Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as an Endangered or Threatened Species, 60989-61028 [2015-25289]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 195
October 8, 2015
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; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as an Endangered or Threatened
Species; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
60990
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox
as an Endangered or Threatened
Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes
necator) as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that listing the entire Sierra Nevada red
fox subspecies is not warranted. We
were also petitioned to evaluate two
populations within the subspecies’
range as potential distinct population
segments (DPSs). We find that both the
Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada
population segments of the Sierra
Nevada red fox meet the Service’s DPS
policy criteria, and therefore are valid
DPSs. After review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
for these two DPSs, we find that listing
the Southern Cascades DPS is not
warranted at this time, and listing the
Sierra Nevada DPS is warranted.
Currently, however, listing the Sierra
Nevada DPS is precluded by higher
priority actions to amend the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Upon publication of this 12month finding, we will add the Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox to our candidate species list. We
will develop a proposed rule to list the
Sierra Nevada DPS as our priorities
allow. We will make a determination on
critical habitat during development of
the proposed listing rule. In the interim
period, we will address the status of the
candidate DPS through our annual
candidate notice of review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on October 8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way,
Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES); by telephone at 916–414–
6600; or by facsimile at 916–414–6712.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in
This Document
We use many acronyms and
abbreviations throughout this 12-month
finding. To assist the reader, we provide
a list of these here for easy reference:
Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
BWRA = Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area
CBD = Center for Biological Diversity
CDFG = California Department of Fish and
Game (see below)
CDFW = California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
dbh = diameter at breast height
DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid
DPS = distinct population segment
EFF = elokomin fluke fever
Forest Service = U.S. Forest Service
FR = Federal Register
INRMP = integrated natural resources
management plan
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
ISAB = Independent Scientific Advisory
Board
LRMP = land and resource management plan
MWTC = Marine Warfare Training Center
mtDNA = mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic
acid
NFMA = National Forest Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)
NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service
NPS = National Park Service
NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan
ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife
OHV = off-highway vehicle
OPLMA = Omnibus Public Land
Management Act (Pub. L. 111–11)
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SPD = salmon poisoning disease
SNFPA = Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment
SPR = significant portion of [a species’] range
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
suggesting that listing a 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 that the petitioned action is:
(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
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
(‘‘warranted but precluded’’). Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On April 27, 2011, we received a
petition dated April 27, 2011, from the
Center for Biological Diversity,
requesting that Sierra Nevada red fox be
listed as endangered or threatened, and
that critical habitat be designated under
the Act. The petition also requested that
we evaluate two populations within the
subspecies’ range as potential distinct
population segments (DPSs) under the
Service’s DPS Policy: One in the
Southern Cascades (south of the
Columbia River) and the other in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, as
required by title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at section
424.14(a). In a May 24, 2011, letter to
the petitioner, we responded that we
reviewed the information presented in
the petition and determined that issuing
an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that we were required to
complete a significant number of listing
and critical habitat actions in Fiscal
Year 2011 pursuant to court orders,
judicially approved settlement
agreements, and other statutory
deadlines, but that we had secured
funding for Fiscal Year 2011 to allow
publication of a finding in the Federal
Register in early Fiscal Year 2012.
On January 3, 2012, we published in
the Federal Register a 90-day finding
(77 FR 45) that the petition presented
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted and that
initiated a status review. This notice
constitutes the 12-month finding on the
April 27, 2011, petition to list the Sierra
Nevada red fox as an endangered or
threatened species.
This finding is based upon the
Species Report titled ‘‘Species Report,
Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes
necator)’’ (Service 2015) (Species
Report), a scientific analysis of available
information prepared by a team of
Service biologists from the Service’s
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath
Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Roseburg
Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific
Southwest Regional Office, Pacific
Regional Office, and National
Headquarters Office. The purpose of the
Species Report is to provide the best
available scientific and commercial
information about Sierra Nevada red fox
so that we can evaluate whether or not
the subspecies warrants protection
under the Act. In it, we compiled the
best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the
subspecies, including past, present, and
future stressors. As such, the Species
Report provides the scientific basis that
informs our regulatory decision in this
document, which involves the further
application of standards within the Act
and its regulations and policies. The
Species Report can be found on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103.
Summary of Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
genetics, habitat use, life history, range,
distribution, and occurrence
information for the Sierra Nevada red
fox is presented in the Species Report
(Service 2015, pp. 6–14), available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103; a summary of
this information is presented below. We
used data specific to the Sierra Nevada
red fox when they were available. When
such information was lacking, we relied
on information regarding other North
American red fox subspecies in general,
including montane red fox such as
Cascade red fox (Vulpes vulpes
cascadensis) or Rocky Mountain red fox
(V.v. macroura), as well as other
subspecies of lowland red fox, such as
the Sacramento Valley red fox (V.v.
patwin). We make these distinctions in
the text that follows, when applicable.
Sierra Nevada red fox is classified in
the mammalian order Carnivora, family
Canidae, and is one of 10, 11, or 13
subspecies of red fox recognized in
North America by various sources (Hall
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
´
1981, p. 938; Lariviere and
Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, pp. 1–2; Aubry
1997, p. 55; Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1523,
1535; ITIS 2014, p. 1). The Sierra
Nevada red fox can be distinguished
from lowland-dwelling red fox
subspecies based on its smaller size and
use of high-elevation, snow-covered
habitat (Roest 1977, p. 13; Perrine et al.
2010, p. 5). The Sierra Nevada red fox
was first described by Merriam (1900,
pp. 662, 664) as the species Vulpes
necator, but was redesignated as a
subspecies of North American red fox
(Vulpes fulva necator) in 1936 (Bailey
1936, pp. 272, 317), and then as a
subspecies of a single red fox species
stretching across Europe, Asia, and
North America (Vulpes vulpes necator)
in 1957 (Churcher 1957, p. 202;
Churcher 1959, p. 519). The scientific
community continues to recognize the
Sierra Nevada red fox as a subspecies
´
(Roest 1977, p. 1; Lariviere and
Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, pp. 1–2; Aubry
1997, p. 55; Sacks et al. 2010a, p. 1542).
Therefore, we accept the classification
of the Sierra Nevada red fox as a
subspecies of the red fox. Other red fox
subspecies found nearest the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s range include the
closely related and morphologically
similar Cascade red fox (occurring in the
Washington Cascades north of the
Columbia River (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp.
1528, 1536), and the Sacramento Valley
red fox (occurring in the Sacramento
Valley of California (Sacks et al. 2010a,
pp. 1523–1524, 1535)). Additionally,
descendants of red fox originally
imported from eastern and more
northern areas of North America into
California and Oregon as fur-farm stock
(described as ‘‘nonnative red fox’’
herein) reside in lowland areas of
California and Oregon (Sacks et al.
2010a, pp. 1524).
The red fox is a relatively small canid
with an elongated snout, large ears,
slender legs and body, and a bushy tail
´
with a white tip (Lariviere and
Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, p. 2; Aubry
1997, p. 55; Perrine 2005, p. 1; Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 5). Red foxes typically
have primarily red fur, but can also
occur in a ‘‘cross phase’’ (primarily
grayish-brown, with darker lines along
the back and shoulders) or ‘‘black
phase’’ (also called the silver phase;
primarily black with occasional silver
guard hairs) (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 5). Cross and black phases
are generally rare, but tend to be more
common in cold mountainous areas
(Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine et al. 2010,
p. 5).
The Sierra Nevada red fox and two
other montane subspecies (i.e., Cascades
and Rocky Mountain red foxes) are
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60991
characterized by specialized adaptations
to cold areas (Sacks et al. 2010a, p.
1524). Such adaptations include a
particularly thick and deep winter coat
(Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 377) and small
toe pads (4 millimeters (mm) (0.2 inches
(in)) across or less) that are completely
covered in winter by dense fur to
facilitate movement over snow (Grinnell
et al. 1937, pp. 378, 393; Sacks 2014a,
p. 30). The Sierra Nevada red fox and
other montane subspecies also tend to
be smaller than other red foxes (Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 5), which may facilitate
movement over snow by lowering
weight supported per square centimeter
of footpad (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p.
17).
Sierra Nevada red fox use multiple
habitat types in the alpine and
subalpine zones (near and above
treeline) (California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) 1987, p. 3). In
addition to meadows and rocky areas
(U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2009, p. 506), Sierra Nevada red fox use
high-elevation conifer habitat of various
types (Perrine 2005, pp. 63–64). Nearest
the treeline in the Lassen sighting area,
where habitat use has been best
documented, the subspecies frequents
subalpine conifer habitat dominated by
whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and
mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana)
(Perrine 2005, pp. 6, 63–64; California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) undated, p. 3; Verner and
Purcell undated, p. 3). Such conifer
habitat has been described as typically
‘‘open’’ (Verner and Purcell undated, p.
1), and ‘‘patchy’’ (Lowden 2015, p. 1).
We lack similarly specific habitat
descriptions for Oregon.
Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon, and
at the Lassen sighting area in California,
have also been found to descend during
winter months into high-elevation
conifer areas below the subalpine zone
(Perrine 2005, pp. 63–64; Aubry et al.
2015, p. 1). In the Lassen sighting area,
this habitat consists primarily of red fir
(Abies magnifica), white fir (Abies
concolor), and lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta) (Perrine 2005, pp. 63–64;
CDFW undated, p. 3; Barrett 1988, p. 3).
Winter sightings have occurred as low
as 1,410 m (4,626 ft) in the Lassen
sighting area (Perrine 2005, pp. 2, 162),
and 1,280 m (4,200 ft) in Oregon (Aubry
et al. 2015, p. 1). Possible reasons for
this elevational migration include
lessened snow depths at lower
elevations (Perrine 2005, pp. 80, 81),
unsuccessful dispersal movements by
nonbreeding individuals (Statham et al.
2012, p. 130), and lack of suitable prey
at high elevations in the Lassen area
(Perrine 2005, p. 30). While on these
lower winter ranges, the subspecies has
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60992
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
shown a preference for mature closed
canopy conifer forests, despite the rarity
of this forest structural category (less
than 7 percent) in the area studied
(Perrine 2005, pp. 67, 74, 90). Similar
elevational migrations are not known for
the Sonora Pass sighting area (Statham
et al. 2012, p. 130).
Dispersal distances have not been
documented for Sierra Nevada red fox,
but one study found juvenile male red
foxes in the American Midwest
dispersed 30 km (18.6 mi) on average,
while juvenile females dispersed an
average of 10 km (6.2 mi) (Statham et al.
2012, p. 130). A few young American
Midwest red foxes (5 percent) dispersed
over 80 km (50 mi) in their first year
(Statham et al. 2012, p. 130).
Although little direct information
exists regarding the Sierra Nevada red
fox’s reproductive biology, there is no
evidence to suggest it is markedly
different from lowland-dwelling North
American red fox subspecies (Aubry
1997, p. 57). Those subspecies are
predominately monogamous and mate
over several weeks in the late winter
and early spring (Aubry 1997, p. 57).
The gestation period for North
American red fox is 51 to 53 days, with
birth occurring from March through
May in sheltered dens (Perrine et al.
2010, p. 14). Sierra Nevada red fox use
natural openings in rock piles at the
base of cliffs and slopes as denning sites
(Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 394). They may
also dig earthen dens similar to Cascade
red foxes (although this has not been
directly documented) (Aubry 1997, p.
58; Perrine 2005, p. 153). Sierra Nevada
red fox litters are reported by Grinnell
et al. (1937, p. 394) to average six pups
with a range of three to nine; however,
recent evidence suggests that litter sizes
of two to three are more typical, and
that reproductive output is generally
low in montane foxes (Perrine 2005, pp.
152–153).
Home range sizes of Sierra Nevada red
fox have not been studied throughout
the range of the subspecies. However,
Perrine (2005, pp. 2, 159) found within
a portion of the Lassen sighting area that
adult Sierra Nevada red fox established
summer home ranges averaging 2,564
hectares (ha) (6,336 acres (ac)), with
individual home ranges ranging from
262 ha (647 ac) to 6,981 ha (17,250 ac)
(Perrine 2005, pp. 2, 159). Winter home
ranges were larger, averaging 3,255 ha
(8,042 ac) and ranging from 326 to 6,685
ha (806 to 16,519 ac) (Perrine 2005, p.
159). Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. 2, 9,
11) found within a portion of the Sonora
Pass sighting area that minimum home
range estimates averaged 910 ha (2,249
ac), and were maintained both winter
and summer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
The average lifespan, age-specific
mortality rates, sex ratios, and
demographic structure of Sierra Nevada
red fox populations are not known, and
are not easily extrapolated from other
red fox subspecies because heavy
hunting and trapping pressure on those
other subspecies likely skew study
results (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 18).
However, one study within a portion of
the Lassen sighting area found that three
Sierra Nevada red fox lived at least 5.5
years (CDFW 2015, p. 1), and a another
study within a portion of the Sonora
Pass sighting area found the average
annual adult survival rate to be 82
percent, which is relatively high for red
foxes (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10,
14–15, 24).
Sierra Nevada red fox appear to be
opportunistic predators and foragers,
with a diet primarily composed of small
rodents, but also including deer carrion
(Odocoileus hemionus) (particularly in
winter and spring) and manzanita
berries (Arctostaphylos nevadensis)
(particularly in fall) (Perrine et al. 2010,
pp. 24, 30, 32–33). Sierra Nevada red
fox are most active at dusk and at night
(Perrine 2005, p. 114), when many
rodents are most active. High-elevation
lagomorphs, such as snowshoe hare
(Lepus americanus) and pika (Ochotona
princeps), also are diet components of
the subspecies, although they were not
an important food source in the Lassen
sighting area, possibly due to scarcity in
the region (Perrine 2005, pp. 29–30).
Distribution/Range
In 1937, Grinnell et al. (1937, pp.
381–382) defined the range of the Sierra
Nevada red fox in California as three
separate areas: (1) The area of Mt.
Shasta, primarily in the Cascades but
extending slightly into the Trinity
Mountains; (2) in the California
Cascades around Lassen Peak; and (3)
along the upper elevations of the Sierra
Nevada Mountain Range from Tulare to
Sierra Counties. A study by Sacks et al.
(2010a, p. 1536) extended the historical
range into the Cascade Mountains of
Oregon to the Columbia River. This
range includes those mountainous areas
that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in
California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and
1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et
al. 2015, pp. 2–3; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3,
13–14, line 7). We note that the
historical range description for Sierra
Nevada red fox provided earlier by
Grinnell et al. (1937, pp. 381–382) did
not include the Oregon Cascades,
because it was presumed these montane
fox were the Cascades red fox
subspecies.
At the time of the 90-day finding (77
FR 45; January 3, 2012), the distribution
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of Sierra Nevada red fox was believed to
be restricted to two small populations:
One in the vicinity of Lassen Peak
(Perrine 2005, p. 105; California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2011, pp.
54–60) and the other in the vicinity of
Sonora Pass (Perrine et al. 2010, notes
in proof; CNDDB 2011, pp. 54–60). Both
these populations are on Federal lands,
with the exception of some small
private inholdings in the Lassen area.
Systematic carnivore surveys conducted
from 1996 to 2002 throughout the Sierra
Nevada and Cascades Mountains of
California did not detect any Sierra
Nevada red fox (Zielinski et al. 2005,
pp. 1385, 1387), indicating the
subspecies was likely extirpated or in
low densities in the regions sampled;
according to Figures 1 and 3 in Zielinski
et al. (2005, pp. 1387, 1389), the
currently known Lassen sighting area
was within the 1996–2002 sampling
area. The population levels of Sierra
Nevada red fox at that time were
unknown, but the subspecies was
believed to occur at very low density
(Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9).
Following publication of our 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (77 FR
45; January 3, 2012), the Sierra Nevada
red fox’s range has been confirmed (via
a combination of genetics and
photographic evidence) to extend into
the Oregon Cascades (Figure 1, below)
as far north as Mt. Hood, significantly
extending the subspecies’ range beyond
its historically known range in
California. Specifically, five sighting
areas (i.e., clustered locations of recent
Sierra Nevada red fox sightings) have
been identified on Federal lands in
Oregon where surveys have occurred, in
addition to the two known sighting
areas in California as described in the
90-day finding (77 FR 45). Sierra
Nevada red fox are thus known from a
total of seven sighting areas, located in
the vicinity of (north to south) Mt.
Hood, Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat,
Willamette Pass, and Crater Lake in
Oregon; and Lassen and Sonora Pass in
California (Figure 1, below). The two
California sighting areas were known in
the 1930s to be occupied by Sierra
Nevada red fox (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp.
381–382) and were found to still be
occupied in 1993 and 2010 (Perrine
2005, pp. 4, 167–168; Statham et al.
2012, p. 123). The five Oregon sighting
areas were first identified in 2012 and
2013, after publication of our 90-day
finding (77 FR 45). Additional sightings
within the current Oregon sighting areas
have been reported as recently as 2014
(e.g., Doerr 2015, pp. 1, 8, 11–14), and
surveys in portions of the subspecies’
range are ongoing.
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
60993
N
A
Miles
0
'31.5
0
eo
75
·150
120
240
Kilometers
•
Sierra Nevada Red Fox
Occurrence Record
Cascades Historical
Range
lSJ
Sierra Nevada H isto rica I
Range
Figure !-Historical range and sighting areas of Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes
necator) from recent records (2000-2015). The historical range in Oregon is derived
from Sacks et al. (2010a, p. 1536), who determined that museum specimens of Oregon
montane red foxes were Sierra Nevada red fox. The historical range in California is
based on Perrine et al. (2010, p. 4), which is based on Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 382).
It is possible that Sierra Nevada red
foxes may occur in additional areas
beyond the seven specific sighting areas
described above, particularly in the
Oregon Cascades within any areas of
suitable habitat that have not been
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
surveyed, or have been surveyed only
sporadically.
Population/Abundance Information
Based on interviews with trappers,
Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 390) described
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Sierra Nevada red fox population
numbers as ‘‘relatively small, even in
the most favorable territory,’’ and
reported that Sierra Nevada red fox
likely occurred at densities of 1 per 2.6
square km (1 per square mi). Perrine et
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
EP08OC15.004</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
~
60994
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
al. (2010, p. 9) concluded from this that
Sierra Nevada red fox likely occur at
low population densities even within
areas of high relative abundance.
Historical trapping information in
California from CDFW and Schempf and
White (1977, p. 44) indicates that the
numbers of Sierra Nevada red fox
numbers trapped in California fell
considerably in the mid-1900s as
compared to trapping data reported by
Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 389). The
average annual harvest of Sierra Nevada
red fox pelts in California declined from
the 1920s (21 pelts per year) to the
1940s and 1950s (6.75 pelts per year)
(Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 389; Perrine
2005, p. 154). Sightings became rare
after the 1940s (about twice per year in
the 1950s and 1960s) (Schempf and
White 1977, p. 44). The reduced harvest
and sightings of Sierra Nevada red fox
in California led to a prohibition on red
fox trapping throughout the State in
1974, and to listing the subspecies as
threatened under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1980
(Statham et al. 2012, p. 123). We note
that fur trapping for red fox (regardless
of the subspecies or origin) in Oregon
remains legal Statewide.
Information (both historical and
current) is not available regarding the
abundance or trends of Sierra Nevada
red fox populations in Oregon,
particularly given the very recent
discovery of this subspecies’ occupation
at multiple sighting areas within the
Oregon Cascades. However, the best
available information since the 90-day
finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012)
indicates multiple individuals have
been identified in five sighting areas (5
genetic records and 10 photographic
records at Mt. Hood; 1 to 4 records each
at the remaining four Oregon sighting
areas) (Table 1, below). Surveys are
ongoing in the Oregon portion of the
subspecies’ range, and we anticipate
additional sightings and individuals to
be identified with continued surveys in
suitable habitat areas.
TABLE 1—CURRENT KNOWN SIGHTING AREAS OF SIERRA NEVADA RED FOX IN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA
[north to south]
Location 1
State
County
Primary
land owners 2
Estimated population
size
Mt. Hood ........................
OR ...........
Mt Hood National Forest .......................................
Unknown.
Mt. Washington ..............
OR ...........
Willamette and Deschutes National Forests .........
Unknown.
Dutchman Flat ...............
Willamette Pass .............
Crater Lake ....................
OR ...........
OR ...........
OR ...........
Clackamas and Hood
River.
Linn, Jefferson, and
Deschutes.
Deschutes ......................
Lane ...............................
Klamath and Douglas ....
Unknown.
Unknown.
Unknown.
Lassen ...........................
CA ...........
Lassen, Plumas, and
Tehama.
Deschutes National Forest ....................................
Willamette National Forest ....................................
Crater Lake National Park, Rogue River-Siskiyou
National Forest, Fremont-Winema National
Forest.
Lassen National Forest and Lassen Volcanic National Park.
Sonora Pass ..................
CA ............
Tuolumne, Mono, and
Alpine.
Toiyabe portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Stanislaus National Forest, and
Yosemite National Park.
42 adults
(21 breeding, 21 nonbreeding 3
29 adults
(14 breeding, 15 nonbreeding.4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1 The number of Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas may not be the same as the actual number of populations. Researchers have not yet
determined the precise number or locations of Sierra Nevada red fox populations that reside in the Oregon Cascades.
2 Land ownership for known sighting areas is based on surveys that have primarily occurred to date on Federal lands. It is likely that Sierra Nevada red fox reside within contiguous, suitable habitat on intervening or adjacent private/public lands where surveys have not yet occurred.
3 Twenty-one breeding adults, with 95 percent confidence interval of 13 to 34 (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1532, 1536–1537). Twenty-one nonbreeding adults (estimated range of 0 to 42, based on rough estimates of ratios of nonbreeders to breeders in other red fox subspecies) (Sacks
2015, pp. 1–2).
4 Fourteen breeding adults (estimated range 10 to 20) (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 14). Fifteen nonbreeding adults (estimated range of 0 to 30,
based on rough estimates of ratios of nonbreeders to breeders in other red fox subspecies) (Sacks 2015, pp. 1–2; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14).
The best available information for the
Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas
(north to south) is summarized below.
More information is available for the
Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas
because they have been studied more
thoroughly, and over a longer time.
• Mt. Hood sighting area—This
sighting area includes the general
vicinity surrounding Mt. Hood. Lands
within this sighting area are owned and
managed by Mt. Hood National Forest.
Approximately 15 sightings of Sierra
Nevada red fox (consisting either of
photographs or genetically tested scat or
hair) have been made in the area, and
three individuals have been
distinguished from the Mt. Hood
sighting area (Akins 2014, entire; Akins
and Sacks 2014, entire; Akins and Sacks
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
2015, p. 1). At this time, there are no
empirical data on which to base an
estimate of either current population(s)
abundance or trend of Sierra Nevada red
fox within this sighting area.
• Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat,
Willamette Pass, and Crater Lake
sighting areas—Lands within these
sighting areas are owned and managed
by: (1) Willamette and Deschutes
National Forest (Mt. Washington);
Deschutes National Forest (Dutchman
Flat); Willamette National Forest
(Willamette Pass); and Crater Lake
National Park, and Rogue-RiverSiskiyou and Fremont-Winema National
Forests (Crater Lake). At this time,
similar to the Mt. Hood sighting area,
there are no empirical data on which to
base an estimate of either current
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
population(s) abundance or trend of
Sierra Nevada red fox within these
sighting areas.
• Lassen sighting area—This sighting
area includes lands managed by Lassen
National Forest and Lassen Volcanic
National Park (including the Caribou
Wilderness), and some private
inholdings primarily as timberlands
(CDFW 2015, p. 1). Sacks et al. (2010a,
pp. 1532, 1536–1537) estimated that the
effective size of the population at the
Lassen sighting area (referred to in the
study as the modern Southern Cascades
population) is 21 breeding individuals,
with a 95 percent confidence interval of
13 to 34 breeding individuals (see also
Statham et al. 2012, pp. 122, 123). The
‘‘effective size’’ of the population refers
to the number of breeding individuals in
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
an ‘‘ideal’’ population (with discreet,
non-overlapping generations, equal
contribution of all members to the next
generation, and free mixing prior to
mate choice) that experiences the same
amount of genetic drift (random change
in gene frequencies) as the actual
population (Lande and Barrowclough
1987, pp. 88–89). Actual Sierra Nevada
red fox populations are likely to be
somewhat larger than their effective
population sizes because they include
non-breeding individuals, including
pups, and (possibly) adult offspring
remaining on their parent’s territory to
help raise their siblings. Such ‘‘helpers’’
are not uncommon in other red fox
subspecies, though clear evidence of
them has not been demonstrated in
Sierra Nevada red fox (Wildlife Online
2015, p. 60; Sacks 2015, pp. 1–2). A
high-end estimate of actual population
size for the Lassen sighting area might
therefore assume two non-breeders for
every breeder, resulting in a total
population of about 63 individuals
(Sacks 2015, p. 2).
CDFW obtained 187 Sierra Nevada
red fox scat and hair samples from the
Lassen sighting area between 2007 and
2013, and was able to genetically
identify 18 separate individuals from
those samples (CDFW 2015, p. 1),
thereby tending to support the low
effective population size estimate (i.e.,
21 breeding individuals) of Sacks et al.
(2010a, p. 1532). CDFW was also able to
identify the source individuals for over
100 Sierra Nevada red fox genetic
samples collected within the Caribou
Wilderness (immediately east of Lassen
Volcanic National Park within the
sighting area) in 2012 and 2013, finding
that no new individuals (i.e., offspring)
entered the population within the study
area during those years (CDFW 2015, p.
2). Thus, successful reproduction in that
portion of the sighting area during those
years was low or nonexistent. However,
CDFW cameras did photograph a Sierra
Nevada red fox near the Caribou
Wilderness in 2009 that appeared
visibly pregnant (CDFW 2015, p. 2).
• Sonora Pass sighting area—This
sighting area includes the general
vicinity surrounding Sonora Pass,
which includes lands that are owned
and managed by Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest, Stanislaus National
Forest, and Yosemite National Park. The
Sonora Pass sighting area includes
several multi-year Sierra Nevada red fox
residents (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 2),
and so may be considered a population
site rather than merely a dispersal area
from some undiscovered population.
Researchers (Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3)
conducting a 3-year study in a portion
of the sighting area from October 2011
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
through September 2014 used genetic
tests to identify eight individuals. With
the exception of a female killed on U.S.
Highway 395, possibly while dispersing,
all Sierra Nevada red fox sightings were
found within an area of 13,000 ha
(32,124 ac), extending both north and
south from California State Route 108,
within 3 km of the Sierra Crest (Quinn
and Sacks 2014, p. 10). This study area
constituted 20 to 50 percent of the
contiguous high-quality habitat for the
subspecies in the region (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, p. 14), with the remainder
of the high-quality habitat primarily
extending south into the northern
portion of Yosemite National Park
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 36).
Thus, the Sacks et al. (2015, entire)
study area south into the northern
portion of Yosemite National Park is
what we have roughly defined as the
Sonora Pass sighting area. However, we
note that this sighting area has been
poorly surveyed for Sierra Nevada red
fox due to rough terrain. It is likely that
the data obtained by Quinn and Sacks
(2014, entire) is representative of the
entire population in the region because
the area studied was of high quality
habitat similar to the rest of the high
quality habitat in the region (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, p. 14), and because the area
studied was large enough to support the
assumption that the Sierra Nevada red
fox included in the study were
representative of the larger population
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 14).
Based on the extent of suitable habitat
in the Sonora Pass sighting area, and on
the number of adult Sierra Nevada red
fox per hectare in the surveyed portion
of the habitat at any given time (usually
six adults in 13,000 ha (32,124 ac)),
Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. 3, 11, 14)
estimated the total number of adult
Sierra Nevada red fox in the entire
Sonora Pass sighting area to be 14, with
a likely range of 10 to 20. Repeated
resampling of individuals over the 3year study period (2011 through 2014)
suggests that most adults with territories
overlapping the study area were found
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14).
However, Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp.
11, 14; Sacks 2015, p. 1) indicated their
estimates were ‘‘crude,’’ and that the
total number of adults in the population
could possibly be as high as 50 due to
the presence of nonbreeding helpers at
natal den sites.
Low population size estimates for the
Sonora Pass sighting area were also
supported by analyses of genetic
diversity (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp.
13–14). For instance, the average
heterozygosity (a measure of genetic
diversity) in nuclear deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA; from the cell nucleus) for
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60995
Sierra Nevada red fox (0.44) was lower
than at the Lassen sighting area (0.53),
suggesting that the population size at
the Sonora Pass sighting area may be
smaller (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13–
14). Current heterozygosity levels at the
Sonora Pass sighting area are also
considerably lower than heterozygosity
levels present historically (0.64), thus
indicating a negative trend in
population size (Quinn and Sacks 2014,
pp. 13–14). Reductions in the diversity
of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) since
historical times also indicate a decline
in population numbers (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, p. 14).
Sacks et al. (2015, pp. 3, 9) found no
evidence to indicate that any Sierra
Nevada red fox successfully produced
surviving, non-hybrid pups during their
3-year period within the study area at
the Sonora Pass sighting area. However,
two adult females were determined
genetically to be the daughters of a
known breeding Sierra Nevada red fox
pair (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 9).
Additionally, we note that hybridization
of Sierra Nevada red fox with nonnative
red fox is also known to occur within
this small population (see Hybridization
With Nonnative Red Fox, below).
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species based on any of the
following 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.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to the Sierra Nevada red fox
in relation to the five factors provided
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed
below. In considering what factors
might constitute threats to a species, we
must look beyond the mere exposure of
the species to a particular factor to
evaluate whether the species may
respond to that factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If
there is exposure to a factor but no
response, or only a positive response,
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
60996
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
that factor is not a threat. If there is
exposure and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat
and we then attempt to determine if that
factor rises to the level of a threat,
meaning that it may drive or contribute
to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as
an endangered or threatened species as
those terms are defined in the Act.
However, the identification of factors
that could impact a species negatively is
not sufficient to compel a finding that
the species warrants listing. The
information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
are operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species
meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
An analysis of the potential threats for
the Sierra Nevada red fox is included in
the Species Report (Service 2015, entire)
associated with this document (and
available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–
0103). All potential threats (identified in
the Species Report as ‘‘stressors’’ or
‘‘potential stressors’’) of which we are
aware that may be acting upon the
Sierra Nevada red fox currently or in the
future (and consistent with the five
listing factors identified above) were
evaluated and addressed in the Species
Report, and are summarized in the
following paragraphs.
The following sections include
summary evaluations of nine potential
threats to the Sierra Nevada red fox that
may have low or medium-level impacts
on the subspecies or its habitat.
Potential threats that may impact the
subspecies in Oregon and California are
those actions that may affect individuals
or sighting areas either currently or in
the future, including: Wildfire and fire
suppression (Factors A and E); climate
change (Factor A); hunting and trapping
(Factor B); disease, to include salmon
poisoning disease (SPD), elokomin fluke
fever (EFF), and potentially mange,
distemper, or rabies) (Factor C);
competition and predation by coyotes,
which could be exacerbated in the
future dependent on climate change
impacts to habitat (Factors C and E);
predation by domestic dogs (Factor C);
hybridization with nonnative red fox
(Factor E); vehicles (Factor E); and small
population size and isolation,
specifically for the Lassen and Sonora
Pass sighting areas (Factor E). We also
note that potential impacts associated
with logging/vegetation management
and grazing were evaluated but found to
result in low or no impacts, overall,
across the subspecies’ range (see Service
2015, pp. 23–27, 30–32).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
To provide a temporal component to
our evaluation of potential stressors
(i.e., impacts into the future), we first
determined whether we had data
available that would allow us to
reasonably predict the likely future
impact of each specific stressor over
time. Overall, we found that, for all
potential stressors, the likelihood and
severity of future impacts became too
uncertain to address beyond a 50-year
timeframe. For example:
• Logging and grazing impacts on
National Forest lands are largely
regulated by the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and the Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment (SNFPA). These
governing regulations were first adopted
in 1994 and 2004, respectively, but the
primary impetus for their adoption was
the question of how best to carry out
logging, grazing, and vegetation
management actions in a manner that is
sustainable over the long term and that
is consistent with applicable laws,
including the Muliple Use—Sustained
Yield Act of 1960, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976
(USDA 1994, p. 5). As these governing
laws have remained in place for 40 to
50 years, and an important management
goal under those laws has been ‘‘longterm sustainability’’ (USDA and USDI
1994, p. 5), we consider 50 years a
reasonable timeframe for considering
future impacts.
• Laws governing hunting and
trapping of red foxes in California and
Oregon have remained largely
unchanged since 1974 and 1978,
respectively (CDFG 1987, p. 4; Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) 2011, p. 26); thus, we consider
regulatory mechanisms sufficiently
stable to support a 50-year timeframe.
• In analyzing potential impacts from
disease, small isolated populations,
hybridization, coyote competition, and
vehicles, we considered all available
information regarding any future
changes that could alter the likelihood
or extent of impacts. We had no such
information extending beyond a 50-year
timeframe.
• Although information exists
regarding potential impacts from
climate change beyond a 50-year
timeframe, the projections depend on an
increasing number of assumptions, and
thus become more uncertain with
increasingly large timeframes.
Therefore, a timeframe of 50 years is
used to provide the best balance of
scope of impacts considered, versus
certainty of those impacts.
Each potential stressor was evaluated
to determine the likely impact to Sierra
Nevada red foxes or their habitat. The
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Species Report describes impacts using
the following general categories:
• A low-level impact indicates a
stressor is impacting individual Sierra
Nevada red fox currently or in the
future, or a stressor is resulting in a
minor amount of habitat impacts or
possibly temporary habitat impacts
currently or in the future.
• A medium-level impact indicates a
stressor is impacting Sierra Nevada red
fox at the population (or sighting area)
level currently or in the future, or a
stressor is resulting in more serious
impacts to suitable habitat at the
population (or sighting area) level
currently or in the future.
• A high-level impact indicates a
stressor is significantly impacting Sierra
Nevada red fox at the subspecies level
currently or in the future, or a stressor
is causing significant impacts to suitable
habitat at the subspecies level currently
or in the future.
Competition With Coyotes
Both coyotes and Sierra Nevada red
foxes are opportunistic predators with
considerable overlap in food consumed
(Perrine 2005, pp. 36–37). Perrine (2005,
pp. 84, 105) suggests that competition
with coyotes (Factor C), as well as
predation as described below, is likely
a primary reason why the range of Sierra
Nevada red fox is restricted to such high
elevations. Any competition likely
varies in intensity with prey
availability, specifically including in the
Lassen sighting area where competition
may be stronger during winter months
when Sierra Nevada red fox descend in
elevation. See the Predation by
Domestic Dogs or Coyotes section,
below, and Summary of Species
Information section, above, for
additional discussion and background
information on Sierra Nevada red fox/
coyote interactions.
Coyotes occur throughout the current
range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, but
typically at lower elevations during
winter and early spring when
snowpacks are high. If snowpacks are
reduced in area due to climate change,
coyotes would likely encroach into
high-elevation areas during early spring
when Sierra Nevada red fox are
establishing territories and raising pups.
Even in the absence of direct predation,
the tendency of coyotes to chase off red
foxes generally, and to compete with
Sierra Nevada red fox for prey, may
interfere with the ability of the
subspecies to successfully raise
offspring (Service 2015, pp. 48–51).
Coyotes were rare or nonexistent in
the Oregon Cascades prior to about
1930, but their numbers increased after
that time due to the extirpation of gray
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
wolves (Canis lupus), which is a species
that tends to compete with and help
control coyote population numbers as
opposed to impacting smaller species
like red fox (Toweill and Anthony 1988,
p. 507). Coyote populations also
benefitted from clearcutting, which left
numerous forest openings in which
productivity of berries and prey species
was increased (Toweill and Anthony
1988, p. 511); however, timber practices
today are much improved compared to
those used in the past, in large part due
to the NWFP and beneficial
management operations as outlined in
the National Forests LRMPs. Coyote
numbers may also be controlled to an
unknown degree into the future given
the recent establishment of two packs of
the federally endangered gray wolf in
the southern Cascades between the
Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas,
and likely future growth of these packs
or establishment of additional wolf
packs. Restoration of wolves to the
Cascades in sustainable populations
would likely lower coyote population
numbers or exclude them from higher
elevation forested areas, thereby
facilitating the persistence of Sierra
Nevada red fox populations (Levi and
Wilmers 2012, p. 926); wolves are
unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra
Nevada red fox because they tend to
take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8).
Overall, the potential increase of
coyote competition as it relates to
shifting or modified habitats, or
diminished snowpack levels from
potential climate change impacts, may
still occur throughout the range of the
subspecies. The best available data
indicate presence of coyotes at the same
elevations as Sierra Nevada red fox
during certain times of the year;
however, there is no information to
indicate any population-level impacts.
Coyote populations in the southern
Cascades sighting areas might not grow
over the next 50 years given a decrease
in clearcutting as compared to historical
timber activity, continued presence of
snowpacks at high-elevation areas that
are not favorable to coyotes, and the
presence and potential increase in wolf
presence in Oregon and northern
California. As a result, based on the
information presented above and in the
Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 48–
51), the best available data indicate that
the impact of coyote competition with
Sierra Nevada red fox may occur across
the subspecies’ range at similar levels
(i.e., potential impacts to individuals)
into the future, although potentially to
a lesser degree in the southern Cascades.
Similar to the potential impacts
resulting from coyote predation (see
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes,
below), there may be an overall
medium-level impact on the subspecies
(i.e., impacts to multiple populations).
However, this stressor does not rise to
the level of a threat currently or in the
future because information indicates
coyote presence (and potential
competition) is likely occurring within
portions of most of the sighting areas,
and the best available data indicate, at
most, potential impacts to individuals.
Also, information indicates that coyote
populations occurring in the southern
portion of the Cascade Range in Oregon
and California may be naturally
controlled as a result of the current wolf
packs that are likely to increase in size
into the future, thus decreasing the
likelihood of coyotes causing a
subspecies-level impact on the Sierra
Nevada red fox.
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Wildfires may impact Sierra Nevada
red fox by modifying suitable habitat
that the subspecies relies on for
multiple aspects of its life history (e.g.,
reducing denning habitat, reducing or
eliminating habitat conditions that
support an adequate prey base) (Factor
A). In general, wildfires in western
States, including California and Oregon,
have been more frequent, larger, and
more intense in the past 50 years, and
particularly in the past 15 years
(Independent Scientific Advisory Board
(ISAB) 2007, pp. 22–23). These
increases are directly correlated with
climate change (ISAB 2007, pp. 22–23;
USDA 2004, p. 6) (see Climate Change,
below), and are likely to continue. Longterm habitat changes caused by
wildfires acting in concert with
increased temperatures and altered
moisture regimes could possibly result
in tree morality or long-term removal of
forested habitat that the subspecies
relies on.
Wildfire could also potentially impact
individual Sierra Nevada red fox
directly through mortality (Factor E).
However, fires generally kill or injure a
relatively small proportion of animal
populations, particularly if they are
mobile (Lyon et al. 2000, pp. 17–20),
and the best available data do not
indicate that wildfire is causing loss of
individual Sierra Nevada red fox. If
direct mortality of individual Sierra
Nevada red fox occurs, we expect the
impact to be discountable because the
subspecies is capable of rapid
evacuation from an approaching fire,
and adequate suitable habitat exists
adjacent to the existing sighting areas to
establish a new home range (provided
the majority of the suitable habitat
within the sighting area vicinity is not
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60997
subjected to an overly large, highseverity wildfire). However, there are no
reports of direct mortality to red foxes,
including the Sierra Nevada subspecies,
from fires (Tesky 1995, p. 7).
Fire suppression can change suitable
habitat conditions for the Sierra Nevada
red fox to denser stands of trees with
fewer open meadow or shrub areas,
thereby potentially reducing the prey
base for the subspecies (Factor E). Fire
suppression could also lead to direct
effects on Sierra Nevada red fox by
allowing greater fuel buildup, thereby
producing larger and hotter wildfires.
Researchers (Miller 2003, p. 379; Truex
and Zielinski 2013, p. 85) indicate that
potential current and future concerns
are associated with historical policies of
wildfire suppression in western North
America that have led to unnatural fuel
accumulations and an increased risk of
uncharacteristically severe wildfires,
which may also be the case specifically
within the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
range.
Although wildfire and fire
suppression have the potential to result
in negative impacts to Sierra Nevada red
fox or their habitat, short-term habitat
impacts from all but the largest fires can
also benefit Sierra Nevada red foxes by
encouraging growth of grasses and
shrubs, which in turn lead to increases
in small mammal populations preyed on
by the subspecies (Tesky 1995, p. 7), as
well as increases of fruiting shrubs that
are an important supplementary food
source (Tesky 1995, p. 8; Perrine 2005,
p. 191). These benefits, coupled with
active vegetation or management
strategies that help reduce hazardous
fuel accumulations (such as those
strategies outlined in the SNFPA,
NWFP, and LRMPs, the latter of which
include the Mt. Hood, Willamette,
Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, Rogue
River, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen,
Tahoe, El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra,
Inyo, Sequoia, and Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest LRMPs within the range
of the subspecies) could have the
greatest impact on Sierra Nevada red
fox. Additionally, wildfire is not a major
disturbance of habitat within the range
of the Sierra Nevada red fox, primarily
due to the subspecies’ residence at highelevation areas of the Cascades and
Sierra Nevada. Recent wildfires have
occurred in portions of the Mt. Hood
(2011 Dollar Lake fire), Dutchman flat
(2012 Pole Creek fire), Lassen (2012
Reading fire), and Sonora Pass (2013
Rim fire) sighting areas. These wildfires
are not expected to have permanent,
long-term impacts that would prevent
the subspecies from remaining or
returning to these areas. For example,
following the 2012 wildfire at
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
60998
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Dutchman Flat (which was a standreplacing wildfire), Sierra Nevada red
fox were recently detected within the
fire perimeter at two locations
(McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015),
indicating minimal impacts to the
subspecies given the short time period
between the wildfire and the recent
2014 detections in this sighting area.
Based on the analysis contained
within the Species Report and
summarized above, we expect an
increased risk of wildfire overall, and
the recent occurrence of such fires at or
near various Sierra Nevada red fox
sighting areas impacts the subspecies’
habitat, at least minimally, for periods
of few to several years. The prevalence
of such fires is likely to increase in the
future due to climate change (see
Climate Change, below). However, there
are no reports of direct mortality to red
foxes from wildfires, and wildfires can
improve habitat for red foxes by
removing competing vegetation and
encouraging production of grasses and
shrubs favored by small mammals
(Tesky 1995, p. 7), which the Sierra
Nevada red fox depends upon as a prey
base. Accordingly, these potential
impacts are balanced with the potential
benefits, thus resulting in our
consideration of wildfire and fire
suppression to constitute a low-level
impact that does not rise to the level of
a threat either currently and into the
future.
Climate Change
‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and
variability of weather conditions over
time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although
shorter or longer periods also may be
used (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC] 2013, p. 1,450).
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 2013, p.
1,450). A recent synthesis report of
climate change and its effects is
available from the IPCC (IPCC 2014,
entire).
Changes in climate may have direct or
indirect effects on species (Factor A).
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,
fire frequency) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14,
18–19). Typically, expert judgment and
appropriate analytical approaches are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
used to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in various
aspects of climate change.
Global climate projections are
informative, and in some cases, the only
scientific information available.
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 (see Glick et
al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of
downscaling) 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 taxon. For this
analysis across the range of the Sierra
Nevada red fox, downscaled projections
are used in addition to some California
and Pacific Northwest regional climate
models, which generally encompass a
range of sensitivities to low-emission
and medium- to high-emission
scenarios. The differences between
higher- and lower-emissions scenarios
are minimal in the next few decades,
but become increasingly pronounced
after the mid-21st century (Mote and
´
Salathe 2010, p. 39; Cayan et al. 2009,
p. 7). However, the current emissions
trajectory is higher than any of the
emissions scenarios used in climate
projections for California and the Pacific
Northwest (Hansen et al. 2013, pp. 1–2).
Therefore, the projections we discuss
here may underestimate the potential
effects of climate change.
All simulations project a larger
increase in temperature across the
analysis area over the 21st century than
occurred during the 20th century.
Projections for temperature increases
across the analysis area range from 1
°Celsius (C) to 3 °C (1.8 °Fahrenheit (F)
to 5.4 °F) by mid-century and from 2 °C
to 5.8 °C (3.6 °F to 10.4 °F) by late in
the 21st century (Mote et al. 2013, p. 34;
Pierce et al. 2013, p. 844; Cayan et al.
2012, p. 4; Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 14;
´
Mote and Salathe 2010, p. 41; Hayhoe
et al. 2004, p. 12423).
Over the past 50 years, warming
temperatures have led to a greater
proportion of precipitation falling as
rain rather than snow, earlier snowmelt,
and a decrease in snowpack throughout
the western United States (Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3448; Halofsky et
al. 2011, p. 21). The consequent
lengthening of summer drought and
associated increases in mean annual
temperature have, in recent decades,
caused increased tree mortality rates in
mature conifer forests in the range of the
SNRF (van Mantgem et al. 2009, pp.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
522–523). In addition to increased tree
mortality, water deficit from climate
change is also expected to decrease
seedling establishment and tree growth
in many currently forested areas,
thereby altering tree species
distributions (Littell et al. 2013, p. 112).
Montane scrub communities, which
require less water, may tend to increase,
thereby decreasing and isolating areas of
appropriate habitat for the subspecies.
For example, soil types at higher
elevations may not support dense
forests with a 40 percent or greater
canopy cover (Fites-Kaufman et al.
2007, pp. 457–458). Thus, this type of
vegetation change/shift could lead to
greater competition and predation from
coyotes (which are better adapted to
drier and warmer conditions; see
Competition with Coyotes, above).
Potential shifts in future vegetation type
may lead to range shifts for the Sierra
Nevada red fox in some localities,
although information is not available to
indicate precisely where nor how
rapidly this may occur. It is important
to note that studies of climate change
present a range of effects, although
conditions are not expected to change to
a degree that would be considered
significant within the next 50 years.
Overall, it is not clear how finer-scale
abiotic factors may shape local climates
and influence local vegetation trends
either to the benefit or detriment of
Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is the
timeframe clear over which these
influences may be realized.
The Sierra Nevada red fox’s currently
suitable habitat may also be affected by
climate change with relation to reduced
snowpack, which in turn could result in
habitat conditions more suitable for
coyotes, thus potentially increasing the
level of competition from or predation
by coyotes. This is discussed in more
detail in the Predation by Domestic Dogs
or Coyotes (above), Competition With
Coyotes (above), and Cumulative Effects
(below) sections. In general, given the
best available information, we expect
coyotes to remain throughout the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s range, but we do not
expect coyote populations to grow over
the next 50 years based on the current
and past best available information
regarding coyote presence. The potential
for coyote competition or predation
exists, and it may possibly increase as
it relates to shifting habitats from
potential climate change impacts.
However, any increase would likely be
minimal into the future given the
continued presence of snowpack at
high-elevation areas over the next 50
years. Additionally, it is probable that
the presence of wolves (which are likely
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to compete with coyotes but not Sierra
Nevada red fox (see Competition With
Coyotes (above)) could be reduced
currently and into the future
particularly in areas with newly
established wolf packs (such as the two
wolf packs currently known to occur
between the Crater Lake and Lassen
sighting areas in the Southern Cascades.
Overall, studies of climate change
present a range of effects on vegetation
and snowpack levels, including those
that indicate conditions are likely to
remain suitable for Sierra Nevada red
fox throughout its range into the next 50
years. It is also probable that the
severity of potential impacts to Sierra
Nevada red fox habitat will likely vary
across the range, with effects to the
subspecies potentially ranging from
negative to neutral. The most significant
potential future impact is reduced
snowpack levels that in turn could make
Sierra Nevada red fox habitat more
suitable to coyotes and thus cause the
fox to shift up in elevation to remain in
higher snowpack areas. If this occurs, it
would likely pose the greatest risks to
the subspecies at the Sonora Pass
sighting area because the currently
occupied area is relatively small, with a
narrow elevational range, and the
subspecies is already occupying the
highest elevations in the area. Sighting
areas at Lassen and Crater Lake also may
be at an elevated risk into the future
because the subspecies is already using
most of the highest elevation habitats
available. In considering these factors,
the Species Report ascribed a mediumlevel impact to Sierra Nevada red fox for
this stressor (Service 2005a, pp. 47–48).
Modeling projections are done at a large
scale, and effects to species’ habitat can
be complex, unpredictable, and highly
influenced by local-level biotic and
abiotic factors. Although many climate
models generally agree about potential
future changes in temperature and a
greater proportion of precipitation
falling as rain rather than snow, the
consequent effects on snowpack levels
and possibly vegetation changes are
more uncertain, as is the rate at which
any such changes might be realized.
Therefore, it is not clear how or when
changes in snowpack levels, forest type,
or plant species composition will affect
the distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat. Thus, uncertainty exists when
determining the level of impact climate
change may have on Sierra Nevada red
fox habitat. Consequently, at this time
and based on the analysis contained
within the Species Report and
summarized above, we have determined
that we do not have reliable information
to indicate that climate change is a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
threat to Sierra Nevada red fox habitat
now or in the future, although we will
continue to seek additional information
concerning how climate change may
affect the subspecies’ habitat.
Trapping or Hunting
Trapping for Fur
The Sierra Nevada red fox has
historically been hunted and trapped for
its thickly furred pelt, which was the
most valuable of any terrestrial animal
in California (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp.
396–397). The average yearly harvest in
California was approximately 21
animals in the 1920s (Grinnell et al.
1937, p. 389); by the 1940s and 1950s
(over the 20-year period), the average
yearly harvest in California had
decreased to 6.75 animals (Perrine 2005,
p. 154). Legal Sierra Nevada red fox fur
trapping in California ended in 1974
(CDFG 1987, p. 4; Perrine 2005, p. 2).
Until recently, Sierra Nevada red fox in
Oregon were considered to be Cascade
foxes—of the same subspecies that
occupied the Cascades in Washington
(Sacks et al. 2010a, p. 1536). Fur
trapping is regulated and remains legal
throughout Oregon (Factor B), although
information is not available regarding
historical hunting and trapping
pressures on foxes in the Oregon
Cascades.
