Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the California Condor in the Pacific Northwest
| Published date | 05 April 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 13587 |
| Record Number | 2019-06293 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13587-13603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06293]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0033; FXES111300000900000 178 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BC65
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of the California Condor in the
Pacific Northwest
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
propose to establish a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of
the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) in the Pacific
Northwest, under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). Establishment of this NEP will facilitate
reintroduction of California condors to the region and provide for
allowable legal incidental taking of the California condor within a
defined NEP area. The geographic boundaries of the NEP would include
northern California, northwest Nevada, and Oregon. The best available
data indicate that reintroduction of the California condor into the
Pacific Northwest is biologically feasible and will promote the
conservation of the species. We are seeking comments on this proposal
and on our joint FWS-National Park Service environmental assessment
(EA), prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, which analyzes the potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed reintroduction and designation of a
nonessential experimental population.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
4, 2019. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic
comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-
ES-2018-0033, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then,
click the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on
the box next to Proposed Rules to locate this document. You may submit
a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2018-0033, Division of
Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS; BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Copies of documents: This proposed rule is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0033. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
You may obtain copies of the EA and submit comments on that
document at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/redwood. Information regarding
public meetings
[[Page 13588]]
will be posted here as well. The EA is also available for public
inspection at: Redwood National and State Parks, Newton B. Drury
Center, 1111 2nd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse D'Elia, Pacific Regional Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 911 NE 11th Ave,
Portland, OR 97232 (telephone 503-231-6131, facsimile 503-231-6243).
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as
effective as possible. Therefore, we invite Tribal and governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested
parties to submit comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of
this proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses,
if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be
submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern
Time) on the date specified in DATES. We will not consider hand-
delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are
not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov. All
comments and materials we receive, as well as all supporting
documentation, will be available by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
We particularly seek comments regarding:
The proposed geographic boundary of the NEP;
Information pertaining to the California condor as it
relates to the proposed reintroduction effort;
Effects of the proposed reintroduction on other native
species and the ecosystem; and
The adequacy of the proposed regulations for the NEP.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer
Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, which was published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the internal memorandum clarifying the
Service's interpretation and implementation of that policy (USFWS in
litt. 2016), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three
appropriate independent specialists regarding scientific data and
interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We will send copies of
this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of such review is to
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, the final decision may differ
from this proposal.
Background
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included
the addition of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of
reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations in
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (at 50 CFR 17.81), the
Service may designate as an experimental population a population of
endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into
suitable natural habitat outside the species' current natural range
(but within its probable historic range, absent a finding by the
Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary habitat of
the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed).
Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any
population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an
endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary
transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find by
regulation that such release will further the conservation of the
species. In making such a finding the Service uses the best scientific
and commercial data available to consider:
(1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species
as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for
introduction elsewhere (see Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor
Population, below);
(2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will
become established and survive in the foreseeable future (see
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival and Addressing
Causes of Extirpation, below);
(3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of the species (see Relationship
of NEP to Recovery Efforts, below); and
(4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected
by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area (see
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival, below; National
Park Service (NPS) 2018, entire).
Furthermore, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations
designating experimental populations under section 10(j) must provide:
(1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population,
including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual
or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be
released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental
population(s) (see Location and Boundaries of the NEP, below);
(2) a finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the
experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued
existence of the species in the wild (see Is the Proposed Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?, below);
(3) management restrictions, protective measures, or other special
management concerns of that population, which may include but are not
limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental
population designated in the regulation from natural populations (see
Management, below); and
(4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or
failure of the release and the effect of the release on the
conservation and recovery of the
[[Page 13589]]
species (see Monitoring and Evaluation, below).
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate
State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected
Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and
implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent
practicable, 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the FWS, the
affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding any interest
in land that may be affected by the establishment of an experimental
population.
Under 50 CFR 17.81(f), the Secretary may designate critical habitat
as defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act for an essential experimental
population. No designation of critical habitat will be made for
nonessential populations. In those situations where a portion or all of
an essential experimental population overlaps with a natural population
of the species during certain periods of the year, no critical habitat
will be designated for the area of overlap unless implemented as a
revision to critical habitat of the natural population for reasons
unrelated to the overlap itself.
Any population determined by the Secretary to be an experimental
population will be treated as if it were listed as a threatened species
for purposes of establishing protective regulations with respect to
that population. The protective regulations adopted for an experimental
population will contain applicable prohibitions, as appropriate, and
exceptions for that population.
Any experimental population designated for a listed species (1)
determined not to be essential to the survival of that species and (2)
not occurring within the National Park System or the National Wildlife
Refuge System, will be treated for purposes of section 7 (other than
paragraph (a)(1) thereof) as a species proposed to be listed under the
Act as a threatened species.
Any experimental population designated for a listed species that
either (1) has been determined to be essential to the survival of that
species, or (2) occurs within the National Park System or the National
Wildlife Refuge System as now or hereafter constituted, will be treated
for purposes of section 7 of the Act as a threatened species.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any biological opinion prepared pursuant
to section 7(b) of the Act and any agency determination made pursuant
to section 7(a) of the Act will consider any experimental and
nonexperimental populations to constitute a single listed species for
the purposes of conducting the analyses under such sections.
Legal Status
We listed the California condor as an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (ESPA) on March 11, 1967
(32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). This list was later codified in part 17
of title 50 in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (35 FR 16048,
October 13, 1970). With the passage of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA), those species previously listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations were directly incorporated into the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA, found at 50 CFR 17.11 and
17.12. In October 1996, we designated a nonessential experimental
population of the California condor in portions of northern Arizona,
southern Utah, and southern Nevada (61 FR 54044, October 16, 1996).
Therefore, the California condor is currently listed as an endangered
species wherever it is found, except in portions of northern Arizona,
southern Utah, and southern Nevada, where it is considered a
nonessential experimental population.
The California condor is protected by the State of California under
both the State Endangered Species Act and the California Fish and Game
Code as a Fully Protected species. It is also listed as a Sensitive
Species under California Forest Practice Rules. In September of 2018,
the State of California passed legislation that allows the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to consider the content of any
final rules under section 10(j) of the Federal Endangered Species Act
for the California condor. This recently enacted legislation (AB2640)
allows the Director of the CDFW to evaluate the final rule, and exempt
take associated with the rule if the Director finds the Service's final
rule would further the conservation of the species.
If this proposal is finalized, and we are subsequently compelled to
change the California condor's NEP status to essential, threatened, all
condors will be removed from the area and the experimental population
rule will be revoked, unless the parties to the memorandum of
understanding agree that the condors should remain in the wild. Changes
in the legal status and/or removal of this population of California
condors will be made in compliance with any applicable Federal
rulemaking and other procedures.
