California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) recovery plan. Third revision. 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
( As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the
Department of the interior has responsibility for most of
our nationally owned public lands and natural resources.
This includesfostering the wisestuse ofour landand water
resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the
environmental and cultural values of our national parks
and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of
life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses
our energyand mineral resourcesand works to assure that
theirdevelopment is in the best interests of all our people.
The Department also has a major responsibility for
American Indian reservation communities and for people
who live in island Territories under U.S. administration.
CALIFORNIA CONDOR
(Gymnogyps californianus)
Third Revision
RECOVERY PLAN
(Original Approved: 1975)
(First Revision Approved: 1979)
(Second Revision Approved: 1984)
Prepared by
Lloyd F. Kiff
Western Foundation ofVertebrate Zoology
Camarillo, California
Robert I. Mesta
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ventura, California
Dr. Michael P. Wallace
Los Angeles Zoo
Los Angeles, California
for
Region 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Portland, Oregon
Approved:
Region ire o , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Date:
RECOVERY TEAM MEMBERS
James Carpenter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,
Maryland): 1986-1989
CathleenR Cox (Los Angeles Zoo): 1986-present
Maeton Freel (U.S. Forest Service, Goleta, California): 1988-present
Ronald A. Jurek (California Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento): 1986-present
Lloyd F. Kiff(Western Foundation ofVertebrate Zoology, Camarillo, California): 1986-1993
John C. Ogden (National Audubon Society, Homestead, Florida): 1986-1988
Richard R. Olendorif (Bureau ofLandManagement, Sacramento, California): 1986-1990
Oliver H. Pattee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California): 1986-1989
Katherine Ralls (Smithsonian Institution, Paso Robles, California): 1990-present
~ Patrick T. Redig (The Raptor Center, St. Paul, Minnesota): 1993-present
David S. Rimlinger (San Diego Wild Animal Park, Escondido, California): 1992-present
Robert W. Risebrough (Bodega Marine Institute, Berkeley, California): 1990-present
Michael E. Souls (University of California, Santa Cruz): 1986-1990
William D. Toone (San Diego Wild Animal Park, Escondido, California): 1986-1992
Jared Verner (U.S. Forest Service, Fresno, California): 1986-1991
Brian J. Walton (Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, University ofCalifornia, Santa
Cruz): 1990-present
Dr. Michael P. Wallace (Los Angeles Zoo): 1986-Present
James W. Wiley (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grambling, Louisiana): 1989-1992
I I
DISCLAIMER PAGE
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or
protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes
prepared with the assistance ofrecovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others.
Objectives will be attained and any necessary fUnds made available subject to budgetary and other
constraints affecting parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery
plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval ofany
individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they
have been signed by the Regional Director orDirector as ~ Approved recovery plans
are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and completion
ofrecovery tasks.
ii
Literature Citations should read as follows:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision.
Portland, Oregon. 62 pp.
Additional copies may be purchased from:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
301/492-3421 or 1-800-582-3421
iii
Ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are gratefUl to former USFWS Condor Recovery Program Coordinators Joseph Dowhan and
Teresa Nichols, who provided invaluable assistance in preparing earlier drafts ofthe
revision, as well as for their contributions to the overall Condor Recovery Program during
respective tenures.
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF THE
RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR
(Gymnogyps cal~fornianus)
Current Species Status: The California condor (Gymnogyps cal!fornianus) is federally listed as
an endangered species. The current population is 103, including 86 individuals in captivity at the
Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, and the World Center forBirds ofPrey, and 17
captive-hatched condors released into Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties in southern
California.
Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: California condors require suitable habitat for
nesting, roosting, and foraging. The recent range was restricted to chaparral, coniferous forests,
and oak savannah habitats in southern and central California. The species formerly occurred more
widely throughout the Southwest and also fed on beaches and large rivers along the Pacific coast.
Nest sites are located in cavities in cliffs, in large rock outcrops, or in large trees. Traditional
roosting sites are maintained on cliffs orlarge trees, often near feeding sites. Foraging occurs
mostly in grasslands, including potreros within chaparral areas, or in oak savannahs. At present,
sufficient remaining habitat exists in California and in southwestern states to support a large
number ofcondors, if density independent mortality factors, including shooting, lead poisoning,
and collisions with man-made objects, can be controlled. The possibility ofeventual genetic
problems, resulting from the species’ recent perilously low population size, cannot be discounted.
Recovery Priority: IC
Recovery Objective: Downlist to threatened.
Recovery Criteria: The minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance
ofat least two non-captive populations and one captive population. These populations (1) must
each number at least 150 individuals, (2) must each contain at least 15 breeding pairs and (3) be
reproductively self-sustaining and have a positive rate ofpopulation growth. In addition, the non-captive
populations (4) must be spatially disjunct and non-interacting, and (5) must contain
individuals descended from each of the 14 founders.
Ac~nn~.
1. Establish a captive breeding program to preserve the gene pool.
2. Reintroduce California condors to the wild.
3. Minimize mortality factors in the natural environment.
4. Maintain habitat for condor recovery.
5. Implement condor information and education programs.
v
Total Estimated Cost of Recovery
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
658.0
643.0
643.0
643.0
643.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
650.0
10,380.0
582.0
590.0
895.0
890.0
870.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
850.0
13,177.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
1,350.0
128.0
193.0
218.0
218.0
148.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
2,555.0
Date ofRecovery: Downlisting should be initiated in 2010, if recovery criteria are met.
N~i~
37.0
37.0
237.0
237.0
237.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
1,335.0
vi
Recoverv Plans
1974 California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1975V The focus ofthe
first California Condor Recovery Plan was reduction ofmortality factors through preservation of
habitat. No information existed to indicatethat the species’ intrinsically low reproductive rate
could be increased through multiple clutching techniques. With foresight, however, the potential
for studies using Andean condors as surrogates was identified.
Revised California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979V The second
edition ofthe California Condor Recovery Plan, once again focused on habitat preservation as the
most effective means of controlling the population decline. However, in 1980 considerable
progress had been made in studying the reproductive biology ofAndean condors and a directive
was given to institute a captive propagation program for California condors. The intent ofthe
program was to capture California condors, breed them in captivity, and release their progeny into
the existing wild flock.
Revised California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984): The 1984
Recovery Plan recognized the need for a more intensive management and research program, and
called for accelerated productivity by manipulating nesting in wild breeding pairs to induce
multiple clutching, securing chicks and eggs produced in the wild for captive incubation, and
e rneeaerdinfgororfacdaipottievleelmyeintrcyusbtautdeidese.ggs for reintroduction to the wild. The plan also specified the
Revised California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996): The capture of
the last wild California condor in 1987 propelled the recovery program into a new era of
management. The 1996 revised recovery plan modifies the previous recovery strategy, that
focused primarily on habitat protection, to emphasize the captive breeding program and intensive
efforts to reestablish the species in the wild. Important measures are also prescribed for habitat
conservation and public education, but these are secondary to the continued development of a
captive breeding program and reintroduction ofcaptive-bred California condors.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I. Introduction
A. Brief Overview
B. Physical Characteristics
C. Taxonomy
D. Prehistorical Range
E. Historical Range
F. Life History
Nesting
Foraging -
Roosting
F. Movements S
G. Population Trends
H. Reasons for Decline
I. Population Modeling 12
J. Conservation Measures 13
K. Strategy ofRecovery 21
Part II. Recovery 22
A. Objectives and 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. Range ofthe California Condor 3
Figure 2. California Condor Population 1982 to 1995 10
ix
CALIFORNIA CONDOR RECOVERY PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
N BLQy~ryi~y
The California Condor (Gymnogyps cahfornianus) was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967,
(32 FR4001) in a final rule published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The
Service then established critical habitat for the California condor nine years later on September 24,
1976, (41 FR 187).
Long recognized as a vanishing species (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur 1978), the California
condor remains one ofthe world’s rarest and most imperiled vertebrate species. Despite intensive
conservation efforts, the wild California condor population declined steadily until 1987, when the
last free-flying individual was captured. During the 1980s, captive condor flocks were established
at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo, and the first successful captive
breeding was accomplished at theformer facility in 1988. Following severalyears ofincreasingly
successful captive breeding, captive-produced condors were first released back to the wild in early
1992.
B. Physical Characteristics
California condors are among the largest flying birds in the world. Adults weigh approximately
10 kilograms (22 Ibs) and have a wing span up to 2.9 meters (9 ‘/2 ft). Adults are black except for
prominent white underwing linings and edges ofthe upper secondary coverts. The head and neck
are mostly naked, and the bare skin is gray, grading into various shades ofyellow, red, and
orange. Males and females cannot be distinguished by size or plumage characteristics. The heads
ofjuveniles up to 3 years old are grayish-black, and their wing linings are variously mottled or
completely dark. During the third year the head develops yellow coloration, and the wing linings
become gradually whiter (N.J. Schmitt in prep.). By the time individuals are S or 6 years ofage,
they are essentially indistinguishable from adults (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1975, Snyder et al. 1987),
but full development ofthe adult wing patterns may not be completeduntil 7 or 8 years of age
(N.J. Schmitt in prep.).
C. Inn2wy
The California condor is a member ofthe family Cathartidae or New World vultures, a family of
seven species, including the closely related Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) and the sympatric
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Although the family has traditionally been placed in the Order
Falcomformes, most contemporary taxonomists believe that New World vultures are more closely
related to storks (Ligon 1967, Rea 1983, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990).
1
D. Prehistorical Range
The fossil record ofthe genus Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000 years to the Middle
Pleistocene Epoch (Brodkorb 1964). At the Rancho La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, abundant
condor remains occur with many contemporary species, including American Robins (Turdus
migratorius), Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura)
(Howard 1962). Fossil records reveal that the species once ranged over much ofthe southern
United States, south to Nuevo Leon, Mexico and east to Florida (Brodkorb 1964), and two well
preserved fossil bones were reported from a site in upstate New York (Steadman and Miller
1987). There is evidence indicating that California condors nested in west Texas, Arizona, and
New Mexico during the late Pleistocene (Emslie 1987). The disappearance ofthe California
condor from much ofthis range occurred about 10,000-11,000 years ago, coinciding with the late
Pleistocene extinction ofthe North American megafauna (Emslie op cit.).
E. Historical Ran2e
By the time ofthe arrival ofEuropean manin western North America, California condors
occurred only in a narrow Pacific coastal strip from British Columbia, Canada to Baja California
Norte, Mexico (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1978). California condors were observed until the mid-
I800s in the northern portion ofthe Pacific Coast region (Columbia River Gorge) and until the
early 1930s in the southern extreme (northern Baja California) (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1973,
Wilbur and Kiff 1980). Prior to 1987, California condors used a wishbone-shaped area
encompassing six counties just north of Los Angeles, California (Fig. 1). In the 1984 California
Condor Recovery Plan, the wishbone-shaped area was designated by the California Condor
Recovery Team (Team) as the range ofprimary concern. It has beenused by management
agencies and the public for planning purposes.
F. Life History
The following details ofcondor life history are based largely on studies of the wild condor
population prior to 1987, principally those ofcondor biologists Carl Koford (1939-1947), Fred
Sibley (1965-1969), Sanford Wilbur (1969-1980), and Noel Snyder and his associates (1980-
1985).
California condor life history information can be conveniently categorized into nesting, foraging,
and roosting components. The life history section summarizes condor biology, habitat
requirements, and range as they relate to each component on a daily basis and over the annual
cycle. A concluding discussion summarizing the traditional movement ofcondors throughout
theirrecent historical range is also provided.
N~Iing: Courtship and nest site selection by breeding California condors occur from December
through the spring months. Reproductively mature, paired California condors normally lay a
single egg between late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and
after approximately 56 days. Both parents share responsibilities for feeding the nestling. Fee
usually occurs daily for the first two months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. At two to
three months ofage condor chicks leave the actual nest cavity, but remain in the vicinity
2
ALAMEDA
MONO
KINGS
Range of the California Condor
Figure I
MANIPOSA
MENCED
MACERA
PRESNO
~0
C,’
C,’
N
C
C,’
KERN
o ~ 30 30 40 50WJ3
0 0 30 30 40 30 60 0L0MC1~
3
ofthe nest where they are fed by theirparents. The chick takes its first flight at about six to seven
months ofage, but may not become fully independent ofits parents until the following year.
Parent birds occasionally continue to feed a fledgling even after it has begun to make longer
flights to foraging grounds.
Because of the long period ofparental care, it was formerly assumed that successful California
condor pairs normally nested successfully every other year (Koford 1953). However, this pattern
seems to vary, possibly depending mostly on the time ofyear that the nestling fledges. Ifa
nestling fledges relatively early (in late summer or early fall), its parents may nest again in the
following year, but late fledging probably inhibits nesting in the following year (Snyder and
Hamber 1985).
California condors may lay a replacement clutch if their first (Harrison and Kiff 1980) or even
second egg is lost (Snyder and Hamber 1985). Whether they lay a replacement egg may depend
on the time ofyear, at what stage ofincubation the egg is lost, individual variation, and perhaps
genetic or climatic factors. Among Andean condors and other captive cathartid vultures, some
females will apparently lay three or even four clutches in a season, while others invariably lay only
one or two (M. Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt.).
Because subadult birds had never been observed in the wild as members of breeding pairs, Koford
(1953) concluded that California condors did not breed before six years ofage, the time at which
the adult plumage is acquired. The only wild California condor (a male) ofknown age bred
successfully in the wild in 1986 at the age ofsix years. Recent data collected from captive birds,
however, demonstrates that reproduction may occur, or at least be attempted at earlier ages. A
four-year old male was the youngest California condor observed in courtship display, and the
same bird subsequently bred successfUlly at the age offive years (M. Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo,
in litt.).
California condors nest in various types ofrock formations including crevices, overhung ledges,
and potholes, and, more rarely, in cavities in giant sequoia trees (Sequoia giganteus) (Snyder et
al. 1986). An evaluation ofvarious nest parameters, including types, elevations, compass
orientation, entrance sizes, depths, chamber characteristics, substrates, use ofnests by other
species, accessibility to predators, presence ofporches, and proximity to roost perches and
sources ofhuman disturbance, indicated that all surveyed California condor nest sites (n — 72)
share the following characteristics:
(1) entrances large enough for the birds to fit through, (2) a ceiling height ofat least 38
centimeters (cm) at the egg position, (3) fairly level floors with some loose surface
substrate, (4) unconstricted space for incubating adults, and (5) short distance accessibility
to a landing point (Snyder et al. op cit.). The factors influencing the choice ofnest sites by
condors is poorly understood. The appearance of many nest sites suggests that they have
been in long use, perhaps for centuries, whereas other apparently suitable sites in
undisturbed areas show no signs ofcondor use.
The effects ofhuman disturbance on nesting condors have been difficult to evaluate rigorously,
and different observers have reached disparate conclusions. Koford (1953) documented
numerous accounts of human disturbance at California condor nest sites. He reported that the
4
j
responses ofnesting birds were highly variable and hypothesized that the nature ofthe birds’
reactions might depend upon the stage of nesting. Koford generally concluded that California
condors were keenly aware ofintruders, and would alter their behaviors if humans approached in
sight within 555 m (500 yd) ofa nest. In addition, Koford stated that California condors could be
alarmed by loud noises from distances ofover 1.6 kilometers (1 mi). Based on these
observations, Koford recommended that human disturbance should be restricted within 1.6 km (1
mi) of active nest sites.
Sibley (1969) found a correlation between the location ofrecently used California condor nest
sites and the location and magnitude ofhuman activity. He concluded that the greater the
disturbance, either in frequency or noise level, the less likely California condors were to nest
nearby. In 1984, a nest site located in a giant sequoia tree within mixed-conifer forest was
subjected to a high degree of disturbance during the egg-laying period because it was located on
the edge ofan active clear-cut timbering operation. Nevertheless, the breeding attempt continued
successfully until the half-grown chickwas removed from the nest to be added to the captive
flock. Based on the variety ofhistorical accounts, Snyder et al. (1986) concluded that tolerance
to disturbance by nesting condors is likely to be a highly variable trait individually and that it is
prudent to continue the current U.S. Forest Service restriction ofhuman activities within 2.4 km
(1.5 mi) ofCalifornia condor nest sites on Forest Servicelands.
Although potential condor nesting habitat still exists over a relatively large portion ofthe coastal
and interior mountains in central and southern California, the recently occupied nesting range was
~quitelimited. After 1910, all recorded nesting sites were located in the Coast, Transverse, and
SierraNevada mountain ranges (Koford 1953, Meretsky and Snyder 1992). All but one ofthe
nest sites used between 1979 to 1986 were in a narrow belt ofchaparral and coniferous forested
mountains from central Santa Barbara County across northern and central Ventura County to
northwestern Los Angeles County. The sites were located within a total area approximately 90
km (56 mi) from west to east and only about 25 km (15 mi) from north to south. The only nest
outside this areawas located in a giant sequoia in Tulare County in 1984. It is possible that
condors may have been nesting in the latter area over the years since the nest was only a few miles
from another giant sequoia nest which was active in 1951. All recent California condor nest sites
were located on public lands within the Los Padres, Angeles, and SequoiaNational Forests.
~~gjjjg: California condors are opportunistic scavengers, feeding only on the carcasses ofdead
animals. Typical foraging behavior includes long-distance reconnaissance flights, lengthy circling
flights over a carcass, and hours ofwaiting at a roost or on the ground near a carcass. Seasonal
foraging behavior shifts perhaps are the result of climatic cycles or to changes in food availability.
Condors maintain wide-ranging foraging patterns throughout the year, an important adaptation
for a species that may be subjected to unpredictable food supplies (Meretsky and Snyder 1992).
Having located a potential food item, California condors frequently remain in the air circling high
above the carcass before landing. As with other scavenging species that are known to feed
socially, circling behavior is thought to serve as a signal to other conspecifics, guiding them to
available food sources (Houston 1974, Mundy 1982, Wallace and Temple 1987, Meretsky and
Snyder 1992). Once on the ground condors may feed immediately or wait passively as other
California condors or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) feed on the carcass (Wilbur 1978).
5
Prior to the arrival ofEuropean man, condor food items within interior California probably
included mule deer (Odocoileushemionus), tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannoides), pronghorn
antelope (Antilocapra americana), and smaller mammals. Along the Pacific shore the diet ofthe
California condor may have included whales, sea lions, and other marine species (Koford 1953,
Emslie 1987, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Koford (1953) listed observations of
California condors feeding on 24 different mammalian species within the last two centuries. He
estimated that 95 percent ofthe diet consisted ofcattle, domestic sheep, ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beechy,), mule deer, and horses. Over half ofthe observations Koford reported
were ofcondors feeding on cattle carcasses, and most ofthose were calves. While beef cattle
may be the most available food within the range of the condor, a clear preference for deer over
cattle has been observed (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1972, Meretsky and Snyder 1992). California
condors appear to feed only one to three days per week, but the frequency of adult feeding is
variable and may show seasonal differences.
Most California condor foraging occurs in open terrain offoothill grassland and oak savannah
habitats. Although the California condor is not as ungainly on the ground as portrayed in popular
literature, it does require fairly open spaces forfeeding. This ensures easy take-offand approach
and makes finding food easier. As mentioned earlier, mule deer are possibly a “preferred” food,
yet deer tend to drift toward canyon bottoms to die (Taber and Dasmann 1958, Blong 1954),
where steep terrain and brush interfere with California condor foraging. Carcasses under brush
are hard to see, and California condors apparently do not locate food by olfactory cues (Stager
1964).
The principal foraging regions used by California condors from the late I 970s to 1987 were the
foothills bordering the southern San Joaquin Valley and axillary valleys in San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Kern, and Tulare Counties. After 1982, most observations offeeding by the small
remaining wild population ofCalifornia condors occurred in the Elkhorn Hills-Cuyama Valley-
Carrizo Plain complex, and in the southern San Joaquin Valley (Meretsky and Snyder 1992). The
majority ofimportant foraging areas were on private cattle-grazing lands.
The Elkhorn Hills-Cuyama Valley-Carrizo Plain area includes portions ofSan Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, and Kern counties. California condors foraged in the eastern part ofSan Luis Obispo
County, generally east ofthe Los Padres National Forest boundary and west ofthe Temblor
Mountains. Observations of radio-tagged birds along San Juan Creek in the 1980s indicated f
foraging in the upper drainage, south ofHighway 58. Farther south, the Carrizo Plain, Panorama
Hills, and the Elkhorn Plain in the region between the Caliente and Temblor Mountains were also
commonly used (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).
Foraging in Santa Barbara County was mainly to the north in portions ofthe Cuyama Valley and,
occasionally, on potreros along the ridge line ofthe Sierra Madre Mountains. A nesting pair in
Santa Barbara County also foraged in the Santa Ynez Valley to the south, mainly along the
northern portions as far west as the Los Olivos area and the Zaca Creek drainage (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1984).
In Kern County, California condors foraged extensively in the foothills adjacent to the northern
boundary ofLos Padres National Forest, to Reyes Station in the west, to the Pleito Hills west of
Interstate Highway 5, and eastward throughout much ofthe region from the Tehachapi
6
Mountains north to the slopes ofCummings Mountain (Studer 1983). This entire region, like the
similar foraging country in the Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains, is fairly close to traditional nesting
sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).
The San Joaquin Valley foraging region was located in eastern Kern, Tulare, and Ventura
counties. An important foraging area in Kern County was the foothill rangelands around
Glennville. There, California condors roosted primarily on National Forest lands in the Greenhorn
Mountains and foraged daily in the Cedar Creek and upper Pozo Creek drainages as far west as
Blue Mountain and the old Granite Station crossroads south ofWoody, California. In Tulare
County, California condors foraged extensively through the oak savannah and grassland hill
country north from the Kern County border and west ofthe National Forest boundary, including
the Tule River Indian Reservation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). As in northern Kern
County, important roosting sites were to the east on higher slopes in Sequoia National Forest and
on higher peaks within the foraging zone, including Blue Ridge. California condors recently
foraged as far north as the Lake Kaweali region, with the White River, Deer Creek, Lake Success,
and Yokohl Valley areas being ofspecial importance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).
Although these foraging regions have been identified as being important to California condors
since 1980, they should not be considered as all inclusive. Like most scavenging birds, California
condors are opportunistic. Through the course of a year they fed on carcasses found in many
locations. California condors were known to feed at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service baiting
~ stations on the Tejon Ranch, the Beard Ranch in Glennville and Hopper Mountain and Bitter
Creek National Wildlife RefUges. The birds may be expected to take advantage oflocal
-abundance of food almost anywhere within their normal range. California condorswere not
reported in many areas ofthat former range afterthe mid-1980s, especially north in the Coastal
Range to Monterey and San Benito Counties, but also east into the San Gabriel Mountains in Los
Angeles County.
Roosting: Dependingupon weather conditions and the hunger ofthe bird, a California condor
may spend most ofits time perched at a roost. California condors often use traditional roosting
sites near important foraging grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Although California
condors usually remain at roosts until mid-morning, and generally return in mid- to late afternoon,
it is not unusual for a bird to stay perched throughout the day. While at a roost, California
condors devote considerable time to preening and other maintenance activities. Roosts may also
serve some social fUnction, as it is common for two or more California condors to roost together
and to leave a roost together (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). California condors
apparently will tolerate more disturbance at a roost than at a nest. Roosting sites and nesting sites
are susceptible to similar disturbance threats, and their preservation requires isolation from human
intrusion. There may be adaptive as well as traditional reasons for California condors to continue
to occupy a number ofwidely separated roosts, such as reducing food competition between
breeding and non-breeding birds.
Cliffs and tall conifers, including dead snags, are generally utilized as roost sites in nesting areas.
Although most roost sites are near nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost sites are located
throughout the range.
7
F. Movements
Data on locations and movements ofCalifornia condors discussed here are limited mainly to those
collected between 1982 and 1987, as summarized by Meretsky and Snyder (1992). These data
were obtained primarily from radiotelemetry studies and the analysis offlight photographs of
known California condors (Snyder and Johnson 1985, Meretsky and Snyder 1992) and
summarized below. For detailed information on historical California condor range, the reader
should refer to Koford (1953) and Wilbur (1978).
