. Any 
release candidate showing signs of physical or behavioral problems will 
not be released. Release is accomplished by removing the net at the 
front of the pen allowing the birds to exit. The young condors will 
likely remain in the immediate area of the pen for some time before 
beginning exploratory forays along the cliffs. A small area of 
approximately 10 acres will be temporarily closed to recreational 
activity to protect the newly released condors and will remain closed 
until they have dispersed from the release area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1995b).
    b. Supplemental Feeding. Condors are dependent on carrion and must 
be fed until they learn to locate carcasses independently. Newly 
released young condors will be dependent on carrion provided by 
biologists, making it necessary to maintain a supplemental feeding 
program. However, older condors (sub-adults and adults), should be 
locating carcasses on their own and hopefully would not be dependent on 
the supplemental feeding program for their survival. Supplemental 
feeding should reduce the likelihood of deaths of young condors from 
accidental poisoning insofar as it will help prevent them from feeding 
on contaminated carcasses. The diet provided to the condors will 
consist primarily of livestock carcasses and road killed animals. Field 
biologists will deliver carcasses to the condors every four to five 
days by carrying carcasses to the edge of the cliffs at night, to avoid 
detection by the condors. A network of feeding stations on prominent 
points with high visibility will be identified in the general area of 
the release. Carcasses will be placed on the ground or, if predators 
become a problem, elevated off the ground by placing them atop natural 
rock outcrops less accessible to ground predators (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1995b).
    c. Monitoring. All California condors released to the wild will be 
equipped with two radio transmitters, one on each patagium, or one 
patagial placement and one mounted on the tail. In addition, they will 
wear bold colored patagial markers on each wing with code numbers to 
facilitate visual identification. The movements and behavior of each 
condor will be monitored for at least the first two to three years of 
its life. Ground triangulation will be the primary means of radio 
tracking. Aerial tracking will be used to find lost birds or when more 
accurate locations are desired. Telemetry flights will be coordinated 
with the appropriate land management agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1995b).

Status of Reintroduced Population

    In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, California condors 
reintroduced into northern Arizona are proposed to be designated as a 
nonessential experimental population. The experimental designation 
means the reintroduced California condors will be treated as a 
threatened population instead of an endangered population. Under 
section 4(d) of the Act, this designation enables the Service to 
develop special regulations for management of the population that are 
less restrictive than the mandatory prohibitions covering endangered 
species. Therefore, the experimental designation allows the management 
flexibility needed to ensure that this reintroduction is compatible 
with current or planned human activities in the reintroduction area and 
to permit management of the population for recovery purposes.
    Experimental populations can be classified as either ``essential'' 
or ``nonessential''. An essential experimental population is a 
population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild [50 CFR 17.80 
(Subpart H-Experimental Populations)]. All other experimental 
populations are treated as nonessential, if they are not considered 
essential to the continued existence of the species. ``Nonessential'' 
experimental populations are treated for purposes of section 7 of the 
Act as though they were only proposed for listing (except on National 
Wildlife Refuge and National Park System lands where they will be 
treated as a species listed as ``threatened'' under the authority of 
the Act). The proposed California condor experimental population merits 
classification as nonessential because the population will not be 
essential to the continued existence of the species.
    Currently, the principal California condor population (90 
individuals) exists in the safe environment of three captive breeding 
facilities located at the SDWAP, LAZ, and WCBP. The captive 

[[Page 42]]
breeding facilities are not included in exhibits and are under 24 hour 
surveillance by condor keepers or video cameras. Only essential program 
personnel are granted access to the captive population. The captive 
population is given excellent care and to date there have been no 
deaths of adults or sub-adults. In addition, the geographic separation 
of the three breeding facilities protects the captive population from 
the threat of extinction due to a single catastrophic event.
    The reproductive rate of the captive population dramatically 
exceeds the mortality rate of the wild population. All condors lost in 
the reintroduction efforts can be replaced by current chick production, 
while the captive population continues to increase. The extant 
population will not be adversely effected by the proposed 
reintroduction since it is hundreds of miles away (see below).
    By mid-1987, every surviving individual of the species was held in 
captivity following agreement that the decline of the wild population 
to eight surviving adults had demonstrated that the wild population was 
destined for extinction (Geyer et al. 1993). Genetic management, which 
includes control of all matings, has preserved the genetic viability of 
the extant captive population. No California condor hatched in 
captivity is considered for release to the wild unless its founder line 
is well-represented in the captive population. All release candidates 
are genetically redundant and their loss will not jeopardize the 
diversity of the existing condor gene pool.
    The proposed reintroduction project will further the recovery of 
the species by--establishing a second wild population, ensuring the 
existence of a wild population if a catastrophic event eliminates the 
southern California population, enhancing the opportunity to manage the 
genetic diversity of the wild population, and avoiding the potential 
risks inherent in overcrowding the captive population.

