Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations California condor sightings up to 1925
in the area we are proposing to designate an NEP, since then there have been no credible sightings of condors in the wild in this area, or anywhere north of San Francisco DElia and Haig 2013, pp. 5859. Given that almost all released California condors are actively tracked with electronic transmitters, we are confident that there are no wild condors in the NEP.
The location of the primary reintroduction site is the Bald Hills of Redwood National Park, an area proximal to suitable nesting and feeding habitat. Ten potential release sites were identified by the Yurok Tribe, and the primary release site was selected following careful consideration of site suitability, logistics, threats and hazards, cultural resources, and suitability of adjacent lands Yurok Tribe 2020, entire. The release site will be situated in grassland habitat above a redwood forest with sufficient topography to allow young California condors to more easily achieve flight.
Redwood forests in the vicinity of the release site, as well as proximal mountain ranges Oregon Coast Range, Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains, and the Northern Coast Range in California are expected to provide ample roosting and nesting habitat. Inland valleys and mountaintop prairies, in conjunction with a proximal coastline, are expected to provide a mixture of sufficient terrestrial and marine feeding areas and food resources. Landscape-scale models indicate that the amount and characteristics of habitat in the region compare favorably to other portions of the historical range DElia et al. 2015, pp. 9596.
In defining the experimental population boundary, we attempted to encompass the area where the population is likely to become established in the foreseeable future.
The term foreseeable future appears in the Act in the statutory definition of threatened species. The Act does not define the term foreseeable future.
However, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11d set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. While we use the term foreseeable future here in a different context to establish boundaries for identification of the experimental population, we apply a similar
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Mar 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

conceptual framework. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant effects of release and management of the species and to the species likely responses in view of its life-history characteristics.
Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors. For the purposes of this rule, we define the foreseeable future as approximately 20
years, the time horizon within which we can reasonably forecast California condor population expansion given the number of years of data we have on condor movements from release sites in southern and central California 25
years in southern California and 23
years central California. We expect that the contribution of the experimental population toward recovery of the California condor will be evident during this time span, although we recognize that establishing a self-sustaining population of condors in the region may take longer given the species extremely low reproductive rates. We established the experimental population boundary large enough to account for expansion over time as the introduced population begins to breed in the wild, and to assist in identifying any individuals belonging to the NEP. When possible, we used recognizable features on the landscape, legal land descriptions, or administrative boundaries to demark this experimental population boundary.
We included the entire State of Oregon to ensure that any California condors originating from the releases at Redwood National Park and flying north into Oregon are recognized as members of the NEP and are covered by the NEP
regulations.
Information we considered in drawing our NEP boundary included California condor movement data from existing release sites, and the location of the closest existing condor population, as well as input from State wildlife agencies. Movement data indicate that, after 20 years of releasing California condors, most individuals remain within approximately 124 mi 200 km of their release sitealthough exceptional flight distances occasionally occur and the existing populations continue to expand as flock size increases. The closest California condor release site to the Bald Hills release site is at Pinnacles National Park, approximately 350 mi 563 km to the south. The proposed release site is
PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15609

approximately 124 mi 200 km from the nearest edge of the experimental population boundary, and the southern edge of the experimental population boundary is approximately 112 mi 180
km from the northern extent of the closest endangered population of California condors. Thus, the southern boundary of the NEP approximates a mid-point between the nearest population in central California and the proposed release site at Redwood National Park. The farthest documented nesting pair of California condors from any release site since the inception of the captive-breeding program was approximately 62 mi 100 km, while most nests are within 47 mi 75 km of their release site of origin. Given our definition of foreseeable future and the information from existing release sites, we anticipate that California condors initially released at Redwood National Parkwith the exception of occasional exceptional flightswould remain within the experimental population boundary over the first 20 years of reintroductions. If a reintroduction of California condors in northern California is successful, it is possible that some individuals from the NEP may eventually move outside of the NEP
area. It is also possible that California condors from the other California release sites may enter this NEP. We expect that these movements, if they occur, would be infrequent in the foreseeable future given the size of the NEP, the NEPs distance from existing populations, and observed California condor movements at other release areas over the last two decades. Further, we find that the interaction of individuals among the NEP and existing endangered populations and the merging of these populations are even more unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future given the distance between the populations and the small number of California condors likely to occupy the NEP. Even if California condors occasionally moved into or out of the NEP, the presence of one or a few individual dispersing condors would not constitute a population and any individuals dispersing into or out of the experimental population area would be treated as if they were part of the population at the location where they are found See Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, 12346, FN 5 10th Cir. 2000 finding the Secretary reasonably exercised his management authority under section 10j in defining the experimental wolf population by location. Based on definitions of population used in other experimental population rules
E:FRFM24MRR1.SGM

24MRR1