CALIFORNIA CONDOR REINTRODUCTION PROPOSAL FOR THE VERMILION CLIFFS, NORTHERN ARIZONA
Terry B. Johnson and Barbara A. Garrison Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division Arizona Game and Fish Department
Technical Report 86 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Chief: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4312
October 1996 ( RECOMMENDED CITATION Johnson, T.B. and B.A. Garrison. 1996. California condor reintroduction proposal for the ( Vermilion Cliffs, northern Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 86. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
(
( ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the following for cooperation in developing this proposal: Arizona Game and Fish Department: Greg Beatty, Tom Britt, Dennis Darr, Rich Glinski, Ben Gonzales, John Goodwin, Ray Lee, Susi Macvean, Fred Phillips, Steve Rosenstock, Barry Spicer, Bruce Taubert, Laurie Ward, and Jim Witham; Bureau of Land Management: Bill Grossi, Paul Sawyer, and Mike Small; The Los Angeles Zoo: Mike Wallace; The Peregrine Fund: Bill Burnham, Bert Harting, Bill Heinrich, and Lloyd Kiff; The Phoenix Zoo: Jeff Williamson; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Marguerite Hills, Rob Marshall, and Robert Mesta. ( (
( AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE .
The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need this material in an alternative format or believe you have been discriminated against, contact the Deputy Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2221 ( West Greenway Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85023 -- (602) 942-3000.
PROJECT FUNDING
Funding for this project was provided by: the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Heritage Fund; voluntary contributions to Arizona's Nongame Wildlife Checkoff; Project W-95-M (Jobs ( ( I 2 and 5), under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act); and Project E5 (Job 37), under Title VI of the Endangered Species Act. ( EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
( 1. The Arizona Game and Fish Department, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other government and private cooperators, proposes to release California condors in northern Arizona.
2. The condor is a federally-listed endangered species. Northern Arizona is within the condor's historical range, but the area's present suitability as recovery habitat is ( arguable. Following the Pleistocene epoch (i.e. the Ice Age, ca. 10,000 years ago), many of the condor's principal prey items (i.e. large mammals) slipped into extinction. As the prey base dwindled, condors withdrew to the extreme western United States and Baja California, Mexico. By the time Europeans settled these lands, condors likely numbered a few hundred or so, at best. No condors have been documented as breeding in Arizona ( in modem times, and the last sighting was in 1924. Many biologists presume the recent records to be extralimital, viz. of birds outside the breeding range. However, condor experts and agencies cooperating in developing this proposal believe that only through reintroduction can we learn whether condors can be reestablished in northern Arizona, thus contributing to recovery of this endangered species. ( 3. The reintroduced California condor population would be designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "nonessential experimental," pursuant to Section lO(j) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), through a rule-making action in the ( Federal Register. This designation would provide for reintroduction without unnecessary restrictions on current or future land-use activities.
4. The proposed "nonessential experimental population" area (=management area) includes portions of northern Arizona, southern Nevada, and southern Utah.
5. "Nonessential experimental" designation is justified under the Endangered Species Act because a captive population exists in California and Idaho, and reintroduction is already underway in California. Thus, loss of birds released in Arizona would not reduce the likelihood of survival of the species.
( 6. The proposed release site is on public lands on the Vermilion Cliffs (Paria Plateau, Coconino County, Arizona), in an area that appears likely to meet all known habitat requirements for the species.
7. Condors would first be released at the Vermilion Cliffs in 1996. Additional releases would occur there each year, and perhaps at secondary sites, as necessary to accomplish recovery goals.
8. The management actions identified in this document, and companion documents referenced herein, are intended to help establish a self-sustaining condor population in
( (
( (
Arizona within the constraints of current and future private and public land uses in the ( proposed management area.
( 9. To private landowners in or adjacent to the release area, "nonessential experimental" designation means that current land-use activities may continue and future uses will not be jeopardized by condor reintroduction. If removal of released condors from private lands is necessary to protect the birds, or is requested by the land owner, project biologists may capture and relocate them.
10. For hunters who use the proposed experimental area, "nonessential experimental" designation means that hunting for game animals or predators will not be restricted, except that approximately 10 acres immediately surrounding a condor release pen at the Vermilion Cliffs will be temporarily closed to recreational activity until the released condors have dispersed from the area (i.e. probably within a few weeks of their being placed in the pens).
11. This proposal identifies project objectives and public concerns, and describes how such concerns could be mitigated. Note: no unresolvable problems have been identified by the public or by project cooperators during development of this proposal.
12. The proposed reintroduction would be overseen by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with assistance from the Bureau of Land Management, Hualapai Indian Tribe, Los Angeles Zoo, National Park Service (Grand ( Canyon National Park and Lake Mead National Recreation Area), The Navajo Nation, The Peregrine Fund, The Phoenix Zoo, U.S. Forest Service, and The Zoological Society of San Diego. A Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted to provide a framework for project coordination among these cooperators.
13. The interests of local governments would be represented in the proposed project through an implementation agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Appendix E).
14. The Peregrine Fund, under contract to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and permit from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, would have the lead on field activities in releasing and monitoring condors in this project.
15. Arizona Game and Fish Department costs for participation in the proposed reintroduction would principally be borne by the Arizona Heritage Fund, and federal matching funds as made available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Other sources of funding might also be sought, including but not limited to private donations.
11 ( TABLE OF CONTENTS
( Executive Summary I
Introduction . 1 Purpose 2 Project Benefits 2 Related Documents 2
Condor Biology . . 3 Description . . . 3 Life History . . . 4 Habitat ...... 4 ( Distribution. . . . 4 Captive Population 6
Reintroduction Objectives 6
( Management Area Description ...... 7
Potential Release Sites ...... 9 Site Evaluation Criteria ...... 9 ( Potential Release Sites Considered But Not Proposed 9 Proposed Release Site: Vermilion Cliffs ..... 10 Current Land Uses ...... 13 Ungulate Populations ...... 13
General Operational Plan .\ . . . . . 15 (, Concerns and Mitigation Measures . . . 16 Private Property Rights . . . . . 16 Public Land Use Restrictions .. 17 Livestock Grazing . . . . 17 ( Recreation . . . . . 17 Prey Availability ...... 18 Big Game Hunting ...... 20 11 Accidental Take II of Condors ...... 20 Predator Control ...... 21 Impacts on Other Endangered Species ...... 21 Human Interactions ...... 21 Mineral Exploration ...... 22 Wildlife Management Activities ...... 22 Water ...... 23 Project Costs ...... 23 ( (
iii
( (
Increased Human Activity . . . . . 24 ( Increased Project Activity 24 Increased Tourism 24 Disease ...... 24
Planned Management Actions 25
Literature Cited . . . . 26 ( Appendix A. Arizona Game and Fish Department 12-Step Procedure for Re- establishment of Nongame and Endangered Species 29
Appendix B. Project Coordination and Public Involvement 30
Appendix C. Draft Memorandum of Understanding among Cooperators in the Proposed California Condor Release Project in Northern Arizona ...... 34
Appendix D. Proposed Nonessential Experimental Population Designation for California Condors Released in Northern Arizona ...... 45
Appendix E. Draft Implementation Agreement among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Various Local Governments for the Proposed California Condor Release Project in Northern Arizona ...... 74 ( ( Appendix F. Condor Release Site Evaluation . 83
Appendix G. Operational Plan for Release of California Condors at Vermilion Cliffs, Arizona ...... 93 (, Appendix H. Experimental Populations and the Proposed California Condor Release in Northern Arizona: Background Information ...... 100
FIGURES ( Figure 1. Historical occurrences of California condors in Arizona...... 5 Figure 2. Map of California condor management area proposed for Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Map adapted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996a)...... 8 Figure 3. Alternative sites for experimental release of California condors in northern Arizona...... 11 Figure 4. Proposed California condor experimental release site at the Vermilion Cliffs, Coconino County, Arizona...... 12
iv ( CALIFORNIA CONDOR REINTRODUCTION PROPOSAL FOR THE VERMILION CLIFFS, NORTHERN ARIZONA ( Terry B. Johnson and Barbara A. Garrison
INTRODUCTION ( The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) once occurred across much of North America. Fossil records are known from New York and Florida, as well as the southwestern United States (Texas to California, Nevada, and Oregon) and Mexico (Baja California) (Snyder and Snyder 1991). The range contracted substantially as large mammals disappeared with the Ice Age, about ( 10,000 years ago, and by the 1800s it was restricted to the western United States and Baja California, Mexico (Snyder and Snyder 1991). Possibly as few as 200 condors existed in the wild in the 1800s (R. Mesta pers. comm.). Still, in the 1900s they continued to be shot, for sport and for public and private collections; their nests were plundered by egg collectors; their environment was contaminated by pesticides, lead, and other poisons; and eventually collisions with powerlines began to exact a toll (Lowe et al. 1990, Snyder and Snyder 1991). These factors { and others, possibly including habitat fragmentation, contributed to the wild population dwindling to about 150 wild birds in the 1940s, 60 in 1968, 21 in 1982, and 9 in 1985 (R. Mesta pers. comm.).
As a result of this well documented population decline, the California condor is among the world's most endangered birds (Ogden 1985). Condor preserves were established in California by the U.S. Forest Service in 1937 (Sisquoc: 1,200 acres) and 1947 (Sespe: 35,000 acres). In 1951 the Forest Service expanded the Sespe Preserve to 53,000 acres. In 1953, the condor was given full legal protection by the California Department of Fish and Game. Its state status as endangered was reconfirmed in 1971, with protection under California's Endangered Species Act of 1970. The condor was federally listed as endangered on 11 March 1967 (32 Federal Register 4001); it still receives full protection under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Public Law 93-205, 81 Stat. 884, Dec. 28, 1973; current version at 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). It is also on the Arizona Game and Fish Department's (AGFD or Department) draft list of Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizana (AGFD in prep.). Like its predecessor list (AGFD ( 1988), which also included the condor, Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizana will be used to set management priorities but does not afford either legal or regulatory protection.
Early on, California condor management efforts focused on determining population status and habitat needs (e.g. Koford 1953, Miller et al. 1965, Verner 1978, Wilbur 1978). As the wild population continued to dwindle, attention turned to captive propagation, with an eye toward reintroduction (Wallace and Temple 1987, Snyder and Snyder 1989, Snyder and Snyder 1990). Now the focus is on reestablishing populations in two areas within historically occupied range (USFWS 1996c). This effort began in northern California in 1992, with release of two captive hatched chicks. After initial setbacks, the results have been sufficiently encouraging to warrant ( a parallel effort elsewhere.
1 Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86 : California Condor Reintroduction Page 2
(
PURPOSE This proposal was developed through the Arizona Game and Fish Department's 12-step "Procedures for Nongame Wildlife and Endangered Species Reestablishment Projects in Arizona" (AGFD 1987; see Appendix A). The Department is now at Step 11 of this process. Next, the Director will decide whether to support condor reintroduction. At Step 12, his decision ( will be announced to the public. Public comment on earlier drafts of this proposal, and on companion documents prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will contribute to the final decision.
The purpose of this proposal is to help recover the California condor by establishing a free ranging population in northern Arizona, through releases at the Vermilion Cliffs (Coconino County). This is consistent with objectives in the California Condor Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996c). The proposed release site is within condor historical range, and would be managed according to protocols developed for condor releases in California (USFWS 1995, 1996b). t The Department's 12-step process provides opportunities to interested and affected parties to comment on the proposed action before the Department's Director makes a final decision. It also requires informing the Arizona Game and Fish Commission at several steps of the Department's progress in reaching a decision on re-establishment. For the condor, the 12-step process began ( in 1989 and will be completed in 1996; public comment opportunities and Commission briefings C have been provided at several points along the way (see Appendix B).
PROJECT BENEFITS Possible benefits of reintroducing California condors in northern Arizona include: { 1. Reintroduction is essential to recovery of this species, and may help reduce the need for its further protection under the Endangered Species Act.
2. Condors would be restored to their historical range in Arizona, an action consistent with the Department's mission to restore and protect native wildlife (see AGFD 1995). ( 3. Reintroduced condors would enhance public education opportunities with regard to wildlife conservation, and might boost public recreation opportunities and local economies, by providing new opportunities for birdwatching and related tourism.
RELATED DOCUMENTS The proposed reintroduction at the Vermilion Cliffs is the subject of several important documents in addition to this proposal. The cooperating agencies have freely shared information while drafting these companion documents, to ensure that each document complements the others, and that, in the whole, they provide a solid foundation for successful reintroduction, should reintroduction be approved by the appropriate authorities. ( (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 3
( The first of these companion documents is an Environmental Assessment (EA) (USFWS 1995, 1996b) of the proposed action alternatives, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. A private contractor, The Peregrine Fund, Inc., prepared the EA for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS). ( The second is a Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix C) among cooperators in the proposed release: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Hualapai Tribe, The Los Angeles Zoo, National Park Service (Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area), The Navajo Nation, The Peregrine Fund, The Phoenix Zoo, U.S. Bureau of Land ( Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service (Kaibab National Forest), Utah Department of Natural Resources (Division of Wildlife Resources), and The Zoological Society of San Diego.
The third is a federal rule (see Appendix D, which includes a copy of the proposed final [May 1996] rule) designating the reintroduced population as nonessential experimental, under Section lO(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (USFWS 1996a). This section of ESA provides flexibility for establishing a new population, without restrictions to land-use activities and without undesirable impacts on private property rights. The draft lO(j) rule was published on 2 January 1996 (USFWS 1996a), and the public comment period was extended through 29 ( March 1996 to accommodate discussions with local governments (R. Mesta pers. comm.). These discussions led to development of an "Implementation Agreement" (see Appendix E) that assures the governments their concerns will be addressed through a cooperative reintroduction program.
Assuming that these agreements are satisfactory to the interested and affected parties, completion ( of the rule-making process and State and federal decisions on condor reintroduction are expected before the end of 1996.
CONDOR BIOLOGY
<, DESCRIPTION The largest flying land bird in North America, a full grown California condor has a wingspan of nearly 10 feet and weighs as much as 23 pounds. Its scientific name is derived from the Greek gymnos, meaning "naked," gyps , meaning "vulture," and the Latinized californianus, which recognizes the area (Monterey, California) in which a condor specimen was first collected, in 1792. As the name indicates, condors have few feathers on their heads; young birds ( less than four years old have dark heads, while the skin on an adult's head varies between cream and yellow, to orange during the breeding season. Condor wings are coal black, except for a large patch of white on the underside of the leading edge. Clark and Wheeler (1987) and Wheeler and Clark (1995) offer more detailed descriptions of this species.
( (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 4
(
LIFE HISTORY California condor biology has been summarized by Koford (1953), Lowe et al. (1990), Ogden (1985), Snyder et al. (1986), Snyder and Snyder (1989), Snyder and Snyder (1991), and Wilbur (1978). Like all members of the Family Cathartidae (New World vultures), this species is a carrion eater, a scavenger. In recent history, a major portion of the diet includes medium-sized ( to large dead animals (e.g. deer and cattle), but condors occasionally consume smaller mammals, such as hares, rabbits, and large rodents (e.g. ground squirrels). Despite their imposing size, these birds do not have feet that are well suited for grasping prey.
In late morning, when thermal updrafts are forming, condors begin to forage for food by soaring ( and gliding at up to 40 or 50 miles per hour. Released condors in California sometimes cover 100 or more miles in a day (R. Mesta pers. comm.). If similar flights occurred in historical times, they may well have caused condors to be sighted in Arizona long after a resident breeding population had disappeared.
Condors become sexually mature at five or six years of age, and commonly do not start breeding until seven or eight. They mate for life and have a slow rate of reproduction, often laying only one egg every other year, between late January and late March. Nest sites are commonly in caves or crevices on cliffs, under boulders, and, on rare occasions, in large tree hollows. ( Condors are not nest builders, but instead lay eggs on bare, often sandy, ground. The egg is ( incubated by both parents for about 57 days. Fledging occurs at five to six months of age, and young birds are dependent on their parents for several months after leaving the nest. The average lifespan of a wild condor is unknown; captive individuals have lived to be 80 years old.
