Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 35

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Auditorium, Flagstaff High School, 400 to be amended as follows. West Elm Street, Flagstaff, Arizona and Fish and Wildlife Service Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East PART 207Ð[AMENDED] Red Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah. 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. The authority citation for part 207 RIN 1018±AD62 Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife continues to read as follows: Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Authority: 40 Stat. 266; (33 U.S.C. 1). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Field Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, and Plants: Proposed Establishment of Ventura, California, 93003 (Telephone: 2. Section 207.440 is amended by a Nonessential Experimental 805/644–1766; Facsimile: 805/644– revising paragraph (u) as follows: Population of California Condors in 3958). Northern Arizona § 207.440 St. Marys Falls Canal and Locks, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Michigan; use, administration and Background navigation. Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. 1. Legislative. Section 10(j) of the * * * * * Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (u) The locks will be opened and SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife enables the U.S. Fish and Wildlife closed to navigation each year as Service, in cooperation with the Arizona Service (Service) to designate certain provided in paragraphs (u) (1) and (2) of Game and Fish Department, and the populations of federally listed species this section except as may be authorized U.S. Bureau of Land Management, that are released into the wild as by the Division Engineer. Consideration proposes to reintroduce California ‘‘experimental.’’ The circumstances will be given to change in these dates in condors (Gymnogyps californianus) into under which this designation can be an emergency involving disaster to a northern Arizona. This reintroduction applied are—(1) The population is vessel or other extraordinary will achieve a primary recovery goal for geographically disjunct from this endangered species, establishment circumstances. nonexperimental populations of the of a second non-captive population, same species (e.g., the population is (1) Opening date. At least one lock spatially disjunct from the non-captive reintroduced outside the species’ will be placed in operation for the population in southern California. This current range but within its historical passage of vessels on March 25. population is proposed to be designated range); and (2) the Service determines Thereafter, additional locks will be a nonessential experimental population the release will further the conservation placed in operation as traffic density in accordance with Section 10(j) of the of the species. This designation can demands. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as increase the Service’s flexibility to (2) Closing date. The locks will be amended. Captive-reared condors will manage a reintroduced population, maintained in operation only for the be released in early 1996 (target date) because under section 10(j) an and additional releases will occur passage of down bound vessels experimental population is treated as a annually thereafter until a self- departing from a Lake Superior port threatened species regardless of its sustaining wild population is before midnight (2400 hours) of January designation elsewhere in its range and, established. The reintroduction will use 14, and of upbound vessels passing under section 4(d) of the Act, the tested release techniques developed in Service has greater discretion in Detour before midnight (2400 hours) of previous releases in southern California January 15. Vessel owners are requested developing management programs for and will be managed in accordance with threatened species than it has for to report in advance to the Engineer in the provisions of this special rule. The charge at Sault Ste. Marie, the name of endangered species. potential impacts associated with this Section 10(j) of the Act requires that vessel and time of departure from a Lake proposed rule were assessed in an when an experimental population is Superior port on January 14 before Environmental Assessment completed designated, a determination be made by midnight, and of vessels passing Detour in November 1995. This California the Service whether that population is on January 15 before midnight, which condor reintroduction does not conflict either ‘‘essential’’ or ‘‘nonessential’’ to may necessitate the continued operation with existing or anticipated Federal or the continued existence of the species, of a lock to permit passage of vessel. State agency actions or traditional land based on the best available information. * * * * * uses on public or private lands. Nonessential experimental populations Dated: December 21, 1995. DATES: Comments from all interested located outside National Wildlife Refuge John H. Zirschky, parties must be received by February 1, (NWR) or National Park Service (NPS) 1996. Public hearings will be held at Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil lands are treated, for the purposes of Works). Flagstaff High School on Tuesday, section 7 of the Act, as if they are January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm [FR Doc. 95–31543 Filed 12–29–95; 8:45 am] proposed for listing. Thus, only two and Kanab High School on Thursday, provisions of section 7 would apply BILLING CODE 3710±92±M January 25, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. outside NWR and NPS lands—section ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 7(a)(1), which requires all Federal concerning this proposal should be sent agencies to use their authorities to to State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and conserve listed species, and section Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies Arizona State Office, 2321 W. Royal to informally confer with the Service on Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona. actions that are likely to jeopardize the Comments and materials received will continued existence of a proposed be available for public inspection, by species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, appointment, during normal business which requires Federal agencies to hours at the above address. The public ensure that their activities are not likely hearings will be held at the Main to jeopardize the continued existence of 36 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules a listed species, would not apply except traditionally been placed in the Order Because of the long period of parental on NWR and NPS lands. Experimental Falconiformes, some contemporary care, it was formerly assumed that populations determined to be taxonomists believe that New World successful California condor pairs ‘‘essential’’ to the survival of the species vultures are more closely related to normally nested successfully every would remain subject to the storks (Ligon 1967, Rea 1983, Sibley and other year (Koford 1953). However, this consultation provisions of section 7 of Ahlquist 1990). pattern seems to vary, possibly the Act. Activities undertaken on The fossil record of the genus depending mostly on the time of year private lands are not affected by section Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000 that the nestling fledges. If a nestling 7 of the Act unless the activities are years to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch fledges relatively early (in late summer authorized, funded or carried out by a (Brodkorb 1964). Fossil records also or early fall), its parents may nest again Federal agency. reveal that the species once ranged over in the following year, but late fledging Individual animals that comprise a much of the southern United States, probably inhibits nesting in the designated experimental population south to Nuevo Leon, Mexico and east following year (Snyder and Snyder may be removed from an existing source to Florida (Brodkorb 1964), and two 1989). or donor population only after it has well preserved fossil bones were The only wild California condor (a been determined that such a removal is reported from a site in upstate New male) of known age bred successfully in not likely to jeopardize the continued York (Steadman and Miller 1987). There the wild in 1986 at the age of six years. existence of the species; the removal is evidence indicating that California Recent data collected from captive must be conducted under a permit condors nested in west Texas, Arizona, birds, however, demonstrates that issued in accordance with the and New Mexico during the late reproduction may occur, or at least be requirements of 50 CFR 17.22. Pleistocene. The disappearance of the attempted, at earlier ages. A four-year 2. Biological. The California Condor California condor from much of this old male was the youngest condor (Gymnogyps californianus) was listed as range occurred about 10,000–11,000 observed in courtship display, and the endangered on March 11, 1967, (32 FR years ago, coinciding with the late same bird subsequently bred 4001) in a final rule published by the Pleistocene extinction of the North successfully at the age of five years (M. Service. The Service designated critical American megafauna (Emslie 1987). Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1993). habitat for the California condor on By the time European man arrived in California condors nest in various September 24, 1976, (41 FR 41914). western North America, California types of rock formations including Long recognized as a vanishing species condors occurred only in a narrow crevices, overhung ledges, potholes, and (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur Pacific coastal strip from British more rarely, in cavities of giant sequoia 1978), the California condor remains Columbia, Canada, to Baja California trees (Sequoia giganteus) (Snyder et al. one of the world’s rarest and most Norte, Mexico (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1986). imperiled vertebrate species. 1978). California condors were observed California condors are opportunistic California condors are among the until the mid-1800s in the northern scavengers, feeding only on carcasses. largest flying birds in the world (U. S. portion of the Pacific Coast region Typical foraging behavior includes long- Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). (Columbia River Gorge) and until the distance reconnaissance flights, lengthy Adults weigh approximately 10 early 1930s in the southern extreme, circling flights over a carcass, and hours kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) and northern Baja California (Koford 1953, of waiting at a roost or on the ground have a wing span up to 2.9 meters (m) Wilbur 1973, Wilbur and Kiff 1980). near a carcass (U.S. Fish and Wildlife (9 1/2 feet (ft)). Adults are black except Prior to 1987, California condors used a Service 1995a). Condors may feed for prominent white underwing linings wishbone-shaped area encompassing six immediately, or wait passively as other and edges of the upper secondary counties—Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa California condors or golden eagles coverts. The head and neck are mostly Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, (Aquila chrysaetos) feed on the carcass naked, and the bare skin is gray, grading and Kern, just north of Los Angeles, (Wilbur 1978). Most California condor into various shades of yellow, red, and California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife foraging occurs in open terrain. This orange. Males and females cannot be Service 1995a). ensures easy take-off and approach and distinguished by size or plumage Courtship and nest site selection makes food finding easier. Carcasses characteristics. The heads of juveniles occurs from December through the under brush are hard to see, and up to 3 years old are grayish-black, and spring. Breeding California condors California condors apparently do not their wing linings are variously mottled normally lay a single egg between late locate food by olfactory cues (Stager or completely dark. During the third January and early April. The egg is 1964). Condors maintain wide-ranging year the head develops yellow incubated by both parents and hatches foraging patterns throughout the year, coloration, and the wing linings become after approximately 56 days. Both an important adaptation for a species gradually whiter (N.J. Schmitt in litt. parents share responsibilities for feeding that may be subjected to unpredictable 1995). By the time individuals are 5 or the nestling. Feeding usually occurs food supplies (Meretsky and Snyder 6 years of age, they are essentially daily for the first two months, then 1992). indistinguishable from adults (Koford gradually diminishes in frequency. At Prior to the arrival of European man, 1953, Wilbur 1975, Snyder et al. 1987), two to three months of age, condor California condor food items within but full development of the adult wing chicks leave the nest cavity but remain interior California probably included patterns may not be completed until 7 in the vicinity of the nest where they are mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), tule or 8 years of age (N.J. Schmitt in litt. fed by their parents. The chick takes its elk (Cervus nannodes), pronghorn 1995). first flight at about six to seven months (Antilocapra americana), and smaller The California condor is a member of of age, but may not become fully mammals. Along the Pacific shore the the family Cathartidae or New World independent of its parents until the diet may have included whales, sea vultures, a family of seven species, following year. Parent birds lions, and other marine species (Emslie including the closely related Andean occasionally continue to feed a fledgling 1987, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service condor (Vultur gryphus) and the even after it has begun to make longer 1984). Koford (1953) listed observations sympatric turkey vulture (Cathartes flights to foraging grounds (U.S. Fish of California condors feeding on 24 aura). Although the family has and Wildlife Service 1995a). different mammalian species within the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 37 last two centuries. He estimated that 95 interpretations of the earlier October non-interacting, and (5) contain percent of the diet consisted of the surveys. He further estimated that by individuals descended from each of the carcasses of cattle, domestic sheep, 1978 the population had dropped to 25 14 founders. When these five conditions ground squirrels (Spermophilus to 30 individuals. are met, the species should be beechyi), mule deer, and horses. In 1981, the Service, in cooperation reclassified to threatened status. Although cattle may be the most with California Polytechnic State The recovery strategy to meet this goal available food within the range of the University at San Luis Obispo, began is focused on increasing reproduction in condor, deer appear to be preferred census efforts based on individual captivity to provide condors for release, (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1972, Meretsky identifications of birds through flight and the release of condors to the wild. and Snyder 1992). California condors photography (Snyder and Johnson (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). appear to feed only one to three days 1985). Minimum summer counts from a. Captive Breeding. The years 1983 per week, but the frequency of adult these photo-censusing efforts showed a and 1984 were critical in formation of feeding is variable and may show steady decline from an estimated the captive California condor flock at seasonal differences (U.S. Fish and minimum of 21 wild condors in 1982, the SDWAP and Los Angeles Zoo (LAZ). Wildlife Service 1995a). 