Due to regulatory protections, hunting
and trapping do not constitute a current
or likely future stressor to Sierra Nevada
populations in California or at the Crater
Lake sighting area in Oregon, as there is
no legal hunting or fur trapping for
Sierra Nevada red fox in California or at
Crater Lake National Park where the
sightings in that area are known. In the
counties where the other four Oregon
sighting areas occur, low numbers of red
foxes are harvested, some of which may
be Sierra Nevada red fox. Fox harvest
rates in Oregon have generally been low,
however, and have been declining in
recent years. Hunting and trapping
potentially impact individual Sierra
Nevada red fox within the four Oregon
sighting areas (excluding Crater Lake).
However, in the absence of more
definite information regarding
population levels of the subspecies in
Oregon, we do not consider such
harvest levels likely to produce
detrimental impacts to Sierra Nevada
red fox populations, as a whole, across
its range. These activities therefore
constitute stressors meeting the
definition of low-level impact. The best
available data indicate that relatively
few red fox (some of which may be
Sierra Nevada red fox) are removed from
an unknown number of populations as
a result of fur trapping in Oregon, and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60999
we have no evidence to suggest that the
subspecies is in decline as a
consequence of fur trapping.
Based on the analysis contained
within the Species Report and
summarized above, we consider the
legal fur trapping of Sierra Nevada red
fox as having no overall impact to Sierra
Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass,
Lassen, and Crater Lake sighting areas,
as there is no legal fur trapping for
Sierra Nevada red fox in California and
at Crater Lake National Park. Fur
trapping harvest for red fox in the four
remaining Oregon sighting areas is
relatively minimal, and red fox
harvested are likely not trapped or
minimally trapped in the high
elevations where the Sierra Nevada red
fox resides. Thus, we estimate at most
a low level of impact to the four
northernmost sighting areas in Oregon.
We estimate that the potential impacts
of fur trapping on Sierra Nevada red fox
in Oregon (outside of the Crater Lake
sighting area) will continue at a similar
level, both currently and into the future,
because the best available data do not
suggest that either fur trapping effort or
impacts are likely to change.
Additionally, of note for California, we
expect that nearly all Sierra Nevada red
fox that are accidentally captured in box
traps (body-gripping traps are illegal in
California) set for other furbearer
species, or that are live-trapped for
research purposes, will be released
unharmed. As a result of this best
available information for Oregon and
California, we have determined that fur
trapping, overall, does not have a
significant population-level impact
across the subspecies’ range and
therefore does not rise to the level of a
threat currently nor is it likely to
increase into the future.
Trapping for Research Purposes
We consider the potential impacts of
live-trapping and handling for research
purposes (Factor B) on Sierra Nevada
red fox as discountable. There is limited
distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox
research projects across the subspecies’
range (e.g., noninvasive sampling (hair
and scat collection), camera-trapping, or
both, at Sonora Pass, Lassen, Mount
Hood; and in other Oregon sighting
areas as funding permits). The best
available data indicate that no Sierra
Nevada red fox have been injured or
killed as a result of research-related livetrapping or handling efforts. Available
information does not suggest that there
would be any change to the level of
anticipated impacts of live-trapping and
handling for research purposes into the
future, and, therefore, we find that the
potential impacts to the Sierra Nevada
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
61000
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
red fox from trapping for research
purposes do not rise to the level of a
threat.
Disease
Numerous pathogens are known to
cause severe disease (Factor C) in
canids. Those that have the highest
potential to have population-level
impacts on Sierra Nevada red fox are
sarcoptic mange, canine distemper, and
rabies (Perrine 2010, pp. 17, 28), as well
as SPD and EFF. Although the CDFW
(2015, p. 2) has noted cases of rabies
and distemper in gray foxes (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus) in Lassen County, the
best available data do not indicate
impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox from
these three diseases in any of the seven
sighting areas. Future impacts of such
diseases on any given population are
difficult to predict, but the low
population densities of the subspecies
(Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9) should make
transmission within a population or
sighting area less likely except within
family groups. The relative isolation of
the sighting areas themselves should
make transmission from one such area
to another less likely, particularly for
the Lassen, Sonora Pass, Crater Lake,
and Mt. Hood sighting areas because
they are the most physically separated
from the sighting areas nearest to them.
SPD and EFF are known to occur
within the subspecies’ range and could
potentially result in bacterial infections
that are typically fatal to canids. Foxes
are highly susceptible to SPD, as are
domestic dogs and coyotes (Cordy and
Gorham 1950, p. 622; Headley et al.
2009, p. 1). The responsible bacterium,
Neorickettsia helminthoeca, is
transmitted to canines when they eat
infected fish (generally, but not solely,
salmonids—trout or salmon), or infected
Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon
spp.) (Headley et al. 2009, pp. 3, 4;
Rikihesa 2014, p. 2). The range of the
SPD (and thus presumably of the host
snail) extends north from California
(north of the Sonora Pass sighting area,
but including the Lassen sighting area)
through western Oregon (including the
western slopes of the Cascades) to the
Olympic Peninsula of Washington State
(Headley et al. 2009, p. 2). Naturally
occurring cases of SPD infection have
been found in red foxes in the past
(Todoroff and Brown, p. 5), though
never in Sierra Nevada red fox.
Additional future opportunities for
ingestion of infected fish may occur in
the Lassen sighting area, as
improvements to Pine Creek allow
infected Eagle Lake trout to spawn in
headwaters of the creek within the
Lassen sighting area. EFF is widely
present in Oregon and is transmitted in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
the same manner as SPD (with the same
flatworm vector and snail host)
(Rikihesa 2014, pp. 1–3).
The presence of SPD and EFF within
the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox
is considered minimal, with no
exposures detected within the
subspecies. As stated above, SPD is
native in western Oregon, from the coast
to the western slopes of the Cascades
(Headley et al. 2009, p. 2), and EFF is
endemic throughout Oregon. Thus, all
five Oregon sighting areas are subject to
exposure. We also consider the
likelihood of exposure of SPD and EFF
in the Oregon Cascades to have
remained constant (but low) in recent
years, and expect that it will continue
at the same level into the future. The
Lassen sighting area is outside the
historical range of SPD (Todoroff and
Brown 2014, p. 6), and we have no
information regarding presence of EFF
at that location. However, rainbow trout
from various hatcheries are stocked in
the Lassen National Forest for
recreational fishing (Todoroff and
Brown 2014, p. 15). The Sonora Pass
sighting area is unlikely to be exposed
because CDFW does not stock fish from
northern California south of the Feather
River in order to prevent transmittal of
diseases (including SPD and EFF) (Beale
2011, p. 1).
Overall, despite possible exposure to
pathogens, no outbreaks of sarcoptic
mange, canine distemper, rabies, SPD,
or EFF have been detected in Sierra
Nevada red fox, and we have no
evidence to suggest that disease has
impacted Sierra Nevada red fox in the
past, nor do we have evidence to suggest
that any diseases are present currently
or will be present in the future in any
of the Sierra Nevada red fox sighting
areas. Additionally, given the current
sighting areas are disjunct from one
another, this would be beneficial in
terms of reducing the ease of
transmission of disease between the
sighting areas, should an outbreak
occur. Thus, as presented in the Species
Report and summarized here, the best
available scientific and commercial data
do not indicate that a disease outbreak
has had, or is likely to have, a
significant population-level effect on
Sierra Nevada red fox. We note that
there is a low probability that a disease
outbreak may occur. We anticipate that
if there should be an outbreak, it will
likely have a low effect on all seven
sighting areas combined, as the distance
between them makes it unlikely that the
effects of such an outbreak would
spread. Thus, we have determined that
disease has a low-level population
impact across the range of the Sierra
Nevada red fox and, therefore, does not
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rise to the level of a threat currently nor
is it likely to increase into the future.
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes
Sierra Nevada red fox could be
predated on by domestic dogs at
recreational areas (such as ski lodges or
national parks) within their sighting
areas, and in the course of being hunted
with dogs, in any of the Oregon sighting
areas other than at Crater Lake (Factor
C). Dogs are more likely to interact with
Sierra Nevada red fox at the Crater Lake
and Willamette Pass sighting areas (but
they also could potentially be found
along many other roads or recreational
areas (e.g., hiking trails) within the
subspecies’ range), where they are
allowed on roads, parking lots,
campgrounds, and picnic areas. To date,
one documented case of Sierra Nevada
red fox predation by a dog exists (i.e.,
a radio-collared female Sierra Nevada
red fox was found dead in October 2002,
as a result of a dog attack within 175 m
(574 ft) of a ski chalet in the Lassen
sighting area (Perrine 2005, p. 141)).
Overall, the best available information
indicates that predation by dogs is not
producing population-level or
subspecies-level effects to Sierra Nevada
red fox currently, nor is this stressor
expected to increase in the future.
Therefore, predation by dogs is
considered a low-level impact that may
potentially impact individuals across
the subspecies’ range (although more
likely in two of the seven sighting areas)
and, therefore, does not rise to the level
of a threat to the subspecies currently
nor is it likely to increase into the
future.
Sierra Nevada red fox could also be
predated by coyotes (Factor C). Sierra
Nevada red fox and coyotes both are
opportunistic predators with
considerable overlap in food consumed
(Perrine 2005, pp. 36–37). Although no
direct documentation of coyote
predation on Sierra Nevada red fox is
available, coyotes will chase and
occasionally kill other North American
red fox subspecies, and are considered
important competitors of red fox
generally (Perrine 2005, pp. 36, 55;
Perrine et al. 2010, p. 17). Thus, red
foxes tend to avoid areas frequented by
coyotes (though not necessarily to the
point of complete exclusion) (Perrine
2005, p. 55). Additional discussion
specifically related to coyote
competition with Sierra Nevada red fox
is presented in Competition With
Coyotes, above.
The general tendency of red foxes to
avoid coyotes often relegates them to
suboptimal habitats and has likely been
an important factor determining red fox
distribution (Perrine 2010, p. 20; Sacks
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
et al. 2010b, p. 17). Perrine (2005, pp.
84, 105) suggests that predation (and
competition; see Competition With
Coyotes, above) from coyotes is likely a
primary reason why the range of Sierra
Nevada red fox is restricted to such high
elevations.
Minimal information exists on Sierra
Nevada red fox and coyote interactions
with relation to the potential for
predation. Perrine’s (2005, pp. 73–74)
investigations at the Lassen sighting
area during summer months found
coyotes present at all elevations with a
positive correlation between Sierra
Nevada red fox and coyotes during that
time (which was a likely artifact of their
common affinity for roads (Perrine 2005,
p. 83)). However, Perrine (2005, p. 192)
found coyote population density to be
greater at lower elevations, thus
producing an elevational separation
between most coyotes and the Sierra
Nevada red fox population. During
winter months in the Lassen sighting
area, Perrine (2005, pp. 30, 78) found
that both Sierra Nevada red fox and
coyotes descended to lower elevations,
where mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
(and more specifically in the case of
Sierra Nevada red fox, mule deer
carrion) became important components
of their diets. Perrine (2005, p. 31) also
notes that Sierra Nevada red fox may
potentially benefit from the presence of
coyotes during winter by scavenging
deer carcasses killed by coyotes.
However, Sierra Nevada red fox, whose
main winter food source (at the Lassen
study site) was small rodents rather than
deer (Perrine 2005, p. 24), tend to stay
at higher elevations than coyotes,
thereby reducing potential predation.
At this time, the best available data
indicate that coyotes are present yearround throughout the subspecies’ range,
but generally at lower elevations than
Sierra Nevada red fox during winter and
early spring when snowpacks are high
(Service 2015, p. 52). Regardless,
information does not indicate there has
been any coyote predation on Sierra
Nevada red fox, nor is there any
information to indicate that coyotes are
increasing at any of the sighting areas.
However, as climate change progresses,
climatologists predict that snowpacks
are expected to diminish in the future
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3448;
Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 21). Thus, higher
elevations with deep snowpack that
currently deter coyotes may become
more favorable to them, potentially
increasing the likelihood of coyote
predation in the future. For instance, in
the Sonora Pass sighting area, unusually
low snowpacks occurred in 2013 (Rich
2014, pers. comm., p. 1), which allowed
a family of four coyotes to establish a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
year-round territory in the highelevation portions of the range (Quinn
and Sacks 2014, p. 12). Sierra Nevada
red fox are likely to be most vulnerable
to predation and competition from
coyotes during early spring because
Sierra Nevada red fox typically establish
territories and begin raising pups
around that time. In some sighting areas,
the subspecies may be able to respond
to reduction of snowpacks and
encroachment of coyotes by retreating to
higher elevations to raise pups. But in
the Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass
sighting areas, Sierra Nevada red fox
already occupy the highest available
elevations.
Recently, two packs of gray wolves
have become established in the
Southern Cascades between the Crater
Lake and Lassen sighting areas (one
pack each in Oregon and California). It
is probable that restoration of wolves to
the Southern Cascades in sustainable
populations would lower coyote
population numbers or exclude them
from higher elevation forested areas,
thereby facilitating the persistence of
nearby Sierra Nevada red fox
populations (Levi and Wilmers 2012, p.
926); wolves are unlikely to compete
heavily with Sierra Nevada red fox
because they tend to take larger game
(ODFW 2015, p. 8). At this time in
Oregon, ODFW’s conservation
objectives for the wolf include
establishment of seven breeding pairs in
western Oregon for 3 consecutive years
(ODFW 2010, p. 17). In California, the
wolf pack discovery is so new that
CDFW and the Service have just
initiated coordination efforts, and we
anticipate additional conservationrelated coordination efforts in the near
future. Accordingly, we consider it
likely that the current wolf population
will expand over the next 50 years to
effectively overlap the Crater Lake
sighting area, and possibly the
Willamette Pass, Dutchman Flat, and
Mt. Washington sighting areas (ODFW
2015, pp. 3, 4). Therefore, we currently
lack information that coyote predation
on Sierra Nevada red fox is likely to
occur over the next 50 years at the
Crater Lake sighting area, or at the three
more-northerly Oregon sighting areas.
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, we find that
predation may have had an overall lowlevel impact to the Sierra Nevada red
fox due to the presence of coyotes cooccurring at multiple sighting areas
within the subspecies’ range; the
potential for predation in the Crater
Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass sighting
areas into the future given climate
model projections of decreased
snowpack levels that may make the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61001
habitat more favorable to coyotes; and
the overall inability of the populations
at those three locations to shift up in
elevation (i.e., the Crater Lake, Lassen,
and Sonora Pass populations appear at
or near the highest elevations available
for the subspecies). However, at this
time, the best available data indicate
that predation is not impacting the
Sierra Nevada red fox at the subspecieslevel to the degree that any more than
individuals at a couple of the sighting
areas may be affected both currently and
into the future. Further, the best
available data do not indicate that
potential future changes in shifting
habitat at high elevations (as suggested
by climate models) would occur within
the next 50 years to such a degree that
coyote numbers would increase
significantly throughout the subspecies’
range to the point that coyote predation
would rise to the level of a threat.
Therefore, based on the analysis
contained within the Species Report
and summarized above, we have
determined that predation does not rise
to the level of a threat currently nor is
it likely to increase into the future.
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
Hybridization of Sierra Nevada red
fox with other nonnative red fox (Factor
E) could result in outbreeding
depression or genetic swamping (Quinn
and Sacks 2014, pp. 16–17).
Outbreeding depression is a reduction
in survivorship or reproduction caused
by an influx into the population of
alleles from other areas. Such a
reduction can be caused by the loss of
locally adaptive alleles, or by the
breakup of co-adapted gene complexes
(i.e., groups of alleles that work together
to provide a particular ability or
advantage in the native habitat)
(Templeton 1986, pp. 106–107; Quinn
and Sacks 2014, p. 17). Genetic
swamping occurs when continued
influx of outside alleles cause the
replacement of most native alleles,
effectively turning what was once a
native population into a population of
some other subspecies or species.
The best available data indicate that
hybridization with nonnative red fox
has been documented within the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s range at two sighting
areas. First, hybridization with
nonnative red fox is occurring at the
Sonora Pass sighting area (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). Researchers
documented interbreeding between
female Sierra Nevada red fox and two
male nonnative red foxes, resulting in
seven hybrid pups in 2013, and an
additional four hybrid pups in 2014
(Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3). These hybrids
were the only clear indication of
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
61002
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
successful reproduction in the study
area between 2011 and 2014. In
comparison, only eight full-blooded
Sierra Nevada red fox were identified in
the area during those years (Sacks et al.
2015, p. 3). Second, two Sierra Nevada
red fox individuals at the Mt. Hood
sighting area show evidence (via genetic
testing of mtDNA) of past hybridization
with nonnative red foxes, although the
timing and extent of that hybridization
remains unknown (Akins and Sacks
2015, p. 1).
Based on the information presented
above and in the Species Report
(Service 2015, pp. 42–43), the best
available data indicate that nonnative
red fox are currently present in one
sighting area (i.e., the Sonora Pass
sighting area) and historically known
from the Mt. Hood sighting area but not
known to be present currently. These
are the only sighting areas within the
subspecies’ range where hybridization
has been documented to date, although
it is possible that nonnative red fox
could occur in other portions of the
subspecies’ range. At this time, based on
the best available scientific and
commercial information, this stressor
does not rise to the level of a threat to
the subspecies because information
indicates hybridization is currently
occurring within portions of only one
sighting area across the subspecies’
range, with only a single record of past
hybridization occurring at the Mt. Hood
sighting area, and we have no
information to indicate this level of
impact will increase into the future.
Vehicles
Collision with vehicles (Factor E) is a
known source of mortality for the Sierra
Nevada red fox currently and is
expected to continue into the future,
given the presence of roads within the
range of the subspecies. A low density
of roads with heavy traffic traveling at
high speeds (greater than 45 miles per
hour) suggest that few individuals die
from vehicle collisions. There are a total
of three reports since 2010 of road-killed
Sierra Nevada red foxes across the
subspecies’ range, one each occurring at
the Sonora Pass sighting area (California
State Highway 395), the Crater Lake
sighting area (main Park road near
administration building), and near
Silver Lake, Oregon, about 80 km (50
mi) west of the Crater Lake sighting area
(Statham et al. 2012, p. 124; Mohren
2015, p. 1; Doerr 2015, p. 14).
Snowmobiles are another potential
source for collisions and noise
disturbance (Factor E) in all sighting
areas with the exception potentially of
the Lassen sighting area and a small area
in the northwest portion of the Crater
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Lake sighting area, given the high level
of recreational activity within or
adjacent to those sighting areas.
However, no snowmobile-related
incidents have been reported.
Researchers are currently investigating
potential impacts of snowmobile
activity to Sierra Nevada red fox in the
Sonora Pass sighting area in accordance
with Standard 32 from the SNFPA,
which requires activities near verified
Sierra Nevada red fox sightings to be
analyzed to determine if they have a
potential to affect the subspecies (USDA
2004, p. 54; Rich 2014, p. 1). Results are
not yet available, in part because the
snowpack has been low during the last
two winters (those ending in 2013 and
2014), and, therefore, the area has not
been available for snowmobile use (Rich
2014, p. 1). Additionally, although no
studies have been completed, the mere
location of the Sierra Nevada red fox
sightings in these areas suggest that the
subspecies adjusts to the noise involved,
and that sufficient Sierra Nevada red fox
prey remain in such areas.
Overall across the Sierra Nevada red
fox’s range, few Sierra Nevada red fox
are killed as the result of collisions with
vehicles. We expect that in the future a
small number of individuals will be
struck by vehicles, including dispersing
juveniles searching for unoccupied
suitable habitat for establishment of a
home range. However, the best available
information does not suggest any
significant increases in vehicular traffic
or new roads are likely in areas where
the subspecies occurs. Therefore, based
on the information presented above and
in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp.
53–55), the best available data indicate
that the impact of vehicle collisions on
Sierra Nevada red fox will be minor and
continue at similar levels into the
future, resulting in a low-level impact
on the subspecies (i.e., impacts to
individual Sierra Nevada red foxes as
opposed to populations); therefore, this
stressor does not rise to the level of a
threat.
Small and Isolated Population Effects
Small, isolated populations (Factor E)
are more susceptible to impacts overall,
and relatively more vulnerable to
extinction due to genetic problems,
demographic and environmental
fluctuations, and natural catastrophes
(Primack 1993, p. 255). That is, the
smaller a population becomes, the more
likely it is that one or more stressors
could impact a population, potentially
reducing its size such that it is at
increased risk of extinction. Particularly
small populations may suffer
reproductive decreases due to
demographic stochasticity: A sex ratio
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
heavily skewed by chance from 50:50
(Soule and Simberloff 1986, p. 28).
Inbreeding depression may result from
the accumulation of deleterious alleles
(gene variants) in the population (Soule
1980, pp. 157–158). This happens
because alleles in general tend to be lost
quickly from small populations due to
the chance nature of reproduction
(genetic drift) (Soule 1980, pp. 157–
158). Additionally, inbreeding effects
may occur because closely related
individuals are likely to share many of
the same deleterious alleles, and are
thus more likely to pass two copies of
a deleterious allele to their young, even
if non-deleterious versions of the gene
still remain in the population (Soule
1980, pp. 157–158). Over time,
inbreeding depression also commonly
results in low reproductive success
(Soule 1980, pp. 157–158; O’Brien 2003,
pp. 62–63; Quinn and Sacks 2014, p.
15). Given the best available information
on Sierra Nevada red fox at this time,
we evaluated information suggesting
that Sierra Nevada red fox populations
may be small or isolated from one
another to the degree that such negative
effects may be realized in the
subspecies.
It is probable that Sierra Nevada red
fox population densities have always
been relatively low, although historical
populations likely have not been as
isolated as they appear to be today,
particularly in California. Based on
interviews with trappers, Grinnell et al.
(1937, p. 396) described Sierra Nevada
red fox population numbers as
‘‘relatively small, even in the most
favorable territory,’’ and reported that
the subspecies likely occurred at
densities of 1 per 2.6 square km (1 per
square mi). Perrine et al. (2010, p. 9)
concluded from this that Sierra Nevada
red fox likely occur at low population
densities even within areas of high
relative abundance. Additionally,
although data are not available across
the historical range of the subspecies,
the best available information suggests
that Sierra Nevada red fox distribution
within California (i.e., Lassen and
Sonora Pass sighting areas) has
contracted in the recent past. For
example, Schempf and White (1977, p.
44) examined CDFW sighting and
trapping data and found that in
California, the number of sightings and
trappings fell considerably in the mid1900s as compared to similar data
reported by Grinnell et al. (1937, p.
389).
At present, we have identified at least
seven sighting areas: (1) Five in the
Oregon Cascades from Mt. Hood south
to the Crater Lake vicinity; (2) one in the
southern extent of the Cascades in
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
California (Lassen sighting area); and (3)
one in the Sierra Nevada mountain
range (Sonora Pass sighting area) (see
Figure 1, above). This represents a
significant increase in our knowledge of
the subspecies’ distribution as
compared to that known at the time of
the 90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3,
2012), which at that time included only
the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting
areas. Surveys and incidental sightings
conducted in 2012 and 2013 include 35
from near Mt. Hood, 13 from around Mt.
Washington, 2 from near Dutchman
Flat, 8 from around Willamette Pass,
and 43 from the area of Crater Lake
National Park (Sacks 2014b, pp. 3–5;
Cascadia Wild 2014, p. 1). As a result
of the newly identified area of the
historical range in the Oregon Cascades,
researchers have not yet determined the
exact number of individuals or
populations that currently exist in
Oregon, nor the distribution of those
populations. It is likely the number of
individuals actually sighted is less than
the number of actual individuals
present in these sighting areas because
the same individual may be sighted
numerous times (Perrine 2005, pp. 147,
148). Surveys are continuing at the time
of publication of this document.
In most cases of small populations,
genetic interchange need occur only
occasionally between populations (a
minimum of 1 migrant per generation,
possibly up to 10 migrants per
generation) to offset the potential
negative impacts of inbreeding (e.g.,
Mills and Allendorf 1996, p. 1516;
Wang 2004, entire). In addition,
depending on population sizes and the
distance between them, the ability of
even a few individuals to move between
population areas can preserve the
potential for recolonization or
augmentation (Brown and KodricBrown 1977, entire).
For the Sierra Nevada red fox in the
Southern Cascades range, suitable
habitat that could harbor additional
individuals or provide for dispersal
occurs between the Oregon sighting
areas, as well as between the
southernmost Oregon sighting area
(Crater Lake) and the northernmost
California sighting area (Lassen).
Although the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
dispersal distance is not known,
Statham et al. (2012, p. 130) state that
juvenile male red foxes in the American
Midwest dispersed an average of 30 km
(18.6 mi); juvenile females dispersed an
average of 10 km (6.2 mi); and a few
young red foxes (5 percent) dispersed
over 80 km (50 mi) in their first year.
Distances between the Southern
Cascades range sighting areas (north to
south) are 90 km (56 mi), 25 km (15.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
mi), 45 km (28 mi), 50 km (31 mi), and
250 km (155 mi), respectively, and there
are no clear barriers to dispersal,
particularly within Oregon. Although
these data are based on dispersal
information for a different geographic
location and habitat type, it is the best
available dispersal information for red
fox, indicating that dispersal of Sierra
Nevada red fox could be rare but
possible between the majority of
sighting areas in the Southern Cascades
range. Based on our evaluation of the
best available information, the Sonora
Pass sighting area (and population)
within the Sierra Nevada portion of the
subspecies’ range appears isolated,
given that it is 150 km (93 mi) from the
Lassen population to the north, with no
known Sierra Nevada red fox sightings
or populations to the south. At this
time, the combined small size and
apparent isolation of the Sonora Pass
population make future impacts from
inbreeding depression and from
stochastic events possible.
As stated above, information is not
available on population size and various
life-history characteristics specific to the
Sierra Nevada red fox within the Oregon
Cascades portion of the subspecies’
range. The majority of information
available on population size and life
history of the subspecies is from the two
California sighting areas, both of which
have been identified as two separate
populations that are not interbreeding
(based on genetic information (Statham
et al. 2012, pp. 129–130)). Population
size for these known populations
include: (1) Lassen—42 adults, or 21
breeding and 21 nonbreeding
individuals; and (2) Sonora Pass—29
adults, or 14 breeding and 15
nonbreeding individuals (see Table 1,
above, for additional details).
As stated above, survey efforts are
underway throughout the Oregon
Cascades, having been limited to
California prior to June 2010 (when the
Service learned that the Oregon
Cascades range was newly considered to
be a part of the subspecies’ historical
range). In the Sierra Nevada portion of
the subspecies’ range, the majority of
information has been provided from
various carnivore and fox surveys
between 1996 and 2014 (Perrine 2005;
Mohren 2014; Sacks 2014b; Ferland
2014; Akins 2014; Doerr 2015, pp. 1–
14). These surveys have been extensive
throughout large portions of this portion
of the range to such a degree that we do
not anticipate other populations of
Sierra Nevada red fox currently within
the Sierra Nevada. Given the above
information, we consider the Sonora
Pass sighting area (population) to
currently be isolated and small although
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61003
it appears that considerable suitable
habitat occurs at the appropriate
elevation throughout portions of the
subspecies historical range in the Sierra
Nevada.
Based upon the analysis contained
within the Species Report and
summarized above, we determined that
impacts associated with small
population size is an overall moderatelevel impact, specifically as it relates to
the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting
areas, which may be small and isolated
enough to be at risk of impacts from
inbreeding depression and chance
deleterious events. The primary risk of
such impacts is in the future (within 50
years), although evidence of low
reproductive success based on studies
in portions of both populations (see
Population/Abundance Information,
above) suggest this could constitute a
current impact of inbreeding
depression, but to an unknown degree.
Overall across the subspecies range at
this time, the best available information
indicates that Sierra Nevada red foxes
may be reduced in distribution relative
to their historical range (and possibly
reduced in numbers relative to
abundance); however, there is no
empirical evidence that the Sierra
Nevada red fox is in decline across its
range. Thus, small or isolated
population size effects do not rise to the
level of a threat either currently or in
the future.
Cumulative Effects
We estimate the potential impact of
each stressor described above acting
alone on Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals, populations, and suitable
habitat. However, Sierra Nevada red fox
and suitable habitat can also be affected
by all or some of the stressors acting
together. The combined effects of those
stressors could impact the subspecies or
suitable habitat in an additive or
synergistic manner. Acting together, one
or more stressors could impact
individuals, a portion of a sighting area
or population, or available suitable
habitat to varying degrees or magnitude,
whereas alone a single stressor may not
significantly impact the subspecies or
its habitat.
Based on our analysis of all stressors
that may be impacting Sierra Nevada
red fox or their habitat, if any
cumulative impacts occur, they would
do so under the following two scenarios:
(1) Potential increased competition
with coyotes on Sierra Nevada red fox
as a result of high-elevation forested
areas becoming more suitable for
coyotes following potential impacts
from climate change (i.e., lowered
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61004
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
snowpack levels, increased incidence
and extent of wildfires).
(2) A combination of potential
stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping,
SPD and other diseases, competition
and predation from coyotes,
hybridization with nonnative red fox,
and vehicles) that directly result in
death or loss of reproductive ability for
the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Here we consider the impacts of each
of these potential cumulative effect
scenarios:
Models of climate change predict
potential increases in temperature
within the Sierra Nevada red fox’s range
of the southern Cascades and Sierra
Nevada ranges. In turn, this could result
in lower snowpack levels and an
increase in the number and extent of
wildfires, leading to increased
competition and predation from coyotes
that currently (and primarily) reside at
lower elevations in habitat that is more
favorable to them. As described in our
analyses discussing coyote predation
(see Predation by Domestic Dogs or
Coyotes, above) and competition (see
Competition With Coyotes, above), we
expect that impacts associated with
coyotes may continue to occur in most
sighting areas throughout the range of
the Sierra Nevada red fox into the
future, and that lowered snowpack
levels or wildfire impacts that may
result in a shift in Sierra Nevada red fox
distribution (where possible) is not
likely over the next 50 years. Thus, we
expect similar levels of competition and
predation as what may be occurring
currently throughout the subspecies
range, or possibly lowered levels as a
result of the recent establishment of gray
wolves in the southern portion of the
Oregon Cascades. Therefore, the best
available data at this time do not suggest
that the cumulative effects of increased
coyote numbers and climate change rise
to the level of a threat to the Sierra
Nevada red fox overall.
When a population is small, the
relative importance to the population of
each potentially reproducing individual
is increased. Thus, potential stressors
that directly result in death or loss of
reproductive ability for individual
Sierra Nevada red fox where their
populations are known to be small
could have a greater relative impact on
small populations than on larger ones.
As indicated above, the stressors that
could potentially impact the
reproductive ability of the Sierra
Nevada red fox include hunting and
trapping, SPD and other diseases,
competition and predation from
coyotes, hybridization with nonnative
red fox, and collision with vehicles. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
best available data at this time indicate
that:
(1) Potential impacts associated with
hunting and trapping (Factor B), SPD
and other diseases (Factor C), and
vehicles (Factor E) are negligible or
nonexistent, and there is no indication
that these stressors are expected to
change into the future to such a degree
that they would significantly contribute
to decreased reproductive viability of
the Sierra Nevada red fox either by
themselves or cumulatively.
(2) As discussed above under
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes,
Competition With Coyotes, and
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
sections, coyotes and nonnative red fox
are currently known to occur in
multiple areas within the Sierra Nevada
red fox’s range. Coyote abundance at
high-elevation areas could increase in
the future if decreased snowpack levels
at high elevations occur, potentially
resulting in more favorable habitat
conditions for them. It is possible that
nonnative red fox could also increase in
numbers in the future, or result in
impacts greater than what has currently
been observed. However, based on
climate models and possible resultant
changes in vegetation types, such
increases in abundance of either of these
are not likely in the next 50 years.
Therefore, we do not believe increases
in nonnative red foxes or coyotes will
contribute to cumulative effects to the
Sierra Nevada red fox. Information to
support this includes:
(a) The continued presence and
spread of wolves across the west, it is
reasonable to assume the two wolf packs
now established in the Southern
Cascades (i.e., between the Crater Lake
and Lassen sighting areas) will remain
and increase in pack size given ongoing
conservation, thus further decreasing
the likelihood and magnitude of coyoterelated impacts (due to expected
competition between wolves and
coyotes (see Competition With Coyotes,
above)) within this portion of the
subspecies’ range into the.
(b) The majority of the Sierra Nevada
red fox’s range harbors high-elevation
area above elevations considered
suitable for coyotes. Thus, Sierra
Nevada red fox could utilize this
additional area if snowpack levels
decrease from their current extent. The
least amount of additional highelevation area available for Sierra
Nevada red fox to shift upwards is at the
Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas,
and no shift up in elevation appears
available at the Crater Lake sighting
area. However, the latter is also the
closest sighting area to benefit from
decreased potential coyote competition/
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
predation associated with the recently
established wolf pack (approximately 24
km (15 mi) south of the Crater Lake
sighting area).
(c) Some unknown level of nonnative
red fox hybridization may continue into
the future within portions of the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s range. However, the
best available data do not indicate that
hybridization would increase to a
significant degree throughout the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s range within the next
50 years such that the extent and
magnitude of impacts would be
significant contributors to the overall
potential cumulative impacts to the
subspecies across its range. At this time,
hybridization is of concern specifically
at the Sonora Pass sighting area as
opposed to across the entire range of the
subspecies (given the Sonora Pass
sighting area’s apparent small and
isolated population size and recent lack
of reproduction with its own
subspecies).
In summary, the best available
scientific and commercial data at this
time do not show that combined effects
of the most likely cumulative impact
scenarios are resulting in significant
individual-level effects to the Sierra
Nevada red fox, or population-level
effects across multiple populations/
sighting areas. Although all or some of
the stressors could potentially act in
concert as a cumulative threat to the
Sierra Nevada red fox, there is
ambiguity in either the likelihood or
level of impacts for the various stressors
at the population or rangewide level, or
the data indicate only individual-level
impacts. It is probable that Sierra
Nevada red fox populations today are
smaller than historical times, which
potentially increases the vulnerability of
the subspecies to potential cumulative
low- or medium-level impacts.
Although the Lassen and Sonora Pass
populations experienced a bottleneck or
decline in the recent past (Sacks et al.
2010a, pp. 1523, 1536), the best
available information does not provide
reliable evidence to suggest that Sierra
Nevada red fox sighting areas (or known
populations specifically at the Lassen
and Sonora Pass sighting areas) are
currently experiencing population
declines or further reductions in
distribution, which would be indicative
of such impacts. Thus, the best available
scientific and commercial data do not
indicate that these stressors are
cumulatively causing now or will cause
in the future a substantial decline of the
Sierra Nevada red fox across its range.
Therefore, we have determined that the
cumulative impacts of these potential
stressors do not rise to the level of a
threat.
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulatory mechanisms that
affect the Sierra Nevada red fox include
laws and regulations promulgated by
the Federal and individual State
governments (Factor D). Federal
agencies manage nearly all of the lands
represented by the currently known
sighting areas, with the exception of a
few private inholdings in the Lassen
sighting area. No tribal governments
(sovereign entities with their own
system of laws and regulations) own or
manage lands within potentially
suitable habitat within the range of the
subspecies. Stressors acting on the
Sierra Nevada red fox for which
governments may have regulatory
control include impacts associated with
wildfire and fire suppression (Factor
A—habitat modification or loss), injury
or mortality due to fur trapping (Factor
B), and collision with vehicles (Factor
E). These regulations differ among
government entities, are explained in
detail in the Species Report (Service
2015, pp. 58–63), and are summarized
below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal
Forest Service
The Forest Service policy manual
(USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22) allows
for designation of sensitive species of
management concern. The Sierra
Nevada red fox is a sensitive species
where it occurs on National Forests in
California (U.S. Forest Service Region 5)
and in Oregon (U.S. Forest Service
Region 6) (USDA 2013, p. 1; Chapman
2015, Excel attch., wksht. 2, line 655).
The Sensitive Species Policy is
contained in the Forest Service Manual,
section 2670.32 (USDA Forest Service
2005, section 2670.32) and calls for
National Forests to assist and coordinate
with other Federal agencies and States
to conserve these species. Special
consideration for sensitive species is
made during land use planning and
activity implementation to ensure
species viability and to preclude
population declines that could lead to a
Federal listing under the Act (USDA
Forest Service 2005, section 2670.22).
At this time, proposed activities that
occur within National Forests within
the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox
will include measures to avoid or
minimize project-related impacts to the
subspecies and its habitat.
National Forest management is
directed by the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960, as amended (16
U.S.C. 528 et seq.) and the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, as
amended (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.). NFMA specifies that the Forest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Service must have an LRMP to guide
and set standards for all natural
resource management activities on each
National Forest or National Grassland.
Current LRMPs within the range of the
Sierra Nevada red fox were developed
under the 1982 planning rule (47 FR
43026; September 30, 1982, pp. 43037–
43052), which required the Forest
Service to maintain viable populations
of existing native and desired nonnative
vertebrate species. Recently revised
NFMA planning rules (77 FR 21162,
April 9, 2012) require National Forests
to use an ecosystem and species-specific
approach in their LRMPs to provide for
the diversity of plant and animal
communities and maintain the
persistence of native species in the plan
areas. As stated above, the Sierra
Nevada red fox is a sensitive species of
conservation concern under these new
rules in all the National Forests in
which it occurs.
The NWFP (USDA and U.S.
Department of the Interior (USDI) 1994,
entire) was adopted by the Forest
Service in 1994, to guide the
management of over 9.7 million ha (24
million ac) of Federal lands (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 2) in portions of western
Washington and Oregon, and
northwestern California within the
range of the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina). The NWFP
amends the LRMPs of National Forests
(i.e., the Mt. Hood, Willamette,
Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, and
Rogue River National Forest’s LRMPs)
and is intended to provide the basis for
conservation of the spotted owl and
other late-successional, old-growth
forest associated species on Federal
lands. The NWFP is important for the
Sierra Nevada red fox because the
conservation initially established to
benefit the northern spotted owl also
creates a network of late-successional
and old-growth forests that help meet
the Sierra Nevada red fox’s habitat
requirements (see Summary of Species
Information, above, and the ‘‘Habitat’’
section of the Species Report (Service
2015, pp. 14–16)) at four of five Oregon
sighting areas (i.e., Mt. Hood, Mt.
Washington, Dutchman Flat, and
Willamette Pass Sighting areas).
Additionally, the NWFP establishes
reserve lands (consisting of
Congressionally Reserved Areas such as
Wilderness Areas, Late Successional
Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn
areas, and any additional reserved areas
identified by the LRMP for the National
Forest in question) that are managed to
protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and old-growth forest
ecosystems (USDA and USDI 1994, C8–
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61005
C11; USDA 2015, p. 4), all of which
includes habitat managed over the long
term that will likely continue to benefit
the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Forest Service lands outside of the
NWFP areas (a portion of lands within
the Lassen and Sonora Pass Sighting
areas) operate under LRMPs that have
been amended by the SNFPA, which
was finalized in 2004 (USDA 2000,
volume 3, chapter 3, part 4.4.1, pp. 2–
18; USDA 2001, entire; USDA 2004,
entire). The SNFPA requires fire and
fuels management projects in most areas
to retain at least 40 percent (preferably
50 percent) canopy cover within a
treatment unit, and effectively requires
retention of trees 63.5 cm (25 in)
diameter at breast height (dbh) in most
treated areas (USDA 2004, pp. 3, 50).
This is close to the preferred winter
habitat characteristics discussed above
for the Lassen Sighting area (60 cm (23.6
in) dbh and 40 percent or greater canopy
closure). SNFPA Standard and
Guideline #32 requires the Forest
Service to conduct an analysis to
determine whether activities within 8
km (5 mi) of a verified Sierra Nevada
red fox sighting have the potential to
affect the species (USDA 2004, p. 54). It
also mandates a limited operating
period of January 1 to June 30 as
necessary to avoid adverse impacts to
potential breeding, and it requires 2
years of evaluations for activities near
sightings that are not associated with a
den site.
Additionally, in accordance with the
requirements of the SNFPA, vehicle use
that may impact Sierra Nevada red fox
is managed to a limited extent to reduce
potential impacts to Sierra Nevada red
fox (e.g., limiting OHV use to designated
OHV use areas and trails, limiting
snowmobile use in the Sonora Pass
sighting area to a designated BWRA
area). All Oregon sighting areas include
roads and snowmobile trails, though the
relative areas devoted to such use differ.
Those areas with off-road, regulated
travel include:
(1) Mt. Hood sighting area is mostly
designated wilderness, although a few
off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails exist
near Sierra Nevada red fox sightings at
lower elevations.
(2) The Mt. Washington sighting area
has many miles of snowmobile and
OHV trails.
(3) The Dutchman Flat sighting area
harbors numerous snow-parks, with
many miles of snowmobile and OHV
trails.
(4) Willamette Pass is a high-use
recreational area at all times of the year,
including extensive use of snowmobiles,
and snow groomers at the Willamette
pass Ski Area; the effects to the local
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
61006
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Sierra Nevada red fox population are
unknown at this time.
(5) The Lassen National Forest
prohibits wheeled vehicle travel except
on designated routes and limited OHV
use areas (USDA 2009, pp. iii, 461).
Additionally, National Forest’s
LRMPs that are covered by the SNFPA
(Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Tahoe,
El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and
Sequoia National Forests) or within the
Intermountain Region (HumboldtToiyabe National Forest) provide direct
and indirect protections to Sierra
Nevada red fox and their habitat (e.g.,
implementing fuels reduction activities
to reduce the likelihood of overly large,
high-severity wildfire) beyond those
National Forests that limit OHV and
snowmobile vehicle activity.
Finally, the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (OPLMA)
(Pub. L. 111–11, p. 1059) establishes the
Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area for
control of winter vehicles on Forest
Service land, consisting of about 2,833
ha (7,000 ac) in the northern portion of
the Sonora Pass sighting area (USDA
2010, p. 4). The OPLMA states that the
winter use of snowmobiles is allowed in
the Recreation Area, subject to terms
and conditions established by the
Secretary of Agriculture. Prior to
passage of the OPLMA, the area had
been under consideration for
designation as wilderness, although
snowmobile use had been allowed in
the area since 2005 (USDA 2010, pp. 3–
4). The Forest Service has completed a
management plan that calls for
monitoring of impacts to wildlife
(USDA 2010, p. 9), and is proceeding
with evaluations of impacts to Sierra
Nevada red fox in accordance with
Standard 32 from the SNFPA (see
Vehicles, above).
National Park Service
Statutory direction for the National
Park Service lands that overlap the
Sierra Nevada red fox’s range is
provided by provisions of the National
Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the
National Park Service General
Authorities Act of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a–
1). Natural resources are managed to
‘‘preserve fundamental physical and
biological processes, as well as
individual species, features, and plant
and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS
2006, p. 36). Land management plans
for the National Parks do not contain
specific measures to protect Sierra
Nevada red fox or their habitat, but
areas not developed specifically for
recreation and camping are managed
toward natural processes and species
composition and are expected to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
maintain Sierra Nevada red fox habitat.
Prescribed fire is often used as a habitat
management tool by the Park Service.
The effects of these burns on the
subspecies have not been directly
studied, the best available data do not
indicate direct mortality to red foxes
from fires, and fuels reduction through
prescribed fire will likely benefit Sierra
Nevada red fox in the long term by
reducing the threat of Sierra Nevada red
fox habitat loss (Truex and Zielinski
2013, p. 90; Zielinski 2014, pp. 411–
412). Additionally, hunting and
trapping are generally prohibited in
National Parks, which is the case at both
Crater Lake and Lassen Volcanic
National Parks where Sierra Nevada red
fox are known to reside.
State
Oregon
Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon may
be hunted and trapped, including with
use of dogs (635 Oregon Administrative
Rules 050–0045(1), 0045(8)). As
discussed above (see Trapping or
Hunting, above, and the ‘‘Hunting and
Trapping’’ section of the Species Report
(Service 2015, pp. 32–34)), actual
impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox are
difficult to determine because of recordkeeping conventions, but likely to be
relatively low because relatively few red
fox (some of which may be Sierra
Nevada red fox) are removed from an
unknown number of populations as a
result of fur trapping in Oregon, and we
have no evidence to suggest that the
subspecies is in decline as a
consequence of fur trapping.
California
The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.)
prohibits possession, purchase, or
‘‘take’’ of threatened or endangered
species without an incidental take
permit, issued by CDFW. The Sierra
Nevada red fox was designated as a
threatened species under CESA in 1980
(CDFW 2014, p. 12). Therefore, CESA
establishes protections to Sierra Nevada
red fox by emphasizing early
consultation to avoid potential impacts
to the subspecies, and to develop
appropriate mitigation planning to offset
project caused losses associated with
the listed subspecies.
The State of California classifies red
foxes as a furbearing mammal that is
protected from commercial harvest (14
California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.)
460), and provides protection to Sierra
Nevada red foxes in the form of fines
between $300 and $2,000, and up to a
year in jail for illegal trapping (114
C.C.R. 465.5(h)). Body-gripping traps are
also generally prohibited in California,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
so accidental harvest of Sierra Nevada
red fox incidental to legal trapping of
other species is unlikely (see Trapping
or Hunting, above). Between 2000 and
2011, approximately 150 trapping
permits were sold annually in
California; thus, the effects of legal
trapping to all species combined are
probably low (Callas 2013, p. 6).
Licensed trappers must pass a trapping
competence and proficiency test and
must report their trapping results
annually. Scientists who are trapping
Sierra Nevada red foxes for research
purposes must obtain a memorandum of
understanding from the State (California
Fish and Game Code, sections 1002 and
1003, and section 650). Additionally,
strict trapping and handling protocols
must be adhered to by researchers to
ensure the safety of study animals.
Summary of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
Overall, existing Federal and State
land-use plans include some general
conservation measures for northern
spotted owl habitat that are not specific
to Sierra Nevada red fox but nonetheless
provide a benefit to the subspecies, for
example through the maintenance and
recruitment of late-successional forest
and old-growth habitat. Most
management plans address structural
habitat features (e.g., snags that could be
utilized as denning structures) or land
allocations (e.g., reserves, wilderness
areas) that contribute to the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s habitat. These land-use
plans are typically general in nature and
afford relatively broad latitude to land
managers, but with explicit sideboards
for directing management activities.
Federal regulatory mechanisms have
abated the large-scale loss of late-seral
coniferous forest habitat. Much of the
land in Federal ownership across the
range of the Sierra Nevada red fox is
managed for interconnected blocks of
late-successional forests that are likely
to benefit the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Timber harvest has been substantially
reduced on Forest Service lands within
the NWFP area, and does not occur on
National Park Service lands, and
existing management is designed to
maintain or increase the amount and
quality of coniferous forest that provides
Sierra Nevada red fox habitat, including
the ability of these areas to potentially
help connect populations of the
subspecies. Outside of public (Federal)
ownership, forest practice rules provide
no explicit protection for Sierra Nevada
red fox; however, there are limited
protections for habitat of value to the
subspecies.
Based on the analyses contained
within the Species Report (Service 2015,
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
pp. 58–63) and summarized above on
the existing regulatory mechanisms for
the Sierra Nevada red fox, we conclude
that the best available scientific and
commercial information, overall,
indicates that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are adequate to address
impacts to the subspecies from the
stressors for which governments may
have regulatory control (i.e., wildfire
and fire suppression (Factor A), injury
or mortality due to fur trapping (Factor
B), and collision with vehicles (Factor
E)).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Conservation Efforts
Because the Sierra Nevada red fox has
only been documented to date to occur
on Forest Service and NPS lands,
primary conservation actions currently
fall to those land management agencies,
as well as the States. Various
conservation and management efforts
have been occurring since
approximately 1974, including: (1)
Significant subspecies-specific
protections in California from hunting
and trapping as a California-stated listed
species in 1980; (2) minimized impacts
from various stressors by the Forest
Service as a result of its sensitive
species designation in California (since
1998) and Oregon (since 2015); and (3)
National Park Service protections at the
Lassen and Crater Lake sighting areas
associated with their requirement to
‘‘preserve fundamental physical and
biological processes, as well as
individual species, features, and plant
and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS
2006, p. 36). All beneficial conservation
or management actions are described
above and in the Species Report
(Service 2015, p. 63) and under the
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
section, above. We also note that we
anticipate coordinating with our Federal
and State partners in the future if we
collectively determine that translocation
of Sierra Nevada red fox individuals to
different populations are prudent to aid
in the conservation of the subspecies.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
Sierra Nevada red fox is an endangered
or threatened species throughout all of
its range. We examined the best
scientific and commercial data available
regarding the past, present, and future
stressors faced by the Sierra Nevada red
fox. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and
other available published and
unpublished information, and we
consulted with recognized Sierra
Nevada red fox and habitat experts, and
other Federal and State agencies. Listing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
is warranted if, based on our review of
the best available scientific and
commercial data, we find that the
stressors to the Sierra Nevada red fox
are so severe or broad in scope as to
indicate that the subspecies is in danger
of extinction (endangered), or likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
For the purposes of this evaluation,
we are required to consider potential
impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox
into the foreseeable future. Based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information and to provide the
necessary temporal context for assessing
stressors to Sierra Nevada red fox, we
determined 50 years to be the
foreseeable future because the
likelihood and severity of future
impacts became too uncertain to address
beyond a 50-year timeframe (see
examples and further discussion for this
time period in the general discussion
above under Summary of Information
Pertaining to the Five Factors).
We evaluated each of the potential
stressors in the Species Report (Service
2015, pp. 21–58) for the Sierra Nevada
red fox, and we determined that the
following are factors that have either
minimally impacted individuals,
impacted one or more sighting areas (or
known populations), or may potentially
impact individuals, sighting areas, or
known populations in the future:
wildfire and fire suppression (Factor A),
habitat impacts due to the effects of
climate change (Factor A), trapping (for
fur and research purposes) (Factor B),
disease (Factor C), predation (Factor C),
hybridization with nonnative red fox
(Factor E), competition with coyotes
(Factor E), collisions with vehicles
(Factor E), and small and isolated
population size effects (Factor E). Our
analysis resulted in the following
conclusions for each of the stressors:
• Wildfire or fire suppression impacts
may occur throughout the range of the
Sierra Nevada red fox. There may be an
overall increased risk of wildfire, as
demonstrated by recent occurrence of
wildfires and potential predictions into
the future related to temperature and
precipitation (see Climate Change). At
this time, there are no reports of direct
mortality to red foxes from wildfires,
and wildfires can improve habitat for
red foxes by removing competing
vegetation and encouraging production
of grasses and shrubs favored by small
mammals (Tesky 1995, p. 7), which the
Sierra Nevada red fox depends upon as
a prey base. Accordingly, these potential
impacts are balanced with the potential
benefits, thus resulting in our
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61007
consideration of wildfire and fire
suppression to constitute an overall
low-level impact that does not rise to
the level of a threat both currently and
into the future.
