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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD62

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed

Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California

Condors in Northern Arizona

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the

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

Management, proposes to reintroduce California condors (Gymnogyps

californianus) into northern Arizona. This reintroduction will achieve

a primary recovery goal for this endangered species, establishment of a

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

population in southern California. This population is proposed to be

designated a nonessential experimental population in accordance with

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

Captive-reared condors will be released in early 1996 (target date) and

additional releases will occur annually thereafter until a self-

sustaining wild population is established. The reintroduction will use

tested release techniques developed in previous releases in southern

California and will be managed in accordance with the provisions of

this special rule. The potential impacts associated with this proposed

rule were assessed in an Environmental Assessment completed in November

1995. This California condor reintroduction does not conflict with

existing or anticipated Federal or State agency actions or traditional

land uses on public or private lands.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by

February 1, 1996. Public hearings will be held at Flagstaff High School

on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm and Kanab High

School on Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm.

does not conflict with

existing or anticipated Federal or State agency actions or traditional

land uses on public or private lands.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by

February 1, 1996. Public hearings will be held at Flagstaff High School

on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm and Kanab High

School on Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological

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

Phoenix, Arizona. Comments and materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the

above address. The public hearings will be held at the Main Auditorium,

Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm Street, Flagstaff, Arizona and

Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East Red Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office, 2493 Portola Road,

Suite B, Ventura, California, 93003 (Telephone: 805/644-1766;

Facsimile: 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative. Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(Act) enables the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to designate

certain populations of federally listed species that are released into

the wild as ``experimental.'' The circumstances under which this

designation can be applied are--(1) The population is geographically

disjunct from nonexperimental populations of the same species (e.g.,

the population is reintroduced outside the species' current range but

within its historical range); and (2) the Service determines the

release will further the conservation of the species

nto

the wild as ``experimental.'' The circumstances under which this

designation can be applied are--(1) The population is geographically

disjunct from nonexperimental populations of the same species (e.g.,

the population is reintroduced outside the species' current range but

within its historical range); and (2) the Service determines the

release will further the conservation of the species. This designation

can increase the Service's flexibility to manage a reintroduced

population, because under section 10(j) an experimental population is

treated as a threatened species regardless of its designation elsewhere

in its range and, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has

greater discretion in developing management programs for threatened

species than it has for endangered species.

Section 10(j) of the Act requires that when an experimental

population is designated, a determination be made by the Service

whether that population is either ``essential'' or ``nonessential'' to

the continued existence of the species, based on the best available

information. Nonessential experimental populations located outside

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) or National Park Service (NPS) lands are

treated, for the purposes of section 7 of the Act, as if they are

proposed for listing. Thus, only two provisions of section 7 would

apply outside NWR and NPS lands--section 7(a)(1), which requires all

Federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve listed species,

and section 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to informally

confer with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act,

which requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

deral 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 NWR and NPS lands.

Experimental populations determined to be ``essential'' to the survival

of the species would remain subject to the consultation provisions of

section 7 of the Act. Activities undertaken on private lands are not

affected by section 7 of the Act unless the activities are authorized,

funded or carried out by a Federal agency.

Individual animals that comprise a designated experimental

population may be removed from an existing source or donor population

only after it has been determined that such a removal is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of the species; the removal must be

conducted under a permit issued in accordance with the requirements of

50 CFR 17.22.

2. Biological. The California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) was

listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, (32 FR 4001) in a final rule

published by the Service. The Service designated critical habitat for

the California condor on September 24, 1976, (41 FR 41914). Long

recognized as a vanishing species (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur

1978), the California condor remains one of the world's rarest and most

imperiled vertebrate species.

California condors are among the largest flying birds in the world

(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Adults weigh approximately 10

kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) and have a wing span up to 2.9 meters

R 41914). Long

recognized as a vanishing species (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur

1978), the California condor remains one of the world's rarest and most

imperiled vertebrate species.

California condors are among the largest flying birds in the world

(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Adults weigh approximately 10

kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) and have a wing span up to 2.9 meters

(m) (9 1/2 feet (ft)). Adults are black except for prominent white

underwing linings and edges of the upper secondary coverts. The head

and neck are mostly naked, and the bare skin is gray, grading into

various shades of yellow, red, and orange. Males and females cannot be

distinguished by size or plumage characteristics. The heads of

juveniles up to 3 years old are grayish-black, and their wing linings

are variously mottled or completely dark. During the third year the

head develops yellow coloration, and the wing linings become gradually

whiter (N.J. Schmitt in litt. 1995). By the time individuals are 5 or 6

years of age, they are essentially indistinguishable from adults

(Koford 1953, Wilbur 1975, Snyder et al. 1987), but full development of

the adult wing patterns may not be completed until 7 or 8 years of age

(N.J. Schmitt in litt. 1995).

The California condor is a member of the family Cathartidae or New

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

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

(Cathartes aura). Although the family has traditionally been placed in

the Order Falconiformes, some contemporary taxonomists believe that New

World vultures are more closely related to storks (Ligon 1967, Rea

1983, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990).

The fossil record of the genus Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000

years to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch (Brodkorb 1964)

nd the sympatric turkey vulture

(Cathartes aura). Although the family has traditionally been placed in

the Order Falconiformes, some contemporary taxonomists believe that New

World vultures are more closely related to storks (Ligon 1967, Rea

1983, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990).

The fossil record of the genus Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000

years to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch (Brodkorb 1964). Fossil records

also reveal that the species once ranged over much of the southern

United States, south to Nuevo Leon, Mexico and east to Florida

(Brodkorb 1964), and two well preserved fossil bones were reported from

a site in upstate New York (Steadman and Miller 1987). There is

evidence indicating that California condors nested in west Texas,

Arizona, and New Mexico during the late Pleistocene. The disappearance

of the California condor from much of this range occurred about 10,000-

11,000 years ago, coinciding with the late Pleistocene extinction of

the North American megafauna (Emslie 1987).

