Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Island Night Lizard From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 7907-7937 [2013-02020]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 78
Monday,
No. 23
February 4, 2013
Part III
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Island
Night Lizard From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7908
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2012–0099;
FXES11130900000–134–FF09E32000]
RIN 1018–AY44
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing the Island Night
Lizard From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month
petition finding; notice of document
availability.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the island night lizard (Xantusia
riversiana) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This action is based on a review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information, which indicates that the
species no longer meets the definition of
endangered species or threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This
proposed rule, if made final, would
remove the island night lizard as a
threatened species from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This document also constitutes our 12month finding on a petition to remove
the island night lizard from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 5, 2013. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by March
21, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R8–ES–
2012–0099, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. On the search
results page, under the Comment Period
heading in the menu on the left side of
your screen, check the box next to
‘‘Open’’ to locate this document. Please
ensure you have found the correct
document before submitting your
comments. If your comments will fit in
the provided comment box, please use
this feature of https://
www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our comment review
procedures. If you attach your
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
comments as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word.
If you attach multiple comments (such
as form letters), our preferred format is
a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2012–
0099; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments below for more information).
Document availability: A copy of the
draft post-delisting monitoring plan can
be viewed at https://ecos.fws.gov/
speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=C01M.
Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile (fax)
760–431–5901. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Executive Summary
This document contains: (1) A 12month finding in response to a petition
to delist the San Clemente and San
Nicolas Island distinct population
segments (DPSs); (2) a proposed rule to
remove the island night lizard from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife; and (3) a notice of
availability of a draft post-delisting
monitoring plan.
Species addressed. The island night
lizard (Xantusia riversiana) is endemic
to three Channel Islands (San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara) located
off the southern California coast and a
small islet (Sutil Island) located just
southwest of Santa Barbara Island.
Habitat restoration and reduced adverse
human-related impacts since listing
have resulted in significant
improvements to habitat quality and
quantity. As a result, threats to the
island night lizard have been largely
ameliorated. Though population
densities were not known at the time of
listing, the island night lizard
populations are currently estimated at
21.3 million lizards on San Clemente
Island, 15,300 lizards on San Nicolas
Island, and 17,600 lizards on Santa
Barbara Island (including Sutil Island).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Purpose of the Regulatory Action.
Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, we may be petitioned to list,
delist, or reclassify a species. In 2004,
we received a petition from the Navy
asserting that each of the three island
occurrences of island night lizard
qualifies for recognition as a DPS under
the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996) and requesting that we delist the
San Clemente and San Nicolas Island
DPSs (Navy 2004, p. 12). In 2006, we
published a 90-day finding (71 FR
48900) concluding that the Navy’s
petition provided substantial
information supporting that delisting
may be warranted and we thus
announced the initiation of a status
review for this species, which is
summarized in this document.
Basis for the Regulatory Action.
Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species
or threatened species based on any of
five factors: (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. We must consider the same
factors in delisting a species. We may
delist a species if the best scientific and
commercial data indicate the species is
neither threatened nor endangered for
one or more of the following reasons: (1)
The species is extinct; (2) the species
has recovered and is no longer
threatened or endangered; or (3) the
original scientific data used at the time
the species was classified were in error.
Threats to the island night lizard at
the time of listing included destruction
of habitat by feral goats and pigs,
predation, and the introduction of
nonnatives throughout the species
range. We reviewed all available
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to the five threat factors in
our status review of the island night
lizard. The results of our status review
are summarized below.
• We consider the island night lizard
to be ‘‘recovered’’ because all
substantial threats to the lizard have
been ameliorated.
• All remaining potential threats to
the species and its habitat, with the
exception of climate change, are
currently managed through
implementation of management plans.
• While we recognize that results
from climate change such as rising air
temperatures, lower rainfall amounts,
and rising sea level are important issues
with potential effects to the island night
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
lizard and its habitat, the best available
information does not indicate that
potential changes in temperature,
precipitation patterns, and rising sea
levels would significantly impact the
island night lizard or its habitat. We
expect that the lizard’s susceptibility to
climate change is somewhat reduced by
its ability to use varying habitat types
and by its broad generalist diet;
therefore, we do not consider climate
change to be a substantial threat to the
species at this time.
• We find that delisting the island
night lizard is warranted and we
propose to remove this taxon from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
• We have also prepared a draft postdelisting monitoring plan to monitor the
island night lizard after delisting to
verify that the species remains secure.
Acronyms Used
We use several acronyms throughout
the preamble to this proposed rule. To
assist the reader, we set them forth here:
BMP = best management practices
CHIS = Channel Islands National Park
DPS = Distinct Population Segment
FMP = Fire Management Plan
GHG = greenhouse gas
INLMA = Island Night Lizard Management
Area
INRMP = Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
MSRP = Montrose Settlements Restoration
Program
Navy = United States Department of the Navy
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
NHRP = Native Habitat Restoration Program
NPS = National Park Service
OMB = Office of Management and Budget
PDM = post-delisting monitoring
PRBO = Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Service = United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area
SPR = Significant Portion of the Range
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Public Comments
We intend any final action resulting
from this proposal to be based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available, and be as accurate and as
effective as possible. Therefore, we
request comments or information from
other governmental agencies, tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Reasons why we should or should
not delist the island night lizard under
the Act.
(2) New biological or other relevant
data concerning any threat (or lack
thereof) to this species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
(3) New information concerning the
population size or trends of this species.
(4) New information on the
restoration of Lycium californicum
(California boxthorn), which contain the
highest recorded densities of island
night lizards throughout their range.
(5) New information on the current or
planned activities in the subject areas
that may adversely affect or benefit the
species.
(6) New information and data on the
projected and reasonably likely impacts
to island night lizard or its habitat
associated with climate change.
(7) Information regarding how best to
conduct post-delisting monitoring
(PDM), should the proposed delisting
lead to a final delisting rule (see PostDelisting Monitoring Plan Overview
section below, which briefly outlines
the goals of the draft PDM Plan that is
available for public comment
concurrent with publication of this
proposed rule). Such information might
include suggestions regarding the draft
objectives, and monitoring procedures
for establishing population and habitat
baselines, or for detecting variations
from those baselines over the course of
at least 9 years.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
(and associated draft PDM Plan) by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We
will not accept comments sent by email
or fax or to an address not listed in
ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via
https://www.regulations.gov, we will
post your entire comment—including
your personal identifying information—
on https://www.regulations.gov. If your
written comments provide personal
identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your
comment to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial data you
submit.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment during normal business
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. We must receive
your request within 45 days after the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7909
date of this Federal Register
publication. Send your request to the
address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule
and the draft PDM Plan. The purpose of
peer review is to ensure that decisions
are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. A peer
review panel will conduct an
assessment of the proposed rule and
draft PDM Plan, and the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposed delisting. This assessment
will be completed during the public
comment period.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
as we prepare the final determination.
Accordingly, the final decision may
differ from this proposal.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing or reclassifying the species
may be warranted, we make a finding
within 12 months of the date of receipt
of the petition. In this finding, we will
determine whether the petitioned action
is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or
(c) warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing
the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine
whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is
being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
The island night lizard was proposed
as a threatened species under the Act on
June 1, 1976 (41 FR 22073) based on
threats from habitat degradation from
grazing by introduced animals on all
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
7910
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
three islands and from ‘‘habitat
alterations caused by farming, fire,
grazing by introduced animals, and
invasion by exotic plants’’ on San
Nicolas and Santa Barbara Islands. A
final rule listing the island night lizard
as a threatened species was published in
the Federal Register on August 11, 1977
(42 FR 40682). We finalized a Recovery
Plan for the Endangered and Threatened
Species of the California Channel
Islands (Recovery Plan) in January 1984,
which addressed the island night lizard
and six other federally listed species
occurring on San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
(including Sutil Island) off the coast of
southern California (Service 1984).
Subsequently, we initiated notice of
reviews and requested public comments
concerning the status of the island night
lizard under 4(c)(2) of the Act on
September 27, 1982 (47 FR 42387), July
7, 1987 (52 FR 25523), and November 6,
1991 (56 FR 56882). None of those
reviews resulted in a recommendation
to change the status of the species; no
summaries were published.
In 1997, the National Wilderness
Institute submitted a petition to delist
the island night lizard on the basis of
data error (National Wilderness Institute
1997). In a letter to the National
Wilderness Institute dated June 29, 1998
(Service 1998), we indicated that due to
the low priority assigned to delisting
activities in our 1997 Fiscal Year Listing
Priority Guidance, we were not able to
act on the petition at that time.
In 2004, the Navy submitted a petition
asserting that the island night lizard
populations on San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands each
qualify as DPSs (Navy 2004). The
petition stated that the island night
lizard populations meet the discreteness
and significance criteria of the Service’s
and National Marine Fisheries Service’s
Joint Policy Regarding the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments under the Act (DPS Policy)
(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The
petition sought the delisting of the San
Clemente and San Nicolas Island
distinct population segments of island
night lizard.
On July 7, 2005 (70 FR 39327), we
announced the initiation of a 5-year
review of the island night lizard and
requested that interested parties submit
information regarding the species’
status. We published a second notice in
the Federal Register on November 3,
2005 (70 FR 66842), extending the
request for information concerning the
island night lizard. No information
regarding the status of the island night
lizard was received in response to either
information request. On August 22,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
2006 (71 FR 48900), we published in the
Federal Register a 90-day finding for
both the 1997 and 2004 petitions to
delist the island night lizard. In our 90day finding, we determined the 1997
petition from the National Wilderness
Institute did not provide substantial
information indicating that delisting the
island night lizard due to data error was
warranted, which concluded our review
of that petition. However, we
determined the 2004 petition from the
Navy provided substantial information
indicating the petitioned actions of
delisting the San Clemente and San
Nicolas Island populations may be
warranted and initiated a 12-month
status review, which is represented by
this proposed delisting rule.
In September 2006, we completed a 5year review of the island night lizard
(Service 2006, pp. 24–26). In that
review, we conducted a preliminary
DPS analysis of the island night lizard
populations on San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands and
concluded that the lizards on each
island may qualify as DPSs under the
Service’s policy because they may each
meet the discreteness and significance
criteria. Additionally, the 2006 5-year
review recommended revising the
listing of the island night lizard by
designating each island as a DPS. That
review also recommended classifying
the San Nicolas and Santa Barbara
Island DPSs as threatened. Lastly, the 5year review concluded that the San
Clemente Island DPS had recovered due
to the amelioration of threats and
recommended delisting of this DPS
(Service 2006, p. 26). However, we
stated that we would continue to seek
additional information and refine our
preliminary DPS analysis in the context
of the 12-month finding on the Navy’s
petition to delist the San Clemente and
San Nicolas populations of the island
night lizard (Service 2006, p. 5). We
published a notice in the Federal
Register on February 14, 2007 (72 FR
7064), announcing the availability of
completed 5-year reviews, including the
island night lizard 5-year review. A
copy of the 2006 5-year review for the
island night lizard is available on the
Service’s Environmental Conservation
Online System [https://ecos.fws.gov/
docs/five_year_review/doc776.pdf].
Most recently, we published a notice
of initiation of 5-year reviews in the
Federal Register on May 21, 2010 (75
FR 28636), initiating a further status
review for the island night lizard. We
completed this review for the lizard on
October 5, 2012. The 2012 review
recommended delisting the lizard
throughout its entire range due to the
amelioration of substantial threats and
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
current management of potential threats
to the species and its habitat (Service
2012a, p. 44). As we are adopting this
recommendation in this finding, we do
not further address here the DPS status
of the three island populations.
Species Information
The island night lizard occurs on
three of the Channel Islands off the
coast of California: San Clemente Island,
San Nicolas Island, and Santa Barbara
Island. It also occurs on a small islet,
Sutil Island, just southwest of Santa
Barbara Island. The majority of
information on island night lizard
biology and life history comes from
studies conducted on San Clemente
Island, with some additional studies
and information from San Nicolas and
Santa Barbara islands. The information
on island night lizards on Sutil Island
is limited to the two occasions it was
documented there.
Description
Island night lizard adults average 2.6
to 4.3 inches (in) (65 to 109 millimeters
(mm)) in length from snout to vent
(Goldberg and Bezy 1974, p. 356; Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 28; Mautz 1993, p.
422). Dorsal coloration ranges from pale
ash gray and beige to shades of brown
and shades of black with varying
uniform, mottled, and striped patterns
(Bezy et al. 1980, p. 575; Fellers and
Drost 1991, pp. 42–44). Both coloration
and patterning are highly variable
among lizards on all islands throughout
their range (Bezy et al. 1980, p. 575;
Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 43–44).
Biology and Life History
The island night lizard is a slowgrowing, late-maturing, and long-lived
lizard (Goldberg and Bezy 1974, pp.
355–358; Fellers and Drost 1991, pp.
36–42). Island night lizards can live on
average 11 to 13 years, with some
individuals estimated to be 30 years of
age (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 38;
Mautz 1993, p. 420; Fellers et al. 1998,
p. 25).
Members of the genus Xantusia are
primarily active during the day (Bezy
1988, p. 8); however, they are highly
sedentary and tend to remain under
shelter such as dense vegetation or rocks
(Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 50, 55;
Mautz 1993, p. 419). Sheltered areas
provide suitable cover to protect the
species from predation and allow
sufficient amounts of sunlight to
penetrate to the ground, providing a
range of temperatures for thermal
regulation (regulation of body
temperature) (Mautz 2001a, pp. 9–12).
Island night lizards are viviparous
(bear live young) and reach sexual
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
maturity at approximately 3 to 4 years
of age (Goldberg and Bezy 1974, p. 355;
Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 40). Breeding
begins around March or April and single
broods of young are born around
September (Goldberg and Bezy 1974, p.
353). Females demonstrate irregular
intervals between reproductive cycles,
but appear to approach a biennial cycle
(approximately half of sexually mature
females reproduce in any given year)
(Goldberg and Bezy 1974, p. 358). The
island night lizard is unique within the
genus Xantusia for having a brood size
greater than two (Fellers and Drost 1991,
p. 59); however, brood size differs
among each of the islands where the
species occurs, with females on San
Nicolas Island averaging 5.3 young per
brood and females on both San
Clemente and Santa Barbara Islands
averaging 3.9 young per brood (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 60).
Based on multiple years of surveys on
San Clemente Island, neonate (young of
the year) island night lizards on average
comprise about 25 percent of the
population (Mautz 1993, p. 422), but
this percentage may be lower during
periods of drought. Between August
2003 and July 2004, only 1.65 in (42
mm) of rain fell on San Clemente Island
(Mautz 2005, p. 5). Surveys conducted
in 2004 during the first part of the
birthing season (early September)
revealed neonate lizards comprised only
14 of the 199 lizards captured
(approximately 7 percent) (Mautz 2005,
p. 5). In contrast, surveys conducted in
October 2006 following a very rainy
winter on San Clemente Island (9.65 in
(245 mm) of rainfall) revealed 45 of the
127 lizards (35 percent of those
captured) were yearlings (in the first
year of life) (Mautz 2007, p. 4). Had the
2006 survey taken place in early
September, the yearlings would have
been counted as neonates. The
significant difference in the percentage
of neonates or yearlings between dry
and wet years may be representative of
the species’ reproductive response to
annual variations in rainfall and food
abundance.
Island night lizards are omnivorous,
with a diet primarily consisting of
insects and plant matter (Knowlton
1949, p. 45; Brattstrom 1952, pp. 168–
171; Mautz 1993, p. 417). Analyses of
stomach and digestive tract contents of
24 lizards collected from San Clemente
Island in 1948 revealed an omnivorous
diet consisting of insects (including
species of Hemiptera, Coleoptera,
Lepidoptera, Diptera, and
Hymenoptera); grass, sedge, seeds, and
fruits; lizard skin; and the remains of
what appeared to be juvenile mice
(Knowlton 1949, p. 45). In 15 of the 24
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
specimens, plant material constituted at
least 50 percent of the total food
identified in the stomach contents
(Knowlton 1949, p. 46). A more detailed
analysis of numerous species of
Xantusia, including specimens of the
island night lizard from San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands,
was conducted by Brattstrom (1952, p.
3). Based on samples of the stomach and
intestinal contents, Brattstrom (1952, p.
172) determined that the island night
lizard eats the widest variety of foods of
any of the species of the Genus Xantusia
included in the research. Although all
age groups will eat both plant and
animal material, younger lizards
consume a greater amount of animal
prey in their diet than older lizards
(Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 56). Plant
material found in the stomach or fecal
samples of island night lizards included
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum
(crystalline iceplant); the fruits, flowers,
and leaves of Lycium californicum
(California boxthorn); and the fruits of
Atriplex semibaccata (Australian
saltbush) (Fellers and Drost 1991, pp.
55–56).
Distribution and Habitat
The island night lizard is endemic to
three Channel Islands (San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara) located
off the southern California coast
(Goldberg and Bezy 1974, pp. 355–358;
Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 28) and a
small islet (Sutil Island) located just
southwest of Santa Barbara Island (Bezy
et al. 1980, p. 579). San Clemente Island
and San Nicolas Island are managed by
the Navy, while Santa Barbara Island
and Sutil Island are owned and
managed by the National Park Service.
San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands vary in size and the
amount of suitable habitat available for
the island night lizard (see Table 1
below at the end of the ‘‘Population
Density and Abundance’’ section, which
highlights the lizard’s estimated
population size for each island in
relation to each island’s size and the
available habitat present). San Clemente
Island is the largest and southernmost of
the Channel Islands occupied by the
lizard, consisting of approximately
37,200 acres (ac) (15,054 hectares (ha)),
and is located approximately 68 miles
(mi) (109 kilometers (km)) west of San
Diego, California, and 55 mi (89 km)
south of Long Beach, California (Navy
2002, p. 1.1). San Nicolas Island is the
second largest and westernmost of the
three Channel Islands inhabited by the
lizard, consisting of approximately
14,230 ac (5,698 ha), and is located
approximately 28 mi (45 km) southwest
of Santa Barbara Island and 50 mi (80
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7911
km) northwest of San Clemente Island
(Fellers et al. 1998, p. 5). Santa Barbara
Island is the smallest and northernmost
island inhabited by the lizard,
consisting of approximately 640 ac (259
ha), and is located approximately 38 mi
(61 km) from the mainland of southern
California (Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 5,
29) and 28 mi (45 km) northeast of San
Nicolas Island.
Sutil Island is an islet located
approximately 0.4 mi (0.65 km)
southwest of Santa Barbara Island and
consisting of approximately 13.7 ac (5.5
ha). At the time of listing (42 FR 40682),
island night lizards were not known to
occur on Sutil Island. Since listing, we
are aware of only two occasions where
island night lizards were documented
on Sutil Island and, currently, little
information concerning the species on
Sutil Island exists.
Different surveys and descriptions of
the vegetation types on San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
have referred to the habitat supporting
island night lizards under various
names and descriptions. Two vegetation
types identified by Sawyer et al. (2009)
support most of the known dominant
plant taxa associated with the lizard.
The two vegetation types are Coast
prickly pear scrub and Lycium
californicum Provisional Shrubland
Alliance. In Coast prickly pear scrub,
cacti such as Opuntia littoralis (coastal
prickly pear), Opuntia oricola (chaparral
prickly pear), and Cylindropuntia
prolifera (coast cholla) are dominant or
codominant among the shrub canopy
(Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 599–601).
Lycium californicum Provisional
Shrubland Alliance is characterized by
the prevalence of L. californicum
(Sawyer et al. 2009, p. 588).
Cylindropuntia prolifera is referred to
by its older Latin name, Opuntia
prolifera, in numerous references cited
in this document (for example, Fellers
and Drost 1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz
2001a, p. 17; Navy 2002, p. 3.54). While
the Service recognizes that C. prolifera
is the currently accepted name of this
species and is used in discussions that
reference current literature in this
document (for example, Sawyer et al.
2009 and NPS in litt. 2011b), we will
use the older name of O. prolifera only
when referencing previous literature.
Vegetation now classified as Coast
prickly pear scrub includes
communities variously referred to as
Maritime Succulent Scrub and Maritime
Desert Scrub in several references cited
within this document (Fellers and Drost
1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p. 17;
Navy 2002, p. 3.54). Lycium
californicum Provisional Shrubland
Alliance (Sawyer et al. 2009, p. 588) is
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
7912
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
a vegetative community in which L.
californicum is a dominant or
codominant species and taxa such as
Coreopsis gigantea (giant coreopsis),
Bergerocactus emoryi (golden-spined
cereus), and C. prolifera are present.
This is also referred to as Maritime
Succulent Scrub, Maritime Desert
Scrub, or boxthorn habitat by numerous
references included within this
document (for example, Fellers and
Drost 1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p.
17; Navy 2002, p. 3.54). To eliminate
any confusion, we will refer to the
vegetation types that comprise highquality habitat and supports high island
night lizard densities as L. californicum
and Opuntia spp. habitats.
Surveys conducted on the islands
occupied by the island night lizard
indicate strong habitat preferences for
Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.
habitats (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 34;
Schwemm 1996, pp. 3–4; Mautz 2001a,
p. 23; Mautz 2004, p. 18). These habitats
are considered high quality because
they offer suitable cover to protect the
species from predation and allow
sufficient amounts of sunlight to
penetrate to the ground, which provides
a thermal mosaic for thermal regulation
(Mautz 2001a, pp. 9–11, 17–18). Island
night lizards are also known to occupy
grasslands, Coreopsis gigantea stands,
mixed shrub communities, rocky
outcrops, and cobble and driftwood
habitats (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 34;
Schwemm 1996, pp. 3–4; Mautz 2001a,
p. 23; Mautz 2004, p. 18). Loose rocks
or crevices in clay soils are also
important habitat components within
island night lizard habitat (Fellers and
Drost 1991, p. 53; Mautz 2001a, p. 17).
Mautz (2001a, pp. 17–18) suggested
that vegetation community
characteristics may be as important to
island night lizard habitat as species
composition. This assertion is
corroborated by Fellers et al. (1998, p.
16), who concluded that plywood
debris, which serves as cover in
grasslands with scattered Haplopappus
(haplopappus) and few to no other
shrub species, was a factor that
contributed to high densities of lizards
at sampling sites on San Nicolas Island.
In addition to natural cover, artificial
cover created by human presence on
San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands may also be utilized by
island night lizards, thereby enabling
them to persist in areas of otherwise
unsuitable habitat. During surveys for
the species on San Clemente and San
Nicolas Islands, lizards were routinely
found under pieces of plywood
discarded by U.S. Navy (Navy)
personnel (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 18).
The presence of these boards, some of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
which may have been in place for a
decade or more, provided an
opportunity for researchers to assess
longevity of the species because some
specific lizards were recorded (captured
and recaptured) over long intervals of
time (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 7).
Underlying soils may also indicate
whether an area supports lizards.
Extensive trapping conducted on San
Nicolas Island determined that loose
sand substrates are unsuitable for the
species (Fellers et al. 1998, pp. 11–17).
Very little information exists concerning
the vegetative communities on Sutil
Island.
San Clemente Island
San Clemente Island supports
approximately 19,640 acres (ac) (7,948
hectares (ha)) of high-quality island
night lizard habitat distributed
primarily along the western marine
terraces (Navy 2002, p. 3.54). There are
approximately 13,791 ac (5,581 ha) of
Opuntia spp. habitat and 5,849 ac (2,367
ha) of Lycium californicum habitat
(Service 1997, p. 6; Navy 2002, p. 3.54).
From 1992 to 2008, a long-term trend
analysis was conducted, which
indicated no clear trend in habitats
dominated by Opuntia spp. or L.
californicum on San Clemente Island,
but there was an approximate 6 percent
reduction of L. californicum and 10
percent reduction of Opuntia spp. in the
cover of those habitats on the island
(Tierra Data Inc. 2010, pp. 48–67). This
observed decrease was likely due to
high rainfall experienced in the baseline
years from 1991 to 1993, in comparison
to subsequent rainfall (Tierra Data Inc.
2010, p. 125).
Low- to moderate-quality island night
lizard habitat consisting of Artemisia
spp. (sagebrush), Eriogonum spp.
(buckwheat), Deinandra clementina (as
Hemizonia clementina) (Catalina
tarweed), as well as Lycium
californicum and Opuntia spp.,
occupies approximately 386 ac (156 ha)
of the northeastern escarpment of San
Clemente Island (Navy 2002, p. 3.65).
Low-quality grassland habitat occupies
approximately 11,831 ac (4,788 ha) on
the central plateau and eastern scarp of
the island (Navy 2002, p. 3.54). Lizards
on San Clemente Island have not been
found in closed-canopy canyon or
woodland habitats, which do not allow
sufficient amounts of sunlight to
penetrate the canopy cover for thermal
regulation, or active sand dunes that do
not offer sufficient cover for the species
(Mautz 2001a, pp. 4, 9, 18).
San Nicolas Island
Due to differing survey methodologies
and precision of mapping efforts, the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
amount of high-quality habitat on San
Nicolas Island has varied over time.
Based on these various surveys and
methodologies, little high-quality
habitat is known to exist on San Nicolas
Island. Site specific vegetation transects
completed in 1996 failed to locate
Lycium californicum and only once
located Opuntia spp. (Chess et al. 1996,
pp. 19–46). Fellers et al. (1998, p. 46)
conducted an island-wide analysis of
the vegetation, utilizing aerial photos
and on the ground surveys, and
estimated 1.9 ac (0.8 ha) of high-quality
island night lizard habitat and about 161
ac (65 ha) of lower-quality mixed shrub
habitat occur on San Nicolas Island. In
2003, Junak (2003, p. 7) also conducted
an island-wide survey of the vegetation
utilizing helicopter flyovers, on the
ground surveys, and Global Positioning
System receivers and estimated that
approximately 11.2 ac (4.6 ha) of highquality habitats were available on the
island. That high-quality habitat occurs
primarily on the eastern half of the
island and is patchily distributed with
lower-quality habitat (Fellers et al. 1998,
pp. 13–14). The lower-quality habitat is
a mixed shrub community comprising
Haplopappus spp., Calystegia
macrostegia (island morning-glory),
Coreopsis gigantea, Atriplex
semibaccata, Deinandra clementina,
Lupinus albifrons (silver lupine),
Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), and
Artemisia spp. (Fellers et al. 1998, pp.
16–17). Island night lizards generally do
not inhabit the western half of San
Nicolas Island due to a lack of suitable
vegetative or rock cover. One exception
is a 0.6-ac (0.2-ha) area of cobble and
driftwood habitat at Redeye Beach that
is just above the intertidal zone on the
northwestern side of the island (Fellers
et al. 1998, p. 11). Occupancy within
this habitat, which supports the highest
density of lizards on the island, is
unique to San Nicolas Island (Fellers et
al. 1998, p. 11).
Santa Barbara Island
Habitat on Santa Barbara Island is
limited due to the small size of the
island and the extensive habitat damage
that occurred historically when goats
(Capra spp.), sheep (Ovis spp.), and
European rabbits (Oryctolagus
cuniculus) were present (Service 1984,
pp. 45–46; Fellers and Drost 1991, p.
70). Using aerial photographs of the
island from 1983 and ground surveys,
Fellers and Drost (1991, p. 68) identified
approximately 14.8 ac (6 ha) of highquality habitat on Santa Barbara Island
that included Lycium californicum,
Opuntia spp., and rock outcrops. Lowto moderate-quality habitat on Santa
Barbara Island also contains some
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.,
but is dominated by Coreopsis gigantea,
Eriogonum giganteum var. compactum
(Santa Barbara Island buckwheat), and
Eriophyllum nevinii (silver-lace) (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 70); these native
shrub communities are patchily
distributed in grasslands across a
majority of the island (Halvorson et al.
1988, p. 111).
The National Park Service (NPS) is
preparing a new preliminary vegetative
analysis of Santa Barbara Island, but it
has not been finalized (NPS 2011b, in
litt.). Preliminary results from surveys
conducted in 2010 (in a report not yet
finalized) by the NPS indicate an
increase in high-quality habitat, where
Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.
are dominant or codominant among the
vegetation (NPS 2011b, in litt.). Results
indicate that there are approximately
16.6 ac (6.7 ha) of L. californicum and
9.3 ac (3.8 ha) of Opuntia oricola habitat
where these taxa account for greater
than 39 percent of the vegetative cover
(Rodriguez 2012, pers. obs.). A
preliminary analysis concerning
Cylindropuntia prolifera, another
documented habitat for the lizard, is not
yet available.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Sutil Island
Little is known about the habitat on
Sutil Island. Sutil Island consists of
approximately 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) (Rudolph
2011, pers. obs.), much of it unbroken
bedrock, with some vegetation
identified as island night lizard habitat,
such as low shrubs, Lycium
californicum, and rocks and fissures,
but these are sparsely distributed (Drost
2011, pers. obs.).
Population Density and Abundance
At listing (42 FR 40682), island night
lizard population densities were not
known on any of the inhabited Channel
Islands. Island night lizards appear to
show preference for several habitat
types (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 68;
Mautz 2001a, pp. 17–19); however,
determining an overall population
estimate is difficult due to the sedentary
and reclusive behavior of the species.
The highest lizard population densities
are observed in Lycium californicum
and Opuntia spp. habitats (Fellers and
Drost 1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p.
17). Lizards are found in lower densities
throughout shrub communities, rocky
outcrops, grasslands, and in stands of
Coreopsis gigantea (Service 1984, p. 93;
Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 35; Mautz
2001a, pp. 17–22). Mautz (2004, p. 8)
reported that a large number of lizards
are repeatedly recaptured in survey
traps. High recapture rates, in
conjunction with large survey grids
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
relative to their home range size,
indicate that standardized trapping
provides a good estimate of local
densities (White 1982, p. 130).
Therefore, trapping in suitable cover on
San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands can be a good indicator
of lizard density and overall abundance
(Mautz 2001a, p. 17).
San Clemente Island
Surveys conducted over a 7-year
period indicate that San Clemente
Island contains the largest population of
island night lizards. From 1991 to 1998,
researchers calculated population
densities using data from pitfall traps,
cover boards, and rock turn surveys in
high-quality island night lizard habitat
(Mautz 2001a, pp. 17–23, 43–54). The
Navy conducted similar surveys in 2009
and 2010; as of 2011 (Mautz 2011, pers.
comm.), those results were not yet
analyzed and are not currently
available.
Density estimates were assessed by
analyzing capture rates and markrecapture data, based on the 1991 to
1998 surveys, using three
methodologies: (1) A minimum estimate
measure of the number of animals
intercepted in a single sample; (2) a
Lincoln Index; and (3) a Regression
Index (Mautz 2001a, pp. 21–23). The
minimum estimate measure resulted in
a population of 8.18 million on San
Clemente Island; however, Mautz
(2001a, pp. 20–22) indicated that this
number represents an underestimate
because most of the lizard population is
inaccessible in dense vegetation or
underground, and pitfall traps intercept
only animals active in the immediate
vicinity of the trap. The Lincoln Index
estimated that 16.71 million lizards
occurred on San Clemente Island;
however, Mautz (2001, pp. 43–44) again
cautioned that this method could
underestimate the number of lizards
because inadequate mixing of those
captured lizards back into the
population could result in a higher
proportion of recaptures. The
Regression Index estimated that 25.89
million lizards occurred on San
Clemente Island; however, Mautz (2001,
p. 51) cautioned that this method could
overestimate the number of lizards
because the index requires a closed
sampling population and the extended
period of time of sampling from 1991–
1998 may accommodate an increased
amount of immigration and emigration
on the study plots.
Mautz (2001a, pp. 21–23) suggested
that a reasonable estimate of island
night lizard density on San Clemente
Island could be calculated from the
average between the Lincoln and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7913
Regression Indexes. This calculation
resulted in an estimate of 21.3 million
lizards on the island. Evaluation of the
habitat type where the data was
collected was used to estimate lizard
densities in high-quality habitat: 1,934
lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in Lycium
californicum habitat, 2,558 lizards per
2.47 ac (1 ha) in Opuntia littoralis and
O. oricola habitat, and 1,423 lizards per
2.47 ac (1 ha) in O. prolifera habitat
(Mautz 2001a, p. 23). These high-quality
habitats occur on the lower marine
terraces of the west side of the island
and support approximately half of the
estimated population (10.4 million) of
lizards (Mautz 2001a, p. 29). In the
lower-quality habitat areas, island night
lizards were estimated at 1,142 lizards
per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in upland plateau
grasslands and 926 lizards per 2.47 ac
(1 ha) in scarp grassland and coastal
sage (Mautz 2001a, p. 23). No lizards
were found in canyon woodland and
active sand dunes on the island (Mautz
2001a, p. 23). Because there has not
been a new population estimate or
much change in the quantity of habitat,
the Service and Navy continue to use
the estimate of 21.3 million lizards.
San Nicolas Island
Estimates of the number of island
night lizards on San Nicolas Island have
been assessed from a number of data
collection efforts. The primary study
conducted surveys from 1992 to 1995
using pitfall traps, coverboards, and
Sherman small mammal traps arranged
in transects through suitable habitat and
on the edges of impenetrable habitats
(Fellers et al. 1998, p. 7). That study also
utilized data from surveys conducted by
Tom Murphey from 1984 to 1985
(Fellers et al. 1998, p. 5). Lastly, Fellers
et al. (1998, p. 71) also used grid arrays
conducted from 1992 to 1995, from
some of the areas initially surveyed by
Tom Murphey.
Fellers et al. (1998, p. 46) estimated
the number of lizards on San Nicolas
island and density of lizards in different
habitat types by comparing survey data
from populations on Santa Barbara
Island with aerial photograph estimates
of the habitat on San Nicolas Island.
Overall, lizard abundance on San
Nicolas Island was estimated at 15,300
individuals (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 20).
Island night lizard densities were
estimated at 3,200 lizards per 2.47 ac (1
ha) in Lycium californicum habitat,
2,500 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in
Opuntia spp. habitat, and 200 lizards
per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in mixed-shrub habitat
(Fellers et al. 1998, p. 46). Island night
lizards are found primarily on the
eastern half of San Nicolas Island;
however, the island does support an
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7914
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
exceptionally high density of lizards
(4,000 per 2.47 ac (1 ha)) in cobble and
driftwood habitat found on Redeye
Beach at the northwestern end of the
island (Fellers et al. 1998, pp. 11, 20).
The mixed-shrub habitat is only utilized
by the island night lizard on San
Nicholas Island and it is unknown
whether it supports a self-sustaining
lizard population. Through examination
of aerial photographs and ground
surveying efforts, Fellers et al. (1998, p.
46) estimated approximately 0.13 ac
(0.05 ha) of L. californicum and 1.17 ac
(0.47 ha) of Opuntia spp. existed on San
Nicolas Island.
Subsequent to Fellers et al. (1998),
Junak (2003, p. 7) revised the estimated
amount of Opuntia spp. and Lycium
californicum habitats on San Nicolas
Island, and concluded there were 11.2
ac (4.6 ha) of these habitats available on
the island, compared to 1.3 ac (0.52 ha)
previously. A new population
assessment of island night lizards on
San Nicolas Island has not been
conducted, though we anticipate that
the number of lizards has increased due
to the increase in high-quality habitat.
Currently, the Navy’s 2010 Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP) for San Nicolas Island
continues to use the population size of
approximately 15,000 lizards
established by Fellers et al. (1998, p. 20)
as the current population estimate
(Navy 2010, p. 3–43).
Santa Barbara Island
Surveys to assess island night lizard
population status were conducted on
Santa Barbara Island from 1981 to 1988
using pitfall traps and Sherman small
mammal traps in transects and grid
arrays depending on the island’s
topography (Fellers and Drost 1991, p.
30). Island night lizard densities were
estimated at 3,213 lizards per 2.47 ac (1
ha) in Lycium californicum habitat,
2,476 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in
Opuntia spp. habitat, and 1,665 lizards
per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in rock habitat (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 68). All other habitat
types or vegetative communities on the
island displayed a density of zero
(Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 68). Based on
estimates of available habitat types and
extrapolation of lizard densities within
those habitat types, a total of
approximately 17,600 lizards were
estimated to occur on Santa Barbara
Island in 1991 (Fellers and Drost 1991,
p. 68). A new preliminary vegetative
analysis of Santa Barbara Island is being
drafted and until it is finalized, we will
use Fellers and Drost (1991, p. 68)
density estimates as the most recent
estimate. The Service and NPS continue
to use this estimate, because there has
been little change in the quantity of
habitat available and no additional
population estimates have been
conducted.
Sutil Island
Sutil Island was not known to be
occupied at the time the island night
lizard was listed. In 1978, a survey of
Sutil Island was conducted and 12
lizards were identified (Wilson 1979, as
cited in Power 1979, p. 8.5). In 1991,
Drost (2011, pers. obs.) visited the
island and though there was little
habitat that could be turned or searched,
he observed one lizard in a rock crevice.
He noted that though vegetative cover
on the island was sparse, there were
surface cracks, fissures, and boulder
cover that could provide cover. We have
no surveys for the island night lizard on
Sutil Island since 1978. Because Sutil
Island is within close proximity to Santa
Barbara Island, has very few to no
visitors annually, and like Santa Barbara
Island is managed by the NPS, we will
incorporate Sutil Island in the
discussion of Santa Barbara Island for
the remainder of this document.
TABLE 1—ISLAND SIZE, AMOUNT OF HABITAT, AND POPULATION SIZE OF THE ISLAND NIGHT LIZARD
Island
Size
Amount of high-quality habitat*
San Clemente ..........................................
San Nicolas** ...........................................
Santa Barbara .........................................
37,200 ac (15,054 ha) .............................
14,230 ac (5,698 ha) ...............................
640 ac (259 ha) .......................................
19,640 ac (7,948 ha) ...............................
11.8 ac (4.8 ha) .......................................
25.9 ac (10.5 ha) .....................................
Estimated
population
(million)
21.3
15,300
17,599
* High-quality habitat (Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.).
** Amount of habitat includes cobble and driftwood habitat unique to San Nicolas Island.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Recovery Planning and Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
endangered and threatened species
unless we determine that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the
species. The Act directs that, to the
maximum extent practicable, we
incorporate into each plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions
that may be necessary to achieve the
plan’s goals for conservation and
survival of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria,
which when met would result in a
determination, in accordance with the
provisions of section 4 of the Act, that
the species be removed from the list;
and
(3) Estimates of the time and cost
required to carry out the plan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Revisions to the list (adding,
removing, or reclassifying a species)
must reflect determinations made in
accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and
4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires
that the Secretary determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened (or
not) because of one or more of five
threat factors. Objective, measurable
criteria, or recovery criteria contained in
recovery plans, must indicate when we
would anticipate an analysis of the five
threat factors under section 4(a)(1)
would result in a determination that a
species is no longer endangered or
threatened. Section 4(b) of the Act
requires the determination be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
While recovery plans are intended to
provide guidance to the Service, States,
and other partners on methods of
minimizing threats to listed species and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on criteria that may be used to
determine when recovery is achieved,
they are not regulatory documents and
cannot substitute for the determinations
and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. Determinations to remove a species
from the List made under section 4(a)(1)
of the Act must be based on the best
scientific and commercial data available
at the time of the determination,
regardless of whether that information
differs from the recovery plan.