Studies during the I980s showed that the last California condors remaining in the wild prior to
1987 comprised a single population ofbirds occupying a range of2 million hectares (4,942,000
acres). Insofar as could be determined, every California condor in the wild was familiar with the
entire range ofthe species and was capable ofsoaring between any two points within the range in
a single day. While no difference in movement patterns could be detected between sexes, a
difference in the mobility was noted between breeding and nonbreeding condors. Immatures and
other unpaired condors seemed to be especially mobile, with the longest recorded flight during a
single day by an immature male being 225 km (141 mi). Yearling condors do not venture far from
their nest sites until late in their first year, and they gradually increase their distance from their
natal area as they mature. Based on the available information, however, it was not possible to
ascertain at what age immature condors begin their wide-ranging forays. Paired birds tended to
forage most frequently in areas relatively close to their nests, not normally venturing more than 50
km (31 mi) to 70 km (44 mi) from their nest sites; although on one occasion a member of a
nesting pair traveled 180 km (113 mi). It should also be noted that during the non-breeding
season paired birds tended to expand their home range to encompass more ofthe available
foraging areas.
Seasonal shifts that were noted seemed to be based generally on food availability. For example,
condors tended to move to the Tehachapi area during the hunting season where they showed a
preference for deer gut-piles and abandoned deer carcasses were preferred over calf carcasses.
Furthermore, during the calving season in the San Emigdio area ofthe San Joaquin Valley
foraging region, wild California condors were frequently observed feeding on naturally occurring
calfcarcasses.
California condors use topography and associated thermal weather patterns for flight. This is best
illustrated by observations indicating that almost all flights by California condors, whether
covering long distances or not, followed routes over the foothills and mountains bordering the
southern San Joaquin Valley. It was rare for a California condor to pass directly over the flat,
highly agricultural floor ofthe Valley. Thus, the usual route for a bird starting from the coastal
mountains of Santa Barbara County on its way to foraging grounds in Tulare County was to cross
northern Ventura County, pass through the Tehachapi Mountains in southern Kern County, then
turn north to pass closely by Breckenridge Mountain, and enter Tulare County somewhere
between the Greenhorn Mountains and Blue Mountain. Where flat, agricultural regions are much
less extensive, such as the Cuyama Valley in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties,
California condors freely passed high above enroute to foraging grounds. It has become apparent
that California condors are highly dependent on topography since it dictates prevailing wind
patterns. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).
8
G. Population Trends
Condor censusing efforts through the years have varied in intensity and accuracy. That has led to
conflicting estimates ofhistorical abundance, but all have indicated an ever-declining California
condor population. Koford (1953) estimated a population ofabout 60 individuals in the late
1930s through the mid-1940s, apparently based on observed flock size. Afield study by Eben and
Ian McMillan in the early 1 960s suggested a population of about 40 individuals, again based in
part on the validity ofKoford’s estimates offlock size (Miller et al. 1965). An annual October
California condor survey was begun in 1965 (Mallette and Borneman 1966) and continued for 16
years. The survey effort was typically a two-day simultaneous observation and count of
California condors at prominent observation points in areas ofknown concentration.
Interpretation ofthe results ofthese surveys was made difficult by variations in weather
conditions, number ofobservers, and other factors from year to year, but the results supported an
estimate of50 to 60 extant California condors in the late 1960s (Sibley 1969, Mailed 1970).
Wilbur (1980) continued the survey efforts into the 1970s and concurred with the interpretations
ofthe earlier October surveys. He further estimated that by 1978 the population had dropped to
25-30 individuals.
Snyder and Johnson (1985) later reassessed the earlier population estimates ofKoford (1953) and
Miller et al. (1965) and concluded that they may have underestimated the size ofthe condor
population by a factor oftwo or three. Regardless of the actual number ofbirds, the trend toward
extinction ofthe wild condor population was linear and unrelenting. In 1981, the Service, in
cooperation with California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, began census efforts
based on individual identifications ofcondors by photographing flight silhouettes (Snyder and
Johnson 1985). Minimum summer counts from these photocensusing efforts showed a steady
decline from an estimated minimum of2l wild condors in 1982, 19 individuals in 1983, 15
individuals in 1984, and 9 individuals in 1985. Although the overall condor population increased
slightly after 1982 as a result ofdouble clutching, the wild population continued to decline. By
the end of 1986, all but two California condors were captured for safekeeping and genetic
security. On April 19, 1987 the last wild condor was captured and taken to the San Diego Wild
Animal Park. The population has increased annually since the first successfUl captive breeding in
1988. The population now stands at 104 individuals, including 86 in the captive flock and 17 in
the wild (Fig. 2).
H. Reasons for Decline
Causes ofthe California condor population decline have probably been numerous and variable
through time. However, despite decades ofresearch, it is not known with certainty which
mortality factors have been dominant in the overall decline ofthe species. Relatively few dead
California condors have been found, and definitive conclusions on the causes ofdeath were made
in only a small portion ofthese cases (Miller et al. 1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder and Snyder 1989).
Although the information regarding California condor mortality is inconclusive, there is evidence
to suggest that two anthropogenic factors, lead poisoning and shooting, have contributed
disproportionately to the decline ofthe species in recent years. Although publicity associated with
the condor recovery program has doubtless reduced the likelihood ofcondors being shot, one
person was arrested as recently as July 1992 for shooting at a California condor that was part ofa
9
Fig. 2. California Condor Population
1982-1995
838485868788899091
YEAR
Wild Captive
z
0
-J
D
0~
0
0~
0C
z00
-J
F-
0
F-
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
reintroduction program, thus indicating the need for continued public education and an
enforcement presence to protect the species from wanton shooting.
Post-mortem examinations performed on four California condors found dead since 1983,
indicated that three ofthe birds died from the effects oflead poisoning (Janssen et al. 1986,
Wiemeyer et al. (1988), and one died ofcyanide poisoning (Wiemeyer et al. op cit.). High lead
levels, presumably obtained from the ingestion of fragments oflead bullets in shot mammal
carcasses, may be a pervasive problem throughout the historical foraging range of the California
condor. For example, Bloom et al. (1989) and Pattee et al. (1990) found elevated levels in one-third
of 162 golden eagle blood samples taken in the range ofthe California condor in 1985-1986,
and Wiemeyer et al. (1988) concluded that lead exposure was the major factor having an adverse
impact on the wild California condor population between 1982-1986. The possible effects on
condors ofanother highly toxic heavy metal, copper, have not beeninvestigated, but Wiemeyer et
al. (1983) reported unusually high copper levels in the liver tissue ofan immature condor found
dead from unknown causes in 1974.
Cyanide poisoning is considered to be a highly improbable occurrence and is therefore not likely
to be a major cause ofthe decline ofthe species. Equally improbable was the recent death ofa
released condor from the ingestion of ethylene glycol, apparently as the result ofdrinking
antifreeze. Deaths from one or more range poisons, including strychnine and various
rodenticides, may have occurred historically, but convincing documentation ofthe occurrence and
magnitude of such losses has not been documented.
Kiffet al. (1979) reported severe thinning and ultrastructural abnormalities in California condor
eggshells collected in the late I960s by F. Sibley. They attributed the abnormalities to the
probable effects of 1, 1-dichloro,-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)etylene (DDE), a breakdown metabolite
ofthe pesticide 1,1, 1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloro-phenyl)ethane(DDT). DDT was banned for
domestic use in the United States in 1972, and virtually all condor eggshell samples collected after
1975 have exhibited normal thickness (Snyder et al. ins). However, two eggs laid in 1986 by the
last female California condor (Stud Book 12) to breed in the wild were very thin (44% thinner
than the historical mean thickness) and contained inexplicably high levels ofDDE and the parent
compound, DDT (Kiff 1989). Indeed, the first-laid ofthese eggs was crushed, probably by the
weight ofthe incubating bird, before it could be removed for captive incubation. The effect of
eggshell thinning on the condor population cannot be accurately assessed now, but it could have
been a serious factor during the 1950s-1960s. Significant eggshell thinning has also been reported
for the turkey vulture within the region ofsympatry with the California condor (Wilbur 1 978c,
Kiffet al. 1979, Wiemeyer et al. 1986). Organochlorine concentrations were low in four condors
analyzed for these contaminants between 1980-86 (Wiemeyer et al. 1988), but the highly
contaminated eggs from 1986 indicate that continued monitoring of such compounds in condors
and surrogate species is warranted.
One ofthe Andean condors in an experimental release program died from a collision with a power
line near Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge in 1989, and, more recently, four ofthe 19
California condors released since 1992 were lost from the same cause. At least two deaths from
collisions with manmade objects, including power lines, were known historically (Koford 1953).
Such deaths suggest that future condor releases should be conducted in areas remote from human
settlements with their attendant condor hazards.
11
Other serious factors formerly contributing to the decline ofthe species were egg and specimen
collecting, capture oflive birds for sport or display, Indian ceremonial use, and drowning in
uncovered oil sumps. These activities are no longer believed to represent threats to California
condors.
Deaths ofadult California condors from natural causes are virtually unknown. Rett (1938)
reported two adult California condors killed by hail, and he later reported the probable cause of
another California condor death as osteomyelitis (Rett 1946). California condor eggs and
nestlings are vulnerable to natural predators. According to Snyder (1986), ravens were observed
taking two eggs and have been observed attempting to take others. Golden eagles have been
observed at least twice attempting to capture condor nestlings, and on one occasion a black bear
(Ursus americanus) was seen making an unsuccessfUl attempt to take a nestling (Snyder 1986).
Although not considered a significant factor in the decline ofthe species, reproductive problems
have been noted in recent years. Two pairs, engaged in otherwise normal breeding behavior,
failed to successfully copulate on repeated attempts. Based on his observations in the field Snyder
(1989) speculated that the pair may have been homosexual; however, one ofthese birds later
paired with another California condor in captivity and reproduced successfully (Cox pers. comm.).
One female (Stud Book 10) now deceased produced chicks with morphological abnormalities on
several occasions. Another founder female (Stud Book 12) lays unusually small eggs, but
continues to reproduce successfully and is well represented by progeny in the captive population.
The trait oflaying small eggs appears to be heritable through the female line, and her offspring
have also laid relatively small eggs (Kuehler et al. 1991). The founder female (Stud Book 12) 0 bird was the last female to breed in the wild.
I. Population Modeling
Verner (1978) constructed a model predicting that a stable California condor population could not
be maintained with mortality rates over 9 percent annually in adults coupled with 11 percent
annually in immatures, or 7 percent annually in adults coupled with 15 percent annually in
immatures. The model employed the following assumptions: (I) age offirst breeding is six years,
(2) 80 percent ofthe adults are members ofbreeding pairs, (3) nesting success is approximately
50 percent, (4) 50 percent ofnesting failures occur early enough for renesting, and (5) annual
nesting occurs only after early fledging ofyoung. The known mean annual mortality rate for the
years 1982 through 1986 was 23.8 percent (24 percent for adults and 23.1 percent for
immatures). These percentages clearly indicate the significance of mortality to the decline ofthe
species.
Based on the historical information, the decline ofthe California condor is more likely attributable
to excessive mortality offree-flying birds than to reproductive failure. Review ofthe available
data on recent reproductive success ofthe California condor does not suggest significant
difficulties with reproduction (Snyder and Snyder 1989). Between 1980 and 1985, with a sample
of 17 pairs, studies revealed 41 to 47 percent nest success (Snyder and Snyder op cit.). These
figures are very similar to historical breeding records ofCalifornia condors and to that ofother
cathartid and Old World vultures (Jackson 1983, Mundy 1982). Snyder (1983) suggested that
condor reproductive success had held fairly constant through historical times, based upon a
comparison of nest success figures from the 1940s (Koford 1953), late 1960s (Sibley 1969), and
12
- Snyder’s own data from the early 1980s. However, since the principal causes ofnest losses during
each period were mostly anthropogenic, directly or indirectly, and apparently specific to each era,
it may not be possible to determine “natural” rates of California condor nest success from these
data.
J. Conservation Measures
Despite decades oflegal protection and extensive conservation efforts, condors continued to
decline in numbers in the wild throughout the twentieth century. As a crucial attempt to prevent
the extinction of the California condor the decision to capture all remaining wild California
condors for safekeeping and genetic security was made by the Service and the California Fish and
Game Commission (Commission) in late 1985. That controversial decision was a dramatic shift
from previous conservation efforts to recover the species primarily through habitat protection.
The following section provides a brief chronology ofconservation efforts.
Legal protection was first provided to the California condor by the State ofCalifornia through a
series of avian “protective” laws which were promulgated around the turn ofthe century (Wilbur
1978). The California condor was protected by the State of California at least as early as 1901.
The law was nonspecific, merely prohibiting the taking ofany nongame bird or its eggs or nests
without a permit. In 1908, a constable was fined $50.00 for shooting a California condor in the
San Gabriel Mountains near Pasadena (Finley and Finley 1928). In 1917 an illegally captured
California condor was confiscated, but no one was prosecuted (Anonymous 1917). In general,
early nongame laws were not strictly enforced, and a number ofCalifornia condors were shot and
eggs were collected until about 1920.
Official concern began to be expressed for the California condor by the mid-1930s. At the urging
ofRobert 0. Easton, .a Santa Barbara County rancher, and the National Audubon Society
(Audubon), the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) established the Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary in
1937. It encompasses 1,198 acres in Santa Barbara County that include an important condor
roost, nest site, and bathing pool. Following field studies by Carl Koford between 1939 and
1946, the Sespe Condor Sanctuary was established in 1947 in the Los Padres National Forest in
Ventura County. Originally about 35,000 acres, the Sespe Condor Sanctuary was enlarged in
1951 to include approximately 53,000 acres. These two sanctuaries remain under the
administration ofthe Forest Service. The Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary is closed to all non-permitted
entry, and the Sespe Condor Sanctuary is also closed to all non-permitted entry with the
exception oftwo narrow travel corridors that allow hikers and horseback riders to pass through
the area.
The first specific legal mention ofthe California condor was in 1953. Section 1179.5 ofthe
California Fish and Game Code stated: “It is unlawful to take any condor at any time or in any
manner. No provision ofthis code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance
ofa permit to take any condor and no such permit heretofore issued shall have any effect for any
purpose on and after January 15, 1954.” The California condor was retained in that “fully
protected” status with no authority to issue any type ofpermit for trapping or handling, until
1971. At that time the Fish and Game Code was amended (Stats. 1970, Ch. 1036) to allow
issuance ofpermits for collecting fUlly protected species when necessary for scientific purposes.
13
An Audubon-sponsored field survey in 1963-64 resulted in the hiring of an Audubon Society
“condor naturalist” in 1965. In the same year, the Service initiated the Endangered Wildlife
Research Program, and a research biologist was assigned to study the California condor in 1966.
Both Audubon Society and Service positions were occupied until recently. From 1968 to 1973,
the Forest Service employed a California condor biologist to prepare a comprehensive California
condor habitat management plan for the national forests. The California Department ofFish and
Game (Department) maintained a full-time California condor biologist from 1982-1989.
Cooperation and assistance from other individuals and agencies have been coordinated through
the Service and the Team.
The California condor was recognized by the Federal government as “endangered” in 1967, but
the first specific Federal legal protection did not occur until 1972 when the U.S. Migratory Bird
Treaty with Mexico was amended to include vultures and certain other families ofbirds. The
passage ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) made the taking ofany
endangered species a violation ofFederal law.
An important outgrowth ofFederal endangered species legislation was the concept ofcritical
habitat. According to Section 7(a)(2) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, “each
Federal agency shall in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary [of Interior]
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency... is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence ofany endangered species or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat ofsuch species which is determined by the
Secretary ... to be critical.” About 570,400 acres ofcritical habitat (Section 3(5)(A)) has been Vdeetnetrumrain,eLdofsorAtnhgeeCleasl,ifSoarnntiaa Bcoanrbdaorra,(SSOanCLFuRis1O7.1b9is5p),o,inKseixrnSaonudthTeurlnarCea(liAfoprpneinadcioxu1n)t.ies; IL
Considerable effort to preserve California condor habitat was made from the late I960s through
the I980s, yet the species continued to decline rapidly. The Team prepared the first draft
“California Condor Contingency Plan” in 1976. That document recommended captive breeding
and other intensive recovery efforts. A revised version was approved “in concept” in 1977 by the
Service. In 1978, a panel of experts appointed by the American Ornithologists’ Union and the
Audubon Society prepared a report on the California condor that recommended an aggressive
program oftrapping condors for captive breeding and radiotelemetry studies (Ricklefs 1978).
These reports led to the signing ofa Cooperative Agreement in 1979 among the Service,
Audubon Society, Department, Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau ofLand Management. The
purpose ofthe agreement was to expedite the California condor recovery effort and to cooperate
on providing information and education. The Condor Research Center was established in 1980 by
the Service and the Audubon Society as a result ofthe agreement.
In May 1980, Federal and State permits authorizing the capture ofa condor for captive breeding
and equipping 10 wild condors with radiotelemetry devices were approved. However, the State
permit was rescinded in the following monthwhen a condor chick died while being examined by a
field team from the Condor Research Center. A permit to capture a condor for captive breeding
was renewed in August 1981 by the Commission but a suitable bird could not be found because of
the restrictive provisions of the permit. I
14
The Commission also approved the use ofpatagial-mounted radios in January 1982, and two
California condorswere captured and equipped with these devices late in 1982. For the first time,
photocensusing techniques yielded an accurate estimate ofthe number ofextant California
condors (Snyder and Johnson 1985), and it was found that the species had reached an apparent
minimum total population size of22 individuals. In 1982, a wild California condor chick was
captured and brought safely into captivity. “Double-clutching” by one ofthe wild pairs was
documented beyond question in 1982 (Snyder and Hamber 1985), and led in 1983 to the issuance
ofa permit to bring the first-laid eggs of breeding California condors into captivity.
The years 1983 and 1984 were critical ones in the formation ofthe captive California condor
flock at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and Los Angeles Zoo. Twochicks and four eggs were
taken from the wild to the San Diego Wild Animal Park in 1983; all eggs hatched successfUlly. In
1984, six out ofeight eggs taken to this facility were hatched successfully. In addition, another
chick was captured and added to the captive population in 1984. For the first time in the
recorded history ofthe California condor, the overall population increased in number.
Eventually, nine free-flying California condors were equipped with radiotelemetry devices, and
their movements were followed by field technicians. The photocensusing project continued, and it
indicated that the wild condor population consisted of 15 individuals in the fall of 1984. Among
these birds were five breeding pairs, and it seemed possible that the growing captive flock would
soon be able to produce releasable offspringwell in sufficient time to forestall the extirpation of
the wild population. However, disaster struck during the winter of 1984-85, and six birds were
lost from the wild population. The cause ofdeath was determined for only one ofthe six birds, a
condor named Broken Featherthat was found sick and on the ground near California Hot
Springs. Broken Feather died of lead poisoning while undergoing treatment. Their loss left only
one breeding pair ofCalifornia condors in the wild in the spring of 1985. By April 1985, there
was widespread sentiment that all ofthe remaining wild birds should be brought into captivity in
order to ensure the genetic viability ofthe species and to enhance the chances ofsuccess in the
captive breeding program. That position was formally endorsed by the Commission and a panel
of 10 prominent population geneticists, and it was supported by most ofthe Team members. An
American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on the California condor favored the capture of all the
wild birds for biological reasons, but recommended that three birds be left in the wild in order to
maintain the integrity ofhabitat preservation efforts and the momentum of the condor recovery
program until the captive-reared birds could be released.
In June 1985, the Service recommended the capture ofthree of the remaining nine wild birds, but
(with Audubon backing) also advocated the release ofthree ofthe birds then held captive. That
proposal became a matter ofconsiderable contention, but the situation was finally resolved in
December 1985, when the Service recommended the immediate capture ofall remaining wild
California condors. Immediately preceding that decision, one of the six remaining wild California
condors, a breeding female, was found suffering from lead poisoning and was taken to the San
Diego Wild Park, where she died in January 1986.
The Service decision to capture all remaining wild California condors resulted in a lawsuit by
Audubon, and a temporary injunction preventing trapping ofthe remaining wild birds was issued.
The matter was not resolved until June 1986, when the court ruled in favor ofthe Service’s
position. At about that time administrative responsibility for the California Condor Recovery
15
PRreoggioranm1wofafsicterainnsPfeorrrteladnfdr,omOrPegatounx.enTthWerieldwliefereRsetislelafrivceh cCoenndtoers(Rinetghieonw8il)dt,ointhcleudSienrgviocen’es S
breeding pair. By the end ofthe summer, all but three ofthese birds had been captured. The
present Teamwas formed in August 1986, and its first recommendation was to capture the last
free-flying condors. One ofthe birds was taken into captivity before the end of 1986, and another
was captured in January 1987. The last individual was captured on Easter Sunday, April 19,
1987.
Other important actions during that period included the acquisition by the Service ofthe 1,800-
acre Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge as a buffer for the Sespe Condor Sanctuary and
the 13,500 acre Hudson Ranch (now Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge), an important condor
foraging area in the southern San Joaquin Valley. DNA “fingerprinting” studies to elucidate the
relationship ofall living and some recently dead California condors were conducted by Dr. Oliver
Ryder at the San Diego Zoo, and they indicated that the captive population contained 14 different
founders, representing three “clans.” Using these data and the known histories ofthe captive
birds, a computer model was generated to determine the best pairings from a genetic standpoint.
Prior to the beginning ofthe intense condor management program in the 1980s, the only living
captive California condor was a bird (“Topa Topa”) that had been captured at the age of 11
months in 1967 and held at the Los Angeles Zoo. In 1983 the decision was made to take into
captivity eggs produced by wild California condors, and in that year three eggs from first clutches
were collected and hatched at the San Diego Wild Animal Park. Removal ofthe eggs stimulated
the production ofreplacement clutches in two ofthe pairs. One ofthose eggs was also taken and I hatched in captivity, and the other was lost to common ravens (Corvus corax). In addition, two
nestlings were taken into captivity in 1983. In 1984, eight eggs and one chick were taken into
captivity. Six ofthe eggs hatched. The following year, two eggs were taken; both hatched. By
1986 only one breeding pair ofCalifornia condors survived in the wild, and they produced two
eggs, one ofwhich was hatched in captivity. The first successfUl breeding ofCalifornia condors in
captivity occurred at the San Diego Wild Animal Park in 1988, when a chick, “Molloko,” was
produced by a pair ofwild-caught condors. Four more chicks were produced at the San Diego
Wild Animal Park and Los Angeles Zoo in 1989. The number of chicks produced by captive
California condors continued to increase annually (Fig. 2), and the captive population grew from
27 birds in 1987 to 86 birds by the spring of 1994.
The Team approved a protocol for the selection ofadditional condor captive propagation facilities
in February 1988, and solicitations were made to candidate zoological institutions for proposals.
The two leading proposals were received from The Peregrine Fund, Inc. in Boise, Idaho (World
Center for Birds ofPrey) and the National Zoo at Front Royal, Virginia. Both institutions were
recommended by the Team as sites for additional condor captive propagation facilities in
September 1990 with the expectation that the former facility would be in operation first. Twelve
condors, genetically selected to form six breeding pairs, were transferred from the two existing
condor facilities to the World Center for Birds ofPrey on September 23, 1993. Eight more
condors were transferred on November 1 and 2, 1994, bringing the total number ofpairs at that
facility to ten. In addition, the Team recommended in February 1993 that the George M. Sutton
Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma be approved as an additional condor captive
propagation facility.
16
In October 1986, the Team recommended criteria to be satisfied before a release ofcaptive-bred
California condors could take place. These included having three actively breeding pairs of
condors, three chicks behaviorally suitable for release, and retaining at least five offspring from
each breeding pair contributing to the release. The Team recommended that all California
condors then in captivity should be retained for captive breeding purposes. In June 1989, the
Team added a provision to the third criterion to retain a minimum ofseven progeny in captivity
for founders that were not reproductively active.
Some ofthe chicks produced in the 1991 breeding season met all three criteria, and two were
eventually released to the wild. However, attempting to apply the first criterion to the 1991
chicks also revealed that it would not be practical in the future, because several founders had died
without producing five progeny. The Team therefore recommended choosing genetically
appropriate chicks for future releases based on pedigree analyses developed for the genetic
management of captive populations. These pedigree analyses evolve over time as the results of
new research are incorporated. The analyses currently available are described in Ralls and Ballou
(1992).
