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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation

with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, plans to reintroduce California condors (Gymnogyps

californianus) into northern Arizona/southern Utah and to designate

these birds as a nonessential experimental population under the

Endangered Species Act. This reintroduction will achieve a primary

recovery goal for this endangered species, the establishment of a

second non-captive population, spatially disjunct from the non-captive

population in southern California. This California condor

reintroduction does not conflict with existing or anticipated Federal

or State agency actions or current and future land, water, or air uses

on public or private lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective on October 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the

following Service offices:

--Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological

Services, Arizona Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,

Phoenix, Arizona 85021; Telephone: (602) 640-2720; Facsimile: (602)

640-2730.

--Field Supervisor, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce Palmer (602/640-2720) at

the Arizona Field Office address or Robert Mesta (805/644-1766) at the

Ventura Field Office address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative

Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act) enables the 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 probable historic 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, in certain instances, 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, the Service determine 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

System or National Park System lands are treated, for the purposes of

section 7 of the Act, as if they are proposed for listing. Thus, for

nonessential experimental populations, only two provisions of section 7

would apply outside National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park

System 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 a listed species, would not apply except on

National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park System 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.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of a listed species.

``Take'' is defined by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such

conduct. However, in accordance with this special rule issued under

section 10(j), throughout the entire California condor experimental

population area, you will not be in violation of the Act if you

unavoidably and unintentionally take (including killing or injuring) a

California condor, provided such take is non-negligent and incidental

to a lawful activity, such as hunting, driving, or recreational

activities, and you report the take as soon as possible.

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 an existing permit issued in accordance with the

requirements of 50 CFR 17.22. The Service evaluated this project under

section 7 of the Act in a biological evaluation and concurrence

memorandum dated August 19, 1996; the Service determined that the

removal of birds from captive flocks and establishing a second wild

flock would not jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

2. Biological

The California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) was listed as

endangered on March 11, 1967, in a final rule published by the Service

(32 FR 4001). The Service designated critical habitat for the

California condor in California, 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.

The California condor is a member of the family Cathartidae, the

New World vultures, a family of seven species, including the closely

related Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) and the sympatric turkey vulture

(Cathartes aura). California condors are among the largest flying birds

in the world (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Adults weigh

approximately 10 kilograms (22 pounds) and have a wing span up to 2.9

meters (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

[[Page 54045]]

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 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). Two well preserved fossil bones were reported from a

site in upstate New York (Steadman and Miller 1987). Evidence indicates

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 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-

1800's in the northern portion of the Pacific Coast region (Columbia

River Gorge) and until the early 1930's in the southern extreme,

northern Baja California (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1973, Wilbur and Kiff

1980). There is evidence indicating that condors returned to the

southwest as early as the 1700's in response to the introduction of

large herds of cattle, horses, and sheep that replaced the extinct

Pleistocene megafauna as a source of carrion (Emslie 1986). By 1987,

the California condor's range was reduced to a wishbone-shaped area

encompassing six counties: Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San

Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Kern, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1996).

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 2 months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. At 2 to

3 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 6 to 7 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 1996).

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 that bred

successfully in the wild in 1986 was 6 years old. Recent data collected

from captive birds, however, demonstrates that reproduction may occur,

or at least be attempted, at earlier ages. A 4 year old male was the

youngest condor observed in courtship display, and the same bird

subsequently bred successfully at the age of 5 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 1996). 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 elaogus nannoides), pronghorn antelope

(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 last two centuries. He estimated that 95

percent of the diet consisted of the carcasses of cattle, domestic

sheep, California 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

1 to 3 days per week, but the frequency of adult feeding is variable

and may show seasonal differences (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1996).

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. That 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,

[[Page 54046]]

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 or 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 establishing a captive flock and

double clutching in the wild, and the establishment of a captive flock,

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 1996).

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 121 individuals,

including 104 in the captive flock and 17 in the wild (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1996).

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 1996), is to

reclassify the condor from endangered 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

three 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

considered for reclassification to threatened status. The

reclassification to threatened status will only apply to those

populations (California) that are listed as endangered. The status of

the established nonessential experimental population in northern

Arizona/southern Utah will not change if the species is downlisted to

threatened.

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 1996).

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 104 in 1996. 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 1996).

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 active (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1996).

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

1996).

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 (helpless at birth) 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.

[[Page 54047]]

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 1996).

In 1991, a pair of 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

(antifreeze) 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

1996).

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, 1994,

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 LAZ (Fish and Wildlife Service

1996).

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 at the LAZ. 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 negative reinforcement

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,

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, the condors 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.

On February 8, 1995, six of the trained condors were released at

Lion Canyon. On August 29, the remaining eight California condors of

this group were released at the Lion Canyon Site. The 1995 release

candidates were split into two groups in order to keep the releases at

more manageable numbers. 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 LAZ. The remaining 13 continue to avoid

both power poles and human activities.

On March 1, 1995, the three condors remaining in the wild from the

December 8, 1993, release were trapped and brought into captivity. This

was done so they would not negatively influence the newly released

birds that underwent the aversion training.

The 1995 breeding season produced 13 condors eligible for release,

4 of which were parent hatched and reared. At approximately 3 months of

age the four parent hatched and reared condors were transferred to a

newly constructed rearing facility at the Hopper Mt. National Wildlife

Refuge System. This group was released to the wild on February 13,

1996, at the Castle Crags release site located approximately 64 km (40

mi) northwest of Lion Canyon on the western border of San Luis Obispo

County. An objective of this release is to try and determine if parent

hatched and reared chicks taken from LAZ at the earliest possible date

and placed in a natural environment to be reared will be more

successful in their adjustment to the wild. There are now 17 condors

flying free in southern California and all have undergone aversion

training. Of 14 release candidates produced in the spring of 1996, 6

parent-reared birds are being held for release at the Vermilion Cliffs

in northern Arizona.

4. 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 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 areas. This

evaluation process resulted in selection of four potential release

sites. As required by

[[Page 54048]]

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, produced an Environmental Assessment titled

``Experimental Release of California Condors at the Vermilion Cliffs

(Coconino County, Arizona)'' in which the potential release sites and

adjacent lands (for population expansion) were thoroughly examined and

objectively evaluated. The NEPA process resulted in selection of a

preferred release site at the Vermilion Cliffs located on Bureau of

Land Management 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 release site

is on the southwestern corner of the Paria Plateau approximately 100

meters from the edge of the Vermilion Cliffs, Coconino County, Arizona.

The Paria Plateau is characterized by relatively flat, undulating

topography dominated by pinyon-juniper/blue grama grass (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 project is designed to

release a group of captive-reared California condors once each year.