By the time European man arrived in western North America,

California condors occurred only in a narrow Pacific coastal strip from

British Columbia, Canada, to Baja California Norte, Mexico (Koford

1953, Wilbur 1978). California condors were observed until the mid-

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

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

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

1980). Prior to 1987, California condors used a wishbone-shaped area

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

Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Kern, just north of Los Angeles, California

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Courtship and nest site selection occurs from December through the

spring. Breeding California condors normally lay a single egg between

late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and

hatches after approximately 56 days

os Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San

Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Kern, just north of Los Angeles, California

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Courtship and nest site selection occurs from December through the

spring. Breeding California condors normally lay a single egg between

late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and

hatches after approximately 56 days. Both parents share

responsibilities for feeding the nestling. Feeding usually occurs daily

for the first two months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. At

two to three months of age, condor chicks leave the nest cavity but

remain in the vicinity of the nest where they are fed by their parents.

The chick takes its first flight at about six to seven months of age,

but may not become fully independent of its parents until the following

year. Parent birds occasionally continue to feed a fledgling even after

it has begun to make longer flights to foraging grounds (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995a).

Because of the long period of parental care, it was formerly

assumed that successful California condor pairs normally nested

successfully every other year (Koford 1953). However, this pattern

seems to vary, possibly depending mostly on the time of year that the

nestling fledges. If a nestling fledges relatively early (in late

summer or early fall), its parents may nest again in the following

year, but late fledging probably inhibits nesting in the following year

(Snyder and Snyder 1989).

The only wild California condor (a male) of known age bred

successfully in the wild in 1986 at the age of six years. Recent data

collected from captive birds, however, demonstrates that reproduction

may occur, or at least be attempted, at earlier ages. A four-year old

male was the youngest condor observed in courtship display, and the

same bird subsequently bred successfully at the age of five years (M.

Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1993)

bred

successfully in the wild in 1986 at the age of six years. Recent data

collected from captive birds, however, demonstrates that reproduction

may occur, or at least be attempted, at earlier ages. A four-year old

male was the youngest condor observed in courtship display, and the

same bird subsequently bred successfully at the age of five years (M.

Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1993).

California condors nest in various types of rock formations

including crevices, overhung ledges, potholes, and more rarely, in

cavities of giant sequoia trees (Sequoia giganteus) (Snyder et al.

1986).

California condors are opportunistic scavengers, feeding only on

carcasses. Typical foraging behavior includes long-distance

reconnaissance flights, lengthy circling flights over a carcass, and

hours of waiting at a roost or on the ground near a carcass (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995a). Condors may feed immediately, or wait

passively as other California condors or golden eagles (Aquila

chrysaetos) feed on the carcass (Wilbur 1978). Most California condor

foraging occurs in open terrain. This ensures easy take-off and

approach and makes food finding easier. Carcasses under brush are hard

to see, and California condors apparently do not locate food by

olfactory cues (Stager 1964). Condors maintain wide-ranging foraging

patterns throughout the year, an important adaptation for a species

that may be subjected to unpredictable food supplies (Meretsky and

Snyder 1992).

Prior to the arrival of European man, California condor food items

within interior California probably included mule deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), tule elk (Cervus nannodes), pronghorn (Antilocapra

americana), and smaller mammals. Along the Pacific shore the diet may

have included whales, sea lions, and other marine species (Emslie 1987,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Koford (1953) listed observations

of California condors feeding on 24 different mammalian species within

the

ia probably included mule deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), tule elk (Cervus nannodes), pronghorn (Antilocapra

americana), and smaller mammals. Along the Pacific shore the diet may

have included whales, sea lions, and other marine species (Emslie 1987,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Koford (1953) listed observations

of California condors feeding on 24 different mammalian species within

the

last two centuries. He estimated that 95 percent of the diet consisted

of the carcasses of cattle, domestic sheep, ground squirrels

(Spermophilus beechyi), mule deer, and horses. Although cattle may be

the most available food within the range of the condor, deer appear to

be preferred (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1972, Meretsky and Snyder 1992).

California condors appear to feed only one to three days per week, but

the frequency of adult feeding is variable and may show seasonal

differences (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Depending upon weather conditions and the hunger of the bird, a

California condor may spend most of its time perched at a roost.

California condors often use traditional roosting sites near important

foraging grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Although

California condors usually remain at roosts until mid-morning, and

generally return in mid- to late afternoon, it is not unusual for a

bird to stay perched throughout the day. While at a roost, condors

devote considerable time to preening and other maintenance activities.

Roosts may also serve some social function, as it is common for two or

more condors to roost together and to leave a roost together (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1984). Cliffs and tall conifers, including dead

snags, are generally used as roost sites in nesting areas. Although

most roost sites are near nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost

sites are located throughout the range

ities.

Roosts may also serve some social function, as it is common for two or

more condors to roost together and to leave a roost together (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1984). Cliffs and tall conifers, including dead

snags, are generally used as roost sites in nesting areas. Although

most roost sites are near nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost

sites are located throughout the range. There may be adaptive as well

as traditional reasons for California condors to continue to occupy a

number of widely separated roosts, such as reducing food competition

between breeding and non-breeding birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1984).

Condor censusing efforts through the years have varied in intensity

and accuracy. This has led to conflicting estimates of historical

abundance, but all have indicated an ever-declining California condor

population. Koford (1953) estimated a population of about 60

individuals in the late 1930s through the mid-1940s, apparently based

on flock size. A field study by Eben and Ian McMillan in the early

1960s suggested a population of about 40 individuals, again based in

part on the validity of Koford's estimates of flock size (Miller et al.

1965). An annual October California condor survey was begun in 1965

(Mallette and Borneman 1966) and continued for 16 years. Its results

supported an estimate of 50 to 60 California condors in the late 1960s

(Sibley 1969, Mallette 1970). Wilbur (1980) continued the survey

efforts into the 1970s and concurred with the interpretations of the

earlier October surveys. He further estimated that by 1978 the

population had dropped to 25 to 30 individuals.