In the course of implementing
conservation actions for a species, new
information is often gained that requires
recovery efforts to be modified
accordingly. There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species,
and recovery may be achieved without
all criteria being fully met. For example,
one or more recovery criteria may have
been exceeded while other criteria may
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
not have been accomplished, yet the
Service may judge that, overall, the
threats have been minimized
sufficiently, and the species is robust
enough, that the Service may reclassify
the species from endangered to
threatened or perhaps delist the species.
In other cases, recovery opportunities
may have been recognized that were not
known at the time the recovery plan was
finalized. These opportunities may be
used instead of methods identified in
the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species
may be learned that was not known at
the time the recovery plan was
finalized. The new information may
change the extent that recovery criteria
need to be met for recognizing recovery
of the species. Overall, recovery of
species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management, planning,
implementing, and evaluating the
degree of recovery of a species that may,
or may not, fully follow the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
Thus, while a recovery plan provides
important guidance on the direction and
strategy for recovery, and indicates
when a rulemaking process may be
initiated, the determination to remove a
species from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is
ultimately based on an analysis of
whether a species is no longer
endangered or threatened. The
following discussion provides a brief
review of recovery planning for the
island night lizard, as well as an
analysis of the recovery criteria and
goals as they relate to evaluating the
status of the species.
In 1984, the Service published the
Recovery Plan for the Endangered and
Threatened Species of the California
Channel Islands (Recovery Plan) that
addressed three candidate species and
seven federally threatened or
endangered plants and animals,
including the island night lizard,
distributed among three of the Channel
Islands (Service 1984). Given the threats
in common to the 10 species addressed,
the Recovery Plan is broad in scope and
focuses on restoration of habitats and
ecosystem function. The Recovery Plan
included six general objectives covering
all 10 of the plant and animal species:
(1) Identify present adverse impacts to
biological resources and strive to
eliminate them.
(2) Protect known resources from
further degradation by: (a) Removing
feral herbivores, carnivores, and
selected exotic plant species; (b)
controlling unnatural erosion in
sensitive locations; and (c) directing
military operations and adverse
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
recreational uses away from biologically
sensitive areas.
(3) Restore habitats by revegetating
disturbed areas using native species.
(4) Identify areas of San Clemente
Island where habitat restoration and
population increase of certain addressed
taxa may be achieved through a careful
survey of the island and research on
habitat requirements of each taxon.
(5) Delist or upgrade the listing status
of those taxa that achieve vigorous, selfsustaining population levels as the
result of habitat stabilization,
restoration, and preventing or
minimizing adverse human-related
impacts.
(6) Monitor effectiveness of recovery
effort by undertaking baseline
quantitative studies and subsequent
follow-up work (Service 1984, pp. 106–
107).
Our review of the Recovery Plan
focuses on the actions identified that
promote the recovery of the island night
lizard. The Recovery Plan adopts a
generalized strategy to eliminate or
control selected threats associated with
nonnative species, erosion, and habitat
disturbance. Elimination of these threats
and restoration of degraded habitat on
the Channel Islands are necessary for
recovery of the island night lizard. The
Recovery Plan states that ‘‘[o]nce the
threats to these taxa have been removed
or minimized and the habitats are
restored, adequately protected, and
properly managed, reclassification for
some taxa may be considered’’ (Service
1984, p. 108). Actions specified in the
Recovery Plan that are pertinent to
recovery of the threatened island night
lizard include:
(1) Eliminate selected nonnative
species from San Clemente, San Nicolas,
and Santa Barbara Islands.
(2) Conduct a soil survey of San
Clemente Island.
(3) Construct check-dams to control
erosion on San Clemente Island.
(4) Revegetate eroded and disturbed
areas on San Clemente Island.
(5) Conduct specific programs for the
island night lizard once management
recommendations are formulated to
enhance populations.
(6) Provide good-quality habitat for
endangered or threatened birds
(includes expanding Lycium
californicum, which is high-quality
island night lizard habitat).
(7) Modify existing management plans
to minimize habitat disturbance.
(8) Implement policies to minimize
habitat disturbance or loss.
(9) Prevent the introduction of
additional nonnative taxa.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7915
(10) Maintain restriction of
recreational use of Santa Barbara Island
to existing designated trails.
(11) Establish an ecological reserve for
regions of high density of island night
lizards on San Clemente and San
Nicolas Islands.
(12) Determine island night lizard
essential habitat, habitat requirements
and preferences, population size,
distribution, and effects of nonnative
plants on the species and utilize data for
development of habitat
recommendations and habitat
restoration.
(13) Evaluate the success of
management actions.
(14) Increase public support for
recovery efforts.
(15) Use existing laws and regulations
to protect the island night lizard.
Specific criteria for determining when
threats have been removed or
sufficiently minimized for the island
night lizard are not identified in the
Recovery Plan. However, six objectives
are described in general to achieve
recovery of the Channel Island species.
Following are a summary of actions and
activities that have been implemented
according to the 1984 Recovery Plan
(Service 1984, pp. 106–107), and that
contribute to achieve these recovery
objectives.
Objective 1: Identify Present Adverse
Impacts to Biological Resources and
Strive To Eliminate Them
Actions taken by the Navy and NPS
to contribute to achieving this objective
include: education and outreach;
development and implementation of
management plans to identify,
minimize, and address threats;
management, control, and elimination
of nonnative predators, herbivores, and
invasive plants; consultation and
coordination with the Service; and
control of erosion. These actions are
discussed briefly below and in greater
detail in the five-factor analysis.
The Navy has taken steps to eliminate
incidental impacts to the island night
lizard by educating all Navy personnel
stationed on San Clemente and San
Nicolas Islands. All Navy personnel
receive handouts, pamphlets, or posters
presenting information on the
distribution, threats, and management
responsibilities of sensitive resources,
such as federally threatened and
endangered species, including the
island night lizard. The NPS has also
taken steps to eliminate incidental
impacts to the lizard by educating all
visitors to Santa Barbara Island
(including Sutil Island). Brochures
discussing the island’s unique wildlife,
including the island night lizard, as well
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
7916
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
as maps of designated trails that all
visitors must use to decrease
disturbance to wildlife and lessen
damage to resources, are available to all
visitors of the island at the visitors’
center or online at the Channel Islands
National Park’s Web site (https://
www.nps.gov/chis/index.htm).
The Recovery Plan also recommends
that existing laws and regulations be
used to protect candidate, threatened,
and endangered species, including the
island night lizard. Based on the
occurrences of this species on federally
owned land, the primary laws with
potential to protect the island night
lizard include the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Sikes Act Improvement Act, NPS
Organic Act, Federal Noxious Weed Act,
Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act, and the Act.
NEPA requires Federal action
agencies to integrate environmental
values into their decision-making
processes by considering the
environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and reasonable
alternatives to those actions. Since its
enactment in 1970, the Navy has
implemented NEPA for actions on San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, and
the NPS has implemented NEPA for
actions on Santa Barbara Island
(including Sutil Island).
Pursuant to the Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997, the Navy
adopted INRMPs for San Clemente
Island in 2002 and San Nicolas Island
in 2010 that help guide the management
and protection of each island’s natural
resources (Navy 2002; Navy 2010).
INRMPs incorporate to the maximum
extent practicable, ecosystem
management principles and provide the
landscape necessary to sustain military
land uses. Each INRMP includes
specific management actions and
objectives to address the Recovery Plan
task of incorporating recovery actions
into existing management plans (see
Factor D below). Through these
mechanisms, the Navy is required to
identify and address all threats to
federally listed species during the
INRMP planning process. If possible,
threats are ameliorated, eliminated, or
mitigated through this procedure. The
Navy strives to fulfill this objective
through both internal planning (INRMP)
and compliance with Federal law
(consultations with the Service under
the Act and preparing environmental
review documents under NEPA). The
actions taken by the Navy under the
INRMPs have not completely eliminated
all adverse impacts, but many threats to
island night lizards have been greatly
reduced. These contributions to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
elimination of adverse impacts fulfill a
majority of this objective with respect to
island night lizard as stated in the
Recovery Plan.
Since listing of the Island night lizard
under the Act in 1977, the Navy and
NPS have had a history of consultation
and coordination with the Service
regarding the effects of various activities
on the island night lizard on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands.
Objective 2: Protect Known Resources
From Further Degradation by: (a)
Removing Feral Herbivores, Carnivores,
and Selected Exotic Plant Species; (b)
Controlling Unnatural Erosion in
Sensitive Locations; and (c) Directing
Military Operations and Adverse
Recreational Uses Away From
Biologically Sensitive Areas
In 1992, the Navy fulfilled a major
part of this objective by removing the
last of the feral goats and pigs from San
Clemente Island. Currently, the Navy
has an ongoing predator control
program to trap and remove feral cats
and rats from San Clemente Island.
From 2009 to 2010, the Montrose
Settlements Restoration Program
(MSRP) assisted the Navy by removing
all feral cats from San Nicolas Island. In
1981, the last of the European rabbits (a
nonnative herbivore) were removed
from Santa Barbara Island. These
actions to remove predators and
nonnative herbivores, or develop
removal programs for potential
predators, have fulfilled this component
of objective 2 in the Recovery Plan to
remove feral and nonnative animals.
Additionally, the Navy on both San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, in
accordance with the Federal Noxious
Weed Act and through implementation
of the Navy’s INRMPs, conducts actions
to reduce or eliminate all transport of
nonnative plants to each island, and has
facilitated programs to remove
nonnative taxa that currently occur on
the islands. On Santa Barbara Island, the
NPS implements policies and
management activities (in accordance
with the Organic Act) that restrict all
nonnative plant species from the island.
Additionally, in partnership with the
MSRP, nonnative plant removal is
currently occurring on Santa Barbara
Island. These actions to control
nonnative plants on all islands occupied
by the island night lizard have fulfilled
most of this component of objective 2 in
the Recovery Plan to remove exotic
plant species.
The Navy is also taking steps to
minimize the effects of erosion on San
Clemente Island. Erosion control
measures are being incorporated into
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
project designs to minimize the
potential to exacerbate existing erosion
(O’Connor 2009, pers. comm.). Along
with the Navy’s planned expansion of
its military operational areas, the Navy
is developing an erosion control plan
that will minimize soil erosion within
and adjoining the operational areas
(Navy 2008b, pp. 5–30; Service 2008 p.
62). The proposed erosion control plan
includes development and application
of best management practices (BMPs)
such as: establishing setbacks and
buffers from steep slopes, drainages, and
sensitive resources; constructing sitespecific erosion control structures;
conducting revegetation and routine
maintenance; and monitoring and
adjusting the BMPs as appropriate.
While the erosion control plan is being
prepared, the Navy has postponed all
major battalion movements and training,
and is using BMPs to minimize erosion
when creating and approving projects
that might contribute to erosion on the
island. The Navy has taken steps to
reduce the threat of erosion on the
island and contribute to the
achievement of this objective.
Through implementation of INRMPs
on San Clemente and San Nicolas
Islands, the Navy conducts measures to
avoid areas with highly erodible soils.
Additionally, San Clemente has a
nursery to grow native island plants,
which are then used to assist in erosion
control of disturbed sites. San Nicolas
Island has developed a nursery for
similar erosion control measures. On
Santa Barbara Island, NPS requires the
active preservation of soil resources and
the avoidance or minimization of
impacts to soil. These actions to prevent
erosion fulfill this component of
objective 2 of the Recovery Plan.
As recommended by the INRMP, the
Navy established the Island Night
Lizard Management Area (INLMA),
which is avoided to the maximum
extent practicable to assist with the
recovery of the island night lizard and
its habitat. Additionally, through
implementation of INRMPs on both San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, the
Navy defines and marks work areas to
prevent lizard mortality. The NPS has
designated trails on Santa Barbara
Island to allow visitors to view the
island’s ecosystems without being
obtrusive or destructive to the natural
resources. These actions to avoid
biologically sensitive areas fulfill
objective 2 with respect to island night
lizard as stated in the Recovery Plan.
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Objective 3: Restore Habitats by
Revegetating Disturbed Areas Using
Native Species
To restore the structure and function
of native island ecosystems, the Navy,
through implementation of its INRMP
on San Clemente Island, has developed
the Native Habitat Restoration Program
and constructed a native plant nursery
where plants, including species that
provide a benefit to island night lizard
habitat, are grown from seed, and stem
and root cuttings, and outplanted
annually. Additionally, the MSRP
currently grows native plant species in
a nursery on Santa Barbara Island to
support island night lizard restoration
projects. To date, approximately 15,000
native plants, some providing a benefit
to the island night lizard, have been
restored to Santa Barbara Island. These
actions to restore habitat by revegetation
fulfill the objective as stated in the
Recovery Plan.
Objective 4: Identify Areas of San
Clemente Island Where Habitat
Restoration and Population Increase of
Certain Addressed Taxa May Be
Achieved Through a Careful Survey of
the Island and Research on Habitat
Requirements of Each Taxon
Since listing, research on the life
history and biology of the island night
lizard has been ongoing on San
Clemente Island. Research has
determined the island night lizard’s
distribution and density in various
habitats on San Clemente Island (Mautz
1993; Mautz 2001a). Additionally, the
Navy developed the INLMA (as part of
the 2002 INRMP) to conserve the largest
area of high-quality habitat with the
highest densities of island night lizards.
The Navy currently avoids and
minimizes impacts to the lizard for any
projects or training activities proposed
in this area through consultation with
the Service. Thus, these actions
completely fulfill the objective as stated
in the Recovery Plan.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Objective 5: Delist or Upgrade the
Listing Status of Those Taxa That
Achieve Vigorous, Self-Sustaining
Population Levels as the Result of
Habitat Stabilization, Restoration, and
Preventing or Minimizing Adverse
Human-Related Impacts
Since listing, threats to the island
night lizard have been largely
ameliorated, including removal of all
nonnative herbivores from San
Clemente and Santa Barbara Islands and
removal of feral cats from San Nicolas
Island. Given that habitat types that are
strongly associated with island night
lizards appear to be increasing slowly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
through natural recovery and restoration
projects, as well as the amelioration of
all substantial threats to the island night
lizard, the populations on the three
islands appear to be stable. Remaining
threats, such as nonnative plants, land
use and development, fire, and erosion,
are potentially of concern, but are
actively managed through
implementation of management plans
and measures described in the Navy’s
INRMPs and NPS’s management
policies and active management plans.
Thus, the objective to improve the status
of the island night lizard to the point it
can be delisted has been fully met.
Objective 6: Monitor Effectiveness of
Recovery Effort by Undertaking Baseline
Quantitative Studies and Subsequent
Follow-Up Work
Since listing and publication of the
Recovery Plan, island night lizard
monitoring has been conducted on San
Clemente Island, with one assessment of
the population estimated at
approximately 21.3 million island night
lizards. Although no subsequent
population assessments have occurred
since 2001, ongoing monitoring of
individual body condition and neonateto-juvenile ratios indicates the density
of island night lizards still strongly
corresponds to certain vegetation types.
Assessments of the extent and quality of
those habitats have been conducted
more recently, as discussed below in
more detail.
San Clemente Island supports the
largest amount of high-quality island
night lizard habitat. Monitoring from
1992 to 2008 has shown fluctuating
short-term trends, but no clear long-term
trend, in Opuntia spp. or Lycium
californicum habitats on San Clemente
Island (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, pp. 48–
67). However, there was an approximate
6 percent reduction of L. californicum
and 10 percent reduction of Opuntia
spp. in percent cover of those habitats
on the island (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, pp.
48–67). This reduction was likely due to
high rainfall experienced in the baseline
years from 1991 to 1993, in comparison
to subsequent rainfall (Tierra Data Inc.
2010, p. 125). While research has not
indicated how this reduction in cover
affects island night lizard populations,
monitoring surveys and estimates of
island night lizard populations indicate
the species remains abundant in
suitable habitat. We expect continued
monitoring on San Clemente Island,
including that associated with ongoing
and proposed habitat restoration
projects, to show island night lizard
populations remaining stable or
increasing on the island. These
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7917
monitoring efforts fulfill the objective as
stated in the Recovery Plan.
On San Nicolas Island, there has been
one assessment of the island night
lizard’s population in 1998 and two
assessments of the vegetation associated
with high densities of island night
lizards. The first vegetation assessment
was conducted in 1998 by Fellers et al.
(1998). A second vegetation assessment
was conducted in 2003 by Junak (2003,
p. 7), which indicated an increase in
high-quality Opuntia spp. and L.
californicum habitats from 1.9 ac (0.8
ha) in 1998 to 11.2 ac (4.6 ha). This
increase was probably due to more
current data and better mapping
technology. Monitoring of lizards on
San Nicolas Island will be conducted
every 5 years by the U.S. Geological
Survey in connection with proposed
habitat restoration projects (Navy 2010,
p. 4.55). Because this species population
is strongly correlated with abundance of
habitat, and we have seen an increase in
available habitat, we expect island night
lizard populations to remain stable or
increase in number on the island. These
monitoring efforts fulfill the objective as
stated in the Recovery Plan.
On Santa Barbara Island, there has
been one assessment of the island night
lizard population and two assessments
of the amount of high-quality habitat
consisting of Opuntia spp. and Lycium
californicum. The first habitat
assessment was conducted from an
examination of aerial photographs from
1983 and indicated a total of 14.8 ac (6.0
ha) of L. californicum and Opuntia spp.
habitats (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 31).
However, a new preliminary draft
assessment indicates that approximately
16.6 ac (6.7 ha) of L. californicum and
9.3 ac (3.8 ha) of O. oricola habitats exist
in which these species comprise greater
than 39 percent of the vegetative cover
(Rodriguez 2012, pers. obs.).
Additionally, the MSRP continues to
restore native habitat on Santa Barbara
Island, including species that provide
moderate-quality habitat for the island
night lizard. Therefore, we expect the
island night lizard population to remain
stable or increase on Santa Barbara
Island. These monitoring actions fulfill
this objective as stated in the Recovery
Plan.
Summary of Recovery Plan
Implementation
In summary, while the Recovery Plan
does not include taxon-specific
downlisting or delisting criteria for the
island night lizard, many of the actions
identified in the Recovery Plan have
been implemented to benefit the lizard.
With the exception of a few
recommended recovery actions that are
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7918
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
still ongoing, nearly all recovery
objectives have been fulfilled through
research and monitoring efforts on all
occupied islands, implementation of the
Navy’s INRMPs on San Clemente and
San Nicolas Islands, and NPS’s
management policies on Santa Barbara
Island. Most significantly, the Navy
removed feral goats and pigs from San
Clemente Island in 1992. There are
currently a number of programs in place
to improve habitat suitability, prevent
introduction of nonnative species, guide
and track management efforts, and
protect occurrences of the island night
lizard. We investigated other potential
threats to the lizard and concluded that
they do not pose significant impacts. As
a result of the management actions
conducted by the Navy and NPS,
substantial threats have been
ameliorated throughout the species’
range and the majority of objectives
discussed in the Recovery Plan are
fulfilled.
Based on our review of the Recovery
Plan, we conclude that the status of the
island night lizard has improved due to
past and current activities being
implemented by the Navy and NPS, and
the objectives of the Recovery Plan have
been met. The effects of these activities
on the status of island night lizard are
discussed in further detail below.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for adding species to, reclassifying
species on, or removing species from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (List). We may
determine a species 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. The five listing factors
are: (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; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. We must consider these same
five factors in delisting a species. We
may delist a species according to 50
CFR 424.11(d), if the best available
scientific and commercial data indicate
that the species is neither endangered
nor threatened for the following reasons:
(1) The species is extinct; (2) the species
has recovered and is no longer
endangered or threatened; or (3) the
original scientific data used at the time
the species was classified were in error.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
The five factors listed under section
4(a)(1) of the Act and their analyses in
relation to the island night lizard are
presented below. This analysis of
threats requires an evaluation of both
the threats currently facing the
subspecies and the threats that could
potentially affect it in the foreseeable
future, following the delisting and the
removal of the Act’s protections.
The Act defines an endangered
species as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)).
A threatened species is one that is likely
to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(20)). The word ‘‘range’’
refers to the range in which the species
currently exists, and the word
‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that
portion of the range being considered to
the conservation of the species. The
‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the period of
time over which events or effects
reasonably can or should be anticipated,
or trends extrapolated.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond
the exposure of the species to a
particular factor to evaluate whether the
species may respond to the factor in a
way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat, and during the
status review, we attempt to determine
how significant a threat it is. The threat
is significant if it drives or contributes
to the risk of extinction of the species,
such that the species warrants listing as
endangered or threatened as those terms
are defined by the Act. However, the
identification of factors that could
impact a species negatively may not be
sufficient to compel a finding that the
species warrants listing. The
information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that the potential
threat is likely to materialize and that it
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of
sufficient magnitude and extent) to
affect the species’ status such that it
meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682),
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range was identified as a factor
affecting the island night lizards on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands. Threats attributed to
this factor included the introduction of
nonnative herbivores and the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
continuing negative effects of
overgrazing on the native vegetation,
including those plants identified as
island night lizard habitat (42 FR 40682,
pp. 40683–40684). The introduction of
nonnative plant species was also
discussed in the listing rule (42 FR
40682, p. 40684), although under the
Factor E section. Since listing, and as
identified in the 2006 5-year review of
the island night lizard (Service 2006,
pp. 10–24), threats from nonnative
plants, land use or development, and
fire also were considered potential
threats to island night lizard habitat and
are discussed under Factor A. The 2012
5-year review addressed the potential
threat of erosion to island night lizard
habitat or range under Factor A (Service
2012a, pp. 26–27), and thus it is also
included in this discussion. And finally,
we include discussion on potential
impacts of climate change to habitat
under Factor A (as well as Factor E as
it relates to impacts to individuals of the
species itself).
Nonnative Animals
At listing we determined that
overgrazing by introduced nonnative
herbivores was a threat to the island
night lizard on all occupied islands
throughout the species’ range (42 FR
40682, pp. 40683–40684). Nonnative
herbivores were introduced to San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands during the mid-1800s to
the mid-1900s, resulting in the
degradation of lizard habitat (42 FR
40682, pp. 40682–40683; Navy 2002,
pp. 3.34–3.35; Navy 2005, p. 7). In both
the 2006 and 2012 5-year reviews, the
Service reported that all nonnative
herbivores had been removed from these
islands and concluded that habitat
destruction or modification from the
introduction of nonnative herbivores
was no longer a threat to the species
now or in the future (Service 2006, pp.
11–12; Service 2012a, p. 19).
San Clemente Island
Introduced nonnative herbivores and
omnivores have historically and
adversely impacted the quantity and
quality of habitat and food sources for
the island night lizard on San Clemente
Island. The last of the nonnative grazing
animals was removed from San
Clemente Island by 1992; however, the
effects of overgrazing, such as depletion
of native plants, remain prominent on
the central plateau and terraces between
canyons on the southern portion of the
island. To monitor the response of
vegetation to the removal of these
nonnative grazers, the Navy
implemented a long-term monitoring
program from 1992 to 2008 (Tierra Data
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Inc. 2010). The analysis from the
monitoring program indicated a slight
reduction in the percent cover of
Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.
habitats on San Clemente Island. This
apparent decline is likely due to an
overestimate in the baseline years from
1991 to 1993 resulting from higher
rainfall, compared to a reduction in
rainfall in subsequent years (Tierra Data
Inc. 2010, pp. 48–67). This slight
reduction in percent cover is not a cause
for concern because this habitat remains
well-distributed across the western
terraces of the island where there was
less grazing impact and where the Navy
has established the INLMA. The Navy
has no intention of reintroducing large
nonnative herbivores to San Clemente
Island and has a ‘‘no pets policy’’ to
control the introduction of any
nonnative species (Navy 2002, p. 3.119).
Because the major threat to habitat
(nonnative herbivores) has been
eliminated and the Navy has an active
habitat management and restoration
program, as described below, we expect
the amount and distribution of habitat
to remain relatively stable in the future,
although some fluctuation is expected
related to variable rainfall.
To restore the structure and function
of native island ecosystems impacted by
nonnative herbivores, the Navy
implements a Native Habitat Restoration
Program (NHRP) on San Clemente
Island (Navy 2002, p. 3.51). As part of
that program, the Navy operates a native
plant nursery that supports habitat
restoration projects for native species
such as the San Clemente Island
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus
mearnsi) and island night lizard. Plants
propagated at the nursery include
species that benefit the island night
lizard, such as Lycium californicum,
Artemisia californica, and Coreopsis
gigantea (Navy 2002, p. 3.51). The Navy
outplants at several locations each year
to promote native species (Munson
2011, pers. obs.). The Navy has also
planted L. californicum at Wilson Cove
on the northeastern side of San
Clemente Island for restoration of areas
disturbed by military activities (Munson
2011, pers. obs.). These restoration
efforts implemented by the Navy have
improved the abundance of native
habitat on San Clemente Island and
have provided a benefit to multiple
species, including the island night
lizard.
San Nicolas Island
Although nonnative herbivores were
not present on San Nicolas Island at the
time of listing (42 FR 40682), the island
has a history of grazing activities prior
to listing that resulted in impacts on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
native plant communities. The
compounding effects of overgrazing and
wind erosion allowed for the emergence
of sand dunes on San Nicolas Island,
which do not provide habitat for island
night lizards (Dunkle 1950, p. 262;
Schwartz 1994, p. 173). More recently,
in 2011, the Navy completed a
Biosecurity Plan for San Nicolas Island
to prevent the transport and
establishment of nonnative vertebrate
species on the island (Navy 2011, p. 1)
(See discussion under Factor C: Disease
or Predation below). The goal is to
protect the existing biodiversity on the
island by preventing further degradation
of habitat on the island from grazing
activities now and in the future.
Additionally, the Navy is in the process
of developing a habitat management and
restoration program to improve the
abundance of native plant species on
the island. To assist in habitat
restoration activities on San Nicolas
Island (see Land Use and Development
section below), the Navy has created a
plant nursery that will yield plants,
including species identified as
components of island night lizard
habitat for future restoration projects on
San Nicolas Island (Ruane 2013, pers.
comm.).
We anticipate no future impacts to
island night lizard habitat as a result of
nonnative herbivores, and we expect the
amount and distribution of habitat to
remain relatively stable in the future
(although some fluctuation is expected
related to variable rainfall) because: (1)
The major threat to habitat (nonnative
herbivores) was eliminated from San
Nicolas Island, thus preventing further
reduction of lizard habitat from this
threat; and (2) the Navy is in the process
of developing a habitat management and
restoration program.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Island night lizard habitat on Santa
Barbara Island was modified due to the
introduction of nonnative herbivores
such as European rabbits, which heavily
impacted the quantity and quality of
habitat for the island night lizard.
European rabbits were removed from
Santa Barbara Island by 1981 (Sumner
1959, p. 5; Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 70,
p. 354; Knowlton et al. 2007, p. 535).
The NPS currently has a nonnative
species prevention policy that restricts
bringing any animal onto the island
(NPS 2012). Since the removal of
nonnative herbivores, Santa Barbara
Island native plant communities, such
as Artemisia spp., Lycium californicum,
and others, have shown resurgence and
are increasing in extent (Fellers and
Drost 1991, p. 70). Research conducted
on Santa Barbara Island from 1982 to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7919
2002 showed an increase in native
island night lizard plant communities of
Opuntia littoralis and Eriogonum
giganteum, but a decline in O. prolifera
(Corry 2006, pp. 51–53).
Since 2007, the MSRP has conducted
native plant restoration projects on
Santa Barbara Island (Harvey and
Barnes 2009, pp. 15–22) to benefit
Xantus’s Murrelet (Synthiliboramphus
hypoleucus) and Cassin’s Auklet
(Ptychoramphus aleuticus) (Harvey and
Barnes 2009, p. 4). Many of the native
plants used in these restoration projects
also provide island night lizard habitat,
such as low- to moderate-quality habitat
(Coreopsis gigantea, Eriogonum
giganteum var. compactum, Deinandra
clementine, Eriophyllum nevinii,
Artemisia nesiotica (sage), and
Baccharis pilularis) and high-quality
habitat (Lycium californicum) (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 34; Fellers et al.
1998, pp. 11–12; Harvey and Barnes
2009, p. 7; Mautz 2001a, p. 23; Navy
2005, p. 30). Since 2007, the MSRP has
restored approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of
native habitat on Santa Barbara Island,
consisting of approximately 15,000
native plants (Little 2011, pers. obs.).
Because the major threat to habitat
(nonnative herbivores) has been
eliminated and the NPS has an active
habitat management and restoration
program, we expect the amount and
distribution of habitat to remain
relatively stable in the future.
Nonnative Plants
At listing, the introduction of
nonnative plants was noted as having
adversely impacted all California
Channel Islands (42 FR 40682, p.
40684). While the introduction of
nonnative herbivores impacted much of
the native vegetation, nonnative plants
introduced to the islands have also
modified habitat for the island night
lizard. In the 2006 5-year review, we
noted that nonnative plant species may
alter ecosystem dynamics by changing
soil nitrogen cycling, and may compete
with native plants for space or other
resources such as light, water, and
nutrients (Service 2006, p. 12).
Nonnative plant species can also alter
ecological processes such as fire
frequency that otherwise could affect
the persistence of the island night lizard
(Navy 2002, p. 3.114). Low densities of
lizards observed in some of the
nonnative plant communities suggest
that modification of the native plant
communities can reduce the available
resources for this taxon. The 2006 and
2012 5-year reviews of the island night
lizard found that habitat destruction or
modification from the introduction of
nonnative plants is of potential concern,
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7920
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
introduction of nonnative plants to San
Clemente Island are many, including
human activities and seeds deposited by
birds. Due to the continued risk of
nonnative plant species, the Navy
monitors for new introductions and
when found, treats them appropriately
San Clemente Island
(Service 2008, pp. 58–59). In accordance
Nonnative plants were introduced to
with the Federal Noxious Weed Act and
San Clemente Island approximately 200 as implemented through objectives set
years ago and, in combination with
forth within the Navy’s INRMP, the
periods of extended drought and
Navy continues to reduce the risk of
overgrazing in the late-1800s, have
introducing additional nonnative plants
changed the composition and structure
to San Clemente Island and manage the
of the vegetative communities on the
removal of nonnative plant taxa already
island (Navy 2002, p. 3.31). The
occurring on the island (Navy 2002, p.
introduction of nonnative plant species
3.116). The Navy’s objectives on San
to the island has resulted in the loss of
Clemente Island are as follows:
adequate shrub cover and proliferation
(1) Use of only native species in
of annual grasses on parts of San
landscaping (Navy 2002, p. 3.116); and
Clemente Island (Service 1997, p. 7).
(2) Wash all vehicles and equipment
The most noticeable changes have
used in construction or training
occurred in the northern grasslands and activities prior to coming onto the
dune systems (Navy 2002, p. 3.31).
island, including high-pressure spraying
Nonnative plant introduction can
to the underside and wheel wells to
occur on San Clemente Island as a result remove mud and weed seed (Navy 2002,
of equipment and materials transported
p. 3.116).
to the island from the mainland (Service
Additional nonnative plant
1997, p. 7) and potentially seeds
management techniques described
deposited by birds. Seeds and
within the INRMP include: Controlled
propagules of nonnative plants adhere
burns, mechanical removal, and
to vehicles in mud or soil, and can also
herbicide treatment (Navy 2002, pp.
be brought onto the island in gravel
3.115–3.116). Although nonnative
used for road maintenance (Service
plants will continue to pose a risk to
1997, p. 7). The predominant nonnative island night lizard habitat, the Navy has
plant species on San Clemente Island
taken steps to curtail habitat and plant
include Foeniculum vulagare (fennel),
community alteration by nonnative
Carpobrotus spp. (iceplant), Salsola spp. plants and such steps are expected to
(Russian thistle), and several abundant
continue into the future.
nonnative annual grasses (Service 1997,
The Navy has implemented an NHRP
p. 7).
on San Clemente Island to restore the
Research evaluating the percent cover structure and function of native island
of nonnative plant species in plot
ecosystems (Navy 2002, p. 3.51). To
transects on San Clemente Island was
assist the NHRP, the Navy has
conducted from 1992 to 1996, 2000,
constructed a native plant nursery
2002, 2003, 2006, and 2008 (Tierra Data where plants are currently grown from
Inc. 2010, p. 26). Although likely
seed or stem and root cuttings (see
attributed to higher rainfall totals from
discussion above in the Nonnative
1991 to 1993 compared with drought
Animals section). Impacts to island
conditions from 2002 to 2003 and in
night lizard habitat from nonnative
2006, results indicate an approximately
plants may be a persistent low-level
20 percent decrease in percent cover
threat, but due to implementation of the
among nonnative plant species, from
Navy’s INRMP, current nonnative
baseline data collected during the 1992
species management, and native species
to 1993 field season (Tierra Data Inc.
restoration, nonnative species are not
2010, p. 125).
currently, nor do we see them becoming
Habitat destruction or modification
in the future, a substantial threat to the
from nonnative plants is a potential
lizard on San Clemente Island.
concern, but not currently a substantial
San Nicolas Island
threat to the island night lizard due to
The introduction of nonnative plants,
current management efforts on San
combined with the effect of nonnative
Clemente Island. Although previous
herbivores on San Nicolas Island, has
invasions of nonnative plants probably
occurred through introduction of plants limited the quantity of high-quality
island night lizard habitat. The most
preferred for livestock grazing, current
recent information indicates that just
nonnative species invasions are
typically introduced by equipment used over half of the 278 plant taxa on San
Nicolas Island are nonnative species,
during military activities on the island.
and that San Nicolas Island has the
The potential pathways for the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
but due to current management and
preventative actions implemented on all
occupied islands, is not a substantial
threat to the species throughout its
range now and in the future (Service
2006, p. 13; Service 2012a, pp. 20–22).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
highest proportion (approximately 51
percent) of nonnative plant taxa of any
of the eight Channel Islands (Junak
2008, p. 67).
Many potential pathways exist for the
introduction of nonnative plants to San
Nicolas Island, including human
activities and seeds deposited by birds.
Due to the continued risk of nonnative
plant species being introduced to the
island, the Navy monitors for nonnative
plant introductions and when found,
treats them appropriately (Service 2008,
pp. 58–59).
In accordance with the Federal
Noxious Weed Act, and as implemented
through objectives set forth within the
Navy’s INRMP, the Navy continues to
reduce the risk of introducing additional
nonnative plants to San Nicolas Island
and manage the removal of nonnative
plant taxa already occurring on the
island (Navy 2010, p. 4.75–4.76). The
Navy’s objectives on San Nicolas Island
are as follows:
(1) Require vehicles and equipment to
be cleaned prior to shipment to the
island and between uses at different
island construction sites, document that
all gravel and fill materials brought to
the island are certified weed free, and
prohibit the use of nonnative plants for
landscaping unless specifically
approved by the Environmental
Division (Navy 2010, p. 4.75).
(2) Require that native plant species
be used for landscaping unless
specifically approved (Navy 2010, p.
4.76).
(3) Inspect barge and aircraft before
they leave the mainland or for transport
arriving directly from other ports or
airports, inspect prior to disembarking
on San Nicolas Island (Navy 20010, p.
4.76).
Additionally, the Navy treats and
monitors select nonnative species
annually on San Nicolas Island, such as
Brassica tournefortii (Saharan mustard)
and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel) (Ruane
2011, pers. obs.). We anticipate that
implementation and continued efforts in
the future of the measures described
above will remove existing nonnative
plants and reduce the rate of
introduction of these nonnatives on San
Nicolas Island. Therefore, we do not
consider nonnative species to be a
substantial threat to the lizard now or in
the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Historically, Santa Barbara Island
consisted of a native shrubland that
provided habitat for the island night
lizard; however, the introduction of
nonnative herbivores and nonnative
plants to the island has modified the
native habitat to a more herbaceous-
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
dominated habitat that is not as readily
used by the lizard (Halvorson et al.
1988, p. 109). The native scrub cover
that once dominated Santa Barbara
Island is currently inundated by a
nonnative annual grassland community
throughout half of the eastern terrace of
the island (Halvorson et al. 1988, p.
113). Transect data collected on Santa
Barbara Island from 1984 to 2002
indicated a reduction in percent cover
of some native plants (Hemizonia
clementina and Opuntia prolifera) that
provide low- to moderate-quality habitat
for the island night lizard (Corry and
McEachern 2009, p. 208). However, data
indicate an increase in average
combined and percent cover for many
other native plant species on the island
that provide habitat for the island night
lizard (Coreopsis gigantea, Baccharis
pilularis, Eriogonum giganteum v.
compactum, Opuntia littoralis, and
Lycium californicum) (U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) 2001, p. 6, Appendix A;
Corry and McEachern 2009, pp. 206–
208). Recovery of low- to moderatequality island night lizard habitat is
expected to occur through the natural
expansion of native shrub habitat into
nonnative grasslands (USGS 2001, p. 6).
The NPS recognizes the potential
threat of nonnative plant species and is
taking steps to reduce the risk of new
introductions. Current NPS management
policy, in accordance with the NPS
Organic Act, dictates that the NPS will
control detrimental nonnative species
for the protection of native species’
habitats (NPS 2006b, p. 45). In 2007, the
MSRP began propagating a native stock
of seeds (which were previously
collected on Santa Barbara Island) at the
Channel Islands National Park
greenhouse (Harvey and Barnes 2009, p.
7). Species propagated at the greenhouse
included those found within low- to
moderate-quality island night lizard
habitat, such as Coreopsis gigantea,
Eriogonum giganteum var. compactum,
Deinandra clementina, Eriophyllum
nevinii, Artemisia nesiotica, Baccharis
pilularis, and high-quality habitat, such
as Lycium californicum (Fellers and
Drost 1991, p. 34; Fellers et al. 1998, pp.
11–12; Mautz 2001a, p. 23, Navy 2005,
p. 30). To date, the MSRP has restored
approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of native
habitat for seabirds on Santa Barbara
Island (Little 2011, pers. obs.). This
restoration effort has outplanted
approximately 15,000 native plants to
the island, some of which as discussed
above, provide habitat for island night
lizards (Little 2011, pers. obs.).
Additionally, from 2007 to 2011 the
NPS in coordination with the MSRP
conducted nonnative plant species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
removal from Santa Barbara Island on
4.5 ac (1.8 ha) (Harvey 2012, pers.
comm.). The NPS began drafting a
General Management Plan for the
Channel Islands that will address the
continuing effort to monitor and restore
native vegetation on Santa Barbara
Island (Faulkner 2011, pers. comm.);
this plan is not yet completed. Due to
current and future management efforts
described above, we do not consider
nonnative species a substantial threat to
the lizard on Santa Barbara Island now
or in the future.
Land Use and Development
At listing (42 FR 40682), the
destruction or modification of habitat
from land use and development was not
identified as a threat to the island night
lizard. The 2006 and 2012 island night
lizard 5-year reviews concluded that
land use and development is not a
substantial threat to the species or its
habitat on any of the three occupied
islands (Service 2006, p. 18; Service
2012a, pp. 22–24).
