Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the San Miguel Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, and Santa Cruz Island Fox From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Reclassifying the Santa Catalina Island Fox From Endangered to Threatened, 7723-7741 [2016-02669]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Government employee and the date the
technical interchange occurred.
*
*
*
*
*
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 231
Government procurement.
Jennifer L. Hawes,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
[FR Doc. 2016–03039 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
PART 231—CONTRACT COST
PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES
50 CFR Part 17
1. The authority citation for part 231
continues to read as follows:
■
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170;
FFXES11130000–156–FF08E00000]
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
RIN 1018–BA71
2. In section 231.205–18, revise
paragraph (c)(iii)(C) to read as follows:
■
231.205–18 Independent research and
development and bid and proposal costs.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) For annual IR&D costs to be
allowable—
(1) The IR&D projects generating the
costs must be reported to the Defense
Technical Information Center (DTIC)
using the DTIC’s on-line input form and
instructions at https://www.defense
innovationmarketplace.mil/;
(2) The inputs must be updated with
a summary of results at least annually
and when the project is completed;
(3) Copies of the input and updates
must be made available for review by
the cognizant administrative contracting
officer (ACO) and the cognizant Defense
Contract Audit Agency auditor to
support the allowability of the costs;
(4) Contractors that do not meet the
threshold as a major contractor are
encouraged to use the DTIC on-line
input form to report IR&D projects to
provide DoD with visibility into the
technical content of the contractors’
IR&D activities; and
(5) For IR&D projects initiated in the
contractor’s fiscal year 2017 and later, as
a prerequisite for the subsequent
determination of allowability, major
contractors must—
(i) Engage in a technical interchange
with a technical or operational DoD
Government employee before IR&D
costs are generated so that contractor
plans and goals for IR&D projects benefit
from the awareness of and feedback by
a DoD employee who is informed of
related ongoing and future potential
interest opportunities; and
(ii) Use the online input form for IR&D
projects reported to DTIC to document
the technical interchange, which
includes the name of the DoD
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing the San Miguel
Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, and
Santa Cruz Island Fox From the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, and Reclassifying
the Santa Catalina Island Fox From
Endangered to Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
draft post-delisting monitoring plan.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to
remove the San Miguel Island fox
(Urocyon littoralis littoralis), Santa Rosa
Island fox (U. l. santarosae), and Santa
Cruz Island fox (U. l. santacruzae) from
the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and to reclassify
the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l.
catalinae) from an endangered species
to a threatened species. This
determination is based on a thorough
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, which
indicates that the threats to the San
Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island
fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox have
been eliminated or reduced to the point
that each of the subspecies no longer
meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and that the threats to
the Santa Catalina Island fox have been
reduced to the point that the subspecies
can be reclassified as a threatened
species. We are seeking information and
comments from the public regarding
this proposed rule and the draft postdelisting monitoring plan for the San
Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island
fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 18, 2016. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
INFORMATION CONTACT
7723
section by April 1,
2016.
Comment submission: You
may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-deliver to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2015–
0170; Division of Policy, Performance,
and Management Programs; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Information Requested section, below,
for more information).
Document availability: A copy of the
Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of
Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis)
referenced throughout this document
can be viewed at https://ecos.fws.gov/
speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170, or
at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office’s
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
Ventura/. The post-delisting monitoring
plan for the northern Channel Island fox
subspecies (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and
Santa Cruz Island foxes) consists of two
documents: the epidemic response plan
for northern Channel Island foxes
(Hudgens et al. 2013, entire) and the
golden eagle management strategy (NPS
2015a, entire). These documents will
also be posted on https://ecos.fws.gov/
speciesProfile/profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170,
and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office’s Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
Ventura/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola
Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; by
telephone 805–644–1766; or by
facsimile 805–644–3958. If you use a
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7724
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Information Requested
We intend any final action resulting
from this proposal will be based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available and be as accurate and as
effective as possible. Therefore, we
request comments or information from
other governmental agencies, tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Additional information on the
distribution, population size, and
population trends of the San Miguel
Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa
Cruz Island fox, and Santa Catalina
Island fox (collectively referred to as
‘‘island foxes’’ below).
(2) Relevant information concerning
any current or likely future threats (or
lack thereof) to the island foxes.
(3) Current or planned activities
within the range of the island foxes and
their possible impacts.
(4) Regional climate change models
and whether they are reliable and
credible to use in assessing the effects
of climate change on the island foxes
and their habitats.
(5) Our draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, may not meet the
standard of information required by
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES. If you submit
information via https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. We must receive
your request within 45 days after the
date of this Federal Register
publication. Send your request to the
address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodation, in the Federal Register
and local newspapers at least 15 days
before the hearing.
Previous Federal Actions
On December 10, 2001, we published
a proposal to list four subspecies of
island foxes as endangered species (66
FR 63654). Please refer to this proposed
rule for information on Federal actions
prior to December 10, 2001. On March
5, 2004, we published a final rule listing
the four subspecies of island foxes as
endangered species (69 FR 10335).
Please refer to the final Recovery Plan
for Four Subspecies of Island Fox
(Urocyon littoralis) (USFWS 2015,
entire) for a detailed description of
Federal actions concerning this species.
We did not designate critical habitat for
the four subspecies of island fox, as
explained in our November 9, 2005,
final critical habitat determination (70
FR 67924).
We published a notice announcing
the initiation of a review of the status of
the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and
Santa Catalina Island fox under section
4(c)(2) of the Act on March 9, 2015 (80
FR 12521), with the notice announcing
the availability of the final recovery
plan. This proposed rule to remove the
San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, and the Santa Cruz Island fox
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, and to reclassify
the Santa Catalina Island fox from an
endangered species to a threatened
species, also constitutes a status review
for each subspecies.
Background
The Recovery Plan for Four
Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon
littoralis) (Recovery Plan) (USFWS
2015, entire) was prepared by USFWS
working with a Recovery Team that
included public agency representatives,
landowners, conservancies, zoological
institutions, non-profits, and academics.
The Recovery Plan includes discussion
of the following: Species description
and taxonomy, habitat use, social
organization, reproduction, distribution
and abundance, threats to the
subspecies, and recovery strategies.
Detailed information from the Recovery
Plan is summarized in the following
sections of this proposed rule:
Background, Recovery and Recovery
Plan Implementation, and Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species. See the
Recovery Plan for more information on
the species’ ecology, species’ biological
needs, and analysis of the threats that
may be impacting the subspecies.
The island fox (Urocyon littoralis), a
diminutive relative of the gray fox (U.
cinereoargenteus), is endemic to the
California Channel Islands. Island foxes
inhabit the six largest of the eight
Channel Islands (San Miguel Island,
Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island,
Santa Catalina Island, San Nicolas
Island, and San Clemente Island) and
are recognized as distinct subspecies on
each of the six islands (see Figure 1,
below). Islands inhabited by island
foxes are owned by four major
landowners: The National Park Service
(NPS), the U.S. Navy (Navy), The Nature
Conservancy (TNC), and the Santa
Catalina Island Conservancy (CIC), all of
whom have management authority for
wildlife on their lands (Figure 1). The
NPS, TNC, and CIC manage the islands
where the listed subspecies occur.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Both morphologic and genetic
distinctions support the classification of
separate subspecies of island foxes for
each island (Collins 1993, entire; Gilbert
et al. 1990, entire; Goldstein et al. 1999,
entire; Wayne et al. 1991a, entire). The
island fox is a habitat generalist,
occurring in all natural habitats on the
Channel Islands, although it prefers
areas of diverse topography and
vegetation (von Bloeker 1967, pp. 257–
258; Laughrin 1977, p. 33; Collins and
Laughrin 1979, p. 12). The island fox is
primarily nocturnal, but more diurnal
than the mainland gray fox (Collins and
Laughrin 1979, p. 12.46; Crooks and
Van Vuren 1995, p. 305; Fausett 1993,
p. 30), possibly a result of historical
absence of predators and freedom from
human harassment (Laughrin 1977, pp.
19–20).
Even in the absence of catastrophic
events, island fox populations may have
fluctuated markedly over time (Laughrin
1980, entire). Residents of Santa Cruz
Island occasionally noted periods of
island fox scarcity and abundance
(Laughrin 1980, p. 745). Santa Catalina
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
Island fox population levels were low in
1972, and again in 1977 (Laughrin 1980,
p. 747); however, by 1994, the adult
Santa Catalina Island fox population
was estimated at over 1,300 individuals
(Roemer et al. 1994, p. 393).
Demographic analysis indicated that
island fox survival was positively
related to the previous year’s winter
rainfall in the drier southern islands and
negatively related to current and
previous year’s winter rainfall in the
wetter northern islands (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island)
(Bakker et al. 2009, p. 87; USFWS 2015
Appendix 2). Thus, indirect evidence
suggests effects of climate on island fox
survival.
The four federally listed island fox
subspecies (San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island
foxes) all experienced precipitous
population declines in the latter half of
the 1990s (Roemer 1999, pp. 124–125,
169–171; Timm et al. 2000, pp. 6–7, 16–
17; Coonan et al. 2000, entire; 2005a,
pp. 263–264; Roemer et al. 2001, entire).
San Miguel Island foxes declined from
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7725
450 individuals in 1994, to 15 in 1999/
2000; Santa Rosa Island foxes declined
from 1,780 individuals in 1994, to 15 in
1999/2000; Santa Cruz Island foxes
declined from 1,465 individuals in
1994, to 55 in 1999/2000; and Santa
Catalina Island foxes declined from
1,342 individuals in 1994, to 103 in
1999/2000. Island fox populations on
the northern Channel Islands (San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Islands) declined by 90 to 95 percent
and, prior to removal of foxes from the
wild for captive breeding, were
estimated to have a 50 percent chance
of extinction over 5 to 10 years (Roemer
1999, p. 147; Roemer et al. 2001, p. 312).
Thus, by 1999, researchers considered
island fox subspecies on the northern
Channel Islands to be critically
endangered (Roemer 1999, p. 180). The
Santa Catalina Island subspecies was
considered to be critically endangered
by 2000 (Timm et al. 2000, entire).
The decline of island foxes in the
northern Channel Islands (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) is
considered a consequence of
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
EP16FE16.000</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7726
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
hyperpredation by nonnative golden
eagles (Roemer et al. 2001, entire). The
presence of nonnative prey species
(feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island, and
mule deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island)
and an open ecological niche created by
the extirpation of bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the
islands as a result of
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
poisoning (USFWS 2004, p. 10343)
enabled golden eagles to colonize the
islands successfully and prey heavily on
island foxes, which evolved in the
absence of predators. In contrast, the
decline of island foxes on Santa Catalina
Island is considered a consequence of
canine distemper virus (CDV). Analysis
of CDV isolated from a Santa Catalina
Island fox during the late 1990s
epidemic indicated it was most closely
related to the strain found in mainland
raccoons (Timm et al. 2009, p. 339), and
a number of stowaway raccoons have
been removed from Santa Catalina
Island (King and Duncan 2014, p. 20).
Therefore, the catastrophic population
decline of Santa Catalina Island foxes
was likely caused by CDV transmitted
from a raccoon accidentally transported
from the mainland (Timm et al. 2009, p.
341). Other sources of mortality of
island foxes have been identified,
particularly for foxes on Santa Catalina
Island, such as motor vehicle strikes,
interactions with feral cats and dogs,
and drought, but were not considered to
have contributed substantially to
declines of the four subspecies of island
foxes.
In response to the catastrophic
declines of 1999/2000, captive breeding
was implemented on all islands. All
known remaining island foxes on San
Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands were
brought into captivity in 1999 and 2000,
respectively. By 2004, captive
populations from both islands exceeded
the target captive population size of 40
animals and allowed initial releases
back to the wild (Coonan and Schwemm
2009, p. 366; Coonan et al. 2005a, p.
168–169). On Santa Cruz Island, 18
representative adult island foxes were
brought into captivity in 2001, and the
population grew to 62 individuals by
2005; releases of captive-born foxes
were subsequently concluded in July
2008 (Hudgens and Sanchez 2009, p.
16). On Santa Catalina Island, 27 foxes
were brought into captivity from the
isolated west end of the island in 2000.
From 2001 to 2004, foxes were released
from captivity, including 37 captiveborn pups and 20 of the original wildcaptured adults (Schmidt et al. 2005, p.
17). Additionally, 32 foxes were moved
from the west end of Santa Catalina
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
Island to the depleted east end, with
subsequent high survival. The success
of these programs allowed all the
captive breeding facilities to close by
2008.
For more information about the
biology and historical population status
and observed declines of island fox
populations, please see the Recovery
Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 5–19).
Recovery and Recovery Plan
Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
endangered and threatened species
unless we determine that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the
species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum
extent practicable, include: ‘‘objective,
measurable criteria which, when met,
would result in a determination, in
accordance with the provisions of
[section 4 of the Act], that the species
be removed from the list.’’ However,
revisions to the list (adding, removing,
or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance
with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act.
Section 4(a)(1) requires that the
Secretary determine whether a species
is an endangered species or a threatened
species (or not) because of one or more
of five threat 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
human-made factors affecting its
continued existence. Section 4(b) of the
Act requires that the determination be
made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data
available.’’ Recovery criteria should
therefore indicate when a species is no
longer an endangered species or
threatened species because of any of the
five statutory factors.
Thus, while recovery plans provide
important guidance to the USFWS,
States, and other partners on methods of
minimizing threats to listed species and
measurable objectives against which to
measure progress towards recovery, they
are not regulatory documents and
cannot substitute for the determinations
and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. A decision to revise the status of or
remove a species from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an
analysis of the best scientific and
commercial data then available to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determine whether a species is no
longer an endangered species or a
threatened species, regardless of
whether that information differs from
the recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp.
47–53) includes the recovery goals,
recovery objectives, and recovery
criteria that we outline below to
reclassify the island fox subspecies from
endangered to threatened and to remove
island fox subspecies from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
We summarize these goals and then
discuss progress toward meeting the
recovery objectives.
Recovery Goal
The goal of the Recovery Plan is to
recover the San Miguel Island fox, the
Santa Rosa Island fox, the Santa Cruz
Island fox, and the Santa Catalina Island
fox so they can be delisted (removed
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife) when existing
threats to each respective subspecies
have been ameliorated such that their
populations have been stabilized and
have increased. The interim goal is to
recover these subspecies to the point
that they can be downlisted from
endangered to threatened status. Each
listed subspecies may be considered for
downlisting or delisting independently
of the other subspecies.
Recovery Objectives
Recovery objectives identify
mechanisms for measuring progress
toward and achieving the recovery goal
for each subspecies.
Recovery Objective 1: Each federally
listed subspecies of island fox exhibits
demographic characteristics consistent
with long-term viability.
Recovery Objective 2: Land managers
are able to respond in a timely fashion
to predation by nesting golden eagles or
significant predation rates by transient
golden eagles, to potential or incipient
disease outbreaks, and to other
identified threats using the best
available technology.
In order for any one of the four listed
subspecies of island fox to be
considered for downlisting from
endangered to threatened status,
recovery objective 1 should be met for
that subspecies. In order for any one of
the four listed subspecies of island fox
to be considered for delisting, recovery
objective 1 and recovery objective 2
should be met for that subspecies.
Recovery Criteria
Island fox recovery criteria are
measurable standards for determining
whether a subspecies has achieved its
recovery objectives and may be
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
considered for downlisting or delisting.
Criteria presented in the Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2015, pp. 50–53) represent our
best assessment of the conditions most
likely to result in a determination that
downlisting or delisting of the San
Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island
fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and the Santa
Catalina Island fox is warranted.
Achieving the prescribed recovery
criteria is an indication that a
subspecies is no longer an endangered
species or a threatened species. Each
recovery criterion applies to all four
subspecies, except where noted
otherwise.
As presented in the Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2015, pp. 50–55), the
discussion of criteria below is organized
by factors under 4(a)(1) to demonstrate
how criteria indicate threats under that
factor have been ameliorated.
Factor A: The present destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
There are no recovery criteria for this
factor. Herbivory by nonnative species
resulted in habitat degradation on the
Channel Islands. While habitat
degradation was not identified as a
primary threat to island foxes, presence
of nonnative herbivores responsible for
habitat degradation provided a prey
base for golden eagles to become
established and predate island foxes on
the northern Channel Islands. If threats
under Factors C and E are ameliorated,
the habitat improvements expected to
occur with removal of herbivores
responsible for habitat degradation may
provide a long-term benefit to the island
fox subspecies; however, these habitat
improvements are not necessary for
recovery.
Factor B: Overutilization for
commercial, scientific or educational
purposes.
Overutilization is not a currently
known threat for these subspecies;
therefore, there are no recovery criteria
that address threats under this factor.
Factor C: Disease or predation.
Disease and predation were identified
as primary threats to island foxes. To
address recovery objective 2, the
magnitude and imminence of disease
and predation threats must be reduced.
The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, p. 51)
states that this is accomplished when
the following have occurred:
C/1: Golden eagle predation (applies
only to the northern Channel Islands):
a. To reduce the threat of extinction
to the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox,
the rate of golden eagle predation is
reduced and maintained at a level no
longer considered a threat to island fox
recovery through development of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
golden eagle management strategy. The
strategy will be developed by the land
manager(s) in consultation with the
USFWS and including review by the
appropriate Integrated Island Fox
Recovery Team Technical Expertise
Group or the equivalent. This strategy
includes:
• Response tactics (including the use
of helicopters and net-guns) to capture
nesting golden eagles and any transient
golden eagle responsible for significant
island fox predation, per the golden
eagle response strategy;
• Tactics to minimize the
establishment of successful nesting
golden eagles;
• An established island fox
monitoring program that is able to
detect an annual island fox predation
rate caused by golden eagles of 2.5
percent or greater, averaged over 3 years
(Bakker and Doak 2009, entire); and
• An established mortality rate or
population size threshold that, if
reached due to golden eagle predation,
would require land manager(s) to bring
island foxes into captivity.
b. The golden eagle prey base of deer
and elk is removed from Santa Rosa
Island.