Condors may be moved to the release site in the fall of 1996 and

released in late 1996. Three captive breeding facilities (LAZ, SDWAP,

and WCBP), are producing condors for release to the wild. The size of

each release group 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 4 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 1 to 2 months. After the training has been completed

the young condors will be transported by helicopter to the release site

at the Vermilion Cliffs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).

At the release site they will be placed in a temporary release pen

and, depending on the age of the birds, will remain there for an

acclimation period of approximately 1 week to 3 months, depending upon

the age of the condors and other factors. 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 vehicle or 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 of BLM land will be posted 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), will probably

be locating carcasses on their own and 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 prevents 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 4 to 5 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, placed off the ground 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 (the fold of

skin in front of the main segments of a bird's wing); 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 2 to 3 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).

[[Page 54049]]

Status of Reintroduced Population

In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, California condors

reintroduced into northern Arizona will be designated as a nonessential

experimental population for the following reasons: the principal

population exists in the safe environment of three captive breeding

facilities; the existing wild population in southern California will

not be adversely affected by this reintroduction; and establishing a

second wild population will further enhance the recovery of this

species. The conditions under which a population can be designated as

experimental are: the population must be geographically disjunct from

any other wild populations of the same species, and the Service

determines that the release will further the conservation and recovery

of the species.

Section 10(j) is designed to increase the Service's flexibility to

manage an experimental population by treating it as a threatened

species regardless of its designation in other parts of its range. This

is because section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service greater

flexibility in the development and implementation of regulations to

manage threaten species than it does for endangered species. This

flexibility allows the Service to manage the experimental population in

a manner that will ensure that current and future land, water or air

uses and activities should not be restricted and the population can be

managed for recovery purposes.

Before an experimental population can be released, section 10(j)

requires that a determination be made by the Service whether the

population is either ``essential'' or ``nonessential'' to the continued

existence of the species. An experimental population determined to be

essential is treated as a threatened species. An experimental

population determined to be nonessential is treated as a species

proposed for listing as threatened. The exception is a nonessential

population located within the National Park System or National Wildlife

Refuge System lands will be treated as a threatened species for

purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If those same condors leave the

National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System, they will be

considered as a species proposed for listing.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act prohibits Federal agencies from

authorizing, funding, or carrying out any activity that would likely

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely

modify their critical habitats. All Federal agencies must consult with

the Service to insure that any activity that is authorized, funded, or

carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species. A nonessential experimental population

is treated as a threatened species on National Park System and National

Wildlife Refuge System lands, and would be subject to the consultation

requirements of section 7(a)(2) on those lands. In addition, on all

other lands, two provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential

experimental populations; 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.

Currently, the captive California condor population (104

individuals) exists in the safe environment of three captive breeding

facilities located at the SDWAP, LAZ, and WCBP. The captive breeding

facilities are not included in exhibits, are closed to the public 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 since

1982 there have been no deaths of adults or sub-adults. In addition,

the geographic separation of the three breeding facilities protects

these subpopulations 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 wild population

will not be adversely affected by the 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 likely extinction (Geyer et al. 1993). Genetic management,

which includes control of all matings, has maximized the potential

genetic viability of the wild 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 reintroduction project will further the conservation and

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 geographically separate from nonexperimental populations of the same

species. The last recorded sighting of a California condor in the

experimental population area occurred in 1924, when Edouard Jacot

observed a condor feeding on a carcass with golden eagles near the town

of Williams, Arizona (Rea 1983). Condor researchers are confident that

there are no undocumented wild condors in the release area or anywhere

else in their historic range outside of California. Currently, 17

endangered California condors are located in the wild back country of

Santa Barbara County, California. This non-captive population is

located approximately 720 kilometers (km) (450 miles (mi)) west of the

release site, and 480 km (300 mi) west of the western boundary of the

reintroduction area. The longest distance covered by one of these

recently reintroduced condors has been approximately 240 km (150 mi)

over a period of 1 week, 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 expect any immigration/emigration between the extant non-captive

and the nonessential experimental populations.

The California condor reintroduction site in northern Arizona is

located on the Vermilion Cliffs, in the southwestern corner of the

Paria Plateau. However, the designated nonessential experimental

population area will be 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 and Utah, to Interstate Highway 70 in

Utah; where the northern boundary starts and goes across Utah to

Highway 191; where

[[Page 54050]]

the eastern boundary starts and goes south through Utah until Highway

191 meets Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona (See map at end of this

rule). The Service has designated this experimental population area to

accommodate any potential future movements by condors and to include

wild canyon habitat that stretches from the eastern Utah southwest

through Arizona to the eastern border of Nevada that will provide this

population of condors with a natural refugium in which to raise future

generations of condors. In the experimental population area, condors

will maintain the status of nonessential experimental. Any condors that

leave the experimental population area will be considered as

endangered. However, this special rule includes provisions for the

capture and return of condors to the experimental population area

should the birds stray out of the experimental population area.

Management

Service regulations require that, to the extent practicable, a

regulation promulgated under section 10(j) of the Act, represent an

agreement between the Service, the affected State and Federal agencies,

and persons holding any interest in land that may be affected by the

establishment of the experimental population (see 50 CFR Sec. 17.81

(d)). The Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction project will be undertaken by

the Service and its primary cooperators, the Arizona Game and Fish

Department and the Bureau of Land Management. Other cooperators that

will provide support on an as-needed basis include: Utah State

Department of Natural Resources, Grand Canyon National Park, Glen

Canyon National Recreation Area, Kaibab National Forest, the Hualapai

Tribe, the Navajo Nation, Los Angeles Zoo, Zoological Society of San

Diego (the Zoological Society includes the SDWAP and SDZ), The Phoenix

Zoo, and The Peregrine Fund. This nonessential experimental population

will be managed in accordance with the provisions of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) among the cooperators (noted above), an Agreement

between the Service and a coalition of county and local governments

(Coalition) in the California condor experimental population area, and

this final rule. At this time, the MOU and Agreement are in final form,

and will be signed soon after publication of this rule. A separate

agreement between the Service and the State of Utah is under

development. This rule to the maximum extent practicable represents an

agreement between the Service, the affected state and Federal agencies

and persons holding an interest in land which may be affected by the

establishment of this experimental population. The purpose of the MOU

is to establish a general framework for cooperation and participation

among the cooperators to establish a long-term program to release

captive reared California condors and achieve the recovery goals for

this species as cited in the California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1996). In order to accomplish these goals each

cooperator will designate a principal contact to interface with the

field program and participate on a working team to develop annual work

plans, provide facilities, equipment, logistical support, and land

access, as needed and when available, to the field program and provide

ongoing review of and feedback on the progress of the reintroduction

program. The purposes of the Agreement are to ensure to the maximum

extent practicable that current and future land, water, or air uses

within the experimental population area are not affected as a

consequence of the release of California condors in northern Arizona/

southern Utah, and to promote the recovery of the California condor.

