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

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed

to be amended as follows.

PART 207—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 207

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 Stat. 266; (33 U.S.C. 1).

2. Section 207.440 is amended by

revising paragraph (u) as follows:

§ 207.440 St. Marys Falls Canal and Locks,

Michigan; use, administration and

navigation.

* * * * *

(u) The locks will be opened and

closed to navigation each year as

provided in paragraphs (u) (1) and (2) of

this section except as may be authorized

by the Division Engineer. Consideration

will be given to change in these dates in

an emergency involving disaster to a

vessel or other extraordinary

circumstances.

(1) Opening date. At least one lock

will be placed in operation for the

passage of vessels on March 25.

Thereafter, additional locks will be

placed in operation as traffic density

demands.

(2) Closing date. The locks will be

maintained in operation only for the

passage of down bound vessels

departing from a Lake Superior port

before midnight (2400 hours) of January

14, and of upbound vessels passing

Detour before midnight (2400 hours) of

January 15. Vessel owners are requested

to report in advance to the Engineer in

charge at Sault Ste. Marie, the name of

vessel and time of departure from a Lake

Superior port on January 14 before

midnight, and of vessels passing Detour

on January 15 before midnight, which

may necessitate the continued operation

of a lock to permit passage of vessel.

* * * * *

Dated: December 21, 1995.

John H. Zirschky,

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil

Works).

[FR Doc. 95–31543 Filed 12–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD62

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Proposed Establishment of

a Nonessential Experimental

Population of California Condors in

Northern Arizona

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, in cooperation with the Arizona

Game and Fish Department, and the

U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

proposes to reintroduce California

condors (Gymnogyps californianus) into

northern Arizona. This reintroduction

will achieve a primary recovery goal for

this endangered species, establishment

of a second non-captive population,

spatially disjunct from the non-captive

population in southern California. This

population is proposed to be designated

a nonessential experimental population

in accordance with Section 10(j) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. Captive-reared condors will

be released in early 1996 (target date)

and additional releases will occur

annually thereafter until a selfsustaining wild population is

established. The reintroduction will use

tested release techniques developed in

previous releases in southern California

and will be managed in accordance with

the provisions of this special rule. The

potential impacts associated with this

proposed rule were assessed in an

Environmental Assessment completed

in November 1995. This California

condor reintroduction does not conflict

with existing or anticipated Federal or

State agency actions or traditional land

uses on public or private lands.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by February 1,

1996. Public hearings will be held at

Flagstaff High School on Tuesday,

January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm

and Kanab High School on Thursday,

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

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,

Arizona State Office, 2321 W. Royal

Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address. The public

hearings will be held at the Main

Auditorium, Flagstaff High School, 400

West Elm Street, Flagstaff, Arizona and

Kanab High School Auditorium, 59 East

Red Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services, Ventura

Field Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,

Ventura, California, 93003 (Telephone:

805/644–1766; Facsimile: 805/644–

3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative. Section 10(j) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act)

enables the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) to designate certain

populations of federally listed species

that are released into the wild as

‘‘experimental.’’ The circumstances

under which this designation can be

applied are—(1) The population is

geographically disjunct from

nonexperimental populations of the

same species (e.g., the population is

reintroduced outside the species’

current range but within its historical

range); and (2) the Service determines

the release will further the conservation

of the species. This designation can

increase the Service’s flexibility to

manage a reintroduced population,

because under section 10(j) an

experimental population is treated as a

threatened species regardless of its

designation elsewhere in its range and,

under section 4(d) of the Act, the

Service has greater discretion in

developing management programs for

threatened species than it has for

endangered species.

Section 10(j) of the Act requires that

when an experimental population is

designated, a determination be made by

the Service whether that population is

either ‘‘essential’’ or ‘‘nonessential’’ to

the continued existence of the species,

based on the best available information.

Nonessential experimental populations

located outside National Wildlife Refuge

(NWR) or National Park Service (NPS)

lands are treated, for the purposes of

section 7 of the Act, as if they are

proposed for listing. Thus, only two

provisions of section 7 would apply

outside NWR and NPS lands—section

7(a)(1), which requires all Federal

agencies to use their authorities to

conserve listed species, and section

7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies

to informally confer with the Service on

actions that are likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed

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

which requires Federal agencies to

ensure that their activities are not likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of
36 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

a listed species, would not apply except

on NWR and NPS lands. Experimental

populations determined to be

‘‘essential’’ to the survival of the species

would remain subject to the

consultation provisions of section 7 of

the Act. Activities undertaken on

private lands are not affected by section

7 of the Act unless the activities are

authorized, funded or carried out by a

Federal agency.

Individual animals that comprise a

designated experimental population

may be removed from an existing source

or donor population only after it has

been determined that such a removal is

not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species; the removal

must be conducted under a permit

issued in accordance with the

requirements of 50 CFR 17.22.

2. Biological. The California Condor

(Gymnogyps californianus) was listed as

endangered on March 11, 1967, (32 FR

4001) in a final rule published by the

Service. The Service designated critical

habitat for the California condor on

September 24, 1976, (41 FR 41914).

Long recognized as a vanishing species

(Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur

1978), the California condor remains

one of the world’s rarest and most

imperiled vertebrate species.

California condors are among the

largest flying birds in the world (U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Adults weigh approximately 10

kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) and

have a wing span up to 2.9 meters (m)

(9 1/2 feet (ft)). Adults are black except

for prominent white underwing linings

and edges of the upper secondary

coverts. The head and neck are mostly

naked, and the bare skin is gray, grading

into various shades of yellow, red, and

orange. Males and females cannot be

distinguished by size or plumage

characteristics. The heads of juveniles

up to 3 years old are grayish-black, and

their wing linings are variously mottled

or completely dark. During the third

year the head develops yellow

coloration, and the wing linings become

gradually whiter (N.J. Schmitt in litt.