C/2: Disease:
A disease management strategy is
developed, approved, and implemented
by the land manager(s) in consultation
with the USFWS and includes review
by the appropriate Integrated Island Fox
Recovery Team Technical Expertise
Group or the equivalent. This strategy
includes:
• Identification of a portion of each
population that will be vaccinated
against diseases posing the greatest risk,
for which vaccines are safe and
effective. Vaccinations and fox numbers
vaccinated will be developed in
consultation with appropriate subjectmatter experts;
• Identification of actual and
potential pathogens of island foxes, and
the means by which these can be
prevented from decimating fox
populations;
• Disease prevention;
• A monitoring program that provides
for timely detection of a potential
epidemic, and an associated emergency
response strategy as recommended by
the appropriate subject-matter experts;
and
• A process for updating the disease
strategy as new information arises.
Factor D: Inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms was not identified as a
primary threat to island foxes, and,
therefore, there are no recovery criteria
that address threats under this factor.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7727
Factor E: Other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Small population size and
vulnerability to stochastic or
catastrophic events were identified as
primary threats to the species under
Factor E. To address recovery objective
1, that each federally listed subspecies
of island fox exhibits demographic
characteristics consistent with long-term
viability, the subspecies must be
protected from other natural or
manmade factors known to affect their
continued existence. This is
accomplished when the following has
occurred:
E/1: An island fox subspecies has no
more than 5 percent risk of quasiextinction over a 50-year period
(addresses objective 1). This risk level is
based on the following:
• Quasi-extinction is defined as a
population size of fewer than or equal
to 30 individuals.
• The risk of quasi-extinction is
calculated based on the combined lower
80 percent confidence interval for a 3year running average of population size
estimates, and the upper 80 percent
confidence interval for a 3-year running
average of mortality rate estimates.
• This risk level is sustained for at
least 5 years, during which time the
population trend is not declining. A
declining trend is defined as the 3-year
risk-level being greater in year 5 than
year 1.
Achievement of Recovery Criteria
Golden eagle predation is no longer a
threat due to successful golden eagle
removals, nonnative prey removal, and
bald eagle recovery. Recovery criterion
C/1 addresses golden eagle predation in
the northern Channel Islands (it does
not apply to the Santa Catalina Island
fox). A final golden eagle management
strategy has been approved (NPS 2015a,
entire), which involves actions that have
already been implemented by the NPS
and TNC, including: Complete removal
of all golden eagles; ongoing prevention
of golden eagle nesting; and removal of
all nonnative golden eagle prey,
including the deer and elk from Santa
Rosa Island. In addition, as bald eagles
reestablish their populations on the
northern Channel Islands, they reduce
the probability that golden eagles will
recolonize because bald eagles
aggressively defend their territories from
golden eagles (USFWS 2004, pp. 10343–
10344). Due to ongoing management as
prescribed in the final golden eagle
management strategy, current eagle
predation is minimal, and has had a
negligible effect on fox population
trends; therefore, the intent of recovery
criteria C/1 has been met.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7728
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Monitoring associated with criteria
C/1 will be accomplished as part of the
epidemic response plan for the northern
Channel Island subspecies (Hudgens et
al. 2013, entire). This monitoring will
allow detection of mortality related to
depredation of island fox by golden
eagles (as well as early detection of
mortality related to a disease epidemic).
As described above, ongoing
management has reduced eagle
predation on island foxes in the
northern Channel Islands to minimal
levels. Consequently, we recognize
golden eagle predation is no longer a
threat to foxes on the northern Channel
Islands, and the current monitoring
strategy allows for a rapid response to
any identified mortalities resulting from
predation or disease. National Park
Service and TNC have committed
through signed conservation
management agreements (CMAs) to
carrying out monitoring and other
management actions as recommended in
the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et
al. 2013, entire) for the next 5 years
(USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and
TNC 2015). Prior to the expiration of the
CMAs, the parties will meet to review,
modify, and re-enter into a CMA.
Recovery criterion C/2 addresses the
threat of disease to all four island fox
subspecies. The intent of recovery
criterion C/2 is currently being met for
the Santa Catalina Island fox; however,
the Santa Catalina Island fox subspecies
has the highest risk of disease
introduction and low assurance of
continued implementation of the
epidemic response plan in the future,
creating uncertainty that this criterion
will continue to be met in the future.
Santa Catalina Island has the highest
risk of disease introduction because
movement of potential vectors such as
domestic dogs, cats, and stow-away
raccoons between the mainland and the
island is not controlled. The island has
heavy visitation and many points of
access, and there are no restrictions on
visitors transporting domestic pets to
the island, no restrictions or inspections
required of vessels visiting from the
mainland, and leash laws for dogs are
difficult to enforce (King and Duncan
2011, p. 15; Anderson 2012, pers. obs.;
King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and
Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. obs.;
King 2015, p. 1). The Catalina Island
Conservancy (CIC) has approved and is
currently implementing an epidemic
response plan for Santa Catalina Island
foxes (Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The
CIC annually vaccinates a portion of the
subspecies’ population against CDV and
rabies when vaccines are available (King
2015, pers. comm.) and monitors for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
detection of potential epidemics as
recommended in the epidemic response
plan (Hudgens et al. 2014, entire),
although currently there are no
assurances to ensure monitoring will
continue into the future on Santa
Catalina Island. If there is a lapse in
continued implementation of the
epidemic response plan, a potential
disease outbreak could occur without
detection or appropriate response to
mediate the threat to the subspecies.
A final disease management strategy
has also been approved in the form of
an epidemic response plan for the
northern Channel Island fox subspecies
(Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This
epidemic response plan is currently
implemented by the NPS and TNC, and
provides direction for monitoring,
vaccination for canine distemper virus
and rabies annually to a portion of each
island fox population, and response if
mortality is detected. While disease was
not responsible for the decline of island
foxes on the northern Channel Islands,
these subspecies, like all island fox
subspecies, will always be at some risk
of a disease outbreak and population
decline because of their small
population sizes and isolation.
However, the risk potential for disease
outbreak has been and continues to be
reduced through implementation of the
epidemic response plan. Additionally,
NPS and TNC have committed through
signed CMAs to carrying out monitoring
and other management actions for
detecting and appropriately responding
to a potential disease outbreak into the
future as recommended in the epidemic
response plan (Hudgens et al. 2013,
entire; USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS
and TNC 2015).
Recovery criterion E/1, which is
intended to indicate when population
levels are sufficiently robust to
withstand natural variation in
demographic parameters and avoid
potential extirpations from stochastic or
catastrophic events, has been achieved
for all four island fox subspecies. This
recovery criterion is attained when the
3-year means of adult mortality rate
versus population size and confidence
intervals lie below 5 percent risk of
subspecies-specific quasi-extinction for
5 consecutive years (see Supplementary
Material ‘‘Results of graphing/analysis
tool to assess island fox recovery
criterion E/1’’ posted on https://
www.regulations.gov for more details).
Population monitoring has been
implemented for each listed subspecies,
and population viability analyses
indicate all subspecies have an
acceptably small risk of extinction. The
extinction risk has been less than 5
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
percent since 2008 for San Miguel,
Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Islands,
and since 2011 for Santa Rosa Island. As
of 2014, island fox populations had
increased to greater than 500 on San
Miguel Island (Coonan 2015, pp. 7, 13),
greater than 800 on Santa Rosa Island,
greater than 2,500 individuals on Santa
Cruz Island (Bakker 2015, p. 4), and
greater than 1,700 on Santa Catalina
Island (King and Duncan 2014, p. 11).
All populations with the exception of
Santa Rosa Island are at or above their
pre-decline population estimates
(Coonan 2015a, pers. comm.; King and
Duncan 2014, pp. 1, 10). On San Miguel
Island, low reproductive effort coupled
with declining survival suggests that the
San Miguel Island subspecies has
reached carrying capacity (Coonan 2015,
p. 8). We conclude, based on population
viability analyses, that the intent of
recovery criterion E/1 has been achieved
for all four island fox subspecies. The
graphing/analysis tool used to assess
attainment of recovery criterion E/1 and
associated discussion is found in
Appendix 2 of the Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2015, pp. 131–136). Detailed
results of the tool through 2014 can be
found in the Supplementary Material
‘‘Results of graphing/analysis tool to
assess island fox recovery criterion E/1’’
(derived from Coonan 2015, p. 12, 16;
Boser 2015, p. 8; King and Duncan 2015,
p. 12) on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–
0170.
Summary of Recovery Criteria
With the golden eagle management
strategy in place, complete removal of
golden eagles and their nonnative preybase from the northern Channel Islands,
development and implementation of an
epidemic response plan, and population
levels consistent with long-term
viability, the intent of recovery
objectives 1 and 2, and the associated
recovery criteria have been met for the
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes (see Table 1, below). With
population levels consistent with longterm viability, recovery objective 1 has
been met for the Santa Catalina Island
fox. However, objective 2 has not been
met because currently there are no
assurances to ensure monitoring and
management actions will continue into
the future on Santa Catalina Island and,
because this island has a high risk of
introduced pathogens from the
mainland, a disease outbreak could
occur without detection or appropriate
response to mediate the threat to the
subspecies (Table 1).
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
7729
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENT OF RECOVERY CRITERIA FOR THE FOUR ISLAND FOX SUBSPECIES
San Miguel
Island Fox.
Santa Rosa
Island Fox.
Santa Cruz
Island Fox.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Santa
Catalina
Island Fox.
Population Risk-based
Recovery Criterion
Threat-based
Recovery Criterion
Threat-based
Recovery Criterion
Threat-based
Recovery Criterion
An island fox subspecies has
no more than 5 percent risk
of quasi-extinction over a
50 year period.
Subspecies
Golden Eagle Predation: A
golden eagle management
strategy is developed and
approved.
Golden Eagle Predation: The
golden eagle prey base of
deer and elk is removed
from Santa Rosa Island.
Disease: A disease prevention
and management strategy
is developed, approved,
and implemented.
2014 numbers increased to
∼500+; annual survival estimates ∼ 80 percent; since
2008, extinction risk less
than 5 percent over the
next 50 years.
2014 numbers increased to
∼800; annual survival estimates greater than 90 percent; since 2011, extinction
risk less than 5 over the
next 50 years percent.
2014 numbers increased to
∼2,500+; annual survival estimates greater than 90 percent; since 2008, extinction
risk less than 5 percent
over the next 50 years.
2014 numbers increased to
∼1,700; annual survival estimates greater than 80 percent since 2006; since
2008, extinction risk less
than 5 percent over the
next 50 years.
Eagle predation on northern
Channel Island foxes has
been negligible since 2006;
golden eagle management
strategy is in place.
N/A ..........................................
Eagle predation on northern
Channel Island foxes has
been negligible since 2006;
golden eagle management
strategy is in place.
As of 2015, all elk and all but
a few deer have been removed from Santa Rosa Island.
Eagle predation on northern
Channel Island foxes has
been negligible since 2006;
golden eagle management
strategy is in place.
N/A ..........................................
N/A ..........................................
N/A ..........................................
Epidemic response plan developed and implemented;
foxes vaccinated against
CDV and rabies continuing;
CMA signed committing to
continued monitoring.
Epidemic response plan developed and implemented;
foxes vaccinated against
CDV and rabies continuing;
CMA signed committing to
continued monitoring.
Epidemic response developed
and implemented; foxes
vaccinated against CDV
and rabies continuing; CMA
signed committing to continued monitoring.
Epidemic response plan developed and implemented;
foxes vaccinated against
CDV and rabies continuing;
ongoing relatively high potential for disease vector
exposure; insufficient longterm monitoring and management assurance.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing
species on, reclassifying species on, or
removing species from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the
Act as including any species or
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species may be
determined to be an endangered species
or threatened species because of any one
or a combination of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
human-made factors affecting its
continued existence. A species may be
reclassified on the same basis.
A recovered species is one that no
longer meets the Act’s definition of
endangered species or threatened
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:00 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
species. Determining whether a species
is recovered requires consideration of
whether the species is an endangered
species or threatened species because of
the five categories of threats specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species
that are already listed as endangered
species or threatened species, this
analysis of threats is an evaluation of
both the threats currently facing the
species and the threats that are
reasonably likely to affect the species in
the foreseeable future following the
delisting or downlisting and the
removal or reduction of the Act’s
protections.
A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’
for purposes of the Act if it is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range and is a
‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. The
Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the purposes
of this rule, we define the ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ to be 50 years because the
population viability analyses to
determine the risk of quasi-extinction
for each subspecies are over a 50-year
period (Bakker et al. 2009, entire).
Therefore, we estimate 50 years to be
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the extent to which, given the amount
and substance of available data, we can
anticipate events or effects, or reliably
extrapolate threat trends, such that
reliable predictions can be made
concerning the future as it relates to the
status of the four subspecies of island
fox (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz,
and Santa Catalina Island foxes).
A thorough analysis and discussion of
the current status of the San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa
Catalina Island foxes is detailed in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 21–
29). Primary threats to island foxes
identified in the listing rule included
predation by golden eagles, disease, and
stochastic risks to small populations
and lack of genetic variability. Since
listing, impacts of feral cat aggression,
poisoning, and entrapment on Santa
Catalina Island, and fire, drought, and
global climate change for all four islands
have been identified as possible new
threats. The following sections provide
a summary of the past, current, and
potential future threats impacting the
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and
Santa Catalina Island foxes.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7730
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Factor A: Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
At the time of listing in 2004, habitat
modification by nonnative grazing
animals and nonnative plant invasion
was identified as a threat under Factor
A impacting island foxes (69 FR 10335;
March 5, 2004). The listing rule
identified habitat modification as
causing some adverse effects to island
foxes, particularly conversion to
grasslands, but considered it unlikely to
have directly caused the observed
declines. Annual grasslands constitute
less preferred habitat for island foxes
(Laughrin 1977, p. 22; Roemer and
Wayne 2003, pp. 1256–1257) and do not
provide cover from predators such as
golden eagles (Roemer 1999, p. 99, 190–
191). It is difficult to quantify the effects
of past habitat loss and/or alteration on
the status of island foxes. However,
habitat on all islands occupied by island
foxes has been affected by a
combination of livestock grazing,
cultivation, and other disturbances,
particularly nonnative animal and plant
invasion and urbanization on Santa
Catalina Island. Although it is possible
that these habitat changes may have
exacerbated the effects of other threats,
island fox populations remained
relatively stable prior to the
commencement of golden eagle
predation in the mid-1990s and disease
in 1999.
Eradication programs on all islands
have greatly reduced the number of
nonnative herbivores on the islands and
therefore the magnitude of impacts to
the habitat (Laughrin 1973, p. 14;
Schoenherr et al. 1999, pp. 191–194;
Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Currently,
impacts to island fox habitats are
primarily attributed to continued
modification by nonnative plant
species, resulting in lower vegetation
diversity and habitat structure. The
seeds of nonnative annual grasses can
also cause occasional damage or
blindness by becoming lodged in the
eyes and ears of island foxes.
National Park Service (NPS) guidance
supports the continued management of
island fox habitat to benefit northern
Channel Islands subspecies of island
foxes. Title 54 of the U.S. Code, section
100101, paragraph (a), states that the
NPS ‘‘shall promote and regulate the use
of the National Park System . . . to
conserve the scenery, natural and
historic objects, and wild life in the
System units and to provide for the
enjoyment of the scenery, natural and
historic objects, and wild life in such
manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
future generations.’’ Specifically, in its
management plan, Channel Islands
National Park identified restoration and
maintenance of natural ecosystems and
processes as a priority; Park staff would
continue to eradicate, where feasible,
nonnative flora and fauna from the
islands.
The island fox, as the species Urocyon
littoralis (incorporating all six
subspecies), is listed as threatened
under the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) (section 2081(b)),
which does provide a level of protection
from actual possession or intentional
killing of individual animals and actual
death of individual animals incidental
to otherwise lawful activity, such as
habitat conversion, on the privately
owned TNC-managed lands on Santa
Cruz Island and privately owned lands
on Santa Catalina Island. Santa Catalina
Island foxes are impacted by the
potential for land use change on nonconserved lands, including
development and recreational events
such as off-road vehicle racing. CESA
contributes to the conservation of the
species by providing a mechanism to
reduce or regulate some individual
sources of mortality and to review and
permit development projects that may
impact island foxes and their habitat on
private lands.
While past and ongoing effects of
habitat modification by nonnative
grazing animals and nonnative plant
invasion may have some negative effects
on island foxes, nonnative animals and
plants no longer impact the habitat to
the extent that would cause populationlevel declines that we would consider a
threat to any of the subspecies of island
fox now or in the future.
Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
As stated in the listing rule (69 FR
10335; March 5, 2004), although island
foxes were used in the past for their
pelts by Native Americans (Collins
1991, p. 215), these activities are no
longer occurring. Research scientists are
currently engaged in recovery activities
via USFWS-issued 10(a)(1)(A) recovery
permits. Our analyses have determined
these research activities do not pose a
threat to any island fox populations.
Therefore, overutilization is not a threat
to any of the island fox subspecies at
this time or in the future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
A canine distemper virus (CDV)
epidemic was considered the primary
threat to Santa Catalina Island fox at the
time of listing (69 FR 10335; March 5,
2004). The listing rule also expressed
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
some concern regarding the potential
impacts of canine adenovirus and
canine parvovirus. At the time of listing,
golden eagle predation was the primary
cause for the decline of northern
Channel Islands foxes (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes)
(69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), but
potential for disease was also a concern,
particularly given the small population
sizes at the time.
Disease
Infectious Pathogens: In the past,
disease severely impacted the island fox
population on Santa Catalina Island.