19 individuals in 1983, 15 individuals In 1983, two chicks and four eggs were Depending upon weather conditions in 1984, and 9 individuals in 1985. brought in from the wild. The chicks and the hunger of the bird, a California Although the overall condor population went to the LAZ, and the eggs were condor may spend most of its time increased slightly after 1982 as a result hatched successfully at the San Diego perched at a roost. California condors of double clutching, the wild population Zoo (SDZ). Three of the chicks were often use traditional roosting sites near continued to decline. By the end of taken to the SDWAP and one to the LAZ important foraging grounds (U.S. Fish 1986, all but two California condors to be reared. In 1984, one chick and and Wildlife Service 1984). Although were captured for safe keeping and eight eggs were taken from the wild. The California condors usually remain at genetic security (U.S. Fish and Wildlife chick went to the LAZ and six of the roosts until mid-morning, and generally Service 1995a). eight eggs were successfully hatched at On April 19, 1987, the last wild return in mid- to late afternoon, it is not SDZ. Five of the chicks went to the LAZ unusual for a bird to stay perched condor was captured and taken to the and one went to the SDWAP to be throughout the day. While at a roost, San Diego Wild Animal Park (SDWAP). reared. In 1985, two eggs were taken condors devote considerable time to Beginning with the first successful from the wild and hatched successfully, preening and other maintenance captive breeding of California condors one at the SDZ and the other at the activities. Roosts may also serve some in 1988, the total population has SDWAP. Both of these chicks were social function, as it is common for two increased annually and now stands at taken to the LAZ to be reared. In 1986, or more condors to roost together and to 103 individuals, including 90 in the the last egg was brought in from the leave a roost together (U.S. Fish and captive flock and 13 in the wild (U.S. wild and hatched at the SDWAP, where Wildlife Service 1984). Cliffs and tall Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). it was kept for rearing. By 1986, only conifers, including dead snags, are Causes of the California condor generally used as roost sites in nesting population decline have probably been one pair of condors existed in the wild areas. Although most roost sites are near numerous and variable through time and the last free-flying condor was nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). captured on April 19, 1987, bringing the sites are located throughout the range. However, despite decades of research, it captive population to 27. The first There may be adaptive as well as is not known with certainty which successful breeding in captivity traditional reasons for California mortality factors have been dominant in occurred in 1988, when a chick was condors to continue to occupy a number the overall decline of the species. produced at the SDWAP by a pair of of widely separated roosts, such as Relatively few dead condors have been wild-caught condors. Four more chicks reducing food competition between found, and definitive conclusions on the were produced in 1989. The number of breeding and non-breeding birds (U.S. causes of death were made in only a chicks produced by captive condors Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). small portion of these cases (Miller et al. continues to increase annually and the Condor censusing efforts through the 1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder and Snyder captive population has grown from the years have varied in intensity and 1989). Poisoning, shooting, egg and original 27 in 1987 to 90 in 1995, with accuracy. This has led to conflicting specimen collecting, collisions with 13 additional captive-reared condors estimates of historical abundance, but man-made structures, and loss of habitat that are now in the wild. In 1993, the all have indicated an ever-declining have contributed to the decline of the captive breeding program was expanded California condor population. Koford species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to include a facility at The Peregrine (1953) estimated a population of about 1984). Fund—s World Center for Birds of Prey 60 individuals in the late 1930s through 3. Recovery Efforts. The primary (WCBP) in Boise, Idaho (U.S. Fish and the mid-1940s, apparently based on recovery objective as stated in the Wildlife Service 1995a). flock size. A field study by Eben and Ian California Condor Recovery Plan (Plan) b. Releases. In October 1986, the McMillan in the early 1960s suggested (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a), California Condor Recovery Team a population of about 40 individuals, is to reclassify the condor to threatened (Team) recommended that criteria be again based in part on the validity of status. The minimum criterion for satisfied before a release of captive-bred Koford’s estimates of flock size (Miller reclassification to threatened is the California condors could take place. et al. 1965). An annual October maintenance of at least two non-captive These included having three actively California condor survey was begun in populations and one captive population. breeding pairs of condors, three chicks 1965 (Mallette and Borneman 1966) and These populations must (1) each behaviorally suitable for release, and continued for 16 years. Its results number at least 150 individuals, (2) retaining at least five offspring from supported an estimate of 50 to 60 each contain at least 15 breeding pairs each breeding pair contributing to the California condors in the late 1960s and (3) be reproductively self-sustaining release. The Team added a provision to (Sibley 1969, Mallette 1970). Wilbur and have a positive rate of population the third criterion to retain a minimum (1980) continued the survey efforts into growth. The non-captive populations of seven progeny in captivity for the 1970s and concurred with the also must (4) be spatially disjunct and founders that were not reproductively 38 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules active (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of heavy human activity. Indeed, three This group of California condors was 1995a). of these birds eventually died from also subjected to a series of human The 1991 breeding season produced collisions with power lines between late aversion exercises. Aversion maneuvers two condor chicks that met the Team’s May and October 1993 (U.S. Fish and were staged in which a person would criteria for release, a male from the Wildlife Service 1995a). appear in view of a group of condors at SDWAP and a female from the LAZ. Because of the tendency for the a distance of approximately 100 meters However, attempting to apply the remaining