1995). By the time individuals are 5 or

6 years of age, they are essentially

indistinguishable from adults (Koford

1953, Wilbur 1975, Snyder et al. 1987),

but full development of the adult wing

patterns may not be completed until 7

or 8 years of age (N.J. Schmitt in litt.

1995).

The California condor is a member of

the family Cathartidae or New World

vultures, a family of seven species,

including the closely related Andean

condor (Vultur gryphus) and the

sympatric turkey vulture (Cathartes

aura). Although the family has

traditionally been placed in the Order

Falconiformes, some contemporary

taxonomists believe that New World

vultures are more closely related to

storks (Ligon 1967, Rea 1983, Sibley and

Ahlquist 1990).

The fossil record of the genus

Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000

years to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch

(Brodkorb 1964). Fossil records also

reveal that the species once ranged over

much of the southern United States,

south to Nuevo Leon, Mexico and east

to Florida (Brodkorb 1964), and two

well preserved fossil bones were

reported from a site in upstate New

York (Steadman and Miller 1987). There

is evidence indicating that California

condors nested in west Texas, Arizona,

and New Mexico during the late

Pleistocene. The disappearance of the

California condor from much of this

range occurred about 10,000–11,000

years ago, coinciding with the late

Pleistocene extinction of the North

American megafauna (Emslie 1987).

By the time European man arrived in

western North America, California

condors occurred only in a narrow

Pacific coastal strip from British

Columbia, Canada, to Baja California

Norte, Mexico (Koford 1953, Wilbur

1978). California condors were observed

until the mid-1800s in the northern

portion of the Pacific Coast region

(Columbia River Gorge) and until the

early 1930s in the southern extreme,

northern Baja California (Koford 1953,

Wilbur 1973, Wilbur and Kiff 1980).

Prior to 1987, California condors used a

wishbone-shaped area encompassing six

counties—Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa

Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey,

and Kern, just north of Los Angeles,

California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a).

Courtship and nest site selection

occurs from December through the

spring. Breeding California condors

normally lay a single egg between late

January and early April. The egg is

incubated by both parents and hatches

after approximately 56 days. Both

parents share responsibilities for feeding

the nestling. Feeding usually occurs

daily for the first two months, then

gradually diminishes in frequency. At

two to three months of age, condor

chicks leave the nest cavity but remain

in the vicinity of the nest where they are

fed by their parents. The chick takes its

first flight at about six to seven months

of age, but may not become fully

independent of its parents until the

following year. Parent birds

occasionally continue to feed a fledgling

even after it has begun to make longer

flights to foraging grounds (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Because of the long period of parental

care, it was formerly assumed that

successful California condor pairs

normally nested successfully every

other year (Koford 1953). However, this

pattern seems to vary, possibly

depending mostly on the time of year

that the nestling fledges. If a nestling

fledges relatively early (in late summer

or early fall), its parents may nest again

in the following year, but late fledging

probably inhibits nesting in the

following year (Snyder and Snyder

1989).

The only wild California condor (a

male) of known age bred successfully in

the wild in 1986 at the age of six years.

Recent data collected from captive

birds, however, demonstrates that

reproduction may occur, or at least be

attempted, at earlier ages. A four-year

old male was the youngest condor

observed in courtship display, and the

same bird subsequently bred

successfully at the age of five years (M.

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

California condors nest in various

types of rock formations including

crevices, overhung ledges, potholes, and

more rarely, in cavities of giant sequoia

trees (Sequoia giganteus) (Snyder et al.

1986).

California condors are opportunistic

scavengers, feeding only on carcasses.

Typical foraging behavior includes longdistance reconnaissance flights, lengthy

circling flights over a carcass, and hours

of waiting at a roost or on the ground

near a carcass (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a). Condors may feed

immediately, or wait passively as other

California condors or golden eagles

(Aquila chrysaetos) feed on the carcass

(Wilbur 1978). Most California condor

foraging occurs in open terrain. This

ensures easy take-off and approach and

makes food finding easier. Carcasses

under brush are hard to see, and

California condors apparently do not

locate food by olfactory cues (Stager

1964). Condors maintain wide-ranging

foraging patterns throughout the year,

an important adaptation for a species

that may be subjected to unpredictable

food supplies (Meretsky and Snyder

1992).

Prior to the arrival of European man,

California condor food items within

interior California probably included

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), tule

elk (Cervus nannodes), pronghorn

(Antilocapra americana), and smaller

mammals. Along the Pacific shore the

diet may have included whales, sea

lions, and other marine species (Emslie

1987, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1984). Koford (1953) listed observations

of California condors feeding on 24

different mammalian species within the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 37

last two centuries. He estimated that 95

percent of the diet consisted of the

carcasses of cattle, domestic sheep,

ground squirrels (Spermophilus

beechyi), mule deer, and horses.

Although cattle may be the most

available food within the range of the

condor, deer appear to be preferred

(Koford 1953, Wilbur 1972, Meretsky

and Snyder 1992). California condors

appear to feed only one to three days

per week, but the frequency of adult

feeding is variable and may show

seasonal differences (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995a).

Depending upon weather conditions

and the hunger of the bird, a California

condor may spend most of its time

perched at a roost. California condors

often use traditional roosting sites near

important foraging grounds (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1984). Although

California condors usually remain at

roosts until mid-morning, and generally

return in mid- to late afternoon, it is not

unusual for a bird to stay perched

throughout the day. While at a roost,

condors devote considerable time to

preening and other maintenance

activities. Roosts may also serve some

social function, as it is common for two

or more condors to roost together and to

leave a roost together (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1984). Cliffs and tall

conifers, including dead snags, are

generally used as roost sites in nesting

areas. Although most roost sites are near

nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost

sites are located throughout the range.

