Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

15612

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
buffer distances used for other raptors, which varied widely from 162 to 5,249
ft 501,600 m Richardson and Miller 1997, pp. 635636; Romin and Muck 2002; USFWS 2007, p. 13, as well as past recommendations on buffer distances for California condor nests, which ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 mi 0.8
2.4 km Carrier 1973, pp. 7173. This variation is likely the result of differences in environmental setting, species-specific responses, status of the species at the time of the recommended buffer, the nature of the disturbance, and the purpose of the buffer. It is important to note that historical California condor buffer distances of 0.5
to 1.5 mi 0.82.4 km were based on anecdotal observations of a small number of condor nests in a declining population, and were necessarily conservative given the context of a nearly extinct species. The nest buffer for this rule is smaller than those earlier recommendations because of new information suggesting that nesting California condors may be more tolerant of disturbance than previously believed see below. We also accounted for the fact that we are establishing this population as a nonessential experimental population. Therefore, our buffer distance around nests may be less conservative than our recommended buffer distances from nests where California condors are listed as endangered.
While species-specific responses to disturbance have not been formally studied for the California condor, observations in the 1950s and 1960s found that once a condor nest is started, it will not be abandoned unless the egg or chick is lost or the parents killed Sibley 1969, p. 8. In addition, recent observations have documented successful nests within 0.5 mi 0.8 km from active oil and gas operations and within 656 ft 200 m of busy highways, hiking trails, and forestry practices such as operating chainsaws and chippers A.
Welch, NPS, pers. comm. 2015. One nest in a giant sequoia tree was successful despite being right on the edge of a clearcut operation which ceased only 3 weeks prior to egg laying and only about 656 ft 200 m from, and in direct view of, an intermittently used dirt road Snyder et al. 1986, p. 238.
Although the best available information suggests that California condors may not be as susceptible to disturbance as we thought in the 1960s 1980s, flushing of condors from nests has been documented due to disturbance and this activity has the potential to result in the egg breaking if the adult that is flushed is incubating the egg Sibley 1969, p. 8. It is also
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Mar 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

possible that prolonged or repeated disturbances may cause nest failure Sibley 1969, p. 15. To minimize the chances of nest or egg destruction and to preserve the structural integrity of habitat around nests while minimizing impacts to stakeholders, we are prohibiting habitat alteration or significant visual or noise disturbance within 656 ft 200 m of occupied nests, with the exceptions noted above.
Existing and proposed activities and land uses surrounding the park that could potentially result in incidental take include wind power, utility transmission lines, mining, commercial timber production, ranching operations, and recreational activities NPS et al.
2018. As noted above in our evaluation of the likelihood of population establishment and survival, we determined that the extent of effects of these activities within the NEP is compatible with conservation of the California condor. We expect few restrictions on these activities because most incidental take, including take associated with lead ingestion, is not prohibited. Some activities, such as those associated with habitat alteration or significant visual or noise disturbance within 656 ft 200 m of an occupied nest, would be prohibited, as described above. However, because 1
the number of individuals initially released would be small, 2 California condors nest only on cliffs and in large tree cavities, 3 California condors tend to nest in less accessible and remote areas, and 4 the nests would be dispersed rather than concentrated in a particular area, we expect impacts to existing and proposed activities to be minimal NPS et al. 2018. For the reasons stated above, it is unlikely that a condor would nest within areas with ongoing timber harvest operations, as only about 0.5 percent of harvestable timber on private lands within the study area are likely to contain suitable nesting trees. NPS 2018. Once the condor chick has fledged, activities could resume, so any prohibitions on activities would be temporary in nature.
b Interagency Consultation: For purposes of section 7 of the Act, section 10j of the Act and our regulations 50
CFR 17.83 provide that nonessential experimental populations are treated as species proposed for listing under the Act except on National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System lands, where they are treated as threatened species for the purposes of section 7 of the Act.
c Special Handling: USFWS, NPS, CDPR, CDFW, ODFW, Nevada Department of Wildlife NDOW, and Yurok Tribe Natural Resource Division
PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

employees, and authorized agents acting on their behalf, may handle California condors for scientific purposes; to relocate or haze California condors to avoid conflict with human activities; for recovery purposes; to aid sick or injured California condors; and to salvage dead California condors. However, nonService or other non-authorized personnel will need to acquire permits from the Service and the appropriate State or Tribal agency for these activities. Protocols for management and monitoring have been developed based on decades of experience from releasing condors in other areas Yurok Tribe 2020, entire. Management and monitoring practices covered by these protocols include holding and releasing condors, monitoring, condor care and behavior management, nest observations and interventions, and other tasks necessary to ensure successful reintroduction of the species Yurok Tribe 2020, entire. These protocols are designed to be adaptive and will be updated periodically as new information is acquired. Management and monitoring activities see Yurok Tribe 2020 by any employee or agent of the Service, National Park Service, Yurok Tribe Natural Resource Division, CDPR, CDFW, NDOW, or ODFW who is designated and trained for such purposes, when acting in the course of official duties, will be exempt from take prohibitions.
d Public Awareness and Cooperation: During January 2017, in cooperation with the Yurok Tribe and Redwood National Park, we conducted five NEPA scoping meetings on the proposed action of reintroducing California condors to the Pacific Northwest, with the possibility of designating the reintroduced population as an NEP. We notified a comprehensive list of stakeholders of the meetings including affected Federal and State agencies, Native American Tribes, local governments, landowners, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties. The comments we received were included in the formulation of alternatives considered in the NEPA
process, and were considered in formulating proposed experimental population regulations for California condors within the NEP. We opened a 60-day comment period on our proposed regulations and EA, with another round of notifications to our comprehensive list of stakeholders. We also held public meetings in Portland, OR, Medford, OR, Klamath, CA, and Arcata, CA during the public comment period.

E:FRFM24MRR1.SGM

24MRR1