condors to be attracted to the (300 yds). Once it was determined that Team’s third criterion to the 1991 chicks vicinity of human activity and man- the condors spotted the person, they also revealed that it would not be made obstacles, especially power lines, would be ambushed and captured by a practical in the future, because several another California condor release site hidden group of biologists. These founders had died without producing was constructed in a more remote area, condors were then placed in sky five progeny. The Team, therefore, Lion Canyon, in the Los Padres National kennels, and later released after recommended choosing genetically Forest near the boundary of the San nightfall (M. Wallace, The Los Angeles appropriate chicks for future releases Rafael Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara Zoo, in litt. 1995). The goals of this based on pedigree analyses developed County. Five hatch year condors were exercise were to condition the condors for genetic management of captive released at the new site on December 8, to associate this negative experience populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1993. In addition, the four condors that with humans and increase the distance Service 1995a). had been residing in the Sespe area in which they would flush in future Prior to capture of the last wild were moved to the new site. They were encounters with humans. Six of these California condor in 1987, the Team re-released over a period of several young condors were released to the wild recognized that anticipated future weeks in hopes that this approach on February 8, 1995, at the Lion Canyon releases of captive-reared condors would reduce the probability that they release site. To date none of these would pose the problem of would return to the Sespe area. condors have attempted to land on a reintroducing individuals of an altricial Nevertheless, three of these condors power pole and, although they have bird into habitat devoid of their parents eventually moved back to the Sespe area roosted near campgrounds, they have and other members of their own species. in March 1994, where they resumed the not approached humans. The one Thus, the Team recommended initiation high risk practice of perching on power exception was a young condor of this of an experimental release of Andean poles. Because of general concern about group that was lured into a campground condors. Research objectives for the the tameness of these birds and the by campers that placed food and water experimental release were to refine possibility that their undesirable out for it. This condor was subsequently condor release and recapture behavior would be mimicked by trapped and brought into the zoo. The techniques; test the criteria being used remaining five continue to avoid both to select condor release sites; develop younger California condors, these power poles and human activities. On written protocols for releases, condors were retrapped on March 29, August 29 the remaining eight monitoring, and recapture of condors; 1994 and added to the captive breeding California condors of this group were field test rearing protocols being used, population. On June 24, one of the 1993 released at the Lion Canyon Site. There or proposed for use to produce condors California condors died when it collided are now 13 condors flying free in suitable for release; evaluate with a power line. A second condor that southern California. radiotelemetry packages; supplemental was in the company of this condor at feeding strategies; train a team of the time of its death, was trapped and 4. Proposed Reintroduction Sites. To biologists for releasing condors; and returned to the LAZ. The three satisfy the objectives of the Plan, at least identify potential problems peculiar to remaining wild condors continued to one subpopulation of non-captive the California environment. The Andean frequent areas of human activity and California condors must be established condor experiment began in August were trapped and returned to the zoo in an area disjunct from the 1988 and concluded in December 1991. the same week the first 1995 release subpopulation already being During that period three release sites took place (U.S. Fish and Wildlife reestablished in the recent historical where tested and a total of 13 female Service 1995a). range in California. Following a widely Andean condors were released. Only As a result of the deaths due to publicized solicitation for suggestions one mortality occurred in the field when collisions with power lines and the for suitable condor release sites outside an Andean condor collided with a attraction of newly released young of California, the Team recommended in power line (U.S. Fish and Wildlife condors to humans and their activities, December 1991 that California condor Service 1995a). the 14 young California condors releases be conducted in northern In 1991, two California condor chicks scheduled for release in 1995 were Arizona. Because this area once were released into Sespe Condor subjected to aversion training in the zoo supported California condors, still Sanctuary, Los Padres National Forest, environment. An electrified mock provides a high level of remoteness, Ventura County on January 14, 1992. power pole and natural snag perches ridges and cliffs for soaring, and caves The male died from ingesting ethylene were constructed in a large flight pen for nesting, the probability of a glycol in October of the same year. The holding the release candidates. When successful reintroduction is very good. next release of California condors the young condors landed on the The Service endorsed this occurred on December 1, 1992, when six electrified pole they were given a recommendation on April 2, 1992. In more captive-produced California negative experience in the form of a collaboration with the Federal initiative condors chicks were released at the mild shock. When they landed on the to designate a release site in Arizona, same Sespe Condor Sanctuary site. natural snag perches they received no the Arizona Game and Fish Department Socialization with the remaining female shock. After only a few attempts at began evaluating a possible California from the first release proceeded well, landing on the electrified power pole condor reintroduction in 1989. The and the ‘‘flock’’ appeared to adjust well and receiving a mild shock, they all Arizona Game and Fish Department to the wild conditions. However, there avoided the power pole and used the determined the reestablishment as was continuing concern over the natural perches exclusively (M. Wallace, appropriate and feasible in steps 1 and tendency of the birds to frequent zones The Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1995). 2 of the Department’s ‘‘Procedures for Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 39