This will be accomplished through annual coordination meetings with

local governments and communities to review the status of the

reintroduction effort.

The reintroduction area consists of remote Federal or Native

American Reservation lands with limited private lands. The management

scheme for these lands (e.g., BLM, Kaibab National Forest, Grand Canyon

National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and Navajo Indian

Reservation) is consistent with the reintroduction of condors into this

area. Furthermore, the designation of this population as 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, MOU,

Agreement, and associated reintroduction plan (an appendix to the

Environmental Assessment) necessary to receive cooperation of the

affected landowners, agencies, and recreational interests in the

experimental population area.

A designation of nonessential experimental limits the application

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. For the purposes of section 7, the

nonessential experimental population is treated as a proposed species

except on National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park System

lands. Current and future land, water, or air uses such as, but not

limited to: commercial and business development; forest management;

agriculture; mining and energy resource exploration and development

(e.g. coal); livestock grazing; development of transportation and

utility corridors (e.g. power transmission lines); communication

facilities; water development projects; sport hunting and fishing; air

tour operations and outdoor recreational activities (e.g. jeep tours,

hiking, biking, boating) should not be restricted due to the

designation of the nonessential experimental population of California

condors. In addition, no operational restrictions due to the presence

or potential presence of California condors will be placed on currently

permitted activities on Bureau of Land Management grazing allotments

located in proximity to the release site at the Vermilion Cliffs.

Further, if any modifications of existing structures are needed to

protect condors they will be made or financed by the appropriate MOU

cooperator with the approval of the land manager and/or private

operator, in accordance with applicable procedures.

The progress of the reintroduction project will receive an informal

review on an annual basis and a formal evaluation by all cooperators

and the Coalition within the first 5 years after the first release to

evaluate the reintroduction project and determine future management

needs. All reviews will include, but not be limited to: a review of

management issues; compliance with agreements; assessment of available

carrion; dependence of older condors on supplemental food sources; post

release behavior; causes and rates of mortality; alternative release

sites; project costs; and public acceptance. Once recovery goals are

met for downlisting the species, and tasks in the recovery plan are

accomplished, a proposed rule to reclassify the species from endangered

to threatened would be developed. The Service has determined that the

establishment of this nonessential experimental population will further

the conservation and recovery of the California condor. The number of

variables that could affect this reintroduction project make it

difficult to develop criteria for success or failure after 5 years.

However, if after 5 years the condor population is experiencing a 40

percent or greater mortality rate or released condors are not finding

food on their own, serious consideration will be given to terminating

the project.

[[Page 54051]]

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

On November 13, 1990, the Service conducted its first public

meeting to discuss the feasibility of reintroducing California condors

in the Grand Canyon area, the Grand Canyon National Park hosted the

meeting. Represented at the meeting were Federal, State, and Tribal

agencies, local industries, conservation organizations, and interested

private citizens. After this meeting and before the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was initiated in May 1995,

approximately 16 scoping/reconnaissance meetings on the reintroduction

were held with interested Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. On May

15, 1995, a NEPA scoping letter was sent out to approximately 200

Federal and State agencies, tribal, county, and city governments,

private industries, conservation groups, and other interested parties.

It announced the Service's intent to prepare an Environmental

Assessment on a proposal to establish a long term project to

reintroduce California condors into northern Arizona and requested

comments on the proposal. On August 14, 1995, the Service mailed out

approximately 300 copies of the draft Environmental Assessment for the

``Experimental Release of California Condors at the Vermilion Cliffs,

Coconino County, Arizona'' for review and comment. On February 29,

1996, the Service completed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

for the reintroduction project. A revised version of the FONSI was

signed on September 23, 1996. The Service mailed out approximately 300

letters announcing that the FONSI and the final Environmental

Assessment were available upon request. The revised FONSI is also

available to the public (see ADDRESSES section). The development of

this NEPA document included a combination of 16 meetings and

presentations to explain the proposal and accept comments.

On January 2, 1996, the Service published (61 FR 35) a proposed

rule to establish a nonessential experimental population of California

condors in northern Arizona/southern Utah with a comment period that

closed on February 1, 1996. The proposed rule included the announcement

of two public hearings, one in Flagstaff, Arizona, the other in Kanab,

Utah. A legal notice, announcing the proposed rule, the two hearings,

and inviting public comment was published in the Southern Utah News,

The Richfield Reaper, The Times Independent, The Beaver Press, The San

Juan Recorder, The Salt Lake Tribune, Desert News, The Spectrum,

Arizona Daily Sun, Kingman Daily Miner, The Arizona Republic, The

Phoenix Gazette, Williams Grand Canyon News, Holbrook Tribune News, Las

Vegas Review Journal, and The Las Vegas Sun, between January 9 and 14,

1996.

On February 6, 1996, the Service published a notice in the Federal

Register (61 FR 4394) reopening the comment period until February 29,

1996, and on February 29, 1996, published a second notice (61 FR 7770)

extending the comment period until April 1, 1996. The proposed rule and

two comment extensions were announced in published legal notices, press

releases, and a special mailing to interested parties. Pursuant to 50

CFR 424.16(c)(2), the Service may extend or reopen a comment period

upon finding that there is good cause to do so. Full participation of

the affected public in the rulemaking process and allowing the Service

to consider the best scientific and commercial data available in making

a final determination on the proposed action, is deemed as sufficient

cause. The extensions were made to address the comments and concerns of

the communities located within the proposed experimental population

area. During the extension period a series of eight meetings were

conducted with State, County, and local governments and industry

representatives located within the proposed experimental population

area to address their specific concerns.

Changes in the final rule as a result of public comments: Two

paragraphs (10 and 11) have been added to the special rule based on

public comments on the proposed rule. The Service also made minor

wording changes to other paragraphs in the special rule to provide more

clarity. These additions and minor modifications do not alter the

predicted impact or effect of the final rule:

1. Paragraph (1) has been amended to clearly indicate that this

release will further the conservation of the California condor.

2. The language describing allowable take has been clarified to

indicate that throughout the entire California condor experimental

population area, you will not be in violation of the Act if you

unavoidably and unintentionally take (including killing or injuring) a

California condor, provided such take is non-negligent and incidental

to a lawful activity, such as hunting, driving, or recreational

activities, and you report the take as soon as possible.

