( As the Nation’s principal conservationagency, theDepartmentofthe interior has responsibilityfor mostofour nationallyownedpublic landsandnaturalresources.Thisincludesfosteringthewisestuseofour landandwaterresources,protectingour fishandwildlife, preservingtheenvironmentalandcultural valuesofour national parksandhistoricalplaces,andprovidingfor the enjoymentoflife throughoutdoorrecreation. TheDepartmentassessesourenergyandmineralresourcesandworksto assurethattheirdevelopmentis in thebestinterestsofall ourpeople.The Department also has a major responsibility forAmericanIndian reservationcommunitiesandforpeoplewholive in islandTerritories underU.S.administration.

CALIFORNIA CONDOR(Gymnogypscalifornianus)

ThirdRevision

RECOVERY PLAN(Original Approved: 1975)

(First RevisionApproved: 1979)(SecondRevisionApproved: 1984)

Preparedby

Lloyd F. KiffWesternFoundationofVertebrateZoology

Camarillo,California

RobertI. MestaU.S.FishandWildlife Service

Ventura,California

Dr. MichaelP. WallaceLos AngelesZoo

Los Angeles,California

forRegion1

U.S. FishandWildlife ServicePortland,Oregon

Approved:Region ire o , U.S. FishandWildlife Service

Date:

RECOVERY TEAM MEMBERS

JamesCarpenter(U.S. FishandWildlife Service,PatuxentWildlife ResearchCenter,Laurel,

Maryland): 1986-1989

CathleenR Cox (LosAngelesZoo): 1986-present

MaetonFreel(U.S. ForestService,Goleta,California): 1988-present

RonaldA. Jurek(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishand Game,Sacramento):1986-present

Lloyd F. Kiff (WesternFoundationofVertebrateZoology, Camarillo,California): 1986-1993

JohnC. Ogden(NationalAudubonSociety,Homestead,Florida): 1986-1988

RichardR. Olendorif(BureauofLandManagement,Sacramento,California): 1986-1990

Oliver H. Pattee(U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Ventura,California): 1986-1989

KatherineRalls (SmithsonianInstitution,PasoRobles,California): 1990-present

~ PatrickT. Redig(TheRaptorCenter,St. Paul,Minnesota): 1993-present

David S. Rimlinger(SanDiegoWild Animal Park,Escondido,California): 1992-present

RobertW. Risebrough(BodegaMarine Institute,Berkeley,California): 1990-present

MichaelE. Souls(Universityof California, SantaCruz): 1986-1990

William D. Toone(SanDiego Wild Animal Park,Escondido,California): 1986-1992

JaredVerner(U.S. ForestService,Fresno,California): 1986-1991

Brian J. Walton (SantaCruzPredatoryBird ResearchGroup,UniversityofCalifornia, SantaCruz): 1990-present

Dr. Michael P. Wallace(LosAngelesZoo): 1986-Present

JamesW. Wiley (U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Grambling,Louisiana): 1989-1992

I

I

DISCLAIMER PAGE

Recoveryplansdelineatereasonableactionsthat arebelievedto berequiredto recoverand/orprotectlisted species.Plansarepublishedby theU.S. FishandWildlife Service,sometimespreparedwith theassistanceofrecoveryteams,contractors,Stateagencies,andothers.Objectiveswill beattainedandany necessaryfUndsmadeavailablesubjectto budgetaryandotherconstraintsaffectingpartiesinvolved, aswell astheneedto addressotherpriorities. Recoveryplansdo not necessarilyrepresenttheviewsnor theofficial positionsorapprovalofanyindividualsor agenciesinvolved in theplanformulation,otherthantheU.S. FishandWildlifeService. Theyrepresenttheofficial positionoftheU.S. FishandWildlife Serviceonly aftertheyhavebeensignedby theRegionalDirectororDirectoras~ Approvedrecoveryplansaresubjectto modificationasdictatedby newfindings,changesin speciesstatus,andcompletionofrecoverytasks.

ii

Literature Citations should read asfollows:

U.S. FishandWildlife Service. 1996. CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan,Third Revision.Portland,Oregon. 62 pp.

Additional copiesmaybepurchasedfrom:

FishandWildlife ReferenceService5430GrosvenorLane,Suite110Bethesda,Maryland20814301/492-3421or 1-800-582-3421

iii

Ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We aregratefUl to formerUSFWSCondorRecoveryProgramCoordinatorsJosephDowhanandTeresaNichols,whoprovidedinvaluableassistancein preparingearlierdraftsoftherevision,aswell asfor theircontributionsto theoverall CondorRecoveryProgramduringrespectivetenures.

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOF THE

RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR(Gymnogypscal~fornianus)

Current SpeciesStatus: TheCaliforniacondor(Gymnogypscal!fornianus)is federallylistedasan endangeredspecies.Thecurrentpopulationis 103, including86 individuals in captivity attheLos AngelesZoo, SanDiegoWild Animal Park,andtheWorld CenterforBirds ofPrey,and 17captive-hatchedcondorsreleasedinto SantaBarbaraand SanLuis ObispoCountiesin southernCalifornia.

Habitat Requirementsand Limiting Factors: Californiacondorsrequiresuitablehabitatfornesting,roosting,andforaging. Therecentrangewasrestrictedto chaparral,coniferousforests,andoak savannahhabitatsin southernandcentralCalifornia. The speciesformerlyoccurredmorewidely throughoutthe Southwestandalsofed on beachesandlargerivers alongthePacific coast.Nestsitesarelocatedin cavitiesin cliffs, in largerock outcrops,or in largetrees. Traditionalroostingsitesaremaintainedon cliffs orlargetrees,oftennearfeedingsites. Foragingoccursmostly in grasslands,includingpotreroswithin chaparralareas,or in oak savannahs.At present,sufficient remaininghabitatexistsin Californiaandin southwesternstatesto supporta largenumberofcondors,if densityindependentmortality factors,includingshooting,leadpoisoning,andcollisions with man-madeobjects,canbe controlled. Thepossibility ofeventualgeneticproblems,resultingfrom thespecies’recentperilouslylow populationsize,cannotbe discounted.

RecoveryPriority: IC

RecoveryObjective: Downlist to threatened.

RecoveryCriteria: The minimumcriterionfor reclassificationto threatenedis themaintenanceofat leasttwo non-captivepopulationsandonecaptivepopulation. Thesepopulations(1) musteachnumberat least150 individuals, (2) must eachcontainat least15 breedingpairsand(3) bereproductivelyself-sustainingandhaveapositiverateofpopulationgrowth. In addition,thenon-captivepopulations(4) mustbe spatiallydisjunctandnon-interacting,and (5) mustcontainindividualsdescendedfrom eachof the 14 founders.

Ac~nn~.

1. Establisha captivebreedingprogramto preservethegenepool.

2. ReintroduceCaliforniacondorsto thewild.

3. Minimize mortality factorsin thenaturalenvironment.

4. Maintainhabitatfor condorrecovery.

5. Implementcondorinformationandeducationprograms.

v

Total Estimated Costof Recovery

1995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Total

658.0643.0643.0643.0643.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0650.0

10,380.0

582.0590.0895.0890.0870.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0850.0

13,177.0

83.083.083.083.083.085.085.085.085.085.085.085.085.085.085.085.0

1,350.0

128.0193.0218.0218.0148.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0

2,555.0

DateofRecovery: Downlisting shouldbeinitiated in 2010,if recoverycriteriaaremet.

N~i~37.037.0

237.0237.0237.050.050.050.050.050.050.050.050.050.050.050.0

1,335.0

vi

RecovervPlans

1974CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1975V Thefocusofthefirst CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlanwasreductionofmortality factorsthroughpreservationofhabitat. No informationexistedto indicatethat thespecies’intrinsically low reproductiveratecouldbe increasedthroughmultiple clutchingtechniques.With foresight,however,thepotentialfor studiesusingAndeancondorsassurrogateswasidentified.

RevisedCaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1979V ThesecondeditionoftheCaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan, onceagainfocusedon habitatpreservationasthemosteffectivemeansof controllingthe populationdecline. However,in 1980considerableprogresshadbeenmadein studyingthereproductivebiology ofAndeancondorsand adirectivewasgivento instituteacaptivepropagationprogramfor Californiacondors. Theintentoftheprogramwasto captureCaliforniacondors,breedthemin captivity, andreleasetheirprogenyintotheexistingwild flock.

RevisedCaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984): The1984RecoveryPlanrecognizedtheneedfor amoreintensivemanagementandresearchprogram,andcalledfor acceleratedproductivityby manipulatingnestingin wild breedingpairsto inducemultipleclutching,securingchicksandeggsproducedin thewild for captiveincubation,and

e rearingofcaptivelyincubatedeggsfor reintroductionto thewild. Theplanalso specifiedtheneedfor radiotelemetrystudies.

RevisedCaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1996): Thecaptureofthe lastwild Californiacondorin 1987propelledtherecoveryprograminto a neweraofmanagement.The 1996revisedrecoveryplanmodifiesthepreviousrecoverystrategy,thatfocusedprimarily onhabitatprotection,to emphasizethecaptivebreedingprogramandintensiveefforts to reestablishthespeciesin thewild. Importantmeasuresarealsoprescribedfor habitatconservationandpublic education,but thesearesecondaryto thecontinueddevelopmentof acaptivebreedingprogramandreintroductionofcaptive-bredCaliforniacondors.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I. Introduction

A. Brief Overview

B. PhysicalCharacteristics

C. Taxonomy

D. Prehistorical Range

E. HistoricalRange

F. Life History

Nesting

Foraging -

Roosting

F. Movements S

G. Population Trends

H. Reasonsfor Decline

I. Population Modeling 12

J. ConservationMeasures 13

K. Strategy ofRecovery 21

Part II. Recovery 22

A. Objectivesand Criteria 22

B. Narrative 221

C. Literature Cited 35

Part III. Implementation Schedule 41

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Part IV. Appendix

Appendix I - Critical Habitat 49

Appendix 2 - Preliminary Population Viability Considerations 57

Appendix 3 - Summary ofComments 60

List ofFigures

Figure 1. Rangeofthe California Condor 3

Figure 2. California Condor Population 1982 to 1995 10

ix

CALIFORNIA CONDOR RECOVERY PLAN

I. INTRODUCTION

N BLQy~ryi~y

TheCaliforniaCondor(Gymnogypscahfornianus)waslisted asendangeredonMarch 11, 1967,(32FR4001)in afinal rulepublishedby theU.S. FishandWildlife Service(Service). TheServicethenestablishedcritical habitatfor theCaliforniacondornineyearslateron September24,1976,(41 FR 187).

Longrecognizedasavanishingspecies(Cooper1890,Koford 1953,Wilbur 1978),theCaliforniacondorremainsoneoftheworld’s rarestandmostimperiledvertebratespecies.Despiteintensiveconservationefforts, thewild Californiacondorpopulationdeclinedsteadilyuntil 1987,whenthelastfree-flying individualwas captured.During the 1980s,captivecondorflockswereestablishedat theSanDiego Wild Animal ParkandtheLos AngelesZoo, andthefirst successfulcaptivebreedingwasaccomplishedat theformer facility in 1988. Following severalyearsof increasinglysuccessfulcaptivebreeding,captive-producedcondorswerefirst releasedbackto thewild in early1992.

B. PhysicalCharacteristics

Californiacondorsareamongthelargestflying birdsin theworld. Adults weighapproximately10 kilograms(22 Ibs)andhaveawing spanup to 2.9 meters(9 ‘/2 ft). Adults areblackexceptforprominentwhite underwinglinings andedgesoftheuppersecondarycoverts. Theheadandneckaremostlynaked,andthebareskin is gray,gradinginto variousshadesofyellow, red,andorange.Malesandfemalescannotbe distinguishedby sizeor plumagecharacteristics.The headsofjuvenilesup to 3 yearsold aregrayish-black,andtheirwing linings arevariouslymottledorcompletelydark. During thethird yeartheheaddevelopsyellow coloration,andthewing liningsbecomegraduallywhiter (N.J. Schmittin prep.). By thetime individualsare S or 6 yearsofage,theyareessentiallyindistinguishablefrom adults(Koford 1953,Wilbur 1975,Snyderet al. 1987),but full developmentofthe adultwing patternsmaynotbecompleteduntil 7 or8 yearsof age(N.J. Schmitt in prep.).

C. Inn2wy

TheCaliforniacondoris amemberofthefamily CathartidaeorNew Worldvultures,a family ofsevenspecies,includingthecloselyrelatedAndeancondor(Vulturgryphus)andthesympatricturkeyvulture(Cathartesaura). Although thefamily hastraditionallybeenplacedin theOrderFalcomformes,mostcontemporarytaxonomistsbelievethat NewWorld vulturesaremorecloselyrelatedto storks(Ligon 1967,Rea1983,Sibley andAhlquist 1990).

1

D. PrehistoricalRange

Thefossil recordofthegenusGymnogypsdatesbackabout100,000yearsto theMiddlePleistoceneEpoch(Brodkorb1964). At theRanchoLaBreatarpits in Los Angeles,abundantcondorremainsoccurwith manycontemporaryspecies,includingAmericanRobins(Turdusmigratorius),ScrubJays(Aphelocomacoerulescens),andMourning Doves(Zenaidamacroura)(Howard 1962). Fossil recordsrevealthatthespeciesoncerangedovermuchofthesouthernUnitedStates,southto NuevoLeon, Mexico and eastto Florida(Brodkorb1964),and two wellpreservedfossil boneswerereportedfrom asitein upstateNew York (SteadmanandMiller1987). Thereis evidenceindicatingthat Californiacondorsnestedin westTexas,Arizona, andNewMexico duringthelatePleistocene(Emslie 1987). ThedisappearanceoftheCaliforniacondorfrom muchofthis rangeoccurredabout 10,000-11,000yearsago,coincidingwith thelatePleistoceneextinction oftheNorthAmericanmegafauna(Emslieop cit.).

E. HistoricalRan2e

By thetimeofthearrival ofEuropeanmanin westernNorthAmerica, Californiacondorsoccurredonly in anarrowPacific coastalstrip from British Columbia,Canadato BajaCaliforniaNorte,Mexico (Koford 1953,Wilbur 1978). Californiacondorswereobserveduntil themid-I 800sin thenorthernportionofthePacific Coastregion(ColumbiaRiver Gorge)anduntil theearly 1930sin thesouthernextreme(northernBajaCalifornia) (Koford 1953,Wilbur 1973,Wilbur andKiff 1980). Prior to 1987, Californiacondorsusedawishbone-shapedareaencompassingsix countiesjustnorthof Los Angeles,California (Fig. 1). In the 1984 CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan,thewishbone-shapedareawas designatedby the CaliforniaCondorRecoveryTeam(Team)astherangeofprimaryconcern. It hasbeenusedby managementagenciesandthepublic for planningpurposes.

F. Life History

Thefollowing detailsofcondorlife historyarebasedlargely on studiesof thewild condorpopulationprior to 1987,principallythoseofcondorbiologistsCarlKoford (1939-1947),FredSibley (1965-1969),SanfordWilbur (1969-1980),andNoel Snyderandhis associates(1980-1985).

Californiacondorlife history informationcanbe convenientlycategorizedinto nesting,foraging,androostingcomponents.Thelife history sectionsummarizescondorbiology, habitatrequirements,andrangeastheyrelateto eachcomponentona daily basisandoverthe annualcycle. A concludingdiscussionsummarizingthetraditionalmovementofcondorsthroughouttheirrecenthistoricalrangeis alsoprovided.

N~Iing: Courtshipandnestsiteselectionby breedingCaliforniacondorsoccurfrom Decemberthroughthespringmonths. Reproductivelymature,pairedCaliforniacondorsnormally lay asingleegg betweenlateJanuaryandearlyApril. Theeggis incubatedby bothparentsandafterapproximately56 days. Bothparentsshareresponsibilitiesfor feedingthe nestling. Feeusuallyoccursdaily for thefirst two months,thengraduallydiminishesin frequency. At two tothreemonthsofagecondorchicksleavetheactualnestcavity, but remainin thevicinity

2

ALAMEDAMONO

KINGS

Range of the California CondorFigure I

MANIPOSA

MENCED

MACERA

PRESNO

~0

C,’

C,’

NC

C,’KERN

o ~ 30 30 40 50WJ3

0 0 30 30 40 30 60 0L0MC1~

3

ofthenestwheretheyarefed by theirparents.Thechicktakesits first flight at aboutsix to sevenmonthsofage,but maynot becomefully independentof its parentsuntil thefollowing year.Parentbirdsoccasionallycontinueto feedafledgling evenafterit hasbegunto makelongerflights to foraginggrounds.

Becauseof thelongperiodofparentalcare,it wasformerly assumedthatsuccessfulCaliforniacondorpairsnormally nestedsuccessfullyeveryotheryear(Koford 1953). However,this patternseemsto vary, possiblydependingmostlyon thetime ofyearthat thenestlingfledges. If anestlingfledgesrelativelyearly(in late summerorearlyfall), its parentsmaynestagainin thefollowing year,but late fledgingprobablyinhibits nestingin thefollowing year(SnyderandHamber1985).

Californiacondorsmay lay areplacementclutchif theirfirst (HarrisonandKiff 1980)orevensecondeggis lost (SnyderandHamber1985). Whethertheylay areplacementeggmaydependon thetime ofyear,at what stageofincubationtheeggis lost, individual variation,andperhapsgeneticor climaticfactors. Among Andeancondorsandothercaptivecathartidvultures,somefemaleswill apparentlylay threeor evenfour clutchesin a season,while othersinvariably lay onlyoneor two (M. Wallace,Los AngelesZoo, in litt.).