Nongame Wildlife and Endangered Vermilion Cliffs, 1995,’’ in which the suitability, logistics, man-made threats/ Species Re-establishment Projects,’’ a potential release sites were thoroughly hazards, and suitability of adjacent 12-step process specifying the protocol examined and objectively evaluated. lands (for population expansion). Each for a nongame reintroduction to take The NEPA process resulted in selection working criterion is assigned a place (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of a preferred release site at the quantitative value and weighted 1995b). Vermilion Cliffs located on BLM lands according to assigned priority criteria. a. Site Selection Process. Potential (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). The sum from the three priority classes release sites in northern Arizona were The suitability of the Vermilion Cliffs gives the total value for a site. This evaluated through aerial as a California condor release site was rating system verified the Vermilion reconnaissance, site visits, and further evaluated using the Service’s Cliffs (the preferred alternative) as a discussions with agency personnel ‘‘The Condor Release Site Evaluation familiar with the sites being evaluated. System’’. This system uses 25 working suitable release site (U.S. Fish and This evaluation process resulted in criteria divided into three priority Wildlife Service 1995b). selection of four potential release sites. classes—priority 1 includes features b. Vermilion Cliffs Release Site. The As required by the National critical to releasing and establishing Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction site is Environmental Policy Act of 1969 condors in the wild, priority 2 includes on the southwestern corner of the Paria (NEPA), the Service, in cooperation features that are necessary but not Plateau approximately 100 meters from with the Arizona Game and Fish critical, and priority 3 includes features the edge of the Vermilion Cliffs, Department and the Bureau of Land that would add or detract from Coconino County, Arizona, as shown on Management (BLM), produced an suitability but are not critical. The the following map: Environmental Assessment titled— working criteria are grouped into ‘‘Release of California Condors at the working factors that include: site BILLING CODE 4310±55±P 40 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310±55±C Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 41

The Paria Plateau is characterized by accustomed to the surrounding area. markers on each wing with code relatively flat, undulating topography The release pen will be pre-fabricated, numbers to facilitate visual dominated by pinyon-juniper/blue delivered to the release site by identification. The movements and grama (Pinus edulis-Juniperus helicopter, and removed from the site behavior of each condor will be osteosperma/Bouteloua gracilis) after the young condors have fledged monitored for at least the first two to communities and mixed shrub (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). three years of its life. Ground communities dominated by sagebrush Meanwhile, biologists will remain triangulation will be the primary means (Artemesia spp.) on sandy upland soils. near the release pen 24 hours a day of radio tracking. Aerial tracking will be To the south and east of the Plateau lies observing the young condor’s behavior used to find lost birds or when more the steep precipice of the Vermilion and guarding against predators or other accurate locations are desired. Cliffs, rising over 1,000 feet from the disturbance. After the initial adjustment Telemetry flights will be coordinated floor of House Rock Valley. Uplifting period and when all the young condors with the appropriate land management and differential erosion has created can fly, the release will take place. Any agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complex geologic structures and a release candidate showing signs of 1995b). diverse variety of habitats in a small physical or behavioral problems will not Status of Reintroduced Population geographic area. The cliffs are sharply be released. Release is accomplished by dissected by canyons and arroyos and removing the net at the front of the pen In accordance with section 10(j) of the the lower slopes are littered with allowing the birds to exit. The young Act, California condors reintroduced enormous boulders. Numerous springs condors will likely remain in the into northern Arizona are proposed to emerge from the sides of the cliffs (U.S. immediate area of the pen for some time be designated as a nonessential Bureau of Land Management and before beginning exploratory forays experimental population. The Arizona Game and Fish Department along the cliffs. A small area of experimental designation means the 1983). approximately 10 acres will be reintroduced California condors will be 5. Reintroduction Protocol. In general, temporarily closed to recreational treated as a threatened population the reintroduction protocol will involve activity to protect the newly released instead of an endangered population. an annual release of captive-reared condors and will remain closed until Under section 4(d) of the Act, this California condors until recovery goals, they have dispersed from the release designation enables the Service to as outlined in the Plan, are achieved area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service develop special regulations for (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). 1995b). management of the population that are These reintroduction protocols were b. Supplemental Feeding. Condors are less restrictive than the mandatory developed and tested in the current dependent on carrion and must be fed prohibitions covering endangered southern California condor release until they learn to locate carcasses species. Therefore, the experimental project. independently. Newly released young designation allows the management a. Condor Release. The reintroduction condors will be dependent on carrion flexibility needed to ensure that this is designed to release a cohort of provided by biologists, making it reintroduction is compatible with captive-reared California condors once necessary to maintain a supplemental current or planned human activities in each year, beginning in early 1996 feeding program. However, older the reintroduction area and to permit (target date). Three captive breeding condors (sub-adults and adults), should management of the population for facilities (LAZ, SDWAP, and WCBP), are be locating carcasses on their own and recovery purposes. producing condors for release to the hopefully would not be dependent on Experimental populations can be wild. The size of each release cohort the supplemental feeding program for classified as either ‘‘essential’’ or will depend on the number of hatch- their survival. Supplemental feeding ‘‘nonessential’’. An essential year condors produced during the late should reduce the likelihood of deaths experimental population is a population winter to early spring of that year, but of young condors from accidental whose loss would be likely to releases will likely involve up to 10 poisoning insofar as it will help prevent appreciably reduce the likelihood of the hatch-year condors. These condors will them from feeding on contaminated survival of the species in the wild [50 be hatched in captivity and raised by a carcasses. The diet provided to the CFR 17.80 (Subpart H-Experimental condor look-alike hand puppet, or by condors will consist primarily of Populations)]. All other experimental their parents, until they are livestock carcasses and road killed populations are treated as nonessential, approximately four months of age. They animals. Field biologists will deliver if they are not considered essential to will then be placed together in a single carcasses to the condors every four to the continued existence of the species. large pen so they will form social bonds. five days by carrying carcasses to the ‘‘Nonessential’’ experimental At approximately 6 months of age they edge of the cliffs at night, to avoid populations are treated for purposes of will be moved to a large flight pen and detection by the condors. A network of section 7 of the Act as though they were undergo aversion training to humans feeding stations on prominent points only proposed for listing (except on and power poles for one to