Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Prairie Gray Fox, the Plains Spotted Skunk, and a Distinct Population Segment of the Mearn's Eastern Cottontail in East-Central Illinois and Western Indiana as Endangered or Threatened Species, 71759-71771 [2012-29188]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2012–0079;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Prairie Gray Fox,
the Plains Spotted Skunk, and a
Distinct Population Segment of the
Mearn’s Eastern Cottontail in EastCentral Illinois and Western Indiana as
Endangered or Threatened Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
prairie gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus ocythous), the plains
spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius
interrupta), and a distinct population
segment (DPS) of the Mearn’s eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus
mearnsi) in Illinois and western Indiana
as endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Based on our
review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the
prairie gray fox and the plains spotted
skunk may be warranted. Therefore,
with the publication of this notice, we
initiate a review of the status of the
prairie gray fox and the plains spotted
skunk to determine if listing either of
these subspecies is warranted. To
ensure that this status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding these
subspecies. Based on the status review,
we will issue a 12-month finding on the
petition, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
We also evaluated whether the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate whether or not
the Mearn’s eastern cottontail in eastcentral Illinois and western Indiana
qualifies as a DPS that may be
warranted for listing. Based on our
review, we conclude that the petition
does not provide substantial
information indicating that population
of Mearn’s eastern cottontail in eastcentral Illinois and western Indiana is a
listable entity under the Act. Because
the petition does not present substantial
information indicating that the
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
population of Mearn’s eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana may be a listable entity, we did
not evaluate whether or not the
information contained in the petition
regarding threats to that population was
substantial. We are not initiating a
status review in response to this petition
for Mearn’s eastern cottontail in eastcentral Illinois and western Indiana.
However, we ask the public to submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of, or
threats to, the Mearn’s eastern cottontail
or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on December 4,
2012.
We request that we receive
information on or before February 4,
2013. The deadline for submitting an
electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on this date. After February 4,
2013, you must submit information
directly to the Division of Policy and
Directives Management (see ADDRESSES
section below). Please note that we
might not be able to address or
incorporate information that we receive
after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information on the prairie gray fox and
the plains spotted skunk, by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket
No. FWS–R3–ES–2012–0079, which is
the docket number for this action. Then
click on the Search button. You may
submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!.’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R3–ES–2012–
0079; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept email or faxes. We
will post all information we receive on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Request for Information section
below for more details).
This finding is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Number FWS–R3–ES–2012–
0079. Supporting documentation we
used in preparing this finding is
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Rock Island, Illinois Ecological
Service Field Office, 1511 4th Ave.,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71759
Moline, IL 61265. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning the finding on
the prairie gray fox and the plains
spotted skunk to the Rock Island,
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office
at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Prairie Gray Fox and Mearn’s Eastern
Cottontail
Richard Nelson, Field Supervisor,
Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Service
Field Office, 1511 4th Ave., Moline, IL
61265; by telephone at 309–757–5800;
or by facsimile at 309–757–5804. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
Plains Spotted Skunk
Amy Salveter, Field Supervisor,
Missouri Ecological Services Field
Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A,
Columbia, MO 65203; by telephone at
573–234–2132; or by facsimile at 573–
234–2181. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a
species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly initiate review of
the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and
based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we request
information on the prairie gray fox and
the plains spotted skunk from
governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information
on:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
71760
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(3) Information regarding overharvest
and disease as potential ongoing threats
to the plains spotted skunk and prairie
gray fox.
(4) Information regarding the impacts
of pesticides on food availability for the
plains spotted skunk.
(5) Information regarding the impacts
of predation by coyotes and bobcats on
the prairie gray fox.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing the prairie gray
fox or the plains spotted skunk is
warranted, we will propose critical
habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act) under section 4 of the Act,
to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to
list the species. Therefore, we also
request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently
found;
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species that are ‘‘essential for the
conservation of the species’’; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you
think we should propose for designation
if one or both of the species are
proposed for listing, and why such
habitat meets the requirements of
section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support
for or opposition to the action under
consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning this status review by one of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this personal
identifying information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee
that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information within the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly initiate a
species status review, which we
subsequently summarize in our 12month finding.
Petition History
On July 18, 2011, we received a
petition from Mr. David Wade and Dr.
Thomas Alton, requesting that five or
six entities of grassland thicket species
or subspecies be listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(a). However, while
reviewing the petition, we determined
that the petition did not clearly state
which species were included in the
petition. Therefore, in a September 2,
2011, letter to the petitioners, we
provided the petitioners with an
opportunity to revise the petition to
clearly identify the petitioned entities,
which the petitioners accepted in a
September 12, 2011, response to our
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
letter. On January 23, 2012, we received
a revised petition from Mr. David Wade
and Dr. Thomas Alton, requesting that
the prairie gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus ocythous), the plains
spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius
interrupta), and a DPS of the Mearn’s
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus
mearnsi) in Illinois and western Indiana
be listed as endangered or threatened
species under the Act. In a January 30,
2012, letter to the petitioners, we
responded that we reviewed the
information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act was not warranted as each of
the three petitioned species has extant
populations in several States and most
of the threats mentioned in the petition
are not immediate in nature. This
finding addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Action(s)
To date, no Federal actions have been
taken with regard to the prairie gray fox,
the plains spotted skunk, or the Mearn’s
eastern cottontail.
Species Information
Plains Spotted Skunk (Spilogale
putorius interrupta)
The plains spotted skunk is one of
three recognized subspecies of the
eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale
putorius); the other two recognized
subspecies are S. p. ambarvalis (no
common name) and S. p. putorius (no
common name) (Kinlaw 1995, p. 1).
Spotted skunks are members of the
Order Carnivora and Family
Mephitidae. Eastern spotted skunks are
distinct from western spotted skunks (S.
gracilis) based on reproductive and
geographic isolation (Kinlaw 1995, p. 1).
Little variation in skull or body
measurements exists among the plains
spotted skunk subspecies (Van Gelder
1959, p. 270). The plains spotted skunk
can be distinguished from other
subspecies by the reduced amount of
white on its body, particularly the
entirely black tail (Van Gelder 1959, pp.
269–270). We accept the
characterization of the plains spotted
skunk as a subspecies because of
morphological distinction of its color
pattern from other subspecies of eastern
spotted skunk (Van Gelder 1959, pp.
269–270). We consider information that
refers to the eastern spotted skunk
where it occurs in the delineated range
of the plains spotted skunk to represent
the plains spotted skunk.
Both the plains spotted skunk and
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) have
contrasting black and white markings;
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
however, they are easily distinguished
by size (spotted skunks are substantially
smaller) and color pattern. The plains
spotted skunk is a small, slender
mammal with short legs and a tail with
prominent, long hairs. Body weight
ranges from 300 to 1,300 grams (g) (0.75
to 2.75 pounds (lb)), and total length
ranges from 36 to 61 centimeters (cm)
(14 to 23.75 inches (in)) (Hazard 1982,
p. 143; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p.
325). In contrast, the striped skunk’s
average weight is 6,300 g (14 lb), and its
length is 80 cm (31.5 in). The plains
spotted skunk is black overall with
narrow, white stripes and spots. Four
stripes on the neck, back, and sides run
longitudinally from the head to the
middle of the body. The four white
stripes break into patches or spots on
the hindquarters. There is a white spot
on the forehead and in front of each ear
(Hazard 1982, p. 143; Schwartz and
Schwartz 2001, p. 325).
Habitat associations of this subspecies
are likely influenced by whether it is
using a natural or human-dominated
landscape. The subspecies lives in a
wide range of habitats including forests,
prairies, brushy areas, farmyards, and
cultivated land (Crabb 1948, pp. 212–
215; Edmonds 1974, p. 12; Kinlaw 1995,
p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p.
327). Regardless of habitat type used,
the plains spotted skunk requires
extensive vegetative cover. Brushy
borders along fields, fence rows, farm
buildings, wood piles, heavily vegetated
gullies, leaf litter, or downed logs may
provide the required extensive cover,
which primarily provides protection
from predators (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4;
Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327;
Lesmeister 2008, pp. 1517–1518).
Nowak (1999, p. 734) notes that spotted
skunks avoid dense forests; however,
plains spotted skunks are more likely to
occur where the landscape is composed
of a high proportion of forest cover
(Hackett 2008, pp. 52–54), and they use
oak-hickory forests more than old fields
or glades (McCullough 1983, pp. 40–43).
Within forest habitats studied by
McCullough (1983, p. 41) and
Lesmeister (2007, p. 21), skunks used
young, dense forest stands or stands
with downed logs and slash more often
than mature stands with open
understories and clean forest floors.
Spotted skunks also require an early
successional (process by which
ecological communities undergo
changes following disturbance)
component to their habitat to provide
cover and denning areas (Lesmeister
2007, p. 56; Lesmeister et al. 2009, pp.
23–24).
Dens can be located above ground or
below ground. In natural landscapes,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
plains spotted skunks den in grassy
banks and crevices or cavities under
rock piles, hollow logs, and stumps
(Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and
Schwartz 2001, p. 327). In landscapes
dominated by humans, they den in
shelterbelts (row of trees planted to
provide shelter from wind), fencerows,
farm buildings, haystacks, woodpiles, or
corn cribs (Crabb 1948, pp. 214–215;
Hazard 1982, p. 144; Jones et al. 1983,
p. 302; Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and
Schwartz 2001, p. 327). Plains spotted
skunks might dig their own dens, but
they often use burrows excavated by
other animals, such as Franklin’s
ground squirrel (Spermophilus
franklinii), thirteen-lined ground
squirrel (S. tridecemlineatus),
woodchuck (Marmota monax), longtailed weasel (Mustela frenata), striped
skunk, and woodrats (Neotoma spp.)
(Crabb 1948, p. 212; Kinlaw, 1995, p. 4;
Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327).
Crabb (1948, p. 212) noted that skunks
required dens that excluded light and
afforded protection from inclement
weather and predators. Dens are used by
one or more members of the local
population of plains spotted skunks,
and individuals might den together
during cold winter months (Schwartz
and Schwartz 2001, p. 327).
During most of the year, individual
plains spotted skunks remain in an area
of approximately 40 hectares (ha) (98.8
acres (ac)), but the home range can vary
based on habitat quality and food
availability (Schwartz and Schwartz
2001, p. 327). The home range can vary
seasonally as well; in spring, the range
of males can expand to as much as 1,040
ha (2,569.9 ac) (Schwartz and Schwartz
2001, p. 327). In Missouri, home ranges
varied from 55 to 4,359 ha (135.9 to
10,771.3 ac) (McCullough 1983, p. 34).
Lesmeister et al. (2008, p. 21) reported
that home ranges in the Ouachita
Mountains of Arkansas varied by gender
and season. The home ranges of males
(222 to 1,824 ha (548.6 to 4,507.2 ac))
in the spring were 6.4 times larger than
those of females (31 to 192 ha (76.6 to
474.4 ac)). Likewise, male home ranges
were at least 2.5 times larger than
females’ ranges in the winter and
summer, but not autumn. Overall, home
range size varied from 19 to 1,824 ha
(47.0 to 4,507.2 ac) for males and 21 to
192 ha (51.9 to 474.4 ac) for females
(McCullough 1983, p. 34; Lesmeister et
al. 2008, p. 21). Crabb (1948, p. 218)
found that spotted skunks on an
agricultural landscape in Iowa occurred
at a density of approximately 5 skunks
per square kilometer (km2) (13 skunks
per square mile (mi2)).
The plains spotted skunk is
omnivorous, but is primarily an
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71761
insectivore and feeds on insects during
all seasons of the year (Kinlaw 1995, p.
4). The proportion of different types of
food items varies seasonally.
Arthropods are the major dietary
component during summer and autumn,
with grasshoppers, crickets, ground
beetles, and scarab beetles being the
preferred food (Schwartz and Schwartz
2001, p. 328). In the winter, small
mammals, including eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), voles (Microtus
pennsylvanicus and M. ochrogaster),
and rats (Rattus norvegicus), are the
dominant food source (Chapman and
Feldhamer 1982, p. 668; Kinlaw 1995, p.
4). Other foods include birds, eggs, wild
ducks that are injured or killed by
hunters, fruit, corn, lizards, snakes,
crayfish, salamanders, and mushrooms
(Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 328).
The plains spotted skunk currently
(and historically) occurs between the
Mississippi River and the Continental
Divide from Minnesota to the Gulf of
Mexico (Kinlaw 1995, p. 3). Historical
records indicate that the plains spotted
skunk was broadly distributed across its
range through the early to mid-1900s
and was one of the most common
mesocarnivores (a carnivore whose diet
consists of 50 to 70 percent meat) where
suitable habitat occurred (Crabb 1948, p.
203; Choate et al. 1973, p. 226; Tyler
and Lodes 1980, p. 102; McCullough
1983, p. 19; Wires and Baker 1994, p. 1;
Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327).
Likewise, harvest records in the
Midwest indicate that population levels
in most States were at their highest
through the mid-1900s, during which
harvest in most years exceeded 100,000
plains spotted skunks (Novak et al.
1987, pp. 223–226).
More contemporary records
consistently show that the plains
spotted skunk underwent declines in
the mid- to late 1900s (Choate et al.
1973, pp. 227–230; McCullough 1983,
pp. 19–25; Gompper and Hackett 2005,
p. 196; Nilz and Finck 2008, pp. 5–14).
Declines occurred first in Missouri and
Oklahoma in the late 1930s and early
1940s, followed by Nebraska in the mid1940s, and Kansas, Iowa, and Minnesota
in the mid- to late 1940s (Wires and
Baker 1994, p. 1; Gompper and Hackett
2005, p. 199). Harvest numbers for the
plains spotted skunk from 1934–1935
were 248,062 (Service calculated from
Novak et al. 1987, pp. 223–226, for
States in the range of the subspecies).
More recent harvest information for
1975–1976 showed that only 1,476
plains spotted skunks were harvested
(Service calculated from Novak et al.
1987, pp. 223–226, for States in the
range of the subspecies), which is less
than 1 percent of the 1934–1935 harvest.
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
71762
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Gompper and Hackett (2005, p. 199)
demonstrated rangewide declines in the
plains spotted skunk based on harvest
records and found that the decline was
not an artifact of reduced trapper effort
or demand for spotted skunk pelts.
The subspecies likely still occupies
the same habitat types and occurs in all
the States within its historical range
(Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming), but in
lower abundance (Choate et al. 1973, p.
231). Range fragmentation and reduced
abundance of the subspecies is recorded
through trapper records, fur buyer
surveys, public surveys, and focused
field surveys (Hammond and Busby
1994, pp. 1–4; Wires and Baker 1994,
pp. 3–7); these records also document
locations where viable populations
likely occur (e.g., Ozark Plateau
(McCullough 1983, p. 52; Hackett 2005,
pp. 51–52) and Ouachita Mountains
(Lesmeister et al. 2010, pp. 54–58)).
Prairie Gray Fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus ocythous)
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
are mammals of the Order Carnivora
and Family Canidae. U. c. ocythous is a
recognized subspecies of the gray fox. In
this finding, we refer to the subspecies
U. c. ocythous as the prairie gray fox, as
this is the common name the petition
uses, although there is no recognized
common name for this subspecies. The
prairie gray fox was first described by
Bangs in 1899 (Fritzell and Haroldson
1982, p. 1; Hall 1981, p. 943). We accept
the characterization of the prairie gray
fox as a subspecies of the gray fox as
noted in Chapman and Feldhammer
(1982, p. 475), Fritzell and Haroldson
(1982, p. 1), and Hall (1981, p. 943).