Becausesubadultbirdshadneverbeenobservedin thewild asmembersof breedingpairs, Koford(1953)concludedthat Californiacondorsdid notbreedbeforesix yearsofage,thetime atwhichtheadult plumageis acquired. Theonly wild Californiacondor(a male)ofknownagebredsuccessfullyin thewild in 1986at theageofsix years. Recentdatacollectedfrom captivebirds,however,demonstratesthat reproductionmayoccur,or at leastbeattemptedat earlierages. Afour-yearold malewastheyoungestCaliforniacondorobservedin courtshipdisplay,andthesamebird subsequentlybred successfUllyat theageoffive years(M. Wallace,Los AngelesZoo,in litt.).

Californiacondorsnestin varioustypesofrock formationsincludingcrevices,overhungledges,andpotholes,and,morerarely,in cavitiesin giant sequoiatrees(Sequoiagiganteus)(Snyderetal. 1986). An evaluationofvariousnestparameters,including types,elevations,compassorientation,entrancesizes,depths,chambercharacteristics,substrates,useofnestsby otherspecies,accessibilityto predators,presenceofporches,andproximity to roostperchesandsourcesofhumandisturbance,indicatedthat all surveyedCaliforniacondornestsites(n — 72)sharethefollowing characteristics:

(1) entranceslargeenoughfor thebirds to fit through,(2) a ceiling heightofat least38centimeters(cm) atthe eggposition,(3) fairly level floorswith someloosesurfacesubstrate,(4) unconstrictedspacefor incubatingadults,and(5) shortdistanceaccessibilityto a landingpoint(Snyderet al. op cit.). Thefactorsinfluencingthe choiceofnestsitesbycondorsis poorlyunderstood.Theappearanceof manynestsitessuggeststhattheyhavebeenin longuse,perhapsfor centuries,whereasotherapparentlysuitablesitesinundisturbedareasshowno signsofcondoruse.

Theeffectsofhumandisturbanceon nestingcondorshavebeendifficult to evaluaterigorously,anddifferentobservershavereacheddisparateconclusions.Koford (1953)documentednumerousaccountsof humandisturbanceatCaliforniacondornestsites. Hereportedthat the

4

j

responsesofnestingbirds werehighly variableandhypothesizedthatthenatureofthebirds’reactionsmight dependuponthestageof nesting. Koford generallyconcludedthat Californiacondorswerekeenlyawareofintruders,andwould alter theirbehaviorsif humansapproachedinsightwithin 555 m (500yd) ofanest. In addition,Koford statedthatCaliforniacondorscouldbealarmedby loud noisesfrom distancesofover 1.6kilometers(1 mi). Basedon theseobservations,Koford recommendedthat humandisturbanceshouldberestrictedwithin 1.6 km (1mi) of activenestsites.

Sibley (1969)founda correlationbetweenthelocationofrecentlyusedCaliforniacondornestsitesandthelocationandmagnitudeofhumanactivity. Heconcludedthatthegreaterthedisturbance,eitherin frequencyornoiselevel, thelesslikely Californiacondorswereto nestnearby. In 1984,a nestsitelocatedin agiant sequoiatreewithin mixed-coniferforestwassubjectedto a highdegreeof disturbanceduring theegg-layingperiodbecauseit waslocatedontheedgeofanactiveclear-cuttimberingoperation. Nevertheless,thebreedingattemptcontinuedsuccessfullyuntil thehalf-grownchickwasremovedfromthenestto beaddedto the captiveflock. Basedon thevarietyofhistoricalaccounts,Snyderet al. (1986)concludedthat toleranceto disturbanceby nestingcondorsis likely to beahighly variabletrait individually andthat it isprudentto continuethe currentU.S. ForestServicerestrictionofhumanactivitieswithin 2.4 km(1.5 mi) ofCaliforniacondornestsiteson ForestServicelands.

Althoughpotentialcondornestinghabitatstill existsoverarelatively largeportionofthecoastalandinteriormountainsin centralandsouthernCalifornia, therecentlyoccupiednestingrangewas~quitelimited. After 1910,all recordednestingsiteswerelocatedin the Coast,Transverse,andSierraNevadamountainranges(Koford 1953,MeretskyandSnyder1992). All but oneofthenestsitesusedbetween1979 to 1986werein anarrowbeltofchaparraland coniferousforestedmountainsfrom centralSantaBarbaraCountyacrossnorthernandcentralVenturaCountytonorthwesternLos AngelesCounty. Thesiteswerelocatedwithin atotal areaapproximately90km (56mi) from westto eastand only about25 km (15 mi) from north to south. Theonly nestoutsidethis areawaslocatedin agiant sequoiain TulareCountyin 1984. It is possiblethatcondorsmayhavebeennestingin thelatterareaovertheyearssincethenestwas only afewmilesfrom anothergiant sequoianestwhichwasactivein 1951. All recentCaliforniacondornestsiteswerelocatedon public landswithin theLos Padres,Angeles,and SequoiaNationalForests.

~~gjjjg: California condorsareopportunisticscavengers,feedingonly on thecarcassesofdeadanimals. Typical foragingbehaviorincludeslong-distancereconnaissanceflights, lengthy circlingflights overa carcass,andhoursofwaiting at aroostor on thegroundnearacarcass. Seasonalforagingbehaviorshifts perhapsaretheresultof climaticcyclesorto changesin food availability.Condorsmaintainwide-rangingforagingpatternsthroughouttheyear,an importantadaptationfor a speciesthat maybesubjectedto unpredictablefoodsupplies(Meretskyand Snyder1992).Havinglocateda potentialfood item,Californiacondorsfrequentlyremainin theair circling highabovethecarcassbeforelanding. As with otherscavengingspeciesthat areknownto feedsocially, circling behavioris thoughtto serveasasignalto otherconspecifics,guidingthemtoavailablefoodsources(Houston1974, Mundy 1982,WallaceandTemple1987,MeretskyandSnyder1992). Onceon thegroundcondorsmayfeedimmediatelyor wait passivelyasotherCaliforniacondorsorgoldeneagles(Aquilachrysaetos)feedon thecarcass(Wilbur 1978).

5

Prior to thearrival ofEuropeanman,condorfood items within interiorCaliforniaprobablyincludedmule deer(Odocoileushemionus),tule elk (Cervuselaphusnannoides),pronghornantelope(Antilocapraamericana),andsmallermammals. Along thePacific shorethe diet oftheCaliforniacondormayhaveincludedwhales,sealions, and othermarinespecies(Koford 1953,Emslie 1987,U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984). Koford (1953)listed observationsofCaliforniacondorsfeedingon 24 different mammalianspecieswithin the last two centuries. Heestimatedthat 95 percentofthediet consistedofcattle,domesticsheep,groundsquirrels(Spermophilusbeechy,),mule deer,andhorses. OverhalfoftheobservationsKoford reportedwereofcondorsfeedingoncattlecarcasses,andmostofthosewerecalves. While beefcattlemaybe themostavailablefoodwithin therangeof thecondor,a clearpreferencefor deerovercattlehasbeenobserved(Koford 1953,Wilbur 1972,Meretskyand Snyder1992). Californiacondorsappearto feedonly oneto threedaysperweek,but thefrequencyof adultfeedingisvariableand mayshowseasonaldifferences.

Most Californiacondorforagingoccursin openterrainoffoothill grasslandandoak savannahhabitats. AlthoughtheCaliforniacondoris not asungainlyonthegroundasportrayedin popularliterature,it doesrequirefairly openspacesforfeeding. This ensureseasytake-offand approachandmakesfinding foodeasier. As mentionedearlier,mule deerarepossiblya “preferred” food,yet deertend to drift towardcanyonbottomsto die (Taberand Dasmann1958,Blong 1954),wheresteepterrainandbrushinterferewith Californiacondorforaging. Carcassesunderbrusharehardto see,and Californiacondorsapparentlydo not locatefoodby olfactorycues(Stager1964).

Theprincipalforagingregionsusedby Californiacondorsfrom thelate I 970sto 1987werethefoothills borderingthesouthernSanJoaquinValley andaxillary valleysin SanLuis Obispo,SantaBarbara,Kern,and TulareCounties. After 1982,mostobservationsoffeedingby thesmallremainingwild populationofCalifornia condorsoccurredin theElkhornHills-CuyamaValley-CarrizoPlaincomplex,andin thesouthernSanJoaquinValley (Meretskyand Snyder1992). Themajority of importantforagingareaswereonprivatecattle-grazinglands.

TheElkhornHills-CuyamaValley-CarrizoPlainareaincludesportionsofSanLuis Obispo,SantaBarbara,andKerncounties. Californiacondorsforagedin the easternpartofSanLuis ObispoCounty,generallyeastoftheLosPadresNationalForestboundaryandwestoftheTemblorMountains. Observationsof radio-taggedbirdsalong SanJuanCreekin the 1980sindicated fforagingin theupperdrainage,southofHighway 58. Farthersouth,the CarrizoPlain,PanoramaHills, andtheElkhornPlainin theregionbetweentheCalienteandTemblorMountainswerealsocommonlyused(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984).

Foragingin SantaBarbaraCountywasmainly to thenorth in portionsoftheCuyamaValley and,occasionally,onpotrerosalongtheridgeline oftheSierraMadreMountains. A nestingpairinSantaBarbaraCountyalsoforagedin the SantaYnezValleyto thesouth,mainly alongthenorthernportionsasfar westastheLos Olivos areaandtheZacaCreekdrainage(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984).

In KernCounty, Californiacondorsforagedextensivelyin thefoothills adjacentto thenorthernboundaryofLos PadresNationalForest,to ReyesStation in thewest,to thePleito Hills westofInterstateHighway5, andeastwardthroughoutmuchoftheregionfrom theTehachapi

6

Mountainsnorth to theslopesofCummingsMountain(Studer 1983). This entireregion, like thesimilar foragingcountryin theCarrizoandElkhornPlains, is fairly closeto traditionalnestingsites(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984).

TheSanJoaquinValley foragingregionwaslocatedin easternKern,Tulare, andVenturacounties. An importantforagingareain KernCountywasthefoothill rangelandsaroundGlennville. There,Californiacondorsroostedprimarily on NationalForestlandsin theGreenhornMountainsandforageddaily in theCedarCreekandupperPozoCreekdrainagesasfar westasBlue Mountainandtheold GraniteStationcrossroadssouthofWoody,California. In TulareCounty, Californiacondorsforagedextensivelythroughtheoak savannahand grasslandhillcountrynorthfrom theKernCountyborderandwestoftheNationalForestboundary,includingthe TuleRiver IndianReservation(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984). As in northernKernCounty,importantroostingsiteswereto the easton higher slopesin SequoiaNationalForestandonhigherpeakswithin theforagingzone,includingBlueRidge. Californiacondorsrecentlyforagedasfar northastheLakeKawealiregion,with theWhite River,DeerCreek,LakeSuccess,andYokohl Valley areasbeingofspecialimportance(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984).

Althoughtheseforagingregionshavebeenidentifiedasbeingimportantto Californiacondorssince1980,theyshouldnot be consideredasall inclusive. Like mostscavengingbirds, Californiacondorsareopportunistic. Throughthecourseof ayeartheyfed on carcassesfoundin manylocations. Californiacondorswereknownto feedatU.S. FishandWildlife Servicebaiting

~ stationson theTejonRanch,theBeardRanchin GlennvilleandHopperMountain andBitterCreekNationalWildlife RefUges.Thebirdsmaybe expectedto takeadvantageoflocal-abundanceof foodalmostanywherewithin their normalrange. Californiacondorswerenotreportedin manyareasofthat formerrangeafterthemid-1980s,especiallynorth in theCoastalRangeto MontereyandSanBenito Counties,but alsoeastinto the SanGabrielMountainsin LosAngelesCounty.

Roosting: Dependinguponweatherconditionsandthehungerofthebird, aCalifornia condormayspendmostof its time perchedat aroost. Californiacondorsoftenusetraditionalroostingsitesnearimportantforaginggrounds(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984). AlthoughCaliforniacondorsusuallyremainatroostsuntil mid-morning,andgenerallyreturnin mid- to lateafternoon,it is notunusualfor abird to stayperchedthroughouttheday. While at aroost,Californiacondorsdevoteconsiderabletime to preeningandothermaintenanceactivities. Roostsmay alsoservesomesocialfUnction, asit is commonfor two ormoreCaliforniacondorsto roost togetherandto leavearoosttogether(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984). Californiacondorsapparentlywill toleratemoredisturbanceat aroost thanat anest. Roostingsitesandnestingsitesaresusceptibleto similar disturbancethreats,andtheirpreservationrequiresisolationfrom humanintrusion. Theremaybe adaptiveaswell astraditionalreasonsfor California condorsto continueto occupya numberofwidely separatedroosts,suchasreducingfoodcompetitionbetweenbreedingand non-breedingbirds.

Cliffs andtall conifers,includingdeadsnags,aregenerallyutilized asroostsitesin nestingareas.Although mostroost sitesarenearnestingorforagingareas,scatteredroostsitesarelocatedthroughoutthe range.

7

F. Movements

Dataon locationsandmovementsofCaliforniacondorsdiscussedherearelimited mainly to thosecollectedbetween1982and 1987,assummarizedby Meretskyand Snyder(1992). Thesedatawereobtainedprimarily from radiotelemetrystudiesandtheanalysisofflight photographsofknownCaliforniacondors(SnyderandJohnson1985,MeretskyandSnyder1992)andsummarizedbelow. For detailedinformationon historicalCaliforniacondorrange,thereadershouldreferto Koford (1953)andWilbur (1978).

Studiesduring the I980sshowedthat the lastCaliforniacondorsremainingin thewild prior to1987compriseda singlepopulationofbirds occupyingarangeof2 million hectares(4,942,000acres). Insofarascouldbe determined,everyCaliforniacondorin thewild wasfamiliarwith theentire rangeofthespeciesandwascapableofsoaringbetweenanytwo pointswithin therangeinasingleday. While no differencein movementpatternscouldbedetectedbetweensexes,adifferencein themobility wasnotedbetweenbreedingandnonbreedingcondors. Immaturesandotherunpairedcondorsseemedto be especiallymobile, with thelongestrecordedflight duringasingleday by an immaturemalebeing225 km (141 mi). Yearlingcondorsdo not venturefar fromtheirnestsitesuntil late in their first year,andtheygraduallyincreasetheir distancefrom theirnatalareaastheymature. Basedon theavailableinformation,however,it wasnot possibletoascertainat whatageimmaturecondorsbegintheirwide-rangingforays. Pairedbirds tendedtoforagemostfrequentlyin areasrelativelycloseto their nests,not normally venturingmorethan50km (31 mi) to 70 km (44 mi) from theirnestsites;althoughon oneoccasiona memberof anestingpairtraveled180 km (113 mi). It shouldalsobenotedthat duringthenon-breedingseasonpairedbirdstendedto expandtheir homerangeto encompassmoreofthe availableforagingareas.

Seasonalshifts thatwerenotedseemedto bebasedgenerallyon food availability. Forexample,condorstendedto moveto theTehachapiareaduringthehuntingseasonwheretheyshowedapreferencefor deergut-pilesandabandoneddeercarcasseswerepreferredovercalfcarcasses.Furthermore,during thecalving seasonin theSanEmigdioareaoftheSanJoaquinValleyforagingregion,wild Californiacondorswerefrequentlyobservedfeedingon naturallyoccurringcalfcarcasses.

Californiacondorsusetopographyandassociatedthermalweatherpatternsfor flight. This is bestillustratedby observationsindicatingthatalmost all flights by California condors,whethercoveringlong distancesornot,followed routesoverthefoothills andmountainsborderingthesouthernSanJoaquinValley. It wasrarefor aCaliforniacondorto passdirectly overtheflat,highlyagriculturalfloor oftheValley. Thus,theusualroutefor abird startingfrom thecoastalmountainsof SantaBarbaraCountyon its way to foraginggroundsin TulareCountywasto crossnorthernVenturaCounty, passthroughtheTehachapiMountainsin southernKernCounty,thenturnnorth to passcloselyby BreckenridgeMountain,andenterTulareCountysomewherebetweentheGreenhornMountainsandBlueMountain. Whereflat, agriculturalregionsaremuchlessextensive,suchastheCuyamaValley in SantaBarbaraandSanLuis ObispoCounties,Californiacondorsfreely passedhigh aboveenrouteto foraginggrounds. It hasbecomeapparentthat California condorsarehighlydependentontopographysinceit dictatesprevailingwindpatterns.(U.S. FishandWildlife Service1984).

8

G. PopulationTrends

Condorcensusingeffortsthroughtheyearshavevariedin intensityand accuracy.Thathasled toconflicting estimatesofhistoricalabundance,but all haveindicatedan ever-decliningCaliforniacondorpopulation. Koford (1953)estimatedapopulationofabout60 individualsin the late1930sthroughthemid-1940s,apparentlybasedon observedflock size. A field studyby EbenandIanMcMillan in theearly 1 960ssuggestedapopulationof about40 individuals,againbasedinparton thevalidity ofKoford’s estimatesofflock size(Miller et al. 1965). An annualOctoberCaliforniacondorsurveywasbegunin 1965(MalletteandBorneman1966)andcontinuedfor 16years. Thesurveyeffortwastypically atwo-daysimultaneousobservationandcountofCaliforniacondorsat prominentobservationpointsin areasofknownconcentration.Interpretationoftheresultsofthesesurveyswasmadedifficult by variationsin weatherconditions,numberofobservers,andotherfactorsfrom yearto year,but theresultssupportedanestimateof50 to 60 extantCaliforniacondorsin the late 1960s(Sibley1969,Mailed 1970).Wilbur (1980)continuedthesurveyefforts into the 1970sandconcurredwith theinterpretationsoftheearlierOctobersurveys. Hefurtherestimatedthat by 1978thepopulationhaddroppedto25-30individuals.

