Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)

[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
Funds 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