• The severity of potential climate
change impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat will likely vary across its range,
with effects to the subspecies
potentially ranging from negative to
neutral. Although many climate models
generally agree about the changes in
overall temperature and precipitation
(the latter as it relates to precipitation
falling potentially more as rain as
opposed to snow at some upper
elevations), the consequent effects on
the landscape are more uncertain, as is
the rate at which any such changes
might be realized. Therefore, it is not
clear how or when changes in snowpack
at the upper elevations will affect the
distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox or
coyotes, the latter of which may
compete or predate upon the
subspecies. Overall, we lack sufficient
information to predict with any
certainty the future direct or indirect
impacts of climate change on Sierra
Nevada red fox habitat or populations.
Consequently, we have determined that
we do not have reliable information to
suggest that climate change rises to the
to the level of a threat to the Sierra
Nevada red fox now or in the future (i.e.,
conditions are not expected to change to
a degree that would be considered
significant within the next 50 years),
although we will continue to seek
additional information concerning how
climate change may affect Sierra Nevada
red fox habitat.
• Trapping or hunting for Sierra
Nevada red fox fur has no impact to the
subspecies in California because
trapping for Sierra Nevada red fox is
illegal in California. Possible illegal fur
trapping in California, as well as
rangewide potential impacts associated
with live-trapping for research purposes
or incidental trapping of Sierra Nevada
red fox (when intentionally trapping for
other furbearer species), is not expected
to result in population-level impacts.
Some Sierra Nevada red fox could be
trapped in Oregon where fur trapping
for all red fox subspecies is legal,
although we estimate that potential
impacts will not be significant at the
population- or rangewide-level based on
the best available trapping data for
Oregon. Additionally, potential impacts
to Sierra Nevada red fox from livetrapping and handling for research
purposes is discountable because the
best available data indicate that no
Sierra Nevada red fox have been injured
or killed during research-related livetrapping efforts. Available information
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61008
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
does not suggest that there would be any
change to the level of anticipated
impacts of live-trapping and handling
for research purposes into the future.
Thus, impacts from fur trapping and
trapping for research purposes across
the Sierra Nevada red fox’s range do not
rise to the level of a threat.
• Disease has not been documented
within Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals or the known populations.
The prevalence of possible past
exposure to lethal pathogens within the
subspecies has not been determined,
and we have no information to suggest
that disease is currently present in any
portion of the subspecies’ range. At this
point in time, there is a low probability
that a disease outbreak may occur. We
anticipate that if there should be an
outbreak, it would likely have a low
impact on all seven sighting areas
combined since the distance between
those sighting areas makes it unlikely
that an outbreak would spread to all
seven sighting areas. Thus, disease does
not rise to the level of a threat.
• Predation is possible by both
domestic dogs and coyotes, the latter of
which could also potentially include
competition with coyotes for resources.
For domestic dogs, although one
documented case of a dog attack on
Sierra Nevada red fox (resulting in
death) has occurred, data indicate that
predation by dogs is not expected to
increase in the future based on our
evaluation of recent information. Thus,
population-level or subspecies-level
effects to Sierra Nevada red fox are not
likely to occur both currently or in the
future. For coyotes, predation and
competition have an overall mediumlevel impact to the Sierra Nevada red
fox due to:
(a) The presence of coyotes cooccurring at multiple sighting areas
within the subspecies’ range.
(b) The potential for increased
predation in the Crater Lake, Lassen,
and Sonora Pass sighting areas into the
future given climate model projections
of decreased snowpack levels that may
make the habitat more favorable to
coyotes.
(c) The overall inability of the
populations at those three locations to
shift up in elevation.
However, the best available data
indicate that predation and competition
are not impacting the Sierra Nevada red
fox at the subspecies-level to the degree
that any more than individuals at a
couple sighting areas may be affected
both currently and into the future.
Additionally, there is no indication that
potential future changes in snowpack
levels or shifting habitat at high
elevations (as suggested by climate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
models) would occur within the next 50
years to such a degree that coyote
numbers would increase throughout the
subspecies’ range to the point that
coyote predation or competition would
rise to the level of a threat.
• Hybridization with nonnative red
fox has been documented to occur in
two sighting areas, although one (Mt.
Hood) is a genetic record indicating
hybridization at some point in the past.
Recent hybridization was documented
at the Sonora Pass sighting area based
on recent research in a portion of the
sighting area. Hybridization involved
interbreeding between female Sierra
Nevada red fox and two male nonnative
red foxes, which resulted in seven
hybrid pups in 2013, followed by an
additional four hybrid pups in 2014
(Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 16, 30). Although
interbreeding is documented, it is only
known to be a current impact within a
portion of one sighting area across the
subspecies’ range. At this time, based on
the best available scientific and
commercial information, this stressor
does not rise to the level of a threat
because information indicates
hybridization is currently occurring
within a portion of only one sighting
area across the subspecies’ range. We
have no information to indicate this
level of impact will increase across the
subspecies’ range in the future.
• Potential vehicle impacts include
both collisions and noise disturbance.
Collisions with vehicles are rare, but
they can be expected into the future.
Known rates of mortality due to
collisions with vehicles have been low
for Sierra Nevada red fox, and the best
available information does not suggest
increases in vehicular traffic or roads to
be built in areas where the subspecies
occurs. In addition to collisions, Sierra
Nevada red fox could be impacted from
noise disturbance associated with
recreational areas; however, the
magnitude of impacts from noise is
unknown, and the location of the
subspecies’ sightings in these areas
suggest that they adjust to the noise
involved. Overall, it is reasonable to
expect the impact of vehicles on Sierra
Nevada red fox to be minor and
continue at similar levels into the
future, thus not rising to the level of a
threat.
• Small, isolated populations are
susceptible to inbreeding depression,
and are more susceptible to losses from
other stressors. Therefore, we evaluated
whether the Sierra Nevada red fox may
have small and isolated populations
where these negative effects are likely to
be realized. At this time, evidence
suggests that Sierra Nevada red fox
distribution (and likely numbers of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
individuals) has contracted from the
past in California. This contraction
cannot be determined with certainty for
Oregon given the Sierra Nevada red
fox’s range in the Oregon Cascades is a
recent discovery since publication of the
90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3,
2012). We note that the Sierra Nevada
red fox rangewide distribution and
possibly abundance may have declined
at some point in the past based on
historical trapping numbers (Grinnell et
al. 1937, p. 389; Schempf and White
1977, p. 44) compared to our current
knowledge of the subspecies’ abundance
and distribution, where available. The
abundance, trend, and numbers of
Sierra Nevada red fox populations in
Oregon are unknown, although recent
surveys within the Oregon Cascades are
documenting the presence of Sierra
Nevada red fox. Although the known
sighting areas are disjunct, the dispersal
capabilities of Sierra Nevada red fox
suggest the potential for interchange of
individuals between sighting areas, with
the exception of the Sonora Pass
sighting area where genetic analysis
reveals a clear separation and lack of
breeding with the next closest northern
Sierra Nevada red fox population in the
Lassen sighting area. The best available
data at this time indicate that although
Sierra Nevada red fox may be reduced
in abundance or distribution relative to
their historical numbers and range,
there is no empirical evidence that any
current populations of Sierra Nevada
red fox in Oregon are in decline. Thus,
small or isolated population size effects
when considering the subspecies across
its entire range do not rise to the level
of a threat either currently or in the
foreseeable future.
• Potential cumulative impacts to the
Sierra Nevada red fox are possible;
however, the most likely scenarios for
cumulative impacts are likely to only
occur from the following two scenarios:
(1) Potential increased competition with
and predation by coyotes on Sierra
Nevada red fox as a result of highelevation areas becoming more suitable
for coyotes as a result of climate change;
and (2) a combination of potential
stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping in
Oregon, SPD and other diseases,
competition and predation from
coyotes, hybridization with nonnative
red fox, vehicles) that directly result in
death of loss of reproductive ability for
the Sierra Nevada red fox. Based on the
best available data at this time and as
described above, none of these possible
cumulative impacts are likely to occur
currently nor are they likely to increase
or into the foreseeable future to such a
degree that the effects are expected to
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
lead to or rangewide-level declines.
Therefore, the cumulative impact of
these potential stressors does not rise to
the level of a threat.
We also evaluated existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) and did not
determine an inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms for the Sierra
Nevada red fox. Specifically, we found
that multiple Federal land use plans
(e.g., LRMPs, NWFP, SNFPA), plus State
regulations in California that prevent
hunting/trapping of Sierra Nevada red
fox, are being implemented, often
providing broad latitude for land
managers, but with explicit sideboards
for directing management activities. We
note that significant Federal efforts have
been developed and are being
implemented (e.g., NWFP) to abate the
large-scale loss of forested habitat-types
that the Sierra Nevada red fox depends
upon. Beneficial management efforts of
habitat occupied by Sierra Nevada red
fox are also underway on Forest Service
and NPS lands that currently constitute
the entire area known to be occupied by
Sierra Nevada red fox, which in turn
will promote further recruitment of such
suitable habitat.
None of these impacts, as summarized
above, was found to individually or
cumulatively impact the Sierra Nevada
red fox to a degree such that listing is
warranted at this time. Based on the
analysis contained within the Species
Report (Service 2015, pp. 21–58), we
conclude that the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that these stressors are not
singly or cumulatively causing a decline
of the Sierra Nevada red fox or its
habitat currently, nor are the stressors
likely to be significant in the foreseeable
future to the degree that they would
result in declines of multiple
populations (represented by the seven
sighting areas) such that the subspecies
would be in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future.
We recognize a need to continue to
monitor the Sierra Nevada red fox
throughout its range because the
currently known sighting areas are
disjunct (with an unknown number of
populations in Oregon), which in
general could make them more
susceptible to stressors than species
with large, well-connected populations.
There has been relatively little survey
effort specifically for Sierra Nevada red
fox in portions of its range (e.g., Mt.
Shasta vicinity, are extending
southward along the Sierra Nevada from
the Yosemite National Park area), as
opposed to general carnivore surveys,
which may not be sufficient to
accurately determine presence/absence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
of Sierra Nevada red fox. As indicated
above, survey efforts are underway
throughout Oregon at the time of the
publication of this document. In
general, the interchange of only a few
individuals is needed to maintain
genetic connectivity between
populations over time. As described in
this document and the Species Report
(Service 2015, entire), there are stressors
that we find may be having some effect
on Sierra Nevada red foxes, albeit not to
the degree that they currently rise to the
level that listing the entire subspecies is
warranted. We will continue to monitor
the status of the subspecies and evaluate
any other information we receive.
Additional information will continue to
be accepted on all aspects of the
subspecies. If at any time data indicate
that protective status under the Act
should be provided or if there are new
threats or increasing stressors that rise
to the level of a threat, we can initiate
listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing pursuant
to section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that
the Sierra Nevada red fox populations in
California (and possibly Oregon) may be
reduced in size relative to their
historical abundance, and that the
subspecies may be reduced in
distribution as compared to its historical
range. A listing determination, however,
must be based on our assessment of the
current status of the subspecies in
relation to the five listing factors under
the Act. Section 4 of the Act requires
that we make such a determination
based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. To this end,
we must rely on reasonable conclusions
as supported by the best available
science to assess the current and future
status to determine whether the Sierra
Nevada red fox meets the definition of
an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. Based on our review of
the best available scientific and
commercial information pertaining to
the five factors, we find that the
stressors acting upon the Sierra Nevada
red fox are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that
the subspecies is in danger of extinction
now (endangered), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all of its
range.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act
defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any
species which is ‘‘in danger of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61009
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
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.’’ We published a final policy
interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy
states that (1) if a species is found to be
an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its
range, the entire species is listed as an
endangered or a threatened species,
respectively, and the Act’s protections
apply to all individuals of the species
wherever found; (2) a portion of the
range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the
species is not currently an endangered
or a threatened species throughout all of
its range, but the portion’s contribution
to the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in
that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all of its range; (3) the range of a species
is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time the
Service or NMFS makes any particular
status determination; and (4) if a
vertebrate species is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout an SPR,
and the population in that significant
portion is a valid DPS, we will list the
DPS rather than the entire taxonomic
species or subspecies.
The SPR Policy is applied to all status
determinations, including analyses for
the purposes of making listing,
delisting, and reclassification
determinations. The procedure for
analyzing whether any portion is an
SPR is similar, regardless of the type of
status determination we are making.
The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species (‘‘species’’ under the
Act refers to any listable entity,
including species, subspecies, or DPS) is
to determine its status throughout all of
its range. If we determine that the
species is in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range, we
list the species as an endangered (or
threatened) species and no SPR analysis
is required. If the species is neither an
endangered nor a threatened species
throughout all of its range, we
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61010
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
throughout a significant portion of its
range. If it is, we list the species as an
endangered or a threatened species,
respectively; if it is not, we conclude
that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis,
we first identify any portions of the
species’ range that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and either 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 in those portions
or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. We emphasize that
answering these questions in the
affirmative is not a determination that
the species is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout a
significant portion of its range—rather,
it is a step in determining whether a
more detailed analysis of the issue is
required. In practice, a key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are
affecting it uniformly throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any
concentration of threats apply only to
portions of the range that clearly do not
meet the biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that
portion clearly would not be expected to
increase the vulnerability to extinction
of the entire species), those portions
will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may
be both (1) significant and (2)
endangered or threatened, we engage in
a more detailed analysis to determine
whether these standards are indeed met.
The identification of an SPR does not
create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the
species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We
must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species in
the SPR. To determine whether a
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout an SPR, we will use
the same standards and methodology
that we use to determine if a species is
an endangered or a threatened species
throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient to address
the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 an
endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species
is not an endangered or a threatened
species in a portion of its range, we do
not need to determine if that portion is
‘‘significant.’’
We consider the historical range of
the Sierra Nevada red fox to include: (1)
The Southern Cascades (from the
Columbia River at Mt. Hood south into
California, including the area of Mt.
Shasta and slightly into the Trinity
Mountains, and continuing south to the
Lassen Peak area), and (2) the Sierra
Nevada (the upper elevations of the
Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from
Sierra to Tulare Counties). This range
includes those mountainous areas that
exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in California
(Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and 1,219 m
(4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015,
pp. 1–2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3, 13–144,
line 7). Based on the best available
information at this time, the seven
sighting areas described above account
for the current distribution of the
subspecies.
In considering any significant portion
of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s range, we
considered whether the stressors facing
the subspecies might be different at the
seven sighting areas where the Sierra
Nevada red fox has been found and,
thus, geographically concentrated in
some portion of the subspecies’ range.
In the Summary of Information
Pertaining to the Five Factors analysis,
above, we identified the most likely
potential differences associated with
trapping or hunting for fur,
hybridization with nonnative red fox,
and coyote predation or competition
(and its association with climate
change).
(1) Trapping or hunting for fur is legal
in Oregon, and thus four Oregon
sighting areas may be affected by this
activity. Population-level impacts of
legal Sierra Nevada red fox fur trapping
within the four Oregon sighting areas
have not been studied, as the impact of
trapping on a red fox population
requires an estimate of population
abundance, which is currently
unavailable for Sierra Nevada red fox
within the Oregon Cascades. Based on
the very few red fox (lowland red fox or
other subspecies) being harvested across
the counties that overlap the Sierra
Nevada red fox sighting areas, the best
available data indicate that fur trapping
is unlikely to result in population-level
impacts across a significant portion of
the subspecies’ range.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Fur trapping of Sierra Nevada red fox
is illegal in California but legal for other
furbearer species. We expect that nearly
all Sierra Nevada red fox that are
accidentally captured in box traps set
for other furbearer species (or that are
live-trapped for research purposes) are
released unharmed. Although illegal fur
trapping specifically for Sierra Nevada
red fox is also a possibility in California,
the best available data at this time do
not indicate that illegal fur trapping or
incidental legal live-trapping for the
subspecies for research purposes is
resulting in population-level impacts.
Overall, we do not find that the
potential impacts from fur trapping
(illegal or legal) and live-trapping for
research purposes are geographically
concentrated in any one portion of the
Sierra Nevada red fox’s range. Moreover,
we do not find that that trapping rises
to the level of a threat to the species,
and therefore it is unlikely that the
Sierra Nevada red fox would be found
to be endangered or threatened in any
portion of its range as a result of
trapping.
(2) Only two sighting areas (Mt. Hood
and Sonora Pass) show evidence of
hybridization with nonnative red fox.
However, there are no geographic
barriers preventing nonnative red fox
from interacting with Sierra Nevada red
fox throughout the remainder of the
subspecies’ range. At the Mt. Hood
sighting area, two Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals show evidence (via genetic
testing of mtDNA) of past hybridization
with nonnative red foxes (Akins and
Sacks 2015, p. 1). At a portion of the
Sonora Pass sighting area, interbreeding
between female Sierra Nevada red fox
and two male nonnative red foxes
resulted in seven hybrid pups in 2013,
and an additional four pups in 2014
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10).
During the same time period, no
successful fully native reproduction was
documented. If this trend continues,
then the Sonora population could
become completely hybridized within a
few generations, potentially resulting in
outbreeding depression and genetic
swamping.
To date, the best available data
indicate that hybridization with
nonnative red fox has impacted a few
individuals at two locations. Future
hybridization could occur at these two
or other locations, and therefore we do
not anticipate a concentration of this
stressor in any one portion of the
subspecies’ range.
(3) The presence of coyotes is likely
to continue in most if not all areas
throughout the range of the Sierra
Nevada red fox, and may potentially
result in elevated levels of predation
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and competition in the future if climate
change predictions become realized.
The potential impacts from climate
change could result in reduced
snowpack and vegetation changes,
which in turn could result in habitat
conditions more suitable for coyotes,
thus potentially increasing the level of
coyote predation or competition. These
impacts may be more pronounced at the
Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass
sighting areas as compared to the
remainder of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
sighting areas due to the subspecies
already occupying the highest
elevations at Crater Lake and Lassen
sighting areas, and the subspecies
already occupying a relatively narrow
elevational range at the Sonora Pass
sighting area. At this time, it is not clear
how finer-scale abiotic factors may
shape local climates and influence local
snowpack levels and vegetation trends
either to the benefit or detriment of
Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is the
timeframe clear over which these
influences may be realized.
Although information on coyote
predation is not available at all three
sighting areas, we note that Perrine
(2005, p. 192) found coyote population
density at the Lassen sighting area to be
greater at lower elevations, thus
producing an elevational separation
between most coyotes and the Sierra
Nevada red fox population. It is
reasonable to assume this same type of
elevational separation exists at the
Crater Lake and Sonora Pass sighting
areas, and that it may continue into the
foreseeable future. Additionally, the
Sierra Nevada red fox’s main winter
food source at the Lassen study site was
small rodents rather than the coyote’s
preference of deer (Perrine 2005, p. 24);
thus, the Sierra Nevada red fox tended
to stay at higher elevations than coyotes,
thereby reducing potential predation
and competition. Although potential
future climate change impacts could
promote conditions for coyotes numbers
to increase at the higher elevations
(particularly in certain sighting areas),
we believe this change is speculative at
this time.
We also note that two packs of gray
wolves have recently become
established in the southern portion of
the Oregon Cascades in Oregon and
California, and it is reasonable to
predict continued repopulation of
wolves to the Cascades (currently
occurring between the Lassen and Crater
Lake sighting areas, approximately 24
km (15 mi) south of the Crater Lake
sighting area). Presence of wolves would
likely lower coyote population numbers
or exclude them from higher elevation
forested areas, thereby facilitating the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
persistence of nearby Sierra Nevada red
fox populations (Levi and Wilmers
2012, p. 926). Wolves are also not
expected to significantly impact the
Sierra Nevada red fox given they
typically prey upon and compete with
larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 2). Given
that (1) ODFW’s current conservation
objectives for the wolf include
establishment of seven breeding pairs in
western Oregon for 3 consecutive years
(ODFW 2010, p. 17), and (2) the
likelihood that CDFW (in cooperation
with the Service) would develop a
beneficial conservation strategy for
wolves in California, we consider it
likely that the current wolf populations
will expand over the next 50 years to
effectively overlap other portions of the
Sierra Nevada red fox’s historical range
in Oregon and California in the
foreseeable future, thus potentially
contributing to natural coyote control
within the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
range.
Overall, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information
at this time, we do not anticipate a
geographic concentration of threats in
one or more sighting areas at a level
greater than any other (i.e., potential
impacts associated with climate change
and coyote predation/competition
appear uniformly distributed
throughout the subspecies’ range). At
this time, there is significant uncertainty
as to the severity of impact, and data do
not indicate that coyote populations
will, with certainty, increase as a result
of climate change into the foreseeable
future at a level greater than any other
in any one portion of the range of the
subspecies.
In summary, our evaluation of the
best available information indicates that
the overall level of stressors is not
geographically concentrated in one
portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
range, and that the stressors that have
the potential to impact the subspecies
are relatively consistent across its range
(Service 2015, entire). Our review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Sierra
Nevada red fox is not in danger of
extinction (endangered) nor likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Therefore, we find that listing
the Sierra Nevada red fox as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Act is not warranted at this time.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
Analysis
Citing the Services’ DPS Policy (61 FR
4722) and the best available information
at the time, the April 27, 2011, petition
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61011
from the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD 2011, pp. 7–8) suggests two
potential DPSs within the range of the
Sierra Nevada red fox (as originally
described by Perrine et al. 2010 and
Sacks et al. 2010a): a Southern Cascade
population in the Cascades Mountains
of northern California and Oregon, and
a Sierra Nevada population in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains. The petitioner
stated that they believe the full
subspecies (comprised of both distinct
segments) should be listed, although we
note that this statement was made prior
to the discovery of new information
documenting the Sierra Nevada red fox
subspecies inhabiting the entire Oregon
Cascades area as far north as Mt. Hood
(see Summary of Species Information,
above). Further, the petitioner
articulated that the Service should
assess whether the [then known] two
populations (i.e., Lassen and Sonora
Pass) qualify as DPSs under the Act.
As a result of the new information
received following publication of the
90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3,
2012), and as described above under
Summary of Species Information—
Distribution/Range, we evaluate here a
potential Southern Cascades DPS that
includes the Cascade Mountains of
Oregon from the Columbia River south
into the California Cascades around
Lassen Peak (including the area of Mt.
Shasta, primarily in the Cascades but
extending slightly into the Trinity
Mountains), and a potential Sierra
Nevada DPS that includes the upper
elevations of the Sierra Nevada
Mountain Range from Tulare to Sierra
Counties. The best available information
indicates that Sierra Nevada red fox
occurs discontinuously throughout
these mountainous areas at elevations
that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in
California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and
1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et
al. 2015, pp. 1–2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3,
13–14, line 7).
Section 3(16) of the Act defines the
term ‘‘species’’ to include any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature. We
have always understood the phrase
‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ to mean that
a DPS must consist of members of the
same species or subspecies in the wild
that would be biologically capable of
interbreeding if given the opportunity,
but all members need not actually
interbreed with each other. A DPS is a
subset of a species or subspecies, and
cannot consist of members of a different
species or subspecies. The ‘‘biological
species concept’’ defines species
according to a group of organisms, their
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61012
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
actual or potential ability to interbreed,
and their relative reproductive isolation
from other organisms. This concept is a
widely accepted approach to defining
species. We believe that the Act’s use of
the phrase ‘‘interbreeds when mature’’
reflects this understanding. Use of this
phrase with respect to a DPS is simply
intended to mean that a DPS must be
comprised of members of the same
species or subspecies. As long as this
requirement is met, a DPS may include
multiple populations of vertebrate
organisms that may not interbreed with
each other. For example, a DPS may
consist of multiple populations of a fish
species separated into different
drainages. While these populations may
not actually interbreed with each other,
their members are biologically capable
of interbreeding.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the Service published a
joint Policy Regarding the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments Under the Endangered
Species Act (DPS Policy) on February 7,
1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the
DPS policy, two elements must be
satisfied in order for a population
segment to qualify as a possible DPS:
discreteness and significance. If the
population segment qualifies as a DPS,
the conservation status of that DPS is
then evaluated to determine whether it
is endangered or threatened.
A population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it
satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated
from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors; or (2) it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If a population is found to be discrete,
then it is evaluated for significance
under the DPS policy on the basis of its
importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. This consideration may
include, but is not limited to, the
following: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) evidence that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) evidence that the population
represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside of its historical
range; or (4) evidence that the
population differs markedly from other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
If a population segment is both
discrete and significant (i.e., it qualifies
as a potential DPS) its evaluation for
endangered or threatened status is based
on the Act’s definitions of those terms
and a review of the factors listed in
section 4(a) of the Act. According to our
DPS policy, it may be appropriate to
assign different classifications to
different DPSs of the same vertebrate
taxon. For this 12-month finding and
DPS analysis of the Sierra Nevada red
fox, we reviewed and evaluated
information contained in numerous
publications and reports, including but
not limited to Aubry 1997, Grinnell et
al. 1937, Perrine 2005, Perrine et al.
2010, Sacks et al. 2010a, Sacks et al.
2015, Schempf and White 1977, and
Statham et al. 2012.
Discreteness
The best available data indicate
spatial separation between the Sierra
Nevada red foxes that occur in the
Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada
Mountain Ranges. The mountain ranges
themselves are geologically divided, and
currently a large separation exists
between the nearest known populations
(Lassen and Sonora Pass) in these two
ranges. The distance separating the
Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas is
approximately 150 km (93 mi), which is
greater than the dispersal distance
known from one study of red fox in the
Midwest, where 95 percent of the
juvenile American Midwest red fox
dispersed less than approximately 80
km (50 mi) in their first year (Perrine et
al. 2010, pp. 14–15).
In addition to marked separation (i.e.,
spatial separation) that currently exists
between the Sierra Nevada red fox in
the Southern Cascades and Sierra
Nevada Mountain Ranges, genetic
research shows that the Lassen and
Sonora Pass populations (representing
the Southern Cascades and Sierra
Nevada population segments,
respectively) are genetically distinct
from each other (Stratham et al. 2012,
pp. 129–130). Analyses using both
mtDNA and microsatellites indicate that
Sierra Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass
sighting area are descendants of the
Sierra Nevada red fox population that
was historically resident in the Sierra
Nevada range (Statham et al. 2012, pp.
126–129). Lastly, genetic research
indicates that there are no shared
mitochondrial haplotypes between the
Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada
populations, and there is no evidence of
gene flow between the two populations
(Statham et al. 2012, pp. 129–130).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In conclusion, the areas occupied by
the Sierra Nevada red fox within the
Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada
Mountain Ranges are separated by a
geologic gap in the range. The best
available data currently indicate this
gap represents a lack of population
connectivity between the two
geographic areas. This separation is
further supported by recent genetic
studies which demonstrate that the two
closest sighting areas (i.e., known
populations that reside at the Lassen
and Sonora Pass sighting areas) show
genetic differences, and there is no
indication of gene flow between these
populations. Therefore, we conclude
that the two areas are discrete under our
DPS policy.
Significance
If a population segment is considered
discrete under one of more of the
conditions described in our DPS policy,
its biological and ecological significance
will be considered in light of
Congressional guidance that the
authority to list DPSs be used
‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity. In
making this determination and as
described above, this consideration may
include, but is not limited to, the
following: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) evidence that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) evidence that the population
represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside of its historical
range; or (4) evidence that the
population differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
The current known distribution of
genetic variation across the range of the
Sierra Nevada red fox places a
disproportionate significance on both
the Southern Cascades and Sierra
Nevada segments for the maintenance of
genetic diversity in the subspecies. As
indicated above, the Sierra Nevada red
fox differs markedly from other
subspecies of red fox, and those that
occur within the Sierra Nevada segment
are genetically distinguishable from the
Sierra Nevada red foxes that occur
throughout the remainder of the
subspecies range (Statham et al. 2012,
pp. 129–130). Further, genetic analyses
reveal that Sierra Nevada red fox at the
Sonora Pass sighting area are
descendants of the Sierra Nevada red
fox population that was historically
resident in the area (Statham et al. 2012,
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
pp. 126–129). In addition, different
mtDNA haplotypes separate the Sierra
Nevada red foxes that reside in the
Southern Cascades from those that
reside in the Sierra Nevada, indicating
a lack of gene flow. Consequently, the
loss of either the Southern Cascades or
the Sierra Nevada segments could result
in a significant curtailment of the
genetic variation and diversity of the
subspecies.
Additionally, the loss of the Sierra
Nevada segment of the Sierra Nevada
red fox’s range would create a
significant gap in the geographic range
of the subspecies, given the southernmost known population within the
Sierra Nevada Mountain range is
approximately 241 km (150 mi) south of
the next closest sighting area (Lassen) at
the southern end of the Southern
Cascades. If the Sierra Nevada Mountain
Range segment of the subspecies’ range
was lost, this would result in an
estimated 40 to 50 percent reduction in
the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Likewise, the loss of the Southern
Cascades segment of the subspecies’
range would result in an estimated 50–
60 reduction in the range of the Sierra
Nevada red fox.
Overall, the two segments (Southern
Cascades and Sierra Nevada) of the
Sierra Nevada red fox’s range differ
markedly from each other and from
other subspecies of red fox based on
their genetic characteristics, and loss of
either the Sierra Nevada segment or the
Southern Cascades segment of the Sierra
Nevada red fox’s range would create a
significant gap in the geographic range
of the subspecies. Therefore, we
conclude that the two areas are
significant under our DPS policy.
Conclusion of Distinct Population
Segment Review
We have evaluated as possible DPSs
the populations of Sierra Nevada red fox
from both the Southern Cascades
Mountain Range and the Sierra Nevada
Mountain Range, and we have
addressed the elements our DPS policy
requires us to consider in deciding
whether a vertebrate population may be
recognized as a DPS and considered for
listing under the Act. In assessing
discreteness for both segments, we
considered geological, ecological, and
genetic information. As described
above, we have determined that both the
Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada
segments of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
range are both discrete and significant
based on marked physical separation
(discreteness) and genetic variation/
characteristics (discreteness and
significance). Our analysis reveals that
the loss of the subspecies from either
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
segment of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
range would represent: (1) A significant
gap in the subspecies’ range, and (2) the
loss of genetic differences from Sierra
Nevada red fox in the remainder of the
subspecies range, as well as from other
subspecies of red fox.
Since we have identified that the
Southern Cascades segment and the
Sierra Nevada segment of the Sierra
Nevada red fox each meet the DPS
criteria for discreteness and
significance, we will evaluate each DPS
with regard to their potential for listing
as endangered or threatened using the
five listing factors enumerated in
section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(1)). Our evaluation of these
DPSs follows.
Southern Cascades Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of Sierra Nevada Red
Fox
As described above, section 4 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) describe
procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a), we may list a species on the
basis of 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.
An endangered species is defined by
the Act, with exception, as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ A threatened species is
defined as ‘‘any species which is likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ A
species is defined by the Act to include
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.
An analysis of the potential threats for
the Sierra Nevada red fox is included in
the Species Report (Service 2015, entire)
associated with this document (and
available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–
0103). All potential threats of which we
are aware that may act upon the
Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra
Nevada red fox (hereafter referred to as
Southern Cascades DPS) currently or in
the future are captured within the
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors section, above, and
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61013
stepped down in the following
paragraphs as they pertain specifically
to the Southern Cascades DPS. The
range of the Southern Cascades DPS
includes high-elevation alpine and
subalpine zones near and above treeline
(roughly greater than 1,200 m (3,937 ft)
in California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8)
and 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry
et al. 2015, pp. 2–3; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–
3, 13–14, line 7) that contain conifer
habitat of various types (Perrine 2005,
pp. 63–64). These areas occur within the
southern portion of the Cascades
mountain range from the Columbia
River just north of Mt. Hood (Hood
River and Wasco Counties, Oregon)
south to the Lassen Peak area (roughly
the northeast corner of Tehama County
and southeast corner of Shasta County,
California). At this time, Sierra Nevada
red fox are known to reside within a
minimum of six locations across the
range of the Southern Cascades DPS.
In comparison to the five-factor
analysis presented above for the entire
taxon, we are not aware of any
information to indicate that trapping for
research purposes (Factor B) is a threat
to the Southern Cascades DPS currently
or in the future. Other potential
stressors identified specifically for the
Southern Cascades DPS are discussed
below.
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, the
potential effects of wildfire and fire
suppression (Factor A) on the Southern
Cascades DPS are similar to those
described previously for the Sierra
Nevada red fox. When they occur,
wildfires typically burn in a range of
intensities, resulting in a mosaic of
habitat effects. Intense, stand-replacing
wildfire (similar to the 2011 Dollar Lake
fire near Mt. Hood) could reduce habitat
availability and quality for this DPS by
reducing overstory cover. However,
even stand-replacing (high severity)
fires do not necessarily result in a
complete loss of habitat or occupancy
by Sierra Nevada red fox, as
demonstrated by the 2014 detections of
Sierra Nevada red fox in two locations
within the Dollar Lake burn area
(McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015).
There is uncertainty concerning the
potential for population-level effects of
wildfire on the Southern Cascades DPS
(and we note that the number of Sierra
Nevada red fox populations within the
range of the DPS is unknown), but it is
reasonable to assume that wildfires will
continue to occur in the Southern
Cascades mountains into the future,
potentially at a rate similar to what has
been occurring in the recent past. The
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
61014
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
most recent wildfires recorded for the
Southern Cascades DPS (not necessarily
overlapping all of the sighting areas) are:
(1) Mt. Hood sighting area—the 2,428 ha
(6,000 ac), high-intensity (i.e., removed
a significant amount of vegetation)
Dollar Lake wildfire in 2011 (NWCC
2015, pp. 1–2); (2) Dutchman Flat
sighting area—the 10,570 ha (26,119 ac)
Pole Creek burn in 2012 (McFaddenHiller and Hiller 2015); and (3) Lassen
sighting area—the 11,331 ha (28,000 ac)
Reading wildfire in 2012.
Land management agencies within the
range of the Southern Cascades DPS are
expected to continue to implement
necessary vegetation or fuels
management strategies (e.g., fire
management plans, LRMPs) to reduce
the likelihood of wide-scale,
catastrophic fires. The future
effectiveness of these treatments is
unknown, but the best available
information indicates that at least local
reductions in fire severity should be
achieved.
Overall, a combination of: (1) The
beneficial aspects that wildfires may
have for the Sierra Nevada red fox (e.g.,
habitat changes that promote an
increase in suitable prey species and
fruiting shrubs that are a supplementary
food source); (2) no reports of direct
impacts from wildfire to Sierra Nevada
red fox; and (3) the broad range that
Sierra Nevada red foxes occur across the
Southern Cascades (thus preventing a
single fire from having significant
impacts to a significant portion of the
DPS’s range), leads us to believe that
wildfire (and associated wildfire
suppression) is not an overall significant
impact to the Southern Cascades DPS.
Therefore, we conclude that based on
the best scientific and commercial
information available, wildfire and fire
suppression are not a threat to the
Southern Cascades DPS now or into the
future.
Climate Change
The similarities in ecology and habitat
associations between the Southern
Cascades DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox
and the rest of the taxon across its entire
range, combined with the large scales at
which climate change studies are
conducted, lead us to conclude that our
analysis of the potential effects of
climate change (Factor A) for the entire
taxon similarly applies to the Southern
Cascades DPS. The most significant,
potential future impact to the Southern
Cascades DPS from climate change
(likely to manifest itself beyond the 50year foreseeable future time period)
appears to be reduced snowpack levels
that would make high-elevation areas
more suitable for coyotes, and thus the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
fox would shift up in elevation to
remain in higher snowpack areas. The
DPS could be at an elevated risk at two
of the six sighting areas across the DPS’s
range—the Crater Lake and Lassen
sighting areas—because the subspecies
currently resides close to the highest
elevation possible at those locations.
The remaining four sighting areas
include suitable habitat at higher
elevations than the elevations currently
known to be occupied.
Although many climate models
generally agree about potential future
changes in temperature and a greater
proportion of precipitation falling as
rain rather than snow, the consequent
effects on snowpack levels and
vegetation composition are more
uncertain, as is the rate at which any
such changes might be realized.
Therefore, it is not clear how or when
changes in snowpack levels, forest type,
and plant species composition will
affect the distribution of Sierra Nevada
red fox habitat within the Southern
Cascades DPS. Thus, uncertainty exists
regarding the level of impact that
climate change may have on Sierra
Nevada red fox or their habitat within
the Southern Cascades DPS. Overall, we
conclude that, based on the best
scientific and commercial information
available at this time, the expected
future (i.e., next 50 years) conditions are
not expected to change to a degree that
would be considered significant. Thus,
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, climate change is not a threat to
the Southern Cascades DPS now or into
the future.
Trapping or Hunting for Fur
As described earlier in this document,
historical unregulated fur trapping
(prior to the 1940s) of Sierra Nevada red
fox is considered by researchers as the
likely cause of the marked contraction
in Sierra Nevada red fox’s distribution.
Until recently, Sierra Nevada red fox in
Oregon were considered to be Cascade
foxes—of the same subspecies that
occupied the Cascades in Washington
(Sacks et al. 2010, p. 1536). Fur trapping
is regulated and remains legal
throughout Oregon, although
information is not available regarding
historical hunting and trapping
pressures on Sierra Nevada red foxes in
the Oregon Cascades.
Due to regulatory protections, hunting
and trapping do not constitute a current
or likely future stressor to Sierra Nevada
red fox that occur on National Park
Service lands at Crater Lake National
Park and the entire Lassen sighting area
(as discussed above). In the counties
where the other four Oregon sighting
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
areas occur, low numbers of red foxes
are harvested, some of which may be
Sierra Nevada red fox. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) maintains trapping records by
county, without recording exact location
or elevation, so harvest of Sierra Nevada
red fox in Oregon cannot be
distinguished from harvest of lowland
fox subspecies (Turner 2015). Records of
fox numbers taken from 1989 to 2009
are not separated by year, preventing
inferences regarding trends over time.
The best available information indicates
that numbers of red fox harvested were
highest in Lane County (Willamette Pass
sighting area) and second highest in
Linn County (overlaps part of the Mt.
Washington sighting area). The average
harvest of red fox has dropped since
1989 across all eight Oregon counties
that contain a Sierra Nevada red fox
sighting area; however, information is
not available to determine whether the
harvest decline is due to reduced
hunting and trapping effort or reduced
numbers of red fox.
In the absence of more definite
information regarding the number of
Sierra Nevada red fox individuals and
populations in Oregon, we do not
consider the current harvest levels
likely to produce detrimental impact to
the DPS, as a whole, across its range.
The best available information also does
not indicate that the current harvest
levels would increase into the future.
These activities therefore constitute a
stressor that is not impacting the DPS to
the degree that the subspecies in the
Oregon Cascades is in decline as a
consequence of fur trapping. We
consider the legal fur trapping within
the Oregon Cascades DPS as having no
impact to Sierra Nevada red fox at the
Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas,
and a low-level impact at the remaining
sighting areas in Oregon where
relatively few red fox (some of which
may be Sierra Nevada red fox) may be
harvested. Therefore, because there is
no overall significant impact across the
DPS’s range both currently and into the
future, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, trapping or hunting for fur does
not rise to the level of a threat.
Disease
We believe that the potential effects of
disease (Factor C) on the Southern
Cascades DPS are the same as those
previously described for the entire range
of the Sierra Nevada red fox. This
conclusion is based on both our
understanding of the biology/habits of
the subspecies, as well as the presence
(or lack thereof) of the various diseases
(i.e., SPD, EFF, sarcoptic mange, canine
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
distemper, and rabies) within the DPS’s
range. To avoid redundancy, these
effects are described in detail above for
the entire taxon under Disease. Given
there is no evidence to suggest that
disease has impacted the Southern
Cascades DPS population in the past,
nor is there evidence to suggest that
disease currently affects the DPS or is
likely to in the future, we conclude that
disease is not a threat to the Southern
Cascades DPS now or in the future.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes,
and Competition With Coyotes
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, the
potential effects of predation by either
domestic dogs or coyotes (Factor C), as
well as competition with coyotes
(Factor E), on the Sierra Nevada DPS are
similar to those described previously for
the entire taxon. Given recreational
opportunities and regulations, domestic
dogs within Sierra Nevada red fox’s
home range territories within the DPS
are most likely to occur in the
Willamette Pass, Crater Lake, and
Lassen sighting areas, but domestic dogs
could also potentially be found along
many other roads or recreational areas
(e.g., hiking trails) within the DPS’s
range. To date, predation by a domestic
dog has been documented once within
the range of the Southern Cascades
DPS—one radio-collared Sierra Nevada
red fox died in 2000 at the Lassen
sighting area. See Predation by Domestic
Dogs or Coyotes, above, for additional
discussion.
Coyotes are known to occur within
the Southern Cascades DPS’s range,
including the following:
(1) Mt. Hood sighting area—One scat
was genetically identified in October
2013, at an elevation higher than the
Sierra Nevada red fox sightings (i.e., at
1,879 m (6,165 ft) (Akins 2014, p. 2)).
(2) Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat,
and Willamette sighting areas—Four
detections occurred in recent years at
camera stations in the Willamette and
Deschutes National Forests where Sierra
Nevada red fox have also been
documented to occur (McFadden-Hiller
and Hiller 2014, pp. 3, 5–6). The
specific locations within the sighting
areas were not identified in McFaddenHiller and Hiller (2014, p. 3).
(3) Lassen sighting area—Perrine’s
(2005, pp. 73–74) investigations at the
Lassen sighting area found coyotes
present at all elevations during the
summer months. However, coyote
population density was found to be
greater at lower elevations, thus
producing an elevational separation
between most coyotes and the Sierra
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Nevada red fox population (Perrine
2005, p. 192).
Overall, Sierra Nevada red foxes are
better able than coyotes to live in areas
of relatively deep snow, thus tending to
remain at higher elevations with
snowpack where coyotes are less
common during winter months. Coyotes
are generally found at lower elevations
than Sierra Nevada red fox during
winter and early spring when snowpack
is high (Service 2015, pp. 48–51). Sierra
Nevada red fox may potentially benefit
from the presence of coyotes—for
example, individuals during winter
months could benefit by scavenging
deer carcasses killed by coyotes (Perrine
2005, p. 31). Additionally, potential
future coyote impacts could be lessened
if the two recently established wolf
packs (which may control coyote
numbers but are unlikely to compete or
predate upon Sierra Nevada red fox, as
wolves tend to take larger game (ODFW
2015, p. 2)) in the Southern Cascades
expand.
Similar to those impacts described
above for the entire taxon, we do not
have information on associated coyote
impacts to the Southern Cascades DPS
(i.e., no information to indicate that
coyotes are causing a decline or that
coyotes are increasing in number) either
currently nor are they likely to increase
into the future. This could change if
climate change-related impacts become
realized with significantly lowered
snowpack levels; alternatively, potential
future coyote impacts could be lessened
if wolf packs expand within the DPS’s
range.
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
As described above under the
Hybridization with Nonnative Red Fox
discussion for the entire taxon,
hybridization of Sierra Nevada red fox
with other nonnative red fox (Factor E)
could result in outbreeding depression
or genetic swamping (Quinn and Sacks
2014, pp. 16–17). The only indication of
hybridization within the Southern
Cascades DPS is based on genetic testing
of mtDNA from two Sierra Nevada red
fox individuals at the Mt. Hood sighting
area that show evidence of past (not
recent) hybridization with nonnative
red foxes (Akins and Sacks 2015, p. 1).
Although these data indicate that
nonnative red fox have bred with the
Sierra Nevada red fox at one of the six
sighting areas within the DPS’s range at
some time in the past, the best available
data do not indicate current
hybridization impacts to any of the
sighting areas within the DPS.
Therefore, this stressor does not
currently rise to the level of a threat. As
discussed earlier in this document,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61015
there do not appear to be any
geographical barriers separating
nonnative red fox from Sierra Nevada
red fox, so it is possible that
hybridization could take place in other
sighting areas in the future. However,
we have no information that indicates
that hybridization, should it occur,
would rise to the level of a threat to the
DPS. Therefore, the best available
scientific and commercial information
available does not suggest that
hybridization within the DPS’s range is
a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Vehicles
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, the
potential effects of vehicles (i.e.,
potential road kill and noise
disturbance) (Factor E) are similar to
those described previously for the entire
taxon. To date, there are two confirmed
reports of Sierra Nevada red fox road
kills within the Southern Cascades DPS
along Oregon State Highway 20
approximately 80 km (50 mi) west of the
Mt. Washington sighting area and two
unconfirmed reports near the Crater
Lake sighting area. There may also be
noise disturbance activity in the portion
of the DPS that overlaps with the
Willamette Pass Ski Area or the snowparks near the Dutchman Flat sighting
area. However, snowmobile-related
impacts are largely unknown, and the
best available data do not indicate any
current or future impacts associated
with increases in vehicular activity or
noise levels. At this time, information
indicates that individual Sierra Nevada
red foxes within the range of the Oregon
Cascades DPS may be impacted be
vehicle activity or noise as opposed to
significant impacts across the range of
the DPS. Therefore, based on the best
scientific and commercial information
available at this time, we conclude that
vehicles are not a threat to the Oregon
Cascades DPS now or in the future.
Small and Isolated Population Effects
Based on the best scientific
information available, we believe the
potential negative effects associated
with small and isolated populations
within the Southern Cascades DPS are
similar to those presented above for the
entire taxon. We recognize that the
smaller a population becomes, the more
likely it is that one or more stressors
could impact a population, potentially
reducing its overall size, or resulting in
impacts associated with genetic
diversity, inbreeding, and reproduction
deficiency, all of which can increase a
species risk of extinction. Within the
Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra
Nevada red fox, the number and size of
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61016
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Sierra Nevada red fox populations in
Oregon are not yet known, in large part
due the recent discovery that the
montane red fox thought to have been
the Cascades subspecies were in fact the
Sierra Nevada red fox subspecies (see
additional discussion for the Sierra
Nevada red fox under the Small and
Isolated Population Effects section,
above). Surveys are ongoing at the time
of publication of this document. Of the
information available for the five
Oregon sighting areas, there is no
indication that the Oregon populations
or sighting areas are being negatively
impacted by reduced genetic diversity,
inbreeding depression, or reproduction
deficiency.
Information is available on the
population size of the Lassen sighting
area that occurs on the southern end of
the DPS’s range. Specifically, this
population is considered small and
represented by 21 breeding and 21
nonbreeding individuals (see Table 1,
above). Sacks et al. (2010, p. 1536) and
Sacks (2015, p. 1) state that the actual
size of the Lassen population is likely to
be somewhere between 21 and 63
individuals, depending on the number
of nonbreeding individuals present.
Although suitable habitat is limited
between the Lassen and next closest
sighting area in the DPS (i.e., Crater
Lake), suitable habitat is present, and
the best available information suggests
that dispersal could potentially occur
between sighting areas. We also note
that researchers indicate that the Sierra
Nevada red fox populations are likely
represented by relatively small numbers
(Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 396) or low
population densities (Perrine et al.
2010, p. 9).
Given the presence of suitable habitat
conditions and the numbers of Sierra
Nevada red fox observed to date without
comprehensive surveys across the DPS’s
range, it is reasonable to conclude that
additional Sierra Nevada red foxes
likely occur throughout the range of the
DPS. At this time, despite the relatively
geographically disjunct nature of the
known sighting areas across the
Southern Cascades DPS, there is no
evidence to suggest that the sighting
areas (and unknown number of
populations) are entirely isolated from
one another to the degree that we would
expect the manifestation of significant
negative effects that could potentially
arise in small, isolated populations.
Additionally, although the Lassen
population is considered small at this
time, we believe the number of sighting
areas and extent of geographic area
covered by the subspecies within the
DPS contribute to the overall low
likelihood of a catastrophic event
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
potentially impacting the entire DPS’s
range.
Overall across the Southern Cascades
DPS’s range at this time, the best
available information indicates at least
one small population at the southern
end of its range, and an unknown
number of populations of unknown size
throughout the remainder of the DPS’s
range. Additionally, the best available
data do not indicate empirical evidence
that the Sierra Nevada red fox is in
decline across the DPS. Thus, based on
the best scientific and commercial
information available at this time, small
or isolated population size effects do not
rise to the level of a threat within the
Southern Cascades DPS either currently
or in the future.
Cumulative Effects
The best scientific and commercial
information available at this time does
not indicate that potential cumulative
effects within the Southern Cascades
DPS are different than the potential
cumulative impacts described above for
the entire taxon. Above, we concluded
that two cumulative impact scenarios
could potentially occur:
(1) Potential increased competition
with coyotes on Sierra Nevada red fox
as a result of high-elevation forested
areas becoming more suitable for
coyotes following potential impacts
from climate change (i.e., lowered
snowpack levels, increased incidence
and extent of wildfires).
(2) A combination of potential
stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping,
SPD and other diseases, competition
and predation from coyotes,
hybridization with nonnative red fox,
and vehicles) that directly result in
death or loss of reproductive ability for
the Sierra Nevada red fox.
For the purposes of this analysis for
the Southern Cascades DPS, and similar
to the discussion and conclusion
presented above for the entire taxon, the
best available data at this time do not
suggest that the cumulative effects of
potential increased competition from
coyotes associated with possible future
climate change impacts rise to the level
of a threat to the Southern Cascades
DPS. Additionally, although it is
possible that all or some of the stressors
could potentially act in concert as a
cumulative threat to the Southern
Cascades DPS, the best available data
indicate ambiguity in either the
likelihood or level of impacts for the
various stressors at the DPS-wide level,
or the data indicate only individuallevel impacts. Thus, data do not
indicate that these stressors are
cumulatively causing now or will cause
in the future a substantial decline of the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Sierra Nevada red fox across the range
of the Southern Cascades DPS.