two months. with high visibility will be identified in National Wildlife Refuge and National After the training has been completed the general area of the release. Carcasses Park System lands where they will be the young condors will be transported will be placed on the ground or, if treated as a species listed as by helicopter to the release site at predators become a problem, elevated ‘‘threatened’’ under the authority of the Vermilion Cliffs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife off the ground by placing them atop Act). The proposed California condor Service 1995b). natural rock outcrops less accessible to experimental population merits At the release site they will be placed ground predators (U.S. Fish and classification as nonessential because in a temporary release pen and will Wildlife Service 1995b). the population will not be essential to remain there for an acclimation period, c. Monitoring. All California condors the continued existence of the species. of approximately one to two weeks. This released to the wild will be equipped Currently, the principal California structure will be approximately 16 ft by with two radio transmitters, one on each condor population (90 individuals) 8 ft and 6 ft high. Netting will cover the patagium, or one patagial placement and exists in the safe environment of three front of the pen, allowing the young one mounted on the tail. In addition, captive breeding facilities located at the condors to view and become they will wear bold colored patagial SDWAP, LAZ, and WCBP. The captive 42 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules breeding facilities are not included in breeding program. To date there have participate in this recovery project exhibits and are under 24 hour been no verified sightings of California under the general guidance of a surveillance by condor keepers or video condors in the wild and condor Memorandum of Understanding written cameras. Only essential program researchers are confident that there are to promote recovery of the California personnel are granted access to the no undocumented wild condors in the condor. Reintroduction procedures were captive population. The captive proposed release area or anywhere else explained above under ‘‘Background, 5. population is given excellent care and to in their historic range. Since January Reintroduction Protocols.’’ date there have been no deaths of adults 1992, five releases of young California The reintroduction site is surrounded or sub-adults. In addition, the condors have taken place in Ventura by remote Federal or Indian Reservation geographic separation of the three and Santa Barbara counties, California. lands with only a few small private breeding facilities protects the captive Currently, 13 endangered California inholdings. The current general population from the threat of extinction condors are located in the wild back management scheme for these lands will due to a single catastrophic event. country of Santa Barbara County. This not affect the establishment of a The reproductive rate of the captive non-captive population is located nonessential experimental population in population dramatically exceeds the approximately 720 kilometers (km) (450 this area. Furthermore, the designation mortality rate of the wild population. miles (mi)) west of the proposed release of nonessential experimental will All condors lost in the reintroduction site. The longest flight by these recently encourage local cooperation as a result efforts can be replaced by current chick reintroduced condors has been of the management flexibility allowed production, while the captive approximately 40 km (25 mi), with under this designation. The Service population continues to increase. The typical daily flights from 8 km (5 mi) to considers the nonessential experimental extant population will not be adversely 16 km (10 mi). According to Meretsky population designation and associated effected by the proposed reintroduction and Snyder (1992) the foraging flights reintroduction plan necessary to receive since it is hundreds of miles away (see by breeding California condors in the cooperation of the affected landowners, below). 1980’s were from 70 km (44 mi) to 180 agencies, and recreational interests in By mid-1987, every surviving km (112 mi). Based on this information, the area. individual of the species was held in the Service does not believe there will A designation of nonessential captivity following agreement that the be any immigration/emigration between experimental prohibits the application decline of the wild population to eight the existing non-captive and the of section 7(a)(2) of the Act except on surviving adults had demonstrated that proposed nonessential experimental NWR and NPS lands. This will ensure the wild population was destined for populations. that current land uses and activities extinction (Geyer et al. 1993). Genetic The release site for reintroducing (such as, but not limited to, forest management, which includes control of California condors into northern management, agriculture, mining, all matings, has preserved the genetic Arizona will be on the Vermilion Cliffs, livestock grazing, sport hunting and viability of the extant captive in the southwestern corner of the Paria fishing, and non-consumptive outdoor population. No California condor Plateau. However, the designated recreational activities) will not be hatched in captivity is considered for nonessential experimental population restricted. release to the wild unless its founder area will be significantly larger and The progress of the reintroduction line is well-represented in the captive include portions of three states— project will receive an informal review population. All release candidates are Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. The on an annual basis by the primary genetically redundant and their loss will southern boundary is Interstate cooperators and a formal evaluation by not jeopardize the diversity of the Highway 40 in Arizona from its junction all cooperators within the first five years existing condor gene pool. with Highway 191 west across Arizona after the first release to evaluate the The proposed reintroduction project to Kingman; the western boundary starts reintroduction project and determine will further the recovery of the species at Kingman, goes northwest on Highway future management needs. Once by—establishing a second wild 93 to Interstate Highway 15, continues recovery goals are met for downlisting population, ensuring the existence of a northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15 the species, a rule will be proposed to wild population if a catastrophic event in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 70 in address the downlisting. The 5-year eliminates the southern California Utah; where the northern boundary evaluation will not include a population, enhancing the opportunity starts and goes across Utah to Highway reevaluation of the ‘‘nonessential to manage the genetic diversity of the 191; where the eastern boundary starts experimental’’ designation for this wild population, and avoiding the and goes south through Utah until population. The Service does not potential risks inherent in overcrowding Highway 191 meets Interstate Highway foresee any likely situation which the captive population. 