3. According to paragraph 10 in the special rule, the status of the

reintroduction project will receive an informal evaluation on an annual

basis and a formal evaluation within the first 5 years after the

initial release, and every 5 years thereafter. The evaluation will

include, but not be limited to, a review of management issues,

compliance with agreements, assessment of available carrion, dependence

of older condors on supplemental food sources, post release behavior,

causes and rates of mortality, alternative release sites, project

costs, and public acceptance. Paragraph 10 in the special rule also

includes conditions under which the Service would consider termination

of the project. If after 5 years the project is experiencing a 40

percent or greater mortality rate or released condors are not finding

food on their own, serious considerations will be given to terminating

the project.

4. According to special rule paragraph 11, the Service does not

intend to pursue a change in the nonessential experimental population

designation to experimental essential, threatened, or endangered, or to

modify the experimental population area boundaries without consulting

with and obtaining the full cooperation of (1) affected parties located

within the experimental population area, (2) the reintroduction program

cooperators identified in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for

this program, and (3) the cooperators identified in the Agreement for

this program. The Service does not intend to change the status of this

nonessential population until the California condor is recovered and

delisted in accordance with the Act or if this reintroduction is not

successful and the rule is revoked. No designation of critical habitat

will be made for nonessential populations (16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii)). If legal actions or other circumstances compel

a change in this nonessential experimental population's legal status to

essential, threatened, or endangered, or compel the Service to

designate critical habitat for the California condors within the

experimental population area defined in this rule, then, unless the

parties to the MOU and Agreement existing at that time agree that the

birds should remain in the wild, all California condors will be removed

from such area and this experimental population rule will be revoked.

Changes in the legal status and/or removal of this population of

California condors will be made in compliance with any applicable

Federal rulemaking and other procedures.

To date, the Service has conducted a minimum of 59 meetings, which

included 2 public hearings, published 42 legal notices in newspapers in

Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, and

[[Page 54052]]

developed a mailing list approaching 400 in an attempt to inform all

interested parties and address their concerns. A total of 206 written

and 33 oral comments were received during the comment period. Analysis

of the comments revealed 19 issues that are identified and discussed

below.

Issue 1: The goal of this reintroduction project needs to be

clearly stated. Is it to establish a self-sustaining or artificially

maintained population?

Service Response: The goal of this reintroduction project is to

establish a self-sustaining population of 150 individuals, with at

least 15 breeding pairs. In order to accomplish this goal it will be

necessary to provide supplemental food as long as young inexperienced

condors are being released to the wild. In order for these condors to

survive the transition from captivity to the wild they must be provided

food until they learn to locate carcasses on their own. For condors

this ability develops over an extended period of time; first they must

build strength to sustain long foraging flights, then they must learn

how to utilize local wind patterns, and finally become familiar with

their new environment. This phase is prolonged because there are no

adults to guide them through these steps. Over time these condors will

attain the knowledge and skill to find carcasses on their own and will

become independent of the supplemental food.

Supplemental feeding is an integral component of proven avian

release strategies. The successful recovery of the American peregrine

falcon (peregrine) was due in part to the reintroduction programs that

released young captive-reared peregrines into unoccupied habitats

throughout most of its range in North America. When this release

program began in 1974 they provided food to young captive-reared

peregrines released to the wild. Today, 22 years later, food is still

being provided to newly released captive-reared peregrines making the

transition to the wild. The peregrine wild population is approaching

1,300 pairs. The Service published a notice of intent to propose the

peregrine for delisting on June 30, 1995 (60 FR 34406).

Issue 2: The large number of road kills in Utah could result in

condor mortalities, particularly along Highway 89 between Kanab and Big

Water, which bisects a major migration route for the Paunsaugunt mule

deer herd. Large numbers of deer are killed along this highway every

year that could attract condors which could be injured or killed by

highway traffic.

Service Response: California condors have never been observed to

come down to a highway to feed on road killed carrion (Jan Hamber,

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, pers. comm. 1996). To ensure

that condors released at the Vermilion Cliffs are not attracted to any

road kill, the operational plan for this release requires that Highway

89 and others in the area be monitored on a regular basis for road

kills, particularly during the spring and fall mule deer migrations

when the number of road kills is highest.

All road kills will either be collected and stored in large

freezers as a source of future food for condors or moved well off the

highway so condors and other scavenging species can feed safely.

Issue 3: Will the power lines located in the release area threaten

this population?

Service Response: Early in 1995, a program to teach condors to

avoid power poles/lines was developed and initiated at the Los Angeles

Zoo. Power pole aversion training was accomplished by constructing an

electrified mock power pole in the large flight pen holding young

condors scheduled for release to the wild. This pole was designed to

give the condors that landed on it a mild but uncomfortable shock.

Natural tree snags were also placed in the flight pen to reward the

condors who perched on them with a positive experience, no shock. In

less than 2 weeks the condors being trained attempted to land on the

pole and received a mild shock. It only took one such experience to

teach the condors to avoid the pole.

The group of condors that underwent the power pole aversion

training have been in the wild for over 1 year and have not been

observed landing on power poles. Although only one power pole

configuration was used, this group of condors has avoided all types of

power poles. In order to ensure the success of this training method,

mock electrified power poles will be erected near the release site,

these poles will mimic the configurations in the area. This was done in

southern California as a means of continuing the training in the field;

however, this group of condors has yet to attempt to land on them.

Issue 4: Reintroduction projects can be very expensive, how much is

this costing the taxpayer?

Service Response: The Service and its cooperators have entered into

a partnership with The Peregrine Fund (Fund), a nonprofit conservation

organization devoted to the conservation and study of raptors and other

birds. The Service approached the Fund to participate in this

reintroduction project because of their extensive experience and

success in the captive breeding and releasing of endangered bird

species throughout the world. The Fund will be managing the

reintroduction project in the field under the direction of the Service

and its cooperators. The Fund will also be raising the money to finance

the reintroduction project at the Vermilion Cliffs. This extremely

important recovery objective will take the condor a significant step

closer to recovery, creates little if any landowner burden, and is

undertaken with a partner so little cost is borne by the Service.

Issue 5: How will the operation of the California condor

reintroduction project at the Vermilion Cliffs affect hunting in the

area?

Service Response: Mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, bison, pronghorn

antelope, coyotes, rabbits, and game birds are hunted in the area. The

field operation of the reintroduction project will have no impact on

these hunts. With the exception of a small [4 hectares (10 acres)]

temporary closure at the release site while the condors are being held

for release, no restrictions are being placed on public hunting

opportunities or any other outdoor recreational activities. The issue

of condor deaths attributed to lead poisoning resulting from hunting is

addressed under Issue 11.

Issue 6: California condors should not be released in northern

Arizona because Gymnogyps californianus did not occur in northern

Arizona prehistorically, the Pleistocene condor was actually G. amplus.