Biological Information
Species Description
The California condor is one of seven New World vultures in the
Cathartidae family and the only extant species in the genus Gymnogyps
(Amadon 1977, pp. 413-414; Johnson et al. 2016, pp. 193, 197). It is
the largest of the North American vultures and the largest soaring land
bird on the continent with a wingspan of approximately 9.5 feet (ft)
(2.9 meters (m)) (Koford 1953, p. 3; Finkelstein et al. 2015,
Introduction, Appearance). Males weigh slightly more than females
(average weight of 19.4 pounds (lb) (8.8 kilograms (kg)) for males and
17.9 lb (8.1 kg) for females), but otherwise there are no obvious
differences in coloration or morphology between the sexes (Finkelstein
et al. 2015, Appearance). California condors exhibit age-related
coloration changes (Koford 1953, p. 5; Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 14-
19). Adults have black feathers except for prominent white underwing
linings and edges of the upper secondary coverts. The head and neck of
adults are mostly naked and range in color from yellowish to reddish
orange on the head to gray, yellow, orange, and red on the neck (Koford
1953, pp. 4-5). The heads of juveniles up to 3 years old are grayish-
black, and their wing linings are variously mottled or completely dark
(Koford 1953, p. 5; Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 14-19). During the
third year, the head develops yellow coloration, and the wing linings
become gradually whiter (Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 15, 17). By the
time individuals are 5 or 6 years of age, they are essentially
indistinguishable from adults, but full development of the adult wing
patterns may not be completed until 7 or 8 years of age (Snyder and
Snyder 2000, pp. 15, 17; Finkelstein et al. 2015, Appearance).
As obligate scavengers (i.e., relying entirely on dead animals for
food), California condors have a number of physical and physiological
adaptations that accommodate their highly specialized diet, including:
(1) Large size, which is necessary to successfully compete at
carcasses; (2) the ability to retain large amounts of food, which
sustains individuals for extended periods between meals; (3) soaring
and gliding flight and excellent eyesight, which help condors
efficiently find food; (4) hooked bills, long necks, and largely naked
heads, which allow condors to access muscle tissue deep within a
carcass and to rip pieces of meat from a carcass, while minimizing the
potential for feather fouling (a condition where feathers become soiled
such that their performance is
[[Page 13590]]
degraded); and (5) resistance to bacterial toxins, which is necessary
for species that rely on carcasses (Snyder and Snyder 2005, pp. 7-31).
Historical Range
During the Pleistocene Epoch, the California condor was broadly
distributed in North America from southern British Columbia to Baja
California, and eastward throughout the southern United States and
northern Mexico to Florida (Koford 1953, p. 7; Brodkorb 1964, pp. 253-
254; Messing 1986, pp. 284-285; Steadman and Miller 1987, p. 423;
Snyder and Snyder 2005, p. 6; D'Elia and Haig 2013, p. 17). The extent
of its distribution along the east coast of North America during the
late Pleistocene also extended to the boreal forests of upstate New
York (Steadman and Miller 1987, pp. 416-423). The disappearance of the
California condor from its prehistoric range in North America east of
the Rocky Mountains occurred about 10,000-11,000 years ago coinciding
with the late-Pleistocene extinction of the North American megafauna
(Emslie 1987, pp. 768-770; Steadman and Miller 1987, pp. 422-425).
Analysis of stable isotopes in bone collagen suggests that the
California condor's persistence along the Pacific coast at the end of
the Pleistocene was at least partially due to the availability of
marine-derived carrion (Chamberlain et al. 2005, p. 16710; Fox-Dobbs et
al. 2006, p. 688).
Historical observations of California condors indicate that they
were widespread and locally abundant from southern British Columbia,
Canada, to Baja California, Mexico, during Euro-American colonization
(Koford 1953, pp. 8-19; Wilbur 1978, pp. 13, 72-85; Snyder and Snyder
2005, pp. 4-5; D'Elia and Haig 2013, pp. 38-59). At that time they were
apparently restricted to the area west of the Rocky Mountains and were
infrequently encountered east of the Cascade or Sierra Nevada mountain
ranges (Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 12; D'Elia and Haig 2013, pp. 38-
59). California condor population declines and range contractions were
concurrent with Euro-American settlement of the West, with condors
disappearing from the Pacific Northwest in the early 1900s (D'Elia and
Haig 2013, pp. 58-59), and from Baja California by the end of the 1930s
(Wilbur and Kiff 1980, entire). By the middle of the 20th century, the
species was reduced to about 150 individuals limited to the mountains
of southern California (Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 81-82), and at the
time we formally classified them as an endangered species in 1967, the
population had further declined to an estimated 60 condors (Snyder and
Snyder 2000, pp. 82-83). Most probable causes of their historical
decline include: (1) Secondary poisoning from predator removal
campaigns, (2) direct persecution, and (3) lead poisoning from spent
ammunition that fragmented in animals condors later fed upon (D'Elia
and Haig 2013, pp. 77-122).
Captive Breeding, Reintroduction Efforts, and Current Range
Due to concerns over the few remaining California condors and the
population's continued downward trend, beginning in 1983, we took all
condor eggs from the wild to the San Diego Wild Animal Park and Los
Angeles Zoo for artificial incubation to form a captive flock (Snyder
and Hamber 1985, p. 378; Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 278-293). By
taking all wild eggs and inducing multiple clutches and annual nesting,
the productivity of the population was increased several fold, allowing
the captive population to grow rapidly (Snyder and Hamber 1985, p.
378). However, with the sudden loss of several wild California condors
in 1984 and 1985, it became necessary for us to capture the remaining
wild individuals to ensure the genetic viability of the species and
enhance the chances of the captive-breeding program's success (Snyder
and Snyder 2000, pp. 298-304). By 1987, the California condor existed
only in captivity, having suffered a severe population bottleneck and
loss of genetic diversity (Ralls and Ballou 2004, p. 225; D'Elia et al.
2016, pp. 707-708). Thus, the conservation of the species was dependent
upon captive breeding and releases back into the wild.
We first released captive-reared California condors in 1992 in
southern California, but because of behavioral problems exhibited by
these individuals we returned them all to captivity in early 1995
(Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 344-345). We reinitiated releases of
captive-reared and formerly wild California condors in southern
California in 1995, and additional release sites were established in
northern Arizona in 1996, central California near Big Sur in 1997,
Sierra de San Pedro M[aacute]rtir in Baja California, Mexico, in 2002,
Pinnacles National Park (formerly Pinnacles National Monument) in 2003,
and in the mountains near San Simeon, California, in 2015. Currently,
these release sites comprise four general release areas (central
California, southern California, Baja California, and Arizona/Utah) in
three condor populations (a population in central and southern
California--where individuals from each release area occasionally
intermingle--and independent populations in northern Arizona/southern
Utah and Baja California). The California condor is currently absent
from the northern portion of its historical range and remains reliant
on the release of captive-bred individuals for population growth (USFWS
2013, p. 14).
As of December 2017, there were 290 California condors in the wild,
divided among the four release areas: Central California (90 condors);
southern California (80 condors); northern Arizona and southern Utah
(82 condors); and the Sierra de San Pedro M[aacute]rtir release site in
Baja California (38 condors) (USFWS 2018, p. 1). There were also 173
California condors in captivity (USFWS 2018, p. 1) distributed among
release sites, zoos, and four captive-breeding facilities. Breeding
facilities include the Peregrine Fund's World Center for Birds of Prey,
the Oregon Zoo's Jonsson Center for Wildlife Conservation, the Los
Angeles Zoo, and the San Diego Zoo's Safari Park.