Few references refer specifically, by
name, to U. c. ocythous; therefore, we
consider information available for the
gray fox within the delineated prairie
gray fox range to represent the
petitioned subspecies.
The following characteristics describe
the gray fox species in general, as they
are similar to the characteristics of the
prairie gray fox subspecies. The gray fox
has a distinguishable appearance with
gray fur on its upper body; reddish fur
on its neck, the sides of the belly, and
inner legs; and white on the rest of its
underbody. The guard hairs (long,
course hairs that protect soft underfur)
are banded with white, gray, and black,
which gives the fox’s fur a grizzled
appearance. It has a black tipped tail
and a coarse dorsal mane of blacktipped hairs at the base of its tail
(Chapman and Feldhammer 1982, p.
476; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 1;
Hall 1981, p. 942; Hamilton and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Whitaker 1979, p. 270). Gray fox are also
distinguished from other canids by their
widely separated temporal ridges that
come together posteriorly in a U-shaped
form (Chapman and Feldhammer 1982,
p. 476; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p.
1; Hall 1981, p. 942; Hamilton and
Whitaker 1979, p. 270). Gray fox are
smaller than the red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
with a total length of 80 to 112.5
centimeters (cm) (31.5 to 44. 3 inches
(in)), weight of 3 to 7 kilograms (6.6 to
15.4 lb), and males are slightly larger
than females (Fritzell and Haroldson
1982, p. 1). The size of gray fox varies
with geographic location, with
individuals in the northern part of the
range larger than those in the south
(Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 270).
Gray fox are generally associated with
wooded habitats (Haroldson and Fritzell
1984, p. 226; Fritzell and Haroldson
1982, p. 3; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979,
p. 270). Gray fox use oak-hickory forests
almost exclusively in southern
Missouri, and are frequently found in
dense stands of young trees during the
day (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, pp.
226–227). This study noted, however,
that forest habitat was the most
abundant habitat type in their study
area and the importance of wooded
habitat is dependent on its availability,
and will be used disproportionately to
its abundance when wooded habitat is
scarce (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p.
226). Gray fox use woody cover in
deciduous or pine forest, but they also
use edge habitat and early old-fields
(open habitats that are transitioning
from field to forest and are dominated
by forbs, grass, and shrubs and small
trees) (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p.
3). The gray fox tends to select against
agricultural areas (Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982, p. 3). Cooper (2008, p.
24) found a greater relative abundance
of gray fox in Illinois, where there was
a greater dispersion of grassland patches
into forested areas, and lower densities
in areas with larger patches of
agricultural fields. A notable
characteristic of the gray fox is their
ability to climb trees; gray fox are
capable of climbing a tree trunk using
their claws to grasp and pull themselves
up or bounding from branch to branch
(Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 5;
Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 270).
This behavior is used during foraging,
predator avoidance, or resting (Fritzell
and Haroldson 1982, p. 5).
Gray fox dens are usually located in
wooded areas and include underground
burrows, cavities in trees or logs, woodpiles, and rock outcrops or cavities
under rocks (Jones et al. 1985, p. 264;
Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 189).
Gray fox will use dens year-round, but
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
predominantly when young are born.
Gray fox mate at different times of the
year, depending on their geographic
location (Chapman and Feldhammer
1982, p. 476). For example, for the
prairie gray fox, breeding lasts from late
January through February in southern
Illinois and from late January through
March in Wisconsin (Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982, pp. 3–4). The average
litter size for the gray fox is 3.8 pups per
female, with litters ranging from 1 to 7
pups (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4).
The home range of the gray fox varies
depending on the season and geographic
location (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p.
4). Males in southern Illinois were
found to have a home range of 136 ha
(336.1 ac), and females a home range of
107 ha (264.4 ac) (Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982, p. 4). A study by
Haroldson and Fritzel (1984, p. 225)
conducted in a Missouri oak-hickory
forest indicated that nightly range use
by gray fox was a fraction of the total
monthly range. They also found
composite (multiple month) home
ranges (average 676 (+/¥) 357 ha (1,670
(+/¥) 882 ac)) are much larger than the
individual month home ranges (average
299 (±) 155 ha (738 (±) 383 ac))
(Haroldson and Fritzel 1984, p. 223).
Haroldson and Fritzel (1984, p. 226)
also indicated that gray fox home ranges
vary among populations. Gray fox are
more active at night, with activity at
sunrise sharply decreasing and
increasing again at sunset (Haroldson
and Fritzell 1984, p. 224).
The gray fox is primarily an
opportunistic carnivore, with mammals
composing most of its diet in the
Midwest (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982,
p. 4). According to Chapman and
Feldhammer (1982, p. 480), the gray
fox’s diet depends highly on what is
available. Although rabbits have been
found to be one of their primary food
sources, they routinely feed on small
rodents and other mammals, birds, and
reptiles (Jones et al. 1985, p. 264;
Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). In
the summer, invertebrates have been
found to be more important food items,
while in the fall, the gray fox consumes
more fruit and sometimes corn
(Chapman and Feldhammer 1982, p.
476; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4;
Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 272).
The plains gray fox ranges primarily
west of the Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers through portions of the central
plain States. The historical range for this
subspecies included western Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas,
and the eastern sections of North and
South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and
Oklahoma in the United States, and the
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
southernmost sections of Ontario and
Manitoba, Canada (Hall 1981, p. 944).
The petition asserts that prairie gray
fox numbers have declined in many of
the States within its range (Petition,
unpaginated). The petition mentions
that the Department of the Interior used
scent stations to track the relative
abundance of several predators,
including the gray fox, in many western
States. The average Statewide indices
between the 1980 and 1981 surveys
showed a decline in Minnesota from 2.4
to 1.9, and in Oklahoma from 2.0 to 1.0
(U.S. Department of the Interior 1981,
pp. 42, 70; U.S. Department of the
Interior 1980, pp. 44, 72). The Statewide
indices for Kansas, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin
were zero in both 1980 and 1981 (U.S.
Department of the Interior 1981, pp. 38,
52, 66, 78, 98; U.S. Department of the
Interior 1980, pp. 40, 54, 68, 80, 100).
There was an increase in the numbers
of gray fox between 1980 and 1981 in
Illinois; however, all of the scent
stations recorded were outside the range
of the prairie gray fox subspecies, so
they were likely a different subspecies
(U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, p.
36; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980,
p. 36). The petitioners cite these
numbers when asserting that the prairie
gray fox was rare to absent in the plains
States by 1980 (Petition, unpaginated).
The petitioners cite the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources’
annual carnivore scent station survey as
including gray fox in their ‘‘fox’’
numbers (Petition unpaginated);
however we can find no indication in
this reference that gray fox were
counted during those surveys (Erb 2010,
p. 43–57).
The Missouri Department of
Conservation’s annual Archer’s Index to
Furbearer Populations shows a 75
percent decline in gray fox numbers
since 1983 (petition unpaginated; Blair
2011, p. 31). The petitioners state that
the number of gray fox in Wisconsin, as
observed by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources during routine
field work, was comparable to the
badger, which is listed by the State as
endangered (Petition, unpaginated). The
report does indicate that the number of
gray fox observed in 2010 was 0.78
observations per respondent, which is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
higher than the long-term average
(during the 23 years of the study) of 0.42
observations per respondent (Kitchell
2010, unpaginated). The number of gray
fox counted during the annual
Bowhunter Observation Survey in
Arkansas have been low but stable from
2005–2010 (Petition, unpaginated; Sasse
2011, unpaginated). The numbers of
gray fox counted during the Iowa 2010
Bowhunter Observation Survey were
fewer than the margin of error for some
of the regions and showed an overall
decline in the State (Petition,
unpaginated; Roberts and Clark 2011,
unpaginated). The petitioners attribute
this decline to the loss of preferred
habitat and the increase in agricultural
habitat, which gray fox avoid (Petition,
unpaginated; Cooper 2008, p. 24;
Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 189).
Although the evidence included in the
petition and within our files shows a
decline in the population of the prairie
gray fox for several States, there are no
studies included that specifically
indicate what the population of the
prairie gray fox was prior to human
settlement or how much the population
has declined rangewide.
Mearn’s Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus mearnsi)
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus) are members of Order
Lagomorpha and Family Leporidae. The
Mearn’s eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus mearnsi) is a recognized
subspecies of the eastern cottontail, as
first described in 1894 by J.A. Allen
(Hall and Kelson 1981, p. 304; Chapman
et al. 1980, p. 1). We accept the
characterization of the Mearn’s eastern
cottontail (S. f. mearnsi) as a subspecies
of the eastern cottontail rabbit as
described in Chapman et al. (1980, p. 1),
and Hall and Kelson (1959, p. 262). Few
references relate specifically to the
Mearn’s eastern cottontail; therefore, we
consider information available for the
eastern cottontail to represent the
petitioned subspecies.
The eastern cottontail is described as
having a total length of 395 to 456 mm
(15.6 to 18.0 in) and weighing 801 to
1,411 g (28.3 to 49.8 ounces (oz)) for
males, and 400 to 477 mm (15.7 to 18.8
in) and weighing 842 to 1,533 g (29.7 to
54.1 oz) for females (Chapman et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71763
1981, p. 136). They have dense fur,
ranging from brownish to greyish in
color, with white fur on the underside
of the body and tail. The average home
range for the eastern cottontail varies
from approximately 1 to 2 acres (0.4 to
1 ha) in Wisconsin (Trent and Rungstad
1974) to around 4 acres (2 ha) in
Pennsylvania, with male home ranges
increasing to an average of 17 to 19
acres (7 to 8 ha) in spring and summer
(Althoff and Storm 1989). The eastern
cottontail is the most widely distributed
cottontail species in North America
(Scharine et al. 2011, p. 885; Hall and
Kelson 1981, p. 300; Chapman et al.
1980, p. 2) and occurs sympatrically
with six species of the genus Sylvilagus
and six species of the genus Lepus
(Chapman et al. 1980, p. 136).
In describing eastern cottontail
habitat, Chapman et al. (1980, p. 2)
stated, ‘‘This cottontail is generally
thought of as a mammal of farmlands,
fields, and hedge rows; however,
historically it occurred in natural glades
and woodlands, deserts, swamps,
prairies, hardwood forests, rain forests,
and boreal forests.’’ When comparing
the eastern cottontail to the swamp
rabbit (S. aquaticus), Scharine et al.
(2011, p. 881) stated that the dense
understory vegetation provided by early
successional cover types are important
habitat for both species; however, the
eastern cottontail is a habitat generalist
and occupies a larger distribution.
Mankin and Warner (1999b, p. 960)
identified eastern cottontails in old
fields, grasslands, hedgerows, cropland,
and urban areas, but found that the
species preferred open shrub land.
The Mearn’s eastern cottontail occurs
across a large portion of the eastern
cottontail’s range, including the entire
States of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Indiana, and Ohio; most of Minnesota,
Illinois, and Kentucky; southwestern
New York; northern Pennsylvania;
western West Virginia; northern
Missouri; northeastern Kansas; eastern
Nebraska; a small portion of the
southeastern corner of South Dakota;
and the small portion of the western
edge of Virginia (Figure 1) (Hall and
Kelson 1981, p. 261; Chapman et al.
1980, p. 3).
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Distinct Population Segment Evaluation
Discreteness
Under the Service’s Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996), three elements are
considered in the decision concerning
the establishment and classification of a
possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to or removal
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. These elements
include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in
relation to the remainder of the taxon to
which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population
segment to the taxon to which it
belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing, delisting
(removal from the list), or
reclassification (i.e., is the population
segment endangered or threatened).
Our understanding of the petitioners’
requested action is that the population
of Mearn’s cottontail in east-central
Illinois and western Indiana (Figure 1)
be considered a DPS and listed as
endangered or threatened under the Act.
Therefore, in this analysis, we evaluate
whether the petition provides
substantial information that the Mearn’s
eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois
and western Indiana may constitute a
DPS.
Under our DPS Policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate species may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
significant differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petitioners describe the area of
the petitioned DPS in the revised
petition submission (dated January 23,
2012) as follows: ‘‘this region covers the
former Grand Prairie region of Illinois
and western Indiana.’’ However, the
submitted description does not provide
exact boundaries or reference maps for
the petitioned DPS. Therefore, the DPS
we consider in our evaluation is based
on a hand-drawn map submitted by the
petitioners in the original petition
submission (dated July 18, 2011) (not
paginated). For our DPS evaluation, we
considered references provided with the
original July 18, 2011, petition
submission, references provided with
the revised January 23, 2012, petition
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submission, and other information
readily available in our files.
The petition cites one study (Mankin
and Warner 1999a) as the supporting
evidence that the population of Mearn’s
eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois
and western Indiana is: (1) Physically
discrete from the rest of the subspecies;
(2) ecologically distinct due to intensive
agriculture leaving only artificial
remnants of its original habitat; and (3)
behaviorally distinct because
individuals require home ranges
averaging 7 times larger than other
members of the eastern cottontail
species.
The petitioners assert that the
petitioned DPS occupies an ecologically
distinct area where intensive agriculture
has left only artificial remnants of its
original habitat. Mankin and Warner
(1999a, p. 940) state that east-central
Illinois is one of the most intensively
farmed regions in North America. This
is supported by the findings of Ribic et
al. (1998), which suggest a decrease in
the quantity of upland wildlife habitat
in Illinois from 1920 to 1987, and an
increase in farming disturbance,
indicating an intensification of
agricultural practices for the State
during that time period. They found that
the western and southern portions of the
State had higher wildlife habitat values
than the rest of the State and that
harvest of eastern cottontails was higher
in counties with the most upland
habitat and the lowest amount of
farming disturbance (Ribic et al. 1998,
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
EP04DE12.025</GPH>
71764
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pp. 307, 311). This differentiation is also
supported by Mankin and Warner
(1999b, p. 962), who showed that
counties in east-central Illinois had the
greatest decline in cottontail abundance
and the highest increase in intense rowcropping.
The petitioners also cite Mankin and
Warner (1999a) in stating that the DPS
represents a population of Mearn’s
cottontail that is broken into small
populations and is behaviorally distinct
from other Mearn’s cottontails. Mankin
and Warner (1999a) studied the
responses of Mearn’s eastern cottontails
to intensive row-crop agriculture in
Ford County, Illinois, which is in the
center of the proposed DPS. They found
that the Mearn’s eastern cottontail had
a home range 2.3 times larger during the
growing season for the crops than
during the non-growing season (Mankin
and Warner 1999a, p. 943). The
cottontails in the study also had an
overall home range that was 7 to 8 times
larger than those found by previous
research (Mankin and Warner 1999a, p.
945). Mankin and Warner (1999a, p.
945) specifically compared their
findings to home ranges of Mearn’s
eastern cottontail in Wisconsin by Trent
and Rongstad (1974), and indicated they
were 8 times larger than Wisconsin
males’ home ranges and 7 times larger
than females’. Chapman et al. (1980, p.
136) indicate that there have been many
studies of home ranges of the eastern
cottontail, with a mean for males of 0.95
ha (2.34 acres) to 2.8 ha (6.9 acres) and
for females of 0.95 ha (2.34 acres) to 1.2
ha (2.96 acres). Mankin and Warner
(1999a, pp. 944–945) found the
population of cottontails in the Ford
County, Illinois study area to be sparse
yet stable. Although the cottontails used
the crop ground extensively and 23
percent of the home ranges occurred on
farmsteads, farmsteads made up less
than 2 percent of the available habitat.