San Clemente Island
San Clemente Island is owned and
administered by the Navy and provides
operating facilities and support services
for the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Activities on
and around the island include aviation
training, undersea warfare, amphibious
warfare, special warfare, and Joint Task
Force exercises (Navy 2002, pp. 2.1–
2.2). There are more than 300 buildings
and structures on the island, including
an airstrip on the far northern part of the
island. Several quarries and borrow pits
are used to provide materials for road
construction and maintenance.
Intensive training, foot traffic, and
construction activities impact island
night lizards in the areas where such
activities occur. However, most of the
buildings and structures are located on
the far northern and far southern parts
of San Clemente Island, while most of
the high-quality Lycium californicum
and Opuntia spp. habitats are found on
the western portion of the island (Navy
2002, pp. 2–14). The western portion of
the island receives little training use
because it is recognized by the Navy to
contain high-quality lizard habitat
(Navy 2002, p. 3.82). The INLMA was
created on this portion of the island to
provide a focus area for island night
lizard management activities (see Factor
D), including habitat restoration, to
offset the effects of surface-disturbing
construction projects (Service 2008, p.
200).
In 2008, the Navy initiated
consultation with the Service, pursuant
to section 7 of the Act, for proposed new
training activities for San Clemente
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7921
Island (Service 2008, p. 11). Many of the
proposed activities covered by the
consultation occur in areas already
receiving sustained use by the military
(Service 2008, p. 10). We estimated that
from 2009 to 2014, approximately 2.5
percent of the island night lizard
population on San Clemente Island
could incidentally be harmed or killed
through modification of habitat
resulting from these proposed activities.
These adverse impacts were associated
with increased fires, off-road assault
vehicle use, construction of buildings,
and other military-related activities
(Service 2008, pp. 10, 206). However,
we concluded that this potential loss
would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species or appreciably
reduce its recovery (Service 2008, pp.
205, 209).
While island night lizard habitat loss
and disturbance occur on San Clemente
Island as a result of military land use
and development projects such as
training and testing activities, the
impacts of these activities are of minor
consequence given the size of the
island, the amount of suitable habitat
that remains for the species, the
distribution of the island night lizard
population across the island, the size of
the species’ population on the island,
and the avoidance of areas designated
for island night lizard management.
Therefore, we do not consider land use
and development a substantial threat to
the island night lizard or its habitat on
San Clemente Island now or in the
future.
San Nicolas Island
Since 1944, San Nicolas Island has
been part of the Naval Air Warfare
Center Weapons Division Sea Range,
managed by the Naval Air Weapons
Station at China Lake, California. The
island currently houses approximately
200 Navy personnel that occasionally
conduct small-scale training exercises.
The island also serves as a launch
platform for missile testing (Navy 2002,
p. 10). Facilities on the island are used
to conduct radar tracking and control,
range surveillance, telemetry, and
communications for weapons testing
(Navy 2005, pp. 6, 10). There are
approximately 156 buildings and
structures on San Nicolas Island, along
with 47 mi (76 km) of paved and
unpaved roads (Navy 2005, p. 6.)
Additionally, a 10,000-foot (ft) (3,048meter (m)) concrete and asphalt runway
occupies a mesa on the eastern part of
the island and, in 1989, a missile testing
and pilot training impact area was
established (Navy 2005, pp. 6, 19).
Since listing, some permanent loss of
island night lizard habitat has occurred
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
7922
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
from the development of structures and
mission-essential activities. Island night
lizards and their habitats do not
generally occur in launching areas and
thus are not likely to be affected by the
activities that occur there (Service 2001,
p. 19). Of the 11 patches of high-quality
habitat identified by Fellers et al. (1998,
p. 61), 1 is in close proximity to the
airstrip and 3 others are in the
proximity of existing structures (Navy
2005, p. 8). On average, less than five
projects per year have potential to
impact lizards, such that relocation of
individuals may be required into
adjacent habitat. Most of those projects
are generally small—approximately 0.01
ac (0.004 ha) (Smith 2009, pers. comm.).
Habitat is re-created in these
circumstances by piling cut Opuntia
spp. pads on top of boards and placing
them into the adjacent area (Smith 2009,
pers. comm.). The wooden boards
provide temporary habitat for the lizards
while the Opuntia spp. cuttings take
root. Island night lizards have not been
monitored after relocations; thus, there
is no information available to determine
the success of these actions. Although
high-quality Opuntia spp. and Lycium
californicum habitats are limited on San
Nicolas Island, overall land use on the
island is not intensive and measures are
implemented consistent with the
INRMP to try to safely relocate island
night lizards that may be impacted by
projects.
As part of a consultation with the
Service on the effects of a new wind
energy project on San Nicolas Island, a
biological opinion (8–8–10–F–35) was
completed on August 26, 2010, and
subsequently amended (814402011–F–
0060) on April 22, 2011. During a 4- to
5-year span beginning in 2010, the Navy
will install up to 11 wind-powered
turbines and an energy storage facility
on San Nicolas Island (Service 2010, p.
3). The Service expects this wind energy
project to adversely affect the island
night lizard by increasing indirect
effects of predation by American kestrel
(Falco sparverius) and barn owls (Tyto
alba), causing injury or death of
individual lizards by foot traffic and
construction, and habitat loss and loss
of habitat connectivity (Service 2011,
pp. 5–7). However, the Navy will
implement numerous measures in
accordance with management practices
stated in the INRMP to reduce the
project’s effects on the island night
lizard: avoidance and minimization
measures (including capture and
relocation); species monitoring;
management of nonnative plant species;
erosion control; and contaminant
cleanup (Service 2011, p. 5). We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
concluded in that biological opinion
that we do not expect the effects of the
proposed project to jeopardize the
continued existence of the island night
lizard (Service 2011, p. 8).
While island night lizard habitat loss
and disturbance occurs on San Nicolas
Island as a result of military land use
and development, the impacts of these
activities are minimal and the Navy
conducts adequate management efforts
to minimize the effects on the island
night lizard. Therefore, we do not
consider land use and development a
substantial threat to the island night
lizard or its habitat on San Nicolas
Island now or in the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Minimal land use activities have
occurred on Santa Barbara Island.
Farming occurred on Santa Barbara
Island from the mid-1800s to early
1900s when portions of the east and
west terraces were cleared for
agriculture; however, the farming effort
was largely unsuccessful and it appears
that all farming practices ceased by 1926
(Corry 2006, p. 19). Santa Barbara Island
is now managed as a unit of the NPS,
with land management focused on the
preservation of natural, archaeological,
and aesthetic resources (NPS 2006b, pp.
44–62). A visitor center and camping
area is located in proximity to a cove
area that serves as a landing spot for
visitors to the island (NPS 2011a).
Public use of the island is limited to
primitive camping, hiking, wildlife
observation, and other nonconsumptive
uses (NPS 20011b). With the exception
of potential fire caused by humanrelated activities (see Fire discussion
below), land use is not a substantial
threat to the island night lizard or its
habitat on Santa Barbara Island due to
active management efforts, existing
regulatory mechanisms (see discussion
of the Organic Act below under Factor
D), and current management policies,
which are expected to continue in the
future.
Fire
At listing (42 FR 40682), fire was not
identified as a threat to the island night
lizard or its habitat. Historically,
ranching operations were conducted on
San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands,
with vegetation periodically burned to
facilitate planting of feed crops for
nonnative herbivores (Navy 2002, p.
3.28; Navy 2005, p. 7). Fire would
normally be a rare occurrence on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands, but human use and
occupancy of the islands have increased
the incidence of wildfires on all three
islands to varying degrees.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Since the time of listing, we have
identified fire as a potential impact to
island night lizard. On San Clemente
and San Nicolas Islands, this potential
threat is associated with military
activities and the introduction of
nonnative annual grasses, which
increase the availability of readily
flammable fuels (Service 2006, p. 13;
Service 2012a, pp. 25–27). Vegetative
communities including Lycium
californicum, Opuntia prolifera, and
Coreopsis gigantea, which support
moderate to high island night lizard
densities, are intolerant of and not well
adapted to fire (Navy 2002, pp. 3.59–
3.61; Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 483, 588,
600). However, Opuntia littoralis may
be more tolerant of fire, though it is not
fire-dependent for germination (Navy
2002, pp. 3.60–3.61). Where fires do
occur, they may destroy lizard habitat
which reduces cover that assists with
thermoregulation, increases exposure to
predators, creates a short-term reduction
in prey availability, and potentially
harms individuals (Mautz 2001, p. 27;
Service 2006, p. 13). Although the
potential for fire exists on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands, it is not considered a
substantial threat. The potential for
human-caused ignition on San Nicolas
Island and Santa Barbara Island is
considered low due to the limited
amount of human activities that might
initiate a fire. In addition, all islands
currently implement fire management
policies, as discussed below under each
island description (Service 2006, pp.
13–15; Service 2012a, pp. 25–27).
San Clemente Island
The use of San Clemente Island for
military training and testing has led to
a higher number of fires on the island
than would otherwise be expected to
occur naturally as a result of lightning.
Military activities contribute to fires that
may adversely affect listed plants and
wildlife on San Clemente Island
(Service 2008, p. 3). The southern
portion of the island has the greatest
risk due to the ship-to-shore
bombardment that occurs in the area
(Service 2008, pp. 56–57). Additionally,
the presence of combustible nonnative
grasses in combination with military
activities could increase fire frequency
on San Clemente Island (Navy 2002, p.
3.31).
While fire does not appear to affect
island night lizard habitat in the short
term, an increase in fire frequency or
size could negatively affect lizard
abundance over time (Mautz 2001a, pp.
27–28). The highest-quality habitat and
highest density of lizards occur in areas
where fire has not occurred, or has
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
occurred rarely, and the fires are small
in size (Service 1997, p. 60; Navy 2002,
p. 3.32). This trend suggests that lizard
habitat and abundances are reduced
when fires occur more frequently.
Since 1997, the Navy has
implemented a number of management
measures to reduce the frequency of
wildfires on San Clemente Island:
prevention measures, such as
scheduling operations with high
ignition potential outside the fire season
and electrical system improvements;
containment measures, such as
vegetation management and use of
prophylactic fire retardants; and
suppression measures, such as staging
and use of suppression resources
(Service 2008, p. 51). Currently, the
portions of the island at greatest risk of
fire are the impact areas associated with
the ship-to-shore bombardment located
at the southern end of the island, and
areas containing unexploded ordnance
in which access for fire prevention has
been closed (Service 2008, pp. 56–57).
In 2008, the Navy proposed a new
training expansion on San Clemente
Island that could potentially increase
the occurrence of fire (Service 2008, p.
5). As part of the consultation with the
Service on the effects of the new
training and testing activities (Service
2008, pp. 2–3), the Navy completed a
comprehensive Fire Management Plan
(FMP) for San Clemente Island (Navy
2009). The Navy’s fire management
focuses on military training and other
human-related activities and facilities,
as these activities represent the primary
source of ignition on the island (Service
2008, p. 3). The Navy modifies range
and training activities in an effort to
prevent fire ignition, containment, and
suppression (Service 2008, pp. 3–4).
The FMP implements fuel management
strategies consisting of high-intensity
fuel management buffer zones;
defensible space around structures; and
low-intensity landscape modification
with prescribed fire that meets fuels
management, resource protection, and
habitat restoration objectives (Navy
2009, p. ES–3). The FMP concludes that
fire does not greatly affect island night
lizards on San Clemente Island due to
their high numbers and wide
distribution across the island, unless the
frequency or size of the fire is so high
that it removes the necessary thermal
cover for long periods of time and over
large areas (Navy 2009, pp. 2.26, 2.32).
Through our consultation, we
concluded that although these activities
may adversely affect island night lizard
individuals, fires are not expected to
have a significant effect on the islandwide population due to the number of
lizards on the island (Service 2008, pp.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
7923
203–204). Additionally, we concluded
that the fuelbreak and suppression
measures outlined within the FMP
would prevent a significant increase in
fire frequency where high-quality
habitat occurs (Service 2008, p. 204).
If intervals between fires are too short,
fire can negatively impact Lycium
californicum and there is a risk of type
conversion of the habitat or long-term
loss of the shrub community (Navy
2009, p. 4.7). However, prescribed fires
may be a useful management tool to
control nonnative grasses that degrade
native vegetative community values
(Navy 2009, pp. 4.7–4.8), specifically in
L. californicum moderate- and lowdensity habitat. Because a potential
benefit could result from less severe
fires in L. californicum habitat, fires of
moderate-severity will be managed to
less than 5 ac (2 ha) in high-density L.
californicum habitat (Navy 2009, p. 4.8).
In moderate-density L. californicum
habitat, prescribed burns will be
managed to less than 20 ac (8 ha); and
in low-density L. californicum habitat,
prescribed burns will be managed to
less than 40 ac (16 ha) (Navy 2009, p.
4.8).
We note that the results of this threat
analysis remain consistent with our
analysis described in the 2006 and 2012
5-year reviews of the island night lizard,
such that the potential of fire posing a
threat to island night lizards and their
habitat on San Clemente Island exists
(Service 2006, pp. 15; Service 2012a, p.
25). However, fire is not currently a
substantial threat to the species or its
habitat on the island nor do we think it
will become so in the future due to
historical and current fire patterns, the
existence of an FMP for the island, the
abundance and distribution of highquality island night lizard habitat, and
high abundance of the species on the
island.
fact that launch sites are located outside
of high-quality island night lizard
habitat on the northern and western
portion of San Nicolas Island (Navy
2005, p. 8, 30). Additionally, a fire
station is located on the eastern side of
San Nicolas Island (Navy 2005, p. 6),
near high-quality Lycium californicum
and Opuntia spp. habitat. Few fires have
occurred on San Nicolas Island (Navy
2010, p. 4.12). We have no information
to indicate that fire has occurred, or is
likely to occur, in the intertidal zone of
the unique cobble and driftwood habitat
inhabited by island night lizards at
Redeye Beach.
The objective of the current fire
management strategy on San Nicolas
Island, as implemented through the
Navy’s INRMP, is to protect people,
infrastructure, and natural and cultural
resources from the harmful impacts of
wildfire on the island (Navy 2010, p.
4.14). Strategies to achieve this objective
include: preventing wildfire ignitions;
providing, maintaining, and upgrading
fire management cooperative
agreements, memoranda of
understanding, and reciprocal
agreements to provide maximum
protection to cultural resources, natural
resources, and the island’s
infrastructure; developing a fire
management plan; and developing a
database to track all fires, acres burned,
suppression tactics, and individuals
involved in the suppression tactics
(Navy 2010, pp. 4.14–4.15).
In summary, few fires are known to
have occurred on San Nicolas Island.
While some wildfire risk is associated
with vegetative conditions and military
activities, fire management activities
appear to be sufficiently managing those
risks and are expected to do so into the
future. Therefore, fire is not a
substantial threat to the island night
lizard or its habitat now or in the future.
San Nicolas Island
The potential impacts of fire are a
greater concern on San Nicolas Island
than San Clemente Island due to the
limited amount of island night lizard
habitat. Historical grazing from the
introduction of nonnative herbivores
has resulted in disturbed vegetative
communities that favor nonnative
plants, specifically nonnative grasses,
and increase the vulnerability of these
vegetative communities to wildfire
(Navy 2010, p. 4.13). Missile launch and
termination areas are the most likely
sources of potential wildfire ignitions
on San Nicolas Island (Service 2006, p.
15). Despite these conditions, few fires
have occurred on San Nicolas Island
(Navy 2010, p. 4.12). The risk of wildfire
to island night lizards is reduced by the
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Wildfire risk on Santa Barbara Island
is less than the other two islands and is
primarily related to recreational
activities. The National Park Service
manages visitation to Santa Barbara
Island to ensure the biological and
archaeological values of the island are
not diminished. Human visitation to
Santa Barbara Island is minimal, with
only 3,286 on-shore visitors recorded
from 2007 to 2010; of these, 2,159
visitors stayed overnight on the island
in the primitive campground (NPS
2011a). Although smoking is limited to
the cement area adjacent to the visitor
center and campfires are not permitted
on the island, historical occurrences and
potential sources of wildfire on Santa
Barbara Island are most likely human-
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7924
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Erosion
Although erosion was not identified
as a threat to the island night lizard at
listing (42 FR 40682), the impact from
erosion has since been identified as a
general threat to the habitats on the
Channel Islands. Erosion caused by
ongoing military activities on San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands
currently affects lizard habitat; however,
impacts are primarily a consequence of
the historical introduction of nonnative
herbivores and land use operations. Due
to ongoing management efforts,
described below, by the Navy and NPS,
the 2006 and 2012 5-year reviews
concluded that erosion is not a
substantial threat to the lizard or its
habitat on any of the occupied islands
(Service 2006, pp. 12, 16; Service 2012a,
pp. 28–29).
through the Navy’s INRMP for San
Clemente Island, is required to prevent
and control erosion through surveys and
implementation of conservation
measures (Navy 2002, p. 3.22). Erosion
control measures include locating
ground-disturbing activities on
previously disturbed sites when
possible and assuring that all project
work areas and transit routes are clearly
identified and marked, and by
restricting vehicular activities within
those areas (Navy 2002, p. 3.23).
Additionally, as part of its consultation
with the Service on increased training
and testing activities, the Navy is
developing an erosion control plan and
will implement measures to prevent
significant impacts to native habitat,
including high-quality island night
lizard habitat (Service 2008, p. 62). The
Navy coordinated with the Service
during development of a plan, and
submitted a draft version to the Service
for review in 2012. The plan has not yet
been finalized.
Impacts from erosion on San
Clemente Island resulting from
historical introduction and overgrazing
by nonnative herbivores have been
intensified with current land use
operations by the Navy. However, we do
not consider erosion to be a substantial
threat to the island night lizard or its
habitat on the island due to current
management practices, including: (1)
Coordination with the Service to avoid
impacts to island night lizard habitat;
(2) the Navy’s compliance with the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act of 1935 to prevent and control
erosion; and (3) the Navy’s INRMP that
requires all projects to incorporate
erosion control measures into their
projects (training maneuvers excluded).
The Navy’s efforts under the latter two
items above are expected to continue in
the future should the island night lizard
be delisted.
San Clemente Island
Historical impacts and natural land
processes have resulted in landslides
and erosion on San Clemente Island
which require active management by the
Navy to minimize threats to island night
lizard habitat. Landslides occur where
steep slopes have been denuded by
grazing nonnative animals. The
landslides are exacerbated by naturally
occurring processes such as wind and
water wearing away land surface, posing
a concern for species’ habitat and
affecting other ecological processes on
San Clemente Island (Navy 2002, p.
3.22). The Navy, in accordance with the
Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act of 1935, as amended (16
U.S.C. S.5901), and as implemented
San Nicolas Island
Similar to San Clemente Island,
erosion is also a concern for island night
lizard habitat on San Nicolas Island.
Almost all of the high-quality island
night lizard habitat consisting of Lycium
californicum and Opuntia spp., and
moderate-quality habitat consisting of
shrub communities, occur in areas
where a moderate to high probability of
soil erodibility exists (Navy 2005, pp.
30, 44). Most erosion on San Nicolas
Island is due to high winds, effects to
vegetation from past sheep grazing, and
the island’s arid climate (Navy 2005, p.
42). Additional erosion was likely
caused by military activities that did not
include sufficient erosion control
measures (Navy 2005, p. 42). Halvorson
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
caused, such as campfires, fireworks, or
mechanical equipment. Currently,
Channel Islands National Park has a Fire
Management Plan (CHIS FMP) in place
that covers all units of the Park. The
CHIS FMP calls for the suppression of
all wildfires within the Park and
utilization of Minimum Impact
Suppression Tactics where feasible to
reduce impacts to natural and cultural
resources (NPS 2006a, p. 12). Although
no resources are available on Santa
Barbara Island to suppress wildfires, the
U.S Forest Service’s Los Padres National
Forest provides firefighting support,
including air and ground resources,
incident command, communications,
and ordering (NPS 2006a, p. 10).
While the potential for fire exists on
Santa Barbara Island, it is currently not
a substantial threat to island night lizard
habitat due to limited human presence
on the island, prohibition of fire at
campgrounds, and the current CHIS
FMP (Service 2006, p. 15; Service
2012a, p. 27), nor is it expected to be a
threat in the future.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
et al. (1996, p. 25) noted that the north
and south slope of San Nicolas Island
may need active restoration for the
recovery of native plants due to soil
erosion. Fellers (2009, pers. obs.)
commented that not much high-quality
island night lizard habitat will be lost to
unnatural erosion on San Nicolas
Island; however, he also found that
unnaturally eroded areas on the south
slope are lost and cannot be revegetated.
The Navy has incorporated erosion
control measures into San Nicolas
Island construction projects since 2000
(Navy 2005, p. 42). The Navy will also
continue repairing roads to address and
reduce erosion (Ruane 2011, pers.
comm.). The objective of the current
soils conservation management strategy
on San Nicolas Island, as implemented
through the Navy’s INRMP, is to
conserve soil productivity, nutrient
functioning, vegetation, wildlife habitat,
and water quality through effective
implementation of best management
practices to prevent and control erosion
(Navy 2010, p. 4.10).
Erosion on San Nicolas Island was
exacerbated by historical land use
practices and the introduction of
nonnative herbivores (Service 2006, p.
12; Service 2012a, p. 29); residual
effects continue to be a potential
concern due to the limited amount of,
and time required to reestablish, highquality lizard habitat. Currently,
moderate and high-quality island night
lizard habitat occurs in areas considered
by the Navy to have a moderate- to highsoil erodibility. However, steps are
being taken by the Navy to reduce and
manage current impacts from erosion on
San Nicolas Island and such efforts are
expected to continue in the future.
Therefore, we do not consider erosion to
currently be a substantial threat to the
island night lizard or its habitat on San
Nicolas Island now or in the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Erosion from wind, wave action, and
the effects of overgrazing are evident on
Santa Barbara Island and continue to
contribute to alteration of habitat.
However, new sources of human-caused
erosion on the island, which could
exacerbate current conditions, are
minimal given the limited amount of
human use there. Any new erosion
resulting from direct human use would
likely be related to erosion along
existing trails. Currently, NPS
management policies dictate that the
NPS will actively preserve soil
resources and prevent the unnatural
erosion and prevent or minimize
potentially irreversible impacts on soil
(NPS 2006b, p. 56). Therefore, based on
the best available information about
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
current erosion levels and NPS efforts to
preserve soil resources, we find that
erosion is not a substantial threat to the
island night lizard or its habitat on
Santa Barbara Island now or in the
future.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered
Species Act include consideration of
ongoing and projected changes in
climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and
‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’
refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions
over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although
shorter or longer periods also may be
used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term
‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change
in the mean or variability of one or more
measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer, whether the change is due to
natural variability, human activity, or
both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning
several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and
that the rate of change has been faster
since the 1950s. Examples include
warming of the global climate system,
and substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the
world and decreases in other regions
(For these and other examples, see IPCC
2007, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007,
pp. 35–54, 82–85). Results of scientific
analyses presented by the IPCC show
that most of the observed increase in
global average temperature since the
mid-20th century cannot be explained
by natural variability in climate, and is
‘‘very likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90
percent or higher probability) due to the
observed increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere
as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions
from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007, pp.
5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4;
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21–35). Further
confirmation of the role of GHGs comes
from analyses by Huber and Knutti
(2011, p. 4), who concluded it is
extremely likely that approximately 75
percent of global warming since 1950
has been caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate
models, which include consideration of
natural processes and variability, as
well as various scenarios of potential
levels and timing of GHG emissions, to
evaluate the causes of changes already
observed and to project future changes
in temperature and other climate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555,
15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
All combinations of models and
emissions scenarios yield very similar
projections of increases in the most
common measure of climate change,
average global surface temperature
(commonly known as global warming),
until about 2030. Although projections
of the magnitude and rate of warming
differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of
increased global warming through the
end of this century, even for the
projections based on scenarios that
assume that GHG emissions will
stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong
scientific support for projections that
warming will continue through the
twenty-first century, and that the
magnitude and rate of change will be
influenced substantially by the extent of
GHG emissions (IPCC 2007, pp. 44–45;
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760–764 and 797–
811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–
15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
(See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of
other global projections of climaterelated changes, such as frequency of
heat waves and changes in
precipitation. Also see IPCC
2011(entire) for a summary of
observations and projections of extreme
climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have
direct or indirect effects on species.
These effects may be positive, neutral,
or negative, and they may change over
time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as
interactions of climate with other
variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation)
(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19).
Identifying likely effects often involves
aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the
degree to which a species (or system) is
susceptible to, and unable to cope with,
adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and
extremes. Vulnerability is a function of
the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its
adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; see
also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). There
is no single method for conducting such
analyses that applies to all situations
(Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our
expert judgment and appropriate
analytical approaches to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in
our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
Although many species already listed
as endangered or threatened may be
particularly vulnerable to negative
effects related to changes in climate, we
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7925
also recognize that, for some listed
species, the likely effects may be
positive or neutral. In any case, the
identification of effective recovery
strategies and actions for recovery plans,
as well as assessment of their results in
5-year reviews or proposed
reclassification rules such as this
document, should include consideration
of climate-related changes and
interactions of climate and other
variables. In the case of this proposed
rule, this analysis contributes to our
evaluation of whether the island night
lizard can be delisted.
Global climate projections are
informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information
available for us to use. However,
projected changes in climate and related
impacts can vary substantially across
and within different regions of the
world (e.g., IPCC 2007, pp. 8–12).
Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’
projections when they are available and
have been developed through
appropriate scientific procedures,
because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more
relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et
al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of
downscaling). With regard to our
analysis for the island night lizard, we
have used the best scientific and
commercial data available as the basis
for considering various aspects of
climate change, as well as the likely
effects of climate change in conjunction
with other influences that are relevant
to the island night lizard.
Since listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684),
potential threats have been identified to
the flora and fauna of the United States
from ongoing accelerated climate
change (IPCC 2007, pp. 1–52; Point
Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) 2011,
pp. 1–68). A recent study examined the
effects of climate change scenarios as
they pertain specifically to the different
ecoregions of California (PRBO 2011,
pp. 1–68). An ecoregional approach was
examined because climate change
effects will vary in different areas of
California due to the State’s size and
diverse topography (PRBO 2011, p. 1).
Climate projections for temperature,
precipitation, and sea-level rise in these
ecoregions were obtained by analyzing
numerous IPCC emission scenarios
(2007, pp. 44–54), the core of most
climate projections for atmospheric and
oceanic global circulation models
(PRBO 2011, p. 1).
The Southern Bight ecoregion
includes San Clemente, San Nicolas,
Santa Barbara, and Sutil Islands (PRBO
2011, p. 4); however, this ecoregion
refers only to the marine environment
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
7926
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
and not the terrestrial environment
occupied by island night lizards.
Therefore, this threats analysis will use
projections made for the Southwestern
California ecoregion. This ecoregion is
appropriate to use because it contains
the same vegetation found on the
islands and used by island night lizard,
including Lycium californicum, Opuntia
spp., Coreopsis gigantea, Deinandra
clementina, Artemisia californica, and
Baccharis pilularis (Sawyer et al. 2009,
pp. 387, 423, 483, 493, 588, 599–600).
Currently, San Clemente, San Nicolas,
Santa Barbara, and Sutil Islands are
located within a Mediterranean climatic
regime, but with a significant maritime
influence. Climate change models
indicate a 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (1.8 to
5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in
average temperature for southern
California by the year 2070 (Field et al.
1999, p. 5; Cayan et al. 2008a, p. S26;
PRBO 2011, p. 40). As daily
temperatures increase, lizard species
spend more time in burrows or refuges
and less time foraging (Sinervo et al.
2010, p. 894). Over the same time span,
models predict a 10 to 37 percent
decrease in annual precipitation (PRBO
2011, p. 40); however, other modeling
predictions indicate little to no change
in annual precipitation (Field et al.
1999, pp. 8–9; Cayan et al. 2008a, p.
S26; PRBO 2011, p. 40). If annual
precipitation decreases, the percent of
vegetative cover and amount of
available food sources for the island
night lizard would also decrease.
Although the islands experience a
short rain season (generally November
through April), the presence of fog
during the summer months helps to
reduce moisture stress for many plant
species on the islands (Halvorson et al.
1988, p. 111). Currently, climate
modeling for fog projections remains a
subject of uncertainty (Field et al. 1999,
pp. 21–22). There is also substantial
uncertainty in precipitation projections
and debate about precipitation patterns
and projections for the Southwestern
California ecoregion (PRBO 2011, p. 40).
If the islands experienced a prolonged
period of warmer air temperature and
lower rainfall, the island night lizard’s
habitat could potentially be reduced;
however, due to the uncertainty about
precipitation projections, it is difficult
to predict the likelihood of that
happening.
Rising sea level may also pose a threat
to island night lizard habitat on the
inhabited islands. By the end of the
twenty-first century, various models
predict sea level rise 0.11 to 0.72 meters
(0.11 to 0.72 ft) globally (Cayan et al.
2008b, S62; PRBO 2011, p. 41). A rise
in sea level, which may accompany
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
high-tide wave action and more frequent
severe storms as a result of climate
change, can potentially affect the
islands that support the island night
lizard by inundating low-lying portions,
as well as potentially accelerating
erosion along coastal areas (PRBO 2011,
p. 41). The cobble and driftwood habitat
that occurs just above the intertidal zone
at Redeye Beach on San Nicolas Island
and supports approximately 1,000
island night lizards (Fellers et al. 1998,
p. 46) could potentially be altered by a
rise in sea level. Island night lizard
habitat on Santa Barbara Island occurs
at sea level and a rise could potentially
alter this habitat (Fellers 2011, pers.
obs.); however, the USGS’s Coastal
Vulnerability Index for the Channel
Islands National Park indicates Santa
Barbara Island has a low vulnerability
ranking indicating a very low rate of sea
level rise (0.002–0.004 m (0.007–0.013
ft) over the last 27 years (Pendleton et
al. 2005, p. 28). On San Clemente
Island, Mautz (2011 pers. comm.)
indicates that high-quality island night
lizard habitat at its lowest elevation
occurrence is approximately 10 m (32.8
ft) above sea level, and that a rise in sea
level, even at an extreme projection of
0.72 m (2.4 ft), does not pose a threat to
the continued existence of the species.
The island night lizard is an insular
endemic species (unique to specific
islands) that is vulnerable to extirpation
from random factors such as
environmental stochasticity and natural
catastrophes. While climate change
could potentially affect the island night
lizard and its habitat, the best available
information does not allow us to make
a meaningful prediction about how
potential changes in temperature,
precipitation patterns, and rising sea
levels could impact the island night
lizard, the islands where it occurs, or its
habitat. However, we expect that the
lizard’s susceptibility to climate change
is somewhat reduced by its ability to
use varying habitat types and by its
broad generalist diet. Therefore, we do
not consider climate change to be a
substantial threat to the island night
lizard or its habitat at this time or in the
future.
Factor A Summary
The loss and modification of habitat
for the island night lizard by nonnative
herbivores was identified as a threat to
the species when it was listed (42 FR
40682). In our 2006 and 2012 island
night lizard 5-year reviews we noted
that, although grazing animals were
removed from the islands, the residual
effects remain and so the process for
recovery of these habitat types on San
Nicolas and Santa Barbara Islands is
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occurring at a slow pace. However,
current evidence indicates that native
vegetation, including that favored by the
lizard, is recovering on all three
occupied islands and is expected to
continue due to management practices,
restoration efforts, and policies
implemented by the Navy and NPS.
Therefore, habitat destruction and
modification to the island night lizard
or its habitat as a result of the
introduction of nonnative herbivores
has been ameliorated and is no longer
a substantial threat nor is it likely to
become one in the future.
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682),
the introduction of nonnative plants
was not identified as a threat to the
island night lizard. The 2006 and 2012
5-year reviews considered the presence
of nonnative plants a potential concern
due to the vegetation composition
changes that have occurred on the three
islands inhabited by the island night
lizard. The Navy and NPS recognize the
potential threat of nonnative species
and are implementing management
efforts to reduce this risk that will
continue in the future. While nonnative
plants are a potential rangewide threat,
we do not consider the introduction and
persistence of nonnative plants to be a
substantial threat to the island night
lizard or its habitat on any of the
occupied islands because of the current
and ongoing management actions and
policies to remove and control the
future introduction of nonnative plants
to all islands.
Development activities can reduce
available habitat for island night lizards,
resulting in the direct loss of
individuals. We have determined that
land use impacts on San Clemente
could potentially affect the island night
lizard and its habitat. However, because
of the limited development impacts, the
remaining amount of available habitat,
and the large number of island night
lizards (estimated 21 million), we do not
consider land use or development a
substantial threat to the species’ habitat
on that island. Land use impacts on San
Nicolas Island could potentially affect
the island night lizard due to the limited
amount of suitable habitat for the
species; however, these activities will
likely have a minimal impact due to the
current management practices to avoid
the species during project
implementation. In addition, highquality habitat is distributed in areas
that will not be developed. The current
status of Santa Barbara Island as a unit
of the National Park System protects the
island night lizard and its habitat from
impacts related to future land use or
development. In summary, while land
use and development is a concern on
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
two of the islands, the amount, quality,
and distribution of habitat together with
avoidance measures reduce the
potential impact; therefore, we do not
consider development a substantial
threat to the island night lizard or its
habitat on any of the occupied islands
now or in the future.
A potential for fire exists on all three
islands due to human activity, with an
increased potential on San Clemente
and San Nicolas Islands due to military
activities and nonnative annual grasses
that increase the amount of flammable
fuels (Service 2006, pp. 13–15; Service
2012a, pp. 23–26). Based on historical
records and current land use, high fire
frequency on Santa Barbara is an
unlikely occurrence, limited to human
negligence to provide an ignition
source. Although fire is a potential
threat on all islands, we do not consider
fire a substantial threat to the island
night lizard or its habitat because of
ongoing fire management policies,
plans, and actions being implemented
on all occupied islands now and in the
future.
Historical land use and overgrazing by
nonnative herbivores exacerbated the
impacts of erosion on San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
and those impacts are likely to continue
for many years to come. However, all
nonnative herbivores have been
removed from the islands, and the slow
process of natural recovery is ongoing.
In accordance with the Navy’s INRMPs
and NPS’s management policies, efforts
are underway to control new and
existing sources of erosion on all
occupied islands. Further, the
development and implementation of
erosion control plans will help
minimize future impacts to the island
night lizard and its habitat from erosion.
We conclude that erosion may affect
island night lizard and its habitat, but it
is not currently a substantial threat nor
is it likely to become one in the future,
due to current management, individual
island circumstances, and erosion
control efforts.
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p.
40684), we did not find climate change
to be a threat to the island night lizard.
Generally, climate change is predicted
to result in warmer air temperatures,
lower rainfall amounts, and rising sea
levels; however, it is currently unknown
how climate change will specifically
affect island night lizard habitat on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands (Service 2006, p. 24;
Service 2012a, pp. 38–39). The island
night lizard may be more susceptible to
natural catastrophes on San Nicolas and
Santa Barbara Island because of its
restricted distribution on those islands.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Its greater numbers and distribution on
San Clemente Island may indicate the
island night lizard is less susceptible to
stochastic events on the island. We
recognize that climate change has the
potential to affect the island night lizard
and its habitat; however, at this time,
the best available scientific and
commercial information does not
indicate that climate change is a
substantial threat to the species’ habitat
now or in the future.
In conclusion, we do not find that
habitat destruction or modification from
introduction of nonnative taxa, land use
and development, fire, erosion, or
climate change pose a substantial threat
to the island night lizard or its habitat
on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and
Santa Barbara Islands currently or in the
future.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes was not identified as a threat
to the island night lizard at listing (42
FR 40682, p. 40684). The 2006 and 2012
5-year reviews (Service 2006, p. 18;
Service 2012a, p. 28) did not identify
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes as a threat to the island night
lizard. To our knowledge, island night
lizards are captured only for scientific
purposes or for relocation efforts due to
Navy projects in accordance with
permitted activities covered by a section
10(a)(1)(A) permit under the Act.
Currently, there are only two active
section 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued by the
Service for the island night lizard.
Although research activities may result
in impacts to some individuals (use of
pitfall traps and toe-clipping), they do
not constitute a significant threat to the
species. Capture of island night lizards
for commercial or other nonpermitted
activities is unlikely to occur on San
Clemente or San Nicolas Islands
because access to these islands is
strictly limited by the Department of
Defense. No available information
indicates that visitors to Santa Barbara
Island are actively collecting island
night lizards. Although it is possible
that someone visiting or working on any
of the islands could collect island night
lizards, based on the best available
information, there is no indication that
such activities are occurring.
Based on the limited number of active
section 10(a)(1)(A) permits and lack of
evidence that collection is otherwise
occurring, we find that overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes is not currently
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7927
a threat and not likely to become a
threat to the species on any of the
occupied islands.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Disease was not identified as a threat
to the island night lizard at listing (42
FR 40682, p. 40684), or in the 2006 or
2012 5-year reviews (Service 2006, p.
19; Service 2012a, p. 29). Currently, the
best available information does not
indicate that disease is a threat to the
lizard or likely to be a threat in the
future.
Predation
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p.
40684), we identified predation of
island night lizards as a threat to the
species due to the introduction of
nonnative feral cats and pigs to San
Clemente Island (42 FR 40682, p.
40683). The listing rule (42 FR 40682, p.
40684) also indicated that the
introduction of the nonnative southern
alligator lizard to San Nicolas Island
might pose a threat to the island night
lizard through depredation or increased
competition (42 FR 40682, p. 40684).
The listing rule does not discuss native
predators to the island night lizard, such
as San Clemente loggerhead shrike and
other raptor species. Currently, each
island has native predators, such as
raptors, but currently available
information does not indicate these
predators are a substantial threat to the
island night lizard.
San Clemente Island
Since listing, nonnative predators
have been identified on San Clemente
Island, including feral cats, black rats,
and gopher snakes (Pituophis catenifer);
however, only feral cats are known to
prey upon island night lizards (Mautz
2001, p. 9). The 2006 and 2012 5-year
reviews concluded that feral cats on San
Clemente Island could threaten the
island night lizard. However, we
concluded that predation by feral cats
was not a substantial threat due to
predator management actions
implemented through the Navy’s
INRMP and the large lizard population
on the island. The Navy continues to
control feral cats on San Clemente
Island to benefit the San Clemente
loggerhead shrike and San Clemente
Island sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli
clementeae). These measures provide an
ancillary benefit to the island night
lizard (Service 2008, p. 59; Biteman et
al. 2011, p. 22).
In 2006, we concluded that predation
by black rats (Rattus rattus) and
nonnative snakes could threaten island
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7928
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Island (Service 2006, p. 20). In 2009, the
Navy implemented a feral cat removal
program to protect Federal or State
listed species, including the island night
lizard (Hanson and Bonham 2011, pp.