HABITAT ( California condors are wide-ranging and use a variety of habitats. Unlike turkey vultures, which use olfaction (smell) to locate food, condors rely on sight. They prefer to forage over open grasslands and rolling hills, habitats in which their primary diet (carrion) can easily be located from the air. Openings in forests and woodlands can also be used, provided there is sufficient space and winds for post-feeding take-off.
Mountainous terrain with steep, remote cliffs or rock outcroppings is preferred for nesting and raising young. These areas diminish the risk of disturbance and predation, and also provide dependable updrafts for lift, a crucial component of condor habitat. All documented nest sites used by condors in the past century have been on National Forests in California (Kiff 1990).
DISTRIBUTION When Europeans arrived in western North America, California condors had already withdrawn to the Pacific Coast strip from British Columbia, Canada to Baja California Norte, Mexico (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1978). At least occasionally they ranged throughout Arizona until 1924, the year of the last confirmed sighting there, near Williams (see Fig. 1) (Monson and Phillips ( 1981; Phillips et al. 1964). (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 5
(
(
Kayento_ '
I .,,. /' ....."- : ' / -...... _, .1· f' Non-fossiliz ~ IUO< MESA t : ( ,~;- ; ct1iile
Fort Dllficn:e
( .fla,p1aff '------"""""°"~ tc..ii--, J- ! I ' ( ', '-· : \ StJohns \,.... ~ I ' ,i-.&..1...... &t.!i-__,;llf ·' ' Show Low : '-9t~ : I. ,' ------
(
I ~ tr• I ; s.w>,.g,«\~ : . ! ! ;------·---·- ·- _! ______I
20 ~- (
Figure 1. Historical occurrences of California condors in Arizona. ( (
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 6
Unfossilized California condor bones have been found in caves in the Grand Canyon, indicating occupation of this area within the last several thousand years (Emslie 1986, 1987). Whether the records in Arizona from the 1800s and early 1900s were of vagrants from remnant populations in California and/or represented a remnant and now-extirpated breeding population is unknown. ( Regardless, by the 1930s, California condors were limited to northern California and Baja California. Less than half a century later, all had been lost from the wild, through death or capture (Snyder and Snyder 1991).
The causes of this range retraction are speculative, but three periods must be considered. Post Pleistocene contraction (i.e. from ca. 11,000 years ago through the 1700s) seems to have been l related to diminishing prey abundance and availability. The large ground-dwelling mammals on which condors presumably fed became extinct 8,000 to 10,000 years ago (see Martin and Klein 1984; Emslie 1986, 1987). In more recent times (1800s through the early 1900s), shooting and egg collecting helped further the decline. Since the early 1900s, environmental contaminants, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and mortality from powerline collisions have taken their toll. Further prey-base declines (i.e. coastal marine mammals) may also have contributed. Importantly, reproductive failure has not been identified as a factor in the decline, as is evidenced by the success of a captive breeding effort (see below).
CAPTIVE POPULATION t As California condor numbers declined, methods were developed to census wild birds in 1981 and 1982 (Snyder and Johnson 1985, Snyder et al. 1987). The 1982 survey suggested that 21 individuals were left in the wild. Despite ongoing management, the numbers continued to decline. Fearing loss of the remaining birds, USFWS live-trapped the remaining wild condors, capturing the last one on 17 April 1987, and brought them into a captive breeding program. ( USFWS hoped that protected captive conditions would accelerate successful reproduction, and someday provide stock for reintroduction.
I From 1987 to 1991, the entire population of condors existed in two breeding facilities: San Diego Wild Animal Park and The Los Angeles Zoo. The first captive breeding occurred in 1988, at San Diego Wild Animal Park. The number of offspring from the captive stock has increased each year since. DNA fingerprinting of the captive flock showed that all living condors are descended from 14 individual founders, representing three genetic groups (Kiff 1990). To ensure against loss of the species through a catastrophic event, and to enhance the captive breeding program to support reintroductions, a third breeding facility was established in 1994 at the World Center For Birds of Prey, in Boise, Idaho. In January 1996, the total condor population consisted of 90 birds in captivity and 13 in the wild (R. Mesta pers. comm.).
REINTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES
The California Condor Recovery Plan's (USFWS 1996c) primary recovery objective is ( downlisting the species to threatened status. The minimum criterion for reclassification is ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 7
( I
establishment of one captive and two noncaptive populations within historical range. Each wild population must have at least 150 individuals and be reproductively self-sustaining, with a positive rate of population growth. The wild populations must be spatially disjunct and non interacting, have sufficient habitat to meet the previous criteria, and contain birds descended from each of the 14 founders. Reintroduction in Arizona would be intended to establish one of the two self-sustaining wild populations; the other one is targeted for California.
MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION
The proposed California condor management area includes parts of three states: Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (Fig. 2; also USFWS 1995, 1996a, 1996b.). The southern boundary is Interstate 40 in Arizona, from its junction with State Highway 191, west to the City of Kingman. The western boundary starts at Kingman and continues northwest on State Highway 93 to Interstate 15, then northeasterly on Interstate 15 in Nevada, to Interstate 15 in Utah. The northern boundary is { Interstate 70 east across Utah to State Highway 191. The eastern boundary follows State Highway 191 south through Utah until it meets Interstate 40 in Arizona. The core of the area (i.e. plateaus, canyons, and grasslands) is considered suitable condor habitat, but the proposed outer boundaries were selected to facilitate administrative actions and for ease of public recognition, rather than because of any specific biological considerations.
The proposed release site (Vermilion Cliffs) lies within the broader management area described above. Land ownership at and near the site is predominantly federal, intermixed with small patches of state and private lands. The area lies within four major habitat types (see Brown 1982). The Paria Plateau is typified by Great Basin Conifer Woodland, dominated by juniper ( (Juniperus spp.) and pinyon (Pinus spp.). Great Basin Desertscrub occurs. along the Vermilion Cliffs and is dominated by sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.). Species diversity is low, with scrub occurring more frequently than woodland or forest. House Rock Valley, which extends south of the Vermilion Cliffs, is composed of Plains Grassland and Great Basin Grassland. Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and other gramas (B. hirsuta, B. ( chondrosioides, B. eriopoda, B. curtipendula) are typical components of these mixed or short grass communities. Rocky Mountain and Madrean Montane Conifer Forest communities are found in the Kaibab National Forest, west of the Vermilion Cliffs. These are dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).
(
( (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 8
. ft Provo
I ·+· Grand UTAH ft Junction
0 0 ~ 0 ~ u0
( (
Gallup ft (
ARIZONA
ft Phoenix
Experimental Population Area
Figure 2. Map of California condor management area proposed for Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Map adapted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996a). (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 9
POTENTIAL RELEASE SITES
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA Potential release sites were evaluated through site visits (ground and aerial reconnaissance) in ( September 1990, August 1991, February 1994, and May 1995. Release Site Evaluation Working Criteria (Appendix F) were used to rate sites according to suitability and logistics. This system, developed by the California Condor Recovery Team (Recovery Team), includes 25 criteria in three priority classes: Priority 1 includes features critical to releasing and establishing condors in the wild; Priority 2 includes features that are not critical, but which are necessary; and ( Priority 3 includes features that would add to or subtract from suitability, but which are not critical. The 25 working criteria assess : site suitability, logistics, human-made hazards/threats, and suitability of adjacent lands (for population expansion). Each criterion is given a numerical value and weighted according to the assigned priority criteria. The sum from the three priority classes gives the total value for each site. Site evaluations indicated the Vermilion Cliffs is a ( suitable release site (USFWS 1995, 1996a, 1996b).
POTENTIAL RELEASE SITES CONSIDERED BUT NOT PROPOSED Echo Cliffs.--The Echo Cliffs run north-south through the western Navajo Indian Reservation, ( in northeastern Arizona. The Recovery Team surveyed this area in August 1991, February 1994, and May 1995. Cliff structure appears suitable for a condor release, but an extensive network of high tension powerlines that dissect the cliffs makes this less than optimal for a first release. A second system of high tension powerlines occurs at the Glen Canyon Dam power generating facility, about six miles away on the north end of the cliffs. Electrocution from, and collisions with, powerlines have been major mortality factors for released condors in California. However, ( young birds are now exposed to aversive conditioning to powerlines prior to release, so Echo Cliffs may eventually receive further consideration as a secondary release site.
Prospect Valley. --Prospect Valley runs north-south through the central Hualapai Indian Reservation, south of Grand Canyon National Park. It is bordered on the east by the Aubrey ( Cliffs, which appear to have a cliff structure (i.e. exposure, height, roosting and nesting ledges) suitable for a condor release. The area supports a variety of large mammals, including elk (Cervus elaphus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and large numbers of feral burros (Equus asinus). Prospect Valley was surveyed by the Recovery Team and Department personnel in August 1991 and May 1995. The major disadvantage is logistical; the area is remote, with little access to the most suitable release site. ( Retrieval of injured birds, carcass delivery, and food storage would be difficult. In 1994, the Hualapai Indian Nation drafted a proposal condor reintroduction on its lands. Although the proposal is not active, USFWS maintains an ongoing dialogue with Tribal biologists to explore feasibility of reintroducing condors into Prospect Valley in the future.
( ( Grand Canyon National Park.--Condor remains found in several caves in the Grand Canyon suggest the species nested there in the late Pleistocene (Emslie 1986, 1987), thus aerial Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 10 reconnaissance of the area was conducted by the Recovery Team and other cooperators in September 1990, August 1991, and May 1995. Although the National Park Service remains open to the concept of condors repopulating Grand Canyon National Park, much of the daily management activities (e.g. monitoring, feeding, emergency care of birds) attendant to a release would be difficult within the Park because of extremely limited access. Airspace restrictions ( would clearly hinder efforts by field personnel to locate birds by aerial telemetry.
PROPOSED RELEASE SITE: VERMILION CLIFFS The Vermilion Cliffs, on the southwestern comer of the Paria Plateau (see Fig. 3), are the preferred site for the first California condor release in Arizona. The Recovery Team and various cooperating agencies, including the Department, visited this area on 20 August 1991, 15-16 February 1994, and 9-10 May 1995. They verified its suitability and identified a site (see Fig. 4) as most suitable for an acclimation and release pen.
The Vermilion Cliffs are well suited for condor release; their height and exposure are favorable, ( with a natural bowl or deep impression protected on three sides and surrounded by large boulders and outcrops. Newly released condors could take short practice flights before attempting to fly from the main cliff. The Vermilion Cliffs also have abundant cavities, potholes, ledges, and caves for nesting, and outcrops for roosting. ( Wind speed and direction are important factors in determining condor flight patterns and release site selection. Winds must blow consistently and be sufficient strong year-round to provide enough lift for soaring (Koford 1953). The Vermilion Cliffs face southwest, with strong and persistent winds blowing predominantly from the southwest. This provides optimal conditions for practice flights by young condors (M. Wallace pers. comm.). (
The mosaic of grassland and woodland habitats on the Paria and Kaibab plateaus seems well suited to California condors as foraging habitat. Areas with closed canopies would provide fewer openings in which condors could locate and feed on carrion. However, much of the plateaus is covered by open woodland, with abundant openings in which condors could catch the winds that ( are essential to taking flight after feeding.
Project logistical requirements are also met within the proposed management area. Although the Paria and Kaibab plateaus are remote, existing roads and trails would allow for year-round operation of a condor release project. New roads or trails would not be needed for the proposed release site. Hiking distance from the access road to the proposed release site is less than half a mile. Existing roads and trails would also allow project biologists to observe released birds from several points within the release area. Support facilities (housing, storage) for field operations, including freezers for carcass storage, could be located within 10 miles of the release area. A designated BLM administrative site on the Paria Plateau may be a suitable base station from which to conduct field operations. ( ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 11
(
(
(
( Hualapai Reservation
{
Echo Cliffs N 0 No specific release site identified ( Prospect Valley @ No specific release site identified • FLAGSTAFF PHOENIX I Grand Canyon National Parle • ·+· 0 No specific release site identified Miles VcnniLion Cliffs 10 20 30 Preferred release site 0 & Shaded inset represents location of map in Arizona ~ Wilderness area
Jurisdictional boundary Road or highway River ( Figure 3. Alternative sites for experimental release of California condors in northern Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 { NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 12
(
( (
(
(
Location of map within House Rock Spring quadrangle M
. ~ Privately owned land ·+·Miles -■- Wilderness Area boundary 0 1/4 1/2 40 foot contour interval
Figure 4. Proposed California condor experimental release site at the Vermilion Cliffs, Coconino County, Arizona. ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 13
Current Land Uses Land uses in and near the proposed experimental release area consist mainly of public lands ranching and dispersed non-motorized recreation. The proposed nonessential experimental population · designation stipulates that existing land uses will not be affected by condor reintroduction (USFWS 1996a)
House Rock Road (BLM 1065) runs parallel to the western Vermilion Cliffs, for approximately six miles. An extensive network of unmaintained four-wheel drive roads in the area is not suitable for most passenger vehicles, therefore, most wildlife viewing now occurs from the ( paved road (Highway 89A). Current and proposed recreational activities are not expected to have adverse impacts to condors or the surrounding habitat (USFWS 1995, 1996a, 1996b).
Utility companies have a variety of rights-of-way through the proposed management area for powerlines. In early releases of condors in California, several birds died from collisions with ( similar powerlines. The mortalities occurred when roosting birds were disturbed at night and, while attempting to return to their powerpole roost, collided with the unseen powerlines. Now, prior to release, young condors are subjected to aversion training to condition them to avoid powerpoles as roost sites. No released condors have died from such collisions since aversion ( conditioning was implemented (R. Mesta pers. comm.). The closest major powerline to the proposed Vermilion Cliffs release site is 21 miles north of the Paria Plateau, at Glen Canyon Dam. Recovery Team members believe that released condors will forage along the cliff face rather than soar over the large areas of open, flatter terrain in which transmission lines occur (R. Mesta and M. Wallace pers. comm.). Thus, they believe that powerlines will not be an important mortality factor at the Vermilion Cliffs. ( Eight public-lands livestock grazing allotments exist in or near the proposed release area. These operations may provide condors with carrion to eat; the waters they maintain may also be important to released birds. At least 18 waters are within three miles of the proposed release site. They include natural springs, many of which have been developed for use by livestock, as well as stock tanks. AGFD and BLM also maintain five water catchments on the Paria Plateau for desert bighorn sheep.
Ungulate Populations Carrion is the most crucial component of a free-living California condor's diet. As stated previously, the intent of this project is to ensure an adequate food supply for released condors { by providing ungulate carcasses at feeding stations, while allowing the birds to adapt to life in the wild and gradually demonstrate whether they can or will find, and use, naturally available carrion in the proposed management area.
Since released condors might eventually forage far away from the proposed Vermilion Cliffs ( ( release site, perhaps even beyond the proposed management area, it is important to consider
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86 : California Condor Reintroduction Page 14 abundance and availability of native ungulates (i.e. big game species) that inhabit the general area, rather than immediately adjacent to the release site itself.
The proposed Vermilion Cliffs release site is at the southwestern end of the Paria Plateau and on the northeast side of the Kaibab Plateau. It lies at the east end of Game Management Unit 12B (which includes the Paria Plateau), and generally east and north of Game Management Unit 12A (which includes the Kaibab Plateau).
Mule deer surveys indicated an increasing herd for the Paria Plateau from 1991 through 1994 (AGFD unpubl. data). However, the population is small to moderate, as post-hunt surveys for 1995 indicated a total of about 2,100 deer (AGFD unpubl. data). Partly due to the small herd size, but also because of difficult access, there is limited hunting pressure on the Paria Plateau and Vermilion Cliffs herd. Results of the 1994 General Deer Questionnaire (AGFD unpubl. data) indicated that hunt success was 36 percent during the early hunt (late October-early November), and 63 percent during the late hunt (mid November).