Based on the information submitted
with the petition and information in our
files, we find that the petition presents
substantial information to suggest there
may be a markedly separate population
of Mearn’s eastern cottontail in eastcentral Illinois and western Indiana due
to behavioral differences when
compared to the subspecies located
elsewhere. The population of Mearn’s
eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois
and western Indiana may be discrete
from the rest of the Mearn’s population
because they occupy an area of
intensive agriculture that leads to the
behavior of maintaining different homerange sizes than the subspecies in the
rest of the range. Therefore, this
population of Mearn’s cottontail may
meet the discreteness criterion that it is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon based on
behavioral reasons.
There are no international
governmental boundaries associated
with this subspecies that are significant.
The population of Mearn’s eastern
cottontail in east-central Illinois and
western Indiana lies wholly within the
United States. Because this element is
not relevant in this case for a finding of
discreteness, it was not considered in
reaching this determination.
Significance
If a population segment is considered
discrete under one or more of the
conditions described in our DPS policy,
its biological and ecological significance
will be considered in light of
Congressional guidance that the
authority to list DPSes be used
‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity. In
making this determination, we consider
available scientific evidence of the
discrete population segment’s
importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. As precise circumstances are
likely to vary considerably from case to
case, the DPS policy does not describe
all the classes of information that might
be used in determining the biological
and ecological importance of a discrete
population. However, the DPS policy
does provide four possible reasons why
a discrete population may be significant.
As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR
4722), this consideration of the
population segment’s significance may
include, but is not limited to, the
following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete
population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside its
historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in
its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy
only one of these criteria to be
considered significant. Furthermore, the
list of criteria is not exhaustive; other
criteria may be used as appropriate.
The petitioners assert that the
population of Mearn’s eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana is significant because it
represents approximately 20 percent of
the range of the subspecies that was not
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71765
hybridized by the introductions of other
species, and thus its loss would result
in a significant gap in the range of the
subspecies. The petition cites one
reference, Chapman and Morgan 1973,
to support their assertion. Chapman and
Morgan (1973, p. 6) discuss the
introduction of many species and
subspecies of rabbits into the eastern
United States from 1920 to 1950, and
the impacts on the native rabbit species
in western Maryland and the nearby
portions of West Virginia. They found
evidence of hybridization between
native eastern cottontails and other
rabbit species and subspecies from other
parts of the country and the
hybridization of the subspecies S. f.
mallurus with other subspecies. The
intergrade (hybridization) zone of
eastern cottontail in the East has
expanded, and it now out-competes the
New England cottontail (S.
transitionalis) in its traditional habitat
(Chapman and Morgan 1973, p. 51).
Although the study suggests that the
eastern cottontail subspecies interbreed
where they overlap, it does not
specifically discuss how much habitat
may be lost by each subspecies to
hybridization. Therefore, when
determining how much of the Mearn’s
eastern cottontail range is included in
the petitioned DPS, we used the range
from Hall and Kelson (1981, p. 303) as
cited in the petition and the handdrawn map from the original petition to
generate the map in Figure 1. Using
ArcGIS, we calculated that the area
petitioned as a DPS makes up 3.6
percent of the Mearn’s cottontail range
and not the approximate 20 percent
asserted by the petitioners. To calculate
the size of the proposed DPS, we
scanned the hand-drawn map included
in the petition, georeferenced it to a map
of the United States, and digitized the
DPS boundary from the georeferenced
scanned map. We used the same
procedures to georeference the range of
the Mearn’s eastern cottontail from
Hall’s map (Hall 1980, p. 303). We were
able to calculate the total acres of both
the DPS and the Mearn’s eastern
cottontail range with the new digitized
georeferenced maps. We then clipped
the DPS from the full range to calculate
the difference in acres and the
percentage of the Mearn’s eastern
cottontail range that the DPS includes.
Although the population of Mearn’s
eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois
and western Indiana is located in the
center of the subspecies’ range, the
petition does not provide substantial
information, nor is there information
available in our files, to suggest that loss
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
71766
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of this population would result in a
significant gap in the range of a taxon.
The petition does not present
information to suggest the population of
Mearn’s eastern cottontail in east-central
Illinois and western Indiana may persist
in an ecological setting unusual or
unique to the taxon, evidence that the
population represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside its
historical range, or evidence that the
population differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Additionally, we do not
have information in our files to indicate
that these characteristics are met.
Substantial information is not
presented in the petition, nor is it
available in our files, to suggest that the
population of Mearn’s eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana is biologically or ecologically
significant to the remainder of the
taxon. Therefore, we determine, based
on the information provided in the
petition and in our files that the
population of Mearn’s eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana does not meet the significance
criterion of the 1996 DPS policy.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Finding for Mearn’s Eastern Cottontail
We reviewed the information
presented in the petition and evaluated
that information in relation to
information readily available in our
files. On the basis of this review, we
find that neither the petition, nor
information readily available in our
files, suggests that the Mearn’s eastern
cottontail population in east-central
Illinois and western Indiana meets the
criteria for being significant under our
DPS policy. Although the population
may meet the criteria for being discrete
under the DPS policy, neither the
information in the petition, nor the
information readily available in our
files, suggests that this population of
Mearn’s eastern cottontail may be
significant to the remainder of the
taxon. Because both discreteness and
significance are required to satisfy the
DPS policy, we have determined that
the Mearn’s eastern cottontail
population in east-central Illinois and
western Indiana does not satisfy the
elements of being a DPS under our 1996
policy and, therefore, is not a listable
entity under section 3(16) of the Act.
Because the petition does not present
substantial information that the
population of Mearn’s eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana is a DPS, we did not evaluate
whether the information contained in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
the petition regarding the conservation
status was substantial.
We encourage interested parties to
continue to gather data that will assist
with the conservation of the population
of Mearn’s eastern cottontail in eastcentral Illinois and western Indiana. If
you wish to provide information
regarding the Mearn’s eastern cottontail,
you may submit your information or
materials to the Field Supervisor at the
Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Service
Field Office (see ADDRESSES), at any
time.
Evaluation of Information for This
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424 set forth the procedures
for adding a species to, or removing a
species from, the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond
the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species
responds to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If
there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is
exposure and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat
and we then attempt to determine how
significant a threat it is. If the threat is
significant, it may drive or contribute to
the risk of extinction of the species such
that the species may warrant listing as
an endangered or threatened species as
those terms are defined by the Act. This
does not necessarily require empirical
proof of a threat. The combination of
exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely
impacted could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could
impact a species negatively may not be
sufficient to compel a finding that
listing may be warranted. The
information must contain evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
may be operative threats that act on the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
species to the point that the species may
meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the prairie gray fox
and the plains spotted skunk, as
presented in the petition and other
information available in our files, is
substantial, thereby indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is
presented below.
Plains Spotted Skunk (Spilogale
putorius interrupta)
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners claim that threats to
the plains spotted skunk include habitat
loss and modification. The petition
suggests that loss of grassland and early
successional habitat has contributed to
declining population trends of 90 to 100
percent throughout the subspecies’
range (Petition, unpaginated). Plains
spotted skunks require some early
successional component to their habitat
to provide cover and denning areas
(Petition, unpaginated; Lesmeister 2007,
p. 56; Lesmeister et al. 2009, pp. 23–24).
Before European settlement, this need
was satisfied by both natural
disturbances (e.g., fire, storms, beaver,
elk, and bison) and disturbance by
Native Americans (Petition,
unpaginated; Sewell 2009, p. 11).
Grasslands and successional habitats
were prevalent across the landscape.
However, anthropogenic changes lead to
landscapes that were more conducive to
species that need early successional
habitat, such as the plains spotted
skunk. Such species shifted their use
from naturally created, early
successional habitats to those that were
created by humans, and the species now
seem to depend on these human-created
habitats to some extent (Petition,
unpaginated; Sewell 2009, p. 12).
The petition claims that the plains
spotted skunk has since declined
(Petition, unpaginated; Gompper and
Hackett 2005, pp. 199–200) because of
changes in agriculture, silviculture, and
climate. Because plains spotted skunks
rely on early successional habitat,
management activities or lack of
management that reduce the occurrence
of dense vegetative stands or modify
forest structure to more open, mature
stands could be detrimental to the
subspecies (Petition, unpaginated;
Lesmeister 2007, p. 56; Lesmeister 2009,
pp. 23–24).
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The information readily available in
our files supports the petitioners’ claims
that the plains spotted skunk may be
declining rangewide due to loss,
degradation, and modification of early
successional habitat. The plains spotted
skunk has apparently undergone longterm fluctuations in population (Choate
et al. 1973, pp. 228–233; Novak et
al.1987, pp. 223–226; Gompper and
Hackett 2005, pp. 199–200). Increases in
abundance in the early 1900s likely
were facilitated by human presence and
influence on the landscape, as were
subsequent declines (Choate et al. 1973,
pp. 228–233). Construction of houses,
outbuildings, haystacks, and brush piles
provided shelter, and the storage of
crops provided a direct source of food,
as well as an indirect food source (mice
and rats that were attracted to stored
grain) (Choate et al. 1973, p. 230).
Exploitation of these novel features
allowed the expansion and increase of
the plains spotted skunk (Choate et al.
1973, p. 230). Subsequent removal of
anthropogenic features, as small farms
were deserted and incorporated into
larger farms reduced the amount of
available habitat (Choate et al. 1973, p.
231). However, the plains spotted skunk
has declined throughout its range, not
just in the parts of the range where the
subspecies exists in anthropogenic
landscapes. Harvest by fur trappers has
consistently decreased from the mid1940s to present (Novak et al. 1987, pp.
223–226). Gompper and Hackett (2005,
pp. 199–200) analyzed harvest data from
seven States (Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and
Arkansas) in the range of the plains
spotted skunk and confirmed the
population decline, demonstrated that
the timing of the onset of decline
differed among States, and determined
that the decline was not an artifact of
harvest effort or pelt demand.
Although there does not appear to be
a single cause of decline, a suite of
potential factors are suggested
consistently in the literature. The
decline of small farms, the advent of
agriculture practices that encourage
removal of fence rows and brush piles,
intensive use of pesticides, improved
grain management practices, and the
end of large haystack construction are
implicated as potential causes for the
species’ decline in landscapes
dominated by human activity (Choate et
al. 1973, pp. 229–231; Gompper and
Hackett 2005, p. 199). Following the
Great Depression, many small farms
were deserted and incorporated into
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
larger agricultural units. Farm buildings
were removed that had provided both
shelter and sources of prey, such as
rodents (Choate et al. 1973, p. 230; Nilz
and Finck 2008, pp. 19–20). This change
in the agricultural landscape was
intensified by the drought of 1933–1940,
during which thousands of small
farmers moved to other areas,
abandoning many of the farms that
remained. Arid conditions impacted
natural riparian habitats of plains
spotted skunks along watercourses,
likely making them uninhabitable. The
continued introduction of technology
and mechanization into farming
operations caused further decline of
small, diverse farms and replaced them
with large monocultures (Choate et al.
1973, p. 231). Plains spotted skunks
avoid expansive open areas, such as
pasture lands, that are devoid of
overhead cover, and plains spotted
skunks are likely intolerant of this
habitat type (Lesmeister et al. 2009, p.
23). Finally, the widespread application
of insecticides, such as Dichlorodiphenyl-trichlorethane (DDT), in
industrial farming might have
contributed to the decline in the 1940s.
Because the plains spotted skunk is
primarily an insectivore, application of
pesticide likely reduced the main food
source for the subspecies. Foraging
opportunities were historically and
continue to be further limited by dietary
preference; competition with other
species, such as striped skunk and
weasels, for an alternate food source; or
both (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Nilz and Finck
2008, pp. 19–20).
Habitat loss or modification might
also be currently occurring in more
natural forested landscapes where the
plains spotted skunk occurs. In the
Ouachita Mountains and Ozark Plateau,
use of forested areas was limited to
young forest stands with closed canopy
and dense understory, areas with fallen
logs and brushpiles, ravine bottoms, or
stands that had undergone timber stand
improvement (TSI) and had high levels
of ground litter and slash (McCullough
1983, pp. 40–41; Lesmeister et al. 2009,
p. 23). Young shortleaf pine stands were
the only early successional habitat
present in the Ouachita Mountains
study area and were preferred over the
dominant habitat type, mature shortleaf
pine. Mature shortleaf pine stands offer
more open canopy conditions and are
considered suboptimal habitat for the
plains spotted skunk compared to young
stands that provide more desirable
structural characteristics (Lesmeister et
al. 2009, p. 24). Similar to the results in
the Ouachita Mountains, plains spotted
skunks in the Ozark Plateau preferred
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71767
young oak-hickory forest stands over
mature oak-hickory forest (McCullough
1983, p. 41). Considering that the
subspecies seems to require structural
complexity provided by early
successional habitats, management
priorities that endeavor to create
landscapes dominated by mature forest
stands could negatively impact the
plains spotted skunk. For example, such
conflicts in habitat management might
occur where the ranges of the redcockaded woodpecker and plains
spotted skunk are coincident. Redcockaded woodpeckers require open,
mature pine woodlands and savannahs
maintained by frequent fire (USFWS
2003, p. 5). Management for redcockaded woodpeckers focuses on
restoration of pine forests to old, open
stands with canopy and herbaceous
layers but no hardwood midstory
(USFWS 2003, pp. 2, 41). This type of
pine restoration is currently occurring
in Arkansas on the Ouachita National
Forest (Hedrick et al. 2007, pp. 1–8).
In summary, we find that the
information provided in the petition, as
well as other information available in
our files, presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted due to historical and
currently ongoing habitat loss and
degradation due to modifications of
early successional habitat. Further
assessment of population declines due
to the loss of early successional habitat
caused by changes in agricultural
practices, changes in silvicultural
practices, and reduction in food
availability by intensive use of
pesticides is necessary.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present
information regarding the
overutilization of the plains spotted
skunk for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Harvest pressure on the plains spotted
skunk during the 1930s has received
little consideration for contributing to
the decline of the subspecies, but might
have been a factor historically (Nilz and
Finck 2008, p. 19). Available harvest
records from the 1930s to 1940s (Novak
et al. 1987, pp. 223–226) show high
harvest numbers for most States in the
subspecies’ range, but since the mid1940s, harvest numbers have
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
71768
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
consistently decreased. The population
status and dynamics of plains spotted
skunks during this period of heavy
harvest are not fully understood, but the
plains spotted skunk appears to have
been common in most landscapes in the
early 1900s (Choate et al. 1973, pp. 227–
230). Based on information readily
available in our files, overutilization
appears to be a potential cause of
historical decline, but we do not have
information to indicate that the
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is presenting an ongoing threat
to the plains spotted skunk. However, as
we proceed with the 12-month status
review, we will further investigate this
factor to determine whether
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is an ongoing threat to the
subspecies.
C. Disease or Predation
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present
information regarding diseases that may
affect the plains spotted skunk. The
petitioners claim that the plains spotted
skunk is experiencing unnaturally high
levels of predation, mainly by birds of
prey, because of loss of protective cover
provided by early successional habitat
(Petition, unpaginated). Lesmeister et al.