SnyderandJohnson(1985)later reassessedtheearlierpopulationestimatesofKoford (1953)andMiller et al. (1965)and concludedthat theymayhaveunderestimatedthesizeofthe condorpopulationby afactoroftwo orthree. Regardlessof theactualnumberofbirds,thetrendtowardextinctionofthewild condorpopulationwaslinear andunrelenting. In 1981,the Service,incooperationwith CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversityatSanLuis Obispo,begancensuseffortsbasedon individual identificationsofcondorsby photographingflight silhouettes(SnyderandJohnson1985). Minimum summercountsfrom thesephotocensusingefforts showeda steadydeclinefrom an estimatedminimumof2l wild condorsin 1982, 19 individuals in 1983, 15individualsin 1984,and 9 individualsin 1985. Althoughtheoverall condorpopulationincreasedslightly after 1982asaresultofdoubleclutching,thewild populationcontinuedto decline. Bytheendof 1986,all but two California condorswerecapturedfor safekeepingandgeneticsecurity. OnApril 19, 1987 thelastwild condorwascapturedandtakento theSanDiegoWildAnimal Park. Thepopulationhasincreasedannuallysincethefirst successfUlcaptivebreedingin1988. Thepopulationnow standsat 104 individuals,including86 in thecaptiveflock and 17 inthewild (Fig. 2).

H. Reasonsfor Decline

CausesoftheCaliforniacondorpopulationdeclinehaveprobablybeennumerousandvariablethroughtime. However,despitedecadesofresearch,it is notknownwith certaintywhichmortality factorshavebeendominantin theoverall declineofthe species.Relativelyfew deadCaliforniacondorshavebeenfound, anddefinitiveconclusionson thecausesofdeathweremadein only a small portionofthesecases(Miller et al. 1965,Wilbur 1978, SnyderandSnyder1989).AlthoughtheinformationregardingCaliforniacondormortality is inconclusive,thereis evidenceto suggestthat two anthropogenicfactors,leadpoisoningandshooting,havecontributeddisproportionatelyto thedeclineofthespeciesin recentyears. Althoughpublicity associatedwiththecondorrecoveryprogramhasdoubtlessreducedthelikelihood ofcondorsbeingshot, onepersonwasarrestedasrecentlyasJuly 1992for shootingat aCaliforniacondorthat waspartofa

9

Fig. 2. California Condor Population1982-1995

838485868788899091YEAR

Wild Captive

z0

-JD0~00~

0Cz00-J

F-0F-

1201101009080706050403020100

10

reintroductionprogram,thusindicatingtheneedfor continuedpublic educationandanenforcementpresenceto protectthespeciesfrom wantonshooting.

Post-mortemexaminationsperformedonfour Californiacondorsfounddeadsince1983,indicatedthat threeofthebirds diedfrom theeffectsof leadpoisoning(Janssenet al. 1986,Wiemeyeret al. (1988),andonediedofcyanidepoisoning(Wiemeyeret al. op cit.). High leadlevels,presumablyobtainedfrom theingestionof fragmentsofleadbulletsin shotmammalcarcasses,maybeapervasiveproblemthroughoutthehistoricalforagingrangeof theCaliforniacondor. For example,Bloom et al. (1989)andPatteeetal. (1990)foundelevatedlevelsin one-third of 162 goldeneaglebloodsamplestakenin therangeoftheCaliforniacondorin 1985-1986,andWiemeyeret al. (1988)concludedthatleadexposurewasthemajorfactorhavinganadverseimpacton thewild Californiacondorpopulationbetween1982-1986. Thepossibleeffectsoncondorsofanotherhighly toxic heavymetal,copper,havenot beeninvestigated,but Wiemeyeretal. (1983)reportedunusuallyhigh copperlevelsin the liver tissueofan immaturecondorfounddeadfrom unknowncausesin 1974.

Cyanidepoisoningis consideredto beahighly improbableoccurrenceandis thereforenot likelyto be a majorcauseofthedeclineofthe species.Equallyimprobablewas therecentdeathofareleasedcondorfrom theingestionof ethyleneglycol, apparentlyastheresultofdrinkingantifreeze. Deathsfrom oneormorerangepoisons,includingstrychnineandvariousrodenticides,mayhaveoccurredhistorically, but convincingdocumentationoftheoccurrenceandmagnitudeof suchlosseshasnotbeendocumented.

Kiff et al. (1979)reportedseverethinning andultrastructuralabnormalitiesin Californiacondoreggshellscollectedin the late I960sby F. Sibley. Theyattributedtheabnormalitiesto theprobableeffectsof 1,1-dichloro,-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)etylene(DDE), abreakdownmetaboliteofthepesticide1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloro-phenyl)ethane(DDT). DDT wasbannedfordomesticusein theUnitedStatesin 1972, andvirtually all condoreggshellsamplescollectedafter1975haveexhibitednormalthickness(Snyderet al. ins). However,two eggslaid in 1986by thelastfemaleCaliforniacondor(StudBook 12) to breedin thewild werevery thin (44%thinnerthanthehistoricalmeanthickness)andcontainedinexplicablyhigh levelsofDDE andtheparentcompound,DDT (Kiff 1989). Indeed,thefirst-laid oftheseeggswascrushed,probablyby theweight ofthe incubatingbird, beforeit couldbe removedfor captiveincubation. Theeffect ofeggshellthinning on thecondorpopulationcannotbe accuratelyassessednow,but it couldhavebeena seriousfactorduring the 1950s-1960s.Significanteggshellthinning hasalsobeenreportedfor theturkeyvulturewithin theregionofsympatrywith theCalifornia condor(Wilbur 1 978c,Kiffet al. 1979,Wiemeyeret al. 1986). Organochlorineconcentrationswerelow in fourcondorsanalyzedfor thesecontaminantsbetween1980-86(Wiemeyeret al. 1988),but thehighlycontaminatedeggsfrom 1986 indicatethat continuedmonitoringof suchcompoundsin condorsand surrogatespeciesis warranted.

OneoftheAndeancondorsin an experimentalreleaseprogramdied from a collisionwith a powerline nearHopperMountainNationalWildlife Refugein 1989, and,morerecently,four ofthe 19Californiacondorsreleasedsince1992werelost from the samecause.At leasttwo deathsfromcollisionswith manmadeobjects,includingpower lines,wereknownhistorically(Koford 1953).Suchdeathssuggestthatfuturecondorreleasesshouldbe conductedin areasremotefrom humansettlementswith theirattendantcondorhazards.

11

Other seriousfactorsformerly contributingto thedeclineofthespecieswereeggand specimencollecting, captureof live birds for sportor display,Indianceremonialuse,anddrowninginuncoveredoil sumps. Theseactivities areno longerbelievedto representthreatsto Californiacondors.

Deathsofadult California condorsfromnaturalcausesarevirtually unknown. Rett (1938)reportedtwo adult Californiacondorskilled by hail, andhe laterreportedtheprobablecauseofanotherCaliforniacondordeathasosteomyelitis(Rett 1946). Californiacondoreggsandnestlingsarevulnerableto naturalpredators.Accordingto Snyder(1986),ravenswereobservedtaking two eggsandhavebeenobservedattemptingto takeothers. Goldeneagleshavebeenobservedat leasttwice attemptingto capturecondornestlings,andon oneoccasionablackbear(Ursusamericanus)wasseenmaking an unsuccessfUlattemptto takeanestling(Snyder1986).

Althoughnot considereda significantfactorin thedeclineofthespecies,reproductiveproblemshavebeennotedin recentyears. Two pairs,engagedin otherwisenormalbreedingbehavior,failed to successfullycopulateon repeatedattempts.Basedon his observationsin thefield Snyder(1989)speculatedthat thepairmayhavebeenhomosexual;however,oneofthesebirdslaterpairedwith anotherCaliforniacondorin captivity andreproducedsuccessfully(Cox pers.comm.).Onefemale(StudBook 10) now deceasedproducedchickswith morphologicalabnormalitiesonseveraloccasions.Anotherfounderfemale(StudBook 12) laysunusuallysmall eggs,butcontinuesto reproducesuccessfullyandis well representedby progenyin thecaptivepopulation.Thetrait of laying small eggsappearsto be heritablethroughthe femaleline, and heroffspringhavealsolaid relativelysmalleggs(Kuehleret al. 1991). Thefounderfemale(StudBook 12) 0bird wasthelast femaleto breedin thewild.I. PopulationModeling

Verner(1978)constructeda modelpredictingthat a stableCaliforniacondorpopulationcouldnotbemaintainedwith mortality ratesover 9 percentannuallyin adultscoupledwith 11 percentannuallyin immatures,or7 percentannuallyin adultscoupledwith 15 percentannuallyinimmatures.The modelemployedthefollowing assumptions:(I) ageoffirst breedingis six years,(2) 80 percentoftheadultsaremembersofbreedingpairs,(3) nestingsuccessis approximately50 percent,(4) 50 percentofnestingfailuresoccurearly enoughfor renesting,and (5) annualnestingoccursonly afterearlyfledging ofyoung. Theknownmeanannualmortality ratefor theyears1982through1986was 23.8 percent(24percentfor adultsand 23.1 percentforimmatures).Thesepercentagesclearlyindicatethe significanceof mortality to thedeclineofthespecies.

Basedon thehistoricalinformation,the declineofthe Californiacondoris morelikely attributableto excessivemortality offree-flying birdsthanto reproductivefailure. Reviewoftheavailabledataon recentreproductivesuccessoftheCaliforniacondordoesnot suggestsignificantdifficultieswith reproduction(SnyderandSnyder1989). Between1980and 1985,with a sampleof 17 pairs, studiesrevealed41 to 47 percentnestsuccess(SnyderandSnyderop cit.). Thesefiguresarevery similar to historicalbreedingrecordsofCaliforniacondorsandto that ofothercathartidandOld World vultures(Jackson1983,Mundy 1982). Snyder(1983)suggestedthatcondorreproductivesuccesshadheld fairly constantthroughhistoricaltimes, baseduponacomparisonof nestsuccessfiguresfrom the 1940s(Koford 1953),late 1960s(Sibley 1969),and

12

- Snyder’sown datafrom theearly 1980s. However,sincetheprincipalcausesofnestlossesduringeachperiodweremostlyanthropogenic,directly or indirectly,and apparentlyspecificto eachera,it maynot be possibleto determine“natural” ratesof Californiacondornestsuccessfrom thesedata.

J. ConservationMeasures

Despitedecadesoflegal protectionand extensiveconservationefforts,condorscontinuedtodeclinein numbersin thewild throughoutthetwentiethcentury. As a crucialattemptto preventthe extinctionof theCaliforniacondorthedecisionto captureall remainingwild Californiacondorsfor safekeepingandgeneticsecuritywasmadeby theServiceandtheCaliforniaFishandGameCommission(Commission)in late 1985. Thatcontroversialdecisionwasadramaticshiftfrom previousconservationeffortsto recoverthespeciesprimarily throughhabitatprotection.Thefollowing sectionprovidesabriefchronologyofconservationefforts.

Legalprotectionwasfirst providedto theCaliforniacondorby theStateofCaliforniathroughaseriesof avian“protective” lawswhichwerepromulgatedaroundtheturnofthecentury(Wilbur1978). TheCaliforniacondorwasprotectedby the Stateof Californiaat leastasearly as1901.Thelawwas nonspecific,merelyprohibitingthetaking ofanynongamebird or its eggsornestswithout apermit. In 1908, aconstablewasfined $50.00for shootingaCaliforniacondorin theSanGabrielMountainsnearPasadena(Finley andFinley 1928). In 1917an illegally capturedCaliforniacondorwasconfiscated,but no onewasprosecuted(Anonymous1917). In general,earlynongamelawswerenot strictly enforced,and anumberofCaliforniacondorswereshotandeggswerecollecteduntil about 1920.

Official concernbeganto beexpressedfor theCaliforniacondorby themid-1930s. At theurgingofRobert0. Easton,.a SantaBarbaraCountyrancher,andtheNationalAudubonSociety(Audubon),theU.S. ForestService(ForestService)establishedthe SisquocCondorSanctuaryin1937. It encompasses1,198acresin SantaBarbaraCountythatincludean importantcondorroost,nestsite, andbathingpool. Followingfield studiesby CarlKoford between1939and1946,theSespeCondorSanctuarywasestablishedin 1947 in theLos PadresNationalForestinVenturaCounty. Originally about35,000acres,theSespeCondorSanctuarywasenlargedin1951 to includeapproximately53,000acres. Thesetwo sanctuariesremainundertheadministrationoftheForestService. TheSisquocCondor Sanctuaryis closedto all non-permittedentry, andtheSespeCondorSanctuaryis alsoclosedto all non-permittedentrywith theexceptionoftwo narrowtravel corridorsthat allow hikers andhorsebackridersto passthroughthearea.

Thefirst specificlegal mentionoftheCaliforniacondorwasin 1953. Section1179.5oftheCaliforniaFishandGameCodestated: “It is unlawfulto takeany condorat anytime or in anymanner. No provisionofthis codeor any otherlaw shallbeconstruedto authorizetheissuanceofa permitto takeany condorand no suchpermit heretoforeissuedshall haveany effect for anypurposeon andafterJanuary15, 1954.” TheCaliforniacondorwasretainedin that “fullyprotected”statuswith no authorityto issueanytypeofpermitfor trappingorhandling,until1971. At thattime the FishandGameCodewasamended(Stats.1970, Ch. 1036)to allowissuanceofpermitsfor collectingfUlly protectedspecieswhennecessaryfor scientificpurposes.

13

An Audubon-sponsoredfield surveyin 1963-64resultedin thehiring of anAudubonSociety“condornaturalist”in 1965. In the sameyear,the Serviceinitiated theEndangeredWildlifeResearchProgram,anda researchbiologistwasassignedto study theCaliforniacondorin 1966.BothAudubonSocietyandServicepositionswereoccupieduntil recently. From 1968 to 1973,theForestServiceemployedaCaliforniacondorbiologistto prepareacomprehensiveCaliforniacondorhabitatmanagementplanfor thenationalforests. TheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame(Department)maintainedafull-time Californiacondorbiologistfrom 1982-1989.Cooperationand assistancefrom otherindividualsandagencieshavebeencoordinatedthroughtheServiceandthe Team.

TheCaliforniacondorwasrecognizedby theFederalgovernmentas“endangered”in 1967, butthe first specificFederallegalprotectiondid not occuruntil 1972whentheU.S. MigratoryBirdTreatywith Mexico wasamendedto includevulturesandcertainotherfamiliesofbirds. ThepassageoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973 (PublicLaw 93-205)madethetaking ofanyendangeredspeciesa violation ofFederallaw.

An importantoutgrowthofFederalendangeredspecieslegislationwastheconceptofcriticalhabitat. Accordingto Section7(a)(2)oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973,asamended,“eachFederalagencyshallin consultationwith andwith the assistanceof theSecretary[of Interior]insurethat any action authorized,funded,orcarriedoutby suchagency...is not likely tojeopardizethe continuedexistenceofany endangeredspeciesor threatenedspeciesorresultin thedestructionoradversemodification ofhabitatofsuchspecieswhich is determinedby theSecretary... to becritical.” About 570,400acresofcritical habitat(Section3(5)(A)) hasbeen ILdeterminedfor theCaliforniacondor(SO CFR17.195),in six SouthernCaliforniacounties;Ventura,Los Angeles,SantaBarbara,SanLuis Obispo,KernandTulare (Appendix1).

Considerableeffort to preserveCaliforniacondorhabitatwasmadefrom thelate I960sthroughthe I 980s,yet thespeciescontinuedto declinerapidly. TheTeampreparedthefirst draft“California CondorContingencyPlan” in 1976. Thatdocumentrecommendedcaptivebreedingand otherintensiverecoveryefforts. A revisedversionwasapproved“in concept”in 1977by theService. In 1978,apanelof expertsappointedby theAmericanOrnithologists’Union andtheAudubonSocietyprepareda reporton theCalifornia condorthatrecommendedanaggressiveprogramoftrappingcondorsfor captivebreedingandradiotelemetrystudies(Ricklefs 1978).Thesereportsledto thesigningofaCooperativeAgreementin 1979amongtheService,AudubonSociety,Department,ForestService,andU.S. BureauofLandManagement.Thepurposeoftheagreementwasto expeditethe Californiacondorrecoveryeffort andto cooperateonproviding informationandeducation. TheCondorResearchCenterwasestablishedin 1980bytheServiceandtheAudubonSocietyasaresultoftheagreement.

In May 1980,Federaland Statepermitsauthorizingthecaptureofacondorfor captivebreedingandequipping10 wild condorswith radiotelemetrydeviceswereapproved. However,theStatepermitwasrescindedin thefollowing monthwhenacondorchickdiedwhile beingexaminedby afield teamfrom theCondorResearchCenter. A permitto capturea condorfor captivebreedingwasrenewedin August 1981 by theCommissionbut asuitablebird couldnotbefound becauseof

therestrictiveprovisionsof thepermit.

I14

TheCommissionalsoapprovedtheuseofpatagial-mountedradiosin January1982,andtwoCaliforniacondorswerecapturedand equippedwith thesedeviceslate in 1982. For thefirst time,photocensusingtechniquesyielded anaccurateestimateofthenumberofextantCaliforniacondors(Snyderand Johnson1985),andit wasfoundthatthespecieshadreachedan apparentminimumtotalpopulationsizeof22 individuals. In 1982,awild Californiacondorchickwascapturedandbroughtsafelyinto captivity. “Double-clutching”by one ofthewild pairswasdocumentedbeyondquestionin 1982(SnyderandHamber1985),andledin 1983 to theissuanceofapermitto bring thefirst-laid eggsof breedingCaliforniacondorsinto captivity.

Theyears1983 and 1984werecritical onesin theformationofthecaptiveCaliforniacondorflock at theSanDiegoWild Animal ParkandLos AngelesZoo. Twochicks andfour eggsweretakenfrom thewild to theSanDiego Wild Animal Parkin 1983;all eggshatchedsuccessfUlly. In1984, six out ofeight eggstakento this facility werehatchedsuccessfully. In addition,anotherchickwascapturedand addedto thecaptivepopulationin 1984. For thefirst time in therecordedhistoryoftheCalifornia condor,theoverall populationincreasedin number.