40 in Arizona (Fig. 1). would call for altering the nonessential experimental status of this population. Location of Reintroduced Population Management Under section 10(j)(1) of the Act, an The Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction Public Comments Solicited experimental population must be project will be undertaken by the The Service intends that any action separate geographically from Service and its primary cooperators the resulting from this proposed rulemaking nonexperimental populations of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and to determine the northern Arizona same species. The last recorded sighting the BLM. Other cooperators that will California condor population as a of a California condor in the area of the provide support on an as-needed basis nonessential experimental population proposed experimental release occurred include—Grand Canyon National Park, be as effective as possible. The Service in 1924, when Edouard Jacot observed Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, therefore solicits comments or a condor feeding on a carcass with Kaibab National Forest, the Hualapai recommendations concerning any golden eagles near the town of Williams, Tribe, the Navajo Nation, LAZ, aspect of this proposed rule (see Arizona (Rea 1983). The last known Zoological Society of San Diego (the ADDRESSES section) from Federal, State, free-flying California condor was Zoological Society includes the SDWAP public, and local government agencies, captured April 19, 1987, in southern and SDZ), The Phoenix Zoo and The the scientific community, industry, or California and placed in the captive Peregrine Fund. All cooperators will any other interested party. Comments Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 43 should be as specific as possible. Final Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, Vol. 6. Pp. 175–267. Santa Barbara promulgation of a rule to implement information collection, or record- Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara. this proposed action will take into keeping requirements are imposed on California. consideration the comments and any small entities by this action and the rule Stager, K. 1964. The role of olfaction in food additional information received by the location by the turkey vulture (Catharses contains no record-keeping aura). Los Angeles County Museum Service. Such communications may lead requirements, as defined in the Contributions to Science 81:1–63. to a final rule that differs from this Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 Steadman, D.W., and N.G. Miller. 1987. proposal. U.S.C. 350 et seq.). This rule does not California condor associated with spruce- Section 4(b)(5)(e) of the Act requires require a Federalism assessment under pine woodland in the late Pleistocene of that a public hearing be held, if Executive Order 12612 because it would New York. Quaternary Research 28:415– requested, within 45 days of a proposed not have any significant federalism 426. rule. The Service has scheduled two effects as described in the order. U.S. Bureau of Land Management and public hearings on this proposal due to Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1983. the anticipated number of requests for References Cited Paria-Kanab Creek habitat management plan. BLM Arizona Strip District, such hearings. The first public hearing Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil birds. Vermilion Resource Area, St George Utah; Part 2 (Anseriformes through Galliformes). will be held at the Main Auditorium, Ariz. Game and Fish Department, Region 2, Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm Bulletin of the Florida State Museum. Biological Sciences 9:195–335. Flagstaff. Street, Flagstaff, Arizona, on Tuesday, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm Cooper, J.G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe 1:248–249. California Condor Recovery Plan. Third and the second at the Kanab High Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet of fossil Edition. Portland, Oregon. 110 pp. School Auditorium, 59 East Red California condors in Grand Canyon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Draft Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah, on Arizona, Science 237:768–770. California Condor Recovery Plan. Fourth Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00 Geyer, C.J., O.A. Ryder, L.G. Chemnick, and Edition. Portland, Oregon. 63 pp. to 8:00 pm. Anyone expecting to make E.A. Thompson. 1993. Analysis of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Draft Environmental Assessment: Release of an oral presentation at these hearings is relatedness in the California condors from DNA fingerprints. Molecular Biology and California Condors at Vermilion Cliffs encouraged to provide a written copy of (Coconino County, Arizona). Ventura, their statement to the hearing officer Evolution 10:571–589. Koford, C.B. 1953. The California Condor. California. 74 pp. prior to the start of the hearing. In the National Audubon Society Research Report Wilbur, S.R. 1972. Food resources of the event there is a large attendance, the No. 4:1–154. California condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife time allotted for oral statements may Ligon, J.D. 1967. Relationships of the Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, have to be limited. Oral and written cathartid vultures. Occasional Paper of the Laurel, Maryland. statements receive equal consideration. Museum of Zoology, University of Wilbur, S.R. 1973. The California condor in There are no limits to the length of Michigan 651:1–26. the Pacific Northwest. Auk. 90:196–198. Mallette, R.D., and J.C. Borneman. 1966. First Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condor plumage written comments presented at these and molt as field study aids. California hearings or mailed to the Service. cooperative survey of the California condor. California Fish and Game. 52:185– Fish and Game. 61:144–148. National Environmental Policy Act 203. Wilbur, S.R. 1978. The California condor. Mallette, R.D., F.C. Sibley, W.D. Carrier, and 1966–76: a look at its past and future. U.S. A final environmental assessment as J.C. Borneman. 1970. California condor Fish and Wildlife Service. North America defined under authority of the NEPA, surveys. 1969. California Fish and Game. Fauna. 72:1–136. has been prepared and is available to 56:199–202. Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and the public at the Service office Meretsky, V.J., and N.F.R. Snyder. 1992. trend of the California condor population. identified in the ADDRESSES section. Range use and movements of California 1965–1978. California Fish and Game. This assessment formed the basis for the condors. Condor 94:313–335. 66:40–48. decision that the proposed California Miller, A.H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan. Wilbur, S.R., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The California condor in Baja California, condor reintroduction is not a major 1965. The current status and welfare of the California condor. National Audubon Mexico. American Birds. 34:856–859. Federal action which would Society Research Report. 6:1–61. Author significantly affect the quality of the Rea, A.M. 1983. Cathartid affinities: a brief human environment within the meaning overview. In S.R. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson The Primary author of this rule is Robert of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. (eds.). Vulture biology and management. Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pp. 26–54. University of California Press, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Berkeley and Los Angeles. 