Despite population growth, the total number of wild California
condors is still relatively small and the species requires intensive
management for survival, including: (1) Monitoring all condors in the
wild to track resource use, identify behavioral problems, and detect
mortalities; (2) biannual trapping for health screening, to test blood
samples for lead, inoculate for West Nile virus, and to attach or
replace wing tags and transmitters; (3) taking injured or poisoned
condors back into captivity temporarily to administer treatment; and
(4) nest observations and interventions to maximize productivity in the
wild (Walters et al. 2010, pp. 972, 976, 982-984; USFWS 2017, pp. 5-
19).
Habitat Use and Movement Ecology
Along with our conservation partners, we have reintroduced
California condors to a variety of habitats, including coastal
mountains, old-growth forests, desert cliffs, and temperate montane
shrublands and grasslands. Within these habitats they can have enormous
home ranges (Meretsky and Snyder 1992, p. 321; Hunt et al. 2007, pp.
84-87; Romo et al. 2012, pp. 43-47; Rivers et al. 2014a, pp. 496-498)
and often use different portions of their range for nesting and
foraging (Meretsky and Snyder 1992, p. 329; Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp.
140-147; D'Elia et al. 2015, p. 96). Home range size varied among
release sites (95 percent confidence intervals for southern California:
173,295-282,760 acres (ac) (70,130-114,429 hectares (ha)); Pinnacles
National Park: 86,825-
[[Page 13591]]
174,266 ac (35,137-70,523 ha); and Big Sur: 42,613-90,495 ac (17,245-
36,622 ha)), probably as a result of geography, food availability
(Rivers et al. 2014a, pp. 496-497, 500), years since the release
program started, and flock size (Bakker et al. 2017, p. 100).
Nesting habitat is generally characterized by steep, rugged terrain
(Wilbur 1978, p. 7; Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 18; D'Elia et al. 2015,
pp. 94-95). Within these areas, nests have been documented in various
types of rock formations including crevices, overhung ledges, potholes,
and in cavities or broken tops of giant sequoia (Sequoia giganteus)
(Snyder et al. 1986, pp. 235-236) or coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) trees (Burnett et al. 2013, pp. 478-479). Breeding adults
segregate themselves into nesting territories, rarely crossing into the
active nesting territories of other California condors (Finkelstein et
al. 2015, Behavior). California condors will generally use the same
nesting territory in successive years as long as pairs remain intact,
but will often switch nesting sites within that territory, regardless
of whether they fail or succeed in their nesting efforts (Snyder et al.
1986, p. 236).
California condors roost communally along rocky outcrops, steep
canyons, and in tall trees or snags near foraging grounds, water
sources, and nests (Koford 1953, pp. 35-36; Snyder and Snyder 2000, p.
167). California condors select roosts that offer good peripheral
visibility, where there is a long unobstructed space for taking off
downhill and for approaching the roost in flight, and areas where there
is some protection from high winds (Koford 1953, pp. 35-36). While at a
roost, condors devote considerable time to preening, sunning, and other
maintenance activities (Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 24).
California condors are obligate scavengers and obligate soaring
birds, making them reliant on the availability of sufficient food
resources and upward air movement (Ruxton and Houston 2004, p. 434).
Foraging habitats generally have high landscape productivity, moderate
to steep slopes, sparse vegetation, and upward air movements necessary
to keep California condors aloft (Rivers et al. 2014b, pp. 7-9; D'Elia
et al. 2015, p. 96). In coastal areas condors show strong selection for
beaches, likely because of the relative abundance of marine mammal
carcasses (Rivers et al. 2014b, p. 8). A feature of carrion as an
exclusive food resource is that dead animals are highly dispersed and
ephemeral (Ruxton and Houston 2004, p. 433). This has resulted in
evolutionary pressure for condors to be large, obligate soaring birds
that forage socially (Ruxton and Houston 2004, p. 433). Social foraging
means the population is particularly susceptible to contaminated food
resources, as a contaminated carcass can poison a large number of
individuals in a single feeding (Finkelstein et al. 2012, p. 11453;
D'Elia and Haig 2013, p. 87).
As birds with a large wingspan that use soaring and gliding flight,
California condors can move long distances while expending minimal
energy (see Pennycuick 1969, pp. 542-545; Ruxton and Houston 2004, p.
435). Examples of exceptional flight distances include: California
condor movements between the central and southern California flocks--a
distance of approximately 150 miles (mi) (241 kilometers (km)) (e.g.,
USFWS 2017, pp. 20-21); a condor released at Pinnacles National Park
flying to the southern Sierra Nevada and back--a one-way distance of
approximately 249 mi (400 km) (USFWS, unpublished data); a condor
released in the Sierra de San Pedro M[aacute]rtir in Baja California,
Mexico, traveling north to San Diego County, a distance of
approximately 140 mi (225 km) (Romo et al. 2012, p. 44); and
observations of condors released in northern Arizona in southern
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, at distances of approximately 340 mi
(547 km), 400 mi (643 km), and 325 mi (523 km), respectively. In
addition, GPS telemetry data is now revealing that California condors
in southern California are beginning to regularly travel 93-124 mi
(150-200 km) away from core use areas (USFWS unpublished data). As the
populations continue to grow, the number of long-distance flights is
likely to increase.
To date, nests have been concentrated in a relatively limited area
around release sites when compared to exceptional flight distances. The
farthest nest documented from release sites in each release area is
approximately 47 mi (76 km) in central California, 57 mi (92 km) in
southern California, 62 mi (100 km) in Arizona/Utah, and 15 mi (24 km)
in Baja California. We expect that as flock size grows the population
will continue to expand and nest sites will eventually be located
farther from release sites.
Based on the California condor's fidelity to nesting territories,
their social foraging behaviors, and our monitoring of current
populations, we do not expect major geographic shifts in the breeding
populations. The California condor's long nesting period coupled with
extended dependency of chicks on adults also precludes latitudinal
migration in the breeding population (D'Elia and Haig 2013, pp. 61-75).
However, seasonal shifts in movements to foraging grounds occur with
changes in food availability, and perhaps as a result of social factors
(e.g., traditional movements) (Meretsky and Snyder 1992, p. 328; Snyder
and Snyder 2000, pp. 145-147; Hunt et al. 2007, pp. 85-87). Seasonal
changes in daylight hours and the availability of thermals for soaring
mean that home ranges can be up to 5-6 times larger in the late summer
and early fall compared to late fall and early winter (Rivers et al.
2014a, pp. 497, 499).
Life Cycle
Breeding California condors form pairs in late fall or early winter
and visit various potential nest sites within their nesting territory
in January and February (Finkelstein et al. 2015, Breeding). Once pairs
are formed they tend to stay together year-round for multiple years
until one member of the pair dies (Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 19).