Eventually,ninefree-flying Californiacondorswereequippedwith radiotelemetrydevices,andtheirmovementswerefollowed by field technicians.Thephotocensusingprojectcontinued,anditindicatedthatthewild condorpopulationconsistedof 15 individuals in thefall of 1984. Amongthesebirds werefive breedingpairs,and it seemedpossiblethatthegrowingcaptiveflock wouldsoonbe ableto producereleasableoffspringwell in sufficienttime to forestall theextirpationofthewild population. However,disasterstruck duringthewinter of 1984-85,andsix birds werelost from thewild population. Thecauseofdeathwas determinedfor only oneofthesix birds, acondornamedBrokenFeatherthat wasfoundsick andon thegroundnearCaliforniaHotSprings. BrokenFeatherdiedof leadpoisoningwhile undergoingtreatment. Their lossleft onlyonebreedingpair ofCaliforniacondorsin thewild in the springof 1985. By April 1985,therewaswidespreadsentimentthat all oftheremainingwild birdsshouldbebroughtinto captivity inorderto ensurethegeneticviability ofthespeciesandto enhancethechancesofsuccessin thecaptivebreedingprogram. Thatpositionwasformally endorsedby the Commissionanda panelof 10 prominentpopulationgeneticists,andit wassupportedby mostoftheTeammembers.AnAmericanOrnithologists’Union CommitteeontheCaliforniacondorfavoredthecaptureof all thewild birdsfor biological reasons,but recommendedthatthreebirdsbeleft in thewild in ordertomaintainthe integrity ofhabitatpreservationefforts andthe momentumof thecondorrecoveryprogramuntil the captive-rearedbirdscouldbe released.

In June1985,the Servicerecommendedthecaptureofthreeof theremainingninewild birds, but(with Audubonbacking)alsoadvocatedthereleaseofthreeofthebirdsthenheldcaptive. Thatproposalbecameamatterofconsiderablecontention,but thesituationwasfinally resolvedinDecember1985,whentheServicerecommendedtheimmediatecaptureofall remainingwildCaliforniacondors. Immediatelyprecedingthatdecision,oneof thesix remainingwild Californiacondors,abreedingfemale,wasfoundsufferingfrom leadpoisoningandwastakento the SanDiegoWild Park,whereshedied in January1986.

TheServicedecisionto captureall remainingwild Californiacondorsresultedin a lawsuitbyAudubon,andatemporaryinjunctionpreventingtrappingoftheremainingwild birds wasissued.Thematterwasnot resolveduntil June1986,whenthecourt ruled in favoroftheService’sposition. At aboutthattime administrativeresponsibilityfor theCaliforniaCondorRecovery

15

SProgramwastransferredfrom PatuxentWildlife ResearchCenter(Region8) to theService’sRegion 1 office in Portland,Oregon.Therewerestill five condorsin thewild, includingone

breedingpair. By theend ofthesummer,all but threeofthesebirdshadbeencaptured. ThepresentTeamwasformedin August 1986, and its first recommendationwasto capturethelastfree-flying condors. Oneofthebirds wastakeninto captivity beforetheendof 1986,and anotherwascapturedin January1987. ThelastindividualwascapturedonEasterSunday,April 19,1987.

Otherimportantactionsduringthat periodincludedtheacquisitionby theServiceofthe 1,800-acreHopperMountainNationalWildlife Refugeasabuffer for the SespeCondorSanctuaryandthe 13,500acreHudsonRanch(now Bitter CreekNationalWildlife Refuge),animportantcondorforagingareain thesouthernSanJoaquinValley. DNA “fingerprinting” studiesto elucidatetherelationshipofall living andsomerecentlydeadCaliforniacondorswereconductedby Dr. OliverRyderat theSanDiegoZoo, andthey indicatedthatthecaptivepopulationcontained14 differentfounders,representingthree“clans.” Using thesedataandtheknownhistoriesofthecaptivebirds, a computermodelwasgeneratedto determinethebestpairingsfrom ageneticstandpoint.

Prior to thebeginningofthe intensecondormanagementprogramin the 1980s,theonly livingcaptiveCaliforniacondorwasabird (“TopaTopa”) thathadbeencapturedat the ageof 11monthsin 1967andheldattheLos AngelesZoo. In 1983 thedecisionwasmadeto takeintocaptivity eggsproducedby wild Californiacondors,andin that yearthreeeggsfrom first clutcheswerecollectedandhatchedat theSanDiegoWild Animal Park. Removaloftheeggsstimulatedtheproductionofreplacementclutchesin two ofthepairs. Oneofthoseeggswas alsotakenand Ihatchedin captivity, and theotherwaslost to commonravens(Corvuscorax). In addition,twonestlingsweretakeninto captivity in 1983. In 1984, eight eggsandonechickweretakenintocaptivity. Six oftheeggshatched. Thefollowing year, two eggsweretaken;bothhatched. By1986only onebreedingpair ofCaliforniacondorssurvivedin thewild, andtheyproducedtwoeggs,oneofwhich washatchedin captivity. Thefirst successfUlbreedingofCalifornia condorsincaptivity occurredat the SanDiegoWild Animal Parkin 1988,whenachick, “Molloko,” wasproducedby apair ofwild-caughtcondors.Fourmorechickswereproducedat the SanDiegoWild Animal ParkandLos AngelesZoo in 1989. Thenumberof chicksproducedby captiveCaliforniacondorscontinuedto increaseannually(Fig. 2), andthecaptivepopulationgrewfrom27 birdsin 1987 to 86 birdsby thespringof 1994.

TheTeamapproveda protocolfor theselectionofadditionalcondorcaptivepropagationfacilitiesin February1988, andsolicitationsweremadeto candidatezoologicalinstitutionsfor proposals.Thetwo leadingproposalswerereceivedfrom ThePeregrineFund, Inc. in Boise,Idaho(WorldCenterfor Birds ofPrey)andtheNationalZoo at FrontRoyal,Virginia. Both institutionswererecommendedby theTeamassitesfor additionalcondorcaptivepropagationfacilities inSeptember1990with theexpectationthattheformerfacility would bein operationfirst. Twelvecondors,geneticallyselectedto form six breedingpairs,weretransferredfrom thetwo existingcondorfacilities to theWorld Centerfor Birds ofPreyon September23, 1993. EightmorecondorsweretransferredonNovember1 and2, 1994,bringingthetotal numberofpairsat thatfacility to ten. In addition,theTeamrecommendedin February1993 thattheGeorgeM. SuttonAvian ResearchCenterin Bartlesville,Oklahomabe approvedasanadditionalcondorcaptivepropagationfacility.

16

In October1986,the Teamrecommendedcriteriato be satisfiedbeforeareleaseofcaptive-bredCaliforniacondorscouldtakeplace. Theseincludedhavingthreeactivelybreedingpairsofcondors,threechicksbehaviorallysuitablefor release,andretainingat leastfive offspringfromeachbreedingpaircontributingto therelease. TheTeamrecommendedthat all Californiacondorsthenin captivityshouldbe retainedfor captivebreedingpurposes. In June1989,theTeamaddedaprovisionto thethird criterionto retaina minimumofsevenprogenyin captivityfor foundersthat werenot reproductivelyactive.

Someofthechicksproducedin the 1991breedingseasonmet all threecriteria,and two wereeventuallyreleasedto thewild. However,attemptingto applythefirst criterionto the 1991chicksalsorevealedthat it would notbe practicalin thefuture,becauseseveralfoundershaddiedwithout producingfive progeny. TheTeamthereforerecommendedchoosinggeneticallyappropriatechicksfor futurereleasesbasedon pedigreeanalysesdevelopedfor thegeneticmanagementof captivepopulations. Thesepedigreeanalysesevolveovertime astheresultsofnewresearchareincorporated.Theanalysescurrentlyavailablearedescribedin RallsandBallou(1992).

Prior to thecaptureofthe lastwild Californiacondorin 1987,theTeamrecognizedthat theanticipatedfuturereleasesof captive-rearedCaliforniacondorswould posetheproblemofreintroducingindividualsofan altricial bird speciesinto habitatdevoidoftheirparentsandothermembersoftheirown species.Thus,theTeamrecommendedtheinitiation ofan experimentalreleaseofAndeancondorsin southernCalifornia. Researchobjectivesfor the experimentalreleasewereto refinecondorreleaseandrecapturetechniquesdevelopedwith blackandturkeyvulturesin FloridaandAndeancondorsin Peru,testthecriteriabeingusedto selectCaliforniacondorreleasesites,developwrittenprotocolsforthe releaseandrecaptureof Californiacondors,identify potentialproblemspeculiarto theCaliforniaenvironment,field testrearingprotocolsbeingused,.or proposedfor use,to produceCaliforniacondorssuitablefor release,evaluateradiotelemetrypackages,andtrainateamof biologistsfor releasingCaliforniacondors.

OtherbenefitsoftheAndeancondorexperimentalreleaseincludedidentifying environmentalhazardsassociatedwith selectedreleasesites,andthedevelopmentandimplementationofmeasuresto eliminate,orplansto avoid thosehazardsprior to thereleaseofCaliforniacondors.Therewerealsopublic relationsbenefitsgainedfrom thewidespreadnoticereceivedby theproject. Andeancondorsnot only servedasasurrogatestudyspecies,but thereleaseprojectalsohelpedmaintainmomentumfor the Californiacondorrecoveryprogramandcondorhabitatprotectionduring theperiodwhenCaliforniacondorswerenot in thewild.

Theprojectbeganin August 1988,whenagroupofthreejuvenile femaleAndeancondorswerereleasedfrom afabricatedreleasesiteon HopperMountainNationalWildlife RefUge. Laterin1988,fourmorejuvenilefemaleAndeancondorsweretakento a nearbyreleasesitewithin theSespeCondorSanctuary.Thebirdswererearedat eachsiteuntil theyreachedfledgling ageapproximatelyeight monthsofage. At that time,thenettingwasremovedfromtheirenclosures,andthebirdswereallowedto fly. During 1989,six morefemaleAndeancondorswereaddedtotheexperimentalreleasepopulation. Theprojectwascontinueduntil December1991 andresultedin theacquisitionofimportantknowledgeaboutthebestproceduresfor releasingCaliforniacondors. Followingtheirexperimentalreleasein theSespearea,theAndeancondors

17

wereremovedgraduallyfrom thewild andeventuallytransportedto ColombiaandVenezuela,wheretheywerereleasedto thewild.

By theendofthe 1991 breedingseasonseveralcaptive-producedchicksmet thecriteriaforrelease.The Teamrecommendedthereleaseoftwo individualsinto theSespeCondorSanctuary(Sanctuary),LosPadresNationalForest,VenturaCounty,Californiabeconductedin thewinterof 1991-92. Thefirst releaseoccurredon January14, 1992,whentwo captive-producedCaliforniacondorchicks, “Xewe” (female)and“Chocuyens”(male),werereleasedwith twoAndeancondorchicksattheArundell Cliffs locatedin theSanctuary.TheAndeancondorswerereleasedwith the Californiacondorsto createalargersocialgroup. TheAndeancondorswerereturnedto captivity in September1992,thusmarkingtheendofthe3-yearexperimentalAndeancondorreleaseproject. TheyoungCaliforniacondorscontinuedto farewell until Chocuyenswasfounddeadat PyramidLake,VenturaCounty,on October8, 1992, wherehe had diedfromingestingethyleneglycol, a primarycomponentofantifreeze.

ThenextreleaseofCaliforniacondorsoccurredon December1, 1992,whensix morecaptive-producedCaliforniacondorschickswerereleasedat thesameSespeCondorSanctuarysite.Socializationwith Xewe,theremainingindividualfrom thefirst release,proceededwell, andthe“flock” appearedto adjustwell to wild conditions. However,therewascontinuingconcernoverthetendencyof thebirdsto frequentzonesofheavyhumanactivity, especiallythePyramidLakearea. Indeed,threeofthesebirds eventuallydied from collisionswith powerlines in thereleaseareabetweenlate May-October1993.

Becauseof thetendencyfor theremainingbirds to beattractedto thevicinity ofhumanactivityandman-madeobstacles,especiallypowerlines,anothercondorreleasesitewasconstructedin amoreremotearea,Lion Canyon,LosPadresNationalForest,neartheboundaryofthe SanRafaelWildernessAreain SantaBarbaraCounty,California. Fivejuvenile condorswerereleasedatthenewsiteon December8, 1993. In addition,thefour condorsthat hadbeenresidingin the Sespeareawerealsomovedto thenewsite. Theywerere-releasedoveraperiodofseveralweeksinhopesthatthis approachwould reducethe probabilitythat theywould returnto theSespearea.Nevertheless,threeofthesecondorseventuallymovedbackto theSespe-Castaic-FillmoreareainMarch 1994,wheretheyresumedthehigh risk practiceofperchingon powerpoles. Becauseofgeneralconcernaboutthetamenessofthesecondorsandthepossibilitythattheirundesirablebehaviorwould be mimickedby theyoungerbirds, thesecondorswereretrappedonMarch29,1994,andaddedto thecaptivebreedingpopulation. Oneofthefive condorsreleasedonDecember8, 1993,diedonJune24, 1994,whenit collidedwith apowerlineon thenorth sideofSanMarcosPass. A secondcondorfrom thisgroupwascapturedon July 4, 1995,andbroughtinto captivitywhenit couldnot bediscouragedfrom frequentingthe sameareain which thefirstwaskilled. OnJuly 4, 1994,this condordied in captivity from cancer.

On February8, 1995, six ofthe 14 condorssuccessfUllyhatchedin 1994werereleasedat LionCanyon. Thatgroupwasthefirst to undergoaversiontraining in captivity prior to theirrelease.Thetraining wasdesignedto conditionthesebirdsto avoidpowerlinesandapproachinghumans,hopefullyimprovingtheirchancesof survivalin thewild. OnMarch 1, 1995,thethreecondorsremainingin thewild from theDecember8, 1993,releaseweretrappedandbroughtintocaptivity. This wasdonesotheywould notnegativelyinfluencethe six newly releasedbirdsthatunderwenttheaversiontraining. OnAugust29, 1995, theremainingeight condorsfrom the 1994

18

breedingseasonwerereleasedat Lion Canyon. The 1994releasecandidatesweresplit into twogroupsm orderto keepthereleasesat moremanageablenumbers. Only oneunfortunatehumaninteractionthreatenedthiscohortwhencampersgaveoneofthecondorsfoodandwaterdespiteinstructionsfrom biologiststo thecontrary. Thatleft biologistswith no choicebut to capturethecompromisedcondorandreturnit to captivity. Despitethis one incident,theremaining13condorscontinueto be thebestbehavedcohortreleasedto thewild. Nonehavebeenobservedlandingonpowerpoles,theyareavoidingareasofhighhumanactivity, andonly afewinteractionswith backcountryhikershavebeenrecorded.

The1995breedingseasonproduced13 condorseligible for release,four ofwhichwereparenthatchedand reared.At approximatelythreemonthsofagethefourparenthatchedandrearedcondorsweretransferredto a newly constructedrearingfacility attheHopperMt. NationalWildIfe Refuge. Thatcohortwasreleasedto thewild on February13, 1996,at theCastleCragsreleasesitelocatedapproximately64 km (40 mi) northwestofLion Canyonon thewesternborderof SanLuis ObispoCounty. An objectiveofthis releaseis to determineif parenthatchedandrearedchickstakenfromtheZoo attheearliestpossibledateandplacedin anaturalenvironmentto berearedwill be moresuccessfulin theiradjustmentto thewild. All 13 condorshaveundergoneaversiontraining.

To satisfytheobjectivesofthePlan,at leastonesubpopulationofnon-captivecondorsmustbeestablishedin an areadisjunctfromthe subpopulationbeingreestablishedin therecenthistoricalrangein California. Following awidely publicizedsolicitationofsuggestionsfor suitablecondorreleasesitesoutsideofCaliforniaandtheapprovalofa siteselectionprotocol(March 1987),theTeamrecommendedin December1991 thatCaliforniacondorreleasesbeconductedin northernArizona. Theremaining9 condorsstill in captivity arescheduledto be releasedattheVermilionCliffs in northernArizonain Juneof 1996, in an attemptto achievethisprimaryrecoverygoal.CaliforniacondorsreleasedintonorthernArizonawill be designatedasa “nonessential”experimentalpopulationin acccordancewith Section10(j) oftheAct.

Section100)oftheAct enablestheServiceto releaseindividualsoffederallylisted speciesintothewild andallows (but doesnot require)theServiceto designatethemas“experimentalpopulations”. Thecircumstancesunderwhich adesignationcanbe appliedare--(1)thepopulationis geographicallydisjunct from nonexperimentalpopulationsofthesamespecies(e.g.,thepopulationis reintroducedoutsidethespecies’currentrangebut within its historicalrange);and (2) theServicedeterminesthereleasewill fUrther theconservationof thespecies.Thedesignationcanincreasethe Service’sflexibility to manageareintroducedpopulation,becauseunderSection100)an experimentalpopulationis treatedasathreatenedspeciesregardlessof itsdesignationelsewherein its rangeand,underSection4(d)oftheAct, theServicehasgreaterdiscretionin developingmanagementprogramsfor threatenedspeciesthanit hasfor endangeredspecies.Therefore,theexperimentaldesignationallows themanagementflexibility neededtoensurethat reintroductionis compatiblewith currentorplannedhumanactivities in thereintroductionareaandto permit managementofthepopulationfor recoverypurposes.