The eastern subpopulation of the Santa
Catalina Island fox was estimated to be
1,342 in 1990 (Roemer et al. 1994, p.
393). Subsequent surveys conducted in
1999 and 2000 indicated the eastern
island fox subpopulation had declined
by over 90 percent in 10 years due to
CDV (Timm et al. 2000, p. 17), likely
transmitted from a raccoon that arrived
from the mainland (Timm et al. 2009, p.
339). After a captive rearing and
augmentation program was initiated, the
eastern and western subpopulations
were estimated to have reached 219 and
141 foxes in 2004, respectively (Schmidt
et al. 2005, p. 11; King and Duncan
2011, p. 19). Population estimates have
since greatly increased on Santa
Catalina Island, surpassing the estimate
from 1990, reaching a total of 1,717
individuals island-wide in 2014 (King
and Duncan 2015, p. 10).
In 2014, a final epidemic response
plan was approved and is being
implemented to detect and facilitate
appropriate response to a potential
future disease outbreak for Santa
Catalina Island foxes (Hudgens et al.
2014, entire). The Catalina Island
Conservancy annually monitors sentinel
foxes inhabiting many areas of the
island to facilitate early detection of a
potential epidemic (King and Duncan
2011, p. 15). Island foxes have been and
continue to be vaccinated against CDV
and rabies (King 2015, pers. comm.). At
this time, however, there is no
assurance of continued funding for longterm monitoring and management that
could detect a novel outbreak and
facilitate threat abatement, as
recommended in the epidemic response
plan.
Transport of domestic and wild
animals to and from Santa Catalina
Island increases the risk to island foxes
of another disease outbreak. Santa
Catalina Island currently allows visitors
and residents to own and transport pets,
including domestic dogs and cats, to
and from the island (King and Duncan
2011, p. 15), and dogs are frequently
observed off-leash (Anderson 2012,
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman
and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. obs.;
King 2015, p. 22). There is no
quarantine period for transported pets,
and proof of current vaccination is only
required by the City of Avalon when
licensing dogs (rabies only), and for CIC
employees and lessees with pets living
in company-owned housing (King and
Duncan 2011, p. 15). The CIC manages
the majority of fox habitat on the island
(except the City of Avalon) and through
their regulations requires all nonnative
animals entering CIC property be
licensed; they also require that all dogs
and cats be vaccinated against
distemper and rabies, and they should
be leashed at all times (CIC 2015, https://
www.catalinaconservancy.org).
Enforcement of CIC regulations is laborintensive and costly, because the island
is large, there are many remote coves
and beaches where private boats can
anchor, and the CIC does not have the
funding or staff to patrol these areas
regularly. Reduction of disease
introduction risk also occurs through
CIC outreach and education of local
authorities and the public; to date, four
stowaway raccoons have been removed
from the island, but a fifth observed in
2010 was not captured (King and
Duncan 2011, p. 15). Therefore, current
measures to control introduction of
diseases by domestic animals and
stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina
Island, while providing some
protection, are limited.
Disease does not appear to be a
significant mortality factor on the
northern Channel Islands, although
Leptospirosis (infectious bacterium) was
found to be a mortality source for two
Santa Rosa Island foxes in 2010 (Coonan
and Guglielmino 2012, p. 21). Unlike on
Santa Catalina Island, dogs and other
pets are not permitted on the northern
Channel Islands to reduce this risk of
introduction of disease; however, dogs
are occasionally illegally brought onto
the islands. Channel Islands National
Park General Management Plan
prohibits pets from all Park islands,
except for guide dogs for visually
impaired persons (NPS 2015b, pp. 468,
487).
In 2013, a final epidemic response
plan was approved and is being
implemented to detect and facilitate
appropriate response to a potential
disease outbreak for the northern
Channel Islands (Hudgens et al. 2013,
entire). Sentinel foxes are monitored to
facilitate early detection of a potential
epidemic (Hudgens et al. 2013, pp.
entire), and foxes have been and
continue to be vaccinated against CDV
and rabies when vaccines are available.
Also, the Park identified island foxes as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
an ecosystem element for which they
will conduct long-term annual
population monitoring as part of the
Park’s long-term ecological monitoring
program, regardless of their status under
the Act. Both NPS and TNC have
committed through signed CMAs
(USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and
TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring
and management actions into the future
as recommended in the epidemic
response plan for northern Channel
Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013,
entire).
Ear Canal Cancer: There is concern
about the rate of ear canal cancer in
Santa Catalina Island foxes and how it
might affect long-term population
viability. The first cases of ear canal
cancer were documented in 2000 and
2001, with increased detection through
2007 (Timm et al. 2002, p. 26;
Kohlmann et al. 2003, p. 39; Schmidt et
al. 2004, p. 15; Schmidt et al. 2005, p.
11; Munson et al. 2009, p. 5). This
cancer can have an aggressive clinical
course, with local invasion, tissue
damage, and metastasis, leading to
death (Munson et al. 2009, p. 1). Ear
inflammation correlated with cancer
incidence in Santa Catalina Island foxes
is triggered by ear mite infestations
(Munson et al. 2009, pp. 3–4), and the
severity can be reduced through
aracacide application (Vickers et al.
2011, pp. 9–10). Treatment with
aracacide is now standard practice by
CIC during trapping of Santa Catalina
Island foxes (King and Duncan 2011, p.
3). Since 2008, over 1,000 treatments
were applied, and the prevalence of
mites has been reduced in the fox
population from 87 percent to 28
percent. Tumor prevalence in the Santa
Catalina Island fox population remains
an actively managed source of mortality
(Vickers et al. 2011, pp. 9–10). However,
we do not have long-term assurances
that CIC will continue to carry out
monitoring and management actions
into the future as recommended in the
epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al.
2014, entire).
Parasites: Parasites have not been
confirmed as a direct mortality source of
island foxes; however, concurrent
infection with a pathogen, such as
Spirocerca (nematode), can negatively
impact host health and decrease
immunity (Munson 2010, pp. 134–136).
In a species-wide survey, Spirocerca
was found in a high prevalence of
necropsied island foxes, but in most
cases appeared to have little effect on
the population (Munson 2010, pp. 129,
134–136). Preliminary genetic analysis
and the location of lesions suggest that
the Spirocerca found in island foxes
may be a different species than S. lupi,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7731
which occurs in domestic dogs and
other North American carnivores on the
mainland. Currently, Spirocerca is not a
major health concern for most island
foxes. However, if island foxes are ever
brought to the mainland for research or
captive breeding, efforts should be made
to prevent transmission of Spirocerca
from island foxes to mainland
carnivores and vice versa.
Infection by parasites other than
Spirocerca has been suspected as the
cause of mortality in several island
foxes, but is not considered a significant
mortality factor. Infection by
hookworms (Uncinaria stenocephala)
and a lungworm (Angiocaulus
gubernaculatus) may have contributed
to two mortalities in the San Miguel
Island fox subspecies (Coonan et al.
2005b, p. 38). In 2013, the San Miguel
Island fox annual survival rate declined
from approximately 90 percent to about
80 percent; 5 of the 11 mortalities that
occurred in radio-collared foxes had
evidence of acanthocephalans (spinyheaded worms), a parasite never before
recorded in island foxes (Coonan 2014,
p. 6).
In summary, the possibility exists for
domestic or wild animals carrying a
disease or parasite to migrate or be
transported to all the Channel Islands,
although vector movement via boat is
frequent to Santa Catalina Island. On all
islands, an epidemic response plan is
approved and being implemented
(Hudgens et al. 2013, 2014 entire),
which includes that a subset of foxes are
vaccinated when vaccines are available
and monitored to detect and respond to
a potential disease outbreak (Coonan
2010, pp. 24–29; see appendices 3 and
4 in Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015)). The
NPS and TNC have committed (USFWS
and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC 2015)
to carrying out monitoring and
management actions into the future as
recommended in the epidemic response
plan for northern Channel Island foxes
(Hudgens et al. 2013, entire); therefore,
we consider the potential threat of
disease adequately controlled for the
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes at this time and into the
future. We do not at this time have the
assurance of continued implementation
of the epidemic response plan on Santa
Catalina Island. Disease was the main
threat to Santa Catalina Island foxes at
the time of listing in 2004, and given the
lack of assurance for continued
implementation of the epidemic
response plan to detect and mitigate for
future disease outbreaks, we still
consider potential disease outbreaks to
be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island
fox.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7732
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Predation
As identified in the listing rule,
golden eagle predation was the primary
cause for the decline of the northern
Channel Islands fox subspecies and the
primary reason for the listing under the
Act (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004).
Before golden eagles started using the
northern Channel Islands in the 1990s,
the only known predator of island foxes
was the red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), which preyed only
occasionally on young island foxes
(Laughrin 1973, pp. 10–11; Moore and
Collins 1995, p. 4). Because of the lack
of predators, island foxes did not evolve
vigilance and are easy targets for golden
eagles (Roemer et al. 2001, p. 316).
Colonization of the northern Channel
Islands by golden eagles was likely a
combination of two factors: (1)
Introduction of nonnative mammals on
the northern Channel Islands, resulting
in a historically unprecedented prey
base for golden eagles (USFWS 2004, p.
10338); and (2) an open ecological niche
created by the extirpation of bald eagles
from the islands as a result of DDT
poisoning (USFWS 2004, p. 10343).
In the 2004 listing rule, the Federal
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668–668d) and the
California Fish and Game Code, section
3511, were thought to have delayed or
precluded the implementation of
needed recovery actions for island
foxes. The protections afforded to
golden eagles by the BGEPA were
thought to limit lethal management
alternatives to protect island foxes. The
California Fish and Game Code, section
3511, deemed golden eagles a fully
protected species, which would not
have allowed any take to be authorized.
In 2003, California amended this law to
allow authorization of the take of fully
protected species for scientific research,
including research on recovery for other
imperiled species (Senate Bill 412).
To address the unprecedented
number of golden eagles and the effects
they were having on island foxes, in
August 1999, the NPS and TNC initiated
a nonlethal golden eagle removal
program to protect island foxes on the
northern Channel Islands. Between
November 1999 and July 2006, 44
golden eagles, including 22 adults or
near adults, were removed from Santa
Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands and
released in northeastern California
(Latta et al. 2005, p. 348; Coonan et al.
2010, pp. 59–61). Satellite telemetry
affixed to the first 12 translocated
golden eagles confirmed that none of the
relocated eagles attempted to return to
the islands for the 1.5-year life of the
transmitter (USFWS 2015, p. 30). Ten
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
nestlings were removed by hand from
seven different nests (two from Santa
Rosa Island and five from Santa Cruz
Island) and fostered into mainland
golden eagle nests or released. By mid2005, seven golden eagles were
estimated to remain on the northern
Channel Islands, and removal efforts
yielded diminishing returns. The last
eagles captured and removed from the
islands were a pair of nesting golden
eagles and their chick on Santa Cruz
Island in 2006 (Coonan et al. 2010, p.
62), and there has been no record of
breeding golden eagles on the northern
Channel Islands since that time.
Genetic work supports the long-term
success of eagle translocation efforts.
Sonsthagen et al. (2012, pp. entire)
investigated the genetics of mainland
golden eagles and those translocated
from the islands, finding that the island
population was likely the result of one
colonization event. The likelihood of
another successful golden eagle
colonization is low, given changes in
nonnative prey availability and
monitoring/mitigation by land
management agencies.
To ensure that golden eagles would be
less likely to attempt to establish
territories again on Santa Rosa and
Santa Cruz Islands, TNC and the NPS
initiated a program in 2005 and 2011,
respectively, to remove nonnative
animals from those islands (Macdonald
and Walker 2007, p. 20). The last known
pig was removed from Santa Cruz Island
in January 2007 (Parkes et al. 2010, p.
636). Deer and elk were removed from
Santa Rosa Island as part of an
agreement with the former owners of the
island. All elk and all but a few deer
had been removed by 2015, resulting in
an island that was essentially ungulatefree for the first time in over 150 years
(Coonan 2015b, pers. comm.).
The 2004 listing rule also identified
the extirpation of bald eagles from the
Channel Islands as a likely contributor
to the colonization of the northern
Channel Islands by golden eagles. Bald
eagles aggressively defend their
territories from golden eagles (USFWS
2004, pp. 10343–10344), and their
presence on the islands likely would
have discouraged dispersing golden
eagles from establishing residence. Prior
to listing, NPS, Institute for Wildlife
Studies, and TNC were actively engaged
in the Montrose Settlements Restoration
Program to reintroduce bald eagles to
the Channel Islands, including Santa
Catalina Island. The success of bald
eagle reintroduction on the Channel
Islands continues, with approximately
50 total resident bald eagles on the
islands (Montrose Settlements
Restoration Program 2015, p. 1).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In summary, although golden eagle
predation of island foxes may
occasionally occur (Coonan et al. 2014,
p. 374), predation has been significantly
reduced and is not considered a
significant threat. This reduction in
predation by golden eagles is in direct
response to the extensive removal of
golden eagles from the northern
Channel Islands, golden eagle prey
being removed successfully from Santa
Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, and the
successful reintroduction of bald eagles.
Summary of Factor C
To reduce the threat of disease, a
subset of each island fox subspecies is
protected from CDV and rabies through
preventative vaccinations when
available and through monitoring as
recommended in epidemic response
plans to detect and facilitate appropriate
responses in the event of an epidemic.
Mortality due to disease was the
primary reason for the decline and
listing of Santa Catalina Island foxes.
Currently, the potential for an epidemic
remains on Santa Catalina Island
because of heavy visitation, many points
of access, and few controls for pets and
stowaway wild animals that could carry
disease. In addition, we do not have the
assurance of continued implementation
of the epidemic response plan into the
future on Santa Catalina Island to detect
and mitigate for future disease
outbreaks. Therefore, we still consider
potential disease outbreaks to be a threat
to the Santa Catalina Island fox at this
time.
Mortality due to golden eagle
predation was the primary reason for
the decline and listing of northern
Channel Islands foxes (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island
foxes). This threat has been
substantially reduced by measures
including the complete removal of
golden eagles, eradication of golden
eagles’ nonnative prey, and
reintroduction of bald eagles, such that
we no longer consider predation to be
occurring at such a level that would
cause population-level declines on the
northern Channel Islands now or in the
future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine
whether existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to address the threats to
the four island fox subspecies discussed
under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act requires the USFWS to take into
account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being
made by any State or foreign nation, or
any political subdivision of a State or
foreign nation, to protect such
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
species. . . .’’ In relation to Factor D
under the Act, we interpret this
language to require the USFWS to
consider relevant Federal, State, and
Tribal laws, regulations, and other such
mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in the threat
analyses under the other four factors, or
otherwise enhance conservation of the
species. We give strongest weight to
statutes and their implementing
regulations and to management
direction that stems from those laws and
regulations; an example would be State
governmental actions enforced under a
State statute or constitution, or Federal
action under statute.
For currently listed species, we
consider the adequacy of regulatory
mechanisms to address threats to the
species absent the protections of the
Act. If this proposal is made final, the
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes would no longer be
protected under the Act; Santa Catalina
Island foxes would remain protected
under the Act as a threatened species.
Therefore, we examine whether other
regulatory mechanisms will remain in
place after delisting, and the extent to
which those mechanisms will continue
to help ensure that future threats will be
reduced or minimized.
Having evaluated the significance of
the threat as mitigated by any such
conservation efforts, we analyze under
Factor D the extent to which existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to address the specific threats to the
species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they
exist, may reduce or eliminate the
impacts from one or more identified
threats.
As discussed under Factor C, the
primary threats of golden eagle
predation and disease have been
ameliorated though management,
monitoring, and CMAs on the northern
Channel Islands. Other threats affecting
all currently listed island foxes, such as
habitat modification by nonnative
grazing animals and nonnative plant
invasion (Factor A), have been and are
being controlled through appropriate
management and conservation
ownership as described in Factor A, and
we anticipate that these efforts will
continue into the future. Other sources
of mortality are assessed under Factor E
and found to not exert a significant
population-level effect on island foxes
now or in the future. Consequently, we
find that existing regulatory
mechanisms are adequate to address
these specific threats. The remaining
threat is the potential for a disease
epidemic on Santa Catalina Island
because of heavy visitation, many points
of access, and few controls for pets and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
stowaway wild animals that could carry
disease. In addition, we do not have the
assurance of continued implementation
of the epidemic response plan into the
future on Santa Catalina Island to detect
and mitigate for future disease
outbreaks. Therefore, under Factor C,
we still consider potential disease
outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa
Catalina Island fox at this time.
Consequently, our analysis here
examines how existing regulatory
mechanisms address this remaining
identified threat.
The CIC manages the majority of fox
habitat on Santa Catalina Island (except
the City of Avalon) and through its
regulations requires all nonnative
animals entering CIC property be
licensed and that all dogs and cats be
vaccinated against distemper and rabies
(CIC 2015, https://
www.catalinaconservancy.org).
Reduction of the risk of disease
introduction also occurs through CIC
outreach and education of local
authorities and the public. However,
enforcement of CIC regulations is laborintensive and costly because the island
is large with many remote coves and
beaches where private boats can anchor,
and the CIC does not have the funding
or staff to patrol these areas regularly.