However, the death of one member of a pair can trigger a chain reaction
with multiple pairs switching mates. This situation can occur because
each California condor that loses its mate represents a potentially
more desirable mate to individuals of lower rank in the social
hierarchy of the flock. Breeding California condors lay a single egg
between late January and early April (Finkelstein et al. 2015,
Breeding). The egg is incubated by both parents and hatches after
approximately 53-60 days (Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 19). California
condor pairs that lose their egg early in the breeding season (February
through mid-April) will generally lay a replacement egg (Snyder and
Hamber 1985, p. 377). When a replacement egg is lost, it has
occasionally been followed by a third egg (Finkelstein et al. 2015,
Breeding).
Both parents share responsibilities for feeding the nestling
(Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 19). Feeding, via regurgitation, usually
occurs daily for the first 2 months, then gradually diminishes in
frequency (Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 197). As early as 6 weeks after
hatching, California condor chicks leave the nest cavity but remain in
the vicinity of the nest where they are fed by their parents (Snyder
and Snyder 2000, p. 201). The chick takes its first flight at about 5.5
to 6 months of age, but does not become fully independent of its
parents until the following year (Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 201-202).
Parents occasionally continue to feed a fledgling even after it has
begun to make longer flights to foraging grounds (Koford 1953, p. 103;
Snyder and Snyder 2000, pp. 202-203).
[[Page 13592]]
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, pp. 22-23). However, this
pattern varies, 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 inhibits nesting in the following year (Snyder and Hamber
1985, pp. 377-378; Snyder and Snyder 2000, p. 19).
Once independent, juvenile California condors often associate with
one another on the foraging grounds and join adults and other juveniles
at communal roosts (Finkelstein et al. 2015, Breeding). In a study of
the remnant wild population in southern California (1982-1987),
Meretsky and Snyder (1992, pp. 324-325; 329-330) found that California
condors in their first 2 years after fledging were generally limited to
natal nest areas and foraging areas relatively close to natal nest
areas, while older juveniles would forage more widely and visit
additional non-natal nesting territories and it was not until age 4 or
5 that condors were capable of visiting virtually all foraging and
nesting areas within a given population. However, more recent data from
the reintroduced populations shows that fledglings under 1 year of age
can be fully integrated into the flock, foraging hundreds of miles from
natal or release areas and by 2 years of age are capable of covering
the flock's entire range (USFWS, unpublished data). This difference
between the remnant wild population in the 1980s and the current
populations is likely a product of the larger size of the current
population, and the larger number of older California condors that are
available to serve as mentors to recently fledged condors.
Population Demography and Threats
California condors are long-lived birds. In captivity, they can
live more than 50 years. Average age of first breeding is 8 years and 6
months for females and 9 years and 10 months for males (Mace 2017, pp.
240, 243). The oldest known breeding female was 38 years old (Mace
2017, p. 239).
Slow maturation and low reproductive rates in California condors
demand low mortality rates for the population to be stable or to grow
(Mertz 1971, p. 448; Verner 1978, pp. 19-21; Meretsky et al. 2000, pp.
960-961). Population demographic models indicate that annual adult
mortality rates certainly must average Huntingwithnon-lead.org
2017, web page).
Other threats to California condors include: Rangeland conversion,
wind energy development, collision with and electrocution from
powerlines, predation, disease, inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, shooting, microtrash ingestion, organochlorine pesticides,
and habituation to humans. A full description of these threats, and
efforts to abate them, are provided in our most recent status review
for the California condor (USFWS 2013, entire).
Relationship of NEP to Recovery Efforts
We published a California condor recovery plan in 1974 (USFWS 1975,
entire), and revised the plan in 1980 (USFWS 1980, entire), 1984 (USFWS
1984, entire), and 1996 (USFWS 1996, entire). To date, recovery efforts
have focused on reintroduction and recovery in the southern portion of
the species' historical range (see Captive Breeding and Reintroduction
Efforts, above). Recovery criteria for removing the California condor
from the endangered species list were not provided in the 1996 revision
to the recovery plan, as its primary focus was keeping the species from
going extinct. At the time the revised recovery plan was written, there
were only 17 California condors in the wild (USFWS 1996, p. 9) and we
could not anticipate at that time all actions that would be necessary
for full recovery. The overall strategy for recovery outlined in the
1996 recovery plan was to focus on: (1) Increasing reproduction in
captivity to provide condors for release, (2) the release of condors to
the wild, (3) minimizing condor mortality factors, (4) maintaining
habitat for condor recovery, and (5) implementing condor information
and education programs (USFWS 1996, p. 21). While the recovery plan did
not have delisting criteria, it included as criteria for reclassifying
(or downlistng) to a threatened species an objective of
[[Page 13593]]
establishing at least two, preferably more, self-sustaining disjunct
wild populations in order to reduce the risks to the overall population
and to facilitate genetic and demographic management (USFWS 1996, p.
24).
The 1996 revised recovery plan does not provide specific recovery
targets or actions for the Pacific Northwest, but our 1980 recovery
plan recommended surveys of Oregon, Washington, and California to
identify potential habitat for future releases into unoccupied portions
of the historical range (USFWS 1980, p. 50). Recent habitat modeling
has revealed large areas of potentially suitable nesting, roosting, and
feeding habitats in the Pacific Northwest (D'Elia et al. 2015, pp. 95-
96). Although criteria for full recovery were not provided in our
latest recovery plan revision (USFWS 1996, entire), increasing the
global population of the California condor and expanding its geographic
distribution among the ecosystems it once occupied are, on first
principles, consistent with efforts to recover the species.
An existing population model based on published demographic rates
(Bakker et al. 2017, entire) was used to simulate State-wide California
condor population growth in California over the next 30 years (2018-
2048), assessing scenarios with and without the allocation of some of
the available captive-bred individuals, to a new geographically
disjunct flock (Bakker and Finkelstein 2018, entire). These model
simulations demonstrate that allocating captive-bred individuals to a
new, geographically disjunct flock, which is expected to have lower
survival and reproduction compared to the existing flocks, would reduce
the population growth of condors in California. Under the scenarios
where the total number of chicks distributed currently remains
approximately equal to current levels, this effect would increase as
the ratio of releases allocated to the new flock versus the existing
flock increases. Model simulations reinforce the importance of
increasing captive chick production and releases to the wild. The
number of chicks produced in the captive program and released to the
wild has been variable over time, but continues to drive population
growth in the wild due to the high chick and juvenile survivorship
attainable in a captive setting and to ongoing mortality in the free-
flying population combined with the long generational gap between chick
stage and breeding age (approximately 6-8 years) in California condors
(Finkelstein et al. 2012, entire; Bakker et al. 2017, entire; Bakker
and Finkelstein 2018, entire).
The California Condor Recovery Program is currently proposing to
increase the number of captive-produced condors for release into the
wild, and would continue to allocate the number of chicks to each
release site necessary to maintain positive population growth at each
site, to the extent practicable. Continuing to grow the wild population
of California condors while reestablishing them in an unoccupied
portion of their historical range is consistent with our overall
strategy to recover the species.
