Quiero saber acerca de...

15608

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Preliminary model simulations suggest that allocating captive-bred individuals to a new, geographically disjunct flock, which is expected to have lower survival and reproduction compared to the existing flocks, may reduce the population growth of condors in California. Model simulations reinforce the importance of increasing captive chick production and releases to the wild. The number of chicks produced in the captive program and released to the wild has been variable over time, but continues to drive population growth in the wild due to the high chick and juvenile survivorship attainable in a captive setting and to ongoing mortality in the free-flying population combined with the long generational gap between chick stage and breeding age approximately 68 years in California condors Finkelstein et al. 2012, entire;
Bakker et al. 2017, entire; Bakker and Finkelstein 2018, entire.
The California Condor Recovery Program is currently proposing to increase the number of captiveproduced condors for release into the wild, and would continue to allocate the number of chicks to each release site necessary to maintain positive population growth at each site, to the extent practicable. Continuing to grow the wild population of California condors while reestablishing them in an unoccupied portion of their historical range is consistent with our overall strategy to recover the species.
In summary, an NEP in the Pacific Northwest would establish an additional population in the United States, beyond the minimum of two populations envisioned for downlisting to a threatened species. This population would contribute to the conservation of the species by: Further reducing the risk that any one catastrophic event would affect a large proportion of the species increasing the population redundancy;
increasing the global population of the species increasing resiliency; and expanding the geographic distribution of the species among ecosystems increasing representation by expanding the ecological settings in which the species occurs.
Is the experimental population essential or nonessential?
When we establish experimental populations under section 10j of the Act, we must determine whether such a population is essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.
Although the experimental population will contribute to the recovery of the California condor, it is not essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild. California condors are
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Mar 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

currently distributed among three disjunct and intensively managed populations in California, Arizona and Utah, and Baja California, Mexico.
Management at these sites includes:
Monitoring individuals with VHF or GPS/GSM transmitters; biannual trapping for health screenings;
vaccination for West Nile virus; aversive conditioning to power poles prior to release; chelation therapy to treat California condors with elevated bloodlead levels; and nest observations, entries, and interventions to maximize productivity in the wild Walters et al.
2010, pp. 972, 976, 982984; Romo et al.
2012, pp. 2856; Southwest Condor Review Team 2017, pp. 421; USFWS
2017, pp. 519. In addition, there are ongoing releases of captive California condors into each of the wild populations. Releases are carefully coordinated among sites to ensure a healthy age structure, sex ratio, and distribution of founder genomes Ralls and Ballou 2004, pp. 221225. As a result of the continued release of condors and the coordination among release programs, the populations of wild California condors continue to grow USFWS 2018, p. 6.
In addition to the three wild populations, there is also a sizable captive population at four breeding facilities, which are distributed in California, Oregon, and Idaho see Biological Information, above. The breeding facilities are secure facilities, not open to the public, where California condors are kept under 24-hour surveillance by condor keepers or video cameras. The captive population is given extensive care and deaths and injuries are rare, with a captive annual survival rate after the first month of life of 0.989 percent 95 percent confidence interval: 0.9840.992 Bakker et al.
2017, p. 97. In addition, the geographic separation of the four breeding facilities protects the captive population from the threat of extinction due to a single catastrophic event.
The captive population was formed with only 13 apparent genetic founders that comprised three genetic clans Geyer et al. 1993, p. 573; Ralls and Ballou 2004, p. 219; Pryor and Ralls 2016, p. 3. Genetic management, which includes control of all captive matings, has been implemented to minimize the loss of remaining genetic diversity and ensure this remaining genetic diversity is well distributed among the captivebreeding facilities and reintroduction sites Ralls et al. 2000, p. 152; Ralls and Ballou 2004, p. 226; Pryor and Ralls 2016, p. 2. California condors released within the experimental population would come from a mixture of the
PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

founder clans represented in the captive population and would not represent a unique genetic lineage of California condors. Therefore, loss of this population would not represent a substantive change in the genetic diversity or genetic viability of the worldwide population of California condors.
This reintroduction project will further the recovery of the California condor by attempting to establish another wild population in an unoccupied portion of the species historical range. However, for the reasons stated above, California condors released into the Pacific Northwest are not essential to the survival of the species in the wild. Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 17.81c2, we find that the experimental population is not essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild, and we designate the experimental population in the Pacific Northwest as a nonessential experimental population NEP.
Location and Boundaries of the NEP
Section 10j of the Act requires that an experimental population be geographically separate from wild populations of the same species.
Considering a number of factors as described in detail, below, we drew the NEP area to include a portion of northern California, northwestern Nevada, and all of Oregon. The western boundary of the NEP is the Submerged Lands Act boundary line along the Pacific coast. The southern boundary of the NEP is formed by an east-west line from Californias Submerged Lands Act boundary to Hare Creek; Hare Creek from the Pacific Ocean to its junction with California State Route 1; north to the junction of State Route 1 and State Route 20; east along California State Route 20 to where it meets Interstate 80;
and Interstate 80 from its intersection with California State Route 20 to U.S.
Route 95 in Nevada. The eastern boundary of the NEP is U.S. Route 95
in Nevada to the State boundary of Oregon and then east and north along Oregons southern and eastern boundaries, respectively. The northern boundary of the NEP is the northern State boundary of Oregon. All highway boundaries are inclusive of the entire highway right of way. See map below and in the Environmental Assessment NPS et al. 2018, Figure 2, p. 5.
The last California condor specimen collected within the NEP area was in 1892 along Yager Creek in Humboldt County, California Smith 1916, p. 205;
DElia and Haig 2013, pp. 3946.
Although there were a few reported
E:FRFM24MRR1.SGM

24MRR1