Therefore, we have determined that
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, the cumulative impacts of these
potential stressors do not rise to the
level of a threat for the Southern
Cascades DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms—
Southern Cascades DPS
Existing regulatory mechanisms that
affect the Southern Cascades DPS
include laws and regulations
promulgated by the Federal
Government, State of Oregon
government, and State of California
government (Factor D). These include
the following mechanisms that are
described in detail in the Species Report
(Service 2015, pp. 58–63), and
summarized in more detail above under
the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
section for the entire taxon:
(1) Forest Service policy manual
(USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22),
which allows for designation of
sensitive species of management
concern, of which the Sierra Nevada red
fox is a sensitive species where it occurs
on National Forests in California (U.S.
Forest Service Region 5) and in Oregon
(USDA 2013, p. 1; Chapman 2015, Excel
attch., wksht. 2, line 655).
(2) National Forest management is
directed by the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960, as amended (16
U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and the NFMA (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA
specifies that the Forest Service must
have an LRMP to guide and set
standards for all natural resource
management activities on each National
Forest, including the Mt. Hood,
Willamette, Deschutes, Umpqua,
Winema, Rogue River, and Lassen
National Forests that currently harbor
suitable habitat or known occurrences of
Sierra Nevada red fox within the
Southern Cascades DPS, and the Forest
Service must implement management
actions through their LRMPs that
provide a conservation benefit to the
DPS.
(3) The NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994,
entire) guides management over a
portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat within the Southern Cascades
DPS, specifically to provide the basis for
conservation of the northern spotted
owl and other late-successional, oldgrowth forest associated species on
Federal lands. The NWFP is important
for the DPS because it creates a network
of late-successional and old-growth
forests that help meet the Sierra Nevada
red fox’s habitat requirements,
discussed above, at the Mt. Hood, Mt.
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Washington, Dutchman Flat, and
Willamette Pass sighting areas. Several
land allocations exist with differing
levels of standards and guidelines for
managing forest resources, all of which
has had an overall positive impact on
the forests/resources by substantially
reducing habitat loss from forest
management activities on Federal lands.
(4) The National Park Service Organic
Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.) and the National Park Service
General Authorities Act of 1970 (16
U.S.C. 1a–1) address natural resources
on National Park lands, specifically
within Crater Lake National Park within
the Southern Cascades DPS. These Acts
require the National Park Service to
‘‘preserve fundamental physical and
biological processes, as well as
individual species, features, and plant
and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS
2006, p. 36). Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat within park boundaries that are
not developed specifically for recreation
and camping are managed toward
natural processes and species
composition, which provides an overall
conservation benefit to the subspecies
and its habitat.
(5) Although the Sierra Nevada red
fox within the Oregon portion of the
Southern Cascades DPS may be hunted
and trapped (635 Oregon Administrative
Rules 050–0045(1), 0045(8), the best
available data do not indicate actual
impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox at
this time, nor do the data indicate any
impacts to the subspecies into the
future.
(6) Within the Lassen sighting area
portion of the Southern Cascades DPS,
the CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits
possession, purchase, or ‘‘take’’ of
endangered or threatened species
without an incidental take permit,
issued by CDFW. The Sierra Nevada red
fox was designated as a threatened
species under CESA in 1980 (CDFW
2014, p. 12). Additionally, the State of
California classifies red foxes as a
furbearing mammal that is protected
from commercial harvest (14 C.C.R.
460).
Overall, existing regulatory
mechanisms currently (and into the
future) provide substantial protection on
Federal lands for the Southern Cascades
DPS. Within the Lassen sighting area
specifically, the Sierra Nevada red fox’s
State-listed status and protection from
commercial harvest provide additional,
significant protection for the long-term
conservation of the subspecies.
Although similar protections from
hunting and trapping are not available
for the remainder of the DPS’s range in
Oregon, the best available data do not
indicate rangewide impacts to the DPS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
As similarly described above in the
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section
for the whole taxon, the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the existing mechanisms
are adequate to address impacts to the
Southern Cascades DPS from stressors
for which governments may have
regulatory control (i.e., wildfire, injury
or mortality due to fur trapping, and
collision with vehicles).
Finding for the Southern Cascades DPS
We assessed the best available
scientific and commercial information
regarding threats faced by the Southern
Cascades DPS. We have reviewed the
petition, information available in our
files, and information submitted to us
following our 90-day finding (77 FR 45;
January 3, 2012). We also consulted
with Sierra Nevada red fox researchers
and Federal land managers. We do not
find support for the petitioners’ claim
that the Southern Cascades DPS may
warrant listing as a federally endangered
or threatened species. The petitioners
did not outline the threats that they
believe are specific to the Southern
Cascades DPS, although based on our
analysis, we evaluated all stressors
identified for the entire taxon across
Oregon and California. Our analysis of
the best available information indicates
that the Southern Cascades DPS is not
warranted for listing based on the same
reasons identified above for the Sierra
Nevada red fox across its entire range.
Overall, we found that the stressors that
may impact the Southern Cascades DPS
are not significantly impacting the
subspecies either currently or in the
future (such that listing may be
warranted). Specifically, we found that
five stressors (i.e., wildfire and fire
suppression; trapping or hunting for fur;
predation by dogs or coyotes, or
competition from coyotes; hybridization
with nonnative red fox; and vehicles)
may impact individuals at one or more
sighting areas currently or in the future,
but these five stressors are not causing
DPS-wide impacts such that the DPS
meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species at this time.
Currently, the best available data
indicate that the only known population
in the Southern Cascades DPS (i.e., the
Lassen sighting area) may be
experiencing elevated impacts due to its
small population size. In addition, both
the Lassen and Crater Lake sighting
areas may experience (in the future
beyond the 50-year time period)
combined pressures from coyote
predation and competition, as well as
climate change-related impacts that
could reduce snowpack levels, thereby
creating habitat conditions at high
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61017
elevations that are more favorable to
coyotes. However, the best available
data indicate coyotes are not increasing
in numbers currently nor are they likely
to increase into the future, and thus are
not impacting this portion of the DPS’s
range to the degree that any more than
individuals might be affected both
currently and into the future.
Additionally, there is no indication that
potential future changes in lowered
snowpack levels at high elevations (as
suggested by climate models) would
occur within the next 50 years to such
a degree that coyote numbers would
increase throughout the subspecies’
range causing coyote predation or
competition to rise to the level of a
threat.
In conclusion, and similar to that
described above for the Sierra Nevada
red fox across its entire range, we
believe the Southern Cascades DPS
harbors significant suitable habitat
throughout its range. These lands are
being managed by Federal agencies that
are providing management and
protections to the DPS and its habitat to
benefit the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Additionally, the best available data do
not indicate any population-level
declines from any of the stressors
(individually or cumulatively) within
any portion of the DPS’s range. Based on
our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to the five factors, we find
that the stressors acting upon the
Southern Cascades DPS are not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the DPS is in
danger of extinction now (endangered),
or likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range—
Southern Cascades DPS
Having determined that the Southern
Cascades DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox does not meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species
throughout all of its range, we must next
consider whether there are any
significant portions of the DPS’s range
where the DPS is in danger of extinction
or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. If we identify any
portions that may be both (1) significant
and (2) endangered or threatened, we
would engage in a more detailed
analysis to determine whether these
standards are indeed met. Please see the
Significant Portion of the Range
discussion, above, for the entire taxon
for an explanation of relevance of this
analysis.
We consider the historical range of
the Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61018
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Nevada red fox to include the
mountainous areas from the Columbia
River at Mt. Hood south into California,
including the area of Mt. Shasta and
slightly into the Trinity Mountains, and
continuing south to the Lassen Peak
area. This range includes those
mountainous areas that exceed 1,219 m
(4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015,
pp. 1–2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3, 13–14,
line 7) and 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in
California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8).
Based on the best available information
at this time, these sighting areas account
for the current distribution of the
subspecies within the Southern
Cascades DPS.
In considering any significant portion
of the Southern Cascades DPS, we
considered whether the stressors facing
the DPS might be different at the six
sighting areas where the Sierra Nevada
red fox have been found within the
Cascades Mountain Range and, thus,
geographically concentrated in some
portion of the DPS’s range. We are
unable to find a concentration of
stressors in the Lassen area as compared
to the remainder of the DPS’s range.
Given the extensive coverage of the
Southern Cascades DPS compared to the
entire range of the subspecies, we
believe that the significant portion of
the range analysis for this DPS is the
same as that presented above for the
entire taxon. We are unable to provide
any greater level of detail for the Oregon
portion of the Southern Cascades DPS
range given the limited amount of
information available for the Sierra
Nevada red fox in Oregon.
In summary, our evaluation of the
best available information indicates that
the overall level of stressors is not
geographically concentrated in one
portion of the Southern Cascades DPS
range, and the stressors that have the
potential to impact the DPS are
relatively consistent across its range
(Service 2015, entire). Our review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Southern
Cascades DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox is not in danger of extinction
(endangered) nor likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we find that listing the
Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra
Nevada red fox as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act is not
warranted at this time.
Sierra Nevada Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of Sierra Nevada Red
Fox
As described above, section 4 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
regulations (50 CFR part 424) describe
procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a), we may list a species on the
basis of 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.
An endangered species is defined by
the Act, with exception, as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ A threatened species is
defined as ‘‘any species which is likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ A
species is defined by the Act to include
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.
An analysis of the potential threats for
the Sierra Nevada red fox is included in
the Species Report (Service 2015, entire)
associated with this document (and
available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–
0103). All potential threats of which we
are aware that may act upon the Sierra
Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox
(hereafter referred to as Sierra Nevada
DPS) currently or in the future are
captured within the Summary of
Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors section, above, and stepped
down in the following paragraphs as
they pertain specifically to the Sierra
Nevada DPS. The range of the Sierra
Nevada DPS includes high-elevation
(roughly greater than 1,200 m (3,937 ft))
conifer habitat of various types (Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 8) within the Sierra
Nevada mountain range from Sierra to
Tulare Counties. However, at this time,
Sierra Nevada red fox are only known
to reside within the Sonora Pass
sighting area.
Similar to the five-factor analysis
presented above for the entire taxon, we
are not aware of any information to
indicate that the following are threats to
the Sierra Nevada DPS currently or in
the future: Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, including
trapping for fur (Factor B); SPD or EFF
diseases (Factor C); or predation by
domestic dogs (Factor C). Other
potential stressors identified specifically
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for the Sierra Nevada DPS are discussed
below.
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, the
potential effects of wildfire and fire
suppression (Factor A) on the Sierra
Nevada DPS are similar to those
described previously for the Sierra
Nevada red fox. When they occur,
wildfires typically burn in a range of
intensities, resulting in a mosaic of
habitat effects. Intense, stand-replacing
wildfire (similar to the 2013 Rim fire
that burned near the Sonora Pass
sighting area) could reduce habitat
availability and quality for this DPS by
reducing overstory cover. Given this
DPS currently consists of a single
population in the Sonora Pass area, one
stand-replacing fire could have
significant impacts on this remaining
population. However, beneficial aspects
of wildfire would also be expected,
including improving habitat conditions
that promote an increased abundance of
preferred prey for the Sierra Nevada red
fox. There is uncertainty concerning the
potential for population-level effects of
wildfire on the Sierra Nevada DPS, but
it is reasonable to assume that wildfires
will continue to occur in the Sierra
Nevada mountains into the future, at
least at a rate similar to what has
occurred in the recent past. Land
management agencies within the range
of the Sierra Nevada DPS are also
expected to continue to conduct
necessary vegetation or fuel
management strategies (e.g., fire
management plans, LRMPs, SNFPA) to
reduce the likelihood of wide-scale,
catastrophic fires. The future
effectiveness of these treatments is
unknown, but the best available
information indicates that at least local
reductions in fire severity should be
achieved. Overall, we conclude that
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, wildfire and fire suppression are
not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS
now or into the future.
Climate Change
The similarities in ecology and habitat
associations between the Sierra Nevada
DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox and the
rest of the taxon across its entire range,
combined with the large scales at which
climate change studies are conducted,
lead us to conclude that our analysis of
the potential effects of climate change
(Factor A) for the entire taxon similarly
applies to the Sierra Nevada DPS. The
most significant, potential future impact
to the Sierra Nevada DPS from climate
change (likely to manifest itself beyond
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
the 50-year foreseeable future time
period) appears to be reduced snowpack
levels that would make high-elevation
areas more suitable for coyotes, and thus
the fox would shift up in elevation to
remain in higher snowpack areas. If the
current population does not expand
throughout other portions of the Sierra
Nevada DPS’s range in the future, this
impact will likely affect the population,
given it currently occurs within a
narrow elevational range where the
subspecies already occupies the highest
elevations in the area.
Although many climate models
generally agree about potential future
changes in temperature and a greater
proportion of precipitation falling as
rain rather than snow, the consequent
effects on vegetation and snowpack
levels are more uncertain, as is the rate
at which any such changes might be
realized. Therefore, it is not clear how
or when changes in snowpack levels,
forest type, and plant species
composition will affect the distribution
of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat within
the Sierra Nevada DPS. Thus,
uncertainty exists regarding the level of
impact that climate change may have on
Sierra Nevada red fox or their habitat
within the Sierra Nevada DPS. Overall,
we conclude that, based on the best
scientific and commercial information
available at this time, the expected
future (i.e., next 50 years) conditions are
not expected to change to a degree that
would be considered significant. Thus,
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, climate change is not a threat to
the Sierra Nevada DPS now or into the
future.
Disease
As described for the Sierra Nevada
red fox subspecies as a whole,
numerous pathogens are known to cause
severe disease (Factor C) in canids. The
diseases most likely to affect the Sierra
Nevada DPS are sarcoptic mange, canine
distemper, and rabies. Although SPD
and EFF are diseases that may impact
Sierra Nevada red fox in the Southern
Cascades DPS (see Disease sections,
above, for both the taxon as a whole and
the Southern Cascades DPS), neither
SPD or EFF have been reported within
or near the current population at the
Sonora Pass sighting area. Additionally,
the Sonora Pass sighting area is unlikely
to be exposed to these diseases because
CDFW does not stock fish from
Northern California south of the Feather
River (Plumas County) to help prevent
transmittal of diseases (including SPD
and EFF) (Beale 2011, p. 1).
The best available data indicate that
no diseases are affecting the Sierra
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
Nevada DPS, and given the isolation
and low population numbers in this
area, transmission of a disease into the
population would be less likely, except
within family groups (Perrine et al.
2010, p. 9). Given there is no evidence
to suggest that disease has impacted the
Sierra Nevada DPS in the past, nor is
there evidence to suggest that disease
currently affects the DPS or is likely to
in the future, we conclude that disease
is not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS
now or in the future.
Predation and Competition From
Coyotes
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, the
potential effects of predation or
competition from coyotes (Factors C and
E) on the Sierra Nevada DPS are similar
to those described previously for the
entire taxon. Coyotes are present in the
Sonora Pass sighting area at the same
elevation as Sierra Nevada red fox
during the summer months (although
the average elevation for coyotes
appears to be lower than average
elevation for the fox (Quinn and Sacks
2014, pp. 11, 35)), and they appear to
outnumber Sierra Nevada red fox in the
area (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 12).
However, Rich (2014, p.1) notes that
deep snows in the Sonora Pass sighting
area tend to keep coyotes below 2,743
m (9,000 ft).
At this time, the best available
information indicates the presence of
coyotes within the range of the Sierra
Nevada DPS, but we do not have
information to indicate associated
impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox
(i.e., no information to indicate that
coyotes are causing a decline or that
coyotes are increasing in number such
that they constitute a threat to the DPS)
either currently or in the future. This
could change if climate change-related
impacts become realized with
significantly lowered snowpack levels;
alternatively, a potential future coyote
impact could be lessened if wolf packs
continue to expand outside of Oregon
and into the Sierra Nevada mountain
range. Restoration of wolves in
California in sustainable populations
would likely lower coyote population
numbers or exclude them from higher
elevation forested areas, thereby
facilitating the persistence of Sierra
Nevada red fox populations (Levi and
Wilmers 2012, p. 926); wolves are
unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra
Nevada red fox because they tend to
take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8).
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
Hybridization can result in
outbreeding depression or genetic
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61019
swamping (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp.
16–17; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 2).
Hybridization is a recently described
impact within the Sierra Nevada DPS. In
a study conducted from October 2011
through September 2014, researchers
documented interbreeding between
female Sierra Nevada red fox and two
male nonnative red foxes in 2013,
resulting in 10 hybrid pups (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). This
interbreeding was followed by
documented inbreeding (breeding
between related foxes) between the
nonnative male and one of his hybrid
female offspring resulting in an
additional backcross hybrid pup in 2014
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 16, 30).
This breeding of native Sierra Nevada
red fox with nonnative red foxes is the
only indication of successful
reproduction in the study area during
the last 3 years (Quinn and Sacks 2014,
pp. 9–10); this study covered 20 to 50
percent of the high-quality habitat
present in the Sonora Pass sighting area.
The two nonnative male adults that
entered the Sierra Nevada DPS and bred
with Sierra Nevada red fox individuals
were not closely related, but both
showed a combination of fur-farm stock
and Rocky Mountain red fox ancestry
and likely originated from a population
somewhere in the Great Basin of Nevada
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 16).
Additionally, a third nonnative male of
unknown origin was detected at the
Sonora Pass sighting area in 2014, but
it is not known to have bred (Sacks et
al. 2015, pp. 16, 22).
Overall, this documented
hybridization is likely resulting in a
reduction in reproduction of native
Sierra Nevada red fox within the DPS.
Sacks et al. (2015, p. 14) report reduced
genetic diversity in the Sierra Nevada
red fox at Sonora Pass; specifically,
genetic diversity has declined to twothirds of its historical estimate in this
area. In addition, Sacks et al. (2015, p.
3) state that lack of breeding among
native individuals in the Sierra Nevada
DPS over recent years is potentially
indicative of inbreeding depression.
Overall, inbreeding depression and the
potential for outbreeding depression
and genomic replacement from the
nonnatives represent issues of concern
for the Sonora Pass population (Sacks et
al. 2015, p. 3). We have no information
to indicate that nonnative red fox will
cease inhabiting and interbreeding with
Sierra Nevada red fox within the Sierra
Nevada DPS into the future. Therefore,
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, we conclude that hybridization
with nonnative foxes is a threat to the
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
61020
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2014 (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 16, 30).
During that same time, no surviving
native pups were successfully produced
in the study area. Only two adult native
males were known from the area, and
Vehicles
one of those was apparently either
Based on the best scientific and
killed or driven off by one of the
commercial information available, the
incoming nonnative males. A third
potential effects of vehicles (i.e., road
nonnative male was documented in the
kill and noise disturbance) (Factor E) are study area in 2014, but did not
similar to those described previously for successfully interbreed (Sacks et al.
the entire taxon. To date, there has been 2015, p. 16).
a single report of a Sierra Nevada red
Overall, the best available scientific
fox road kill within the Sierra Nevada
and commercial information suggests a
DPS (prior to 2010 along California State single, extant population of Sierra
Highway 395), and there may be noise
Nevada red fox currently exists in the
disturbance activity in the portion of the Sierra Nevada DPS, and the population
DPS that overlaps with the Bridgeport
is small, declining, and isolated. There
Winter Recreation Area within the
has been no indication of native fox
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest or
reproduction since 2011. Therefore,
the Marine’s Corps’ Marine Warfare
based on the best scientific and
Training Center (MWTC). However,
commercial information available at this
snowmobile-related impacts are largely
time, we conclude the negative effects of
unknown, as demonstrated by the Forest reduced genetic diversity and
Service’s current investigation in
reproduction deficiency are a threat to
accordance with Standard 32 of the
the Sierra Nevada DPS currently and
SNFPA, results of which are not yet
into the future. In addition, these
available. Additionally, no known
negative effects are associated with
impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox have
isolation and can also be influenced by
been reported at the MWTC. At this
hybridization. At this point in time,
time, information indicates that
however, we do not have information to
individual Sierra Nevada red fox within determine how hybridization will
the range of the Sierra Nevada DPS may influence genetic diversity and
be impacted by vehicle activity or noise reproduction.
as opposed to significant impacts across
Cumulative Effects
the range of the DPS. Therefore, based
We are not aware of any information
on the best scientific and commercial
to indicate that potential cumulative
information available at this time, we
effects within the Sierra Nevada DPS are
conclude that vehicles are not a threat
different than the potential cumulative
to the Sierra Nevada DPS now or in the
future.
impacts described above for the entire
taxon and for the Southern Cascades
Small Population Effects
DPS. Above, we concluded that two
The best available genetic data for the cumulative impact scenarios could
taxon are indicative of a decline in the
potentially occur:
Sierra Nevada DPS over time. Regarding
(1) Potential increased competition
genetic diversity and the small
with and predation from coyotes on
population of the Sierra Nevada DPS,
Sierra Nevada red fox as a result of highcurrent heterozygosity levels in nuclear
elevation forested areas becoming more
DNA (i.e., a measure of genetic
suitable for coyotes following potential
diversity) are considerably lower
impacts from climate change (i.e.,
(average = 0.44) than heterozygosity
lowered snowpack levels, increased
levels historically (0.64), thus indicating incidence and extent of wildfires).
a recent negative trend in population
(2) A combination of potential
size (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13–14). stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping,
Reductions in the diversity of mtDNA
disease, competition and predation from
since historical times also indicate a
coyotes, hybridization with nonnative
recent decline in population numbers
red fox, and vehicles) that directly result
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14).
in death or loss of reproductive ability
Consistent with reductions in genetic
for the Sierra Nevada red fox.
To avoid redundancy, these effects are
diversity, there has also been recent
described in detail above for the entire
documented inbreeding in this
taxon and the Southern Cascades DPS
population. As described in the
under Cumulative Effects. Similar to
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
those discussions above, the best
section, above, two nonnative male red
available data at this time do not suggest
fox are documented to have entered the
that the cumulative effects of increased
population, bred with native
coyote numbers and climate change rise
individuals, and produced a minimum
to the level of a threat to the Sierra
of 11 hybrid pups between 2012 and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Sierra Nevada DPS (currently
represented by a single population in
the Sonora Pass sighting area) both
currently and into the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Nevada DPS overall. Additionally, the
best available data indicate ambiguity in
either the likelihood or level of impacts
for the various stressors at the DPS-wide
level, or the data indicate only
individual-level impacts. Thus, data do
not indicate that these stressors are
cumulatively causing now or will cause
in the future a substantial decline of the
Sierra Nevada red fox across the range
of the Sierra Nevada DPS. Therefore,
based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this
time, we have determined that the
cumulative impacts of these potential
stressors do not rise to the level of a
threat for the Sierra Nevada DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms—
Sierra Nevada DPS
Existing regulatory mechanisms that
affect the Sierra Nevada DPS include
laws and regulations promulgated by
the Federal Government and State of
California governments (Factor D).
These include the following
mechanisms that are described in detail
in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp.
58–63) and summarized in more detail
above under the Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms section for the entire taxon:
(1) Forest Service policy manual
(USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22),
which allows for designation of
sensitive species of management
concern, of which the Sierra Nevada red
fox is a sensitive species where it occurs
on National Forests in California (U.S.
Forest Service Region 5).
(2) National Forest management is
directed by the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960, as amended (16
U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and the NFMA (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA
specifies that the Forest Service must
have an LRMP to guide and set
standards for all natural resource
management activities on each National
Forest, including the Humboldt-Toiyabe
and Stanislaus National Forests that
currently harbor suitable habitat or
known occurrences of Sierra Nevada red
fox within the Sierra Nevada DPS. In
addition, the Forest Service must
implement management actions through
their LRMPs that provide a conservation
benefit to the DPS.
(3) The SNFPA requires fire and fuels
management projects in most areas to
retain at least 40 percent (preferably 50
percent) canopy cover within a
treatment unit and effectively requires
retention of trees 63.5 cm (25 in) dbh in
most treated areas (USDA 2004, pp. 3,
50), which is close to the preferred
winter habitat characteristics likely
preferred by the subspecies.
Additionally, SNFPA requires the Forest
Service to: (a) Conduct an analysis to
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
determine whether activities within 8
km (5 mi) of a verified Sierra Nevada
red fox sighting have the potential to
affect the species (USDA 2004, p. 54),
(b) mandate a limited operating period
of January 1 to June 30 as necessary to
avoid adverse impacts to potential
breeding, and (c) require 2 years of
evaluations for activities near sightings
that are not associated with a den site.
(4) The OPLMA (Pub. L. 111–11, p.
1059) established the Bridgeport Winter
Recreation Area to control winter
vehicles on Forest Service land,
consisting of about 2,833 ha (7,000 ac)
in the northern portion of the Sonora
Pass sighting area (USDA 2010, p. 4).
The OPLMA states that the winter use
of snowmobiles is allowed in the
Recreation Area, but is subject to terms
and conditions, which can minimize
potential impacts to sensitive resources.
The Forest Service has completed a
management plan that calls for
monitoring of impacts to wildlife
(USDA 2010, p. 9) and is proceeding
with evaluations of impacts to Sierra
Nevada red fox (see Vehicles, above).
(5) The National Park Service Organic
Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.) and the National Park Service
General Authorities Act of 1970 (16
U.S.C. 1a–1) address natural resources
on National Park lands, specifically
within Yosemite National Park within
the Sierra Nevada DPS. These Acts
require the National Park Service to
‘‘preserve fundamental physical and
biological processes, as well as
individual species, features, and plant
and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS
2006, p. 36). Yosemite National Park’s
land management plan (USDI NPS 1980,
pp. 10–11) does not contain specific
measures to protect the Sierra Nevada
red fox or its habitat, but does
characterize the portion of the Park in
the Sonora Pass sighting area as a
‘‘wilderness subzone,’’ wherein ‘‘natural
systems and processes will be permitted
to follow their minimum intrusion by
man.’’
(6) The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.)
prohibits possession, purchase, or
‘‘take’’ of endangered or threatened
species without an incidental take
permit issued by CDFW. The Sierra
Nevada red fox was designated as a
threatened species under CESA in 1980
(CDFW 2014, p. 12). In addition, the
State of California classifies red foxes as
a furbearing mammal that is protected
from commercial harvest (14 C.C.R.
460).
Additionally, we note that the U.S.
Marine Corps’ MWTC has lands within
a portion of the Sonora Pass sighting
area. The U.S. Marine Corps has
initiated preparation of an INRMP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
(Norquist 2014, p. 2) consistent with
requirements outlined in the Sikes Act
(16 U.S.C. 670a), which would address
potential impacts to natural resources,
presumably to include the Sierra
Nevada red fox. Because an INRMP is
not yet finalized, we cannot evaluate its
adequacy as a regulatory mechanism.
Overall, existing regulatory
mechanisms currently (and into the
future) provide substantial protection on
Federal lands for the Sierra Nevada
DPS. Within the Sonora Pass sighting
area specifically, the Sierra Nevada red
fox’s State-listed status and protection
from commercial harvest provide
additional significant protection for the
long-term conservation of the
subspecies. As similarly described
above in the Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms section for the whole
taxon, the best available scientific and
commercial information indicates that
the existing mechanisms are adequate to
address impacts to the Sierra Nevada
DPS from stressors for which
governments may have regulatory
control (i.e., wildfire, injury or mortality
due to harvest, and injury or mortality
due to collision with vehicles).
Finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS
We assessed the best available
scientific and commercial information
regarding threats faced by the Sierra
Nevada DPS. We have reviewed the
petition, information available in our
files, and information submitted to us
following our 90-day finding (77 FR 45;
January 3, 2012). We also consulted
with Sierra Nevada red fox researchers
and Federal land managers. We find
support for the petitioners’ claim that
the Sierra Nevada DPS may warrant
listing as a federally endangered or
threatened species. Although the
petitioners did not outline the threats
that they believe are specific to the
Sierra Nevada DPS, we have identified
threats from hybridization with
nonnative red fox and negative effects of
reduced genetic diversity, inbreeding
(breeding between related foxes), and
reproduction deficiency as the
significant factors for this DPS. Overall,
we believe the Sierra Nevada DPS is
warranted for listing based on the
following information:
(1) Range contraction—The Sierra
Nevada red fox has experienced a range
contraction of greater than 90 percent
from its historical range (based on our
visual comparison of the historical
range (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 382;
Perrine et al. 2010, p. 4) to the current
extent of the Sonora Pass sighting area)
within the Sierra Nevada mountain
range. We note a reduction of Sierra
Nevada red fox observations based on:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61021
• 1920s to the 1940s/1950s: Reduced
harvest of pelts recorded within
California.
• 1940s to 1980: Increasingly rare
sightings in California that led to the
State prohibition on red fox trapping in
1974, and the State listing of the
subspecies as a threatened species in
1980 (Statham et al. 2012, p. 123).
• 1996 to 2002: Extensive carnivore
surveys throughout the Sierra Nevada
(Zielinski et al., 2005, entire); no Sierra
Nevada red fox were observed.
• 2010: Discovery of Sierra Nevada
red fox at what is described herein as
the Sonora Pass sighting area.
• 2011 to 2015: Occupancy
information from a study near Sonora
Pass (Quinn and Sacks 2014, entire;
Sacks et al. 2015, entire) and from
additional camera stations in Yosemite
National Park maintained by the
National Park Service. This best
available and most recent information
indicates a single population in the
Sonora Pass sighting area as opposed to
its much more extensive historically
occupied area within the Sierra Nevada
mountain range. The Sonora Pass
sighting area extends along the crest of
the Sierra Nevada Mountains from north
of State Route 108 south into Yosemite
National Park (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 10–
11), overlapping Tuolumne, Mono, and
Alpine Counties, and including a recent
sighting documented at the north end of
Yosemite National Park during 2015
(Lindelof 2015, pp. 1–2).
(2) Declining population and
inbreeding depression—Comparisons of
historical and current population
estimates indicate that the Sierra
Nevada DPS, as currently represented
solely by the Sonora Pass population, is
in decline (Sacks et al. 2010, p. 1532;
Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14). The Sierra
Nevada red fox within the Sierra
Nevada DPS is comprised of an
estimated 14 breeding individuals, with
a total adult population size estimate of
10 to 50 (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 3,
10, 11, 14; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14).
Repeated resampling of individuals over
the 3-year study period (October 2011
through September 2014) suggests that
most adults with territories overlapping
the study area were found (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, p. 14).
The low population size estimate for
the single extant population known
within the Sierra Nevada DPS is
supported by analyses of genetic
diversity (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp.
13–14). For instance, the current average
heterozygosity (a measure of genetic
diversity) in nuclear DNA for Sierra
Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass
sighting area (0.44) is considerably
lower than heterozygosity levels present
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61022
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
historically (0.64), indicating a
relatively recent negative trend in
population size (Quinn and Sacks 2014,
pp. 13–14). Reductions in the diversity
of mtDNA since historical times also
indicate a decline in population
numbers (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14).
Associated with a known small
population is the high apparent
isolation of the Sonora Pass population,
which has likely resulted in inbreeding
depression. The Sonora Pass population
is approximately 250 km (155 mi) from
the nearest population to the north
(Lassen sighting area), with no known
Sierra Nevada red fox populations to the
south. Genetic testing also shows a lack
of migration between the Lassen and
Sonora Pass populations (Statham et al.
2012, p. 129) (see Discreteness
discussion, above).
We recognize that the Sierra Nevada
red fox, in general across its entire
range, has likely always been a
relatively rare species. Grinnell et al.
(1937, p. 396) described Sierra Nevada
red fox population numbers as
‘‘relatively small, even in the most
favorable territory,’’ and reported that
the subspecies likely occurred at
densities of 1 per 2.6 square km (1 per
square mi). Perrine et al. (2010, p. 9)
concluded that, based on this
information, Sierra Nevada red fox
likely occur at low population densities
even within areas of high relative
abundance. The most recent information
for the Sierra Nevada DPS indicates a
small current population that is likely
the remnant of a much larger population
and likely a remnant of multiple
populations within the DPS’s range.
(3) Hybridization with nonnative red
fox—The arrival and documented
breeding of nonnative red fox into the
Sierra Nevada DPS, as documented
between 2011 and 2014 (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10) will bring alleles
that are otherwise rare or missing from
the population, which in turn may help
alleviate inbreeding depression.
However, continued breeding of
nonnative red fox with the native Sierra
Nevada DPS could lead to outbreeding
depression, genetic swamping, and
potentially the eventual extirpation of
the Sierra Nevada DPS. The recent study
documented interbreeding between
female Sierra Nevada red fox and two
male nonnative red foxes, resulting in
seven hybrid pups in 2013, and another
four hybrid pups in 2014 (Sacks et al.
2015, pp. 3, 15–17, 30). One of the four
hybrids produced in 2014 resulted from
the pairing of a nonnative male and one
of his hybrid female offspring (Sacks et
al. 2015, pp. 15–17, 30). The pup was
thus 75 percent nonnative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
(4) No evidence of recent ‘‘native’’
Sierra Nevada red fox reproduction—
The 11 nonnative hybridized pups
produced (as described above) are the
only clear indication of successful
reproduction in the study area (Sacks et
al. 2015, pp. 3, 10–11) between 2011
and 2014, which covered between 20
and 50 percent of the contiguous highquality habitat present in the Sonora
Pass sighting area. Although unknown,
it is possible that Sierra Nevada red fox
could have reproduced in portions of
the sighting area not covered by the 3year study.
In summary, we find that the
significant threats to the Sierra Nevada
DPS both currently and into the future
are hybridization with nonnative red fox
and the negative effects of reduced
genetic diversity, inbreeding, and
reproduction deficiency. These threats
appear to be having significant impacts
on the single remaining population in
the DPS at Sonora Pass. These impacts
are evident from the best available
scientific and commercial information
that shows a combination of range
contraction of greater than 90 percent
from its historical range, an apparent
declining population, inbreeding
depression, hybridization, and no clear
indication of successful native Sierra
Nevada red fox reproduction since at
least 2011. These stressors cumulatively
impact the DPS.
On the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that the petitioned action to list the
Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada
red fox is warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of the DPS
as endangered or threatened when we
develop a proposed listing
determination. However, as explained
in more detail below, an immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing
this action is precluded by higher
priority listing actions, and progress is
being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available
information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the Sierra
Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox at
risk of extinction now such that issuing
an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act is warranted. We determined
that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the DPS is not
warranted for the DPS at this time
because the threats facing the DPS are
not of an imminent nature that
necessitate emergency listing, and the
best available scientific and commercial
information do not indicate that the
Sonora Pass population is at imminent
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
risk of extinction. However, if at any
time we determine that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the Sierra Nevada DPS of the
Sierra Nevada red fox is warranted, we
will initiate the action at that time.
Listing Priority Number—Sierra Nevada
DPS
The Service adopted guidelines on
September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to
establish a rational system for utilizing
available resources for the highest
priority species when adding species to
the Lists of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). These
guidelines, titled ‘‘Endangered and
Threatened Species Listing and
Recovery Priority Guidelines,’’ address
the immediacy and magnitude of
threats, and the level of taxonomic
distinctiveness by assigning priority in
descending order to monotypic genera
(genus with one species), full species,
and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct
population segments of vertebrates). We
assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the
Sierra Nevada red fox a listing priority
number (LPN) of 3 based on our finding
that the DPS faces threats that are of
high magnitude and are imminent.
These threats include impacts
associated with small population size
(e.g., inbreeding depression, insufficient
reproduction) and hybridization with
nonnative red fox. This is the highest
priority that can be provided to a DPS
of a subspecies under our guidance. Our
rationale for assigning the Sierra Nevada
DPS an LPN of 3 is outlined below.
Under the Service’s LPN Guidance,
the magnitude of threat is the first
criterion we look at when establishing a
listing priority. The guidance indicates
that ‘‘species’’ (defined by the Act to
include biological subspecies and
distinct vertebrate population segments)
with the highest magnitude of threat are
those species facing the greatest threats
to their continued existence. These
species receive the highest listing
priority.
The threats that the Sierra Nevada
DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox fox are
high in magnitude because the major
threats (hybridization with nonnative
red fox and inbreeding depression and
insufficient reproduction associated
with small population size) occur
throughout the range of the Sierra
Nevada DPS. The severity of the effects
of these threats and the rapidity with
which they have caused impacts is high
given that a minimum of 11 hybrid pups
have been produced since 2013 in a
population with an overall population
size of fewer than 50 individuals. In
addition, during 2013 and 2014, no
successful fully native reproduction was
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
documented (only hybrid reproduction
was documented), suggesting that
hybridization is negatively affecting
native Sierra Nevada red fox
reproduction within the Sierra Nevada
DPS. The Sonora Pass population is the
only known remaining representative of
the Sierra Nevada DPS; thus, threats to
the population constitute threats to the
DPS as a whole, and loss of the
population would constitute permanent
loss of the DPS as a whole. There also
is no information to indicate that any
ongoing conservation efforts are likely
to reduce the severity of these threats
into the foreseeable future.
Under our LPN guidance, the second
criterion we consider in assigning a
listing priority is the immediacy of
threats. This criterion is intended to
ensure that the species that face actual,
identifiable threats are given priority
over those for which threats are only
potential or that are intrinsically
vulnerable but are not known to be
presently facing such threats. We
consider the threats facing the Sierra
Nevada DPS to be imminent because we
have factual information that the threats
are identifiable and that the Sierra
Nevada DPS is currently facing them
throughout its range. These actual,
identifiable threats are covered in detail
under the discussion of Factors within
this finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS,
and currently include hybridization
with nonnative red fox, and inbreeding
depression and insufficient
reproduction associated with small
population size. In addition to their
current existence, we expect these
threats to continue and likely intensify
in the foreseeable future as there is no
information to indicate that any ongoing
conservation efforts are occurring or
likely to reduce the imminence of these
threats into the future. Because these
threats are currently occurring, they are
imminent.
The third criterion in our LPN
guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing
highly distinctive or isolated gene pools
as reflected by taxonomy. The Sierra
Nevada DPS is an entity that receives a
lower priority than would a species as
a whole, particularly if the species were
the only one in its genus. The Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox faces high-magnitude and imminent
threats, and is a valid taxon at the
subspecies (and DPS) level. Thus, in
accordance with our LPN guidance, we
have assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS an
LPN of 3.
We will continue to monitor the
threats to the Sierra Nevada DPS, and
the DPS’s status on an annual basis, and
should the magnitude or the imminence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
of the threats change, we will revisit our
assessment of the LPN.
Work on a proposed listing
determination for the Sierra Nevada
DPS is precluded by work on higher
priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or courtapproved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that
were proposed for listing with funds
from Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. This
work includes all the actions listed in
the tables below under expeditious
progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
To make a finding that a particular
action is warranted-but-precluded, the
Service must make two findings: (1)
That the immediate proposal and timely
promulgation of a final regulation is
precluded by pending listing proposals,
and (2) that expeditious progress is
being made to add qualified species to
either of the Lists and to remove species
from the Lists (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
Preclusion
A listing proposal is precluded if the
Service does not have sufficient
resources available to complete the
proposal, because there are competing
demands for those resources, and the
relative priority of those competing
demands is higher. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate
whether it will be possible to undertake
work on a listing proposal regulation or
whether promulgation of such a
proposal is precluded by higher priority
listing actions—(1) The amount of
resources available for completing the
listing function, (2) the estimated cost of
completing the proposed listing, and (3)
the Service’s workload and
prioritization of the proposed listing in
relation to other actions.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
statutory cap on funds that may be
expended for the Listing Program. This
spending cap was designed to prevent
the listing function from depleting
funds needed for other functions under
the Act (for example, recovery
functions, such as removing species
from the Lists), or for other Service
programs (see House Report 105–163,
105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1,
1997). The funds within the spending
cap are available to support work
involving the following listing actions:
Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61023
and 12-month findings on petitions to
add species to the Lists or to change the
status of a species from threatened to
endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’
petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as
required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of
the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and
litigation-related, administrative, and
program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional
and public inquiries, and conducting
public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat).
We cannot spend more for the Listing
Program than the amount of funds
within the spending cap without
violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since
FY 2002, the Service’s budget has
included a critical habitat subcap to
ensure that some funds are available for
completing Listing Program actions
other than critical habitat designations
(‘‘The critical habitat designation
subcap will ensure that some funding is
available to address other listing
activities’’ (House Report No. 107–103,
107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until
FY 2006, the Service had to use
virtually the entire critical habitat
subcap to address court-mandated
designations of critical habitat, and
consequently none of the critical habitat
subcap funds were available for other
listing activities. In some FYs since
2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations for
high-priority candidate species. In other
FYs, while we were unable to use any
of the critical habitat subcap funds to
fund proposed listing determinations,
we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some
proposed listing determinations so that
the proposed listing determination and
proposed critical habitat designation
could be combined into one rule,
thereby being more efficient in our
work. In FY 2014, based on the Service’s
workload, we were able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations.
For FY 2012, Congress also put in
place two additional subcaps within the
listing cap: One for listing actions for
foreign species and one for petition
findings. As with the critical habitat
subcap, if the Service does not need to
use all of the funds within the subcap,
we are able to use the remaining funds
for completing proposed or final listing
determinations. To date, in FY 2015,
based on the Service’s workload, we
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61024
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
have not yet determined if we are able
to use some of the funds within the
foreign species subcap and the petitions
subcap to fund proposed listing
determinations.
We make our determinations of
preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget
on a nationwide basis. Through the
listing cap, the three subcaps, and the
amount of funds needed to complete
court-mandated actions within those
subcaps, Congress and the courts have
in effect determined the amount of
money available for other listing
activities nationwide. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap—other than
those within the subcaps needed to
comply with court orders or courtapproved settlement agreements
requiring critical habitat actions for
already-listed species, listing actions for
foreign species, and petition findings—
set the framework within which we
make our determinations of preclusion
and expeditious progress.
For FY 2015, on December 16, 2014,
Congress passed a Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2015 (Pub. L. 113–235), which provides
funding through September 30, 2015, at
the same level as FY 2014. In particular,
it includes an overall spending cap of
$20,515,000 for the listing program. Of
that, no more than $1,504,000 can be
used for listing actions for foreign
species, and no more than $1,501,000
can be used to make 90-day or 12-month
findings on petitions. The Service thus
has $12,905,000 available to work on
proposed and final listing
determinations for domestic species. In
addition, if the Service has funding
available within the critical habitat,
foreign species, or petition subcaps after
those workloads had been completed, it
can use those funds to work on listing
actions other than critical habitat
designations or foreign species.
Costs of Listing Actions. The work
involved in preparing various listing
documents can be extensive, and may
include, but is not limited to: Gathering
and assessing the best scientific and
commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis
for our decisions; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining,
reviewing, and evaluating public
comments and peer review comments
on proposed rules and incorporating
relevant information into final rules.
The number of listing actions that we
can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex
actions generally are more costly. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
median cost for preparing and
publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276;
for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a
proposed rule with critical habitat,
$345,000; and for a final listing rule
with critical habitat, $305,000.
Prioritizing Listing Actions. The
Service’s Listing Program workload is
broadly composed of four types of
actions, which the Service prioritizes as
follows: (1) Compliance with court
orders and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition
findings or listing or critical habitat
determinations be completed by a
specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act)
listing and critical habitat actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; (3)
essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and (4) section 4
listing actions that do not have absolute
statutory deadlines. In FY 2010, the
Service received many new petitions
and a single petition to list 404 species,
significantly increasing the number of
actions within the second category of
our workload—actions that have
absolute statutory deadlines. As a result
of the petitions to list hundreds of
species, we currently have over 460 12month petition findings yet to be
initiated and completed.
To prioritize within each of the four
types of actions, we developed
guidelines for assigning a listing priority
number (LPN) for each candidate
species (48 FR 43098, September 21,
1983). Under these guidelines, we
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12,
depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of
threats (imminent or nonimminent), and
taxonomic status of the species (in order
of priority: Monotypic genus (a species
that is the sole member of a genus);
species; or part of a species (subspecies
or distinct population segment)). The
lower the listing priority number, the
higher the listing priority (that is, a
species with an LPN of 1 would have
the highest listing priority). A species
with a higher LPN would generally be
precluded from listing by species with
lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed
rule for the species with the higher LPN
can be combined with work on a
proposed rule for other high-priority
species. This is not the case for Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox. Thus, in addition to being
precluded by the lack of available
resources, the Sierra Nevada DPS of the
Sierra Nevada red fox with an LPN of
3, is also precluded by work on
proposed listing determinations for
those candidate species with a higher
listing priority.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered species are lower priority,
because as listed species, they are
already afforded the protections of the
Act and implementing regulations.
However, for efficiency reasons, we may
choose to work on a proposed rule to
reclassify a species to endangered if we
can combine this with work that is
subject to a court-determined deadline.
Since before Congress first established
the spending cap for the Listing Program
in 1998, the Listing Program workload
has required considerably more
resources than the amount of funds
Congress has allowed for the Listing
Program. It is therefore important that
we be as efficient as possible in our
listing process. Therefore, as we
implement our listing work plan and
work on proposed rules for the highest
priority species in the next several
years, we are preparing multi-species
proposals when appropriate, and these
may include species with lower priority
if they overlap geographically or have
the same threats as one of the highest
priority species. In addition, we take
into consideration the availability of
staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive
funding to minimize the amount of time
and resources required to complete each
listing action.
Listing Program Workload. Each FY
we determine, based on the amount of
funding Congress has made available
within the Listing Program spending
cap, specifically which actions we will
have the resources to work on in that
FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables
that identify the actions that we are
funding for that FY, and how much we
estimate it will cost to complete each
action; these Allocation Tables are part
of our record for this notice and the
listing program. Our Allocation Table
for FY 2012, which incorporated the
Service’s approach to prioritizing its
workload, was adopted as part of a
settlement agreement in a case before
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Endangered Species Act
Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10–
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL
Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D. D.C.
May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement
Agreement’’)). The requirements of
paragraphs 1 through 7 of that
settlement agreement, combined with
the work plan attached to the agreement
as Exhibit B, reflected the Service’s
Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY
2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through
7 of the agreement require the Service
to take numerous other actions through
FY 2017—in particular, complete either
a proposed listing rule or a not-
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
warranted finding for all 251 species
designated as ‘‘candidates’’ in the 2010
candidate notice of review (‘‘CNOR’’)
before the end of FY 2016, and complete
final listing determinations within one
year of proposing to list any of those
species. Paragraph 10 of that settlement
agreement sets forth the Service’s
conclusion that ‘‘fulfilling the
commitments set forth in this
Agreement, along with other
commitments required by court orders
or court-approved settlement
agreements already in existence at the
signing of this Settlement Agreement
(listed in Exhibit A), will require
substantially all of the resources in the
Listing Program.’’ As part of the same
lawsuit, the court also approved a
separate settlement agreement with the
other plaintiff in the case; that
settlement agreement requires the
Service to complete additional actions
in specific fiscal years—including 12month petition findings for 11 species,
90-day petition findings for 477 species,
and proposed listing determinations or
not-warranted findings for 39 species.
These settlement agreements have led
to a number of results that affect our
preclusion analysis. First, the Service
has been, and will continue to be,
limited in the extent to which it can
undertake additional actions within the
Listing Program through FY 2017,
beyond what is required by the MDL
settlement agreements. Second, because
the settlement is court approved, two
broad categories of actions now fall
within the Service’s highest priority
(compliance with a court order): (1) The
Service’s entire prioritized workload for
FY 2012, as reflected in its Allocation
Table; and (2) completion, before the
end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or
not-warranted findings for those
candidate species that were included in
the 2010 CNOR where we have not
already published a not-warranted
finding or proposed rule. Therefore,
each year, one of the Service’s highest
priorities is to make steady progress
towards completing by the end of 2017
proposed and final listing
determinations for the 2010 candidate
species—based on its LPN prioritization
system, preparing multi-species actions
when appropriate, and taking into
consideration the availability of staff
resources.
The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra
Nevada red fox was not listed as a
candidate in the 2010 CNOR, nor was
the proposed listing for the Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red
fox included in the Allocation Tables
that were reflected in the MDL
settlement agreement. As we have
discussed above, we have assigned an
LPN of 3 to the Sierra Nevada DPS of
the Sierra Nevada red fox. Therefore,
even if the Service has some additional
funding after completing all of the work
required by court orders and courtapproved settlement agreements, we
would first fund actions with absolute
statutory deadlines for species that have
lower LPNs. In light of all of these
factors, funding a proposed listing for
the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra
Nevada red fox is precluded by courtordered and court-approved settlement
agreements, listing actions with absolute
statutory deadlines, and work on
proposed listing determinations for
those candidate species with a lower
LPN.
Expeditious Progress
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted but precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add and
remove qualified species to and from
the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’
finding, the evaluation of whether
progress in adding qualified species to
the Lists has been expeditious is a
function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for
those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the
resources available for delisting, which
is funded by a separate line item in the
budget of the Endangered Species
Program. Thus far, during FY 2015, we
delisted the Oregon chub due to
recovery (80 FR 9126–9150). As
discussed below, given the limited
resources available for listing, we find
that we are making expeditious progress
in FY 2015 in the Listing Program.
61025
We provide below tables cataloguing
the work of the Service’s Listing
Program in FY 2015. This work includes
all three of the steps necessary for
adding species to the Lists: (1)
Identifying species that warrant listing;
(2) undertaking the evaluation of the
best available scientific information
about those species and the threats they
face, and preparing proposed and final
listing rules; and (3) adding species to
the Lists by publishing proposed and
final listing rules that include a
summary of the data on which the rule
is based and show the relationship of
that data to the rule. After taking into
consideration the limited resources
available for listing, the competing
demands for those funds, and the
completed work catalogued in the tables
below, we find that we are making
expeditious progress to add qualified
species to the Lists FY 2015.