In summary, a NEP in the Pacific Northwest would establish an
additional population in the United States, beyond the minimum of two
populations envisioned for downlisting to a threatened species. This
would contribute to the conservation of the species by: Further
reducing the risk that any one catastrophic event would affect a large
proportion of the species (increasing the population redundancy);
increasing the global population of the species (increasing
resiliency); and expanding the geographic distribution of the species
among ecosystems (increasing representation by expanding the ecological
settings in which the species occurs).
Is the proposed experimental population essential or nonessential?
When we establish experimental populations under section 10(j) of
the Act, we must determine whether such a population is essential to
the continued existence of the species in the wild. Although the
experimental population will contribute to the recovery of the
California condor, it is not essential to the continued existence of
the species in the wild. California condors are currently distributed
among three disjunct and intensively managed populations in California,
Arizona and Utah, and Baja California, Mexico. Management at these
sites includes: Monitoring individuals with VHF or GPS/GSM
transmitters; biannual trapping for health screenings; vaccination for
West Nile virus; aversive conditioning to power poles prior to release;
chelation therapy to treat California condors with elevated blood-lead
levels; and nest observations, entries, and interventions to maximize
productivity in the wild (Walters et al. 2010, pp. 972, 976, 982-984;
Romo et al. 2012, pp. 28-56; Southwest Condor Review Team 2017, pp. 4-
21; USFWS 2017, pp. 5-19). In addition, there are ongoing releases of
captive California condors into each of the wild populations. Releases
are carefully coordinated among sites to ensure a healthy age
structure, sex ratio, and distribution of founder genomes (Ralls and
Ballou 2004, pp. 221-225). As a result of these efforts, the
populations of wild California condors continue to grow (USFWS 2018, p.
6).
In addition to the three wild populations, there is also a sizable
captive population at four breeding facilities, which are widely
distributed in California, Oregon, and Idaho (see Biological
Information, above). The breeding facilities are secure facilities, not
open to the public, where California condors are kept under 24-hour
surveillance by condor keepers or video cameras. The captive population
is given extensive care, and deaths and injuries are rare, with a
captive annual survival rate after the first month of life of 0.989
percent (95 percent confidence interval: 0.984-0.992) (Bakker et al.
2017, p. 97). In addition, the geographic separation of the four
breeding facilities protects the captive population from the threat of
extinction due to a single catastrophic event.
The captive population was formed with only 13 apparent genetic
founders that comprised three genetic clans (Geyer et al. 1993, p. 573;
Ralls and Ballou 2004, p. 219; Pryor and Ralls 2016, p. 3). Genetic
management, which includes control of all captive matings, has been
implemented to minimize the loss of remaining genetic diversity and
ensure this remaining genetic diversity is well distributed among the
captive-breeding facilities and reintroduction sites (Ralls et al.
2000, p. 152; Ralls and Ballou 2004, p. 226; Pryor and Ralls 2016, p.
2). California condors released within the proposed experimental
population would come from a mixture of the founder clans represented
in the captive population and would not represent a unique genetic
lineage of California condors. Therefore, loss of this population would
not represent a substantive change in the genetic diversity or genetic
viability of the worldwide population of California condors.
The proposed reintroduction project will further the recovery of
the California condor by attempting to establish another wild
population in an unoccupied portion of the species' historical range.
However, for the reasons stated above, California condors released into
the Pacific Northwest are not essential to the survival of the species
in the wild. Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2), we find that
the proposed experimental population is not essential to the continued
existence of the species in the wild, and we propose to designate the
experimental population in the Pacific
[[Page 13594]]
Northwest as a nonessential experimental population (NEP).
Location and Boundaries of the NEP
Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population
be geographically separate from wild populations of the same species.
Considering a number of factors (as described in detail, below), we
drew the NEP area to include a portion of northern California,
northwestern Nevada, and all of Oregon. The western boundary of the NEP
is the Submerged Lands Act boundary line along the Pacific coast. The
southern boundary of the NEP is formed by an east-west line from
California's Submerged Lands Act boundary to Hare Creek; Hare Creek
from the Pacific Ocean to its junction with California State Route 1;
north to the junction of State Route 1 and State Route 20; east along
California State Route 20 to where it meets Interstate 80; and
Interstate 80 from its intersection with California State Route 20 to
U.S. Route 95 in Nevada. The eastern boundary of the NEP is U.S. Route
95 in Nevada to the State boundary of Oregon and then east and north
along Oregon's southern and eastern boundaries, respectively. The
northern boundary of the NEP is the northern State boundary of Oregon.
All highway boundaries are inclusive of the entire highway right of
way. See map below and in the Environmental Assessment (NPS et al.
2018, Figure 2, p. 5)
The last California condor specimen collected within the proposed
NEP area was in 1892 along Yager Creek in Humboldt County, California
(Smith 1916, p. 205; D'Elia and Haig 2013, pp. 39-46). Although there
were a few reported California condor sightings up to 1925 in the area
we are proposing to designate an NEP, since then there have been no
credible sightings of condors in the wild in this area--or anywhere
north of San Francisco (D'Elia and Haig 2013, pp. 58-59). Given that
all released California condors are actively tracked with radio or GPS/
GSM transmitters, we are confident that there are no wild condors in
the proposed NEP.
The location of the proposed reintroduction site is the Bald Hills
of Redwood National Park, an area proximal to suitable nesting and
feeding habitat. Ten potential release sites were identified by the
Yurok Tribe, and the proposed release site was selected following
careful consideration of site suitability, logistics, threats and
hazards, cultural resources, and suitability of adjacent lands (Yurok
Tribe Wildlife Program, pers. comm. 2016). The proposed release site
would be situated in grassland habitat above a redwood forest with
sufficient topography to allow young California condors to more easily
achieve flight. Redwood forests in the vicinity of the release site, as
well as proximal mountain ranges (Oregon Coast Range, Klamath-Siskiyou
Mountains, and the Northern Coast Range in California) are expected to
provide ample roosting and nesting habitat. Inland valleys and
mountaintop prairies, in conjunction with a proximal coastline, are
expected to provide a mixture of sufficient terrestrial and marine
feeding areas and food resources. Landscape-scale models indicate that
the amount and characteristics of habitat in the region compare
favorably to other portions of the historical range (D'Elia et al.
2015, pp. 95-96).
In defining the experimental population boundary, we attempted to
encompass the area where the population is likely to become established
in the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this proposed rule, we
define the foreseeable future as approximately 20 years. This time
horizon was based on our ability to reasonably forecast population
expansion given the number of years of data we have on California
condor movements from release sites in southern and central California
(22 years in southern California and 20 years central California). We
expect that the relative contribution of the experimental population
toward recovery of the California condor will be evident during this
time span, although we recognize that establishing a self-sustaining
population of condors in the region may take longer given the species'
extremely low reproductive rates. We may draw our experimental
population boundary large enough to account for expansion over time as
the introduced population begins to breed in the wild, and to assist in
identifying any individuals belonging to the NEP. When possible, we use
recognizable features on the landscape, legal land descriptions, or
administrative boundaries to demark experimental population boundaries.