1–4). In addition, the MSRP prioritized
removal of feral cats from San Nicolas
Island to improve nesting success for
the Brandt’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax
penicillatus) and western gull (Larus
occidentalis) (MSRP 2005, pp. D3.1–
D3.2). Several methods were utilized to
detect and remove cats from the island,
including the installation of camera
traps to detect the location and presence
of feral cats, the use of modified padded
leg-hold live traps, and spotlight
hunting (Hanson and Bonham 2011, pp.
2, 4–5). Since June 27, 2010, surveys
have failed to locate any evidence of
feral cats on San Nicolas Island (Hanson
and Bonham 2011, p. 19). The Navy and
MSRP announced the successful
completion of this project in February
2012 (Little 2012a, pers. comm.). Based
on these successful feral cat eradication
efforts, we conclude that feral cats are
no longer a threat to the island night
lizard on San Nicolas Island (Service
San Nicolas Island
2012a, p. 30).
The 2006 5-year review indicated that
In 2011, the Navy completed a
the introduction of two nonnative
Biosecurity Plan for San Nicolas Island
lizards (southern alligator lizard and
side-blotched lizard) may impact island to protect the biodiversity of San
Nicolas Island by preventing the
night lizards on San Nicolas Island
transport and establishment of all
(Service 2006, p. 20). Specifically, the
nonnative vertebrate species (Navy
southern alligator lizard may compete
2011, p. 1). Through implementation of
with or prey on island night lizards
(Service 2006, p. 20). Fellers et al. (2009, this plan, the Navy has established
pp. 18–19) noted that the ranges of both biosecurity measures for personnel,
nonnative lizards have expanded on San barge operations, airfield operations,
and implemented monitoring to prevent
Nicolas Island and that both the island
the introduction of nonnative vertebrate
night lizard and side-blotched lizard
have similar distributions on the island. species to San Nicolas Island (Navy
Fellers et al. (2009, p. 18) also noted that 2011, pp. 7–19). All personnel must be
trained in biosecurity protocols, report
southern alligator lizards occur in
sightings and suspicions, display and
different habitats than island night
lizards and that there is no indication of distribute information signs and
pamphlets, ensure biosecurity language
negative impacts to the island night
is included in all contracts, and review
lizard.
biosecurity compliance (Navy 2011, p.
Despite the presence of these two
19). These measures will benefit the
nonnative lizards, a review of the best
island night lizard by reducing the
available information does not indicate
potential for nonnative vertebrate
that predation is occurring. No record
species to be introduced to San Nicolas
exists of side-blotched lizards preying
Island, which could prey upon the
upon island night lizards. In addition,
island night lizard or outcompete it for
the southern alligator lizard generally
natural resources.
occupies different habitats than the
Based on a review of the best
island night lizard. Therefore, we
available information, we conclude that
conclude that the southern alligator
predation is not currently a substantial
lizard and side-blotched lizard do not
threat to the island night lizard on San
pose a substantial predatory threat to
Nicolas Island nor is it likely to become
the island night lizard on San Nicolas
one in the future because nonnative
Island (Service 2012a, p. 32).
lizards on the island occur in different
In the 2006 5-year review, we
habitats and are not adversely impacting
concluded that feral cat predation
threatened the island night lizard due to island night lizards; feral cats have been
successfully eradicated; and the Navy
the small lizard population and the
large feral cat population on San Nicolas implemented a Biosecurity Plan to
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
night lizards on San Clemente Island.
Black rats are found throughout San
Clemente Island, but the total
population of black rats on the island is
unknown. Despite an extensive review
of the best scientific and commercial
information available, the information
does not indicate whether or how often
black rats prey upon island night
lizards. One gopher snake has been
located on the island, but since its
removal, no others have been reported.
Despite the continued presence of
feral cats and black rats on the island,
lizard numbers remain high.
Additionally, the Navy currently
implements a ‘‘no pet policy’’ to prevent
the introductions of potential predators
to native wildlife (Navy 2001, p. 3.119).
Therefore, nonnative predators do not
currently pose a substantial threat to the
species on San Clemente Island due to
the large population size of the island
night lizard and current predator control
measures being implemented on the
island, which are expected to continue
in the future (Mautz 2001a, p. 25;
Service 2006, p. 19).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prevent further introduction of
nonnative predators to the island.
Santa Barbara and Sutil Island
The 2006 and 2012 5-year reviews of
the island night lizard concluded that
Santa Barbara Island does not support
any nonnative predators, but does
support populations of native predators
of the island night lizard, including the
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and
barn owl (Tyto alba) (Service 2006, p.
19; Service 2012a, p. 33). While natural
predators may pose a threat to
individual island night lizards (Service
2012a), they do not pose a substantial
threat to the continued existence of the
species on Santa Barbara Island due to
the current number of lizards on the
island, highly sedentary nature of the
lizard, and tendency to remain under
shelter such as dense vegetation or rock,
which limits the exposure to aerial
predators lizards (Service 2006, p. 19;
Service 2012a, p. 33). To prevent future
introductions of the possible predators
to Santa Barbara Island, the NPS
restricts bringing any animal onto the
island (NPS 2012). Based on lack of
nonnative predators, limited predation
by natural predators, and NPS invasive
species management, we conclude that
predation is not a substantial threat on
Santa Barbara Island, now or in the
future.
Factor C Summary
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p.
40684), disease was not considered a
threat to the island night lizard and
predation by feral cats and alligator
lizards was considered a threat, but
their impacts were not fully understood.
Since then, as described above with
respect to affected islands, we have
identified predation by nonnative
lizards, feral cats, and black rats as a
threat to the species. We have no new
information to indicate that disease is a
threat to the island night lizard. Recent
research indicates that neither the
southern alligator lizard nor the more
recently introduced nonnative sideblotched lizard negatively impact the
island night lizard on San Nicolas
Island. Additionally, in 2010, the Navy
successfully completed a feral cat
removal program on San Nicolas Island.
The Navy has also implemented efforts
to control black rats and feral cats on
San Clemente Island as part of the
recovery efforts for the San Clemente
loggerhead shrike and San Clemente
Island sage sparrow. Though black rats
and feral cats may affect individual
island night lizards, they do not
currently pose a substantial threat to the
species on San Clemente Island. No
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
nonnative predators of the island night
lizard exist on Santa Barbara Island and
native predators on Santa Barbara Island
do not currently pose a threat to the
species existence. Also, both the Navy
and NPS have policies in place to
control the introduction of potential
predators, and such efforts are expected
to continue in the future. Therefore, we
conclude that disease and predation are
not substantial threats to the island
night lizard on any of the occupied
islands currently or in the future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act requires us to examine the
adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms with respect to those
existing and foreseeable threats that may
affect island night lizard. The
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms was not indicated as a
threat to the island night lizard at the
time of listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684).
Since it was listed as threatened, the Act
has been and continues to be the
primary Federal law that affords
protection to island night lizard. The
Service’s responsibilities in
administering the Act include sections
7, 9, and 10.
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all
Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out do not
‘‘jeopardize’’ the continued existence of
a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
habitat in areas designated by the
Service to be critical. Critical habitat has
not been designated or proposed for the
lizard. A jeopardy determination is
made for a project that is reasonably
expected, either directly or indirectly, to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of
both the survival and recovery of a
listed species in the wild by reducing its
reproduction, numbers, or distribution
(50 CFR 402.02). A non-jeopardy
opinion may include reasonable and
prudent measures that minimize the
extent of impacts to listed species
associated with a project.
Section 9 of the Act and Federal
regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of federally
listed wildlife. Section 3(18) defines
‘‘take’’ to mean ‘‘to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.’’ Service
regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define ‘‘harm’’
to include significant habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
modification or degradation which
actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or sheltering. ‘‘Harassment’’ is
defined by the Service as an intentional
or negligent action that creates the
likelihood of injury to wildlife by
annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. The Act provides for civil
and criminal penalties for the unlawful
taking of listed species.
Listing the island night lizard
provided a variety of protections within
areas under Federal jurisdiction and the
conservation mandates of section 7 for
all Federal agencies. Since it was first
listed in 1977, the Navy and NPS have
consulted and coordinated with us
regarding the effects of various activities
occurring on federally owned San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands (see Factor A: Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Habitat or Range
above). If the island night lizard were
not listed, these protections would not
be provided. Thus, we must evaluate
whether other regulatory mechanisms
would provide adequate protections
absent the protections of the Act.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
All Federal agencies must comply
with the NEPA of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) for projects they fund, authorize,
or carryout. The Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1518) state that agencies shall
include a discussion on the
environmental impacts of the various
project alternatives (including the
proposed action), any adverse
environmental effects that cannot be
avoided, and any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources
involved (40 CFR part 1502). NEPA does
not regulate activities that might affect
the island night lizard, but does require
full evaluation and disclosure of
information regarding the effects of
contemplated Federal actions on
sensitive species and their habitats. It
also does not require minimization or
mitigation measures by the Federal
agency involved. Therefore, Federal
agencies may include conservation
measures for island night lizard as a
result of the NEPA process, but such
measures would be voluntary in nature
and are not required by the statute. On
San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands,
the Navy must analyze under NEPA any
actions significantly affecting the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7929
quality of the human environment.
Typically, the Navy prepares
Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements on
operation plans and new or expanding
training actions. On Santa Barbara
Island and incorporated Sutil Island,
NPS must analyze under NEPA any
actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. NPS
prepares Environmental Assessments
and Environmental Impact Statements
on actions and projects in national
parks. Absent the listing of island night
lizard, we would expect the Navy and
NPS to continue to meet the procedural
requirements of NEPA for their actions.
However, as explained above, NEPA
does not itself regulate activities that
might affect island night lizards or their
habitat.
National Park Service (NPS) Organic
Act
The NPS Organic Act of 1916, as
amended (39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C. 1),
states that the NPS ‘‘shall promote and
regulate the use of the Federal areas
known as national parks, monuments,
and reservations * * * to conserve the
scenery and the national and historic
objects and the wildlife therein’’ (which
includes listed or non-listed species),
‘‘and to provide for the enjoyment of the
same in such manner and by such
means as will leave them unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future
generations.’’ The 2006 NPS
Management Policies indicate that the
Park Service will ‘‘meet its obligations
under the NPS Organic Act and the
Endangered Species Act to both proactively conserve listed species and
prevent detrimental effects on these
species.’’ This includes working with
the Service and undertaking active
management programs to inventory,
monitor, restore, and maintain listed
and non-listed species habitats, among
other actions.
Sikes Act Improvement Act (Sikes Act)
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670)
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
develop cooperative plans with the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior for natural resources on public
lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act
of 1997 requires Department of Defense
installations to prepare Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plans
that provide for the conservation and
rehabilitation of natural resources on
military lands consistent with the use of
military installations to ensure the
readiness of the Armed Forces. INRMPs
incorporate, to the maximum extent
practicable, ecosystem management
principles and provide the landscape
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
7930
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
necessary to sustain military land uses.
INRMPs are developed in coordination
with the State and the Service, and are
generally updated every 5 years.
Although an INRMP is technically not a
regulatory mechanism, because its
implementation is subject to funding
availability, it is an important guiding
document that helps to integrate natural
resource protection with military
readiness and training.
San Clemente Island INRMP:
Pursuant to the Sikes Act, the Navy
adopted an INRMP for San Clemente
Island with multiple objectives for
protection of the island night lizard and
its habitat that reduce threats to this
taxon (Navy 2002). The INRMP
complied with NEPA, the Act, the
Federal Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C.
2801), and the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C 590
a, b). The goal of the San Clemente
Island INRMP is to support the military
requirements of the Pacific Fleet while
maintaining long-term ecosystem health
(Navy 2002, p. 1.2). Specifically, this
INRMP will:
(1) Facilitate sustainable military
readiness and foreclose no options for
future requirements of the Pacific Fleet.
(2) Protect, maintain, and restore
priority native species to reach selfsustaining levels.
(3) Ensure ecosystem resilience to
testing and training impacts.
(4) Maintain the full suite of native
species, emphasizing the endemics.
In 1997, the Navy established the
INLMA (Service 1997, p. 5), an area
encompassing 11,051 ac (4,474 ha) of
the western shore of San Clemente
Island where the majority of highquality Lycium californicum and
Opuntia spp. habitats, and
approximately half of the island night
lizard population is found (Mautz
2001a, p. 29). The INRMP states that the
INLMA will be managed as a
demonstration project, focusing on the
integration of military operational needs
with conservation of species (Navy
2002, p. 4.43). The INRMP provides a
benefit to the species (Navy 2002, pp.
4.43–4.47) through the following
measures:
(1) Designate and implement an
approximately 11,010 acre (4,457 ha)
management area.
(2) Establish a ‘‘no net loss’’ habitat
condition policy for INLMA.
(3) Survey for nonnative weeds and
prioritize annual control programs for
the INLMA.
(4) Ensure that no new nonnative
animals are introduced to San Clemente
Island that could be a predator,
competitor, or introduce disease to the
island night lizard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
(5) Provide aggressive control of
existing nonnative animals in the
INLMA.
(6) Manage fire to protect the integrity
of the management area for island night
lizards.
(7) Develop, in cooperation with the
Service, a delisting plan for the island
night lizard.
In addition to these management
measures, the Navy developed an FMP
for San Clemente Island in 2009 (see
Factor A). The FMP implements fuel
management strategies that benefit the
island night lizard through development
of: high-intensity fuel management
buffer zones; defensible space around
structures; and low-intensity landscape
modification with prescribed fire that
meets fuels management, resource
protection, and habitat restoration
objectives (Navy 2009, p. ES–3).
Additionally, we concluded that the
fuelbreak and suppression measures
outlined within the FMP would prevent
a significant increase in fire frequency
where high-quality habitat occurs
(Service 2008, p. 204).
Although the INRMP includes
objectives targeted toward habitat
protection of high-quality island night
lizard habitat, Navy operational needs
may supersede INRMP goals. The Navy
is currently revising the 2002 INRMP,
and future iterations of this plan may
differ from the existing INRMP. Pending
completion of the new INRMP, the Navy
continues to implement the 2002
INRMP. We expect that the revised
INRMP will continue to manage for
natural resource conservation to the
maximum extent practicable based on
the Navy’s historical commitment to
implement beneficial management
actions for native flora and fauna, and
their continued cooperation with the
Service to provide conservation actions
that benefit species such as the island
night lizard and its habitat.
San Nicolas Island INRMP: Pursuant
to the Sikes Act, the Navy adopted an
INRMP for San Nicolas Island that
includes measures to protect the island
night lizard and its habitat (Navy 2010).
The INRMP also complied with NEPA,
the Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act
(7 U.S.C. 2801), and the Soil
Conservation Act. The purpose of the
San Nicolas INRMP is to provide a
viable and implementable framework
for the management of natural resources
at Naval Base Ventura County,
California, San Nicolas Island (Navy
2010, p. 1.1). The INRMP’s objective for
island night lizards on San Nicolas
Island is to maintain a viable population
(Navy 2010, p. 4.56). The strategies to
accomplish this objective from the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
INRMP are listed below (Navy 2010, p.
4.56):
(1) Continue to develop and
implement protocols to resolve any
baseline biological data gaps and to
monitor distribution, population size,
population trends, and habitat usage of
the island night lizard population by
conducting site-specific surveys in
known or suitable habitat prior to
disturbance activities.
(2) Protect and maintain island night
lizard habitat quality and integrity by:
(a) Conducting an invasive nonnative
control, monitoring, and removal
program in island night lizard habitat in
order to reduce impacts upon the
species’ population.
(b) Defining and clearly marking work
areas during road maintenance and
other activities to prevent island night
lizard mortality in accordance with the
terms and conditions listed in the
Biological Opinion (Service 2001).
(c) Excluding areas of high-quality
island night lizard habitat from mowing
regimes.
(d) Maintaining a bare ground buffer
zone around equipment and storage
areas in high-quality island night lizard
habitat where practicable.
(e) Siting staging areas for storage of
equipment and materials in areas with
low island night lizard densities,
whenever feasible.
(3) Conduct relocation of island night
lizards in accordance with the terms
and conditions identified in the current
Biological Opinion (Service 2001).
(4) Support studies to investigate the
effectiveness of island night lizard
management strategies by:
(a) Supporting scientific studies of
competition relationships between
alligator lizards and island night lizards.
(b) Supporting genetic studies of
isolated island night lizard populations
to determine population structure and
size.
(5) Educate island personnel on laws
covering prohibition on taking listed
species for pets or for sale in pet trade.
(6) Support recovery plan efforts to
establish stable island night lizard
populations and eventual delisting by:
(a) Supporting Channel Islands-wide
review of population status of the
species.
While the INRMP does not guarantee
funding will be appropriated for
implementation, the Navy has
demonstrated a continued commitment
to the goals of the INRMP. They have
funded a full-time biologist for the
island, provided additional funds to
hire contractors, or utilized university,
volunteer, or other agency personnel to
implement numerous activities as
outlined in the INRMP.
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Noxious Weed Act
The Federal Noxious Weed Act of
1975 (88 Stat. 2148, 7 U.S.C. 2801)
established a Federal program that has
subsequently been largely superseded
by other statutes, including the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701, et seq.),
to control the spread of noxious weeds.
The 1990 amendment to the the Federal
Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C. 2814), has
been retained, and requires each Federal
land-managing agency to: Designate an
office or person adequately trained in
managing undesirable plant species to
develop and coordinate a program to
control such plants on the agency’s
land; establish and adequately fund this
plant management program through the
agency’s budget process; complete and
implement cooperative agreements with
the States regarding undesirable plants
on agency land; and establish integrated
management systems (as defined in the
section) to control or contain
undesirable plants targeted under the
cooperative agreements. In accordance
with this direction, the Navy and NPS
work to control the introduction of
nonnative plant species to the islands
and to control or remove those currently
present, which are actions that assist in
protecting island night lizard habitat.
Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act
The Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590(a,
b), 49 Stat. 163) recognized that the
wastage of soil and moisture resources
on farm, grazing, and forest lands of the
Nation, resulting from soil erosion, is a
menace to the national welfare and
declared it to be the policy of Congress
to provide permanently for the control
and prevention of soil erosion and
thereby to preserve natural resources,
control floods, prevent impairment of
reservoirs, and maintain the navigability
of rivers and harbors, protect public
health, public lands and relieve
unemployment, and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall coordinate and direct
all activities with relation to soil
erosion. In order to effectuate this
policy, the Secretary of Agriculture
authorizes, from time to time, that the
following actions may be performed on
lands owned or controlled by the United
States or any of its agencies, with the
cooperation of the agency having
jurisdiction: Conduct surveys,
investigations, and research relating to
the character of soil erosion and the
preventive measures needed; to publish
the results of any such surveys,
investigations, or research; to
disseminate information concerning
such methods; and to conduct
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
demonstrational projects in areas
subject to erosion by wind or water; and
carry out preventative measures,
including, but not limited to,
engineering operations, methods of
cultivation, the growing of vegetation,
and changes in use of land. These
measures assist island night lizards by
encouraging management actions that
prevent and control erosion, thus
protecting island night lizard habitat.
Factor D Summary
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms was not indicated as a
threat to the island night lizard at the
time of listing or in the recent status
reviews. Because all islands are under
Federal ownership, various laws,
regulations, and policies administered
by the Federal Government provide
protective mechanisms for the species
and its habitat. Primary Federal laws
that provide some benefit for the species
and its habitat absent the Act include
NEPA, Sikes Act, Federal Noxious Weed
Act, Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act, and NPS Organic Act.
INRMPs are important guiding
documents that help to integrate the
military’s mission with natural resource
protection on San Clemente and San
Nicolas Island. Although the INRMPs
include objectives targeted toward
protection of habitat essential to the
island night lizard and other native
species, Navy operational needs may
diverge from INRMP natural resource
goals. For example, some control
measures may not be implemented
effectively or consistently in those areas
that are operationally closed due to the
presence of unexploded ordnance.
However, in most locations, fire
management plans, erosion control in
accordance with the Soil Conservation
and Domestic Allotment Act, and
nonnative plant species control in
accordance with the Federal Noxious
Weed Act, afford protections to the
island night lizard on the islands as
discussed above under Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range. Absent listing under
the Act, the Navy would still be
required to develop and implement
INRMPs under the Sikes Act. The
INRMPs will continue to provide a
conservation benefit to the island night
lizard through native habitat
management efforts, where there is
overlap with island night lizard habitat.
The population of island night lizards
and their habitat on Santa Barbara
Island and Sutil Island are afforded
protections by the NPS’s Organic Act,
which provides management programs
to inventory, monitor, restore, and
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7931
maintain listed species’ habitats, and
requires the NPS to manage all natural
resources regardless of listing status
(such as island night lizard after it is
delisted).
Delisting the island night lizard
would eliminate the requirement to
consult with us for actions carried out,
funded, or authorized by the Navy and
NPS on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and
Santa Barbara Islands. However, we
anticipate the Navy will continue to
implement INRMPs for both San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands that
include management for natural
resources, native species, and other
listed species, which we anticipate will
provide an ancillary benefit to the
island night lizard. We have no
information indicating that management
of Santa Barbara Island would be
changed or altered in a manner that
would be inconsistent with the
conservation of natural resources and
native species, which includes the
island night lizard and its habitat. In
conclusion, island night lizards are
afforded protection through Federal or
military mechanisms and, in absence of
the Act, these existing regulatory
mechanisms are expected to continue to
a degree adequate to conserve the island
night lizard and its habitat throughout
its range both now and in the future.
Therefore, we conclude that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is not a current threat to
the species on any of the occupied
islands, nor is it expected to become a
threat in the future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
The listing rule (42 FR 40682, p.
40684) states that island-adapted taxa
are often detrimentally affected by
accidental or intentional introduction of
nonnative species. This was the only
threat attributed to Factor E for any of
the seven taxa included in that rule.
Because the primary effect of most
nonnative taxa was related to habitat or
predation, the discussion of introduced
nonnative taxa is now included under
Factor A as it relates to habitat and
Factor C as it relates to predation.
The restricted distribution of the
island night lizard on San Nicolas and
Santa Barbara Islands makes these
populations susceptible to natural
catastrophes such as fires, landslides, or
prolonged droughts (Service 2006, p.
24). Potential impacts and management
efforts to reduce or control effects of fire
and erosion are discussed under Factor
A. The 2012 5-year review of the island
night lizard discusses the potential
threat of climate change and its effects
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7932
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Factor E Summary
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p.
40684), we did not identify climate
change as a threat to the island night
lizard. The 2006 and 2012 5-year
Climate Change
reviews (Service 2006 p. 24; Service pp.
As discussed under Factor A—
38–39) suggested that, because the
Climate Change above, climate change
island night lizard is an insular endemic
poses a potential impact to island night
species, it is vulnerable to extirpation
lizards and their habitat based on
from random factors such as
modeling and climate change
projections for southern California from environmental stochasticity (lacking
predictability) and natural catastrophes.
various sources (IPCC 2007, PRBO
However, it is currently unknown how
2011). Because the best available
climate change will affect the island
information for the region that
night lizard and its habitat on San
encompasses San Clemente, San
Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and Sutil Islands Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands (Service 2006, p. 24;
refers only to the marine environment
Service 2012a, pp. 38–39). The island
and not the terrestrial environment
night lizard may be more susceptible to
occupied by island night lizards (PRBO
natural catastrophes on San Nicolas and
2011, p.4), we are utilizing projections
Santa Barbara Island because of its
made for the Southwestern California
restricted distribution on those islands.
ecoregion in this threat analysis (see
Factor A—Climate Change section above Its greater numbers and distribution on
San Clemente Island may indicate the
for additional discussion on available
island night lizard is less susceptible to
data, climate model predictions for
stochastic events on that island. Climate
temperature and precipitation, and
potential impacts related to island night change may affect the island night lizard
and its habitat, but the best available
lizard habitat).
information does not allow us to make
Currently, climate modeling
projections for fog (Field et al. 1999, pp. accurate predictions regarding the
21–22) and precipitation are the subject effects of climate change on the island
night lizard at this time. We expect that
of uncertainty, with relatively little
the lizard’s susceptibility to climate
consensus concerning projections for
change is somewhat reduced by its
the Southwestern California ecoregion
(PRBO 2011, p. 40). Additionally and as ability to use varying habitat types and
by its broad generalist diet. Continued
noted above, we have no specific
information related to precipitation and improvement in habitat quality and
reduction of threats by the Navy and
temperature projections specific to the
terrestrial environment of the California NPS is likely to increase the resilience
of the lizard and its habitat to changing
Channel Islands. Regardless, the best
conditions. Therefore, because of
available data indicate that when daily
temperatures increase, lizard species
current and expected ongoing
spend more time in burrows or refuges
management, we do not consider
and less time foraging (Sinervo et al.
climate change to be a substantial threat
2010, p. 894). This reduced foraging
to the species at this time or in the
time could possibly impact growth and
future.
survival of this already highly sedentary
Cumulative Effects
lizard. Drought conditions also reduce
A species may be affected by a
the arthropod populations in the spring,
combination of threats. Within the
reducing a food source and
preceding review of the five listing
compounding the effects of climate
factors, we identified multiple threats
change (Knowlton 1949, p. 45;
that may have interrelated impacts on
Schwenkmeyer 1949, pp. 37–40; Bolger
the island night lizard or its habitat. Fire
et al. 2000, p. 1242). Therefore, in the
(Factor A) may increase in intensity and
event of a prolonged period of warmer
frequency on all occupied islands if
air temperature and lower rainfall, the
there is an abundance of nonnative
island night lizard’s habitat and food
plants (grasses) (Factor A). Similarly,
supply could also potentially be
across all islands occupied by the island
reduced. However, even with this
night lizard, fire (Factor A) may become
potential reduction in food availability,
Sinervo et al. (2010, p. 898) investigated more frequent if climate change results
in hotter and drier environmental
climate change impacts on Xantusidae
conditions (Factor A and E). An
and predicted that the species
increase in the frequency of fires (Factor
extinction risk for this family is zero
A) may potentially lead to an increased
through 2080. Therefore, we do not
risk of predation (Factor C) due to loss
consider climate change to be a
of vegetative cover for the island night
substantial threat to the island night
lizard in burned areas. On San Clemente
lizard now or in the future.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
on precipitation, drought, and sea level
rise as it relates to the island night
lizard (Service 2012a, pp. 39–41), and is
further discussed below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and San Nicolas Islands, the land use
and development activities (Factor A)
conducted by the Navy can prompt an
increase in erosion (Factor A) and the
potential for fire (Factor A) in island
night lizard habitat. Additionally,
effects from climate change, such as
rising sea level in conjunction with
increased storm frequency and high-tide
wave action (Factor A), could
potentially impact island night lizard
habitat by accelerating erosion (Factor
A) on all occupied islands. Although
island night lizard productivity may be
reduced because of these threats, either
alone or in combination, it is not easy
to determine whether a specific threat is
the primary threat having the greatest
impact on the viability of the species, or
whether it is exacerbated by, or
functioning in combination with, other
threats to result in cumulative or
synergistic effects on the species. The
Navy and NPS are actively managing for
the threats described above to minimize
impacts to the island night lizard. It is
anticipated that their continued
management of these threats will
maintain the threats at a level where
synergistic effects are not likely to result
in a substantial impact to the island
night lizard or its habitat. Therefore, we
do not consider the cumulative impact
of these threats to be substantial at this
time.
Finding
An assessment of the need for a
species’ protection under the Act is
based on threats to that species and the
regulatory mechanisms in place to
ameliorate impacts from these threats.
As required by the Act, we conducted
a review of the status of the taxon and
assessed the five factors to determine
whether the island night lizard is
threatened or endangered throughout all
of its range. We examined the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats faced by the lizard.
We reviewed petitions received on May
1, 1997, and March 22, 2004; comments
and information received after
publication of our 90-day finding (71 FR
48900, August 22, 2006); two 5-year
status reviews, information available in
our files; and other available published
and unpublished information. We also
consulted with recognized experts on
the island night lizard and its habitat,
and with other Federal agencies.
In considering which factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond
the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species
responds in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response or
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the
species responds negatively, the factor
may be a substantial threat and we then
attempt to determine the significance of
the threat. If the threat is significant, it
may drive or contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as endangered
or threatened, 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 potentially impact a species
negatively is not sufficient to compel a
finding that listing is appropriate; we
require evidence that these factors are
operative substantial threats that act on
the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of threatened or
endangered under the Act.
The reasons for listing the island
night lizard as threatened (42 FR 40682)
were: Habitat loss or modification
through the introduction of nonnative
herbivores such as feral goats and pigs
on San Clemente Island; habitat
modification through the introduction
of nonnative plants throughout the
species’ range (San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands);
predation by feral cats on San Clemente
Island; and competition with the
southern alligator lizard on San Nicolas
Island. The island night lizard was not
known to occupy Sutil Island at listing
and thus the island was not included in
the threats analysis at the time of listing.
Since listing, the island night lizard has
been twice identified on Sutil Island.
Due to the small size of Sutil Island,
proximity to Santa Barbara Island, and
ownership of Sutil and Santa Barbara
Island by the NPS, we included the
population of Sutil Island and
discussion of threats with the
population of Santa Barbara Island.
At the time of listing, several threats
related to destruction of habitat were
identified for the island night lizard on
one or more of the Channel Islands.
Since listing, these threats have been
addressed by multiple actions through
implementation of the Navy’s INRMPs
and the NPS’s management policies.
While a variety of threats existed under
Factor A, not all threats were present on
all three islands.
All nonnative herbivores have been
removed from San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands, and
the slow process of natural recovery of
native habitat is ongoing. Management
actions to control, remove, or prevent
introduction of nonnative plant species
are also implemented on all three
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
islands by the Navy and NPS. Current
management efforts on San Clemente
and San Nicolas Islands to avoid or
minimize impacts from land use and
development, fire, and erosion due to
military activities have resulted in
reduction of threats to the island night
lizard or its habitat on those islands.
Land use and development is not
considered a threat to the lizard or its
habitat on Santa Barbara Island. Fire is
also not a substantial threat to the lizard
or its habitat on Santa Barbara Island
due to limited human presence, current
fire management policy on the island,
and an FMP for Channel Islands
National Park (including Santa Barbara
Island). Erosion resulting from historical
grazing by nonnative herbivores and
historical land use practices is
exacerbated by current military
activities. Efforts to control these
sources of erosion on San Clemente and
San Nicolas Islands are currently
ongoing, as outlined in the Navy’s
INRMPs. As a result of management
efforts by the Navy and NPS, we do not
consider any of these habitat threats to
be substantial to the island night lizard
or its habitat on any of the occupied
islands, nor do we expect them to
become so in the foreseeable future.
Disease is not a current threat for the
island night lizard on any of the islands
where it occurs nor do we anticipate it
to be in the foreseeable future; however,
predation has impacted the species in
the past and continues to be a potential
impact to individuals on San Clemente
Island. We do not consider predation to
be a substantial threat currently or in
the foreseeable future due to ongoing
feral cat removal efforts implemented
through the Navy’s INRMP. All feral
cats have been removed from San
Nicolas Island, and predation is not a
threat to the lizard on Santa Barbara
Island. Finally, research indicates that
the southern alligator lizard is not a
threat to the island night lizard on San
Nicolas Island.
The overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes and inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms are not threats to the island
night lizard on any of the occupied
islands, nor do we anticipate them to
become threats in the foreseeable future.
Climate change has been identified as
a potential threat with regards to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailments of its
habitat, as well as with regard to other
human and manmade factors. However,
we cannot precisely determine how
climate change will potentially impact
the island night lizard and its habitat on
San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands. While climate change
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7933
may impact the lizard and its habitat,
we are unable to accurately predict the
effects to the species and its habitat.
However, species biology indicates that
the lizard may be able to withstand
some changes in habitat conditions.
Therefore, we do not consider climate
change to be a substantial threat to the
species throughout its range now or in
the foreseeable future.
At the time of listing, the number of
island night lizards on San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
was unknown. Research conducted
since then indicates that approximately
21 million island night lizards occur on
San Clemente Island, 15,300 lizards
occur on San Nicolas Island, and 17,600
lizards occur on Santa Barbara Island.
While no new population numbers are
available, new habitat assessments
indicate that the amount of quality
habitat supporting the island night
lizard has increased on each of the
islands. It is likely that the number of
lizards has increased in association with
the increase of quality habitat on all
three islands. Currently, the Navy
conducts monitoring for management
actions that impact threatened or
endangered species, including the
island night lizard, as required by its
INRMP. If the island night lizard is
removed from the List, the Navy would
continue to monitor the lizard and its
habitat through post-delisting
monitoring efforts to ensure the species
is recovering and does not warrant
relisting in the foreseeable future. The
NPS conducts monitoring on Santa
Barbara Island to assess the impacts of
management actions on threatened and
endangered species, including the
island night lizard and its habitat.
Additionally, the NPS monitors all
natural resources, including the island
night lizard, and would also participate
in post-delisting monitoring efforts to
ensure the species does not warrant
relisting in the foreseeable future.
We conclude that, since the time of
listing, all substantial threats to the
island night lizard have been
ameliorated. Any remaining potential
threats to the species are currently
managed to minimize impacts. The one
exception is climate change, for which
there is not sufficient information to
make accurate predictions about the
timing and degree of potential impacts.
However, data suggest that the
extinction risk for the family Xantusidae
(which includes the Island night lizard)
is zero through the year 2080 (based on
Sinervo et al. (2010) evaluation of
Xantusidae (see Climate Change
section)). Therefore, using 2080 as our
frame of reference for determining the
foreseeable future (which is generally
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7934
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
the latest time period that most climate
change emission scenario models use
because they lose confidence beyond
this point), we concluded that this is not
likely to become a substantial threat
now or in the foreseeable future. We
also note that all six primary objectives
of the Recovery Plan were, or are in the
process of, being fulfilled (see Recovery
Plan Implementation section).
Additionally, since listing, it was
determined that over 21 million lizards
exist in high-quality habitat among the
three islands. Based on the current level
of threats, we would not anticipate
future declines in population numbers.
Therefore, we conclude that the island
night lizard is not likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, because all
substantial threats have been
ameliorated, potential threats are
currently managed, and Recovery Plan
objectives have been initiated or
fulfilled. As such, we recommend
removing the island night lizard from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
Significant Portion of Its Range
The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’
as any species which is ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ The
definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant
to this discussion. The Act defines
‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term
‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment [DPS] of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’ The
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
(SPR) is not defined by the statute, and
we have never addressed in our
regulations: (1) The consequences of a
determination that a species is either
endangered or likely to become so
throughout a significant portion of its
range, but not throughout all of its
range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of
a range as ‘‘significant.’’
Two recent district court decisions
have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or
protect less than all members of a
defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife
v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D.
Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s
delisting of the Northern Rocky
Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, Apr.
12, 2009) and WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253
(D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the
Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR
6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service had
asserted in both of these determinations
that it had authority, in effect, under the
Act to protect only some members of a
‘‘species,’’ as defined by the Act
(species, subspecies, or DPS). Both
courts ruled that the determinations
were arbitrary and capricious on the
grounds that this approach violated the
plain and unambiguous language of the
Act. The courts concluded that reading
the SPR language to allow protecting
only a portion of a species’ range is
inconsistent with the Act’s definition of
‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that
once a determination is made that a
species (species, subspecies, or DPS)
meets the definition of ‘‘endangered
species’’ or ‘‘threatened species,’’ it
must be placed on the list in its entirety
and the Act’s protections applied
consistently to all members of that
species (subject to modification of
protections through special rules under
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation,
and for the purposes of this finding, we
interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion
of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of
‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ to provide an independent
basis for listing; thus there are two
situations (or factual bases) under which
a species would qualify for listing: a
species may be endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range or
a species may be endangered or
threatened in only a significant portion
of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, the
species is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ The
same analysis applies to ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Based on this interpretation
and supported by existing case law, the
consequence of finding that a species is
endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range is that the
entire species shall be listed as
endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the Act’s protections shall be
applied across the species’ entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this
finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase
as providing an independent basis for
listing is the best interpretation of the
Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the
key definitions of the Act; it does not
conflict with established past agency
practice, as no consistent, long-term
agency practice has been established;
and it is consistent with the judicial
opinions that have most closely
examined this issue. Having concluded
that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of
its range’’ provides an independent
basis for listing and protecting the entire
species, we next turn to the meaning of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold
for when such an independent basis for
listing exists.
Although there are potentially many
ways to determine whether a portion of
a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we
conclude, for the purposes of this
finding, that the significance of the
portion of the range should be
determined based on its biological
contribution to the conservation of the
species. For this reason, we describe the
threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of
an increase in the risk of extinction for
the species. We conclude that a
biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the
purposes of the Act, is consistent with
judicial interpretations, and best
ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for
the purposes of this finding, and as
explained further below, a portion of the
range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its
contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without
that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance
based on the principles of conservation
biology using the concepts of
redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the
characteristics of a species and its
habitat that allow it to recover from
periodic disturbance. Redundancy
(having multiple populations
distributed across the landscape) may be
needed to provide a margin of safety for
the species to withstand catastrophic
events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures
that the species’ adaptive capabilities
are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency,
and representation are not independent
of each other, and some characteristic of
a species or area may contribute to all
three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an
indicator of representation, but it may
also indicate a broad geographic
distribution contributing to redundancy
(decreasing the chance that any one
event affects the entire species) and the
likelihood that some habitat types are
less susceptible to certain threats,
contributing to resiliency (the ability of
the species to recover from disturbance).
None of these concepts is intended to be
mutually exclusive, and a portion of a
species’ range may be determined to be
‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions
under any one or more of these
concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we
determine if a portion’s biological
contribution is so important that the
portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by
asking whether without that portion the
representation, redundancy, or
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an
increased vulnerability to threats to the
point that the overall species would be
in danger of extinction (would be
‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would
not consider the portion of the range at
issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is
sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation elsewhere in the species’
range that the species would not be in
danger of extinction throughout its
range if the population in that portion
of the range in question became
extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of
‘‘significant’’ (a portion of the range of
a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its
contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that without that
portion the species would be in danger
of extinction) establishes a threshold
that is relatively high. On the one hand,
given that the consequences of finding
a species to be endangered or threatened
in an SPR would be listing the species
throughout its entire range, it is
important to use a threshold for
‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not
be meaningful or appropriate to
establish a very low threshold whereby
a portion of the range can be considered
‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible
increase in extinction risk would result
from its loss. Because nearly any portion
of a species’ range can be said to
contribute some increment to a species’
viability, use of such a low threshold
would require us to impose restrictions
and expend conservation resources
disproportionately to conservation
benefit: Listing would be rangewide,
even if only a portion of the range of
minor conservation importance to the
species is imperiled. On the other hand,
it would be inappropriate to establish a
threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too
high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a
portion of the range can be considered
‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that
portion result in the entire species being
currently endangered or threatened.
Such a high bar would not give the SPR
phrase independent meaning, as the
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of
Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th
Cir. 2001).