In addition to the work the Service
has completed towards adding qualified
species to the Lists, on May 10, 2011,
the Service filed in the MDL litigation
a settlement agreement that
incorporated the Service’s work plan for
FY 2012; the court approved that
settlement agreement on September 9,
2011. Paragraph 10 of that settlement
agreement provides, ‘‘The Parties agree
that the timetables for resolving the
status of candidate species outlined in
this Agreement constitute expeditious
progress in adding qualified species to
the lists of threatened and endangered
species.’’ The Service also filed a second
settlement agreement that required even
more work in FY 2012. The Service had
already begun in FY 2011 to implement
that work required by the work plan,
and many of these initial actions in our
work plan include work on proposed
rules for candidate species with an LPN
of 2 or 3. Therefore, both by entering
into the first settlement agreement and
by completing the listing actions
required by both settlement agreements,
the Service is making expeditious
progress to add qualified species to the
lists. As provided for in the settlement
agreements and the work plan
incorporated into the first agreement,
the Service’s progress in FY 2015
include completing and publishing the
following determinations:
FY 2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS
Publication date
Title
Actions
10/24/2014 ....................
Threatened Species Status for Dakota Skipper and Endangered Species Status for
Poweshiek Skipperling.
Threatened Species Status for Gunnison
sage-grouse.
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened .....
79 FR 6367–63748
Final Listing Threatened .................................
79 FR 69191–69310
11/20/2014 ....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
FR Pages
08OCP3
61026
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
FY 2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
12/11/2014 ....................
Threatened Species Status for the Rufa Red
Knot.
90-day finding on Monarch Butterfly and California Gnatcatcher.
Threatened Species Status for the Northern
Long-eared Bat with 4(d) Rule.
Endangered Species Status for the Big
Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River
Crayfish.
12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Humboldt Marten as an Endangered or Threatened Species.
90-Day Findings on Ten Petitions (Clear Lake
hitch, Mojave shoulderband snail, Northern
spotted owl, Relict dace, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, Western pond
turtle, Yellow-cedar, Egyptian tortoise,
Golden conure, Long-tailed chinchilla).
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the
Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of
Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat.
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
Leona’s Little Blue Butterfly as Endangered
or Threatened.
90-day Petition Findings on 31 Species .........
Final Listing Threatened .................................
79 FR 73705–73748
90-day petition finding Substantial ..................
79 FR 78775–78778
Final Listing Threatened .................................
80 FR 17973–18033
12-month petition finding Warranted Proposed Listing Endangered.
80 FR 18710–18739
12-month petition finding Not warranted ........
80 FR 18742–18772
90-day petition finding Substantial ..................
80 FR 19259–19263
Proposed Rule Withdrawal .............................
80 FR 22828–22866
12-month petition finding Not warranted ........
80 FR 35916–35931
90-day petition finding Substantial and not
substantial (not substantial for Gray Wolf,
Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander, California giant salamander, Caddo Mountain
salamander, Colorado checkered whiptail,
the DPS of Wild Horse, Olympic torrent
salamander, Pigeon Mountain salamander,
Weller’s salamander and wingtail crayfish;
substantial for alligator snapping turtle,
Apalachicola kingsnake, Arizona toad,
Blanding’s turtle, Cascade Caverns salamander, Cascades frog, Cedar Key mole
skink, foothill yellow-legged frog, gopher
frog, green salamander, Illinois chorus frog,
Kern Canyon slender salamander, Key
ringneck snake, Oregon slender salamander, Relictual slender salamander, Rim
Rock crowned snake, Rio Grande cooter,
silvery phacelia, spotted turtle, southern
hog-nosed snake, and western spadefoot
toad).
12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal.
80 FR 37568–37579
Proposed Listing Threatened ..........................
80 FR 55304–55321
90-day petition finding Substantial and not
substantial (not substantial for Cahaba
pebblesnail and the Stephens’ kangaroo
rat; substantial for Blue Calamintha bee,
California spotted owl, Cascade torrent salamander, Columbia torrent salamander,
Florida pine snake, Inyo Mountains salamander, Kern Plateau salamander, lesser
slender salamander, limestone salamander,
northern bog lemming, Panamint alligator
lizard, Peaks of Otter salamander, rustypatched bumblebee, Shasta salamander,
short-tailed snake, southern rubber boa,
regal fritillary, Tinian monarch, tricolored
blackbird, tufted puffin, Virgin River
spinedace, wood turtle, and the Yuman
desert fringe-toed lizard).
80 FR 56423–56432
12/31/2014 ....................
4/2/2015 ........................
4/7/2015 ........................
4/7/2015 ........................
4/10/2015 .....................
4/23/2015 .....................
6/23/2015 .....................
6/30/2015 .....................
9/15/2015 .....................
9/15/2015 .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9/18/2015 .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the
New England Cottontail as an Endangered
or Threatened Species.
Threatened Species Status for Platanthera
integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid).
90-Day Findings on 25 Petitions ....................
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
FR Pages
08OCP3
80 FR 55286–55304
61027
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
FY 2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued
Publication date
Title
Actions
9/29/2015 .....................
Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista
lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine Partridge
Pea),
Chamaesyce
deltoidea
ssp.
serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), and Linum
arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened
Species Status for Argythamnia blodgettii
(Blodgett’s Silverbush).
Endangered Status for 49 Species from the
Hawaiian Islands.
Threatened Species Status for Elfin-woods
warbler.
Threatened Species Status for Eastern
massasauga rattlesnake.
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened.
80 FR 58535–58567
Proposed Listing Endangered ........................
80 FR 58820–58909
Proposed listing Threatened ...........................
80 FR 58674–58688
Proposed listing Threatened ...........................
80 FR 58688–58701
9/30/15 ..........................
9/30/15 ..........................
9/30/15 ..........................
Our expeditious progress also
included work on listing actions that we
funded in previous fiscal years, and in
FY 2015, but have not yet been
completed to date. For these species, we
have completed the first step, and have
been working on the second step,
necessary for adding species to the Lists.
Some of these actions have been
submitted to the Federal Register;
however, they have not yet published in
the Federal Register. These actions are
FR Pages
listed below. Actions in the table are
being conducted under a deadline set by
a court through a court order or
settlement agreement.
FY15 ACTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED
Species
Action
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Greater Sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species.
Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big
Pine Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge
Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened Species
Status for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s Silverbush).
Endangered Status for 16 Species and Threatened Status for 7 Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Columbia spotted frog—Great Basin DPS ...............................................
Sequatchie caddisfly .................................................................................
Four florida plants (Florida pineland crabgrass, Florida prairie clover,
pineland sandmat, and Everglades bully).
Kentucky arrow darter ..............................................................................
Cumberland arrow darter .........................................................................
6 Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker Station, Fowler’s, Indian Grave Point,
inquirer, and Coleman).
Headwater chub .......................................................................................
Roundtail chub DPS .................................................................................
Page springsnail .......................................................................................
Sonoran desert tortoise ............................................................................
Goose Creek milkvetch ............................................................................
Sleeping Ute milkvetch .............................................................................
Suwannee moccasinshell .........................................................................
American eel .............................................................................................
12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal.
Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened.
Final Listing Endangered and Threatened.
12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal.
12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal.
12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal.
Proposed listing.
Proposed listing.
12-month petition
12-month petition
12-month petition
12-month petition
12-month petition
12-month petition
finding Not
finding Not
finding Not
finding Not
finding.
finding Not
warranted
warranted
warranted
warranted
Notice
Notice
Notice
Notice
warranted.
ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2015 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED
Species
Action
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
Washington ground squirrel .....................................................................
Xantus’s murrelet ......................................................................................
Black warrior waterdog .............................................................................
Black mudalia ...........................................................................................
Highlands tiger beetle ...............................................................................
Sicklefin redhorse .....................................................................................
Texas hornshell ........................................................................................
Guadalupe fescue ....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
listing.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
removal.
removal.
removal.
removal
61028
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2015 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued
Species
Action
Actions Subject to Statutory Deadline
Miami Tiger Beetle ...................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Another way that we have been
expeditious in making progress to add
qualified species to the Lists is that we
have endeavored to make our listing
actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations, and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale,
such as by batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these
efforts also contribute towards finding
that we are making expeditious progress
to add qualified species to the Lists.
The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra
Nevada red fox will be added to the list
of candidate species upon publication of
this 12-month finding. We will continue
to monitor the status of this DPS as new
information becomes available. This
review will determine if a change in
status is warranted, including the need
to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 07, 2015
Jkt 238001
90-day petition finding.
We intend that any proposed listing
action for the Sierra Nevada DPS of the
Sierra Nevada red fox will be as
accurate as possible. Therefore, we will
continue to accept additional
information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this
finding.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the Sierra Nevada DPS, the
Southern Cascades DPS, or the Sierra
Nevada red fox (in general) to our
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us
monitor Sierra Nevada red fox
throughout the subspecies’ range, and
encourage its conservation. If an
emergency situation develops for the
Sierra Nevada DPS, Southern Cascades
DPS, or the subspecies in general, we
will act to provide immediate
protection.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Pacific
Southwest Regional Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: September 29, 2015.
Signed:
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–25289 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15P
E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM
08OCP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60989-61028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25289]
[[Page 60989]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 195
October 8, 2015
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as an Endangered or Threatened
Species; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60990]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as an Endangered or
Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes
vulpes necator) as an endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the entire Sierra Nevada red fox subspecies is not warranted.
We were also petitioned to evaluate two populations within the
subspecies' range as potential distinct population segments (DPSs). We
find that both the Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada population
segments of the Sierra Nevada red fox meet the Service's DPS policy
criteria, and therefore are valid DPSs. After review of the best
available scientific and commercial information for these two DPSs, we
find that listing the Southern Cascades DPS is not warranted at this
time, and listing the Sierra Nevada DPS is warranted. Currently,
however, listing the Sierra Nevada DPS is precluded by higher priority
actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month finding, we will add the
Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox to our candidate species
list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the Sierra Nevada DPS as
our priorities allow. We will make a determination on critical habitat
during development of the proposed listing rule. In the interim period,
we will address the status of the candidate DPS through our annual
candidate notice of review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 8,
2015.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 916-414-6600; or by facsimile at 916-
414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document
We use many acronyms and abbreviations throughout this 12-month
finding. To assist the reader, we provide a list of these here for easy
reference:
Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.)
BWRA = Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area
CBD = Center for Biological Diversity
CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game (see below)
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
dbh = diameter at breast height
DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid
DPS = distinct population segment
EFF = elokomin fluke fever
Forest Service = U.S. Forest Service
FR = Federal Register
INRMP = integrated natural resources management plan
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISAB = Independent Scientific Advisory Board
LRMP = land and resource management plan
MWTC = Marine Warfare Training Center
mtDNA = mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid
NFMA = National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)
NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service
NPS = National Park Service
NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan
ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
OHV = off-highway vehicle
OPLMA = Omnibus Public Land Management Act (Pub. L. 111-11)
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SPD = salmon poisoning disease
SNFPA = Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
SPR = significant portion of [a species'] range
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 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 suggesting that listing a 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 that the petitioned
action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 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 (``warranted but precluded'').
Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for
which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as
though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these
12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On April 27, 2011, we received a petition dated April 27, 2011,
from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Sierra Nevada
red fox be listed as endangered or threatened, and that critical
habitat be designated under the Act. The petition also requested that
we evaluate two populations within the subspecies' range as potential
distinct population segments (DPSs) under the Service's DPS Policy: One
in the Southern Cascades (south of the Columbia River) and the other in
the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioner, as required by title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at section 424.14(a). In a May 24, 2011, letter to the
petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in
the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was
not warranted. We also stated that we were required to complete a
significant number of listing and critical habitat actions in Fiscal
Year 2011 pursuant to court orders, judicially approved settlement
agreements, and other statutory deadlines, but that we had secured
funding for Fiscal Year 2011 to allow publication of a finding in the
Federal Register in early Fiscal Year 2012.
On January 3, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a 90-day
finding (77 FR 45) that the petition presented
[[Page 60991]]
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted and
that initiated a status review. This notice constitutes the 12-month
finding on the April 27, 2011, petition to list the Sierra Nevada red
fox as an endangered or threatened species.
This finding is based upon the Species Report titled ``Species
Report, Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)'' (Service 2015)
(Species Report), a scientific analysis of available information
prepared by a team of Service biologists from the Service's Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls
Fish and Wildlife Office, Roseburg Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific
Southwest Regional Office, Pacific Regional Office, and National
Headquarters Office. The purpose of the Species Report is to provide
the best available scientific and commercial information about Sierra
Nevada red fox so that we can evaluate whether or not the subspecies
warrants protection under the Act. In it, we compiled the best
scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the
subspecies, including past, present, and future stressors. As such, the
Species Report provides the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decision in this document, which involves the further
application of standards within the Act and its regulations and
policies. The Species Report can be found on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103.
Summary of Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy, genetics, habitat use, life
history, range, distribution, and occurrence information for the Sierra
Nevada red fox is presented in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 6-
14), available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103; a summary of this information is
presented below. We used data specific to the Sierra Nevada red fox
when they were available. When such information was lacking, we relied
on information regarding other North American red fox subspecies in
general, including montane red fox such as Cascade red fox (Vulpes
vulpes cascadensis) or Rocky Mountain red fox (V.v. macroura), as well
as other subspecies of lowland red fox, such as the Sacramento Valley
red fox (V.v. patwin). We make these distinctions in the text that
follows, when applicable.
Sierra Nevada red fox is classified in the mammalian order
Carnivora, family Canidae, and is one of 10, 11, or 13 subspecies of
red fox recognized in North America by various sources (Hall 1981, p.
938; Larivi[eacute]re and Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, pp. 1-2; Aubry 1997,
p. 55; Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1523, 1535; ITIS 2014, p. 1). The Sierra
Nevada red fox can be distinguished from lowland-dwelling red fox
subspecies based on its smaller size and use of high-elevation, snow-
covered habitat (Roest 1977, p. 13; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). The
Sierra Nevada red fox was first described by Merriam (1900, pp. 662,
664) as the species Vulpes necator, but was redesignated as a
subspecies of North American red fox (Vulpes fulva necator) in 1936
(Bailey 1936, pp. 272, 317), and then as a subspecies of a single red
fox species stretching across Europe, Asia, and North America (Vulpes
vulpes necator) in 1957 (Churcher 1957, p. 202; Churcher 1959, p. 519).
The scientific community continues to recognize the Sierra Nevada red
fox as a subspecies (Roest 1977, p. 1; Larivi[eacute]re and
Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, pp. 1-2; Aubry 1997, p. 55; Sacks et al.
2010a, p. 1542). Therefore, we accept the classification of the Sierra
Nevada red fox as a subspecies of the red fox. Other red fox subspecies
found nearest the Sierra Nevada red fox's range include the closely
related and morphologically similar Cascade red fox (occurring in the
Washington Cascades north of the Columbia River (Sacks et al. 2010a,
pp. 1528, 1536), and the Sacramento Valley red fox (occurring in the
Sacramento Valley of California (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1523-1524,
1535)). Additionally, descendants of red fox originally imported from
eastern and more northern areas of North America into California and
Oregon as fur-farm stock (described as ``nonnative red fox'' herein)
reside in lowland areas of California and Oregon (Sacks et al. 2010a,
pp. 1524).
The red fox is a relatively small canid with an elongated snout,
large ears, slender legs and body, and a bushy tail with a white tip
(Larivi[eacute]re and Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, p. 2; Aubry 1997, p. 55;
Perrine 2005, p. 1; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). Red foxes typically
have primarily red fur, but can also occur in a ``cross phase''
(primarily grayish-brown, with darker lines along the back and
shoulders) or ``black phase'' (also called the silver phase; primarily
black with occasional silver guard hairs) (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 5). Cross and black phases are generally rare, but tend
to be more common in cold mountainous areas (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 5).
The Sierra Nevada red fox and two other montane subspecies (i.e.,
Cascades and Rocky Mountain red foxes) are characterized by specialized
adaptations to cold areas (Sacks et al. 2010a, p. 1524). Such
adaptations include a particularly thick and deep winter coat (Grinnell
et al. 1937, p. 377) and small toe pads (4 millimeters (mm) (0.2 inches
(in)) across or less) that are completely covered in winter by dense
fur to facilitate movement over snow (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. 378,
393; Sacks 2014a, p. 30). The Sierra Nevada red fox and other montane
subspecies also tend to be smaller than other red foxes (Perrine et al.
2010, p. 5), which may facilitate movement over snow by lowering weight
supported per square centimeter of footpad (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p.
17).
Sierra Nevada red fox use multiple habitat types in the alpine and
subalpine zones (near and above treeline) (California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) 1987, p. 3). In addition to meadows and rocky
areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2009, p. 506), Sierra
Nevada red fox use high-elevation conifer habitat of various types
(Perrine 2005, pp. 63-64). Nearest the treeline in the Lassen sighting
area, where habitat use has been best documented, the subspecies
frequents subalpine conifer habitat dominated by whitebark pine (Pinus
albicaulis) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) (Perrine 2005, pp.
6, 63-64; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) undated, p.
3; Verner and Purcell undated, p. 3). Such conifer habitat has been
described as typically ``open'' (Verner and Purcell undated, p. 1), and
``patchy'' (Lowden 2015, p. 1). We lack similarly specific habitat
descriptions for Oregon.
Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon, and at the Lassen sighting area in
California, have also been found to descend during winter months into
high-elevation conifer areas below the subalpine zone (Perrine 2005,
pp. 63-64; Aubry et al. 2015, p. 1). In the Lassen sighting area, this
habitat consists primarily of red fir (Abies magnifica), white fir
(Abies concolor), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) (Perrine 2005,
pp. 63-64; CDFW undated, p. 3; Barrett 1988, p. 3). Winter sightings
have occurred as low as 1,410 m (4,626 ft) in the Lassen sighting area
(Perrine 2005, pp. 2, 162), and 1,280 m (4,200 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et
al. 2015, p. 1). Possible reasons for this elevational migration
include lessened snow depths at lower elevations (Perrine 2005, pp. 80,
81), unsuccessful dispersal movements by nonbreeding individuals
(Statham et al. 2012, p. 130), and lack of suitable prey at high
elevations in the Lassen area (Perrine 2005, p. 30). While on these
lower winter ranges, the subspecies has
[[Page 60992]]
shown a preference for mature closed canopy conifer forests, despite
the rarity of this forest structural category (less than 7 percent) in
the area studied (Perrine 2005, pp. 67, 74, 90). Similar elevational
migrations are not known for the Sonora Pass sighting area (Statham et
al. 2012, p. 130).
Dispersal distances have not been documented for Sierra Nevada red
fox, but one study found juvenile male red foxes in the American
Midwest dispersed 30 km (18.6 mi) on average, while juvenile females
dispersed an average of 10 km (6.2 mi) (Statham et al. 2012, p. 130). A
few young American Midwest red foxes (5 percent) dispersed over 80 km
(50 mi) in their first year (Statham et al. 2012, p. 130).
Although little direct information exists regarding the Sierra
Nevada red fox's reproductive biology, there is no evidence to suggest
it is markedly different from lowland-dwelling North American red fox
subspecies (Aubry 1997, p. 57). Those subspecies are predominately
monogamous and mate over several weeks in the late winter and early
spring (Aubry 1997, p. 57). The gestation period for North American red
fox is 51 to 53 days, with birth occurring from March through May in
sheltered dens (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 14). Sierra Nevada red fox use
natural openings in rock piles at the base of cliffs and slopes as
denning sites (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 394). They may also dig earthen
dens similar to Cascade red foxes (although this has not been directly
documented) (Aubry 1997, p. 58; Perrine 2005, p. 153). Sierra Nevada
red fox litters are reported by Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 394) to
average six pups with a range of three to nine; however, recent
evidence suggests that litter sizes of two to three are more typical,
and that reproductive output is generally low in montane foxes (Perrine
2005, pp. 152-153).
Home range sizes of Sierra Nevada red fox have not been studied
throughout the range of the subspecies. However, Perrine (2005, pp. 2,
159) found within a portion of the Lassen sighting area that adult
Sierra Nevada red fox established summer home ranges averaging 2,564
hectares (ha) (6,336 acres (ac)), with individual home ranges ranging
from 262 ha (647 ac) to 6,981 ha (17,250 ac) (Perrine 2005, pp. 2,
159). Winter home ranges were larger, averaging 3,255 ha (8,042 ac) and
ranging from 326 to 6,685 ha (806 to 16,519 ac) (Perrine 2005, p. 159).
Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. 2, 9, 11) found within a portion of the
Sonora Pass sighting area that minimum home range estimates averaged
910 ha (2,249 ac), and were maintained both winter and summer.
The average lifespan, age-specific mortality rates, sex ratios, and
demographic structure of Sierra Nevada red fox populations are not
known, and are not easily extrapolated from other red fox subspecies
because heavy hunting and trapping pressure on those other subspecies
likely skew study results (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 18). However, one
study within a portion of the Lassen sighting area found that three
Sierra Nevada red fox lived at least 5.5 years (CDFW 2015, p. 1), and a
another study within a portion of the Sonora Pass sighting area found
the average annual adult survival rate to be 82 percent, which is
relatively high for red foxes (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 14-15,
24).
Sierra Nevada red fox appear to be opportunistic predators and
foragers, with a diet primarily composed of small rodents, but also
including deer carrion (Odocoileus hemionus) (particularly in winter
and spring) and manzanita berries (Arctostaphylos nevadensis)
(particularly in fall) (Perrine et al. 2010, pp. 24, 30, 32-33). Sierra
Nevada red fox are most active at dusk and at night (Perrine 2005, p.
114), when many rodents are most active. High-elevation lagomorphs,
such as snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) and pika (Ochotona princeps),
also are diet components of the subspecies, although they were not an
important food source in the Lassen sighting area, possibly due to
scarcity in the region (Perrine 2005, pp. 29-30).
Distribution/Range
In 1937, Grinnell et al. (1937, pp. 381-382) defined the range of
the Sierra Nevada red fox in California as three separate areas: (1)
The area of Mt. Shasta, primarily in the Cascades but extending
slightly into the Trinity Mountains; (2) in the California Cascades
around Lassen Peak; and (3) along the upper elevations of the Sierra
Nevada Mountain Range from Tulare to Sierra Counties. A study by Sacks
et al. (2010a, p. 1536) extended the historical range into the Cascade
Mountains of Oregon to the Columbia River. This range includes those
mountainous areas that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in California (Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 8) and 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015,
pp. 2-3; Doerr 2015, pp. 2-3, 13-14, line 7). We note that the
historical range description for Sierra Nevada red fox provided earlier
by Grinnell et al. (1937, pp. 381-382) did not include the Oregon
Cascades, because it was presumed these montane fox were the Cascades
red fox subspecies.
At the time of the 90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012), the
distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox was believed to be restricted to
two small populations: One in the vicinity of Lassen Peak (Perrine
2005, p. 105; California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2011, pp.
54-60) and the other in the vicinity of Sonora Pass (Perrine et al.
2010, notes in proof; CNDDB 2011, pp. 54-60). Both these populations
are on Federal lands, with the exception of some small private
inholdings in the Lassen area. Systematic carnivore surveys conducted
from 1996 to 2002 throughout the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Mountains
of California did not detect any Sierra Nevada red fox (Zielinski et
al. 2005, pp. 1385, 1387), indicating the subspecies was likely
extirpated or in low densities in the regions sampled; according to
Figures 1 and 3 in Zielinski et al. (2005, pp. 1387, 1389), the
currently known Lassen sighting area was within the 1996-2002 sampling
area. The population levels of Sierra Nevada red fox at that time were
unknown, but the subspecies was believed to occur at very low density
(Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9).
Following publication of our 90-day finding in the Federal Register
(77 FR 45; January 3, 2012), the Sierra Nevada red fox's range has been
confirmed (via a combination of genetics and photographic evidence) to
extend into the Oregon Cascades (Figure 1, below) as far north as Mt.
Hood, significantly extending the subspecies' range beyond its
historically known range in California. Specifically, five sighting
areas (i.e., clustered locations of recent Sierra Nevada red fox
sightings) have been identified on Federal lands in Oregon where
surveys have occurred, in addition to the two known sighting areas in
California as described in the 90-day finding (77 FR 45). Sierra Nevada
red fox are thus known from a total of seven sighting areas, located in
the vicinity of (north to south) Mt. Hood, Mt. Washington, Dutchman
Flat, Willamette Pass, and Crater Lake in Oregon; and Lassen and Sonora
Pass in California (Figure 1, below). The two California sighting areas
were known in the 1930s to be occupied by Sierra Nevada red fox
(Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. 381-382) and were found to still be occupied
in 1993 and 2010 (Perrine 2005, pp. 4, 167-168; Statham et al. 2012, p.
123). The five Oregon sighting areas were first identified in 2012 and
2013, after publication of our 90-day finding (77 FR 45). Additional
sightings within the current Oregon sighting areas have been reported
as recently as 2014 (e.g., Doerr 2015, pp. 1, 8, 11-14), and surveys in
portions of the subspecies' range are ongoing.
[[Page 60993]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC15.004
It is possible that Sierra Nevada red foxes may occur in additional
areas beyond the seven specific sighting areas described above,
particularly in the Oregon Cascades within any areas of suitable
habitat that have not been surveyed, or have been surveyed only
sporadically.
Population/Abundance Information
Based on interviews with trappers, Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 390)
described Sierra Nevada red fox population numbers as ``relatively
small, even in the most favorable territory,'' and reported that Sierra
Nevada red fox likely occurred at densities of 1 per 2.6 square km (1
per square mi). Perrine et
[[Page 60994]]
al. (2010, p. 9) concluded from this that Sierra Nevada red fox likely
occur at low population densities even within areas of high relative
abundance.
Historical trapping information in California from CDFW and Schempf
and White (1977, p. 44) indicates that the numbers of Sierra Nevada red
fox numbers trapped in California fell considerably in the mid-1900s as
compared to trapping data reported by Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 389).
The average annual harvest of Sierra Nevada red fox pelts in California
declined from the 1920s (21 pelts per year) to the 1940s and 1950s
(6.75 pelts per year) (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 389; Perrine 2005, p.
154). Sightings became rare after the 1940s (about twice per year in
the 1950s and 1960s) (Schempf and White 1977, p. 44). The reduced
harvest and sightings of Sierra Nevada red fox in California led to a
prohibition on red fox trapping throughout the State in 1974, and to
listing the subspecies as threatened under the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) in 1980 (Statham et al. 2012, p. 123). We note that
fur trapping for red fox (regardless of the subspecies or origin) in
Oregon remains legal Statewide.
Information (both historical and current) is not available
regarding the abundance or trends of Sierra Nevada red fox populations
in Oregon, particularly given the very recent discovery of this
subspecies' occupation at multiple sighting areas within the Oregon
Cascades. However, the best available information since the 90-day
finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012) indicates multiple individuals have
been identified in five sighting areas (5 genetic records and 10
photographic records at Mt. Hood; 1 to 4 records each at the remaining
four Oregon sighting areas) (Table 1, below). Surveys are ongoing in
the Oregon portion of the subspecies' range, and we anticipate
additional sightings and individuals to be identified with continued
surveys in suitable habitat areas.
Table 1--Current Known Sighting Areas of Sierra Nevada Red Fox in Oregon and California
[north to south]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary land Estimated
Location \1\ State County owners \2\ population size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Hood........................ OR............... Clackamas and Hood Mt Hood National Unknown.
River. Forest.
Mt. Washington.................. OR............... Linn, Jefferson, Willamette and Unknown.
and Deschutes. Deschutes
National Forests.
Dutchman Flat................... OR............... Deschutes.......... Deschutes National Unknown.
Forest.
Willamette Pass................. OR............... Lane............... Willamette Unknown.
National Forest.
Crater Lake..................... OR............... Klamath and Douglas Crater Lake Unknown.
National Park,
Rogue River-
Siskiyou National
Forest, Fremont-
Winema National
Forest.
Lassen.......................... CA............... Lassen, Plumas, and Lassen National 42 adults
Tehama. Forest and Lassen (21 breeding, 21
Volcanic National nonbreeding \3\
Park.
Sonora Pass..................... CA............... Tuolumne, Mono, and Toiyabe portion of 29 adults
Alpine. the Humboldt- (14 breeding, 15
Toiyabe National nonbreeding.\4\
Forest,
Stanislaus
National Forest,
and Yosemite
National Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas may not be the same as the actual number of populations.
Researchers have not yet determined the precise number or locations of Sierra Nevada red fox populations that
reside in the Oregon Cascades.
\2\ Land ownership for known sighting areas is based on surveys that have primarily occurred to date on Federal
lands. It is likely that Sierra Nevada red fox reside within contiguous, suitable habitat on intervening or
adjacent private/public lands where surveys have not yet occurred.
\3\ Twenty-one breeding adults, with 95 percent confidence interval of 13 to 34 (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1532,
1536-1537). Twenty-one nonbreeding adults (estimated range of 0 to 42, based on rough estimates of ratios of
nonbreeders to breeders in other red fox subspecies) (Sacks 2015, pp. 1-2).
\4\ Fourteen breeding adults (estimated range 10 to 20) (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 14). Fifteen nonbreeding
adults (estimated range of 0 to 30, based on rough estimates of ratios of nonbreeders to breeders in other red
fox subspecies) (Sacks 2015, pp. 1-2; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14).
The best available information for the Sierra Nevada red fox
sighting areas (north to south) is summarized below. More information
is available for the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas because they
have been studied more thoroughly, and over a longer time.
Mt. Hood sighting area--This sighting area includes the
general vicinity surrounding Mt. Hood. Lands within this sighting area
are owned and managed by Mt. Hood National Forest. Approximately 15
sightings of Sierra Nevada red fox (consisting either of photographs or
genetically tested scat or hair) have been made in the area, and three
individuals have been distinguished from the Mt. Hood sighting area
(Akins 2014, entire; Akins and Sacks 2014, entire; Akins and Sacks
2015, p. 1). At this time, there are no empirical data on which to base
an estimate of either current population(s) abundance or trend of
Sierra Nevada red fox within this sighting area.
Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat, Willamette Pass, and Crater
Lake sighting areas--Lands within these sighting areas are owned and
managed by: (1) Willamette and Deschutes National Forest (Mt.
Washington); Deschutes National Forest (Dutchman Flat); Willamette
National Forest (Willamette Pass); and Crater Lake National Park, and
Rogue-River-Siskiyou and Fremont-Winema National Forests (Crater Lake).
At this time, similar to the Mt. Hood sighting area, there are no
empirical data on which to base an estimate of either current
population(s) abundance or trend of Sierra Nevada red fox within these
sighting areas.
Lassen sighting area--This sighting area includes lands
managed by Lassen National Forest and Lassen Volcanic National Park
(including the Caribou Wilderness), and some private inholdings
primarily as timberlands (CDFW 2015, p. 1). Sacks et al. (2010a, pp.
1532, 1536-1537) estimated that the effective size of the population at
the Lassen sighting area (referred to in the study as the modern
Southern Cascades population) is 21 breeding individuals, with a 95
percent confidence interval of 13 to 34 breeding individuals (see also
Statham et al. 2012, pp. 122, 123). The ``effective size'' of the
population refers to the number of breeding individuals in
[[Page 60995]]
an ``ideal'' population (with discreet, non-overlapping generations,
equal contribution of all members to the next generation, and free
mixing prior to mate choice) that experiences the same amount of
genetic drift (random change in gene frequencies) as the actual
population (Lande and Barrowclough 1987, pp. 88-89). Actual Sierra
Nevada red fox populations are likely to be somewhat larger than their
effective population sizes because they include non-breeding
individuals, including pups, and (possibly) adult offspring remaining
on their parent's territory to help raise their siblings. Such
``helpers'' are not uncommon in other red fox subspecies, though clear
evidence of them has not been demonstrated in Sierra Nevada red fox
(Wildlife Online 2015, p. 60; Sacks 2015, pp. 1-2). A high-end estimate
of actual population size for the Lassen sighting area might therefore
assume two non-breeders for every breeder, resulting in a total
population of about 63 individuals (Sacks 2015, p. 2).
CDFW obtained 187 Sierra Nevada red fox scat and hair samples from
the Lassen sighting area between 2007 and 2013, and was able to
genetically identify 18 separate individuals from those samples (CDFW
2015, p. 1), thereby tending to support the low effective population
size estimate (i.e., 21 breeding individuals) of Sacks et al. (2010a,
p. 1532). CDFW was also able to identify the source individuals for
over 100 Sierra Nevada red fox genetic samples collected within the
Caribou Wilderness (immediately east of Lassen Volcanic National Park
within the sighting area) in 2012 and 2013, finding that no new
individuals (i.e., offspring) entered the population within the study
area during those years (CDFW 2015, p. 2). Thus, successful
reproduction in that portion of the sighting area during those years
was low or nonexistent. However, CDFW cameras did photograph a Sierra
Nevada red fox near the Caribou Wilderness in 2009 that appeared
visibly pregnant (CDFW 2015, p. 2).
Sonora Pass sighting area--This sighting area includes the
general vicinity surrounding Sonora Pass, which includes lands that are
owned and managed by Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Stanislaus
National Forest, and Yosemite National Park. The Sonora Pass sighting
area includes several multi-year Sierra Nevada red fox residents (Quinn
and Sacks 2014, p. 2), and so may be considered a population site
rather than merely a dispersal area from some undiscovered population.
Researchers (Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3) conducting a 3-year study in a
portion of the sighting area from October 2011 through September 2014
used genetic tests to identify eight individuals. With the exception of
a female killed on U.S. Highway 395, possibly while dispersing, all
Sierra Nevada red fox sightings were found within an area of 13,000 ha
(32,124 ac), extending both north and south from California State Route
108, within 3 km of the Sierra Crest (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 10).
This study area constituted 20 to 50 percent of the contiguous high-
quality habitat for the subspecies in the region (Quinn and Sacks 2014,
p. 14), with the remainder of the high-quality habitat primarily
extending south into the northern portion of Yosemite National Park
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 36). Thus, the Sacks et al. (2015,
entire) study area south into the northern portion of Yosemite National
Park is what we have roughly defined as the Sonora Pass sighting area.
However, we note that this sighting area has been poorly surveyed for
Sierra Nevada red fox due to rough terrain. It is likely that the data
obtained by Quinn and Sacks (2014, entire) is representative of the
entire population in the region because the area studied was of high
quality habitat similar to the rest of the high quality habitat in the
region (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14), and because the area studied was
large enough to support the assumption that the Sierra Nevada red fox
included in the study were representative of the larger population
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 14).
Based on the extent of suitable habitat in the Sonora Pass sighting
area, and on the number of adult Sierra Nevada red fox per hectare in
the surveyed portion of the habitat at any given time (usually six
adults in 13,000 ha (32,124 ac)), Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. 3, 11, 14)
estimated the total number of adult Sierra Nevada red fox in the entire
Sonora Pass sighting area to be 14, with a likely range of 10 to 20.
Repeated resampling of individuals over the 3-year study period (2011
through 2014) suggests that most adults with territories overlapping
the study area were found (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14). However, Quinn
and Sacks (2014, pp. 11, 14; Sacks 2015, p. 1) indicated their
estimates were ``crude,'' and that the total number of adults in the
population could possibly be as high as 50 due to the presence of
nonbreeding helpers at natal den sites.
Low population size estimates for the Sonora Pass sighting area
were also supported by analyses of genetic diversity (Quinn and Sacks
2014, pp. 13-14). For instance, the average heterozygosity (a measure
of genetic diversity) in nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA; from the
cell nucleus) for Sierra Nevada red fox (0.44) was lower than at the
Lassen sighting area (0.53), suggesting that the population size at the
Sonora Pass sighting area may be smaller (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13-
14). Current heterozygosity levels at the Sonora Pass sighting area are
also considerably lower than heterozygosity levels present historically
(0.64), thus indicating a negative trend in population size (Quinn and
Sacks 2014, pp. 13-14). Reductions in the diversity of mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) since historical times also indicate a decline in
population numbers (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14).
Sacks et al. (2015, pp. 3, 9) found no evidence to indicate that
any Sierra Nevada red fox successfully produced surviving, non-hybrid
pups during their 3-year period within the study area at the Sonora
Pass sighting area. However, two adult females were determined
genetically to be the daughters of a known breeding Sierra Nevada red
fox pair (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 9). Additionally, we note that
hybridization of Sierra Nevada red fox with nonnative red fox is also
known to occur within this small population (see Hybridization With
Nonnative Red Fox, below).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species based on any of the following 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.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the Sierra Nevada
red fox in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the mere exposure
of the species to a particular factor to evaluate whether the species
may respond to that factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor but no response, or only a
positive response,
[[Page 60996]]
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine if that factor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened
species as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that the species warrants listing. The
information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that
the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species
under the Act.
An analysis of the potential threats for the Sierra Nevada red fox
is included in the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) associated
with this document (and available at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103). All potential threats (identified in
the Species Report as ``stressors'' or ``potential stressors'') of
which we are aware that may be acting upon the Sierra Nevada red fox
currently or in the future (and consistent with the five listing
factors identified above) were evaluated and addressed in the Species
Report, and are summarized in the following paragraphs.
The following sections include summary evaluations of nine
potential threats to the Sierra Nevada red fox that may have low or
medium-level impacts on the subspecies or its habitat. Potential
threats that may impact the subspecies in Oregon and California are
those actions that may affect individuals or sighting areas either
currently or in the future, including: Wildfire and fire suppression
(Factors A and E); climate change (Factor A); hunting and trapping
(Factor B); disease, to include salmon poisoning disease (SPD),
elokomin fluke fever (EFF), and potentially mange, distemper, or
rabies) (Factor C); competition and predation by coyotes, which could
be exacerbated in the future dependent on climate change impacts to
habitat (Factors C and E); predation by domestic dogs (Factor C);
hybridization with nonnative red fox (Factor E); vehicles (Factor E);
and small population size and isolation, specifically for the Lassen
and Sonora Pass sighting areas (Factor E). We also note that potential
impacts associated with logging/vegetation management and grazing were
evaluated but found to result in low or no impacts, overall, across the
subspecies' range (see Service 2015, pp. 23-27, 30-32).
To provide a temporal component to our evaluation of potential
stressors (i.e., impacts into the future), we first determined whether
we had data available that would allow us to reasonably predict the
likely future impact of each specific stressor over time. Overall, we
found that, for all potential stressors, the likelihood and severity of
future impacts became too uncertain to address beyond a 50-year
timeframe. For example:
Logging and grazing impacts on National Forest lands are
largely regulated by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). These governing regulations were
first adopted in 1994 and 2004, respectively, but the primary impetus
for their adoption was the question of how best to carry out logging,
grazing, and vegetation management actions in a manner that is
sustainable over the long term and that is consistent with applicable
laws, including the Muliple Use--Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the
Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (USDA 1994, p. 5). As these governing laws have remained in
place for 40 to 50 years, and an important management goal under those
laws has been ``long-term sustainability'' (USDA and USDI 1994, p. 5),
we consider 50 years a reasonable timeframe for considering future
impacts.
Laws governing hunting and trapping of red foxes in
California and Oregon have remained largely unchanged since 1974 and
1978, respectively (CDFG 1987, p. 4; Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) 2011, p. 26); thus, we consider regulatory mechanisms
sufficiently stable to support a 50-year timeframe.
In analyzing potential impacts from disease, small
isolated populations, hybridization, coyote competition, and vehicles,
we considered all available information regarding any future changes
that could alter the likelihood or extent of impacts. We had no such
information extending beyond a 50-year timeframe.
Although information exists regarding potential impacts
from climate change beyond a 50-year timeframe, the projections depend
on an increasing number of assumptions, and thus become more uncertain
with increasingly large timeframes. Therefore, a timeframe of 50 years
is used to provide the best balance of scope of impacts considered,
versus certainty of those impacts.
Each potential stressor was evaluated to determine the likely
impact to Sierra Nevada red foxes or their habitat. The Species Report
describes impacts using the following general categories:
A low-level impact indicates a stressor is impacting
individual Sierra Nevada red fox currently or in the future, or a
stressor is resulting in a minor amount of habitat impacts or possibly
temporary habitat impacts currently or in the future.
A medium-level impact indicates a stressor is impacting
Sierra Nevada red fox at the population (or sighting area) level
currently or in the future, or a stressor is resulting in more serious
impacts to suitable habitat at the population (or sighting area) level
currently or in the future.
A high-level impact indicates a stressor is significantly
impacting Sierra Nevada red fox at the subspecies level currently or in
the future, or a stressor is causing significant impacts to suitable
habitat at the subspecies level currently or in the future.
Competition With Coyotes
Both coyotes and Sierra Nevada red foxes are opportunistic
predators with considerable overlap in food consumed (Perrine 2005, pp.
36-37). Perrine (2005, pp. 84, 105) suggests that competition with
coyotes (Factor C), as well as predation as described below, is likely
a primary reason why the range of Sierra Nevada red fox is restricted
to such high elevations. Any competition likely varies in intensity
with prey availability, specifically including in the Lassen sighting
area where competition may be stronger during winter months when Sierra
Nevada red fox descend in elevation. See the Predation by Domestic Dogs
or Coyotes section, below, and Summary of Species Information section,
above, for additional discussion and background information on Sierra
Nevada red fox/coyote interactions.
Coyotes occur throughout the current range of the Sierra Nevada red
fox, but typically at lower elevations during winter and early spring
when snowpacks are high. If snowpacks are reduced in area due to
climate change, coyotes would likely encroach into high-elevation areas
during early spring when Sierra Nevada red fox are establishing
territories and raising pups. Even in the absence of direct predation,
the tendency of coyotes to chase off red foxes generally, and to
compete with Sierra Nevada red fox for prey, may interfere with the
ability of the subspecies to successfully raise offspring (Service
2015, pp. 48-51).
Coyotes were rare or nonexistent in the Oregon Cascades prior to
about 1930, but their numbers increased after that time due to the
extirpation of gray
[[Page 60997]]
wolves (Canis lupus), which is a species that tends to compete with and
help control coyote population numbers as opposed to impacting smaller
species like red fox (Toweill and Anthony 1988, p. 507). Coyote
populations also benefitted from clearcutting, which left numerous
forest openings in which productivity of berries and prey species was
increased (Toweill and Anthony 1988, p. 511); however, timber practices
today are much improved compared to those used in the past, in large
part due to the NWFP and beneficial management operations as outlined
in the National Forests LRMPs. Coyote numbers may also be controlled to
an unknown degree into the future given the recent establishment of two
packs of the federally endangered gray wolf in the southern Cascades
between the Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas, and likely future
growth of these packs or establishment of additional wolf packs.
Restoration of wolves to the Cascades in sustainable populations would
likely lower coyote population numbers or exclude them from higher
elevation forested areas, thereby facilitating the persistence of
Sierra Nevada red fox populations (Levi and Wilmers 2012, p. 926);
wolves are unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra Nevada red fox
because they tend to take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8).
Overall, the potential increase of coyote competition as it relates
to shifting or modified habitats, or diminished snowpack levels from
potential climate change impacts, may still occur throughout the range
of the subspecies. The best available data indicate presence of coyotes
at the same elevations as Sierra Nevada red fox during certain times of
the year; however, there is no information to indicate any population-
level impacts. Coyote populations in the southern Cascades sighting
areas might not grow over the next 50 years given a decrease in
clearcutting as compared to historical timber activity, continued
presence of snowpacks at high-elevation areas that are not favorable to
coyotes, and the presence and potential increase in wolf presence in
Oregon and northern California. As a result, based on the information
presented above and in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 48-51),
the best available data indicate that the impact of coyote competition
with Sierra Nevada red fox may occur across the subspecies' range at
similar levels (i.e., potential impacts to individuals) into the
future, although potentially to a lesser degree in the southern
Cascades. Similar to the potential impacts resulting from coyote
predation (see Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes, below), there may
be an overall medium-level impact on the subspecies (i.e., impacts to
multiple populations). However, this stressor does not rise to the
level of a threat currently or in the future because information
indicates coyote presence (and potential competition) is likely
occurring within portions of most of the sighting areas, and the best
available data indicate, at most, potential impacts to individuals.
Also, information indicates that coyote populations occurring in the
southern portion of the Cascade Range in Oregon and California may be
naturally controlled as a result of the current wolf packs that are
likely to increase in size into the future, thus decreasing the
likelihood of coyotes causing a subspecies-level impact on the Sierra
Nevada red fox.
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Wildfires may impact Sierra Nevada red fox by modifying suitable
habitat that the subspecies relies on for multiple aspects of its life
history (e.g., reducing denning habitat, reducing or eliminating
habitat conditions that support an adequate prey base) (Factor A). In
general, wildfires in western States, including California and Oregon,
have been more frequent, larger, and more intense in the past 50 years,
and particularly in the past 15 years (Independent Scientific Advisory
Board (ISAB) 2007, pp. 22-23). These increases are directly correlated
with climate change (ISAB 2007, pp. 22-23; USDA 2004, p. 6) (see
Climate Change, below), and are likely to continue. Long-term habitat
changes caused by wildfires acting in concert with increased
temperatures and altered moisture regimes could possibly result in tree
morality or long-term removal of forested habitat that the subspecies
relies on.
Wildfire could also potentially impact individual Sierra Nevada red
fox directly through mortality (Factor E). However, fires generally
kill or injure a relatively small proportion of animal populations,
particularly if they are mobile (Lyon et al. 2000, pp. 17-20), and the
best available data do not indicate that wildfire is causing loss of
individual Sierra Nevada red fox. If direct mortality of individual
Sierra Nevada red fox occurs, we expect the impact to be discountable
because the subspecies is capable of rapid evacuation from an
approaching fire, and adequate suitable habitat exists adjacent to the
existing sighting areas to establish a new home range (provided the
majority of the suitable habitat within the sighting area vicinity is
not subjected to an overly large, high-severity wildfire). However,
there are no reports of direct mortality to red foxes, including the
Sierra Nevada subspecies, from fires (Tesky 1995, p. 7).
Fire suppression can change suitable habitat conditions for the
Sierra Nevada red fox to denser stands of trees with fewer open meadow
or shrub areas, thereby potentially reducing the prey base for the
subspecies (Factor E). Fire suppression could also lead to direct
effects on Sierra Nevada red fox by allowing greater fuel buildup,
thereby producing larger and hotter wildfires. Researchers (Miller
2003, p. 379; Truex and Zielinski 2013, p. 85) indicate that potential
current and future concerns are associated with historical policies of
wildfire suppression in western North America that have led to
unnatural fuel accumulations and an increased risk of
uncharacteristically severe wildfires, which may also be the case
specifically within the Sierra Nevada red fox's range.
Although wildfire and fire suppression have the potential to result
in negative impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox or their habitat, short-
term habitat impacts from all but the largest fires can also benefit
Sierra Nevada red foxes by encouraging growth of grasses and shrubs,
which in turn lead to increases in small mammal populations preyed on
by the subspecies (Tesky 1995, p. 7), as well as increases of fruiting
shrubs that are an important supplementary food source (Tesky 1995, p.
8; Perrine 2005, p. 191). These benefits, coupled with active
vegetation or management strategies that help reduce hazardous fuel
accumulations (such as those strategies outlined in the SNFPA, NWFP,
and LRMPs, the latter of which include the Mt. Hood, Willamette,
Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, Rogue River, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity,
Lassen, Tahoe, El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, Sequoia, and
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest LRMPs within the range of the
subspecies) could have the greatest impact on Sierra Nevada red fox.
Additionally, wildfire is not a major disturbance of habitat within the
range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, primarily due to the subspecies'
residence at high-elevation areas of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada.
Recent wildfires have occurred in portions of the Mt. Hood (2011 Dollar
Lake fire), Dutchman flat (2012 Pole Creek fire), Lassen (2012 Reading
fire), and Sonora Pass (2013 Rim fire) sighting areas. These wildfires
are not expected to have permanent, long-term impacts that would
prevent the subspecies from remaining or returning to these areas. For
example, following the 2012 wildfire at
[[Page 60998]]
Dutchman Flat (which was a stand-replacing wildfire), Sierra Nevada red
fox were recently detected within the fire perimeter at two locations
(McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015), indicating minimal impacts to the
subspecies given the short time period between the wildfire and the
recent 2014 detections in this sighting area.
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and
summarized above, we expect an increased risk of wildfire overall, and
the recent occurrence of such fires at or near various Sierra Nevada
red fox sighting areas impacts the subspecies' habitat, at least
minimally, for periods of few to several years. The prevalence of such
fires is likely to increase in the future due to climate change (see
Climate Change, below). However, there are no reports of direct
mortality to red foxes from wildfires, and wildfires can improve
habitat for red foxes by removing competing vegetation and encouraging
production of grasses and shrubs favored by small mammals (Tesky 1995,
p. 7), which the Sierra Nevada red fox depends upon as a prey base.
Accordingly, these potential impacts are balanced with the potential
benefits, thus resulting in our consideration of wildfire and fire
suppression to constitute a low-level impact that does not rise to the
level of a threat either currently and into the future.
Climate Change
``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of weather
conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such
measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013, p. 1,450). 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 2013, p. 1,450). A recent synthesis report of
climate change and its effects is available from the IPCC (IPCC 2014,
entire).
Changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species
(Factor A). 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, fire frequency) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). Typically, expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches
are used to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in
various aspects of climate change.
Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the
only scientific information available. 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 (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61,
for a discussion of downscaling) 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 taxon. For this analysis
across the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, downscaled projections
are used in addition to some California and Pacific Northwest regional
climate models, which generally encompass a range of sensitivities to
low-emission and medium- to high-emission scenarios. The differences
between higher- and lower-emissions scenarios are minimal in the next
few decades, but become increasingly pronounced after the mid-21st
century (Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, p. 39; Cayan et al. 2009, p. 7).
However, the current emissions trajectory is higher than any of the
emissions scenarios used in climate projections for California and the
Pacific Northwest (Hansen et al. 2013, pp. 1-2). Therefore, the
projections we discuss here may underestimate the potential effects of
climate change.
All simulations project a larger increase in temperature across the
analysis area over the 21st century than occurred during the 20th
century. Projections for temperature increases across the analysis area
range from 1 [deg]Celsius (C) to 3 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) to
5.4 [deg]F) by mid-century and from 2 [deg]C to 5.8 [deg]C (3.6 [deg]F
to 10.4 [deg]F) by late in the 21st century (Mote et al. 2013, p. 34;
Pierce et al. 2013, p. 844; Cayan et al. 2012, p. 4; Halofsky et al.