(2009, pp. 23–24) observed 18
mortalities of plains spotted skunks in
the Ouachita Mountains, most of which
were caused by avian predators and
occurred in mature shortleaf pine forests
that provide little in the way of
protective cover. They noted that stands
of young shortleaf pine seem to be less
preferred by typical predators of plains
spotted skunk, such as coyote (Canis
latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and great
horned owls (Bubo virginanus), which
prefer more open habitats. Open
conditions in mature forest stands might
be more favorable for the presence of
predators and consequently less
favorable to plains spotted skunks
(Lesmeister et al. 2009, p. 24).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Based on our review of information
provided by the petitioners and readily
available in our files, the plains spotted
skunk may be declining rangewide due
to predation. The most common natural
predators of the plains spotted skunks
are owls and mesocarnivores (Kinlaw
1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001,
p. 329). Lesmeister et al. (2010, pp. 54–
58) observed a relatively low survival
rate for plains spotted skunk in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
Ouachita Mountains. Sixty-three
percent of documented mortalities were
attributed to avian predators, 26 percent
to mammalian predators, and 11 percent
to unknown causes. Eleven of the 12
avian-caused mortalities occurred in
mature shortleaf pine stands with an
open canopy and herbaceous
understory, whereas all of the mammalcaused mortalities occurred in young
shortleaf pine stands (Lesmeister et al.
2010, p. 54). These results suggest that
there is a difference between the amount
and source of predation that occurs in
habitat that is considered optimal
(young shortleaf pine) and suboptimal
(mature shortleaf pine) for plains
spotted skunk (Lesmeister et al. 2010,
pp. 55–56). Plains spotted skunks
avoided use of mature forest stands and
selected young forest stands (Lesmeister
et al. 2009, pp. 23–24); mortality due to
predation was disproportionate to
habitat use because the highest
mortality occurred in the least-used
mature forest habitat. While predation
plays a natural role in the life history
dynamics of the plains spotted skunk,
there is some evidence that it may be
occurring at a higher rate that could
have a negative affect on populations of
the species.
Diseases affecting the subspecies
include pneumonia, coccidiosis, and
rabies (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). The plains
spotted skunk, however, is often
overrated as a carrier of rabies; fewer
cases were documented in spotted
skunks than in domestic cats, cattle,
dogs, or striped skunks (Hazard 1982, p.
145). Viral disease, such as parvovirus,
or mink enteritis virus, may contribute
to localized population declines, and
some viral diseases can exhibit rapid
spread and long-term impacts to local
population viability, but do not appear
to impact the species as a whole
(Gompper and Hackett 2005, p. 200).
Based on information readily available
in our files, disease may have been a
cause of historical decline, but we do
not have information to indicate that
disease is presenting an ongoing threat
to the plains spotted skunk. As we
proceed with the 12-month status
review, we will further investigate
whether disease is an ongoing threat to
the subspecies.
In summary, the petition and
information in our files identifies
excessive predation that may be
occurring at a higher rate than naturally
expected as a threat to the plains
spotted skunk. Therefore, we find that
the information provided in the
petition, as well as other information
readily available in our files, presents
substantial scientific and commercial
information to indicate that the plains
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
spotted skunk may warrant listing due
to predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that there
currently is no mechanism to protect
habitat or garner appropriate resources
for species conservation.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We do not have any information in
our files to indicate whether any
regulatory mechanisms that are
designed to alleviate threats to the
species (i.e., loss of early successional
habitat due to changes in agricultural
practices, changes in silvicultural
practices, climatic fluctuations,
reduction in food availability by
intensive use of pesticides, or excessive
predation) exist. Therefore, we find that
the petition and the information readily
available in our files do not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is a threat to the plains
spotted skunk such that the petitioned
action may be warranted. However, as
we proceed with the 12-month finding
status review, we will further
investigate whether the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms may be
a threat to the plains spotted skunk.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
Humans are reported as the main
cause of mortality in less natural
landscapes (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). Death is
caused by vehicle collision, poisoning,
shooting, domestic dogs and cats, and
trappers who target plains spotted
skunks or take them incidentally when
trapping for other species (Jones et al.
1983, p. 304; Wires and Baker 1994, p.
4). A common source of sightings for
plains spotted skunks are those that are
found as road kill. Of 72 total possible
sightings of the plains spotted skunk
within a 5-year period in Minnesota, 11
were road kills and an additional 13
were killed by the individual reporting
the sighting (Wires and Baker 1994, p.
4).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We do not have information in our
files to indicate any potential threat to
the plains spotted skunk due to other
natural or manmade factors. Based on
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information provided in the petition,
direct human-caused mortality (e.g.,
vehicle collision, poisoning, shooting,
domestic dogs and cats, and trapping)
may be impacting individual skunks,
but we do not have information to
indicate that such mortality is
presenting a population-level threat to
the plains spotted skunk. Therefore, we
find that the petition and information
readily available in our files do not
provide substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
other natural or manmade factors
present a threat to the plains spotted
skunk such that the petitioned action
may be warranted. However, as we
proceed with the 12-month status
review, we will further investigate
whether other natural or manmade
factors, such as potential impacts from
climate change and direct humancaused mortality, may be a threat to the
plains spotted skunk.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Finding for Plains Spotted Skunk
We reviewed the information
presented in the petition and evaluated
that information in relation to
information readily available in our
files. On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
determine that the petition does present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the
plains spotted skunk as an endangered
or threatened species throughout its
entire range may be warranted. This
finding is based on information
provided under factors A and C.
Because we have found that the
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the
plains spotted skunk may be warranted,
we are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing the plains
spotted skunk as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act is
warranted.
The ‘‘substantial information’’
standard for a 90-day finding differs
from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data’’ standard that applies
to a status review to determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted. A 90day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month
finding, we will determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted after we
have completed a thorough status
review of the species, which is
conducted following a substantial 90day finding. Because the Act’s standards
for 90-day and 12-month findings are
different, as described above, a
substantial 90-day finding does not
mean that the 12-month finding will
result in a warranted finding.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
71769
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
reported a decrease in red and gray fox
populations in Illinois, and
hypothesized that the decline may be
worsened by additional succession of
oak-dominated forests.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners claim that habitat loss
and modification are threats to the
prairie gray fox. The petitioners state
that the gray fox requires early
successional cover, grassland, or dense
forest, and that the decline of this
habitat within the range of this
subspecies has contributed to its decline
(Petition, unpaginated). The gray fox’s
use of deciduous or pine woody habitat
is well established in the literature
(Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, p. 749;
Jones et al. 1985, p. 264; Haroldson and
Fritzell 1984, p. 226; Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982, p. 4). Cooper (2008, p.
24) reported a lower relative abundance
of gray fox for Illinois counties where
agricultural patches were larger and
occurred in a wider variety of shapes
and sizes. Conversely, Cooper (2008, pp.
24–25) reported higher relative
abundances of gray fox in Illinois
counties that contained a greater
availability of grassland dispersed into
the landscape, with forest patch size
highly variable and closer together.
Haroldson and Fritzell (1984, p. 226)
found that gray fox relied heavily on
forested habitats in Missouri. They
found that gray fox used dense stands of
young trees during the day, stating that
‘‘dense protective cover is characteristic
of the diurnal retreats of gray fox
throughout their range’’ (Haroldson and
Fritzell 1984, p. 227; Petition,
unpaginated). The petitioners indicate
that habitat important to the gray fox,
such as early successional cover,
grassland, or dense forest, are in decline
(Petition, unpaginated; Gillen 2011).
Gillen (2011, p. 9) evaluated the
relationship of mast-producing trees
(trees that produce acorns or nuts),
small mammal densities, and the
occurrence of carnivores in forests in
southern Illinois and hypothesized that
the decline of oak-dominated forests in
the eastern United States may cause
declines in small mammals that
consume acorns, and in turn the
carnivores that consume small
mammals. Gillen (2011, p. 1) cited
several studies that indicate oakdominated forests are declining due to
the reduced regeneration and secondary
succession of shade-tolerant species
such as maple and beech. Gillen (2011,
p. 9) cited studies by Haroldson and
Fritzell (1984, p. 226) that found that
gray fox select forests with high
densities of prey. Gillen (2011, p. 10)
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The petitioners assert that the gray fox
requires early successional cover,
grassland, or dense forest and that the
decline of this habitat type has
contributed to the subspecies decline
(Petition, unpaginated). Gray fox prefer
wooded habitat, areas of mixed
grassland and forest, and early
successional areas (Cooper 2008, p. 4;
Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, p. 749;
Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 226;
Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). Gray
fox utilize this dense protective cover
especially during the day when they are
not as active (Haroldson and Fritzell
1984, p. 227). There is evidence that
gray fox are more abundant in areas
where there is woody or dense cover
and less abundant in agricultural areas
(Cooper 2008, p. 4). Cooper (2008, p. 26)
suggests that habitat loss is one of the
gray fox’s biggest threats and that the
changes in the landscape,
predominantly to agriculture in the
Midwest, have adversely affected gray
fox populations. The petitioners have
provided evidence of low or declining
numbers of gray fox within the range of
the prairie gray fox subspecies (Blair
2011, p. 31; Roberts and Clark 2011,
unpaginated; Sasse 2011, unpaginated;
Kitchell 2010, unpaginated; U.S.
Department of the Interior 1981, pp. 38–
98; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980,
pp. 40–100). The conversion from native
woody habitat to agricultural practices
has likely impacted the prairie gray fox
as all of the States within its range have
agriculture to differing degrees. When
settlers arrived in the Midwest, the
forests were converted to agriculture
before the technology was available to
convert prairie lands (U.S. Geological
Survey 1998, p. 4). For example, prior
to 1860, forest areas were the primary
source of cropland in Illinois (U.S.
Geological Survey 1998, p. 4). Due to
the conversion to agriculture, timber
harvest, and development,
approximately 70 percent of the
available forest land in the Midwest has
been lost since 1920 (U.S. Geological
Survey 1998, p. 4), and landcover in the
Midwest consists of approximately 44
percent agriculture (Mankin and Warner
1999a, p. 956). Although the petitioners
do not provide information on the
amount of habitat that has been lost
throughout the prairie gray fox’s range,
we believe there is substantial
Prairie Gray Fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus ocythous)
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
71770
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information to suggest that a decline in
the population of this subspecies may
be due to the loss of habitat.
In summary, we find that the
information provided in the petition, as
well as other information available in
our files, presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted due to the loss of early
successional cover, grassland, or dense
forest habitat within the range of this
subspecies.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that the threats
of continued human hunting and
trapping of this subspecies is ‘‘an
additional stressor’’ but do not provide
information as to the numbers of gray
fox being harvested in any of the States
within the range of the prairie gray fox
(Petition, unpaginated).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
C. Disease or Predation
Fritzel and Haroldson (1984, p. 4)
state that ‘‘undoubtedly the most
important predator of gray fox is man,’’
referencing specific citations indicating
the importance of gray fox pelts in the
1970s. An estimated 26,109 gray fox
pelts were harvested in the United
States during the 1970–1971 season,
increasing to 163,458 during the 1975–
1976 season. It was estimated in 1977
that approximately half of the gray fox
population in Wisconsin was harvested
annually (Fritzel and Haroldson 1984, p.
4). Illinois hunters harvested 9,086 gray
fox pelts in the winter of 1977–1978
(McFarland 2007, p. 9). More recently,
during the 2010–2011 season, gray fox
harvested in the State of Missouri
increased 112 percent, while the annual
Archer’s Index to Furbearer Populations
(where deer and turkey archery hunters
record sightings of furbearers each fall)
shows a 75 percent decline in gray fox
numbers since 1983 (Petition,
unpaginated; Missouri Department of
Conservation 2011 Furbearer Program
Annual Report, pp. 11–12; Blair 2011, p.
31). According to the Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission 2010–2011
Furbearing Animal Report, 976 gray fox
were purchased by licensed fur buyers
in the State (Sasse 2011, unpaginated).
The report indicates that there was an
overall increase in pelts purchased for
this season after an overall low in 2009–
2010, with the number of pelts
purchased increasing by 91 percent. The
report also indicates actual numbers of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
furbearers harvested is likely
underreported.
Although there is evidence in the
literature that gray fox have been hunted
in the past and continue to be harvested
to some degree, which may have
individual and localized impacts,
neither the petition nor information
readily available in our files indicates
that harvest is affecting the subspecies
overall. Therefore, based on information
readily available in our files,
overutilization may have occurred and
may have potentially caused historical
decline, but neither the petition nor the
information readily available in our files
indicate that the overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is a current threat
to the prairie gray fox. However, as we
proceed with the 12-month status
review, we will further investigate this
factor to determine whether
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is an ongoing threat to the
subspecies.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present
information regarding disease affecting
the prairie gray fox. The petitioners
claim that the loss of dense cover
available to the prairie gray fox due to
habitat degradation has made the
subspecies more susceptible to
predation from coyotes (Canis latrans),
stating coyotes are the gray fox’s only
major non-human predator (Petition,
unpaginated). The petitioners cite a
personal communication with Stan
Gehrt from Ohio State University
asserting that gray fox in northern
Illinois are being ‘‘wiped out’’ due to
coyote predation because they do not
have adequate cover (Petition,
unpaginated). The petition states that
Gehrt cited additional research
suggesting that coyote killed gray fox;
however, they did not consume them
(Petition, unpaginated). The petitioners
cite McFarland (2007), which discusses
studies being conducted in Illinois on
coyote-gray fox interactions in northern
and southern Illinois, with Gehrt cited
as one of the researchers. McFarland
(2007, p. 11) quotes Gehrt in reference
to the study: ‘‘We identified a family of
gray foxes living in a cemetery in an
intensely urban area on the south side
of Chicago, the amazing thing is, it was
a place nobody would expect to find
even a red fox. On top of that, coyotes
still found their hiding spot and killed
them.’’ In McFarland (2007, p. 11),
Gehrt suggests that gray fox have been
unable to adapt to the increase in coyote
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
predation like red fox have. McFarland
(2007, p. 11) indicates that the increase
in coyote numbers in Illinois may be
due to a shift in agricultural practices
and movement of humans to urban
areas, and a subsequent decrease in
coyote hunters and an increase in the
coyote’s food supply.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Jones et al. (1985, p. 264) and Fritzell
and Haroldson (1982, p. 5) both mention
coyote and bobcat (Lynx rufus) as a
predator of the gray fox. In their study
of coyote, fox, and bobcat interactions in
California, Fedriani et al. (2000, p. 262)
predicted the dominance of coyote over
the other two carnivores. During their 2year study, Fedriani et al. (2000, p. 262)
found 7 gray fox killed by coyote and 2
by bobcat, and found remains of gray
fox in coyote feces. They suggested that
‘‘the sum of population losses due to
coyote predation plus the avoidance of
areas of high coyote predation risk by
fox limit the size and range of gray fox
populations in the Santa Monica
Mountains, whereas no evidence of food
limitation is indicated’’ (Fedriani et al.
2000, p. 268). Chamberlain and Leopold
(2005, pp. 171–178) studied similar
interactions among bobcat, coyote, and
gray fox in central Mississippi. They
found that the home ranges of coyote
and gray fox intersected and that gray
fox maintained home ranges within the
larger range of the coyote (Chamberlain
and Leopold 2005, p. 175). However,
they found that the amount of overlap
of core areas was negligible, suggesting
that gray fox avoid areas of greater
coyote concentration. They considered
the interspecific competition between
coyotes and gray fox minimal, as there
were 2 deaths of gray fox from coyotes
(of the 37 gray fox studied). Researchers
also indicated there were two instances
of den abandonment due to coyote
disturbance (Chamberlain and Leopold
2005, p. 177). The coyote’s range in the
United States has expanded
dramatically since pre-settlement;
however it has always been a part of the
prairie gray fox’s range (Parker 1995, p.