The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in
this finding carefully balances these
concerns. By setting a relatively high
threshold, we minimize the degree to
which restrictions will be imposed or
resources expended that do not
contribute substantially to species
conservation. But we have not set the
threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a
significant portion of its range’’ loses
independent meaning. Specifically, we
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
have not set the threshold as high as it
was under the interpretation presented
by the Service in the Defenders
litigation. Under that interpretation, the
portion of the range would have to be
so important that current imperilment
there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled
everywhere. Under the definition of
‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the
portion of the range need not rise to
such an exceptionally high level of
biological significance. (We recognize
that if the species is imperiled in a
portion that rises to that level of
biological significance, then we should
conclude that the species is in fact
imperiled throughout all of its range,
and that we would not need to rely on
the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation we ask
whether the species would be
endangered everywhere without that
portion, that is, if that portion were
completely extirpated. In other words,
the portion of the range need not be so
important that even the species being in
danger of extinction in that portion
would be sufficient to cause the species
in the remainder of the range to be
endangered; rather, the complete
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of
the species in that portion would be
required to cause the species in the
remainder of the range to be
endangered.
The range of a species can
theoretically be divided into portions in
an infinite number of ways. However,
there is no purpose in analyzing
portions of the range that have no
reasonable potential to be significant or
in analyzing portions of the range in
which there is no reasonable potential
for the species to be endangered or
threatened. To identify only those
portions that warrant further
consideration, we determine whether
there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
‘‘significant’’ and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
Depending on the biology of the species,
its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the
status question first. Thus, if we
determine that a portion of the range is
not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of
its range, we do not need to determine
if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In
practice, a key part of the determination
that a species is in danger of extinction
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7935
in a significant portion of its range is
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of
threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species’ range that
clearly would not meet the biologically
based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such
portions will not warrant further
consideration.
We consider the ‘‘range’’ of the island
night lizard to be San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
(including Sutil Island) of the California
Channel Islands.
We considered whether the threats
facing the island night lizard might be
different on San Clemente Island with
approximately 99.85 percent of the
population compared to San Nicolas
and Santa Barbara Islands with,
combined, approximately 0.15 percent
of the population (Service 2012b). A
detailed spatial evaluation of threats
showed that the level of threat, and
extent of protective measures, is
different on San Clemente Island and
San Nicolas Island, compared to Santa
Barbara Island due to ownership and
activities conducted by the Navy
(Service 2012b, unpublished data).
However, all substantial threats have
been ameliorated from those islands,
and the remaining potential threats to
the island night lizard are actively
managed for by the Navy through
implementation of INRMPs, Federal
Noxious Weed Act, and Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act. On Santa Barbara Island there are
no substantial threats, and the
remaining potential threats receive
protections provided through the
implementation of NPS’s management
policies and the Channel Islands
National Park Wildland FMP, in
accordance with the Organic Act. It is
our conclusion, based on our evaluation
of the current potential threats to the
island night lizard on San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
(see Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section), that threats are neither
sufficiently concentrated nor of
sufficient magnitude to indicate the
species is in danger of extinction on any
island and thus it is likely to persist
throughout its range.
Summary of Finding
According to 50 CFR 424.11(d), a
species may be delisted if the best
scientific and commercial data available
substantiate that the species is neither
endangered nor threatened because of:
(1) Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
7936
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
in the original data for classification of
the species. We consider ‘‘recovery’’ to
apply to the island night lizard because,
since listing, all substantial threats to
the lizard have been ameliorated. All
remaining potential threats to the
species and its habitat, with the
exception of climate change for which
there is not information on which to
make accurate predictions, are currently
managed through management plans
(the Navy’s INRMPs on San Clemente
and San Nicolas Islands in accordance
with the Sikes Act, Federal Noxious
Weed Act, and Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act; and the NPS’s
management policies in accordance
with the Organic Act on Santa Barbara
Island). Upon completion of this
finding, a majority of all six primary
objectives of the Recovery Plan have
been fulfilled. Therefore, we find that
the island night lizard no longer
requires the protection of the Act and
we propose removing the species from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Effects of This Rule
This rule, if made final, would revise
50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the island
night lizard from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. Because no
critical habitat was designated for this
species, this rule would not affect 50
CFR 17.95.
If this species is removed from the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the
Act, particularly through sections 7 and
9 of the Act, would no longer apply.
Removal of the island night lizard from
the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife would relieve Federal agencies
from the need to consult with us to
ensure any action they authorize, fund,
or carry out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of this species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule
and the draft post-delisting monitoring
(PDM) plan. The purpose of peer review
is to ensure that decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. We have invited these
peer reviewers to comment during this
comment period on this proposed rule
and draft PDM plan, and the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposed delisting. Accordingly, the
final decision may differ from this
proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us,
in cooperation with the States, to
implement a monitoring program for not
less than 5 years for all species that have
been recovered and delisted (50 CFR
17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this postdelisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify
that a species remains secure from risk
of extinction after it has been removed
from the protections of the Act. The
PDM is designed to detect the failure of
any delisted species to sustain itself
without the protective measures
provided by the Act. If, at any time
during the monitoring period, data
indicate that protective status under the
Act should be reinstated, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of
the Act explicitly requires us to
cooperate with the States in
development and implementation of
PDM programs, but we remain
responsible for compliance with section
4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively
engaged in all phases of PDM. We also
seek active participation of other
entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species’
conservation post-delisting.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview
The Service has developed a draft
PDM plan for the island night lizard in
cooperation with the Navy and NPS.
The PDM plan is designed to verify that
the island night lizard remains secure
from risk of extinction after removal
from the list of federally threatened or
endangered species by detecting
changes in its status and habitat
throughout its known range. With this
notice, we are soliciting public
comments and peer review on the draft
PDM Plan including its objectives and
procedures (see Public Comments
Solicited). All comments on the draft
PDM plan from the public and peer
reviewers will be considered and
incorporated into the final PDM plan as
appropriate. Please see the plan,
available at https://www.fws.gov/
southwest/es/Library/, https://
ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=C01M, or
https://www.regulations.gov for more
details.
The draft PDM plan outlines
monitoring that will take place for 5
years over a 9-year period (i.e., years 1,
3, 4, 7, and 9). The draft PDM Plan
includes the following measures:
(1) Monitoring the overall health of
the island night lizard populations on
each island through trap capture rates
and recruitment at previously
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
established sampling sites. This
monitoring will occur in all habitats for
9 years following delisting. Biologists
will conduct density assessments using
several methodologies including: Pitfall
traps, rock-turn surveys, and
coverboards arranged in grid arrays or
transects. Efforts will be made to sample
all sites within each sampling period.
Surveys to assess recruitment will be
conducted in October for each sampling
year.
(2) Monitoring high-quality habitat
will occur twice throughout postdelisting monitoring to assess
abundance and distribution of habitats
on all islands. Recently completed
island-wide habitat maps will be
utilized as the baseline assessment to
compare with post-delisting monitoring
mapping efforts.
(3) Identifying thresholds that would
trigger an extension of monitoring,
alteration of management approach, or a
status review will be established related
to island night lizard density,
recruitment, and habitat.
Additionally, we are recommending
that land managers on each island
conduct monitoring in previously
unsampled areas on each island
consisting of different habitats at least
once during PDM with a focus on highquality habitat. Within these new areas,
we recommend using already
established protocols to allow for
comparison of newly sampled island
night lizard densities and distribution
with previously established sites for
each island. We also recommend
establishing identical protocols for each
island to allow for comparison among
islands. Lastly, we recommend that each
island continue restoration efforts of
high-quality island night lizard habitat
to increase distribution and
connectivity.
We also expect to monitor the
commitments and actions of
management plans implemented by the
Navy and NPS, which manage potential
threats to the island night lizard and its
habitat, including the introduction and
current persistence of nonnative plants,
land use and development, erosion, and
fire.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized,
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly,
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon,
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences, and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the names of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320,
which implement provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), require that Federal
agencies obtain approval from OMB
before collecting information from the
public. This rule does not contain any
new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will
not impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:39 Feb 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
7937
National Environmental Policy Act
Author
We determined we do not need to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement,
as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
The primary author of this proposed
rule is the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office in Carlsbad, California (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In concurrence with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and the Department of the
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal tribes on a
government-to-government basis. We
have determined that there are no tribal
lands affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this proposed rule is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
or upon request from the Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
§ 17.11
[Amended]
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the
entry for ‘‘Lizard, Island night’’ under
‘‘REPTILES’’ in the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
■
Dated: January 23, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–02020 Filed 2–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04FEP3.SGM
04FEP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7907-7937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02020]
[[Page 7907]]
Vol. 78
Monday,
No. 23
February 4, 2013
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Island
Night Lizard From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7908]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0099; FXES11130900000-134-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AY44
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the
Island Night Lizard From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; notice of document
availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the island night lizard (Xantusia riversiana) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This action is based on a
review of the best available scientific and commercial information,
which indicates that the species no longer meets the definition of
endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This proposed rule, if made final, would
remove the island night lizard as a threatened species from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This document also constitutes our
12-month finding on a petition to remove the island night lizard from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
April 5, 2013. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by March 21, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R8-ES-
2012-0099, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. On the
search results page, under the Comment Period heading in the menu on
the left side of your screen, check the box next to ``Open'' to locate
this document. Please ensure you have found the correct document before
submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided
comment box, please use this feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as
it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach
your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is
Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters),
our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2012-0099; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments below for more information).
Document availability: A copy of the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan can be viewed at https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C01M.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad,
CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile (fax) 760-431-5901. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This document contains: (1) A 12-month finding in response to a
petition to delist the San Clemente and San Nicolas Island distinct
population segments (DPSs); (2) a proposed rule to remove the island
night lizard from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife; and (3) a notice of availability of a draft post-delisting
monitoring plan.
Species addressed. The island night lizard (Xantusia riversiana) is
endemic to three Channel Islands (San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara) located off the southern California coast and a small islet
(Sutil Island) located just southwest of Santa Barbara Island. Habitat
restoration and reduced adverse human-related impacts since listing
have resulted in significant improvements to habitat quality and
quantity. As a result, threats to the island night lizard have been
largely ameliorated. Though population densities were not known at the
time of listing, the island night lizard populations are currently
estimated at 21.3 million lizards on San Clemente Island, 15,300
lizards on San Nicolas Island, and 17,600 lizards on Santa Barbara
Island (including Sutil Island).
Purpose of the Regulatory Action. Under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, we may be petitioned to list, delist, or reclassify a species.
In 2004, we received a petition from the Navy asserting that each of
the three island occurrences of island night lizard qualifies for
recognition as a DPS under the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996) and requesting that we delist the San Clemente and San Nicolas
Island DPSs (Navy 2004, p. 12). In 2006, we published a 90-day finding
(71 FR 48900) concluding that the Navy's petition provided substantial
information supporting that delisting may be warranted and we thus
announced the initiation of a status review for this species, which is
summarized in this document.
Basis for the Regulatory Action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or threatened species based on
any of five factors: (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. We must consider the same factors in
delisting a species. We may delist a species if the best scientific and
commercial data indicate the species is neither threatened nor
endangered for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or
endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the
species was classified were in error.
Threats to the island night lizard at the time of listing included
destruction of habitat by feral goats and pigs, predation, and the
introduction of nonnatives throughout the species range. We reviewed
all available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the
five threat factors in our status review of the island night lizard.
The results of our status review are summarized below.
We consider the island night lizard to be ``recovered''
because all substantial threats to the lizard have been ameliorated.
All remaining potential threats to the species and its
habitat, with the exception of climate change, are currently managed
through implementation of management plans.
While we recognize that results from climate change such
as rising air temperatures, lower rainfall amounts, and rising sea
level are important issues with potential effects to the island night
[[Page 7909]]
lizard and its habitat, the best available information does not
indicate that potential changes in temperature, precipitation patterns,
and rising sea levels would significantly impact the island night
lizard or its habitat. We expect that the lizard's susceptibility to
climate change is somewhat reduced by its ability to use varying
habitat types and by its broad generalist diet; therefore, we do not
consider climate change to be a substantial threat to the species at
this time.
We find that delisting the island night lizard is
warranted and we propose to remove this taxon from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
We have also prepared a draft post-delisting monitoring
plan to monitor the island night lizard after delisting to verify that
the species remains secure.
Acronyms Used
We use several acronyms throughout the preamble to this proposed
rule. To assist the reader, we set them forth here:
BMP = best management practices
CHIS = Channel Islands National Park
DPS = Distinct Population Segment
FMP = Fire Management Plan
GHG = greenhouse gas
INLMA = Island Night Lizard Management Area
INRMP = Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MSRP = Montrose Settlements Restoration Program
Navy = United States Department of the Navy
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
NHRP = Native Habitat Restoration Program
NPS = National Park Service
OMB = Office of Management and Budget
PDM = post-delisting monitoring
PRBO = Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Service = United States Fish and Wildlife Service
SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area
SPR = Significant Portion of the Range
Public Comments
We intend any final action resulting from this proposal to be based
on the best scientific and commercial data available, and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or information from other governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons why we should or should not delist the island night
lizard under the Act.
(2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or
lack thereof) to this species.
(3) New information concerning the population size or trends of
this species.
(4) New information on the restoration of Lycium californicum
(California boxthorn), which contain the highest recorded densities of
island night lizards throughout their range.
(5) New information on the current or planned activities in the
subject areas that may adversely affect or benefit the species.
(6) New information and data on the projected and reasonably likely
impacts to island night lizard or its habitat associated with climate
change.
(7) Information regarding how best to conduct post-delisting
monitoring (PDM), should the proposed delisting lead to a final
delisting rule (see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview section
below, which briefly outlines the goals of the draft PDM Plan that is
available for public comment concurrent with publication of this
proposed rule). Such information might include suggestions regarding
the draft objectives, and monitoring procedures for establishing
population and habitat baselines, or for detecting variations from
those baselines over the course of at least 9 years.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule (and associated draft PDM Plan) by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an
address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, we will post your entire comment--including your
personal identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If
your written comments provide personal identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that we withhold this information
from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able
to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your
comment to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial data you
submit.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your
request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and
local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule and the draft PDM Plan. The purpose of
peer review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. A peer review panel will conduct
an assessment of the proposed rule and draft PDM Plan, and the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed delisting. This
assessment will be completed during the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information
that listing or reclassifying the species may be warranted, we make a
finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In
this finding, we will determine whether the petitioned action is: (a)
Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are
endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We must publish these 12-month findings
in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
The island night lizard was proposed as a threatened species under
the Act on June 1, 1976 (41 FR 22073) based on threats from habitat
degradation from grazing by introduced animals on all
[[Page 7910]]
three islands and from ``habitat alterations caused by farming, fire,
grazing by introduced animals, and invasion by exotic plants'' on San
Nicolas and Santa Barbara Islands. A final rule listing the island
night lizard as a threatened species was published in the Federal
Register on August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40682). We finalized a Recovery Plan
for the Endangered and Threatened Species of the California Channel
Islands (Recovery Plan) in January 1984, which addressed the island
night lizard and six other federally listed species occurring on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands (including Sutil
Island) off the coast of southern California (Service 1984).
Subsequently, we initiated notice of reviews and requested public
comments concerning the status of the island night lizard under 4(c)(2)
of the Act on September 27, 1982 (47 FR 42387), July 7, 1987 (52 FR
25523), and November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56882). None of those reviews
resulted in a recommendation to change the status of the species; no
summaries were published.
In 1997, the National Wilderness Institute submitted a petition to
delist the island night lizard on the basis of data error (National
Wilderness Institute 1997). In a letter to the National Wilderness
Institute dated June 29, 1998 (Service 1998), we indicated that due to
the low priority assigned to delisting activities in our 1997 Fiscal
Year Listing Priority Guidance, we were not able to act on the petition
at that time.
In 2004, the Navy submitted a petition asserting that the island
night lizard populations on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands each qualify as DPSs (Navy 2004). The petition stated
that the island night lizard populations meet the discreteness and
significance criteria of the Service's and National Marine Fisheries
Service's Joint Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments under the Act (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996). The petition sought the delisting of the San Clemente and San
Nicolas Island distinct population segments of island night lizard.
On July 7, 2005 (70 FR 39327), we announced the initiation of a 5-
year review of the island night lizard and requested that interested
parties submit information regarding the species' status. We published
a second notice in the Federal Register on November 3, 2005 (70 FR
66842), extending the request for information concerning the island
night lizard. No information regarding the status of the island night
lizard was received in response to either information request. On
August 22, 2006 (71 FR 48900), we published in the Federal Register a
90-day finding for both the 1997 and 2004 petitions to delist the
island night lizard. In our 90-day finding, we determined the 1997
petition from the National Wilderness Institute did not provide
substantial information indicating that delisting the island night
lizard due to data error was warranted, which concluded our review of
that petition. However, we determined the 2004 petition from the Navy
provided substantial information indicating the petitioned actions of
delisting the San Clemente and San Nicolas Island populations may be
warranted and initiated a 12-month status review, which is represented
by this proposed delisting rule.
In September 2006, we completed a 5-year review of the island night
lizard (Service 2006, pp. 24-26). In that review, we conducted a
preliminary DPS analysis of the island night lizard populations on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands and concluded that the
lizards on each island may qualify as DPSs under the Service's policy
because they may each meet the discreteness and significance criteria.
Additionally, the 2006 5-year review recommended revising the listing
of the island night lizard by designating each island as a DPS. That
review also recommended classifying the San Nicolas and Santa Barbara
Island DPSs as threatened. Lastly, the 5-year review concluded that the
San Clemente Island DPS had recovered due to the amelioration of
threats and recommended delisting of this DPS (Service 2006, p. 26).
However, we stated that we would continue to seek additional
information and refine our preliminary DPS analysis in the context of
the 12-month finding on the Navy's petition to delist the San Clemente
and San Nicolas populations of the island night lizard (Service 2006,
p. 5). We published a notice in the Federal Register on February 14,
2007 (72 FR 7064), announcing the availability of completed 5-year
reviews, including the island night lizard 5-year review. A copy of the
2006 5-year review for the island night lizard is available on the
Service's Environmental Conservation Online System [https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc776.pdf].
Most recently, we published a notice of initiation of 5-year
reviews in the Federal Register on May 21, 2010 (75 FR 28636),
initiating a further status review for the island night lizard. We
completed this review for the lizard on October 5, 2012. The 2012
review recommended delisting the lizard throughout its entire range due
to the amelioration of substantial threats and current management of
potential threats to the species and its habitat (Service 2012a, p.
44). As we are adopting this recommendation in this finding, we do not
further address here the DPS status of the three island populations.
Species Information
The island night lizard occurs on three of the Channel Islands off
the coast of California: San Clemente Island, San Nicolas Island, and
Santa Barbara Island. It also occurs on a small islet, Sutil Island,
just southwest of Santa Barbara Island. The majority of information on
island night lizard biology and life history comes from studies
conducted on San Clemente Island, with some additional studies and
information from San Nicolas and Santa Barbara islands. The information
on island night lizards on Sutil Island is limited to the two occasions
it was documented there.
Description
Island night lizard adults average 2.6 to 4.3 inches (in) (65 to
109 millimeters (mm)) in length from snout to vent (Goldberg and Bezy
1974, p. 356; Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 28; Mautz 1993, p. 422).
Dorsal coloration ranges from pale ash gray and beige to shades of
brown and shades of black with varying uniform, mottled, and striped
patterns (Bezy et al. 1980, p. 575; Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 42-44).
Both coloration and patterning are highly variable among lizards on all
islands throughout their range (Bezy et al. 1980, p. 575; Fellers and
Drost 1991, pp. 43-44).
Biology and Life History
The island night lizard is a slow-growing, late-maturing, and long-
lived lizard (Goldberg and Bezy 1974, pp. 355-358; Fellers and Drost
1991, pp. 36-42). Island night lizards can live on average 11 to 13
years, with some individuals estimated to be 30 years of age (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 38; Mautz 1993, p. 420; Fellers et al. 1998, p. 25).
Members of the genus Xantusia are primarily active during the day
(Bezy 1988, p. 8); however, they are highly sedentary and tend to
remain under shelter such as dense vegetation or rocks (Fellers and
Drost 1991, pp. 50, 55; Mautz 1993, p. 419). Sheltered areas provide
suitable cover to protect the species from predation and allow
sufficient amounts of sunlight to penetrate to the ground, providing a
range of temperatures for thermal regulation (regulation of body
temperature) (Mautz 2001a, pp. 9-12).
Island night lizards are viviparous (bear live young) and reach
sexual
[[Page 7911]]
maturity at approximately 3 to 4 years of age (Goldberg and Bezy 1974,
p. 355; Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 40). Breeding begins around March or
April and single broods of young are born around September (Goldberg
and Bezy 1974, p. 353). Females demonstrate irregular intervals between
reproductive cycles, but appear to approach a biennial cycle
(approximately half of sexually mature females reproduce in any given
year) (Goldberg and Bezy 1974, p. 358). The island night lizard is
unique within the genus Xantusia for having a brood size greater than
two (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 59); however, brood size differs among
each of the islands where the species occurs, with females on San
Nicolas Island averaging 5.3 young per brood and females on both San
Clemente and Santa Barbara Islands averaging 3.9 young per brood
(Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 60).
Based on multiple years of surveys on San Clemente Island, neonate
(young of the year) island night lizards on average comprise about 25
percent of the population (Mautz 1993, p. 422), but this percentage may
be lower during periods of drought. Between August 2003 and July 2004,
only 1.65 in (42 mm) of rain fell on San Clemente Island (Mautz 2005,
p. 5). Surveys conducted in 2004 during the first part of the birthing
season (early September) revealed neonate lizards comprised only 14 of
the 199 lizards captured (approximately 7 percent) (Mautz 2005, p. 5).
In contrast, surveys conducted in October 2006 following a very rainy
winter on San Clemente Island (9.65 in (245 mm) of rainfall) revealed
45 of the 127 lizards (35 percent of those captured) were yearlings (in
the first year of life) (Mautz 2007, p. 4). Had the 2006 survey taken
place in early September, the yearlings would have been counted as
neonates. The significant difference in the percentage of neonates or
yearlings between dry and wet years may be representative of the
species' reproductive response to annual variations in rainfall and
food abundance.
Island night lizards are omnivorous, with a diet primarily
consisting of insects and plant matter (Knowlton 1949, p. 45;
Brattstrom 1952, pp. 168-171; Mautz 1993, p. 417). Analyses of stomach
and digestive tract contents of 24 lizards collected from San Clemente
Island in 1948 revealed an omnivorous diet consisting of insects
(including species of Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, and
Hymenoptera); grass, sedge, seeds, and fruits; lizard skin; and the
remains of what appeared to be juvenile mice (Knowlton 1949, p. 45). In
15 of the 24 specimens, plant material constituted at least 50 percent
of the total food identified in the stomach contents (Knowlton 1949, p.
46). A more detailed analysis of numerous species of Xantusia,
including specimens of the island night lizard from San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands, was conducted by Brattstrom (1952,
p. 3). Based on samples of the stomach and intestinal contents,
Brattstrom (1952, p. 172) determined that the island night lizard eats
the widest variety of foods of any of the species of the Genus Xantusia
included in the research. Although all age groups will eat both plant
and animal material, younger lizards consume a greater amount of animal
prey in their diet than older lizards (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 56).
Plant material found in the stomach or fecal samples of island night
lizards included Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (crystalline iceplant);
the fruits, flowers, and leaves of Lycium californicum (California
boxthorn); and the fruits of Atriplex semibaccata (Australian saltbush)
(Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 55-56).
Distribution and Habitat
The island night lizard is endemic to three Channel Islands (San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara) located off the southern
California coast (Goldberg and Bezy 1974, pp. 355-358; Fellers and
Drost 1991, p. 28) and a small islet (Sutil Island) located just
southwest of Santa Barbara Island (Bezy et al. 1980, p. 579). San
Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island are managed by the Navy, while
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island are owned and managed by the
National Park Service. San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara
Islands vary in size and the amount of suitable habitat available for
the island night lizard (see Table 1 below at the end of the
``Population Density and Abundance'' section, which highlights the
lizard's estimated population size for each island in relation to each
island's size and the available habitat present). San Clemente Island
is the largest and southernmost of the Channel Islands occupied by the
lizard, consisting of approximately 37,200 acres (ac) (15,054 hectares
(ha)), and is located approximately 68 miles (mi) (109 kilometers (km))
west of San Diego, California, and 55 mi (89 km) south of Long Beach,
California (Navy 2002, p. 1.1). San Nicolas Island is the second
largest and westernmost of the three Channel Islands inhabited by the
lizard, consisting of approximately 14,230 ac (5,698 ha), and is
located approximately 28 mi (45 km) southwest of Santa Barbara Island
and 50 mi (80 km) northwest of San Clemente Island (Fellers et al.
1998, p. 5). Santa Barbara Island is the smallest and northernmost
island inhabited by the lizard, consisting of approximately 640 ac (259
ha), and is located approximately 38 mi (61 km) from the mainland of
southern California (Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 5, 29) and 28 mi (45
km) northeast of San Nicolas Island.
Sutil Island is an islet located approximately 0.4 mi (0.65 km)
southwest of Santa Barbara Island and consisting of approximately 13.7
ac (5.5 ha). At the time of listing (42 FR 40682), island night lizards
were not known to occur on Sutil Island. Since listing, we are aware of
only two occasions where island night lizards were documented on Sutil
Island and, currently, little information concerning the species on
Sutil Island exists.
Different surveys and descriptions of the vegetation types on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands have referred to the
habitat supporting island night lizards under various names and
descriptions. Two vegetation types identified by Sawyer et al. (2009)
support most of the known dominant plant taxa associated with the
lizard. The two vegetation types are Coast prickly pear scrub and
Lycium californicum Provisional Shrubland Alliance. In Coast prickly
pear scrub, cacti such as Opuntia littoralis (coastal prickly pear),
Opuntia oricola (chaparral prickly pear), and Cylindropuntia prolifera
(coast cholla) are dominant or codominant among the shrub canopy
(Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 599-601). Lycium californicum Provisional
Shrubland Alliance is characterized by the prevalence of L.
californicum (Sawyer et al. 2009, p. 588).
Cylindropuntia prolifera is referred to by its older Latin name,
Opuntia prolifera, in numerous references cited in this document (for
example, Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p. 17; Navy
2002, p. 3.54). While the Service recognizes that C. prolifera is the
currently accepted name of this species and is used in discussions that
reference current literature in this document (for example, Sawyer et
al. 2009 and NPS in litt. 2011b), we will use the older name of O.
prolifera only when referencing previous literature. Vegetation now
classified as Coast prickly pear scrub includes communities variously
referred to as Maritime Succulent Scrub and Maritime Desert Scrub in
several references cited within this document (Fellers and Drost 1991,
pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p. 17; Navy 2002, p. 3.54). Lycium
californicum Provisional Shrubland Alliance (Sawyer et al. 2009, p.
588) is
[[Page 7912]]
a vegetative community in which L. californicum is a dominant or
codominant species and taxa such as Coreopsis gigantea (giant
coreopsis), Bergerocactus emoryi (golden-spined cereus), and C.
prolifera are present. This is also referred to as Maritime Succulent
Scrub, Maritime Desert Scrub, or boxthorn habitat by numerous
references included within this document (for example, Fellers and
Drost 1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p. 17; Navy 2002, p. 3.54). To
eliminate any confusion, we will refer to the vegetation types that
comprise high-quality habitat and supports high island night lizard
densities as L. californicum and Opuntia spp. habitats.
Surveys conducted on the islands occupied by the island night
lizard indicate strong habitat preferences for Lycium californicum and
Opuntia spp. habitats (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 34; Schwemm 1996, pp.
3-4; Mautz 2001a, p. 23; Mautz 2004, p. 18). These habitats are
considered high quality because they offer suitable cover to protect
the species from predation and allow sufficient amounts of sunlight to
penetrate to the ground, which provides a thermal mosaic for thermal
regulation (Mautz 2001a, pp. 9-11, 17-18). Island night lizards are
also known to occupy grasslands, Coreopsis gigantea stands, mixed shrub
communities, rocky outcrops, and cobble and driftwood habitats (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 34; Schwemm 1996, pp. 3-4; Mautz 2001a, p. 23; Mautz
2004, p. 18). Loose rocks or crevices in clay soils are also important
habitat components within island night lizard habitat (Fellers and
Drost 1991, p. 53; Mautz 2001a, p. 17).
Mautz (2001a, pp. 17-18) suggested that vegetation community
characteristics may be as important to island night lizard habitat as
species composition. This assertion is corroborated by Fellers et al.
(1998, p. 16), who concluded that plywood debris, which serves as cover
in grasslands with scattered Haplopappus (haplopappus) and few to no
other shrub species, was a factor that contributed to high densities of
lizards at sampling sites on San Nicolas Island.
In addition to natural cover, artificial cover created by human
presence on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands may
also be utilized by island night lizards, thereby enabling them to
persist in areas of otherwise unsuitable habitat. During surveys for
the species on San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, lizards were
routinely found under pieces of plywood discarded by U.S. Navy (Navy)
personnel (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 18). The presence of these boards,
some of which may have been in place for a decade or more, provided an
opportunity for researchers to assess longevity of the species because
some specific lizards were recorded (captured and recaptured) over long
intervals of time (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 7). Underlying soils may
also indicate whether an area supports lizards. Extensive trapping
conducted on San Nicolas Island determined that loose sand substrates
are unsuitable for the species (Fellers et al. 1998, pp. 11-17). Very
little information exists concerning the vegetative communities on
Sutil Island.
San Clemente Island
San Clemente Island supports approximately 19,640 acres (ac) (7,948
hectares (ha)) of high-quality island night lizard habitat distributed
primarily along the western marine terraces (Navy 2002, p. 3.54). There
are approximately 13,791 ac (5,581 ha) of Opuntia spp. habitat and
5,849 ac (2,367 ha) of Lycium californicum habitat (Service 1997, p. 6;
Navy 2002, p. 3.54). From 1992 to 2008, a long-term trend analysis was
conducted, which indicated no clear trend in habitats dominated by
Opuntia spp. or L. californicum on San Clemente Island, but there was
an approximate 6 percent reduction of L. californicum and 10 percent
reduction of Opuntia spp. in the cover of those habitats on the island
(Tierra Data Inc. 2010, pp. 48-67). This observed decrease was likely
due to high rainfall experienced in the baseline years from 1991 to
1993, in comparison to subsequent rainfall (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, p.
125).
Low- to moderate-quality island night lizard habitat consisting of
Artemisia spp. (sagebrush), Eriogonum spp. (buckwheat), Deinandra
clementina (as Hemizonia clementina) (Catalina tarweed), as well as
Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp., occupies approximately 386 ac
(156 ha) of the northeastern escarpment of San Clemente Island (Navy
2002, p. 3.65). Low-quality grassland habitat occupies approximately
11,831 ac (4,788 ha) on the central plateau and eastern scarp of the
island (Navy 2002, p. 3.54). Lizards on San Clemente Island have not
been found in closed-canopy canyon or woodland habitats, which do not
allow sufficient amounts of sunlight to penetrate the canopy cover for
thermal regulation, or active sand dunes that do not offer sufficient
cover for the species (Mautz 2001a, pp. 4, 9, 18).
San Nicolas Island
Due to differing survey methodologies and precision of mapping
efforts, the amount of high-quality habitat on San Nicolas Island has
varied over time. Based on these various surveys and methodologies,
little high-quality habitat is known to exist on San Nicolas Island.
Site specific vegetation transects completed in 1996 failed to locate
Lycium californicum and only once located Opuntia spp. (Chess et al.
1996, pp. 19-46). Fellers et al. (1998, p. 46) conducted an island-wide
analysis of the vegetation, utilizing aerial photos and on the ground
surveys, and estimated 1.9 ac (0.8 ha) of high-quality island night
lizard habitat and about 161 ac (65 ha) of lower-quality mixed shrub
habitat occur on San Nicolas Island. In 2003, Junak (2003, p. 7) also
conducted an island-wide survey of the vegetation utilizing helicopter
flyovers, on the ground surveys, and Global Positioning System
receivers and estimated that approximately 11.2 ac (4.6 ha) of high-
quality habitats were available on the island. That high-quality
habitat occurs primarily on the eastern half of the island and is
patchily distributed with lower-quality habitat (Fellers et al. 1998,
pp. 13-14). The lower-quality habitat is a mixed shrub community
comprising Haplopappus spp., Calystegia macrostegia (island morning-
glory), Coreopsis gigantea, Atriplex semibaccata, Deinandra clementina,
Lupinus albifrons (silver lupine), Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush),
and Artemisia spp. (Fellers et al. 1998, pp. 16-17). Island night
lizards generally do not inhabit the western half of San Nicolas Island
due to a lack of suitable vegetative or rock cover. One exception is a
0.6-ac (0.2-ha) area of cobble and driftwood habitat at Redeye Beach
that is just above the intertidal zone on the northwestern side of the
island (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 11). Occupancy within this habitat,
which supports the highest density of lizards on the island, is unique
to San Nicolas Island (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 11).
Santa Barbara Island
Habitat on Santa Barbara Island is limited due to the small size of
the island and the extensive habitat damage that occurred historically
when goats (Capra spp.), sheep (Ovis spp.), and European rabbits
(Oryctolagus cuniculus) were present (Service 1984, pp. 45-46; Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 70). Using aerial photographs of the island from
1983 and ground surveys, Fellers and Drost (1991, p. 68) identified
approximately 14.8 ac (6 ha) of high-quality habitat on Santa Barbara
Island that included Lycium californicum, Opuntia spp., and rock
outcrops. Low- to moderate-quality habitat on Santa Barbara Island also
contains some
[[Page 7913]]
Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp., but is dominated by Coreopsis
gigantea, Eriogonum giganteum var. compactum (Santa Barbara Island
buckwheat), and Eriophyllum nevinii (silver-lace) (Fellers and Drost
1991, p. 70); these native shrub communities are patchily distributed
in grasslands across a majority of the island (Halvorson et al. 1988,
p. 111).
The National Park Service (NPS) is preparing a new preliminary
vegetative analysis of Santa Barbara Island, but it has not been
finalized (NPS 2011b, in litt.). Preliminary results from surveys
conducted in 2010 (in a report not yet finalized) by the NPS indicate
an increase in high-quality habitat, where Lycium californicum and
Opuntia spp. are dominant or codominant among the vegetation (NPS
2011b, in litt.). Results indicate that there are approximately 16.6 ac
(6.7 ha) of L. californicum and 9.3 ac (3.8 ha) of Opuntia oricola
habitat where these taxa account for greater than 39 percent of the
vegetative cover (Rodriguez 2012, pers. obs.). A preliminary analysis
concerning Cylindropuntia prolifera, another documented habitat for the
lizard, is not yet available.
Sutil Island
Little is known about the habitat on Sutil Island. Sutil Island
consists of approximately 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) (Rudolph 2011, pers. obs.),
much of it unbroken bedrock, with some vegetation identified as island
night lizard habitat, such as low shrubs, Lycium californicum, and
rocks and fissures, but these are sparsely distributed (Drost 2011,
pers. obs.).
Population Density and Abundance
At listing (42 FR 40682), island night lizard population densities
were not known on any of the inhabited Channel Islands. Island night
lizards appear to show preference for several habitat types (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 68; Mautz 2001a, pp. 17-19); however, determining an
overall population estimate is difficult due to the sedentary and
reclusive behavior of the species. The highest lizard population
densities are observed in Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp. habitats
(Fellers and Drost 1991, pp. 34, 68; Mautz 2001a, p. 17). Lizards are
found in lower densities throughout shrub communities, rocky outcrops,
grasslands, and in stands of Coreopsis gigantea (Service 1984, p. 93;
Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 35; Mautz 2001a, pp. 17-22). Mautz (2004, p.
8) reported that a large number of lizards are repeatedly recaptured in
survey traps. High recapture rates, in conjunction with large survey
grids relative to their home range size, indicate that standardized
trapping provides a good estimate of local densities (White 1982, p.
130). Therefore, trapping in suitable cover on San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands can be a good indicator of lizard
density and overall abundance (Mautz 2001a, p. 17).
San Clemente Island
Surveys conducted over a 7-year period indicate that San Clemente
Island contains the largest population of island night lizards. From
1991 to 1998, researchers calculated population densities using data
from pitfall traps, cover boards, and rock turn surveys in high-quality
island night lizard habitat (Mautz 2001a, pp. 17-23, 43-54). The Navy
conducted similar surveys in 2009 and 2010; as of 2011 (Mautz 2011,
pers. comm.), those results were not yet analyzed and are not currently
available.
Density estimates were assessed by analyzing capture rates and
mark-recapture data, based on the 1991 to 1998 surveys, using three
methodologies: (1) A minimum estimate measure of the number of animals
intercepted in a single sample; (2) a Lincoln Index; and (3) a
Regression Index (Mautz 2001a, pp. 21-23). The minimum estimate measure
resulted in a population of 8.18 million on San Clemente Island;
however, Mautz (2001a, pp. 20-22) indicated that this number represents
an underestimate because most of the lizard population is inaccessible
in dense vegetation or underground, and pitfall traps intercept only
animals active in the immediate vicinity of the trap. The Lincoln Index
estimated that 16.71 million lizards occurred on San Clemente Island;
however, Mautz (2001, pp. 43-44) again cautioned that this method could
underestimate the number of lizards because inadequate mixing of those
captured lizards back into the population could result in a higher
proportion of recaptures. The Regression Index estimated that 25.89
million lizards occurred on San Clemente Island; however, Mautz (2001,
p. 51) cautioned that this method could overestimate the number of
lizards because the index requires a closed sampling population and the
extended period of time of sampling from 1991-1998 may accommodate an
increased amount of immigration and emigration on the study plots.
Mautz (2001a, pp. 21-23) suggested that a reasonable estimate of
island night lizard density on San Clemente Island could be calculated
from the average between the Lincoln and Regression Indexes. This
calculation resulted in an estimate of 21.3 million lizards on the
island. Evaluation of the habitat type where the data was collected was
used to estimate lizard densities in high-quality habitat: 1,934
lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in Lycium californicum habitat, 2,558
lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in Opuntia littoralis and O. oricola
habitat, and 1,423 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in O. prolifera habitat
(Mautz 2001a, p. 23). These high-quality habitats occur on the lower
marine terraces of the west side of the island and support
approximately half of the estimated population (10.4 million) of
lizards (Mautz 2001a, p. 29). In the lower-quality habitat areas,
island night lizards were estimated at 1,142 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha)
in upland plateau grasslands and 926 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in
scarp grassland and coastal sage (Mautz 2001a, p. 23). No lizards were
found in canyon woodland and active sand dunes on the island (Mautz
2001a, p. 23). Because there has not been a new population estimate or
much change in the quantity of habitat, the Service and Navy continue
to use the estimate of 21.3 million lizards.
San Nicolas Island
Estimates of the number of island night lizards on San Nicolas
Island have been assessed from a number of data collection efforts. The
primary study conducted surveys from 1992 to 1995 using pitfall traps,
coverboards, and Sherman small mammal traps arranged in transects
through suitable habitat and on the edges of impenetrable habitats
(Fellers et al. 1998, p. 7). That study also utilized data from surveys
conducted by Tom Murphey from 1984 to 1985 (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 5).