Experimentalpopulationscanbeclassifiedaseither“essential”or “nonessential”.An essentialexperimentalpopulationis apopulationwhoselosswould be likely to appreciablyreducethelikelihood of thesurvivalofthespeciesin thewild [50 CFR17.80(SubpartH-ExperimentalPopulations)].All otherexperimentalpopulationsaretreatedasnonessential,if theyarenot

19

consideredessentialto the continuedexistenceof thespecies. “Nonessential”experimentalpopulationsaretreatedfor purposesof Section7 oftheAct asthoughtheyareproposedforlisting (exceptonNationalWildlife RefugeandNationalParkServicelandswheretheywill betreatedasa specieslisted as“threatened”undertheauthorityoftheAct). A designationofnonessentialexperimentalprohibitstheapplicationof Section7(a)(2)oftheAct exceptonNationalWildlife RefugeandNationalParkServicelands. This ensuresthat currentlandusesandactivities(suchas,butnot limited to, forestmanagement,agriculture,mining, livestockgrazing,sporthuntingandfishing, non-consumptiveoutdoorrecreationalactivities)will notberestricted.

In March 1995,theTeamrecommendedthatacondorreleaseprojectbeundertakenin theVentanaWildernessontheBig SurCoast,LosPadresNationalForest,MontereyCounty,California. TherecommendationreceivedtheService’sconcurrenceandplansarebeingmadetoreleasecondorsin this areain NovemberorDecemberof 1996.

In July 1993,theTeamrecommendedthat acondorreleaseprojectbe undertakenat LadderRanchin NewMexico. Thatproposalwill bepursuedafterthenorthernArizonareleasehasbeenestablished.Otherareas,includingTehamaCountyin northernCalifornia, theGrayRanchinNewMexico, andtheSierraSanPedroMartir, BajaCaliforniaNorte,Mexico, havebeendiscussedaspossiblereleasesites.

Supplementalfeedingis an integral componentofthecondorreleaseprogram. Prior to therecentcondormanagementera,Wilbur etal. (1974)andWilbur (1978b)showedthat Californiacondorscould easilybeattractedto artificial foodsites,and “vulture restaurants”havelongbeeninoperationin severalOld Worldvultureconservationprograms.

Basedon theencouragingresultsoftheAndeancondorsurrogatereleaseexperiment,condorfield technicianshavecontinuedto feedthereleasedCaliforniacondorson still-born dairy calves,andtherehasbeenlittle evidencethatthebirdshaveutilized any otherfood items. Althoughit isnotexpectedthat free-flying condorswill continueto feedon profferedfood indefinitely, thesupplementalfeedingprogramshouldcontinueto reducethe likelihood ofdeathsofcondorsfromleador otherpoisoninginsofarasit preventsthebirdsfrom feedingon contaminatedcarcasses.In addition,feedingsitescanbe strategicallylocatedin orderto influencemovementsofthebirds.Finally, supplementalfeedingcanpermit thereintroductionandmaintenanceof condorpopulationsin areaswherethe supplyofnaturalfood resourcesis toovariableto supportthebirds overtheentireannualcycle.

Thefirst two releasestookplacein theSespe-PiruCondorCritical HabitatArea, oneofninedesignatedCondorCritical HabitatAreaslocatedin SouthernCalifornia. Thethird andfourthreleaseswereconductedapproximately8.1 kms (5mi) northoftheSisquoc-SanRafaelCondorCritical Habitatarea.Thecondorsreleasedatthat siteutilized theSisquoc-SanRafaelandMt.PinosCondorCritical Habitatareas. ThenewCastleCragsreleasesite in SanLuis ObispoCountyis locatedon thenorthwestboundaryoftheBeartrapCondorCritical Habitatarea. Theoriginal selectionofcritical habitatareaswasbasedon thedocumenteduseofnesting,roosting,andforaginghabitatby multiple generationsofwild condors.Although recentlyreleasedcaptive-hatchedcondorshaveno historicalbondsto thesecritical habitatareas,the lattercontainthemostimportanthabitatcomponentsessentialto thesurvivalofwild condorsstill extant. Thus, it isexpectedthat releasedcondorswill bedrawnto theseareas.However,not until wehavea larger

20

numberof condorsin thewild, includingbreedingpairs,will webe ableto fully evaluatethe

contributioncritical habitatareaswill maketo therecoveryoftheCaliforniacondor.

K. StrategyofRecovery

Therecoverystrategyfor theCaliforniacondorwill focuson (1) increasingreproductionincaptivityto providecondorsfor release,(2) thereleaseofcondorsto thewild, (3)minimizingcondormortality factors,(4) maintaining habitatfor condorrecovery,and(5) implementingcondorinformationandeducationprograms.

21

II. RECOVERY

A. ObjectivesandCriteria

TheprimaryobjectiveoftheCaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan(Plan)is reclassificationoftheCaliforniacondorto threatenedstatus. Theplanprovidesthecriteriafor reclassificationandoutlinestherequisiteactionsfor theaccomplishmentofeachcriterion.

Theminimumcriterionfor reclassificationto threatenedis themaintenanceofat leasttwo non-captivepopulationsand onecaptivepopulation. Thesepopulations(1) musteachnumberat least150 individuals,(2) musteachcontainatleast15 breedingpairsand(3)be reproductivelyself-sustainingandhavea positiverateofpopulationgrowth. In addition,thenon-captivepopulations(4) mustbe spatiallydisjunctandnon-interacting,(5) mustcontainindividualsdescendedfromeachofthe14 founders.Whenthesefive conditionsaremetthe speciesshouldbereclassifiedtothreatenedstatus. Theaccomplishmentoftheseobjectiveswill dependuponreducingmortality tothe lowestlevelpossibleandensuringthe interchangeof individualsamongthe spatiallyisolatedfree-living sub-populationsandthecaptiveflock. It is recognizedthat reestablishedcondorpopulationsin someareasmayrequirecontinuedartificial feedingto supplementnaturalfoodresourcesand/orto protectbirds from exposureto contaminatedcarcasses.However,suchmanagementconsiderationsshouldnot precludereclassificationofthespeciesif theabove-listedcriteriaaremet.

Thesereclassificationcriteriamayberevisedon thebasisofnewinformation. Theestimateddateofreclassificationto threatenedis 2010. Reintroductionprogramsmustbesuccessfulbeforereclassificationoccurs. In addition, productivitymustbe increasedbeyondtheCaliforniacondor’sintrinsic reproductiveratethrougha captivebreedingprogram. Thelong-termpopulationgoalofthisprogramis to managethe captiveflock to maintain90 percentofthe initial geneticvarianceoftherepresentedfoundersfor 200years.

Theultimatesizeofthispopulationis dependentuponthenumberoffounders,the growthrateofthecaptiveflock, andthegenerationlengthofthespecies.A preliminaryestimateofthe captivepopulationsizeis approximately50 pairs. Theshort-termpopulationobjectivessetherearebasedon preliminarypopulationviability considerations(Appendix2). Theviability factorsthathavebeenconsideredincludegenetics,demography,and environmentalvariation,includingthepossibility ofcatastrophesandepidemics. Therolesandinteractionsofthesefactorsareset out inSouls (1987).

B. aIix~

1. PreserveGenePool

.

Singlepopulationsareat higherrisks from naturalor human-causeddisastersthanareseveralsub-populations.Therefore,multiple sub-populationsof Californiacondorsshouldbe maintainedto producebirds for theestablishmentofviable wild sub-populations.

22

_____ 4)11. Maintainextensivelymanagedcaptivebreedingprogramsat aminimumoffivezoologicalinstitutions

.

CaptiveCaliforniacondorflocks shouldbe managedto maximizeproductionwhileoptimizing geneticdiversity. Optimumpairingstrategiesfor captivebirds shouldbebasedon geneticinformation,behavioraldata,logistical considerations,andany otherpertinentdata. In the short term,demographicsshouldbe emphasizedwith theexpectationthat in thelongterm,geneticconsiderationswill becomeincreasinglyimportantin managingcondorpopulations.

Ill. Updatestandardizedmanagementprotocols

.

Captivebreeding/rearingprotocolshavebeendevelopedundertheauspicesoftheTeamandarebeingimplemented.Continueto update,revise,andstandardizeexistingprotocolsfor veterinary,husbandry,transport,captive-breedingtechniques,andemergencyproceduresto ensurethehealth,safety,andproductivityofcaptivecondors.

112. Operateexistingbreedingfacilities accordingto managementprotocols

.

Existingcaptive-breedingfacilities locatedat theLos AngelesZoo, SanDiegoWild Animal Park,andtheWorld Centerfor Birds ofPreyshouldbeoperatedin accordancewith captive/rearingprotocolsapprovedby theTeam.

113. Developadditionalcaptive-breedingfacilities

.

Thedevelopmentofadditionalcaptive-breedingfacilities is necessaryfor threereasons,(1) safety- singlepopulationsaremoresusceptibleto naturalorhuman-causeddisastersthanmultiple sub-populations,(2) space- additionalfacilities arenecessaryto accommodatethegrowingcaptivepopulation,and(3) cost - theexistingcaptivebreedingfacilitiescannotbeexpectedto assumethetotal costofmaintainingthegrowingcaptivepopulation. Additionalcaptive-breedingfacilities shouldbe developedasneededto accommodatethegrowingcaptivepopulation.

12. Managethecaptiveflock to optimizeproductivity,maximizeizeneticdiversity

.

minimize2eneticloss,andmaintaingeneticbalance

.

Managementunderthecurrentcaptive-breedingprotocolsshouldcontinuetoemphasizeoptimalproductivity,maximumgeneticdiversity, minimumgeneticloss,andgeneticbalance.

121. MaintaincomparableRenetic.age.andsexrepresentationin eachfacility

.

Becauseofthepossibility ofacatastrophiclossat oneormorecaptivebreedingfacilities, eachsub-populationshouldbe managedto representasmuchaspossiblethecaptivepopulationasawhole.

23

122. Offspringandeggsshouldbeexchangedbetweencaptivesubpopulationsto~1mjmn]~gE~IIQn

The exchangeofoffspringandeggsshouldbeconductedasneededto balancethegenetic,age,andsexratiosofthe sub-populations.

123. Determinean appropriategeneticbalancein theCaliforniacondorcaptive±IQ~k.

Continueresearchon thegeneticrelatednessofthecaptiveflock andgenerateacomputermodel to determineanappropriategeneticbalancein thecaptiveflock.

124. Establishoptimumpairingstrategiesforthe Californiacondorcaptiveflock

.

Optimumpairingstrategiesshould continueto be basedon themostcurrentgeneticandbehavioralinformation,logistical considerations,andany otherpertinentdata.

125. Maintaina studbookfor theCaliforniaCondorpopulation.

.

TheCaliforniacondorstudbookshouldbecontinuallyupdatedin ordertoprovidethebasicknowledgenecessaryfor assessingpopulationstatusandforplanningmanagementactions.

13. ManaReselectedCaliforniacondorsfor releaseto thewild

.

Californiacondorsto be releasedto thewild whoselossshouldbegeneticallyaffordable,physicallyandbehaviorallyhealthy,ofcomparableage,successfullysocializedwith otherreleasecandidates,keptin isolationfrom humansto preventtaming,andundergoaversiontraining to conditionthemto avoid humansandman-madestructures.Criteriato identify condorseligible for releaseshouldcontinuetoberefinedby theTeam.

14. Collectandanalyzebehavioraldataon captiveCaliforniaandAndeancondors

.

Behavioraldataon CaliforniaandAndeancondorshavebeencollectedandanalyzedfrom thebeginningofthecaptive-breedingprogram. Collectionofsuchdatain astandardizedmannershouldcontinue,and emphasisshouldbeplaceduponpublishingsummariesofthefindings, sincetheymayhaverelevanceto themanagementofthewild California condor population.

2. Reintroduce California Condors to the Wild

.

Establishatleasttwo, preferablymore,disjunctwild sub-populationsin orderto reducetherisksto the overallpopulationandto facilitatetheiroptimalgeneticanddemographicmanagement.

24

21. Developprotocolsfor thereleasesofCaliforniacondors

.

Draft releaseprotocolswerecompletedin July of 1991, basedon datacollectedduringthe experimentalreleasesofAndeancondors.Theyshouldbeupdatedandrevisedbasedondatacollectedfrom thefourreleasesofCaliforniacondors.

211. Developreleasecriteriafor Californiacondors

.

Criteriato determineeligible releasecandidateshavebeendeveloped,butshouldbe reviewedandupdatedasneeded.

212. Developan annualplanfor thereleaseofCaliforniacondors

.

Basedon theannualproductionofreleasecandidatesandthephysicalcapacitiesofthecurrentreleasesite(s),preparea releaseplanthatwouldrecommendproceduresfor (1) theselectionofreleasecohorts,(2) thesocializationofreleasecohortsin captivity, (3) thetransferfrom captivefacilities to releasesites,(4)veterinarycare,(5) feedingschedules,and(6) pre-andpost-releasemonitoring.

22. Establishreleasesitesin California for Californiacondors

.

ThreeCalifornia condorreleasesiteshavebeenestablished.Two releaseswereconductedin 1992 in the SespeCondorSanctuary,VenturaCounty,onein 1993 andtwo in 1995wereconductedin Lion Canyon,SantaBarbaraCounty,andonein 1996atCastleCrags,SanLuis ObispoCounty. Additional releasesitesshouldbeselectedto accommodateany unexpectedneedsto movetheexisting releaseoperations,aswell asto accommodatean increasingnumberofreleasablebirds.

221. Developcriteriafor selectingreleasesitesfor Californiacondors

.

Criteriafor selectingreleasesiteshavebeendeveloped,but shouldbe revisedif

necessary,basedon informationcollectedfrom theongoingreleaseoperations.

222. Selectreleasesitesin accordancewith establishedcriteria

.

Continueto selectreleasesitesasneededutilizing existingreleasesiteselectionprotocols.

223. Preparereleasesitesbasedon protocolsresultingfrom theAndeancondorexperimentalreleaseresultsandinformationlearnedfromthethreerecentCaliforniacondorreleases

.

PreparationoffUture releasesitesshouldutilize the existingreleaseprotocolsandincorporatetheknowledgegainedfrom pastreleasesofAndeanandCaliforniacondorsandrevisedasnewfindings becomeavailable.

25

23. Conductreleasesin CaliforniaofCaliforniacondorsinto selectedhabitats

Californiacondorreleasesshouldbe conducteduntil therecoverygoalis met.

231. Developa Californiacondorreleaseplan

.

A planoutlining themanagementofreleasesin California shouldbe developedto projectat leastfive yearsinto thefutureto ensureadequatesupportforproposedreleases.

232. ReleaseCaliforniaCondors

.

All releasesofCaliforniacondorsshouldbemadein accordancewith thereleaseplansandestablishedprotocols.

233. Monitor Californiacondorsheldat releasesitesin accordancewith theannualreleaseplanandestablishedprotocol

.

Thespecificguidanceprovidedin theplanandexistingprotocolsshouldbe followed to guaranteethe health and safety of the birdsbeingheldforrelease.

234. Monitor free-flyingcondors

.

Released California condors should be closely monitored by visual observationand electronic telemetry.

235. Provide protection for released birds

.

Protectionshouldbe providedby managementplanson public lands,volunteermanagementagreementson privatelands,patrollingwildlife authorities,andbiologiststracking releasedbirds.

24. Following theproceduresoutlinedin tasks21 through23. implementreleasesofCaliforniacondorsoutsideCalifornia

.

Thetwo approvedfuturereleasesiteslocatedoutsideCaliforniashouldbe managedaccordingto thecriteriaandprotocolsdevelopedfor condorreleasesin California.

241. ReleaseCaliforniacondorsin northernArizona

.

ReleaseCaliforniacondorsat this approvedsitein accordancewith establishedreleaseprotocols.

26

242. ReleaseCaliforniacondorsat LadderRanch.New Mexico

.

ReleaseCaliforniacondorsat this approvedsitein accordancewith established

releaseprotocols.

25. Establishrearingfacilities in wild lands

.

Field rearingfacilitiesshouldbe establishedto augmentzoo rearingandto test

whetheryoungcondorsgainsurvivaladvantages.

3. ProvideHabitatfor CondorRecovervin theWild

.

An importantfactorin the successfulestablishmentofwild condorsub-populationsis theexistenceof suitablehabitat. Therefore,wheneverpossibleor appropriate,apriority forthis habitatshouldincludemanagementfor condorrecovery.

31. Continueto implementmanagementplansto protectknownsuitablenestingsitesonpublic lands

.

ContinuetheenforcementofadoptedForestServiceguidelinesthatprotectknowncondornestsitesfrom activitiesthat could adverselymodify ordestroythemandprovideadequateprotectionagainsthumandisturbance.

32. Continueto implementmanagementplansto protectknownsuitableroostimi sites onpublic lands

.

ContinuetheenforcementofadoptedForestServiceguidelinesthat protectknownandpotentialroostsitesfrom activities thatcould adverselymodify or destroythem,and provide adequate protection against human disturbance.

33. Provideforaginghabitat

.

Themanagementofexisting foraginghabitatshouldincludethesupportof

reestablishedwild condorsubpopulations.

331. Implementstrategiesfor managingcondorforaQin2habitat

.

Foraginghabitatshavebeenidentifiedanddocumentedthroughobservationsand radiotelemetry.Theirpreservationis necessaryto themaintenanceofwildpopulationsofCaliforniacondors.Habitatmanagementplansandvolunteerlanduseagreementson Federal,State,andprivatelandsshouldbe developedandimplementedto protectexistingforaginghabitats.

27

3311. Encourage landmanagersandownersto leavedeadlivestockonrnng~nd~.

Wild California condors traditionally fed on dead livestockfoundonprivateandpublic rangelands.In thefuture,suchcarcassesshouldprovideanimportantfoodsourcefor releasedcondors.Landmanagersshouldbeinformedofthevalueofthesecarcasses,andshouldbe encouragedto leavedeadlivestockout for condors.

3312. Reestablishextirpatednativeungulatepopulationson historicalf~tAginLhakflat~.

Whenfeasibleor appropriateencouragetheDepartmentincooperationwith landmanagementagenciesto initiate nativeungulatereintroductionwithin therangeoftheCaliforniacondor.