17). Before the 1900s, coyote was
limited to the prairies of the central
United States from Canada south into
Mexico (Parker 1995, p. 17). Although
the available information shows that
coyote and bobcat do prey on gray fox,
it does not indicate whether the
predation rate has increased beyond a
natural level or that such predation is
causing a population-level effect.
We found few sources in our files
referencing the effects of disease on gray
fox populations. Fritzell and Haroldson
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(1982, p. 5) state that canine distemper
virus (CDV) and rabies may affect local
populations. Cooper 2008 (p. 1) also
mentions that rabies, canine parvovirus,
and CDV affect the gray fox. Cooper
2008 (p. 1) also states that CDV is, ‘‘the
most significant mortality factor for gray
foxes,’’ citing several references
supporting the adverse effects CDV has
had on gray fox populations.
The information provided by the
petitioners and within our files
indicates that the gray fox is being
preyed on by coyotes and, to a lesser
degree, bobcats; however, we do not
have information as to whether the
predation rate has increased beyond a
natural level. Our files also contain
some information that the impacts of
disease may be detrimental to
individual populations of the prairie
gray fox, but we do not have
information as to what impact disease is
having on the subspecies.
Therefore, based on information
readily available in our files, gray fox
are currently being preyed on by
coyotes, but we do not have information
to indicate that disease or predation is
an ongoing threat to the prairie gray fox.
As we proceed with the 12-month status
review, we will further investigate
whether disease or predation are an
ongoing threat to the subspecies.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
No information on this factor is
provided in the petition.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
We do not have any information in
our files to indicate the amount of
protection currently being afforded the
prairie gray fox within individual
States. Therefore, we find that the
petition and the information readily
available in our files do not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
16:10 Dec 03, 2012
Jkt 229001
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present
information on whether or how other
natural or manmade factors are affecting
the prairie gray fox.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We do not have information in our
files to indicate any potential threat to
the prairie gray fox due to other natural
or manmade factors. Therefore, we find
that the petition and information readily
available in our files do not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that other
natural or manmade factors present a
threat to the prairie gray fox such that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
However, as we proceed with the 12month status review, we will further
investigate whether other natural or
manmade factors, such as potential
impacts from climate change, may be a
threat to the prairie gray fox.
Finding for Prairie Gray Fox
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
VerDate Mar<15>2010
information to indicate that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is a threat to the prairie
gray fox such that the petitioned action
may be warranted. However, as we
proceed with the 12-month status
review, we will further investigate
whether the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms may be a threat
to the prairie gray fox.
We reviewed the information
presented in the petition and evaluated
that information in relation to
information readily available in our
files. On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
determine that the petition does present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the
prairie gray fox throughout its entire
range may be warranted. This finding is
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
71771
based on information provided under
factor A.
Because we have found that the
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the
prairie gray fox may be warranted, we
are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing the prairie
gray fox under the Act is warranted.
The ‘‘substantial information’’
standard for a 90-day finding differs
from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data’’ standard that applies
to a status review to determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted. A 90day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month
finding, we will determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted after we
have completed a thorough status
review of the species, which is
conducted following a substantial 90day finding. Because the Act’s standards
for 90-day and 12-month findings are
different, as described above, a
substantial 90-day finding does not
mean that the 12-month finding will
result in a warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Rock Island, Illinois Ecological
Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Columbia,
Missouri, and Rock Island, Illinois
Ecological Services Field Offices.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 20 2012.
Rowan Gould,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–29188 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04DEP1.SGM
04DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71759-71771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29188]
[[Page 71759]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2012-0079; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Prairie Gray Fox, the Plains Spotted Skunk, and
a Distinct Population Segment of the Mearn's Eastern Cottontail in
East-Central Illinois and Western Indiana as Endangered or Threatened
Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the prairie gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus ocythous), the plains spotted skunk (Spilogale
putorius interrupta), and a distinct population segment (DPS) of the
Mearn's eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus mearnsi) in Illinois
and western Indiana as endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information that listing the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted
skunk may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice,
we initiate a review of the status of the prairie gray fox and the
plains spotted skunk to determine if listing either of these subspecies
is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we
are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding these subspecies. Based on the status review, we will issue a
12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act.
We also evaluated whether the petition presents substantial
information to indicate whether or not the Mearn's eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western Indiana qualifies as a DPS that
may be warranted for listing. Based on our review, we conclude that the
petition does not provide substantial information indicating that
population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and
western Indiana is a listable entity under the Act. Because the
petition does not present substantial information indicating that the
population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and
western Indiana may be a listable entity, we did not evaluate whether
or not the information contained in the petition regarding threats to
that population was substantial. We are not initiating a status review
in response to this petition for Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-
central Illinois and western Indiana. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Mearn's eastern cottontail or its habitat
at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on December 4,
2012.
We request that we receive information on or before February 4,
2013. The deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on this date. After February 4, 2013, you must submit
information directly to the Division of Policy and Directives
Management (see ADDRESSES section below). Please note that we might not
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the
above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information on the prairie gray fox and the
plains spotted skunk, by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2012-0079, which
is the docket number for this action. Then click on the Search button.
You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2012-0079; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all information we
receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for
Information section below for more details).
This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R3-ES-2012-0079. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Service
Field Office, 1511 4th Ave., Moline, IL 61265. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning the finding
on the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted skunk to the Rock
Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Prairie Gray Fox and Mearn's Eastern Cottontail
Richard Nelson, Field Supervisor, Rock Island, Illinois Ecological
Service Field Office, 1511 4th Ave., Moline, IL 61265; by telephone at
309-757-5800; or by facsimile at 309-757-5804. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Plains Spotted Skunk
Amy Salveter, Field Supervisor, Missouri Ecological Services Field
Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; by
telephone at 573-234-2132; or by facsimile at 573-234-2181. If you use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly initiate review of the status of the species
(status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the
best available scientific and commercial information, we request
information on the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted skunk from
governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek
information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
[[Page 71760]]
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Information regarding overharvest and disease as potential
ongoing threats to the plains spotted skunk and prairie gray fox.
(4) Information regarding the impacts of pesticides on food
availability for the plains spotted skunk.
(5) Information regarding the impacts of predation by coyotes and
bobcats on the prairie gray fox.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the prairie
gray fox or the plains spotted skunk is warranted, we will propose
critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under
section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at
the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request
data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species''; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for
designation if one or both of the species are proposed for listing, and
why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this personal identifying information from
public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do
so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly initiate a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On July 18, 2011, we received a petition from Mr. David Wade and
Dr. Thomas Alton, requesting that five or six entities of grassland
thicket species or subspecies be listed as endangered or threatened
under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification information for the petitioners,
required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). However, while reviewing the petition, we
determined that the petition did not clearly state which species were
included in the petition. Therefore, in a September 2, 2011, letter to
the petitioners, we provided the petitioners with an opportunity to
revise the petition to clearly identify the petitioned entities, which
the petitioners accepted in a September 12, 2011, response to our
letter. On January 23, 2012, we received a revised petition from Mr.
David Wade and Dr. Thomas Alton, requesting that the prairie gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus ocythous), the plains spotted skunk
(Spilogale putorius interrupta), and a DPS of the Mearn's eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus mearnsi) in Illinois and western
Indiana be listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act. In
a January 30, 2012, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we
reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that
issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted as each of the three
petitioned species has extant populations in several States and most of
the threats mentioned in the petition are not immediate in nature. This
finding addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Action(s)
To date, no Federal actions have been taken with regard to the
prairie gray fox, the plains spotted skunk, or the Mearn's eastern
cottontail.
Species Information
Plains Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta)
The plains spotted skunk is one of three recognized subspecies of
the eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius); the other two
recognized subspecies are S. p. ambarvalis (no common name) and S. p.
putorius (no common name) (Kinlaw 1995, p. 1). Spotted skunks are
members of the Order Carnivora and Family Mephitidae. Eastern spotted
skunks are distinct from western spotted skunks (S. gracilis) based on
reproductive and geographic isolation (Kinlaw 1995, p. 1). Little
variation in skull or body measurements exists among the plains spotted
skunk subspecies (Van Gelder 1959, p. 270). The plains spotted skunk
can be distinguished from other subspecies by the reduced amount of
white on its body, particularly the entirely black tail (Van Gelder
1959, pp. 269-270). We accept the characterization of the plains
spotted skunk as a subspecies because of morphological distinction of
its color pattern from other subspecies of eastern spotted skunk (Van
Gelder 1959, pp. 269-270). We consider information that refers to the
eastern spotted skunk where it occurs in the delineated range of the
plains spotted skunk to represent the plains spotted skunk.
Both the plains spotted skunk and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
have contrasting black and white markings;
[[Page 71761]]
however, they are easily distinguished by size (spotted skunks are
substantially smaller) and color pattern. The plains spotted skunk is a
small, slender mammal with short legs and a tail with prominent, long
hairs. Body weight ranges from 300 to 1,300 grams (g) (0.75 to 2.75
pounds (lb)), and total length ranges from 36 to 61 centimeters (cm)
(14 to 23.75 inches (in)) (Hazard 1982, p. 143; Schwartz and Schwartz
2001, p. 325). In contrast, the striped skunk's average weight is 6,300
g (14 lb), and its length is 80 cm (31.5 in). The plains spotted skunk
is black overall with narrow, white stripes and spots. Four stripes on
the neck, back, and sides run longitudinally from the head to the
middle of the body. The four white stripes break into patches or spots
on the hindquarters. There is a white spot on the forehead and in front
of each ear (Hazard 1982, p. 143; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 325).
Habitat associations of this subspecies are likely influenced by
whether it is using a natural or human-dominated landscape. The
subspecies lives in a wide range of habitats including forests,
prairies, brushy areas, farmyards, and cultivated land (Crabb 1948, pp.
212-215; Edmonds 1974, p. 12; Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz
2001, p. 327). Regardless of habitat type used, the plains spotted
skunk requires extensive vegetative cover. Brushy borders along fields,
fence rows, farm buildings, wood piles, heavily vegetated gullies, leaf
litter, or downed logs may provide the required extensive cover, which
primarily provides protection from predators (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4;
Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327; Lesmeister 2008, pp. 1517-1518).
Nowak (1999, p. 734) notes that spotted skunks avoid dense forests;
however, plains spotted skunks are more likely to occur where the
landscape is composed of a high proportion of forest cover (Hackett
2008, pp. 52-54), and they use oak-hickory forests more than old fields
or glades (McCullough 1983, pp. 40-43). Within forest habitats studied
by McCullough (1983, p. 41) and Lesmeister (2007, p. 21), skunks used
young, dense forest stands or stands with downed logs and slash more
often than mature stands with open understories and clean forest
floors. Spotted skunks also require an early successional (process by
which ecological communities undergo changes following disturbance)
component to their habitat to provide cover and denning areas
(Lesmeister 2007, p. 56; Lesmeister et al. 2009, pp. 23-24).
Dens can be located above ground or below ground. In natural
landscapes, plains spotted skunks den in grassy banks and crevices or
cavities under rock piles, hollow logs, and stumps (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4;
Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). In landscapes dominated by humans,
they den in shelterbelts (row of trees planted to provide shelter from
wind), fencerows, farm buildings, haystacks, woodpiles, or corn cribs
(Crabb 1948, pp. 214-215; Hazard 1982, p. 144; Jones et al. 1983, p.
302; Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). Plains
spotted skunks might dig their own dens, but they often use burrows
excavated by other animals, such as Franklin's ground squirrel
(Spermophilus franklinii), thirteen-lined ground squirrel (S.
tridecemlineatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), long-tailed weasel
(Mustela frenata), striped skunk, and woodrats (Neotoma spp.) (Crabb
1948, p. 212; Kinlaw, 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327).
Crabb (1948, p. 212) noted that skunks required dens that excluded
light and afforded protection from inclement weather and predators.
Dens are used by one or more members of the local population of plains
spotted skunks, and individuals might den together during cold winter
months (Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327).
During most of the year, individual plains spotted skunks remain in
an area of approximately 40 hectares (ha) (98.8 acres (ac)), but the
home range can vary based on habitat quality and food availability
(Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). The home range can vary
seasonally as well; in spring, the range of males can expand to as much
as 1,040 ha (2,569.9 ac) (Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). In
Missouri, home ranges varied from 55 to 4,359 ha (135.9 to 10,771.3 ac)
(McCullough 1983, p. 34). Lesmeister et al. (2008, p. 21) reported that
home ranges in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas varied by gender and
season. The home ranges of males (222 to 1,824 ha (548.6 to 4,507.2
ac)) in the spring were 6.4 times larger than those of females (31 to
192 ha (76.6 to 474.4 ac)). Likewise, male home ranges were at least
2.5 times larger than females' ranges in the winter and summer, but not
autumn. Overall, home range size varied from 19 to 1,824 ha (47.0 to
4,507.2 ac) for males and 21 to 192 ha (51.9 to 474.4 ac) for females
(McCullough 1983, p. 34; Lesmeister et al. 2008, p. 21). Crabb (1948,
p. 218) found that spotted skunks on an agricultural landscape in Iowa
occurred at a density of approximately 5 skunks per square kilometer
(km\2\) (13 skunks per square mile (mi\2\)).
The plains spotted skunk is omnivorous, but is primarily an
insectivore and feeds on insects during all seasons of the year (Kinlaw
1995, p. 4). The proportion of different types of food items varies
seasonally. Arthropods are the major dietary component during summer
and autumn, with grasshoppers, crickets, ground beetles, and scarab
beetles being the preferred food (Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 328).
In the winter, small mammals, including eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus and M. ochrogaster), and
rats (Rattus norvegicus), are the dominant food source (Chapman and
Feldhamer 1982, p. 668; Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). Other foods include birds,
eggs, wild ducks that are injured or killed by hunters, fruit, corn,
lizards, snakes, crayfish, salamanders, and mushrooms (Schwartz and
Schwartz 2001, p. 328).
The plains spotted skunk currently (and historically) occurs
between the Mississippi River and the Continental Divide from Minnesota
to the Gulf of Mexico (Kinlaw 1995, p. 3). Historical records indicate
that the plains spotted skunk was broadly distributed across its range
through the early to mid-1900s and was one of the most common
mesocarnivores (a carnivore whose diet consists of 50 to 70 percent
meat) where suitable habitat occurred (Crabb 1948, p. 203; Choate et
al. 1973, p. 226; Tyler and Lodes 1980, p. 102; McCullough 1983, p. 19;
Wires and Baker 1994, p. 1; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327).
Likewise, harvest records in the Midwest indicate that population
levels in most States were at their highest through the mid-1900s,
during which harvest in most years exceeded 100,000 plains spotted
skunks (Novak et al. 1987, pp. 223-226).
More contemporary records consistently show that the plains spotted
skunk underwent declines in the mid- to late 1900s (Choate et al. 1973,
pp. 227-230; McCullough 1983, pp. 19-25; Gompper and Hackett 2005, p.
196; Nilz and Finck 2008, pp. 5-14). Declines occurred first in
Missouri and Oklahoma in the late 1930s and early 1940s, followed by
Nebraska in the mid-1940s, and Kansas, Iowa, and Minnesota in the mid-
to late 1940s (Wires and Baker 1994, p. 1; Gompper and Hackett 2005, p.
199). Harvest numbers for the plains spotted skunk from 1934-1935 were
248,062 (Service calculated from Novak et al. 1987, pp. 223-226, for
States in the range of the subspecies). More recent harvest information
for 1975-1976 showed that only 1,476 plains spotted skunks were
harvested (Service calculated from Novak et al. 1987, pp. 223-226, for
States in the range of the subspecies), which is less than 1 percent of
the 1934-1935 harvest.