Therefore, current measures to control
introduction of diseases by domestic
animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa
Catalina Island, while providing some
protection, are limited and thus do not
fully address the threat of disease to
Santa Catalina Island fox (see Factor C
discussion, above).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, we have discussed that
the threats previously facing the
northern Channel Islands subspecies of
island fox have been removed; disease
remains a threat to the Santa Catalina
population of island fox. Consequently,
our Factor D analysis examines how
existing regulatory mechanisms address
this identified threat. Enforcement of
CIC regulations, which are meant to
limit the risk of disease introduction, is
labor-intensive and costly because the
island is large with many remote coves
and beaches where private boats can
anchor, and the CIC does not have the
funding or staff to patrol these areas
regularly. Thus, current measures to
control introduction of diseases by
domestic animals and stowaway
wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while
providing some protection, are limited
in addressing the threat of disease to
Santa Catalina Island fox. Therefore, we
still consider potential disease
outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa
Catalina Island fox at this time under
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7733
Factor C that is not addressed by
existing regulatory mechanisms, but, in
and of itself, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is not a current
threat to any of the subspecies, nor is it
expected to become a threat in the
future.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The 2004 listing rule identified
stochastic risks to small populations
and lack of genetic variability as threats
to all four island fox subspecies under
Factor E (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004).
Road mortalities were also discussed
under Factor E in the 2004 listing rule.
Since the time of listing, the impacts of
feral cat aggression, poisoning, and
entrapment on Santa Catalina Island,
and fire, drought, and global climate
change for all four islands have been
identified as possible new threats.
Small Population Size
Island endemics, such as island foxes,
have a high extinction risk due to
isolation (i.e., no other populations to
‘‘rescue’’ a declining or extirpated one)
and small total population sizes relative
to mainland subspecies (MacArthur and
Wilson 1967, entire), both of which
make them more vulnerable, especially
to stochastic events such as drought and
wildfire (Miller et al. 2001, entire;
Kohlman et al. 2005, entire). Each island
fox subspecies is a single breeding
population, (with San Miguel Island
being the smallest population), which
makes their populations inherently
small and thus they may become more
vulnerable to extinction when the size
of a breeding population declines. In
addition to small population size and
the associated increased probability of
extinction, lower and reduced genetic
variation may make an island species
less adapted to existing pressures and
less capable of adaptation to new
threats. Thus, small population size and
low genetic diversity can have
synergistic effects with respect to
population decline. During the period
when the island fox populations were at
their lowest, they were extremely
vulnerable to extinction from stochastic
events. The populations have now
increased substantially, returning to
historical population highs, and the
threat of extinction from demographic
stochasticity has accordingly been
reduced.
The island fox populations have
reduced or low genetic diversity due to
the population bottlenecks they
experienced during past extreme
population lows (Gray et al. 2001, p. 8;
Gray 2002, pp. entire). This lack of
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7734
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
variability could be attributed either to
extensive inbreeding or to bottlenecking
resulting from low population densities
(George and Wayne 1991, entire).
However, island foxes have apparently
existed for thousands of years with low
effective population sizes (the number
of individuals that can contribute genes
equally to the next generation; low is
defined as 150 to 1,000) and low genetic
variability (Wayne et al. 1991a, p. 1858;
1991b, p. entire). While additional
genetic diversity was lost during the
recent declines, island foxes are
probably tolerant of low genetic
variation, occasional bottlenecks, and
higher inbreeding because there is little
evidence of inbreeding depression in
island foxes (Coonan et al. 2010, pp. 13–
15). Therefore, we do not consider
reduced genetic diversity to be causing
population-level effects at this time or
in the future.
Motor Vehicles
The fearlessness of island foxes,
coupled with relatively high vehicle
traffic on Santa Catalina Island, results
in multiple fox collisions each year. On
the northern Channel Islands, vehicle
use very limited, restricted to only land
management personnel and researchers.
On Santa Catalina Island, vehicle
collision was considered the ‘‘number
one cause of fox mortality’’ on Santa
Catalina Island (CIC 2009, https://
www.catalinaconservancy.org), and it
remains the most frequently reported
cause of death. In 2014, at least 20 foxes
died from vehicle-related trauma (King
and Duncan 2015, pp. 18–19). In some
cases, during the breeding season,
mortality of parents (lactating females or
foraging males) may result in additional
loss of offspring (Wolstenholme 2011,
pers. comm.; King 2012g, p. 1). The
increase in annual average vehicle-strike
deaths is likely due to an increased fox
population size on the island, and the
island-wide 25 mile per hour speed
limit (CIC 2015, https://
www.catalinaconservancy.org) likely
minimizes the number of vehicle strike
mortalities that would otherwise occur.
Although mortality by motor vehicles is
not considered a population-level threat
at this time or in the future, vehicles
strikes remain the primary humancaused source of individual mortality on
Santa Catalina Island.
Interactions With Feral Cats and
Domestic Dogs
Feral cats and domestic dogs occur on
Santa Catalina Island. Feral cats weigh
approximately twice as much as island
foxes, and they may negatively affect
foxes through interactions including
direct aggression and competition for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
food and habitat resources (Laughrin
1978, pp. 5–6; Kovach and Dow 1981,
p. 443). Although hawks and owls may
occasionally kill cats, there are no
significant predators of cats on Santa
Catalina Island that can control their
population (Guttilla 2007, p. 8).
Direct aggression between Santa
Catalina Island foxes and cats has been
documented in the wild, primarily near
public coves and campgrounds that
provide food and shelter (Guttilla 2007,
p. 9). Researchers have routinely
captured foxes that have severe injuries
consistent with cat encounters (Guttilla
2007, p. 9). Aggressive exclusion of
foxes by feral cats has also been
observed. When cats move into fox
habitat, foxes are no longer observed;
when cats are no longer resident, foxes
move back in to occupy the area (King
2013c, pers. comm.; Anderson 2013,
pers. obs.).
In the 2004 listing rule (69 FR 10335;
March 5, 2004), we noted that the Food
and Agricultural Code 31752.5
prohibited lethal control of feral cats
unless cats are held for a minimum of
6 days, which was thought to prevent
CIC from taking steps to eradicate feral
cats on Santa Catalina Island. In 2008,
a Feral Animal Task Force was
convened by the City of Avalon, with
representatives of the CIC and other
island stakeholders, to address feral and
free-ranging cats in the city and on the
rest of the island, and most importantly,
to draft legislation for consideration by
the City Council for approval and
incorporation into City ordinance. This
task force is not currently active,
however, and progress has stalled in
initiating new feral cat control measures
and enacting new legislation (King
2011e, pers. comm.). Although
competition and other negative
interactions with feral cats can affect
individual foxes, they do not pose a
population-level threat at this time or in
the future.
Instances of fox mortality from dog
attacks have been observed over the past
decade: Two in 2005 (Gaffney 2011, p.
1; Munson and Gaffney 2011, p. 1), one
in 2010 (King and Duncan 2011, pp. 12–
13), two in 2011 (King and Duncan
2012, p. 14), two probable in 2012 (King
2012a, p. 1; 2012b, p. 1), and one in
2015 (King 2015, p. 1). Because the
likelihood of finding foxes killed by
domestic dogs and identifying dogs as
the mortality source is relatively low,
these mortalities are likely
underreported (Wolstenholme 2011,
pers. comm.). It is common for dogs to
be observed off-leash in campgrounds
and other areas of the island outside of
the City of Avalon (King and Duncan
2011, p. 15; Anderson 2012, pers. obs.;
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and
Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. obs.;
King 2015, p. 1). While mortality due to
domestic dog attacks has been reported,
it is limited in effect to individual foxes,
and does not have a significant impact
to fox populations at this time or in the
future.
Poisoning and Entrapment
Other impacts to Santa Catalina Island
foxes resulting from human interaction
include mortality from poisoning and
entrapment. A Santa Catalina Island fox
died in 2012 from rodenticide poisoning
(Duncan and King 2012, p. 4), another
was euthanized because of poisoning in
2014 (King and Duncan 2015, p. 18),
and a third was sickened in 2014 by
insecticide poisoning (King and Duncan
2015, p. 20). Entrapment of foxes may
occur in areas where development
projects are ongoing. Examples include:
Two foxes falling into a power line pole
construction pit (CIC 2009, https://
www.catalinaconservancy.org); one fox
drowning due to entanglement in a food
container (Vickers 2012a p. 2); one
death from being trapped in a recycling
barrel (Vickers 2012b, p. 1); and two
deaths in 2014 from drowning in water
or sediment containers (King and
Duncan 2015, p. 18). Types of humancaused harm other than vehicle strikes
and domestic dog attacks in urbanized
areas are varied, but they do not have
a population-level impact at this time or
in the future.
Fire
On the northern Channel Islands, the
frequency and intensity of wildland fire
is less than on the adjacent mainland,
because there are fewer ignition sources
on the islands, and the typical maritime
fog moisture inhibits fire spread.
Natural lightning-strike fires are
extremely rare; only three fires between
1836–1986 on the Channel Islands were
started by lightning (Carroll et al. 1993,
p. 77). On the northern Channel Islands,
there are far fewer human-started fires
than on the mainland or on Santa
Catalina Island, as there are no
permanent human occupants on the
northern Channel Islands.
Sediment cores indicate that fire on
Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands
increased in frequency during the past
5,000 years and peaked during the
historic period (200 years ago), though
frequency and intensity are still far less
than on the adjacent mainland
(Anderson et al. 2010, p. 792). Because
of this, island foxes on the northern
Channel Islands have experienced very
few large wildland fire events. The
recent removal of grazers may increase
fuel loads and thus the likelihood of
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
larger fires, though cool and foggy
conditions will continue to limit
wildland fire spread. Additionally, the
NPS adheres to a policy of total
suppression on the Channel Islands, due
to resource concerns (Kirkpatrick 2006,
entire), reducing the chance that
wildland fires will become large.
Though not identified as a threat at
the time of listing, Santa Catalina Island
regularly experiences wildfires (CIC
2011) that could reduce food
availability, alter the habitat, or directly
result in the loss of individual foxes
(USFWS 2004, p. 10347). The most
devastating wildfire on record was the
Island Fire ignited on May 10, 2007,
which burned 4,760 ac (1,926 ha) (CIC
2011). The second largest fire in recent
history (1999–2011) was the Empire
Fire, which was started by lightning on
July 22, 2006, and burned 1,063 ac (430
ha). Duncan and King’s (2009, p. 384)
findings indicate fire seasonality has an
influence on fox survival; fires that
occur when pups are young and most
dependent on adults for mobility are
most damaging, but in general, neither
the Island Fire nor the Empire Fire
seemed to have significant effects at the
population level (Duncan and King
2009, p. 384).
In summary, wildfires are infrequent
on the northern Channel Islands and
more frequent on Santa Catalina Island.
On all islands, while wildfire can result
in mortality of individuals, especially
juveniles, depending on when the fires
occur, wildfire does not pose a
significant population-level impact to
the island fox at this time nor do we
anticipate it posing a significant
population-level impact in the future.
Drought
The Channel Islands, as well as the
rest of the State of California, are
currently in the midst of a drought that
began in 2012 and, as of mid-January
2016, has not abated (State of California
2016, https://ca.gov/drought/ accessed
January 19, 2016). Island foxes have
endured many droughts during their
10,000-year persistence on the islands
(California Department of Water
Resources 2015, https://
www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/
droughtinfo.cfm). Deep multi-year
droughts have occurred on the Channel
Islands about once every 2 decades
since 1900 (T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl.
data). General drought conditions in the
late 1920s and early 1930s combined
with overgrazing denuded most
vegetation, particularly on San Miguel
Island, creating massive sand barrens,
remnants of which are still evident
today (Johnson 1980, entire). Even so,
island foxes survived this period of soil
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
erosion and episodic landscape
stripping.
The current period of intensive island
fox monitoring and research began in
1993, after a 6-year drought concluded.
The current drought is the first
opportunity to study the effect of
drought on island foxes, where foxes
have recovered to historic numbers. On
San Miguel Island, average adult
weights declined in 2013 and 2014, to
the lowest ever recorded, and fox
reproduction was negligible in 2013 and
2014 (Coonan et al. 2014, p. 28; T.
Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data). During this
time, mortality also increased, and
many fox carcasses were emaciated
(Coonan et al. 2014, pp. 6–7). On Santa
Catalina Island, it appears that
decreasing precipitation may result in a
reproductive decline; however adults’
weights were not similarly affected
during this time (King and Duncan
2015, pp. 21–22). These effects were not
seen on neighboring Santa Rosa Island,
where foxes are not yet at carrying
capacity or pre-decline levels. Fox
weights increased on Santa Rosa Island
in the drought years, reproduction was
higher, and foxes had higher body
condition scores than on San Miguel
Island. It is apparent that one response
of island foxes to drought is to curtail
reproduction, especially if the
population is at carrying capacity
(Coonan 2015, pp. 6, 8, 13; Coonan et
al. 2010, p. 28). Given the past
demonstrated ability of island foxes to
survive pervasive drought, current
healthy population numbers and
apparent ability to respond to drought
by shifting resource allocation, we do
not consider drought to be a threat to
island foxes at this time or in the future.
Global Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include
consideration of ongoing and projected
changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’
and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’
refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions
over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements (IPCC
2013a, p. 1450). The term ‘‘climate
change’’ thus refers to a change in the
mean or variability of one or more
measures of climate (for example,
temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, whether
the change is due to natural variability
or human activity (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450).
Scientific measurements spanning
several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and
that the rate of change has increased
since the 1950s. Examples include
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7735
warming of the global climate system,
and substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the
world and decreases in other regions
(for these and other examples, see
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35–54, 82–85;
IPCC 2013b, pp. 3–29; IPCC 2014, pp. 1–
32). Results of scientific analyses
presented by the IPCC show that most
of the observed increase in global
average temperature since the mid-20th
century cannot be explained by natural
variability in climate and is ‘‘very
likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90
percent or higher probability) due to the
observed increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere
as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions
from use of fossil fuels (Solomon et al.
2007, pp. 21–35; IPCC 2013b, pp. 11–12
and figures SPM.4 and SPM.5). Further
confirmation of the role of GHGs comes
from analyses by Huber and Knutti
(2011, p. 4), who concluded it is
extremely likely that approximately 75
percent of global warming since 1950
has been caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate
models, which include consideration of
natural processes and variability, as
well as various scenarios of potential
levels and timing of GHG emissions, to
evaluate the causes of changes already
observed and to project future changes
in temperature and other climate
conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, entire;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558;
Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). All
combinations of models and emissions
scenarios yield very similar projections
of increases in the most common
measure of climate change, average
global surface temperature (commonly
known as global warming), until about
2030. Although projections of the
magnitude and rate of warming differ
after about 2030, the overall trajectory of
all the projections is one of increasing
global warming through the end of this
century, even for the projections based
on scenarios that assume that GHG
emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, there is strong scientific support
for projections that warming will
continue through the 21st century, and
that the magnitude and rate of change
will be influenced substantially by the
extent of GHG emissions (Meehl et al.
2007, pp. 760–764, 797–811; Ganguly et
al. 2009, pp. 15555–15558; Prinn et al.
2011, pp. 527, 529; IPCC 2013b, pp. 19–
23). See IPCC 2013b (entire), for a
summary of other global projections of
climate-related changes, such as
frequency of heat waves and changes in
precipitation.
Various changes in climate may have
direct or indirect effects on species.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7736
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
These effects may be positive, neutral,
or negative, and they may change over
time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as
threats in combination and interactions
of climate with other variables (for
example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC
2014, pp. 4–11). Identifying likely
effects often involves aspects of climate
change vulnerability analysis.
Vulnerability refers to the degree to
which a species (or system) is
susceptible to, and unable to cope with,
adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and
extremes. Vulnerability is a function of
the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its
adaptive capacity (Glick et al. 2011, pp.
19–22; IPCC 2014, p. 5). There is no
single method for conducting such
analyses that applies to all situations
(Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our
expert judgment and appropriate
analytical approaches to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in
our consideration of the best scientific
information available regarding various
aspects of climate change.
Probably the most potentially
vulnerable aspect of island fox biology
to climate change is indirect effects from
affected invertebrates that are parasites
and disease vectors. Invertebrates,
because they are exothermic (coldblooded), are particularly responsive to
the effects of a warming climate that
typically speeds development and
enhances survival. For disease vectors
such as mosquitos, survival may occur
where it was previously too cold during
the coolest nights of the year for
overwintering. Invertebrates are also
particularly well-suited to adapt to a
changing climate because they have
short generation times and a high
reproductive output (Parmesan 2006,
pp. 654–656). The warming climate
typically has resulted in increased
abundance and expanded ranges of
parasites such as nematodes and ticks,
as well as diseases they transmit
(Parmesan 2006, pp. 650–651; Studer et
al. 2010, p. 11). Climate change also
produces ecological perturbations that
result in altered parasite transmission
dynamics, increasing the potential for
host switching (Brooks and Hoberg
2007, p. 571). Moller’s (2010, p. 1158)
analysis of parasites on avian hosts over
a 37-year period suggests climate change
predictions for parasite effects should be
made with caution, but that climate can
alter the composition of the parasite
community and may cause changes in
the virulence of parasites (Moller 2010,
p. 1158). Therefore, climate change may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
change and could potentially increase
the parasites and disease vectors to
which island foxes are exposed.
Considering that island foxes are
opportunistic feeders, and climate
warming could increase the subspecies’
insect prey base abundance, it is
possible climate change could positively
affect food quantity and quality.
Increased consumption of insect species
by mice associated with a warmer, drier
climate on South African islands has
been documented (Chown and Smith
1993, pp. 508–509). Because island
foxes have shown relative plasticity
with regard to utilizing nonnative
species (Cypher et al. 2011, p. 13), most
invasions of nonnative potential prey
species are not likely to negatively affect
island fox food resources. The only
potential negative effect of climate
change on the insect prey base of island
foxes would be if increased storm
intensity and frequency reduced prey
abundance, as Roemer (1999, p. 187)
hypothesized occurred on Santa Cruz
Island in the mid-1990s.
Global climate change has the
potential to negatively and positively
affect island fox populations. There is
still uncertainty associated with
predictions relative to the timing,
location, and magnitude of future
climate changes. Probably the most
vulnerable aspect of island fox biology
to climate change is indirect effects to
the fox from affected invertebrates.