332. Preservekey foragingareasnearnestsandroosts

.

The existence of this foraging habitat is necessary, if California condors are to

reoccupy these key foraging, roo sting, and nesting areas.3321. Foothills of southwestern Kern County

.

The foothills of southwestern Kern County were used by condorsthroughout the year. Breeding pairs and several individuals fed thereyear round, and virtually the entirecondorpopulationfed therein latesummerandfall. Theareais principally composedofthreelarge,privatecattleranchesin southernKernCounty: SanEmigdio,Snedden, and Hudson. Deadlivestockweretheprimaryfoodsourcefor condors while feeding in that area. A management plan should beprepared with the consent andparticipationofall affectedlandownersto maintainthevalueof thatareafor condors.

3322. CarrizoPlaiaSanLuis ObispoandElkhornPlains.KernCounty

.

TheCarrizoandElkhornPlainsin southeasternSanLuis ObispoCountyandsouthwesternKernCounty, wereusedby foragingcondors year-round with the heaviest use being recorded in late winterand spring. TheBureauofLandManagement(BLM) hasbeenabletosecure most of that area. It is currently managed by the BLM, TheNature Conservancy, and the Department as the “Carrizo PlainNatural Area.” The remaining private inholdings should be purchased.

28

3323. TulareCountyrangelandsbetweenLakeKaweahandWhiteRiver

.

Californiacondorsfed in this areathroughouttheyearwith heavyusein summer,fall andearlywinter. It appearedto beanimportantforagingareafor condors,particularlynonbreeders.Efforts shouldbemadeto maintaintherural landscapeofthis area.

3324. Glennyille/Woodyareas.KernCounty

.

Thefeedingareain northernKernCountyreceiveduseby foragingCalifornia condors, particularly between late fall and late spring.Efforts should be made to maintain the rural landscape of that area.

3325. TeionRancharea.Kern County

.

The Tejon Ranch was an important condor feeding area throughouttheannualcycle,but especiallyin thefall, whenthereis a highintensityof deer hunting on the ranch. A plan should be prepared withthe consentandparticipationof the affected landowner to maintain itsvaluefor condors.

3326. Hopper Mountain Ranch area~ Ventura. County

.

The Hopper Mountain Ranch area was purchased in 1974 to serve as abuffer againstdevelopmentforthe SespeCondorSanctuary(Sanctuary) and to provide an area for a condor feeding program. It isnow a National Wildlife Refuge and the existing ranch house was usedas the headquarters for the condor field program that monitored thewild population of California condors. It should be maintained as arefuge to protect the Sanctuary.

3327. Bitter CreekNationalWildlife RefUge.KernCounty

.

The Hudson Ranch area was purchased in 1986 because it was animportant feeding area for California condors, it became the BitterCreekNationalWildlife Refuge. As a refuge,its primary managementemphasisshouldbe to supportnativeungulatesasafoodsourceforcondors.

3328. San Juan Creek Region. San Luis Obispo County

.

Rangelands on either side of the entire San Juan Creek drainage wereimportant as California condor feeding areas. In the early 1980’s,foraging flights by radioed condors were recorded in the upperdrainage of San Juan Creek south of Highway 58. Duringthis period,a pair ofnon-radioedbreedingcondorsand,occasionally,non-radioed

9

29

single condors were observed there during the summer months. Therural landscapeofthat areashouldbepreserved.

3329. Elkhorn Hills. Kern County and Caliente Range. Kern County and SanLuis ObispoCounty

.

TheseareaswereregularCaliforniacondorforagingareas. In thefuture, asthepopulationofwild condorsincreases,theuseoftheseareasby foragingcondorswill probablyresume. Oneofthemanagementpriorities for theseareasshouldbe thereintroductionandmaintenanceof extirpatedungulatepopulations.

34. Continueto monitorpotentialimpactsofall surface-disturbingactivities(e.R.

.

energy,residentialagricultural.and transportationdevelopmentprolects)withinhistoricalcondorrange

.

Thepressureto developlandwithin therecenthistoricalCaliforniacondorforagingrangeis increasing. Therefore,investigationsto identify, assess,and monitorpotentialthreatsshouldcontinuein orderto developalternativesthatwill notnegativelyaffectthe survivalofthewild condorpopulation.

341. Work with governmentala2enciesto includeinformationon the condorinland-useplanninRdocuments.geographicinformationsystemsandpolicies

.

Routine andclosecommunicationshouldbe maintainedwith appropriategovernmentalplanning agencies(Federal,State,andCounty),in ordertoensurethatinformationon Californiacondordistributionandhabitatuseisintegratedinto the landplanning documents.

342. Reviewall plansandlanduseprogramswithin thecondor’srangeto ensurethat theneedsof thespeciesareaddressedto theextendpossible

.

An attemptshouldbemadeto reviewall local land-useplanningdocumentsandattendall pertinentlocal governmentplanningmeetingsto ensureCaliforniacondorissuesareaddressed.Thegoalofthesereviewsshouldbetointegratethe needsofthecondorinto all existingorproposedplansandprograms,in a mannerthatis compatiblewith theirpurpose.

4. Minimize Mortality Factorsin theNaturalEnvironment

.

Landmanagementagenciesshouldidentify all knowncondormortality factorsin theirlandmanagementplansanddevelopstrategiesto eliminatethemto theextentpossible.

30

41. Assesshistoricalfindings

.

A reviewofthehistoricalliteratureshouldbeconductedto compileinformationonpotentialmortality factors.It shouldbe determinedif thesemortality factorsarestill athreat. If so, correctiveactionsshouldbe takento eliminatethem.

42. Provideadequatelaw enforcementto minimize direct lossesofwild condorsfromshooting

.

A cooperativelaw enforcementprogramshouldbedevelopedbetweentheDepartment,ForestService,BLM Rangers,andtheServicefor thepatrolof keycondorareas.

43. Implementmanagementrecommendationsandstrategiesto minimize contaminant

-

relatedmortality factors

.

Landmanagementagenciesshouldidentify all knownor suspectedsourcesofcontaminantsthat could poisoncondors. Theselandmanagersshouldthenimplementmanagementstrategiesto eliminatethe source,use,ordumpingof thesecontaminantson landsundertheirjurisdictionto theextentpossible.

44. Eliminateorreducetheeffectsofenvironmentalcontaminantson California condor

.

Initiate researchonknownandsuspectedenvironmentalcontaminantsusingsurrogatespeciesto determinetheir effectson thesurvivalandreproductionofCaliforniacondors.Basedon thefindingsofthis research,managementrecommendationsshouldbe madethatwould eliminateor reducetheseeffectsoncondors.

441. Determineeffectsofvariouspoisonsand contaminants,especiallyleadandcopper.on surrogatespecies

.

Continueto compileinformationon theeffectsofvariouspoisonsandcontaminantson surrogatespecies,especiallytheturkeyvultures,Andeancondor,andgoldeneaglesto providecomparativedataofparticularrelevanceto theCaliforniacondor.

45. Monitor contaminantlevelsin Californiacondors

.

Condorblood, feathers,eggshells,and othertissueswill be collectedopportunisticallyand analyzedfor heavymetals,pesticides,andotherpotentialcontaminants.

451. Samplepotentialcondorfooditemswithin historicalrangeto determineseasonalandgeographiccontaminantloads

.

31

Once California condors find and start feeding on food items other than thecarcasses provided to them, those specific items should be tested to determinetheircontaminantburdens.

452. Sample and analyze blood of surro2atesvmpatricspeciesin thefield todetermine seasonal and ~eographicdistribution of contaminant loadsthroughoutthehistoricalcondorrange

.

Blood samplesshouldbetakenandanalyzedfrom species(e.g.,goldeneagle)that are permanent residents within the range of the California condor.Samples should be taken throughout the condor’s range and during eachseason.

46. Minimize mortality due to collisions with man-made structures

.

Increasingdevelopmentwithin theCaliforniacondor’srangemakesit imperativetominimize collisions with man-made structures by developing guidance documentsthat would eliminate to the extent possible condor deaths due to collisions with man-made structures.

461. Assess avian mortality resulting from collisions with wind turbines, power andan~u~aI~.

To assess the magnitude of avian mortalities due to collisions with man-madestructures,all availableinformationon thesubjectshouldbe collected,knowledgeablepersonsinterviewed,andfurtherstudiesconductedifnecessary.

462. Adviseplanningagencieson locationofthreateningpowerlines.wind turbines

.

and other structures to avoid possible condor mortalities

.

In 1966,a Californiacondorwaskilled whenit flew intoa powerline. In asix-monthperiodfrom May to October1993,threejuvenilecondorsdiedwhenthey collided with powerlines. Death resulting from collisions with man-madestructures (e.g., power lines and wind turbines) is avoidable if such structuresaredesignedorretrofittedwith hardwarethat discouragescondorsfromperchingon themand alsothroughcarefUlly plannedplacement. Allagencies/companies planning the construction of such structures should beadvisedon themostfavorablelocationofsuchstructuresfrom thestandpointof the condor, as well as measures that can be implemented that will helpavoid possible condor mortalities.

47. Developstrategiesfor controllingnaturalpotentialpredatorsofcondoreggsandnestlingsin nestingareas

.

32

Studies should be undertaken to develop aversion techniques that would stop or 0discouragepredatorssuchasravensandgoldeneaglesfrom preyingon Californiacondoreggsandnestlings.

48. Restrictaircraftactivity in key condorareas

.

Low flying military andcivilian aircraftcouldcollidewith and causethedeathofsoaringCaliforniacondorsin certainkey areasandcoulddisruptfeeding,nesting,androostingcondors. TheFederalAviation Administrationshouldbe persuadedtoissueaircraftactivity advisoriesin orderto protecttheairspacein theseareasforcondors.

5. ImplementInformation andEducationProgramson CondorHabitatUseandprotectionN~di

Informationand educationprogramsarecurrentlyadministeredby the Serviceandall otherinstitutionsparticipatingin theCaliforniacondorrecoveryeffort. Theseprogramsshouldcontinuein orderto respondto frequentrequestsby students,teachers,reporters,andotherinterestedpublicsfor currentinformationon thecondor.

51. Distributeeducationalmaterialaboutcondorhabitat speciesidentification.andlegalprotection

.

Educationalhand-outmaterialson habitatneeds,condoridentification,andexisting 0lawsprotectingcondorsareusefultoolsfor disseminatinginformationto thepublic.Newmaterialshouldbe developedandexistingmaterial shouldbe revisedandupdatedperiodically.

52. Provideinformationto key governmentallandmanagersin condorrange

.

Writtenandvisual informationpackets,presentations,and newslettersarecurrentlyprovidedto keygovernmentallandmanagers.Thattypeofcommunicationshouldcontinuein orderto meetthe informationalneedsoftheselandmanagers.

53. Provideinformationon condorhabitatneedsto keyprivatelandowners

.

Informationpackets,presentations,andnewslettersarecurrentlyprovidedto keyprivatelandowners. Thatlevelof communicationshouldcontinuein orderto meetthe informationalneedsoftheseprivatelandowners.

54. Establishobservationpoints andeducationalfacilities at selectedsites

.

Existing observationpointsshouldbe rehabilitated,informationupdated,andnewobservationsitesshouldbedevelopedwithin key areasaccessibleto thepublic in therangeofnewlyreleasedCaliforniacondors.

033

55. Makeavideoon Californiacondorrecoverveffort for useasan educationaltool byall cooperatingagenciesand groups

.

Continueto preparevideo tapesof theCaliforniacondorfield andcaptivebreedingprogramsto produceup to datevisualmaterialfor public educationalpurposes.

56. Providetraining sessionson condorbiology ecology andkeyuseareasto law~

Currently,acondorworkshopis conductedonceayearto educatelaw enforcementofficers, landmanagers,biologists,andprivatecitizensthat workor live in keyuseareas.Theannualworkshopshouldbe conductedaslong ascondorsarebeingreleasedto thewild.

57. Developpublic informationaboutcondorrecoveryprogramsat zoologicalinstitutions

.

Existing public informationprogramsat zoologicalinstitutionsshouldcontinuetoprovidethepublic importantinformationon theCaliforniacondorrecoveryefforts.

571. Provideinformationalkiosks

.

Without Californiacondorson exhibit it is necessarythat informationon thecaptivebreedingprogrambe displayedusinginformationalkiosksto keepthepublic informedontheprogressofthecondorrecoveryeffort. Thesekiosksshouldbe availableto thepublic at theSanDiego Wild Animal Park,LosAngelesZoo, andWorld Centerfor Birds ofPrey.

572. Exhibit Californiacondorsat zoologicalinstitutions

.

At selectedzoologicalparkssupportingCaliforniacondorcaptivebreedingfacilities, condorsshouldbeplacedon exhibit to educatethepublic on thecurrentrecoveryeffort.

573. Continueto provideohotosandvideotapesofcaptive-rearingefforts to thepressandmanagementaRenciesofeducationaluse

.

Thesensitivenatureofthecaptive-rearingprogramnecessitatesthat it beoff-exhibit andclosedto thepublic. It is therefore,importantthatphotosandvideotapesbemadeavailableto keepthepublic informedand managementagenciessuppliedwith Californiacondorcaptive-rearingeducationalinformation.

58. Maintainandmakeavailablea computerizedcondorinformationsystem

.

ConverttheexistingCaliforniaCondorProgramliteraturearchivesto a computerizedliterature-basedcondorinformationsystem.

34

LITERATURE CITED

Allendorf F.W., and R.F. Leary. 1986. Heterozygosity and fitness in naturalpopulationsofanimals. In M. Souls (ed.). Conservationbiology: scienceofdiversity. Pp. 57-76.SinauerAssociates,Sunderland,Massachusetts.

Anonymous. 1917. Californiacondoron exhibition in GoldenGatePark, SanFrancisco.CalifFishandGame.3:176.

Blong, B. 1954. A southcoastdeerrange. CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,LosAngeles.

Bloom,P.H.,J.M. Scott,OH. Pattee,andM.R Smith. 1989. LeadcontaminationofgoldeneaglesAquilachrysaetoswithin the rangeoftheCaliforniacondorGymnogypscalifornianus. In B.-U. MeyburgandR.D. Chancellor(eds.). Raptorsin themodernworld.Pp.481482. World Working Groupon Birds ofPrey,London.

Brodkorb,P. 1964. Catalogueoffossil birds. Part2 (AnseriformesthroughGalliformes).Bulletin of the Florida State Museum,Biological Sciences8:195-335.

Conway,W.G. 1980. An overviewofcaptivepropagation.In M.E. Soul~andB.A. Wilcox(eds.). Conservationbiology: an evolutionary-ecologicalperspective.Pp. 199-208.SinauerAssociates,Sunderland,Massachusetts.

Cooper,J.G. 1890. A doomedbird. Zoe1:248-249.

Emslie,S.D. 1987. Ageand dietoffossil Californiacondorsin GrandCanyon,Arizona. Science237:768-770.

Finley, W.L., and I. Finley. 1928. Wild animal pets. Charles Scribner’s Sons. NewYork.

Frankel,O.H., andM. E. Soul& 1981. Conservationandevolution. CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge,England.

Franldin,I.R. 1980. Evolutionarychangesin small populations. In M.E. SoulsandBA. Wilcox(eds.). Conservationbiology: anevolutionary-ecologicalperspective.Pp. 135-149.SinauerAssociates,Sunderland,Massachusetts.

Geyer,C.J.,O.A. Ryder,L.G. Chemnick,andEN Thompson. 1993. AnalysisofrelatednessintheCaliforniacondors,from DNA fingerprints. MolecularBiology andEvolution10:571-589.

Gilpin, M.E. 1987. Spatialstructureandpopulationviability. InM.E. Souhi(ed.). Viablepopulationsfor conservation.Pp. 124-139. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,England.

35

Harrison,E.N., andL.F. Kiff. 1980. Apparentreplacementclutch laid by wild Californiacondor.

Condor 82:35 1-352.

Houston, 1974. Foodsearchingin griffon vultures. EastAfrican Wildlife Journal12:63-77.

Howard,H. 1962. A comparisonofavianassemblagesfrom individual pits at RanchoLa Brea,California. Los AngelesCountyMuseumContributionsto Science58:1-24.

Jackson,J.A. 1983. Nestingphenology,nestsiteselection,andreproductivesuccessofBlackandturkeyvultures. In SR.Wilbur andJ.A. Jackson(eds.). Vulturebiology andmanagement.Pp. 245-286. UniversityofCaliforniaPress,BerkeleyandLos Angeles.

Janssen,D.L., JE. Oosterhuis,J.L. Allen, M.P. Anderson,D.G. Kelts, and S.N. Wiemeyer.1986. Leadpoisoningin freerangingCaliforniacondors.JournaloftheAmericanVeterinaryMedicineAssociation189:1115-1117.

Kiff, L.F. 1989. DDE andtheCaliforniacondorGymnogypscalifornianus:theendofthestory?In B.U. MeyburgandR.D. Chancellor(eds.). Raptorsin theModernWorld. Pp. 477-480.WorldWorking Groupon Birds ofPrey,Berlin.

Kiff, L.F. 1990. To thebrink and back:thebattlesavetheCaliforniacondor. Terra28:6-18.

Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall,and SR.Wilbur. 1979. Recentchangesin Californiacondoreggshells.Condor81:166-172.

Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall,M.L. Morrison, and S.R.Wilbur. 1983. EggshellthicknessandDDEresiduelevelsin vultureeggs.In S.R.Wilbur andJ.A. Jackson(eds.). Vulturebiology andmanagement.Pp. 440-458. UniversityofCaliforniaPress,BerkeleyandLos Angeles.

Kimura, M., andJ.F. Crow. 1963. Themeasurementof effectivepopulationnumber. Evolution7:279-288.

Koford, C.B. 1953. TheCaliforniacondor. NationalAudubonSocietyResearchReport4:1-154.