Location of Reintroduced Population

    Under section 10(j)(1) of the Act, an experimental population must 
be separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same 
species. The last recorded sighting of a California condor in the area 
of the proposed experimental release occurred in 1924, when Edouard 
Jacot observed a condor feeding on a carcass with golden eagles near 
the town of Williams, Arizona (Rea 1983). The last known free-flying 
California condor was captured April 19, 1987, in southern California 
and placed in the captive breeding program. To date there have been no 
verified sightings of California condors in the wild and condor 
researchers are confident that there are no undocumented wild condors 
in the proposed release area or anywhere else in their historic range. 
Since January 1992, five releases of young California condors have 
taken place in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, California. 
Currently, 13 endangered California condors are located in the wild 
back country of Santa Barbara County. This non-captive population is 
located approximately 720 kilometers (km) (450 miles (mi)) west of the 
proposed release site. The longest flight by these recently 
reintroduced condors has been approximately 40 km (25 mi), with typical 
daily flights from 8 km (5 mi) to 16 km (10 mi). According to Meretsky 
and Snyder (1992) the foraging flights by breeding California condors 
in the 1980's were from 70 km (44 mi) to 180 km (112 mi). Based on this 
information, the Service does not believe there will be any 
immigration/emigration between the existing non-captive and the 
proposed nonessential experimental populations.
    The release site for reintroducing California condors into northern 
Arizona will be on the Vermilion Cliffs, in the southwestern corner of 
the Paria Plateau. However, the designated nonessential experimental 
population area will be significantly larger and include portions of 
three states--Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. The southern boundary is 
Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona from its junction with Highway 191 
west across Arizona to Kingman; the western boundary starts at Kingman, 
goes northwest on Highway 93 to Interstate Highway 15, continues 
northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15 in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 
70 in Utah; where the northern boundary starts and goes across Utah to 
Highway 191; where the eastern boundary starts and goes south through 
Utah until Highway 191 meets Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona (Fig. 1).

Management

    The Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction project will be undertaken by 
the Service and its primary cooperators the Arizona Game and Fish 
Department and the BLM. Other cooperators that will provide support on 
an as-needed basis include--Grand Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon 
National Recreation Area, Kaibab National Forest, the Hualapai Tribe, 
the Navajo Nation, LAZ, Zoological Society of San Diego (the Zoological 
Society includes the SDWAP and SDZ), The Phoenix Zoo and The Peregrine 
Fund. All cooperators will participate in this recovery project under 
the general guidance of a Memorandum of Understanding written to 
promote recovery of the California condor. Reintroduction procedures 
were explained above under ``Background, 5. Reintroduction Protocols.''
    The reintroduction site is surrounded by remote Federal or Indian 
Reservation lands with only a few small private inholdings. The current 
general management scheme for these lands will not affect the 
establishment of a nonessential experimental population in this area. 
Furthermore, the designation of nonessential experimental will 
encourage local cooperation as a result of the management flexibility 
allowed under this designation. The Service considers the nonessential 
experimental population designation and associated reintroduction plan 
necessary to receive cooperation of the affected landowners, agencies, 
and recreational interests in the area.
    A designation of nonessential experimental prohibits the 
application of section 7(a)(2) of the Act except on NWR and NPS lands. 
This will ensure that current land uses and activities (such as, but 
not limited to, forest management, agriculture, mining, livestock 
grazing, sport hunting and fishing, and non-consumptive outdoor 
recreational activities) will not be restricted.
    The progress of the reintroduction project will receive an informal 
review on an annual basis by the primary cooperators and a formal 
evaluation by all cooperators within the first five years after the 
first release to evaluate the reintroduction project and determine 
future management needs. Once recovery goals are met for downlisting 
the species, a rule will be proposed to address the downlisting. The 5-
year evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the ``nonessential 
experimental'' designation for this population. The Service does not 
foresee any likely situation which would call for altering the 
nonessential experimental status of this population.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any action resulting from this proposed 
rulemaking to determine the northern Arizona California condor 
population as a nonessential experimental population be as effective as 
possible. The Service therefore solicits comments or recommendations 
concerning any aspect of this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES section) 
from Federal, State, public, and local government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. Comments 


[[Page 43]]
should be as specific as possible. Final promulgation of a rule to 
implement this proposed action will take into consideration the 
comments and any additional information received by the Service. Such 
communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this 
proposal.
    Section 4(b)(5)(e) of the Act requires that a public hearing be 
held, if requested, within 45 days of a proposed rule. The Service has 
scheduled two public hearings on this proposal due to the anticipated 
number of requests for such hearings. The first public hearing will be 
held at the Main Auditorium, Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm 
Street, Flagstaff, Arizona, on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 
8:00 pm and the second at the Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East Red 
Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah, on Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to 
8:00 pm. Anyone expecting to make an oral presentation at these 
hearings is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to 
the hearing officer prior to the start of the hearing. In the event 
there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may 
have to be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal 
consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments 
presented at these hearings or mailed to the Service.