Lastly, Fellers et al. (1998, p. 71) also used grid arrays conducted
from 1992 to 1995, from some of the areas initially surveyed by Tom
Murphey.
Fellers et al. (1998, p. 46) estimated the number of lizards on San
Nicolas island and density of lizards in different habitat types by
comparing survey data from populations on Santa Barbara Island with
aerial photograph estimates of the habitat on San Nicolas Island.
Overall, lizard abundance on San Nicolas Island was estimated at 15,300
individuals (Fellers et al. 1998, p. 20). Island night lizard densities
were estimated at 3,200 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in Lycium
californicum habitat, 2,500 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in Opuntia spp.
habitat, and 200 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in mixed-shrub habitat
(Fellers et al. 1998, p. 46). Island night lizards are found primarily
on the eastern half of San Nicolas Island; however, the island does
support an
[[Page 7914]]
exceptionally high density of lizards (4,000 per 2.47 ac (1 ha)) in
cobble and driftwood habitat found on Redeye Beach at the northwestern
end of the island (Fellers et al. 1998, pp. 11, 20). The mixed-shrub
habitat is only utilized by the island night lizard on San Nicholas
Island and it is unknown whether it supports a self-sustaining lizard
population. Through examination of aerial photographs and ground
surveying efforts, Fellers et al. (1998, p. 46) estimated approximately
0.13 ac (0.05 ha) of L. californicum and 1.17 ac (0.47 ha) of Opuntia
spp. existed on San Nicolas Island.
Subsequent to Fellers et al. (1998), Junak (2003, p. 7) revised the
estimated amount of Opuntia spp. and Lycium californicum habitats on
San Nicolas Island, and concluded there were 11.2 ac (4.6 ha) of these
habitats available on the island, compared to 1.3 ac (0.52 ha)
previously. A new population assessment of island night lizards on San
Nicolas Island has not been conducted, though we anticipate that the
number of lizards has increased due to the increase in high-quality
habitat. Currently, the Navy's 2010 Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (INRMP) for San Nicolas Island continues to use the
population size of approximately 15,000 lizards established by Fellers
et al. (1998, p. 20) as the current population estimate (Navy 2010, p.
3-43).
Santa Barbara Island
Surveys to assess island night lizard population status were
conducted on Santa Barbara Island from 1981 to 1988 using pitfall traps
and Sherman small mammal traps in transects and grid arrays depending
on the island's topography (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 30). Island
night lizard densities were estimated at 3,213 lizards per 2.47 ac (1
ha) in Lycium californicum habitat, 2,476 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in
Opuntia spp. habitat, and 1,665 lizards per 2.47 ac (1 ha) in rock
habitat (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 68). All other habitat types or
vegetative communities on the island displayed a density of zero
(Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 68). Based on estimates of available
habitat types and extrapolation of lizard densities within those
habitat types, a total of approximately 17,600 lizards were estimated
to occur on Santa Barbara Island in 1991 (Fellers and Drost 1991, p.
68). A new preliminary vegetative analysis of Santa Barbara Island is
being drafted and until it is finalized, we will use Fellers and Drost
(1991, p. 68) density estimates as the most recent estimate. The
Service and NPS continue to use this estimate, because there has been
little change in the quantity of habitat available and no additional
population estimates have been conducted.
Sutil Island
Sutil Island was not known to be occupied at the time the island
night lizard was listed. In 1978, a survey of Sutil Island was
conducted and 12 lizards were identified (Wilson 1979, as cited in
Power 1979, p. 8.5). In 1991, Drost (2011, pers. obs.) visited the
island and though there was little habitat that could be turned or
searched, he observed one lizard in a rock crevice. He noted that
though vegetative cover on the island was sparse, there were surface
cracks, fissures, and boulder cover that could provide cover. We have
no surveys for the island night lizard on Sutil Island since 1978.
Because Sutil Island is within close proximity to Santa Barbara Island,
has very few to no visitors annually, and like Santa Barbara Island is
managed by the NPS, we will incorporate Sutil Island in the discussion
of Santa Barbara Island for the remainder of this document.
Table 1--Island Size, Amount of Habitat, and Population Size of the Island Night Lizard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Island Size Amount of high-quality population
habitat* (million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Clemente............................ 37,200 ac (15,054 ha)..... 19,640 ac (7,948 ha)...... 21.3
San Nicolas**........................... 14,230 ac (5,698 ha)...... 11.8 ac (4.8 ha).......... 15,300
Santa Barbara........................... 640 ac (259 ha)........... 25.9 ac (10.5 ha)......... 17,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* High-quality habitat (Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.).
** Amount of habitat includes cobble and driftwood habitat unique to San Nicolas Island.
Recovery Planning and Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to the
maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions that may be necessary to
achieve the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria, which when met would result in
a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the list; and
(3) Estimates of the time and cost required to carry out the plan.
Revisions to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a
species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections
4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the
Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or threatened (or
not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Objective,
measurable criteria, or recovery criteria contained in recovery plans,
must indicate when we would anticipate an analysis of the five threat
factors under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that a
species is no longer endangered or threatened. Section 4(b) of the Act
requires the determination be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
While recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the
Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to
listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when
recovery is achieved, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Determinations to remove a
species from the List made under section 4(a)(1) of the Act must be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time
of the determination, regardless of whether that information differs
from the recovery plan.
In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species,
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being
fully met. For example, one or more recovery criteria may have been
exceeded while other criteria may
[[Page 7915]]
not have been accomplished, yet the Service may judge that, overall,
the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust
enough, that the Service may reclassify the species from endangered to
threatened or perhaps delist the species. In other cases, recovery
opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time
the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used
instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information
may change the extent that recovery criteria need to be met for
recognizing recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a
dynamic process requiring adaptive management, planning, implementing,
and evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may
not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
Thus, while a recovery plan provides important guidance on the
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is ultimately
based on an analysis of whether a species is no longer endangered or
threatened. The following discussion provides a brief review of
recovery planning for the island night lizard, as well as an analysis
of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the
status of the species.
In 1984, the Service published the Recovery Plan for the Endangered
and Threatened Species of the California Channel Islands (Recovery
Plan) that addressed three candidate species and seven federally
threatened or endangered plants and animals, including the island night
lizard, distributed among three of the Channel Islands (Service 1984).
Given the threats in common to the 10 species addressed, the Recovery
Plan is broad in scope and focuses on restoration of habitats and
ecosystem function. The Recovery Plan included six general objectives
covering all 10 of the plant and animal species:
(1) Identify present adverse impacts to biological resources and
strive to eliminate them.
(2) Protect known resources from further degradation by: (a)
Removing feral herbivores, carnivores, and selected exotic plant
species; (b) controlling unnatural erosion in sensitive locations; and
(c) directing military operations and adverse recreational uses away
from biologically sensitive areas.
(3) Restore habitats by revegetating disturbed areas using native
species.
(4) Identify areas of San Clemente Island where habitat restoration
and population increase of certain addressed taxa may be achieved
through a careful survey of the island and research on habitat
requirements of each taxon.
(5) Delist or upgrade the listing status of those taxa that achieve
vigorous, self-sustaining population levels as the result of habitat
stabilization, restoration, and preventing or minimizing adverse human-
related impacts.
(6) Monitor effectiveness of recovery effort by undertaking
baseline quantitative studies and subsequent follow-up work (Service
1984, pp. 106-107).
Our review of the Recovery Plan focuses on the actions identified
that promote the recovery of the island night lizard. The Recovery Plan
adopts a generalized strategy to eliminate or control selected threats
associated with nonnative species, erosion, and habitat disturbance.
Elimination of these threats and restoration of degraded habitat on the
Channel Islands are necessary for recovery of the island night lizard.
The Recovery Plan states that ``[o]nce the threats to these taxa have
been removed or minimized and the habitats are restored, adequately
protected, and properly managed, reclassification for some taxa may be
considered'' (Service 1984, p. 108). Actions specified in the Recovery
Plan that are pertinent to recovery of the threatened island night
lizard include:
(1) Eliminate selected nonnative species from San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands.
(2) Conduct a soil survey of San Clemente Island.
(3) Construct check-dams to control erosion on San Clemente Island.
(4) Revegetate eroded and disturbed areas on San Clemente Island.
(5) Conduct specific programs for the island night lizard once
management recommendations are formulated to enhance populations.
(6) Provide good-quality habitat for endangered or threatened birds
(includes expanding Lycium californicum, which is high-quality island
night lizard habitat).
(7) Modify existing management plans to minimize habitat
disturbance.
(8) Implement policies to minimize habitat disturbance or loss.
(9) Prevent the introduction of additional nonnative taxa.
(10) Maintain restriction of recreational use of Santa Barbara
Island to existing designated trails.
(11) Establish an ecological reserve for regions of high density of
island night lizards on San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands.
(12) Determine island night lizard essential habitat, habitat
requirements and preferences, population size, distribution, and
effects of nonnative plants on the species and utilize data for
development of habitat recommendations and habitat restoration.
(13) Evaluate the success of management actions.
(14) Increase public support for recovery efforts.
(15) Use existing laws and regulations to protect the island night
lizard.
Specific criteria for determining when threats have been removed or
sufficiently minimized for the island night lizard are not identified
in the Recovery Plan. However, six objectives are described in general
to achieve recovery of the Channel Island species. Following are a
summary of actions and activities that have been implemented according
to the 1984 Recovery Plan (Service 1984, pp. 106-107), and that
contribute to achieve these recovery objectives.
Objective 1: Identify Present Adverse Impacts to Biological Resources
and Strive To Eliminate Them
Actions taken by the Navy and NPS to contribute to achieving this
objective include: education and outreach; development and
implementation of management plans to identify, minimize, and address
threats; management, control, and elimination of nonnative predators,
herbivores, and invasive plants; consultation and coordination with the
Service; and control of erosion. These actions are discussed briefly
below and in greater detail in the five-factor analysis.
The Navy has taken steps to eliminate incidental impacts to the
island night lizard by educating all Navy personnel stationed on San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands. All Navy personnel receive handouts,
pamphlets, or posters presenting information on the distribution,
threats, and management responsibilities of sensitive resources, such
as federally threatened and endangered species, including the island
night lizard. The NPS has also taken steps to eliminate incidental
impacts to the lizard by educating all visitors to Santa Barbara Island
(including Sutil Island). Brochures discussing the island's unique
wildlife, including the island night lizard, as well
[[Page 7916]]
as maps of designated trails that all visitors must use to decrease
disturbance to wildlife and lessen damage to resources, are available
to all visitors of the island at the visitors' center or online at the
Channel Islands National Park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/chis/index.htm).
The Recovery Plan also recommends that existing laws and
regulations be used to protect candidate, threatened, and endangered
species, including the island night lizard. Based on the occurrences of
this species on federally owned land, the primary laws with potential
to protect the island night lizard include the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Sikes Act Improvement Act, NPS Organic Act,
Federal Noxious Weed Act, Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act,
and the Act.
NEPA requires Federal action agencies to integrate environmental
values into their decision-making processes by considering the
environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable
alternatives to those actions. Since its enactment in 1970, the Navy
has implemented NEPA for actions on San Clemente and San Nicolas
Islands, and the NPS has implemented NEPA for actions on Santa Barbara
Island (including Sutil Island).
Pursuant to the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997, the Navy adopted
INRMPs for San Clemente Island in 2002 and San Nicolas Island in 2010
that help guide the management and protection of each island's natural
resources (Navy 2002; Navy 2010). INRMPs incorporate to the maximum
extent practicable, ecosystem management principles and provide the
landscape necessary to sustain military land uses. Each INRMP includes
specific management actions and objectives to address the Recovery Plan
task of incorporating recovery actions into existing management plans
(see Factor D below). Through these mechanisms, the Navy is required to
identify and address all threats to federally listed species during the
INRMP planning process. If possible, threats are ameliorated,
eliminated, or mitigated through this procedure. The Navy strives to
fulfill this objective through both internal planning (INRMP) and
compliance with Federal law (consultations with the Service under the
Act and preparing environmental review documents under NEPA). The
actions taken by the Navy under the INRMPs have not completely
eliminated all adverse impacts, but many threats to island night
lizards have been greatly reduced. These contributions to the
elimination of adverse impacts fulfill a majority of this objective
with respect to island night lizard as stated in the Recovery Plan.
Since listing of the Island night lizard under the Act in 1977, the
Navy and NPS have had a history of consultation and coordination with
the Service regarding the effects of various activities on the island
night lizard on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands.
Objective 2: Protect Known Resources From Further Degradation by: (a)
Removing Feral Herbivores, Carnivores, and Selected Exotic Plant
Species; (b) Controlling Unnatural Erosion in Sensitive Locations; and
(c) Directing Military Operations and Adverse Recreational Uses Away
From Biologically Sensitive Areas
In 1992, the Navy fulfilled a major part of this objective by
removing the last of the feral goats and pigs from San Clemente Island.
Currently, the Navy has an ongoing predator control program to trap and
remove feral cats and rats from San Clemente Island. From 2009 to 2010,
the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP) assisted the Navy
by removing all feral cats from San Nicolas Island. In 1981, the last
of the European rabbits (a nonnative herbivore) were removed from Santa
Barbara Island. These actions to remove predators and nonnative
herbivores, or develop removal programs for potential predators, have
fulfilled this component of objective 2 in the Recovery Plan to remove
feral and nonnative animals. Additionally, the Navy on both San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, in accordance with the Federal
Noxious Weed Act and through implementation of the Navy's INRMPs,
conducts actions to reduce or eliminate all transport of nonnative
plants to each island, and has facilitated programs to remove nonnative
taxa that currently occur on the islands. On Santa Barbara Island, the
NPS implements policies and management activities (in accordance with
the Organic Act) that restrict all nonnative plant species from the
island. Additionally, in partnership with the MSRP, nonnative plant
removal is currently occurring on Santa Barbara Island. These actions
to control nonnative plants on all islands occupied by the island night
lizard have fulfilled most of this component of objective 2 in the
Recovery Plan to remove exotic plant species.
The Navy is also taking steps to minimize the effects of erosion on
San Clemente Island. Erosion control measures are being incorporated
into project designs to minimize the potential to exacerbate existing
erosion (O'Connor 2009, pers. comm.). Along with the Navy's planned
expansion of its military operational areas, the Navy is developing an
erosion control plan that will minimize soil erosion within and
adjoining the operational areas (Navy 2008b, pp. 5-30; Service 2008 p.
62). The proposed erosion control plan includes development and
application of best management practices (BMPs) such as: establishing
setbacks and buffers from steep slopes, drainages, and sensitive
resources; constructing site-specific erosion control structures;
conducting revegetation and routine maintenance; and monitoring and
adjusting the BMPs as appropriate. While the erosion control plan is
being prepared, the Navy has postponed all major battalion movements
and training, and is using BMPs to minimize erosion when creating and
approving projects that might contribute to erosion on the island. The
Navy has taken steps to reduce the threat of erosion on the island and
contribute to the achievement of this objective.
Through implementation of INRMPs on San Clemente and San Nicolas
Islands, the Navy conducts measures to avoid areas with highly erodible
soils. Additionally, San Clemente has a nursery to grow native island
plants, which are then used to assist in erosion control of disturbed
sites. San Nicolas Island has developed a nursery for similar erosion
control measures. On Santa Barbara Island, NPS requires the active
preservation of soil resources and the avoidance or minimization of
impacts to soil. These actions to prevent erosion fulfill this
component of objective 2 of the Recovery Plan.
As recommended by the INRMP, the Navy established the Island Night
Lizard Management Area (INLMA), which is avoided to the maximum extent
practicable to assist with the recovery of the island night lizard and
its habitat. Additionally, through implementation of INRMPs on both San
Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, the Navy defines and marks work areas
to prevent lizard mortality. The NPS has designated trails on Santa
Barbara Island to allow visitors to view the island's ecosystems
without being obtrusive or destructive to the natural resources. These
actions to avoid biologically sensitive areas fulfill objective 2 with
respect to island night lizard as stated in the Recovery Plan.
[[Page 7917]]
Objective 3: Restore Habitats by Revegetating Disturbed Areas Using
Native Species
To restore the structure and function of native island ecosystems,
the Navy, through implementation of its INRMP on San Clemente Island,
has developed the Native Habitat Restoration Program and constructed a
native plant nursery where plants, including species that provide a
benefit to island night lizard habitat, are grown from seed, and stem
and root cuttings, and outplanted annually. Additionally, the MSRP
currently grows native plant species in a nursery on Santa Barbara
Island to support island night lizard restoration projects. To date,
approximately 15,000 native plants, some providing a benefit to the
island night lizard, have been restored to Santa Barbara Island. These
actions to restore habitat by revegetation fulfill the objective as
stated in the Recovery Plan.
Objective 4: Identify Areas of San Clemente Island Where Habitat
Restoration and Population Increase of Certain Addressed Taxa May Be
Achieved Through a Careful Survey of the Island and Research on Habitat
Requirements of Each Taxon
Since listing, research on the life history and biology of the
island night lizard has been ongoing on San Clemente Island. Research
has determined the island night lizard's distribution and density in
various habitats on San Clemente Island (Mautz 1993; Mautz 2001a).
Additionally, the Navy developed the INLMA (as part of the 2002 INRMP)
to conserve the largest area of high-quality habitat with the highest
densities of island night lizards. The Navy currently avoids and
minimizes impacts to the lizard for any projects or training activities
proposed in this area through consultation with the Service. Thus,
these actions completely fulfill the objective as stated in the
Recovery Plan.
Objective 5: Delist or Upgrade the Listing Status of Those Taxa That
Achieve Vigorous, Self-Sustaining Population Levels as the Result of
Habitat Stabilization, Restoration, and Preventing or Minimizing
Adverse Human-Related Impacts
Since listing, threats to the island night lizard have been largely
ameliorated, including removal of all nonnative herbivores from San
Clemente and Santa Barbara Islands and removal of feral cats from San
Nicolas Island. Given that habitat types that are strongly associated
with island night lizards appear to be increasing slowly through
natural recovery and restoration projects, as well as the amelioration
of all substantial threats to the island night lizard, the populations
on the three islands appear to be stable. Remaining threats, such as
nonnative plants, land use and development, fire, and erosion, are
potentially of concern, but are actively managed through implementation
of management plans and measures described in the Navy's INRMPs and
NPS's management policies and active management plans. Thus, the
objective to improve the status of the island night lizard to the point
it can be delisted has been fully met.
Objective 6: Monitor Effectiveness of Recovery Effort by Undertaking
Baseline Quantitative Studies and Subsequent Follow-Up Work
Since listing and publication of the Recovery Plan, island night
lizard monitoring has been conducted on San Clemente Island, with one
assessment of the population estimated at approximately 21.3 million
island night lizards. Although no subsequent population assessments
have occurred since 2001, ongoing monitoring of individual body
condition and neonate-to-juvenile ratios indicates the density of
island night lizards still strongly corresponds to certain vegetation
types. Assessments of the extent and quality of those habitats have
been conducted more recently, as discussed below in more detail.
San Clemente Island supports the largest amount of high-quality
island night lizard habitat. Monitoring from 1992 to 2008 has shown
fluctuating short-term trends, but no clear long-term trend, in Opuntia
spp. or Lycium californicum habitats on San Clemente Island (Tierra
Data Inc. 2010, pp. 48-67). However, there was an approximate 6 percent
reduction of L. californicum and 10 percent reduction of Opuntia spp.
in percent cover of those habitats on the island (Tierra Data Inc.
2010, pp. 48-67). This reduction was likely due to high rainfall
experienced in the baseline years from 1991 to 1993, in comparison to
subsequent rainfall (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, p. 125). While research has
not indicated how this reduction in cover affects island night lizard
populations, monitoring surveys and estimates of island night lizard
populations indicate the species remains abundant in suitable habitat.
We expect continued monitoring on San Clemente Island, including that
associated with ongoing and proposed habitat restoration projects, to
show island night lizard populations remaining stable or increasing on
the island. These monitoring efforts fulfill the objective as stated in
the Recovery Plan.
On San Nicolas Island, there has been one assessment of the island
night lizard's population in 1998 and two assessments of the vegetation
associated with high densities of island night lizards. The first
vegetation assessment was conducted in 1998 by Fellers et al. (1998). A
second vegetation assessment was conducted in 2003 by Junak (2003, p.
7), which indicated an increase in high-quality Opuntia spp. and L.
californicum habitats from 1.9 ac (0.8 ha) in 1998 to 11.2 ac (4.6 ha).
This increase was probably due to more current data and better mapping
technology. Monitoring of lizards on San Nicolas Island will be
conducted every 5 years by the U.S. Geological Survey in connection
with proposed habitat restoration projects (Navy 2010, p. 4.55).
Because this species population is strongly correlated with abundance
of habitat, and we have seen an increase in available habitat, we
expect island night lizard populations to remain stable or increase in
number on the island. These monitoring efforts fulfill the objective as
stated in the Recovery Plan.
On Santa Barbara Island, there has been one assessment of the
island night lizard population and two assessments of the amount of
high-quality habitat consisting of Opuntia spp. and Lycium
californicum. The first habitat assessment was conducted from an
examination of aerial photographs from 1983 and indicated a total of
14.8 ac (6.0 ha) of L. californicum and Opuntia spp. habitats (Fellers
and Drost 1991, p. 31). However, a new preliminary draft assessment
indicates that approximately 16.6 ac (6.7 ha) of L. californicum and
9.3 ac (3.8 ha) of O. oricola habitats exist in which these species
comprise greater than 39 percent of the vegetative cover (Rodriguez
2012, pers. obs.). Additionally, the MSRP continues to restore native
habitat on Santa Barbara Island, including species that provide
moderate-quality habitat for the island night lizard. Therefore, we
expect the island night lizard population to remain stable or increase
on Santa Barbara Island. These monitoring actions fulfill this
objective as stated in the Recovery Plan.
Summary of Recovery Plan Implementation
In summary, while the Recovery Plan does not include taxon-specific
downlisting or delisting criteria for the island night lizard, many of
the actions identified in the Recovery Plan have been implemented to
benefit the lizard. With the exception of a few recommended recovery
actions that are
[[Page 7918]]
still ongoing, nearly all recovery objectives have been fulfilled
through research and monitoring efforts on all occupied islands,
implementation of the Navy's INRMPs on San Clemente and San Nicolas
Islands, and NPS's management policies on Santa Barbara Island. Most
significantly, the Navy removed feral goats and pigs from San Clemente
Island in 1992. There are currently a number of programs in place to
improve habitat suitability, prevent introduction of nonnative species,
guide and track management efforts, and protect occurrences of the
island night lizard. We investigated other potential threats to the
lizard and concluded that they do not pose significant impacts. As a
result of the management actions conducted by the Navy and NPS,
substantial threats have been ameliorated throughout the species' range
and the majority of objectives discussed in the Recovery Plan are
fulfilled.
Based on our review of the Recovery Plan, we conclude that the
status of the island night lizard has improved due to past and current
activities being implemented by the Navy and NPS, and the objectives of
the Recovery Plan have been met. The effects of these activities on the
status of island night lizard are discussed in further detail below.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). We may
determine a species 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. The five listing factors are: (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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same
five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according
to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best available scientific and commercial
data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for
the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has
recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; or (3) the
original scientific data used at the time the species was classified
were in error. The five factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and their analyses in relation to the island night lizard are presented
below. This analysis of threats requires an evaluation of both the
threats currently facing the subspecies and the threats that could
potentially affect it in the foreseeable future, following the
delisting and the removal of the Act's protections.
The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). A threatened species is one that is likely
to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). The
word ``range'' refers to the range in which the species currently
exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to the value of that
portion of the range being considered to the conservation of the
species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period of time over which
events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends
extrapolated.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the
status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is.
The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to the risk of
extinction of the species, such that the species warrants listing as
endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act.
However, the identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude and
extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition
of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682), the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range was
identified as a factor affecting the island night lizards on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands. Threats attributed to
this factor included the introduction of nonnative herbivores and the
continuing negative effects of overgrazing on the native vegetation,
including those plants identified as island night lizard habitat (42 FR
40682, pp. 40683-40684). The introduction of nonnative plant species
was also discussed in the listing rule (42 FR 40682, p. 40684),
although under the Factor E section. Since listing, and as identified
in the 2006 5-year review of the island night lizard (Service 2006, pp.
10-24), threats from nonnative plants, land use or development, and
fire also were considered potential threats to island night lizard
habitat and are discussed under Factor A. The 2012 5-year review
addressed the potential threat of erosion to island night lizard
habitat or range under Factor A (Service 2012a, pp. 26-27), and thus it
is also included in this discussion. And finally, we include discussion
on potential impacts of climate change to habitat under Factor A (as
well as Factor E as it relates to impacts to individuals of the species
itself).
Nonnative Animals
At listing we determined that overgrazing by introduced nonnative
herbivores was a threat to the island night lizard on all occupied
islands throughout the species' range (42 FR 40682, pp. 40683-40684).
Nonnative herbivores were introduced to San Clemente, San Nicolas, and
Santa Barbara Islands during the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s, resulting
in the degradation of lizard habitat (42 FR 40682, pp. 40682-40683;
Navy 2002, pp. 3.34-3.35; Navy 2005, p. 7). In both the 2006 and 2012
5-year reviews, the Service reported that all nonnative herbivores had
been removed from these islands and concluded that habitat destruction
or modification from the introduction of nonnative herbivores was no
longer a threat to the species now or in the future (Service 2006, pp.
11-12; Service 2012a, p. 19).
San Clemente Island
Introduced nonnative herbivores and omnivores have historically and
adversely impacted the quantity and quality of habitat and food sources
for the island night lizard on San Clemente Island. The last of the
nonnative grazing animals was removed from San Clemente Island by 1992;
however, the effects of overgrazing, such as depletion of native
plants, remain prominent on the central plateau and terraces between
canyons on the southern portion of the island. To monitor the response
of vegetation to the removal of these nonnative grazers, the Navy
implemented a long-term monitoring program from 1992 to 2008 (Tierra
Data
[[Page 7919]]
Inc. 2010). The analysis from the monitoring program indicated a slight
reduction in the percent cover of Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp.
habitats on San Clemente Island. This apparent decline is likely due to
an overestimate in the baseline years from 1991 to 1993 resulting from
higher rainfall, compared to a reduction in rainfall in subsequent
years (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, pp. 48-67). This slight reduction in
percent cover is not a cause for concern because this habitat remains
well-distributed across the western terraces of the island where there
was less grazing impact and where the Navy has established the INLMA.
The Navy has no intention of reintroducing large nonnative herbivores
to San Clemente Island and has a ``no pets policy'' to control the
introduction of any nonnative species (Navy 2002, p. 3.119). Because
the major threat to habitat (nonnative herbivores) has been eliminated
and the Navy has an active habitat management and restoration program,
as described below, we expect the amount and distribution of habitat to
remain relatively stable in the future, although some fluctuation is
expected related to variable rainfall.
To restore the structure and function of native island ecosystems
impacted by nonnative herbivores, the Navy implements a Native Habitat
Restoration Program (NHRP) on San Clemente Island (Navy 2002, p. 3.51).
As part of that program, the Navy operates a native plant nursery that
supports habitat restoration projects for native species such as the
San Clemente Island loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi) and
island night lizard. Plants propagated at the nursery include species
that benefit the island night lizard, such as Lycium californicum,
Artemisia californica, and Coreopsis gigantea (Navy 2002, p. 3.51). The
Navy outplants at several locations each year to promote native species
(Munson 2011, pers. obs.). The Navy has also planted L. californicum at
Wilson Cove on the northeastern side of San Clemente Island for
restoration of areas disturbed by military activities (Munson 2011,
pers. obs.). These restoration efforts implemented by the Navy have
improved the abundance of native habitat on San Clemente Island and
have provided a benefit to multiple species, including the island night
lizard.
San Nicolas Island
Although nonnative herbivores were not present on San Nicolas
Island at the time of listing (42 FR 40682), the island has a history
of grazing activities prior to listing that resulted in impacts on
native plant communities. The compounding effects of overgrazing and
wind erosion allowed for the emergence of sand dunes on San Nicolas
Island, which do not provide habitat for island night lizards (Dunkle
1950, p. 262; Schwartz 1994, p. 173). More recently, in 2011, the Navy
completed a Biosecurity Plan for San Nicolas Island to prevent the
transport and establishment of nonnative vertebrate species on the
island (Navy 2011, p. 1) (See discussion under Factor C: Disease or
Predation below). The goal is to protect the existing biodiversity on
the island by preventing further degradation of habitat on the island
from grazing activities now and in the future. Additionally, the Navy
is in the process of developing a habitat management and restoration
program to improve the abundance of native plant species on the island.
To assist in habitat restoration activities on San Nicolas Island (see
Land Use and Development section below), the Navy has created a plant
nursery that will yield plants, including species identified as
components of island night lizard habitat for future restoration
projects on San Nicolas Island (Ruane 2013, pers. comm.).
We anticipate no future impacts to island night lizard habitat as a
result of nonnative herbivores, and we expect the amount and
distribution of habitat to remain relatively stable in the future
(although some fluctuation is expected related to variable rainfall)
because: (1) The major threat to habitat (nonnative herbivores) was
eliminated from San Nicolas Island, thus preventing further reduction
of lizard habitat from this threat; and (2) the Navy is in the process
of developing a habitat management and restoration program.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Island night lizard habitat on Santa Barbara Island was modified
due to the introduction of nonnative herbivores such as European
rabbits, which heavily impacted the quantity and quality of habitat for
the island night lizard. European rabbits were removed from Santa
Barbara Island by 1981 (Sumner 1959, p. 5; Fellers and Drost 1991, p.
70, p. 354; Knowlton et al. 2007, p. 535). The NPS currently has a
nonnative species prevention policy that restricts bringing any animal
onto the island (NPS 2012). Since the removal of nonnative herbivores,
Santa Barbara Island native plant communities, such as Artemisia spp.,
Lycium californicum, and others, have shown resurgence and are
increasing in extent (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 70). Research
conducted on Santa Barbara Island from 1982 to 2002 showed an increase
in native island night lizard plant communities of Opuntia littoralis
and Eriogonum giganteum, but a decline in O. prolifera (Corry 2006, pp.
51-53).
Since 2007, the MSRP has conducted native plant restoration
projects on Santa Barbara Island (Harvey and Barnes 2009, pp. 15-22) to
benefit Xantus's Murrelet (Synthiliboramphus hypoleucus) and Cassin's
Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) (Harvey and Barnes 2009, p. 4). Many
of the native plants used in these restoration projects also provide
island night lizard habitat, such as low- to moderate-quality habitat
(Coreopsis gigantea, Eriogonum giganteum var. compactum, Deinandra
clementine, Eriophyllum nevinii, Artemisia nesiotica (sage), and
Baccharis pilularis) and high-quality habitat (Lycium californicum)
(Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 34; Fellers et al. 1998, pp. 11-12; Harvey
and Barnes 2009, p. 7; Mautz 2001a, p. 23; Navy 2005, p. 30). Since
2007, the MSRP has restored approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of native habitat
on Santa Barbara Island, consisting of approximately 15,000 native
plants (Little 2011, pers. obs.). Because the major threat to habitat
(nonnative herbivores) has been eliminated and the NPS has an active
habitat management and restoration program, we expect the amount and
distribution of habitat to remain relatively stable in the future.
Nonnative Plants
At listing, the introduction of nonnative plants was noted as
having adversely impacted all California Channel Islands (42 FR 40682,
p. 40684). While the introduction of nonnative herbivores impacted much
of the native vegetation, nonnative plants introduced to the islands
have also modified habitat for the island night lizard. In the 2006 5-
year review, we noted that nonnative plant species may alter ecosystem
dynamics by changing soil nitrogen cycling, and may compete with native
plants for space or other resources such as light, water, and nutrients
(Service 2006, p. 12). Nonnative plant species can also alter
ecological processes such as fire frequency that otherwise could affect
the persistence of the island night lizard (Navy 2002, p. 3.114). Low
densities of lizards observed in some of the nonnative plant
communities suggest that modification of the native plant communities
can reduce the available resources for this taxon. The 2006 and 2012 5-
year reviews of the island night lizard found that habitat destruction
or modification from the introduction of nonnative plants is of
potential concern,
[[Page 7920]]
but due to current management and preventative actions implemented on
all occupied islands, is not a substantial threat to the species
throughout its range now and in the future (Service 2006, p. 13;
Service 2012a, pp. 20-22).
San Clemente Island
Nonnative plants were introduced to San Clemente Island
approximately 200 years ago and, in combination with periods of
extended drought and overgrazing in the late-1800s, have changed the
composition and structure of the vegetative communities on the island
(Navy 2002, p. 3.31). The introduction of nonnative plant species to
the island has resulted in the loss of adequate shrub cover and
proliferation of annual grasses on parts of San Clemente Island
(Service 1997, p. 7). The most noticeable changes have occurred in the
northern grasslands and dune systems (Navy 2002, p. 3.31).
Nonnative plant introduction can occur on San Clemente Island as a
result of equipment and materials transported to the island from the
mainland (Service 1997, p. 7) and potentially seeds deposited by birds.
Seeds and propagules of nonnative plants adhere to vehicles in mud or
soil, and can also be brought onto the island in gravel used for road
maintenance (Service 1997, p. 7). The predominant nonnative plant
species on San Clemente Island include Foeniculum vulagare (fennel),
Carpobrotus spp. (iceplant), Salsola spp. (Russian thistle), and
several abundant nonnative annual grasses (Service 1997, p. 7).
Research evaluating the percent cover of nonnative plant species in
plot transects on San Clemente Island was conducted from 1992 to 1996,
2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2008 (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, p. 26).
Although likely attributed to higher rainfall totals from 1991 to 1993
compared with drought conditions from 2002 to 2003 and in 2006, results
indicate an approximately 20 percent decrease in percent cover among
nonnative plant species, from baseline data collected during the 1992
to 1993 field season (Tierra Data Inc. 2010, p. 125).
Habitat destruction or modification from nonnative plants is a
potential concern, but not currently a substantial threat to the island
night lizard due to current management efforts on San Clemente Island.
Although previous invasions of nonnative plants probably occurred
through introduction of plants preferred for livestock grazing, current
nonnative species invasions are typically introduced by equipment used
during military activities on the island. The potential pathways for
the introduction of nonnative plants to San Clemente Island are many,
including human activities and seeds deposited by birds. Due to the
continued risk of nonnative plant species, the Navy monitors for new
introductions and when found, treats them appropriately (Service 2008,
pp. 58-59). In accordance with the Federal Noxious Weed Act and as
implemented through objectives set forth within the Navy's INRMP, the
Navy continues to reduce the risk of introducing additional nonnative
plants to San Clemente Island and manage the removal of nonnative plant
taxa already occurring on the island (Navy 2002, p. 3.116). The Navy's
objectives on San Clemente Island are as follows:
(1) Use of only native species in landscaping (Navy 2002, p.
3.116); and
(2) Wash all vehicles and equipment used in construction or
training activities prior to coming onto the island, including high-
pressure spraying to the underside and wheel wells to remove mud and
weed seed (Navy 2002, p. 3.116).
Additional nonnative plant management techniques described within
the INRMP include: Controlled burns, mechanical removal, and herbicide
treatment (Navy 2002, pp. 3.115-3.116). Although nonnative plants will
continue to pose a risk to island night lizard habitat, the Navy has
taken steps to curtail habitat and plant community alteration by
nonnative plants and such steps are expected to continue into the
future.
The Navy has implemented an NHRP on San Clemente Island to restore
the structure and function of native island ecosystems (Navy 2002, p.
3.51). To assist the NHRP, the Navy has constructed a native plant
nursery where plants are currently grown from seed or stem and root
cuttings (see discussion above in the Nonnative Animals section).
Impacts to island night lizard habitat from nonnative plants may be a
persistent low-level threat, but due to implementation of the Navy's
INRMP, current nonnative species management, and native species
restoration, nonnative species are not currently, nor do we see them
becoming in the future, a substantial threat to the lizard on San
Clemente Island.
San Nicolas Island
The introduction of nonnative plants, combined with the effect of
nonnative herbivores on San Nicolas Island, has limited the quantity of
high-quality island night lizard habitat. The most recent information
indicates that just over half of the 278 plant taxa on San Nicolas
Island are nonnative species, and that San Nicolas Island has the
highest proportion (approximately 51 percent) of nonnative plant taxa
of any of the eight Channel Islands (Junak 2008, p. 67).
Many potential pathways exist for the introduction of nonnative
plants to San Nicolas Island, including human activities and seeds
deposited by birds. Due to the continued risk of nonnative plant
species being introduced to the island, the Navy monitors for nonnative
plant introductions and when found, treats them appropriately (Service
2008, pp. 58-59).
In accordance with the Federal Noxious Weed Act, and as implemented
through objectives set forth within the Navy's INRMP, the Navy
continues to reduce the risk of introducing additional nonnative plants
to San Nicolas Island and manage the removal of nonnative plant taxa
already occurring on the island (Navy 2010, p. 4.75-4.76). The Navy's
objectives on San Nicolas Island are as follows:
(1) Require vehicles and equipment to be cleaned prior to shipment
to the island and between uses at different island construction sites,
document that all gravel and fill materials brought to the island are
certified weed free, and prohibit the use of nonnative plants for
landscaping unless specifically approved by the Environmental Division
(Navy 2010, p. 4.75).
(2) Require that native plant species be used for landscaping
unless specifically approved (Navy 2010, p. 4.76).
(3) Inspect barge and aircraft before they leave the mainland or
for transport arriving directly from other ports or airports, inspect
prior to disembarking on San Nicolas Island (Navy 20010, p. 4.76).
Additionally, the Navy treats and monitors select nonnative species
annually on San Nicolas Island, such as Brassica tournefortii (Saharan
mustard) and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel) (Ruane 2011, pers. obs.). We
anticipate that implementation and continued efforts in the future of
the measures described above will remove existing nonnative plants and
reduce the rate of introduction of these nonnatives on San Nicolas
Island. Therefore, we do not consider nonnative species to be a
substantial threat to the lizard now or in the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Historically, Santa Barbara Island consisted of a native shrubland
that provided habitat for the island night lizard; however, the
introduction of nonnative herbivores and nonnative plants to the island
has modified the native habitat to a more herbaceous-
[[Page 7921]]
dominated habitat that is not as readily used by the lizard (Halvorson
et al. 1988, p. 109). The native scrub cover that once dominated Santa
Barbara Island is currently inundated by a nonnative annual grassland
community throughout half of the eastern terrace of the island
(Halvorson et al. 1988, p. 113). Transect data collected on Santa
Barbara Island from 1984 to 2002 indicated a reduction in percent cover
of some native plants (Hemizonia clementina and Opuntia prolifera) that
provide low- to moderate-quality habitat for the island night lizard
(Corry and McEachern 2009, p. 208). However, data indicate an increase
in average combined and percent cover for many other native plant
species on the island that provide habitat for the island night lizard
(Coreopsis gigantea, Baccharis pilularis, Eriogonum giganteum v.
compactum, Opuntia littoralis, and Lycium californicum) (U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 2001, p. 6, Appendix A; Corry and McEachern
2009, pp. 206-208). Recovery of low- to moderate-quality island night
lizard habitat is expected to occur through the natural expansion of
native shrub habitat into nonnative grasslands (USGS 2001, p. 6).