Mule deer populations increase appreciably south and west of the Paria Plateau, in Game Management Unit 12A. This area includes the Kaibab National Forest and the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Estimates derived from pellet plot estimates and computer modeling indicated ( a stable or decreasing mule deer population on the North Kaibab from 1986 through 1994 ( (AGFD unpubl. data). The 1995 post-hunt survey estimated about 9,500 deer in 12A (AGFD unpubl. data). Hunting pressure is relatively high on mule deer in 12A; the unit is considered one of the premier trophy hunts in North America. Hunt success has decreased in recent years, partly because harvest of older age class animals (i.e. trophy bucks) appears to be the goal of many hunters. Also, sign indicates a high population of mountain lions (Pelis concolor) in 12A, as is true for much of Arizona, and fawn mortality there appears to be relatively high (D. Darr pers. comm.).
Natural mule deer mortality in Game Management Units 12A and 12B is about 10 percent per year, with frequent additional mortality along Highway 89 (especially during migration), due to collisions with vehicles. Winter weather also significantly affects deer movements and mortality in this region, and thus carcass abundance and availability.
Bighorn sheep inhabit the Paria Plateau and Vermilion Cliffs area, and could be a limited source of carrion for condors. Bighorn population estimates for this area have increased from 55 in ( 1985 to about 225 in 1995. Recovery of radio-collared sheep indicates a mortality rate of 10 percent. Following a transplant in 1985-1987, lamb recruitment has been high, with a 1994 ratio of 64 rams:23 ewes:21 lambs (R. Lee pers. comm.).
The House Rock Wildlife Area, managed by Arizona Game and Fish, lies south of House Rock { Valley on U.S. Forest Service land. It supports Arizona's largest herd of wild bison (Bison bison). In 1994, survey (direct observation) results indicated an increasing bison population, with Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 15
(
a total of 124 on the Wildlife Area. The Department's wildlife strategic plan (AGFD 1995) and a U.S. Forest Service population (grazing permit) maximum of 90 head are used as guidelines for managing the House Rock herd. Hunter harvest of this herd may provide an additional source of carcasses for supplemental feeding of released condors, but the herd itself offers little to no opportunity as a natural source of carrion since non-hunt mortality is very low.
Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) inhabit House Rock Valley in small numbers. The herd ranges over most of the House Rock Valley, sometimes to the northwest edge of the Vermilion Cliffs. In 1994, the Department (AGFD unpubl. data) estimated the population at about 100 animals, and stable. However, due to the small herd, hunting is conservative; in 1995, only five general firearms permits and 10 archery hunt permits were issued (R. Lee pers. comm.). This herd would probably not provide an important source of food for released condors.
Summary.--Overall, native ungulates within Game Management Units 12A and 12B appear to ( represent a suitable to marginal food source for condors. A variety of species inhabit the proposed area, with populations and availability varying seasonally. Ungulate carcasses would be most readily available in open habitats such as grasslands, but may be most abundant along roads (as a result of collisions with vehicles) or in forested areas (as a result of hunter kills or wounding loss). The extent to which condors would use openings in ponderosa pine and pinyon juniper forest and woodlands, as occur extensively on the Paria and Kaibab plateaus, is yet to be determined. The potential food base for condors would be expanded by considering elk, which occur within the projected 150-mile daily movement radius for released condors (e.g. Tusayan), and various rodents, which are locally abundant in the Houserock Valley and other grasslands and other open habitats closer to the proposed release site. ( GENERAL OPERATIONAL PLAN
Reintroduction of California condors at the Vermilion Cliffs would involve annual releases of captive-reared birds, until project objectives are achieved (USFWS 1995, 1996a, 1996b). Essential to this effort is maintenance of a strong, productive captive breeding program, which now includes three facilities: Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Zoo, and World Center for Birds of Prey (Boise, Idaho). The size of each release cohort would depend on how many hatch-year condors were produced, and how many were available at the time of release. As structured, the captive breeding program would likely result in availability of about 10 juveniles per year for ( release in Arizona.
Captive hatchlings would be raised off-site for approximately four months, and then placed together in a single large pen to form social bonds. At six months of age, the birds would undergo aversive conditioning to humans and powerpoles, and would then be transported to the Vermilion Cliffs for release. Feeding and monitoring of released condors are described ( elsewhere (Appendix G).
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 16
This protocol would apply to the first-year release only. Subsequently the acclimation protocol, release effort, management needs, and project direction would be modified as necessary to reflect results to date, assuming the project's accomplishments warranted continuation. The project cooperators would use annual and five-year project evaluations to determine whether progress is sufficient to warrant continuing releases. At a minimum, these evaluations will address: project accomplishments and setbacks; release procedures; recapture and treatment procedures; supplemental feeding procedures; dependence on supplemental feeding; sources and rates of mortality; impacts on other species and land uses; public awareness and support; alternative management options; secondary release sites; and short and long-term prospects for accomplishing Arizona population objectives. The project would terminate when its objectives ( were accomplished, or earlier, if so decided as a result of a formal five-year evaluation.
Cooperator roles in the proposed release are defined by state and federal law, and by a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix C). In summary: the Department, BLM, and USFWS are the primary cooperators and would oversee the reestablishment effort; presumably the USFWS would contract the field work to The Peregrine Fund, Inc.; the cooperators will provide annual performance reports summarizing field activities and project results; USFWS and the Department will periodically distribute a California Condor Project Newsletter to the public and interested or affected agencies; and the primary cooperators will distribute condor brochures, ( popular literature, and educational materials as needed.
CONCERNS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns about California condor reintroduction in Arizona have been identified by the public and agencies through public scoping meetings, open discussion, and various information requests ( or letters of comment. Concerns listed below have been grouped for convenience in responding. Project cooperators will be jointly responsible (within their separate legal authorities) for implementing strategies to mitigate problems, with assistance from each other and other wildlife or land-management agencies.
1. Private Property Rights: Some landowners are concerned that reintroduction of an endangered species will result in loss of property rights. • Condor management strategies will be formulated so they will not conflict with landowner operations (see Appendix D) . The proposed nonessential experimental ( population designation provides the management flexibility needed to ensure that condor reintroduction is compatible with current and future human activities in the proposed management and release areas.
Landowners were provided information on the proposed nonessential experimental • ( rule (Appendix D and H), and additional opportunities for comment in January ( March 1996. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 17
• Released condors may be captured and relocated if they move outside the management area or onto private lands (see Fig. 1 and Appendix D). Such removal may be necessary to protect the condors, or to mitigate conflicts with private landowners. Radiotelemetry will be used to monitor condor movements, and artificial feedings sites will be strategically located to influence the birds' behavior and avoid problems.
2. Public Land Use Restrictions: Some people are concerned that reintroduction of condors will necessitate land-use restrictions to accomplish recovery goals, limiting their access, or forcing changes in land-management practices.
2a. Livestock Grazing. Some ranchers are concerned that current and future ranching operations will suffer economic hardships due to restrictions imposed as a result of condor reintroduction. ( • The proposed condor reintroduction does not include land-use restr~ctions that will affect livestock grazing. Construction and operation of the proposed release site will not affect administration of public-lands grazing ( allotments, including the allotment adjoining the release area. • Project cooperators have provided and will continue to provide ranchers with information on the flexibility provided by "nonessential experimental" designation of the proposed reintroduction. • Local ranchers donate livestock carcasses to the release project in California. However, if sufficient carcasses for supplemental feeding are not available from road-kills or other sources, including donations from ranchers, livestock might be purchased from ranches in the release area, creating an economic benefit to the industry (USFWS 1995, 1996b).
2b. Recreation. Some people are concerned that recreational use of public lands within the proposed management area will be restricted or prohibited, or that condors may constitute a safety hazard for low-level flights over the Grand Canyon. ( • Other than as described below, no restrictions on recreational use of the proposed management and release areas are necessary, nor are any proposed (see Appendix D, and USFWS 1995, 1996b). However, a small area (approximately 10 acres) around the release pen on the Paria Plateau would be closed to the public until the condors have left the pen safely (i.e. closure would occur for approximately one or two weeks per year). BLM will administer this closure (M. Small pers. comm.). Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 18
(
• The proposed reintroduction in the Vermilion Cliffs/Paria Plateau area may well increase recreational activity, due to increased numbers of birdwatchers and other visitors to the area who wish to view condors. Also, a variety of non-condor related interpretive and public recreation activities are already planned for this area, through the auspices of the proposed Vermilion Cliffs Highways Program (M. Sacher pers. comm.). This cooperative program is designed to add interpretive sites and recreational activities to the area. However, most wildlife viewing will occur on paved roads at interpretative sites, and thus will not intrude on local residents. Enhancement of such sites to provide condor viewing ( opportunities and educational information will further reduce the potential for recreationist intrusion on local residents.
• Vehicular use of the Paria Plateau is low and is expected to remain so, because the network of roads is designated as four-wheel drive only . • Grand Canyon National Park averages 80,000 scenic overflights per year (National Park Service fide R. Mesta), in an area heavily used by many species of raptors (including bald and golden eagles) for breeding, ( migration, or wintering. The Federal Aviation Administration has been recording data on bird-aircraft strikes for 23 years. To date, no strikes have been reported within Grand Canyon National Park and only 11 have been- reported elsewhere in Arizona. None resulted in an airplane or helicopter crash, or human injury. ( 3 . Prey Availability: There is concern that the Vermilion Cliffs/Paria Plateau and the Kaibab National Forest do not provide a sufficient natural food base for condors. • Condors feed mainly on carrion, including the carcasses of large native ungulates (e.g. deer), cattle, and other mammals as they are available. Native ungulate 'l densities at the· release site are low, but mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and bison occur in relatively large numbers in the general area. Also, when prey populations are low, condors occasionally consume hares, rabbits, and larger rodents. These animals are common to abundant in and around the proposed release area. However, it clearly is unknown where condors will forage after they are released, and when (if) they are weaned from their supplemental food supplies (see below). Thus, it is largely moot at this point whether a particular area has enough natural food to support a condor population. This question (food availability), as crucial as it is, would best be answered through the proposed experimental release. ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 19
• The proposed condor management strategies provide for supplemental feeding of released condors (see Appendix D; USFWS 1995, 1996a, 1996b). Juveniles would be released (hacked) in the absence of their parents, and provided with food to survive until they are · capable of locating carcasses independently. Supplemental feeding may also occur when natural food sources are scarce. Whether acclimated juvenile and adult condors will remain dependent on supplemental feeding for their survival can best be tested through the proposed project. However, the long-term goal of this project is a self-sustaining wild population, one that does not depend on supplemental feeding . ( • Ranchers and land managers will be encouraged to leave dead livestock on the range, and to donate carcasses for the supplemental feeding program. ·As an alternative, there may be potential for privately-financed financial or other incentives to ranchers for providing carcasses (B . Harting pers comm.). ( • The Vermilion Cliffs are proposed as a release site; they do not alone contain all the habitat components that condors require. Released birds will almost certainly eventually forage away from that area, so availability of natural food sources in ( the immediate area (or even in the Kaibab National Forest as a whole) may not be crucial to successful reestablishment. • Roadkill carcasses may increase food availability to released condors, as deer are often killed by vehicles along Highway 89A between House Rock Valley and Jacob Lake, along Highway 67 south from Jacob Lake to the north rim of the Grand Canyon, and along Highway 89 east of Kanab, Utah. However, carcass availability projections must be tempered because roadkills in this area fluctuate rather widely, as a result of weather conditions and the seasonal movements of deer. Also, Highway 67 is often closed south of Jacob Lake during winter, due to snow cover, thus temporarily precluding road kill. • Ultimately, whether the road-kills, natural mortalities, and hunter-wounded/lost mortalities of native ungulates (in combination with livestock carcasses and other carrion) available in the proposed management area are sufficient to sustain a wild condor population can best be tested through a release. Again, annual and five ( year evaluations will be used by project cooperators to determine whether prey availability is sufficient to warrant continuation of the release effort. At a minimum, these evaluations will address: project accomplishments and setbacks; release procedures; recapture and treatment procedures; supplemental feeding procedures; dependence on supplemental feeding; sources and rates of mortality; impacts on other species and land uses; public awareness and support; alternative management options; secondary release sites; and short and long-term prospects for accomplishing Arizona population objectives. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 20
4. Big Game Hunting: Some sportsmen are concerned that condor reintroduction will restrict hunting opportunities and ultimately prohibit use of lead bullets.
• The proposed nonessential experimental designation of reintroduced condors does not recommend any changes to current or future hunting laws or practices, and in fact states that current land uses, including hunting, will not be restricted by the proposed reintroduction (see Appendix D; also USFWS 1996a).
• Hunter activity on the Paria Plateau is minimal, so the probability of released condors finding and ingesting lead bullets there is low. Supplemental feeding will further reduce the likelihood of condor deaths from lead poisoning, as the food provided will consist of uncontaminated livestock carcasses and road-killed animals. Although the probability of lead ingestion increases in local areas of relative deer abundance, the proposed lO(j) rule (see Appendix D; also USFWS 1996a) does not provide for area closures or restrictions on hunting to promote condor recovery. • If condor mortality increased as a result of ingesting lead bullets from hunter wounding-losses or kills, information and education efforts (i.e. non-regulatory ( actions) might be directed toward hunters, identifying possible alternatives to lead ammunition (i.e. copper, or tungsten/bismuth/tin alloy). Burying gut piles from big game kills might also be suggested, although bullets and bullet fragments would not likely be as common in them as in whole-animal carcasses. Again, though, the proposed lO(i) rule (see Appendix D; also USFWS 1996a) does not provide for mandatory use of non-lead bullets to promote condor recovery.
5. "Accidental Take" of Condors: Some people are concerned about possible legal problems associated with "taking" an endangered species (e.g. as when a condor feeding on a road kill is hit by a passing vehicle). ( • Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act pertains to "taking" of listed species . All experimental populations, whether threatened or endangered, essential or nonessential, are treated as threatened with regard to Section 9. For threatened species, the specific acts that are to be prohibited are identified by regulation (published in the Federal Register) and may be specifically tailored to each ( population. This allows greater flexibility and special consideration for local concerns. As stated in the proposed lO(j) rule (see Appendix D), a person may take a California condor in the wild within the experimental area, provided that such take is incidental and within the guidelines set forth therein. An inadvertent car-condor collision would fall within those guidelines. Unauthorized willful take of a condor, however, regardless of method, would be referred to the proper authorities for action. ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 21
• Artificial feeding will presumably influence foraging direction and help keep condors near potential roost and nest sites, and away from well-traveled roads.
6. Predator Control: Some ranchers are concerned that artificial feeding stations will attract coyotes, mountain lions, and ravens to the release area, and existing predator control activities will be reduced due to reintroduction. There is also concern that existing predator control actions might lead to condor mortalities. • As provided for in the proposed lO(j) rule (see Appendix D), predator control ( relat~d to U.S.D.A. Animal Damage Control actions may be carried out within the proposed experimental area, subject to limitations of state law. The Department, USFWS, and BLM wiU cooperate with Animal Damage Control to ensure that its predator control efforts include appropriate safeguards for condors and other non-target wildlife. • To reduce the potential for attracting predators to the area, feeding station locations will be changed frequently, or modifications will be made to existing stations, including use of deflectors or elevated platforms. Feeding platforms will ( be self-standing or attached to a tree or rock for support. 7. Impacts on Other Endangered Species: There is concern that the presence of condors will impact special status species in the area. • The peregrine falcon is the only federally-listed (as endangered or threatened) ( bird occurring in the immediate area of the proposed release site. Presence of territorial peregrines might be advantageous to condors, since peregrines often chase off ravens and golden eagles, which may harass or attack young condors.
• Wintering bald eagles occur along the Colorado River in areas (e.g. Nankoweap Canyon) that may be visited by released condors. These eagles forage primarily on fish and waterfowl, and are not likely to be affected by condors.
• Condor reintroduction will not impact any federally-listed fishes or plants in the proposed management area.