There may be adaptive as well as

traditional reasons for California

condors to continue to occupy a number

of widely separated roosts, such as

reducing food competition between

breeding and non-breeding birds (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).

Condor censusing efforts through the

years have varied in intensity and

accuracy. This has led to conflicting

estimates of historical abundance, but

all have indicated an ever-declining

California condor population. Koford

(1953) estimated a population of about

60 individuals in the late 1930s through

the mid-1940s, apparently based on

flock size. A field study by Eben and Ian

McMillan in the early 1960s suggested

a population of about 40 individuals,

again based in part on the validity of

Koford’s estimates of flock size (Miller

et al. 1965). An annual October

California condor survey was begun in

1965 (Mallette and Borneman 1966) and

continued for 16 years. Its results

supported an estimate of 50 to 60

California condors in the late 1960s

(Sibley 1969, Mallette 1970). Wilbur

(1980) continued the survey efforts into

the 1970s and concurred with the

interpretations of the earlier October

surveys. He further estimated that by

1978 the population had dropped to 25

to 30 individuals.

In 1981, the Service, in cooperation

with California Polytechnic State

University at San Luis Obispo, began

census efforts based on individual

identifications of birds through flight

photography (Snyder and Johnson

1985). Minimum summer counts from

these photo-censusing efforts showed a

steady decline from an estimated

minimum of 21 wild condors in 1982,

19 individuals in 1983, 15 individuals

in 1984, and 9 individuals in 1985.

Although the overall condor population

increased slightly after 1982 as a result

of double clutching, the wild population

continued to decline. By the end of

1986, all but two California condors

were captured for safe keeping and

genetic security (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a).

On April 19, 1987, the last wild

condor was captured and taken to the

San Diego Wild Animal Park (SDWAP).

Beginning with the first successful

captive breeding of California condors

in 1988, the total population has

increased annually and now stands at

103 individuals, including 90 in the

captive flock and 13 in the wild (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Causes of the California condor

population decline have probably been

numerous and variable through time

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).

However, despite decades of research, it

is not known with certainty which

mortality factors have been dominant in

the overall decline of the species.

Relatively few dead condors have been

found, and definitive conclusions on the

causes of death were made in only a

small portion of these cases (Miller et al.

1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder and Snyder

1989). Poisoning, shooting, egg and

specimen collecting, collisions with

man-made structures, and loss of habitat

have contributed to the decline of the

species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1984).

3. Recovery Efforts. The primary

recovery objective as stated in the

California Condor Recovery Plan (Plan)

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

is to reclassify the condor to threatened

status. The minimum criterion for

reclassification to threatened is the

maintenance of at least two non-captive

populations and one captive population.

These populations must (1) each

number at least 150 individuals, (2)

each contain at least 15 breeding pairs

and (3) be reproductively self-sustaining

and have a positive rate of population

growth. The non-captive populations

also must (4) be spatially disjunct and

non-interacting, and (5) contain

individuals descended from each of the

14 founders. When these five conditions

are met, the species should be

reclassified to threatened status.

The recovery strategy to meet this goal

is focused on increasing reproduction in

captivity to provide condors for release,

and the release of condors to the wild.

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

a. Captive Breeding. The years 1983

and 1984 were critical in formation of

the captive California condor flock at

the SDWAP and Los Angeles Zoo (LAZ).

In 1983, two chicks and four eggs were

brought in from the wild. The chicks

went to the LAZ, and the eggs were

hatched successfully at the San Diego

Zoo (SDZ). Three of the chicks were

taken to the SDWAP and one to the LAZ

to be reared. In 1984, one chick and

eight eggs were taken from the wild. The

chick went to the LAZ and six of the

eight eggs were successfully hatched at

SDZ. Five of the chicks went to the LAZ

and one went to the SDWAP to be

reared. In 1985, two eggs were taken

from the wild and hatched successfully,

one at the SDZ and the other at the

SDWAP. Both of these chicks were

taken to the LAZ to be reared. In 1986,

the last egg was brought in from the

wild and hatched at the SDWAP, where

it was kept for rearing. By 1986, only

one pair of condors existed in the wild

and the last free-flying condor was

captured on April 19, 1987, bringing the

captive population to 27. The first

successful breeding in captivity

occurred in 1988, when a chick was

produced at the SDWAP by a pair of

wild-caught condors. Four more chicks

were produced in 1989. The number of

chicks produced by captive condors

continues to increase annually and the

captive population has grown from the

original 27 in 1987 to 90 in 1995, with

13 additional captive-reared condors

that are now in the wild. In 1993, the

captive breeding program was expanded

to include a facility at The Peregrine

Fund—s World Center for Birds of Prey

(WCBP) in Boise, Idaho (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995a).

b. Releases. In October 1986, the

California Condor Recovery Team

(Team) recommended that criteria be

satisfied before a release of captive-bred

California condors could take place.

These included having three actively

breeding pairs of condors, three chicks

behaviorally suitable for release, and

retaining at least five offspring from

each breeding pair contributing to the

release. The Team added a provision to

the third criterion to retain a minimum

of seven progeny in captivity for

founders that were not reproductively
38 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

active (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995a).

The 1991 breeding season produced

two condor chicks that met the Team’s

criteria for release, a male from the

SDWAP and a female from the LAZ.

However, attempting to apply the

Team’s third criterion to the 1991 chicks

also revealed that it would not be

practical in the future, because several

founders had died without producing

five progeny. The Team, therefore,

recommended choosing genetically

appropriate chicks for future releases

based on pedigree analyses developed

for genetic management of captive

populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a).