Though difficult to quantify, change in
global climate could impact island fox
populations on each island and may
pose a threat to this species that is not
yet reflected in studied population
dynamics. As with most endangered
species, predicting likely future climate
scenarios and understanding the
complex effects of climate change are
high priorities for island fox
conservation planning. While we cannot
accurately predict the effects of climate
change on island fox subspecies because
the foxes are generalists and exhibit
plasticity with regards to prey and
habitat use, we do not expect negative
effects of such magnitude that would
cause major declines. However, we
anticipate ongoing monitoring and
management will detect any significant
changes in population health and allow
for management responses, including
possible relisting.
Summary of Factor E
In summary, during the period when
the population was at its lowest, the
four subspecies of Channel Island foxes
were extremely vulnerable to extinction
from stochastic events. The populations
have now increased substantially and
the likelihood of extinction has
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
accordingly been reduced. The
combined effects of interactions with
feral cats and domestic dogs, motor
vehicle collisions, mortality due to
wildfire, and other human-caused
mortalities result in the deaths of
multiple individuals throughout Santa
Catalina Island on an annual basis, but
they do not constitute a combined threat
to the relatively large population at this
time nor do we anticipate that they will
in the future. While we cannot
accurately predict the effects of climate
change on island fox subspecies because
the foxes are generalists and exhibit
plasticity with regards to prey and
habitat use, we do not consider climate
change to be a threat to island foxes now
nor in the foreseeable future.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting
Island Foxes
At time of listing in 2004 (69 FR
10335; March 5, 2004), predation by
golden eagles was the primary threat to
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes, and disease was the
primary threat to the Santa Catalina
Island fox. The threat of predation by
golden eagles on the northern Channel
Islands has been significantly reduced
since the time of listing. This reduction
in predation by golden eagles is in
direct response to the extensive removal
of golden eagles from the northern
Channel Islands, golden eagle prey
being removed successfully from Santa
Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, and the
successful reintroduction of bald eagles.
Potential disease outbreaks continue
to pose a threat to Santa Catalina Island
foxes due to relatively uncontrolled
movement of vectors from the mainland
that carry diseases the population may
not be vaccinated against. The primary
measures in place on all islands to
reduce these threats are vaccination of
a subset of the fox population for CDV
and rabies, and monitoring of
population sentinels to detect the start
of another epidemic and respond
appropriately to mitigate the outbreak.
While disease is currently controlled on
Santa Catalina Island, we do not have
assurance that monitoring and
management of Santa Catalina Island
foxes necessary to detect and mitigate
an epidemic in Santa Catalina Island
foxes will continue into the future.
During the period when the island fox
populations were at their lowest, they
were extremely vulnerable to extinction
from stochastic events. Although there
will always be some inherent risk of
extinction due to stochastic events
because each island fox subspecies is a
single breeding population, the
populations have now increased
substantially, returning to historical
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
population highs, and the threat of
extinction from demographic
stochasticity has accordingly been
reduced.
Mortality due to motor vehicle strikes,
habitat loss, ear mite infection, ear canal
cancer, feral cats, and domestic dogs
results in loss of individuals, but these
mortality factors are not considered
independent threats to fox populations
at this time because populations are
relatively large. The impacts of climate
change are hard to predict. Some effects
to island fox populations could be
negative while others could be positive.
Predicting likely future climate
scenarios and understanding the
complex effects of climate change are
high priorities for island fox
conservation planning, but climate
change is not considered to be a threat
at this time.
When mortality mechanisms or other
stressors occur together, one may
exacerbate the effects of another,
causing effects not accounted for when
stressors are analyzed individually.
Synergistic or cumulative effects may be
observed in a short amount of time or
may not be noticeable for years into the
future, and could affect the long-term
viability of island fox population. For
example, if a stressor hinders island fox
survival and reproduction or affects the
availability of habitat that supports
island foxes, then the number of
individuals the following year(s) will be
reduced, increasing vulnerability to
stochastic events like a disease
epidemic or wildfire. While synergistic
or cumulative effects may occur when
mortality mechanisms or other stressors
occur together, given the robust
populations and ongoing management
and monitoring, these effects do not
pose a significant population-level
impact to island foxes at this time nor
do we anticipate that they will in the
future.
Finding
We have assessed the best scientific
and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina
Island foxes in this proposed rule. At
the time of listing in 2004 (69 FR 10335;
March 5, 2004), the Santa Catalina
Island fox experienced a devastating
CDV epidemic that resulted in an almost
complete loss of the eastern
subpopulation, which made up the
majority of the island population. The
precipitous decline of the northern
Channel Island foxes (San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) that
led to their listing as endangered species
was the result of depredation by golden
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
eagles, facilitated by the presence of a
nonnative, mammalian prey-base on the
northern Channel Islands.
The threat of disease to the Santa
Catalina Island fox has been ameliorated
through implementation of programs to
provide vaccinations, ear mite
treatments, and a sentinel monitoring
program to aid in detection of and
facilitate a response to an epidemic.
However, we do not have assurances
that this monitoring and management as
prescribed in the epidemic response
plan will continue into the future.
As a result of concerted management
efforts, golden eagle predation has been
reduced to such a degree that it is no
longer considered a threat to the
northern island subspecies. Additional
management efforts, including captive
breeding and ongoing vaccinations for
disease, have contributed to the
substantial increase of all island fox
populations. Although golden eagles
will most likely continue to
occasionally occur on the islands as
transients, the removal of the nonnative
prey-base and the constant presence of
bald eagles are permanent, long-term
deterrents to golden eagles establishing
breeding territories and remaining on
the northern Channel Islands. Ongoing
management and monitoring are
designed to detect any reemergence of
threats and to take corrective actions
should any threats be detected.
Based on the information presented in
this status review, the recovery criteria
in the Recovery Plan have been
achieved and the recovery objectives
identified in the Recovery Plan have
been met for the three northern Channel
Island subspecies of island fox. San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island fox abundance has increased
steadily to the point where the number
of individuals is again within the range
of historical population estimates.
Population viability analyses strongly
indicate that the northern Channel
Island foxes have an acceptably small
risk of extinction and current
population levels are consistent with
long-term viability. Additionally, the
primary threat (golden eagles) to
northern Channel Island foxes has been
controlled, and ongoing management
and monitoring are in place to ensure
that threats continue to be managed in
the future. This information indicates
that these three subspecies are no longer
at immediate risk of extinction, nor are
they likely to experience reemergence of
threats and associated population
declines in the future. We, therefore,
conclude that the San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes are no
longer in danger of extinction
throughout all of their ranges, nor are
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7737
they likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
The Santa Catalina Island fox exhibits
demographic characteristics consistent
with long-term viability. The population
has continued to increase over the past
11 years, reaching an estimated high of
1,852 individuals in 2013 (King and
Duncan 2015, p. 11), then dropping
slightly to 1,717 in 2014 (King and
Duncan 2014, p. 11). Population
viability analysis indicates the Santa
Catalina Island fox population has an
acceptably small risk of extinction—less
than 5 percent since 2008. With
population levels consistent with longterm viability, the intent of recovery
objective 1 has been met for the Santa
Catalina Island fox. However, objective
2 has not been met because we do not
have assurance that the monitoring and
management as prescribed in the
epidemic response plan for Santa
Catalina Island foxes will be funded and
implemented in the future to ensure that
the threat of disease continues to be
managed. While population levels are
currently consistent with long-term
viability (indicating that the subspecies
is no longer in danger of extinction in
the immediate future), lack of adequate
control of potential vectors along with
lack of assured long-term monitoring
could allow for lapses in management
and monitoring and reemergence of
disease that may cause epidemics and
population declines before they can be
detected and acted upon. We have
coordinated with CIC to determine their
ability to enter into an agreement to
provide assurances of long-term
implementation of the epidemic
response plan. CIC indicated that they
could not ensure availability of longterm funding at this time that would
allow them to commit to long-term
implementation of the epidemic
response plan. Overall, we recognize
that CIC’s efforts have significantly
contributed to a reduction of impacts to
the Santa Catalina fox and its habitat on
the island. As a result, we have
determined that the Santa Catalina
Island fox is no longer in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range,
but instead is threatened with becoming
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. We,
therefore, propose a change in status for
the Santa Catalina Island fox from an
endangered species to a threatened
species at this time. Because we have
determined the Santa Catalina Island
fox is likely to become an endangered
species in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, no portion of
its range can be significant for purposes
of the definitions of endangered species
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7738
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
or threatened species (see 79 FR 37578;
July 1, 2014) (also see Significant
Portion of the Range Analysis, below).
Significant Portion of the Range
Analysis
Having determined that the San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes are not in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so,
throughout all of their ranges, we next
consider whether there are any
significant portions of their ranges in
which the island foxes are in danger of
extinction or likely to become so. Under
the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is an endangered species or
a threatened species. 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.’’ On July 1, 2014, we published
a final policy interpreting the phrase
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (SPR)
(79 FR 37578). The final policy states
that (1) if a species is found to be
endangered or threatened throughout a
significant portion of its range, the
entire species is listed as an endangered
species 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 endangered or
threatened 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 USFWS
or the National Marine Fisheries Service
makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate
species is endangered or threatened
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 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 will be required.
Because we are proposing to list the
Santa Catalina Island fox as a threatened
species under the Act, we are not
conducting an SPR analysis for this
subspecies. If the species is neither
endangered nor threatened throughout
all of its range, we determine whether
the species is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its
range. If it is, we list the species as an
endangered species or a threatened
species, respectively; if it is not, we
conclude that the species is neither an
endangered species nor a threatened
species.
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 endangered or threatened
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
endangered or threatened, we engage in
a more detailed analysis. As discussed
above, to determine whether a portion
of the range of a species is significant,
we consider whether, under a
hypothetical scenario, 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. This
analysis considers the contribution of
that portion to the viability of the
species based on the conservation
biology principles of redundancy,
resiliency, and representation. (These
concepts can similarly be expressed in
terms of abundance, spatial distribution,
productivity, and diversity.) The
identification of an SPR does not create
a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species
in that identified SPR is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so. We
must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the SPR. To determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened
throughout an SPR, we will use the
same standards and methodology that
we use to determine if a species is
endangered or threatened throughout its
range.
Depending on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient to address
either the significance question first, or
the status question first. Thus, if we
determine that a portion of the range is
not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of
its range, we do not need to determine
if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’
Applying the process described
above, we evaluated the respective
ranges of the San Miguel Island fox,
Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz
Island fox to determine if any area could
be considered a significant portion of
any one of the subspecies’ range. As
mentioned above, one way to identify
portions for further analyses is to
identify any natural divisions within the
range that might be of individual
biological or conservation importance to
the species. We conducted our review
based on examination of the Recovery
Plan (USFWS 2015; entire) and other
relevant and more recent information on
the biology and life history of the
northern Channel Island foxes. Because
each of the three northern Channel
Island fox subspecies is a narrow
endemic where the foxes on each island
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
constitute a single population, we
determined that there are no natural
divisions or separate areas of the range
of each subspecies that contribute
separately to the conservation of that
particular subspecies. In other words,
for each subspecies of island fox, there
is only one biologically defined portion,
and there are no separate portions that
contribute incrementally to the
conservation (i.e., to the redundancy,
resiliency, and representation of the
species). We also examined whether any
portions might be endangered or
threatened by examining whether
threats might be geographically
concentrated in some way. Although
some of the factors we evaluated in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section, above, may continue to
affect each of the subspecies, the factors
affecting island foxes generally occur at
similarly low levels throughout their
ranges. The entire population of each
subspecies is equally affected by threats
and by the amelioration of such threats
throughout their ranges. Based on our
evaluation of the biology of the
subspecies and current and potential
threats to the island foxes, we conclude
that no portion of the ranges of the three
subspecies of the northern Channel
Islands foxes warrants further
consideration to determine if it is
significant. In other words, threats have
been sufficiently ameliorated, and all
individuals and all portions of the range
of each subspecies interact to such an
extent that it is not reasonable to
conclude that any portion of the range
can have a different status than any
other portion.
In conclusion, we find that the San
Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island
fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox are no
longer in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
their range, nor are they likely to
become so in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, at this time, the San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox
no longer meet the definitions of an
endangered species or a threatened
species under the Act, and we propose
to remove these species from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
under the Act.
Effects of This Rulemaking
If this proposed rule is made final, it
would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove
the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa
Cruz Island foxes from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and would reclassify the Santa Catalina
Island fox from an endangered species
to a threatened species. The
prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to the San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, or Santa Cruz Island foxes.
Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with the USFWS
under section 7 of the Act in the event
that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out may affect the San Miguel
Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, or
Santa Cruz Island fox. As a result of
their removal from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at
50 CFR 17.11(h), we would also remove
the entries at 50 CFR 17.95(a) (Critical
habitat—fish and wildlife) for the San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes; currently, each entry
specifies that no areas meet the
definition of critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A) of the Act for the
applicable subspecies. We would retain
the entry at 50 CFR 17.95(a) for the
Santa Catalina Island fox.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
A peer review panel will conduct an
assessment of the proposed rule, and the
specific assumptions and conclusions
regarding the proposed delisting. This
assessment will be completed during
the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
as we prepare the final determination.
Accordingly, the final decision may
differ from this proposal.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us,
in cooperation with the States, to
implement a system to monitor
effectively, for not less than 5 years, all
species that have been recovered and
delisted (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12). The
purpose of this post-delisting
monitoring is to verify that a species
remains secure from risk of extinction
after it has been removed from the
protections of the Act. The monitoring
is designed to detect the failure of any
delisted species to sustain itself without
the protective measures provided by the
Act. If, at any time during the
monitoring period, data indicate that
protective status under the Act should
be reinstated, we can initiate listing
procedures, including, if appropriate,
emergency listing under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7739
explicitly requires us to cooperate with
the States in development and
implementation of post-delisting
monitoring programs, but we remain
responsible for compliance with section
4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively
engaged in all phases of post-delisting
monitoring. We also seek active
participation of other entities that are
expected to assume responsibilities for
the species’ conservation post-delisting.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Overview
If we make this proposed rule final,
the post-delisting monitoring is
designed to verify that northern Channel
Island foxes (San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
and Santa Cruz Island foxes) remain
secure from risk of extinction after their
removal from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by
detecting changes in population trend
and mortality/survival. Post-delisting
monitoring for the northern Channel
Island fox subspecies would be
conducted as recommended in the
epidemic response plan for northern
Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al.
2013, entire) and golden eagle
management strategy (NPS 2015a,
entire). These documents are posted on
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/
profile/
speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170,
and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office’s Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
Ventura/.
Although the Act has a minimum
post-delisting monitoring requirement
of 5 years, the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan for northern Channel
Island foxes includes a 10-year
monitoring period to account for
environmental variability (for example,
extended drought) that may affect fox
populations and to document the range
of population fluctuation as fox
populations reach carrying capacity. If a
decline in abundance is observed or a
substantial new threat arises, postdelisting monitoring may be extended or
modified as described below.
Island foxes would be monitored for
both population size and trend, and for
annual survival and cause-specific
mortality, as specified by the epidemic
response plan for northern Channel
island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013,
entire) and the golden eagle
management strategy (NPS 2015a,
entire). Monitoring as recommended in
these plans is currently being
implemented. Population size and trend
are estimated using capture-markrecapture data from trapping foxes on
grids (Rubin et al. 2007, p. 2–1; Coonan
et al. 2014, p. 2). Such monitoring has
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7740
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
been implemented for island foxes since
the late 1980s. The monitoring provides
a continuous record of population
fluctuation, including decline and
recovery, upon which population
viability analysis was used to develop
island fox demographic recovery
objectives (Bakker and Doak 2009,
entire; Bakker et al. 2009, entire).
Annual survival and cause-specific
mortality of island foxes would be
monitored, as it is now, via tracking of
radio-collared foxes. Mortality checks
would be conducted weekly on radiocollared foxes, and necropsies would be
conducted on fox carcasses to determine
the cause of mortality. A sample of at
least 40 radio-collared foxes is
maintained on each island, as that is the
number of monitored foxes determined
to be necessary to detect an annual
predation rate of 2.5 percent (Rubin et
al. 2007, p. 2–20). This level of radiotelemetry monitoring is part of the
epidemic response plan and the golden
eagle management strategy for island
foxes on the northern Channel Islands
(Hudgens et al. 2013, pp. 7–11).
The USFWS, NPS, and TNC would
annually review the results of
monitoring, which would include
annual estimated adult population size,
annual adult survival, and identified
causes of mortality. If there are apparent
sharp declines in population size and/
or survival or the appearance of
significant mortality causes, the data
would be reviewed by the Island Fox
Conservation Working Group for
evaluation and assessment of threat
level. Monitoring results may also reach
thresholds which precipitate increased
monitoring or implementation of
management actions, as specified in the
epidemic response plan and golden
eagle management strategy. At the end
of the 10-year post-delisting monitoring
period, USFWS, NPS, and TNC would
determine whether monitoring should
continue beyond the 10-year monitoring
period.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the names of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We determined that we do not need
to prepare an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement,
as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this proposed rule is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
Species
Vertebrate
population where
endangered
or threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
Status
under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–
0170, or upon request from the Field
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this proposed
rule is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office in Ventura, California, in
coordination with the Pacific Southwest
Regional Office in Sacramento
California, and the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office in Carlsbad, California.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
under MAMMALS, by:
■ a. Removing the entries for ‘‘Fox, San
Miguel Island’’, ‘‘Fox, Santa Cruz
Island’’, and ‘‘Fox, Santa Rosa Island’’;
and
■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Fox, Santa
Catalina Island’’ to read as set forth
below.
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
*
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
MAMMALS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
Fox, Santa Catalina
Island.
*
Urocyon littoralis
catalinae.
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
*
U.S.A. (CA) ...........
*
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
*
Entire .....................