Kuehier, C.M. 1989. Californiacondor(Gymnogypscal~fornianus)studbook. SanDiego WildAnimal Park, Escondido, California.

Kuehler, C.M., D.J. Sterner,D.S. Jones,R.L. Usnik, S Kasielke. 1991.Reporton captivehatchesofCaliforniacondors(Gymnogypscal4fornianus):1983-1990.ZooBiology 10:65-69.

Lande,R., and G.F. Barrowclough. 1987. Effectivepopulationsize,geneticvariation,andtheirusein populationmanagement.In M.E. Souhi (ed.). Viablepopulationsfor conservation.Pp. 87-123. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,England.

36

Ligon,J.D. 1967. Relationshipsofthecathartidvultures. OccasionalPaperoftheMuseumofZoology,UniversityofMichigan 651:1-26.

Mallette,R.D. 1970. Operationalmanagementplanfor the Californiacondor.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sacramento.

Mallette,R.D., andJ.C. Borneman.1966. First cooperativesurveyofthe Californiacondor.CaliforniaFishandGame52:185-203.

Mallette,RD., F.C. Sibley,W.D. Carrier,andJ.C.Borneman.1970. CaliforniacondorSurveys,1969. CaliforniaFishandGame.56:199-202.

Meretsky,V.J., andN.F.R Snyder. 1992. RangeuseandmovementsofCalifornia condors.Condor94:313-335.

Miller, A.H., I. McMillan, andE. McMilIan. 1965. ThecurrentstatusandwelfareoftheCaliforniacondor.NationalAudubonSocietyResearchReport6:1-61.

Mundy, P.J. 1982. Thecomparativebiology of southernAfrican vultures. TheVulture StudyGroup,Johannesburg,SouthAfrica.

Pattee,O.H., P.H.Bloom, J.M. Scott,andMR. Smith. 1990. Leadhazardswithin therangeofthe Californiacondor. Condor92:931-937.

Ralls,K., andJ.D. Ballou. 1983. Extinction: lessonsfrom zoos. In C.M. Schoenewald-Cox,S.M. Chambers,B. MacBryde,andW.L. Thomas(eds.). Geneticsandconservation.Areferencefor managingwild animalandplantpopulations. Pp. 164-184.BenjaminCummings, Menlo Park, California.

Ralls,K., and J.D. Ballou. 1992. Managing genetic diversity in captivebreedingandreintroductionprograms.TransactionsoftheNorthAmericanWildlife andNaturalResourcesConferencevol.57:263-282.

Ralls,K., J. Ballou, andA.R. Templeton. 1988. Estimatesoflethalequivalentsandthecostofinbreedingin mammals. ConservationBiology 2:185-193.

Rea,A.M. 1983. Cathartidaffinities: abriefoverview. In S.R.Wilbur andJ.A. Jackson(eds.).Vulturebiology andmanagement.Pp.26-54. UniversityofCaliforniaPress,BerkeleyandLos Angeles.

Rett,E.Z. 1938. Hailstormfatal to California condors. Condor 40:225.

Rett,E.Z. 1946. Recordofanothercondordeath. Condor48:182.

Ricklefs,RE. (ed.). 1978. Reportoftheadvisorypanelon the Californiacondor. NationalAudubonSocietyConservationReport6:1-27.

37

Schmitt,N.J. In Prep. A studyoftheCaliforniacondormolt.

Senner, S.E. 1980. Inbreeding depression and the survival of zoo populations. In M.E. SouleandB.A. Wilcox (eds.). Conservationbiology: an evolutionary-ecologicalperspective.Pp.209-224. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Sibley, C.G., RD. Mallette, J.C. Borneman, and R.S. Dalen. 1969. California condor Surveys,1968. Calif Fish and Game. 55:298-306.

Sibley,C.G., and J.E. Ahlquist. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds. A study inmolecularevolution. YaleUniv. Press,New Haven,Connecticut.

Sibley,F. 1969. EffectsoftheSespeCreekProjectontheCaliforniacondor. U.S.Fishand

Wildlife Service,Laurel,Maryland.

Snyder,N.F.R. 1983.California condorreproduction,pastandpresent.Bird Cons. 1:67-86.

Snyder,N.F.R. 1986. Californiacondorrecoveryprogram. In S.E. Senner,C.M. White, andJR.Parrish(eds.). Raptorconservationin the next50 years. RaptorResearchReportNo.5:56-71.

Snyder, N.F.R., and J.A. Hamber. 1985. Replacement-clutching and annualnestingofCaliforniacondors.Condor87:374-378. 4

Snyder,N.F.R.,andE.V. Johnson.1985. Photographiccensusingofthe 1982-1983Californiacondorpopulation. Condor87:1-13

Snyder,N.F.R.,E.V. Johnson,andD.A. Clendenen. 1987. Primarymolt ofCaliforniacondors.Condor89:468-485.

Snyder,N.F.R.,R.R. Ramey,andF.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-sitebiology ofthe Californiacondor.Condor88:228-241

Snyder,N.F.R.,andH. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservationoftheCaliforniacondor. InD.M. Powers(ed.). Currentornithology,Vol. 6. Pp. 175-267. SantaBarbaraMuseumofNaturalHistory, SantaBarbara,California.

Souls,M. 1980. Thresholdsofsurvival: maintainingfitnessand evolutionarypotential. In M.E.Soul~andB.N Wilcox (eds.). Conservationbiology: anevolutionary-ecologicalperspective.Pp. 151-169. SinauerAssociates,Sunderland,Massachusetts.

Soul~,M. 1987. Viablepopulationsfor conservation.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,England.

Soul~,M. 1986. Conservationbiology: thescienceofscarcityanddiversity. SinauerAssociates,

Sunderland,Massachusetts.

I.

38

Stager,K. 1964. Theroleofolfactionin foodlocationby theturkeyvulture (Cathartesaura).Los AngelesCountyMuseumContributionsto Science81:1-63.

Steadman,D.W., andN.G. Miller. 1987. Californiacondorassociatedwith spruce-pinewoodlandin thelatePleistoceneofNewYork. QuaternaryResearch28:415-426.

Studer,C.D. 1983. EffectsofKernCountycattleranchingon Californiacondorhabitat. M.S.thesis. MichiganStateUniversity,EastLansing.

Taber,R.D., andRF. Dasmann. 1958. TheBlack-tailedDeerin thechaparral. CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameBulletin 8:1-163.

U.S. FishandWildlife Service. 1984. Californiacondorrecoveryplan. U.S. FishandWildlifeService,Portland,Oregon.

Verner,J. 1978. Californiacondors:statusoftherecoveryeffort. GeneralTechnicalReport,PSW-28. U.S. ForestService,Washington,D.C.

Wallace,M.P., andS.A. Temple. 1987. Releasingcaptive-rearedAndeancondorsto thewild.JournalofWildlife Management351:541-550.

Wiemeyer,S.N.,RM. Jurek,andJR.Moore. 1986. Environmentalcontaminantsin surrogates,foods andfeathersofCaliforniacondors(Gymnogypscalifornianus).EnvironmentalMonitoring andAssessment6:91-111.

Wiemeyer.S.N.,NJ. Krynitsky, and S.R.Wilbur. Environmentalcontaminantsin tissues,food,andfecesofCaliforniacondors. In S.RWilbur andJ.N Jackson(eds.). Vulturebiologyandmanagement.Pp.427-439. UniversityofCaliforniaPress,BerkeleyandLos Angeles.

Wiemeyer,S.N. J.M. Scott,M.P. Anderson,P.H. Bloom, andC.J. Stafford. 1988.Environmentalcontaminantsin Californiacondors. JournalofWildlife Management52:238-247.

Wilbur, S.R. 1972. FoodresourcesoftheCaliforniacondor. U.S. FishandWildlife Service,PatuxentWildlife ResearchCenter,Laurel,Maryland.

Wilbur, SR. 1973. The Californiacondorin thePacific Northwest. Auk 90:196-198.

Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condorplumageandmolt asfield studyaids. CaliforniaFishandGame61:144-148.

Wilbur, SR. 1978a. TheCaliforniacondor,1966-76:a look atits pastandfuture. U.S. FishandWildlife Service,NorthAmericaFauna72:1-136.

Wilbur, S.R. 1978b. Supplementalfeedingof Californiacondors. In S.A. Temple(ed.).Endangeredbirds: managementtechniquesfor preservingthreatenedspecies.Pp. 135-140.UniversityofWisconsinPress,Madison.

39

Wilbur, S.R. 1978c. Turkeyvultureeggshellthinningin California, Florida,and Texas. WilsonBulletin 90:642-643.

Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimatingthe sizeandtrendoftheCaliforniacondo’~-~’opulation,1965-1978. CaliforniaFishandGame66:40-48.

Wilbur, SR.,W. Carrier,andJ. Borneman. 1974. Supplementalfeedingprogramfor Californiacondors.JournalofWildlife Management38:343-346.

Wilbur, S.R,and L.F. Kiff. 1980. TheCaliforniacondorin BajaCalifornia,Mexico. AmericanBirds 34:856-859.

Wright, J.M.,M. Treadwell,R.K. Nurthen,L.M. Woodworth,M.E. Montgomery,D.A. Briscoe,andR. Frankham. Unpubl. ins. Modelingproblemsin conservationgeneticsusingDrosophila:purgingis ineffectivein reducinggeneticload.

40

111. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Thetablethat follows is a summaryofscheduledactionsandcostsfor therecoveryprogram. It isaguideto meettheobjectivesofthe CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan. Thetableindicatesthepriority in schedulingtasksto meettheobjectives,whichagenciesareresponsibleto performthesetasks,atime-tablefor accomplishingthesetasks,andtheestimatedcoststo performthem.ImplementingPartIII is theactionoftheplan, thatwhenaccomplished,will satisfytherecoveryobjective. Initiation oftheseactionsis subjectto theavailability offunds.

Priorities in Column 1 ofthefollowing implementationscheduleareassignedasfollows:

Priority I - An actionthat mustbe takento preventextinctionor to preventthespeciesfrom decliningirreversibly.

Priority 2 - An actionthat mustbe takento preventasignificant declinein speciespopulation/habitatquality or someother significantnegativeimpactshortofextinction.

Priority 3 - All otheractionsnecessaryto providefor full recoveryofthe species.

Codesusedin ImplementationSchedule

Ongoing= Taskis currentlybeingimplementedandwill continueuntil actionis no longernecessaryfor recovery.

* = LeadAgency

Total Cost= Projectedcostoftaskfrom taskstartto taskcompletion.

ResponsibleParties:

USFWS= U.S. FishandWildlife ServiceUSFS= U.S. ForestServiceUSBLM = U.S. BureauofLandManagementCDFG = CaliforniaDepartmentofFishand GameAGED = ArizonaGameandFishDepartmentTNC = TheNatureConservancyLAZ = Los AngelesZooSDWAP = SanDiego Wild Animal Park

= PeregrineFundCCRT = CaliforniaCondorRecoveryTeamCEC = CaliforniaEnergyCommission

41

RecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor theCaliforniaCondor

Need I Priority Task I Task fTask I Responsible Total CostEstimates($1,000)# Description Duration Party Cost FY 1995 I FY 1996 I FY 1997 I FY 1998 I FY 1999I

1: CaptiveBreeding

1 1 111 Management I LAZ~ 5Protocol SDWAP* USFWS

PF

1 112 OperateFacilities

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

1500 300 300 300 300 300

1 2 113 NewCaptiveBreedingFacilities

Ongoing CCRTUSFWS

10 10

1 1 12 ManageCaptiveFlock

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

1250 250 250 250 250 250

1 1 121 Maintain:Genetic,Age & SexBalance

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPF

5 1 1 1 11

1 2 122 Offspring& EggsExchange

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

10 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 123 DetermineGeneticBalance

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

10 2 2 2 2 2

1 2 124 Develop&ImplementPairStrategies

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

10 2 2 2 2 2

1 13 ManageSelectedCondorsfor Release

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

15 3 3 3 3 3

1 3 14 BehavioralData

1: SubtotalNeeds

Ongoing LAZ~SDWAPpp

150 30 30 30 30 30

2965 605 590 590 590 590

RecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor theCaliforniaCondor

Need Priority Task#

TaskDescription

TaskDuration(Yrs)

ResponsibleParty

TotalCost

CostEstimates($1,000)

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

5 2 54 EstablishPointsofObservations&EducationalFacilities

Ongoing USFSUSFWS-CDFGUSBLM

25 5 5 5

5 3 55 Videos Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLMUSFS

50 10 10 10 10 10

5 3 56 TrainingSessions Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLMLAZ-SDWAP-PFUSFS

10 2 2 2 2 2

5 3 571 ZooKiosks Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPF

30 6 6 6 6 6

5 3 572 ZooCondorExhibit 3 LAZ-SDWAPPP

600 200 200 200

5 3 573 ProvidePhotos&Videos

Ongoing LAZ-SDWAPPP

25 5 5 5 5 5

785 37 37 237 237 237

9558 1793 1741 1968 1978 2078

5 3 58 MaintainCentralizedInformationCenter

5: SubtotalNeeds

TOTALCOSTS

Ongoing uSFwS 5 1 1 1

IRecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor theCaliforniaCondor

Need I Priority Task I Task Task Responsible Total CostEstimates($1,000)# Description Duration Party Cost

I I (Yrs) FY 1995 I FY 1996 FY 1997 I FY 1998 I FY 1999

2: Reintroductions

2 1 21 DevelopRelease 1 USFWS 10 10Protocols CCRT

2 2 211 ReleaseCriteria 1 CCRTUSPwS

1 1

2 1 212 Annual ReleasePlan ReleaseCriteria

Ongoing USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10

2 2 221 ReleaseSiteSelectionCriteria

1 CCRTUSFWS

1 1

2 1 222 SelectReleaseSites

3 CCRTUSFWS

30 10 10 10

2 1 223 PrepareReleaseSites

3 USFWS 30 10 10 10

2 1 23 ConductReleases 5 USFWS 2250 450 450 450 450 450

2 1 231 DevelopCaliforniaReleasePlan

1 USFWS

2 1 232 ReleaseCondors 5 USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10

2 1 233 MonitorCondorsatSite

5 USFWS 250 50 50 50 50 50

2 1 234 Monitor Free-FlyingCondors

Ongoing USFWS 250 50 50 50 50 50

2 1 235 ProtectReleasedCondors

5 USFWS.CDFGUSFS

250 50 50 50 50 50

RecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor theCaliforniaCondor

Need Priority Task#

TaskDescription

TaskDuration(Yrs)

ResponsibleParty

TotalCost

CostEstimates($1,000)

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

2 1 241 NorthernArizonaRelease

3 USFWS-PFAGFD 1050 250 200 200 200 200

2 2 242 NewMexicoRelease

3 USF’~~SPF 210 10 200

P

ProtectNestSites Ongoing

3

3

1

1

25

31

Wild RearingFacilities

USFWS

USFWSUSBLM-CDFGBIA-USFS

50 50

10 2 2 2 2 2

3 1 32 ProtectRoostSites Ongoing USFWSUSBLM-CDFGBIA-USFS

10 2 2 2 2 2

3 2 331 Mana~CondorForagingHabitat

Ongoing USFWSUSBLM-CDFGBIA-USFS

10 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3311 DeadLivestockonRangelands

Ongoing USFWSUSBLM-CDFGUSFS-AGFD

26 4 4 6 6 6

3 2 3312 ReestablishNativeUngulates

Ongoing CDFGUSFS-USFWSUSBLM

20 4 4 4 4 4

6~RecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor theCaliforniaCondor

Need Priority Task#

TaskDescription

TaskDuration(Yrs)

ResponsibleParty

TotalCost

CostEstimates($1,000)

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

3 1 3321 SW. Kern Co. Ongoing CDFG-CO.USBLM

5 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 3322 Canizo& ElkhomPlains

Ongoing USBLM TNC-CDFG

100 20 20 20 20 20

3 3 3323 TulareCountyGrasslands

Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1

3 2 3324 GlenvilleWoodyArea

Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 3325 TejonRanch Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3326 HopperMtn. Ongoing USFWSUSBLM-

CDFGUSFS

100 20 20 20 20 20

3 1 3327 BitterCreek Ongoing USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10

3 2 3328 SanJuanCreek Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 3329 ElkhornHill &CalienteRange

Ongoing CDFG-CO. 25 5 5 s s

3 3 341 LandUsePlanning Ongoing USFWSUSFS-CDFGBIAUSBLM

15 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 342 GeneralPlanReview

3: SubtotalNeeds

Ongoing CDFG USFWS 20 4 4 4

411 81 81 83 83 83

4 4

RecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor theCaliforniaCondor

Need Priority Task Task I Task 1 Responsible# Description I Duration Party

I (Yrs)

Total CostEstimates($1,000)Cost

FY 1995 I FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 1 FY 1999

4: Mortality

4 3 41 AssessHistoricalFindings

Ongoing USFWS 10 2 2 2 2 2

4 3 42 Law Enforcement Ongoing CDFG USBLM-USFSUSFWS

25 5 5 5 5 5

4 1 43 MinimizeContaminantRelatedMortality

Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFGUSFS

25 5 5 5 5 5

4 2 43 MonitorContaminants Ongoing USFWS

10 10

4 1 441 DetermineEffectsofContaminants

3 USFWS 165 55 55 ss

4 3 451 SampleFoodforContaminantLoads

3 USFWS 75 25 25 25

4 3 452 Blood SamplesContaminantLoads

Ongoing USFWSCDFG

25 5 5 5 5 5

4 1 461 Avian Mortality dueto CollisionswithHuman-madeStructures

Ongoing CEC-USFWSPrivateSector

500 100 100 100 100 100

C

p

RecoveryPlanImplementationSchedulefor the CaliforniaCondor

Need Priority Task#

TaskDescription

TaskDuration(Yrs)

ResponsibleParty

TotalCost

CostEstimates($1,000)

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

4 2 462 Advise PlanningAgenciesonLocation&Mitigation to AvoidCollisionswithHuman-madeStructures

Ongoing USFWSCDFG 25 5 5 5

4 3 47 ControlPredators 3 USFWS 45 15 15 15 15

5

5 1

48

51 DistributeEducationalMaterial

USFWS-FAA

Ongoing USFWSCDFG USBLMLAZ-SDWAP-PFUSFS

5

25 5 5 s s s

5 1 52 ProvideInformationto Land Managers

Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLMUSFS

10 2 2 2 2 2

5 1 53 ProvideInformationto PrivateLandowners

Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLMUSFS

5 1 1 11

APPENDIX I

Critical Habitatfor theCaliforniaCondor

49

FederalRegister, Vol. 41, No. 187,Paragraph17.64 California Condor(a)

(1) Sespe—Piru Condor Area(2) Matilija Condor Area N(3) Sisquoc—SanRafael Condor Area(4) lii Mountain—Beartrap Condor Areas(5) Mt. Pinos Condor Area(6) Blue Ridge Condor Area(7) Tejon Ranch(8) Kern County rangelands(9) Tulare County rangelands

0 50. 100

SCALE IN MILES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATFOR

CALIFORNIA CONDOR50

AREA

Shoe? I of 7

‘4,~ •‘~c., ifl~ai~y~• ~ ‘~I ~t5-:

~‘ .i6.,- - ~~g..~5.1C’C ~

—~ ‘ ‘ C Ci.\~J

-, . • 4~ r C• ~ Th~21z.4~$Q ~ MA~ ‘S

,~q,.. - ‘5 ‘~ —~

4.-U MU isd.4~i

TTI§~’ 5’ .— —~r.—’%.’ 4‘5.