In 1981, the Service, in cooperation with California Polytechnic

State University at San Luis Obispo, began census efforts based on

individual identifications of birds through flight photography (Snyder

and Johnson 1985)

s into the 1970s and concurred with the interpretations of the

earlier October surveys. He further estimated that by 1978 the

population had dropped to 25 to 30 individuals.

In 1981, the Service, in cooperation with California Polytechnic

State University at San Luis Obispo, began census efforts based on

individual identifications of birds through flight photography (Snyder

and Johnson 1985). Minimum summer counts from these photo-censusing

efforts showed a steady decline from an estimated minimum of 21 wild

condors in 1982, 19 individuals in 1983, 15 individuals in 1984, and 9

individuals in 1985. Although the overall condor population increased

slightly after 1982 as a result of double clutching, the wild

population continued to decline. By the end of 1986, all but two

California condors were captured for safe keeping and genetic security

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

On April 19, 1987, the last wild condor was captured and taken to

the San Diego Wild Animal Park (SDWAP). Beginning with the first

successful captive breeding of California condors in 1988, the total

population has increased annually and now stands at 103 individuals,

including 90 in the captive flock and 13 in the wild (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995a).

Causes of the California condor population decline have probably

been numerous and variable through time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1984). However, despite decades of research, it is not known with

certainty which mortality factors have been dominant in the overall

decline of the species. Relatively few dead condors have been found,

and definitive conclusions on the causes of death were made in only a

small portion of these cases (Miller et al. 1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder

and Snyder 1989). Poisoning, shooting, egg and specimen collecting,

collisions with man-made structures, and loss of habitat have

contributed to the decline of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1984).

3. Recovery Efforts

ndors have been found,

and definitive conclusions on the causes of death were made in only a

small portion of these cases (Miller et al. 1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder

and Snyder 1989). Poisoning, shooting, egg and specimen collecting,

collisions with man-made structures, and loss of habitat have

contributed to the decline of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1984).

3. Recovery Efforts. The primary recovery objective as stated in

the California Condor Recovery Plan (Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a), is to reclassify the condor to threatened status. The

minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance

of at least two non-captive populations and one captive population.

These populations must (1) each number at least 150 individuals, (2)

each contain at least 15 breeding pairs and (3) be reproductively self-

sustaining and have a positive rate of population growth. The non-

captive populations also must (4) be spatially disjunct and non-

interacting, and (5) contain individuals descended from each of the 14

founders. When these five conditions are met, the species should be

reclassified to threatened status.

The recovery strategy to meet this goal is focused on increasing

reproduction in captivity to provide condors for release, and the

release of condors to the wild. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

a. Captive Breeding. The years 1983 and 1984 were critical in

formation of the captive California condor flock at the SDWAP and Los

Angeles Zoo (LAZ). In 1983, two chicks and four eggs were brought in

from the wild. The chicks went to the LAZ, and the eggs were hatched

successfully at the San Diego Zoo (SDZ). Three of the chicks were taken

to the SDWAP and one to the LAZ to be reared. In 1984, one chick and

eight eggs were taken from the wild. The chick went to the LAZ and six

of the eight eggs were successfully hatched at SDZ. Five of the chicks

went to the LAZ and one went to the SDWAP to be reared

ld. The chicks went to the LAZ, and the eggs were hatched

successfully at the San Diego Zoo (SDZ). Three of the chicks were taken

to the SDWAP and one to the LAZ to be reared. In 1984, one chick and

eight eggs were taken from the wild. The chick went to the LAZ and six

of the eight eggs were successfully hatched at SDZ. Five of the chicks

went to the LAZ and one went to the SDWAP to be reared. In 1985, two

eggs were taken from the wild and hatched successfully, one at the SDZ

and the other at the SDWAP. Both of these chicks were taken to the LAZ

to be reared. In 1986, the last egg was brought in from the wild and

hatched at the SDWAP, where it was kept for rearing. By 1986, only one

pair of condors existed in the wild and the last free-flying condor was

captured on April 19, 1987, bringing the captive population to 27. The

first successful breeding in captivity occurred in 1988, when a chick

was produced at the SDWAP by a pair of wild-caught condors. Four more

chicks were produced in 1989. The number of chicks produced by captive

condors continues to increase annually and the captive population has

grown from the original 27 in 1987 to 90 in 1995, with 13 additional

captive-reared condors that are now in the wild. In 1993, the captive

breeding program was expanded to include a facility at The Peregrine

Funds World Center for Birds of Prey (WCBP) in Boise, Idaho (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995a).

b. Releases. In October 1986, the California Condor Recovery Team

(Team) recommended that criteria be satisfied before a release of

captive-bred California condors could take place. These included having

three actively breeding pairs of condors, three chicks behaviorally

suitable for release, and retaining at least five offspring from each

breeding pair contributing to the release. The Team added a provision

to the third criterion to retain a minimum of seven progeny in

captivity for founders that were not reproductively

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 1995a).

The 1991 breeding season produced two condor chicks that met the

Team's criteria for release, a male from the SDWAP and a female from

the LAZ. However, attempting to apply the Team's third criterion to the

1991 chicks also revealed that it would not be practical in the future,

because several founders had died without producing five progeny. The

Team, therefore, recommended choosing genetically appropriate chicks

for future releases based on pedigree analyses developed for genetic

management of captive populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995a).

Prior to capture of the last wild California condor in 1987, the

Team recognized that anticipated future releases of captive-reared

condors would pose the problem of reintroducing individuals of an

altricial bird into habitat devoid of their parents and other members

of their own species. Thus, the Team recommended initiation of an

experimental release of Andean condors. Research objectives for the

experimental release were to refine condor release and recapture

techniques; test the criteria being used to select condor release

sites; develop written protocols for releases, monitoring, and

recapture of condors; field test rearing protocols being used, or

proposed for use to produce condors suitable for release; evaluate

radiotelemetry packages; supplemental feeding strategies; train a team

of biologists for releasing condors; and identify potential problems

peculiar to the California environment. The Andean condor experiment

began in August 1988 and concluded in December 1991

recapture of condors; field test rearing protocols being used, or

proposed for use to produce condors suitable for release; evaluate

radiotelemetry packages; supplemental feeding strategies; train a team

of biologists for releasing condors; and identify potential problems

peculiar to the California environment. The Andean condor experiment

began in August 1988 and concluded in December 1991. During that period

three release sites where tested and a total of 13 female Andean

condors were released. Only one mortality occurred in the field when an

Andean condor collided with a power line (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a).