[[Page 71762]]
Gompper and Hackett (2005, p. 199) demonstrated rangewide declines in
the plains spotted skunk based on harvest records and found that the
decline was not an artifact of reduced trapper effort or demand for
spotted skunk pelts.
The subspecies likely still occupies the same habitat types and
occurs in all the States within its historical range (Arkansas,
Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas,
and Wyoming), but in lower abundance (Choate et al. 1973, p. 231).
Range fragmentation and reduced abundance of the subspecies is recorded
through trapper records, fur buyer surveys, public surveys, and focused
field surveys (Hammond and Busby 1994, pp. 1-4; Wires and Baker 1994,
pp. 3-7); these records also document locations where viable
populations likely occur (e.g., Ozark Plateau (McCullough 1983, p. 52;
Hackett 2005, pp. 51-52) and Ouachita Mountains (Lesmeister et al.
2010, pp. 54-58)).
Prairie Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus ocythous)
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) are mammals of the Order
Carnivora and Family Canidae. U. c. ocythous is a recognized subspecies
of the gray fox. In this finding, we refer to the subspecies U. c.
ocythous as the prairie gray fox, as this is the common name the
petition uses, although there is no recognized common name for this
subspecies. The prairie gray fox was first described by Bangs in 1899
(Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 1; Hall 1981, p. 943). We accept the
characterization of the prairie gray fox as a subspecies of the gray
fox as noted in Chapman and Feldhammer (1982, p. 475), Fritzell and
Haroldson (1982, p. 1), and Hall (1981, p. 943). Few references refer
specifically, by name, to U. c. ocythous; therefore, we consider
information available for the gray fox within the delineated prairie
gray fox range to represent the petitioned subspecies.
The following characteristics describe the gray fox species in
general, as they are similar to the characteristics of the prairie gray
fox subspecies. The gray fox has a distinguishable appearance with gray
fur on its upper body; reddish fur on its neck, the sides of the belly,
and inner legs; and white on the rest of its underbody. The guard hairs
(long, course hairs that protect soft underfur) are banded with white,
gray, and black, which gives the fox's fur a grizzled appearance. It
has a black tipped tail and a coarse dorsal mane of black-tipped hairs
at the base of its tail (Chapman and Feldhammer 1982, p. 476; Fritzell
and Haroldson 1982, p. 1; Hall 1981, p. 942; Hamilton and Whitaker
1979, p. 270). Gray fox are also distinguished from other canids by
their widely separated temporal ridges that come together posteriorly
in a U-shaped form (Chapman and Feldhammer 1982, p. 476; Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982, p. 1; Hall 1981, p. 942; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p.
270). Gray fox are smaller than the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), with a
total length of 80 to 112.5 centimeters (cm) (31.5 to 44. 3 inches
(in)), weight of 3 to 7 kilograms (6.6 to 15.4 lb), and males are
slightly larger than females (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 1). The
size of gray fox varies with geographic location, with individuals in
the northern part of the range larger than those in the south (Hamilton
and Whitaker 1979, p. 270).
Gray fox are generally associated with wooded habitats (Haroldson
and Fritzell 1984, p. 226; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 3; Hamilton
and Whitaker 1979, p. 270). Gray fox use oak-hickory forests almost
exclusively in southern Missouri, and are frequently found in dense
stands of young trees during the day (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, pp.
226-227). This study noted, however, that forest habitat was the most
abundant habitat type in their study area and the importance of wooded
habitat is dependent on its availability, and will be used
disproportionately to its abundance when wooded habitat is scarce
(Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 226). Gray fox use woody cover in
deciduous or pine forest, but they also use edge habitat and early old-
fields (open habitats that are transitioning from field to forest and
are dominated by forbs, grass, and shrubs and small trees) (Fritzell
and Haroldson 1982, p. 3). The gray fox tends to select against
agricultural areas (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 3). Cooper (2008,
p. 24) found a greater relative abundance of gray fox in Illinois,
where there was a greater dispersion of grassland patches into forested
areas, and lower densities in areas with larger patches of agricultural
fields. A notable characteristic of the gray fox is their ability to
climb trees; gray fox are capable of climbing a tree trunk using their
claws to grasp and pull themselves up or bounding from branch to branch
(Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 5; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p.
270). This behavior is used during foraging, predator avoidance, or
resting (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 5).
Gray fox dens are usually located in wooded areas and include
underground burrows, cavities in trees or logs, wood-piles, and rock
outcrops or cavities under rocks (Jones et al. 1985, p. 264; Fritzell
and Haroldson 1982, p. 189). Gray fox will use dens year-round, but
predominantly when young are born. Gray fox mate at different times of
the year, depending on their geographic location (Chapman and
Feldhammer 1982, p. 476). For example, for the prairie gray fox,
breeding lasts from late January through February in southern Illinois
and from late January through March in Wisconsin (Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982, pp. 3-4). The average litter size for the gray fox is
3.8 pups per female, with litters ranging from 1 to 7 pups (Fritzell
and Haroldson 1982, p. 4).
The home range of the gray fox varies depending on the season and
geographic location (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). Males in
southern Illinois were found to have a home range of 136 ha (336.1 ac),
and females a home range of 107 ha (264.4 ac) (Fritzell and Haroldson
1982, p. 4). A study by Haroldson and Fritzel (1984, p. 225) conducted
in a Missouri oak-hickory forest indicated that nightly range use by
gray fox was a fraction of the total monthly range. They also found
composite (multiple month) home ranges (average 676 (+/-) 357 ha (1,670
(+/-) 882 ac)) are much larger than the individual month home ranges
(average 299 () 155 ha (738 () 383 ac))
(Haroldson and Fritzel 1984, p. 223). Haroldson and Fritzel (1984, p.
226) also indicated that gray fox home ranges vary among populations.
Gray fox are more active at night, with activity at sunrise sharply
decreasing and increasing again at sunset (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984,
p. 224).
The gray fox is primarily an opportunistic carnivore, with mammals
composing most of its diet in the Midwest (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982,
p. 4). According to Chapman and Feldhammer (1982, p. 480), the gray
fox's diet depends highly on what is available. Although rabbits have
been found to be one of their primary food sources, they routinely feed
on small rodents and other mammals, birds, and reptiles (Jones et al.
1985, p. 264; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). In the summer,
invertebrates have been found to be more important food items, while in
the fall, the gray fox consumes more fruit and sometimes corn (Chapman
and Feldhammer 1982, p. 476; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4;
Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 272).
The plains gray fox ranges primarily west of the Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers through portions of the central plain States. The
historical range for this subspecies included western Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and the eastern sections of North
and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma in the United States,
and the
[[Page 71763]]
southernmost sections of Ontario and Manitoba, Canada (Hall 1981, p.
944).
The petition asserts that prairie gray fox numbers have declined in
many of the States within its range (Petition, unpaginated). The
petition mentions that the Department of the Interior used scent
stations to track the relative abundance of several predators,
including the gray fox, in many western States. The average Statewide
indices between the 1980 and 1981 surveys showed a decline in Minnesota
from 2.4 to 1.9, and in Oklahoma from 2.0 to 1.0 (U.S. Department of
the Interior 1981, pp. 42, 70; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980,
pp. 44, 72). The Statewide indices for Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin were zero in both 1980 and 1981 (U.S.
Department of the Interior 1981, pp. 38, 52, 66, 78, 98; U.S.
Department of the Interior 1980, pp. 40, 54, 68, 80, 100). There was an
increase in the numbers of gray fox between 1980 and 1981 in Illinois;
however, all of the scent stations recorded were outside the range of
the prairie gray fox subspecies, so they were likely a different
subspecies (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, p. 36; U.S.
Department of the Interior 1980, p. 36). The petitioners cite these
numbers when asserting that the prairie gray fox was rare to absent in
the plains States by 1980 (Petition, unpaginated). The petitioners cite
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' annual carnivore scent
station survey as including gray fox in their ``fox'' numbers (Petition
unpaginated); however we can find no indication in this reference that
gray fox were counted during those surveys (Erb 2010, p. 43-57).
The Missouri Department of Conservation's annual Archer's Index to
Furbearer Populations shows a 75 percent decline in gray fox numbers
since 1983 (petition unpaginated; Blair 2011, p. 31). The petitioners
state that the number of gray fox in Wisconsin, as observed by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources during routine field work,
was comparable to the badger, which is listed by the State as
endangered (Petition, unpaginated). The report does indicate that the
number of gray fox observed in 2010 was 0.78 observations per
respondent, which is higher than the long-term average (during the 23
years of the study) of 0.42 observations per respondent (Kitchell 2010,
unpaginated). The number of gray fox counted during the annual
Bowhunter Observation Survey in Arkansas have been low but stable from
2005-2010 (Petition, unpaginated; Sasse 2011, unpaginated). The numbers
of gray fox counted during the Iowa 2010 Bowhunter Observation Survey
were fewer than the margin of error for some of the regions and showed
an overall decline in the State (Petition, unpaginated; Roberts and
Clark 2011, unpaginated). The petitioners attribute this decline to the
loss of preferred habitat and the increase in agricultural habitat,
which gray fox avoid (Petition, unpaginated; Cooper 2008, p. 24;
Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 189). Although the evidence included in
the petition and within our files shows a decline in the population of
the prairie gray fox for several States, there are no studies included
that specifically indicate what the population of the prairie gray fox
was prior to human settlement or how much the population has declined
rangewide.
Mearn's Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus mearnsi)
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) are members of Order
Lagomorpha and Family Leporidae. The Mearn's eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus mearnsi) is a recognized subspecies of the
eastern cottontail, as first described in 1894 by J.A. Allen (Hall and
Kelson 1981, p. 304; Chapman et al. 1980, p. 1). We accept the
characterization of the Mearn's eastern cottontail (S. f. mearnsi) as a
subspecies of the eastern cottontail rabbit as described in Chapman et
al. (1980, p. 1), and Hall and Kelson (1959, p. 262). Few references
relate specifically to the Mearn's eastern cottontail; therefore, we
consider information available for the eastern cottontail to represent
the petitioned subspecies.
The eastern cottontail is described as having a total length of 395
to 456 mm (15.6 to 18.0 in) and weighing 801 to 1,411 g (28.3 to 49.8
ounces (oz)) for males, and 400 to 477 mm (15.7 to 18.8 in) and
weighing 842 to 1,533 g (29.7 to 54.1 oz) for females (Chapman et al.
1981, p. 136). They have dense fur, ranging from brownish to greyish in
color, with white fur on the underside of the body and tail. The
average home range for the eastern cottontail varies from approximately
1 to 2 acres (0.4 to 1 ha) in Wisconsin (Trent and Rungstad 1974) to
around 4 acres (2 ha) in Pennsylvania, with male home ranges increasing
to an average of 17 to 19 acres (7 to 8 ha) in spring and summer
(Althoff and Storm 1989). The eastern cottontail is the most widely
distributed cottontail species in North America (Scharine et al. 2011,
p. 885; Hall and Kelson 1981, p. 300; Chapman et al. 1980, p. 2) and
occurs sympatrically with six species of the genus Sylvilagus and six
species of the genus Lepus (Chapman et al. 1980, p. 136).
In describing eastern cottontail habitat, Chapman et al. (1980, p.
2) stated, ``This cottontail is generally thought of as a mammal of
farmlands, fields, and hedge rows; however, historically it occurred in
natural glades and woodlands, deserts, swamps, prairies, hardwood
forests, rain forests, and boreal forests.'' When comparing the eastern
cottontail to the swamp rabbit (S. aquaticus), Scharine et al. (2011,
p. 881) stated that the dense understory vegetation provided by early
successional cover types are important habitat for both species;
however, the eastern cottontail is a habitat generalist and occupies a
larger distribution. Mankin and Warner (1999b, p. 960) identified
eastern cottontails in old fields, grasslands, hedgerows, cropland, and
urban areas, but found that the species preferred open shrub land.
The Mearn's eastern cottontail occurs across a large portion of the
eastern cottontail's range, including the entire States of Iowa,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio; most of Minnesota, Illinois,
and Kentucky; southwestern New York; northern Pennsylvania; western
West Virginia; northern Missouri; northeastern Kansas; eastern
Nebraska; a small portion of the southeastern corner of South Dakota;
and the small portion of the western edge of Virginia (Figure 1) (Hall
and Kelson 1981, p. 261; Chapman et al. 1980, p. 3).
[[Page 71764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04DE12.025
Distinct Population Segment Evaluation
Under the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR
4722, February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the decision
concerning the establishment and classification of a possible DPS.
These are applied similarly for additions to or removal from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. These elements
include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the taxon to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the taxon to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting (removal from the list), or
reclassification (i.e., is the population segment endangered or
threatened).
Our understanding of the petitioners' requested action is that the
population of Mearn's cottontail in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana (Figure 1) be considered a DPS and listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act. Therefore, in this analysis, we evaluate
whether the petition provides substantial information that the Mearn's
eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana may
constitute a DPS.
Discreteness
Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petitioners describe the area of the petitioned DPS in the
revised petition submission (dated January 23, 2012) as follows: ``this
region covers the former Grand Prairie region of Illinois and western
Indiana.'' However, the submitted description does not provide exact
boundaries or reference maps for the petitioned DPS. Therefore, the DPS
we consider in our evaluation is based on a hand-drawn map submitted by
the petitioners in the original petition submission (dated July 18,
2011) (not paginated). For our DPS evaluation, we considered references
provided with the original July 18, 2011, petition submission,
references provided with the revised January 23, 2012, petition
submission, and other information readily available in our files.
The petition cites one study (Mankin and Warner 1999a) as the
supporting evidence that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is: (1) Physically
discrete from the rest of the subspecies; (2) ecologically distinct due
to intensive agriculture leaving only artificial remnants of its
original habitat; and (3) behaviorally distinct because individuals
require home ranges averaging 7 times larger than other members of the
eastern cottontail species.
The petitioners assert that the petitioned DPS occupies an
ecologically distinct area where intensive agriculture has left only
artificial remnants of its original habitat. Mankin and Warner (1999a,
p. 940) state that east-central Illinois is one of the most intensively
farmed regions in North America. This is supported by the findings of
Ribic et al. (1998), which suggest a decrease in the quantity of upland
wildlife habitat in Illinois from 1920 to 1987, and an increase in
farming disturbance, indicating an intensification of agricultural
practices for the State during that time period. They found that the
western and southern portions of the State had higher wildlife habitat
values than the rest of the State and that harvest of eastern
cottontails was higher in counties with the most upland habitat and the
lowest amount of farming disturbance (Ribic et al. 1998,
[[Page 71765]]
pp. 307, 311). This differentiation is also supported by Mankin and
Warner (1999b, p. 962), who showed that counties in east-central
Illinois had the greatest decline in cottontail abundance and the
highest increase in intense row-cropping.
The petitioners also cite Mankin and Warner (1999a) in stating that
the DPS represents a population of Mearn's cottontail that is broken
into small populations and is behaviorally distinct from other Mearn's
cottontails. Mankin and Warner (1999a) studied the responses of Mearn's
eastern cottontails to intensive row-crop agriculture in Ford County,
Illinois, which is in the center of the proposed DPS. They found that
the Mearn's eastern cottontail had a home range 2.3 times larger during
the growing season for the crops than during the non-growing season
(Mankin and Warner 1999a, p. 943). The cottontails in the study also
had an overall home range that was 7 to 8 times larger than those found
by previous research (Mankin and Warner 1999a, p. 945). Mankin and
Warner (1999a, p. 945) specifically compared their findings to home
ranges of Mearn's eastern cottontail in Wisconsin by Trent and Rongstad
(1974), and indicated they were 8 times larger than Wisconsin males'
home ranges and 7 times larger than females'. Chapman et al. (1980, p.