*
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
*
T
*
742
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
*
16FEP1
*
17.95(a)
NA
*
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
§ 17.95
[Amended]
3. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the
entries for ‘‘San Miguel Island Fox
(Urocyon littoralis littoralis)’’, ‘‘Santa
■
Cruz Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis
santacruzae)’’, and ‘‘Santa Rosa Island
Fox (Urocyon littoralis santarosae)’’.
Dated: January 29, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–02669 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Feb 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
7741
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7723-7741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02669]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170; FFXES11130000-156-FF08E00000]
RIN 1018-BA71
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the San
Miguel Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, and Santa Cruz Island Fox
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and
Reclassifying the Santa Catalina Island Fox From Endangered to
Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to
remove the San Miguel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis), Santa
Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae), and Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l.
santacruzae) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and to reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l.
catalinae) from an endangered species to a threatened species. This
determination is based on a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats
to the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz
Island fox have been eliminated or reduced to the point that each of
the subspecies no longer meets the definition of an endangered species
or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and that the threats to the Santa Catalina Island fox
have been reduced to the point that the subspecies can be reclassified
as a threatened species. We are seeking information and comments from
the public regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan for the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox,
and Santa Cruz Island fox.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
April 18, 2016. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by April 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-deliver to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170; Division of Policy,
Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section, below, for more
information).
Document availability: A copy of the Recovery Plan for Four
Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) referenced throughout
this document can be viewed at https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, or at the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/Ventura/. The post-delisting monitoring plan for the northern Channel
Island fox subspecies (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island
foxes) consists of two documents: the epidemic response plan for
northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire) and the
golden eagle management strategy (NPS 2015a, entire). These documents
will also be posted on https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/Ventura/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; by telephone 805-644-1766; or
by facsimile 805-644-3958. If you use a
[[Page 7724]]
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend any final action resulting from this proposal will be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or information from other governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Additional information on the distribution, population size,
and population trends of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island
fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox (collectively
referred to as ``island foxes'' below).
(2) Relevant information concerning any current or likely future
threats (or lack thereof) to the island foxes.
(3) Current or planned activities within the range of the island
foxes and their possible impacts.
(4) Regional climate change models and whether they are reliable
and credible to use in assessing the effects of climate change on the
island foxes and their habitats.
(5) Our draft post-delisting monitoring plan.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, may not meet the standard of information required by
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directs
that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your
request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodation, in the Federal Register and
local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Previous Federal Actions
On December 10, 2001, we published a proposal to list four
subspecies of island foxes as endangered species (66 FR 63654). Please
refer to this proposed rule for information on Federal actions prior to
December 10, 2001. On March 5, 2004, we published a final rule listing
the four subspecies of island foxes as endangered species (69 FR
10335). Please refer to the final Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of
Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) (USFWS 2015, entire) for a detailed
description of Federal actions concerning this species. We did not
designate critical habitat for the four subspecies of island fox, as
explained in our November 9, 2005, final critical habitat determination
(70 FR 67924).
We published a notice announcing the initiation of a review of the
status of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz
Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox under section 4(c)(2) of the
Act on March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12521), with the notice announcing the
availability of the final recovery plan. This proposed rule to remove
the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and the Santa Cruz
Island fox from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
and to reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered
species to a threatened species, also constitutes a status review for
each subspecies.
Background
The Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon
littoralis) (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 2015, entire) was prepared by USFWS
working with a Recovery Team that included public agency
representatives, landowners, conservancies, zoological institutions,
non-profits, and academics. The Recovery Plan includes discussion of
the following: Species description and taxonomy, habitat use, social
organization, reproduction, distribution and abundance, threats to the
subspecies, and recovery strategies. Detailed information from the
Recovery Plan is summarized in the following sections of this proposed
rule: Background, Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation, and
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species. See the Recovery Plan for
more information on the species' ecology, species' biological needs,
and analysis of the threats that may be impacting the subspecies.
The island fox (Urocyon littoralis), a diminutive relative of the
gray fox (U. cinereoargenteus), is endemic to the California Channel
Islands. Island foxes inhabit the six largest of the eight Channel
Islands (San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa
Catalina Island, San Nicolas Island, and San Clemente Island) and are
recognized as distinct subspecies on each of the six islands (see
Figure 1, below). Islands inhabited by island foxes are owned by four
major landowners: The National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Navy
(Navy), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Santa Catalina Island
Conservancy (CIC), all of whom have management authority for wildlife
on their lands (Figure 1). The NPS, TNC, and CIC manage the islands
where the listed subspecies occur.
[[Page 7725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE16.000
Both morphologic and genetic distinctions support the
classification of separate subspecies of island foxes for each island
(Collins 1993, entire; Gilbert et al. 1990, entire; Goldstein et al.
1999, entire; Wayne et al. 1991a, entire). The island fox is a habitat
generalist, occurring in all natural habitats on the Channel Islands,
although it prefers areas of diverse topography and vegetation (von
Bloeker 1967, pp. 257-258; Laughrin 1977, p. 33; Collins and Laughrin
1979, p. 12). The island fox is primarily nocturnal, but more diurnal
than the mainland gray fox (Collins and Laughrin 1979, p. 12.46; Crooks
and Van Vuren 1995, p. 305; Fausett 1993, p. 30), possibly a result of
historical absence of predators and freedom from human harassment
(Laughrin 1977, pp. 19-20).
Even in the absence of catastrophic events, island fox populations
may have fluctuated markedly over time (Laughrin 1980, entire).
Residents of Santa Cruz Island occasionally noted periods of island fox
scarcity and abundance (Laughrin 1980, p. 745). Santa Catalina Island
fox population levels were low in 1972, and again in 1977 (Laughrin
1980, p. 747); however, by 1994, the adult Santa Catalina Island fox
population was estimated at over 1,300 individuals (Roemer et al. 1994,
p. 393). Demographic analysis indicated that island fox survival was
positively related to the previous year's winter rainfall in the drier
southern islands and negatively related to current and previous year's
winter rainfall in the wetter northern islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
and Santa Cruz Island) (Bakker et al. 2009, p. 87; USFWS 2015 Appendix
2). Thus, indirect evidence suggests effects of climate on island fox
survival.
The four federally listed island fox subspecies (San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes) all experienced
precipitous population declines in the latter half of the 1990s (Roemer
1999, pp. 124-125, 169-171; Timm et al. 2000, pp. 6-7, 16-17; Coonan et
al. 2000, entire; 2005a, pp. 263-264; Roemer et al. 2001, entire). San
Miguel Island foxes declined from 450 individuals in 1994, to 15 in
1999/2000; Santa Rosa Island foxes declined from 1,780 individuals in
1994, to 15 in 1999/2000; Santa Cruz Island foxes declined from 1,465
individuals in 1994, to 55 in 1999/2000; and Santa Catalina Island
foxes declined from 1,342 individuals in 1994, to 103 in 1999/2000.
Island fox populations on the northern Channel Islands (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) declined by 90 to 95 percent and,
prior to removal of foxes from the wild for captive breeding, were
estimated to have a 50 percent chance of extinction over 5 to 10 years
(Roemer 1999, p. 147; Roemer et al. 2001, p. 312). Thus, by 1999,
researchers considered island fox subspecies on the northern Channel
Islands to be critically endangered (Roemer 1999, p. 180). The Santa
Catalina Island subspecies was considered to be critically endangered
by 2000 (Timm et al. 2000, entire).
The decline of island foxes in the northern Channel Islands (San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) is considered a consequence
of
[[Page 7726]]
hyperpredation by nonnative golden eagles (Roemer et al. 2001, entire).
The presence of nonnative prey species (feral pigs on Santa Cruz
Island, and mule deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island) and an open
ecological niche created by the extirpation of bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) from the islands as a result of
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) poisoning (USFWS 2004, p. 10343)
enabled golden eagles to colonize the islands successfully and prey
heavily on island foxes, which evolved in the absence of predators. In
contrast, the decline of island foxes on Santa Catalina Island is
considered a consequence of canine distemper virus (CDV). Analysis of
CDV isolated from a Santa Catalina Island fox during the late 1990s
epidemic indicated it was most closely related to the strain found in
mainland raccoons (Timm et al. 2009, p. 339), and a number of stowaway
raccoons have been removed from Santa Catalina Island (King and Duncan
2014, p. 20). Therefore, the catastrophic population decline of Santa
Catalina Island foxes was likely caused by CDV transmitted from a
raccoon accidentally transported from the mainland (Timm et al. 2009,
p. 341). Other sources of mortality of island foxes have been
identified, particularly for foxes on Santa Catalina Island, such as
motor vehicle strikes, interactions with feral cats and dogs, and
drought, but were not considered to have contributed substantially to
declines of the four subspecies of island foxes.
In response to the catastrophic declines of 1999/2000, captive
breeding was implemented on all islands. All known remaining island
foxes on San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands were brought into captivity
in 1999 and 2000, respectively. By 2004, captive populations from both
islands exceeded the target captive population size of 40 animals and
allowed initial releases back to the wild (Coonan and Schwemm 2009, p.
366; Coonan et al. 2005a, p. 168-169). On Santa Cruz Island, 18
representative adult island foxes were brought into captivity in 2001,
and the population grew to 62 individuals by 2005; releases of captive-
born foxes were subsequently concluded in July 2008 (Hudgens and
Sanchez 2009, p. 16). On Santa Catalina Island, 27 foxes were brought
into captivity from the isolated west end of the island in 2000. From
2001 to 2004, foxes were released from captivity, including 37 captive-
born pups and 20 of the original wild-captured adults (Schmidt et al.
2005, p. 17). Additionally, 32 foxes were moved from the west end of
Santa Catalina Island to the depleted east end, with subsequent high
survival. The success of these programs allowed all the captive
breeding facilities to close by 2008.
For more information about the biology and historical population
status and observed declines of island fox populations, please see the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 5-19).
Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include:
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions
to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species (or not)
because of one or more of five threat 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 human-made
factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b) of the Act
requires that the determination be made ``solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available.'' Recovery criteria
should therefore indicate when a species is no longer an endangered
species or threatened species because of any of the five statutory
factors.
Thus, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the USFWS,
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed
species and measurable objectives against which to measure progress
towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis
of the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine
whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the
recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 47-53) includes the recovery
goals, recovery objectives, and recovery criteria that we outline below
to reclassify the island fox subspecies from endangered to threatened
and to remove island fox subspecies from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We summarize these goals and then discuss progress
toward meeting the recovery objectives.
Recovery Goal
The goal of the Recovery Plan is to recover the San Miguel Island
fox, the Santa Rosa Island fox, the Santa Cruz Island fox, and the
Santa Catalina Island fox so they can be delisted (removed from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife) when existing
threats to each respective subspecies have been ameliorated such that
their populations have been stabilized and have increased. The interim
goal is to recover these subspecies to the point that they can be
downlisted from endangered to threatened status. Each listed subspecies
may be considered for downlisting or delisting independently of the
other subspecies.
Recovery Objectives
Recovery objectives identify mechanisms for measuring progress
toward and achieving the recovery goal for each subspecies.
Recovery Objective 1: Each federally listed subspecies of island
fox exhibits demographic characteristics consistent with long-term
viability.
Recovery Objective 2: Land managers are able to respond in a timely
fashion to predation by nesting golden eagles or significant predation
rates by transient golden eagles, to potential or incipient disease
outbreaks, and to other identified threats using the best available
technology.
In order for any one of the four listed subspecies of island fox to
be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status,
recovery objective 1 should be met for that subspecies. In order for
any one of the four listed subspecies of island fox to be considered
for delisting, recovery objective 1 and recovery objective 2 should be
met for that subspecies.
Recovery Criteria
Island fox recovery criteria are measurable standards for
determining whether a subspecies has achieved its recovery objectives
and may be
[[Page 7727]]
considered for downlisting or delisting. Criteria presented in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 50-53) represent our best assessment of
the conditions most likely to result in a determination that
downlisting or delisting of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and the Santa Catalina Island fox is
warranted. Achieving the prescribed recovery criteria is an indication
that a subspecies is no longer an endangered species or a threatened
species. Each recovery criterion applies to all four subspecies, except
where noted otherwise.
As presented in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 50-55), the
discussion of criteria below is organized by factors under 4(a)(1) to
demonstrate how criteria indicate threats under that factor have been
ameliorated.
Factor A: The present destruction, modification or curtailment of
its habitat or range.
There are no recovery criteria for this factor. Herbivory by
nonnative species resulted in habitat degradation on the Channel
Islands. While habitat degradation was not identified as a primary
threat to island foxes, presence of nonnative herbivores responsible
for habitat degradation provided a prey base for golden eagles to
become established and predate island foxes on the northern Channel
Islands. If threats under Factors C and E are ameliorated, the habitat
improvements expected to occur with removal of herbivores responsible
for habitat degradation may provide a long-term benefit to the island
fox subspecies; however, these habitat improvements are not necessary
for recovery.
Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, scientific or educational
purposes.
Overutilization is not a currently known threat for these
subspecies; therefore, there are no recovery criteria that address
threats under this factor.
Factor C: Disease or predation.
Disease and predation were identified as primary threats to island
foxes. To address recovery objective 2, the magnitude and imminence of
disease and predation threats must be reduced. The Recovery Plan (USFWS
2015, p. 51) states that this is accomplished when the following have
occurred:
C/1: Golden eagle predation (applies only to the northern Channel
Islands):
a. To reduce the threat of extinction to the San Miguel Island fox,
Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox, the rate of golden
eagle predation is reduced and maintained at a level no longer
considered a threat to island fox recovery through development of a
golden eagle management strategy. The strategy will be developed by the
land manager(s) in consultation with the USFWS and including review by
the appropriate Integrated Island Fox Recovery Team Technical Expertise
Group or the equivalent. This strategy includes:
Response tactics (including the use of helicopters and
net-guns) to capture nesting golden eagles and any transient golden
eagle responsible for significant island fox predation, per the golden
eagle response strategy;
Tactics to minimize the establishment of successful
nesting golden eagles;
An established island fox monitoring program that is able
to detect an annual island fox predation rate caused by golden eagles
of 2.5 percent or greater, averaged over 3 years (Bakker and Doak 2009,
entire); and
An established mortality rate or population size threshold
that, if reached due to golden eagle predation, would require land
manager(s) to bring island foxes into captivity.
b. The golden eagle prey base of deer and elk is removed from Santa
Rosa Island.
C/2: Disease:
A disease management strategy is developed, approved, and
implemented by the land manager(s) in consultation with the USFWS and
includes review by the appropriate Integrated Island Fox Recovery Team
Technical Expertise Group or the equivalent. This strategy includes:
Identification of a portion of each population that will
be vaccinated against diseases posing the greatest risk, for which
vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccinations and fox numbers
vaccinated will be developed in consultation with appropriate subject-
matter experts;
Identification of actual and potential pathogens of island
foxes, and the means by which these can be prevented from decimating
fox populations;
Disease prevention;
A monitoring program that provides for timely detection of
a potential epidemic, and an associated emergency response strategy as
recommended by the appropriate subject-matter experts; and
A process for updating the disease strategy as new
information arises.
Factor D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was not identified
as a primary threat to island foxes, and, therefore, there are no
recovery criteria that address threats under this factor.
Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Small population size and vulnerability to stochastic or
catastrophic events were identified as primary threats to the species
under Factor E. To address recovery objective 1, that each federally
listed subspecies of island fox exhibits demographic characteristics
consistent with long-term viability, the subspecies must be protected
from other natural or manmade factors known to affect their continued
existence. This is accomplished when the following has occurred:
E/1: An island fox subspecies has no more than 5 percent risk of
quasi-extinction over a 50-year period (addresses objective 1). This
risk level is based on the following:
Quasi-extinction is defined as a population size of fewer
than or equal to 30 individuals.
The risk of quasi-extinction is calculated based on the
combined lower 80 percent confidence interval for a 3-year running
average of population size estimates, and the upper 80 percent
confidence interval for a 3-year running average of mortality rate
estimates.
This risk level is sustained for at least 5 years, during
which time the population trend is not declining. A declining trend is
defined as the 3-year risk-level being greater in year 5 than year 1.
Achievement of Recovery Criteria
Golden eagle predation is no longer a threat due to successful
golden eagle removals, nonnative prey removal, and bald eagle recovery.
Recovery criterion C/1 addresses golden eagle predation in the northern
Channel Islands (it does not apply to the Santa Catalina Island fox). A
final golden eagle management strategy has been approved (NPS 2015a,
entire), which involves actions that have already been implemented by
the NPS and TNC, including: Complete removal of all golden eagles;
ongoing prevention of golden eagle nesting; and removal of all
nonnative golden eagle prey, including the deer and elk from Santa Rosa
Island. In addition, as bald eagles reestablish their populations on
the northern Channel Islands, they reduce the probability that golden
eagles will recolonize because bald eagles aggressively defend their
territories from golden eagles (USFWS 2004, pp. 10343-10344). Due to
ongoing management as prescribed in the final golden eagle management
strategy, current eagle predation is minimal, and has had a negligible
effect on fox population trends; therefore, the intent of recovery
criteria C/1 has been met.
[[Page 7728]]
Monitoring associated with criteria C/1 will be accomplished as
part of the epidemic response plan for the northern Channel Island
subspecies (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This monitoring will allow
detection of mortality related to depredation of island fox by golden
eagles (as well as early detection of mortality related to a disease
epidemic). As described above, ongoing management has reduced eagle
predation on island foxes in the northern Channel Islands to minimal
levels. Consequently, we recognize golden eagle predation is no longer
a threat to foxes on the northern Channel Islands, and the current
monitoring strategy allows for a rapid response to any identified
mortalities resulting from predation or disease. National Park Service
and TNC have committed through signed conservation management
agreements (CMAs) to carrying out monitoring and other management
actions as recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al.