In 1991, two California condor chicks were released into Sespe

Condor Sanctuary, Los Padres National Forest, Ventura County on January

14, 1992. The male died from ingesting ethylene glycol in October of

the same year. The next release of California condors occurred on

December 1, 1992, when six more captive-produced California condors

chicks were released at the same Sespe Condor Sanctuary site.

Socialization with the remaining female from the first release

proceeded well, and the ``flock'' appeared to adjust well to the wild

conditions. However, there was continuing concern over the tendency of

the birds to frequent zones of heavy human activity. Indeed, three of

these birds eventually died from collisions with power lines between

late May and October 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Because of the tendency for the remaining condors to be attracted

to the vicinity of human activity and man-made obstacles, especially

power lines, another California condor release site was constructed in

a more remote area, Lion Canyon, in the Los Padres National Forest near

the boundary of the San Rafael Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara County.

Five hatch year condors were released at the new site on December 8,

1993. In addition, the four condors that had been residing in the Sespe

area were moved to the new site

cially

power lines, another California condor release site was constructed in

a more remote area, Lion Canyon, in the Los Padres National Forest near

the boundary of the San Rafael Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara County.

Five hatch year condors were released at the new site on December 8,

1993. In addition, the four condors that had been residing in the Sespe

area were moved to the new site. They were re-released over a period of

several weeks in hopes that this approach would reduce the probability

that they would return to the Sespe area. Nevertheless, three of these

condors eventually moved back to the Sespe area in March 1994, where

they resumed the high risk practice of perching on power poles. Because

of general concern about the tameness of these birds and the

possibility that their undesirable behavior would be mimicked by

younger California condors, these condors were retrapped on March 29,

1994 and added to the captive breeding population. On June 24, one of

the 1993 California condors died when it collided with a power line. A

second condor that was in the company of this condor at the time of its

death, was trapped and returned to the LAZ. The three remaining wild

condors continued to frequent areas of human activity and were trapped

and returned to the zoo the same week the first 1995 release took place

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

As a result of the deaths due to collisions with power lines and

the attraction of newly released young condors to humans and their

activities, the 14 young California condors scheduled for release in

1995 were subjected to aversion training in the zoo environment. An

electrified mock power pole and natural snag perches were constructed

in a large flight pen holding the release candidates. When the young

condors landed on the electrified pole they were given a negative

experience in the form of a mild shock. When they landed on the natural

snag perches they received no shock

or release in

1995 were subjected to aversion training in the zoo environment. An

electrified mock power pole and natural snag perches were constructed

in a large flight pen holding the release candidates. When the young

condors landed on the electrified pole they were given a negative

experience in the form of a mild shock. When they landed on the natural

snag perches they received no shock. After only a few attempts at

landing on the electrified power pole and receiving a mild shock, they

all avoided the power pole and used the natural perches exclusively (M.

Wallace, The Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1995).

This group of California condors was also subjected to a series of

human aversion exercises. Aversion maneuvers were staged in which a

person would appear in view of a group of condors at a distance of

approximately 100 meters (300 yds). Once it was determined that the

condors spotted the person, they would be ambushed and captured by a

hidden group of biologists. These condors were then placed in sky

kennels, and later released after nightfall (M. Wallace, The Los

Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1995). The goals of this exercise were to

condition the condors to associate this negative experience with humans

and increase the distance in which they would flush in future

encounters with humans. Six of these young condors were released to the

wild on February 8, 1995, at the Lion Canyon release site. To date none

of these condors have attempted to land on a power pole and, although

they have roosted near campgrounds, they have not approached humans.

The one exception was a young condor of this group that was lured into

a campground by campers that placed food and water out for it. This

condor was subsequently trapped and brought into the zoo. The remaining

five continue to avoid both power poles and human activities. On August

29 the remaining eight California condors of this group were released

at the Lion Canyon Site. There are now 13 condors flying free in

southern California.

4

oup that was lured into

a campground by campers that placed food and water out for it. This

condor was subsequently trapped and brought into the zoo. The remaining

five continue to avoid both power poles and human activities. On August

29 the remaining eight California condors of this group were released

at the Lion Canyon Site. There are now 13 condors flying free in

southern California.

4. Proposed Reintroduction Sites. To satisfy the objectives of the

Plan, at least one subpopulation of non-captive California condors must

be established in an area disjunct from the subpopulation already being

reestablished in the recent historical range in California. Following a

widely publicized solicitation for suggestions for suitable condor

release sites outside of California, the Team recommended in December

1991 that California condor releases be conducted in northern Arizona.

Because this area once supported California condors, still provides a

high level of remoteness, ridges and cliffs for soaring, and caves for

nesting, the probability of a successful reintroduction is very good.

The Service endorsed this recommendation on April 2, 1992. In

collaboration with the Federal initiative to designate a release site

in Arizona, the Arizona Game and Fish Department began evaluating a

possible California condor reintroduction in 1989. The Arizona Game and

Fish Department determined the reestablishment as appropriate and

feasible in steps 1 and 2 of the Department's ``Procedures for

rvice 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 sites being

evaluated. This evaluation process resulted in selection of four

potential release sites. As required by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Service, in cooperation with the Arizona

Game and Fish Department and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

produced an Environmental Assessment titled--``Release of California

Condors at the Vermilion Cliffs, 1995,'' in which the potential release

sites were thoroughly examined and objectively evaluated. The NEPA

process resulted in selection of a preferred release site at the

Vermilion Cliffs located on BLM lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995b).