The NPS recognizes the potential threat of nonnative plant species
and is taking steps to reduce the risk of new introductions. Current
NPS management policy, in accordance with the NPS Organic Act, dictates
that the NPS will control detrimental nonnative species for the
protection of native species' habitats (NPS 2006b, p. 45). In 2007, the
MSRP began propagating a native stock of seeds (which were previously
collected on Santa Barbara Island) at the Channel Islands National Park
greenhouse (Harvey and Barnes 2009, p. 7). Species propagated at the
greenhouse included those found within low- to moderate-quality island
night lizard habitat, such as Coreopsis gigantea, Eriogonum giganteum
var. compactum, Deinandra clementina, Eriophyllum nevinii, Artemisia
nesiotica, Baccharis pilularis, and high-quality habitat, such as
Lycium californicum (Fellers and Drost 1991, p. 34; Fellers et al.
1998, pp. 11-12; Mautz 2001a, p. 23, Navy 2005, p. 30). To date, the
MSRP has restored approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of native habitat for
seabirds on Santa Barbara Island (Little 2011, pers. obs.). This
restoration effort has outplanted approximately 15,000 native plants to
the island, some of which as discussed above, provide habitat for
island night lizards (Little 2011, pers. obs.). Additionally, from 2007
to 2011 the NPS in coordination with the MSRP conducted nonnative plant
species removal from Santa Barbara Island on 4.5 ac (1.8 ha) (Harvey
2012, pers. comm.). The NPS began drafting a General Management Plan
for the Channel Islands that will address the continuing effort to
monitor and restore native vegetation on Santa Barbara Island (Faulkner
2011, pers. comm.); this plan is not yet completed. Due to current and
future management efforts described above, we do not consider nonnative
species a substantial threat to the lizard on Santa Barbara Island now
or in the future.
Land Use and Development
At listing (42 FR 40682), the destruction or modification of
habitat from land use and development was not identified as a threat to
the island night lizard. The 2006 and 2012 island night lizard 5-year
reviews concluded that land use and development is not a substantial
threat to the species or its habitat on any of the three occupied
islands (Service 2006, p. 18; Service 2012a, pp. 22-24).
San Clemente Island
San Clemente Island is owned and administered by the Navy and
provides operating facilities and support services for the U.S. Pacific
Fleet. Activities on and around the island include aviation training,
undersea warfare, amphibious warfare, special warfare, and Joint Task
Force exercises (Navy 2002, pp. 2.1-2.2). There are more than 300
buildings and structures on the island, including an airstrip on the
far northern part of the island. Several quarries and borrow pits are
used to provide materials for road construction and maintenance.
Intensive training, foot traffic, and construction activities impact
island night lizards in the areas where such activities occur. However,
most of the buildings and structures are located on the far northern
and far southern parts of San Clemente Island, while most of the high-
quality Lycium californicum and Opuntia spp. habitats are found on the
western portion of the island (Navy 2002, pp. 2-14). The western
portion of the island receives little training use because it is
recognized by the Navy to contain high-quality lizard habitat (Navy
2002, p. 3.82). The INLMA was created on this portion of the island to
provide a focus area for island night lizard management activities (see
Factor D), including habitat restoration, to offset the effects of
surface-disturbing construction projects (Service 2008, p. 200).
In 2008, the Navy initiated consultation with the Service, pursuant
to section 7 of the Act, for proposed new training activities for San
Clemente Island (Service 2008, p. 11). Many of the proposed activities
covered by the consultation occur in areas already receiving sustained
use by the military (Service 2008, p. 10). We estimated that from 2009
to 2014, approximately 2.5 percent of the island night lizard
population on San Clemente Island could incidentally be harmed or
killed through modification of habitat resulting from these proposed
activities. These adverse impacts were associated with increased fires,
off-road assault vehicle use, construction of buildings, and other
military-related activities (Service 2008, pp. 10, 206). However, we
concluded that this potential loss would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species or appreciably reduce its recovery (Service
2008, pp. 205, 209).
While island night lizard habitat loss and disturbance occur on San
Clemente Island as a result of military land use and development
projects such as training and testing activities, the impacts of these
activities are of minor consequence given the size of the island, the
amount of suitable habitat that remains for the species, the
distribution of the island night lizard population across the island,
the size of the species' population on the island, and the avoidance of
areas designated for island night lizard management. Therefore, we do
not consider land use and development a substantial threat to the
island night lizard or its habitat on San Clemente Island now or in the
future.
San Nicolas Island
Since 1944, San Nicolas Island has been part of the Naval Air
Warfare Center Weapons Division Sea Range, managed by the Naval Air
Weapons Station at China Lake, California. The island currently houses
approximately 200 Navy personnel that occasionally conduct small-scale
training exercises. The island also serves as a launch platform for
missile testing (Navy 2002, p. 10). Facilities on the island are used
to conduct radar tracking and control, range surveillance, telemetry,
and communications for weapons testing (Navy 2005, pp. 6, 10). There
are approximately 156 buildings and structures on San Nicolas Island,
along with 47 mi (76 km) of paved and unpaved roads (Navy 2005, p. 6.)
Additionally, a 10,000-foot (ft) (3,048-meter (m)) concrete and asphalt
runway occupies a mesa on the eastern part of the island and, in 1989,
a missile testing and pilot training impact area was established (Navy
2005, pp. 6, 19).
Since listing, some permanent loss of island night lizard habitat
has occurred
[[Page 7922]]
from the development of structures and mission-essential activities.
Island night lizards and their habitats do not generally occur in
launching areas and thus are not likely to be affected by the
activities that occur there (Service 2001, p. 19). Of the 11 patches of
high-quality habitat identified by Fellers et al. (1998, p. 61), 1 is
in close proximity to the airstrip and 3 others are in the proximity of
existing structures (Navy 2005, p. 8). On average, less than five
projects per year have potential to impact lizards, such that
relocation of individuals may be required into adjacent habitat. Most
of those projects are generally small--approximately 0.01 ac (0.004 ha)
(Smith 2009, pers. comm.). Habitat is re-created in these circumstances
by piling cut Opuntia spp. pads on top of boards and placing them into
the adjacent area (Smith 2009, pers. comm.). The wooden boards provide
temporary habitat for the lizards while the Opuntia spp. cuttings take
root. Island night lizards have not been monitored after relocations;
thus, there is no information available to determine the success of
these actions. Although high-quality Opuntia spp. and Lycium
californicum habitats are limited on San Nicolas Island, overall land
use on the island is not intensive and measures are implemented
consistent with the INRMP to try to safely relocate island night
lizards that may be impacted by projects.
As part of a consultation with the Service on the effects of a new
wind energy project on San Nicolas Island, a biological opinion (8-8-
10-F-35) was completed on August 26, 2010, and subsequently amended
(814402011-F-0060) on April 22, 2011. During a 4- to 5-year span
beginning in 2010, the Navy will install up to 11 wind-powered turbines
and an energy storage facility on San Nicolas Island (Service 2010, p.
3). The Service expects this wind energy project to adversely affect
the island night lizard by increasing indirect effects of predation by
American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and barn owls (Tyto alba), causing
injury or death of individual lizards by foot traffic and construction,
and habitat loss and loss of habitat connectivity (Service 2011, pp. 5-
7). However, the Navy will implement numerous measures in accordance
with management practices stated in the INRMP to reduce the project's
effects on the island night lizard: avoidance and minimization measures
(including capture and relocation); species monitoring; management of
nonnative plant species; erosion control; and contaminant cleanup
(Service 2011, p. 5). We concluded in that biological opinion that we
do not expect the effects of the proposed project to jeopardize the
continued existence of the island night lizard (Service 2011, p. 8).
While island night lizard habitat loss and disturbance occurs on
San Nicolas Island as a result of military land use and development,
the impacts of these activities are minimal and the Navy conducts
adequate management efforts to minimize the effects on the island night
lizard. Therefore, we do not consider land use and development a
substantial threat to the island night lizard or its habitat on San
Nicolas Island now or in the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Minimal land use activities have occurred on Santa Barbara Island.
Farming occurred on Santa Barbara Island from the mid-1800s to early
1900s when portions of the east and west terraces were cleared for
agriculture; however, the farming effort was largely unsuccessful and
it appears that all farming practices ceased by 1926 (Corry 2006, p.
19). Santa Barbara Island is now managed as a unit of the NPS, with
land management focused on the preservation of natural, archaeological,
and aesthetic resources (NPS 2006b, pp. 44-62). A visitor center and
camping area is located in proximity to a cove area that serves as a
landing spot for visitors to the island (NPS 2011a). Public use of the
island is limited to primitive camping, hiking, wildlife observation,
and other nonconsumptive uses (NPS 20011b). With the exception of
potential fire caused by human-related activities (see Fire discussion
below), land use is not a substantial threat to the island night lizard
or its habitat on Santa Barbara Island due to active management
efforts, existing regulatory mechanisms (see discussion of the Organic
Act below under Factor D), and current management policies, which are
expected to continue in the future.
Fire
At listing (42 FR 40682), fire was not identified as a threat to
the island night lizard or its habitat. Historically, ranching
operations were conducted on San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, with
vegetation periodically burned to facilitate planting of feed crops for
nonnative herbivores (Navy 2002, p. 3.28; Navy 2005, p. 7). Fire would
normally be a rare occurrence on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara Islands, but human use and occupancy of the islands have
increased the incidence of wildfires on all three islands to varying
degrees.
Since the time of listing, we have identified fire as a potential
impact to island night lizard. On San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands,
this potential threat is associated with military activities and the
introduction of nonnative annual grasses, which increase the
availability of readily flammable fuels (Service 2006, p. 13; Service
2012a, pp. 25-27). Vegetative communities including Lycium
californicum, Opuntia prolifera, and Coreopsis gigantea, which support
moderate to high island night lizard densities, are intolerant of and
not well adapted to fire (Navy 2002, pp. 3.59-3.61; Sawyer et al. 2009,
pp. 483, 588, 600). However, Opuntia littoralis may be more tolerant of
fire, though it is not fire-dependent for germination (Navy 2002, pp.
3.60-3.61). Where fires do occur, they may destroy lizard habitat which
reduces cover that assists with thermoregulation, increases exposure to
predators, creates a short-term reduction in prey availability, and
potentially harms individuals (Mautz 2001, p. 27; Service 2006, p. 13).
Although the potential for fire exists on San Clemente, San Nicolas,
and Santa Barbara Islands, it is not considered a substantial threat.
The potential for human-caused ignition on San Nicolas Island and Santa
Barbara Island is considered low due to the limited amount of human
activities that might initiate a fire. In addition, all islands
currently implement fire management policies, as discussed below under
each island description (Service 2006, pp. 13-15; Service 2012a, pp.
25-27).
San Clemente Island
The use of San Clemente Island for military training and testing
has led to a higher number of fires on the island than would otherwise
be expected to occur naturally as a result of lightning. Military
activities contribute to fires that may adversely affect listed plants
and wildlife on San Clemente Island (Service 2008, p. 3). The southern
portion of the island has the greatest risk due to the ship-to-shore
bombardment that occurs in the area (Service 2008, pp. 56-57).
Additionally, the presence of combustible nonnative grasses in
combination with military activities could increase fire frequency on
San Clemente Island (Navy 2002, p. 3.31).
While fire does not appear to affect island night lizard habitat in
the short term, an increase in fire frequency or size could negatively
affect lizard abundance over time (Mautz 2001a, pp. 27-28). The
highest-quality habitat and highest density of lizards occur in areas
where fire has not occurred, or has
[[Page 7923]]
occurred rarely, and the fires are small in size (Service 1997, p. 60;
Navy 2002, p. 3.32). This trend suggests that lizard habitat and
abundances are reduced when fires occur more frequently.
Since 1997, the Navy has implemented a number of management
measures to reduce the frequency of wildfires on San Clemente Island:
prevention measures, such as scheduling operations with high ignition
potential outside the fire season and electrical system improvements;
containment measures, such as vegetation management and use of
prophylactic fire retardants; and suppression measures, such as staging
and use of suppression resources (Service 2008, p. 51). Currently, the
portions of the island at greatest risk of fire are the impact areas
associated with the ship-to-shore bombardment located at the southern
end of the island, and areas containing unexploded ordnance in which
access for fire prevention has been closed (Service 2008, pp. 56-57).
In 2008, the Navy proposed a new training expansion on San Clemente
Island that could potentially increase the occurrence of fire (Service
2008, p. 5). As part of the consultation with the Service on the
effects of the new training and testing activities (Service 2008, pp.
2-3), the Navy completed a comprehensive Fire Management Plan (FMP) for
San Clemente Island (Navy 2009). The Navy's fire management focuses on
military training and other human-related activities and facilities, as
these activities represent the primary source of ignition on the island
(Service 2008, p. 3). The Navy modifies range and training activities
in an effort to prevent fire ignition, containment, and suppression
(Service 2008, pp. 3-4). The FMP implements fuel management strategies
consisting of high-intensity fuel management buffer zones; defensible
space around structures; and low-intensity landscape modification with
prescribed fire that meets fuels management, resource protection, and
habitat restoration objectives (Navy 2009, p. ES-3). The FMP concludes
that fire does not greatly affect island night lizards on San Clemente
Island due to their high numbers and wide distribution across the
island, unless the frequency or size of the fire is so high that it
removes the necessary thermal cover for long periods of time and over
large areas (Navy 2009, pp. 2.26, 2.32).
Through our consultation, we concluded that although these
activities may adversely affect island night lizard individuals, fires
are not expected to have a significant effect on the island-wide
population due to the number of lizards on the island (Service 2008,
pp. 203-204). Additionally, we concluded that the fuelbreak and
suppression measures outlined within the FMP would prevent a
significant increase in fire frequency where high-quality habitat
occurs (Service 2008, p. 204).
If intervals between fires are too short, fire can negatively
impact Lycium californicum and there is a risk of type conversion of
the habitat or long-term loss of the shrub community (Navy 2009, p.
4.7). However, prescribed fires may be a useful management tool to
control nonnative grasses that degrade native vegetative community
values (Navy 2009, pp. 4.7-4.8), specifically in L. californicum
moderate- and low-density habitat. Because a potential benefit could
result from less severe fires in L. californicum habitat, fires of
moderate-severity will be managed to less than 5 ac (2 ha) in high-
density L. californicum habitat (Navy 2009, p. 4.8). In moderate-
density L. californicum habitat, prescribed burns will be managed to
less than 20 ac (8 ha); and in low-density L. californicum habitat,
prescribed burns will be managed to less than 40 ac (16 ha) (Navy 2009,
p. 4.8).
We note that the results of this threat analysis remain consistent
with our analysis described in the 2006 and 2012 5-year reviews of the
island night lizard, such that the potential of fire posing a threat to
island night lizards and their habitat on San Clemente Island exists
(Service 2006, pp. 15; Service 2012a, p. 25). However, fire is not
currently a substantial threat to the species or its habitat on the
island nor do we think it will become so in the future due to
historical and current fire patterns, the existence of an FMP for the
island, the abundance and distribution of high-quality island night
lizard habitat, and high abundance of the species on the island.
San Nicolas Island
The potential impacts of fire are a greater concern on San Nicolas
Island than San Clemente Island due to the limited amount of island
night lizard habitat. Historical grazing from the introduction of
nonnative herbivores has resulted in disturbed vegetative communities
that favor nonnative plants, specifically nonnative grasses, and
increase the vulnerability of these vegetative communities to wildfire
(Navy 2010, p. 4.13). Missile launch and termination areas are the most
likely sources of potential wildfire ignitions on San Nicolas Island
(Service 2006, p. 15). Despite these conditions, few fires have
occurred on San Nicolas Island (Navy 2010, p. 4.12). The risk of
wildfire to island night lizards is reduced by the fact that launch
sites are located outside of high-quality island night lizard habitat
on the northern and western portion of San Nicolas Island (Navy 2005,
p. 8, 30). Additionally, a fire station is located on the eastern side
of San Nicolas Island (Navy 2005, p. 6), near high-quality Lycium
californicum and Opuntia spp. habitat. Few fires have occurred on San
Nicolas Island (Navy 2010, p. 4.12). We have no information to indicate
that fire has occurred, or is likely to occur, in the intertidal zone
of the unique cobble and driftwood habitat inhabited by island night
lizards at Redeye Beach.
The objective of the current fire management strategy on San
Nicolas Island, as implemented through the Navy's INRMP, is to protect
people, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources from the
harmful impacts of wildfire on the island (Navy 2010, p. 4.14).
Strategies to achieve this objective include: preventing wildfire
ignitions; providing, maintaining, and upgrading fire management
cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, and reciprocal
agreements to provide maximum protection to cultural resources, natural
resources, and the island's infrastructure; developing a fire
management plan; and developing a database to track all fires, acres
burned, suppression tactics, and individuals involved in the
suppression tactics (Navy 2010, pp. 4.14-4.15).
In summary, few fires are known to have occurred on San Nicolas
Island. While some wildfire risk is associated with vegetative
conditions and military activities, fire management activities appear
to be sufficiently managing those risks and are expected to do so into
the future. Therefore, fire is not a substantial threat to the island
night lizard or its habitat now or in the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Wildfire risk on Santa Barbara Island is less than the other two
islands and is primarily related to recreational activities. The
National Park Service manages visitation to Santa Barbara Island to
ensure the biological and archaeological values of the island are not
diminished. Human visitation to Santa Barbara Island is minimal, with
only 3,286 on-shore visitors recorded from 2007 to 2010; of these,
2,159 visitors stayed overnight on the island in the primitive
campground (NPS 2011a). Although smoking is limited to the cement area
adjacent to the visitor center and campfires are not permitted on the
island, historical occurrences and potential sources of wildfire on
Santa Barbara Island are most likely human-
[[Page 7924]]
caused, such as campfires, fireworks, or mechanical equipment.
Currently, Channel Islands National Park has a Fire Management Plan
(CHIS FMP) in place that covers all units of the Park. The CHIS FMP
calls for the suppression of all wildfires within the Park and
utilization of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics where feasible to
reduce impacts to natural and cultural resources (NPS 2006a, p. 12).
Although no resources are available on Santa Barbara Island to suppress
wildfires, the U.S Forest Service's Los Padres National Forest provides
firefighting support, including air and ground resources, incident
command, communications, and ordering (NPS 2006a, p. 10).
While the potential for fire exists on Santa Barbara Island, it is
currently not a substantial threat to island night lizard habitat due
to limited human presence on the island, prohibition of fire at
campgrounds, and the current CHIS FMP (Service 2006, p. 15; Service
2012a, p. 27), nor is it expected to be a threat in the future.
Erosion
Although erosion was not identified as a threat to the island night
lizard at listing (42 FR 40682), the impact from erosion has since been
identified as a general threat to the habitats on the Channel Islands.
Erosion caused by ongoing military activities on San Clemente and San
Nicolas Islands currently affects lizard habitat; however, impacts are
primarily a consequence of the historical introduction of nonnative
herbivores and land use operations. Due to ongoing management efforts,
described below, by the Navy and NPS, the 2006 and 2012 5-year reviews
concluded that erosion is not a substantial threat to the lizard or its
habitat on any of the occupied islands (Service 2006, pp. 12, 16;
Service 2012a, pp. 28-29).
San Clemente Island
Historical impacts and natural land processes have resulted in
landslides and erosion on San Clemente Island which require active
management by the Navy to minimize threats to island night lizard
habitat. Landslides occur where steep slopes have been denuded by
grazing nonnative animals. The landslides are exacerbated by naturally
occurring processes such as wind and water wearing away land surface,
posing a concern for species' habitat and affecting other ecological
processes on San Clemente Island (Navy 2002, p. 3.22). The Navy, in
accordance with the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of
1935, as amended (16 U.S.C. S.5901), and as implemented through the
Navy's INRMP for San Clemente Island, is required to prevent and
control erosion through surveys and implementation of conservation
measures (Navy 2002, p. 3.22). Erosion control measures include
locating ground-disturbing activities on previously disturbed sites
when possible and assuring that all project work areas and transit
routes are clearly identified and marked, and by restricting vehicular
activities within those areas (Navy 2002, p. 3.23). Additionally, as
part of its consultation with the Service on increased training and
testing activities, the Navy is developing an erosion control plan and
will implement measures to prevent significant impacts to native
habitat, including high-quality island night lizard habitat (Service
2008, p. 62). The Navy coordinated with the Service during development
of a plan, and submitted a draft version to the Service for review in
2012. The plan has not yet been finalized.
Impacts from erosion on San Clemente Island resulting from
historical introduction and overgrazing by nonnative herbivores have
been intensified with current land use operations by the Navy. However,
we do not consider erosion to be a substantial threat to the island
night lizard or its habitat on the island due to current management
practices, including: (1) Coordination with the Service to avoid
impacts to island night lizard habitat; (2) the Navy's compliance with
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 to prevent and
control erosion; and (3) the Navy's INRMP that requires all projects to
incorporate erosion control measures into their projects (training
maneuvers excluded). The Navy's efforts under the latter two items
above are expected to continue in the future should the island night
lizard be delisted.
San Nicolas Island
Similar to San Clemente Island, erosion is also a concern for
island night lizard habitat on San Nicolas Island. Almost all of the
high-quality island night lizard habitat consisting of Lycium
californicum and Opuntia spp., and moderate-quality habitat consisting
of shrub communities, occur in areas where a moderate to high
probability of soil erodibility exists (Navy 2005, pp. 30, 44). Most
erosion on San Nicolas Island is due to high winds, effects to
vegetation from past sheep grazing, and the island's arid climate (Navy
2005, p. 42). Additional erosion was likely caused by military
activities that did not include sufficient erosion control measures
(Navy 2005, p. 42). Halvorson et al. (1996, p. 25) noted that the north
and south slope of San Nicolas Island may need active restoration for
the recovery of native plants due to soil erosion. Fellers (2009, pers.
obs.) commented that not much high-quality island night lizard habitat
will be lost to unnatural erosion on San Nicolas Island; however, he
also found that unnaturally eroded areas on the south slope are lost
and cannot be revegetated.
The Navy has incorporated erosion control measures into San Nicolas
Island construction projects since 2000 (Navy 2005, p. 42). The Navy
will also continue repairing roads to address and reduce erosion (Ruane
2011, pers. comm.). The objective of the current soils conservation
management strategy on San Nicolas Island, as implemented through the
Navy's INRMP, is to conserve soil productivity, nutrient functioning,
vegetation, wildlife habitat, and water quality through effective
implementation of best management practices to prevent and control
erosion (Navy 2010, p. 4.10).
Erosion on San Nicolas Island was exacerbated by historical land
use practices and the introduction of nonnative herbivores (Service
2006, p. 12; Service 2012a, p. 29); residual effects continue to be a
potential concern due to the limited amount of, and time required to
reestablish, high-quality lizard habitat. Currently, moderate and high-
quality island night lizard habitat occurs in areas considered by the
Navy to have a moderate- to high-soil erodibility. However, steps are
being taken by the Navy to reduce and manage current impacts from
erosion on San Nicolas Island and such efforts are expected to continue
in the future. Therefore, we do not consider erosion to currently be a
substantial threat to the island night lizard or its habitat on San
Nicolas Island now or in the future.
Santa Barbara Island and Sutil Island
Erosion from wind, wave action, and the effects of overgrazing are
evident on Santa Barbara Island and continue to contribute to
alteration of habitat. However, new sources of human-caused erosion on
the island, which could exacerbate current conditions, are minimal
given the limited amount of human use there. Any new erosion resulting
from direct human use would likely be related to erosion along existing
trails. Currently, NPS management policies dictate that the NPS will
actively preserve soil resources and prevent the unnatural erosion and
prevent or minimize potentially irreversible impacts on soil (NPS
2006b, p. 56). Therefore, based on the best available information about
[[Page 7925]]
current erosion levels and NPS efforts to preserve soil resources, we
find that erosion is not a substantial threat to the island night
lizard or its habitat on Santa Barbara Island now or in the future.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of
the world and decreases in other regions (For these and other examples,
see IPCC 2007, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85).
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of
the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th
century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is
``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-
35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been
caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming
will continue through the twenty-first century, and that the magnitude
and rate of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of
GHG emissions (IPCC 2007, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 and
797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global
projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves
and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011(entire) for a summary
of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). Identifying
likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or
system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of
climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity,
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; see also Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
Although many species already listed as endangered or threatened
may be particularly vulnerable to negative effects related to changes
in climate, we also recognize that, for some listed species, the likely
effects may be positive or neutral. In any case, the identification of
effective recovery strategies and actions for recovery plans, as well
as assessment of their results in 5-year reviews or proposed
reclassification rules such as this document, should include
consideration of climate-related changes and interactions of climate
and other variables. In the case of this proposed rule, this analysis
contributes to our evaluation of whether the island night lizard can be
delisted.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when
they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the island
night lizard, we have used the best scientific and commercial data
available as the basis for considering various aspects of climate
change, as well as the likely effects of climate change in conjunction
with other influences that are relevant to the island night lizard.
Since listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684), potential threats have been
identified to the flora and fauna of the United States from ongoing
accelerated climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 1-52; Point Reyes Bird
Observatory (PRBO) 2011, pp. 1-68). A recent study examined the effects
of climate change scenarios as they pertain specifically to the
different ecoregions of California (PRBO 2011, pp. 1-68). An
ecoregional approach was examined because climate change effects will
vary in different areas of California due to the State's size and
diverse topography (PRBO 2011, p. 1). Climate projections for
temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise in these ecoregions were
obtained by analyzing numerous IPCC emission scenarios (2007, pp. 44-
54), the core of most climate projections for atmospheric and oceanic
global circulation models (PRBO 2011, p. 1).
The Southern Bight ecoregion includes San Clemente, San Nicolas,
Santa Barbara, and Sutil Islands (PRBO 2011, p. 4); however, this
ecoregion refers only to the marine environment
[[Page 7926]]
and not the terrestrial environment occupied by island night lizards.
Therefore, this threats analysis will use projections made for the
Southwestern California ecoregion. This ecoregion is appropriate to use
because it contains the same vegetation found on the islands and used
by island night lizard, including Lycium californicum, Opuntia spp.,
Coreopsis gigantea, Deinandra clementina, Artemisia californica, and
Baccharis pilularis (Sawyer et al. 2009, pp. 387, 423, 483, 493, 588,
599-600).
Currently, San Clemente, San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and Sutil
Islands are located within a Mediterranean climatic regime, but with a
significant maritime influence. Climate change models indicate a 1 to 3
degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in average
temperature for southern California by the year 2070 (Field et al.
1999, p. 5; Cayan et al. 2008a, p. S26; PRBO 2011, p. 40). As daily
temperatures increase, lizard species spend more time in burrows or
refuges and less time foraging (Sinervo et al. 2010, p. 894). Over the
same time span, models predict a 10 to 37 percent decrease in annual
precipitation (PRBO 2011, p. 40); however, other modeling predictions
indicate little to no change in annual precipitation (Field et al.
1999, pp. 8-9; Cayan et al. 2008a, p. S26; PRBO 2011, p. 40). If annual
precipitation decreases, the percent of vegetative cover and amount of
available food sources for the island night lizard would also decrease.
Although the islands experience a short rain season (generally
November through April), the presence of fog during the summer months
helps to reduce moisture stress for many plant species on the islands
(Halvorson et al. 1988, p. 111). Currently, climate modeling for fog
projections remains a subject of uncertainty (Field et al. 1999, pp.
21-22). There is also substantial uncertainty in precipitation
projections and debate about precipitation patterns and projections for
the Southwestern California ecoregion (PRBO 2011, p. 40). If the
islands experienced a prolonged period of warmer air temperature and
lower rainfall, the island night lizard's habitat could potentially be
reduced; however, due to the uncertainty about precipitation
projections, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of that
happening.
Rising sea level may also pose a threat to island night lizard
habitat on the inhabited islands. By the end of the twenty-first
century, various models predict sea level rise 0.11 to 0.72 meters
(0.11 to 0.72 ft) globally (Cayan et al. 2008b, S62; PRBO 2011, p. 41).
A rise in sea level, which may accompany high-tide wave action and more
frequent severe storms as a result of climate change, can potentially
affect the islands that support the island night lizard by inundating
low-lying portions, as well as potentially accelerating erosion along
coastal areas (PRBO 2011, p. 41). The cobble and driftwood habitat that
occurs just above the intertidal zone at Redeye Beach on San Nicolas
Island and supports approximately 1,000 island night lizards (Fellers
et al. 1998, p. 46) could potentially be altered by a rise in sea
level. Island night lizard habitat on Santa Barbara Island occurs at
sea level and a rise could potentially alter this habitat (Fellers
2011, pers. obs.); however, the USGS's Coastal Vulnerability Index for
the Channel Islands National Park indicates Santa Barbara Island has a
low vulnerability ranking indicating a very low rate of sea level rise
(0.002-0.004 m (0.007-0.013 ft) over the last 27 years (Pendleton et
al. 2005, p. 28). On San Clemente Island, Mautz (2011 pers. comm.)
indicates that high-quality island night lizard habitat at its lowest
elevation occurrence is approximately 10 m (32.8 ft) above sea level,
and that a rise in sea level, even at an extreme projection of 0.72 m
(2.4 ft), does not pose a threat to the continued existence of the
species.
The island night lizard is an insular endemic species (unique to
specific islands) that is vulnerable to extirpation from random factors
such as environmental stochasticity and natural catastrophes. While
climate change could potentially affect the island night lizard and its
habitat, the best available information does not allow us to make a
meaningful prediction about how potential changes in temperature,
precipitation patterns, and rising sea levels could impact the island
night lizard, the islands where it occurs, or its habitat. However, we
expect that the lizard's susceptibility to climate change is somewhat
reduced by its ability to use varying habitat types and by its broad
generalist diet. Therefore, we do not consider climate change to be a
substantial threat to the island night lizard or its habitat at this
time or in the future.
Factor A Summary
The loss and modification of habitat for the island night lizard by
nonnative herbivores was identified as a threat to the species when it
was listed (42 FR 40682). In our 2006 and 2012 island night lizard 5-
year reviews we noted that, although grazing animals were removed from
the islands, the residual effects remain and so the process for
recovery of these habitat types on San Nicolas and Santa Barbara
Islands is occurring at a slow pace. However, current evidence
indicates that native vegetation, including that favored by the lizard,
is recovering on all three occupied islands and is expected to continue
due to management practices, restoration efforts, and policies
implemented by the Navy and NPS. Therefore, habitat destruction and
modification to the island night lizard or its habitat as a result of
the introduction of nonnative herbivores has been ameliorated and is no
longer a substantial threat nor is it likely to become one in the
future.
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682), the introduction of nonnative
plants was not identified as a threat to the island night lizard. The
2006 and 2012 5-year reviews considered the presence of nonnative
plants a potential concern due to the vegetation composition changes
that have occurred on the three islands inhabited by the island night
lizard. The Navy and NPS recognize the potential threat of nonnative
species and are implementing management efforts to reduce this risk
that will continue in the future. While nonnative plants are a
potential rangewide threat, we do not consider the introduction and
persistence of nonnative plants to be a substantial threat to the
island night lizard or its habitat on any of the occupied islands
because of the current and ongoing management actions and policies to
remove and control the future introduction of nonnative plants to all
islands.
Development activities can reduce available habitat for island
night lizards, resulting in the direct loss of individuals. We have
determined that land use impacts on San Clemente could potentially
affect the island night lizard and its habitat. However, because of the
limited development impacts, the remaining amount of available habitat,
and the large number of island night lizards (estimated 21 million), we
do not consider land use or development a substantial threat to the
species' habitat on that island. Land use impacts on San Nicolas Island
could potentially affect the island night lizard due to the limited
amount of suitable habitat for the species; however, these activities
will likely have a minimal impact due to the current management
practices to avoid the species during project implementation. In
addition, high-quality habitat is distributed in areas that will not be
developed. The current status of Santa Barbara Island as a unit of the
National Park System protects the island night lizard and its habitat
from impacts related to future land use or development. In summary,
while land use and development is a concern on
[[Page 7927]]
two of the islands, the amount, quality, and distribution of habitat
together with avoidance measures reduce the potential impact;
therefore, we do not consider development a substantial threat to the
island night lizard or its habitat on any of the occupied islands now
or in the future.
A potential for fire exists on all three islands due to human
activity, with an increased potential on San Clemente and San Nicolas
Islands due to military activities and nonnative annual grasses that
increase the amount of flammable fuels (Service 2006, pp. 13-15;
Service 2012a, pp. 23-26). Based on historical records and current land
use, high fire frequency on Santa Barbara is an unlikely occurrence,
limited to human negligence to provide an ignition source. Although
fire is a potential threat on all islands, we do not consider fire a
substantial threat to the island night lizard or its habitat because of
ongoing fire management policies, plans, and actions being implemented
on all occupied islands now and in the future.
Historical land use and overgrazing by nonnative herbivores
exacerbated the impacts of erosion on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and
Santa Barbara Islands and those impacts are likely to continue for many
years to come. However, all nonnative herbivores have been removed from
the islands, and the slow process of natural recovery is ongoing. In
accordance with the Navy's INRMPs and NPS's management policies,
efforts are underway to control new and existing sources of erosion on
all occupied islands. Further, the development and implementation of
erosion control plans will help minimize future impacts to the island
night lizard and its habitat from erosion. We conclude that erosion may
affect island night lizard and its habitat, but it is not currently a
substantial threat nor is it likely to become one in the future, due to
current management, individual island circumstances, and erosion
control efforts.
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684), we did not find
climate change to be a threat to the island night lizard. Generally,
climate change is predicted to result in warmer air temperatures, lower
rainfall amounts, and rising sea levels; however, it is currently
unknown how climate change will specifically affect island night lizard
habitat on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands
(Service 2006, p. 24; Service 2012a, pp. 38-39). The island night
lizard may be more susceptible to natural catastrophes on San Nicolas
and Santa Barbara Island because of its restricted distribution on
those islands. Its greater numbers and distribution on San Clemente
Island may indicate the island night lizard is less susceptible to
stochastic events on the island. We recognize that climate change has
the potential to affect the island night lizard and its habitat;
however, at this time, the best available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that climate change is a substantial
threat to the species' habitat now or in the future.
In conclusion, we do not find that habitat destruction or
modification from introduction of nonnative taxa, land use and
development, fire, erosion, or climate change pose a substantial threat
to the island night lizard or its habitat on San Clemente, San Nicolas,
and Santa Barbara Islands currently or in the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes was not identified as a threat to the island night
lizard at listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684). The 2006 and 2012 5-year
reviews (Service 2006, p. 18; Service 2012a, p. 28) did not identify
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes as a threat to the island night lizard. To our
knowledge, island night lizards are captured only for scientific
purposes or for relocation efforts due to Navy projects in accordance
with permitted activities covered by a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit under
the Act. Currently, there are only two active section 10(a)(1)(A)
permits issued by the Service for the island night lizard. Although
research activities may result in impacts to some individuals (use of
pitfall traps and toe-clipping), they do not constitute a significant
threat to the species. Capture of island night lizards for commercial
or other nonpermitted activities is unlikely to occur on San Clemente
or San Nicolas Islands because access to these islands is strictly
limited by the Department of Defense. No available information
indicates that visitors to Santa Barbara Island are actively collecting
island night lizards. Although it is possible that someone visiting or
working on any of the islands could collect island night lizards, based
on the best available information, there is no indication that such
activities are occurring.
Based on the limited number of active section 10(a)(1)(A) permits
and lack of evidence that collection is otherwise occurring, we find
that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not currently a threat and not likely to become
a threat to the species on any of the occupied islands.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Disease was not identified as a threat to the island night lizard
at listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684), or in the 2006 or 2012 5-year
reviews (Service 2006, p. 19; Service 2012a, p. 29). Currently, the
best available information does not indicate that disease is a threat
to the lizard or likely to be a threat in the future.
Predation
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684), we identified
predation of island night lizards as a threat to the species due to the
introduction of nonnative feral cats and pigs to San Clemente Island
(42 FR 40682, p. 40683). The listing rule (42 FR 40682, p. 40684) also
indicated that the introduction of the nonnative southern alligator
lizard to San Nicolas Island might pose a threat to the island night
lizard through depredation or increased competition (42 FR 40682, p.
40684). The listing rule does not discuss native predators to the
island night lizard, such as San Clemente loggerhead shrike and other
raptor species. Currently, each island has native predators, such as
raptors, but currently available information does not indicate these
predators are a substantial threat to the island night lizard.
San Clemente Island
Since listing, nonnative predators have been identified on San
Clemente Island, including feral cats, black rats, and gopher snakes
(Pituophis catenifer); however, only feral cats are known to prey upon
island night lizards (Mautz 2001, p. 9). The 2006 and 2012 5-year
reviews concluded that feral cats on San Clemente Island could threaten
the island night lizard. However, we concluded that predation by feral
cats was not a substantial threat due to predator management actions
implemented through the Navy's INRMP and the large lizard population on
the island. The Navy continues to control feral cats on San Clemente
Island to benefit the San Clemente loggerhead shrike and San Clemente
Island sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli clementeae). These measures
provide an ancillary benefit to the island night lizard (Service 2008,
p. 59; Biteman et al. 2011, p. 22).
In 2006, we concluded that predation by black rats (Rattus rattus)
and nonnative snakes could threaten island
[[Page 7928]]
night lizards on San Clemente Island. Black rats are found throughout
San Clemente Island, but the total population of black rats on the
island is unknown. Despite an extensive review of the best scientific
and commercial information available, the information does not indicate
whether or how often black rats prey upon island night lizards. One
gopher snake has been located on the island, but since its removal, no
others have been reported.
Despite the continued presence of feral cats and black rats on the
island, lizard numbers remain high. Additionally, the Navy currently
implements a ``no pet policy'' to prevent the introductions of
potential predators to native wildlife (Navy 2001, p. 3.119).
Therefore, nonnative predators do not currently pose a substantial
threat to the species on San Clemente Island due to the large
population size of the island night lizard and current predator control
measures being implemented on the island, which are expected to
continue in the future (Mautz 2001a, p. 25; Service 2006, p. 19).
San Nicolas Island
The 2006 5-year review indicated that the introduction of two
nonnative lizards (southern alligator lizard and side-blotched lizard)
may impact island night lizards on San Nicolas Island (Service 2006, p.
20). Specifically, the southern alligator lizard may compete with or
prey on island night lizards (Service 2006, p. 20). Fellers et al.
(2009, pp. 18-19) noted that the ranges of both nonnative lizards have
expanded on San Nicolas Island and that both the island night lizard
and side-blotched lizard have similar distributions on the island.