Prior to the capture ofthe last wild California condor in 1987, the Team recognized that the
anticipated future releases of captive-reared California condors would pose the problem of
reintroducing individuals ofan altricial bird species into habitat devoid oftheir parents and other
members oftheir own species. Thus, the Team recommended the initiation ofan experimental
release ofAndean condors in southern California. Research objectives for the experimental
release were to refine condor release and recapture techniques developed with black and turkey
vultures in Florida and Andean condors in Peru, test the criteria being used to select California
condor release sites, develop written protocols forthe release and recapture of California
condors, identify potential problemspeculiar to the California environment, field test rearing
protocols being used,. or proposed for use, to produce California condors suitable for release,
evaluate radiotelemetry packages, and train a team of biologists for releasing California condors.
Other benefits ofthe Andean condor experimental release included identifying environmental
hazards associated with selected release sites, and the development and implementation of
measures to eliminate, or plans to avoid those hazards prior to the release ofCalifornia condors.
There were also public relations benefits gained from the widespread notice received by the
project. Andean condors not only served as a surrogate study species, but the release project also
helped maintain momentum for the California condor recovery program and condor habitat
protection during the period when California condors were not in the wild.
The project began in August 1988, when a group ofthreejuvenile female Andean condors were
released from a fabricated release site on Hopper Mountain National Wildlife RefUge. Later in
1988, four more juvenile female Andean condors were taken to a nearby release site within the
Sespe Condor Sanctuary. The birds were reared at each site until they reached fledgling age
approximately eight months ofage. At that time, the netting was removed from their enclosures,
and the birds were allowed to fly. During 1989, six more female Andean condors were added to
the experimental release population. The project was continued until December 1991 and
resulted in the acquisition ofimportant knowledge about the best procedures for releasing
California condors. Following their experimental release in the Sespe area, the Andean condors
17
were removed gradually from the wild and eventually transported to Colombia and Venezuela,
where they were released to the wild.
By the end ofthe 1991 breeding season several captive-produced chicks met the criteria for
release. The Team recommended the release oftwo individuals into the Sespe Condor Sanctuary
(Sanctuary), Los Padres National Forest, Ventura County, California be conducted in the winter
of 199 1-92. The first release occurred on January 14, 1992, when two captive-produced
California condor chicks, “Xewe” (female) and “Chocuyens” (male), were released with two
Andean condor chicks at the Arundell Cliffs located in the Sanctuary. The Andean condors were
released with the California condors to create a larger social group. The Andean condors were
returned to captivity in September 1992, thus marking the end ofthe 3-year experimental Andean
condor release project. The young California condors continued to fare well until Chocuyens was
found dead at Pyramid Lake, Ventura County, on October 8, 1992, where he had died from
ingesting ethylene glycol, a primary component ofantifreeze.
The next release ofCalifornia condors occurred on December 1, 1992, when six more captive-produced
California condors chicks were released at the same Sespe Condor Sanctuary site.
Socialization with Xewe, the remaining individual from the first release, proceeded well, and the
“flock” appeared to adjust well to wild conditions. However, there was continuing concern over
the tendency of the birds to frequent zones ofheavy human activity, especially the Pyramid Lake
area. Indeed, three ofthese birds eventually died from collisions with power lines in the release
area between late May-October 1993.
Because of the tendency for the remaining birds to be attracted to the vicinity ofhuman activity
and man-made obstacles, especially power lines, another condor release site was constructed in a
more remote area, Lion Canyon, Los Padres National Forest, near the boundary ofthe San Rafael
Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara County, California. Five juvenile condors were released at the
new site on December 8, 1993. In addition, the four condors that had been residing in the Sespe
area were also moved to the new site. Theywere re-released over a period ofseveral weeks in
hopes that this approachwould reduce the probability that they would return to the Sespe area.
Nevertheless, three ofthese condors eventually moved back to the Sespe-Castaic-Fillmore area in
March 1994, where they resumed the high risk practice ofperching on power poles. Because of
general concern about the tameness ofthese condors and the possibility that their undesirable
behavior would be mimicked by the younger birds, these condors were retrapped on March 29,
1994, and added to the captive breeding population. One ofthe five condors released on
December 8, 1993, died on June 24, 1994, when it collided with a powerline on the north side of
San Marcos Pass. Asecond condor from this group was captured on July 4, 1995, and brought
into captivity when it could not be discouraged from frequenting the same area in which the first
was killed. On July 4, 1994, this condor died in captivity from cancer.
On February 8, 1995, six ofthe 14 condors successfUlly hatched in 1994 were released at Lion
Canyon. That group was the first to undergo aversion training in captivity prior to their release.
The training was designed to condition these birds to avoid powerlines and approaching humans,
hopefully improving their chances of survival in the wild. On March 1, 1995, the three condors
remaining in the wild from the December 8, 1993, release were trapped and brought into
captivity. This was done so they would not negatively influence the six newly released birds that
underwent the aversion training. On August 29, 1995, the remaining eight condors from the 1994
18
breeding seasonwere released at Lion Canyon. The 1994 release candidates were split into two
groups m order to keep the releases at more manageable numbers. Only one unfortunatehuman
interaction threatened this cohort when campers gave one ofthe condors food and water despite
instructions from biologists to the contrary. That left biologists with no choice but to capture the
compromised condor and return it to captivity. Despite this one incident, the remaining 13
condors continue to be the best behaved cohort released to the wild. None have been observed
landing on power poles, they are avoiding areas ofhigh human activity, and only a few
interactions with backcountry hikers have been recorded.
The 1995 breeding season produced 13 condors eligible for release, four ofwhich were parent
hatched and reared. At approximately three months ofage the four parent hatched and reared
condors were transferred to a newly constructed rearing facility at the Hopper Mt. National
WildIfe Refuge. That cohort was released to the wild on February 13, 1996, at the Castle Crags
release site located approximately 64 km (40 mi) northwest ofLion Canyon on the western border
of San Luis Obispo County. An objective ofthis release is to determine if parent hatched and
reared chicks taken from the Zoo at the earliest possible date and placed in a natural environment
to be reared will be more successful in their adjustment to the wild. All 13 condors have
undergone aversion training.
To satisfy the objectives ofthe Plan, at least one subpopulation ofnon-captive condors must be
established in an area disjunct from the subpopulation being reestablished in the recent historical
range in California. Following a widely publicized solicitation ofsuggestions for suitable condor
release sites outside ofCalifornia and the approval ofa site selection protocol (March 1987), the
Team recommended in December 1991 that California condor releases be conducted in northern
Arizona. The remaining 9 condors still in captivity are scheduled to be released at the Vermilion
Cliffs in northern Arizona in June of 1996, in an attempt to achieve this primary recovery goal.
California condors released into northern Arizona willbe designated as a “nonessential”
experimental population in acccordance with Section 10(j) ofthe Act.
Section 100) ofthe Act enables the Service to release individuals offederally listed species into
the wild and allows (but does not require) the Service to designate them as “experimental
populations”. The circumstances under which a designation canbe applied are--(1) the
population is geographically disjunct from nonexperimental populations ofthe same species (e.g.,
the population is reintroduced outside the species’ current range but within its historical range);
and (2) the Service determines the release will fUrther the conservation of the species. The
designation can increase the Service’s flexibility to manage a reintroduced population, because
under Section 100) an experimental population is treated as a threatened species regardless ofits
designation elsewhere in its range and, under Section 4(d) ofthe Act, the Service hasgreater
discretion in developing management programs for threatened species than it has for endangered
species. Therefore, the experimental designation allows the management flexibility needed to
ensure that reintroduction is compatible with current or planned human activities in the
reintroduction area and to permit management ofthe population for recovery purposes.
Experimental populations can be classified as either “essential” or “nonessential”. An essential
experimental population is a population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival ofthe species in the wild [50 CFR 17.80 (Subpart H-Experimental
Populations)]. All other experimental populations are treated as nonessential, if they are not
19
considered essential to the continued existence of the species. “Nonessential” experimental
populations are treated for purposes of Section 7 ofthe Act as though they are proposed for
listing (except on National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands where they will be
treated as a species listed as “threatened” under the authority ofthe Act). Adesignation of
nonessential experimental prohibits the application of Section 7(a)(2) ofthe Act except on
National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands. This ensures that current land uses and
activities (such as, but not limited to, forest management, agriculture, mining, livestock grazing,
sport hunting and fishing, non-consumptive outdoor recreational activities) will not be restricted.
In March 1995, the Team recommended that a condor release project be undertaken in the
Ventana Wilderness on the Big Sur Coast, Los Padres National Forest, Monterey County,
California. The recommendation received the Service’s concurrence and plans are being made to
release condors in this area in November or December of 1996.
In July 1993, the Team recommended that a condor release project be undertaken at Ladder
Ranch in New Mexico. That proposal will be pursued after the northern Arizona release has been
established. Other areas, including Tehama County in northern California, the Gray Ranchin
New Mexico, and the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California Norte, Mexico, have been
discussed as possible release sites.
Supplemental feeding is an integral component ofthe condor release program. Prior to the recent
condor management era, Wilbur et al. (1974) and Wilbur (1978b) showed that California condors
could easily be attracted to artificial food sites, and “vulture restaurants” have long been in
operation in several Old World vulture conservation programs.
Based on the encouraging results ofthe Andean condor surrogate release experiment, condor
field technicians have continued to feed the released California condors on still-born dairy calves,
and there has been little evidence that the birds have utilized any other food items. Although it is
not expected that free-flying condors will continue to feed on proffered food indefinitely, the
supplemental feeding program should continue to reduce the likelihood ofdeaths ofcondors from
lead or other poisoning insofar as it prevents the birds from feeding on contaminated carcasses.
In addition, feeding sites can be strategically located in order to influence movements ofthe birds.
Finally, supplemental feeding can permit the reintroduction and maintenance of condor
populations in areas where the supply ofnatural food resources is too variable to support the
birds over the entire annual cycle.
The first two releases took place in the Sespe-Piru Condor Critical Habitat Area, one ofnine
designated Condor Critical Habitat Areas located in Southern California. The third and fourth
releases were conducted approximately 8.1 kms (5 mi) north ofthe Sisquoc-San Rafael Condor
Critical Habitat area. The condors released at that site utilized the Sisquoc-San Rafael and Mt.
Pinos Condor Critical Habitat areas. The new Castle Crags release site in San Luis Obispo
County is located on the northwest boundary ofthe Beartrap Condor Critical Habitat area. The
original selection ofcritical habitat areas was based on the documented use ofnesting, roosting,
and foraging habitat by multiple generations ofwild condors. Although recently released captive-hatched
condors have no historical bonds to these critical habitat areas, the latter contain the most
important habitat components essential to the survival ofwild condors still extant. Thus, it is
expected that released condors will be drawn to these areas. However, not until we have a larger
20
number of condors in the wild, including breeding pairs, will we be able to fully evaluate the
contribution critical habitat areas will make to the recovery ofthe California condor.
K. Strategy ofRecovery
The recovery strategy for the California condor will focus on (1) increasing reproduction in
captivity to provide condors for release, (2) the release ofcondors to the wild, (3) minimizing
condor mortality factors, (4) maintaining habitat for condor recovery, and (5) implementing
condor information and education programs.
21
II. RECOVERY
A. Objectives and Criteria
The primary objective ofthe California Condor Recovery Plan (Plan) is reclassification ofthe
California condor to threatened status. The plan provides the criteria for reclassification and
outlines the requisite actions for the accomplishment ofeach criterion.
The minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance ofat least two non-captive
populations and one captive population. These populations (1) must each number at least
150 individuals, (2) must each contain at least 15 breeding pairs and (3) be reproductively self-sustaining
and have a positive rate ofpopulation growth. In addition, the non-captive populations
(4) must be spatially disjunct and non-interacting, (5) must contain individuals descended from
each ofthe 14 founders. When these five conditions are met the species should be reclassified to
threatened status. The accomplishment ofthese objectives will depend upon reducing mortality to
the lowest level possible and ensuring the interchange of individuals among the spatiallyisolated
free-living sub-populations and the captive flock. It is recognized that reestablished condor
populations in some areas may require continued artificial feeding to supplement natural food
resources and/or to protect birds from exposure to contaminated carcasses. However, such
management considerations should not preclude reclassification ofthe species if the above-listed
criteria are met.
These reclassification criteria may be revised on the basis ofnew information. The estimated date
ofreclassification to threatened is 2010. Reintroduction programs must be successful before
reclassification occurs. In addition, productivity must be increased beyond the California condor’s
intrinsic reproductive rate through a captive breeding program. The long-term population goal of
this program is to manage the captive flock to maintain 90 percent ofthe initial genetic variance
ofthe represented founders for 200 years.
The ultimate size ofthis population is dependent upon the number offounders, the growth rate of
the captive flock, and the generation length ofthe species. A preliminary estimate ofthe captive
population size is approximately 50 pairs. The short-term population objectives set here are based
on preliminary population viability considerations (Appendix 2). The viability factors that have
been considered include genetics, demography, and environmental variation, including the
possibility ofcatastrophes and epidemics. The roles and interactions ofthese factors are set out in
Souls (1987).
B. aIix~
1. Preserve Gene Pool
.
Single populations are at higher risks from natural or human-caused disasters than are
several sub-populations. Therefore, multiple sub-populations of California condors should
be maintained to producebirds for the establishment ofviable wild sub-populations.
22
11. _zM_o_ao_i_lnotgaiicnaelxintesntistiuvteiolynsmanaged captive breeding programs at a minimum of five 4)
.
Captive California condor flocks should be managed to maximize production while
optimizing genetic diversity. Optimum pairing strategies for captive birds should be
based on genetic information, behavioral data, logistical considerations, and any other
pertinent data. In the short term, demographics should be emphasized with the
expectation that in the long term, genetic considerations will become increasingly
important in managing condor populations.
Ill. Update standardized management protocols
Captive breeding/rearing protocols have been developed under the auspices of
the Team and are being implemented. Continue to update, revise, and
standardize existing protocols for veterinary, husbandry, transport, captive-breeding
techniques, and emergency procedures to ensure the health, safety,
and productivity ofcaptive condors.
112. Operate existing breeding facilities according to management protocols
Existing captive-breeding facilities located at the Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego
Wild Animal Park, and the World Center for Birds ofPrey should be operated
in accordance with captive/rearing protocols approved by the Team.
113. Develop additional captive-breeding facilities
The development ofadditional captive-breeding facilities is necessary for three
reasons, (1) safety - single populations are more susceptible to natural or
human-caused disasters than multiple sub-populations, (2) space - additional
facilities are necessary to accommodate the growing captive population, and
(3) cost - the existing captive breeding facilities cannot be expected to assume
the total cost ofmaintaining the growing captive population. Additional
captive-breeding facilities should be developed as needed to accommodate the
growing captive population.
12. Manage the captive flock to optimize productivity, maximize izenetic diversity
minimize 2enetic loss, and maintain genetic balance
Management under the current captive-breeding protocols should continue to
emphasize optimal productivity, maximum genetic diversity, minimum genetic loss,
and genetic balance.
121. Maintain comparable Renetic. age. and sex representation in each facility
Because ofthe possibility ofa catastrophic loss at one or more captive
breeding facilities, each sub-population should be managed to represent as
much as possible the captive population as a whole.
23
122. Offspring and eggs should be exchanged between captive subpopulations to
~1mjmn]~gE~IIQn
The exchange ofoffspring and eggs should be conducted as needed to balance
the genetic, age, and sex ratios ofthe sub-populations.
123. Determine an appropriate genetic balance in the California condor captive
±IQ~k.
Continue research on the genetic relatedness ofthe captive flock and generate
a computer model to determine an appropriate genetic balance in the captive
flock.
124. Establish optimum pairing strategies forthe California condor captive flock
.
Optimum pairing strategies should continue to be based on the most current
genetic and behavioral information, logistical considerations, and any other
pertinent data.
125. Maintain a studbook for the California Condor population.
The California condor studbook should be continually updated in order to
provide the basic knowledge necessary for assessing population status and for
planning management actions.
13. ManaRe selected California condors for release to the wild
California condors to be released to the wild whose loss should be genetically
affordable, physically and behaviorally healthy, ofcomparable age, successfully
socialized with other release candidates, kept in isolation from humans to prevent
taming, and undergo aversion training to condition them to avoid humans and man-made
structures. Criteria to identify condors eligible for release should continue to
be refined by the Team.
14. Collect and analyze behavioral data on captive California and Andean condors
Behavioral data on California and Andean condors have been collected and analyzed
from the beginning ofthe captive-breeding program. Collection ofsuch data in a
standardized manner should continue, and emphasis should be placed upon publishing
summaries ofthe findings, since they may have relevance to the management ofthe
wild California condor population.
2. Reintroduce California Condors to the Wild
Establish at least two, preferably more, disjunct wild sub-populations in order to reduce the
risks to the overall population and to facilitate their optimal genetic and demographic
management.
24
21. Develop protocols for the releases ofCalifornia condors
.
Draft release protocols were completed in July of 1991, based on data collected
during the experimental releases ofAndean condors. They should be updated and
revised based on data collected from the four releases ofCalifornia condors.
211. Develop release criteria for California condors
Criteria to determine eligible release candidates have been developed, but
should be reviewed and updated as needed.
212. Develop an annual plan for the release ofCalifornia condors
Based on the annual production ofrelease candidates and the physical
capacities ofthe current release site(s), prepare a release plan that would
recommend procedures for (1) the selection ofrelease cohorts, (2) the
socialization ofrelease cohorts in captivity, (3) the transfer from captive
facilities to release sites, (4) veterinary care, (5) feeding schedules, and (6) pre-and
post-release monitoring.
22. Establish release sites in California for California condors
Three California condor release sites have been established. Two releases were
conducted in 1992 in the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, Ventura County, one in 1993 and
two in 1995 were conducted in Lion Canyon, Santa Barbara County, and one in 1996
at Castle Crags, San Luis Obispo County. Additional release sites should be
selected to accommodate any unexpected needs to move the existing release
operations, as well as to accommodate an increasing number ofreleasable birds.
221. Develop criteria for selecting release sites for California condors
Criteria for selecting release sites have been developed, but should be revised if
necessary, based on information collected from the ongoing release operations.
222. Select release sites in accordance with established criteria
Continue to select release sites as needed utilizing existing release site selection
protocols.
223. Prepare release sites based on protocols resulting from the Andean condor
experimental release results and information learned from the three recent
California condor releases
Preparation offUture release sites should utilize the existing release protocols
and incorporate the knowledge gained from past releases ofAndean and
California condors and revised as new findings become available.
25
23. Conduct releases in California ofCalifornia condors into selected habitats
California condor releases should be conducted until the recovery goal is met.
231. Develop a California condor release plan
.
A plan outlining the management ofreleases in California should be developed
to project at least five years into the future to ensure adequate support for
proposed releases.
232. Release California Condors
All releases ofCalifornia condors should be made in accordance with the
release plans and established protocols.
233. Monitor California condors held at release sites in accordance
with the annual release plan and established protocol
The specific guidance provided in the plan and existing protocols should
be followed to guarantee the health and safety of the birds being held for
release.
234. Monitor free-flying condors
Released California condors should be closely monitored by visual observation
and electronic telemetry.
235. Provide protection for released birds
Protection should be provided by management plans on public lands, volunteer
management agreements on private lands, patrolling wildlife authorities, and
biologists tracking released birds.
24. Following the procedures outlined in tasks 21 through 23. implement
releases ofCalifornia condors outside California
The two approved future release sites located outside California should be managed
according to the criteria and protocols developed for condor releases in California.
241. Release California condors in northern Arizona
Release California condors at this approved site in accordance with established
release protocols.
26
242. Release California condors at Ladder Ranch. New Mexico
.
Release California condors at this approved site in accordance with established
release protocols.
25. Establish rearing facilities in wild lands
Field rearing facilities should be established to augment zoo rearing and to test
whether young condors gain survival advantages.
3. Provide Habitat for Condor Recoverv in the Wild
An important factor in the successful establishment ofwild condor sub-populations is the
existence of suitable habitat. Therefore, whenever possible or appropriate, a priority for
this habitat should include management for condor recovery.
31. Continue to implement management plans to protect known suitable nesting sites on
public lands
Continue the enforcement ofadopted Forest Service guidelines that protect known
condor nest sites from activities that could adversely modify or destroy them and
provide adequate protection against human disturbance.
32. Continue to implement management plans to protect known suitable roostimi sites on
public lands
Continue the enforcement ofadopted Forest Service guidelines that protect known
and potential roost sites from activities that could adversely modify or destroy them,
and provide adequate protection against human disturbance.
33. Provide foraging habitat
The management ofexisting foraging habitat should include the support of
reestablished wild condor subpopulations.
331. Implement strategies for managing condor foraQin2 habitat
Foraging habitats have been identified and documented through observations
and radiotelemetry. Their preservation is necessary to the maintenance ofwild
populations ofCalifornia condors. Habitat management plans and volunteer
land use agreements on Federal, State, and private lands should be developed
and implemented to protect existing foraging habitats.
27
3311. Encourage land managers and owners to leave dead livestock on
rnng~nd~.
Wild California condors traditionally fed on dead livestock found on
private and public rangelands. In the future, such carcasses should
provide an important food source for released condors. Land
managers should be informed ofthe value ofthese carcasses, and
should be encouraged to leave dead livestock out for condors.
3312. Reestablish extirpated native ungulate populations on historical
f~tAginLhakflat~.
When feasible or appropriate encourage the Department in
cooperationwith land management agencies to initiate native ungulate
reintroduction within the range ofthe California condor.
332. Preserve key foraging areas near nests and roosts
.
The existence of this foraging habitat is necessary, if California condors are to
reoccupy these key foraging, roosting, and nesting areas.
3321. Foothills of southwestern Kern County
The foothills of southwestern Kern County were used by condors
throughout the year. Breeding pairs and several individuals fed there
year round, and virtually the entire condor population fed there in late
summer and fall. The area is principally composed ofthree large,
private cattle ranches in southern Kern County: San Emigdio,
Snedden, and Hudson. Dead livestock were the primary food source
for condors while feeding in that area. A management plan should be
prepared with the consent and participation ofall affected land owners
to maintain the value of that area for condors.
3322. Carrizo Plaia San Luis Obispo and Elkhorn Plains. Kern County
The Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains in southeastern San Luis Obispo
County and southwestern KernCounty, were used by foraging
condors year-round with the heaviest use being recorded in late winter
and spring. The Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) has been able to
secure most of that area. It is currently managed by the BLM, The
Nature Conservancy, and the Department as the “Carrizo Plain
Natural Area.” The remaining private inholdings should be purchased.
28
3323. Tulare County rangelands between Lake Kaweah and White River
.
California condors fed in this area throughout the year with heavy use
in summer, fall and early winter. It appeared to be an important
foraging area for condors, particularly nonbreeders. Efforts should be
made to maintain the rural landscape ofthis area.
3324. Glennyille/Woody areas. Kern County
The feeding area in northern Kern County received use by foraging
California condors, particularly between late fall and late spring.
Efforts should be made to maintain the rural landscape of that area.
3325. Teion Ranch area. Kern County
The Tejon Ranch was an important condor feeding area throughout
the annual cycle, but especially in the fall, when there is a high
intensity of deer hunting on the ranch. A plan should be prepared with
the consent and participation ofthe affected landowner to maintain its
value for condors.
3326. Hopper Mountain Ranch area~ Ventura. County
The Hopper Mountain Ranch area was purchased in 1974 to serve as a
buffer against development forthe Sespe Condor Sanctuary
(Sanctuary) and to provide an area for a condor feeding program. It is
now a National Wildlife Refuge and the existing ranch house was used
as the headquarters for the condor field program that monitored the
wild population of California condors. It should be maintained as a
refuge to protect the Sanctuary.
3327. Bitter Creek National Wildlife RefUge. Kern County
The Hudson Ranch area was purchased in 1986 because it was an
important feeding area for California condors, it became the Bitter
Creek National Wildlife Refuge. As a refuge, its primary management
emphasis should be to support native ungulates as a food source for
condors.
3328. San Juan Creek Region. San Luis Obispo County
Rangelands on either side of the entire San Juan Creek drainage were
important as California condor feeding areas. In the early 1980’s,
foraging flights by radioed condors were recorded in the upper
drainage of San Juan Creek south of Highway 58. During this period,
a pair ofnon-radioed breeding condors and, occasionally, non-radioed
9
29
single condors were observed there during the summer months. The
rural landscape ofthat area should be preserved.