( 8. Human Interactions: There is concern that the curious nature of the condor will result in eventual contact with humans, to the detriment of the birds. • Condors will be exposed to human-aversion training prior to release. Such training is already practiced at The Los Angeles Zoo and has been successful ( ( (Bernard 1995). In addition, released condors would be fitted with radio (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 22
transmitters, so biologists can closely monitor their movements and be prepared to intervene if direct, undesirable human-condor interactions do occur. • Programs and brochures would be presented or distributed by project cooperators to educate the public on condor behavior, and how the public might enjoy these ( birds without diminishing the likelihood of recovery.
• Movements of condors released in California have been manipulated through supplemental feedings, to help ensure that the birds avoid areas of human habitation and use. The same technique may be used in Arizona.
• Released condors may be captured and relocated, if necessary to protect them or to mitigate conflicts with landowners (see Appendix D).
9. Mineral Exploration: There is concern that condors will be attracted to flooded abandoned adits that are contaminated with toxic material, and condor management operations will affect mineral exploration or development. • There are no active mining operations in the release area (M. Small pers . ( comm.). The entire Paria Canyon/Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness area was closed to mining in 1984.
• Condor management strategies will be formulated so they will not conflict with current or future land-use activities (see Appendix D). Moreover, accidental mortalities of condors due to ingestion of toxic material associated with mining operations, although unlikely to occur, would probably be within the realm of inadvertent take, as defined in the proposed lO(j) rule.
10. Wildlife Management Activities: There is concern that California condor reintroductions in the Vermilion Cliffs/Paria Plateau area might hinder or pose risks to aerial big game ( surveys conducted by the Department. Low level flights may occur close to condors. • Condor management strategies will be formulated so that they do not conflict with wildlife management activities (see Appendix D). As defined in the proposed lO(j) rule, nonessential experimental designation for this reintroduction does not ( conflict with or limit existing or anticipated State Agency actions or traditional uses of public or private land, including wildlife management. • Condors pose much the same risks to operators of small airplanes that golden eagles and other medium to large birds pose. Their size is great enough to inflict potentially serious damage if a collision occurred, but of itself appreciably raises ( the likelihood of detection sufficiently early to provide for evasive actions by ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 23
pilots. Moreover, there are no known instances of airplane-condor collisions in recently or currently occupied range in California (see Concern 2b, above, also). Note: by policy, the Department already establishes aerial survey "non-flying" buffer zones around peregrine falcon and eagle breeding or nesting areas during the appropriate seasons; comparable zones may be appropriate for condors.
11. Water: There is concern that the proposed release area does not have enough water to support a large population of condors. Some ranchers also feel that condors may use their livestock water tanks, to the detriment of ranching operations or possibly causing ( entrapment of condors.
• Water availability seems adequate for condors, with at least 18 springs and water improvements within three miles of the proposed release site and many springs along the Vermilion Cliffs. Moreover, since 1986, AGFD and BLM have added and maintained five water catchments on the Paria Plateau for bighorn sheep. Condors have been known to survive long periods without water, and if resources in the release area become scarce they may water along the Colorado River. ( • Clearly released condors might water at stock tanks in the immediate area of the proposed release site, which is on federal land managed by BLM. However, such use will not result in restrictions on ranching operations (see Appendix D). • Condors are not likely to be entrapped in livestock waters. All grazing allotment holders near the release site are already required to provide wildlife access to, ( and escape routes from,-water tanks on BLM lands (M. Small pers. comm.).
12. Project Costs: Some people are concerned that Arizona will have to absorb a financial burden for California condor management.
• The proposed project can only be carried out if sufficient funds are allocated by Congress to USFWS, as supplemented by private funds raised by The Peregrine Fund and other cooperators. Federal funds for most wildlife management actions, including the one proposed in this document, are contingent upon annual re allocation. Thus, the proposed Memorandum of Understanding among the cooperators in this project establishes that their participation is contingent upon availability of funds (see Appendix C). • Department participation in condor reintroduction is and will be supported by Heritage funds and federal matching funds. Additional funding may be provided through private donations or congressional appropriation. The general framework (. ( for cooperation in developing project funds is established in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix C). Annual and five-year project
(._ (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 24
evaluations will be used by cooperators to determine the effectiveness of the project, and to decide whether cost-benefit considerations warrant its continuation.
13. Increased Human Activity: Some local residents believe that condor reintroduction at the ( Vermilion Cliffs will increase human activity in the area and diminish their solitude.
13a. Increased Project Activity • Management of condor releases at the Vermilion Cliffs will require two crews of two to three persons each (see Appendix G). Project biologists ( will use existing trails and roads to conduct daily operations of condor feeding and monitoring. The number of people on site at any given time will be minimal. There will be no disruption of solitude in the area (USFWS 1995, 1996a, 1996b).
13b. Increased Tourism • Several activities and programs already attract visitors to the proposed release area. USFWS (1995, 1996b) states that: "Three interpretive sites ( are located along Highway 89A: Navajo Bridge Visitor Information Center at Lee's Ferry (new facility under construction; to be administered and staffed by the National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area); the Dominguez-Escalante interpretive pullout (administered by the BLM; not staffed), and the Kaibab Interpretive Center at Jacob Lake (administered and staffed by the U.S. Forest.Service)." The House Rock Overlook, another popular interpretive pullout, is located two miles west of the Highway 89A and House Rock Road junction and offers interpretive and condor viewing opportunities. These and perhaps other interpretive sites can be used to effectively manage condor-oriented tourism, so it provides some measure of benefits to the local economy, ( without disrupting local residents, whether humans or condors.
14. Disease: Condors are carrion-eaters and there is concern that they may carry diseases, and contaminate water at livestock tanks .
( • Based on all available information from experience in California, with wild and captive-released condors, there is no evidence to suggest that condors will carry diseases transmittable to livestock or otherwise contaminate water supplies (M. Wallace pers. comm.; B. Gonzales, D.V.M. pers. comm.). Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 25
(
PLANNED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
This section summarizes management actions necessary for successfully re-establishing California condors in the Vermilion Cliffs/Paria Plateau area.
1995 AND 1996 (CALENDAR YEARS) 1. Coordinate with adjacent landowners and affected agencies. USFWS-AGFD co-lead.
2. Schedule timing and location of condor releases, and subsequent monitoring activities. ( USFWS-AGFD co-lead.
3. Obtain archaeological and cultural clearances for proposed release site(s). BLM lead.
4. Integrate the release and monitoring schedules with recreational activities in the ( immediate area. USFWS-BLM co-lead.
5. Schedule public information activities (i.e. progress reports) and continue coordination with all affected parties. USFWS-AGFD co-lead. ( 6. Complete National Environmental Policy Act compliance. USFWS-BLM co-lead.
7. Designate condors released in this project as nonessential experimental, pursuant to Section lO(j) of the Endangered Species Act. USFWS lead.
( 8. Complete the AGFD 12-step "Procedures for Nongame Wildlife and Endangered Species Reestablishment Projects in Arizona." AGFD lead.
9. Release California condors at the Vermilion Cliffs. USFWS-AGFD co-lead.
( 1996 THROUGH 2005 (CALENDAR YEARS) 1. If condors are released in the Vermilion Cliffs as proposed, annually repeat reintroductions until project objectives are accomplished or the project is terminated as a result of period evaluation of its effectiveness and efficiency. USFWS-AGFD co-lead.
2. Monitor released condors. USFWS-AGFD co-lead.
3. Continue annual and five-year evaluations of the reintroduction protocol and project results, and adjust project direction and condor management strategies accordingly. USFWS-AGFD co-lead.
( 4. Inform the public and agencies about project accomplishments, through periodic updates, newsletters, news releases, and public presentations. USFWS-AGFD co-lead. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 26
(
LITERATURE CITED
Arizona Game and Fish Department. In prep. Wildlife of special concern in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. ( Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1995. Wildlife 2000 strategic plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department,. Phoenix, Arizona.
Bernard, L. 1995. Aversive training for California condors. Outdoor California. Vol 56, No.1:2-5.
Brown, D.E. (ed.) 1982. Biotic communities of the American Southwest-United States and ( Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4): 1-342.
Clark, W.S. and B.K. Wheeler. 1987. A field guide to hawks of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. (
Emslie, S.D. 1986. Canyon echoes of the condor: the giant scavenger, now nearly extinct, once occupied much of western Grand Canyon, Arizona. Natural History (4): 10-14.
Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet of fossil California condors in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Science 237:768-770.
Kiff, L. 1990. To the brink and back. The battle to save the California condor. Pp. 7-18 in Terra Vol. 28, No.4.
Koford, C.D. 1953. The California condor. Nat. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 4:1-154. (
Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Mosely (eds.). 1990. The official World Wildlife Fund guide to endangered species of North America (Volume 2). Beacham Publishing, Inc., Washington, D. C.
( Martin, P.S. and R.G. Klein. (eds.) 1984. Quaternary extinctions. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Miller, A.H., I. MacMillan, and E. MacMillan. 1965. The current status and welfare of the California condor. Nat. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 4. (
l ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 27
Monson, G. and A.R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. Second Edition/Revised and Expanded. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Ogden, J.C. 1985. The California condor. In R.L. DiSilvestro, ed., Audubon Wildlife Report 1985. National Audubon Society, New York.
Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
( Snyder, H.A. and . N.F.R. Snyder. 1990. The comeback of the California condor. Birds International 2(2): 10-23.
Snyder, N.F.R. and E.V. Johnson. 1985. Photographic censusing of the 1982-1983 California condor population. Condor 87: 1-13.
Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-site biology of the California condor. Condor 88:228-241. ( Snyder, N.F.R., E.V. Johnson, andD.A. Clendenen. 1987. PrimarymoltofCaliforniacondors. Condor 89:468-485.
Snyder, N.F.R. and H.A. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation of the California condor. Current Ornithology 6: 175-267.
Snyder, N.F.R. and H.A. Snyder. 1991. Birds of prey: natural history and conservation of North American raptors. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minnesota.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Environmental assessment: California condor release, Lion Canyon, Santa Barbara County, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ( Ventura, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Draft environmental assessment: release of California condors at the Vermilion Cliffs (Coconino County, Arizona). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed establishment of a nonessential experimental population of California condors in northern Arizona. 61 Federal Register 35:35-47.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Final environmental assessment: release of California condors at the Vermilion Cliffs (Coconino County, Arizona). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 28 (
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996c. California condor recovery plan. Fourth Edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Verner, J. 1978. California condors: status of the recovery effort. U.S. Forest Service Gen. ( Tech. Rep. PSW-28.
Wallace, M.P. and S.A. Temple. 1987. Releasing captive-reared Andean condors to the wild. J. Wildl. Mgmnt. 51 :541-550.
Wheeler, B.K. and W.S. Clark. 1995. A photographic guide to North American raptors. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Wilbur, S.R. 1978. The California condor, 1966-76: a look at its past and future. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North American Fauna 72.
(
l
(
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 29
APPENDIX A. Arizona Game and Fish Department 12-Step Procedure for Re-establishment of Nongame and Endangered Species (AGFD 1987).
I ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECT ORIGINATORS I FUNCTION I 1 . Assess status of species/population and Determine feasibility of re-establishment available resources. project. 2. Complete re-establishment scorecard, submit Facilitate priority ranking and preliminary it to Nongame Branch. review from programmatic perspective. ( ACTIVITIES BY NONGAME BRANCH FUNCTION
3. Prepare proposal abstract, distribute it and Elicit broad review of project and of scorecard throughout AGFD. possible conflicts or effects on other programs, projects, etc. ( 4. Submit briefing memo to AGFC through Provide AGFC with background on AGFD Director. No general press release. potential project. 5. Review AGFD comments and develop Identify and address any specific concerns project checklist. Submit summary to AG FD and actions necessary to mitigat e them; ( Director. determine whether to proceed with or to reject the project. 6. Solicit comment on project concept from Communicate goals, provide early public and appropriate agencies, awareness of intent. organizations. 7. Discuss project and public input and AGFD Determine appropriate action; terminate recommendations with AGFC. · projector proceed. Inform public of decision. 8. Prepare re-establishment proposal. Distribute Document specifics of proposed project . for review both inside and outside AGFD, Elicit philosophical, technical review. and submit to AGFC. 9. Summarize comment, revise proposal and Ensure NEPA compliance and requisite complet e AGFD Environmental Checklist. If coordination with existing programs, necessary, draft Environmental Assessment projects. or Impact Statement.
10. Submit final draft project proposal for Provide for peer, agency and public outside review and to AGFC. comment. 11. Summarize comment , review proposal. Ensure policy review, compliance with Submit final project proposal to AGFD procedures and determine final approval or Director for action. denial of proposal. 12. Notify AGFC and public of decision. Provide information on decision and notice ( ( of project implementation schedule.
(. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 30 (
APPENDIX B. Project Coordination and Public Involvement.
Considerable efforts were made by the Department and cooperating agencies to determine major issues and concerns relative to California condor releases. The public, local communities, ( County, state, and federal government agencies were involved at various stages in development of this reintroduction plan. Names and addresses of interested individuals were included on a mailing list that the Department uses to distribute newsletters and updates related to the project. The Department also provides program information through news releases to local newspapers, radio, publications, and other media sources.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS April-May 1985 AGFD Nongame Branch. Initial discussion of feasibility of reintroducing California condors in Arizona, using surrogate Andean condors to determine the potential for success. Further discussion postponed pending development of a release in California.
September 12, 1989 AGFD Nongame Branch. California Condor Recovery Team and N ongame Branch personnel conducted aerial site · review of the ( Grand Canyon National Park as a proposed release site alternative.
September 1990 USFWS. Review of potential release sites in northern Arizona.
November 13, 1990 USFWS. Scoping meeting to discuss the feasibility of condor reintroductions in Arizona. AGFD discussed 12-Step Procedure for Reestablishment of Nongame and Endangered Species.
August 20, 1991 USFWS. Aerial review of potential release sites in northern Arizona. ( August 21, 1991 USFWS. Coordination meeting on potential condor releases in northern Arizona.
August 12, 1992 AGFD Nongame Branch. Coordination meeting with USFWS and Recovery Team to discuss potential condor releases. (
June 16, 1993 Nongame Branch. Meeting with USFWS to discuss condor releases.
February 14, 1994 USFWS. Conducted informational meeting at BLM office in Phoenix. AGFD presentation. ( ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 31
February 15-16, 1994 Nongame Branch. With BLM, The Peregrine Fund, and USFWS, conducted ground-based site review of Echo Cliffs and Paria Plateau/Vermilion Cliffs as potential release sites.
April 15, 1994 AGFD Nongame Branch. Drafted comments to USFWS on the Hualapai Nation's condor reintroduction proposal.
April 26, 1994 AGFD Nongame Branch. Departmental meeting with Region II personnel to discuss issues and concerns. ( August 9, 1994 AGFD Nongame Branch. Letter sent to solicit public, organization and agency comment on re-establishing California condors to Arizona.
( August 9, 1994 AGFD Nongame Branch and Region II. Public scoping meeting in Kanab, Utah.
April 26, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Authorization requested from Director ( to proceed through Step 8 of the 12 step schedule of activities. { April 28, 1995 USFWS met with the Department to discuss condor releases.
May 7, 1995 USFWS. Update meeting on potential condor releases at USFWS Phoenix Office. ( May 8, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Project information meeting in Flagstaff, for USFWS, BLM, The Peregrine Fund, Grand Canyon National Park, Los Angeles Zoo, and Navajo Natural Heritage Program representatives. ( May 9, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Conducted aerial site review of four proposed release alternatives.
May 10, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Conducted on-site (Vermilion Cliffs) l review with USFWS, and The Peregrine Fund. May 10, 1995 USFWS, AGFD, and Recovery Team met with representative from Hualapai Nation.
( May 25, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Draft California condor brochure ( distributed for review. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 32
(
June 2, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Project update meeting with USFWS.
June 8-9, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Met with The Peregrine Fund's Environmental Assessment Biologist to coordinate on the EA and AGFD 12-Step Procedures. (
June 12-14, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Conducted on-site (Vermilion Cliffs) review with The Peregrine Fund's Environmental Assessment Biologist.
June 12, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Met with local ranchers that have grazing allotments within the proposed release area.
June 13-14, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Met with local business owners at Marble Canyon Lodge and Vermilion Cliffs Lodge.