National Environmental Policy Act

    A final environmental assessment as defined under authority of the 
NEPA, has been prepared and is available to the public at the Service 
office identified in the ADDRESSES section. This assessment formed the 
basis for the decision that the proposed California condor 
reintroduction is not a major Federal action which would significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of 
section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

    The proposed rule will not affect protection provided to the 
California condor by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The take of 
all migratory birds, including the California condor, is governed by 
the MBTA. The MBTA regulates the taking of migratory birds for 
educational, scientific, and recreational purposes.

Required Determinations

    This proposed rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget 
review under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Also, no 
direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or record-
keeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this action and 
the rule contains no record-keeping requirements, as defined in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 350 et seq.). This rule does 
not require a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 because 
it would not have any significant federalism effects as described in 
the order.

References Cited

Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil birds. Part 2 (Anseriformes 
through Galliformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum. 
Biological Sciences 9:195-335.
Cooper, J.G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe 1:248-249.
Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet of fossil California condors in 
Grand Canyon, Arizona, Science 237:768-770.
Geyer, C.J., O.A. Ryder, L.G. Chemnick, and E.A. Thompson. 1993. 
Analysis of relatedness in the California condors from DNA 
fingerprints. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:571-589.
Koford, C.B. 1953. The California Condor. National Audubon Society 
Research Report No. 4:1-154.
Ligon, J.D. 1967. Relationships of the cathartid vultures. 
Occasional Paper of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 
651:1-26.
Mallette, R.D., and J.C. Borneman. 1966. First cooperative survey of 
the California condor. California Fish and Game. 52:185-203.
Mallette, R.D., F.C. Sibley, W.D. Carrier, and J.C. Borneman. 1970. 
California condor surveys. 1969. California Fish and Game. 56:199-
202.
Meretsky, V.J., and N.F.R. Snyder. 1992. Range use and movements of 
California condors. Condor 94:313-335.
Miller, A.H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan. 1965. The current status 
and welfare of the California condor. National Audubon Society 
Research Report. 6:1-61.
Rea, A.M. 1983. Cathartid affinities: a brief overview. In S.R. 
Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.). Vulture biology and management. Pp. 
26-54. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Sibley, F. 1969. Effects of the Sespe Creek Project on the 
California condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland.
Sibley, C.G., and J.E. Ahlquist. 1990. Phylogeny and classification 
of birds. A study in molecular evolution. Yale Univ. Press, New 
Haven, Connecticut.
Snyder, N.F.R., and E.V. Johnson. 1985. Photographic censusing of 
the 1982-1983 California condor population. Condor. 89:468-485.
Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-site biology 
of the California condor. Condor. 88:228-241.
Synder, N.F.R., E.V. Johnson, and D.A. Clendenen. 1987. Primary molt 
of California condors. Condor 89:468-485.
Snyder, N.F.R., and H. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation of the 
California condor. In D.M. Powers (ed.). Current Ornithology, Vol. 
6. Pp. 175-267. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa 
Barbara. California.
Stager, K. 1964. The role of olfaction in food location by the 
turkey vulture (Catharses aura). Los Angeles County Museum 
Contributions to Science 81:1-63.
Steadman, D.W., and N.G. Miller. 1987. California condor associated 
with spruce-pine woodland in the late Pleistocene of New York. 
Quaternary Research 28:415-426.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Arizona Game and Fish Department, 
1983. Paria-Kanab Creek habitat management plan. BLM Arizona Strip 
District, Vermilion Resource Area, St George Utah; Ariz. Game and 
Fish Department, Region 2, Flagstaff.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. California Condor Recovery 
Plan. Third Edition. Portland, Oregon. 110 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Draft California Condor 
Recovery Plan. Fourth Edition. Portland, Oregon. 63 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Draft Environmental 
Assessment: Release of California Condors at Vermilion Cliffs 
(Coconino County, Arizona). Ventura, California. 74 pp.
Wilbur, S.R. 1972. Food resources of the California condor. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 
Laurel, Maryland.
Wilbur, S.R. 1973. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest. 
Auk. 90:196-198.
Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condor plumage and molt as field study 
aids. California Fish and Game. 61:144-148.
Wilbur, S.R. 1978. The California condor. 1966-76: a look at its 
past and future. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North America 
Fauna. 72:1-136.
Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and trend of the California 
condor population. 1965-1978. California Fish and Game. 66:40-48.
Wilbur, S.R., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The California condor in Baja 
California, Mexico. American Birds. 34:856-859.