3329. Elkhorn Hills. Kern County and Caliente Range. Kern County and San
Luis Obispo County
.
These areas were regular California condor foraging areas. In the
future, as the population ofwild condors increases, theuse ofthese
areas by foraging condors will probably resume. One ofthe
management priorities for these areas should be the reintroduction and
maintenance of extirpated ungulate populations.
34. Continue to monitor potential impacts ofall surface-disturbing activities (e.R.
energy, residential agricultural. and transportation development prolects) within
historical condor range
The pressure to develop land within the recent historical California condor foraging
range is increasing. Therefore, investigations to identify, assess, and monitor
potential threats should continue in order to develop alternatives that will not
negatively affect the survival ofthe wild condor population.
341. Work with governmental a2encies to include information on the condor in
land-use planninR documents. geographic information systems and policies
Routine and close communication should be maintained with appropriate
governmental planning agencies (Federal, State, and County), in order to
ensure that information on California condor distribution and habitat use is
integrated into the land planning documents.
342. Review all plans and land use programs within the condor’s range to ensure
that the needs of the species are addressed to the extend possible
An attempt should be made to review all local land-use planning documents
and attend all pertinent local government planning meetings to ensure
California condor issues are addressed. The goal ofthese reviews should be to
integratethe needs ofthe condor into all existing or proposed plans and
programs, in a manner that is compatible with their purpose.
4. Minimize Mortality Factors in the Natural Environment
Land management agencies should identify all known condor mortality factors in their land
management plans and develop strategies to eliminate them to the extent possible.
30
41. Assess historical findings
.
A review ofthe historical literature should be conducted to compile information on
potential mortality factors. It should be determined if these mortality factors are still a
threat. If so, corrective actions should be taken to eliminate them.
42. Provide adequate law enforcement to minimize direct losses ofwild condors from
shooting
A cooperative law enforcement program should be developed between the
Department, Forest Service, BLM Rangers, and the Service for the patrol of key
condor areas.
43. Implement management recommendations and strategies to minimize contaminant
-
related mortality factors
Land management agencies should identify all known or suspected sources of
contaminants that could poison condors. These land managers should then
implement management strategies to eliminate the source, use, or dumping of these
contaminants on lands under their jurisdiction to the extent possible.
44. Eliminate or reduce the effects ofenvironmental contaminants on California condor
Initiate research on known and suspected environmental contaminants using
surrogate species to determine their effects on the survival and reproduction of
California condors. Based on the findings ofthis research, management
recommendations should be made that would eliminate or reduce these effects on
condors.
441. Determine effects ofvarious poisons and contaminants, especially lead and
copper. on surrogate species
Continue to compile information on the effects ofvarious poisons and
contaminants on surrogate species, especially the turkey vultures, Andean
condor, and golden eagles to provide comparative data ofparticular relevance
to the California condor.
45. Monitor contaminant levels in California condors
Condor blood, feathers, eggshells, and other tissues will be collected
opportunistically and analyzed for heavy metals, pesticides, and other potential
contaminants.
451. Sample potential condor food items within historical range to determine
seasonal and geographic contaminant loads
31
Once California condors find and start feeding on food items other than the
carcasses provided to them, those specific items should be tested to determine
their contaminant burdens.
452. Sample and analyze blood of surro2ate svmpatric species in the field to
determine seasonal and ~eographic distribution of contaminant loads
throughout the historical condor range
.
Blood samples should be taken and analyzed from species (e.g., golden eagle)
that are permanent residents within the range of the California condor.
Samples should be taken throughout the condor’s range and during each
season.
46. Minimize mortality due to collisions with man-made structures
Increasing development within the California condor’s range makes it imperative to
minimize collisions with man-made structures by developing guidance documents
that 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 and
an~u~aI~.
To assess the magnitude ofavian mortalities due to collisions with man-made
structures, all available information on the subject should be collected,
knowledgeable persons interviewed, and further studies conducted if
necessary.
462. Advise planning agencies on location ofthreatening powerlines. wind turbines
and other structures to avoid possible condor mortalities
In 1966, a California condor was killed when it flew into a power line. In a
six-month period from May to October 1993, threejuvenile condors died when
they collided with powerlines. Death resulting from collisions with man-made
structures (e.g., power lines and wind turbines) is avoidable if such structures
are designed or retrofitted with hardware that discourages condors from
perching on them and also through carefUlly planned placement. All
agencies/companies planning the construction of such structures should be
advised on the most favorable location ofsuch structures from the standpoint
of the condor, as well as measures that can be implemented that will help
avoid possible condor mortalities.
47. Develop strategies for controlling natural potential predators ofcondor eggs and
nestlings in nesting areas
32
Studies should be undertaken to develop aversion techniques that would stop or 0 discourage predators such as ravens and golden eagles from preying on California
condor eggs and nestlings.
48. Restrict aircraft activity in key condor areas
.
Lowflying military and civilian aircraft could collide with and cause the death of
soaring California condors in certain key areas and could disrupt feeding, nesting,
and roosting condors. The Federal Aviation Administration should be persuaded to
issue aircraft activity advisories in order to protect the airspace in these areas for
condors.
5. Implement Information and Education Programs on Condor Habitat Use and protection
N~di
Information and education programs are currently administered by the Service and all other
institutions participating in the California condor recovery effort. These programs should
continue in order to respond to frequent requests by students, teachers, reporters, and other
interested publics for current information on the condor.
51. Distribute educational material about condor habitat species identification. and legal
protection
Educational hand-out materials on habitat needs, condor identification, and existing 0 laws protecting condors are useful tools for disseminating information to the public.
New material should be developed and existing material should be revised and
updated periodically.
52. Provide information to key governmental land managers in condor range
Written and visual information packets, presentations, and newsletters are currently
provided to key governmental land managers. That type ofcommunication should
continue in order to meet the informational needs ofthese land managers.
53. Provide information on condor habitat needs to key private landowners
Information packets, presentations, and newsletters are currently provided to key
private landowners. That level of communication should continue in order to meet
the informational needs ofthese private landowners.
54. Establish observation points and educational facilities at selected sites
Existing observation points should be rehabilitated, information updated, and new
observation sites should be developed within key areas accessible to the public in the
range ofnewly released California condors.
0 33
55. Make a video on California condor recoverv effort for use as an educational tool by
all cooperating agencies and groups
.
Continue to prepare video tapes of the California condor field and captive breeding
programs to produce up to date visual material for public educational purposes.
56. Provide training sessions on condor biology ecology and key use areas to law
~
Currently, a condor workshop is conducted once a year to educate law enforcement
officers, land managers, biologists, and private citizens that work or live in key use
areas. The annual workshop should be conducted as long as condors are being
released to the wild.
57. Develop public information about condor recovery programs at zoological
institutions
Existing public information programs at zoological institutions should continue to
provide the public important information on the California condor recovery efforts.
571. Provide informational kiosks
Without California condors on exhibit it is necessary that information on the
captive breeding program be displayed using informational kiosks to keep the
public informed on the progress ofthe condor recovery effort. These kiosks
should be available to the public at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, Los
Angeles Zoo, and World Center for Birds ofPrey.
572. Exhibit California condors at zoological institutions
At selected zoological parks supporting California condor captive breeding
facilities, condors should be placed on exhibit to educate the public on the
current recovery effort.
573. Continue to provide ohotos and video tapes ofcaptive-rearing efforts to the
press and management aRencies ofeducational use
The sensitive nature ofthe captive-rearing program necessitates that it be off-exhibit
and closed to the public. It is therefore, important that photos and
video tapes be made available to keep the public informed and management
agencies supplied with California condor captive-rearing educational
information.
58. Maintain and make available a computerized condor information system
Convert the existing California Condor Program literature archives to a computerized
literature-based condor information system.
34
LITERATURE CITED
Allendorf F.W., and R.F. Leary. 1986. Heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations of
animals. In M. Souls (ed.). Conservation biology: science ofdiversity. Pp. 57-76.
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Anonymous. 1917. California condor on exhibition in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. Calif
Fish and Game. 3:176.
Blong, B. 1954. Asouth coast deer range. California Department ofFish and Game, Los
Angeles.
Bloom, P.H., J.M. Scott, OH. Pattee, and M.R Smith. 1989. Lead contamination ofgolden
eagles Aquila chrysaetos within the range ofthe California condor Gymnogyps
californianus. In B.-U. Meyburg and R.D. Chancellor (eds.). Raptors in the modern world.
Pp. 481482. World Working Group on Birds ofPrey, London.
Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue offossil birds. Part 2 (Anseriformes through Galliformes).
Bulletin ofthe Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 8:195-335.
Conway, W.G. 1980. An overview ofcaptive propagation. In M.E. Soul~ and B.A. Wilcox
(eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Pp. 199-208.
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Cooper, J.G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe 1:248-249.
Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet offossil California condors in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Science
237:768-770.
Finley, W.L., and I. Finley. 1928. Wild animal pets. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York.
Frankel, O.H., and M. E. Soul& 1981. Conservation and evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, England.
Franldin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary changes in small populations. In M.E. Souls and BA. Wilcox
(eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Pp. 13 5-149.
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Geyer, C.J., O.A. Ryder, L.G. Chemnick, and EN Thompson. 1993. Analysis ofrelatedness in
the California condors, from DNAfingerprints. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:571-
589.
Gilpin, M.E. 1987. Spatial structure and population viability. In M.E. Souhi (ed.). Viable
populations for conservation. Pp. 124-139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England.
35
Harrison, E.N., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. Apparent replacement clutch laid by wild California condor.
Condor 82:35 1-352.
Houston, 1974. Food searching in griffon vultures. East African Wildlife Journal 12:63-77.
Howard, H. 1962. A comparison ofavian assemblages from individual pits at Rancho La Brea,
California. Los Angeles County Museum Contributions to Science 58:1-24.
Jackson, J.A. 1983. Nesting phenology, nest site selection, and reproductive success ofBlack
and turkey vultures. In SR. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.). Vulturebiology and
management. Pp. 245-286. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Janssen, D.L., JE. Oosterhuis, J.L. Allen, M.P. Anderson, D.G. Kelts, and S.N. Wiemeyer.
1986. Lead poisoning in free ranging California condors. Journal ofthe American
Veterinary Medicine Association 189:1115-1117.
Kiff, L.F. 1989. DDE and the California condor Gymnogyps californianus: the end ofthe story?
In B.U. Meyburg and R.D. Chancellor (eds.). Raptors in the ModernWorld. Pp. 477-480.
World Working Group on Birds ofPrey, Berlin.
Kiff, L.F. 1990. To the brink and back: the battle save the California condor. Terra 28:6-18.
Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall, and SR. Wilbur. 1979. Recent changes in California condor eggshells.
Condor 8 1:166-172.
Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall, M.L. Morrison, and S.R. Wilbur. 1983. Eggshell thickness and DDE
residue levels in vulture eggs. In S.R. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.). Vulture biology and
management. Pp. 440-458. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Kimura, M., and J.F. Crow. 1963. The measurement of effective population number. Evolution
7:279-288.
Koford, C.B. 1953. The California condor. National Audubon Society Research Report 4:1-
154.
Kuehier, C.M. 1989. California condor (Gymnogyps cal~fornianus) studbook. San Diego Wild
Animal Park, Escondido, California.
Kuehler, C.M., D.J. Sterner, D.S. Jones, R.L. Usnik, S Kasielke. 1991. Report on captive
hatches ofCalifornia condors (Gymnogyps cal4fornianus): 1983-1990. Zoo Biology 10:65-
69.
Lande, R., and G.F. Barrowclough. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their
use in population management. In M.E. Souhi (ed.). Viable populations for conservation.
Pp. 87-123. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
36
Ligon, J.D. 1967. Relationships ofthe cathartid vultures. Occasional Paper ofthe Museum of
Zoology, University ofMichigan 651:1-26.
Mallette, R.D. 1970. Operational management plan for the California condor. California
Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento.
Mallette, R.D., and J.C. Borneman. 1966. First cooperative survey ofthe California condor.
California Fish and Game 52:185-203.
Mallette, RD., F.C. Sibley, W.D. Carrier, and J.C. Borneman. 1970. California condor Surveys,
1969. California Fish and Game. 56:199-202.
Meretsky, V.J., and N.F.R Snyder. 1992. Range use and movements ofCalifornia condors.
Condor 94:313-335.
Miller, A.H., I. McMillan, and E. McMilIan. 1965. The current status and welfare ofthe
California condor. National Audubon Society Research Report 6:1-61.
Mundy, P.J. 1982. The comparative biology of southern African vultures. The Vulture Study
Group, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Pattee, O.H., P.H. Bloom, J.M. Scott, and MR. Smith. 1990. Lead hazards within the range of
the California condor. Condor 92:931-937.
Ralls, K., and J.D. Ballou. 1983. Extinction: lessons from zoos. In C.M. Schoenewald-Cox,
S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W.L. Thomas (eds.). Genetics and conservation. A
reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. Pp. 164-184. Benjamin
Cummings, Menlo Park, California.
Ralls, K., and J.D. Ballou. 1992. Managing genetic diversity in captive breeding and
reintroduction programs. Transactions ofthe North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference vol.57:263-282.
Ralls, K., J. Ballou, and A.R. Templeton. 1988. Estimates oflethal equivalents and the cost of
inbreeding in mammals. Conservation Biology 2:185-193.
Rea, A.M. 1983. Cathartid affinities: a brief overview. In S.R. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.).
Vulture biology and management. Pp. 26-54. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and
Los Angeles.
Rett, E.Z. 1938. Hailstorm fatal to California condors. Condor 40:225.
Rett, E.Z. 1946. Record ofanother condor death. Condor 48:182.
Ricklefs, RE. (ed.). 1978. Report ofthe advisory panel on the California condor. National
Audubon Society Conservation Report 6:1-27.
37
Schmitt, N.J. In Prep. A study ofthe California condor molt.
Senner, S.E. 1980. Inbreeding depression and the survival of zoo populations. In M.E. Soule
and B.A. Wilcox (eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. 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 ofbirds. A study in
molecular evolution. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sibley, F. 1969. Effects ofthe Sespe Creek Project on the California condor. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland.
Snyder, N.F.R. 1983. California condor reproduction, past and present. Bird Cons. 1:67-86.
Snyder, N.F.R. 1986. California condor recovery program. In S.E. Senner, C.M. White, and
JR. Parrish (eds.). Raptor conservation in the next 50 years. Raptor Research Report No.
5:56-71.
Snyder, N.F.R., and J.A. Hamber. 1985. Replacement-clutching and annual nesting ofCalifornia
condors. Condor 87:374-378. 4 Snyder, N.F.R., and E.V. Johnson. 1985. Photographic censusing ofthe 1982-1983 California
condor population. Condor 87:1-13
Snyder, N.F.R., E.V. Johnson, and D.A. Clendenen. 1987. Primary molt ofCalifornia condors.
Condor 89:468-485.
Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-site biology ofthe California condor.
Condor 88:228-241
Snyder, N.F.R., and H. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation ofthe California condor. In
D.M. Powers (ed.). Current ornithology, Vol. 6. Pp. 175-267. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.
Souls, M. 1980. Thresholds ofsurvival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. In M.E.
Soul~ and B.N Wilcox (eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological
perspective. Pp. 151-169. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Soul~, M. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England.
Soul~, M. 1986. Conservation biology: the science ofscarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts.
I.
38
Stager, K. 1964. The role ofolfaction in food location by the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Los Angeles County Museum Contributions to Science 81:1-63.
Steadman, D.W., and N.G. Miller. 1987. California condor associated with spruce-pine
woodland in the late Pleistocene ofNew York. Quaternary Research 28:415-426.
Studer, C.D. 1983. Effects ofKern County cattle ranching on California condor habitat. M.S.
thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Taber, R.D., and RF. Dasmann. 1958. The Black-tailed Deer in the chaparral. California
Department ofFish and Game Bulletin 8:1-163.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. California condor recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon.
Verner, J. 1978. California condors: status ofthe recovery effort. General Technical Report,
PSW-28. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Wallace, M.P., and S.A. Temple. 1987. Releasing captive-reared Andean condors to the wild.
Journal ofWildlife Management 351:541-550.
Wiemeyer, S.N., RM. Jurek, and JR. Moore. 1986. Environmental contaminants in surrogates,
foods and feathers ofCalifornia condors (Gymnogyps californianus). Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 6:91-111.
Wiemeyer. S.N., NJ. Krynitsky, and S.R. Wilbur. Environmental contaminants in tissues, food,
and feces ofCalifornia condors. In S.R Wilbur and J.N Jackson (eds.). Vulture biology
and management. Pp. 427-439. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Wiemeyer, S.N. J.M. Scott, M.P. Anderson, P.H. Bloom, and C.J. Stafford. 1988.
Environmental contaminants in California condors. Journal ofWildlife Management
52:238-247.
Wilbur, S.R. 1972. Food resources ofthe California condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.
Wilbur, SR. 1973. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 90:196-198.
Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condor plumage and molt as field study aids. California Fish and
Game 61:144-148.
Wilbur, SR. 1978a. The California condor, 1966-76: a look at its past and future. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, North America Fauna 72:1-136.
Wilbur, S.R. 1978b. Supplemental feeding of California condors. In S.A. Temple (ed.).
Endangered birds: management techniques for preserving threatened species. Pp. 135-140.
University ofWisconsin Press, Madison.
39
Wilbur, S.R. 1978c. Turkey vulture eggshell thinning in California, Florida, and Texas. Wilson
Bulletin 90:642-643.
Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and trend ofthe California condo’~-~’opulation, 1965-
1978. California Fish and Game 66:40-48.
Wilbur, SR., W. Carrier, and J. Borneman. 1974. Supplemental feeding program for California
condors. Journal ofWildlife Management 38:343 -346.
Wilbur, S.R, and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The California condor in Baja California, Mexico. American
Birds 34:856-859.
Wright, J.M., M. Treadwell, R.K. Nurthen, L.M. Woodworth, M.E. Montgomery, D.A. Briscoe,
and R. Frankham. Unpubl. ins. Modeling problems in conservation genetics using
Drosophila: purging is ineffective in reducing genetic load.
40
111. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The table that follows is a summary ofscheduled actions and costs for the recovery program. It is
a guide to meet the objectives ofthe California Condor Recovery Plan. The table indicates the
priority in scheduling tasks to meet the objectives, which agencies are responsible to perform
these tasks, a time-table for accomplishing these tasks, and the estimated costs to perform them.
Implementing Part III is the action ofthe plan, that when accomplished, will satisfy the recovery
objective. Initiation ofthese actions is subject to the availability offunds.
Priorities in Column 1 ofthe following implementation schedule are assigned as follows:
Priority I - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species
from declining irreversibly.
Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species
population/habitat quality or some other significant negative impact short ofextinction.
Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery ofthe species.
Codes used in Implementation Schedule
Ongoing = Task is currently being implemented and will continue until action is no longer
necessary for recovery.
* = Lead Agency
Total Cost = Projected cost oftask from task start to task completion.