Service Response: The California Condor was more widespread during

the late Pleistocene epoch (Wetmore 1931a, 1931b, Brodkorb 1964,

Lundelius et al. 1983, Steadman and Miller 1987). In the southwestern

United States, condor fossils have been reported from at least 14 caves

in the northern Arizona region (deSaussure 1956, Miller 1960, Parmalee

1969, Mead and Phillips 1981, Rea and Hargrave 1984, Emslie 1987,

1988), Nevada (Miller 1931, Howard 1952), New Mexico (Wetmore 1931a,

1932, Howard and Miller 1933, Howard 1962a, 1971, Emslie 1987), and

Texas (Wetmore and Friedmann 1933, Emslie 1987). The Arizona specimens

are between 9,580-22,110 years before present, based on radiocarbon

dating (Emslie 1987, 1990). The disappearance of the condor and other

large scavenging birds from these regions coincided with the extinction

of the Pleistocene mammalian megafauna, an event that may have been

related to climatic changes (Mehringer 1967), to the effects of over

hunting by aboriginal man

[[Page 54053]]

(Martin 1967), or to a combination of these factors.

Most authors have arbitrarily assigned all Pleistocene Gymnogyps

fossils to the form G. amplus, described from a large tarsometatarsus

found in Pleistocene deposits in a northern California cave (Miller

1911), on the recommendation of Fisher (1944, 1947). However, aside

from their generally larger size and slight differences in skull

structure (Fisher op cit., cf Emslie 1988), there appear to be no

features that distinguish Pleistocene Gymnogyps fossils from the bones

of modern condors. Furthermore, certain Pleistocene condor bones,

including some from Arizona, have been as small as those of present day

condors (Miller 1957, Parmalee 1969, Rea and Hargrave 1984).

All avian paleontologists, including Miller (1957) (the original

describer of G. amplus), Howard (1947, 1962b), Wetmore (1956, 1959),

Brodkorb (1964) and Emslie (1987), who have considered the matter have

remarked that ``amplus'' is merely a temporal subspecies of present day

G. californianus and thus its progenitor. As a means of resolving

nomenclatural ambiguity and to reflect the presumed relationships among

condors old and new, Emslie (1988) recommended that the Pleistocene

Gymnogyps fossils and present day California condors all be treated as

representatives of the species G. californianus, restricting the

trinomial G. californianus amplus for Pleistocene fossils and the name

G.c. californianus for the modern birds.

Issue 7: The proposed reintroduction location is not within the

probable historic range of the California condor.

Service Response: Although earlier authors, including Swarth

(1914), Harris (1941), Koford (1953), and Wilbur (1978), did not accept

historical records of California condors east of California, or

regarded such reports as equivocal, several recent authorities have

treated these records as authentic (Phillips et al. 1964, Rea 1981,

Emslie 1986, 1987, Snyder and Snyder in press). Historical sightings of

condors in Arizona mentioned by these authors include those of Coues

(1866), F. Stephens (in Brewster 1882), Rhoads (1892), Brown (1899),

Jacot (ms), and Mearns (ms). A purported sighting of a condor in Utah

(Henshaw 1875) and other Utah reports (Hayward et al. 1976) seem to be

less convincing.

The California condor survived the late Pleistocene extinction by

retreating to the coastal mountain ranges of the Pacific Ocean. There

it was able to survive by supplementing its diet with fish and marine

mammal carcasses that washed onto the beaches (Emslie 1986). Emslie

(1986, 1987) and Snyder and Snyder (in press) suggest that the

California condor moved back into Arizona as early as the 1700's in

response to the introduction of large herds of cattle, horses, and

sheep, which would explain sightings recorded in the 1800's. Emslie

(1986, 1987) and Snyder and Snyder (in press) also suggest that the

species was eliminated by shooting and other forms of human persecution

before it could become reestablished throughout the region.

Issue 8: Some expressed concern about the effect the status of

California condors could have on the National Recreation Areas located

within the experimental population area and how the threatened status

of these birds might affect ongoing activities at the National

Recreation Areas such as mining, hunting, and grazing, that are of

special interest to surrounding communities. A similar concern was

expressed with respect to the air tour industry in Grand Canyon

National Park and whether future restrictions on this activity could

occur.

Service Response: Glen Canyon and Lake Mead National Recreation

Areas and Grand Canyon National Park are located within the

experimental population area; these areas are administered by the

Secretary of the Interior, and are included in the National Park System

(see 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1c(a)), and are subject to the 1916 Organic Act and

other laws applicable to National Parks and Monuments.

Condors located in National Recreation Areas and National Parks

within the experimental population area would be treated as a

threatened species for purposes of Section 7 consultation. Although

enabling legislation for each recreation area authorizes activities

unique to the area, they are still managed as units of the National

Park System.

The Service does not foresee that activities in the California

condor experimental population area, including activities in the

National Recreation Areas, would jeopardize the continued existence of

the California condor. Additionally, the Service does not foresee that

any ongoing or future land, water, or air will be restricted due to

this reintroduction project. That is demonstrated by: (1) Condors

utilize remote, canyon habitat; (2) the Service has never determined

that an activity may cause jeopardy of the condor during the time (29

years) that condors have been listed and fully protected in California;

(3) the size of the California condor population is expected to

increase in the future; (4) existing land management is compatible with

condors; and (5) the management strategies identified in the

experimental population rule virtually eliminate the possibility of

impacts to condors or existing and future activities in the

experimental population area.

A significant portion of the California condor experimental

population area includes remote wild canyon back country habitat that

will provide this population with a natural refugium in which to raise

young and will minimize the opportunity for condor conflicts with any

ongoing or proposed activities. Also, the condor's requirement for

remote inaccessible cliff nesting habitat, wide-ranging foraging

patterns, and carrion prey base make them less susceptible to impacts

from most human related activities. Consequently, condors released into

the experimental population area should be able to co-exist with the

current and anticipated land, water, or air uses in the area in a

compatible manner without conflict.

Since the California condor was listed as endangered in 1967, the

Service has never rendered a jeopardy determination on the wild fully

protected condor population in southern California, clearly

demonstrating the benign nature of this species and the likelihood that

a jeopardy opinion would ever be rendered on this experimental

population.

For the purposes of section 7(a)(2), the Service would consider the

effects a proposed project would have on the entire species. Thus, in

analyses under section 7(a)(2), the Service would evaluate the effects

a project located on a National Recreation Area against the entire

condor population, and not solely against the nonessential experimental

population.

As part of the management strategy for this population the Service

will relocate any condor within the experimental population area,

including the National Park System, to avoid conflicts with ongoing or

proposed activities, or when relocation is requested by an adversely

affected landowner (see special rule 4(ii)). This provision of the

Service's management strategy virtually eliminates any possibility of

conflict by allowing the Service or permitted cooperator to remove a

condor in order to resolve potential conflict. It is evident that the

Service and its Cooperators are committed to do all they can to resolve

any problems in an expedient manner in order to avoid conflicts between

condors and any current or proposed activities.