June 14, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Met with Region II Staff for updates. June 19, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Met with The Peregrine Fund's ( Environmental Assessment Biologist to collect additional information to update and coordinate EA and 12-Step Procedures.
June 20, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. California Condor Project Newsletter sent to all interested parties on the Department's Condor Mailing List.
June 25, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Channel 10 News story on proposed condor release in Arizona.
June 30, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Drafted Department's response to ( USFWS Scoping Letter.
July 5, 1995 AGFD Region II. Public (scoping) meeting held at Marble Canyon Lodge. Participating agencies provided information and answered questions concerning potential releases at Vermilion Cliffs. ( July 6, 1995 Newspaper article appeared in the Arizona Daily Sun in Flagstaff.
September 22, 1995 AGFD N ongame Branch. Met with USFWS Condor Coordinator and Arizona Ecological Office representative and the Department's Region II N ongame Specialist to discuss the draft Memorandum of ( Understanding and lO(j) Rule. ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 33
September 26, 1995 AGFD Game, Nongame, and Research branches, and Regions II and III. Drafted a Department response to USFWS Environmental Assessment for condor releases in northern Arizona.
October 6, 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch. Second condor newsletter distributed to all parties on the Department's project mailing list.
November-December 1995 AGFD Nongame Branch and Region II. Meetings and telephone conferences with USFWS to discuss the final drafts of the ( Environmental Assessment, proposed nonessential experimental population designation rule, state reintroduction proposal, and Memorandum of Understanding.
January 8, 1996 AGFD Region II. Project information meetings with Kane County (in Kanab) and the Page City Council (in Page).
January 9, 1996 AGFD Region II. Project information meetings with the Kanab City Council, in Kanab. f ( January 10, 1996 AGFD Region II. Project information meetings with the Fredonia City Council, in Fredonia.
January 22, 1996 AGFD Nongame Branch. Disseminate the draft California condor reintroduction proposal (draft NGTR 86) for public comment through March 31, 1996.
January 23, 1996 AGFD Nongame Branch and Region II. Attend USFWS Public Hearing in Flagstaff, on proposed nonessential experimental population designation rule.
January 25, 1996 AGFD Nongame Branch and Region II. Attend USFWS Public Hearing in Kanab, on proposed . nonessential experimental population designation rule.
February 1, 1996 AGFD Nongame Branch. Submit agency comment letter through the Director to USFWS on the proposed nonessential experimental population designation rule.
May-June 1996 AGFD Nongame Branch and Region II. Conclude 12-step process with Arizona Game and Fish Director's decision on whether to ( support condor reintroductions in northern Arizona. Disseminate final state reintroduction plan (this document) to public.
(. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 34 (
APPENDIX C. Draft Memorandum of Understanding among Cooperators in the Proposed California Condor Release Project in Northern Arizona. [October 1996 draft]
( Memorandum of Understanding
among
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arizona Game and Fish Department
State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources
( U.S. Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (
U.S. Forest Service (Kaibab National Forest)
The Peregrine Fund
Hualapai Tribe
The Navajo Nation
The Los Angeles Zoo ( Zoological Society of San Diego
The Phoenix Zoo
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), is made and entered into by and among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, 2, and 6; Arizona Game and Fish Department as authorized to enter into ( agreements (i.e. A.R.S. Title 17-231.B.7.); State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources; U.S. 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 Lqs Angeles Zoo; Zoological Society of San Diego; and The Phoenix Zoo. Collectively, the parties to this MOU will be referred to as the cooperators. l ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 35
PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to establish a general framework for cooperation and participation among the primary and other cooperators to promote the recovery of the California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus). The primary cooperators, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as authorized to enter into agreements (43 U.S. C. 1737), will be supporting the reintroduction program on a daily basis. All other cooperators will provide support to the reintroduction program as needed. All cooperators will provide input on current and future reintroduction program management needs. The Peregrine Fund as an agent of the primary cooperators ( will maintain the release program in the field.
OBJECTIVES
This MOU is made and entered into in an attempt to meet the following objectives:
1. Establish and support a long-term program to release captive reared California condors in northern Arizona/southern Utah.
2. Achieve the recovery goals for this species as cited in the California Condor Recovery ( Plan. WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Federal land management and regulatory agency responsible for initiating, conducting, and supporting programs for the recovery of listed populations under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Such programs include those designated to recover the California condor.
WHEREAS, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, a State resource agency has determined that conducting releases of California condors in Arizona would be consistent with their current program to reestablish extirpated nongame and endangered wildlife.
WHEREAS, the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, a State resource agency has determined that conducting releases of California condors in Arizona with the understanding that condors may forage and/or become established in Utah, would be consistent with their mission to assure the future of protected wildlife through protection, propagation, management, conservation and distribution.
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Land Management, a Federal land management agency responsible for the management of public lands is mandated to cooperate in the planning of programs to recover threatened and endangered species on public lands.
WHEREAS, both the Grand Canyon National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, are ( units of the National Park Service, a Federal land management agency charged with the responsibility to identify and promote the conservation of all federally listed species within park boundaries. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( · NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 36
WHEREAS, the Kaibab National Forest, a Federal land management agency has the responsibility to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and manage habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to promote recovery.
WHEREAS, The Peregrine Fund, a private conservation organization, whose goals include the ( preservation of avian species, has successfully conducted breeding and reintroduction programs involving endangered species.
WHEREAS, the Hualapai Tribe, a sovereign government, supports its own wildlife department which is committed to the management and conservation of all wildlife resources on its lands, including endangered species.
WHEREAS, the Navajo Nation, a sovereign government, supports its own wildlife department which is committed to the management and conservation of all wildlife resources on its lands, including endangered species. ( WHEREAS, the Los Angeles Zoo, a zoological institution currently breeding California condors for release to the wild is committed to providing captive-reared condors for release in northern Arizona and employs personnel knowledgeable of release techniques for California condors.
WHEREAS, the Zoological Society of San Diego, a zoological institution currently breeding California condors for release to the wild is committed to providing captive-reared condors for release in northern Arizona.
WHEREAS, the Phoenix Zoo, a zoological institution with facilities and personnel qualified to contribute to a California condor reintroduction, is committed to this species recovery. ( NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the cooperators enter into this MOU to accomplish its purpose and objectives.
All cooperators agree to:
( 1. Implement the objectives, strategies, and tasks of the California Condor Recovery Plan.
2. As needed and when available, provide facilities, equipment, logistical support, and land access to field program personnel.
3. Designate a principal contact for their respective agency to interface with the field program. (
4. Assemble a working team to meet on a regular basis to enhance communication and cooperation and develop annual work plans.
5. Develop and distribute public information and educational materials on the California condor and the reintroduction program. ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 37
6. Provide ongoing review of and feedback on the reintroduction program.
7. Cooperate in the development of all major media releases and media projects.
8. Keep local governments, communities, and citizens informed on the status of the reintroduction effort and solicit their input.
9. Whenever possible, develop opportunities for local communities to participate in the California Condor Recovery Program in ways which may provide economic benefits. ( The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees to:
1. Designate the condors released into northern Arizona as a nonessential experimental population in accordance with Section lO(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
2. Provide a Condor Recovery Project Leader to serve as the focal point for the Service on all matters involving the Arizona condor release.
3. Designate a contact for condor recovery activities in Arizona and Utah.
4. Provide direction to the recovery actions described in this MOU as outlined in the California Condor Recovery Plan and protocols established by the California Condor Recovery Program.
5. Provide all necessary authorizations and Federal permits to all cooperators on a timely basis as sanctioned under appropriate laws.
6. Revise and update field program operational protocols, as needed.
The Arizona Grune and Fish Department agrees to:
1. Provide a full time condor biologist to serve as the focal point for Arizona Game and Fish Department on matters involving the condor. ·
2. Facilitate the issuance of necessary authorizations and State permits to all cooperators on a timely basis as sanctioned under appropriate laws.
3. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed.
State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources agrees to:
1. Provide a liaison to serve as the focal point for Division of Wildlife Resources on matters involving the condor.
2. Facilitate the issuance of necessary authorizations and State permits to all cooperators on a timely basis as sanctioned under appropriate laws . Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 38 (
3. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed.
4. Assist with any field based recovery activities in Utah.
The Bureau of Land Management agrees to: (
1. Provide a principal contact to assist with field-based recovery activities that would include but not be limited to providing logistical support to field biologists monitoring condors, and to coordinate major field recovery efforts on Bureau of Land Management administered lands.
2. Participate in the evaluation of the feasibility of subsequent releases of condors or the establishment of feeding stations on Bureau of Land Management administered lands .
3. Provide all necessary land use authorizations and permits to all cooperators on a timely basis.
4. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed. (
The Grand Canyon National Park agrees to:
1. Provide a principal contact to assist with field-based recovery activities that would include but not be limited to providing logistical support to field biologists monitoring condors, and to coordinate major field recovery efforts on Grand Canyon National Park administered lands.
2. Expedite the issuance of any necessary research permits and approvals for aircraft overflights if needed for radio tracking purposes.
3. Participate in the evaluation of the feasibility -of subsequent releases of condors or the l establishment of feeding stations on Grand Canyon National Park lands.
4. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed.
The Glen Canyon National Recreation Area agrees to: ( 1. Provide a principal contact to assist with field-based recovery activities that would include but not be limited to providing logistical support to field biologists monitoring condors, and to coordinate major field recovery efforts on Glen Canyon National Recreational Area administered lands. ( 2. Provide all necessary land use authorizations and permits to all cooperators on a timely basis.
3. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed.
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 39
The Kaibab National Forest agrees to:
1. Provide a principal contact to assist with field-based recovery activities that would inciude but not be limited to providing logistical support to field biologists monitoring condors, and to coordinate major field recovery efforts on Kaibab National Forest administered lands.
2. Provide all necessary land use authorizations and permits to all cooperators on a timely basis.
3. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed. ( The Peregrine Fund agrees to:
1. Establish and maintain a long-term program to reintroduce and monitor captive-reared California condors in northern Arizona.
( 2. Provide facilities to house and personnel to care for, condors in the field.
3. Maintain a California condor captive-breeding program to produce condors for release to the wild. · ( ( 4. Prepare California condors for release according to current release protocols.
5. Work closely with all cooperators to ensure field operations are compatible with existing wildlife resource and land management strategies.
6. Revise and update captive breeding and field program operational protocols, as needed.
7. Work with private landowners in the area to ensure that reintroduction activities are compatible with activities on private lands.
The Hualapai Tribe agrees to:
1. Provide a principal contact to assist with field-based recovery activities that would include but not be limited to providing logistical support to field biologists monitoring condors, and to coordinate major field recovery efforts on Hualapai Tribal administered lands.
2. Provide all necessary land use authorizations and permits to all cooperators on a timely basis. ( 3. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed.
4. The Governor's Executive Order No . 75-5 with the exception that Hualapai preference shall be included pursuant to an MOU between the Hualapai Tribe and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Hualapai Tribe is a sovereign nation and not subject to the special conditions provided by the State of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 40 (
The Navajo Nation agrees to:
1. Provide a principal contact to assist with field-based recovery activities that would include but not be limited to providing logistical support to field biologists monitoring condors, and to coordinate major field recovery efforts on Navajo Nation administered lands.
2. Provide all necessary land use authorizations and permits to all cooperators on a timely basis.
3. Provide input to field program operational protocols, as needed.
The Los Angeles Zoo agrees to:
1. Provide facilities to house, and personnel to care for, California condors.
2. Maintain a California condor captive-breeding program to produce condors for release to the wild. (
3 . Prepare California condors for release by submitting all release candidates to behavioral modification training.
4. Provide veterinary assistance in the field during transfer, capture, release operations and ( emergency situations, as needed.
5. Provide a release program advisor to assist in the development and operation of the field reintroduction program.
6. Provide training opportunities in basic field care and handling of condors to field personnel.
7. Revise and update captive breeding protocols, as needed.
The Zoological Society of San Diego agrees to:
1. Provide facilities to house, and personnel to care, for California condors.
2. Maintain a California condor captive-breeding program to produce condors for release to the wild.
3 Prepare California condors for release by submitting all release candidates to behavioral modification training.
4. Provide veterinary assistance in the field during transfer, capture, release operations and emergency situations, as needed.
5. Provide training opportunities in basic field care and handling of condors to field personnel. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 41
6. Revise and update captive breeding protocols, as needed.
The Phoenix Zoo agrees to:
1. Act as the Arizona contact for veterinary support for the northern Arizona reintroduction program.
2. Provide veterinary assistance in the field during transfer, capture, release operations and emergency situations, as needed. ( 3. Provide facilities to temporarily house injured and sick condors, temporarily house condors in transit, provide quarantine space, and personnel to care for condors, as needed.
4. Provide training opportunities in basic field care and handling of condors to field personnel.
( IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY AND BETWEEN THE COOPERATORS THAT:
1. Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property among ( the cooperators to this MOU will require the execution of separate agreements or contracts. 2. Nothing in this MOU shall obligate the cooperators to expend appropriations or to enter into any contract or other obligations.
3. This MOU may be modified or amended upon written request of any cooperator hereto and the subsequent written concurrence of all cooperators. Cooperator participation in this MOU may be terminated with a 60-day written notice.
4. In order to meet the present and/or future needs of the California condor recovery effort, this MOU may be modified or amended at any time to facilitate additional cooperators.
5. This MOU shall have a term of five (5) years from the date of approval, at the end of this period it will expire unless canceled, extended, or renewed.
6. Conflicts between agencies concerning procedures under this MOU which cannot be resolved at the operational level will be referred to the next higher level, as necessary, for resolution.
(
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 42
IN WITNESS WHEREOF:
The cooperators hereto have executed this MOU as of the last written date below.
Nancy F. Kaufman, Director, Region 2 Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
( Ralph 0. Morganweck, Director, Region 6 Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael J. Spear, Director, Region 1 Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (
Duane L. Shroufe, Director Date Arizona Game and Fish Department ( (
Robert G. Valentine, Division Director Date State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources
( Denise L. Meridith, Arizona State Director Date U.S. Bureau of Land Management
William G. Lamb, Utah State Director Date ( U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Robert Arnberger, Park Superintendent Date Grand Canyon National Park (
Joseph F. Alston, Park Superintendent Date Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Conny Frisch, Forest Supervisor Date ( Kaibab National Forest
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 43 (
Dr. William A. Burnham, President Date The Peregrine Fund, Inc.
Delbert Havatone, Chairman Date Hualapai Tribe
( Albert A. Hale, President Date The Navajo Nation
Manuel Mollinedo, Administrator Date The Los Angeles Zoo (
Douglas G. Myers, Executive Director Date Zoological Society of San Diego
( l Jeff Williamson, Executive Director Date The Phoenix Zoo
(
{
(
(
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 44 (
APPENDIX A (to the proposed Interagency MOU)
STATE OF ARIZONA SPECIAL CONDITIONS ( 1. All cooperators agree to comply with the Governor's Executive Order No. 75-5, entitled "Prohibition of Discrimination in State Contracts - Discrimination in Employment by Government Contractors and Subcontractors. "
2. All cooperators hereby are put on notice that this MOU is subject to cancellation by the Governor f of the State of Arizona, pursuant to A.RS., Section 38-511.
3. To the extent required pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute A.RS., Section 12-1518 and any successor statutes, the cooperators agree to use arbitration, after exhausting all applicable administrative remedies, to resolve any dispute arising out of this agreement, where not in conflict with Federal Law. (
4. Pursuant to A.RS., Sections 35-214 and 35-215, and Section 41-1179.04 as amended, all books, accounts, reports, files, and other records relating to any contracts issued under the umbrella of the MOU shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection and audit by the State for five years after completion of the contract. Such records shall be reproduced as designated by the ( State of Arizona.
(
(
(
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 45 (
APPENDIX D. Proposed Nonessential Experimental Population Designation for California Condors Released in Northern Arizona.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ( Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD62 ( Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern Arizona
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule. { 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 DA TE: This rule becomes effective on [insert date of publication].