The suitability of the Vermilion Cliffs as a California condor

release site was further evaluated using the Service's ``The Condor

Release Site Evaluation System''. This system uses 25 working criteria

divided into three priority classes--priority 1 includes features

critical to releasing and establishing condors in the wild, priority 2

includes features that are necessary but not critical, and priority 3

includes features that would add or detract from suitability but are

not critical

d using the Service's ``The Condor

Release Site Evaluation System''. This system uses 25 working criteria

divided into three priority classes--priority 1 includes features

critical to releasing and establishing condors in the wild, priority 2

includes features that are necessary but not critical, and priority 3

includes features that would add or detract from suitability but are

not critical. The working criteria are grouped into working factors

that include: site suitability, logistics, man-made threats/hazards,

and suitability of adjacent lands (for population expansion). Each

working criterion is assigned a quantitative value and weighted

according to assigned priority criteria. The sum from the three

priority classes gives the total value for a site. This rating system

verified the Vermilion Cliffs (the preferred alternative) as a suitable

release site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).

b. Vermilion Cliffs Release Site. The Vermilion Cliffs

reintroduction site is on the southwestern corner of the Paria Plateau

approximately 100 meters from the edge of the Vermilion Cliffs,

Coconino County, Arizona, as shown on the following map:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP02JA96.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

The Paria Plateau is characterized by relatively flat, undulating

topography dominated by pinyon-juniper/blue grama (Pinus edulis-

Juniperus osteosperma/Bouteloua gracilis) communities and mixed shrub

communities dominated by sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) on sandy upland

soils. To the south and east of the Plateau lies the steep precipice of

the Vermilion Cliffs, rising over 1,000 feet from the floor of House

Rock Valley. Uplifting and differential erosion has created complex

geologic structures and a diverse variety of habitats in a small

geographic area. The cliffs are sharply dissected by canyons and

arroyos and the lower slopes are littered with enormous boulders.

Numerous springs emerge from the sides of the cliffs (U.S

of

the Vermilion Cliffs, rising over 1,000 feet from the floor of House

Rock Valley. Uplifting and differential erosion has created complex

geologic structures and a diverse variety of habitats in a small

geographic area. The cliffs are sharply dissected by canyons and

arroyos and the lower slopes are littered with enormous boulders.

Numerous springs emerge from the sides of the cliffs (U.S. Bureau of

Land Management and Arizona Game and Fish Department 1983).

5. Reintroduction Protocol. In general, the reintroduction protocol

will involve an annual release of captive-reared California condors

until recovery goals, as outlined in the Plan, are achieved (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995b). These reintroduction protocols were

developed and tested in the current southern California condor release

project.

a. Condor Release. The reintroduction is designed to release a

cohort of captive-reared California condors once each year, beginning

in early 1996 (target date). Three captive breeding facilities (LAZ,

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

size of each release cohort will depend on the number of hatch-year

condors produced during the late winter to early spring of that year,

but releases will likely involve up to 10 hatch-year condors. These

condors will be hatched in captivity and raised by a condor look-alike

hand puppet, or by their parents, until they are approximately four

months of age. They will then be placed together in a single large pen

so they will form social bonds. At approximately 6 months of age they

will be moved to a large flight pen and undergo aversion training to

humans and power poles for one to two months. After the training has

been completed the young condors will be transported by helicopter to

the release site at Vermilion Cliffs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995b).

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

and will remain there for an acclimation period, of approximately one

to two weeks

ndergo aversion training to

humans and power poles for one to two months. After the training has

been completed the young condors will be transported by helicopter to

the release site at Vermilion Cliffs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995b).

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

and will remain there for an acclimation period, of approximately one

to two weeks. This structure will be approximately 16 ft by 8 ft and 6

ft high. Netting will cover the front of the pen, allowing the young

condors to view and become accustomed to the surrounding area. The

release pen will be pre-fabricated, delivered to the release site by

helicopter, and removed from the site after the young condors have

fledged (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b).

Meanwhile, biologists will remain near the release pen 24 hours a

day observing the young condor's behavior and guarding against

predators or other disturbance. After the initial adjustment period and

when all the young condors can fly, the release will take place. Any

release candidate showing signs of physical or behavioral problems will

not be released. Release is accomplished by removing the net at the

front of the pen allowing the birds to exit. The young condors will

likely remain in the immediate area of the pen for some time before

beginning exploratory forays along the cliffs. A small area of

approximately 10 acres will be temporarily closed to recreational

activity to protect the newly released condors and will remain closed

until they have dispersed from the release area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995b).

b. Supplemental Feeding. Condors are dependent on carrion and must

be fed until they learn to locate carcasses independently. Newly

released young condors will be dependent on carrion provided by

biologists, making it necessary to maintain a supplemental feeding

program

sed condors and will remain closed

until they have dispersed from the release area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995b).

b. Supplemental Feeding. Condors are dependent on carrion and must

be fed until they learn to locate carcasses independently. Newly

released young condors will be dependent on carrion provided by

biologists, making it necessary to maintain a supplemental feeding

program. However, older condors (sub-adults and adults), should be

locating carcasses on their own and hopefully would not be dependent on

the supplemental feeding program for their survival. Supplemental

feeding should reduce the likelihood of deaths of young condors from

accidental poisoning insofar as it will help prevent them from feeding

on contaminated carcasses. The diet provided to the condors will

consist primarily of livestock carcasses and road killed animals. Field

biologists will deliver carcasses to the condors every four to five

days by carrying carcasses to the edge of the cliffs at night, to avoid

detection by the condors. A network of feeding stations on prominent

points with high visibility will be identified in the general area of

the release. Carcasses will be placed on the ground or, if predators

become a problem, elevated off the ground by placing them atop natural

rock outcrops less accessible to ground predators (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995b).

c. Monitoring. All California condors released to the wild will be

equipped with two radio transmitters, one on each patagium, or one

patagial placement and one mounted on the tail. In addition, they will

wear bold colored patagial markers on each wing with code numbers to

facilitate visual identification. The movements and behavior of each

condor will be monitored for at least the first two to three years of

its life. Ground triangulation will be the primary means of radio

tracking. Aerial tracking will be used to find lost birds or when more

accurate locations are desired

ddition, they will

wear bold colored patagial markers on each wing with code numbers to

facilitate visual identification. The movements and behavior of each

condor will be monitored for at least the first two to three years of

its life. Ground triangulation will be the primary means of radio

tracking. Aerial tracking will be used to find lost birds or when more

accurate locations are desired. Telemetry flights will be coordinated

with the appropriate land management agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995b).