Formal consultation with the Service may be required for activities

such as

[[Page 54054]]

mining, hunting, and grazing in these National Recreation Areas.

However, as explained above, based on the best available information at

the time of this rulemaking, the Service does not foresee that any of

these ongoing (or currently proposed) activities is likely to cause

jeopardy to the condor.

Issue 9: Air Tour Operators in the Grand Canyon National Park

(Park) do not believe that condors should be introduced into northern

Arizona unless it can be demonstrated that there is an acceptably low

impact to air safety.

Service Response: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Information Management Section's National Data Base has been collecting

voluntary reports on aircraft bird strikes nationwide since 1973 (23

yrs). To date, no bird strikes have been reported within the Grand

Canyon National Park (Park) boundary. An estimate of the current number

of scenic overflights in the Park is approximately 80,000 annually, an

average of 219 flights per day, with the number of flights per day

increasing dramatically during the peak summer months. According to the

FAA's data base only 11 bird strikes were recorded for the entire State

of Arizona during this 23-year period and none resulted in a plane

crash or injuries to pilots or passengers. Interviews with pilots

operating in the Park indicate that bird strikes have occurred, but

were not considered significant enough to report to the FAA.

Dolbeer, Wright, and Cleary (1995) summarized all wildlife strike

incidents reported to the FAA in 1994 and, of the 2,220 strike reports

analyzed, 2,150 (97 percent) involved birds. Most bird strikes occurred

during the approach/landing (54 percent) and take-off (34 percent)

phases of flight (Dolbeer, Wright, and Cleary 1995). This would put

most bird strikes in close vicinity to airports and at very low

elevations. Condors are not expected to utilize this airspace. In the

unlikely event that a condor would fly or perch within the operating

space of an airport, it would be captured and moved for its safety and

the safety of those utilizing the airport.

California condors soaring in the Grand Canyon will be utilizing

the updrafts and deflected winds generated by large cliff walls. Their

flights along these walls will be to forage, to fly to and from nests,

or down to water, all of which will take place well below the Grand

Canyon rim. The advantage of this air lift is lost above the Grand

Canyon rim, therefore, condors should be expected to soar at or below

the rim when in the Grand Canyon, well below the air traffic. Some

comparisons have been made between eagles and condors relative to the

potential for collisions with planes. Eagles are aggressive, fast, and

able to change directions instantaneously. Also, they are not dependent

on winds, like condors to gain elevation. They would be more likely to

utilize the airspace above the Grand Canyon and pose a threat to air

traffic and yet, there has never been a substantiated aircraft eagle

strike to date. Condors on the other hand, are dependent on winds

generated by the topography of the Grand Canyon, their soaring flights

are slow, deliberate, and predictable. Pilots flying at or below 200

miles per hour (mph) should be able to see and avoid bird strikes. The

commercial air carriers operating in the Grand Canyon fly at speeds of

approximately 120 to 150 mph (Mike Ebersole, Grand Canyon National

Park, pers. comm. 1996).

Wilbur (1978) investigated over 300 California condor mortalities

recorded between 1806 and 1976, and none involved a collision with an

aircraft. There is no known record of an aircraft-condor strike or near

miss (Jan Hamber, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, pers. comm.

1996). The Service is confident that condors and the air tour operators

can co-exist to the mutual benefit of one another and plans to work

closely with air tour operators to ensure the safety of condors and air

tours.

Issue 10: What will the food source for condors be and is it

adequate to support a self-sustaining population of condors?

Service Response: California condors feed on the carcasses of dead

animals, primarily mammals (Wilbur 1978). Koford (1953) listed

observations of California condors feeding on 24 different mammalian

species over the last two centuries. However, ungulates including the

carcasses of domestic livestock are expected to be the primary sources

of food for condors released at the Vermilion Cliffs. The Kaibab

Plateau supports a large population of mule deer and a small population

is resident on the Paria Plateau. Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis

nelsoni) are found on the Paria Plateau, the west side of the Kaibab

Plateau, and the Grand Canyon. House Rock Valley supports a small

population of pronghorn antelope. These ungulates become available to

condors as natural mortalities, hunter kills and road kills. Road kills

removed from Highway 89 could be a significant source of supplemental

food, particularly during the spring and fall deer migration, when as

many as 20 road kills have been recorded in a single night. Mortality

in the bison (Bison bison) herd managed by the Arizona Game and Fish

Department located in House Rock Valley could provide a source of

carcasses for supplemental feeding of young California condors (Vashti

Supplee, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1995). There are

eight Bureau of Land Management and seven Forest Service livestock

grazing allotments on the Paria Plateau, eastern Kaibab Plateau, and

House Rock Valley. In addition to these public allotments there are

private and State-owned inholdings in House Rock Valley and the Paria

Plateau that are being grazed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1995b). Because

of their ability to forage over large areas, it is difficult to predict

exactly what condors will feed on and where, once they start dispersing

from the release site.

As a survival strategy, condors have a very efficient lifestyle.

When they are not looking for carcasses or attending eggs or young,

they spend most of their time perched on a roost. In flight they soar

on thermals and updrafts which requires little energy expenditure, and

they are often airborne all day. Despite their large size, their

efficient flight allows them to cover large areas in search of food

with little physical effort. Having evolved this foraging strategy,

condors can survive in a landscape that does not appear to provide the

density of carrion necessary to sustain such a large bird. In addition,

condors have no known natural predators in the wild and therefore, do

not expend energy avoiding predators.

As the California condor population becomes established in the

experimental area, the Service will be able to better evaluate whether

the area's carrying capacity is less than or greater than the stated

target of 150 condors and 15 breeding pairs.

Issue 11: Lead poisoning could be a problem once young condors

learn to find carrion on their own. How does the Service plan to

address this potential threat to condors?

Service Response: Three California condor deaths have been

attributed to lead poisoning since 1983 (Janssen et al. 1986, Wiemeyer

et al. 1988). Uncovered carcasses and gut piles resulting from ungulate

or small mammal hunting were the probable sources of the lead (Pattee

et al. 1990). Limited hunting takes place on the Paria Plateau, so the

opportunity for condors to encounter unrecovered hunter kills or gut

piles is relatively low. However, the Kaibab Plateau is heavily hunted

and represents a threat to condors once they disperse from the release

site and learn to locate food on their own. This process could take 1

or more years. The Service in cooperation with the Department, Bureau

of Land Management, and the Forest Service,

[[Page 54055]]

plans to utilize this window of time to address the potential threat of

lead poisoning by initiating a hunter education program on the danger

of lead to condors and suggesting ways that hunters can help (e.g.,

bury gut piles), and investigating potential non-toxic sources of

ammunition that could be substituted for lead bullets on a voluntary

basis. The Service does not intend to request modifications or

restrictions to the current hunting regulations anywhere in the

vicinity of the Vermilion Cliffs release site or in the experimental

population area. Issue 5 also addresses the concern on the affects of

this reintroduction on hunting.

