Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation In cooperation with conservation partners, we will monitor movements, habitat use, and survival of all released California condors NPS et al. 2018, pp.
2328. Monitoring individual movements will allow field staff to identify potential problem-behaviors and to capture, relocate, or haze individual California condors for their safety. It will also allow us to detect any California condors that move outside of the experimental population area.
Trapping will occur at the release site to allow for hands-on physical exams of individuals, replacement of faulty or aging transmitters, marking growing feathers, sampling feathers marked previously for lead history construction, and drawing blood for immediate testing of circulating blood lead levels and laboratory analysis for other contaminants of interest including, but not limited to, organophosphates and anticoagulant rodenticides. We will also attempt to determine the cause-of-death for all condor mortalities so we can look for emergent patterns and evaluate whether additional management interventions are necessary.
Annual reports that summarize monitoring and management activities will be collaboratively developed by the Yurok Tribe, NPS, and USFWS. We will evaluate the reintroduction program to determine whether to continue or terminate reintroductions every 5 years as part of our 5-year status review for the species.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Summary of Comments and Recommendations In the proposed rule published on April 5, 2019 84 FR 13587, we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 4, 2019. In addition, in accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 59 FR 34270
and updated guidance issued on August 22, 2016 USFWS 2016, entire, we solicited peer review of our proposed rule from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise in California condor ecology and management. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. In addition, on May 79, 2019, we held public meetings on the proposal in Portland, OR; Medford, OR;
Arcata, CA; and, Klamath, CA.
We reviewed all comments received from the public, States, Tribes, and peer
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Mar 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the establishment of an experimental population of California condors in the Pacific Northwest. Substantive comments are addressed in the following summary and have been incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. Any substantive changes incorporated into the final rule are summarized in the Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule section, below.
Peer Review Comments In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 59 FR
34270, we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise in the species biology, habitat, and raptor reintroductions in general. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers.
Both peer reviewers expressed support for the reintroduction with an associated 10j rule and agreed the action is likely to contribute to the conservation of the species. We incorporated specific updated information, comments, and suggestions from peer reviewers into the final rule as described in our responses, below.
Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that, in our proposed rule, we stated that predator-poisoning was no longer a primary threat to condors. The reviewer notes that another form of poisoning, from anticoagulant rodenticides, remains a serious concern for wildlife in northern California and may pose a greater threat than in central and southern California condor populations.
Response: Predator-poisoning campaigns targeting large predators, like gray wolves and grizzly bears, are fundamentally different from the use of anticoagulant rodenticides that are primarily targeting small rodents.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that condors released in northern California may be exposed to rodenticides. We do not yet know the rate of exposure or whether this exposure will have a significant effect on condor demographic rates. It is currently unclear whether exposure rates will be higher, lower, or the same as observed in other parts of the condors range, or whether their exposure rates will be comparable to exposure rates in other surrogate avian scavengers. As stated in the final rule, we will be conducting regular physical exams of condors and will attempt to determine cause-of-death for all condors that die and whose bodies are available for necropsy. If exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides is a significant factor affecting
PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15613

population growth, we will adapt our management accordingly.
Comment: One peer reviewer noted that, in our proposed rule, we mention the lead ammunition ban in California and the efforts being taken in Oregon to get hunters to voluntarily switch to nonlead alternatives. They asked whether Nevada, part of which is included in the NEP boundary, would be undertaking any outreach for voluntary effort to curb lead ammunition use.
Response: NDOW has implemented some voluntary measures to encourage hunters to switch to non-lead ammunition. In 2015, NDOW
collaborated with the North American Non-lead Partnership to train hunter education instructors about non-lead ammunition. Non-lead ammunition outreach is now included in all hunter education training in Nevada. In addition, Nevada also has a regulation mandating the use of nontoxic shot on all Nevada Wildlife Management Areas NAC 503.183.
Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the nest buffer of 200 m is somewhat less conservative that what has previously been recommended, but, given the evidence presented and the fact that this is being designated as an NEP, they thought that the buffer size was a reasonable starting point. This reviewer suggested providing a mechanism for expanding the buffer, under certain circumstances. The other peer reviewer stated that the 200 m buffer around nests seemed risky. They suggested starting with a larger buffer, with the option of making it smaller in certain circumstances.
Response: The 656 ft 200 m buffer distance around occupied nests is intended to provide some protection to condor eggs and nestlings. We recognize that, in certain situations, noise or habitat disturbance outside of this buffer may cause harassment, or even harm, to an individual condor. We expect these instances to be extremely rare given the small number of anticipated breeding condors in the foreseeable future and the vastness of the landscape they will occupy. For the reasons articulated in this final rule see Management, above, we find that a 656 ft. 200 m buffer distance provides a reasonable balance between protection of condors and limiting the impact of this reintroduction effort on landowners.
Comment: One peer reviewer asked about the timing of our program review and how that relates to the timing of the Services 5-year status review of the species. As the last California condor 5year review was completed in 2013, they were concerned that our review periods would not be aligned.

E:FRFM24MRR1.SGM

24MRR1