Status of Reintroduced Population

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

reintroduced into northern Arizona are proposed to be designated as a

nonessential experimental population. The experimental designation

means the reintroduced California condors will be treated as a

threatened population instead of an endangered population. Under

section 4(d) of the Act, this designation enables the Service to

develop special regulations for management of the population that are

less restrictive than the mandatory prohibitions covering endangered

species. Therefore, the experimental designation allows the management

flexibility needed to ensure that this reintroduction is compatible

with current or planned human activities in the reintroduction area and

to permit management of the population for recovery purposes.

Experimental populations can be classified as either ``essential''

or ``nonessential''. An essential experimental population is a

population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild [50 CFR 17.80

(Subpart H-Experimental Populations)]. All other experimental

populations are treated as nonessential, if they are not considered

essential to the continued existence of the species

her ``essential''

or ``nonessential''. An essential experimental population is a

population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild [50 CFR 17.80

(Subpart H-Experimental Populations)]. All other experimental

populations are treated as nonessential, if they are not considered

essential to the continued existence of the species. ``Nonessential''

experimental populations are treated for purposes of section 7 of the

Act as though they were only proposed for listing (except on National

Wildlife Refuge and National Park System lands where they will be

treated as a species listed as ``threatened'' under the authority of

the Act). The proposed California condor experimental population merits

classification as nonessential because the population will not be

essential to the continued existence of the species.

Currently, the principal California condor population (90

individuals) exists in the safe environment of three captive breeding

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

breeding facilities are not included in exhibits and are under 24 hour

surveillance by condor keepers or video cameras. Only essential program

personnel are granted access to the captive population. The captive

population is given excellent care and to date there have been no

deaths of adults or sub-adults. In addition, the geographic separation

of the three breeding facilities protects the captive population from

the threat of extinction due to a single catastrophic event.

The reproductive rate of the captive population dramatically

exceeds the mortality rate of the wild population. All condors lost in

the reintroduction efforts can be replaced by current chick production,

while the captive population continues to increase. The extant

population will not be adversely effected by the proposed

reintroduction since it is hundreds of miles away (see below)

event.

The reproductive rate of the captive population dramatically

exceeds the mortality rate of the wild population. All condors lost in

the reintroduction efforts can be replaced by current chick production,

while the captive population continues to increase. The extant

population will not be adversely effected by the proposed

reintroduction since it is hundreds of miles away (see below).

By mid-1987, every surviving individual of the species was held in

captivity following agreement that the decline of the wild population

to eight surviving adults had demonstrated that the wild population was

destined for extinction (Geyer et al. 1993). Genetic management, which

includes control of all matings, has preserved the genetic viability of

the extant captive population. No California condor hatched in

captivity is considered for release to the wild unless its founder line

is well-represented in the captive population. All release candidates

are genetically redundant and their loss will not jeopardize the

diversity of the existing condor gene pool.

The proposed reintroduction project will further the recovery of

the species by--establishing a second wild population, ensuring the

existence of a wild population if a catastrophic event eliminates the

southern California population, enhancing the opportunity to manage the

genetic diversity of the wild population, and avoiding the potential

risks inherent in overcrowding the captive population.

Location of Reintroduced Population

further the recovery of

the species by--establishing a second wild population, ensuring the

existence of a wild population if a catastrophic event eliminates the

southern California population, enhancing the opportunity to manage the

genetic diversity of the wild population, and avoiding the potential

risks inherent in overcrowding the captive population.

Location of Reintroduced Population

Under section 10(j)(1) of the Act, an experimental population must

be separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same

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

of the proposed experimental release occurred in 1924, when Edouard

Jacot observed a condor feeding on a carcass with golden eagles near

the town of Williams, Arizona (Rea 1983). The last known free-flying

California condor was captured April 19, 1987, in southern California

and placed in the captive breeding program. To date there have been no

verified sightings of California condors in the wild and condor

researchers are confident that there are no undocumented wild condors

in the proposed release area or anywhere else in their historic range.

Since January 1992, five releases of young California condors have

taken place in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, California.

Currently, 13 endangered California condors are located in the wild

back country of Santa Barbara County. This non-captive population is

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

proposed release site. The longest flight by these recently

reintroduced condors has been approximately 40 km (25 mi), with typical

daily flights from 8 km (5 mi) to 16 km (10 mi). According to Meretsky

and Snyder (1992) the foraging flights by breeding California condors

in the 1980's were from 70 km (44 mi) to 180 km (112 mi). Based on this

information, the Service does not believe there will be any

immigration/emigration between the existing non-captive and the

proposed nonessential experimental populations

th typical

daily flights from 8 km (5 mi) to 16 km (10 mi). According to Meretsky

and Snyder (1992) the foraging flights by breeding California condors

in the 1980's were from 70 km (44 mi) to 180 km (112 mi). Based on this

information, the Service does not believe there will be any

immigration/emigration between the existing non-captive and the

proposed nonessential experimental populations.

The release site for reintroducing California condors into northern

Arizona will be on the Vermilion Cliffs, in the southwestern corner of

the Paria Plateau. However, the designated nonessential experimental

population area will be significantly larger and include portions of

three states--Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. The southern boundary is

Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona from its junction with Highway 191

west across Arizona to Kingman; the western boundary starts at Kingman,

goes northwest on Highway 93 to Interstate Highway 15, continues

northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15 in Nevada, to Interstate Highway

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

Highway 191; where the eastern boundary starts and goes south through

Utah until Highway 191 meets Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona (Fig. 1).