2011, p. 14; Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, p. 41; Hayhoe et al. 2004,
p. 12423).
Over the past 50 years, warming temperatures have led to a greater
proportion of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, earlier
snowmelt, and a decrease in snowpack throughout the western United
States (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3448; Halofsky et al. 2011, p.
21). The consequent lengthening of summer drought and associated
increases in mean annual temperature have, in recent decades, caused
increased tree mortality rates in mature conifer forests in the range
of the SNRF (van Mantgem et al. 2009, pp. 522-523). In addition to
increased tree mortality, water deficit from climate change is also
expected to decrease seedling establishment and tree growth in many
currently forested areas, thereby altering tree species distributions
(Littell et al. 2013, p. 112). Montane scrub communities, which require
less water, may tend to increase, thereby decreasing and isolating
areas of appropriate habitat for the subspecies. For example, soil
types at higher elevations may not support dense forests with a 40
percent or greater canopy cover (Fites-Kaufman et al. 2007, pp. 457-
458). Thus, this type of vegetation change/shift could lead to greater
competition and predation from coyotes (which are better adapted to
drier and warmer conditions; see Competition with Coyotes, above).
Potential shifts in future vegetation type may lead to range shifts for
the Sierra Nevada red fox in some localities, although information is
not available to indicate precisely where nor how rapidly this may
occur. It is important to note that studies of climate change present a
range of effects, although conditions are not expected to change to a
degree that would be considered significant within the next 50 years.
Overall, it is not clear how finer-scale abiotic factors may shape
local climates and influence local vegetation trends either to the
benefit or detriment of Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is the timeframe
clear over which these influences may be realized.
The Sierra Nevada red fox's currently suitable habitat may also be
affected by climate change with relation to reduced snowpack, which in
turn could result in habitat conditions more suitable for coyotes, thus
potentially increasing the level of competition from or predation by
coyotes. This is discussed in more detail in the Predation by Domestic
Dogs or Coyotes (above), Competition With Coyotes (above), and
Cumulative Effects (below) sections. In general, given the best
available information, we expect coyotes to remain throughout the
Sierra Nevada red fox's range, but we do not expect coyote populations
to grow over the next 50 years based on the current and past best
available information regarding coyote presence. The potential for
coyote competition or predation exists, and it may possibly increase as
it relates to shifting habitats from potential climate change impacts.
However, any increase would likely be minimal into the future given the
continued presence of snowpack at high-elevation areas over the next 50
years. Additionally, it is probable that the presence of wolves (which
are likely
[[Page 60999]]
to compete with coyotes but not Sierra Nevada red fox (see Competition
With Coyotes (above)) could be reduced currently and into the future
particularly in areas with newly established wolf packs (such as the
two wolf packs currently known to occur between the Crater Lake and
Lassen sighting areas in the Southern Cascades.
Overall, studies of climate change present a range of effects on
vegetation and snowpack levels, including those that indicate
conditions are likely to remain suitable for Sierra Nevada red fox
throughout its range into the next 50 years. It is also probable that
the severity of potential impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox habitat will
likely vary across the range, with effects to the subspecies
potentially ranging from negative to neutral. The most significant
potential future impact is reduced snowpack levels that in turn could
make Sierra Nevada red fox habitat more suitable to coyotes and thus
cause the fox to shift up in elevation to remain in higher snowpack
areas. If this occurs, it would likely pose the greatest risks to the
subspecies at the Sonora Pass sighting area because the currently
occupied area is relatively small, with a narrow elevational range, and
the subspecies is already occupying the highest elevations in the area.
Sighting areas at Lassen and Crater Lake also may be at an elevated
risk into the future because the subspecies is already using most of
the highest elevation habitats available. In considering these factors,
the Species Report ascribed a medium-level impact to Sierra Nevada red
fox for this stressor (Service 2005a, pp. 47-48). Modeling projections
are done at a large scale, and effects to species' habitat can be
complex, unpredictable, and highly influenced by local-level biotic and
abiotic factors. Although many climate models generally agree about
potential future changes in temperature and a greater proportion of
precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, the consequent effects
on snowpack levels and possibly vegetation changes are more uncertain,
as is the rate at which any such changes might be realized. Therefore,
it is not clear how or when changes in snowpack levels, forest type, or
plant species composition will affect the distribution of Sierra Nevada
red fox habitat. Thus, uncertainty exists when determining the level of
impact climate change may have on Sierra Nevada red fox habitat.
Consequently, at this time and based on the analysis contained within
the Species Report and summarized above, we have determined that we do
not have reliable information to indicate that climate change is a
threat to Sierra Nevada red fox habitat now or in the future, although
we will continue to seek additional information concerning how climate
change may affect the subspecies' habitat.
Trapping or Hunting
Trapping for Fur
The Sierra Nevada red fox has historically been hunted and trapped
for its thickly furred pelt, which was the most valuable of any
terrestrial animal in California (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. 396-397).
The average yearly harvest in California was approximately 21 animals
in the 1920s (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 389); by the 1940s and 1950s
(over the 20-year period), the average yearly harvest in California had
decreased to 6.75 animals (Perrine 2005, p. 154). Legal Sierra Nevada
red fox fur trapping in California ended in 1974 (CDFG 1987, p. 4;
Perrine 2005, p. 2). Until recently, Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon
were considered to be Cascade foxes--of the same subspecies that
occupied the Cascades in Washington (Sacks et al. 2010a, p. 1536). Fur
trapping is regulated and remains legal throughout Oregon (Factor B),
although information is not available regarding historical hunting and
trapping pressures on foxes in the Oregon Cascades.
Due to regulatory protections, hunting and trapping do not
constitute a current or likely future stressor to Sierra Nevada
populations in California or at the Crater Lake sighting area in
Oregon, as there is no legal hunting or fur trapping for Sierra Nevada
red fox in California or at Crater Lake National Park where the
sightings in that area are known. In the counties where the other four
Oregon sighting areas occur, low numbers of red foxes are harvested,
some of which may be Sierra Nevada red fox. Fox harvest rates in Oregon
have generally been low, however, and have been declining in recent
years. Hunting and trapping potentially impact individual Sierra Nevada
red fox within the four Oregon sighting areas (excluding Crater Lake).
However, in the absence of more definite information regarding
population levels of the subspecies in Oregon, we do not consider such
harvest levels likely to produce detrimental impacts to Sierra Nevada
red fox populations, as a whole, across its range. These activities
therefore constitute stressors meeting the definition of low-level
impact. The best available data indicate that relatively few red fox
(some of which may be Sierra Nevada red fox) are removed from an
unknown number of populations as a result of fur trapping in Oregon,
and we have no evidence to suggest that the subspecies is in decline as
a consequence of fur trapping.
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report and
summarized above, we consider the legal fur trapping of Sierra Nevada
red fox as having no overall impact to Sierra Nevada red fox at the
Sonora Pass, Lassen, and Crater Lake sighting areas, as there is no
legal fur trapping for Sierra Nevada red fox in California and at
Crater Lake National Park. Fur trapping harvest for red fox in the four
remaining Oregon sighting areas is relatively minimal, and red fox
harvested are likely not trapped or minimally trapped in the high
elevations where the Sierra Nevada red fox resides. Thus, we estimate
at most a low level of impact to the four northernmost sighting areas
in Oregon. We estimate that the potential impacts of fur trapping on
Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon (outside of the Crater Lake sighting
area) will continue at a similar level, both currently and into the
future, because the best available data do not suggest that either fur
trapping effort or impacts are likely to change. Additionally, of note
for California, we expect that nearly all Sierra Nevada red fox that
are accidentally captured in box traps (body-gripping traps are illegal
in California) set for other furbearer species, or that are live-
trapped for research purposes, will be released unharmed. As a result
of this best available information for Oregon and California, we have
determined that fur trapping, overall, does not have a significant
population-level impact across the subspecies' range and therefore does
not rise to the level of a threat currently nor is it likely to
increase into the future.
Trapping for Research Purposes
We consider the potential impacts of live-trapping and handling for
research purposes (Factor B) on Sierra Nevada red fox as discountable.
There is limited distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox research
projects across the subspecies' range (e.g., noninvasive sampling (hair
and scat collection), camera-trapping, or both, at Sonora Pass, Lassen,
Mount Hood; and in other Oregon sighting areas as funding permits). The
best available data indicate that no Sierra Nevada red fox have been
injured or killed as a result of research-related live-trapping or
handling efforts. Available information does not suggest that there
would be any change to the level of anticipated impacts of live-
trapping and handling for research purposes into the future, and,
therefore, we find that the potential impacts to the Sierra Nevada
[[Page 61000]]
red fox from trapping for research purposes do not rise to the level of
a threat.
Disease
Numerous pathogens are known to cause severe disease (Factor C) in
canids. Those that have the highest potential to have population-level
impacts on Sierra Nevada red fox are sarcoptic mange, canine distemper,
and rabies (Perrine 2010, pp. 17, 28), as well as SPD and EFF. Although
the CDFW (2015, p. 2) has noted cases of rabies and distemper in gray
foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in Lassen County, the best available
data do not indicate impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox from these three
diseases in any of the seven sighting areas. Future impacts of such
diseases on any given population are difficult to predict, but the low
population densities of the subspecies (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9)
should make transmission within a population or sighting area less
likely except within family groups. The relative isolation of the
sighting areas themselves should make transmission from one such area
to another less likely, particularly for the Lassen, Sonora Pass,
Crater Lake, and Mt. Hood sighting areas because they are the most
physically separated from the sighting areas nearest to them.
SPD and EFF are known to occur within the subspecies' range and
could potentially result in bacterial infections that are typically
fatal to canids. Foxes are highly susceptible to SPD, as are domestic
dogs and coyotes (Cordy and Gorham 1950, p. 622; Headley et al. 2009,
p. 1). The responsible bacterium, Neorickettsia helminthoeca, is
transmitted to canines when they eat infected fish (generally, but not
solely, salmonids--trout or salmon), or infected Pacific giant
salamanders (Dicamptodon spp.) (Headley et al. 2009, pp. 3, 4; Rikihesa
2014, p. 2). The range of the SPD (and thus presumably of the host
snail) extends north from California (north of the Sonora Pass sighting
area, but including the Lassen sighting area) through western Oregon
(including the western slopes of the Cascades) to the Olympic Peninsula
of Washington State (Headley et al. 2009, p. 2). Naturally occurring
cases of SPD infection have been found in red foxes in the past
(Todoroff and Brown, p. 5), though never in Sierra Nevada red fox.
Additional future opportunities for ingestion of infected fish may
occur in the Lassen sighting area, as improvements to Pine Creek allow
infected Eagle Lake trout to spawn in headwaters of the creek within
the Lassen sighting area. EFF is widely present in Oregon and is
transmitted in the same manner as SPD (with the same flatworm vector
and snail host) (Rikihesa 2014, pp. 1-3).
The presence of SPD and EFF within the range of the Sierra Nevada
red fox is considered minimal, with no exposures detected within the
subspecies. As stated above, SPD is native in western Oregon, from the
coast to the western slopes of the Cascades (Headley et al. 2009, p.
2), and EFF is endemic throughout Oregon. Thus, all five Oregon
sighting areas are subject to exposure. We also consider the likelihood
of exposure of SPD and EFF in the Oregon Cascades to have remained
constant (but low) in recent years, and expect that it will continue at
the same level into the future. The Lassen sighting area is outside the
historical range of SPD (Todoroff and Brown 2014, p. 6), and we have no
information regarding presence of EFF at that location. However,
rainbow trout from various hatcheries are stocked in the Lassen
National Forest for recreational fishing (Todoroff and Brown 2014, p.
15). The Sonora Pass sighting area is unlikely to be exposed because
CDFW does not stock fish from northern California south of the Feather
River in order to prevent transmittal of diseases (including SPD and
EFF) (Beale 2011, p. 1).
Overall, despite possible exposure to pathogens, no outbreaks of
sarcoptic mange, canine distemper, rabies, SPD, or EFF have been
detected in Sierra Nevada red fox, and we have no evidence to suggest
that disease has impacted Sierra Nevada red fox in the past, nor do we
have evidence to suggest that any diseases are present currently or
will be present in the future in any of the Sierra Nevada red fox
sighting areas. Additionally, given the current sighting areas are
disjunct from one another, this would be beneficial in terms of
reducing the ease of transmission of disease between the sighting
areas, should an outbreak occur. Thus, as presented in the Species
Report and summarized here, the best available scientific and
commercial data do not indicate that a disease outbreak has had, or is
likely to have, a significant population-level effect on Sierra Nevada
red fox. We note that there is a low probability that a disease
outbreak may occur. We anticipate that if there should be an outbreak,
it will likely have a low effect on all seven sighting areas combined,
as the distance between them makes it unlikely that the effects of such
an outbreak would spread. Thus, we have determined that disease has a
low-level population impact across the range of the Sierra Nevada red
fox and, therefore, does not rise to the level of a threat currently
nor is it likely to increase into the future.
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes
Sierra Nevada red fox could be predated on by domestic dogs at
recreational areas (such as ski lodges or national parks) within their
sighting areas, and in the course of being hunted with dogs, in any of
the Oregon sighting areas other than at Crater Lake (Factor C). Dogs
are more likely to interact with Sierra Nevada red fox at the Crater
Lake and Willamette Pass sighting areas (but they also could
potentially be found along many other roads or recreational areas
(e.g., hiking trails) within the subspecies' range), where they are
allowed on roads, parking lots, campgrounds, and picnic areas. To date,
one documented case of Sierra Nevada red fox predation by a dog exists
(i.e., a radio-collared female Sierra Nevada red fox was found dead in
October 2002, as a result of a dog attack within 175 m (574 ft) of a
ski chalet in the Lassen sighting area (Perrine 2005, p. 141)).
Overall, the best available information indicates that predation by
dogs is not producing population-level or subspecies-level effects to
Sierra Nevada red fox currently, nor is this stressor expected to
increase in the future. Therefore, predation by dogs is considered a
low-level impact that may potentially impact individuals across the
subspecies' range (although more likely in two of the seven sighting
areas) and, therefore, does not rise to the level of a threat to the
subspecies currently nor is it likely to increase into the future.
Sierra Nevada red fox could also be predated by coyotes (Factor C).
Sierra Nevada red fox and coyotes both are opportunistic predators with
considerable overlap in food consumed (Perrine 2005, pp. 36-37).
Although no direct documentation of coyote predation on Sierra Nevada
red fox is available, coyotes will chase and occasionally kill other
North American red fox subspecies, and are considered important
competitors of red fox generally (Perrine 2005, pp. 36, 55; Perrine et
al. 2010, p. 17). Thus, red foxes tend to avoid areas frequented by
coyotes (though not necessarily to the point of complete exclusion)
(Perrine 2005, p. 55). Additional discussion specifically related to
coyote competition with Sierra Nevada red fox is presented in
Competition With Coyotes, above.
The general tendency of red foxes to avoid coyotes often relegates
them to suboptimal habitats and has likely been an important factor
determining red fox distribution (Perrine 2010, p. 20; Sacks
[[Page 61001]]
et al. 2010b, p. 17). Perrine (2005, pp. 84, 105) suggests that
predation (and competition; see Competition With Coyotes, above) from
coyotes is likely a primary reason why the range of Sierra Nevada red
fox is restricted to such high elevations.
Minimal information exists on Sierra Nevada red fox and coyote
interactions with relation to the potential for predation. Perrine's
(2005, pp. 73-74) investigations at the Lassen sighting area during
summer months found coyotes present at all elevations with a positive
correlation between Sierra Nevada red fox and coyotes during that time
(which was a likely artifact of their common affinity for roads
(Perrine 2005, p. 83)). However, Perrine (2005, p. 192) found coyote
population density to be greater at lower elevations, thus producing an
elevational separation between most coyotes and the Sierra Nevada red
fox population. During winter months in the Lassen sighting area,
Perrine (2005, pp. 30, 78) found that both Sierra Nevada red fox and
coyotes descended to lower elevations, where mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) (and more specifically in the case of Sierra Nevada red fox,
mule deer carrion) became important components of their diets. Perrine
(2005, p. 31) also notes that Sierra Nevada red fox may potentially
benefit from the presence of coyotes during winter by scavenging deer
carcasses killed by coyotes. However, Sierra Nevada red fox, whose main
winter food source (at the Lassen study site) was small rodents rather
than deer (Perrine 2005, p. 24), tend to stay at higher elevations than
coyotes, thereby reducing potential predation.
At this time, the best available data indicate that coyotes are
present year-round throughout the subspecies' range, but generally at
lower elevations than Sierra Nevada red fox during winter and early
spring when snowpacks are high (Service 2015, p. 52). Regardless,
information does not indicate there has been any coyote predation on
Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is there any information to indicate that
coyotes are increasing at any of the sighting areas. However, as
climate change progresses, climatologists predict that snowpacks are
expected to diminish in the future (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446,
3448; Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 21). Thus, higher elevations with deep
snowpack that currently deter coyotes may become more favorable to
them, potentially increasing the likelihood of coyote predation in the
future. For instance, in the Sonora Pass sighting area, unusually low
snowpacks occurred in 2013 (Rich 2014, pers. comm., p. 1), which
allowed a family of four coyotes to establish a year-round territory in
the high-elevation portions of the range (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 12).
Sierra Nevada red fox are likely to be most vulnerable to predation and
competition from coyotes during early spring because Sierra Nevada red
fox typically establish territories and begin raising pups around that
time. In some sighting areas, the subspecies may be able to respond to
reduction of snowpacks and encroachment of coyotes by retreating to
higher elevations to raise pups. But in the Crater Lake, Lassen, and
Sonora Pass sighting areas, Sierra Nevada red fox already occupy the
highest available elevations.
Recently, two packs of gray wolves have become established in the
Southern Cascades between the Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas
(one pack each in Oregon and California). It is probable that
restoration of wolves to the Southern Cascades in sustainable
populations would lower coyote population numbers or exclude them from
higher elevation forested areas, thereby facilitating the persistence
of nearby Sierra Nevada red fox populations (Levi and Wilmers 2012, p.
926); wolves are unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra Nevada red fox
because they tend to take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8). At this time
in Oregon, ODFW's conservation objectives for the wolf include
establishment of seven breeding pairs in western Oregon for 3
consecutive years (ODFW 2010, p. 17). In California, the wolf pack
discovery is so new that CDFW and the Service have just initiated
coordination efforts, and we anticipate additional conservation-related
coordination efforts in the near future. Accordingly, we consider it
likely that the current wolf population will expand over the next 50
years to effectively overlap the Crater Lake sighting area, and
possibly the Willamette Pass, Dutchman Flat, and Mt. Washington
sighting areas (ODFW 2015, pp. 3, 4). Therefore, we currently lack
information that coyote predation on Sierra Nevada red fox is likely to
occur over the next 50 years at the Crater Lake sighting area, or at
the three more-northerly Oregon sighting areas.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we find
that predation may have had an overall low-level impact to the Sierra
Nevada red fox due to the presence of coyotes co-occurring at multiple
sighting areas within the subspecies' range; the potential for
predation in the Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass sighting areas
into the future given climate model projections of decreased snowpack
levels that may make the habitat more favorable to coyotes; and the
overall inability of the populations at those three locations to shift
up in elevation (i.e., the Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass
populations appear at or near the highest elevations available for the
subspecies). However, at this time, the best available data indicate
that predation is not impacting the Sierra Nevada red fox at the
subspecies-level to the degree that any more than individuals at a
couple of the sighting areas may be affected both currently and into
the future. Further, the best available data do not indicate that
potential future changes in shifting habitat at high elevations (as
suggested by climate models) would occur within the next 50 years to
such a degree that coyote numbers would increase significantly
throughout the subspecies' range to the point that coyote predation
would rise to the level of a threat. Therefore, based on the analysis
contained within the Species Report and summarized above, we have
determined that predation does not rise to the level of a threat
currently nor is it likely to increase into the future.
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
Hybridization of Sierra Nevada red fox with other nonnative red fox
(Factor E) could result in outbreeding depression or genetic swamping
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 16-17). Outbreeding depression is a
reduction in survivorship or reproduction caused by an influx into the
population of alleles from other areas. Such a reduction can be caused
by the loss of locally adaptive alleles, or by the breakup of co-
adapted gene complexes (i.e., groups of alleles that work together to
provide a particular ability or advantage in the native habitat)
(Templeton 1986, pp. 106-107; Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 17). Genetic
swamping occurs when continued influx of outside alleles cause the
replacement of most native alleles, effectively turning what was once a
native population into a population of some other subspecies or
species.
The best available data indicate that hybridization with nonnative
red fox has been documented within the Sierra Nevada red fox's range at
two sighting areas. First, hybridization with nonnative red fox is
occurring at the Sonora Pass sighting area (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp.
2, 10). Researchers documented interbreeding between female Sierra
Nevada red fox and two male nonnative red foxes, resulting in seven
hybrid pups in 2013, and an additional four hybrid pups in 2014 (Sacks
et al. 2015, p. 3). These hybrids were the only clear indication of
[[Page 61002]]
successful reproduction in the study area between 2011 and 2014. In
comparison, only eight full-blooded Sierra Nevada red fox were
identified in the area during those years (Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3).
Second, two Sierra Nevada red fox individuals at the Mt. Hood sighting
area show evidence (via genetic testing of mtDNA) of past hybridization
with nonnative red foxes, although the timing and extent of that
hybridization remains unknown (Akins and Sacks 2015, p. 1).
Based on the information presented above and in the Species Report
(Service 2015, pp. 42-43), the best available data indicate that
nonnative red fox are currently present in one sighting area (i.e., the
Sonora Pass sighting area) and historically known from the Mt. Hood
sighting area but not known to be present currently. These are the only
sighting areas within the subspecies' range where hybridization has
been documented to date, although it is possible that nonnative red fox
could occur in other portions of the subspecies' range. At this time,
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this
stressor does not rise to the level of a threat to the subspecies
because information indicates hybridization is currently occurring
within portions of only one sighting area across the subspecies' range,
with only a single record of past hybridization occurring at the Mt.
Hood sighting area, and we have no information to indicate this level
of impact will increase into the future.
Vehicles
Collision with vehicles (Factor E) is a known source of mortality
for the Sierra Nevada red fox currently and is expected to continue
into the future, given the presence of roads within the range of the
subspecies. A low density of roads with heavy traffic traveling at high
speeds (greater than 45 miles per hour) suggest that few individuals
die from vehicle collisions. There are a total of three reports since
2010 of road-killed Sierra Nevada red foxes across the subspecies'
range, one each occurring at the Sonora Pass sighting area (California
State Highway 395), the Crater Lake sighting area (main Park road near
administration building), and near Silver Lake, Oregon, about 80 km (50
mi) west of the Crater Lake sighting area (Statham et al. 2012, p. 124;
Mohren 2015, p. 1; Doerr 2015, p. 14).
Snowmobiles are another potential source for collisions and noise
disturbance (Factor E) in all sighting areas with the exception
potentially of the Lassen sighting area and a small area in the
northwest portion of the Crater Lake sighting area, given the high
level of recreational activity within or adjacent to those sighting
areas. However, no snowmobile-related incidents have been reported.
Researchers are currently investigating potential impacts of snowmobile
activity to Sierra Nevada red fox in the Sonora Pass sighting area in
accordance with Standard 32 from the SNFPA, which requires activities
near verified Sierra Nevada red fox sightings to be analyzed to
determine if they have a potential to affect the subspecies (USDA 2004,
p. 54; Rich 2014, p. 1). Results are not yet available, in part because
the snowpack has been low during the last two winters (those ending in
2013 and 2014), and, therefore, the area has not been available for
snowmobile use (Rich 2014, p. 1). Additionally, although no studies
have been completed, the mere location of the Sierra Nevada red fox
sightings in these areas suggest that the subspecies adjusts to the
noise involved, and that sufficient Sierra Nevada red fox prey remain
in such areas.
Overall across the Sierra Nevada red fox's range, few Sierra Nevada
red fox are killed as the result of collisions with vehicles. We expect
that in the future a small number of individuals will be struck by
vehicles, including dispersing juveniles searching for unoccupied
suitable habitat for establishment of a home range. However, the best
available information does not suggest any significant increases in
vehicular traffic or new roads are likely in areas where the subspecies
occurs. Therefore, based on the information presented above and in the
Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 53-55), the best available data
indicate that the impact of vehicle collisions on Sierra Nevada red fox
will be minor and continue at similar levels into the future, resulting
in a low-level impact on the subspecies (i.e., impacts to individual
Sierra Nevada red foxes as opposed to populations); therefore, this
stressor does not rise to the level of a threat.
Small and Isolated Population Effects
Small, isolated populations (Factor E) are more susceptible to
impacts overall, and relatively more vulnerable to extinction due to
genetic problems, demographic and environmental fluctuations, and
natural catastrophes (Primack 1993, p. 255). That is, the smaller a
population becomes, the more likely it is that one or more stressors
could impact a population, potentially reducing its size such that it
is at increased risk of extinction. Particularly small populations may
suffer reproductive decreases due to demographic stochasticity: A sex
ratio heavily skewed by chance from 50:50 (Soule and Simberloff 1986,
p. 28). Inbreeding depression may result from the accumulation of
deleterious alleles (gene variants) in the population (Soule 1980, pp.
157-158). This happens because alleles in general tend to be lost
quickly from small populations due to the chance nature of reproduction
(genetic drift) (Soule 1980, pp. 157-158). Additionally, inbreeding
effects may occur because closely related individuals are likely to
share many of the same deleterious alleles, and are thus more likely to
pass two copies of a deleterious allele to their young, even if non-
deleterious versions of the gene still remain in the population (Soule
1980, pp. 157-158). Over time, inbreeding depression also commonly
results in low reproductive success (Soule 1980, pp. 157-158; O'Brien
2003, pp. 62-63; Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 15). Given the best available
information on Sierra Nevada red fox at this time, we evaluated
information suggesting that Sierra Nevada red fox populations may be
small or isolated from one another to the degree that such negative
effects may be realized in the subspecies.
It is probable that Sierra Nevada red fox population densities have
always been relatively low, although historical populations likely have
not been as isolated as they appear to be today, particularly in
California. Based on interviews with trappers, Grinnell et al. (1937,
p. 396) described Sierra Nevada red fox population numbers as
``relatively small, even in the most favorable territory,'' and
reported that the subspecies likely occurred at densities of 1 per 2.6
square km (1 per square mi). Perrine et al. (2010, p. 9) concluded from
this that Sierra Nevada red fox likely occur at low population
densities even within areas of high relative abundance. Additionally,
although data are not available across the historical range of the
subspecies, the best available information suggests that Sierra Nevada
red fox distribution within California (i.e., Lassen and Sonora Pass
sighting areas) has contracted in the recent past. For example, Schempf
and White (1977, p. 44) examined CDFW sighting and trapping data and
found that in California, the number of sightings and trappings fell
considerably in the mid-1900s as compared to similar data reported by
Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 389).
At present, we have identified at least seven sighting areas: (1)
Five in the Oregon Cascades from Mt. Hood south to the Crater Lake
vicinity; (2) one in the southern extent of the Cascades in
[[Page 61003]]
California (Lassen sighting area); and (3) one in the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Sonora Pass sighting area) (see Figure 1, above). This
represents a significant increase in our knowledge of the subspecies'
distribution as compared to that known at the time of the 90-day
finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012), which at that time included only
the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas. Surveys and incidental
sightings conducted in 2012 and 2013 include 35 from near Mt. Hood, 13
from around Mt. Washington, 2 from near Dutchman Flat, 8 from around
Willamette Pass, and 43 from the area of Crater Lake National Park
(Sacks 2014b, pp. 3-5; Cascadia Wild 2014, p. 1). As a result of the
newly identified area of the historical range in the Oregon Cascades,
researchers have not yet determined the exact number of individuals or
populations that currently exist in Oregon, nor the distribution of
those populations. It is likely the number of individuals actually
sighted is less than the number of actual individuals present in these
sighting areas because the same individual may be sighted numerous
times (Perrine 2005, pp. 147, 148). Surveys are continuing at the time
of publication of this document.
In most cases of small populations, genetic interchange need occur
only occasionally between populations (a minimum of 1 migrant per
generation, possibly up to 10 migrants per generation) to offset the
potential negative impacts of inbreeding (e.g., Mills and Allendorf
1996, p. 1516; Wang 2004, entire). In addition, depending on population
sizes and the distance between them, the ability of even a few
individuals to move between population areas can preserve the potential
for recolonization or augmentation (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977,
entire).
For the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Southern Cascades range,
suitable habitat that could harbor additional individuals or provide
for dispersal occurs between the Oregon sighting areas, as well as
between the southernmost Oregon sighting area (Crater Lake) and the
northernmost California sighting area (Lassen). Although the Sierra
Nevada red fox's dispersal distance is not known, Statham et al. (2012,
p. 130) state that juvenile male red foxes in the American Midwest
dispersed an average of 30 km (18.6 mi); juvenile females dispersed an
average of 10 km (6.2 mi); and a few young red foxes (5 percent)
dispersed over 80 km (50 mi) in their first year. Distances between the
Southern Cascades range sighting areas (north to south) are 90 km (56
mi), 25 km (15.5 mi), 45 km (28 mi), 50 km (31 mi), and 250 km (155
mi), respectively, and there are no clear barriers to dispersal,
particularly within Oregon. Although these data are based on dispersal
information for a different geographic location and habitat type, it is
the best available dispersal information for red fox, indicating that
dispersal of Sierra Nevada red fox could be rare but possible between
the majority of sighting areas in the Southern Cascades range. Based on
our evaluation of the best available information, the Sonora Pass
sighting area (and population) within the Sierra Nevada portion of the
subspecies' range appears isolated, given that it is 150 km (93 mi)
from the Lassen population to the north, with no known Sierra Nevada
red fox sightings or populations to the south. At this time, the
combined small size and apparent isolation of the Sonora Pass
population make future impacts from inbreeding depression and from
stochastic events possible.
As stated above, information is not available on population size
and various life-history characteristics specific to the Sierra Nevada
red fox within the Oregon Cascades portion of the subspecies' range.
The majority of information available on population size and life
history of the subspecies is from the two California sighting areas,
both of which have been identified as two separate populations that are
not interbreeding (based on genetic information (Statham et al. 2012,
pp. 129-130)). Population size for these known populations include: (1)
Lassen--42 adults, or 21 breeding and 21 nonbreeding individuals; and
(2) Sonora Pass--29 adults, or 14 breeding and 15 nonbreeding
individuals (see Table 1, above, for additional details).
As stated above, survey efforts are underway throughout the Oregon
Cascades, having been limited to California prior to June 2010 (when
the Service learned that the Oregon Cascades range was newly considered
to be a part of the subspecies' historical range). In the Sierra Nevada
portion of the subspecies' range, the majority of information has been
provided from various carnivore and fox surveys between 1996 and 2014
(Perrine 2005; Mohren 2014; Sacks 2014b; Ferland 2014; Akins 2014;
Doerr 2015, pp. 1-14). These surveys have been extensive throughout
large portions of this portion of the range to such a degree that we do
not anticipate other populations of Sierra Nevada red fox currently
within the Sierra Nevada. Given the above information, we consider the
Sonora Pass sighting area (population) to currently be isolated and
small although it appears that considerable suitable habitat occurs at
the appropriate elevation throughout portions of the subspecies
historical range in the Sierra Nevada.
Based upon the analysis contained within the Species Report and
summarized above, we determined that impacts associated with small
population size is an overall moderate-level impact, specifically as it
relates to the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas, which may be
small and isolated enough to be at risk of impacts from inbreeding
depression and chance deleterious events. The primary risk of such
impacts is in the future (within 50 years), although evidence of low
reproductive success based on studies in portions of both populations
(see Population/Abundance Information, above) suggest this could
constitute a current impact of inbreeding depression, but to an unknown
degree. Overall across the subspecies range at this time, the best
available information indicates that Sierra Nevada red foxes may be
reduced in distribution relative to their historical range (and
possibly reduced in numbers relative to abundance); however, there is
no empirical evidence that the Sierra Nevada red fox is in decline
across its range. Thus, small or isolated population size effects do
not rise to the level of a threat either currently or in the future.
Cumulative Effects
We estimate the potential impact of each stressor described above
acting alone on Sierra Nevada red fox individuals, populations, and
suitable habitat. However, Sierra Nevada red fox and suitable habitat
can also be affected by all or some of the stressors acting together.
The combined effects of those stressors could impact the subspecies or
suitable habitat in an additive or synergistic manner. Acting together,
one or more stressors could impact individuals, a portion of a sighting
area or population, or available suitable habitat to varying degrees or
magnitude, whereas alone a single stressor may not significantly impact
the subspecies or its habitat.
Based on our analysis of all stressors that may be impacting Sierra
Nevada red fox or their habitat, if any cumulative impacts occur, they
would do so under the following two scenarios:
(1) Potential increased competition with coyotes on Sierra Nevada
red fox as a result of high-elevation forested areas becoming more
suitable for coyotes following potential impacts from climate change
(i.e., lowered
[[Page 61004]]
snowpack levels, increased incidence and extent of wildfires).
(2) A combination of potential stressors (i.e., hunting and
trapping, SPD and other diseases, competition and predation from
coyotes, hybridization with nonnative red fox, and vehicles) that
directly result in death or loss of reproductive ability for the Sierra
Nevada red fox.
Here we consider the impacts of each of these potential cumulative
effect scenarios:
Models of climate change predict potential increases in temperature
within the Sierra Nevada red fox's range of the southern Cascades and
Sierra Nevada ranges. In turn, this could result in lower snowpack
levels and an increase in the number and extent of wildfires, leading
to increased competition and predation from coyotes that currently (and
primarily) reside at lower elevations in habitat that is more favorable
to them. As described in our analyses discussing coyote predation (see
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes, above) and competition (see
Competition With Coyotes, above), we expect that impacts associated
with coyotes may continue to occur in most sighting areas throughout
the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox into the future, and that
lowered snowpack levels or wildfire impacts that may result in a shift
in Sierra Nevada red fox distribution (where possible) is not likely
over the next 50 years. Thus, we expect similar levels of competition
and predation as what may be occurring currently throughout the
subspecies range, or possibly lowered levels as a result of the recent
establishment of gray wolves in the southern portion of the Oregon
Cascades. Therefore, the best available data at this time do not
suggest that the cumulative effects of increased coyote numbers and
climate change rise to the level of a threat to the Sierra Nevada red
fox overall.
When a population is small, the relative importance to the
population of each potentially reproducing individual is increased.
Thus, potential stressors that directly result in death or loss of
reproductive ability for individual Sierra Nevada red fox where their
populations are known to be small could have a greater relative impact
on small populations than on larger ones. As indicated above, the
stressors that could potentially impact the reproductive ability of the
Sierra Nevada red fox include hunting and trapping, SPD and other
diseases, competition and predation from coyotes, hybridization with
nonnative red fox, and collision with vehicles. The best available data
at this time indicate that:
(1) Potential impacts associated with hunting and trapping (Factor
B), SPD and other diseases (Factor C), and vehicles (Factor E) are
negligible or nonexistent, and there is no indication that these
stressors are expected to change into the future to such a degree that
they would significantly contribute to decreased reproductive viability
of the Sierra Nevada red fox either by themselves or cumulatively.
(2) As discussed above under Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes,
Competition With Coyotes, and Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
sections, coyotes and nonnative red fox are currently known to occur in
multiple areas within the Sierra Nevada red fox's range. Coyote
abundance at high-elevation areas could increase in the future if
decreased snowpack levels at high elevations occur, potentially
resulting in more favorable habitat conditions for them. It is possible
that nonnative red fox could also increase in numbers in the future, or
result in impacts greater than what has currently been observed.
However, based on climate models and possible resultant changes in
vegetation types, such increases in abundance of either of these are
not likely in the next 50 years. Therefore, we do not believe increases
in nonnative red foxes or coyotes will contribute to cumulative effects
to the Sierra Nevada red fox. Information to support this includes:
(a) The continued presence and spread of wolves across the west, it
is reasonable to assume the two wolf packs now established in the
Southern Cascades (i.e., between the Crater Lake and Lassen sighting
areas) will remain and increase in pack size given ongoing
conservation, thus further decreasing the likelihood and magnitude of
coyote-related impacts (due to expected competition between wolves and
coyotes (see Competition With Coyotes, above)) within this portion of
the subspecies' range into the.
(b) The majority of the Sierra Nevada red fox's range harbors high-
elevation area above elevations considered suitable for coyotes. Thus,
Sierra Nevada red fox could utilize this additional area if snowpack
levels decrease from their current extent. The least amount of
additional high-elevation area available for Sierra Nevada red fox to
shift upwards is at the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas, and no
shift up in elevation appears available at the Crater Lake sighting
area. However, the latter is also the closest sighting area to benefit
from decreased potential coyote competition/predation associated with
the recently established wolf pack (approximately 24 km (15 mi) south
of the Crater Lake sighting area).
(c) Some unknown level of nonnative red fox hybridization may
continue into the future within portions of the Sierra Nevada red fox's
range. However, the best available data do not indicate that
hybridization would increase to a significant degree throughout the
Sierra Nevada red fox's range within the next 50 years such that the
extent and magnitude of impacts would be significant contributors to
the overall potential cumulative impacts to the subspecies across its
range. At this time, hybridization is of concern specifically at the
Sonora Pass sighting area as opposed to across the entire range of the
subspecies (given the Sonora Pass sighting area's apparent small and
isolated population size and recent lack of reproduction with its own
subspecies).
In summary, the best available scientific and commercial data at
this time do not show that combined effects of the most likely
cumulative impact scenarios are resulting in significant individual-
level effects to the Sierra Nevada red fox, or population-level effects
across multiple populations/sighting areas. Although all or some of the
stressors could potentially act in concert as a cumulative threat to
the Sierra Nevada red fox, there is ambiguity in either the likelihood
or level of impacts for the various stressors at the population or
rangewide level, or the data indicate only individual-level impacts. It
is probable that Sierra Nevada red fox populations today are smaller
than historical times, which potentially increases the vulnerability of
the subspecies to potential cumulative low- or medium-level impacts.
Although the Lassen and Sonora Pass populations experienced a
bottleneck or decline in the recent past (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1523,
1536), the best available information does not provide reliable
evidence to suggest that Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas (or known
populations specifically at the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas)
are currently experiencing population declines or further reductions in
distribution, which would be indicative of such impacts. Thus, the best
available scientific and commercial data do not indicate that these
stressors are cumulatively causing now or will cause in the future a
substantial decline of the Sierra Nevada red fox across its range.
Therefore, we have determined that the cumulative impacts of these
potential stressors do not rise to the level of a threat.
[[Page 61005]]
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulatory mechanisms that affect the Sierra Nevada red
fox include laws and regulations promulgated by the Federal and
individual State governments (Factor D). Federal agencies manage nearly
all of the lands represented by the currently known sighting areas,
with the exception of a few private inholdings in the Lassen sighting
area. No tribal governments (sovereign entities with their own system
of laws and regulations) own or manage lands within potentially
suitable habitat within the range of the subspecies. Stressors acting
on the Sierra Nevada red fox for which governments may have regulatory
control include impacts associated with wildfire and fire suppression
(Factor A--habitat modification or loss), injury or mortality due to
fur trapping (Factor B), and collision with vehicles (Factor E). These
regulations differ among government entities, are explained in detail
in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 58-63), and are summarized
below.
Federal
Forest Service
The Forest Service policy manual (USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22)
allows for designation of sensitive species of management concern. The
Sierra Nevada red fox is a sensitive species where it occurs on
National Forests in California (U.S. Forest Service Region 5) and in
Oregon (U.S. Forest Service Region 6) (USDA 2013, p. 1; Chapman 2015,
Excel attch., wksht. 2, line 655). The Sensitive Species Policy is
contained in the Forest Service Manual, section 2670.32 (USDA Forest
Service 2005, section 2670.32) and calls for National Forests to assist
and coordinate with other Federal agencies and States to conserve these
species. Special consideration for sensitive species is made during
land use planning and activity implementation to ensure species
viability and to preclude population declines that could lead to a
Federal listing under the Act (USDA Forest Service 2005, section
2670.22). At this time, proposed activities that occur within National
Forests within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox will include
measures to avoid or minimize project-related impacts to the subspecies
and its habitat.
National Forest management is directed by the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) and the
National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (NFMA) (16 U.S.C.
1600 et seq.). NFMA specifies that the Forest Service must have an LRMP
to guide and set standards for all natural resource management
activities on each National Forest or National Grassland. Current LRMPs
within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox were developed under the
1982 planning rule (47 FR 43026; September 30, 1982, pp. 43037-43052),
which required the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of
existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species. Recently
revised NFMA planning rules (77 FR 21162, April 9, 2012) require
National Forests to use an ecosystem and species-specific approach in
their LRMPs to provide for the diversity of plant and animal
communities and maintain the persistence of native species in the plan
areas. As stated above, the Sierra Nevada red fox is a sensitive
species of conservation concern under these new rules in all the
National Forests in which it occurs.
The NWFP (USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) 1994,
entire) was adopted by the Forest Service in 1994, to guide the
management of over 9.7 million ha (24 million ac) of Federal lands
(USDA and USDI 1994, p. 2) in portions of western Washington and
Oregon, and northwestern California within the range of the northern
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The NWFP amends the LRMPs of
National Forests (i.e., the Mt. Hood, Willamette, Deschutes, Umpqua,
Winema, and Rogue River National Forest's LRMPs) and is intended to
provide the basis for conservation of the spotted owl and other late-
successional, old-growth forest associated species on Federal lands.
The NWFP is important for the Sierra Nevada red fox because the
conservation initially established to benefit the northern spotted owl
also creates a network of late-successional and old-growth forests that
help meet the Sierra Nevada red fox's habitat requirements (see Summary
of Species Information, above, and the ``Habitat'' section of the
Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 14-16)) at four of five Oregon
sighting areas (i.e., Mt. Hood, Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat, and
Willamette Pass Sighting areas). Additionally, the NWFP establishes
reserve lands (consisting of Congressionally Reserved Areas such as
Wilderness Areas, Late Successional Reserves, Administratively
Withdrawn areas, and any additional reserved areas identified by the
LRMP for the National Forest in question) that are managed to protect
and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest
ecosystems (USDA and USDI 1994, C8-C11; USDA 2015, p. 4), all of which
includes habitat managed over the long term that will likely continue
to benefit the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Forest Service lands outside of the NWFP areas (a portion of lands
within the Lassen and Sonora Pass Sighting areas) operate under LRMPs
that have been amended by the SNFPA, which was finalized in 2004 (USDA
2000, volume 3, chapter 3, part 4.4.1, pp. 2-18; USDA 2001, entire;
USDA 2004, entire). The SNFPA requires fire and fuels management
projects in most areas to retain at least 40 percent (preferably 50
percent) canopy cover within a treatment unit, and effectively requires
retention of trees 63.5 cm (25 in) diameter at breast height (dbh) in
most treated areas (USDA 2004, pp. 3, 50). This is close to the
preferred winter habitat characteristics discussed above for the Lassen
Sighting area (60 cm (23.6 in) dbh and 40 percent or greater canopy
closure). SNFPA Standard and Guideline #32 requires the Forest Service
to conduct an analysis to determine whether activities within 8 km (5
mi) of a verified Sierra Nevada red fox sighting have the potential to
affect the species (USDA 2004, p. 54). It also mandates a limited
operating period of January 1 to June 30 as necessary to avoid adverse
impacts to potential breeding, and it requires 2 years of evaluations
for activities near sightings that are not associated with a den site.
Additionally, in accordance with the requirements of the SNFPA,
vehicle use that may impact Sierra Nevada red fox is managed to a
limited extent to reduce potential impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox
(e.g., limiting OHV use to designated OHV use areas and trails,
limiting snowmobile use in the Sonora Pass sighting area to a
designated BWRA area). All Oregon sighting areas include roads and
snowmobile trails, though the relative areas devoted to such use
differ. Those areas with off-road, regulated travel include:
(1) Mt. Hood sighting area is mostly designated wilderness,
although a few off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails exist near Sierra
Nevada red fox sightings at lower elevations.
(2) The Mt. Washington sighting area has many miles of snowmobile
and OHV trails.
(3) The Dutchman Flat sighting area harbors numerous snow-parks,
with many miles of snowmobile and OHV trails.
(4) Willamette Pass is a high-use recreational area at all times of
the year, including extensive use of snowmobiles, and snow groomers at
the Willamette pass Ski Area; the effects to the local
[[Page 61006]]
Sierra Nevada red fox population are unknown at this time.
(5) The Lassen National Forest prohibits wheeled vehicle travel
except on designated routes and limited OHV use areas (USDA 2009, pp.
iii, 461).
Additionally, National Forest's LRMPs that are covered by the SNFPA
(Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Tahoe, El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra,
Inyo, and Sequoia National Forests) or within the Intermountain Region
(Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest) provide direct and indirect
protections to Sierra Nevada red fox and their habitat (e.g.,
implementing fuels reduction activities to reduce the likelihood of
overly large, high-severity wildfire) beyond those National Forests
that limit OHV and snowmobile vehicle activity.
Finally, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (OPLMA)
(Pub. L. 111-11, p. 1059) establishes the Bridgeport Winter Recreation
Area for control of winter vehicles on Forest Service land, consisting
of about 2,833 ha (7,000 ac) in the northern portion of the Sonora Pass
sighting area (USDA 2010, p. 4). The OPLMA states that the winter use
of snowmobiles is allowed in the Recreation Area, subject to terms and
conditions established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Prior to
passage of the OPLMA, the area had been under consideration for
designation as wilderness, although snowmobile use had been allowed in
the area since 2005 (USDA 2010, pp. 3-4). The Forest Service has
completed a management plan that calls for monitoring of impacts to
wildlife (USDA 2010, p. 9), and is proceeding with evaluations of
impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox in accordance with Standard 32 from
the SNFPA (see Vehicles, above).
National Park Service
Statutory direction for the National Park Service lands that
overlap the Sierra Nevada red fox's range is provided by provisions of
the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1
et seq.) and the National Park Service General Authorities Act of 1970
(16 U.S.C. 1a-1). Natural resources are managed to ``preserve
fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as individual
species, features, and plant and animal communities'' (USDI NPS 2006,
p. 36). Land management plans for the National Parks do not contain
specific measures to protect Sierra Nevada red fox or their habitat,
but areas not developed specifically for recreation and camping are
managed toward natural processes and species composition and are
expected to maintain Sierra Nevada red fox habitat. Prescribed fire is
often used as a habitat management tool by the Park Service. The
effects of these burns on the subspecies have not been directly
studied, the best available data do not indicate direct mortality to
red foxes from fires, and fuels reduction through prescribed fire will
likely benefit Sierra Nevada red fox in the long term by reducing the
threat of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat loss (Truex and Zielinski 2013,
p. 90; Zielinski 2014, pp. 411-412). Additionally, hunting and trapping
are generally prohibited in National Parks, which is the case at both
Crater Lake and Lassen Volcanic National Parks where Sierra Nevada red
fox are known to reside.
State
Oregon
Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon may be hunted and trapped,
including with use of dogs (635 Oregon Administrative Rules 050-
0045(1), 0045(8)). As discussed above (see Trapping or Hunting, above,
and the ``Hunting and Trapping'' section of the Species Report (Service
2015, pp. 32-34)), actual impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox are
difficult to determine because of record-keeping conventions, but
likely to be relatively low because relatively few red fox (some of
which may be Sierra Nevada red fox) are removed from an unknown number
of populations as a result of fur trapping in Oregon, and we have no
evidence to suggest that the subspecies is in decline as a consequence
of fur trapping.
California
The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits possession, purchase, or
``take'' of threatened or endangered species without an incidental take
permit, issued by CDFW. The Sierra Nevada red fox was designated as a
threatened species under CESA in 1980 (CDFW 2014, p. 12). Therefore,
CESA establishes protections to Sierra Nevada red fox by emphasizing
early consultation to avoid potential impacts to the subspecies, and to
develop appropriate mitigation planning to offset project caused losses
associated with the listed subspecies.
The State of California classifies red foxes as a furbearing mammal
that is protected from commercial harvest (14 California Code of
Regulations (C.C.R.) 460), and provides protection to Sierra Nevada red
foxes in the form of fines between $300 and $2,000, and up to a year in
jail for illegal trapping (114 C.C.R. 465.5(h)). Body-gripping traps
are also generally prohibited in California, so accidental harvest of
Sierra Nevada red fox incidental to legal trapping of other species is
unlikely (see Trapping or Hunting, above). Between 2000 and 2011,
approximately 150 trapping permits were sold annually in California;
thus, the effects of legal trapping to all species combined are
probably low (Callas 2013, p. 6). Licensed trappers must pass a
trapping competence and proficiency test and must report their trapping
results annually. Scientists who are trapping Sierra Nevada red foxes
for research purposes must obtain a memorandum of understanding from
the State (California Fish and Game Code, sections 1002 and 1003, and
section 650). Additionally, strict trapping and handling protocols must
be adhered to by researchers to ensure the safety of study animals.
Summary of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Overall, existing Federal and State land-use plans include some
general conservation measures for northern spotted owl habitat that are
not specific to Sierra Nevada red fox but nonetheless provide a benefit
to the subspecies, for example through the maintenance and recruitment
of late-successional forest and old-growth habitat. Most management
plans address structural habitat features (e.g., snags that could be
utilized as denning structures) or land allocations (e.g., reserves,
wilderness areas) that contribute to the Sierra Nevada red fox's
habitat. These land-use plans are typically general in nature and
afford relatively broad latitude to land managers, but with explicit
sideboards for directing management activities. Federal regulatory
mechanisms have abated the large-scale loss of late-seral coniferous
forest habitat. Much of the land in Federal ownership across the range
of the Sierra Nevada red fox is managed for interconnected blocks of
late-successional forests that are likely to benefit the Sierra Nevada
red fox. Timber harvest has been substantially reduced on Forest
Service lands within the NWFP area, and does not occur on National Park
Service lands, and existing management is designed to maintain or
increase the amount and quality of coniferous forest that provides
Sierra Nevada red fox habitat, including the ability of these areas to
potentially help connect populations of the subspecies. Outside of
public (Federal) ownership, forest practice rules provide no explicit
protection for Sierra Nevada red fox; however, there are limited
protections for habitat of value to the subspecies.