Prior to capture of the last wild

California condor in 1987, the Team

recognized that anticipated future

releases of captive-reared condors

would pose the problem of

reintroducing individuals of an altricial

bird into habitat devoid of their parents

and other members of their own species.

Thus, the Team recommended initiation

of an experimental release of Andean

condors. Research objectives for the

experimental release were to refine

condor release and recapture

techniques; test the criteria being used

to select condor release sites; develop

written protocols for releases,

monitoring, and recapture of condors;

field test rearing protocols being used,

or proposed for use to produce condors

suitable for release; evaluate

radiotelemetry packages; supplemental

feeding strategies; train a team of

biologists for releasing condors; and

identify potential problems peculiar to

the California environment. The Andean

condor experiment began in August

1988 and concluded in December 1991.

During that period three release sites

where tested and a total of 13 female

Andean condors were released. Only

one mortality occurred in the field when

an Andean condor collided with a

power line (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a).

In 1991, two California condor chicks

were released into Sespe Condor

Sanctuary, Los Padres National Forest,

Ventura County on January 14, 1992.

The male died from ingesting ethylene

glycol in October of the same year. The

next release of California condors

occurred on December 1, 1992, when six

more captive-produced California

condors chicks were released at the

same Sespe Condor Sanctuary site.

Socialization with the remaining female

from the first release proceeded well,

and the ‘‘flock’’ appeared to adjust well

to the wild conditions. However, there

was continuing concern over the

tendency of the birds to frequent zones

of heavy human activity. Indeed, three

of these birds eventually died from

collisions with power lines between late

May and October 1993 (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995a).

Because of the tendency for the

remaining condors to be attracted to the

vicinity of human activity and manmade obstacles, especially power lines,

another California condor release site

was constructed in a more remote area,

Lion Canyon, in the Los Padres National

Forest near the boundary of the San

Rafael Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara

County. Five hatch year condors were

released at the new site on December 8,

1993. In addition, the four condors that

had been residing in the Sespe area

were moved to the new site. They were

re-released over a period of several

weeks in hopes that this approach

would reduce the probability that they

would return to the Sespe area.

Nevertheless, three of these condors

eventually moved back to the Sespe area

in March 1994, where they resumed the

high risk practice of perching on power

poles. Because of general concern about

the tameness of these birds and the

possibility that their undesirable

behavior would be mimicked by

younger California condors, these

condors were retrapped on March 29,

1994 and added to the captive breeding

population. On June 24, one of the 1993

California condors died when it collided

with a power line. A second condor that

was in the company of this condor at

the time of its death, was trapped and

returned to the LAZ. The three

remaining wild condors continued to

frequent areas of human activity and

were trapped and returned to the zoo

the same week the first 1995 release

took place (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a).

As a result of the deaths due to

collisions with power lines and the

attraction of newly released young

condors to humans and their activities,

the 14 young California condors

scheduled for release in 1995 were

subjected to aversion training in the zoo

environment. An electrified mock

power pole and natural snag perches

were constructed in a large flight pen

holding the release candidates. When

the young condors landed on the

electrified pole they were given a

negative experience in the form of a

mild shock. When they landed on the

natural snag perches they received no

shock. After only a few attempts at

landing on the electrified power pole

and receiving a mild shock, they all

avoided the power pole and used the

natural perches exclusively (M. Wallace,

The Los Angeles Zoo, in litt. 1995).

This group of California condors was

also subjected to a series of human

aversion exercises. Aversion maneuvers

were staged in which a person would

appear in view of a group of condors at

a distance of approximately 100 meters

(300 yds). Once it was determined that

the condors spotted the person, they

would be ambushed and captured by a

hidden group of biologists. These

condors were then placed in sky

kennels, and later released after

nightfall (M. Wallace, The Los Angeles

Zoo, in litt. 1995). The goals of this

exercise were to condition the condors

to associate this negative experience

with humans and increase the distance

in which they would flush in future

encounters with humans. Six of these

young condors were released to the wild

on February 8, 1995, at the Lion Canyon

release site. To date none of these

condors have attempted to land on a

power pole and, although they have

roosted near campgrounds, they have

not approached humans. The one

exception was a young condor of this

group that was lured into a campground

by campers that placed food and water

out for it. This condor was subsequently

trapped and brought into the zoo. The

remaining five continue to avoid both

power poles and human activities. On

August 29 the remaining eight

California condors of this group were

released at the Lion Canyon Site. There

are now 13 condors flying free in

southern California.

4. Proposed Reintroduction Sites. To

satisfy the objectives of the Plan, at least

one subpopulation of non-captive

California condors must be established

in an area disjunct from the

subpopulation already being

reestablished in the recent historical

range in California. Following a widely

publicized solicitation for suggestions

for suitable condor release sites outside

of California, the Team recommended in

December 1991 that California condor

releases be conducted in northern

Arizona. Because this area once

supported California condors, still

provides a high level of remoteness,

ridges and cliffs for soaring, and caves

for nesting, the probability of a

successful reintroduction is very good.

The Service endorsed this

recommendation on April 2, 1992. In

collaboration with the Federal initiative

to designate a release site in Arizona,

the Arizona Game and Fish Department

began evaluating a possible California

condor reintroduction in 1989. The

Arizona Game and Fish Department

determined the reestablishment as

appropriate and feasible in steps 1 and

2 of the Department’s ‘‘Procedures for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 39

Nongame Wildlife and Endangered

Species Re-establishment Projects,’’ a

12-step process specifying the protocol

for a nongame reintroduction to take

place (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995b).

a. Site Selection Process. Potential

release sites in northern Arizona were

evaluated through aerial

reconnaissance, site visits, and

discussions with agency personnel

familiar with the sites being evaluated.