136) indicate that there have been many studies of home ranges of the
eastern cottontail, with a mean for males of 0.95 ha (2.34 acres) to
2.8 ha (6.9 acres) and for females of 0.95 ha (2.34 acres) to 1.2 ha
(2.96 acres). Mankin and Warner (1999a, pp. 944-945) found the
population of cottontails in the Ford County, Illinois study area to be
sparse yet stable. Although the cottontails used the crop ground
extensively and 23 percent of the home ranges occurred on farmsteads,
farmsteads made up less than 2 percent of the available habitat.
Based on the information submitted with the petition and
information in our files, we find that the petition presents
substantial information to suggest there may be a markedly separate
population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and
western Indiana due to behavioral differences when compared to the
subspecies located elsewhere. The population of Mearn's eastern
cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana may be discrete
from the rest of the Mearn's population because they occupy an area of
intensive agriculture that leads to the behavior of maintaining
different home-range sizes than the subspecies in the rest of the
range. Therefore, this population of Mearn's cottontail may meet the
discreteness criterion that it is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon based on behavioral reasons.
There are no international governmental boundaries associated with
this subspecies that are significant. The population of Mearn's eastern
cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana lies wholly
within the United States. Because this element is not relevant in this
case for a finding of discreteness, it was not considered in reaching
this determination.
Significance
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of
the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional
guidance that the authority to list DPSes be used ``sparingly'' while
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this
determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. As precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from
case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of
information that might be used in determining the biological and
ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy
does provide four possible reasons why a discrete population may be
significant. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this
consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but
is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to
be considered significant. Furthermore, the list of criteria is not
exhaustive; other criteria may be used as appropriate.
The petitioners assert that the population of Mearn's eastern
cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is significant
because it represents approximately 20 percent of the range of the
subspecies that was not hybridized by the introductions of other
species, and thus its loss would result in a significant gap in the
range of the subspecies. The petition cites one reference, Chapman and
Morgan 1973, to support their assertion. Chapman and Morgan (1973, p.
6) discuss the introduction of many species and subspecies of rabbits
into the eastern United States from 1920 to 1950, and the impacts on
the native rabbit species in western Maryland and the nearby portions
of West Virginia. They found evidence of hybridization between native
eastern cottontails and other rabbit species and subspecies from other
parts of the country and the hybridization of the subspecies S. f.
mallurus with other subspecies. The intergrade (hybridization) zone of
eastern cottontail in the East has expanded, and it now out-competes
the New England cottontail (S. transitionalis) in its traditional
habitat (Chapman and Morgan 1973, p. 51). Although the study suggests
that the eastern cottontail subspecies interbreed where they overlap,
it does not specifically discuss how much habitat may be lost by each
subspecies to hybridization. Therefore, when determining how much of
the Mearn's eastern cottontail range is included in the petitioned DPS,
we used the range from Hall and Kelson (1981, p. 303) as cited in the
petition and the hand-drawn map from the original petition to generate
the map in Figure 1. Using ArcGIS, we calculated that the area
petitioned as a DPS makes up 3.6 percent of the Mearn's cottontail
range and not the approximate 20 percent asserted by the petitioners.
To calculate the size of the proposed DPS, we scanned the hand-drawn
map included in the petition, georeferenced it to a map of the United
States, and digitized the DPS boundary from the georeferenced scanned
map. We used the same procedures to georeference the range of the
Mearn's eastern cottontail from Hall's map (Hall 1980, p. 303). We were
able to calculate the total acres of both the DPS and the Mearn's
eastern cottontail range with the new digitized georeferenced maps. We
then clipped the DPS from the full range to calculate the difference in
acres and the percentage of the Mearn's eastern cottontail range that
the DPS includes. Although the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail
in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is located in the center
of the subspecies' range, the petition does not provide substantial
information, nor is there information available in our files, to
suggest that loss
[[Page 71766]]
of this population would result in a significant gap in the range of a
taxon.
The petition does not present information to suggest the population
of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana may persist in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the
taxon, evidence that the population represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range, or evidence that
the population differs markedly from other populations of the species
in its genetic characteristics. Additionally, we do not have
information in our files to indicate that these characteristics are
met.
Substantial information is not presented in the petition, nor is it
available in our files, to suggest that the population of Mearn's
eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is
biologically or ecologically significant to the remainder of the taxon.
Therefore, we determine, based on the information provided in the
petition and in our files that the population of Mearn's eastern
cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana does not meet
the significance criterion of the 1996 DPS policy.
Finding for Mearn's Eastern Cottontail
We reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated
that information in relation to information readily available in our
files. On the basis of this review, we find that neither the petition,
nor information readily available in our files, suggests that the
Mearn's eastern cottontail population in east-central Illinois and
western Indiana meets the criteria for being significant under our DPS
policy. Although the population may meet the criteria for being
discrete under the DPS policy, neither the information in the petition,
nor the information readily available in our files, suggests that this
population of Mearn's eastern cottontail may be significant to the
remainder of the taxon. Because both discreteness and significance are
required to satisfy the DPS policy, we have determined that the Mearn's
eastern cottontail population in east-central Illinois and western
Indiana does not satisfy the elements of being a DPS under our 1996
policy and, therefore, is not a listable entity under section 3(16) of
the Act. Because the petition does not present substantial information
that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central
Illinois and western Indiana is a DPS, we did not evaluate whether the
information contained in the petition regarding the conservation status
was substantial.
We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that
will assist with the conservation of the population of Mearn's eastern
cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana. If you wish to
provide information regarding the Mearn's eastern cottontail, you may
submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor at the
Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Service Field Office (see ADDRESSES),
at any time.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant
listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are
defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof
of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted.
The information must contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted skunk,
as presented in the petition and other information available in our
files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented
below.
Plains Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners claim that threats to the plains spotted skunk
include habitat loss and modification. The petition suggests that loss
of grassland and early successional habitat has contributed to
declining population trends of 90 to 100 percent throughout the
subspecies' range (Petition, unpaginated). Plains spotted skunks
require some early successional component to their habitat to provide
cover and denning areas (Petition, unpaginated; Lesmeister 2007, p. 56;
Lesmeister et al. 2009, pp. 23-24). Before European settlement, this
need was satisfied by both natural disturbances (e.g., fire, storms,
beaver, elk, and bison) and disturbance by Native Americans (Petition,
unpaginated; Sewell 2009, p. 11). Grasslands and successional habitats
were prevalent across the landscape. However, anthropogenic changes
lead to landscapes that were more conducive to species that need early
successional habitat, such as the plains spotted skunk. Such species
shifted their use from naturally created, early successional habitats
to those that were created by humans, and the species now seem to
depend on these human-created habitats to some extent (Petition,
unpaginated; Sewell 2009, p. 12).
The petition claims that the plains spotted skunk has since
declined (Petition, unpaginated; Gompper and Hackett 2005, pp. 199-200)
because of changes in agriculture, silviculture, and climate. Because
plains spotted skunks rely on early successional habitat, management
activities or lack of management that reduce the occurrence of dense
vegetative stands or modify forest structure to more open, mature
stands could be detrimental to the subspecies (Petition, unpaginated;
Lesmeister 2007, p. 56; Lesmeister 2009, pp. 23-24).
[[Page 71767]]
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The information readily available in our files supports the
petitioners' claims that the plains spotted skunk may be declining
rangewide due to loss, degradation, and modification of early
successional habitat. The plains spotted skunk has apparently undergone
long-term fluctuations in population (Choate et al. 1973, pp. 228-233;
Novak et al.1987, pp. 223-226; Gompper and Hackett 2005, pp. 199-200).
Increases in abundance in the early 1900s likely were facilitated by
human presence and influence on the landscape, as were subsequent
declines (Choate et al. 1973, pp. 228-233). Construction of houses,
outbuildings, haystacks, and brush piles provided shelter, and the
storage of crops provided a direct source of food, as well as an
indirect food source (mice and rats that were attracted to stored
grain) (Choate et al. 1973, p. 230). Exploitation of these novel
features allowed the expansion and increase of the plains spotted skunk
(Choate et al. 1973, p. 230). Subsequent removal of anthropogenic
features, as small farms were deserted and incorporated into larger
farms reduced the amount of available habitat (Choate et al. 1973, p.
231). However, the plains spotted skunk has declined throughout its
range, not just in the parts of the range where the subspecies exists
in anthropogenic landscapes. Harvest by fur trappers has consistently
decreased from the mid-1940s to present (Novak et al. 1987, pp. 223-
226). Gompper and Hackett (2005, pp. 199-200) analyzed harvest data
from seven States (Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Minnesota, and Arkansas) in the range of the plains spotted skunk and
confirmed the population decline, demonstrated that the timing of the
onset of decline differed among States, and determined that the decline
was not an artifact of harvest effort or pelt demand.
Although there does not appear to be a single cause of decline, a
suite of potential factors are suggested consistently in the
literature. The decline of small farms, the advent of agriculture
practices that encourage removal of fence rows and brush piles,
intensive use of pesticides, improved grain management practices, and
the end of large haystack construction are implicated as potential
causes for the species' decline in landscapes dominated by human
activity (Choate et al. 1973, pp. 229-231; Gompper and Hackett 2005, p.
199). Following the Great Depression, many small farms were deserted
and incorporated into larger agricultural units. Farm buildings were
removed that had provided both shelter and sources of prey, such as
rodents (Choate et al. 1973, p. 230; Nilz and Finck 2008, pp. 19-20).
This change in the agricultural landscape was intensified by the
drought of 1933-1940, during which thousands of small farmers moved to
other areas, abandoning many of the farms that remained. Arid
conditions impacted natural riparian habitats of plains spotted skunks
along watercourses, likely making them uninhabitable. The continued
introduction of technology and mechanization into farming operations
caused further decline of small, diverse farms and replaced them with
large monocultures (Choate et al. 1973, p. 231). Plains spotted skunks
avoid expansive open areas, such as pasture lands, that are devoid of
overhead cover, and plains spotted skunks are likely intolerant of this
habitat type (Lesmeister et al. 2009, p. 23). Finally, the widespread
application of insecticides, such as Dichloro-diphenyl-trichlorethane
(DDT), in industrial farming might have contributed to the decline in
the 1940s. Because the plains spotted skunk is primarily an
insectivore, application of pesticide likely reduced the main food
source for the subspecies. Foraging opportunities were historically and
continue to be further limited by dietary preference; competition with
other species, such as striped skunk and weasels, for an alternate food
source; or both (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Nilz and Finck 2008, pp. 19-20).
Habitat loss or modification might also be currently occurring in
more natural forested landscapes where the plains spotted skunk occurs.
In the Ouachita Mountains and Ozark Plateau, use of forested areas was
limited to young forest stands with closed canopy and dense understory,
areas with fallen logs and brushpiles, ravine bottoms, or stands that
had undergone timber stand improvement (TSI) and had high levels of
ground litter and slash (McCullough 1983, pp. 40-41; Lesmeister et al.
2009, p. 23). Young shortleaf pine stands were the only early
successional habitat present in the Ouachita Mountains study area and
were preferred over the dominant habitat type, mature shortleaf pine.
Mature shortleaf pine stands offer more open canopy conditions and are
considered suboptimal habitat for the plains spotted skunk compared to
young stands that provide more desirable structural characteristics
(Lesmeister et al. 2009, p. 24). Similar to the results in the Ouachita
Mountains, plains spotted skunks in the Ozark Plateau preferred young
oak-hickory forest stands over mature oak-hickory forest (McCullough
1983, p. 41). Considering that the subspecies seems to require
structural complexity provided by early successional habitats,
management priorities that endeavor to create landscapes dominated by
mature forest stands could negatively impact the plains spotted skunk.
For example, such conflicts in habitat management might occur where the
ranges of the red-cockaded woodpecker and plains spotted skunk are
coincident. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open, mature pine
woodlands and savannahs maintained by frequent fire (USFWS 2003, p. 5).
Management for red-cockaded woodpeckers focuses on restoration of pine
forests to old, open stands with canopy and herbaceous layers but no
hardwood midstory (USFWS 2003, pp. 2, 41). This type of pine
restoration is currently occurring in Arkansas on the Ouachita National
Forest (Hedrick et al. 2007, pp. 1-8).
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition,
as well as other information available in our files, presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to historical and currently
ongoing habitat loss and degradation due to modifications of early
successional habitat. Further assessment of population declines due to
the loss of early successional habitat caused by changes in
agricultural practices, changes in silvicultural practices, and
reduction in food availability by intensive use of pesticides is
necessary.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present information regarding the
overutilization of the plains spotted skunk for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Harvest pressure on the plains spotted skunk during the 1930s has
received little consideration for contributing to the decline of the
subspecies, but might have been a factor historically (Nilz and Finck
2008, p. 19). Available harvest records from the 1930s to 1940s (Novak
et al. 1987, pp. 223-226) show high harvest numbers for most States in
the subspecies' range, but since the mid-1940s, harvest numbers have
[[Page 71768]]
consistently decreased. The population status and dynamics of plains
spotted skunks during this period of heavy harvest are not fully
understood, but the plains spotted skunk appears to have been common in
most landscapes in the early 1900s (Choate et al. 1973, pp. 227-230).
Based on information readily available in our files, overutilization
appears to be a potential cause of historical decline, but we do not
have information to indicate that the overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is presenting an
ongoing threat to the plains spotted skunk. However, as we proceed with
the 12-month status review, we will further investigate this factor to
determine whether overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes is an ongoing threat to the
subspecies.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present information regarding diseases that
may affect the plains spotted skunk. The petitioners claim that the
plains spotted skunk is experiencing unnaturally high levels of
predation, mainly by birds of prey, because of loss of protective cover
provided by early successional habitat (Petition, unpaginated).
Lesmeister et al. (2009, pp. 23-24) observed 18 mortalities of plains
spotted skunks in the Ouachita Mountains, most of which were caused by
avian predators and occurred in mature shortleaf pine forests that
provide little in the way of protective cover. They noted that stands
of young shortleaf pine seem to be less preferred by typical predators
of plains spotted skunk, such as coyote (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx
rufus), and great horned owls (Bubo virginanus), which prefer more open
habitats. Open conditions in mature forest stands might be more
favorable for the presence of predators and consequently less favorable
to plains spotted skunks (Lesmeister et al. 2009, p. 24).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Based on our review of information provided by the petitioners and
readily available in our files, the plains spotted skunk may be
declining rangewide due to predation. The most common natural predators
of the plains spotted skunks are owls and mesocarnivores (Kinlaw 1995,
p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 329). Lesmeister et al. (2010, pp.
54-58) observed a relatively low survival rate for plains spotted skunk
in the Ouachita Mountains. Sixty-three percent of documented
mortalities were attributed to avian predators, 26 percent to mammalian
predators, and 11 percent to unknown causes. Eleven of the 12 avian-
caused mortalities occurred in mature shortleaf pine stands with an
open canopy and herbaceous understory, whereas all of the mammal-caused
mortalities occurred in young shortleaf pine stands (Lesmeister et al.