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.
l 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 lO(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
l (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 46
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 IOU) 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 IOU) 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)(l), 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 IOU), 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 r
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 47
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 ( 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 (Ko ford 1953, Wilbur 197 5, Snyder ~ ill. 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- l 800'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 Kem, 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 (Ko ford 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, (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 48 (
overhung ledges, potholes, and more rarely, in cavities of giant sequoia trees (Sequoia gi ganteus) (Snyder ~ fil. 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, again based in part on the validity of Koford's estimates of flock size (Miller~ fil. 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. (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 49
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~ fil. 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
(. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 50 (
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. 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 ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 51 (
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
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 52
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 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 (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 53 (
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 l ( 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
(. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 54 (
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).
Status of Reintroduced Population
In accordance with section lO(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. l Section lO(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 lO(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 l 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,
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 55 (
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)(l), 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 ~ fil. 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 lOG)(l) 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 ( comer 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
l (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 56
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 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 lO(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 §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 ~xperimental 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. l
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 (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 57
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.
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.
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 58
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 ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 59
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. § 1539(i)(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 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. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 60
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. (
( ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 61 (
Issue 6: California condors should not be released in northern Arizona because Gymnogyps califomianus did not occur in northern Arizona prehistorically, the Pleistocene condor was actually Q. amplus .
. Service Response: The California Condor was more widespread during the late Pleistocene epoch ( (Wetmore 1931a, 1931b, Brodkorb 1964, Lundelius ~ fil. 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 (Martin 1967), or to a combination of these factors.
Most authors have arbitrarily assigned all Pleistocene Gymnogyps fossils to the form Q. 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 modem 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 Q. 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 Q. califomianus 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 Q. califomianus, restricting the trinomial Q. califomianus amplus for Pleistocene fossils and the name Q.£. califomianus for the modem 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~ fil. 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~ fil. 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
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 62
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 thr9ughout 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. § lc(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 l 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 (
( {
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 63
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 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 of219 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
l Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 64
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.
( ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 65 (
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 fil fil. 1986, Wiemeyer fil fil. 1988). Uncovered carcasses and gut piles resulting from ungulate or small mammal hunting were the probable sources of the lead (Pattee fil ill. 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, 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 corning 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 (28rni), 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). ( ( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 66
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. l 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 lOU) 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
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 67 (
talce 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 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 talce 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. ( (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 68
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 ~ ~.). 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 ~ ~.). 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 reintroductiori 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
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 69
PART 17--[AMENDED]
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:
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. l l(h), the table entry "Condor, California" under BIRDS is revised to read as follows:
§ 17 .11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. * * * * *
( (h) * * *
Vertebrate SPECIES population
Historic where endangered When Critical Special Common name Scientific name range or threatened Status listed habitat rules
* * * **** BIRDS * **** * * Condor, California Gymnogyps U.S.A. (AZ, CA, U.S.A. only, E 1. 17 .95(b) NA califomianus OR, UT) except where listed Mexico (Baja as an experimental California) population below.
Do do do U.S.A. (specific XN NA l7.84(j) portions of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah) * * * ****
3. Section 17 . 84 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 17. 84 Special rules--vertebrates.
( * * * * * (j) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus).
(1) The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) population identified in l paragraph (j)(8) of this section is a nonessential experimental population, and the release of such population will further the conservation of the species.
l (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 70
(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 § 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;
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 71 (
(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 (i)(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 (i)) .
(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.
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 72 (
(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 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. § 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii). '
(_ Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 73 (
(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 ~o 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.
[INSERT MAP HERE]
Date Signed: October 8, 1996 ( George T. Frampton, Jr. , Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Billing Code 4310-55-P
( (
l (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 74
APPENDIX E. Draft Implementation Agreement among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Various Local Governments for the Proposed California Condor Release Project in Northern Arizona. [Final Draft (9/10/96)]
(
AGREEMENT
between
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
and
COALITION OF COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
for the
CALIFORNIA CONDOR EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION AREA NORTHERN ARIZONA and SOUTHERN UTAH ( (
This Agreement, is made and entered into by and between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as represented by the Southwest Region (Albuquerque, New Mexico), the Arizona Ecological Services Office (Phoenix, Arizona); the Mountain-Prairie Region (Denver, Colorado), the Utah Ecological Services Office (Salt Lake City, Utah); and the Western Region (Portland, Oregon), the Ventura Field Office (Ventura, California); and a Coalition of County and Local Governments (Coalition) located in the California condor Experimental Population Area. The parties to this Agreement will be referred to as the Cooperators.
PURPOSE ( The purposes of this 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.
OBJECTIVES l
This Agreement is made and entered into in an attempt to meet the following objectives:
1. To facilitate cooperation among Federal, State, County, and local Governments, and private landowners within the experimental population area. ( ( {
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 75 (
2. To support the establishment of a nonessential experimental population of California condors in the northern Arizona/southern Utah region.
3. To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable that all current and future land, water, or air uses ( within the experimental population area will not be restricted due to the designation or presence of the nonessential experimental population of California condors.
4. Develop opportunities for local communities to participate in the California Condor Recovery Program, including ways which may provide economic benefits. ( BACKGROUND
The Service's Pacific Region, Ventura Field Office, is responsible for overall coordination of the California Condor Recovery Program (Program) and in consultation with the California Condor Recovery Team and other Program participants, directs the implementation of recovery tasks prescribed in the Condor Recovery Plan in order to meet established recovery goals. The Service's Southwest Region, Arizona Ecological Services Office, and the Mountain-Prairie Region, Utah Ecological Services Office, take part in the California condor recovery effort by either directing or participating in all condor recovery efforts within their geographic area of jurisdiction.
( ( The goal of the AprH 1996 California Condor Recovery Plan is to reclassify the condor from endangered to threatened. To accomplish this goal, at least 2 geographically separate wild populations numbering 150 individuals with 15 breeding pairs each are to be established. The Service proposed in January 1996 an experimental project to release captive reared California condors ( Gymnogyps californianus) into a specially designated area in northern Arizona/southern Utah (61 Fed .. Reg. 35). This release will implement a primary recovery action to establish the second wild condor population.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) allows the Service to release a listed species outside its current range, but within its historic range, if such a release will further the conservation of such species. However, local communities expressed concern about the potential prohibitions that may accompany a listed species and may potentially impact cultural or economic activities. These concerns ( were addressed in the 1982 amendments to the Act, Public Law 97-304, published October 13, 1982. These amendments included the creation of section lO(j), which established the procedures for the designation of specific populations as II experimental populations. 11
Section lO(j) is designed to increase the Service's flexibility to manage reintroduced populations, and to protect current and future land uses and activities through the designation of experimental populations. ( Before an experimental population can be released, section lO(j) requires that the population be determined to be either II essential II or II nonessential II to the continued existence of the species in the wild. For the purposes of defining the protections afforded by Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, an essential experimental population is treated as a threatened species; a nonessential experimental population is treated as a species proposed for listing as threatened. However, a nonessential population is also treated as a threatened species when located within the National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 76 (
This California condor population proposed to be reintroduced within portions of northern Arizona/southern Utah has been designated as nonessential experimental. This nonessential experimental population will be managed in accordance with the provisions of the final rule (XXX) establishing the designation, an Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and this Agreement. ( The final rule is incorporated by reference into this Agreement. The 50 C. F. R. section 17. 80( d) requires that, to the extent practicable, the regulation promulgated by the Service represents an agreement between the Service, the affected State and Federal agencies and persons holding any interest in land which may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.
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. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with the Service to ensure 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. This requirement also applies to the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of a listed species. A nonessential experimental population for the purposes of section 7(a)(2) is treated as a proposed species outside of National Park System or National Wildlife System lands, not a listed species, and therefore is excluded from the protection and consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2). Only two provisions of section 7 apply to a species of this status. Section 7(a)(l), which requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve listed species, and section 7(a)(4), which only requires Federal agencies to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to jeopardize such ( species. Conferences are advisory in nature and do not place any requirements on the conferring agency. ( Activities undertaken on private lands are not affected by section 7 unless the activities are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. A nonessential experimental population located within the National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System shall be treated, for the purposes of Section 7(a)(2), as a listed threatened species, and therefore, subject to the protection and consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2).
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of listed species. "Take" is defined by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. However, in accordance with the special rules promulgated under section lO(i), a person may take a California condor within the experimental population area, provided such take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
Throughout the entire California condor experimental population area, a person(s) will not be in violation of the Act for unavoidable and unintentional take (including killing or injuring) of a California condor, when such take is non-negligent and incidental to a lawful activity, such as hunting, driving, or recreational activities and is reported as soon as possible. Intentional "take" of a condor, such as willful shooting, egg collecting, or nest destruction, would still be considered a violation under the Act.
PARTIES
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Federal land management and regulatory agency, is responsible for initiating, conducting, and supporting programs for the recovery of listed populations ( under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Such programs include those designated to recover the California condor. (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 77 (
WHEREAS, County and Local Governments are responsible generally for the health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors, as well as promoting prosperity, morals, peace and good order, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, tax base, industries, and protection of both urban and non-urban development (Utah Codes 10-9-102 and 17-27-102).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees:
1. All released California condors and their progeny will constitute a nonessential experimental population for the time they are present in the experimental population area, or until the condor ( is delisted.
2. The experimental population area boundaries are as follows. 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. All California condors and their progeny found in the wild within these boundaries will comprise the nonessential experimental population for the entire duration which condors are present in the population area, or until the condor is delisted. ( ( 3. Before the condors are released the Service will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among affected Federal agencies, State agencies, and Tribes to establish a general framework for cooperation and participation in this project within the experimental population area. The MOU provides a conduit for information exchange necessary to manage the needs of this nonessential experimental population in a manner that will be compatible with existing and future land management needs and strategies on both public and private land.
4. To relocate any California condors that move outside the experimental population area. All California condors and their progeny in the experimental population area will be marked and visually identifiable by plastic colored and coded wing markers. In the event that a condor moves outside the experimental population area, the condor will be captured and returned to the experimental population area, or placed in 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 land owner or appropriate land management agency. The Service has proposed this experimental population area to accommodate the potential future movements of the reintroduced 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.
5. To relocate any California condor within the experimental population area, including the National Park System to address immediate hazards to condors, improve condor survival, and avoid conflicts with ongoing or proposed activities, or as requested by an adversely affected landowner, land manager, local government, political subdivision, or other adversely affected party. Adverse ( ( affects and requests for condor relocations will be documented, reported, and resolved in as an expedient manner as appropriate to the specific situation to protect condors and avoid conflicts.
( {
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 78
All captures and relocations inside the experimental population area will be coordinated with Service Cooperators and conducted with the permission of the land owner or appropriate land management agency.
6. To monitor the experimental population. Any condor displaying evidence that it is in poor health, ( diseased, or injured will be captured by authorized personnel, evaluated and either re-released, held temporarily, or maintained in captivity. All California condors will be given physical examinations before being released. If there is any evidence that a condor is in poor health or diseased, it will not be released to the wild.
7. Review the progress of the reintroduction project and recovery plan objectives within the first five years after the initial release, and every five years afterwards. This evaluation will include, but not be limited to, a review of management issues , compliance with agreements, assessment of available food base (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. The number of variables that could affect this reintroduction project make it difficult to develop a criteria for success or failure after five years. However, if after five 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 and revocation of the 10 (j) rule through all applicable Federal rule-making and other procedures. Updates and ( new data will be provided at the scheduled annual meeting by the parties to this agreement. {
8. To ensure to the maximum extent practicable that current and future land, water, or air uses and activities such as, but not limited to, commercial and business development, forest management, agriculture, mining (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) should not be restricted due to the designation of the nonessential experimental population, the presence or potential presence of California condors. In addition, no operational restrictions will be placed on currently permitted activities, due to the presence or potential presence of condors, on Bureau of Land Management grazing allotments located in the proximity of the proposed release site at the Vermilion Cliffs leased by Rich, Sturdavant, Carter, and Schoppmann. Further, if any modifications of existing structures are needed to protect condors, they will be made or paid for by the appropriate MOU cooperator with the approval of the land manager and/or private operator in accordance with all applicable procedures.
9. Both the Glen Canyon and Lake Mead National Recreation areas are located within the California condor experimental population area. These National Recreation Areas (NRAs) are units of the National Park System and are subject to the 1916 Organic Act and other laws applicable to National Parks and Monuments. Although enabling legislation for each NRA authorizes activities unique to the region, they are still managed as units of the National Park System. Therefore, condors located in either of these two NRAs (or national parks) would be treated as a threatened species and subject to the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. ( (_ ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 79 (
The Service does not foresee that activities in the California condor experimental population area, including activities in the NRAs, would result in jeopardy to the California condor. Additionally, the Service does not foresee that any ongoing or future land, water, air, or other uses of interest to the Coalition will be restricted due to this reintroduction project. This is demonstrated by (1) ( condors utilize remote, canyon habitat; (2) the Service has never determined that an activity may cause jeopardy of the California condor during the time (29 years) that the condor has been listed; (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 unaccessible 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 will 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 (29 years), 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 activity { would have on the entire species. Thus, in analyses under section 7(a)(2), the Service would evaluate the effects of an activity within National Park System lands located in the experimental population area, against the entire condor population and not solely against the northern Arizona/southern Utah nonessential experimental population. Furthermore, as the condor populations increase and approach recovery, the overall effect of activities on the California condor would become less significant and the likelihood of a jeopardy determination would become increasingly remote. <
As part of the management strategy for this population the Service will relocate any condor within the experimental population area [special rule # 4 (I)], including the National Park System, to avoid conflicts with ongoing or proposed activities, or when relocation is requested by an ( adversely affected landowner. 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 an existing or 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.
(_ ( 10. 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
(_ (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 80 (
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 MOU developed for this program, and (3) the Cooperators identified in the Agreement developed 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 the reintroduction project is unsuccessful and the rule is revoked. No designation of critical habitat will be made for nonessential populations (16 U.S.C. Section 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 the rule, then, unless all parties to the MOU and Agreement existing at the time agree that the birds should remain in the wild, all California condors will be removed from such area and the 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.
11. Throughout the entire California condor experimental population area, a person(s) will not be in violation of the Act for unavoidable and unintentional take (including killing or injuring) of a California condor, when such take is non-negligent and incidental to a lawful activity, such as hunting, driving, or recreational activities, and the take is reported promptly. Any take must be reported as soon as possible to the 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) who will determine the disposition of any live or dead specimens.
12. If and when recovery goals are met for downlisting the California condor, a rule will be proposed and published in the Federal Register. A rule to downlist an endangered species to threatened would not affect the status of any experimental population.
The Coalition agrees to:
1. Notify the Service or other Cooperators of any potential problems, issues, or concerns, and provide an opportunity for these issues to be resolved in a expedient manner in order to avoid ( conflicts. ·
2. Notify the Service or other Cooperators of any emergency situations regarding California condor health and safety.
3. Work cooperatively with the Service, however their participation in this agreement and the California Condor Recovery Program does not constitute agreement with the Service's position on the historical record or presumed occurrence of the California condor in the states of Arizona and Utah.
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 81 (
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY AND AMONG THE COO PERA TORS THAT:
1. This agreement shall become effective when signed by all Cooperators and stay in effect for the ( life of the project, which is the period of time California condors are present in the experimental population area or until the condor is delisted.
2. Each of the parties hereto shall have all of the remedies available in equity (including specific performance and injunctive relief) and at law to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and to seek r remedies and compensation for any breach of this Agreement. 3. Conduct coordination meetings at least annually, the· first to take place in May 1997, to review the implementation of this agreement, consider amendments, and to inform local governments and communities of the status of the reintroduction effort.
( 4. All communications will be conducted in an expedient manner appropriate to the specific situation. In order to facilitate communication a list of cooperating agency contacts is provided in appendix 1.