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, The proposed rule will not affect Sibley, F. 1969. Effects of the Sespe Creek California 93003. Project on the California condor. U.S. Fish protection provided to the California List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 condor by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. (MBTA). The take of all migratory birds, Sibley, C.G., and J.E. Ahlquist. 1990. Endangered and threatened species, Phylogeny and classification of birds. A including the California condor, is study in molecular evolution. Yale Univ. Exports, Imports, Reporting and record- governed by the MBTA. The MBTA Press, New Haven, Connecticut. keeping requirements, and regulates the taking of migratory birds Snyder, N.F.R., and E.V. Johnson. 1985. Transportation. for educational, scientific, and Photographic censusing of the 1982–1983 Proposed Regulation Promulgation recreational purposes. California condor population. Condor. 89:468–485. Required Determinations Accordingly, the Service hereby Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. proposes to amend part 17, subchapter This proposed rule was subject to 1986. Nest-site biology of the California condor. Condor. 88:228–241. B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of Office of Management and Budget Federal Regulations as set forth below: review under Executive Order 12866. Synder, N.F.R., E.V. Johnson, and D.A. Clendenen. 1987. Primary molt of The rule will not have a significant California condors. Condor 89:468–485. PART 17Ð[AMENDED] economic effect on a substantial number Snyder, N.F.R., and H. Snyder. 1989. Biology of small entities under the Regulatory and conservation of the California condor. 1. The authority citation for part 17 Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). In D.M. Powers (ed.). Current Ornithology, continues to read as follows: 44 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 2. In Section 17.11(h), the table entry § 17.11 Endangered and threatened 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– ‘‘Condor, California’’ under BIRDS is wildlife. 625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. revised to read as follows: * * * * * (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* BIRDS

******* Condor, Califor- Gymnogyps U.S.A. (AZ, CA, OR) U.S.A. only, except E 1,ll 17.95(b) NA nia. californianus. Mexico (Baja Cali- where listed as an fornia). experimental pop- ulation below. Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (specific por- XN ll NA 17.84(j) tions of Utah, Ne- vada, and Ari- zona).

*******

3. Section 17.84 is amended by (iv) To relocate California condors in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 70 in adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: from the experimental population area Utah; where the northern boundary into other condor reintroduction areas starts and goes across Utah to Highway § 17.84 Special rulesÐvertebrates. or captivity; 191; where the eastern boundary starts * * * * * (v) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned and goes south through Utah until (j) California condor (Gymnogyps California condor; Highway 191 meets Interstate Highway californianus). (vi) To salvage a dead specimen that 40 in Arizona (See map at end of this (1) The California condor (Gymnogyps may be useful for scientific study; or paragraph (j).). All California condors californianus) population identified in (vii) To dispose of a dead specimen. found in the wild within these paragraph (j)(8) of this section is a (5) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs boundaries will comprise the nonessential experimental population. (j)(2), (j)(4)(v), (j)(4)(vi), and (j)(4)(vii), of experimental population. (2) No person may take this species in this section must be reported (ii) All California condors released the wild in the experimental population immediately to the State Supervisor, area except when such take is into the experimental population area U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be marked and visually identifiable. accidental, unavoidable, and not the Ecological Services, Arizona State All offspring will also be marked before purpose of the carrying out of an Office, Phoenix, 2321 W. Royal Palm fledging. Any condors found outside of otherwise lawful activity, or as provided Road, Suite 103, Arizona (telephone the experimental population area will in paragraphs (j)(3), (4), and (9) of this 602/640–2720) who will determine the be identifiable by colored and coded section. disposition of any live or dead patagial wing markers. In the event that (3) Any person with a valid permit specimens. issued by the Service under § 17.32 may (6) No person shall possess, sell, a condor moves outside the take California condors in the wild in deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or experimental population area, three the experimental population area. export by any means whatsoever, any options will be considered—leave the (4) Any employee or agent of the California condor or part thereof from condor undisturbed and monitor it Service, Bureau of Land Management or the experimental population taken in closely, capture the condor and return it appropriate State wildlife agency, who violation of this paragraph (j) or in to the reintroduction area, or place it in is designated for such purposes, when violation of applicable State laws or a captive breeding facility. The fate of acting in the course of official duties, regulations or the Endangered Species condors that move outside the may take a California condor from the Act. experimental population area will be wild in the experimental population (7) It is unlawful for any person to decided on a case by case basis. area and vicinity if such action is attempt to commit, solicit another to (9) The experimental population will necessary: commit, or cause to be committed, any be monitored continually for the life of (i) For scientific purposes; offense defined in paragraphs (j)(2) and the reintroduction project. All California (ii) To relocate California condors (j)(6) of this section. condors will be given physical within the experimental population area (8)(i) The designated experimental examinations before being released. If to improve condor survival and population area of the California condor there is any evidence that the condor is recovery prospects, or to address includes portions of three states— in poor health or diseased, it will not be conflicts with ongoing activities or Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. The released to the wild. Any condor that private landowners; southern boundary is Interstate displays signs of illness, is injured, or (iii) To relocate California condors Highway 40 in Arizona from its junction otherwise needs special care may be that have moved outside the with Highway 191 west across Arizona captured by authorized personnel of the experimental population area, when to Kingman; the western boundary starts Service, Bureau of Land Management or removal is necessary to protect the at Kingman, goes northwest on Highway appropriate State wildlife agency or condor, or is requested by an affected 93 to Interstate Highway 15, continues their agents, and given the appropriate landowner or land manager; northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15 care. These condors will be re-released Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 45 into the reintroduction area as soon as possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to keep them in captivity for an extended period of time, or permanently.

BILLING CODE 4310±55±P 46 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310±55±C Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 47

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