We are proposing to include the entire State of Oregon to ensure that
any California condors originating from the releases at Redwood
National Park and flying north into Oregon are recognized as members of
the NEP and are covered by the NEP regulations.
Information we considered in drawing our NEP boundary included
California condor movement data from existing release sites, and the
location of the closest existing condor population, as well as input
from State wildlife agencies. Movement data indicate that, after 20
years of releasing California condors, most individuals remain within
approximately 124 mi (200 km) of the release site--although exceptional
flight distances occasionally occur and the existing populations
continue to expand as flock size increases. The closest California
condor release site to the proposed release site is at Pinnacles
National Park, approximately 350 mi (563 km) to the south. The proposed
release site is approximately 124 mi (200 km) from the nearest edge of
the experimental population boundary; and the southern edge of the
experimental population boundary is approximately 112 mi (180 km) from
the northern extent of the closest endangered population of California
condors. Thus, the proposed southern boundary of the NEP approximates a
mid-point between the nearest population in central California and the
proposed release site at Redwood National Park. The farthest documented
nesting pair of California condors from any release site since the
inception of the captive-breeding program was approximately 62 mi (100
km), while most nests are within 47 mi (75 km) of their release site of
origin. Given our definition of foreseeable future and the information
from existing release sites, we anticipate that the small number of
California condors initially released at Redwood National Park--with
the exception of occasional exceptional flights--would remain within
the experimental population boundary over the first 20 years of
reintroductions.
If a reintroduction of California condors in northern California is
successful, it is possible that some individuals from the NEP may
eventually move outside of the NEP area. It is also possible that
California condors from the other California release sites may enter
the proposed NEP. We expect that these movements, if they occur, would
be infrequent in the foreseeable future given the size of the NEP, the
NEP's distance from existing populations, and observed California
condor movements at other release areas over the last two decades.
Furthermore, we find that the interaction of individuals among the NEP
and existing endangered populations, and the merging of these
populations are even more unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future
given the distance between the populations and the small number of
California condors likely to occupy the NEP. Even if California condors
occasionally moved into or out of the proposed NEP, the presence of one
or a few individual dispersing condors would not constitute a
[[Page 13595]]
``population'' and any individuals dispersing into or out of the
experimental population area would be treated as if they were part of
the population at the location where they are found (See Wyoming Farm
Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, 1234-6, FN 5 (10th Cir.
2000) (finding the Secretary reasonably exercised his management
authority under section 10(j) in defining the experimental wolf
population by location). Based on definitions of ``population'' used in
other experimental population rules (e.g., 59 FR 60252, November 22,
1994 (gray wolves), 71 FR 42298, July 26, 2006 (Northern aplomado
falcons)), we consider a population to require a minimum of two
successfully reproducing California condor pairs over multiple breeding
cycles. Using this definition of a population, the best available
information suggests that the population of California condors formed
from releases in Redwood National Park is likely to be wholly separate
from other populations of California condors for the foreseeable
future.
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival
The best available scientific data indicate that the reintroduction
of California condors into suitable habitat in Redwood National Park is
biologically feasible and would promote the conservation of the
species. Along with our numerous recovery partners, we have over 25
years of experience breeding and releasing California condors into the
wild at several release areas across various ecosystems. Release
techniques are well established, as are protocols for managing released
California condors. Based on our collective knowledge gained from these
efforts, we anticipate California condors will become successfully
established for the following reasons:
(1) Landscape-scale modeling indicates the NEP may have some of the
most extensive nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats remaining within
the historical range in California, Oregon, and Washington (D'Elia et
al. 2015, pp. 95-97). California condors are habitat generalists and
have been successfully reintroduced to variety of ecosystems including
the mountain foothill of southern California, coastal forests of
central California, high desert and canyon lands in northeastern
Arizona and mountainous areas in Baja California, Mexico. This species
is flexible in its diet, eating carrion of many different species of
wildlife and livestock. Therefore, we do not anticipate climate change
effects on habitat will negatively impact our ability to re-establish a
population of this species in the Pacific Northwest.
(2) A site-specific habitat evaluation, which considered site
suitability, logistics, threats and hazards, cultural resources, and
suitability of adjacent lands, found the release site to have
suitability ratings similar to existing release sites (Yurok Tribe
Wildlife Program, pers. comm. 2016).
(3) The causes for California condor extirpation from the region
are either no longer active or are being addressed through a mixture of
regulatory and proactive voluntary conservation measures (see
Addressing Causes of Extirpation, below).
(4) The extent of effects of existing and proposed actions and
activities within the NEP on the reintroduced population have been
evaluated in an environmental assessment and are compatible with
conservation of the California condor (NPS et al. 2018, entire).
(5) The reintroduced population will receive ongoing demographic
support from a managed captive population and an active field
monitoring and management program (Similar population support has
allowed population growth and establishment at all of the other
California condor release sites).
(6) The reintroduced population will be integrated with the
California Condor Recovery Program to ensure that California condors
released in Redwood National Park have an appropriate sex ratio, age-
structure, and include representatives of the founder genomes.
(7) There is broad institutional and partner support for a
California condor reintroduction in Redwood National Park and Yurok
ancestral territory.
On June 14, 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 16
parties was finalized. The purpose of the MOU was to formalize an
agreement to assess the potential to recover California condors in the
Pacific Northwest and to work to seek funding to support that effort if
it proved feasible. Signatories to the MOU included the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land
Management, Yurok Tribe, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Zoo, Sequoia Park Zoo,
Ventana Wildlife Society, Oakland Zoo, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, Pacific Power Company, Green Diamond Resource Company, and
Hells Canyon Preservation Council. In 2018, the U.S. Forest Service,
also signed this MOU. Based on all of these considerations, we
anticipate that reintroduced California condors are likely to become
established and persist within the NEP.
Addressing Causes of Extirpation
Investigating the causes for decline and extirpation of California
condors is necessary to understand whether the threats have been
sufficiently curtailed such that reintroduction efforts are likely to
be successful. Evaluation of various hypotheses for the extirpation of
California condors in the Pacific Northwest revealed that secondary
poisoning related to predator control and extermination campaigns,
direct persecution, and possibly lead poisoning from spent ammunition
were the primary causes (D'Elia and Haig 2013, pp. 119-122). Two of
these primary drivers of regional extirpation--predator poisoning and
direct persecution--are no longer the primary threats to the California
condor. According to the most comprehensive assessment of California
condor deaths from 1992 through 2009, of the 76 deaths where a
definitive cause was determined, there were no confirmed cases of
secondary poisoning related to predator control (although there was one
possible case involving glycol toxicosis) and only five cases of
condors directly persecuted by gunshot or arrow (Rideout et al. 2012,
pp. 108, 110).
Based on multiple lines of evidence, the primary threat to the
recovery of the California condor is lead poisoning from spent
ammunition (see Biological Information, above). Regulations banning
lead ammunition for taking wildlife in California will be in effect by
the time of the reintroduction effort (see Biological Information,
above). In addition, voluntary efforts to reduce lead exposure in
wildlife are ongoing in Oregon (see Biological Information, above).