Fellers et al. (2009, p. 18) also noted that southern alligator lizards
occur in different habitats than island night lizards and that there is
no indication of negative impacts to the island night lizard.
Despite the presence of these two nonnative lizards, a review of
the best available information does not indicate that predation is
occurring. No record exists of side-blotched lizards preying upon
island night lizards. In addition, the southern alligator lizard
generally occupies different habitats than the island night lizard.
Therefore, we conclude that the southern alligator lizard and side-
blotched lizard do not pose a substantial predatory threat to the
island night lizard on San Nicolas Island (Service 2012a, p. 32).
In the 2006 5-year review, we concluded that feral cat predation
threatened the island night lizard due to the small lizard population
and the large feral cat population on San Nicolas Island (Service 2006,
p. 20). In 2009, the Navy implemented a feral cat removal program to
protect Federal or State listed species, including the island night
lizard (Hanson and Bonham 2011, pp. 1-4). In addition, the MSRP
prioritized removal of feral cats from San Nicolas Island to improve
nesting success for the Brandt's cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus)
and western gull (Larus occidentalis) (MSRP 2005, pp. D3.1-D3.2).
Several methods were utilized to detect and remove cats from the
island, including the installation of camera traps to detect the
location and presence of feral cats, the use of modified padded leg-
hold live traps, and spotlight hunting (Hanson and Bonham 2011, pp. 2,
4-5). Since June 27, 2010, surveys have failed to locate any evidence
of feral cats on San Nicolas Island (Hanson and Bonham 2011, p. 19).
The Navy and MSRP announced the successful completion of this project
in February 2012 (Little 2012a, pers. comm.). Based on these successful
feral cat eradication efforts, we conclude that feral cats are no
longer a threat to the island night lizard on San Nicolas Island
(Service 2012a, p. 30).
In 2011, the Navy completed a Biosecurity Plan for San Nicolas
Island to protect the biodiversity of San Nicolas Island by preventing
the transport and establishment of all nonnative vertebrate species
(Navy 2011, p. 1). Through implementation of this plan, the Navy has
established biosecurity measures for personnel, barge operations,
airfield operations, and implemented monitoring to prevent the
introduction of nonnative vertebrate species to San Nicolas Island
(Navy 2011, pp. 7-19). All personnel must be trained in biosecurity
protocols, report sightings and suspicions, display and distribute
information signs and pamphlets, ensure biosecurity language is
included in all contracts, and review biosecurity compliance (Navy
2011, p. 19). These measures will benefit the island night lizard by
reducing the potential for nonnative vertebrate species to be
introduced to San Nicolas Island, which could prey upon the island
night lizard or outcompete it for natural resources.
Based on a review of the best available information, we conclude
that predation is not currently a substantial threat to the island
night lizard on San Nicolas Island nor is it likely to become one in
the future because nonnative lizards on the island occur in different
habitats and are not adversely impacting island night lizards; feral
cats have been successfully eradicated; and the Navy implemented a
Biosecurity Plan to prevent further introduction of nonnative predators
to the island.
Santa Barbara and Sutil Island
The 2006 and 2012 5-year reviews of the island night lizard
concluded that Santa Barbara Island does not support any nonnative
predators, but does support populations of native predators of the
island night lizard, including the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and barn owl (Tyto alba) (Service
2006, p. 19; Service 2012a, p. 33). While natural predators may pose a
threat to individual island night lizards (Service 2012a), they do not
pose a substantial threat to the continued existence of the species on
Santa Barbara Island due to the current number of lizards on the
island, highly sedentary nature of the lizard, and tendency to remain
under shelter such as dense vegetation or rock, which limits the
exposure to aerial predators lizards (Service 2006, p. 19; Service
2012a, p. 33). To prevent future introductions of the possible
predators to Santa Barbara Island, the NPS restricts bringing any
animal onto the island (NPS 2012). Based on lack of nonnative
predators, limited predation by natural predators, and NPS invasive
species management, we conclude that predation is not a substantial
threat on Santa Barbara Island, now or in the future.
Factor C Summary
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684), disease was not
considered a threat to the island night lizard and predation by feral
cats and alligator lizards was considered a threat, but their impacts
were not fully understood. Since then, as described above with respect
to affected islands, we have identified predation by nonnative lizards,
feral cats, and black rats as a threat to the species. We have no new
information to indicate that disease is a threat to the island night
lizard. Recent research indicates that neither the southern alligator
lizard nor the more recently introduced nonnative side-blotched lizard
negatively impact the island night lizard on San Nicolas Island.
Additionally, in 2010, the Navy successfully completed a feral cat
removal program on San Nicolas Island. The Navy has also implemented
efforts to control black rats and feral cats on San Clemente Island as
part of the recovery efforts for the San Clemente loggerhead shrike and
San Clemente Island sage sparrow. Though black rats and feral cats may
affect individual island night lizards, they do not currently pose a
substantial threat to the species on San Clemente Island. No
[[Page 7929]]
nonnative predators of the island night lizard exist on Santa Barbara
Island and native predators on Santa Barbara Island do not currently
pose a threat to the species existence. Also, both the Navy and NPS
have policies in place to control the introduction of potential
predators, and such efforts are expected to continue in the future.
Therefore, we conclude that disease and predation are not substantial
threats to the island night lizard on any of the occupied islands
currently or in the future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act requires us to examine the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms with respect to those existing and foreseeable threats that
may affect island night lizard. The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms was not indicated as a threat to the island night lizard at
the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684). Since it was listed as
threatened, the Act has been and continues to be the primary Federal
law that affords protection to island night lizard. The Service's
responsibilities in administering the Act include sections 7, 9, and
10.
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all Federal agencies to utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not ``jeopardize'' the
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat in areas designated by the Service to
be critical. Critical habitat has not been designated or proposed for
the lizard. A jeopardy determination is made for a project that is
reasonably expected, either directly or indirectly, to appreciably
reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed
species in the wild by reducing its reproduction, numbers, or
distribution (50 CFR 402.02). A non-jeopardy opinion may include
reasonable and prudent measures that minimize the extent of impacts to
listed species associated with a project.
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section
4(d) of the Act prohibit the ``take'' of federally listed wildlife.
Section 3(18) defines ``take'' to mean ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct.'' Service regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define
``harm'' to include significant habitat modification or degradation
which actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. ``Harassment'' is defined by the Service as an intentional
or negligent action that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife
by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering. The Act provides for civil and criminal
penalties for the unlawful taking of listed species.
Listing the island night lizard provided a variety of protections
within areas under Federal jurisdiction and the conservation mandates
of section 7 for all Federal agencies. Since it was first listed in
1977, the Navy and NPS have consulted and coordinated with us regarding
the effects of various activities occurring on federally owned San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands (see Factor A: Present
or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or
Range above). If the island night lizard were not listed, these
protections would not be provided. Thus, we must evaluate whether other
regulatory mechanisms would provide adequate protections absent the
protections of the Act.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
All Federal agencies must comply with the NEPA of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, authorize, or carryout. The
Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA
(40 CFR parts 1500-1518) state that agencies shall include a discussion
on the environmental impacts of the various project alternatives
(including the proposed action), any adverse environmental effects that
cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources involved (40 CFR part 1502). NEPA does not regulate
activities that might affect the island night lizard, but does require
full evaluation and disclosure of information regarding the effects of
contemplated Federal actions on sensitive species and their habitats.
It also does not require minimization or mitigation measures by the
Federal agency involved. Therefore, Federal agencies may include
conservation measures for island night lizard as a result of the NEPA
process, but such measures would be voluntary in nature and are not
required by the statute. On San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, the
Navy must analyze under NEPA any actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. Typically, the Navy prepares
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements on
operation plans and new or expanding training actions. On Santa Barbara
Island and incorporated Sutil Island, NPS must analyze under NEPA any
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NPS prepares Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact
Statements on actions and projects in national parks. Absent the
listing of island night lizard, we would expect the Navy and NPS to
continue to meet the procedural requirements of NEPA for their actions.
However, as explained above, NEPA does not itself regulate activities
that might affect island night lizards or their habitat.
National Park Service (NPS) Organic Act
The NPS Organic Act of 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C.
1), states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use of the
Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations * *
* to conserve the scenery and the national and historic objects and the
wildlife therein'' (which includes listed or non-listed species), ``and
to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such
means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' The 2006 NPS Management Policies indicate that the Park
Service will ``meet its obligations under the NPS Organic Act and the
Endangered Species Act to both pro-actively conserve listed species and
prevent detrimental effects on these species.'' This includes working
with the Service and undertaking active management programs to
inventory, monitor, restore, and maintain listed and non-listed species
habitats, among other actions.
Sikes Act Improvement Act (Sikes Act)
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to develop cooperative plans with the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior for natural resources on public lands. The Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997 requires Department of Defense installations to
prepare Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans that provide for
the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military
lands consistent with the use of military installations to ensure the
readiness of the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, to the maximum
extent practicable, ecosystem management principles and provide the
landscape
[[Page 7930]]
necessary to sustain military land uses. INRMPs are developed in
coordination with the State and the Service, and are generally updated
every 5 years. Although an INRMP is technically not a regulatory
mechanism, because its implementation is subject to funding
availability, it is an important guiding document that helps to
integrate natural resource protection with military readiness and
training.
San Clemente Island INRMP: Pursuant to the Sikes Act, the Navy
adopted an INRMP for San Clemente Island with multiple objectives for
protection of the island night lizard and its habitat that reduce
threats to this taxon (Navy 2002). The INRMP complied with NEPA, the
Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C. 2801), and the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C 590 a, b). The goal
of the San Clemente Island INRMP is to support the military
requirements of the Pacific Fleet while maintaining long-term ecosystem
health (Navy 2002, p. 1.2). Specifically, this INRMP will:
(1) Facilitate sustainable military readiness and foreclose no
options for future requirements of the Pacific Fleet.
(2) Protect, maintain, and restore priority native species to reach
self-sustaining levels.
(3) Ensure ecosystem resilience to testing and training impacts.
(4) Maintain the full suite of native species, emphasizing the
endemics.
In 1997, the Navy established the INLMA (Service 1997, p. 5), an
area encompassing 11,051 ac (4,474 ha) of the western shore of San
Clemente Island where the majority of high-quality Lycium californicum
and Opuntia spp. habitats, and approximately half of the island night
lizard population is found (Mautz 2001a, p. 29). The INRMP states that
the INLMA will be managed as a demonstration project, focusing on the
integration of military operational needs with conservation of species
(Navy 2002, p. 4.43). The INRMP provides a benefit to the species (Navy
2002, pp. 4.43-4.47) through the following measures:
(1) Designate and implement an approximately 11,010 acre (4,457 ha)
management area.
(2) Establish a ``no net loss'' habitat condition policy for INLMA.
(3) Survey for nonnative weeds and prioritize annual control
programs for the INLMA.
(4) Ensure that no new nonnative animals are introduced to San
Clemente Island that could be a predator, competitor, or introduce
disease to the island night lizard.
(5) Provide aggressive control of existing nonnative animals in the
INLMA.
(6) Manage fire to protect the integrity of the management area for
island night lizards.
(7) Develop, in cooperation with the Service, a delisting plan for
the island night lizard.
In addition to these management measures, the Navy developed an FMP
for San Clemente Island in 2009 (see Factor A). The FMP implements fuel
management strategies that benefit the island night lizard through
development of: high-intensity fuel management buffer zones; defensible
space around structures; and low-intensity landscape modification with
prescribed fire that meets fuels management, resource protection, and
habitat restoration objectives (Navy 2009, p. ES-3). Additionally, we
concluded that the fuelbreak and suppression measures outlined within
the FMP would prevent a significant increase in fire frequency where
high-quality habitat occurs (Service 2008, p. 204).
Although the INRMP includes objectives targeted toward habitat
protection of high-quality island night lizard habitat, Navy
operational needs may supersede INRMP goals. The Navy is currently
revising the 2002 INRMP, and future iterations of this plan may differ
from the existing INRMP. Pending completion of the new INRMP, the Navy
continues to implement the 2002 INRMP. We expect that the revised INRMP
will continue to manage for natural resource conservation to the
maximum extent practicable based on the Navy's historical commitment to
implement beneficial management actions for native flora and fauna, and
their continued cooperation with the Service to provide conservation
actions that benefit species such as the island night lizard and its
habitat.
San Nicolas Island INRMP: Pursuant to the Sikes Act, the Navy
adopted an INRMP for San Nicolas Island that includes measures to
protect the island night lizard and its habitat (Navy 2010). The INRMP
also complied with NEPA, the Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act (7
U.S.C. 2801), and the Soil Conservation Act. The purpose of the San
Nicolas INRMP is to provide a viable and implementable framework for
the management of natural resources at Naval Base Ventura County,
California, San Nicolas Island (Navy 2010, p. 1.1). The INRMP's
objective for island night lizards on San Nicolas Island is to maintain
a viable population (Navy 2010, p. 4.56). The strategies to accomplish
this objective from the INRMP are listed below (Navy 2010, p. 4.56):
(1) Continue to develop and implement protocols to resolve any
baseline biological data gaps and to monitor distribution, population
size, population trends, and habitat usage of the island night lizard
population by conducting site-specific surveys in known or suitable
habitat prior to disturbance activities.
(2) Protect and maintain island night lizard habitat quality and
integrity by:
(a) Conducting an invasive nonnative control, monitoring, and
removal program in island night lizard habitat in order to reduce
impacts upon the species' population.
(b) Defining and clearly marking work areas during road maintenance
and other activities to prevent island night lizard mortality in
accordance with the terms and conditions listed in the Biological
Opinion (Service 2001).
(c) Excluding areas of high-quality island night lizard habitat
from mowing regimes.
(d) Maintaining a bare ground buffer zone around equipment and
storage areas in high-quality island night lizard habitat where
practicable.
(e) Siting staging areas for storage of equipment and materials in
areas with low island night lizard densities, whenever feasible.
(3) Conduct relocation of island night lizards in accordance with
the terms and conditions identified in the current Biological Opinion
(Service 2001).
(4) Support studies to investigate the effectiveness of island
night lizard management strategies by:
(a) Supporting scientific studies of competition relationships
between alligator lizards and island night lizards.
(b) Supporting genetic studies of isolated island night lizard
populations to determine population structure and size.
(5) Educate island personnel on laws covering prohibition on taking
listed species for pets or for sale in pet trade.
(6) Support recovery plan efforts to establish stable island night
lizard populations and eventual delisting by:
(a) Supporting Channel Islands-wide review of population status of
the species.
While the INRMP does not guarantee funding will be appropriated for
implementation, the Navy has demonstrated a continued commitment to the
goals of the INRMP. They have funded a full-time biologist for the
island, provided additional funds to hire contractors, or utilized
university, volunteer, or other agency personnel to implement numerous
activities as outlined in the INRMP.
[[Page 7931]]
Federal Noxious Weed Act
The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 2148, 7 U.S.C. 2801)
established a Federal program that has subsequently been largely
superseded by other statutes, including the Plant Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 7701, et seq.), to control the spread of noxious weeds. The 1990
amendment to the the Federal Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C. 2814), has been
retained, and requires each Federal land-managing agency to: Designate
an office or person adequately trained in managing undesirable plant
species to develop and coordinate a program to control such plants on
the agency's land; establish and adequately fund this plant management
program through the agency's budget process; complete and implement
cooperative agreements with the States regarding undesirable plants on
agency land; and establish integrated management systems (as defined in
the section) to control or contain undesirable plants targeted under
the cooperative agreements. In accordance with this direction, the Navy
and NPS work to control the introduction of nonnative plant species to
the islands and to control or remove those currently present, which are
actions that assist in protecting island night lizard habitat.
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act
The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C.
590(a, b), 49 Stat. 163) recognized that the wastage of soil and
moisture resources on farm, grazing, and forest lands of the Nation,
resulting from soil erosion, is a menace to the national welfare and
declared it to be the policy of Congress to provide permanently for the
control and prevention of soil erosion and thereby to preserve natural
resources, control floods, prevent impairment of reservoirs, and
maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors, protect public health,
public lands and relieve unemployment, and the Secretary of Agriculture
shall coordinate and direct all activities with relation to soil
erosion. In order to effectuate this policy, the Secretary of
Agriculture authorizes, from time to time, that the following actions
may be performed on lands owned or controlled by the United States or
any of its agencies, with the cooperation of the agency having
jurisdiction: Conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to
the character of soil erosion and the preventive measures needed; to
publish the results of any such surveys, investigations, or research;
to disseminate information concerning such methods; and to conduct
demonstrational projects in areas subject to erosion by wind or water;
and carry out preventative measures, including, but not limited to,
engineering operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, and changes in use of land. These measures assist island
night lizards by encouraging management actions that prevent and
control erosion, thus protecting island night lizard habitat.
Factor D Summary
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was not indicated
as a threat to the island night lizard at the time of listing or in the
recent status reviews. Because all islands are under Federal ownership,
various laws, regulations, and policies administered by the Federal
Government provide protective mechanisms for the species and its
habitat. Primary Federal laws that provide some benefit for the species
and its habitat absent the Act include NEPA, Sikes Act, Federal Noxious
Weed Act, Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, and NPS Organic
Act.
INRMPs are important guiding documents that help to integrate the
military's mission with natural resource protection on San Clemente and
San Nicolas Island. Although the INRMPs include objectives targeted
toward protection of habitat essential to the island night lizard and
other native species, Navy operational needs may diverge from INRMP
natural resource goals. For example, some control measures may not be
implemented effectively or consistently in those areas that are
operationally closed due to the presence of unexploded ordnance.
However, in most locations, fire management plans, erosion control in
accordance with the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, and
nonnative plant species control in accordance with the Federal Noxious
Weed Act, afford protections to the island night lizard on the islands
as discussed above under Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.
Absent listing under the Act, the Navy would still be required to
develop and implement INRMPs under the Sikes Act. The INRMPs will
continue to provide a conservation benefit to the island night lizard
through native habitat management efforts, where there is overlap with
island night lizard habitat.
The population of island night lizards and their habitat on Santa
Barbara Island and Sutil Island are afforded protections by the NPS's
Organic Act, which provides management programs to inventory, monitor,
restore, and maintain listed species' habitats, and requires the NPS to
manage all natural resources regardless of listing status (such as
island night lizard after it is delisted).
Delisting the island night lizard would eliminate the requirement
to consult with us for actions carried out, funded, or authorized by
the Navy and NPS on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara
Islands. However, we anticipate the Navy will continue to implement
INRMPs for both San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands that include
management for natural resources, native species, and other listed
species, which we anticipate will provide an ancillary benefit to the
island night lizard. We have no information indicating that management
of Santa Barbara Island would be changed or altered in a manner that
would be inconsistent with the conservation of natural resources and
native species, which includes the island night lizard and its habitat.
In conclusion, island night lizards are afforded protection through
Federal or military mechanisms and, in absence of the Act, these
existing regulatory mechanisms are expected to continue to a degree
adequate to conserve the island night lizard and its habitat throughout
its range both now and in the future. Therefore, we conclude that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a current threat to
the species on any of the occupied islands, nor is it expected to
become a threat in the future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
The listing rule (42 FR 40682, p. 40684) states that island-adapted
taxa are often detrimentally affected by accidental or intentional
introduction of nonnative species. This was the only threat attributed
to Factor E for any of the seven taxa included in that rule. Because
the primary effect of most nonnative taxa was related to habitat or
predation, the discussion of introduced nonnative taxa is now included
under Factor A as it relates to habitat and Factor C as it relates to
predation.
The restricted distribution of the island night lizard on San
Nicolas and Santa Barbara Islands makes these populations susceptible
to natural catastrophes such as fires, landslides, or prolonged
droughts (Service 2006, p. 24). Potential impacts and management
efforts to reduce or control effects of fire and erosion are discussed
under Factor A. The 2012 5-year review of the island night lizard
discusses the potential threat of climate change and its effects
[[Page 7932]]
on precipitation, drought, and sea level rise as it relates to the
island night lizard (Service 2012a, pp. 39-41), and is further
discussed below.
Climate Change
As discussed under Factor A--Climate Change above, climate change
poses a potential impact to island night lizards and their habitat
based on modeling and climate change projections for southern
California from various sources (IPCC 2007, PRBO 2011). Because the
best available information for the region that encompasses San
Clemente, San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and Sutil Islands refers only to
the marine environment and not the terrestrial environment occupied by
island night lizards (PRBO 2011, p.4), we are utilizing projections
made for the Southwestern California ecoregion in this threat analysis
(see Factor A--Climate Change section above for additional discussion
on available data, climate model predictions for temperature and
precipitation, and potential impacts related to island night lizard
habitat).
Currently, climate modeling projections for fog (Field et al. 1999,
pp. 21-22) and precipitation are the subject of uncertainty, with
relatively little consensus concerning projections for the Southwestern
California ecoregion (PRBO 2011, p. 40). Additionally and as noted
above, we have no specific information related to precipitation and
temperature projections specific to the terrestrial environment of the
California Channel Islands. Regardless, the best available data
indicate that when daily temperatures increase, lizard species spend
more time in burrows or refuges and less time foraging (Sinervo et al.
2010, p. 894). This reduced foraging time could possibly impact growth
and survival of this already highly sedentary lizard. Drought
conditions also reduce the arthropod populations in the spring,
reducing a food source and compounding the effects of climate change
(Knowlton 1949, p. 45; Schwenkmeyer 1949, pp. 37-40; Bolger et al.
2000, p. 1242). Therefore, in the event of a prolonged period of warmer
air temperature and lower rainfall, the island night lizard's habitat
and food supply could also potentially be reduced. However, even with
this potential reduction in food availability, Sinervo et al. (2010, p.
898) investigated climate change impacts on Xantusidae and predicted
that the species extinction risk for this family is zero through 2080.
Therefore, we do not consider climate change to be a substantial threat
to the island night lizard now or in the future.
Factor E Summary
At the time of listing (42 FR 40682, p. 40684), we did not identify
climate change as a threat to the island night lizard. The 2006 and
2012 5-year reviews (Service 2006 p. 24; Service pp. 38-39) suggested
that, because the island night lizard is an insular endemic species, it
is vulnerable to extirpation from random factors such as environmental
stochasticity (lacking predictability) and natural catastrophes.
However, it is currently unknown how climate change will affect the
island night lizard and its habitat on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and
Santa Barbara Islands (Service 2006, p. 24; Service 2012a, pp. 38-39).
The island night lizard may be more susceptible to natural catastrophes
on San Nicolas and Santa Barbara Island because of its restricted
distribution on those islands. Its greater numbers and distribution on
San Clemente Island may indicate the island night lizard is less
susceptible to stochastic events on that island. Climate change may
affect the island night lizard and its habitat, but the best available
information does not allow us to make accurate predictions regarding
the effects of climate change on the island night lizard at this time.
We expect that the lizard's susceptibility to climate change is
somewhat reduced by its ability to use varying habitat types and by its
broad generalist diet. Continued improvement in habitat quality and
reduction of threats by the Navy and NPS is likely to increase the
resilience of the lizard and its habitat to changing conditions.
Therefore, because of current and expected ongoing management, we do
not consider climate change to be a substantial threat to the species
at this time or in the future.
Cumulative Effects
A species may be affected by a combination of threats. Within the
preceding review of the five listing factors, we identified multiple
threats that may have interrelated impacts on the island night lizard
or its habitat. Fire (Factor A) may increase in intensity and frequency
on all occupied islands if there is an abundance of nonnative plants
(grasses) (Factor A). Similarly, across all islands occupied by the
island night lizard, fire (Factor A) may become more frequent if
climate change results in hotter and drier environmental conditions
(Factor A and E). An increase in the frequency of fires (Factor A) may
potentially lead to an increased risk of predation (Factor C) due to
loss of vegetative cover for the island night lizard in burned areas.
On San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands, the land use and development
activities (Factor A) conducted by the Navy can prompt an increase in
erosion (Factor A) and the potential for fire (Factor A) in island
night lizard habitat. Additionally, effects from climate change, such
as rising sea level in conjunction with increased storm frequency and
high-tide wave action (Factor A), could potentially impact island night
lizard habitat by accelerating erosion (Factor A) on all occupied
islands. Although island night lizard productivity may be reduced
because of these threats, either alone or in combination, it is not
easy to determine whether a specific threat is the primary threat
having the greatest impact on the viability of the species, or whether
it is exacerbated by, or functioning in combination with, other threats
to result in cumulative or synergistic effects on the species. The Navy
and NPS are actively managing for the threats described above to
minimize impacts to the island night lizard. It is anticipated that
their continued management of these threats will maintain the threats
at a level where synergistic effects are not likely to result in a
substantial impact to the island night lizard or its habitat.
Therefore, we do not consider the cumulative impact of these threats to
be substantial at this time.
Finding
An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act
is based on threats to that species and the regulatory mechanisms in
place to ameliorate impacts from these threats. As required by the Act,
we conducted a review of the status of the taxon and assessed the five
factors to determine whether the island night lizard is threatened or
endangered throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific
and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the lizard. We reviewed petitions received on
May 1, 1997, and March 22, 2004; comments and information received
after publication of our 90-day finding (71 FR 48900, August 22, 2006);
two 5-year status reviews, information available in our files; and
other available published and unpublished information. We also
consulted with recognized experts on the island night lizard and its
habitat, and with other Federal agencies.
In considering which factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds in a way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response or
[[Page 7933]]
only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is
exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a
substantial threat and we then attempt to determine the significance of
the threat. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to
the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants
listing as endangered or threatened, 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 potentially impact a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative substantial threats that act
on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of
threatened or endangered under the Act.
The reasons for listing the island night lizard as threatened (42
FR 40682) were: Habitat loss or modification through the introduction
of nonnative herbivores such as feral goats and pigs on San Clemente
Island; habitat modification through the introduction of nonnative
plants throughout the species' range (San Clemente, San Nicolas, and
Santa Barbara Islands); predation by feral cats on San Clemente Island;
and competition with the southern alligator lizard on San Nicolas
Island. The island night lizard was not known to occupy Sutil Island at
listing and thus the island was not included in the threats analysis at
the time of listing. Since listing, the island night lizard has been
twice identified on Sutil Island. Due to the small size of Sutil
Island, proximity to Santa Barbara Island, and ownership of Sutil and
Santa Barbara Island by the NPS, we included the population of Sutil
Island and discussion of threats with the population of Santa Barbara
Island.
At the time of listing, several threats related to destruction of
habitat were identified for the island night lizard on one or more of
the Channel Islands. Since listing, these threats have been addressed
by multiple actions through implementation of the Navy's INRMPs and the
NPS's management policies. While a variety of threats existed under
Factor A, not all threats were present on all three islands.
All nonnative herbivores have been removed from San Clemente, San
Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands, and the slow process of natural
recovery of native habitat is ongoing. Management actions to control,
remove, or prevent introduction of nonnative plant species are also
implemented on all three islands by the Navy and NPS. Current
management efforts on San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands to avoid or
minimize impacts from land use and development, fire, and erosion due
to military activities have resulted in reduction of threats to the
island night lizard or its habitat on those islands. Land use and
development is not considered a threat to the lizard or its habitat on
Santa Barbara Island. Fire is also not a substantial threat to the
lizard or its habitat on Santa Barbara Island due to limited human
presence, current fire management policy on the island, and an FMP for
Channel Islands National Park (including Santa Barbara Island). Erosion
resulting from historical grazing by nonnative herbivores and
historical land use practices is exacerbated by current military
activities. Efforts to control these sources of erosion on San Clemente
and San Nicolas Islands are currently ongoing, as outlined in the
Navy's INRMPs. As a result of management efforts by the Navy and NPS,
we do not consider any of these habitat threats to be substantial to
the island night lizard or its habitat on any of the occupied islands,
nor do we expect them to become so in the foreseeable future.
Disease is not a current threat for the island night lizard on any
of the islands where it occurs nor do we anticipate it to be in the
foreseeable future; however, predation has impacted the species in the
past and continues to be a potential impact to individuals on San
Clemente Island. We do not consider predation to be a substantial
threat currently or in the foreseeable future due to ongoing feral cat
removal efforts implemented through the Navy's INRMP. All feral cats
have been removed from San Nicolas Island, and predation is not a
threat to the lizard on Santa Barbara Island. Finally, research
indicates that the southern alligator lizard is not a threat to the
island night lizard on San Nicolas Island.
The overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms are not
threats to the island night lizard on any of the occupied islands, nor
do we anticipate them to become threats in the foreseeable future.
Climate change has been identified as a potential threat with
regards to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailments of its habitat, as well as with regard to other human and
manmade factors. However, we cannot precisely determine how climate
change will potentially impact the island night lizard and its habitat
on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands. While climate
change may impact the lizard and its habitat, we are unable to
accurately predict the effects to the species and its habitat. However,
species biology indicates that the lizard may be able to withstand some
changes in habitat conditions. Therefore, we do not consider climate
change to be a substantial threat to the species throughout its range
now or in the foreseeable future.
At the time of listing, the number of island night lizards on San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands was unknown. Research
conducted since then indicates that approximately 21 million island
night lizards occur on San Clemente Island, 15,300 lizards occur on San
Nicolas Island, and 17,600 lizards occur on Santa Barbara Island. While
no new population numbers are available, new habitat assessments
indicate that the amount of quality habitat supporting the island night
lizard has increased on each of the islands. It is likely that the
number of lizards has increased in association with the increase of
quality habitat on all three islands. Currently, the Navy conducts
monitoring for management actions that impact threatened or endangered
species, including the island night lizard, as required by its INRMP.
If the island night lizard is removed from the List, the Navy would
continue to monitor the lizard and its habitat through post-delisting
monitoring efforts to ensure the species is recovering and does not
warrant relisting in the foreseeable future. The NPS conducts
monitoring on Santa Barbara Island to assess the impacts of management
actions on threatened and endangered species, including the island
night lizard and its habitat. Additionally, the NPS monitors all
natural resources, including the island night lizard, and would also
participate in post-delisting monitoring efforts to ensure the species
does not warrant relisting in the foreseeable future.
We conclude that, since the time of listing, all substantial
threats to the island night lizard have been ameliorated. Any remaining
potential threats to the species are currently managed to minimize
impacts. The one exception is climate change, for which there is not
sufficient information to make accurate predictions about the timing
and degree of potential impacts. However, data suggest that the
extinction risk for the family Xantusidae (which includes the Island
night lizard) is zero through the year 2080 (based on Sinervo et al.
(2010) evaluation of Xantusidae (see Climate Change section)).
Therefore, using 2080 as our frame of reference for determining the
foreseeable future (which is generally
[[Page 7934]]
the latest time period that most climate change emission scenario
models use because they lose confidence beyond this point), we
concluded that this is not likely to become a substantial threat now or
in the foreseeable future. We also note that all six primary objectives
of the Recovery Plan were, or are in the process of, being fulfilled
(see Recovery Plan Implementation section). Additionally, since
listing, it was determined that over 21 million lizards exist in high-
quality habitat among the three islands. Based on the current level of
threats, we would not anticipate future declines in population numbers.
Therefore, we conclude that the island night lizard is not likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range, because all substantial threats have been ameliorated, potential
threats are currently managed, and Recovery Plan objectives have been
initiated or fulfilled. As such, we recommend removing the island night
lizard from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Significant Portion of Its Range
The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines
``species'' as follows: ``The term `species' includes any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS]
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.'' The phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is not
defined by the statute, and we have never addressed in our regulations:
(1) The consequences of a determination that a species is either
endangered or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of
its range, but not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a
portion of a range as ``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp.
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, Apr. 12, 2009) and
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz.
Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to
list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service
had asserted in both of these determinations that it had authority, in
effect, under the Act to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as
defined by the Act (species, subspecies, or DPS). Both courts ruled
that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the grounds
that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous language of the
Act. The courts concluded that reading the SPR language to allow
protecting only a portion of a species' range is inconsistent with the
Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts concluded that once a
determination is made that a species (species, subspecies, or DPS)
meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species,'' it must be placed on the list in its entirety and the Act's
protections applied consistently to all members of that species
(subject to modification of protections through special rules under
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all
of its range or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, the species is an ``endangered species.''
The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' Based on this
interpretation and supported by existing case law, the consequence of
finding that a species is endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range is that the entire species shall be
listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's
protections shall be applied across the species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it
does not conflict with established past agency practice, as no
consistent, long-term agency practice has been established; and it is
consistent with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined
this issue. Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of
its range'' provides an independent basis for listing and protecting
the entire species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to
determine the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing
exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below,
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that,
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire
species) and the likelihood that some habitat types are less
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under
any one or more of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as
``significant'' by asking whether without that portion the
representation, redundancy, or
[[Page 7935]]
resiliency of the species would be so impaired that the species would
have an increased vulnerability to threats to the point that the
overall species would be in danger of extinction (would be
``endangered''). Conversely, we would not consider the portion of the
range at issue to be ``significant'' if there is sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation elsewhere in the species' range that the
species would not be in danger of extinction throughout its range if
the population in that portion of the range in question became
extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the
viability of the species is so important that without that portion the
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be
listing the species throughout its entire range, it is important to use
a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It would not be
meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a
portion of the range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a
negligible increase in extinction risk would result from its loss.
Because nearly any portion of a species' range can be said to
contribute some increment to a species' viability, use of such a low
threshold would require us to impose restrictions and expend
conservation resources disproportionately to conservation benefit:
Listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the range of
minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On the other
hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in
the entire species being currently endangered or threatened. Such a
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136
(9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be
endangered everywhere without that portion, that is, if that portion
were completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range
need not be so important that even the species being in danger of
extinction in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in
the remainder of the range to be endangered; rather, the complete
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion
would be required to cause the species in the remainder of the range to
be endangered.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose in
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant or in analyzing portions of the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1)
The portions may be ``significant'' and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
We consider the ``range'' of the island night lizard to be San
Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands (including Sutil
Island) of the California Channel Islands.
We considered whether the threats facing the island night lizard
might be different on San Clemente Island with approximately 99.85
percent of the population compared to San Nicolas and Santa Barbara
Islands with, combined, approximately 0.15 percent of the population
(Service 2012b). A detailed spatial evaluation of threats showed that
the level of threat, and extent of protective measures, is different on
San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island, compared to Santa Barbara
Island due to ownership and activities conducted by the Navy (Service
2012b, unpublished data). However, all substantial threats have been
ameliorated from those islands, and the remaining potential threats to
the island night lizard are actively managed for by the Navy through
implementation of INRMPs, Federal Noxious Weed Act, and Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. On Santa Barbara Island there
are no substantial threats, and the remaining potential threats receive
protections provided through the implementation of NPS's management
policies and the Channel Islands National Park Wildland FMP, in
accordance with the Organic Act. It is our conclusion, based on our
evaluation of the current potential threats to the island night lizard
on San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara Islands (see Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section), that threats are neither
sufficiently concentrated nor of sufficient magnitude to indicate the
species is in danger of extinction on any island and thus it is likely
to persist throughout its range.
Summary of Finding
According to 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species may be delisted if the
best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the
species is neither endangered nor threatened because of: (1)
Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error
[[Page 7936]]
in the original data for classification of the species. We consider
``recovery'' to apply to the island night lizard because, since
listing, all substantial threats to the lizard have been ameliorated.
All remaining potential threats to the species and its habitat, with
the exception of climate change for which there is not information on
which to make accurate predictions, are currently managed through
management plans (the Navy's INRMPs on San Clemente and San Nicolas
Islands in accordance with the Sikes Act, Federal Noxious Weed Act, and
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act; and the NPS's management
policies in accordance with the Organic Act on Santa Barbara Island).
Upon completion of this finding, a majority of all six primary
objectives of the Recovery Plan have been fulfilled. Therefore, we find
that the island night lizard no longer requires the protection of the
Act and we propose removing the species from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of This Rule
This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove
the island night lizard from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. Because no critical habitat was designated for this species,
this rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
If this species is removed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, the prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9 of the Act,
would no longer apply. Removal of the island night lizard from the List
of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife would relieve Federal agencies
from the need to consult with us to ensure any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of this species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring
(PDM) plan. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that decisions are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment during this comment period on
this proposed rule and draft PDM plan, and the specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposed delisting. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered and delisted (50 CFR 17.11,
17.12). The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to
verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it
has been removed from the protections of the Act. The PDM is designed
to detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without
the protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any time during the
monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act
should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the
States in development and implementation of PDM programs, but we remain
responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must
remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active
participation of other entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species' conservation post-delisting.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview
The Service has developed a draft PDM plan for the island night
lizard in cooperation with the Navy and NPS. The PDM plan is designed
to verify that the island night lizard remains secure from risk of
extinction after removal from the list of federally threatened or
endangered species by detecting changes in its status and habitat
throughout its known range. With this notice, we are soliciting public
comments and peer review on the draft PDM Plan including its objectives
and procedures (see Public Comments Solicited). All comments on the
draft PDM plan from the public and peer reviewers will be considered
and incorporated into the final PDM plan as appropriate. Please see the
plan, available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/, https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C01M,
or https://www.regulations.gov for more details.
The draft PDM plan outlines monitoring that will take place for 5
years over a 9-year period (i.e., years 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9). The draft
PDM Plan includes the following measures:
(1) Monitoring the overall health of the island night lizard
populations on each island through trap capture rates and recruitment
at previously established sampling sites. This monitoring will occur in
all habitats for 9 years following delisting. Biologists will conduct
density assessments using several methodologies including: Pitfall
traps, rock-turn surveys, and coverboards arranged in grid arrays or
transects. Efforts will be made to sample all sites within each
sampling period. Surveys to assess recruitment will be conducted in
October for each sampling year.
(2) Monitoring high-quality habitat will occur twice throughout
post-delisting monitoring to assess abundance and distribution of
habitats on all islands. Recently completed island-wide habitat maps
will be utilized as the baseline assessment to compare with post-
delisting monitoring mapping efforts.
(3) Identifying thresholds that would trigger an extension of
monitoring, alteration of management approach, or a status review will
be established related to island night lizard density, recruitment, and
habitat.
Additionally, we are recommending that land managers on each island
conduct monitoring in previously unsampled areas on each island
consisting of different habitats at least once during PDM with a focus
on high-quality habitat. Within these new areas, we recommend using
already established protocols to allow for comparison of newly sampled
island night lizard densities and distribution with previously
established sites for each island. We also recommend establishing
identical protocols for each island to allow for comparison among
islands. Lastly, we recommend that each island continue restoration
efforts of high-quality island night lizard habitat to increase
distribution and connectivity.
We also expect to monitor the commitments and actions of management
plans implemented by the Navy and NPS, which manage potential threats
to the island night lizard and its habitat, including the introduction
and current persistence of nonnative plants, land use and development,
erosion, and fire.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized,
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly,
[[Page 7937]]
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon,
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences, and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part
1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval
from OMB before collecting information from the public. This rule does
not contain any new collections of information that require approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We determined we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In concurrence with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or upon request
from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office in Carlsbad, California (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Lizard, Island
night'' under ``REPTILES'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
Dated: January 23, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02020 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