Author

    The Primary author of this rule is Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office, 2493 
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
record- keeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 44]]

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Section 17.11(h), the table entry ``Condor, California'' 
under BIRDS is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
              BIRDS                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Condor, California...........  Gymnogyps             U.S.A. (AZ, CA, OR)  U.S.A. only, except  E                    1,____     17.95(b)           NA
                                    californianus.        Mexico (Baja         where listed as an                                                       
                                                          California).         experimental                                                             
                                                                               population below.                                                        
    Do...........................  do..................  do.................  U.S.A. (specific     XN                     ____           NA     17.84(j)
                                                                               portions of Utah,                                                        
                                                                               Nevada, and                                                              
                                                                               Arizona).                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 17.84 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 17.84  Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (j) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus).
    (1) The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) population 
identified in paragraph (j)(8) of this section is a nonessential 
experimental population.
    (2) No person may take this species in the wild in the experimental 
population area except when such take is accidental, unavoidable, and 
not the purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, or 
as provided in paragraphs (j)(3), (4), and (9) of this section.
    (3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under 
Sec. 17.32 may take California condors in the wild in the experimental 
population area.
    (4) Any employee or agent of the Service, Bureau of Land Management 
or appropriate State wildlife agency, who is designated for such 
purposes, when acting in the course of official duties, may take a 
California condor from the wild in the experimental population area and 
vicinity if such action is necessary:
    (i) For scientific purposes;
    (ii) To relocate California condors within the experimental 
population area to improve condor survival and recovery prospects, or 
to address conflicts with ongoing activities or private landowners;
    (iii) To relocate California condors that have moved outside the 
experimental population area, when removal is necessary to protect the 
condor, or is requested by an affected landowner or land manager;
    (iv) To relocate California condors from the experimental 
population area into other condor reintroduction areas or captivity;
    (v) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned California condor;
    (vi) To salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific 
study; or
    (vii) To dispose of a dead specimen.
    (5) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs (j)(2), (j)(4)(v), 
(j)(4)(vi), and (j)(4)(vii), of this section must be reported 
immediately to the State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Ecological Services, Arizona State Office, Phoenix, 2321 W. Royal Palm 
Road, Suite 103, Arizona (telephone 602/640-2720) who will determine 
the disposition of any live or dead specimens.
    (6) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any California condor or 
part thereof from the experimental population taken in violation of 
this paragraph (j) or in violation of applicable State laws or 
regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
    (7) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in 
paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(6) of this section.
    (8)(i) The designated experimental population area of the 
California condor includes portions of three states--Arizona, Nevada, 
and Utah. The southern boundary is Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona 
from its junction with Highway 191 west across Arizona to Kingman; the 
western boundary starts at Kingman, goes northwest on Highway 93 to 
Interstate Highway 15, continues northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15 
in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 70 in Utah; where the northern 
boundary starts and goes across Utah to Highway 191; where the eastern 
boundary starts and goes south through Utah until Highway 191 meets 
Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona (See map at end of this paragraph 
(j).). All California condors found in the wild within these boundaries 
will comprise the experimental population.
    (ii) All California condors released into the experimental 
population area will be marked and visually identifiable. All offspring 
will also be marked before fledging. Any condors found outside of the 
experimental population area will be identifiable by colored and coded 
patagial wing markers. In the event that a condor moves outside the 
experimental population area, three options will be considered--leave 
the condor undisturbed and monitor it closely, capture the condor and 
return it to the reintroduction area, or place it in a captive breeding 
facility. The fate of condors that move outside the experimental 
population area will be decided on a case by case basis.
    (9) The experimental population will be monitored continually for 
the life of the reintroduction project. All California condors will be 
given physical examinations before being released. If there is any 
evidence that the condor is in poor health or diseased, it will not be 
released to the wild. Any condor that displays signs of illness, is 
injured, or otherwise needs special care may be captured by authorized 
personnel of the Service, Bureau of Land Management or appropriate 
State wildlife agency or their agents, and given the appropriate care. 
These condors will be re-released 

[[Page 45]]
into the reintroduction area as soon as possible, unless physical or 
behavioral problems make it necessary to keep them in captivity for an 
extended period of time, or permanently.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
      

[[Page 46]]
    [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP02JA96.001
    


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

 
[[Page 47]]

    Dated: December 20, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-31450 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P