2013, entire) for the next 5 years (USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC
2015). Prior to the expiration of the CMAs, the parties will meet to
review, modify, and re-enter into a CMA.
Recovery criterion C/2 addresses the threat of disease to all four
island fox subspecies. The intent of recovery criterion C/2 is
currently being met for the Santa Catalina Island fox; however, the
Santa Catalina Island fox subspecies has the highest risk of disease
introduction and low assurance of continued implementation of the
epidemic response plan in the future, creating uncertainty that this
criterion will continue to be met in the future. Santa Catalina Island
has the highest risk of disease introduction because movement of
potential vectors such as domestic dogs, cats, and stow-away raccoons
between the mainland and the island is not controlled. The island has
heavy visitation and many points of access, and there are no
restrictions on visitors transporting domestic pets to the island, no
restrictions or inspections required of vessels visiting from the
mainland, and leash laws for dogs are difficult to enforce (King and
Duncan 2011, p. 15; Anderson 2012, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1;
Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. obs.; King 2015, p. 1). The
Catalina Island Conservancy (CIC) has approved and is currently
implementing an epidemic response plan for Santa Catalina Island foxes
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The CIC annually vaccinates a portion of
the subspecies' population against CDV and rabies when vaccines are
available (King 2015, pers. comm.) and monitors for detection of
potential epidemics as recommended in the epidemic response plan
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire), although currently there are no
assurances to ensure monitoring will continue into the future on Santa
Catalina Island. If there is a lapse in continued implementation of the
epidemic response plan, a potential disease outbreak could occur
without detection or appropriate response to mediate the threat to the
subspecies.
A final disease management strategy has also been approved in the
form of an epidemic response plan for the northern Channel Island fox
subspecies (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This epidemic response plan
is currently implemented by the NPS and TNC, and provides direction for
monitoring, vaccination for canine distemper virus and rabies annually
to a portion of each island fox population, and response if mortality
is detected. While disease was not responsible for the decline of
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands, these subspecies, like
all island fox subspecies, will always be at some risk of a disease
outbreak and population decline because of their small population sizes
and isolation. However, the risk potential for disease outbreak has
been and continues to be reduced through implementation of the epidemic
response plan. Additionally, NPS and TNC have committed through signed
CMAs to carrying out monitoring and other management actions for
detecting and appropriately responding to a potential disease outbreak
into the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens
et al. 2013, entire; USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC 2015).
Recovery criterion E/1, which is intended to indicate when
population levels are sufficiently robust to withstand natural
variation in demographic parameters and avoid potential extirpations
from stochastic or catastrophic events, has been achieved for all four
island fox subspecies. This recovery criterion is attained when the 3-
year means of adult mortality rate versus population size and
confidence intervals lie below 5 percent risk of subspecies-specific
quasi-extinction for 5 consecutive years (see Supplementary Material
``Results of graphing/analysis tool to assess island fox recovery
criterion E/1'' posted on https://www.regulations.gov for more details).
Population monitoring has been implemented for each listed subspecies,
and population viability analyses indicate all subspecies have an
acceptably small risk of extinction. The extinction risk has been less
than 5 percent since 2008 for San Miguel, Santa Cruz, and Santa
Catalina Islands, and since 2011 for Santa Rosa Island. As of 2014,
island fox populations had increased to greater than 500 on San Miguel
Island (Coonan 2015, pp. 7, 13), greater than 800 on Santa Rosa Island,
greater than 2,500 individuals on Santa Cruz Island (Bakker 2015, p.
4), and greater than 1,700 on Santa Catalina Island (King and Duncan
2014, p. 11). All populations with the exception of Santa Rosa Island
are at or above their pre-decline population estimates (Coonan 2015a,
pers. comm.; King and Duncan 2014, pp. 1, 10). On San Miguel Island,
low reproductive effort coupled with declining survival suggests that
the San Miguel Island subspecies has reached carrying capacity (Coonan
2015, p. 8). We conclude, based on population viability analyses, that
the intent of recovery criterion E/1 has been achieved for all four
island fox subspecies. The graphing/analysis tool used to assess
attainment of recovery criterion E/1 and associated discussion is found
in Appendix 2 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 131-136). Detailed
results of the tool through 2014 can be found in the Supplementary
Material ``Results of graphing/analysis tool to assess island fox
recovery criterion E/1'' (derived from Coonan 2015, p. 12, 16; Boser
2015, p. 8; King and Duncan 2015, p. 12) on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170.
Summary of Recovery Criteria
With the golden eagle management strategy in place, complete
removal of golden eagles and their nonnative prey-base from the
northern Channel Islands, development and implementation of an epidemic
response plan, and population levels consistent with long-term
viability, the intent of recovery objectives 1 and 2, and the
associated recovery criteria have been met for the San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes (see Table 1, below). With population
levels consistent with long-term viability, recovery objective 1 has
been met for the Santa Catalina Island fox. However, objective 2 has
not been met because currently there are no assurances to ensure
monitoring and management actions will continue into the future on
Santa Catalina Island and, because this island has a high risk of
introduced pathogens from the mainland, a disease outbreak could occur
without detection or appropriate response to mediate the threat to the
subspecies (Table 1).
[[Page 7729]]
Table 1--Summary of Achievement of Recovery Criteria for the Four Island Fox Subspecies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Risk-based Threat-based Recovery Threat-based Threat-based
Subspecies Recovery Criterion Criterion Recovery Criterion Recovery Criterion
An island fox Golden Eagle Golden Eagle Disease: A disease
subspecies has no Predation: A golden Predation: The prevention and
more than 5 percent eagle management golden eagle prey management strategy
risk of quasi- strategy is base of deer and is developed,
extinction over a 50 developed and elk is removed from approved, and
year period.. approved.. Santa Rosa Island.. implemented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Island Fox. 2014 numbers Eagle predation on N/A................. Epidemic response
increased to ~500+; northern Channel plan developed and
annual survival Island foxes has implemented; foxes
estimates ~ 80 been negligible vaccinated against
percent; since 2008, since 2006; golden CDV and rabies
extinction risk less eagle management continuing; CMA
than 5 percent over strategy is in place. signed committing
the next 50 years. to continued
monitoring.
Santa Rosa Island Fox. 2014 numbers Eagle predation on As of 2015, all elk Epidemic response
increased to ~800; northern Channel and all but a few plan developed and
annual survival Island foxes has deer have been implemented; foxes
estimates greater been negligible removed from Santa vaccinated against
than 90 percent; since 2006; golden Rosa Island. CDV and rabies
since 2011, eagle management continuing; CMA
extinction risk less strategy is in place. signed committing
than 5 over the next to continued
50 years percent. monitoring.
Santa Cruz Island Fox. 2014 numbers Eagle predation on N/A................. Epidemic response
increased to northern Channel developed and
~2,500+; annual Island foxes has implemented; foxes
survival estimates been negligible vaccinated against
greater than 90 since 2006; golden CDV and rabies
percent; since 2008, eagle management continuing; CMA
extinction risk less strategy is in place. signed committing
than 5 percent over to continued
the next 50 years. monitoring.
Santa 2014 numbers N/A.................. N/A................. Epidemic response
Catalina............. increased to ~1,700; plan developed and
Island Fox........... annual survival implemented; foxes
estimates greater vaccinated against
than 80 percent CDV and rabies
since 2006; since continuing; ongoing
2008, extinction relatively high
risk less than 5 potential for
percent over the disease vector
next 50 years. exposure;
insufficient long-
term monitoring and
management
assurance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species on, reclassifying
species on, or removing species from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as
including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species
may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species
because of any one or a combination of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made
factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be
reclassified on the same basis.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of endangered species or threatened species. Determining
whether a species is recovered requires consideration of whether the
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of the
five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For
species that are already listed as endangered species or threatened
species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats
currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely
to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting
or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term
``foreseeable future.'' For the purposes of this rule, we define the
``foreseeable future'' to be 50 years because the population viability
analyses to determine the risk of quasi-extinction for each subspecies
are over a 50-year period (Bakker et al. 2009, entire). Therefore, we
estimate 50 years to be the extent to which, given the amount and
substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or
reliably extrapolate threat trends, such that reliable predictions can
be made concerning the future as it relates to the status of the four
subspecies of island fox (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa
Catalina Island foxes).
A thorough analysis and discussion of the current status of the San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes is
detailed in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 21-29). Primary threats
to island foxes identified in the listing rule included predation by
golden eagles, disease, and stochastic risks to small populations and
lack of genetic variability. Since listing, impacts of feral cat
aggression, poisoning, and entrapment on Santa Catalina Island, and
fire, drought, and global climate change for all four islands have been
identified as possible new threats. The following sections provide a
summary of the past, current, and potential future threats impacting
the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island
foxes.
[[Page 7730]]
Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
At the time of listing in 2004, habitat modification by nonnative
grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion was identified as a threat
under Factor A impacting island foxes (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004). The
listing rule identified habitat modification as causing some adverse
effects to island foxes, particularly conversion to grasslands, but
considered it unlikely to have directly caused the observed declines.
Annual grasslands constitute less preferred habitat for island foxes
(Laughrin 1977, p. 22; Roemer and Wayne 2003, pp. 1256-1257) and do not
provide cover from predators such as golden eagles (Roemer 1999, p. 99,
190-191). It is difficult to quantify the effects of past habitat loss
and/or alteration on the status of island foxes. However, habitat on
all islands occupied by island foxes has been affected by a combination
of livestock grazing, cultivation, and other disturbances, particularly
nonnative animal and plant invasion and urbanization on Santa Catalina
Island. Although it is possible that these habitat changes may have
exacerbated the effects of other threats, island fox populations
remained relatively stable prior to the commencement of golden eagle
predation in the mid-1990s and disease in 1999.
Eradication programs on all islands have greatly reduced the number
of nonnative herbivores on the islands and therefore the magnitude of
impacts to the habitat (Laughrin 1973, p. 14; Schoenherr et al. 1999,
pp. 191-194; Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Currently, impacts to island
fox habitats are primarily attributed to continued modification by
nonnative plant species, resulting in lower vegetation diversity and
habitat structure. The seeds of nonnative annual grasses can also cause
occasional damage or blindness by becoming lodged in the eyes and ears
of island foxes.
National Park Service (NPS) guidance supports the continued
management of island fox habitat to benefit northern Channel Islands
subspecies of island foxes. Title 54 of the U.S. Code, section 100101,
paragraph (a), states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use
of the National Park System . . . to conserve the scenery, natural and
historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for
the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild
life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations.'' Specifically, in its management
plan, Channel Islands National Park identified restoration and
maintenance of natural ecosystems and processes as a priority; Park
staff would continue to eradicate, where feasible, nonnative flora and
fauna from the islands.
The island fox, as the species Urocyon littoralis (incorporating
all six subspecies), is listed as threatened under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) (section 2081(b)), which does provide a
level of protection from actual possession or intentional killing of
individual animals and actual death of individual animals incidental to
otherwise lawful activity, such as habitat conversion, on the privately
owned TNC-managed lands on Santa Cruz Island and privately owned lands
on Santa Catalina Island. Santa Catalina Island foxes are impacted by
the potential for land use change on non-conserved lands, including
development and recreational events such as off-road vehicle racing.
CESA contributes to the conservation of the species by providing a
mechanism to reduce or regulate some individual sources of mortality
and to review and permit development projects that may impact island
foxes and their habitat on private lands.
While past and ongoing effects of habitat modification by nonnative
grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion may have some negative
effects on island foxes, nonnative animals and plants no longer impact
the habitat to the extent that would cause population-level declines
that we would consider a threat to any of the subspecies of island fox
now or in the future.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
As stated in the listing rule (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004),
although island foxes were used in the past for their pelts by Native
Americans (Collins 1991, p. 215), these activities are no longer
occurring. Research scientists are currently engaged in recovery
activities via USFWS-issued 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits. Our analyses
have determined these research activities do not pose a threat to any
island fox populations. Therefore, overutilization is not a threat to
any of the island fox subspecies at this time or in the future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
A canine distemper virus (CDV) epidemic was considered the primary
threat to Santa Catalina Island fox at the time of listing (69 FR
10335; March 5, 2004). The listing rule also expressed some concern
regarding the potential impacts of canine adenovirus and canine
parvovirus. At the time of listing, golden eagle predation was the
primary cause for the decline of northern Channel Islands foxes (San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) (69 FR 10335; March 5,
2004), but potential for disease was also a concern, particularly given
the small population sizes at the time.
Disease
Infectious Pathogens: In the past, disease severely impacted the
island fox population on Santa Catalina Island. The eastern
subpopulation of the Santa Catalina Island fox was estimated to be
1,342 in 1990 (Roemer et al. 1994, p. 393). Subsequent surveys
conducted in 1999 and 2000 indicated the eastern island fox
subpopulation had declined by over 90 percent in 10 years due to CDV
(Timm et al. 2000, p. 17), likely transmitted from a raccoon that
arrived from the mainland (Timm et al. 2009, p. 339). After a captive
rearing and augmentation program was initiated, the eastern and western
subpopulations were estimated to have reached 219 and 141 foxes in
2004, respectively (Schmidt et al. 2005, p. 11; King and Duncan 2011,
p. 19). Population estimates have since greatly increased on Santa
Catalina Island, surpassing the estimate from 1990, reaching a total of
1,717 individuals island-wide in 2014 (King and Duncan 2015, p. 10).
In 2014, a final epidemic response plan was approved and is being
implemented to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a
potential future disease outbreak for Santa Catalina Island foxes
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The Catalina Island Conservancy annually
monitors sentinel foxes inhabiting many areas of the island to
facilitate early detection of a potential epidemic (King and Duncan
2011, p. 15). Island foxes have been and continue to be vaccinated
against CDV and rabies (King 2015, pers. comm.). At this time, however,
there is no assurance of continued funding for long-term monitoring and
management that could detect a novel outbreak and facilitate threat
abatement, as recommended in the epidemic response plan.
Transport of domestic and wild animals to and from Santa Catalina
Island increases the risk to island foxes of another disease outbreak.
Santa Catalina Island currently allows visitors and residents to own
and transport pets, including domestic dogs and cats, to and from the
island (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15), and dogs are frequently observed
off-leash (Anderson 2012,
[[Page 7731]]
pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers.
obs.; King 2015, p. 22). There is no quarantine period for transported
pets, and proof of current vaccination is only required by the City of
Avalon when licensing dogs (rabies only), and for CIC employees and
lessees with pets living in company-owned housing (King and Duncan
2011, p. 15). The CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on the island
(except the City of Avalon) and through their regulations requires all
nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed; they also require
that all dogs and cats be vaccinated against distemper and rabies, and
they should be leashed at all times (CIC 2015, https://www.catalinaconservancy.org). Enforcement of CIC regulations is labor-
intensive and costly, because the island is large, there are many
remote coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and the CIC
does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas regularly.
Reduction of disease introduction risk also occurs through CIC outreach
and education of local authorities and the public; to date, four
stowaway raccoons have been removed from the island, but a fifth
observed in 2010 was not captured (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15).
Therefore, current measures to control introduction of diseases by
domestic animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while
providing some protection, are limited.
Disease does not appear to be a significant mortality factor on the
northern Channel Islands, although Leptospirosis (infectious bacterium)
was found to be a mortality source for two Santa Rosa Island foxes in
2010 (Coonan and Guglielmino 2012, p. 21). Unlike on Santa Catalina
Island, dogs and other pets are not permitted on the northern Channel
Islands to reduce this risk of introduction of disease; however, dogs
are occasionally illegally brought onto the islands. Channel Islands
National Park General Management Plan prohibits pets from all Park
islands, except for guide dogs for visually impaired persons (NPS
2015b, pp. 468, 487).
In 2013, a final epidemic response plan was approved and is being
implemented to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a
potential disease outbreak for the northern Channel Islands (Hudgens et
al. 2013, entire). Sentinel foxes are monitored to facilitate early
detection of a potential epidemic (Hudgens et al. 2013, pp. entire),
and foxes have been and continue to be vaccinated against CDV and
rabies when vaccines are available. Also, the Park identified island
foxes as an ecosystem element for which they will conduct long-term
annual population monitoring as part of the Park's long-term ecological
monitoring program, regardless of their status under the Act. Both NPS
and TNC have committed through signed CMAs (USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS
and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions into
the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan for northern
Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire).
Ear Canal Cancer: There is concern about the rate of ear canal
cancer in Santa Catalina Island foxes and how it might affect long-term
population viability. The first cases of ear canal cancer were
documented in 2000 and 2001, with increased detection through 2007
(Timm et al. 2002, p. 26; Kohlmann et al. 2003, p. 39; Schmidt et al.
2004, p. 15; Schmidt et al. 2005, p. 11; Munson et al. 2009, p. 5).
This cancer can have an aggressive clinical course, with local
invasion, tissue damage, and metastasis, leading to death (Munson et
al. 2009, p. 1). Ear inflammation correlated with cancer incidence in
Santa Catalina Island foxes is triggered by ear mite infestations
(Munson et al. 2009, pp. 3-4), and the severity can be reduced through
aracacide application (Vickers et al. 2011, pp. 9-10). Treatment with
aracacide is now standard practice by CIC during trapping of Santa
Catalina Island foxes (King and Duncan 2011, p. 3). Since 2008, over
1,000 treatments were applied, and the prevalence of mites has been
reduced in the fox population from 87 percent to 28 percent. Tumor
prevalence in the Santa Catalina Island fox population remains an
actively managed source of mortality (Vickers et al. 2011, pp. 9-10).
However, we do not have long-term assurances that CIC will continue to
carry out monitoring and management actions into the future as
recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al. 2014,
entire).