Management

The Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction project will be undertaken by

the Service and its primary cooperators the Arizona Game and Fish

Department and the BLM. Other cooperators that will provide support on

an as-needed basis include--Grand Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon

National Recreation Area, Kaibab National Forest, the Hualapai Tribe,

the Navajo Nation, LAZ, Zoological Society of San Diego (the Zoological

Society includes the SDWAP and SDZ), The Phoenix Zoo and The Peregrine

Fund. All cooperators will participate in this recovery project under

the general guidance of a Memorandum of Understanding written to

promote recovery of the California condor. Reintroduction procedures

were explained above under ``Background, 5

ibe,

the Navajo Nation, LAZ, Zoological Society of San Diego (the Zoological

Society includes the SDWAP and SDZ), The Phoenix Zoo and The Peregrine

Fund. All cooperators will participate in this recovery project under

the general guidance of a Memorandum of Understanding written to

promote recovery of the California condor. Reintroduction procedures

were explained above under ``Background, 5. Reintroduction Protocols.''

The reintroduction site is surrounded by remote Federal or Indian

Reservation lands with only a few small private inholdings. The current

general management scheme for these lands will not affect the

establishment of a nonessential experimental population in this area.

Furthermore, the designation of nonessential experimental will

encourage local cooperation as a result of the management flexibility

allowed under this designation. The Service considers the nonessential

experimental population designation and associated reintroduction plan

necessary to receive cooperation of the affected landowners, agencies,

and recreational interests in the area.

A designation of nonessential experimental prohibits the

application of section 7(a)(2) of the Act except on NWR and NPS lands.

This will ensure that current land uses and activities (such as, but

not limited to, forest management, agriculture, mining, livestock

grazing, sport hunting and fishing, and non-consumptive outdoor

recreational activities) will not be restricted.

The progress of the reintroduction project will receive an informal

review on an annual basis by the primary cooperators and a formal

evaluation by all cooperators within the first five years after the

first release to evaluate the reintroduction project and determine

future management needs. Once recovery goals are met for downlisting

the species, a rule will be proposed to address the downlisting. The 5-

year evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the ``nonessential

experimental'' designation for this population

al

evaluation by all cooperators within the first five years after the

first release to evaluate the reintroduction project and determine

future management needs. Once recovery goals are met for downlisting

the species, a rule will be proposed to address the downlisting. The 5-

year evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the ``nonessential

experimental'' designation for this population. The Service does not

foresee any likely situation which would call for altering the

nonessential experimental status of this population.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any action resulting from this proposed

rulemaking to determine the northern Arizona California condor

population as a nonessential experimental population be as effective as

possible. The Service therefore solicits comments or recommendations

concerning any aspect of this proposed rule (see ADDRESSES section)

from Federal, State, public, and local government agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. Comments

should be as specific as possible. Final promulgation of a rule to

implement this proposed action will take into consideration the

comments and any additional information received by the Service. Such

communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this

proposal.

Section 4(b)(5)(e) of the Act requires that a public hearing be

held, if requested, within 45 days of a proposed rule. The Service has

scheduled two public hearings on this proposal due to the anticipated

number of requests for such hearings. The first public hearing will be

held at the Main Auditorium, Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm

Street, Flagstaff, Arizona, on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to

8:00 pm and the second at the Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East Red

Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah, on Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to

8:00 pm

this proposal due to the anticipated

number of requests for such hearings. The first public hearing will be

held at the Main Auditorium, Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm

Street, Flagstaff, Arizona, on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to

8:00 pm and the second at the Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East Red

Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah, on Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to

8:00 pm. Anyone expecting to make an oral presentation at these

hearings is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to

the hearing officer prior to the start of the hearing. In the event

there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may

have to be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal

consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments

presented at these hearings or mailed to the Service.

National Environmental Policy Act

A final environmental assessment as defined under authority of the

NEPA, has been prepared and is available to the public at the Service

office identified in the ADDRESSES section. This assessment formed the

basis for the decision that the proposed California condor

reintroduction is not a major Federal action which would significantly

affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The proposed rule will not affect protection provided to the

California condor by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The take of

all migratory birds, including the California condor, is governed by

the MBTA. The MBTA regulates the taking of migratory birds for

educational, scientific, and recreational purposes.

Required Determinations

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The proposed rule will not affect protection provided to the

California condor by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The take of

all migratory birds, including the California condor, is governed by

the MBTA. The MBTA regulates the taking of migratory birds for

educational, scientific, and recreational purposes.

Required Determinations

This proposed rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget

review under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Also, no

direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or record-

keeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this action and

the rule contains no record-keeping requirements, as defined in the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 350 et seq.). This rule does

not require a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 because

it would not have any significant federalism effects as described in

the order.

References Cited

Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil birds. Part 2 (Anseriformes

through Galliformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum.

Biological Sciences 9:195-335.

Cooper, J.G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe 1:248-249.

Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet of fossil California condors in

Grand Canyon, Arizona, Science 237:768-770.

Geyer, C.J., O.A. Ryder, L.G. Chemnick, and E.A. Thompson. 1993.

Analysis of relatedness in the California condors from DNA

fingerprints. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:571-589.

Koford, C.B. 1953. The California Condor. National Audubon Society

Research Report No. 4:1-154.

Ligon, J.D. 1967. Relationships of the cathartid vultures.

Occasional Paper of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan

651:1-26.

Mallette, R.D., and J.C. Borneman. 1966. First cooperative survey of

the California condor. California Fish and Game. 52:185-203.

Mallette, R.D., F.C. Sibley, W.D. Carrier, and J.C

d H. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation of the

California condor. In D.M. Powers (ed.). Current Ornithology, Vol.

6. Pp. 175-267. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa

Barbara. California.

Stager, K. 1964. The role of olfaction in food location by the

turkey vulture (Catharses aura). Los Angeles County Museum

Contributions to Science 81:1-63.