This evaluation process resulted in

selection of four potential release sites.

As required by the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), the Service, in cooperation

with the Arizona Game and Fish

Department and the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), produced an

Environmental Assessment titled—

‘‘Release of California Condors at the

Vermilion Cliffs, 1995,’’ in which the

potential release sites were thoroughly

examined and objectively evaluated.

The NEPA process resulted in selection

of a preferred release site at the

Vermilion Cliffs located on BLM lands

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

The suitability of the Vermilion Cliffs

as a California condor release site was

further evaluated using the Service’s

‘‘The Condor Release Site Evaluation

System’’. This system uses 25 working

criteria divided into three priority

classes—priority 1 includes features

critical to releasing and establishing

condors in the wild, priority 2 includes

features that are necessary but not

critical, and priority 3 includes features

that would add or detract from

suitability but are not critical. The

working criteria are grouped into

working factors that include: site

suitability, logistics, man-made threats/

hazards, and suitability of adjacent

lands (for population expansion). Each

working criterion is assigned a

quantitative value and weighted

according to assigned priority criteria.

The sum from the three priority classes

gives the total value for a site. This

rating system verified the Vermilion

Cliffs (the preferred alternative) as a

suitable release site (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995b).

b. Vermilion Cliffs Release Site. The

Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction site is

on the southwestern corner of the Paria

Plateau approximately 100 meters from

the edge of the Vermilion Cliffs,

Coconino County, Arizona, as shown on

the following map:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
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

relatively flat, undulating topography

dominated by pinyon-juniper/blue

grama (Pinus edulis-Juniperus

osteosperma/Bouteloua gracilis)

communities and mixed shrub

communities dominated by sagebrush

(Artemesia spp.) on sandy upland soils.

To the south and east of the Plateau lies

the steep precipice of the Vermilion

Cliffs, rising over 1,000 feet from the

floor of House Rock Valley. Uplifting

and differential erosion has created

complex geologic structures and a

diverse variety of habitats in a small

geographic area. The cliffs are sharply

dissected by canyons and arroyos and

the lower slopes are littered with

enormous boulders. Numerous springs

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

Bureau of Land Management and

Arizona Game and Fish Department

1983).

5. Reintroduction Protocol. In general,

the reintroduction protocol will involve

an annual release of captive-reared

California condors until recovery goals,

as outlined in the Plan, are achieved

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

These reintroduction protocols were

developed and tested in the current

southern California condor release

project.

a. Condor Release. The reintroduction

is designed to release a cohort of

captive-reared California condors once

each year, beginning in early 1996

(target date). Three captive breeding

facilities (LAZ, SDWAP, and WCBP), are

producing condors for release to the

wild. The size of each release cohort

will depend on the number of hatchyear condors produced during the late

winter to early spring of that year, but

releases will likely involve up to 10

hatch-year condors. These condors will

be hatched in captivity and raised by a

condor look-alike hand puppet, or by

their parents, until they are

approximately four months of age. They

will then be placed together in a single

large pen so they will form social bonds.

At approximately 6 months of age they

will be moved to a large flight pen and

undergo aversion training to humans

and power poles for one to two months.

After the training has been completed

the young condors will be transported

by helicopter to the release site at

Vermilion Cliffs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995b).

At the release site they will be placed

in a temporary release pen and will

remain there for an acclimation period,

of approximately one to two weeks. This

structure will be approximately 16 ft by

8 ft and 6 ft high. Netting will cover the

front of the pen, allowing the young

condors to view and become

accustomed to the surrounding area.

The release pen will be pre-fabricated,

delivered to the release site by

helicopter, and removed from the site

after the young condors have fledged

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

Meanwhile, biologists will remain

near the release pen 24 hours a day

observing the young condor’s behavior

and guarding against predators or other

disturbance. After the initial adjustment

period and when all the young condors

can fly, the release will take place. Any

release candidate showing signs of

physical or behavioral problems will not

be released. Release is accomplished by

removing the net at the front of the pen

allowing the birds to exit. The young

condors will likely remain in the

immediate area of the pen for some time

before beginning exploratory forays

along the cliffs. A small area of

approximately 10 acres will be

temporarily closed to recreational

activity to protect the newly released

condors and will remain closed until

they have dispersed from the release

area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995b).

b. Supplemental Feeding. Condors are

dependent on carrion and must be fed

until they learn to locate carcasses

independently. Newly released young

condors will be dependent on carrion

provided by biologists, making it

necessary to maintain a supplemental

feeding program. However, older

condors (sub-adults and adults), should

be locating carcasses on their own and

hopefully would not be dependent on

the supplemental feeding program for

their survival. Supplemental feeding

should reduce the likelihood of deaths

of young condors from accidental

poisoning insofar as it will help prevent

them from feeding on contaminated

carcasses. The diet provided to the

condors will consist primarily of

livestock carcasses and road killed

animals. Field biologists will deliver

carcasses to the condors every four to

five days by carrying carcasses to the

edge of the cliffs at night, to avoid

detection by the condors. A network of

feeding stations on prominent points

with high visibility will be identified in

the general area of the release. Carcasses

will be placed on the ground or, if

predators become a problem, elevated

off the ground by placing them atop

natural rock outcrops less accessible to

ground predators (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995b).

c. Monitoring. All California condors

released to the wild will be equipped

with two radio transmitters, one on each

patagium, or one patagial placement and

one mounted on the tail. In addition,

they will wear bold colored patagial

markers on each wing with code

numbers to facilitate visual

identification. The movements and

behavior of each condor will be

monitored for at least the first two to

three years of its life. Ground

triangulation will be the primary means

of radio tracking. Aerial tracking will be

used to find lost birds or when more

accurate locations are desired.