Based on the analyses contained within the Species Report (Service
2015,
[[Page 61007]]
pp. 58-63) and summarized above on the existing regulatory mechanisms
for the Sierra Nevada red fox, we conclude that the best available
scientific and commercial information, overall, indicates that the
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address impacts to the
subspecies from the stressors for which governments may have regulatory
control (i.e., wildfire and fire suppression (Factor A), injury or
mortality due to fur trapping (Factor B), and collision with vehicles
(Factor E)).
Conservation Efforts
Because the Sierra Nevada red fox has only been documented to date
to occur on Forest Service and NPS lands, primary conservation actions
currently fall to those land management agencies, as well as the
States. Various conservation and management efforts have been occurring
since approximately 1974, including: (1) Significant subspecies-
specific protections in California from hunting and trapping as a
California-stated listed species in 1980; (2) minimized impacts from
various stressors by the Forest Service as a result of its sensitive
species designation in California (since 1998) and Oregon (since 2015);
and (3) National Park Service protections at the Lassen and Crater Lake
sighting areas associated with their requirement to ``preserve
fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as individual
species, features, and plant and animal communities'' (USDI NPS 2006,
p. 36). All beneficial conservation or management actions are described
above and in the Species Report (Service 2015, p. 63) and under the
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section, above. We also note that we
anticipate coordinating with our Federal and State partners in the
future if we collectively determine that translocation of Sierra Nevada
red fox individuals to different populations are prudent to aid in the
conservation of the subspecies.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Sierra Nevada red fox is an endangered or threatened
species throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific
and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future
stressors faced by the Sierra Nevada red fox. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized Sierra Nevada
red fox and habitat experts, and other Federal and State agencies.
Listing is warranted if, based on our review of the best available
scientific and commercial data, we find that the stressors to the
Sierra Nevada red fox are so severe or broad in scope as to indicate
that the subspecies is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
For the purposes of this evaluation, we are required to consider
potential impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox into the foreseeable
future. Based on the best available scientific and commercial
information and to provide the necessary temporal context for assessing
stressors to Sierra Nevada red fox, we determined 50 years to be the
foreseeable future because the likelihood and severity of future
impacts became too uncertain to address beyond a 50-year timeframe (see
examples and further discussion for this time period in the general
discussion above under Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors).
We evaluated each of the potential stressors in the Species Report
(Service 2015, pp. 21-58) for the Sierra Nevada red fox, and we
determined that the following are factors that have either minimally
impacted individuals, impacted one or more sighting areas (or known
populations), or may potentially impact individuals, sighting areas, or
known populations in the future: wildfire and fire suppression (Factor
A), habitat impacts due to the effects of climate change (Factor A),
trapping (for fur and research purposes) (Factor B), disease (Factor
C), predation (Factor C), hybridization with nonnative red fox (Factor
E), competition with coyotes (Factor E), collisions with vehicles
(Factor E), and small and isolated population size effects (Factor E).
Our analysis resulted in the following conclusions for each of the
stressors:
Wildfire or fire suppression impacts may occur throughout
the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox. There may be an overall
increased risk of wildfire, as demonstrated by recent occurrence of
wildfires and potential predictions into the future related to
temperature and precipitation (see Climate Change). At this time, there
are no reports of direct mortality to red foxes from wildfires, and
wildfires can improve habitat for red foxes by removing competing
vegetation and encouraging production of grasses and shrubs favored by
small mammals (Tesky 1995, p. 7), which the Sierra Nevada red fox
depends upon as a prey base. Accordingly, these potential impacts are
balanced with the potential benefits, thus resulting in our
consideration of wildfire and fire suppression to constitute an overall
low-level impact that does not rise to the level of a threat both
currently and into the future.
The severity of potential climate change impacts to Sierra
Nevada red fox habitat will likely vary across its range, with effects
to the subspecies potentially ranging from negative to neutral.
Although many climate models generally agree about the changes in
overall temperature and precipitation (the latter as it relates to
precipitation falling potentially more as rain as opposed to snow at
some upper elevations), the consequent effects on the landscape are
more uncertain, as is the rate at which any such changes might be
realized. Therefore, it is not clear how or when changes in snowpack at
the upper elevations will affect the distribution of Sierra Nevada red
fox or coyotes, the latter of which may compete or predate upon the
subspecies. Overall, we lack sufficient information to predict with any
certainty the future direct or indirect impacts of climate change on
Sierra Nevada red fox habitat or populations. Consequently, we have
determined that we do not have reliable information to suggest that
climate change rises to the to the level of a threat to the Sierra
Nevada red fox now or in the future (i.e., conditions are not expected
to change to a degree that would be considered significant within the
next 50 years), although we will continue to seek additional
information concerning how climate change may affect Sierra Nevada red
fox habitat.
Trapping or hunting for Sierra Nevada red fox fur has no
impact to the subspecies in California because trapping for Sierra
Nevada red fox is illegal in California. Possible illegal fur trapping
in California, as well as rangewide potential impacts associated with
live-trapping for research purposes or incidental trapping of Sierra
Nevada red fox (when intentionally trapping for other furbearer
species), is not expected to result in population-level impacts. Some
Sierra Nevada red fox could be trapped in Oregon where fur trapping for
all red fox subspecies is legal, although we estimate that potential
impacts will not be significant at the population- or rangewide-level
based on the best available trapping data for Oregon. Additionally,
potential impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox from live-trapping and
handling for research purposes is discountable because the best
available data indicate that no Sierra Nevada red fox have been injured
or killed during research-related live-trapping efforts. Available
information
[[Page 61008]]
does not suggest that there would be any change to the level of
anticipated impacts of live-trapping and handling for research purposes
into the future. Thus, impacts from fur trapping and trapping for
research purposes across the Sierra Nevada red fox's range do not rise
to the level of a threat.
Disease has not been documented within Sierra Nevada red
fox individuals or the known populations. The prevalence of possible
past exposure to lethal pathogens within the subspecies has not been
determined, and we have no information to suggest that disease is
currently present in any portion of the subspecies' range. At this
point in time, there is a low probability that a disease outbreak may
occur. We anticipate that if there should be an outbreak, it would
likely have a low impact on all seven sighting areas combined since the
distance between those sighting areas makes it unlikely that an
outbreak would spread to all seven sighting areas. Thus, disease does
not rise to the level of a threat.
Predation is possible by both domestic dogs and coyotes,
the latter of which could also potentially include competition with
coyotes for resources. For domestic dogs, although one documented case
of a dog attack on Sierra Nevada red fox (resulting in death) has
occurred, data indicate that predation by dogs is not expected to
increase in the future based on our evaluation of recent information.
Thus, population-level or subspecies-level effects to Sierra Nevada red
fox are not likely to occur both currently or in the future. For
coyotes, predation and competition have an overall medium-level impact
to the Sierra Nevada red fox due to:
(a) The presence of coyotes co-occurring at multiple sighting areas
within the subspecies' range.
(b) The potential for increased predation in the Crater Lake,
Lassen, and Sonora Pass sighting areas into the future given climate
model projections of decreased snowpack levels that may make the
habitat more favorable to coyotes.
(c) The overall inability of the populations at those three
locations to shift up in elevation.
However, the best available data indicate that predation and
competition are not impacting the Sierra Nevada red fox at the
subspecies-level to the degree that any more than individuals at a
couple sighting areas may be affected both currently and into the
future. Additionally, there is no indication that potential future
changes in snowpack levels or shifting habitat at high elevations (as
suggested by climate models) would occur within the next 50 years to
such a degree that coyote numbers would increase throughout the
subspecies' range to the point that coyote predation or competition
would rise to the level of a threat.
Hybridization with nonnative red fox has been documented
to occur in two sighting areas, although one (Mt. Hood) is a genetic
record indicating hybridization at some point in the past. Recent
hybridization was documented at the Sonora Pass sighting area based on
recent research in a portion of the sighting area. Hybridization
involved interbreeding between female Sierra Nevada red fox and two
male nonnative red foxes, which resulted in seven hybrid pups in 2013,
followed by an additional four hybrid pups in 2014 (Sacks et al. 2015,
pp. 16, 30). Although interbreeding is documented, it is only known to
be a current impact within a portion of one sighting area across the
subspecies' range. At this time, based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, this stressor does not rise to the level of
a threat because information indicates hybridization is currently
occurring within a portion of only one sighting area across the
subspecies' range. We have no information to indicate this level of
impact will increase across the subspecies' range in the future.
Potential vehicle impacts include both collisions and
noise disturbance. Collisions with vehicles are rare, but they can be
expected into the future. Known rates of mortality due to collisions
with vehicles have been low for Sierra Nevada red fox, and the best
available information does not suggest increases in vehicular traffic
or roads to be built in areas where the subspecies occurs. In addition
to collisions, Sierra Nevada red fox could be impacted from noise
disturbance associated with recreational areas; however, the magnitude
of impacts from noise is unknown, and the location of the subspecies'
sightings in these areas suggest that they adjust to the noise
involved. Overall, it is reasonable to expect the impact of vehicles on
Sierra Nevada red fox to be minor and continue at similar levels into
the future, thus not rising to the level of a threat.
Small, isolated populations are susceptible to inbreeding
depression, and are more susceptible to losses from other stressors.
Therefore, we evaluated whether the Sierra Nevada red fox may have
small and isolated populations where these negative effects are likely
to be realized. At this time, evidence suggests that Sierra Nevada red
fox distribution (and likely numbers of individuals) has contracted
from the past in California. This contraction cannot be determined with
certainty for Oregon given the Sierra Nevada red fox's range in the
Oregon Cascades is a recent discovery since publication of the 90-day
finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012). We note that the Sierra Nevada red
fox rangewide distribution and possibly abundance may have declined at
some point in the past based on historical trapping numbers (Grinnell
et al. 1937, p. 389; Schempf and White 1977, p. 44) compared to our
current knowledge of the subspecies' abundance and distribution, where
available. The abundance, trend, and numbers of Sierra Nevada red fox
populations in Oregon are unknown, although recent surveys within the
Oregon Cascades are documenting the presence of Sierra Nevada red fox.
Although the known sighting areas are disjunct, the dispersal
capabilities of Sierra Nevada red fox suggest the potential for
interchange of individuals between sighting areas, with the exception
of the Sonora Pass sighting area where genetic analysis reveals a clear
separation and lack of breeding with the next closest northern Sierra
Nevada red fox population in the Lassen sighting area. The best
available data at this time indicate that although Sierra Nevada red
fox may be reduced in abundance or distribution relative to their
historical numbers and range, there is no empirical evidence that any
current populations of Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon are in decline.
Thus, small or isolated population size effects when considering the
subspecies across its entire range do not rise to the level of a threat
either currently or in the foreseeable future.
Potential cumulative impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox
are possible; however, the most likely scenarios for cumulative impacts
are likely to only occur from the following two scenarios: (1)
Potential increased competition with and predation by coyotes on Sierra
Nevada red fox as a result of high-elevation areas becoming more
suitable for coyotes as a result of climate change; and (2) a
combination of potential stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping in
Oregon, SPD and other diseases, competition and predation from coyotes,
hybridization with nonnative red fox, vehicles) that directly result in
death of loss of reproductive ability for the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Based on the best available data at this time and as described above,
none of these possible cumulative impacts are likely to occur currently
nor are they likely to increase or into the foreseeable future to such
a degree that the effects are expected to
[[Page 61009]]
lead to or rangewide-level declines. Therefore, the cumulative impact
of these potential stressors does not rise to the level of a threat.
We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and did
not determine an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for the
Sierra Nevada red fox. Specifically, we found that multiple Federal
land use plans (e.g., LRMPs, NWFP, SNFPA), plus State regulations in
California that prevent hunting/trapping of Sierra Nevada red fox, are
being implemented, often providing broad latitude for land managers,
but with explicit sideboards for directing management activities. We
note that significant Federal efforts have been developed and are being
implemented (e.g., NWFP) to abate the large-scale loss of forested
habitat-types that the Sierra Nevada red fox depends upon. Beneficial
management efforts of habitat occupied by Sierra Nevada red fox are
also underway on Forest Service and NPS lands that currently constitute
the entire area known to be occupied by Sierra Nevada red fox, which in
turn will promote further recruitment of such suitable habitat.
None of these impacts, as summarized above, was found to
individually or cumulatively impact the Sierra Nevada red fox to a
degree such that listing is warranted at this time. Based on the
analysis contained within the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 21-58),
we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that these stressors are not singly or
cumulatively causing a decline of the Sierra Nevada red fox or its
habitat currently, nor are the stressors likely to be significant in
the foreseeable future to the degree that they would result in declines
of multiple populations (represented by the seven sighting areas) such
that the subspecies would be in danger of extinction, or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
We recognize a need to continue to monitor the Sierra Nevada red
fox throughout its range because the currently known sighting areas are
disjunct (with an unknown number of populations in Oregon), which in
general could make them more susceptible to stressors than species with
large, well-connected populations. There has been relatively little
survey effort specifically for Sierra Nevada red fox in portions of its
range (e.g., Mt. Shasta vicinity, are extending southward along the
Sierra Nevada from the Yosemite National Park area), as opposed to
general carnivore surveys, which may not be sufficient to accurately
determine presence/absence of Sierra Nevada red fox. As indicated
above, survey efforts are underway throughout Oregon at the time of the
publication of this document. In general, the interchange of only a few
individuals is needed to maintain genetic connectivity between
populations over time. As described in this document and the Species
Report (Service 2015, entire), there are stressors that we find may be
having some effect on Sierra Nevada red foxes, albeit not to the degree
that they currently rise to the level that listing the entire
subspecies is warranted. We will continue to monitor the status of the
subspecies and evaluate any other information we receive. Additional
information will continue to be accepted on all aspects of the
subspecies. If at any time data indicate that protective status under
the Act should be provided or if there are new threats or increasing
stressors that rise to the level of a threat, we can initiate listing
procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing pursuant to
section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that the Sierra Nevada red fox
populations in California (and possibly Oregon) may be reduced in size
relative to their historical abundance, and that the subspecies may be
reduced in distribution as compared to its historical range. A listing
determination, however, must be based on our assessment of the current
status of the subspecies in relation to the five listing factors under
the Act. Section 4 of the Act requires that we make such a
determination based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available. To this end, we must rely on reasonable conclusions as
supported by the best available science to assess the current and
future status to determine whether the Sierra Nevada red fox meets the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Based
on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting upon the Sierra Nevada red fox are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the subspecies is in danger of
extinction now (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout all or a 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 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.'' We published a final policy interpreting the
phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1,
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be an
endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of
its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a
threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to
all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the
range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently
an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of its range, but
the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in that portion, the species would
be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is
considered to be the general geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time the Service or NMFS makes any
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is an
endangered or a threatened species throughout an SPR, and the
population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the
DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR Policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species (``species'' under the Act refers to any listable
entity, including species, subspecies, or DPS) is to determine its
status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is
in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an
endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis is required. If
the species is neither an endangered nor a threatened species
throughout all of its range, we determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species
[[Page 61010]]
throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the
species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it
is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either
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 in those portions or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that
answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination
that the species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout a
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in determining
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. In practice,
a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting
it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply
only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically
based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion
clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to
extinction of the entire species), those portions will not warrant
further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate
analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a
threatened species in the SPR. To determine whether a species is an
endangered or a threatened species throughout an SPR, we will use the
same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is
an endangered or a threatened species throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
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 an endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a
threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to
determine if that portion is ``significant.''
We consider the historical range of the Sierra Nevada red fox to
include: (1) The Southern Cascades (from the Columbia River at Mt. Hood
south into California, including the area of Mt. Shasta and slightly
into the Trinity Mountains, and continuing south to the Lassen Peak
area), and (2) the Sierra Nevada (the upper elevations of the Sierra
Nevada Mountain Range from Sierra to Tulare Counties). This range
includes those mountainous areas that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in
California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon
(Aubry et al. 2015, pp. 1-2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2-3, 13-144, line 7).
Based on the best available information at this time, the seven
sighting areas described above account for the current distribution of
the subspecies.
In considering any significant portion of the Sierra Nevada red
fox's range, we considered whether the stressors facing the subspecies
might be different at the seven sighting areas where the Sierra Nevada
red fox has been found and, thus, geographically concentrated in some
portion of the subspecies' range. In the Summary of Information
Pertaining to the Five Factors analysis, above, we identified the most
likely potential differences associated with trapping or hunting for
fur, hybridization with nonnative red fox, and coyote predation or
competition (and its association with climate change).
(1) Trapping or hunting for fur is legal in Oregon, and thus four
Oregon sighting areas may be affected by this activity. Population-
level impacts of legal Sierra Nevada red fox fur trapping within the
four Oregon sighting areas have not been studied, as the impact of
trapping on a red fox population requires an estimate of population
abundance, which is currently unavailable for Sierra Nevada red fox
within the Oregon Cascades. Based on the very few red fox (lowland red
fox or other subspecies) being harvested across the counties that
overlap the Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas, the best available
data indicate that fur trapping is unlikely to result in population-
level impacts across a significant portion of the subspecies' range.
Fur trapping of Sierra Nevada red fox is illegal in California but
legal for other furbearer species. We expect that nearly all Sierra
Nevada red fox that are accidentally captured in box traps set for
other furbearer species (or that are live-trapped for research
purposes) are released unharmed. Although illegal fur trapping
specifically for Sierra Nevada red fox is also a possibility in
California, the best available data at this time do not indicate that
illegal fur trapping or incidental legal live-trapping for the
subspecies for research purposes is resulting in population-level
impacts. Overall, we do not find that the potential impacts from fur
trapping (illegal or legal) and live-trapping for research purposes are
geographically concentrated in any one portion of the Sierra Nevada red
fox's range. Moreover, we do not find that that trapping rises to the
level of a threat to the species, and therefore it is unlikely that the
Sierra Nevada red fox would be found to be endangered or threatened in
any portion of its range as a result of trapping.
(2) Only two sighting areas (Mt. Hood and Sonora Pass) show
evidence of hybridization with nonnative red fox. However, there are no
geographic barriers preventing nonnative red fox from interacting with
Sierra Nevada red fox throughout the remainder of the subspecies'
range. At the Mt. Hood sighting area, two Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals show evidence (via genetic testing of mtDNA) of past
hybridization with nonnative red foxes (Akins and Sacks 2015, p. 1). At
a portion of the Sonora Pass sighting area, interbreeding between
female Sierra Nevada red fox and two male nonnative red foxes resulted
in seven hybrid pups in 2013, and an additional four pups in 2014
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). During the same time period, no
successful fully native reproduction was documented. If this trend
continues, then the Sonora population could become completely
hybridized within a few generations, potentially resulting in
outbreeding depression and genetic swamping.
To date, the best available data indicate that hybridization with
nonnative red fox has impacted a few individuals at two locations.
Future hybridization could occur at these two or other locations, and
therefore we do not anticipate a concentration of this stressor in any
one portion of the subspecies' range.
(3) The presence of coyotes is likely to continue in most if not
all areas throughout the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, and may
potentially result in elevated levels of predation
[[Page 61011]]
and competition in the future if climate change predictions become
realized. The potential impacts from climate change could result in
reduced snowpack and vegetation changes, which in turn could result in
habitat conditions more suitable for coyotes, thus potentially
increasing the level of coyote predation or competition. These impacts
may be more pronounced at the Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass
sighting areas as compared to the remainder of the Sierra Nevada red
fox's sighting areas due to the subspecies already occupying the
highest elevations at Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas, and the
subspecies already occupying a relatively narrow elevational range at
the Sonora Pass sighting area. At this time, it is not clear how finer-
scale abiotic factors may shape local climates and influence local
snowpack levels and vegetation trends either to the benefit or
detriment of Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is the timeframe clear over
which these influences may be realized.
Although information on coyote predation is not available at all
three sighting areas, we note that Perrine (2005, p. 192) found coyote
population density at the Lassen sighting area to be greater at lower
elevations, thus producing an elevational separation between most
coyotes and the Sierra Nevada red fox population. It is reasonable to
assume this same type of elevational separation exists at the Crater
Lake and Sonora Pass sighting areas, and that it may continue into the
foreseeable future. Additionally, the Sierra Nevada red fox's main
winter food source at the Lassen study site was small rodents rather
than the coyote's preference of deer (Perrine 2005, p. 24); thus, the
Sierra Nevada red fox tended to stay at higher elevations than coyotes,
thereby reducing potential predation and competition. Although
potential future climate change impacts could promote conditions for
coyotes numbers to increase at the higher elevations (particularly in
certain sighting areas), we believe this change is speculative at this
time.
We also note that two packs of gray wolves have recently become
established in the southern portion of the Oregon Cascades in Oregon
and California, and it is reasonable to predict continued repopulation
of wolves to the Cascades (currently occurring between the Lassen and
Crater Lake sighting areas, approximately 24 km (15 mi) south of the
Crater Lake sighting area). Presence of wolves would likely lower
coyote population numbers or exclude them from higher elevation
forested areas, thereby facilitating the persistence of nearby Sierra
Nevada red fox populations (Levi and Wilmers 2012, p. 926). Wolves are
also not expected to significantly impact the Sierra Nevada red fox
given they typically prey upon and compete with larger game (ODFW 2015,
p. 2). Given that (1) ODFW's current conservation objectives for the
wolf include establishment of seven breeding pairs in western Oregon
for 3 consecutive years (ODFW 2010, p. 17), and (2) the likelihood that
CDFW (in cooperation with the Service) would develop a beneficial
conservation strategy for wolves in California, we consider it likely
that the current wolf populations will expand over the next 50 years to
effectively overlap other portions of the Sierra Nevada red fox's
historical range in Oregon and California in the foreseeable future,
thus potentially contributing to natural coyote control within the
Sierra Nevada red fox's range.
Overall, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information at this time, we do not anticipate a geographic
concentration of threats in one or more sighting areas at a level
greater than any other (i.e., potential impacts associated with climate
change and coyote predation/competition appear uniformly distributed
throughout the subspecies' range). At this time, there is significant
uncertainty as to the severity of impact, and data do not indicate that
coyote populations will, with certainty, increase as a result of
climate change into the foreseeable future at a level greater than any
other in any one portion of the range of the subspecies.
In summary, our evaluation of the best available information
indicates that the overall level of stressors is not geographically
concentrated in one portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox's range, and
that the stressors that have the potential to impact the subspecies are
relatively consistent across its range (Service 2015, entire). Our
review of the best available scientific and commercial information
indicates that the Sierra Nevada red fox is not in danger of extinction
(endangered) nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we find that listing the Sierra Nevada red fox as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this
time.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Analysis
Citing the Services' DPS Policy (61 FR 4722) and the best available
information at the time, the April 27, 2011, petition from the Center
for Biological Diversity (CBD 2011, pp. 7-8) suggests two potential
DPSs within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox (as originally
described by Perrine et al. 2010 and Sacks et al. 2010a): a Southern
Cascade population in the Cascades Mountains of northern California and
Oregon, and a Sierra Nevada population in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The petitioner stated that they believe the full subspecies (comprised
of both distinct segments) should be listed, although we note that this
statement was made prior to the discovery of new information
documenting the Sierra Nevada red fox subspecies inhabiting the entire
Oregon Cascades area as far north as Mt. Hood (see Summary of Species
Information, above). Further, the petitioner articulated that the
Service should assess whether the [then known] two populations (i.e.,
Lassen and Sonora Pass) qualify as DPSs under the Act.
As a result of the new information received following publication
of the 90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012), and as described
above under Summary of Species Information--Distribution/Range, we
evaluate here a potential Southern Cascades DPS that includes the
Cascade Mountains of Oregon from the Columbia River south into the
California Cascades around Lassen Peak (including the area of Mt.
Shasta, primarily in the Cascades but extending slightly into the
Trinity Mountains), and a potential Sierra Nevada DPS that includes the
upper elevations of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from Tulare to
Sierra Counties. The best available information indicates that Sierra
Nevada red fox occurs discontinuously throughout these mountainous
areas at elevations that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in California
(Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et
al. 2015, pp. 1-2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2-3, 13-14, line 7).
Section 3(16) of the Act defines the term ``species'' to include
any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature. We have always understood the phrase
``interbreeds when mature'' to mean that a DPS must consist of members
of the same species or subspecies in the wild that would be
biologically capable of interbreeding if given the opportunity, but all
members need not actually interbreed with each other. A DPS is a subset
of a species or subspecies, and cannot consist of members of a
different species or subspecies. The ``biological species concept''
defines species according to a group of organisms, their
[[Page 61012]]
actual or potential ability to interbreed, and their relative
reproductive isolation from other organisms. This concept is a widely
accepted approach to defining species. We believe that the Act's use of
the phrase ``interbreeds when mature'' reflects this understanding. Use
of this phrase with respect to a DPS is simply intended to mean that a
DPS must be comprised of members of the same species or subspecies. As
long as this requirement is met, a DPS may include multiple populations
of vertebrate organisms that may not interbreed with each other. For
example, a DPS may consist of multiple populations of a fish species
separated into different drainages. While these populations may not
actually interbreed with each other, their members are biologically
capable of interbreeding.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service
published a joint Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS
Policy) on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the DPS policy,
two elements must be satisfied in order for a population segment to
qualify as a possible DPS: discreteness and significance. If the
population segment qualifies as a DPS, the conservation status of that
DPS is then evaluated to determine whether it is endangered or
threatened.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If a population is found to be discrete, then it is evaluated for
significance under the DPS policy on the basis of its importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not
limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon; (2)
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the
population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside
of its historical range; or (4) evidence that the population differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
If a population segment is both discrete and significant (i.e., it
qualifies as a potential DPS) its evaluation for endangered or
threatened status is based on the Act's definitions of those terms and
a review of the factors listed in section 4(a) of the Act. According to
our DPS policy, it may be appropriate to assign different
classifications to different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon. For
this 12-month finding and DPS analysis of the Sierra Nevada red fox, we
reviewed and evaluated information contained in numerous publications
and reports, including but not limited to Aubry 1997, Grinnell et al.
1937, Perrine 2005, Perrine et al. 2010, Sacks et al. 2010a, Sacks et
al. 2015, Schempf and White 1977, and Statham et al. 2012.
Discreteness
The best available data indicate spatial separation between the
Sierra Nevada red foxes that occur in the Southern Cascades and Sierra
Nevada Mountain Ranges. The mountain ranges themselves are geologically
divided, and currently a large separation exists between the nearest
known populations (Lassen and Sonora Pass) in these two ranges. The
distance separating the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas is
approximately 150 km (93 mi), which is greater than the dispersal
distance known from one study of red fox in the Midwest, where 95
percent of the juvenile American Midwest red fox dispersed less than
approximately 80 km (50 mi) in their first year (Perrine et al. 2010,
pp. 14-15).
In addition to marked separation (i.e., spatial separation) that
currently exists between the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Southern
Cascades and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges, genetic research shows that
the Lassen and Sonora Pass populations (representing the Southern
Cascades and Sierra Nevada population segments, respectively) are
genetically distinct from each other (Stratham et al. 2012, pp. 129-
130). Analyses using both mtDNA and microsatellites indicate that
Sierra Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass sighting area are descendants
of the Sierra Nevada red fox population that was historically resident
in the Sierra Nevada range (Statham et al. 2012, pp. 126-129). Lastly,
genetic research indicates that there are no shared mitochondrial
haplotypes between the Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada populations,
and there is no evidence of gene flow between the two populations
(Statham et al. 2012, pp. 129-130).
In conclusion, the areas occupied by the Sierra Nevada red fox
within the Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges are
separated by a geologic gap in the range. The best available data
currently indicate this gap represents a lack of population
connectivity between the two geographic areas. This separation is
further supported by recent genetic studies which demonstrate that the
two closest sighting areas (i.e., known populations that reside at the
Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas) show genetic differences, and
there is no indication of gene flow between these populations.
Therefore, we conclude that the two areas are discrete under our DPS
policy.
Significance
If a population segment is considered discrete under one of more of
the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly'' while
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this
determination and as described above, this consideration may include,
but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the
taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that
the population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a
taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside of its historical range; or (4) evidence that the population
differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
The current known distribution of genetic variation across the
range of the Sierra Nevada red fox places a disproportionate
significance on both the Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada segments
for the maintenance of genetic diversity in the subspecies. As
indicated above, the Sierra Nevada red fox differs markedly from other
subspecies of red fox, and those that occur within the Sierra Nevada
segment are genetically distinguishable from the Sierra Nevada red
foxes that occur throughout the remainder of the subspecies range
(Statham et al. 2012, pp. 129-130). Further, genetic analyses reveal
that Sierra Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass sighting area are
descendants of the Sierra Nevada red fox population that was
historically resident in the area (Statham et al. 2012,
[[Page 61013]]
pp. 126-129). In addition, different mtDNA haplotypes separate the
Sierra Nevada red foxes that reside in the Southern Cascades from those
that reside in the Sierra Nevada, indicating a lack of gene flow.
Consequently, the loss of either the Southern Cascades or the Sierra
Nevada segments could result in a significant curtailment of the
genetic variation and diversity of the subspecies.
Additionally, the loss of the Sierra Nevada segment of the Sierra
Nevada red fox's range would create a significant gap in the geographic
range of the subspecies, given the southern-most known population
within the Sierra Nevada Mountain range is approximately 241 km (150
mi) south of the next closest sighting area (Lassen) at the southern
end of the Southern Cascades. If the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range
segment of the subspecies' range was lost, this would result in an
estimated 40 to 50 percent reduction in the range of the Sierra Nevada
red fox. Likewise, the loss of the Southern Cascades segment of the
subspecies' range would result in an estimated 50-60 reduction in the
range of the Sierra Nevada red fox.
Overall, the two segments (Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada) of
the Sierra Nevada red fox's range differ markedly from each other and
from other subspecies of red fox based on their genetic
characteristics, and loss of either the Sierra Nevada segment or the
Southern Cascades segment of the Sierra Nevada red fox's range would
create a significant gap in the geographic range of the subspecies.
Therefore, we conclude that the two areas are significant under our DPS
policy.
Conclusion of Distinct Population Segment Review
We have evaluated as possible DPSs the populations of Sierra Nevada
red fox from both the Southern Cascades Mountain Range and the Sierra
Nevada Mountain Range, and we have addressed the elements our DPS
policy requires us to consider in deciding whether a vertebrate
population may be recognized as a DPS and considered for listing under
the Act. In assessing discreteness for both segments, we considered
geological, ecological, and genetic information. As described above, we
have determined that both the Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada
segments of the Sierra Nevada red fox's range are both discrete and
significant based on marked physical separation (discreteness) and
genetic variation/characteristics (discreteness and significance). Our
analysis reveals that the loss of the subspecies from either segment of
the Sierra Nevada red fox's range would represent: (1) A significant
gap in the subspecies' range, and (2) the loss of genetic differences
from Sierra Nevada red fox in the remainder of the subspecies range, as
well as from other subspecies of red fox.
Since we have identified that the Southern Cascades segment and the
Sierra Nevada segment of the Sierra Nevada red fox each meet the DPS
criteria for discreteness and significance, we will evaluate each DPS
with regard to their potential for listing as endangered or threatened
using the five listing factors enumerated in section 4(a) of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). Our evaluation of these DPSs follows.
Southern Cascades Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Sierra Nevada
Red Fox
As described above, section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) describe procedures for
adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a), we may list a species on the
basis of 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.
An endangered species is defined by the Act, with exception, as
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is defined as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' A species is defined by the Act to include any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
An analysis of the potential threats for the Sierra Nevada red fox
is included in the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) associated
with this document (and available at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103). All potential threats of which we are
aware that may act upon the Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra Nevada red
fox (hereafter referred to as Southern Cascades DPS) currently or in
the future are captured within the Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors section, above, and stepped down in the following
paragraphs as they pertain specifically to the Southern Cascades DPS.
The range of the Southern Cascades DPS includes high-elevation alpine
and subalpine zones near and above treeline (roughly greater than 1,200
m (3,937 ft) in California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and 1,219 m
(4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015, pp. 2-3; Doerr 2015, pp. 2-3,
13-14, line 7) that contain conifer habitat of various types (Perrine
2005, pp. 63-64). These areas occur within the southern portion of the
Cascades mountain range from the Columbia River just north of Mt. Hood
(Hood River and Wasco Counties, Oregon) south to the Lassen Peak area
(roughly the northeast corner of Tehama County and southeast corner of
Shasta County, California). At this time, Sierra Nevada red fox are
known to reside within a minimum of six locations across the range of
the Southern Cascades DPS.
In comparison to the five-factor analysis presented above for the
entire taxon, we are not aware of any information to indicate that
trapping for research purposes (Factor B) is a threat to the Southern
Cascades DPS currently or in the future. Other potential stressors
identified specifically for the Southern Cascades DPS are discussed
below.
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
the potential effects of wildfire and fire suppression (Factor A) on
the Southern Cascades DPS are similar to those described previously for
the Sierra Nevada red fox. When they occur, wildfires typically burn in
a range of intensities, resulting in a mosaic of habitat effects.
Intense, stand-replacing wildfire (similar to the 2011 Dollar Lake fire
near Mt. Hood) could reduce habitat availability and quality for this
DPS by reducing overstory cover. However, even stand-replacing (high
severity) fires do not necessarily result in a complete loss of habitat
or occupancy by Sierra Nevada red fox, as demonstrated by the 2014
detections of Sierra Nevada red fox in two locations within the Dollar
Lake burn area (McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015).
There is uncertainty concerning the potential for population-level
effects of wildfire on the Southern Cascades DPS (and we note that the
number of Sierra Nevada red fox populations within the range of the DPS
is unknown), but it is reasonable to assume that wildfires will
continue to occur in the Southern Cascades mountains into the future,
potentially at a rate similar to what has been occurring in the recent
past. The
[[Page 61014]]
most recent wildfires recorded for the Southern Cascades DPS (not
necessarily overlapping all of the sighting areas) are: (1) Mt. Hood
sighting area--the 2,428 ha (6,000 ac), high-intensity (i.e., removed a
significant amount of vegetation) Dollar Lake wildfire in 2011 (NWCC
2015, pp. 1-2); (2) Dutchman Flat sighting area--the 10,570 ha (26,119
ac) Pole Creek burn in 2012 (McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015); and (3)
Lassen sighting area--the 11,331 ha (28,000 ac) Reading wildfire in
2012.
Land management agencies within the range of the Southern Cascades
DPS are expected to continue to implement necessary vegetation or fuels
management strategies (e.g., fire management plans, LRMPs) to reduce
the likelihood of wide-scale, catastrophic fires. The future
effectiveness of these treatments is unknown, but the best available
information indicates that at least local reductions in fire severity
should be achieved.
Overall, a combination of: (1) The beneficial aspects that
wildfires may have for the Sierra Nevada red fox (e.g., habitat changes
that promote an increase in suitable prey species and fruiting shrubs
that are a supplementary food source); (2) no reports of direct impacts
from wildfire to Sierra Nevada red fox; and (3) the broad range that
Sierra Nevada red foxes occur across the Southern Cascades (thus
preventing a single fire from having significant impacts to a
significant portion of the DPS's range), leads us to believe that
wildfire (and associated wildfire suppression) is not an overall
significant impact to the Southern Cascades DPS. Therefore, we conclude
that based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
wildfire and fire suppression are not a threat to the Southern Cascades
DPS now or into the future.
Climate Change
The similarities in ecology and habitat associations between the
Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox and the rest of the
taxon across its entire range, combined with the large scales at which
climate change studies are conducted, lead us to conclude that our
analysis of the potential effects of climate change (Factor A) for the
entire taxon similarly applies to the Southern Cascades DPS. The most
significant, potential future impact to the Southern Cascades DPS from
climate change (likely to manifest itself beyond the 50-year
foreseeable future time period) appears to be reduced snowpack levels
that would make high-elevation areas more suitable for coyotes, and
thus the fox would shift up in elevation to remain in higher snowpack
areas. The DPS could be at an elevated risk at two of the six sighting
areas across the DPS's range--the Crater Lake and Lassen sighting
areas--because the subspecies currently resides close to the highest
elevation possible at those locations. The remaining four sighting
areas include suitable habitat at higher elevations than the elevations
currently known to be occupied.
Although many climate models generally agree about potential future
changes in temperature and a greater proportion of precipitation
falling as rain rather than snow, the consequent effects on snowpack
levels and vegetation composition are more uncertain, as is the rate at
which any such changes might be realized. Therefore, it is not clear
how or when changes in snowpack levels, forest type, and plant species
composition will affect the distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat within the Southern Cascades DPS. Thus, uncertainty exists
regarding the level of impact that climate change may have on Sierra
Nevada red fox or their habitat within the Southern Cascades DPS.
Overall, we conclude that, based on the best scientific and commercial
information available at this time, the expected future (i.e., next 50
years) conditions are not expected to change to a degree that would be
considered significant. Thus, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this time, climate change is not a
threat to the Southern Cascades DPS now or into the future.
Trapping or Hunting for Fur
As described earlier in this document, historical unregulated fur
trapping (prior to the 1940s) of Sierra Nevada red fox is considered by
researchers as the likely cause of the marked contraction in Sierra
Nevada red fox's distribution. Until recently, Sierra Nevada red fox in
Oregon were considered to be Cascade foxes--of the same subspecies that
occupied the Cascades in Washington (Sacks et al. 2010, p. 1536). Fur
trapping is regulated and remains legal throughout Oregon, although
information is not available regarding historical hunting and trapping
pressures on Sierra Nevada red foxes in the Oregon Cascades.
Due to regulatory protections, hunting and trapping do not
constitute a current or likely future stressor to Sierra Nevada red fox
that occur on National Park Service lands at Crater Lake National Park
and the entire Lassen sighting area (as discussed above). In the
counties where the other four Oregon sighting areas occur, low numbers
of red foxes are harvested, some of which may be Sierra Nevada red fox.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) maintains trapping
records by county, without recording exact location or elevation, so
harvest of Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon cannot be distinguished from
harvest of lowland fox subspecies (Turner 2015). Records of fox numbers
taken from 1989 to 2009 are not separated by year, preventing
inferences regarding trends over time. The best available information
indicates that numbers of red fox harvested were highest in Lane County
(Willamette Pass sighting area) and second highest in Linn County
(overlaps part of the Mt. Washington sighting area). The average
harvest of red fox has dropped since 1989 across all eight Oregon
counties that contain a Sierra Nevada red fox sighting area; however,
information is not available to determine whether the harvest decline
is due to reduced hunting and trapping effort or reduced numbers of red
fox.
In the absence of more definite information regarding the number of
Sierra Nevada red fox individuals and populations in Oregon, we do not
consider the current harvest levels likely to produce detrimental
impact to the DPS, as a whole, across its range. The best available
information also does not indicate that the current harvest levels
would increase into the future. These activities therefore constitute a
stressor that is not impacting the DPS to the degree that the
subspecies in the Oregon Cascades is in decline as a consequence of fur
trapping. We consider the legal fur trapping within the Oregon Cascades
DPS as having no impact to Sierra Nevada red fox at the Crater Lake and
Lassen sighting areas, and a low-level impact at the remaining sighting
areas in Oregon where relatively few red fox (some of which may be
Sierra Nevada red fox) may be harvested. Therefore, because there is no
overall significant impact across the DPS's range both currently and
into the future, based on the best scientific and commercial
information available at this time, trapping or hunting for fur does
not rise to the level of a threat.
Disease
We believe that the potential effects of disease (Factor C) on the
Southern Cascades DPS are the same as those previously described for
the entire range of the Sierra Nevada red fox. This conclusion is based
on both our understanding of the biology/habits of the subspecies, as
well as the presence (or lack thereof) of the various diseases (i.e.,
SPD, EFF, sarcoptic mange, canine
[[Page 61015]]
distemper, and rabies) within the DPS's range. To avoid redundancy,
these effects are described in detail above for the entire taxon under
Disease. Given there is no evidence to suggest that disease has
impacted the Southern Cascades DPS population in the past, nor is there
evidence to suggest that disease currently affects the DPS or is likely
to in the future, we conclude that disease is not a threat to the
Southern Cascades DPS now or in the future.
Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes, and Competition With Coyotes
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
the potential effects of predation by either domestic dogs or coyotes
(Factor C), as well as competition with coyotes (Factor E), on the
Sierra Nevada DPS are similar to those described previously for the
entire taxon. Given recreational opportunities and regulations,
domestic dogs within Sierra Nevada red fox's home range territories
within the DPS are most likely to occur in the Willamette Pass, Crater
Lake, and Lassen sighting areas, but domestic dogs could also
potentially be found along many other roads or recreational areas
(e.g., hiking trails) within the DPS's range. To date, predation by a
domestic dog has been documented once within the range of the Southern
Cascades DPS--one radio-collared Sierra Nevada red fox died in 2000 at
the Lassen sighting area. See Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes,
above, for additional discussion.
Coyotes are known to occur within the Southern Cascades DPS's
range, including the following:
(1) Mt. Hood sighting area--One scat was genetically identified in
October 2013, at an elevation higher than the Sierra Nevada red fox
sightings (i.e., at 1,879 m (6,165 ft) (Akins 2014, p. 2)).
(2) Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat, and Willamette sighting areas--
Four detections occurred in recent years at camera stations in the
Willamette and Deschutes National Forests where Sierra Nevada red fox
have also been documented to occur (McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2014,
pp. 3, 5-6). The specific locations within the sighting areas were not
identified in McFadden-Hiller and Hiller (2014, p. 3).
(3) Lassen sighting area--Perrine's (2005, pp. 73-74)
investigations at the Lassen sighting area found coyotes present at all
elevations during the summer months. However, coyote population density
was found to be greater at lower elevations, thus producing an
elevational separation between most coyotes and the Sierra Nevada red
fox population (Perrine 2005, p. 192).
Overall, Sierra Nevada red foxes are better able than coyotes to
live in areas of relatively deep snow, thus tending to remain at higher
elevations with snowpack where coyotes are less common during winter
months. Coyotes are generally found at lower elevations than Sierra
Nevada red fox during winter and early spring when snowpack is high
(Service 2015, pp. 48-51). Sierra Nevada red fox may potentially
benefit from the presence of coyotes--for example, individuals during
winter months could benefit by scavenging deer carcasses killed by
coyotes (Perrine 2005, p. 31). Additionally, potential future coyote
impacts could be lessened if the two recently established wolf packs
(which may control coyote numbers but are unlikely to compete or
predate upon Sierra Nevada red fox, as wolves tend to take larger game
(ODFW 2015, p. 2)) in the Southern Cascades expand.
Similar to those impacts described above for the entire taxon, we
do not have information on associated coyote impacts to the Southern
Cascades DPS (i.e., no information to indicate that coyotes are causing
a decline or that coyotes are increasing in number) either currently
nor are they likely to increase into the future. This could change if
climate change-related impacts become realized with significantly
lowered snowpack levels; alternatively, potential future coyote impacts
could be lessened if wolf packs expand within the DPS's range.
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
As described above under the Hybridization with Nonnative Red Fox
discussion for the entire taxon, hybridization of Sierra Nevada red fox
with other nonnative red fox (Factor E) could result in outbreeding
depression or genetic swamping (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 16-17). The
only indication of hybridization within the Southern Cascades DPS is
based on genetic testing of mtDNA from two Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals at the Mt. Hood sighting area that show evidence of past
(not recent) hybridization with nonnative red foxes (Akins and Sacks
2015, p. 1). Although these data indicate that nonnative red fox have
bred with the Sierra Nevada red fox at one of the six sighting areas
within the DPS's range at some time in the past, the best available
data do not indicate current hybridization impacts to any of the
sighting areas within the DPS. Therefore, this stressor does not
currently rise to the level of a threat. As discussed earlier in this
document, there do not appear to be any geographical barriers
separating nonnative red fox from Sierra Nevada red fox, so it is
possible that hybridization could take place in other sighting areas in
the future. However, we have no information that indicates that
hybridization, should it occur, would rise to the level of a threat to
the DPS. Therefore, the best available scientific and commercial
information available does not suggest that hybridization within the
DPS's range is a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Vehicles
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
the potential effects of vehicles (i.e., potential road kill and noise
disturbance) (Factor E) are similar to those described previously for
the entire taxon. To date, there are two confirmed reports of Sierra
Nevada red fox road kills within the Southern Cascades DPS along Oregon
State Highway 20 approximately 80 km (50 mi) west of the Mt. Washington
sighting area and two unconfirmed reports near the Crater Lake sighting
area. There may also be noise disturbance activity in the portion of
the DPS that overlaps with the Willamette Pass Ski Area or the snow-
parks near the Dutchman Flat sighting area. However, snowmobile-related
impacts are largely unknown, and the best available data do not
indicate any current or future impacts associated with increases in
vehicular activity or noise levels. At this time, information indicates
that individual Sierra Nevada red foxes within the range of the Oregon
Cascades DPS may be impacted be vehicle activity or noise as opposed to
significant impacts across the range of the DPS. Therefore, based on
the best scientific and commercial information available at this time,
we conclude that vehicles are not a threat to the Oregon Cascades DPS
now or in the future.
Small and Isolated Population Effects
Based on the best scientific information available, we believe the
potential negative effects associated with small and isolated
populations within the Southern Cascades DPS are similar to those
presented above for the entire taxon. We recognize that the smaller a
population becomes, the more likely it is that one or more stressors
could impact a population, potentially reducing its overall size, or
resulting in impacts associated with genetic diversity, inbreeding, and
reproduction deficiency, all of which can increase a species risk of
extinction. Within the Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox,
the number and size of
[[Page 61016]]
Sierra Nevada red fox populations in Oregon are not yet known, in large
part due the recent discovery that the montane red fox thought to have
been the Cascades subspecies were in fact the Sierra Nevada red fox
subspecies (see additional discussion for the Sierra Nevada red fox
under the Small and Isolated Population Effects section, above).
Surveys are ongoing at the time of publication of this document. Of the
information available for the five Oregon sighting areas, there is no
indication that the Oregon populations or sighting areas are being
negatively impacted by reduced genetic diversity, inbreeding
depression, or reproduction deficiency.
Information is available on the population size of the Lassen
sighting area that occurs on the southern end of the DPS's range.
Specifically, this population is considered small and represented by 21
breeding and 21 nonbreeding individuals (see Table 1, above). Sacks et
al. (2010, p. 1536) and Sacks (2015, p. 1) state that the actual size
of the Lassen population is likely to be somewhere between 21 and 63
individuals, depending on the number of nonbreeding individuals
present. Although suitable habitat is limited between the Lassen and
next closest sighting area in the DPS (i.e., Crater Lake), suitable
habitat is present, and the best available information suggests that
dispersal could potentially occur between sighting areas. We also note
that researchers indicate that the Sierra Nevada red fox populations
are likely represented by relatively small numbers (Grinnell et al.
1937, p. 396) or low population densities (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9).
Given the presence of suitable habitat conditions and the numbers
of Sierra Nevada red fox observed to date without comprehensive surveys
across the DPS's range, it is reasonable to conclude that additional
Sierra Nevada red foxes likely occur throughout the range of the DPS.
At this time, despite the relatively geographically disjunct nature of
the known sighting areas across the Southern Cascades DPS, there is no
evidence to suggest that the sighting areas (and unknown number of
populations) are entirely isolated from one another to the degree that
we would expect the manifestation of significant negative effects that
could potentially arise in small, isolated populations. Additionally,
although the Lassen population is considered small at this time, we
believe the number of sighting areas and extent of geographic area
covered by the subspecies within the DPS contribute to the overall low
likelihood of a catastrophic event potentially impacting the entire
DPS's range.
Overall across the Southern Cascades DPS's range at this time, the
best available information indicates at least one small population at
the southern end of its range, and an unknown number of populations of
unknown size throughout the remainder of the DPS's range. Additionally,
the best available data do not indicate empirical evidence that the
Sierra Nevada red fox is in decline across the DPS. Thus, based on the
best scientific and commercial information available at this time,
small or isolated population size effects do not rise to the level of a
threat within the Southern Cascades DPS either currently or in the
future.
Cumulative Effects
The best scientific and commercial information available at this
time does not indicate that potential cumulative effects within the
Southern Cascades DPS are different than the potential cumulative
impacts described above for the entire taxon. Above, we concluded that
two cumulative impact scenarios could potentially occur:
(1) Potential increased competition with coyotes on Sierra Nevada
red fox as a result of high-elevation forested areas becoming more
suitable for coyotes following potential impacts from climate change
(i.e., lowered snowpack levels, increased incidence and extent of
wildfires).
(2) A combination of potential stressors (i.e., hunting and
trapping, SPD and other diseases, competition and predation from
coyotes, hybridization with nonnative red fox, and vehicles) that
directly result in death or loss of reproductive ability for the Sierra
Nevada red fox.
For the purposes of this analysis for the Southern Cascades DPS,
and similar to the discussion and conclusion presented above for the
entire taxon, the best available data at this time do not suggest that
the cumulative effects of potential increased competition from coyotes
associated with possible future climate change impacts rise to the
level of a threat to the Southern Cascades DPS. Additionally, although
it is possible that all or some of the stressors could potentially act
in concert as a cumulative threat to the Southern Cascades DPS, the
best available data indicate ambiguity in either the likelihood or
level of impacts for the various stressors at the DPS-wide level, or
the data indicate only individual-level impacts. Thus, data do not
indicate that these stressors are cumulatively causing now or will
cause in the future a substantial decline of the Sierra Nevada red fox
across the range of the Southern Cascades DPS. Therefore, we have
determined that based on the best scientific and commercial information
available at this time, the cumulative impacts of these potential
stressors do not rise to the level of a threat for the Southern
Cascades DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms--Southern Cascades DPS
Existing regulatory mechanisms that affect the Southern Cascades
DPS include laws and regulations promulgated by the Federal Government,
State of Oregon government, and State of California government (Factor
D). These include the following mechanisms that are described in detail
in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 58-63), and summarized in more
detail above under the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section for the
entire taxon:
(1) Forest Service policy manual (USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22),
which allows for designation of sensitive species of management
concern, of which the Sierra Nevada red fox is a sensitive species
where it occurs on National Forests in California (U.S. Forest Service
Region 5) and in Oregon (USDA 2013, p. 1; Chapman 2015, Excel attch.,
wksht. 2, line 655).