5. The principle contacts for this agreement are: ( ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Field Supervisor Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 (602) 640-2720
Coalition of County Governments Chairman,_Kane County Commission 78 South 100 East Kanab, Utah 84 7 41 (801) 644-2551
or to such other address or the attention of such other officer from time to time shall designate by written notice to the other. Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 82 r
IN WITNESS WHEREOF:
Nancy Kaufman, Director, Region 2 Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ralph Morganweck, Director, Region 6 Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, Colorado
Michael J. Spear, Director, Region 1 Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon
Norman Carroll, Chairperson Date ( Kane County Commission
Gayle M. Aldred, Chairperson Date Washington County Commission ( Louise Liston, Chairperson Date Garfield County Commission
Bart Leavitt, Chairperson Date Grand County Council
Robert L. Gardner, Chairperson Date Iron County Commission
Tony Gabaldon, Chairperson Date Coconino County Board of Supervisors ( Sam Standerfer, Chairperson Date Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Randy Johnson, Chairperson Date Emery County Commission
( ( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 83
APPENDIX F. Condor Release Site Evaluation.
I. Overview of Condor Release Site Evaluation System
( This section describes the evaluation system and working criteria used to assess site suitability for the release of California Condors. This system was originally developed to evaluate potential release sites in California and hence certain of the criteria are more applicable to that state than to releases in other states. As noted in Chapter 2, three of the four potential release sites in northern Arizona were eliminated from further analysis due to fundamental logistical constraints ( or the presence of known mortality sources. Therefore, only the preferred site (Vermilion Cliffs) was evaluated in detail using this system. This exercise was undertaken primarily to identify criteria for which the preferred site might be deficient.
The Release Site Evaluation System includes 25 criteria (some with sub-categories) that are ( divided into three priority classes:
Priority 1 criteria: Features that are assumed at this time to be critical to releasing and establishing condors in the wild. A significant lack or uncorrectable problem among any of these criteria would result in a site being rejected. { ( Priority 2 criteria: Features that are necessary to consider, but which are not assumed to be critical to release objectives. Excessive problems in this category could, however, result in rejection of a site.
Priority 3 criteria: Features that would add to or detract from the suitability of a site, but which are not critical to site selection.
Each of the working criteria is assigned a quantitative value (see below) and weighted according to the priority class in which they belong (three points for Priority 1 criteria; two points for Priority 2 criteria; one point for Priority 3 criteria). The sum from the three priority classes gives the total value for a site.
II. Working Criteria List
Priority 1 Criteria
Site Suitability 1. Presence of safe, sheltered release station 2. Limitations of public access to immediate area 3. Roost site availability ( 4. Presence of favorable wind conditions 5. Availability of year-round water supply (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 84
6. Density of golden eagles (feeding competitors) 7. Access to topographic flight corridors 8. Access to foraging areas 9. Availability of suitable feeding stations 10. Orientation landmarks
Logistics 11. Access to release station by research staff 12. Access to general release area by research staff 13. Access to adjacent lands by research staff
Priority 2 Criteria
Site Suitability 14. Distance to historic or potential nest sites ( 15. Presence of pilot species (except golden eagles; e.g., vultures, ravens)
Logistics 16. Visibility of birds to observers ( 17. Proximity of support facilities (housing, equipment storage) 18. Proximity of freezer for carcass storage
Man-made Threats/Hazards 19. Hunting and shooting levels in the area 20. Animal damage control programs in the area 21. Presence of collision hazards and other structural hazards
Suitability of Adjacent Lands (for population expansion) 22. Current land use on adjacent areas 23. Expected long-term land use on adjacent areas (
Priority 3 Criteria .
24. Availability and type of natural carcasses in release area
25. Traditional use of site by wild condors
III. Evaluation Form Instructions
The Evaluation Form establishes a point rating system for the evaluation of potential California condor release sites. The Working Criteria List (see above) presents and categorizes the criteria ( by which potential condor release site will be evaluated, as determined by the Recovery Team. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 85 (
The Evaluation Form itself is self explanatory. The observer(s) should fill out the form in full, making appropriate entries for each criteria. When the evaluation is completed, all entries within each of the Priority 1, 2, and 3 Criteria sections should be added to get a total point value for each section. Priority 1, 2, and 3 Criteria are then individually weighted by multiplying each section point value by 3, 2, and 1, respectively, for a total priority section rating. Finally, the total rating for each of the three priority sections are added to get a Total Site Rating. This number is entered on the bottom line of the front page. Comments regarding Site Suitability, Logistics, etc. may also be included on the front page.
Evaluation of a proposed release area will require both field work at the site and in adjacent areas, and office work (consulting maps, aerial photos, cooperating agencies, etc.). Proposed release areas should be visited on at least 2 to 3 occasions, and, to the extent possible, at varying times of day and year. The time elapsed between the first and last visit to a site should be one month at a minimum.
Some criteria listed in the Evaluation Form require special instructions. These instructions are given below. All criteria with special instructions are marked by an asterisk in the Evaluation Form. For all criteria in the Evaluation Form with radius limits described, the observer should draw circles with the specified radius on maps, the proposed release station forming the center ( ( point. Such maps can be used both in the field and in the office to determine site characteristics within the specified area.
3a, 3b: A roost site is defined as a structure that can support one or more birds (e.g. a single snag, a closely-spaced group of snags, or a more or less contiguous rock { formation). Determining number of roosts in an area to some extent will require the discretion of the observer.
4a, 15: Will vary with the season and time of day. Try to make observations during all or most daylight hours and at several times of year. A void counting soaring rap tors during migration seasons.
4b: Will vary with the season and time of day. Try to take readings during all or most daylight hours and at several times of year.
7, 8: Historic data will need to be consulted. Computer generated maps showing historic condor occurrences should be available.
9: A suitable feeding station should comprise at least one acre of open relatively flat ground, with access routes for research staff. ( ( 10a: Select one of a through c and/or d. if appropriate. (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 86
(
12a, 13b: Winter access problems, such as snow and muddy roads, should be discussed in the comments section on the front page under Logistics.
14: Consult computer generated maps showing historic condor nesting occurrences, if available.
19a: Consult with the local agency biologists for information on hunting and shooting activities, including opening weekend car counts and deer spot kill maps, for an area within a five-mile radius of a proposed release station. Also consult the man~ging agency on whose land a proposed release station occurs for pertinent ( information.
20: Consult with agency biologists for information regarding current and projected programs within a five mile radius of a proposed release station, poisons used, etc. (
21: Count all potential collision or other hazards present in the release site vicinity from the following list and make the appropriate entry. ( Electrical towers w / power lines ( Telephone poles w/ powerless • Oil drilling rigs • Wind turbines • Low-flying military aircraft • Low flying private or agency aircraft ( • Radio and/ or T. V. transmission towers • Microwave relay towers • Any tower w/ guy wires • Oil sumps • Liquid waste disposal ponds ( • Other
23a: Estimate the percent of lands expected to remain in current use for the next approximate 25-50 years.
22b, 23b: Types of developments include residential, commercial, energy, and recreational. The C.R.C. Habitat Specialist may need to be consulted.
( (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 87 (
IV. CONDOR RELEASE SITE EVALUATION FORM
The following form gives the site rating for the proposed release site at Vermilion Cliffs. { ASSIGNED SITE CRITERION VALUE RATING
( PRIORITY 1 CRITERIA
Site Suitability 1. Presence of safe release station (select all applicable) a. Shaded at least 3 hours per day between 10:00-17:00 1 _1_ b. Inaccessible to mammalian predators 2 ( C. Human disturbance unlikely 2 2_
2. Public access to immediate area (select one) a. Closed within 1 mile radius of release station 4 b. Restricted, or combination of closed and restricted 3 ( C C. Could be restricted or closed, or partially open 2 _2 _ d. Open 1
3a. Distance to suitable roost sites (select one) a. Within 1/2 mile of release station 4 4_ b. 1/2 - 1 mile 3 C. 1 - 2 miles 2 d. Greater than 2 miles 1
3b. Number of roost sites within 1/2 mile radius a. Greater than 10 4 4_ b. 7-10 3 = C. 3-6 2 d. 1-2 1
4a. Presence of favorable wind conditions (select one)* a. Soaring raptors present 2 _2_ b. Soaring raptors absent 0
4b. Average wind speed (use Beaufort wind speed scale)* ( a. Beaufort scale average of 2-3 3 _3_ ( b. Beaufort scale average of 1 or 4 2 C. Beaufort scale average of O or greater than 5 1
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 88 (
5. Availability of year-round water supply (select one) a. Natural supply available within 1.5 miles 4 b. Manipulated supply available within 1. 5 miles 3 _3_ C. Intermittent supply available within 1. 5 miles 2 d. No natural supply (water hauled to site) 1
6. Density of golden eagles a. Low (present, but no large feeding aggregations) 2 _2_ b. High (feeding aggregations of 5-10 birds may occur) 0 ( 7. Distance to topographic flight corridors (select one)* a. Less than 2 miles 4 4_ b. 2-4 miles 3 C. 4-5 mlles 2 d. Greater than 5 miles 1 (
8. Distance to historical or potential foraging areas* a. Less than 5 miles 4 4_ b. 5-10 miles 3 ( C. 10-20 miles 2 d. Greater than 20 miles 1
9. Availability of suitable feeding stations (select one)* a. Greater than 10 suitable stations within 3 miles 3 _3_ b. 6-10 suitable stations within 3 miles _ _2 C. 1-5 suitable stations within 3 miles 1
10a. View of habitat types from release station* a. Nesting habitat w / foraging habitat in background 3 _3_ b. Nesting habitat only 2 ( C. Foraging habitat only 1
10b. Orientation landmarks visible (select all applicable) a. Mountain or ridge line 2 _1_ b. Cliffs or other rock formations 2 2_ C. Lakes or large rivers 2 d. Other (2 pts/landmark) 2 2_
Logistics lla. Access to release station by research staff (select one) a Truck or ORV from nearest 2WD access road 4 ( b. Truck and hike from nearest 2WD access road 3 _3_ (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 89
C. ORV and hike from nearest 2WD access road 2 d. Hiking only from nearest 2WD access road 1
( llb. Hiking distance to release station (from ORV or truck) a. No hiking 4 b. Less than 1/ 4 mile 3 C. 1/4 - 1/2 mile 2 _2_ d. Greater than 1/2 mile 1
{ 12a. Access corridors within 1 mile radius of release station* a. Roads and trails 3 _3_ b. Roads only 2 C. Trails only 1
( 12b. Estimated percentage of lands accessible within 1 mile radius* a. Greater than 70 4 4_ b. 40-70 3 C. 20-39 2 d. Less than 20 1 { C 13a. Access corridors on adjacent lands (1-5 mile radius)* a. Roads and trails 3 _3_ b. Roads only 2 C. Trails only 1
13b. Estimated percentage of lands accessible within 1-5 mile radius* a. Greater than 70 4 b. 40-70 3 C. 20-39 2 ( d. Less than 20 1
Total Priority 1 Criteria Points Total Priority 1 Criteria Rating (added points X 3)
( ( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 90 (
PRIORITY 2 CRITERIA
Site Suitability 14. Distance to historical or potential nest sites* a. Less than 5 miles 4 4_ b. 5-10 miles 3 -- C. 10-15 miles 2 - - d. Greater than 15 miles 1 -- ( 15. Presence of pilot species (turkey vultures, ravens)* a. Present 2 _2_ b. Absent 0 -- Logistics 16. Visibility of birds to observers (select one) ( a. 5 or more observation points of release area 3 _3_ 3-4 suitable observation points 2 b. = C. 1-2 suitable observation points 1 = ( 17. Distance to support facilities (housing, storage) ( Less than 5 driving miles 4 a. = b. 5-10 driving miles 3 _3_ C. 10-15 driving miles 2 = Greater than 15 driving miles 1 d. = 18. Distance to freezer for carcass storage (select one) a. Less than 10 driving miles 4 4_ b. 10-20 driving miles 3 = 2 C. 20-30 driving miles = d. Greater than 30 driving miles 1 -- ( Man-made Threats and Hazards 19a. Estimated hunting and shooting levels in area*
a. None 4 -- b. Low 3 _3_ C. Moderate 2 _2_ d. High 1 =
19b. Enforcement rating (select one) a. Enforcement unnecessary or already adequate 3 _3_ (_ b. Activities easily monitored and controlled 2 ( C. Activities monitored and controlled with difficulty 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 91
20. Estimated incidence of animal damage control programs in area* a. None 4 4_ b. Low 3 _3_ ( C. Moderate 2 d. High 1
21a. Distance to nearest collision or other hazard* a. Greater than 5 miles 4 _4_ b. 2.5- 4 miles 3 ( C. 1- 2.5 miles 2 d. Less than 1 mile 1
21b. Types of collision or other hazards within 2-mile radius* a. 0 4 ( b. 1 (agency aircraft) 3 _3_ C. 2 2 d. 3 or more 1 (List them: ) ( Suitability of Adjacent Lands (1-5 mile radius from station) 22a. Current public access on adjacent lands (select one) a. Closed 4 b. Restricted, or combination of closed and restricted 3 C. Could be restricted or closed, or partially open 2 d. Open 1 _1_
22b. Est. percentage of land use on adj. areas (select all applicable)* a. > 50% ranching and/or non-motorized recreation 4 4_ b. < 50% ranching and/or non-motorized recreation 1 (. C. > 50 % agriculture and/ or motorized recreation -5 d. > 25 % development areas -10
23. Est. percentage of adj. lands expected to remain in current use* a. Greater than 7 5 4 4_ b. 50-75 3 C. 25-50 2 d. Less than 25 -4
Total Priority 2 Criteria Points _41_ Total Priority 2 Criteria Rating (added points X 2) _82_ ( I (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 92 (
PRIORITY 3 CRITERIA
24. Type of natural carcasses (select all applicable)
a. Livestock related 4 4_ ( b. Non-man-caused mortality 4 4_ C. Hunter-killed -15 -15_ d. Poisoned -15
25. Recorded historical occurrences of wild condors in area ( a. Greater than 15 4 b. 10-15 3 C. 5-9 2 d. Less than 5 1 _l_
Total Priority 3 Criteria Points _-6_ ( Total Priority 3 Criteria Rating (added points X 1) _-6_
TOTAL SITE RATING (add Priority 1, 2, and 3 Rating) _259_ (
(
(
(
( (
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 93
APPENDIX G. Operational Plan for Release of California Condors at Vermilion Cliffs, Arizona.
This section provides details on the operational plan, timetable, and logistics for release of condors at Vermilion Cliffs. The protocol described herein applies specifically to the first year of the project. Subsequent releases would follow a similar protocol, but may be modified somewhat according to information acquired during the previous year(s).
A. Implementation Schedule
( The target date for .the first release of California condors at Vermilion Cliffs is 1996. To meet this target, the following timeline is proposed:
July 1995-May 1996: • Complete the review process for the USFWS Environmental Assessment, pursuant to the ( National Environmental Policy Act (USFWS lead) • Draft a Memorandum of Understanding among the cooperating agencies (USFWS lead) • Draft a state reintroduction proposal (AGFD lead) • Draft a nonessential experimental population designation rule, pursuant to Section lO(j) of the Endangered Species Act (USFWS lead) ( ( • Solicit applications for project field staff (USFWS lead) • Develop funding for AGFD Project Coordinator, to be stationed out of the Region II Office (AGFD lead)
Februacy-April 1996: • Complete off-site construction of release pen and all ancillary facilities (USFWS lead) • Acquire walk-in freezers and small trailer (or similar unit) to use as the base station for field operations; begin collecting and storing carcasses (or making arrangements to purchase carcasses from area ranchers) (USFWS lead)
March-May 1996: • Complete consultation with the BLM Cultural Resource Specialist to obtain clearance for placement of facilities (USFWS lead) • Transport release pen, base station, aversive conditioning poles, and other field equipment to the release area (USFWS lead) • Assemble release pen and erect poles (USFWS lead) • Identify suitable locations for feeding stations (USFWS lead) • Transfer condor chicks from captive rearing facilities to the release pen at Vermilion Cliffs
May-June 1996 (6-12 days after birds arrive at the release site): ( • Release California condors (USFWS lead) • Begin long-term monitoring (USFWS lead)
{ (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 94
. (
B. Project Overview
The principal activities associated with the condor release project are: construction and placement of the release pen and associated facilities (aversive conditioning poles and temporary housing for caretakers), care of the birds while they are in the release facility for 1-2 weeks, release of the birds, and feeding and daily monitoring of released condors.