Responsible Parties:
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
USBLM = U.S. Bureau ofLand Management
CDFG = California Department ofFish and Game
AGED = Arizona Game and Fish Department
TNC = The Nature Conservancy
LAZ = Los Angeles Zoo
SDWAP = San Diego Wild Animal Park
= Peregrine Fund
CCRT = California Condor Recovery Team
CEC = California Energy Commission
41
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
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: Captive
Breeding
1 1 111 Management I LAZ~ 5
Protocol SDWAP* USFWS
PF
1 112 Operate
Facilities
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
1500 300 300 300 300 300
1 2 113 NewCaptive
Breeding
Facilities
Ongoing CCRT
USFWS
10 10
1 1 12 Manage Captive
Flock
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
1250 250 250 250 250 250
1 1 121 Maintain:
Genetic, Age & Sex
Balance
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PF
5 1 1 1 11
1 2 122 Offspring & Eggs
Exchange
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
10 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 123 Determine Genetic
Balance
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
10 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 124 Develop&
Implement Pair
Strategies
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
10 2 2 2 2 2
1 13 Manage Selected
Condors for Release
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
15 3 3 3 3 3
1 3 14 Behavioral Data
1: Subtotal
Needs
Ongoing LAZ~SDWAP
pp
150 30 30 30 30 30
2965 605 590 590 590 590
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
Need Priority Task
#
Task
Description
Task
Duration
(Yrs)
Responsible
Party
Total
Cost
Cost Estimates ($1,000)
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
5 2 54 Establish Points of
Observations &
Educational
Facilities
Ongoing USFS
USFWS-CDFG
USBLM
25 5 5 5
5 3 55 Videos Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLM
USFS
50 10 10 10 10 10
5 3 56 Training Sessions Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLM
LAZ-SDWAP-PF
USFS
10 2 2 2 2 2
5 3 571 Zoo Kiosks Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PF
30 6 6 6 6 6
5 3 572 Zoo Condor Exhibit 3 LAZ-SDWAP
PP
600 200 200 200
5 3 573 Provide Photos&
Videos
Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP
PP
25 5 5 5 5 5
785 37 37 237 237 237
9558 1793 1741 1968 1978 2078
5 3 58 Maintain
Centralized
Information Center
5: Subtotal
Needs
TOTAL
COSTS
Ongoing uSFwS 5 1 1 1
I
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
Need I Priority Task I Task Task Responsible Total Cost Estimates ($1,000)
# Description Duration Party Cost
I I (Yrs) FY 1995 I FY 1996 FY 1997 I FY 1998 I FY 1999
2: Reintro
ductions
2 1 21 DevelopRelease 1 USFWS 10 10
Protocols CCRT
2 2 211 ReleaseCriteria 1 CCRT
USPwS
1 1
2 1 212 Annual Release
Plan Release
Criteria
Ongoing USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10
2 2 221 ReleaseSite
Selection Criteria
1 CCRT
USFWS
1 1
2 1 222 Select
Release Sites
3 CCRT
USFWS
30 10 10 10
2 1 223 Prepare Release
Sites
3 USFWS 30 10 10 10
2 1 23 Conduct Releases 5 USFWS 2250 450 450 450 450 450
2 1 231 Develop California
Release Plan
1 USFWS
2 1 232 ReleaseCondors 5 USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10
2 1 233 MonitorCondorsat
Site
5 USFWS 250 50 50 50 50 50
2 1 234 Monitor Free-Flying
Condors
Ongoing USFWS 250 50 50 50 50 50
2 1 235 Protect Released
Condors
5 USFWS.CDFG
USFS
250 50 50 50 50 50
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
Need Priority Task
#
Task
Description
Task
Duration
(Yrs)
Responsible
Party
Total
Cost
Cost Estimates ($1,000)
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
2 1 241 Northern Arizona
Release
3 USFWS-PF AGFD 1050 250 200 200 200 200
2 2 242 NewMexico
Release
3 USF’~~SPF 210 10 200
P
Protect Nest Sites Ongoing
3
3
1
1
25
31
Wild Rearing
Facilities
USFWS
USFWS USBLM-CDFG
BIA-USFS
50 50
10 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 32 Protect Roost Sites Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG
BIA-USFS
10 2 2 2 2 2
3 2 331 Mana~Condor
Foraging Habitat
Ongoing USFWSUSBLM-CDFG
BIA-USFS
10 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3311 Dead Livestock on
Rangelands
Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG
USFS-AGFD
26 4 4 6 6 6
3 2 3312 Reestablish Native
Ungulates
Ongoing CDFG
USFS-USFWS
USBLM
20 4 4 4 4 4
6~
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
Need Priority Task
#
Task
Description
Task
Duration
(Yrs)
Responsible
Party
Total
Cost
Cost Estimates ($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& Elkhom
Plains
Ongoing USBLM TNC-CDFG
100 20 20 20 20 20
3 3 3323 Tulare County
Grasslands
Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 3324 GlenvilleWoody
Area
Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 3325 Tejon Ranch Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3326 Hopper Mtn. Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG
USFS
100 20 20 20 20 20
3 1 3327 BitterCreek Ongoing USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10
3 2 3328 SanJuan Creek Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 3329 Elkhorn Hill &
Caliente Range
Ongoing CDFG-CO. 25 5 5 s s
3 3 341 LandUsePlanning Ongoing USFWS
USFS-CDFG BIA
USBLM
15 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 342 General Plan
Review
3: Subtotal
Needs
Ongoing CDFG USFWS 20 4 4 4
411 81 81 83 83 83
4 4
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
Need Priority Task Task I Task 1 Responsible
# Description I Duration Party
I (Yrs)
Total Cost Estimates ($1,000)
Cost
FY 1995 I FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 1 FY 1999
4: Mortality
4 3 41 Assess Historical
Findings
Ongoing USFWS 10 2 2 2 2 2
4 3 42 Law Enforcement Ongoing CDFG USBLM-USFS
USFWS
25 5 5 5 5 5
4 1 43 Minimize
Contaminant
Related Mortality
Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG
USFS
25 5 5 5 5 5
4 2 43 Monitor
Contaminants Ongoing USFWS
10 10
4 1 441 Determine Effects
ofContaminants
3 USFWS 165 55 55 ss
4 3 451 SampleFoodfor
Contaminant Loads
3 USFWS 75 25 25 25
4 3 452 Blood Samples
Contaminant Loads
Ongoing USFWS
CDFG
25 5 5 5 5 5
4 1 461 Avian Mortality due
to Collisions with
Human-made
Structures
Ongoing CEC-USFWS
Private Sector
500 100 100 100 100 100
C
p
Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor
Need Priority Task
#
Task
Description
Task
Duration
(Yrs)
Responsible
Party
Total
Cost
Cost Estimates ($1,000)
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
4 2 462 Advise Planning
Agencies on
Location &
Mitigation to Avoid
Collisions with
Human-made
Structures
Ongoing USFWS CDFG 25 5 5 5
4 3 47 ControlPredators 3 USFWS 45 15 15 15 15
5
5 1
48
51 Distribute
Educatio
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) recovery plan. Third revision. |
| Alternative Title | Gymnogyps californianus |
| Creator | Kiff, Lloyd F.; Mesta, Robert I.; Wallace, Michael P. |
| Description | 1976, (41 FR 187). Long recognized as a vanishing species (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur 1978), the California condor remains one ofthe world’s rarest and most imperiled vertebrate species. Despite intensive conservation efforts, the wild California condor population declined steadily until 1987, when the last free-flying individual was captured. During the 1980s, captive condor flocks were established at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo, and the first successful captive breeding was accomplished at theformer facility in 1988. Following severalyears ofincreasingly successful captive breeding, captive-produced condors were first released back to the wild in early 1992. |
| Subject |
Endangered species Birds Birds of prey Captive breeding Reintroduction Raptors |
| Location | California |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Contributors | Pacific Region (FWS), Portland, OR |
| Date of Original | 1996-04 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Item ID | recovery_plans/calcondor96 |
| Source |
NCTC Conservation Library |
| Language | English |
| Rights | Public domain |
| Audience | General |
| File Size | 10 MB |
| Original Format |
Document |
| Length | 74 p. |
| Transcript | ( As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includesfostering the wisestuse ofour landand water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energyand mineral resourcesand works to assure that theirdevelopment is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island Territories under U.S. administration. CALIFORNIA CONDOR (Gymnogyps californianus) Third Revision RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approved: 1975) (First Revision Approved: 1979) (Second Revision Approved: 1984) Prepared by Lloyd F. Kiff Western Foundation ofVertebrate Zoology Camarillo, California Robert I. Mesta U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura, California Dr. Michael P. Wallace Los Angeles Zoo Los Angeles, California for Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Region ire o , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: RECOVERY TEAM MEMBERS James Carpenter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland): 1986-1989 CathleenR Cox (Los Angeles Zoo): 1986-present Maeton Freel (U.S. Forest Service, Goleta, California): 1988-present Ronald A. Jurek (California Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento): 1986-present Lloyd F. Kiff(Western Foundation ofVertebrate Zoology, Camarillo, California): 1986-1993 John C. Ogden (National Audubon Society, Homestead, Florida): 1986-1988 Richard R. Olendorif (Bureau ofLandManagement, Sacramento, California): 1986-1990 Oliver H. Pattee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California): 1986-1989 Katherine Ralls (Smithsonian Institution, Paso Robles, California): 1990-present ~ Patrick T. Redig (The Raptor Center, St. Paul, Minnesota): 1993-present David S. Rimlinger (San Diego Wild Animal Park, Escondido, California): 1992-present Robert W. Risebrough (Bodega Marine Institute, Berkeley, California): 1990-present Michael E. Souls (University of California, Santa Cruz): 1986-1990 William D. Toone (San Diego Wild Animal Park, Escondido, California): 1986-1992 Jared Verner (U.S. Forest Service, Fresno, California): 1986-1991 Brian J. Walton (Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz): 1990-present Dr. Michael P. Wallace (Los Angeles Zoo): 1986-Present James W. Wiley (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grambling, Louisiana): 1989-1992 I I DISCLAIMER PAGE Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance ofrecovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary fUnds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval ofany individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director orDirector as ~ Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and completion ofrecovery tasks. ii Literature Citations should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision. Portland, Oregon. 62 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-3421 or 1-800-582-3421 iii Ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are gratefUl to former USFWS Condor Recovery Program Coordinators Joseph Dowhan and Teresa Nichols, who provided invaluable assistance in preparing earlier drafts ofthe revision, as well as for their contributions to the overall Condor Recovery Program during respective tenures. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR (Gymnogyps cal~fornianus) Current Species Status: The California condor (Gymnogyps cal!fornianus) is federally listed as an endangered species. The current population is 103, including 86 individuals in captivity at the Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, and the World Center forBirds ofPrey, and 17 captive-hatched condors released into Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties in southern California. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: California condors require suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, and foraging. The recent range was restricted to chaparral, coniferous forests, and oak savannah habitats in southern and central California. The species formerly occurred more widely throughout the Southwest and also fed on beaches and large rivers along the Pacific coast. Nest sites are located in cavities in cliffs, in large rock outcrops, or in large trees. Traditional roosting sites are maintained on cliffs orlarge trees, often near feeding sites. Foraging occurs mostly in grasslands, including potreros within chaparral areas, or in oak savannahs. At present, sufficient remaining habitat exists in California and in southwestern states to support a large number ofcondors, if density independent mortality factors, including shooting, lead poisoning, and collisions with man-made objects, can be controlled. The possibility ofeventual genetic problems, resulting from the species’ recent perilously low population size, cannot be discounted. Recovery Priority: IC Recovery Objective: Downlist to threatened. Recovery Criteria: The minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance ofat least two non-captive populations and one captive population. These populations (1) must each number at least 150 individuals, (2) must each contain at least 15 breeding pairs and (3) be reproductively self-sustaining and have a positive rate ofpopulation growth. In addition, the non-captive populations (4) must be spatially disjunct and non-interacting, and (5) must contain individuals descended from each of the 14 founders. Ac~nn~. 1. Establish a captive breeding program to preserve the gene pool. 2. Reintroduce California condors to the wild. 3. Minimize mortality factors in the natural environment. 4. Maintain habitat for condor recovery. 5. Implement condor information and education programs. v Total Estimated Cost of Recovery 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 658.0 643.0 643.0 643.0 643.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0 10,380.0 582.0 590.0 895.0 890.0 870.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 13,177.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 1,350.0 128.0 193.0 218.0 218.0 148.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 2,555.0 Date ofRecovery: Downlisting should be initiated in 2010, if recovery criteria are met. N~i~ 37.0 37.0 237.0 237.0 237.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 1,335.0 vi Recoverv Plans 1974 California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1975V The focus ofthe first California Condor Recovery Plan was reduction ofmortality factors through preservation of habitat. No information existed to indicatethat the species’ intrinsically low reproductive rate could be increased through multiple clutching techniques. With foresight, however, the potential for studies using Andean condors as surrogates was identified. Revised California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979V The second edition ofthe California Condor Recovery Plan, once again focused on habitat preservation as the most effective means of controlling the population decline. However, in 1980 considerable progress had been made in studying the reproductive biology ofAndean condors and a directive was given to institute a captive propagation program for California condors. The intent ofthe program was to capture California condors, breed them in captivity, and release their progeny into the existing wild flock. Revised California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984): The 1984 Recovery Plan recognized the need for a more intensive management and research program, and called for accelerated productivity by manipulating nesting in wild breeding pairs to induce multiple clutching, securing chicks and eggs produced in the wild for captive incubation, and e rneeaerdinfgororfacdaipottievleelmyeintrcyusbtautdeidese.ggs for reintroduction to the wild. The plan also specified the Revised California Condor Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996): The capture of the last wild California condor in 1987 propelled the recovery program into a new era of management. The 1996 revised recovery plan modifies the previous recovery strategy, that focused primarily on habitat protection, to emphasize the captive breeding program and intensive efforts to reestablish the species in the wild. Important measures are also prescribed for habitat conservation and public education, but these are secondary to the continued development of a captive breeding program and reintroduction ofcaptive-bred California condors. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I. Introduction A. Brief Overview B. Physical Characteristics C. Taxonomy D. Prehistorical Range E. Historical Range F. Life History Nesting Foraging - Roosting F. Movements S G. Population Trends H. Reasons for Decline I. Population Modeling 12 J. Conservation Measures 13 K. Strategy ofRecovery 21 Part II. Recovery 22 A. Objectives and 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. Range ofthe California Condor 3 Figure 2. California Condor Population 1982 to 1995 10 ix CALIFORNIA CONDOR RECOVERY PLAN I. INTRODUCTION N BLQy~ryi~y The California Condor (Gymnogyps cahfornianus) was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, (32 FR4001) in a final rule published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service then established critical habitat for the California condor nine years later on September 24, 1976, (41 FR 187). Long recognized as a vanishing species (Cooper 1890, Koford 1953, Wilbur 1978), the California condor remains one ofthe world’s rarest and most imperiled vertebrate species. Despite intensive conservation efforts, the wild California condor population declined steadily until 1987, when the last free-flying individual was captured. During the 1980s, captive condor flocks were established at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo, and the first successful captive breeding was accomplished at theformer facility in 1988. Following severalyears ofincreasingly successful captive breeding, captive-produced condors were first released back to the wild in early 1992. B. Physical Characteristics California condors are among the largest flying birds in the world. Adults weigh approximately 10 kilograms (22 Ibs) and have a wing span up to 2.9 meters (9 ‘/2 ft). Adults are black except for prominent white underwing linings and edges ofthe upper secondary coverts. The head and neck are mostly naked, and the bare skin is gray, grading into various shades ofyellow, red, and orange. Males and females cannot be distinguished by size or plumage characteristics. The heads ofjuveniles up to 3 years old are grayish-black, and their wing linings are variously mottled or completely dark. During the third year the head develops yellow coloration, and the wing linings become gradually whiter (N.J. Schmitt in prep.). By the time individuals are S or 6 years ofage, they are essentially indistinguishable from adults (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1975, Snyder et al. 1987), but full development ofthe adult wing patterns may not be completeduntil 7 or 8 years of age (N.J. Schmitt in prep.). C. Inn2wy The California condor is a member ofthe family Cathartidae or New World vultures, a family of seven species, including the closely related Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) and the sympatric turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Although the family has traditionally been placed in the Order Falcomformes, most contemporary taxonomists believe that New World vultures are more closely related to storks (Ligon 1967, Rea 1983, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990). 1 D. Prehistorical Range The fossil record ofthe genus Gymnogyps dates back about 100,000 years to the Middle Pleistocene Epoch (Brodkorb 1964). At the Rancho La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, abundant condor remains occur with many contemporary species, including American Robins (Turdus migratorius), Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) (Howard 1962). Fossil records reveal that the species once ranged over much ofthe southern United States, south to Nuevo Leon, Mexico and east to Florida (Brodkorb 1964), and two well preserved fossil bones were reported from a site in upstate New York (Steadman and Miller 1987). There is evidence indicating that California condors nested in west Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico during the late Pleistocene (Emslie 1987). The disappearance ofthe California condor from much ofthis range occurred about 10,000-11,000 years ago, coinciding with the late Pleistocene extinction ofthe North American megafauna (Emslie op cit.). E. Historical Ran2e By the time ofthe arrival ofEuropean manin western North America, California condors occurred only in a narrow Pacific coastal strip from British Columbia, Canada to Baja California Norte, Mexico (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1978). California condors were observed until the mid- I800s in the northern portion ofthe Pacific Coast region (Columbia River Gorge) and until the early 1930s in the southern extreme (northern Baja California) (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1973, Wilbur and Kiff 1980). Prior to 1987, California condors used a wishbone-shaped area encompassing six counties just north of Los Angeles, California (Fig. 1). In the 1984 California Condor Recovery Plan, the wishbone-shaped area was designated by the California Condor Recovery Team (Team) as the range ofprimary concern. It has beenused by management agencies and the public for planning purposes. F. Life History The following details ofcondor life history are based largely on studies of the wild condor population prior to 1987, principally those ofcondor biologists Carl Koford (1939-1947), Fred Sibley (1965-1969), Sanford Wilbur (1969-1980), and Noel Snyder and his associates (1980- 1985). California condor life history information can be conveniently categorized into nesting, foraging, and roosting components. The life history section summarizes condor biology, habitat requirements, and range as they relate to each component on a daily basis and over the annual cycle. A concluding discussion summarizing the traditional movement ofcondors throughout theirrecent historical range is also provided. N~Iing: Courtship and nest site selection by breeding California condors occur from December through the spring months. Reproductively mature, paired California condors normally lay a single egg between late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and after approximately 56 days. Both parents share responsibilities for feeding the nestling. Fee usually occurs daily for the first two months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. At two to three months ofage condor chicks leave the actual nest cavity, but remain in the vicinity 2 ALAMEDA MONO KINGS Range of the California Condor Figure I MANIPOSA MENCED MACERA PRESNO ~0 C,’ C,’ N C C,’ KERN o ~ 30 30 40 50WJ3 0 0 30 30 40 30 60 0L0MC1~ 3 ofthe nest where they are fed by theirparents. The chick takes its first flight at about six to seven months ofage, but may not become fully independent ofits parents until the following year. Parent birds occasionally continue to feed a fledgling even after it has begun to make longer flights to foraging grounds. Because of the long period ofparental care, it was formerly assumed that successful California condor pairs normally nested successfully every other year (Koford 1953). However, this pattern seems to vary, possibly depending mostly on the time ofyear that the nestling fledges. Ifa nestling fledges relatively early (in late summer or early fall), its parents may nest again in the following year, but late fledging probably inhibits nesting in the following year (Snyder and Hamber 1985). California condors may lay a replacement clutch if their first (Harrison and Kiff 1980) or even second egg is lost (Snyder and Hamber 1985). Whether they lay a replacement egg may depend on the time ofyear, at what stage ofincubation the egg is lost, individual variation, and perhaps genetic or climatic factors. Among Andean condors and other captive cathartid vultures, some females will apparently lay three or even four clutches in a season, while others invariably lay only one or two (M. Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt.). Because subadult birds had never been observed in the wild as members of breeding pairs, Koford (1953) concluded that California condors did not breed before six years ofage, the time at which the adult plumage is acquired. The only wild California condor (a male) ofknown age bred successfully in the wild in 1986 at the age ofsix years. Recent data collected from captive birds, however, demonstrates that reproduction may occur, or at least be attempted at earlier ages. A four-year old male was the youngest California condor observed in courtship display, and the same bird subsequently bred successfUlly at the age offive years (M. Wallace, Los Angeles Zoo, in litt.). California condors nest in various types ofrock formations including crevices, overhung ledges, and potholes, and, more rarely, in cavities in giant sequoia trees (Sequoia giganteus) (Snyder et al. 1986). An evaluation ofvarious nest parameters, including types, elevations, compass orientation, entrance sizes, depths, chamber characteristics, substrates, use ofnests by other species, accessibility to predators, presence ofporches, and proximity to roost perches and sources ofhuman disturbance, indicated that all surveyed California condor nest sites (n — 72) share the following characteristics: (1) entrances large enough for the birds to fit through, (2) a ceiling height ofat least 38 centimeters (cm) at the egg position, (3) fairly level floors with some loose surface substrate, (4) unconstricted space for incubating adults, and (5) short distance accessibility to a landing point (Snyder et al. op cit.). The factors influencing the choice ofnest sites by condors is poorly understood. The appearance of many nest sites suggests that they have been in long use, perhaps for centuries, whereas other apparently suitable sites in undisturbed areas show no signs ofcondor use. The effects ofhuman disturbance on nesting condors have been difficult to evaluate rigorously, and different observers have reached disparate conclusions. Koford (1953) documented numerous accounts of human disturbance at California condor nest sites. He reported that the 4 j responses ofnesting birds were highly variable and hypothesized that the nature ofthe birds’ reactions might depend upon the stage of nesting. Koford generally concluded that California condors were keenly aware ofintruders, and would alter their behaviors if humans approached in sight within 555 m (500 yd) ofa nest. In addition, Koford stated that California condors could be alarmed by loud noises from distances ofover 1.6 kilometers (1 mi). Based on these observations, Koford recommended that human disturbance should be restricted within 1.6 km (1 mi) of active nest sites. Sibley (1969) found a correlation between the location ofrecently used California condor nest sites and the location and magnitude ofhuman activity. He concluded that the greater the disturbance, either in frequency or noise level, the less likely California condors were to nest nearby. In 1984, a nest site located in a giant sequoia tree within mixed-conifer forest was subjected to a high degree of disturbance during the egg-laying period because it was located on the edge ofan active clear-cut timbering operation. Nevertheless, the breeding attempt continued successfully until the half-grown chickwas removed from the nest to be added to the captive flock. Based on the variety ofhistorical accounts, Snyder et al. (1986) concluded that tolerance to disturbance by nesting condors is likely to be a highly variable trait individually and that it is prudent to continue the current U.S. Forest Service restriction ofhuman activities within 2.4 km (1.5 mi) ofCalifornia condor nest sites on Forest Servicelands. Although potential condor nesting habitat still exists over a relatively large portion ofthe coastal and interior mountains in central and southern California, the recently occupied nesting range was ~quitelimited. After 1910, all recorded nesting sites were located in the Coast, Transverse, and SierraNevada mountain ranges (Koford 1953, Meretsky and Snyder 1992). All but one ofthe nest sites used between 1979 to 1986 were in a narrow belt ofchaparral and coniferous forested mountains from central Santa Barbara County across northern and central Ventura County to northwestern Los Angeles County. The sites were located within a total area approximately 90 km (56 mi) from west to east and only about 25 km (15 mi) from north to south. The only nest outside this areawas located in a giant sequoia in Tulare County in 1984. It is possible that condors may have been nesting in the latter area over the years since the nest was only a few miles from another giant sequoia nest which was active in 1951. All recent California condor nest sites were located on public lands within the Los Padres, Angeles, and SequoiaNational Forests. ~~gjjjg: California condors are opportunistic scavengers, feeding only on the carcasses ofdead animals. Typical foraging behavior includes long-distance reconnaissance flights, lengthy circling flights over a carcass, and hours ofwaiting at a roost or on the ground near a carcass. Seasonal foraging behavior shifts perhaps are the result of climatic cycles or to changes in food availability. Condors maintain wide-ranging foraging patterns throughout the year, an important adaptation for a species that may be subjected to unpredictable food supplies (Meretsky and Snyder 1992). Having located a potential food item, California condors frequently remain in the air circling high above the carcass before landing. As with other scavenging species that are known to feed socially, circling behavior is thought to serve as a signal to other conspecifics, guiding them to available food sources (Houston 1974, Mundy 1982, Wallace and Temple 1987, Meretsky and Snyder 1992). Once on the ground condors may feed immediately or wait passively as other California condors or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) feed on the carcass (Wilbur 1978). 