(2) National Forest management is directed by the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and
the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA specifies that the Forest
Service must have an LRMP to guide and set standards for all natural
resource management activities on each National Forest, including the
Mt. Hood, Willamette, Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, Rogue River, and
Lassen National Forests that currently harbor suitable habitat or known
occurrences of Sierra Nevada red fox within the Southern Cascades DPS,
and the Forest Service must implement management actions through their
LRMPs that provide a conservation benefit to the DPS.
(3) The NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire) guides management over a
portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox habitat within the Southern
Cascades DPS, specifically to provide the basis for conservation of the
northern spotted owl and other late-successional, old-growth forest
associated species on Federal lands. The NWFP is important for the DPS
because it creates a network of late-successional and old-growth
forests that help meet the Sierra Nevada red fox's habitat
requirements, discussed above, at the Mt. Hood, Mt.
[[Page 61017]]
Washington, Dutchman Flat, and Willamette Pass sighting areas. Several
land allocations exist with differing levels of standards and
guidelines for managing forest resources, all of which has had an
overall positive impact on the forests/resources by substantially
reducing habitat loss from forest management activities on Federal
lands.
(4) The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the National Park Service General Authorities Act
of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1) address natural resources on National Park
lands, specifically within Crater Lake National Park within the
Southern Cascades DPS. These Acts require the National Park Service to
``preserve fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as
individual species, features, and plant and animal communities'' (USDI
NPS 2006, p. 36). Sierra Nevada red fox habitat within park boundaries
that are not developed specifically for recreation and camping are
managed toward natural processes and species composition, which
provides an overall conservation benefit to the subspecies and its
habitat.
(5) Although the Sierra Nevada red fox within the Oregon portion of
the Southern Cascades DPS may be hunted and trapped (635 Oregon
Administrative Rules 050-0045(1), 0045(8), the best available data do
not indicate actual impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox at this time,
nor do the data indicate any impacts to the subspecies into the future.
(6) Within the Lassen sighting area portion of the Southern
Cascades DPS, the CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits possession,
purchase, or ``take'' of endangered or threatened species without an
incidental take permit, issued by CDFW. The Sierra Nevada red fox was
designated as a threatened species under CESA in 1980 (CDFW 2014, p.
12). Additionally, the State of California classifies red foxes as a
furbearing mammal that is protected from commercial harvest (14 C.C.R.
460).
Overall, existing regulatory mechanisms currently (and into the
future) provide substantial protection on Federal lands for the
Southern Cascades DPS. Within the Lassen sighting area specifically,
the Sierra Nevada red fox's State-listed status and protection from
commercial harvest provide additional, significant protection for the
long-term conservation of the subspecies. Although similar protections
from hunting and trapping are not available for the remainder of the
DPS's range in Oregon, the best available data do not indicate
rangewide impacts to the DPS. As similarly described above in the
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section for the whole taxon, the best
available scientific and commercial information indicates that the
existing mechanisms are adequate to address impacts to the Southern
Cascades DPS from stressors for which governments may have regulatory
control (i.e., wildfire, injury or mortality due to fur trapping, and
collision with vehicles).
Finding for the Southern Cascades DPS
We assessed the best available scientific and commercial
information regarding threats faced by the Southern Cascades DPS. We
have reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and
information submitted to us following our 90-day finding (77 FR 45;
January 3, 2012). We also consulted with Sierra Nevada red fox
researchers and Federal land managers. We do not find support for the
petitioners' claim that the Southern Cascades DPS may warrant listing
as a federally endangered or threatened species. The petitioners did
not outline the threats that they believe are specific to the Southern
Cascades DPS, although based on our analysis, we evaluated all
stressors identified for the entire taxon across Oregon and California.
Our analysis of the best available information indicates that the
Southern Cascades DPS is not warranted for listing based on the same
reasons identified above for the Sierra Nevada red fox across its
entire range. Overall, we found that the stressors that may impact the
Southern Cascades DPS are not significantly impacting the subspecies
either currently or in the future (such that listing may be warranted).
Specifically, we found that five stressors (i.e., wildfire and fire
suppression; trapping or hunting for fur; predation by dogs or coyotes,
or competition from coyotes; hybridization with nonnative red fox; and
vehicles) may impact individuals at one or more sighting areas
currently or in the future, but these five stressors are not causing
DPS-wide impacts such that the DPS meets the definition of an
endangered or threatened species at this time.
Currently, the best available data indicate that the only known
population in the Southern Cascades DPS (i.e., the Lassen sighting
area) may be experiencing elevated impacts due to its small population
size. In addition, both the Lassen and Crater Lake sighting areas may
experience (in the future beyond the 50-year time period) combined
pressures from coyote predation and competition, as well as climate
change-related impacts that could reduce snowpack levels, thereby
creating habitat conditions at high elevations that are more favorable
to coyotes. However, the best available data indicate coyotes are not
increasing in numbers currently nor are they likely to increase into
the future, and thus are not impacting this portion of the DPS's range
to the degree that any more than individuals might be affected both
currently and into the future. Additionally, there is no indication
that potential future changes in lowered snowpack levels at high
elevations (as suggested by climate models) would occur within the next
50 years to such a degree that coyote numbers would increase throughout
the subspecies' range causing coyote predation or competition to rise
to the level of a threat.
In conclusion, and similar to that described above for the Sierra
Nevada red fox across its entire range, we believe the Southern
Cascades DPS harbors significant suitable habitat throughout its range.
These lands are being managed by Federal agencies that are providing
management and protections to the DPS and its habitat to benefit the
Sierra Nevada red fox. Additionally, the best available data do not
indicate any population-level declines from any of the stressors
(individually or cumulatively) within any portion of the DPS's range.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors
acting upon the Southern Cascades DPS are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the DPS is in danger of
extinction now (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range.
Significant Portion of the Range--Southern Cascades DPS
Having determined that the Southern Cascades DPS of the Sierra
Nevada red fox does not meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species throughout all of its range, we must next consider
whether there are any significant portions of the DPS's range where the
DPS is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. If we identify any portions that may be both (1)
significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we would engage in a more
detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met.
Please see the Significant Portion of the Range discussion, above, for
the entire taxon for an explanation of relevance of this analysis.
We consider the historical range of the Southern Cascades DPS of
Sierra
[[Page 61018]]
Nevada red fox to include the mountainous areas from the Columbia River
at Mt. Hood south into California, including the area of Mt. Shasta and
slightly into the Trinity Mountains, and continuing south to the Lassen
Peak area. This range includes those mountainous areas that exceed
1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015, pp. 1-2; Doerr 2015,
pp. 2-3, 13-14, line 7) and 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in California (Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 8). Based on the best available information at this
time, these sighting areas account for the current distribution of the
subspecies within the Southern Cascades DPS.
In considering any significant portion of the Southern Cascades
DPS, we considered whether the stressors facing the DPS might be
different at the six sighting areas where the Sierra Nevada red fox
have been found within the Cascades Mountain Range and, thus,
geographically concentrated in some portion of the DPS's range. We are
unable to find a concentration of stressors in the Lassen area as
compared to the remainder of the DPS's range.
Given the extensive coverage of the Southern Cascades DPS compared
to the entire range of the subspecies, we believe that the significant
portion of the range analysis for this DPS is the same as that
presented above for the entire taxon. We are unable to provide any
greater level of detail for the Oregon portion of the Southern Cascades
DPS range given the limited amount of information available for the
Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon.
In summary, our evaluation of the best available information
indicates that the overall level of stressors is not geographically
concentrated in one portion of the Southern Cascades DPS range, and the
stressors that have the potential to impact the DPS are relatively
consistent across its range (Service 2015, entire). Our review of the
best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the
Southern Cascades DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox is not in danger of
extinction (endangered) nor likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Southern
Cascades DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Sierra Nevada Red
Fox
As described above, section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) describe procedures for
adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a), we may list a species on the
basis of 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.
An endangered species is defined by the Act, with exception, as
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is defined as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' A species is defined by the Act to include any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
An analysis of the potential threats for the Sierra Nevada red fox
is included in the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) associated
with this document (and available at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103). All potential threats of which we are
aware that may act upon the Sierra Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox
(hereafter referred to as Sierra Nevada DPS) currently or in the future
are captured within the Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors section, above, and stepped down in the following paragraphs as
they pertain specifically to the Sierra Nevada DPS. The range of the
Sierra Nevada DPS includes high-elevation (roughly greater than 1,200 m
(3,937 ft)) conifer habitat of various types (Perrine et al. 2010, p.
8) within the Sierra Nevada mountain range from Sierra to Tulare
Counties. However, at this time, Sierra Nevada red fox are only known
to reside within the Sonora Pass sighting area.
Similar to the five-factor analysis presented above for the entire
taxon, we are not aware of any information to indicate that the
following are threats to the Sierra Nevada DPS currently or in the
future: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, including trapping for fur (Factor B); SPD or EFF
diseases (Factor C); or predation by domestic dogs (Factor C). Other
potential stressors identified specifically for the Sierra Nevada DPS
are discussed below.
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
the potential effects of wildfire and fire suppression (Factor A) on
the Sierra Nevada DPS are similar to those described previously for the
Sierra Nevada red fox. When they occur, wildfires typically burn in a
range of intensities, resulting in a mosaic of habitat effects.
Intense, stand-replacing wildfire (similar to the 2013 Rim fire that
burned near the Sonora Pass sighting area) could reduce habitat
availability and quality for this DPS by reducing overstory cover.
Given this DPS currently consists of a single population in the Sonora
Pass area, one stand-replacing fire could have significant impacts on
this remaining population. However, beneficial aspects of wildfire
would also be expected, including improving habitat conditions that
promote an increased abundance of preferred prey for the Sierra Nevada
red fox. There is uncertainty concerning the potential for population-
level effects of wildfire on the Sierra Nevada DPS, but it is
reasonable to assume that wildfires will continue to occur in the
Sierra Nevada mountains into the future, at least at a rate similar to
what has occurred in the recent past. Land management agencies within
the range of the Sierra Nevada DPS are also expected to continue to
conduct necessary vegetation or fuel management strategies (e.g., fire
management plans, LRMPs, SNFPA) to reduce the likelihood of wide-scale,
catastrophic fires. The future effectiveness of these treatments is
unknown, but the best available information indicates that at least
local reductions in fire severity should be achieved. Overall, we
conclude that based on the best scientific and commercial information
available at this time, wildfire and fire suppression are not a threat
to the Sierra Nevada DPS now or into the future.
Climate Change
The similarities in ecology and habitat associations between the
Sierra Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox and the rest of the taxon
across its entire range, combined with the large scales at which
climate change studies are conducted, lead us to conclude that our
analysis of the potential effects of climate change (Factor A) for the
entire taxon similarly applies to the Sierra Nevada DPS. The most
significant, potential future impact to the Sierra Nevada DPS from
climate change (likely to manifest itself beyond
[[Page 61019]]
the 50-year foreseeable future time period) appears to be reduced
snowpack levels that would make high-elevation areas more suitable for
coyotes, and thus the fox would shift up in elevation to remain in
higher snowpack areas. If the current population does not expand
throughout other portions of the Sierra Nevada DPS's range in the
future, this impact will likely affect the population, given it
currently occurs within a narrow elevational range where the subspecies
already occupies the highest elevations in the area.
Although many climate models generally agree about potential future
changes in temperature and a greater proportion of precipitation
falling as rain rather than snow, the consequent effects on vegetation
and snowpack levels are more uncertain, as is the rate at which any
such changes might be realized. Therefore, it is not clear how or when
changes in snowpack levels, forest type, and plant species composition
will affect the distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat within
the Sierra Nevada DPS. Thus, uncertainty exists regarding the level of
impact that climate change may have on Sierra Nevada red fox or their
habitat within the Sierra Nevada DPS. Overall, we conclude that, based
on the best scientific and commercial information available at this
time, the expected future (i.e., next 50 years) conditions are not
expected to change to a degree that would be considered significant.
Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial information available
at this time, climate change is not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS
now or into the future.
Disease
As described for the Sierra Nevada red fox subspecies as a whole,
numerous pathogens are known to cause severe disease (Factor C) in
canids. The diseases most likely to affect the Sierra Nevada DPS are
sarcoptic mange, canine distemper, and rabies. Although SPD and EFF are
diseases that may impact Sierra Nevada red fox in the Southern Cascades
DPS (see Disease sections, above, for both the taxon as a whole and the
Southern Cascades DPS), neither SPD or EFF have been reported within or
near the current population at the Sonora Pass sighting area.
Additionally, the Sonora Pass sighting area is unlikely to be exposed
to these diseases because CDFW does not stock fish from Northern
California south of the Feather River (Plumas County) to help prevent
transmittal of diseases (including SPD and EFF) (Beale 2011, p. 1).
The best available data indicate that no diseases are affecting the
Sierra Nevada DPS, and given the isolation and low population numbers
in this area, transmission of a disease into the population would be
less likely, except within family groups (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9).
Given there is no evidence to suggest that disease has impacted the
Sierra Nevada DPS in the past, nor is there evidence to suggest that
disease currently affects the DPS or is likely to in the future, we
conclude that disease is not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS now or
in the future.
Predation and Competition From Coyotes
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
the potential effects of predation or competition from coyotes (Factors
C and E) on the Sierra Nevada DPS are similar to those described
previously for the entire taxon. Coyotes are present in the Sonora Pass
sighting area at the same elevation as Sierra Nevada red fox during the
summer months (although the average elevation for coyotes appears to be
lower than average elevation for the fox (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 11,
35)), and they appear to outnumber Sierra Nevada red fox in the area
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 12). However, Rich (2014, p.1) notes that
deep snows in the Sonora Pass sighting area tend to keep coyotes below
2,743 m (9,000 ft).
At this time, the best available information indicates the presence
of coyotes within the range of the Sierra Nevada DPS, but we do not
have information to indicate associated impacts to the Sierra Nevada
red fox (i.e., no information to indicate that coyotes are causing a
decline or that coyotes are increasing in number such that they
constitute a threat to the DPS) either currently or in the future. This
could change if climate change-related impacts become realized with
significantly lowered snowpack levels; alternatively, a potential
future coyote impact could be lessened if wolf packs continue to expand
outside of Oregon and into the Sierra Nevada mountain range.
Restoration of wolves in California in sustainable populations would
likely lower coyote population numbers or exclude them from higher
elevation forested areas, thereby facilitating the persistence of
Sierra Nevada red fox populations (Levi and Wilmers 2012, p. 926);
wolves are unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra Nevada red fox
because they tend to take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8).
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox
Hybridization can result in outbreeding depression or genetic
swamping (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 16-17; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 2).
Hybridization is a recently described impact within the Sierra Nevada
DPS. In a study conducted from October 2011 through September 2014,
researchers documented interbreeding between female Sierra Nevada red
fox and two male nonnative red foxes in 2013, resulting in 10 hybrid
pups (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). This interbreeding was followed
by documented inbreeding (breeding between related foxes) between the
nonnative male and one of his hybrid female offspring resulting in an
additional backcross hybrid pup in 2014 (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 16,
30). This breeding of native Sierra Nevada red fox with nonnative red
foxes is the only indication of successful reproduction in the study
area during the last 3 years (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 9-10); this
study covered 20 to 50 percent of the high-quality habitat present in
the Sonora Pass sighting area. The two nonnative male adults that
entered the Sierra Nevada DPS and bred with Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals were not closely related, but both showed a combination of
fur-farm stock and Rocky Mountain red fox ancestry and likely
originated from a population somewhere in the Great Basin of Nevada
(Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 16). Additionally, a third nonnative male of
unknown origin was detected at the Sonora Pass sighting area in 2014,
but it is not known to have bred (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 16, 22).
Overall, this documented hybridization is likely resulting in a
reduction in reproduction of native Sierra Nevada red fox within the
DPS. Sacks et al. (2015, p. 14) report reduced genetic diversity in the
Sierra Nevada red fox at Sonora Pass; specifically, genetic diversity
has declined to two-thirds of its historical estimate in this area. In
addition, Sacks et al. (2015, p. 3) state that lack of breeding among
native individuals in the Sierra Nevada DPS over recent years is
potentially indicative of inbreeding depression. Overall, inbreeding
depression and the potential for outbreeding depression and genomic
replacement from the nonnatives represent issues of concern for the
Sonora Pass population (Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3). We have no
information to indicate that nonnative red fox will cease inhabiting
and interbreeding with Sierra Nevada red fox within the Sierra Nevada
DPS into the future. Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this time, we conclude that
hybridization with nonnative foxes is a threat to the
[[Page 61020]]
Sierra Nevada DPS (currently represented by a single population in the
Sonora Pass sighting area) both currently and into the future.
Vehicles
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
the potential effects of vehicles (i.e., road kill and noise
disturbance) (Factor E) are similar to those described previously for
the entire taxon. To date, there has been a single report of a Sierra
Nevada red fox road kill within the Sierra Nevada DPS (prior to 2010
along California State Highway 395), and there may be noise disturbance
activity in the portion of the DPS that overlaps with the Bridgeport
Winter Recreation Area within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest or
the Marine's Corps' Marine Warfare Training Center (MWTC). However,
snowmobile-related impacts are largely unknown, as demonstrated by the
Forest Service's current investigation in accordance with Standard 32
of the SNFPA, results of which are not yet available. Additionally, no
known impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox have been reported at the MWTC.
At this time, information indicates that individual Sierra Nevada red
fox within the range of the Sierra Nevada DPS may be impacted by
vehicle activity or noise as opposed to significant impacts across the
range of the DPS. Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this time, we conclude that
vehicles are not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS now or in the
future.
Small Population Effects
The best available genetic data for the taxon are indicative of a
decline in the Sierra Nevada DPS over time. Regarding genetic diversity
and the small population of the Sierra Nevada DPS, current
heterozygosity levels in nuclear DNA (i.e., a measure of genetic
diversity) are considerably lower (average = 0.44) than heterozygosity
levels historically (0.64), thus indicating a recent negative trend in
population size (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13-14). Reductions in the
diversity of mtDNA since historical times also indicate a recent
decline in population numbers (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14). Consistent
with reductions in genetic diversity, there has also been recent
documented inbreeding in this population. As described in the
Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox section, above, two nonnative male
red fox are documented to have entered the population, bred with native
individuals, and produced a minimum of 11 hybrid pups between 2012 and
2014 (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 16, 30). During that same time, no
surviving native pups were successfully produced in the study area.
Only two adult native males were known from the area, and one of those
was apparently either killed or driven off by one of the incoming
nonnative males. A third nonnative male was documented in the study
area in 2014, but did not successfully interbreed (Sacks et al. 2015,
p. 16).
Overall, the best available scientific and commercial information
suggests a single, extant population of Sierra Nevada red fox currently
exists in the Sierra Nevada DPS, and the population is small,
declining, and isolated. There has been no indication of native fox
reproduction since 2011. Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this time, we conclude the negative
effects of reduced genetic diversity and reproduction deficiency are a
threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS currently and into the future. In
addition, these negative effects are associated with isolation and can
also be influenced by hybridization. At this point in time, however, we
do not have information to determine how hybridization will influence
genetic diversity and reproduction.
Cumulative Effects
We are not aware of any information to indicate that potential
cumulative effects within the Sierra Nevada DPS are different than the
potential cumulative impacts described above for the entire taxon and
for the Southern Cascades DPS. Above, we concluded that two cumulative
impact scenarios could potentially occur:
(1) Potential increased competition with and predation from coyotes
on Sierra Nevada red fox as a result of high-elevation forested areas
becoming more suitable for coyotes following potential impacts from
climate change (i.e., lowered snowpack levels, increased incidence and
extent of wildfires).
(2) A combination of potential stressors (i.e., hunting and
trapping, disease, competition and predation from coyotes,
hybridization with nonnative red fox, and vehicles) that directly
result in death or loss of reproductive ability for the Sierra Nevada
red fox.
To avoid redundancy, these effects are described in detail above
for the entire taxon and the Southern Cascades DPS under Cumulative
Effects. Similar to those discussions above, the best available data at
this time do not suggest that the cumulative effects of increased
coyote numbers and climate change rise to the level of a threat to the
Sierra Nevada DPS overall. Additionally, the best available data
indicate ambiguity in either the likelihood or level of impacts for the
various stressors at the DPS-wide level, or the data indicate only
individual-level impacts. Thus, data do not indicate that these
stressors are cumulatively causing now or will cause in the future a
substantial decline of the Sierra Nevada red fox across the range of
the Sierra Nevada DPS. Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available at this time, we have determined that
the cumulative impacts of these potential stressors do not rise to the
level of a threat for the Sierra Nevada DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms--Sierra Nevada DPS
Existing regulatory mechanisms that affect the Sierra Nevada DPS
include laws and regulations promulgated by the Federal Government and
State of California governments (Factor D). These include the following
mechanisms that are described in detail in the Species Report (Service
2015, pp. 58-63) and summarized in more detail above under the Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms section for the entire taxon:
(1) Forest Service policy manual (USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22),
which allows for designation of sensitive species of management
concern, of which the Sierra Nevada red fox is a sensitive species
where it occurs on National Forests in California (U.S. Forest Service
Region 5).
(2) National Forest management is directed by the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and
the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA specifies that the Forest
Service must have an LRMP to guide and set standards for all natural
resource management activities on each National Forest, including the
Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus National Forests that currently harbor
suitable habitat or known occurrences of Sierra Nevada red fox within
the Sierra Nevada DPS. In addition, the Forest Service must implement
management actions through their LRMPs that provide a conservation
benefit to the DPS.
(3) The SNFPA requires fire and fuels management projects in most
areas to retain at least 40 percent (preferably 50 percent) canopy
cover within a treatment unit and effectively requires retention of
trees 63.5 cm (25 in) dbh in most treated areas (USDA 2004, pp. 3, 50),
which is close to the preferred winter habitat characteristics likely
preferred by the subspecies. Additionally, SNFPA requires the Forest
Service to: (a) Conduct an analysis to
[[Page 61021]]
determine whether activities within 8 km (5 mi) of a verified Sierra
Nevada red fox sighting have the potential to affect the species (USDA
2004, p. 54), (b) mandate a limited operating period of January 1 to
June 30 as necessary to avoid adverse impacts to potential breeding,
and (c) require 2 years of evaluations for activities near sightings
that are not associated with a den site.
(4) The OPLMA (Pub. L. 111-11, p. 1059) established the Bridgeport
Winter Recreation Area to control winter vehicles on Forest Service
land, consisting of about 2,833 ha (7,000 ac) in the northern portion
of the Sonora Pass sighting area (USDA 2010, p. 4). The OPLMA states
that the winter use of snowmobiles is allowed in the Recreation Area,
but is subject to terms and conditions, which can minimize potential
impacts to sensitive resources. The Forest Service has completed a
management plan that calls for monitoring of impacts to wildlife (USDA
2010, p. 9) and is proceeding with evaluations of impacts to Sierra
Nevada red fox (see Vehicles, above).
(5) The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the National Park Service General Authorities Act
of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1) address natural resources on National Park
lands, specifically within Yosemite National Park within the Sierra
Nevada DPS. These Acts require the National Park Service to ``preserve
fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as individual
species, features, and plant and animal communities'' (USDI NPS 2006,
p. 36). Yosemite National Park's land management plan (USDI NPS 1980,
pp. 10-11) does not contain specific measures to protect the Sierra
Nevada red fox or its habitat, but does characterize the portion of the
Park in the Sonora Pass sighting area as a ``wilderness subzone,''
wherein ``natural systems and processes will be permitted to follow
their minimum intrusion by man.''
(6) The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits possession, purchase, or
``take'' of endangered or threatened species without an incidental take
permit issued by CDFW. The Sierra Nevada red fox was designated as a
threatened species under CESA in 1980 (CDFW 2014, p. 12). In addition,
the State of California classifies red foxes as a furbearing mammal
that is protected from commercial harvest (14 C.C.R. 460).
Additionally, we note that the U.S. Marine Corps' MWTC has lands
within a portion of the Sonora Pass sighting area. The U.S. Marine
Corps has initiated preparation of an INRMP (Norquist 2014, p. 2)
consistent with requirements outlined in the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), which would address potential impacts to natural resources,
presumably to include the Sierra Nevada red fox. Because an INRMP is
not yet finalized, we cannot evaluate its adequacy as a regulatory
mechanism.
Overall, existing regulatory mechanisms currently (and into the
future) provide substantial protection on Federal lands for the Sierra
Nevada DPS. Within the Sonora Pass sighting area specifically, the
Sierra Nevada red fox's State-listed status and protection from
commercial harvest provide additional significant protection for the
long-term conservation of the subspecies. As similarly described above
in the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section for the whole taxon, the
best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the
existing mechanisms are adequate to address impacts to the Sierra
Nevada DPS from stressors for which governments may have regulatory
control (i.e., wildfire, injury or mortality due to harvest, and injury
or mortality due to collision with vehicles).
Finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS
We assessed the best available scientific and commercial
information regarding threats faced by the Sierra Nevada DPS. We have
reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and
information submitted to us following our 90-day finding (77 FR 45;
January 3, 2012). We also consulted with Sierra Nevada red fox
researchers and Federal land managers. We find support for the
petitioners' claim that the Sierra Nevada DPS may warrant listing as a
federally endangered or threatened species. Although the petitioners
did not outline the threats that they believe are specific to the
Sierra Nevada DPS, we have identified threats from hybridization with
nonnative red fox and negative effects of reduced genetic diversity,
inbreeding (breeding between related foxes), and reproduction
deficiency as the significant factors for this DPS. Overall, we believe
the Sierra Nevada DPS is warranted for listing based on the following
information:
(1) Range contraction--The Sierra Nevada red fox has experienced a
range contraction of greater than 90 percent from its historical range
(based on our visual comparison of the historical range (Grinnell et
al. 1937, p. 382; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 4) to the current extent of
the Sonora Pass sighting area) within the Sierra Nevada mountain range.
We note a reduction of Sierra Nevada red fox observations based on:
1920s to the 1940s/1950s: Reduced harvest of pelts
recorded within California.
1940s to 1980: Increasingly rare sightings in California
that led to the State prohibition on red fox trapping in 1974, and the
State listing of the subspecies as a threatened species in 1980
(Statham et al. 2012, p. 123).
1996 to 2002: Extensive carnivore surveys throughout the
Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al., 2005, entire); no Sierra Nevada red
fox were observed.
2010: Discovery of Sierra Nevada red fox at what is
described herein as the Sonora Pass sighting area.
2011 to 2015: Occupancy information from a study near
Sonora Pass (Quinn and Sacks 2014, entire; Sacks et al. 2015, entire)
and from additional camera stations in Yosemite National Park
maintained by the National Park Service. This best available and most
recent information indicates a single population in the Sonora Pass
sighting area as opposed to its much more extensive historically
occupied area within the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The Sonora Pass
sighting area extends along the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains
from north of State Route 108 south into Yosemite National Park (Sacks
et al. 2015, pp. 10-11), overlapping Tuolumne, Mono, and Alpine
Counties, and including a recent sighting documented at the north end
of Yosemite National Park during 2015 (Lindelof 2015, pp. 1-2).
(2) Declining population and inbreeding depression--Comparisons of
historical and current population estimates indicate that the Sierra
Nevada DPS, as currently represented solely by the Sonora Pass
population, is in decline (Sacks et al. 2010, p. 1532; Sacks et al.
2015, p. 14). The Sierra Nevada red fox within the Sierra Nevada DPS is
comprised of an estimated 14 breeding individuals, with a total adult
population size estimate of 10 to 50 (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 3, 10,
11, 14; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14). Repeated resampling of individuals
over the 3-year study period (October 2011 through September 2014)
suggests that most adults with territories overlapping the study area
were found (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14).
The low population size estimate for the single extant population
known within the Sierra Nevada DPS is supported by analyses of genetic
diversity (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13-14). For instance, the current
average heterozygosity (a measure of genetic diversity) in nuclear DNA
for Sierra Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass sighting area (0.44) is
considerably lower than heterozygosity levels present
[[Page 61022]]
historically (0.64), indicating a relatively recent negative trend in
population size (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13-14). Reductions in the
diversity of mtDNA since historical times also indicate a decline in
population numbers (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14).
Associated with a known small population is the high apparent
isolation of the Sonora Pass population, which has likely resulted in
inbreeding depression. The Sonora Pass population is approximately 250
km (155 mi) from the nearest population to the north (Lassen sighting
area), with no known Sierra Nevada red fox populations to the south.
Genetic testing also shows a lack of migration between the Lassen and
Sonora Pass populations (Statham et al. 2012, p. 129) (see Discreteness
discussion, above).
We recognize that the Sierra Nevada red fox, in general across its
entire range, has likely always been a relatively rare species.
Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 396) described Sierra Nevada red fox
population numbers as ``relatively small, even in the most favorable
territory,'' and reported that the subspecies likely occurred at
densities of 1 per 2.6 square km (1 per square mi). Perrine et al.
(2010, p. 9) concluded that, based on this information, Sierra Nevada
red fox likely occur at low population densities even within areas of
high relative abundance. The most recent information for the Sierra
Nevada DPS indicates a small current population that is likely the
remnant of a much larger population and likely a remnant of multiple
populations within the DPS's range.
(3) Hybridization with nonnative red fox--The arrival and
documented breeding of nonnative red fox into the Sierra Nevada DPS, as
documented between 2011 and 2014 (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10) will
bring alleles that are otherwise rare or missing from the population,
which in turn may help alleviate inbreeding depression. However,
continued breeding of nonnative red fox with the native Sierra Nevada
DPS could lead to outbreeding depression, genetic swamping, and
potentially the eventual extirpation of the Sierra Nevada DPS. The
recent study documented interbreeding between female Sierra Nevada red
fox and two male nonnative red foxes, resulting in seven hybrid pups in
2013, and another four hybrid pups in 2014 (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3,
15-17, 30). One of the four hybrids produced in 2014 resulted from the
pairing of a nonnative male and one of his hybrid female offspring
(Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 15-17, 30). The pup was thus 75 percent
nonnative.
(4) No evidence of recent ``native'' Sierra Nevada red fox
reproduction--The 11 nonnative hybridized pups produced (as described
above) are the only clear indication of successful reproduction in the
study area (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 10-11) between 2011 and 2014,
which covered between 20 and 50 percent of the contiguous high-quality
habitat present in the Sonora Pass sighting area. Although unknown, it
is possible that Sierra Nevada red fox could have reproduced in
portions of the sighting area not covered by the 3-year study.
In summary, we find that the significant threats to the Sierra
Nevada DPS both currently and into the future are hybridization with
nonnative red fox and the negative effects of reduced genetic
diversity, inbreeding, and reproduction deficiency. These threats
appear to be having significant impacts on the single remaining
population in the DPS at Sonora Pass. These impacts are evident from
the best available scientific and commercial information that shows a
combination of range contraction of greater than 90 percent from its
historical range, an apparent declining population, inbreeding
depression, hybridization, and no clear indication of successful native
Sierra Nevada red fox reproduction since at least 2011. These stressors
cumulatively impact the DPS.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the Sierra Nevada
DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox is warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of the DPS as endangered or threatened when
we develop a proposed listing determination. However, as explained in
more detail below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing
this action is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and
progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the Sierra Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada
red fox at risk of extinction now such that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act is warranted. We determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the DPS is not warranted for the DPS at this time
because the threats facing the DPS are not of an imminent nature that
necessitate emergency listing, and the best available scientific and
commercial information do not indicate that the Sonora Pass population
is at imminent risk of extinction. However, if at any time we determine
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox is warranted, we will initiate
the action at that time.
Listing Priority Number--Sierra Nevada DPS
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098)
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). These guidelines,
titled ``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery
Priority Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats,
and the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in
descending order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full
species, and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments
of vertebrates). We assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada
red fox a listing priority number (LPN) of 3 based on our finding that
the DPS faces threats that are of high magnitude and are imminent.
These threats include impacts associated with small population size
(e.g., inbreeding depression, insufficient reproduction) and
hybridization with nonnative red fox. This is the highest priority that
can be provided to a DPS of a subspecies under our guidance. Our
rationale for assigning the Sierra Nevada DPS an LPN of 3 is outlined
below.
Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that ``species'' (defined by the Act to include
biological subspecies and distinct vertebrate population segments) with
the highest magnitude of threat are those species facing the greatest
threats to their continued existence. These species receive the highest
listing priority.
The threats that the Sierra Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox fox
are high in magnitude because the major threats (hybridization with
nonnative red fox and inbreeding depression and insufficient
reproduction associated with small population size) occur throughout
the range of the Sierra Nevada DPS. The severity of the effects of
these threats and the rapidity with which they have caused impacts is
high given that a minimum of 11 hybrid pups have been produced since
2013 in a population with an overall population size of fewer than 50
individuals. In addition, during 2013 and 2014, no successful fully
native reproduction was
[[Page 61023]]
documented (only hybrid reproduction was documented), suggesting that
hybridization is negatively affecting native Sierra Nevada red fox
reproduction within the Sierra Nevada DPS. The Sonora Pass population
is the only known remaining representative of the Sierra Nevada DPS;
thus, threats to the population constitute threats to the DPS as a
whole, and loss of the population would constitute permanent loss of
the DPS as a whole. There also is no information to indicate that any
ongoing conservation efforts are likely to reduce the severity of these
threats into the foreseeable future.
Under our LPN guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species that face actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing such threats. We consider the threats
facing the Sierra Nevada DPS to be imminent because we have factual
information that the threats are identifiable and that the Sierra
Nevada DPS is currently facing them throughout its range. These actual,
identifiable threats are covered in detail under the discussion of
Factors within this finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS, and currently
include hybridization with nonnative red fox, and inbreeding depression
and insufficient reproduction associated with small population size. In
addition to their current existence, we expect these threats to
continue and likely intensify in the foreseeable future as there is no
information to indicate that any ongoing conservation efforts are
occurring or likely to reduce the imminence of these threats into the
future. Because these threats are currently occurring, they are
imminent.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The Sierra Nevada DPS is an entity
that receives a lower priority than would a species as a whole,
particularly if the species were the only one in its genus. The Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox faces high-magnitude and
imminent threats, and is a valid taxon at the subspecies (and DPS)
level. Thus, in accordance with our LPN guidance, we have assigned the
Sierra Nevada DPS an LPN of 3.
We will continue to monitor the threats to the Sierra Nevada DPS,
and the DPS's status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of
the LPN.
Work on a proposed listing determination for the Sierra Nevada DPS
is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. This work includes all the
actions listed in the tables below under expeditious progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
To make a finding that a particular action is warranted-but-
precluded, the Service must make two findings: (1) That the immediate
proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by
pending listing proposals, and (2) that expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove
species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
Preclusion
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY),
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work
on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a
proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) The
amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2)
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the
Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in
relation to other actions.
Available Resources
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for
each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on
funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap
was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds
needed for other functions under the Act (for example, recovery
functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available
to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and
final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add
species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from
threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition findings on
prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition findings;
proposed and final rules designating critical habitat; and litigation-
related, administrative, and program-management functions (including
preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and
public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat).
We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of
funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act
(see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the
Service's budget has included a critical habitat subcap to ensure that
some funds are available for completing Listing Program actions other
than critical habitat designations (``The critical habitat designation
subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other
listing activities'' (House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st
Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the
Service had to use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to
address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and
consequently none of the critical habitat subcap funds were available
for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able
to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other
FYs, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap
funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this
money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby
being more efficient in our work. In FY 2014, based on the Service's
workload, we were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds
to fund proposed listing determinations.
For FY 2012, Congress also put in place two additional subcaps
within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and
one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the
Service does not need to use all of the funds within the subcap, we are
able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final
listing determinations. To date, in FY 2015, based on the Service's
workload, we
[[Page 61024]]
have not yet determined if we are able to use some of the funds within
the foreign species subcap and the petitions subcap to fund proposed
listing determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of funds
needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap--other than those within the subcaps needed to
comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements
requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing
actions for foreign species, and petition findings--set the framework
within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious
progress.
For FY 2015, on December 16, 2014, Congress passed a Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235),
which provides funding through September 30, 2015, at the same level as
FY 2014. In particular, it includes an overall spending cap of
$20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more than $1,504,000
can be used for listing actions for foreign species, and no more than
$1,501,000 can be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on
petitions. The Service thus has $12,905,000 available to work on
proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In
addition, if the Service has funding available within the critical
habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads had
been completed, it can use those funds to work on listing actions other
than critical habitat designations or foreign species.
Costs of Listing Actions. The work involved in preparing various
listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited
to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions;
writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and
evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed rules
and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of
listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000;
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.
Prioritizing Listing Actions. The Service's Listing Program
workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the
Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings
or listing or critical habitat determinations be completed by a
specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat
actions with absolute statutory deadlines; (3) essential litigation-
related, administrative, and listing program-management functions; and
(4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory
deadlines. In FY 2010, the Service received many new petitions and a
single petition to list 404 species, significantly increasing the
number of actions within the second category of our workload--actions
that have absolute statutory deadlines. As a result of the petitions to
list hundreds of species, we currently have over 460 12-month petition
findings yet to be initiated and completed.
To prioritize within each of the four types of actions, we
developed guidelines for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for
each candidate species (48 FR 43098, September 21, 1983). Under these
guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on
the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of
threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species
(in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole
member of a genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies or
distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number,
the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1
would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN
would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs,
unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can
be combined with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority
species. This is not the case for Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra
Nevada red fox. Thus, in addition to being precluded by the lack of
available resources, the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox
with an LPN of 3, is also precluded by work on proposed listing
determinations for those candidate species with a higher listing
priority.
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species
to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species,
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the
Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required
considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has
allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be
as efficient as possible in our listing process. Therefore, as we
implement our listing work plan and work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as one of the highest priority species. In addition, we take
into consideration the availability of staff resources when we
determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize
the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing
action.
Listing Program Workload. Each FY we determine, based on the amount
of funding Congress has made available within the Listing Program
spending cap, specifically which actions we will have the resources to
work on in that FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables that identify the
actions that we are funding for that FY, and how much we estimate it
will cost to complete each action; these Allocation Tables are part of
our record for this notice and the listing program. Our Allocation
Table for FY 2012, which incorporated the Service's approach to
prioritizing its workload, was adopted as part of a settlement
agreement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-
377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (``MDL Litigation''), Document 31-1 (D.
D.C. May 10, 2011) (``MDL Settlement Agreement'')). The requirements of
paragraphs 1 through 7 of that settlement agreement, combined with the
work plan attached to the agreement as Exhibit B, reflected the
Service's Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY 2012. In addition,
paragraphs 2 through 7 of the agreement require the Service to take
numerous other actions through FY 2017--in particular, complete either
a proposed listing rule or a not-
[[Page 61025]]
warranted finding for all 251 species designated as ``candidates'' in
the 2010 candidate notice of review (``CNOR'') before the end of FY
2016, and complete final listing determinations within one year of
proposing to list any of those species. Paragraph 10 of that settlement
agreement sets forth the Service's conclusion that ``fulfilling the
commitments set forth in this Agreement, along with other commitments
required by court orders or court-approved settlement agreements
already in existence at the signing of this Settlement Agreement
(listed in Exhibit A), will require substantially all of the resources
in the Listing Program.'' As part of the same lawsuit, the court also
approved a separate settlement agreement with the other plaintiff in
the case; that settlement agreement requires the Service to complete
additional actions in specific fiscal years--including 12-month
petition findings for 11 species, 90-day petition findings for 477
species, and proposed listing determinations or not-warranted findings
for 39 species.
These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that
affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will
continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake
additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond
what is required by the MDL settlement agreements. Second, because the
settlement is court approved, two broad categories of actions now fall
within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order):
(1) The Service's entire prioritized workload for FY 2012, as reflected
in its Allocation Table; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016,
of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for those candidate
species that were included in the 2010 CNOR where we have not already
published a not-warranted finding or proposed rule. Therefore, each
year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady
progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final
listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species--based on its LPN
prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions when
appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of staff
resources.
The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox was not listed
as a candidate in the 2010 CNOR, nor was the proposed listing for the
Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox included in the
Allocation Tables that were reflected in the MDL settlement agreement.
As we have discussed above, we have assigned an LPN of 3 to the Sierra
Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox. Therefore, even if the Service
has some additional funding after completing all of the work required
by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, we would
first fund actions with absolute statutory deadlines for species that
have lower LPNs. In light of all of these factors, funding a proposed
listing for the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox is
precluded by court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements,
listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and work on proposed
listing determinations for those candidate species with a lower LPN.
Expeditious Progress
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our
``precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding
qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of
the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those
funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the resources available for delisting,
which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered
Species Program. Thus far, during FY 2015, we delisted the Oregon chub
due to recovery (80 FR 9126-9150). As discussed below, given the
limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress in FY 2015 in the Listing Program.
We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's
Listing Program in FY 2015. This work includes all three of the steps
necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that
warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available
scientific information about those species and the threats they face,
and preparing proposed and final listing rules; and (3) adding species
to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that
include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the
relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration
the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for
those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we
find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species
to the Lists FY 2015.
In addition to the work the Service has completed towards adding
qualified species to the Lists, on May 10, 2011, the Service filed in
the MDL litigation a settlement agreement that incorporated the
Service's work plan for FY 2012; the court approved that settlement
agreement on September 9, 2011. Paragraph 10 of that settlement
agreement provides, ``The Parties agree that the timetables for
resolving the status of candidate species outlined in this Agreement
constitute expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the
lists of threatened and endangered species.'' The Service also filed a
second settlement agreement that required even more work in FY 2012.
The Service had already begun in FY 2011 to implement that work
required by the work plan, and many of these initial actions in our
work plan include work on proposed rules for candidate species with an
LPN of 2 or 3. Therefore, both by entering into the first settlement
agreement and by completing the listing actions required by both
settlement agreements, the Service is making expeditious progress to
add qualified species to the lists. As provided for in the settlement
agreements and the work plan incorporated into the first agreement, the
Service's progress in FY 2015 include completing and publishing the
following determinations:
FY 2015 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/24/2014........................ Threatened Species Status Final Listing Endangered 79 FR 6367-63748
for Dakota Skipper and and Threatened.
Endangered Species Status
for Poweshiek Skipperling.
11/20/2014........................ Threatened Species Status Final Listing Threatened.. 79 FR 69191-69310
for Gunnison sage-grouse.
[[Page 61026]]
12/11/2014........................ Threatened Species Status Final Listing Threatened.. 79 FR 73705-73748
for the Rufa Red Knot.
12/31/2014........................ 90-day finding on Monarch 90-day petition finding 79 FR 78775-78778
Butterfly and California Substantial.
Gnatcatcher.
4/2/2015.......................... Threatened Species Status Final Listing Threatened.. 80 FR 17973-18033
for the Northern Long-
eared Bat with 4(d) Rule.
4/7/2015.......................... Endangered Species Status 12-month petition finding 80 FR 18710-18739
for the Big Sandy Warranted Proposed
Crayfish and the Listing Endangered.
Guyandotte River Crayfish.
4/7/2015.......................... 12-Month Finding on a 12-month petition finding 80 FR 18742-18772
Petition To List Humboldt Not warranted.
Marten as an Endangered
or Threatened Species.
4/10/2015......................... 90-Day Findings on Ten 90-day petition finding 80 FR 19259-19263
Petitions (Clear Lake Substantial.
hitch, Mojave
shoulderband snail,
Northern spotted owl,
Relict dace, San Joaquin
Valley giant flower-
loving fly, Western pond
turtle, Yellow-cedar,
Egyptian tortoise, Golden
conure, Long-tailed
chinchilla).
4/23/2015......................... Withdrawal of the Proposed Proposed Rule Withdrawal.. 80 FR 22828-22866
Rule To List the Bi-State
Distinct Population
Segment of Greater Sage-
Grouse and Designate
Critical Habitat.
6/23/2015......................... 12-Month Finding on a 12-month petition finding 80 FR 35916-35931
Petition to List Leona's Not warranted.
Little Blue Butterfly as
Endangered or Threatened.
6/30/2015......................... 90-day Petition Findings 90-day petition finding 80 FR 37568-37579
on 31 Species. Substantial and not
substantial (not
substantial for Gray
Wolf, Blue Ridge gray-
cheeked salamander,
California giant
salamander, Caddo
Mountain salamander,
Colorado checkered
whiptail, the DPS of Wild
Horse, Olympic torrent
salamander, Pigeon
Mountain salamander,
Weller's salamander and
wingtail crayfish;
substantial for alligator
snapping turtle,
Apalachicola kingsnake,
Arizona toad, Blanding's
turtle, Cascade Caverns
salamander, Cascades
frog, Cedar Key mole
skink, foothill yellow-
legged frog, gopher frog,
green salamander,
Illinois chorus frog,
Kern Canyon slender
salamander, Key ringneck
snake, Oregon slender
salamander, Relictual
slender salamander, Rim
Rock crowned snake, Rio
Grande cooter, silvery
phacelia, spotted turtle,
southern hog-nosed snake,
and western spadefoot
toad).
9/15/2015......................... 12-Month Finding on a 12-month petition finding 80 FR 55286-55304
Petition to List the New Not warranted Notice
England Cottontail as an Candidate removal.
Endangered or Threatened
Species.
9/15/2015......................... Threatened Species Status Proposed Listing 80 FR 55304-55321
for Platanthera Threatened.
integrilabia (White
Fringeless Orchid).
9/18/2015......................... 90-Day Findings on 25 90-day petition finding 80 FR 56423-56432
Petitions. Substantial and not
substantial (not
substantial for Cahaba
pebblesnail and the
Stephens' kangaroo rat;
substantial for Blue
Calamintha bee,
California spotted owl,
Cascade torrent
salamander, Columbia
torrent salamander,
Florida pine snake, Inyo
Mountains salamander,
Kern Plateau salamander,
lesser slender
salamander, limestone
salamander, northern bog
lemming, Panamint
alligator lizard, Peaks
of Otter salamander,
rusty-patched bumblebee,
Shasta salamander, short-
tailed snake, southern
rubber boa, regal
fritillary, Tinian
monarch, tricolored
blackbird, tufted puffin,
Virgin River spinedace,
wood turtle, and the
Yuman desert fringe-toed
lizard).
[[Page 61027]]
9/29/2015......................... Endangered Species Status Proposed Listing 80 FR 58535-58567
for Chamaecrista lineata Endangered and Threatened.
var. keyensis (Big Pine
Partridge Pea),
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp.
serpyllum (Wedge Spurge),
and Linum arenicola (Sand
Flax), and Threatened
Species Status for
Argythamnia blodgettii
(Blodgett's Silverbush).
9/30/15........................... Endangered Status for 49 Proposed Listing 80 FR 58820-58909
Species from the Hawaiian Endangered.
Islands.
9/30/15........................... Threatened Species Status Proposed listing 80 FR 58674-58688
for Elfin-woods warbler. Threatened.
9/30/15........................... Threatened Species Status Proposed listing 80 FR 58688-58701
for Eastern massasauga Threatened.
rattlesnake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that
we funded in previous fiscal years, and in FY 2015, but have not yet
been completed to date. For these species, we have completed the first
step, and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding
species to the Lists. Some of these actions have been submitted to the
Federal Register; however, they have not yet published in the Federal
Register. These actions are listed below. Actions in the table are
being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court order
or settlement agreement.
FY15 Actions Submitted to the Federal Register But Not Yet Published
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 12-month petition finding Not
Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus warranted Notice Candidate
urophasianus) as an Endangered or removal.
Threatened Species.
Endangered Species Status for Proposed Listing Endangered and
Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis Threatened.
(Big Pine Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce
deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge
Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand
Flax), and Threatened Species Status
for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's
Silverbush).
Endangered Status for 16 Species and Final Listing Endangered and
Threatened Status for 7 Species in Threatened.
Guam and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Columbia spotted frog--Great Basin DPS. 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal.
Sequatchie caddisfly................... 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal.
Four florida plants (Florida pineland Proposed listing.
crabgrass, Florida prairie clover,
pineland sandmat, and Everglades
bully).
Kentucky arrow darter.................. Proposed listing.
Cumberland arrow darter................ 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal.
6 Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker 12-month petition finding Not
Station, Fowler's, Indian Grave Point, warranted Notice Candidate
inquirer, and Coleman). removal.
Headwater chub......................... Proposed listing.
Roundtail chub DPS..................... Proposed listing.
Page springsnail....................... 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal.
Sonoran desert tortoise................ 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal.
Goose Creek milkvetch.................. 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal.
Sleeping Ute milkvetch................. 12-month petition finding Not
warranted Notice Candidate
removal
Suwannee moccasinshell................. 12-month petition finding.
American eel........................... 12-month petition finding Not
warranted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Funded in Previous FYs and FY 2015 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington ground squirrel............. Proposed listing.
Xantus's murrelet...................... Proposed listing.
Black warrior waterdog................. Proposed listing.
Black mudalia.......................... Proposed listing.
Highlands tiger beetle................. Proposed listing.
Sicklefin redhorse..................... Proposed listing.
Texas hornshell........................ Proposed listing.
Guadalupe fescue....................... Proposed listing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61028]]
Actions Subject to Statutory Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miami Tiger Beetle..................... 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add
qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the
requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints
relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways
to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by
batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute
towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add
qualified species to the Lists.
The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox will be added to
the list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-month
finding. We will continue to monitor the status of this DPS as new
information becomes available. This review will determine if a change
in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of
emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for the Sierra Nevada
DPS of the Sierra Nevada red fox will be as accurate as possible.
Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and
comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
finding.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Sierra Nevada DPS, the Southern Cascades
DPS, or the Sierra Nevada red fox (in general) to our Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New
information will help us monitor Sierra Nevada red fox throughout the
subspecies' range, and encourage its conservation. If an emergency
situation develops for the Sierra Nevada DPS, Southern Cascades DPS, or
the subspecies in general, we will act to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 29, 2015.
Signed:
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-25289 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15P