Finally, the reintroduction program will carefully monitor the
population and conduct regular health checks to evaluate whether
reintroduced California condors are being exposed to lead, the rate of
exposure, and how this situation compares to other portions of the
species' range. When necessary, California condors with elevated lead
levels will be treated for lead poisoning. While the threat from lead
ammunition is still present in the proposed experimental population
area, it is being addressed through a mixture of regulatory and
proactive voluntary measures (see Biological Information, above);
therefore, we will not request further regulation of lead ammunition
for this proposed experimental population. Sources of mortality will be
carefully monitored, and if high
[[Page 13596]]
mortality rates are preventing the establishment of a self-sustaining
population, we will work with our conservation partners to implement
additional voluntary measures to address threats, as we have at other
California condor release sites.
Release Procedures
Release procedures at Redwood National Park are described in the
environmental assessment (NPS et al. 2018, pp. 23-28) and would be
similar to those at existing release sites. Procedures include: (1) The
use of an onsite release pen where California condors are kept for a
short period of time prior to release, (2) tracking of all released
condors via telemetry (VHF and GPS/GSM), and (3) supplying condors with
proffered food at the release site to allow for repeated trappings to
monitor health and replace transmitters.
In general, a new cohort of captive-reared California condors will
be released annually. The size of each release group will depend on the
number of California condors in captivity available for release, but
annual releases will likely involve up to six condors. California
condors hatched in captivity will be raised by their parents or a
condor look-alike hand puppet until they are approximately 6 months to
1 year old. They will then be placed with other California condors in a
single large pen so they will form social bonds and undergo aversion
training to power poles. The young California condors will be
transported to the release site at Redwood National Park when they are
approximately 1.5 to 2 years old. At the release site they will be
placed in a flight pen and will remain there for an acclimation period
of approximately 3 months.
Biologists will remain near the release pen, observing the young
California condors' behavior and guarding against predators or other
disturbance. After the initial adjustment period, California condors
will be released from the flight pen. Any release candidate showing
signs of physical or behavioral problems will not be released. A small
area of NPS land will be closed to recreational activity to protect the
California condors in or around the release facility. Carcasses will be
provided at the release site, as supplemental food for newly released
California condors, and as necessary, to attract condors for periodic
trapping to check their health and swap-out transmitters.
All California condors released to the wild will be marked to allow
identification of individuals. Current methods for doing this include
placing electronic transmitters (e.g., GPS/GSM and radio transmitters)
and wing markers on the wings of each California condor. The movements
and behavior of each California condor will be monitored remotely using
electronic transmitters and ground observations. Aerial tracking will
be used to find lost individuals, and telemetry flights will be
coordinated with the appropriate land management agencies. Our methods
for identifying and monitoring individuals will be adaptive and may
change as technology improves.
An effort will be made to maintain an even sex-ratio across a range
of age-classes in the released population. Adult California condors
unfit for release may be transported to the release site and kept in
the pen as mentors for the acclimating cohort. Adjustments will be made
in release cohort structure annually based on availability from
captive-breeding facilities, genetics, sex-ratio, and age.
Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Population
The donor population for the proposed reintroduction of California
condors to Redwood National Park is the captive population of
California condors. Although the captive population is located at four
breeding facilities, these facilities cooperate to manage the entire
wild population and captive population as a single entity, exchanging
California condors and condor eggs among the facilities as necessary
for population and genetic management (Ralls and Ballou 2004, p. 216).
As of December 2017, there were 173 California condors in
captivity, and the size of the captive population has been relatively
stable over the last 5 years, with end-of-year counts ranging from 167
to 193 during this time period (USFWS 2018, pp. 1, 6). With the
assistance of the captive-breeding program, the total population of
California condors increased from 370 condors in 2010 to 463 condors in
2017 (USFWS 2018, p. 6).
The donor population is carefully managed to ensure its long-term
viability. Annual reviews of breeding, captive pairings, genetic
health, and demographic factors are undertaken to ensure that captive-
releases will not be detrimental to the stability of the captive flock.
In addition, the captive-breeding program has capacity to pair
additional captive California condors to increase reproductive output
as they become available for breeding and to replace senescent condors.
This could be done through multiple clutching, the use of non-breeding
adults to serve as foster parents, and/or puppet rearing. Given the
careful management of the donor population, the ability to increase its
productivity, and the relatively small number of California condors
that will be released at Redwood National Park annually, impacts to the
donor population are expected to be negligible.
Management
The Service, NPS, and the Yurok Tribe will plan and manage the
reintroduction of California condors at Redwood National Park. In
addition, these agencies will carefully collaborate on releases,
monitoring, coordination with landowners and land managers, public
awareness, and other tasks necessary to ensure successful
reintroduction of the species. A few specific management considerations
related to the experimental population are addressed below.
(a) Incidental Take: Experimental population special rules contain
specific prohibitions and exceptions regarding the taking of individual
animals. These special rules are compatible with most routine human
activities in the expected reestablishment area. Section 3(19) of the
Act defines ``take'' as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' ``Incidental take'' is further defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise
lawful activity. If we adopt the 10(j) rule as proposed, most
incidental take of California condors within the experimental
population area would be allowed, provided that the take is
unintentional and not due to negligent conduct. With the exception of
fuels treatment activities by Federal and State agencies to reduce the
risk of catastrophic wildfire, habitat alteration (e.g., removing
trees, erecting structures, altering the nest structure or perches near
the nest) or significant visual or noise disturbance (e.g., tree
felling, chainsaws, helicopter overflights, concrete cutters,
fireworks, explosives) within 656 ft (200 m) of an active nest that
result in incidental take of California condors would be prohibited.
Activities such as livestock grazing and use of existing roads and
trails would not be considered a significant visual or noise
disturbance. For the purposes of this rule, an active California condor
nest is defined as a nest that is: (1) Attended by a breeding pair of
condors, (2) occupied by a condor egg, or (3) occupied or attended by a
1018-0094, ``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications
and Reports--Native Endangered and Threatened Species; 50 CFR 10, 13,
and 17'' (expires 03/31/2021), and
1018-0095, ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
Experimental Populations, 50 CFR 17.84'' (expires 12/31/2020).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the impact of this proposed
rule. Based on this analysis and any new information resulting from
public comment on the proposed action, we will determine if there are
any significant impacts or effects caused by this rule. In cooperation
with the NPS and the Yurok Tribe, we have prepared an environmental
assessment on this proposed action and have made it available for
public inspection: (1) In person at Redwood National and State Parks,
Newton B. Drury Center, 1111 2nd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531; and
(2) online at http://www.regulations.gov or https://parkplanning.nps.gov/condor. All appropriate NEPA documents will be
finalized before this rule is finalized.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 229511), Executive Orer 13175, and the Department
of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have coordinated closely
with the Tribal governments near the proposed release site throughout
the development of this rule. In collaboration with the NPS, we have
extended an invitation for government-to-government consultation to all
federally recognized Tribes in the proposed NEP area, have formally met
with tribes that have requested government-to-government consultation,
stand ready to meet with other tribes that request government-to-
government consultation, and will fully consider information and
comments received through the consultation process. We will also
consider all comments received from Tribes and tribal members during
the public comment period.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action
[[Page 13600]]
and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866)
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSESS. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Pacific Region Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0033.