Steadman, D.W., and N.G. Miller. 1987. California condor associated

with spruce-pine woodland in the late Pleistocene of New York.

Quaternary Research 28:415-426.

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

1983. Paria-Kanab Creek habitat management plan. BLM Arizona Strip

District, Vermilion Resource Area, St George Utah; Ariz. Game and

Fish Department, Region 2, Flagstaff.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. California Condor Recovery

Plan. Third Edition. Portland, Oregon. 110 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Draft California Condor

Recovery Plan. Fourth Edition. Portland, Oregon. 63 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Draft Environmental

Assessment: Release of California Condors at Vermilion Cliffs

(Coconino County, Arizona). Ventura, California. 74 pp.

Wilbur, S.R. 1972. Food resources of the California condor. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

Laurel, Maryland.

Wilbur, S.R. 1973. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest.

Auk. 90:196-198.

Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condor plumage and molt as field study

aids. California Fish and Game. 61:144-148.

Wilbur, S.R. 1978. The California condor. 1966-76: a look at its

past and future. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North America

Fauna. 72:1-136.

Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and trend of the California

condor population. 1965-1978. California Fish and Game. 66:40-48.

Wilbur, S.R., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The California condor in Baja

California, Mexico. American Birds. 34:856-859.

Author

lbur, S.R. 1978. The California condor. 1966-76: a look at its

past and future. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North America

Fauna. 72:1-136.

Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and trend of the California

condor population. 1965-1978. California Fish and Game. 66:40-48.

Wilbur, S.R., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The California condor in Baja

California, Mexico. American Birds. 34:856-859.

Author

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

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office, 2493

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

record- keeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

2. In Section 17.11(h), the table entry ``Condor, California''

under BIRDS is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

BIRDS

* * * * * * *

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

californianus

dangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

BIRDS

* * * * * * *

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

californianus. Mexico (Baja where listed as an

California). experimental

population below.

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

portions of Utah,

Nevada, and

Arizona).

* * * * * * *

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

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

follows:

Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *

(j) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus).

(1) The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) population

identified in paragraph (j)(8) of this section is a nonessential

experimental population.

(2) No person may take this species in the wild in the experimental

population area except when such take is accidental, unavoidable, and

not the purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, or

as provided in paragraphs (j)(3), (4), and (9) of this section.

(3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under

Sec. 17.32 may take California condors in the wild in the experimental

population area.

(4) Any employee or agent of the Service, Bureau of Land Management

or appropriate State wildlife agency, who is designated for such

purposes, when acting in the course of official duties, may take a

California condor from the wild in the experimental population area and

vicinity if such action is necessary:

. 17.32 may take California condors in the wild in the experimental

population area.

(4) Any employee or agent of the Service, Bureau of Land Management

or appropriate State wildlife agency, who is designated for such

purposes, when acting in the course of official duties, may take a

California condor from the wild in the experimental population area and

vicinity if such action is necessary:

(i) For scientific purposes;

(ii) To relocate California condors within the experimental

population area to improve condor survival and recovery prospects, or

to address conflicts with ongoing activities or private landowners;

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

experimental population area, when removal is necessary to protect the

condor, or is requested by an affected landowner or land manager;

(iv) To relocate California condors from the experimental

population area into other condor reintroduction areas or captivity;

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

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

study; or

(vii) To dispose of a dead specimen.

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

(j)(4)(vi), and (j)(4)(vii), of this section must be reported

immediately to the State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Arizona State Office, Phoenix, 2321 W. Royal Palm

Road, Suite 103, Arizona (telephone 602/640-2720) who will determine

the disposition of any live or dead specimens.

(6) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,

import, or export by any means whatsoever, any California condor or

part thereof from the experimental population taken in violation of

this paragraph (j) or in violation of applicable State laws or

regulations or the Endangered Species Act.

(7) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit

another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in

paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(6) of this section.

means whatsoever, any California condor or

part thereof from the experimental population taken in violation of

this paragraph (j) or in violation of applicable State laws or

regulations or the Endangered Species Act.

(7) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit

another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in

paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(6) of this section.

(8)(i) The designated experimental population area of the

California condor includes portions of three states--Arizona, Nevada,

and Utah. The southern boundary is Interstate Highway 40 in Arizona

from its junction with Highway 191 west across Arizona to Kingman; the

western boundary starts at Kingman, goes northwest on Highway 93 to

Interstate Highway 15, continues northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15

in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 70 in Utah; where the northern

boundary starts and goes across Utah to Highway 191; where the eastern

boundary starts and goes south through Utah until Highway 191 meets

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

(j).). All California condors found in the wild within these boundaries

will comprise the experimental population.

(ii) All California condors released into the experimental

population area will be marked and visually identifiable. All offspring

will also be marked before fledging. Any condors found outside of the

experimental population area will be identifiable by colored and coded

patagial wing markers. In the event that a condor moves outside the

experimental population area, three options will be considered--leave

the condor undisturbed and monitor it closely, capture the condor and

return it to the reintroduction area, or place it in a captive breeding

facility. The fate of condors that move outside the experimental

population area will be decided on a case by case basis.

al wing markers. In the event that a condor moves outside the

experimental population area, three options will be considered--leave

the condor undisturbed and monitor it closely, capture the condor and

return it to the reintroduction area, or place it in a captive breeding

facility. The fate of condors that move outside the experimental

population area will be decided on a case by case basis.

(9) The experimental population will be monitored continually for

the life of the reintroduction project. All California condors will be

given physical examinations before being released. If there is any

evidence that the condor is in poor health or diseased, it will not be

released to the wild. Any condor that displays signs of illness, is

injured, or otherwise needs special care may be captured by authorized

personnel of the Service, Bureau of Land Management or appropriate

State wildlife agency or their agents, and given the appropriate care.

These condors will be re-released

into the reintroduction area as soon as possible, unless physical or

behavioral problems make it necessary to keep them in captivity for an

extended period of time, or permanently.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP02JA96.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Dated: December 20, 1995.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 95-31450 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P