Sespe- Piru

i’s1

y. .. ~ r • •~4’~•J.:j:S • 91 ‘.4f U ~

Condor Area~ .p:~;I%.*Av JI~.ML,J •~M•~ •jgg.U),fl4”f

in Los Angeles and ~ •%~ ., ~ k”~Ventura Counties ,,~ ~mg~L “.r4~C ~~515~ ~ 354i6M

~5 maCb, — 5(Ai~’ ..~ . ~“% . l1.~. ~C a ~ , G~ ~4i?hO,iium~ ~

~ ‘iar —

r~ ~ .r ( .

• ‘Aol

•..• p..- •

-~

4.— ‘ S.

C 5...’..’

— ..S .. pN ‘ “4

a

N— —— — . ~ i4&mai. .1 SCALE IN MILES ‘~

‘ f.Son BernardIno MeridIan j

Till — \. ~ S “K~i•~’7•.’\:s.

NAVAL AU MISULL DMA

9 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATFOR

U~’hBI Ut ~3 M.

‘U,C4S u

CALIFORNIA CONDOR

Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 187, Sep. 24, 197651

Sheet 2 of 7

0~

- Pacific

——4...

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATFOR

CALIFORNIA CONDORReference: Federal Register, Vol.41, No. 18Z Sep.24, 1976

52 Sheet 3 of •?

- •4,~..

SI a.

.4A /‘C •

CC.. ., $3

.‘C p.1- . ‘S —C ‘.~— I’ ¶4%4 . - - 4.1

5.’,

S. — ‘CS

‘4 4 i S —

S.&. C

C 4 . ‘-~. ~.

~h.. ~ - ‘C. -~ tst-SC..44..C

.~. . ~ (4) Hi Mountain—BeartrapC - ~ Condor Areas

• C~S. ... “ SanLuisObispoCounty -...~ ~

(/ A~ —

N

0 5 10 15

SCALE IN MILES

Mt. Dioblo Meridian

DETERMtNATION OF CRITICAL HABITATFOR

CALIFORNIA CONDORReference: Federal Register, VoI.41,No IS?, Sep. 24, 197653

Sheet 4 of 7

I~I~ p114.

H~’ii

I,.

— ‘...I ~S C

C JlS~ .~.

•1.>.

I E’ C I’::

$.‘

-I-

..1 jiLl

ft4.AM4S(U5.

C.

~— —

miC .~

Iti ‘i” XRZOW I

TIIN’ i:.- hUpCCS ~‘ .5

“1. ~

S.. ~

I I C..1

5 C N “5’ ~,4

71014 (‘ 4~C ~f

Pinos CMt.

I ~C C•i5 >Y’. A... ~ C\ (AJC.I~C~(~, S.

3 .. C.... Ranch ~

CountyR~9W U’~VIf~W A

• I • E•.’C~ ‘fA~$:j/~’ -s

—‘ CS - S‘.I:5~ ‘.C

IL

c....AJ. ‘.71014

—. ‘ ‘C ‘~

Ventura ‘.~ . L......4.. ?,JrA*.. —~‘ A’ ——C,

$ fR..~4 i~ ‘ ~ \4~j ( ~‘.. ~ ¶ —

,- ~ .1*

‘A.

0 5 10 IS

SCALE IN MILESSan Sernerdlno Meridian

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATFOR

CALIFORNIA CONDOR

Reference: Federol Register, Vol. 41. No. IS?, Sep. 24, 1976

~K

Condor AreaKern andCounties

II

54 ~haat 5 of 7

SCALK IN MILKS

Mt Osablo Meridian

DETERMINATION OF CRITICALFOR

CALIFORNIA CONDORReference: Federal Register, Vol. 41, No.187, Sep. 24, 1976

55 Sheet 6 of 7

~ff p

— ‘e-~ ~ FrEU — ~ ~ __

•E-. 7

5Visol

a‘A

4

Mi.10

[ 5’

K)-4

II

>4

~ Le~4

SI’

a.

Sn Coy ~1C\

I1T~ — ~ “‘ S~CCa.C,JC...C ~A4. ~ ~

~jF~~i91~Tulare’ —

flyvit County

= - rangelands\Tulore ~ ¾

‘County~~ CI~5~.C

aC

—~~1i \

15” >A 1~— l~ —

Strashmor, C

Iii

I C

.‘ C—

r

(6) Blue Ridge

I! .7 LI;

• -

5..

S. I.fl1J~W.~?C -~

— — L~iI’ C U~’.fl/#.A

Cotton gin— —

‘C.

.abot\m

5~.-... —

39~~nce

C

.~JLL

— — — - __ . -

—~ — — ~w— ___ —— , — — — —

‘i PorterVilla’.-‘~ “‘ “4

— .5— - i — —

F 0.~

•1I

‘I

KP.

~LL~

~re)CA

4.-jN~~ S.’

/Si’

LL.&~ ~3JC~~‘-4

10

SCALE IN MILES

Mt. Olable N.,Idlan

DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATFOR

CALIFORNIA CONDOR

-~ ..‘ ““5/

op

1•

)rne~6

U’

44~

56

Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 187, Sep. 24, 1976

APPENDIX II

PreliminaryPopulationViabilityConsiderations

57

In small, closedpopulations,geneticcriteriaarethoughtto bevery important. Smallpopulationsaremoresubjectto geneticlossthanlargeones. Thenumberoffounders(asfor acaptiveflockin azoo), however,mayhavelessimpacton thelossof geneticvariationthandoestheeventualsize ofthemaintenancepopulation(Senner1980). Forexample,afoundinggroupofeventenrelatedindividualswill include, on average,about95 percentoftheparentpopulation(Frankeland Souls1981),althoughthe level that is maintainedfor agiventime intervaldependson severalotherfactors,especiallythegenerationtime andtherateofgrowthofthepopulationfollowing thebottleneckin numbers(Soulset al. 1986).

Therateoflossofgeneticvariationdependsonthe effectivesizeofthepopulation. The conceptofeffectivepopulationsizeN~, (the “varianceeffectivenumber”ofapopulationofN individuals,Franidin1980:138--seeKimura andCrow 1963and LandeandBarrowclough1987for amoredetailedexplanation),is centralto anunderstandingof theroleof geneticdrift andinbreedingintheextinctionofpopulations. N~ is rarelyif everequalto N, thenumberofbreedingindividuals inthepopulation. Empiricalstudiesshowthat it is oftenabout0.SN,but maydropbelow 0. lN forcertainkinds ofspatial(metapopulation)structure(Gilpin 1987). ImportantaspectsofN~ relatedto planningfor recoveryof theCaliforniacondorinclude:

1. Neis morenearlyequalto N in monogamousspecies,suchasthe Californiacondor,thanin polygamousspecies(Franklin 1980);

2. N~ is increased(up to twiceN) whenfamily sizesapproachequalityin breedingadults(Franldin1980);

3. N~ canbeasmuchasdoubledby controllingmatingto maximizethegeneticdifferencebetweenmembersof matedpairs(Senner1980);and

4. Populationcrashescansubstantiallyreducethelong-termaverageN~ (Franidin1980).

Animal breeders have long known that thedeleteriousconsequencesofinbreeding(usuallyreferredto asinbreedingdepression)mayprecludethelong-termmaintenanceofsmall, closedpopulations(Conway1980,Senner1980). Symptomsof inbreedingdepressionare(1) loweredviability (failure to live to breedingage),(2) loweredfecundity,and (3) abnormalbiasesin sexratios. Thesearethoughtto be thecombinedresultsofthe lossofheterozygosity(reducedheterosis)and thefixation ofharmfulalleles(AllendorfandLeary 1986). Speciesdiffer, however,in this “geneticload” ofharmfulalleles. It is assumedthattheCaliforniacondorhasageneticload(frequencyofbadgenes)typical ofanimalsin general. Therearetwo reasonsto expectatypical level. First, manylarge,relatively rareanimalshavesignificantlevelsofinbreedingdepression(RallsandBallou 1983,Rallset al. 1987). Second,it is unlikely that thespecieshasbeenpurgedof its geneticloadby havingpassedthroughapopulationbottleneck(Wright et al.ins.). Thatis becausethecurrentpopulationprobablyrepresentsthe lowestebbin thenumbersduring historic andpre-historictime.

TherelationshipbetweeninbreedingandN~ is critical. Thedegreeof inbreedingin apopulation,measuredby the inbreedingcoefficient (F), increasesby about1/2N0 pergeneration(seeLandeandBarrowclough1987for details). In smallpopulations,thefixation of deleteriousgenesby

58

inbreedingandgeneticdrift cannotbecounterbalancedby theirselectiveelimination. Theexperienceofanimalbreedersshowsthat apopulationcannottoleratemorethanabout1 to 3percentinbreedingpergeneration(Soule1980,Franldin1980). N~ = 50, with randommating,will keeptheinbreedingbelowa 1 percentlevel. However,the homozygosityofsuchapopulationwill still increaseby about25 percentin 20 to 30 generations(Soul~1980),assuminganaveragegenerationtime of8 years(Verner1978).

We cannotpreciselydetermineN~ for apopulationofCaliforniacondorsjust from knowledgeofthenumberofbreedingadults. Becausethespeciesis apparentlylife-long monogamousandhasauniformclutch sizeofone(increasingthe likelihood thateachbreedingadultwill contributeequallyto annualrecruitment),its N~ should be nearly equal to N.

Thecurrentpopulationof82 birds represents14 individualfounders. TheDNA fingerprintingdataindicatethat someofthefoundersarecloselyrelatedandidentify threegeneticgroups,or“clans” (Geyeret al. 1993). Becauseall ofthe breedingindividualsarein captivityand matingscanbecontrolled,the levelof inbreedingin thepopulationcanbe controlled. Nevertheless,somelossofgeneticvariationis inevitableuntil thepopulationis increasedto a totalpopulationof200to 300breedingindividuals,the sizeatwhichmutationis expectedto contributeaboutasmuchvariationfor quantitativetraits asis lostby randomevents(LandeandBarrowclough1987). (Thenumberusuallygivenis 500,but this assumesrandommating;becausepartof theCaliforniacondorpopulationwill becaptivelybred,thethresholdnumberis lower.)

Theprincipalreasonsfor requiringtheestablishmentofat leasttwo disjunctpopulationsin thewild arethepossibilitiesofcatastropheanddisease.Localizedevents,includingepidemics,mightextirpatea single population, but the existence of two, geographically isolated and non-interactingpopulations will significantly reduce the vulnerability of the species as a whole. Similarly,continuing to maintain several disjunct captive populations is alsodesirablefor thesamereasons.The chances that three or moresuchpopulationswould suffersimultaneouscatastrophesareverylow.

59

APPENDIX LII

Summary of Comments onDraft CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan

60

In theSeptember26, 1994,FederalRegisterNoticeof Availability, theU.S. FishandWildlifeService(Service)solicitedwrittencommentsontheDraft CaliforniaCondorRecoveryPlan(Draft Plan). During the65 day commentperiod, 10 responseswerereceivedby theServiceCommentswererecievedfrom oneFederalAgency,threeStategovernments,two countygovernments,andfour organizationsor privateindividuals. Commentsaddressingconcernsrelatingto policies andissuesofimportanceto the 10 reviewersandtheService’sresponsetoeacharelistedbelow. Commentsaddressingroutineeditorialanddatacorrectionsarenotincluded. Similiaror identical commentsmentionedby morethanoneindividual or organizationhavebeengrouped.

CommentI: Oneoftheminimumcriterionfor reclassificationto threatened(Page22.II.A.) is therequirementthat thetwo non-captivepopulationsmusthave“sufficient permanentlysecurehabitat”. TheDraft Planfails to identify the amountofhabitatthatwould constitute“sufficientsecurehabitat”. If that is to be acriterionfor downlistingthe Servicemustquantifyan acreageamountwhich it considersto be sufficient.

ServiceResponse:After reviewingthat criteriontheServicehasdeterminedit is not possibleatthis time to quantifythespecificacreagerequiredfor “sufficient securehabitat”. Therefore,thatrequirementhasbeendeletedfromthelist ofcriteriato be met beforethis speciescanbedownlisted.

Comment2: TheDraft Planestablishessupplementalfeedingasan integralelementofthe condorreleaseprogram,but doesnot explainhow it relatesto thedownlistingcriterionthat requirescondorpopulationsto be “self-sustaining”(Page22.II.A.). Is this criterionconsideredachievedifcondorscontinueto relyon artificial food? A discussionofartificial feedingandhow it relatestothe downlistingcriterionshouldbe includedin thefinal plan.

ServiceResponse:TheServicehasamendedtheObjectivesandCriteriasectionof theDraft Plan(Page22.I1.A.), to includethefollowing statementclarifying theService’spositionon thedependencyofcondorson artificial feeding. It is recognizedthat reestablishedcondorpopulationsin someareasmayrequirecontinuedartificial feedingto supplementnaturalfoodresourcesand/ortoprotectbirdsfrom exposureto contaminatedcarcasses.However,suchmanagementconsiderationsshouldnotprecludereclass~fication ofthespeciesif theabove-listedcriteria aremet.

Comment3: TheDraft Planstatesthatrecentlyreleasedcaptive-hatchedcondorshaveyet tooccupyorusecritical habitatandthat thereareno plansby the Serviceto utilize critical habitatinthefuture(Page21). If this is thecase,landsdesignatedascritical habitatno longersatisfythecriteriafor critical habitat,therefore,the designationshouldbe removed.

ServiceResponse:Thesectionhasbeenrevisedto moreaccuratelyreflect thecurrentuseofcritical habitatby newly releasedcondors.Therevisionreadsasfollows: Thefirst tworeleasestookplacein theSespe-PiruCondorCritical HabitatArea, one ofninedesignatedCondorCritical HabitatAreaslocatedin SouthernCahfornia. The thirdandfourth releaseswereconductedapproximately8.1 kms(Smi) northoftheSisquoc-SanRafaelCondorCriticalHabitatarea. Thebirds releasedat thissiteutilizedtheSisquoc-SanRafaelandMt. PinosCondorCritical Habitat areas. The CastleCragsin SanLuis ObispoCountywhich is locatedon

‘

61

thenorthwestboundaryof theBeartrapCondorCritical Habitatareais currentlybeingevaluatedasafuturereleasesite. Although theuseofthesecritical habitatareashasbeenlimitedto date,theydo containhabitatcomponents;nestcaves,roost treesand foraginggroundsnecessaryto themaintenanceofwild condorsandexpectationsarethat thereleasedcondorswilleventuallydiscoverthesehabitatsandutilize them. However,until wehavealargernumberofcondorsin the wild, includingbreedingpairs,wewill not be ableto fUlly evaluatethe effectivenessofcritical habitatareas. It is prematureatthis timeto considertheeliminationofdesignatedcritical habitatareasbasedon currentuse.

Comment4: TheDraft Plancallsfor all suitablecondorhabitatto be managedfor therecoveryofthespecies(Page28.B.3.). Making condormanagementthepriority on all landdeterminedby theServiceto be suitablecondorhabitatis neitherfeasiblenorreasonable.Currentlandusescannotbe ignoredand maybe consideredhigherprioritiesby the individualsandcommunitiesthatpracticethem.

ServiceResponse:TheServiceagreesthat currentlandusesin suitablecondorhabitatmustbeconsideredwhenplanning condormanagementstrategies.Therecoveryobjectivewasrevisedtoreadasfollows: An importantfactorin thesuccessfulestablishmentofwildcondorsub-populationsis theexistenceofsuitablehabitat. Therefore,wheneverpossibleor appropriate,apriorityfor thishabitatshouldincludemanagementfor condorrecovery.

CommentS: TheDraft Planrequiresthat condorprotectionplansbedevelopedon privatelandsfor condorsandtheirhabitat(Pages29 and30). TheServicecannotregulatelanduseonprivateIlands. Any condorprotectionplanfor privatelandscanonly be developedwith theconsentandcooperationofawilling landowner.

ServiceResponse:TheServiceagreeswith thisstatementandhaschangedthewordingto readasfollows: A managementpkmshouldbepreparedwith theconsentandparticipationoftheaffectedlandownerstopreserveits valuefor condors.

62