5 Prior to the arrival ofEuropean man, condor food items within interior California probably included mule deer (Odocoileushemionus), tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannoides), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), and smaller mammals. Along the Pacific shore the diet ofthe California condor may have included whales, sea lions, and other marine species (Koford 1953, Emslie 1987, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Koford (1953) listed observations of California condors feeding on 24 different mammalian species within the last two centuries. He estimated that 95 percent ofthe diet consisted ofcattle, domestic sheep, ground squirrels (Spermophilus beechy,), mule deer, and horses. Over half ofthe observations Koford reported were ofcondors feeding on cattle carcasses, and most ofthose were calves. While beef cattle may be the most available food within the range of the condor, a clear preference for deer over cattle has been observed (Koford 1953, Wilbur 1972, Meretsky and Snyder 1992). California condors appear to feed only one to three days per week, but the frequency of adult feeding is variable and may show seasonal differences. Most California condor foraging occurs in open terrain offoothill grassland and oak savannah habitats. Although the California condor is not as ungainly on the ground as portrayed in popular literature, it does require fairly open spaces forfeeding. This ensures easy take-offand approach and makes finding food easier. As mentioned earlier, mule deer are possibly a “preferred” food, yet deer tend to drift toward canyon bottoms to die (Taber and Dasmann 1958, Blong 1954), where steep terrain and brush interfere with California condor foraging. Carcasses under brush are hard to see, and California condors apparently do not locate food by olfactory cues (Stager 1964). The principal foraging regions used by California condors from the late I 970s to 1987 were the foothills bordering the southern San Joaquin Valley and axillary valleys in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kern, and Tulare Counties. After 1982, most observations offeeding by the small remaining wild population ofCalifornia condors occurred in the Elkhorn Hills-Cuyama Valley- Carrizo Plain complex, and in the southern San Joaquin Valley (Meretsky and Snyder 1992). The majority ofimportant foraging areas were on private cattle-grazing lands. The Elkhorn Hills-Cuyama Valley-Carrizo Plain area includes portions ofSan Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties. California condors foraged in the eastern part ofSan Luis Obispo County, generally east ofthe Los Padres National Forest boundary and west ofthe Temblor Mountains. Observations of radio-tagged birds along San Juan Creek in the 1980s indicated f foraging in the upper drainage, south ofHighway 58. Farther south, the Carrizo Plain, Panorama Hills, and the Elkhorn Plain in the region between the Caliente and Temblor Mountains were also commonly used (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Foraging in Santa Barbara County was mainly to the north in portions ofthe Cuyama Valley and, occasionally, on potreros along the ridge line ofthe Sierra Madre Mountains. A nesting pair in Santa Barbara County also foraged in the Santa Ynez Valley to the south, mainly along the northern portions as far west as the Los Olivos area and the Zaca Creek drainage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). In Kern County, California condors foraged extensively in the foothills adjacent to the northern boundary ofLos Padres National Forest, to Reyes Station in the west, to the Pleito Hills west of Interstate Highway 5, and eastward throughout much ofthe region from the Tehachapi 6 Mountains north to the slopes ofCummings Mountain (Studer 1983). This entire region, like the similar foraging country in the Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains, is fairly close to traditional nesting sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). The San Joaquin Valley foraging region was located in eastern Kern, Tulare, and Ventura counties. An important foraging area in Kern County was the foothill rangelands around Glennville. There, California condors roosted primarily on National Forest lands in the Greenhorn Mountains and foraged daily in the Cedar Creek and upper Pozo Creek drainages as far west as Blue Mountain and the old Granite Station crossroads south ofWoody, California. In Tulare County, California condors foraged extensively through the oak savannah and grassland hill country north from the Kern County border and west ofthe National Forest boundary, including the Tule River Indian Reservation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). As in northern Kern County, important roosting sites were to the east on higher slopes in Sequoia National Forest and on higher peaks within the foraging zone, including Blue Ridge. California condors recently foraged as far north as the Lake Kaweali region, with the White River, Deer Creek, Lake Success, and Yokohl Valley areas being ofspecial importance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Although these foraging regions have been identified as being important to California condors since 1980, they should not be considered as all inclusive. Like most scavenging birds, California condors are opportunistic. Through the course of a year they fed on carcasses found in many locations. California condors were known to feed at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service baiting ~ stations on the Tejon Ranch, the Beard Ranch in Glennville and Hopper Mountain and Bitter Creek National Wildlife RefUges. The birds may be expected to take advantage oflocal -abundance of food almost anywhere within their normal range. California condorswere not reported in many areas ofthat former range afterthe mid-1980s, especially north in the Coastal Range to Monterey and San Benito Counties, but also east into the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County. Roosting: Dependingupon weather conditions and the hunger ofthe bird, a California condor may spend most ofits time perched at a roost. California condors often use traditional roosting sites near important foraging grounds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Although California condors usually remain at roosts until mid-morning, and generally return in mid- to late afternoon, it is not unusual for a bird to stay perched throughout the day. While at a roost, California condors devote considerable time to preening and other maintenance activities. Roosts may also serve some social fUnction, as it is common for two or more California condors to roost together and to leave a roost together (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). California condors apparently will tolerate more disturbance at a roost than at a nest. Roosting sites and nesting sites are susceptible to similar disturbance threats, and their preservation requires isolation from human intrusion. There may be adaptive as well as traditional reasons for California condors to continue to occupy a number ofwidely separated roosts, such as reducing food competition between breeding and non-breeding birds. Cliffs and tall conifers, including dead snags, are generally utilized as roost sites in nesting areas. Although most roost sites are near nesting or foraging areas, scattered roost sites are located throughout the range. 7 F. Movements Data on locations and movements ofCalifornia condors discussed here are limited mainly to those collected between 1982 and 1987, as summarized by Meretsky and Snyder (1992). These data were obtained primarily from radiotelemetry studies and the analysis offlight photographs of known California condors (Snyder and Johnson 1985, Meretsky and Snyder 1992) and summarized below. For detailed information on historical California condor range, the reader should refer to Koford (1953) and Wilbur (1978). Studies during the I980s showed that the last California condors remaining in the wild prior to 1987 comprised a single population ofbirds occupying a range of2 million hectares (4,942,000 acres). Insofar as could be determined, every California condor in the wild was familiar with the entire range ofthe species and was capable ofsoaring between any two points within the range in a single day. While no difference in movement patterns could be detected between sexes, a difference in the mobility was noted between breeding and nonbreeding condors. Immatures and other unpaired condors seemed to be especially mobile, with the longest recorded flight during a single day by an immature male being 225 km (141 mi). Yearling condors do not venture far from their nest sites until late in their first year, and they gradually increase their distance from their natal area as they mature. Based on the available information, however, it was not possible to ascertain at what age immature condors begin their wide-ranging forays. Paired birds tended to forage most frequently in areas relatively close to their nests, not normally venturing more than 50 km (31 mi) to 70 km (44 mi) from their nest sites; although on one occasion a member of a nesting pair traveled 180 km (113 mi). It should also be noted that during the non-breeding season paired birds tended to expand their home range to encompass more ofthe available foraging areas. Seasonal shifts that were noted seemed to be based generally on food availability. For example, condors tended to move to the Tehachapi area during the hunting season where they showed a preference for deer gut-piles and abandoned deer carcasses were preferred over calf carcasses. Furthermore, during the calving season in the San Emigdio area ofthe San Joaquin Valley foraging region, wild California condors were frequently observed feeding on naturally occurring calfcarcasses. California condors use topography and associated thermal weather patterns for flight. This is best illustrated by observations indicating that almost all flights by California condors, whether covering long distances or not, followed routes over the foothills and mountains bordering the southern San Joaquin Valley. It was rare for a California condor to pass directly over the flat, highly agricultural floor ofthe Valley. Thus, the usual route for a bird starting from the coastal mountains of Santa Barbara County on its way to foraging grounds in Tulare County was to cross northern Ventura County, pass through the Tehachapi Mountains in southern Kern County, then turn north to pass closely by Breckenridge Mountain, and enter Tulare County somewhere between the Greenhorn Mountains and Blue Mountain. Where flat, agricultural regions are much less extensive, such as the Cuyama Valley in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, California condors freely passed high above enroute to foraging grounds. It has become apparent that California condors are highly dependent on topography since it dictates prevailing wind patterns. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). 8 G. Population Trends Condor censusing efforts through the years have varied in intensity and accuracy. That has led to conflicting estimates ofhistorical abundance, but all have indicated an ever-declining California condor population. Koford (1953) estimated a population ofabout 60 individuals in the late 1930s through the mid-1940s, apparently based on observed flock size. Afield study by Eben and Ian McMillan in the early 1 960s suggested a population of about 40 individuals, again based in part on the validity ofKoford’s estimates offlock size (Miller et al. 1965). An annual October California condor survey was begun in 1965 (Mallette and Borneman 1966) and continued for 16 years. The survey effort was typically a two-day simultaneous observation and count of California condors at prominent observation points in areas ofknown concentration. Interpretation ofthe results ofthese surveys was made difficult by variations in weather conditions, number ofobservers, and other factors from year to year, but the results supported an estimate of50 to 60 extant California condors in the late 1960s (Sibley 1969, Mailed 1970). Wilbur (1980) continued the survey efforts into the 1970s and concurred with the interpretations ofthe earlier October surveys. He further estimated that by 1978 the population had dropped to 25-30 individuals. Snyder and Johnson (1985) later reassessed the earlier population estimates ofKoford (1953) and Miller et al. (1965) and concluded that they may have underestimated the size ofthe condor population by a factor oftwo or three. Regardless of the actual number ofbirds, the trend toward extinction ofthe wild condor population was linear and unrelenting. In 1981, the Service, in cooperation with California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, began census efforts based on individual identifications ofcondors by photographing flight silhouettes (Snyder and Johnson 1985). Minimum summer counts from these photocensusing efforts showed a steady decline from an estimated minimum of2l wild condors in 1982, 19 individuals in 1983, 15 individuals in 1984, and 9 individuals in 1985. Although the overall condor population increased slightly after 1982 as a result ofdouble clutching, the wild population continued to decline. By the end of 1986, all but two California condors were captured for safekeeping and genetic security. On April 19, 1987 the last wild condor was captured and taken to the San Diego Wild Animal Park. The population has increased annually since the first successfUl captive breeding in 1988. The population now stands at 104 individuals, including 86 in the captive flock and 17 in the wild (Fig. 2). H. Reasons for Decline Causes ofthe California condor population decline have probably been numerous and variable through time. However, despite decades ofresearch, it is not known with certainty which mortality factors have been dominant in the overall decline ofthe species. Relatively few dead California condors have been found, and definitive conclusions on the causes ofdeath were made in only a small portion ofthese cases (Miller et al. 1965, Wilbur 1978, Snyder and Snyder 1989). Although the information regarding California condor mortality is inconclusive, there is evidence to suggest that two anthropogenic factors, lead poisoning and shooting, have contributed disproportionately to the decline ofthe species in recent years. Although publicity associated with the condor recovery program has doubtless reduced the likelihood ofcondors being shot, one person was arrested as recently as July 1992 for shooting at a California condor that was part ofa 9 Fig. 2. California Condor Population 1982-1995 838485868788899091 YEAR Wild Captive z 0 -J D 0~ 0 0~ 0C z00 -J F- 0 F- 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 reintroduction program, thus indicating the need for continued public education and an enforcement presence to protect the species from wanton shooting. Post-mortem examinations performed on four California condors found dead since 1983, indicated that three ofthe birds died from the effects oflead poisoning (Janssen et al. 1986, Wiemeyer et al. (1988), and one died ofcyanide poisoning (Wiemeyer et al. op cit.). High lead levels, presumably obtained from the ingestion of fragments oflead bullets in shot mammal carcasses, may be a pervasive problem throughout the historical foraging range of the California condor. For example, Bloom et al. (1989) and Pattee et al. (1990) found elevated levels in one-third of 162 golden eagle blood samples taken in the range ofthe California condor in 1985-1986, and Wiemeyer et al. (1988) concluded that lead exposure was the major factor having an adverse impact on the wild California condor population between 1982-1986. The possible effects on condors ofanother highly toxic heavy metal, copper, have not beeninvestigated, but Wiemeyer et al. (1983) reported unusually high copper levels in the liver tissue ofan immature condor found dead from unknown causes in 1974. Cyanide poisoning is considered to be a highly improbable occurrence and is therefore not likely to be a major cause ofthe decline ofthe species. Equally improbable was the recent death ofa released condor from the ingestion of ethylene glycol, apparently as the result ofdrinking antifreeze. Deaths from one or more range poisons, including strychnine and various rodenticides, may have occurred historically, but convincing documentation ofthe occurrence and magnitude of such losses has not been documented. Kiffet al. (1979) reported severe thinning and ultrastructural abnormalities in California condor eggshells collected in the late I960s by F. Sibley. They attributed the abnormalities to the probable effects of 1, 1-dichloro,-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)etylene (DDE), a breakdown metabolite ofthe pesticide 1,1, 1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloro-phenyl)ethane(DDT). DDT was banned for domestic use in the United States in 1972, and virtually all condor eggshell samples collected after 1975 have exhibited normal thickness (Snyder et al. ins). However, two eggs laid in 1986 by the last female California condor (Stud Book 12) to breed in the wild were very thin (44% thinner than the historical mean thickness) and contained inexplicably high levels ofDDE and the parent compound, DDT (Kiff 1989). Indeed, the first-laid ofthese eggs was crushed, probably by the weight ofthe incubating bird, before it could be removed for captive incubation. The effect of eggshell thinning on the condor population cannot be accurately assessed now, but it could have been a serious factor during the 1950s-1960s. Significant eggshell thinning has also been reported for the turkey vulture within the region ofsympatry with the California condor (Wilbur 1 978c, Kiffet al. 1979, Wiemeyer et al. 1986). Organochlorine concentrations were low in four condors analyzed for these contaminants between 1980-86 (Wiemeyer et al. 1988), but the highly contaminated eggs from 1986 indicate that continued monitoring of such compounds in condors and surrogate species is warranted. One ofthe Andean condors in an experimental release program died from a collision with a power line near Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge in 1989, and, more recently, four ofthe 19 California condors released since 1992 were lost from the same cause. At least two deaths from collisions with manmade objects, including power lines, were known historically (Koford 1953). Such deaths suggest that future condor releases should be conducted in areas remote from human settlements with their attendant condor hazards. 11 Other serious factors formerly contributing to the decline ofthe species were egg and specimen collecting, capture oflive birds for sport or display, Indian ceremonial use, and drowning in uncovered oil sumps. These activities are no longer believed to represent threats to California condors. Deaths ofadult California condors from natural causes are virtually unknown. Rett (1938) reported two adult California condors killed by hail, and he later reported the probable cause of another California condor death as osteomyelitis (Rett 1946). California condor eggs and nestlings are vulnerable to natural predators. According to Snyder (1986), ravens were observed taking two eggs and have been observed attempting to take others. Golden eagles have been observed at least twice attempting to capture condor nestlings, and on one occasion a black bear (Ursus americanus) was seen making an unsuccessfUl attempt to take a nestling (Snyder 1986). Although not considered a significant factor in the decline ofthe species, reproductive problems have been noted in recent years. Two pairs, engaged in otherwise normal breeding behavior, failed to successfully copulate on repeated attempts. Based on his observations in the field Snyder (1989) speculated that the pair may have been homosexual; however, one ofthese birds later paired with another California condor in captivity and reproduced successfully (Cox pers. comm.). One female (Stud Book 10) now deceased produced chicks with morphological abnormalities on several occasions. Another founder female (Stud Book 12) lays unusually small eggs, but continues to reproduce successfully and is well represented by progeny in the captive population. The trait oflaying small eggs appears to be heritable through the female line, and her offspring have also laid relatively small eggs (Kuehler et al. 1991). The founder female (Stud Book 12) 0 bird was the last female to breed in the wild. I. Population Modeling Verner (1978) constructed a model predicting that a stable California condor population could not be maintained with mortality rates over 9 percent annually in adults coupled with 11 percent annually in immatures, or 7 percent annually in adults coupled with 15 percent annually in immatures. The model employed the following assumptions: (I) age offirst breeding is six years, (2) 80 percent ofthe adults are members ofbreeding pairs, (3) nesting success is approximately 50 percent, (4) 50 percent ofnesting failures occur early enough for renesting, and (5) annual nesting occurs only after early fledging ofyoung. The known mean annual mortality rate for the years 1982 through 1986 was 23.8 percent (24 percent for adults and 23.1 percent for immatures). These percentages clearly indicate the significance of mortality to the decline ofthe species. Based on the historical information, the decline ofthe California condor is more likely attributable to excessive mortality offree-flying birds than to reproductive failure. Review ofthe available data on recent reproductive success ofthe California condor does not suggest significant difficulties with reproduction (Snyder and Snyder 1989). Between 1980 and 1985, with a sample of 17 pairs, studies revealed 41 to 47 percent nest success (Snyder and Snyder op cit.). These figures are very similar to historical breeding records ofCalifornia condors and to that ofother cathartid and Old World vultures (Jackson 1983, Mundy 1982). Snyder (1983) suggested that condor reproductive success had held fairly constant through historical times, based upon a comparison of nest success figures from the 1940s (Koford 1953), late 1960s (Sibley 1969), and 12 - Snyder’s own data from the early 1980s. However, since the principal causes ofnest losses during each period were mostly anthropogenic, directly or indirectly, and apparently specific to each era, it may not be possible to determine “natural” rates of California condor nest success from these data. J. Conservation Measures Despite decades oflegal protection and extensive conservation efforts, condors continued to decline in numbers in the wild throughout the twentieth century. As a crucial attempt to prevent the extinction of the California condor the decision to capture all remaining wild California condors for safekeeping and genetic security was made by the Service and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) in late 1985. That controversial decision was a dramatic shift from previous conservation efforts to recover the species primarily through habitat protection. The following section provides a brief chronology ofconservation efforts. Legal protection was first provided to the California condor by the State ofCalifornia through a series of avian “protective” laws which were promulgated around the turn ofthe century (Wilbur 1978). The California condor was protected by the State of California at least as early as 1901. The law was nonspecific, merely prohibiting the taking ofany nongame bird or its eggs or nests without a permit. In 1908, a constable was fined $50.00 for shooting a California condor in the San Gabriel Mountains near Pasadena (Finley and Finley 1928). In 1917 an illegally captured California condor was confiscated, but no one was prosecuted (Anonymous 1917). In general, early nongame laws were not strictly enforced, and a number ofCalifornia condors were shot and eggs were collected until about 1920. Official concern began to be expressed for the California condor by the mid-1930s. At the urging ofRobert 0. Easton, .a Santa Barbara County rancher, and the National Audubon Society (Audubon), the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) established the Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary in 1937. It encompasses 1,198 acres in Santa Barbara County that include an important condor roost, nest site, and bathing pool. Following field studies by Carl Koford between 1939 and 1946, the Sespe Condor Sanctuary was established in 1947 in the Los Padres National Forest in Ventura County. Originally about 35,000 acres, the Sespe Condor Sanctuary was enlarged in 1951 to include approximately 53,000 acres. These two sanctuaries remain under the administration ofthe Forest Service. The Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary is closed to all non-permitted entry, and the Sespe Condor Sanctuary is also closed to all non-permitted entry with the exception oftwo narrow travel corridors that allow hikers and horseback riders to pass through the area. The first specific legal mention ofthe California condor was in 1953. Section 1179.5 ofthe California Fish and Game Code stated: “It is unlawful to take any condor at any time or in any manner. No provision ofthis code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance ofa permit to take any condor and no such permit heretofore issued shall have any effect for any purpose on and after January 15, 1954.” The California condor was retained in that “fully protected” status with no authority to issue any type ofpermit for trapping or handling, until 1971. At that time the Fish and Game Code was amended (Stats. 1970, Ch. 1036) to allow issuance ofpermits for collecting fUlly protected species when necessary for scientific purposes. 13 An Audubon-sponsored field survey in 1963-64 resulted in the hiring of an Audubon Society “condor naturalist” in 1965. In the same year, the Service initiated the Endangered Wildlife Research Program, and a research biologist was assigned to study the California condor in 1966. Both Audubon Society and Service positions were occupied until recently. From 1968 to 1973, the Forest Service employed a California condor biologist to prepare a comprehensive California condor habitat management plan for the national forests. The California Department ofFish and Game (Department) maintained a full-time California condor biologist from 1982-1989. Cooperation and assistance from other individuals and agencies have been coordinated through the Service and the Team. The California condor was recognized by the Federal government as “endangered” in 1967, but the first specific Federal legal protection did not occur until 1972 when the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico was amended to include vultures and certain other families ofbirds. The passage ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) made the taking ofany endangered species a violation ofFederal law. An important outgrowth ofFederal endangered species legislation was the concept ofcritical habitat. According to Section 7(a)(2) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, “each Federal agency shall in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary [of Interior] insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence ofany endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat ofsuch species which is determined by the Secretary ... to be critical.” About 570,400 acres ofcritical habitat (Section 3(5)(A)) has been Vdeetnetrumrain,eLdofsorAtnhgeeCleasl,ifSoarnntiaa Bcoanrbdaorra,(SSOanCLFuRis1O7.1b9is5p),o,inKseixrnSaonudthTeurlnarCea(liAfoprpneinadcioxu1n)t.ies; IL Considerable effort to preserve California condor habitat was made from the late I960s through the I980s, yet the species continued to decline rapidly. The Team prepared the first draft “California Condor Contingency Plan” in 1976. That document recommended captive breeding and other intensive recovery efforts. A revised version was approved “in concept” in 1977 by the Service. In 1978, a panel of experts appointed by the American Ornithologists’ Union and the Audubon Society prepared a report on the California condor that recommended an aggressive program oftrapping condors for captive breeding and radiotelemetry studies (Ricklefs 1978). These reports led to the signing ofa Cooperative Agreement in 1979 among the Service, Audubon Society, Department, Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau ofLand Management. The purpose ofthe agreement was to expedite the California condor recovery effort and to cooperate on providing information and education. The Condor Research Center was established in 1980 by the Service and the Audubon Society as a result ofthe agreement. In May 1980, Federal and State permits authorizing the capture ofa condor for captive breeding and equipping 10 wild condors with radiotelemetry devices were approved. However, the State permit was rescinded in the following monthwhen a condor chick died while being examined by a field team from the Condor Research Center. A permit to capture a condor for captive breeding was renewed in August 1981 by the Commission but a suitable bird could not be found because of the restrictive provisions of the permit. I 14 The Commission also approved the use ofpatagial-mounted radios in January 1982, and two California condorswere captured and equipped with these devices late in 1982. For the first time, photocensusing techniques yielded an accurate estimate ofthe number ofextant California condors (Snyder and Johnson 1985), and it was found that the species had reached an apparent minimum total population size of22 individuals. In 1982, a wild California condor chick was captured and brought safely into captivity. “Double-clutching” by one ofthe wild pairs was documented beyond question in 1982 (Snyder and Hamber 1985), and led in 1983 to the issuance ofa permit to bring the first-laid eggs of breeding California condors into captivity. The years 1983 and 1984 were critical ones in the formation ofthe captive California condor flock at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and Los Angeles Zoo. Twochicks and four eggs were taken from the wild to the San Diego Wild Animal Park in 1983; all eggs hatched successfUlly. In 1984, six out ofeight eggs taken to this facility were hatched successfully. In addition, another chick was captured and added to the captive population in 1984. For the first time in the recorded history ofthe California condor, the overall population increased in number. Eventually, nine free-flying California condors were equipped with radiotelemetry devices, and their movements were followed by field technicians. The photocensusing project continued, and it indicated that the wild condor population consisted of 15 individuals in the fall of 1984. Among these birds were five breeding pairs, and it seemed possible that the growing captive flock would soon be able to produce releasable offspringwell in sufficient time to forestall the extirpation of the wild population. However, disaster struck during the winter of 1984-85, and six birds were lost from the wild population. The cause ofdeath was determined for only one ofthe six birds, a condor named Broken Featherthat was found sick and on the ground near California Hot Springs. Broken Feather died of lead poisoning while undergoing treatment. Their loss left only one breeding pair ofCalifornia condors in the wild in the spring of 1985. By April 1985, there was widespread sentiment that all ofthe remaining wild birds should be brought into captivity in order to ensure the genetic viability ofthe species and to enhance the chances ofsuccess in the captive breeding program. That position was formally endorsed by the Commission and a panel of 10 prominent population geneticists, and it was supported by most ofthe Team members. An American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on the California condor favored the capture of all the wild birds for biological reasons, but recommended that three birds be left in the wild in order to maintain the integrity ofhabitat preservation efforts and the momentum of the condor recovery program until the captive-reared birds could be released. In June 1985, the Service recommended the capture ofthree of the remaining nine wild birds, but (with Audubon backing) also advocated the release ofthree ofthe birds then held captive. That proposal became a matter ofconsiderable contention, but the situation was finally resolved in December 1985, when the Service recommended the immediate capture ofall remaining wild California condors. Immediately preceding that decision, one of the six remaining wild California condors, a breeding female, was found suffering from lead poisoning and was taken to the San Diego Wild Park, where she died in January 1986. The Service decision to capture all remaining wild California condors resulted in a lawsuit by Audubon, and a temporary injunction preventing trapping ofthe remaining wild birds was issued. The matter was not resolved until June 1986, when the court ruled in favor ofthe Service’s position. At about that time administrative responsibility for the California Condor Recovery 15 PRreoggioranm1wofafsicterainnsPfeorrrteladnfdr,omOrPegatounx.enTthWerieldwliefereRsetislelafrivceh cCoenndtoers(Rinetghieonw8il)dt,ointhcleudSienrgviocen’es S breeding pair. By the end ofthe summer, all but three ofthese birds had been captured. The present Teamwas formed in August 1986, and its first recommendation was to capture the last free-flying condors. One ofthe birds was taken into captivity before the end of 1986, and another was captured in January 1987. The last individual was captured on Easter Sunday, April 19, 1987. Other important actions during that period included the acquisition by the Service ofthe 1,800- acre Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge as a buffer for the Sespe Condor Sanctuary and the 13,500 acre Hudson Ranch (now Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge), an important condor foraging area in the southern San Joaquin Valley. DNA “fingerprinting” studies to elucidate the relationship ofall living and some recently dead California condors were conducted by Dr. Oliver Ryder at the San Diego Zoo, and they indicated that the captive population contained 14 different founders, representing three “clans.” Using these data and the known histories ofthe captive birds, a computer model was generated to determine the best pairings from a genetic standpoint. Prior to the beginning ofthe intense condor management program in the 1980s, the only living captive California condor was a bird (“Topa Topa”) that had been captured at the age of 11 months in 1967 and held at the Los Angeles Zoo. In 1983 the decision was made to take into captivity eggs produced by wild California condors, and in that year three eggs from first clutches were collected and hatched at the San Diego Wild Animal Park. Removal ofthe eggs stimulated the production ofreplacement clutches in two ofthe pairs. One ofthose eggs was also taken and I hatched in captivity, and the other was lost to common ravens (Corvus corax). In addition, two nestlings were taken into captivity in 1983. In 1984, eight eggs and one chick were taken into captivity. Six ofthe eggs hatched. The following year, two eggs were taken; both hatched. By 1986 only one breeding pair ofCalifornia condors survived in the wild, and they produced two eggs, one ofwhich was hatched in captivity. The first successfUl breeding ofCalifornia condors in captivity occurred at the San Diego Wild Animal Park in 1988, when a chick, “Molloko,” was produced by a pair ofwild-caught condors. Four more chicks were produced at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and Los Angeles Zoo in 1989. The number of chicks produced by captive California condors continued to increase annually (Fig. 2), and the captive population grew from 27 birds in 1987 to 86 birds by the spring of 1994. The Team approved a protocol for the selection ofadditional condor captive propagation facilities in February 1988, and solicitations were made to candidate zoological institutions for proposals. The two leading proposals were received from The Peregrine Fund, Inc. in Boise, Idaho (World Center for Birds ofPrey) and the National Zoo at Front Royal, Virginia. Both institutions were recommended by the Team as sites for additional condor captive propagation facilities in September 1990 with the expectation that the former facility would be in operation first. Twelve condors, genetically selected to form six breeding pairs, were transferred from the two existing condor facilities to the World Center for Birds ofPrey on September 23, 1993. Eight more condors were transferred on November 1 and 2, 1994, bringing the total number ofpairs at that facility to ten. In addition, the Team recommended in February 1993 that the George M. Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma be approved as an additional condor captive propagation facility. 16 In October 1986, the Team recommended criteria to be satisfied before a release ofcaptive-bred California condors could take place. These included having three actively breeding pairs of condors, three chicks behaviorally suitable for release, and retaining at least five offspring from each breeding pair contributing to the release. The Team recommended that all California condors then in captivity should be retained for captive breeding purposes. In June 1989, the Team added a provision to the third criterion to retain a minimum ofseven progeny in captivity for founders that were not reproductively active. Some ofthe chicks produced in the 1991 breeding season met all three criteria, and two were eventually released to the wild. However, attempting to apply the first criterion to the 1991 chicks also revealed that it would not be practical in the future, because several founders had died without producing five progeny. The Team therefore recommended choosing genetically appropriate chicks for future releases based on pedigree analyses developed for the genetic management of captive populations. These pedigree analyses evolve over time as the results of new research are incorporated. The analyses currently available are described in Ralls and Ballou (1992). Prior to the capture ofthe last wild California condor in 1987, the Team recognized that the anticipated future releases of captive-reared California condors would pose the problem of reintroducing individuals ofan altricial bird species into habitat devoid oftheir parents and other members oftheir own species. Thus, the Team recommended the initiation ofan experimental release ofAndean condors in southern California. Research objectives for the experimental release were to refine condor release and recapture techniques developed with black and turkey vultures in Florida and Andean condors in Peru, test the criteria being used to select California condor release sites, develop written protocols forthe release and recapture of California condors, identify potential problemspeculiar to the California environment, field test rearing protocols being used,. or proposed for use, to produce California condors suitable for release, evaluate radiotelemetry packages, and train a team of biologists for releasing California condors. Other benefits ofthe Andean condor experimental release included identifying environmental hazards associated with selected release sites, and the development and implementation of measures to eliminate, or plans to avoid those hazards prior to the release ofCalifornia condors. There were also public relations benefits gained from the widespread notice received by the project. Andean condors not only served as a surrogate study species, but the release project also helped maintain momentum for the California condor recovery program and condor habitat protection during the period when California condors were not in the wild. The project began in August 1988, when a group ofthreejuvenile female Andean condors were released from a fabricated release site on Hopper Mountain National Wildlife RefUge. Later in 1988, four more juvenile female Andean condors were taken to a nearby release site within the Sespe Condor Sanctuary. The birds were reared at each site until they reached fledgling age approximately eight months ofage. At that time, the netting was removed from their enclosures, and the birds were allowed to fly. During 1989, six more female Andean condors were added to the experimental release population. The project was continued until December 1991 and resulted in the acquisition ofimportant knowledge about the best procedures for releasing California condors. Following their experimental release in the Sespe area, the Andean condors 17 were removed gradually from the wild and eventually transported to Colombia and Venezuela, where they were released to the wild. By the end ofthe 1991 breeding season several captive-produced chicks met the criteria for release. The Team recommended the release oftwo individuals into the Sespe Condor Sanctuary (Sanctuary), Los Padres National Forest, Ventura County, California be conducted in the winter of 199 1-92. The first release occurred on January 14, 1992, when two captive-produced California condor chicks, “Xewe” (female) and “Chocuyens” (male), were released with two Andean condor chicks at the Arundell Cliffs located in the Sanctuary. The Andean condors were released with the California condors to create a larger social group. The Andean condors were returned to captivity in September 1992, thus marking the end ofthe 3-year experimental Andean condor release project. The young California condors continued to fare well until Chocuyens was found dead at Pyramid Lake, Ventura County, on October 8, 1992, where he had died from ingesting ethylene glycol, a primary component ofantifreeze. The next release ofCalifornia condors occurred on December 1, 1992, when six more captive-produced California condors chicks were released at the same Sespe Condor Sanctuary site. Socialization with Xewe, the remaining individual from the first release, proceeded well, and the “flock” appeared to adjust well to wild conditions. However, there was continuing concern over the tendency of the birds to frequent zones ofheavy human activity, especially the Pyramid Lake area. Indeed, three ofthese birds eventually died from collisions with power lines in the release area between late May-October 1993. Because of the tendency for the remaining birds to be attracted to the vicinity ofhuman activity and man-made obstacles, especially power lines, another condor release site was constructed in a more remote area, Lion Canyon, Los Padres National Forest, near the boundary ofthe San Rafael Wilderness Area in Santa Barbara County, California. Five juvenile condors were released at the new site on December 8, 1993. In addition, the four condors that had been residing in the Sespe area were also moved to the new site. Theywere re-released over a period ofseveral weeks in hopes that this approachwould reduce the probability that they would return to the Sespe area. Nevertheless, three ofthese condors eventually moved back to the Sespe-Castaic-Fillmore area in March 1994, where they resumed the high risk practice ofperching on power poles. Because of general concern about the tameness ofthese condors and the possibility that their undesirable behavior would be mimicked by the younger birds, these condors were retrapped on March 29, 1994, and added to the captive breeding population. One ofthe five condors released on December 8, 1993, died on June 24, 1994, when it collided with a powerline on the north side of San Marcos Pass. Asecond condor from this group was captured on July 4, 1995, and brought into captivity when it could not be discouraged from frequenting the same area in which the first was killed. On July 4, 1994, this condor died in captivity from cancer. On February 8, 1995, six ofthe 14 condors successfUlly hatched in 1994 were released at Lion Canyon. That group was the first to undergo aversion training in captivity prior to their release. The training was designed to condition these birds to avoid powerlines and approaching humans, hopefully improving their chances of survival in the wild. On March 1, 1995, the three condors remaining in the wild from the December 8, 1993, release were trapped and brought into captivity. This was done so they would not negatively influence the six newly released birds that underwent the aversion training. On August 29, 1995, the remaining eight condors from the 1994 18 breeding seasonwere released at Lion Canyon. The 1994 release candidates were split into two groups m order to keep the releases at more manageable numbers. Only one unfortunatehuman interaction threatened this cohort when campers gave one ofthe condors food and water despite instructions from biologists to the contrary. That left biologists with no choice but to capture the compromised condor and return it to captivity. Despite this one incident, the remaining 13 condors continue to be the best behaved cohort released to the wild. None have been observed landing on power poles, they are avoiding areas ofhigh human activity, and only a few interactions with backcountry hikers have been recorded. The 1995 breeding season produced 13 condors eligible for release, four ofwhich were parent hatched and reared. At approximately three months ofage the four parent hatched and reared condors were transferred to a newly constructed rearing facility at the Hopper Mt. National WildIfe Refuge. That cohort was released to the wild on February 13, 1996, at the Castle Crags release site located approximately 64 km (40 mi) northwest ofLion Canyon on the western border of San Luis Obispo County. An objective ofthis release is to determine if parent hatched and reared chicks taken from the Zoo at the earliest possible date and placed in a natural environment to be reared will be more successful in their adjustment to the wild. All 13 condors have undergone aversion training. To satisfy the objectives ofthe Plan, at least one subpopulation ofnon-captive condors must be established in an area disjunct from the subpopulation being reestablished in the recent historical range in California. Following a widely publicized solicitation ofsuggestions for suitable condor release sites outside ofCalifornia and the approval ofa site selection protocol (March 1987), the Team recommended in December 1991 that California condor releases be conducted in northern Arizona. The remaining 9 condors still in captivity are scheduled to be released at the Vermilion Cliffs in northern Arizona in June of 1996, in an attempt to achieve this primary recovery goal. California condors released into northern Arizona willbe designated as a “nonessential” experimental population in acccordance with Section 10(j) ofthe Act. Section 100) ofthe Act enables the Service to release individuals offederally listed species into the wild and allows (but does not require) the Service to designate them as “experimental populations”. The circumstances under which a designation canbe applied are--(1) the population is geographically disjunct from nonexperimental populations ofthe same species (e.g., the population is reintroduced outside the species’ current range but within its historical range); and (2) the Service determines the release will fUrther the conservation of the species. The designation can increase the Service’s flexibility to manage a reintroduced population, because under Section 100) an experimental population is treated as a threatened species regardless ofits designation elsewhere in its range and, under Section 4(d) ofthe Act, the Service hasgreater discretion in developing management programs for threatened species than it has for endangered species. Therefore, the experimental designation allows the management flexibility needed to ensure that reintroduction is compatible with current or planned human activities in the reintroduction area and to permit management ofthe population for recovery purposes. Experimental populations can be classified as either “essential” or “nonessential”. An essential experimental population is a population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival ofthe species in the wild [50 CFR 17.80 (Subpart H-Experimental Populations)]. All other experimental populations are treated as nonessential, if they are not 19 considered essential to the continued existence of the species. “Nonessential” experimental populations are treated for purposes of Section 7 ofthe Act as though they are proposed for listing (except on National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands where they will be treated as a species listed as “threatened” under the authority ofthe Act). Adesignation of nonessential experimental prohibits the application of Section 7(a)(2) ofthe Act except on National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service lands. This ensures that current land uses and activities (such as, but not limited to, forest management, agriculture, mining, livestock grazing, sport hunting and fishing, non-consumptive outdoor recreational activities) will not be restricted. In March 1995, the Team recommended that a condor release project be undertaken in the Ventana Wilderness on the Big Sur Coast, Los Padres National Forest, Monterey County, California. The recommendation received the Service’s concurrence and plans are being made to release condors in this area in November or December of 1996. In July 1993, the Team recommended that a condor release project be undertaken at Ladder Ranch in New Mexico. That proposal will be pursued after the northern Arizona release has been established. Other areas, including Tehama County in northern California, the Gray Ranchin New Mexico, and the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California Norte, Mexico, have been discussed as possible release sites. Supplemental feeding is an integral component ofthe condor release program. Prior to the recent condor management era, Wilbur et al. (1974) and Wilbur (1978b) showed that California condors could easily be attracted to artificial food sites, and “vulture restaurants” have long been in operation in several Old World vulture conservation programs. Based on the encouraging results ofthe Andean condor surrogate release experiment, condor field technicians have continued to feed the released California condors on still-born dairy calves, and there has been little evidence that the birds have utilized any other food items. Although it is not expected that free-flying condors will continue to feed on proffered food indefinitely, the supplemental feeding program should continue to reduce the likelihood ofdeaths ofcondors from lead or other poisoning insofar as it prevents the birds from feeding on contaminated carcasses. In addition, feeding sites can be strategically located in order to influence movements ofthe birds. Finally, supplemental feeding can permit the reintroduction and maintenance of condor populations in areas where the supply ofnatural food resources is too variable to support the birds over the entire annual cycle. The first two releases took place in the Sespe-Piru Condor Critical Habitat Area, one ofnine designated Condor Critical Habitat Areas located in Southern California. The third and fourth releases were conducted approximately 8.1 kms (5 mi) north ofthe Sisquoc-San Rafael Condor Critical Habitat area. The condors released at that site utilized the Sisquoc-San Rafael and Mt. Pinos Condor Critical Habitat areas. The new Castle Crags release site in San Luis Obispo County is located on the northwest boundary ofthe Beartrap Condor Critical Habitat area. The original selection ofcritical habitat areas was based on the documented use ofnesting, roosting, and foraging habitat by multiple generations ofwild condors. Although recently released captive-hatched condors have no historical bonds to these critical habitat areas, the latter contain the most important habitat components essential to the survival ofwild condors still extant. Thus, it is expected that released condors will be drawn to these areas. However, not until we have a larger 20 number of condors in the wild, including breeding pairs, will we be able to fully evaluate the contribution critical habitat areas will make to the recovery ofthe California condor. K. Strategy ofRecovery The recovery strategy for the California condor will focus on (1) increasing reproduction in captivity to provide condors for release, (2) the release ofcondors to the wild, (3) minimizing condor mortality factors, (4) maintaining habitat for condor recovery, and (5) implementing condor information and education programs. 21 II. RECOVERY A. Objectives and Criteria The primary objective ofthe California Condor Recovery Plan (Plan) is reclassification ofthe California condor to threatened status. The plan provides the criteria for reclassification and outlines the requisite actions for the accomplishment ofeach criterion. The minimum criterion for reclassification to threatened is the maintenance ofat least two non-captive populations and one captive population. These populations (1) must each number at least 150 individuals, (2) must each contain at least 15 breeding pairs and (3) be reproductively self-sustaining and have a positive rate ofpopulation growth. In addition, the non-captive populations (4) must be spatially disjunct and non-interacting, (5) must contain individuals descended from each ofthe 14 founders. When these five conditions are met the species should be reclassified to threatened status. The accomplishment ofthese objectives will depend upon reducing mortality to the lowest level possible and ensuring the interchange of individuals among the spatiallyisolated free-living sub-populations and the captive flock. It is recognized that reestablished condor populations in some areas may require continued artificial feeding to supplement natural food resources and/or to protect birds from exposure to contaminated carcasses. However, such management considerations should not preclude reclassification ofthe species if the above-listed criteria are met. These reclassification criteria may be revised on the basis ofnew information. The estimated date ofreclassification to threatened is 2010. Reintroduction programs must be successful before reclassification occurs. In addition, productivity must be increased beyond the California condor’s intrinsic reproductive rate through a captive breeding program. The long-term population goal of this program is to manage the captive flock to maintain 90 percent ofthe initial genetic variance ofthe represented founders for 200 years. The ultimate size ofthis population is dependent upon the number offounders, the growth rate of the captive flock, and the generation length ofthe species. A preliminary estimate ofthe captive population size is approximately 50 pairs. The short-term population objectives set here are based on preliminary population viability considerations (Appendix 2). The viability factors that have been considered include genetics, demography, and environmental variation, including the possibility ofcatastrophes and epidemics. The roles and interactions ofthese factors are set out in Souls (1987). B. aIix~ 1. Preserve Gene Pool . Single populations are at higher risks from natural or human-caused disasters than are several sub-populations. Therefore, multiple sub-populations of California condors should be maintained to producebirds for the establishment ofviable wild sub-populations. 22 11. _zM_o_ao_i_lnotgaiicnaelxintesntistiuvteiolynsmanaged captive breeding programs at a minimum of five 4) . Captive California condor flocks should be managed to maximize production while optimizing genetic diversity. Optimum pairing strategies for captive birds should be based on genetic information, behavioral data, logistical considerations, and any other pertinent data. In the short term, demographics should be emphasized with the expectation that in the long term, genetic considerations will become increasingly important in managing condor populations. Ill. Update standardized management protocols Captive breeding/rearing protocols have been developed under the auspices of the Team and are being implemented. Continue to update, revise, and standardize existing protocols for veterinary, husbandry, transport, captive-breeding techniques, and emergency procedures to ensure the health, safety, and productivity ofcaptive condors. 112. Operate existing breeding facilities according to management protocols Existing captive-breeding facilities located at the Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park, and the World Center for Birds ofPrey should be operated in accordance with captive/rearing protocols approved by the Team. 113. Develop additional captive-breeding facilities The development ofadditional captive-breeding facilities is necessary for three reasons, (1) safety - single populations are more susceptible to natural or human-caused disasters than multiple sub-populations, (2) space - additional facilities are necessary to accommodate the growing captive population, and (3) cost - the existing captive breeding facilities cannot be expected to assume the total cost ofmaintaining the growing captive population. Additional captive-breeding facilities should be developed as needed to accommodate the growing captive population. 12. Manage the captive flock to optimize productivity, maximize izenetic diversity minimize 2enetic loss, and maintain genetic balance Management under the current captive-breeding protocols should continue to emphasize optimal productivity, maximum genetic diversity, minimum genetic loss, and genetic balance. 121. Maintain comparable Renetic. age. and sex representation in each facility Because ofthe possibility ofa catastrophic loss at one or more captive breeding facilities, each sub-population should be managed to represent as much as possible the captive population as a whole. 23 122. Offspring and eggs should be exchanged between captive subpopulations to ~1mjmn]~gE~IIQn The exchange ofoffspring and eggs should be conducted as needed to balance the genetic, age, and sex ratios ofthe sub-populations. 123. Determine an appropriate genetic balance in the California condor captive ±IQ~k. Continue research on the genetic relatedness ofthe captive flock and generate a computer model to determine an appropriate genetic balance in the captive flock. 124. Establish optimum pairing strategies forthe California condor captive flock . Optimum pairing strategies should continue to be based on the most current genetic and behavioral information, logistical considerations, and any other pertinent data. 125. Maintain a studbook for the California Condor population. The California condor studbook should be continually updated in order to provide the basic knowledge necessary for assessing population status and for planning management actions. 13. ManaRe selected California condors for release to the wild California condors to be released to the wild whose loss should be genetically affordable, physically and behaviorally healthy, ofcomparable age, successfully socialized with other release candidates, kept in isolation from humans to prevent taming, and undergo aversion training to condition them to avoid humans and man-made structures. Criteria to identify condors eligible for release should continue to be refined by the Team. 14. Collect and analyze behavioral data on captive California and Andean condors Behavioral data on California and Andean condors have been collected and analyzed from the beginning ofthe captive-breeding program. Collection ofsuch data in a standardized manner should continue, and emphasis should be placed upon publishing summaries ofthe findings, since they may have relevance to the management ofthe wild California condor population. 2. Reintroduce California Condors to the Wild Establish at least two, preferably more, disjunct wild sub-populations in order to reduce the risks to the overall population and to facilitate their optimal genetic and demographic management. 24 21. Develop protocols for the releases ofCalifornia condors . Draft release protocols were completed in July of 1991, based on data collected during the experimental releases ofAndean condors. They should be updated and revised based on data collected from the four releases ofCalifornia condors. 211. Develop release criteria for California condors Criteria to determine eligible release candidates have been developed, but should be reviewed and updated as needed. 212. Develop an annual plan for the release ofCalifornia condors Based on the annual production ofrelease candidates and the physical capacities ofthe current release site(s), prepare a release plan that would recommend procedures for (1) the selection ofrelease cohorts, (2) the socialization ofrelease cohorts in captivity, (3) the transfer from captive facilities to release sites, (4) veterinary care, (5) feeding schedules, and (6) pre-and post-release monitoring. 22. Establish release sites in California for California condors Three California condor release sites have been established. Two releases were conducted in 1992 in the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, Ventura County, one in 1993 and two in 1995 were conducted in Lion Canyon, Santa Barbara County, and one in 1996 at Castle Crags, San Luis Obispo County. Additional release sites should be selected to accommodate any unexpected needs to move the existing release operations, as well as to accommodate an increasing number ofreleasable birds. 221. Develop criteria for selecting release sites for California condors Criteria for selecting release sites have been developed, but should be revised if necessary, based on information collected from the ongoing release operations. 222. Select release sites in accordance with established criteria Continue to select release sites as needed utilizing existing release site selection protocols. 223. Prepare release sites based on protocols resulting from the Andean condor experimental release results and information learned from the three recent California condor releases Preparation offUture release sites should utilize the existing release protocols and incorporate the knowledge gained from past releases ofAndean and California condors and revised as new findings become available. 25 23. Conduct releases in California ofCalifornia condors into selected habitats California condor releases should be conducted until the recovery goal is met. 231. Develop a California condor release plan . A plan outlining the management ofreleases in California should be developed to project at least five years into the future to ensure adequate support for proposed releases. 232. Release California Condors All releases ofCalifornia condors should be made in accordance with the release plans and established protocols. 233. Monitor California condors held at release sites in accordance with the annual release plan and established protocol The specific guidance provided in the plan and existing protocols should be followed to guarantee the health and safety of the birds being held for release. 234. Monitor free-flying condors Released California condors should be closely monitored by visual observation and electronic telemetry. 235. Provide protection for released birds Protection should be provided by management plans on public lands, volunteer management agreements on private lands, patrolling wildlife authorities, and biologists tracking released birds. 24. Following the procedures outlined in tasks 21 through 23. implement releases ofCalifornia condors outside California The two approved future release sites located outside California should be managed according to the criteria and protocols developed for condor releases in California. 241. Release California condors in northern Arizona Release California condors at this approved site in accordance with established release protocols. 26 242. Release California condors at Ladder Ranch. New Mexico . Release California condors at this approved site in accordance with established release protocols. 25. Establish rearing facilities in wild lands Field rearing facilities should be established to augment zoo rearing and to test whether young condors gain survival advantages. 3. Provide Habitat for Condor Recoverv in the Wild An important factor in the successful establishment ofwild condor sub-populations is the existence of suitable habitat. Therefore, whenever possible or appropriate, a priority for this habitat should include management for condor recovery. 31. Continue to implement management plans to protect known suitable nesting sites on public lands Continue the enforcement ofadopted Forest Service guidelines that protect known condor nest sites from activities that could adversely modify or destroy them and provide adequate protection against human disturbance. 32. Continue to implement management plans to protect known suitable roostimi sites on public lands Continue the enforcement ofadopted Forest Service guidelines that protect known and potential roost sites from activities that could adversely modify or destroy them, and provide adequate protection against human disturbance. 33. Provide foraging habitat The management ofexisting foraging habitat should include the support of reestablished wild condor subpopulations. 331. Implement strategies for managing condor foraQin2 habitat Foraging habitats have been identified and documented through observations and radiotelemetry. Their preservation is necessary to the maintenance ofwild populations ofCalifornia condors. Habitat management plans and volunteer land use agreements on Federal, State, and private lands should be developed and implemented to protect existing foraging habitats. 27 3311. Encourage land managers and owners to leave dead livestock on rnng~nd~. Wild California condors traditionally fed on dead livestock found on private and public rangelands. In the future, such carcasses should provide an important food source for released condors. Land managers should be informed ofthe value ofthese carcasses, and should be encouraged to leave dead livestock out for condors. 3312. Reestablish extirpated native ungulate populations on historical f~tAginLhakflat~. When feasible or appropriate encourage the Department in cooperationwith land management agencies to initiate native ungulate reintroduction within the range ofthe California condor. 332. Preserve key foraging areas near nests and roosts . The existence of this foraging habitat is necessary, if California condors are to reoccupy these key foraging, roosting, and nesting areas. 3321. Foothills of southwestern Kern County The foothills of southwestern Kern County were used by condors throughout the year. Breeding pairs and several individuals fed there year round, and virtually the entire condor population fed there in late summer and fall. The area is principally composed ofthree large, private cattle ranches in southern Kern County: San Emigdio, Snedden, and Hudson. Dead livestock were the primary food source for condors while feeding in that area. A management plan should be prepared with the consent and participation ofall affected land owners to maintain the value of that area for condors. 3322. Carrizo Plaia San Luis Obispo and Elkhorn Plains. Kern County The Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains in southeastern San Luis Obispo County and southwestern KernCounty, were used by foraging condors year-round with the heaviest use being recorded in late winter and spring. The Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) has been able to secure most of that area. It is currently managed by the BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and the Department as the “Carrizo Plain Natural Area.” The remaining private inholdings should be purchased. 