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Jesse D'Elia of the
Pacific Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Condor,
California'' under BIRDS in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Condor, California................ Gymnogyps U.S.A. only, except E 32 FR 4001, 3/11/
californianus. where listed as an 1967; 61 FR 54045,
experimental 10/16/1996; 50 CFR
population. 17.95(b) \CH\.
Condor, California................ Gymnogyps U.S.A. (specific XN 61 FR 54045, 10/16/
californianus. portions of Arizona, 1996; 50 CFR
Nevada, and Utah)-- 17.84(j)\10j\.
see Sec. 17.84(j).
Condor, California................ Gymnogyps U.S.A. (Oregon, and XN [Federal Register
californianus. specific portions of citation of the
northern California final rule]; 50 CFR
and northwest 17.84(i)\10j\.
Nevada).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by adding a paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(i) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). (1) Where is the
California condor designated as a nonessential experimental population
(NEP)? (i) The NEP area for the California condor is within the
species' historical range in northern California, northwestern Nevada,
and Oregon. The western boundary of the NEP is the Submerged Lands Act
boundary line along the Pacific coast. The southern boundary of the NEP
is formed by: An east-west line from California's Submerged Lands Act
boundary to Hare Creek; Hare Creek from the Pacific Ocean to its
junction with California State Route 1; north to the junction of State
Route 1 and State Route 20; east along California State Route 20 to
where it meets Interstate 80; and Interstate 80 from its intersection
with California State Route 20 to U.S. Route 95 in Nevada. The eastern
boundary of the NEP is U.S. Route 95 in Nevada to the State boundary of
Oregon and then east and north along Oregon's southern and eastern
boundaries, respectively. The northern boundary of the NEP is the State
boundary between Oregon and Washington. All highway boundaries are
inclusive of the entire highway right of way.
(ii) We are designating the experimental population area to
accommodate the potential future movements of a wild population of
California condors. The released population is expected to remain in
the experimental area for the foreseeable future (approximately 20
years) due to the geographic extent of the designation.
(iii) We do not intend to change the status of this nonessential
population unless:
(A) The California condor is recovered and subsequently removed
from the list in Sec. 17.11(h) in accordance with the Act; or
(B) The reintroduction is not successful and the regulations in
this paragraph (i) are revoked.
(iv) Legal actions or other circumstances may compel a change in
this nonessential experimental population's legal status to essential,
threatened, or endangered, or compel the Service to designate critical
habitat for the California condors within the experimental population
area defined in this rule. If this happens, all California condors will
be removed from the area and this experimental population rule will be
revoked, unless the participating parties in the reintroduction effort
agree that the condors should remain in the wild. Changes in the legal
status and/or removal of this population of California condors will be
made in compliance
[[Page 13601]]
with any applicable Federal rulemaking and other procedures.
(v) We will not designate critical habitat for this NEP, as
provided by 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).
(2) What take of the California condor is allowed in the NEP area?
(i) Throughout the California condor NEP, you will not be in violation
of the Act if you unavoidably and unintentionally take a California
condor (except as noted in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this section),
provided such take is non-negligent and incidental to a lawful
activity, such as hunting, ranching, driving, or recreational
activities, and you report the take as soon as possible as provided
under paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under
Sec. 17.32 may take California condors in the wild in the experimental
population area, pursuant to the terms of the permit. Additionally, any
employee or agent of the Service, National Park Service, Yurok Tribe
Wildlife Department, California Department of Parks and Recreation,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nevada Department of
Wildlife, or Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife who is designated
and trained for such purposes, when acting in the course of official
duties, may take a California condor within the NEP area if such action
is necessary:
(A) For scientific purposes;
(B) To relocate or haze California condors within the experimental
population area to improve California condor survival or recovery;
(C) To relocate California condors that have moved outside the
experimental population area;
(D) To transport California condors to and from veterinary
facilities or captive-breeding facilities;
(E) To address conflicts with ongoing or proposed activities in an
attempt to improve California condor survival;
(F) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned California condor;
(G) To salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific
study;
(H) To dispose of a dead specimen; or
(I) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving the
California condor.
(iii) Any take pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii)(F),
(i)(2)(ii)(G), or (i)(2)(ii)(H) of this section must be reported as
soon as possible to the California Condor Field Coordinator, California
Condor Recovery Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite A, Ventura, California
93003 (805/644-5185) who will determine the disposition of any live or
dead specimens.
(3) What take of the California condor is not allowed in the NEP
area? (i) Except as expressly allowed in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section, all of the provisions of Sec. 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the
California condor in areas identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section, and any manner of take not described under paragraph (i)(2) of
this section is prohibited in the NEP.
(ii) With the exception of fuels treatment activities by Federal
and State agencies to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, habitat
alteration (e.g., removing trees, erecting structures, altering the
nest structure or perches near the nest) or significant visual or noise
disturbance (e.g., tree felling, chainsaws, helicopter overflights,
concrete cutters, fireworks, explosives) within 656 ft (200 m) of an
active nest that result in incidental take of California condors would
be prohibited. Activities such as livestock grazing and use of existing
roads and trails would not be considered a significant visual or noise
disturbance. For the purposes of this rule, an active California condor
nest is defined as a nest that is attended by a breeding pair of
condors, occupied by a condor egg, or occupied or attended by a condor
less than 1 year of age. If you intend to take an action within 656 ft
(200 m) of an active California condor nest and believe that your
action will not result in incidental take of California condors because
of mitigating factors (e.g., topography or limited duration or extent
of the action), we recommend you first contact us for technical
assistance.
(iii) You must not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export, by any means whatsoever, any California condor or
part thereof from the experimental population taken in violation of
this paragraph (i) or in violation of applicable tribal or State laws
or regulations or the Act.
(iv) It is unlawful for you to attempt to commit, solicit another
to commit, or cause to be committed, any take of the California condor,
except as expressly allowed in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
(4) How will the effectiveness of this reintroduction be monitored?
(i) The status of the reintroduction project will receive an informal
review on an annual basis, and we will evaluate the reintroduction
program to determine whether to continue or terminate reintroductions
every 5 years as part of our 5-year status review for the species. This
evaluation will include, but will not be limited to: A review of
management issues; California condor movements and post-release
behavior; assessment of food resources and dependence of California
condors on supplemental food; fecundity of the population; causes and
rates of mortality; project costs; public acceptance; and progress
toward establishing a self-sustaining population. If a formal
evaluation indicates the project is experiencing a 40 percent or
greater mortality rate or released California condors are not finding
food on their own, serious consideration will be given to terminating
the project.
(5) Map of the NEP areas for the California condor in the Pacific
Northwest:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 13602]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP19.000
[[Page 13603]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
Dated: March 20, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Authority of the Director for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-06293 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