Telemetry flights will be coordinated

with the appropriate land management

agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1995b).

Status of Reintroduced Population

In accordance with section 10(j) of the

Act, California condors reintroduced

into northern Arizona are proposed to

be designated as a nonessential

experimental population. The

experimental designation means the

reintroduced California condors will be

treated as a threatened population

instead of an endangered population.

Under section 4(d) of the Act, this

designation enables the Service to

develop special regulations for

management of the population that are

less restrictive than the mandatory

prohibitions covering endangered

species. Therefore, the experimental

designation allows the management

flexibility needed to ensure that this

reintroduction is compatible with

current or planned human activities in

the reintroduction area and to permit

management of the population for

recovery purposes.

Experimental populations can be

classified as either ‘‘essential’’ or

‘‘nonessential’’. An essential

experimental population is a population

whose loss would be likely to

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the

survival of the species in the wild [50

CFR 17.80 (Subpart H-Experimental

Populations)]. All other experimental

populations are treated as nonessential,

if they are not considered essential to

the continued existence of the species.

‘‘Nonessential’’ experimental

populations are treated for purposes of

section 7 of the Act as though they were

only proposed for listing (except on

National Wildlife Refuge and National

Park System lands where they will be

treated as a species listed as

‘‘threatened’’ under the authority of the

Act). The proposed California condor

experimental population merits

classification as nonessential because

the population will not be essential to

the continued existence of the species.

Currently, the principal California

condor population (90 individuals)

exists in the safe environment of three

captive breeding facilities located at the

SDWAP, LAZ, and WCBP. The captive
42 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

breeding facilities are not included in

exhibits and are under 24 hour

surveillance by condor keepers or video

cameras. Only essential program

personnel are granted access to the

captive population. The captive

population is given excellent care and to

date there have been no deaths of adults

or sub-adults. In addition, the

geographic separation of the three

breeding facilities protects the captive

population from the threat of extinction

due to a single catastrophic event.

The reproductive rate of the captive

population dramatically exceeds the

mortality rate of the wild population.

All condors lost in the reintroduction

efforts can be replaced by current chick

production, while the captive

population continues to increase. The

extant population will not be adversely

effected by the proposed reintroduction

since it is hundreds of miles away (see

below).

By mid-1987, every surviving

individual of the species was held in

captivity following agreement that the

decline of the wild population to eight

surviving adults had demonstrated that

the wild population was destined for

extinction (Geyer et al. 1993). Genetic

management, which includes control of

all matings, has preserved the genetic

viability of the extant captive

population. No California condor

hatched in captivity is considered for

release to the wild unless its founder

line is well-represented in the captive

population. All release candidates are

genetically redundant and their loss will

not jeopardize the diversity of the

existing condor gene pool.

The proposed reintroduction project

will further the recovery of the species

by—establishing a second wild

population, ensuring the existence of a

wild population if a catastrophic event

eliminates the southern California

population, enhancing the opportunity

to manage the genetic diversity of the

wild population, and avoiding the

potential risks inherent in overcrowding

the captive population.

Location of Reintroduced Population

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

experimental population must be

separate geographically from

nonexperimental populations of the

same species. The last recorded sighting

of a California condor in the area of the

proposed experimental release occurred

in 1924, when Edouard Jacot observed

a condor feeding on a carcass with

golden eagles near the town of Williams,

Arizona (Rea 1983). The last known

free-flying California condor was

captured April 19, 1987, in southern

California and placed in the captive

breeding program. To date there have

been no verified sightings of California

condors in the wild and condor

researchers are confident that there are

no undocumented wild condors in the

proposed release area or anywhere else

in their historic range. Since January

1992, five releases of young California

condors have taken place in Ventura

and Santa Barbara counties, California.

Currently, 13 endangered California

condors are located in the wild back

country of Santa Barbara County. This

non-captive population is located

approximately 720 kilometers (km) (450

miles (mi)) west of the proposed release

site. The longest flight by these recently

reintroduced condors has been

approximately 40 km (25 mi), with

typical daily flights from 8 km (5 mi) to

16 km (10 mi). According to Meretsky

and Snyder (1992) the foraging flights

by breeding California condors in the

1980’s were from 70 km (44 mi) to 180

km (112 mi). Based on this information,

the Service does not believe there will

be any immigration/emigration between

the existing non-captive and the

proposed nonessential experimental

populations.

The release site for reintroducing

California condors into northern

Arizona will be on the Vermilion Cliffs,

in the southwestern corner of the Paria

Plateau. However, the designated

nonessential experimental population

area will be significantly larger and

include portions of three states—

Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. The

southern boundary is Interstate

Highway 40 in Arizona from its junction

with Highway 191 west across Arizona

to Kingman; the western boundary starts

at Kingman, goes northwest on Highway

93 to Interstate Highway 15, continues

northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15

in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 70 in

Utah; where the northern boundary

starts and goes across Utah to Highway

191; where the eastern boundary starts

and goes south through Utah until

Highway 191 meets Interstate Highway

40 in Arizona (Fig. 1).

Management

The Vermilion Cliffs reintroduction

project will be undertaken by the

Service and its primary cooperators the

Arizona Game and Fish Department and

the BLM. Other cooperators that will

provide support on an as-needed basis

include—Grand Canyon National Park,

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area,

Kaibab National Forest, the Hualapai

Tribe, the Navajo Nation, LAZ,

Zoological Society of San Diego (the

Zoological Society includes the SDWAP

and SDZ), The Phoenix Zoo and The

Peregrine Fund. All cooperators will

participate in this recovery project

under the general guidance of a

Memorandum of Understanding written

to promote recovery of the California

condor. Reintroduction procedures were

explained above under ‘‘Background, 5.

Reintroduction Protocols.’’