Some condor deaths from this and other sources of mortality are to

be expected, but will presumably be more than compensated by natural

and captive reproduction.

Issue 12: There is a concern that the increase in recreational

activity due to bird-watchers and other visitors coming to the

Vermilion Cliffs area to view the condors could result in impacts to

the local environment (e.g., off-road travel, littering, trespass).

Service Response: Highway 89A parallels the Vermilion Cliffs for

approximately 45km (28mi), affording excellent opportunities to view

condors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). The interpretive

centers at the Navajo Bridge and Jacob Lake will be supplied with

information on the natural history and status of the condors. The

Dominguez-Escalante interpretive pullout and the House Rock Overlook

will provide excellent panoramic views of the Vermilion Cliffs (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). With these opportunities available

and the unpaved roads unsuitable for most passenger vehicles, it is

anticipated that virtually all wildlife viewing will be done from the

paved highway.

Issue 13: There is a concern that the use of the ``nonessential

experimental'' designation will not provide adequate protection for

this population.

Service Response: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed by

the Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, State of Utah Department

of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Bureau of Land

Management, Grand Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation

Area, Kaibab National Forest, The Peregrine Fund, Hualapai Tribe, The

Navajo Nation, The Los Angeles Zoo, Zoological Society of San Diego,

and The Phoenix Zoo is in final form. This MOU is designed to achieve

conservation of the California condor through voluntary agreement to

manage this population according to the recovery goals for this species

as cited in the California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1996).

Issue 14: It was suggested that the nonessential population area

(area) be enlarged to include the entire State of Utah. This suggestion

was based on the concerns that the condors could easily travel outside

the designated area and relocating condors would be logistically

difficult and potentially harmful to the birds.

Service Response: Although wide ranging in their foraging patterns,

flights by recently reintroduced condors and movement data collected in

the 1980s by Meretsky and Synder (1992), suggest that the designated

area will adequately contain this population for the life of the

project. Possible stress or injury associated with relocating condors

that have left the area will be avoided. However, inconsistent food

supplies make it impossible to predict with certainty the future

foraging patterns of this population. Should the designated area prove

to be inadequate, the Service has the option to revise this rule to

increase the designated area or change its configuration based on the

movements of the birds.

Issue 15: Several points concerning compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were raised. These were: inadequate

public notice was provided for the proposed project; that an

environmental impact statement, not an environmental assessment, is

necessary due to the large area of the nonessential experimental

designation; and there is a perceived conflict of interest with the

Peregrine Fund who was the contractor that prepared the environmental

assessment.

Service Response: The California condor recovery effort in northern

Arizona/southern Utah represents the culmination of over 6 years of

work with State, Federal, Tribal, and Municipal agencies, and the

general public. The Service has sponsored or participated in public

meetings and provided public comment periods on both the draft EA and

this rulemaking in an attempt to inform all interested parties

throughout the experimental population area of the proposed project.

Refer to the above introductory paragraphs of the ``Summary of Comments

and Recommendations'' section of this rule for a more detailed account

of announcements and legal notices, meetings, and comment periods. The

Service believes that it has fully met the requirements and intent of

NEPA for full public involvement and the disclosure of the effects of

the proposed action.

An environmental impact statement is required for any given project

when that major Federal action may significantly affect the quality of

the human environment. The analysis of effects of the proposed action

on existing land uses and human activities completed as part of the

environmental assessment did not demonstrate any significant impacts to

the natural or physical environment, or the relationship of people with

that environment. The provisions of the nonessential experimental

designation under section 10(j) of the Act are intended to relax

regulations governing the protection of reintroduced populations of

endangered species. This action does not impose land use restriction or

otherwise affect land management activities. Throughout the entire

California condor experimental population area, you will not be in

violation of the Act if you unavoidably and unintentionally take

(including killing or injuring) a California condor, provided such take

is non-negligent and incidental to a lawful activity, such as hunting,

driving, or recreational activities, and you report the take as soon as

possible. Therefore, neither the ``context'' nor ``intensity'' test of

significance of affect of the proposed action under NEPA would trigger

the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

NEPA specifically provides that the lead Federal agency, a project

applicant, or a contractor may prepare the required environmental

documentation. However, regardless of who prepares these documents, it

does not diminish the lead agency's responsibilities to provide

guidance and participate in the preparation of the environmental

assessment, independently evaluate the information included in the

documents, make its own evaluation of the environmental issues, and

take responsibility for the scope and content of the environmental

assessment. The Service reviewed and evaluated information in the EA

while it was being developed and believes the conclusions drawn through

the EA process are appropriate and fully supportable as demonstrated by

adopting the EA, distributing the EA as a Service document and

preparing a Finding of No Significant Impact based upon that EA.

Issue 16: The release of a nonessential experimental population of

California condors was opposed because it was seen by some as

facilitating the designation of the reintroduction area as a wilderness

area.

Service Response: As discussed earlier in this final rule, the

reintroduction area was selected as the

[[Page 54056]]

area for reintroduction because of its remoteness and because it

contained habitat features used by condors. The Service's decision to

issue this final rule to establish a nonessential experimental

population of California condors and to reintroduce condors is not

intended to support or to oppose the designation of any wilderness

areas. Wilderness areas are designated via an Act of Congress after

extensive review by the Federal land manager and other interested

parties.

Issue 17: The Service's definition of take is too broad. The

Service could interpret take incidental to otherwise lawful activities

(e.g., road building or widening, farming, construction projects such

as housing developments) to constitute avoidable take. The terms

``unavoidable'' and ``accidental'' were seen as being too vague, and

impossible for a defendant to prove in court.

Service Response: Take of an endangered or threatened species is

prohibited by the Act, and carries criminal penalties for knowing

violation. In this rule, take is prohibited except where such take is

unavoidable and unintentional (including killing or injuring), provided

such take is non-negligent and incidental to a lawful activity, such as

hunting, driving, or recreational activities and the take is reported

as soon as possible. Thus activities such as shooting, or intentionally

harassing, or attempting to run over a condor with a motor vehicle are

prohibited, and subject to criminal prosecution.

As noted above, the rule also provides that take that is ``non-

negligent and incidental to an otherwise lawful activity'' is not

prohibited. Thus, construction activities, road building or widening,

and farming, if performed in the above described manner, would not

constitute take.