28 3323. Tulare County rangelands between Lake Kaweah and White River . California condors fed in this area throughout the year with heavy use in summer, fall and early winter. It appeared to be an important foraging area for condors, particularly nonbreeders. Efforts should be made to maintain the rural landscape ofthis area. 3324. Glennyille/Woody areas. Kern County The feeding area in northern Kern County received use by foraging California condors, particularly between late fall and late spring. Efforts should be made to maintain the rural landscape of that area. 3325. Teion Ranch area. Kern County The Tejon Ranch was an important condor feeding area throughout the annual cycle, but especially in the fall, when there is a high intensity of deer hunting on the ranch. A plan should be prepared with the consent and participation ofthe affected landowner to maintain its value for condors. 3326. Hopper Mountain Ranch area~ Ventura. County The Hopper Mountain Ranch area was purchased in 1974 to serve as a buffer against development forthe Sespe Condor Sanctuary (Sanctuary) and to provide an area for a condor feeding program. It is now a National Wildlife Refuge and the existing ranch house was used as the headquarters for the condor field program that monitored the wild population of California condors. It should be maintained as a refuge to protect the Sanctuary. 3327. Bitter Creek National Wildlife RefUge. Kern County The Hudson Ranch area was purchased in 1986 because it was an important feeding area for California condors, it became the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge. As a refuge, its primary management emphasis should be to support native ungulates as a food source for condors. 3328. San Juan Creek Region. San Luis Obispo County Rangelands on either side of the entire San Juan Creek drainage were important as California condor feeding areas. In the early 1980’s, foraging flights by radioed condors were recorded in the upper drainage of San Juan Creek south of Highway 58. During this period, a pair ofnon-radioed breeding condors and, occasionally, non-radioed 9 29 single condors were observed there during the summer months. The rural landscape ofthat area should be preserved. 3329. Elkhorn Hills. Kern County and Caliente Range. Kern County and San Luis Obispo County . These areas were regular California condor foraging areas. In the future, as the population ofwild condors increases, theuse ofthese areas by foraging condors will probably resume. One ofthe management priorities for these areas should be the reintroduction and maintenance of extirpated ungulate populations. 34. Continue to monitor potential impacts ofall surface-disturbing activities (e.R. energy, residential agricultural. and transportation development prolects) within historical condor range The pressure to develop land within the recent historical California condor foraging range is increasing. Therefore, investigations to identify, assess, and monitor potential threats should continue in order to develop alternatives that will not negatively affect the survival ofthe wild condor population. 341. Work with governmental a2encies to include information on the condor in land-use planninR documents. geographic information systems and policies Routine and close communication should be maintained with appropriate governmental planning agencies (Federal, State, and County), in order to ensure that information on California condor distribution and habitat use is integrated into the land planning documents. 342. Review all plans and land use programs within the condor’s range to ensure that the needs of the species are addressed to the extend possible An attempt should be made to review all local land-use planning documents and attend all pertinent local government planning meetings to ensure California condor issues are addressed. The goal ofthese reviews should be to integratethe needs ofthe condor into all existing or proposed plans and programs, in a manner that is compatible with their purpose. 4. Minimize Mortality Factors in the Natural Environment Land management agencies should identify all known condor mortality factors in their land management plans and develop strategies to eliminate them to the extent possible. 30 41. Assess historical findings . A review ofthe historical literature should be conducted to compile information on potential mortality factors. It should be determined if these mortality factors are still a threat. If so, corrective actions should be taken to eliminate them. 42. Provide adequate law enforcement to minimize direct losses ofwild condors from shooting A cooperative law enforcement program should be developed between the Department, Forest Service, BLM Rangers, and the Service for the patrol of key condor areas. 43. Implement management recommendations and strategies to minimize contaminant - related mortality factors Land management agencies should identify all known or suspected sources of contaminants that could poison condors. These land managers should then implement management strategies to eliminate the source, use, or dumping of these contaminants on lands under their jurisdiction to the extent possible. 44. Eliminate or reduce the effects ofenvironmental contaminants on California condor Initiate research on known and suspected environmental contaminants using surrogate species to determine their effects on the survival and reproduction of California condors. Based on the findings ofthis research, management recommendations should be made that would eliminate or reduce these effects on condors. 441. Determine effects ofvarious poisons and contaminants, especially lead and copper. on surrogate species Continue to compile information on the effects ofvarious poisons and contaminants on surrogate species, especially the turkey vultures, Andean condor, and golden eagles to provide comparative data ofparticular relevance to the California condor. 45. Monitor contaminant levels in California condors Condor blood, feathers, eggshells, and other tissues will be collected opportunistically and analyzed for heavy metals, pesticides, and other potential contaminants. 451. Sample potential condor food items within historical range to determine seasonal and geographic contaminant loads 31 Once California condors find and start feeding on food items other than the carcasses provided to them, those specific items should be tested to determine their contaminant burdens. 452. Sample and analyze blood of surro2ate svmpatric species in the field to determine seasonal and ~eographic distribution of contaminant loads throughout the historical condor range . Blood samples should be taken and analyzed from species (e.g., golden eagle) that are permanent residents within the range of the California condor. Samples should be taken throughout the condor’s range and during each season. 46. Minimize mortality due to collisions with man-made structures Increasing development within the California condor’s range makes it imperative to minimize collisions with man-made structures by developing guidance documents that 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 and an~u~aI~. To assess the magnitude ofavian mortalities due to collisions with man-made structures, all available information on the subject should be collected, knowledgeable persons interviewed, and further studies conducted if necessary. 462. Advise planning agencies on location ofthreatening powerlines. wind turbines and other structures to avoid possible condor mortalities In 1966, a California condor was killed when it flew into a power line. In a six-month period from May to October 1993, threejuvenile condors died when they collided with powerlines. Death resulting from collisions with man-made structures (e.g., power lines and wind turbines) is avoidable if such structures are designed or retrofitted with hardware that discourages condors from perching on them and also through carefUlly planned placement. All agencies/companies planning the construction of such structures should be advised on the most favorable location ofsuch structures from the standpoint of the condor, as well as measures that can be implemented that will help avoid possible condor mortalities. 47. Develop strategies for controlling natural potential predators ofcondor eggs and nestlings in nesting areas 32 Studies should be undertaken to develop aversion techniques that would stop or 0 discourage predators such as ravens and golden eagles from preying on California condor eggs and nestlings. 48. Restrict aircraft activity in key condor areas . Lowflying military and civilian aircraft could collide with and cause the death of soaring California condors in certain key areas and could disrupt feeding, nesting, and roosting condors. The Federal Aviation Administration should be persuaded to issue aircraft activity advisories in order to protect the airspace in these areas for condors. 5. Implement Information and Education Programs on Condor Habitat Use and protection N~di Information and education programs are currently administered by the Service and all other institutions participating in the California condor recovery effort. These programs should continue in order to respond to frequent requests by students, teachers, reporters, and other interested publics for current information on the condor. 51. Distribute educational material about condor habitat species identification. and legal protection Educational hand-out materials on habitat needs, condor identification, and existing 0 laws protecting condors are useful tools for disseminating information to the public. New material should be developed and existing material should be revised and updated periodically. 52. Provide information to key governmental land managers in condor range Written and visual information packets, presentations, and newsletters are currently provided to key governmental land managers. That type ofcommunication should continue in order to meet the informational needs ofthese land managers. 53. Provide information on condor habitat needs to key private landowners Information packets, presentations, and newsletters are currently provided to key private landowners. That level of communication should continue in order to meet the informational needs ofthese private landowners. 54. Establish observation points and educational facilities at selected sites Existing observation points should be rehabilitated, information updated, and new observation sites should be developed within key areas accessible to the public in the range ofnewly released California condors. 0 33 55. Make a video on California condor recoverv effort for use as an educational tool by all cooperating agencies and groups . Continue to prepare video tapes of the California condor field and captive breeding programs to produce up to date visual material for public educational purposes. 56. Provide training sessions on condor biology ecology and key use areas to law ~ Currently, a condor workshop is conducted once a year to educate law enforcement officers, land managers, biologists, and private citizens that work or live in key use areas. The annual workshop should be conducted as long as condors are being released to the wild. 57. Develop public information about condor recovery programs at zoological institutions Existing public information programs at zoological institutions should continue to provide the public important information on the California condor recovery efforts. 571. Provide informational kiosks Without California condors on exhibit it is necessary that information on the captive breeding program be displayed using informational kiosks to keep the public informed on the progress ofthe condor recovery effort. These kiosks should be available to the public at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, Los Angeles Zoo, and World Center for Birds ofPrey. 572. Exhibit California condors at zoological institutions At selected zoological parks supporting California condor captive breeding facilities, condors should be placed on exhibit to educate the public on the current recovery effort. 573. Continue to provide ohotos and video tapes ofcaptive-rearing efforts to the press and management aRencies ofeducational use The sensitive nature ofthe captive-rearing program necessitates that it be off-exhibit and closed to the public. It is therefore, important that photos and video tapes be made available to keep the public informed and management agencies supplied with California condor captive-rearing educational information. 58. Maintain and make available a computerized condor information system Convert the existing California Condor Program literature archives to a computerized literature-based condor information system. 34 LITERATURE CITED Allendorf F.W., and R.F. Leary. 1986. Heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations of animals. In M. Souls (ed.). Conservation biology: science ofdiversity. Pp. 57-76. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Anonymous. 1917. California condor on exhibition in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. Calif Fish and Game. 3:176. Blong, B. 1954. Asouth coast deer range. California Department ofFish and Game, Los Angeles. Bloom, P.H., J.M. Scott, OH. Pattee, and M.R Smith. 1989. Lead contamination ofgolden eagles Aquila chrysaetos within the range ofthe California condor Gymnogyps californianus. In B.-U. Meyburg and R.D. Chancellor (eds.). Raptors in the modern world. Pp. 481482. World Working Group on Birds ofPrey, London. Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue offossil birds. Part 2 (Anseriformes through Galliformes). Bulletin ofthe Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 8:195-335. Conway, W.G. 1980. An overview ofcaptive propagation. In M.E. Soul~ and B.A. Wilcox (eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Pp. 199-208. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Cooper, J.G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe 1:248-249. Emslie, S.D. 1987. Age and diet offossil California condors in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Science 237:768-770. Finley, W.L., and I. Finley. 1928. Wild animal pets. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York. Frankel, O.H., and M. E. Soul& 1981. Conservation and evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England. Franldin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary changes in small populations. In M.E. Souls and BA. Wilcox (eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Pp. 13 5-149. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Geyer, C.J., O.A. Ryder, L.G. Chemnick, and EN Thompson. 1993. Analysis ofrelatedness in the California condors, from DNAfingerprints. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:571- 589. Gilpin, M.E. 1987. Spatial structure and population viability. In M.E. Souhi (ed.). Viable populations for conservation. Pp. 124-139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 35 Harrison, E.N., and L.F. Kiff. 1980. Apparent replacement clutch laid by wild California condor. Condor 82:35 1-352. Houston, 1974. Food searching in griffon vultures. East African Wildlife Journal 12:63-77. Howard, H. 1962. A comparison ofavian assemblages from individual pits at Rancho La Brea, California. Los Angeles County Museum Contributions to Science 58:1-24. Jackson, J.A. 1983. Nesting phenology, nest site selection, and reproductive success ofBlack and turkey vultures. In SR. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.). Vulturebiology and management. Pp. 245-286. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Janssen, D.L., JE. Oosterhuis, J.L. Allen, M.P. Anderson, D.G. Kelts, and S.N. Wiemeyer. 1986. Lead poisoning in free ranging California condors. Journal ofthe American Veterinary Medicine Association 189:1115-1117. Kiff, L.F. 1989. DDE and the California condor Gymnogyps californianus: the end ofthe story? In B.U. Meyburg and R.D. Chancellor (eds.). Raptors in the ModernWorld. Pp. 477-480. World Working Group on Birds ofPrey, Berlin. Kiff, L.F. 1990. To the brink and back: the battle save the California condor. Terra 28:6-18. Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall, and SR. Wilbur. 1979. Recent changes in California condor eggshells. Condor 8 1:166-172. Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall, M.L. Morrison, and S.R. Wilbur. 1983. Eggshell thickness and DDE residue levels in vulture eggs. In S.R. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.). Vulture biology and management. Pp. 440-458. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Kimura, M., and J.F. Crow. 1963. The measurement of effective population number. Evolution 7:279-288. Koford, C.B. 1953. The California condor. National Audubon Society Research Report 4:1- 154. Kuehier, C.M. 1989. California condor (Gymnogyps cal~fornianus) studbook. San Diego Wild Animal Park, Escondido, California. Kuehler, C.M., D.J. Sterner, D.S. Jones, R.L. Usnik, S Kasielke. 1991. Report on captive hatches ofCalifornia condors (Gymnogyps cal4fornianus): 1983-1990. Zoo Biology 10:65- 69. Lande, R., and G.F. Barrowclough. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. In M.E. Souhi (ed.). Viable populations for conservation. Pp. 87-123. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 36 Ligon, J.D. 1967. Relationships ofthe cathartid vultures. Occasional Paper ofthe Museum of Zoology, University ofMichigan 651:1-26. Mallette, R.D. 1970. Operational management plan for the California condor. California Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento. Mallette, R.D., and J.C. Borneman. 1966. First cooperative survey ofthe California condor. California Fish and Game 52:185-203. Mallette, RD., F.C. Sibley, W.D. Carrier, and J.C. Borneman. 1970. California condor Surveys, 1969. California Fish and Game. 56:199-202. Meretsky, V.J., and N.F.R Snyder. 1992. Range use and movements ofCalifornia condors. Condor 94:313-335. Miller, A.H., I. McMillan, and E. McMilIan. 1965. The current status and welfare ofthe California condor. National Audubon Society Research Report 6:1-61. Mundy, P.J. 1982. The comparative biology of southern African vultures. The Vulture Study Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. Pattee, O.H., P.H. Bloom, J.M. Scott, and MR. Smith. 1990. Lead hazards within the range of the California condor. Condor 92:931-937. Ralls, K., and J.D. Ballou. 1983. Extinction: lessons from zoos. In C.M. Schoenewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W.L. Thomas (eds.). Genetics and conservation. A reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. Pp. 164-184. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, California. Ralls, K., and J.D. Ballou. 1992. Managing genetic diversity in captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Transactions ofthe North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference vol.57:263-282. Ralls, K., J. Ballou, and A.R. Templeton. 1988. Estimates oflethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conservation Biology 2:185-193. Rea, A.M. 1983. Cathartid affinities: a brief overview. In S.R. Wilbur and J.A. Jackson (eds.). Vulture biology and management. Pp. 26-54. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Rett, E.Z. 1938. Hailstorm fatal to California condors. Condor 40:225. Rett, E.Z. 1946. Record ofanother condor death. Condor 48:182. Ricklefs, RE. (ed.). 1978. Report ofthe advisory panel on the California condor. National Audubon Society Conservation Report 6:1-27. 37 Schmitt, N.J. In Prep. A study ofthe California condor molt. Senner, S.E. 1980. Inbreeding depression and the survival of zoo populations. In M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox (eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. 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 ofbirds. A study in molecular evolution. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Sibley, F. 1969. Effects ofthe Sespe Creek Project on the California condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. Snyder, N.F.R. 1983. California condor reproduction, past and present. Bird Cons. 1:67-86. Snyder, N.F.R. 1986. California condor recovery program. In S.E. Senner, C.M. White, and JR. Parrish (eds.). Raptor conservation in the next 50 years. Raptor Research Report No. 5:56-71. Snyder, N.F.R., and J.A. Hamber. 1985. Replacement-clutching and annual nesting ofCalifornia condors. Condor 87:374-378. 4 Snyder, N.F.R., and E.V. Johnson. 1985. Photographic censusing ofthe 1982-1983 California condor population. Condor 87:1-13 Snyder, N.F.R., E.V. Johnson, and D.A. Clendenen. 1987. Primary molt ofCalifornia condors. Condor 89:468-485. Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-site biology ofthe California condor. Condor 88:228-241 Snyder, N.F.R., and H. Snyder. 1989. Biology and conservation ofthe California condor. In D.M. Powers (ed.). Current ornithology, Vol. 6. Pp. 175-267. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Souls, M. 1980. Thresholds ofsurvival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. In M.E. Soul~ and B.N Wilcox (eds.). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Pp. 151-169. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Soul~, M. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Soul~, M. 1986. Conservation biology: the science ofscarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. I. 38 Stager, K. 1964. The role ofolfaction in food location by the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Los Angeles County Museum Contributions to Science 81:1-63. Steadman, D.W., and N.G. Miller. 1987. California condor associated with spruce-pine woodland in the late Pleistocene ofNew York. Quaternary Research 28:415-426. Studer, C.D. 1983. Effects ofKern County cattle ranching on California condor habitat. M.S. thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Taber, R.D., and RF. Dasmann. 1958. The Black-tailed Deer in the chaparral. California Department ofFish and Game Bulletin 8:1-163. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. California condor recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Verner, J. 1978. California condors: status ofthe recovery effort. General Technical Report, PSW-28. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Wallace, M.P., and S.A. Temple. 1987. Releasing captive-reared Andean condors to the wild. Journal ofWildlife Management 351:541-550. Wiemeyer, S.N., RM. Jurek, and JR. Moore. 1986. Environmental contaminants in surrogates, foods and feathers ofCalifornia condors (Gymnogyps californianus). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 6:91-111. Wiemeyer. S.N., NJ. Krynitsky, and S.R. Wilbur. Environmental contaminants in tissues, food, and feces ofCalifornia condors. In S.R Wilbur and J.N Jackson (eds.). Vulture biology and management. Pp. 427-439. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Wiemeyer, S.N. J.M. Scott, M.P. Anderson, P.H. Bloom, and C.J. Stafford. 1988. Environmental contaminants in California condors. Journal ofWildlife Management 52:238-247. Wilbur, S.R. 1972. Food resources ofthe California condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Wilbur, SR. 1973. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 90:196-198. Wilbur, S.R. 1975. California condor plumage and molt as field study aids. California Fish and Game 61:144-148. Wilbur, SR. 1978a. The California condor, 1966-76: a look at its past and future. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North America Fauna 72:1-136. Wilbur, S.R. 1978b. Supplemental feeding of California condors. In S.A. Temple (ed.). Endangered birds: management techniques for preserving threatened species. Pp. 135-140. University ofWisconsin Press, Madison. 39 Wilbur, S.R. 1978c. Turkey vulture eggshell thinning in California, Florida, and Texas. Wilson Bulletin 90:642-643. Wilbur, S.R. 1980. Estimating the size and trend ofthe California condo’~-~’opulation, 1965- 1978. California Fish and Game 66:40-48. Wilbur, SR., W. Carrier, and J. Borneman. 1974. Supplemental feeding program for California condors. Journal ofWildlife Management 38:343 -346. Wilbur, S.R, and L.F. Kiff. 1980. The California condor in Baja California, Mexico. American Birds 34:856-859. Wright, J.M., M. Treadwell, R.K. Nurthen, L.M. Woodworth, M.E. Montgomery, D.A. Briscoe, and R. Frankham. Unpubl. ins. Modeling problems in conservation genetics using Drosophila: purging is ineffective in reducing genetic load. 40 111. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The table that follows is a summary ofscheduled actions and costs for the recovery program. It is a guide to meet the objectives ofthe California Condor Recovery Plan. The table indicates the priority in scheduling tasks to meet the objectives, which agencies are responsible to perform these tasks, a time-table for accomplishing these tasks, and the estimated costs to perform them. Implementing Part III is the action ofthe plan, that when accomplished, will satisfy the recovery objective. Initiation ofthese actions is subject to the availability offunds. Priorities in Column 1 ofthe following implementation schedule are assigned as follows: Priority I - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population/habitat quality or some other significant negative impact short ofextinction. Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery ofthe species. Codes used in Implementation Schedule Ongoing = Task is currently being implemented and will continue until action is no longer necessary for recovery. * = Lead Agency Total Cost = Projected cost oftask from task start to task completion. Responsible Parties: USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFS = U.S. Forest Service USBLM = U.S. Bureau ofLand Management CDFG = California Department ofFish and Game AGED = Arizona Game and Fish Department TNC = The Nature Conservancy LAZ = Los Angeles Zoo SDWAP = San Diego Wild Animal Park = Peregrine Fund CCRT = California Condor Recovery Team CEC = California Energy Commission 41 Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor 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: Captive Breeding 1 1 111 Management I LAZ~ 5 Protocol SDWAP* USFWS PF 1 112 Operate Facilities Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 1500 300 300 300 300 300 1 2 113 NewCaptive Breeding Facilities Ongoing CCRT USFWS 10 10 1 1 12 Manage Captive Flock Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 1250 250 250 250 250 250 1 1 121 Maintain: Genetic, Age & Sex Balance Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PF 5 1 1 1 11 1 2 122 Offspring & Eggs Exchange Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 10 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 123 Determine Genetic Balance Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 10 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 124 Develop& Implement Pair Strategies Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 10 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 Manage Selected Condors for Release Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 15 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 14 Behavioral Data 1: Subtotal Needs Ongoing LAZ~SDWAP pp 150 30 30 30 30 30 2965 605 590 590 590 590 Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor Need Priority Task # Task Description Task Duration (Yrs) Responsible Party Total Cost Cost Estimates ($1,000) FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 5 2 54 Establish Points of Observations & Educational Facilities Ongoing USFS USFWS-CDFG USBLM 25 5 5 5 5 3 55 Videos Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLM USFS 50 10 10 10 10 10 5 3 56 Training Sessions Ongoing USFWSCDFG-USBLM LAZ-SDWAP-PF USFS 10 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 571 Zoo Kiosks Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PF 30 6 6 6 6 6 5 3 572 Zoo Condor Exhibit 3 LAZ-SDWAP PP 600 200 200 200 5 3 573 Provide Photos& Videos Ongoing LAZ-SDWAP PP 25 5 5 5 5 5 785 37 37 237 237 237 9558 1793 1741 1968 1978 2078 5 3 58 Maintain Centralized Information Center 5: Subtotal Needs TOTAL COSTS Ongoing uSFwS 5 1 1 1 I Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor Need I Priority Task I Task Task Responsible Total Cost Estimates ($1,000) # Description Duration Party Cost I I (Yrs) FY 1995 I FY 1996 FY 1997 I FY 1998 I FY 1999 2: Reintro ductions 2 1 21 DevelopRelease 1 USFWS 10 10 Protocols CCRT 2 2 211 ReleaseCriteria 1 CCRT USPwS 1 1 2 1 212 Annual Release Plan Release Criteria Ongoing USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 221 ReleaseSite Selection Criteria 1 CCRT USFWS 1 1 2 1 222 Select Release Sites 3 CCRT USFWS 30 10 10 10 2 1 223 Prepare Release Sites 3 USFWS 30 10 10 10 2 1 23 Conduct Releases 5 USFWS 2250 450 450 450 450 450 2 1 231 Develop California Release Plan 1 USFWS 2 1 232 ReleaseCondors 5 USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10 2 1 233 MonitorCondorsat Site 5 USFWS 250 50 50 50 50 50 2 1 234 Monitor Free-Flying Condors Ongoing USFWS 250 50 50 50 50 50 2 1 235 Protect Released Condors 5 USFWS.CDFG USFS 250 50 50 50 50 50 Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor Need Priority Task # Task Description Task Duration (Yrs) Responsible Party Total Cost Cost Estimates ($1,000) FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 2 1 241 Northern Arizona Release 3 USFWS-PF AGFD 1050 250 200 200 200 200 2 2 242 NewMexico Release 3 USF’~~SPF 210 10 200 P Protect Nest Sites Ongoing 3 3 1 1 25 31 Wild Rearing Facilities USFWS USFWS USBLM-CDFG BIA-USFS 50 50 10 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 32 Protect Roost Sites Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG BIA-USFS 10 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 331 Mana~Condor Foraging Habitat Ongoing USFWSUSBLM-CDFG BIA-USFS 10 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3311 Dead Livestock on Rangelands Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG USFS-AGFD 26 4 4 6 6 6 3 2 3312 Reestablish Native Ungulates Ongoing CDFG USFS-USFWS USBLM 20 4 4 4 4 4 6~ Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor Need Priority Task # Task Description Task Duration (Yrs) Responsible Party Total Cost Cost Estimates ($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& Elkhom Plains Ongoing USBLM TNC-CDFG 100 20 20 20 20 20 3 3 3323 Tulare County Grasslands Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3324 GlenvilleWoody Area Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3325 Tejon Ranch Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3326 Hopper Mtn. Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG USFS 100 20 20 20 20 20 3 1 3327 BitterCreek Ongoing USFWS 50 10 10 10 10 10 3 2 3328 SanJuan Creek Ongoing CDFG-CO. 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3329 Elkhorn Hill & Caliente Range Ongoing CDFG-CO. 25 5 5 s s 3 3 341 LandUsePlanning Ongoing USFWS USFS-CDFG BIA USBLM 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 342 General Plan Review 3: Subtotal Needs Ongoing CDFG USFWS 20 4 4 4 411 81 81 83 83 83 4 4 Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor Need Priority Task Task I Task 1 Responsible # Description I Duration Party I (Yrs) Total Cost Estimates ($1,000) Cost FY 1995 I FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 1 FY 1999 4: Mortality 4 3 41 Assess Historical Findings Ongoing USFWS 10 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 42 Law Enforcement Ongoing CDFG USBLM-USFS USFWS 25 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 43 Minimize Contaminant Related Mortality Ongoing USFWS USBLM-CDFG USFS 25 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 43 Monitor Contaminants Ongoing USFWS 10 10 4 1 441 Determine Effects ofContaminants 3 USFWS 165 55 55 ss 4 3 451 SampleFoodfor Contaminant Loads 3 USFWS 75 25 25 25 4 3 452 Blood Samples Contaminant Loads Ongoing USFWS CDFG 25 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 461 Avian Mortality due to Collisions with Human-made Structures Ongoing CEC-USFWS Private Sector 500 100 100 100 100 100 C p Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule for the California Condor Need Priority Task # Task Description Task Duration (Yrs) Responsible Party Total Cost Cost Estimates ($1,000) FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 4 2 462 Advise Planning Agencies on Location & Mitigation to Avoid Collisions with Human-made Structures Ongoing USFWS CDFG 25 5 5 5 4 3 47 ControlPredators 3 USFWS 45 15 15 15 15 5 5 1 48 51 Distribute Educatio |
| Images Source File Name | 8790.pdf |
| Date created | 2012-12-13 |
|
|