2010, p. 54). These results suggest that there is a difference between
the amount and source of predation that occurs in habitat that is
considered optimal (young shortleaf pine) and suboptimal (mature
shortleaf pine) for plains spotted skunk (Lesmeister et al. 2010, pp.
55-56). Plains spotted skunks avoided use of mature forest stands and
selected young forest stands (Lesmeister et al. 2009, pp. 23-24);
mortality due to predation was disproportionate to habitat use because
the highest mortality occurred in the least-used mature forest habitat.
While predation plays a natural role in the life history dynamics of
the plains spotted skunk, there is some evidence that it may be
occurring at a higher rate that could have a negative affect on
populations of the species.
Diseases affecting the subspecies include pneumonia, coccidiosis,
and rabies (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). The plains spotted skunk, however, is
often overrated as a carrier of rabies; fewer cases were documented in
spotted skunks than in domestic cats, cattle, dogs, or striped skunks
(Hazard 1982, p. 145). Viral disease, such as parvovirus, or mink
enteritis virus, may contribute to localized population declines, and
some viral diseases can exhibit rapid spread and long-term impacts to
local population viability, but do not appear to impact the species as
a whole (Gompper and Hackett 2005, p. 200). Based on information
readily available in our files, disease may have been a cause of
historical decline, but we do not have information to indicate that
disease is presenting an ongoing threat to the plains spotted skunk. As
we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate
whether disease is an ongoing threat to the subspecies.
In summary, the petition and information in our files identifies
excessive predation that may be occurring at a higher rate than
naturally expected as a threat to the plains spotted skunk. Therefore,
we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other
information readily available in our files, presents substantial
scientific and commercial information to indicate that the plains
spotted skunk may warrant listing due to predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that there currently is no mechanism to
protect habitat or garner appropriate resources for species
conservation.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We do not have any information in our files to indicate whether any
regulatory mechanisms that are designed to alleviate threats to the
species (i.e., loss of early successional habitat due to changes in
agricultural practices, changes in silvicultural practices, climatic
fluctuations, reduction in food availability by intensive use of
pesticides, or excessive predation) exist. Therefore, we find that the
petition and the information readily available in our files do not
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate
that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to
the plains spotted skunk such that the petitioned action may be
warranted. However, as we proceed with the 12-month finding status
review, we will further investigate whether the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to the plains spotted skunk.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
Humans are reported as the main cause of mortality in less natural
landscapes (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). Death is caused by vehicle collision,
poisoning, shooting, domestic dogs and cats, and trappers who target
plains spotted skunks or take them incidentally when trapping for other
species (Jones et al. 1983, p. 304; Wires and Baker 1994, p. 4). A
common source of sightings for plains spotted skunks are those that are
found as road kill. Of 72 total possible sightings of the plains
spotted skunk within a 5-year period in Minnesota, 11 were road kills
and an additional 13 were killed by the individual reporting the
sighting (Wires and Baker 1994, p. 4).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We do not have information in our files to indicate any potential
threat to the plains spotted skunk due to other natural or manmade
factors. Based on
[[Page 71769]]
information provided in the petition, direct human-caused mortality
(e.g., vehicle collision, poisoning, shooting, domestic dogs and cats,
and trapping) may be impacting individual skunks, but we do not have
information to indicate that such mortality is presenting a population-
level threat to the plains spotted skunk. Therefore, we find that the
petition and information readily available in our files do not provide
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that other
natural or manmade factors present a threat to the plains spotted skunk
such that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, as we
proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate
whether other natural or manmade factors, such as potential impacts
from climate change and direct human-caused mortality, may be a threat
to the plains spotted skunk.
Finding for Plains Spotted Skunk
We reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated
that information in relation to information readily available in our
files. On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of
the Act, we determine that the petition does present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the plains
spotted skunk as an endangered or threatened species throughout its
entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information
provided under factors A and C.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the plains spotted skunk may be
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing the plains spotted skunk as an endangered or threatened species
under the Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
Prairie Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus ocythous)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners claim that habitat loss and modification are
threats to the prairie gray fox. The petitioners state that the gray
fox requires early successional cover, grassland, or dense forest, and
that the decline of this habitat within the range of this subspecies
has contributed to its decline (Petition, unpaginated). The gray fox's
use of deciduous or pine woody habitat is well established in the
literature (Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, p. 749; Jones et al. 1985, p.
264; Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 226; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982,
p. 4). Cooper (2008, p. 24) reported a lower relative abundance of gray
fox for Illinois counties where agricultural patches were larger and
occurred in a wider variety of shapes and sizes. Conversely, Cooper
(2008, pp. 24-25) reported higher relative abundances of gray fox in
Illinois counties that contained a greater availability of grassland
dispersed into the landscape, with forest patch size highly variable
and closer together. Haroldson and Fritzell (1984, p. 226) found that
gray fox relied heavily on forested habitats in Missouri. They found
that gray fox used dense stands of young trees during the day, stating
that ``dense protective cover is characteristic of the diurnal retreats
of gray fox throughout their range'' (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p.
227; Petition, unpaginated). The petitioners indicate that habitat
important to the gray fox, such as early successional cover, grassland,
or dense forest, are in decline (Petition, unpaginated; Gillen 2011).
Gillen (2011, p. 9) evaluated the relationship of mast-producing trees
(trees that produce acorns or nuts), small mammal densities, and the
occurrence of carnivores in forests in southern Illinois and
hypothesized that the decline of oak-dominated forests in the eastern
United States may cause declines in small mammals that consume acorns,
and in turn the carnivores that consume small mammals. Gillen (2011, p.
1) cited several studies that indicate oak-dominated forests are
declining due to the reduced regeneration and secondary succession of
shade-tolerant species such as maple and beech. Gillen (2011, p. 9)
cited studies by Haroldson and Fritzell (1984, p. 226) that found that
gray fox select forests with high densities of prey. Gillen (2011, p.
10) reported a decrease in red and gray fox populations in Illinois,
and hypothesized that the decline may be worsened by additional
succession of oak-dominated forests.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petitioners assert that the gray fox requires early
successional cover, grassland, or dense forest and that the decline of
this habitat type has contributed to the subspecies decline (Petition,
unpaginated). Gray fox prefer wooded habitat, areas of mixed grassland
and forest, and early successional areas (Cooper 2008, p. 4;
Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, p. 749; Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p.
226; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). Gray fox utilize this dense
protective cover especially during the day when they are not as active
(Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 227). There is evidence that gray fox
are more abundant in areas where there is woody or dense cover and less
abundant in agricultural areas (Cooper 2008, p. 4). Cooper (2008, p.
26) suggests that habitat loss is one of the gray fox's biggest threats
and that the changes in the landscape, predominantly to agriculture in
the Midwest, have adversely affected gray fox populations. The
petitioners have provided evidence of low or declining numbers of gray
fox within the range of the prairie gray fox subspecies (Blair 2011, p.
31; Roberts and Clark 2011, unpaginated; Sasse 2011, unpaginated;
Kitchell 2010, unpaginated; U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, pp.
38-98; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980, pp. 40-100). The
conversion from native woody habitat to agricultural practices has
likely impacted the prairie gray fox as all of the States within its
range have agriculture to differing degrees. When settlers arrived in
the Midwest, the forests were converted to agriculture before the
technology was available to convert prairie lands (U.S. Geological
Survey 1998, p. 4). For example, prior to 1860, forest areas were the
primary source of cropland in Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p.
4). Due to the conversion to agriculture, timber harvest, and
development, approximately 70 percent of the available forest land in
the Midwest has been lost since 1920 (U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p.
4), and landcover in the Midwest consists of approximately 44 percent
agriculture (Mankin and Warner 1999a, p. 956). Although the petitioners
do not provide information on the amount of habitat that has been lost
throughout the prairie gray fox's range, we believe there is
substantial
[[Page 71770]]
information to suggest that a decline in the population of this
subspecies may be due to the loss of habitat.
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition,
as well as other information available in our files, presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to the loss of early
successional cover, grassland, or dense forest habitat within the range
of this subspecies.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that the threats of continued human hunting
and trapping of this subspecies is ``an additional stressor'' but do
not provide information as to the numbers of gray fox being harvested
in any of the States within the range of the prairie gray fox
(Petition, unpaginated).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Fritzel and Haroldson (1984, p. 4) state that ``undoubtedly the
most important predator of gray fox is man,'' referencing specific
citations indicating the importance of gray fox pelts in the 1970s. An
estimated 26,109 gray fox pelts were harvested in the United States
during the 1970-1971 season, increasing to 163,458 during the 1975-1976
season. It was estimated in 1977 that approximately half of the gray
fox population in Wisconsin was harvested annually (Fritzel and
Haroldson 1984, p. 4). Illinois hunters harvested 9,086 gray fox pelts
in the winter of 1977-1978 (McFarland 2007, p. 9). More recently,
during the 2010-2011 season, gray fox harvested in the State of
Missouri increased 112 percent, while the annual Archer's Index to
Furbearer Populations (where deer and turkey archery hunters record
sightings of furbearers each fall) shows a 75 percent decline in gray
fox numbers since 1983 (Petition, unpaginated; Missouri Department of
Conservation 2011 Furbearer Program Annual Report, pp. 11-12; Blair
2011, p. 31). According to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2010-
2011 Furbearing Animal Report, 976 gray fox were purchased by licensed
fur buyers in the State (Sasse 2011, unpaginated). The report indicates
that there was an overall increase in pelts purchased for this season
after an overall low in 2009-2010, with the number of pelts purchased
increasing by 91 percent. The report also indicates actual numbers of
furbearers harvested is likely underreported.
Although there is evidence in the literature that gray fox have
been hunted in the past and continue to be harvested to some degree,
which may have individual and localized impacts, neither the petition
nor information readily available in our files indicates that harvest
is affecting the subspecies overall. Therefore, based on information
readily available in our files, overutilization may have occurred and
may have potentially caused historical decline, but neither the
petition nor the information readily available in our files indicate
that the overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is a current threat to the prairie gray fox.
However, as we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further
investigate this factor to determine whether overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is an
ongoing threat to the subspecies.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present information regarding disease
affecting the prairie gray fox. The petitioners claim that the loss of
dense cover available to the prairie gray fox due to habitat
degradation has made the subspecies more susceptible to predation from
coyotes (Canis latrans), stating coyotes are the gray fox's only major
non-human predator (Petition, unpaginated). The petitioners cite a
personal communication with Stan Gehrt from Ohio State University
asserting that gray fox in northern Illinois are being ``wiped out''
due to coyote predation because they do not have adequate cover
(Petition, unpaginated). The petition states that Gehrt cited
additional research suggesting that coyote killed gray fox; however,
they did not consume them (Petition, unpaginated). The petitioners cite
McFarland (2007), which discusses studies being conducted in Illinois
on coyote-gray fox interactions in northern and southern Illinois, with
Gehrt cited as one of the researchers. McFarland (2007, p. 11) quotes
Gehrt in reference to the study: ``We identified a family of gray foxes
living in a cemetery in an intensely urban area on the south side of
Chicago, the amazing thing is, it was a place nobody would expect to
find even a red fox. On top of that, coyotes still found their hiding
spot and killed them.'' In McFarland (2007, p. 11), Gehrt suggests that
gray fox have been unable to adapt to the increase in coyote predation
like red fox have. McFarland (2007, p. 11) indicates that the increase
in coyote numbers in Illinois may be due to a shift in agricultural
practices and movement of humans to urban areas, and a subsequent
decrease in coyote hunters and an increase in the coyote's food supply.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Jones et al. (1985, p. 264) and Fritzell and Haroldson (1982, p. 5)
both mention coyote and bobcat (Lynx rufus) as a predator of the gray
fox. In their study of coyote, fox, and bobcat interactions in
California, Fedriani et al. (2000, p. 262) predicted the dominance of
coyote over the other two carnivores. During their 2-year study,
Fedriani et al. (2000, p. 262) found 7 gray fox killed by coyote and 2
by bobcat, and found remains of gray fox in coyote feces. They
suggested that ``the sum of population losses due to coyote predation
plus the avoidance of areas of high coyote predation risk by fox limit
the size and range of gray fox populations in the Santa Monica
Mountains, whereas no evidence of food limitation is indicated''
(Fedriani et al. 2000, p. 268). Chamberlain and Leopold (2005, pp. 171-
178) studied similar interactions among bobcat, coyote, and gray fox in
central Mississippi. They found that the home ranges of coyote and gray
fox intersected and that gray fox maintained home ranges within the
larger range of the coyote (Chamberlain and Leopold 2005, p. 175).
However, they found that the amount of overlap of core areas was
negligible, suggesting that gray fox avoid areas of greater coyote
concentration. They considered the interspecific competition between
coyotes and gray fox minimal, as there were 2 deaths of gray fox from
coyotes (of the 37 gray fox studied). Researchers also indicated there
were two instances of den abandonment due to coyote disturbance
(Chamberlain and Leopold 2005, p. 177). The coyote's range in the
United States has expanded dramatically since pre-settlement; however
it has always been a part of the prairie gray fox's range (Parker 1995,
p. 17). Before the 1900s, coyote was limited to the prairies of the
central United States from Canada south into Mexico (Parker 1995, p.
17). Although the available information shows that coyote and bobcat do
prey on gray fox, it does not indicate whether the predation rate has
increased beyond a natural level or that such predation is causing a
population-level effect.
We found few sources in our files referencing the effects of
disease on gray fox populations. Fritzell and Haroldson
[[Page 71771]]
(1982, p. 5) state that canine distemper virus (CDV) and rabies may
affect local populations. Cooper 2008 (p. 1) also mentions that rabies,
canine parvovirus, and CDV affect the gray fox. Cooper 2008 (p. 1) also
states that CDV is, ``the most significant mortality factor for gray
foxes,'' citing several references supporting the adverse effects CDV
has had on gray fox populations.
The information provided by the petitioners and within our files
indicates that the gray fox is being preyed on by coyotes and, to a
lesser degree, bobcats; however, we do not have information as to
whether the predation rate has increased beyond a natural level. Our
files also contain some information that the impacts of disease may be
detrimental to individual populations of the prairie gray fox, but we
do not have information as to what impact disease is having on the
subspecies.
Therefore, based on information readily available in our files,
gray fox are currently being preyed on by coyotes, but we do not have
information to indicate that disease or predation is an ongoing threat
to the prairie gray fox. As we proceed with the 12-month status review,
we will further investigate whether disease or predation are an ongoing
threat to the subspecies.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
No information on this factor is provided in the petition.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We do not have any information in our files to indicate the amount
of protection currently being afforded the prairie gray fox within
individual States. Therefore, we find that the petition and the
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the prairie gray fox such
that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, as we proceed
with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate whether
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to the
prairie gray fox.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners did not present information on whether or how other
natural or manmade factors are affecting the prairie gray fox.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We do not have information in our files to indicate any potential
threat to the prairie gray fox due to other natural or manmade factors.
Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available
in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that other natural or manmade factors present a
threat to the prairie gray fox such that the petitioned action may be
warranted. However, as we proceed with the 12-month status review, we
will further investigate whether other natural or manmade factors, such
as potential impacts from climate change, may be a threat to the
prairie gray fox.
Finding for Prairie Gray Fox
We reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated
that information in relation to information readily available in our
files. On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of
the Act, we determine that the petition does present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
prairie gray fox throughout its entire range may be warranted. This
finding is based on information provided under factor A.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the prairie gray fox may be
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing the prairie gray fox under the Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Rock Island,
Illinois Ecological Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Columbia, Missouri, and Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field
Offices.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 20 2012.
Rowan Gould,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29188 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