C. Construction of Release Pen and Other Facilities
( Physical structures that will be necessary to support the release include the following:
1. Release pen 2. Power poles for aversive conditioning 3. Temporary quarters (tent or other small, portable shelter) at the release site 4. Base camp (small trailer, wall tent, or other structure) on the Paria Plateau 5. Feeding platforms (natural rock formations or wooden platforms) 6. Trap sites 7. Freezers (at locations remote from the release operation) ( All of these structures or facilities will be temporary; those that are no longer needed will be moved or dismantled as each phase of the release is completed. All facilities will be constructed to be as unobtrusive as possible, to maintain the wilderness character of the Paria Plateau/Vermilion Cliffs area. Colors will be chosen to blend with the natural landscape and, whenever possible, facilities will be situated so they are visually concealed. A detailed description of the release facilities follows. (
1. Release facility. One to several days prior to bringing birds to the site, a release pen will be erected to temporarily house them. This stud-and-plywood structure will be approximately 16x8x6 feet (length, width, height). Netting will cover the front of the pen, allowing condors to become accustomed to the surrounding area. ( The pen will rest on blocks (cinder blocks carried to the site, or natural materials if available and allowed per special use permit). The structure will be pre fabricated and brought to the site by helicopter, or it may be carried by foot from the nearest 4WD road as separate panels.
2. Power poles for aversive conditioning training. One or two "dummy" power poles will be erected near the release pen to aversively condition the young condors prior to their dispersal from the release area. Normally, holes would be dug to erect these poles. However, to minimize ground disturbance, the release team may elect to secure the poles to existing trees of suitable size, using brackets (_ or a similar method. Sites for the dummy power poles will be selected in consultation with the BLM Cultural Resource Specialist.
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 95
3. Temporary quarters at the release site. The condors will remain in the release pen for approximately one to two weeks. During that time, one to two biologists will stay in a tent near the pen to observe their behavior, feed them, and guard against any intrusions or other problems (e.g. predators).
4. Base camp. The temporary quarters at the release site will be used only while the condors remain in the release pen and during the early post-release period, when the birds are most vulnerable to trauma and disturbance. A more substantial facility will be necessary to serve as the primary quarters for the field crew, for ( equipment storage, and other project support. This facility will be located at the BLM administration site on the main Paria Plateau access road (BLM Route 1017), approximately 5. 5 miles north of the release site. Long term plans call for BLM to develop this site and install permanent bunkhouses, storage buildings, and other facilities to support its land management activities on the Paria Plateau. ( BLM has had a trailer at the site in previous years. A small trailer or other portable structure will be brought to this site two to three weeks prior to the release date. The facility will be self-contained, with energy supplied by a propane tank and/or solar panels. A small propane-powered freezer may be kept at the site for temporary storage of one to three carcasses. { ( 5. Feeding sites. A system of feeding sites will be established near the release site. Natural rock structures (ledges, pinnacles, and outcrops) will be used for feeding stations wherever possible. If project biologists observe signs of mammalian predators appropriating carcasses intended for California condors, the feeding stations will be relocated or surrounded by _portable electric fencing. If those measures fail to correct the problem, artificial platforms ( of sufficient height and design to deter predator use) will be erected. If possible, these platforms will be self-standing or secured to natural features (trees or rock structures). Should excavation be required to erect feeding platforms, project biologists will first consult with the BLM Cultural Resource Specialist to obtain clearance for archeological resources.
6. Trapping sites. At various times during the project, it may be necessary to re trap the condors for emergency medical care or to replace telemetry transmitters. ( Trapping operations will use cannon nets or modified "pit" traps built on a platform above ground. No excavation will be necessary for these trapping operations. More than one trap site will be necessary, as birds become wary after an experience at one site.
( 7. Freezers. Carcasses will be collected from a number of sources for use as supplemental food for condors. Roadkills and livestock losses are the most abundant and contaminant-free sources of carrion in the release area. Because
( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 96 (
carcass availability varies greatly by season (for example, roadkills on Highway 67 on the Kaibab Plateau are most abundant in summer), it will be necessary to collect and store carcasses for use during leaner periods. The project field biologists will coordinate with the Arizona · Department of Transportation ( (ADOT), Utah Department of Transportation, and personnel of cooperating agencies to receive notification of roadkilled deer, elk, or other animals suitable for condor food. Personnel with these agencies will be asked to move carcasses from the roadway, mark the location with flagging and relay information to the condor field biologists. The carcasses will then be collected and transported to walk:-in freezers. Suitable sites for the freezers are limited by lack of electrical ( service between Cliffdwellers Lodge and Jacob Lake Inn. Possible locations for the freezers are Lee's Ferry Lodge (Vermilion Cliffs Bar and Grille), near Cliff Dwellers Lodge, and the USPS administrative site at Jacob Lake.
D. Operation (
This section provides additional details on the protocol and logistics for condor release, feeding and monitoring at Vermilion Cliffs. ( 1. Work Center. In addition to the base camp, another site must be identified to ( serve as a work center. This site will receive intermittent use as required to construct or repair equipment. It must have electricity, work space, and accommodations for storing tools and equipment. Ideally, this will be the same site as is used for freezer storage (Item C-7 above), but another location may also be used. Possible locations include USPS facilities at Jacob Lake or Fredonia, or ( a privately-owned site.
2. Work shifts. Released condors will be monitored daily. Two crews of 2-3 persons each will rotate feeding and monitoring duties in approximately five-day work shifts (adjusted according to work demands). Three-person teams would ( allow one person to collect carcasses (for transport to the freezers or to the field station) while the other two members attend to the daily radiotracking and feeding operations.
3. Transportation. The logistics of getting to and from the release site, transporting and delivering carcasses, and monitoring the condors will present formidable challenges. The roads on the Paria Plateau are renowned for being difficult to negotiate, even in the best of conditions. During drier months, deep loose sand makes travel hazardous for even the heftiest four-wheel drive vehicle.
( The field crews will be equipped with two light-duty four-wheel drive trucks (one ( for each crew) and one or two four-wheel drive all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) . The (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 97
trucks will be used for transportation to and from the base camp and work site (paved and maintained gravel roads). The ATVs will be used on primitive roads on the Paria Plateau to transport carcasses to the feeding stations, to monitor condors, and for other project support. BLM has designated the entire Paria Plateau from the wilderness area boundary north to the state line as "no off-road travel." Consistent with this designation, all motorized travel for this project will be confined to established roads.
4. Operating scenario for condor release. Project design calls for release of a ( group of captive-reared condors once each year, beginning in 1996. Three captive rearing facilities exist: Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, and the World Center for Birds of Prey (The Peregrine Fund: Boise, Idaho). Each release group will consist of up to 10 or more young-of-the-year birds produced during the late winter to early spring of that year. These birds will be hatched in ( captivity and raised either 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 at the captive rearing facility so they can form social bonds. When the birds are a minimum of six months old, they will be transported by helicopter to the release site at Vermilion Cliffs. They will be ( ( placed in the release pen and will remain there for an acclimation period, expected to be one to two weeks. Biologists will remain near the release pen 24 hours a day, observing the birds' behavior and guarding against predators or other disturbance.
{ After the initial adjustment period, and when it is apparent that all of the birds in the group are capable of flight, the release will occur. Release is accomplished by opening the net at the front of the pen, allowing the birds to exit. Based on previous releases, the condors are expected to remain in the immediate area of the pen for some time before beginning exploratory forays along the cliffs.
5. Closure. A small area (approximately 10 acres) immediately around the release site will be temporarily closed to recreation activity, and only essential project personnel will be permitted to approach the release pen. This closure will remain in effect until the birds have dispersed from the release area. { 6. Supplemental feeding. Condors are strictly scavengers and must be fed until they learn to locate carcasses independently. The diet provided to the condors will consist primarily of livestock carcasses (donated or purchased from area ranchers) and roadkilled animals. The field crew will deliver carcasses to the condors (generally every four to seven days) by carrying them to the edge of the cliffs on ( ( foot. A network of feeding stations on prominent points will be identified in the general area of the release. Carcasses will be set on the ground or, if predators (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 98 (
become a problem, elevated off the ground by placing them atop natural rock outcrops less accessible to ground predators (see above).
As the birds mature and become skilled flyers, they will move farther from the release site. This is expected to happen approximately one to four months after release. It will then be necessary to deliver carcasses to other locations nearer the condors' roost locations, which will probably change over time. This will ensure that inexperienced young birds are able to locate food. The field crews will use ATVs on existing roads to get as close as possible to the birds, and will then ( deliver the food on foot. No off-road motorized travel will be permitted.
7. Radiotracking. Initially, all condors released for the project will be equipped with two radio transmitters. The second transmitter provides a backup in the event that one is lost or malfunctions. These radios may be conventional transmitters or satellite transmitters. The movements and behavior of each bird will be monitored for at least the first two to three years of its life. Ground triangulation will be the primary means of radiotracking. The road network above and below the cliffs is ideally suited for telemetry studies. No off-road motorized travel will be permitted, but considerable hiking will probably be necessary. ( Aerial tracking will be used to find lost birds, or when more accurate locations ( are desired. Telemetry flights will be coordinated with other agencies as necessary.
E. Relationship of the project to cultural resources in the release area ( The many archaeological sites and artifacts that exist near the release site will be protected from damage. The proposed action will entail no ground-breaking activities, no new road construction, and no off-road travel by motorized vehicles. All proposed facilities will be placed away from any archeological resources at the site. The BLM Cultural Resource Specialist for the Vermillion District will clear all locations before use. ( If conflicts exist with unrecorded archeological sites, the project facilities will be moved. The BLM Cultural Resource Specialist will also coordinate consultation with the Arizona Historical Preservation Office for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Project field crews will receive special training to ensure they can recognize significant cultural resources and minimize potential impacts on these resources. They will be given an orientation by a BLM Cultural Resource Specialist familiar with the Paria Plateau/Vermilion Cliffs area, to familiarize them with the types of resources they are likely to encounter. Since artifact hunters are sometimes attracted to an area when they see signs of previous human activity, the crews will be instructed to avoid repeated use ( Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 99 (
of the same route to prevent establishing new trails into the release area that might encourage ingress by other persons.
Other training for project biologists ( F. Protection of all special status species occurring in the vicinity of the proposed release is of paramount concern. No special status plants or animals are known to occur in the immediate area of the release, aside from a peregrine falcon eyrie that is not in a location subject to disturbance by project personnel. However, because project·biologists will be ( working ov~r a broad area during the course of the project, they will be provided with materials (and training, if necessary) to help them recognize all special status species occurring in the project area. This will enable the project biologists to recognize and avoid any activities that might be deleterious to those species, and may provide agency ecologists with additional information on the distribution of rare plants or animals in the project area.
( (
{
(.
(
( (
Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 100 (
APPENDIX H. Experimental Populations and the Proposed California Condor Release in Northern Arizona: Background Information.
Project cooperators, under the lead of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game ( and Fish Department, are proposing a long-term program to release young captive-hatched California condors in northern Arizona. This proposal is part of an interagency effort to re establish condors in at least two areas within their historic range, and is consistent with recovery goals in the California Condor Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996).
( As detailed in Appendix D of this document, California condors released in northern Arizona would be managed as a nonessential, experimental population under Section lOG) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The lOG) status is ideally suited for this condor release as it provides a flexible framework for establishing a new population without excessive disruption of existing activities in the release area. ( Because the experimental population designation has thus far been applied to fewer than a dozen species, its advantages are not well understood by the general public. Many people presume that, in practice, any introduction of an endangered species carries the full weight of ESA. There are, however, a number of significant differences in how experimental populations are managed. ( ( The experimental designation was established through Section lOG) of the 1982 amendments to ESA, and is defined as:
"Any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the ( population is wholly separate geographically from non-experimental populations of the same species. "
The intent of this new designation was to promote introduction, where it would aid in the conservation of listed species, by giving the Secretary of the Interior greater flexibility in the ( treatment of experimental populations. The amendment relaxes certain restrictions otherwise applicable to listed species and provides a means to relax additional restrictions as necessary (see below). This encourages cooperation between those likely to be affected by the release and may allow a proposed release to proceed in cases that might otherwise be too controversial to gain approval.
The 1982 ESA amendments included several stipulations that limit how and where experimental populations can be established. The experimental population must be wholly separated geographically from "non-experimental populations" of the same species (Section lO[j] [1] and [2][A]; Parker and Phillips 1991). While this stipulation has been the source of some controversy ( with regard to certain other introductions (most notably release of wolves into Yellowstone Park), it is not a problem in the case of the condor, where the proposed northern Arizona release Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 101 (
site is far removed from the only other wild population (California). Paragraph (2) of Section lO(j) authorizes release of experimental populations outside the current range of the species, as is the case with the condor, which is currently restricted to California. ( Another important provision of Section lO(i) is that prior to the release, the Secretary is required to designate the population as either "essential" or "nonessential" for the conservation of the species (Section 10[j][2][B]). In making this determination, the Secretary:
"shall consider whether the loss of the experimental population would be likely to ( appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of that species in the wild. If the Secretary determines that it would, the population will be considered essential to the continued existence of the species. The level of reduction necessary to constitute 'essentiality' is expected to vary among listed species and, in most cases, experimental populations will not be essential. " ( The distinction between essential and nonessential experimental populations is important as to whether, and how, certain portions of ESA are applied. In particular, critical habitat can only be designated for essential populations. Also, Section 7 of ESA, which deals with interagency ( cooperation and mandates formal consultation with USFWS for actions that may affect a listed ( species, is relaxed for nonessential populations. Individuals in these populations are afforded the full protection of Section 7 only within National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks. Outside those areas, nonessential populations are treated as members of a species proposed for listing (rather than as threatened or endangered). This means that only informal consultation with USFWS is required when another federal agency proposes an action that may affect the species. Furthermore, should USFWS determine that the action might have a deleterious effect on the species, the consulting agency still retains the option of proceeding with the action.
Another important part of ESA is Section 9, which pertains to the "taking" of a listed species and places prohibitions on activities that might affect its welfare. It is these prohibitions that ( most concern private citizens and which sometimes lead to fervent political opposition to introduction of endangered species into new areas. However, all experimental populations, whether threatened or endangered, essential or nonessential, are treated as threatened with regard to Section 9. For threatened species, specific acts that are to be prohibited are identified by regulation (published in the Federal Register) and may be specifically tailored to each ( population. Again, this allows greater flexibility and special consideration for local concerns. As stated in the Senate Committee report accompanying the 1982 ESA amendments, "(T)he purpose of requiring the Secretary to proceed by regulation is to provide a vehicle for the development of special regulations for each experimental population that will address the particular needs of that population. The Secretary is granted broad flexibility in promulgating regulations to protect threatened species. " Arizona Game and Fish Department October 1996 ( NGTR 86: California Condor Reintroduction Page 102 (
As described above, nonessential, experimental designation provides increased opportunities for assuring that release and management of condors does not disrupt or conflict with other land-use activities. The specific provisions for management of the condor population will be developed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among all of the agencies involved in the introduction. As information is gathered through public meetings and other contacts, the cooperators will identify the concerns of all interested parties and be able to address those concerns under the MOU. Only when all cooperating agencies are satisfied will the MOU be signed and the introduction move forward.
SELECTED REFERENCES RELATING TO EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS
Herke, J. 1994. Reintroduction of wolves into the wild: a reasonable application of section lO(j) of the Endangered Species Act? Unpublished manuscript.
Parker, W.T. and M.K. Phillips. 1991. Application of the experimental population designation ( to recovery of endangered red wolves. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19(1): 73-79.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1982. Conference report on the Endangered Species Act amendments of 1982. Report No. 97-835. (
U.S. Senate. 1982. Endangered Species Act amendments of 1982: report of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works to accompany S. 2309.
Wolf Management Technical Committee. 1991. Question and answers about experimental populations under section lO(j) of the Endangered Species Act.
(