The reintroduction site is surrounded

by remote Federal or Indian Reservation

lands with only a few small private

inholdings. The current general

management scheme for these lands will

not affect the establishment of a

nonessential experimental population in

this area. Furthermore, the designation

of nonessential experimental will

encourage local cooperation as a result

of the management flexibility allowed

under this designation. The Service

considers the nonessential experimental

population designation and associated

reintroduction plan necessary to receive

cooperation of the affected landowners,

agencies, and recreational interests in

the area.

A designation of nonessential

experimental prohibits the application

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act except on

NWR and NPS lands. This will ensure

that current land uses and activities

(such as, but not limited to, forest

management, agriculture, mining,

livestock grazing, sport hunting and

fishing, and non-consumptive outdoor

recreational activities) will not be

restricted.

The progress of the reintroduction

project will receive an informal review

on an annual basis by the primary

cooperators and a formal evaluation by

all cooperators within the first five years

after the first release to evaluate the

reintroduction project and determine

future management needs. Once

recovery goals are met for downlisting

the species, a rule will be proposed to

address the downlisting. The 5-year

evaluation will not include a

reevaluation of the ‘‘nonessential

experimental’’ designation for this

population. The Service does not

foresee any likely situation which

would call for altering the nonessential

experimental status of this population.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any action

resulting from this proposed rulemaking

to determine the northern Arizona

California condor population as a

nonessential experimental population

be as effective as possible. The Service

therefore solicits comments or

recommendations concerning any

aspect of this proposed rule (see

ADDRESSES section) from Federal, State,

public, and local government agencies,

the scientific community, industry, or

any other interested party. Comments
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 43

should be as specific as possible. Final

promulgation of a rule to implement

this proposed action will take into

consideration the comments and any

additional information received by the

Service. Such communications may lead

to a final rule that differs from this

proposal.

Section 4(b)(5)(e) of the Act requires

that a public hearing be held, if

requested, within 45 days of a proposed

rule. The Service has scheduled two

public hearings on this proposal due to

the anticipated number of requests for

such hearings. The first public hearing

will be held at the Main Auditorium,

Flagstaff High School, 400 West Elm

Street, Flagstaff, Arizona, on Tuesday,

January 23, 1996, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm

and the second at the Kanab High

School Auditorium, 59 East Red

Shadow Lane, Kanab, Utah, on

Thursday, January 25, 1996, from 6:00

to 8:00 pm. Anyone expecting to make

an oral presentation at these hearings is

encouraged to provide a written copy of

their statement to the hearing officer

prior to the start of the hearing. In the

event there is a large attendance, the

time allotted for oral statements may

have to be limited. Oral and written

statements receive equal consideration.

There are no limits to the length of

written comments presented at these

hearings or mailed to the Service.

National Environmental Policy Act

A final environmental assessment as

defined under authority of the NEPA,

has been prepared and is available to

the public at the Service office

identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This assessment formed the basis for the

decision that the proposed California

condor reintroduction is not a major

Federal action which would

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment within the meaning

of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The proposed rule will not affect

protection provided to the California

condor by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA). The take of all migratory birds,

including the California condor, is

governed by the MBTA. The MBTA

regulates the taking of migratory birds

for educational, scientific, and

recreational purposes.

Required Determinations

This proposed rule was subject to

Office of Management and Budget

review under Executive Order 12866.

The rule will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs,

information collection, or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on

small entities by this action and the rule

contains no record-keeping

requirements, as defined in the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. 350 et seq.). This rule does not

require a Federalism assessment under

Executive Order 12612 because it would

not have any significant federalism

effects as described in the order.

References Cited

Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil birds.

Part 2 (Anseriformes through Galliformes).

Bulletin of the Florida State Museum.

Biological Sciences 9:195–335.

Cooper, J.G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe

1:248–249.

Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet of fossil

California condors in Grand Canyon,

Arizona, Science 237:768–770.

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

E.A. Thompson. 1993. Analysis of

relatedness in the California condors from

DNA fingerprints. Molecular Biology and

Evolution 10:571–589.

Koford, C.B. 1953. The California Condor.

National Audubon Society Research Report

No. 4:1–154.

Ligon, J.D. 1967. Relationships of the

cathartid vultures. Occasional Paper of the

Museum of Zoology, University of

Michigan 651:1–26.

Mallette, R.D., and J.C. Borneman. 1966. First

cooperative survey of the California

condor. California Fish and Game. 52:185–

203.

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

J.C. Borneman. 1970. California condor

surveys. 1969. California Fish and Game.

56:199–202.

Meretsky, V.J., and N.F.R. Snyder. 1992.

Range use and movements of California

condors. Condor 94:313–335.

Miller, A.H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan.

1965. The current status and welfare of the

California condor. National Audubon

Society Research Report. 6:1–61.

Rea, A.M. 1983. Cathartid affinities: a brief

overview. In S.R. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson

(eds.). Vulture biology and management.

Pp. 26–54. University of California Press,

Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Sibley, F. 1969. Effects of the Sespe Creek

Project on the California condor. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland.

Sibley, C.G., and J.E. Ahlquist. 1990.

Phylogeny and classification of birds. A

study in molecular evolution. Yale Univ.

Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Snyder, N.F.R., and E.V. Johnson. 1985.

Photographic censusing of the 1982–1983

California condor population. Condor.

89:468–485.

Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley.

1986. Nest-site biology of the California

condor. Condor. 88:228–241.

Synder, N.F.R., E.V. Johnson, and D.A.

Clendenen. 1987. Primary molt of

California condors. Condor 89:468–485.

Snyder, N.F.R., and H. Snyder. 1989. Biology

and conservation of the California condor.