Issue 18: The Service should provide a 100 percent guarantee that

the release of California condors will not in any way restrict the use

of private property, including use of water rights.

Service Response: As discussed under Issue 17 above, otherwise

lawful activities such as farming, ranching, road building, and

construction projects on private land should not be restricted.

Activities such as the intentional killing of condors are prohibited

and subject to criminal prosecution.

Issue 19: The Service should explain whether or not any interaction

is expected between California condors and Mexican spotted owls.

Service Response: The Service does not expect any interaction

between condors and Mexican spotted owls. Condors prefer relatively

open areas, whereas owls prefer denser forests.

National Environmental Policy Act

A final environmental assessment as defined under authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act (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 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 final 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 final 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.). Based on

the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and

private activities within the experimental population area, the rule

will not cause significant economic impacts. 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.

The 30-day delay between publication of a final rule and its

effective date as provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) has been waived. The prompt reintroduction of the

current release candidates is desirable for the following reasons: The

space currently utilized by this year's condor cohort will soon be

needed to house next year's release candidates; and the longer young

condors are held in captivity beyond the optimal release window of 6 to

10 months, the more difficult they are to manage at release time,

increasing the risk to the birds. Therefore, good cause exists for this

rule to be effective immediately upon publication.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Arizona Field Office or Ventura Field Office. (See

ADDRESSES section.)

Author

The primary author of this rule is Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office. (See

ADDRESSES section.)

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

Record Keeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

PART 17--[AMENDED]

Accordingly, the Service hereby amends part 17, subchapter B of

Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth

below:

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. 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

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

Birds

[[Page 54057]]

* * * * * * *

Condor, California............. Gymnogyps U.S.A. (AZ, CA, U.S.A. only, E 1,597 17.95(b) NA

californianus. OR, UT), Mexico except where

(Baja California). listed as an

experimental

population below..

Do........................... ......do.......... ......do.......... U.S.A. (specific XN 597 NA 17.84(j)

portions of

Arizona, Nevada,

and Utah).

* * * * * * *

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

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, and the release of such population will

further the conservation of the species.

(2) You must not take any California condor in the wild in the

experimental population area except as provided by this rule:

(i) Throughout the entire California condor experimental population

area, you will not be in violation of the Endangered Species Act (Act)

if you unavoidably and unintentionally take (including killing or

injuring) a California condor, provided such take is non-negligent and

incidental to a lawful activity, such as hunting, driving, or

recreational activities, and you report the take as soon as possible as

provided under paragraph 5 below.

(3) If you have a valid permit issued by the Service under

Sec. 17.32, you may take California condors in the wild in the

experimental population area, pursuant to the terms of the permit.

(4) Any employee or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Service

(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 to address conflicts

with ongoing or proposed activities, or with private landowners, when

removal is necessary to protect the condor, or is requested by an

adversely affected landowner or land manager, or other adversely

affected party. Adverse effects and requests for condor relocation will

be documented, reported and resolved in as an expedient manner as

appropriate to the specific situation to protect condors and avoid

conflicts. Prior to any efforts to relocate condors, the Service will

obtain permission from the appropriate landowner(s);

(iii) To relocate California condors that have moved outside the

experimental population area, by returning the condor to the

experimental population area or moving it to a captive breeding

facility. All captures and relocations from outside the experimental

population area will be coordinated with Service Cooperators, and

conducted with the permission of the landowner(s) or appropriate land

management agency(s).

(iv) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned California condor;

(v) To salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific

study; or

(vi) To dispose of a dead specimen.

(5) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs (j)(2), (j)(4)(iv),

(j)(4)(v), and (j)(4)(vi), of this section must be reported as soon as

possible to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Arizona Field 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) You must not 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 or Tribal laws

or regulations or the Act.

(7) It is unlawful for you 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) 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

and Utah, 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)).

(i) All California condors released into the experimental

population area, and their offspring, are to be marked and visually

identifiable by colored and coded patagial wing markers.

(ii) The Service has designated the experimental population area to

accommodate the potential future movements of a wild population of

condors. All released condors and their progeny are expected to remain

in the experimental area due to the geographic extent of the

designation.

(9) The nonessential experimental population area includes the

entire highway rights-of-way of the highways in paragraph (j)(8) of

this section that constitute the perimeter boundary. All California

condors found in the wild within these boundaries will comprise the

experimental population.

(i) The experimental population is to be monitored during the

reintroduction project. All California condors are to be given physical

examinations before being released.

(ii) If there is any evidence that the condor is in poor health or

diseased, it will not be released to the wild.

(iii) 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

are to be re-released into the reintroduction area as soon as possible,

unless physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to keep

[[Page 54058]]

them in captivity for an extended period of time, or permanently.

(10) The status of the reintroduction project is to receive an

informal review on an annual basis and a formal evaluation within the

first 5 years after the initial release, and every 5 years thereafter.

This evaluation will include, but not be limited to: a review of

management issues; compliance with agreements; assessment of available

carrion; dependence of older condors on supplemental food sources; post

release behavior; causes and rates of mortality; alternative release

sites; project costs; public acceptance; and accomplishment of recovery

tasks prescribed in California Condor Recovery Plan. The number of

variables that could affect this reintroduction project make it

difficult to develop criteria for success or failure after 5 years.

However, if after 5 years the project is experiencing a 40 percent or

greater mortality rate or released condors are not finding food on

their own, serious consideration will be given to terminating the

project.

(11) The Service does not intend to pursue a change in the

nonessential experimental population designation to experimental

essential, threatened, or endangered, or modify the experimental

population area boundaries without consulting with and obtaining the

full cooperation of affected parties located within the experimental

population area, the reintroduction program cooperators identified in

the memorandum of understanding (MOU) for this program, and the

cooperators identified in the agreement for this program.

(i) The Service does not intend to change the status of this

nonessential population until the California condor is recovered and

delisted in accordance with the Act or if the reintroduction is not

successful and the rule is revoked. No designation of critical habitat

will be made for nonessential populations (16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).

(ii) Legal actions or other circumstances may compel a change in

this nonessential experimental population's legal status to essential,

threatened, or endangered, or compel the Service to designate critical

habitat for the California condors within the experimental population

area defined in this rule. If this happens, all California condors will

be removed from the area and this experimental population rule will be

revoked, unless the parties to the MOU and agreement existing at that

time agree that the birds should remain in the wild. Changes in the

legal status and/or removal of this population of California condors

will be made in compliance with any applicable Federal rulemaking and

other procedures.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 54059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16OC96.000

[[Page 54060]]

Dated: October 8, 1996.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 96-26535 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C