In D.M. Powers (ed.). Current Ornithology,

Vol. 6. Pp. 175–267. Santa Barbara

Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara.

California.

Stager, K. 1964. The role of olfaction in food

location by the turkey vulture (Catharses

aura). Los Angeles County Museum

Contributions to Science 81:1–63.

Steadman, D.W., and N.G. Miller. 1987.

California condor associated with sprucepine woodland in the late Pleistocene of

New York. Quaternary Research 28:415–

426.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management and

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1983.

Paria-Kanab Creek habitat management

plan. BLM Arizona Strip District,

Vermilion Resource Area, St George Utah;

Ariz. Game and Fish Department, Region 2,

Flagstaff.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984.

California Condor Recovery Plan. Third

Edition. Portland, Oregon. 110 pp.

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

California Condor Recovery Plan. Fourth

Edition. Portland, Oregon. 63 pp.

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

Environmental Assessment: Release of

California Condors at Vermilion Cliffs

(Coconino County, Arizona). Ventura,

California. 74 pp.

Wilbur, S.R. 1972. Food resources of the

California condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

Laurel, Maryland.

Wilbur, S.R. 1973. The California condor in

the Pacific Northwest. Auk. 90:196–198.

Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condor plumage

and molt as field study aids. California

Fish and Game. 61:144–148.

Wilbur, S.R. 1978. The California condor.

1966–76: a look at its past and future. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. North America

Fauna. 72:1–136.

Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and

trend of the California condor population.

1965–1978. California Fish and Game.

66:40–48.

Wilbur, S.R., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The

California condor in Baja California,

Mexico. American Birds. 34:856–859.

Author

The Primary author of this rule is Robert

Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office,

2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,

California 93003.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter

B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:
44 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. In Section 17.11(h), the table entry

‘‘Condor, California’’ under BIRDS is

revised to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

BIRDS

* * * * * * *

Condor, California.Gymnogyps

californianus.

U.S.A. (AZ, CA, OR)

Mexico (Baja California).

U.S.A. only, except

where listed as an

experimental population below.

E 1,ll 17.95(b) NA

Do ..................... do ............................ do ............................ U.S.A. (specific portions of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona).XN ll NA 17.84(j)

* * * * * * *

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

paragraph (j)(8) of this section is a

nonessential experimental population.

(2) No person may take this species in

the wild in the experimental population

area except when such take is

accidental, unavoidable, and not the

purpose of the carrying out of an

otherwise lawful activity, or as provided

in paragraphs (j)(3), (4), and (9) of this

section.

(3) Any person with a valid permit

issued by the Service under § 17.32 may

take California condors in the wild in

the experimental population area.

(4) Any employee or agent of the

Service, Bureau of Land Management or

appropriate State wildlife agency, who

is designated for such purposes, when

acting in the course of official duties,

may take a California condor from the

wild in the experimental population

area and vicinity if such action is

necessary:

(i) For scientific purposes;

(ii) To relocate California condors

within the experimental population area

to improve condor survival and

recovery prospects, or to address

conflicts with ongoing activities or

private landowners;

(iii) To relocate California condors

that have moved outside the

experimental population area, when

removal is necessary to protect the

condor, or is requested by an affected

landowner or land manager;

(iv) To relocate California condors

from the experimental population area

into other condor reintroduction areas

or captivity;

(v) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned

California condor;

(vi) To salvage a dead specimen that

may be useful for scientific study; or

(vii) To dispose of a dead specimen.

(5) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs

(j)(2), (j)(4)(v), (j)(4)(vi), and (j)(4)(vii), of

this section must be reported

immediately to the State Supervisor,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Arizona State

Office, Phoenix, 2321 W. Royal Palm

Road, Suite 103, Arizona (telephone

602/640–2720) who will determine the

disposition of any live or dead

specimens.

(6) No person shall possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export by any means whatsoever, any

California condor or part thereof from

the experimental population taken in

violation of this paragraph (j) or in

violation of applicable State laws or

regulations or the Endangered Species

Act.

(7) It is unlawful for any person to

attempt to commit, solicit another to

commit, or cause to be committed, any

offense defined in paragraphs (j)(2) and

(j)(6) of this section.

(8)(i) The designated experimental

population area of the California condor

includes portions of three states—

Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. The

southern boundary is Interstate

Highway 40 in Arizona from its junction

with Highway 191 west across Arizona

to Kingman; the western boundary starts

at Kingman, goes northwest on Highway

93 to Interstate Highway 15, continues

northeasterly on Interstate Highway 15

in Nevada, to Interstate Highway 70 in

Utah; where the northern boundary

starts and goes across Utah to Highway

191; where the eastern boundary starts

and goes south through Utah until

Highway 191 meets Interstate Highway

40 in Arizona (See map at end of this

paragraph (j).). All California condors

found in the wild within these

boundaries will comprise the

experimental population.

(ii) All California condors released

into the experimental population area

will be marked and visually identifiable.

All offspring will also be marked before

fledging. Any condors found outside of

the experimental population area will

be identifiable by colored and coded

patagial wing markers. In the event that

a condor moves outside the

experimental population area, three

options will be considered—leave the

condor undisturbed and monitor it

closely, capture the condor and return it

to the reintroduction area, or place it in

a captive breeding facility. The fate of

condors that move outside the

experimental population area will be

decided on a case by case basis.

(9) The experimental population will

be monitored continually for the life of

the reintroduction project. All California

condors will be given physical

examinations before being released. If

there is any evidence that the condor is

in poor health or diseased, it will not be

released to the wild. Any condor that

displays signs of illness, is injured, or

otherwise needs special care may be

captured by authorized personnel of the

Service, Bureau of Land Management or

appropriate State wildlife agency or

their agents, and given the appropriate

care. These condors will be re-released
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