Parasites: Parasites have not been confirmed as a direct mortality
source of island foxes; however, concurrent infection with a pathogen,
such as Spirocerca (nematode), can negatively impact host health and
decrease immunity (Munson 2010, pp. 134-136). In a species-wide survey,
Spirocerca was found in a high prevalence of necropsied island foxes,
but in most cases appeared to have little effect on the population
(Munson 2010, pp. 129, 134-136). Preliminary genetic analysis and the
location of lesions suggest that the Spirocerca found in island foxes
may be a different species than S. lupi, which occurs in domestic dogs
and other North American carnivores on the mainland. Currently,
Spirocerca is not a major health concern for most island foxes.
However, if island foxes are ever brought to the mainland for research
or captive breeding, efforts should be made to prevent transmission of
Spirocerca from island foxes to mainland carnivores and vice versa.
Infection by parasites other than Spirocerca has been suspected as
the cause of mortality in several island foxes, but is not considered a
significant mortality factor. Infection by hookworms (Uncinaria
stenocephala) and a lungworm (Angiocaulus gubernaculatus) may have
contributed to two mortalities in the San Miguel Island fox subspecies
(Coonan et al. 2005b, p. 38). In 2013, the San Miguel Island fox annual
survival rate declined from approximately 90 percent to about 80
percent; 5 of the 11 mortalities that occurred in radio-collared foxes
had evidence of acanthocephalans (spiny-headed worms), a parasite never
before recorded in island foxes (Coonan 2014, p. 6).
In summary, the possibility exists for domestic or wild animals
carrying a disease or parasite to migrate or be transported to all the
Channel Islands, although vector movement via boat is frequent to Santa
Catalina Island. On all islands, an epidemic response plan is approved
and being implemented (Hudgens et al. 2013, 2014 entire), which
includes that a subset of foxes are vaccinated when vaccines are
available and monitored to detect and respond to a potential disease
outbreak (Coonan 2010, pp. 24-29; see appendices 3 and 4 in Recovery
Plan (USFWS 2015)). The NPS and TNC have committed (USFWS and NPS 2015;
USFWS and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions
into the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan for
northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire); therefore,
we consider the potential threat of disease adequately controlled for
the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes at this time
and into the future. We do not at this time have the assurance of
continued implementation of the epidemic response plan on Santa
Catalina Island. Disease was the main threat to Santa Catalina Island
foxes at the time of listing in 2004, and given the lack of assurance
for continued implementation of the epidemic response plan to detect
and mitigate for future disease outbreaks, we still consider potential
disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island fox.
[[Page 7732]]
Predation
As identified in the listing rule, golden eagle predation was the
primary cause for the decline of the northern Channel Islands fox
subspecies and the primary reason for the listing under the Act (69 FR
10335; March 5, 2004). Before golden eagles started using the northern
Channel Islands in the 1990s, the only known predator of island foxes
was the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), which preyed only
occasionally on young island foxes (Laughrin 1973, pp. 10-11; Moore and
Collins 1995, p. 4). Because of the lack of predators, island foxes did
not evolve vigilance and are easy targets for golden eagles (Roemer et
al. 2001, p. 316). Colonization of the northern Channel Islands by
golden eagles was likely a combination of two factors: (1) Introduction
of nonnative mammals on the northern Channel Islands, resulting in a
historically unprecedented prey base for golden eagles (USFWS 2004, p.
10338); and (2) an open ecological niche created by the extirpation of
bald eagles from the islands as a result of DDT poisoning (USFWS 2004,
p. 10343).
In the 2004 listing rule, the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the California Fish and
Game Code, section 3511, were thought to have delayed or precluded the
implementation of needed recovery actions for island foxes. The
protections afforded to golden eagles by the BGEPA were thought to
limit lethal management alternatives to protect island foxes. The
California Fish and Game Code, section 3511, deemed golden eagles a
fully protected species, which would not have allowed any take to be
authorized. In 2003, California amended this law to allow authorization
of the take of fully protected species for scientific research,
including research on recovery for other imperiled species (Senate Bill
412).
To address the unprecedented number of golden eagles and the
effects they were having on island foxes, in August 1999, the NPS and
TNC initiated a nonlethal golden eagle removal program to protect
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands. Between November 1999 and
July 2006, 44 golden eagles, including 22 adults or near adults, were
removed from Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands and released in
northeastern California (Latta et al. 2005, p. 348; Coonan et al. 2010,
pp. 59-61). Satellite telemetry affixed to the first 12 translocated
golden eagles confirmed that none of the relocated eagles attempted to
return to the islands for the 1.5-year life of the transmitter (USFWS
2015, p. 30). Ten nestlings were removed by hand from seven different
nests (two from Santa Rosa Island and five from Santa Cruz Island) and
fostered into mainland golden eagle nests or released. By mid-2005,
seven golden eagles were estimated to remain on the northern Channel
Islands, and removal efforts yielded diminishing returns. The last
eagles captured and removed from the islands were a pair of nesting
golden eagles and their chick on Santa Cruz Island in 2006 (Coonan et
al. 2010, p. 62), and there has been no record of breeding golden
eagles on the northern Channel Islands since that time.
Genetic work supports the long-term success of eagle translocation
efforts. Sonsthagen et al. (2012, pp. entire) investigated the genetics
of mainland golden eagles and those translocated from the islands,
finding that the island population was likely the result of one
colonization event. The likelihood of another successful golden eagle
colonization is low, given changes in nonnative prey availability and
monitoring/mitigation by land management agencies.
To ensure that golden eagles would be less likely to attempt to
establish territories again on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, TNC
and the NPS initiated a program in 2005 and 2011, respectively, to
remove nonnative animals from those islands (Macdonald and Walker 2007,
p. 20). The last known pig was removed from Santa Cruz Island in
January 2007 (Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Deer and elk were removed
from Santa Rosa Island as part of an agreement with the former owners
of the island. All elk and all but a few deer had been removed by 2015,
resulting in an island that was essentially ungulate-free for the first
time in over 150 years (Coonan 2015b, pers. comm.).
The 2004 listing rule also identified the extirpation of bald
eagles from the Channel Islands as a likely contributor to the
colonization of the northern Channel Islands by golden eagles. Bald
eagles aggressively defend their territories from golden eagles (USFWS
2004, pp. 10343-10344), and their presence on the islands likely would
have discouraged dispersing golden eagles from establishing residence.
Prior to listing, NPS, Institute for Wildlife Studies, and TNC were
actively engaged in the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program to
reintroduce bald eagles to the Channel Islands, including Santa
Catalina Island. The success of bald eagle reintroduction on the
Channel Islands continues, with approximately 50 total resident bald
eagles on the islands (Montrose Settlements Restoration Program 2015,
p. 1).
In summary, although golden eagle predation of island foxes may
occasionally occur (Coonan et al. 2014, p. 374), predation has been
significantly reduced and is not considered a significant threat. This
reduction in predation by golden eagles is in direct response to the
extensive removal of golden eagles from the northern Channel Islands,
golden eagle prey being removed successfully from Santa Rosa and Santa
Cruz Islands, and the successful reintroduction of bald eagles.
Summary of Factor C
To reduce the threat of disease, a subset of each island fox
subspecies is protected from CDV and rabies through preventative
vaccinations when available and through monitoring as recommended in
epidemic response plans to detect and facilitate appropriate responses
in the event of an epidemic. Mortality due to disease was the primary
reason for the decline and listing of Santa Catalina Island foxes.
Currently, the potential for an epidemic remains on Santa Catalina
Island because of heavy visitation, many points of access, and few
controls for pets and stowaway wild animals that could carry disease.
In addition, we do not have the assurance of continued implementation
of the epidemic response plan into the future on Santa Catalina Island
to detect and mitigate for future disease outbreaks. Therefore, we
still consider potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa
Catalina Island fox at this time.
Mortality due to golden eagle predation was the primary reason for
the decline and listing of northern Channel Islands foxes (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes). This threat has been
substantially reduced by measures including the complete removal of
golden eagles, eradication of golden eagles' nonnative prey, and
reintroduction of bald eagles, such that we no longer consider
predation to be occurring at such a level that would cause population-
level declines on the northern Channel Islands now or in the future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the four island fox
subspecies discussed under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the USFWS to take into account ``those efforts, if any, being
made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a
State or foreign nation, to protect such
[[Page 7733]]
species. . . .'' In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret
this language to require the USFWS to consider relevant Federal, State,
and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may
minimize any of the threats we describe in the threat analyses under
the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the
species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing
regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and
regulations; an example would be State governmental actions enforced
under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
For currently listed species, we consider the adequacy of
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the
protections of the Act. If this proposal is made final, the San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes would no longer be protected
under the Act; Santa Catalina Island foxes would remain protected under
the Act as a threatened species. Therefore, we examine whether other
regulatory mechanisms will remain in place after delisting, and the
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that
future threats will be reduced or minimized.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats.
As discussed under Factor C, the primary threats of golden eagle
predation and disease have been ameliorated though management,
monitoring, and CMAs on the northern Channel Islands. Other threats
affecting all currently listed island foxes, such as habitat
modification by nonnative grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion
(Factor A), have been and are being controlled through appropriate
management and conservation ownership as described in Factor A, and we
anticipate that these efforts will continue into the future. Other
sources of mortality are assessed under Factor E and found to not exert
a significant population-level effect on island foxes now or in the
future. Consequently, we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address these specific threats. The remaining threat is the
potential for a disease epidemic on Santa Catalina Island because of
heavy visitation, many points of access, and few controls for pets and
stowaway wild animals that could carry disease. In addition, we do not
have the assurance of continued implementation of the epidemic response
plan into the future on Santa Catalina Island to detect and mitigate
for future disease outbreaks. Therefore, under Factor C, we still
consider potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa
Catalina Island fox at this time. Consequently, our analysis here
examines how existing regulatory mechanisms address this remaining
identified threat.
The CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on Santa Catalina
Island (except the City of Avalon) and through its regulations requires
all nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed and that all
dogs and cats be vaccinated against distemper and rabies (CIC 2015,
https://www.catalinaconservancy.org). Reduction of the risk of disease
introduction also occurs through CIC outreach and education of local
authorities and the public. However, enforcement of CIC regulations is
labor-intensive and costly because the island is large with many remote
coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and the CIC does not
have the funding or staff to patrol these areas regularly. Therefore,
current measures to control introduction of diseases by domestic
animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while providing
some protection, are limited and thus do not fully address the threat
of disease to Santa Catalina Island fox (see Factor C discussion,
above).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, we have discussed that the threats previously facing
the northern Channel Islands subspecies of island fox have been
removed; disease remains a threat to the Santa Catalina population of
island fox. Consequently, our Factor D analysis examines how existing
regulatory mechanisms address this identified threat. Enforcement of
CIC regulations, which are meant to limit the risk of disease
introduction, is labor-intensive and costly because the island is large
with many remote coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and
the CIC does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas
regularly. Thus, current measures to control introduction of diseases
by domestic animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island,
while providing some protection, are limited in addressing the threat
of disease to Santa Catalina Island fox. Therefore, we still consider
potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island
fox at this time under Factor C that is not addressed by existing
regulatory mechanisms, but, in and of itself, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is not a current threat to any of the
subspecies, nor is it expected to become a threat in the future.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The 2004 listing rule identified stochastic risks to small
populations and lack of genetic variability as threats to all four
island fox subspecies under Factor E (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004). Road
mortalities were also discussed under Factor E in the 2004 listing
rule. Since the time of listing, the impacts of feral cat aggression,
poisoning, and entrapment on Santa Catalina Island, and fire, drought,
and global climate change for all four islands have been identified as
possible new threats.
Small Population Size
Island endemics, such as island foxes, have a high extinction risk
due to isolation (i.e., no other populations to ``rescue'' a declining
or extirpated one) and small total population sizes relative to
mainland subspecies (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, entire), both of which
make them more vulnerable, especially to stochastic events such as
drought and wildfire (Miller et al. 2001, entire; Kohlman et al. 2005,
entire). Each island fox subspecies is a single breeding population,
(with San Miguel Island being the smallest population), which makes
their populations inherently small and thus they may become more
vulnerable to extinction when the size of a breeding population
declines. In addition to small population size and the associated
increased probability of extinction, lower and reduced genetic
variation may make an island species less adapted to existing pressures
and less capable of adaptation to new threats. Thus, small population
size and low genetic diversity can have synergistic effects with
respect to population decline. During the period when the island fox
populations were at their lowest, they were extremely vulnerable to
extinction from stochastic events. The populations have now increased
substantially, returning to historical population highs, and the threat
of extinction from demographic stochasticity has accordingly been
reduced.
The island fox populations have reduced or low genetic diversity
due to the population bottlenecks they experienced during past extreme
population lows (Gray et al. 2001, p. 8; Gray 2002, pp. entire). This
lack of
[[Page 7734]]
variability could be attributed either to extensive inbreeding or to
bottlenecking resulting from low population densities (George and Wayne
1991, entire). However, island foxes have apparently existed for
thousands of years with low effective population sizes (the number of
individuals that can contribute genes equally to the next generation;
low is defined as 150 to 1,000) and low genetic variability (Wayne et
al. 1991a, p. 1858; 1991b, p. entire). While additional genetic
diversity was lost during the recent declines, island foxes are
probably tolerant of low genetic variation, occasional bottlenecks, and
higher inbreeding because there is little evidence of inbreeding
depression in island foxes (Coonan et al. 2010, pp. 13-15). Therefore,
we do not consider reduced genetic diversity to be causing population-
level effects at this time or in the future.
Motor Vehicles
The fearlessness of island foxes, coupled with relatively high
vehicle traffic on Santa Catalina Island, results in multiple fox
collisions each year. On the northern Channel Islands, vehicle use very
limited, restricted to only land management personnel and researchers.
On Santa Catalina Island, vehicle collision was considered the ``number
one cause of fox mortality'' on Santa Catalina Island (CIC 2009, https://www.catalinaconservancy.org), and it remains the most frequently
reported cause of death. In 2014, at least 20 foxes died from vehicle-
related trauma (King and Duncan 2015, pp. 18-19). In some cases, during
the breeding season, mortality of parents (lactating females or
foraging males) may result in additional loss of offspring
(Wolstenholme 2011, pers. comm.; King 2012g, p. 1). The increase in
annual average vehicle-strike deaths is likely due to an increased fox
population size on the island, and the island-wide 25 mile per hour
speed limit (CIC 2015, https://www.catalinaconservancy.org) likely
minimizes the number of vehicle strike mortalities that would otherwise
occur. Although mortality by motor vehicles is not considered a
population-level threat at this time or in the future, vehicles strikes
remain the primary human-caused source of individual mortality on Santa
Catalina Island.
Interactions With Feral Cats and Domestic Dogs
Feral cats and domestic dogs occur on Santa Catalina Island. Feral
cats weigh approximately twice as much as island foxes, and they may
negatively affect foxes through interactions including direct
aggression and competition for food and habitat resources (Laughrin
1978, pp. 5-6; Kovach and Dow 1981, p. 443). Although hawks and owls
may occasionally kill cats, there are no significant predators of cats
on Santa Catalina Island that can control their population (Guttilla
2007, p. 8).
Direct aggression between Santa Catalina Island foxes and cats has
been documented in the wild, primarily near public coves and
campgrounds that provide food and shelter (Guttilla 2007, p. 9).
Researchers have routinely captured foxes that have severe injuries
consistent with cat encounters (Guttilla 2007, p. 9). Aggressive
exclusion of foxes by feral cats has also been observed. When cats move
into fox habitat, foxes are no longer observed; when cats are no longer
resident, foxes move back in to occupy the area (King 2013c, pers.
comm.; Anderson 2013, pers. obs.).
In the 2004 listing rule (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), we noted
that the Food and Agricultural Code 31752.5 prohibited lethal control
of feral cats unless cats are held for a minimum of 6 days, which was
thought to prevent CIC from taking steps to eradicate feral cats on
Santa Catalina Island. In 2008, a Feral Animal Task Force was convened
by the City of Avalon, with representatives of the CIC and other island
stakeholders, to address feral and free-ranging cats in the city and on
the rest of the island, and most importantly, to draft legislation for
consideration by the City Council for approval and incorporation into
City ordinance. This task force is not currently active, however, and
progress has stalled in initiating new feral cat control measures and
enacting new legislation (King 2011e, pers. comm.). Although
competition and other negative interactions with feral cats can affect
individual foxes, they do not pose a population-level threat at this
time or in the future.
Instances of fox mortality from dog attacks have been observed over
the past decade: Two in 2005 (Gaffney 2011, p. 1; Munson and Gaffney
2011, p. 1), one in 2010 (King and Duncan 2011, pp. 12-13), two in 2011
(King and Duncan 2012, p. 14), two probable in 2012 (King 2012a, p. 1;
2012b, p. 1), and one in 2015 (King 2015, p. 1). Because the likelihood
of finding foxes killed by domestic dogs and identifying dogs as the
mortality source is relatively low, these mortalities are likely
underreported (Wolstenholme 2011, pers. comm.). It is common for dogs
to be observed off-leash in campgrounds and other areas of the island
outside of the City of Avalon (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15; Anderson
2012, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014,
pers. obs.; King 2015, p. 1). While mortality due to domestic dog
attacks has been reported, it is limited in effect to individual foxes,
and does not have a significant impact to fox populations at this time
or in the future.
Poisoning and Entrapment
Other impacts to Santa Catalina Island foxes resulting from human
interaction include mortality from poisoning and entrapment. A Santa
Catalina Island fox died in 2012 from rodenticide poisoning (Duncan and
King 2012, p. 4), another was euthanized because of poisoning in 2014
(King and Duncan 2015, p. 18), and a third was sickened in 2014 by
insecticide poisoning (King and Duncan 2015, p. 20). Entrapment of
foxes may occur in areas where development projects are ongoing.
Examples include: Two foxes falling into a power line pole construction
pit (CIC 2009, https://www.catalinaconservancy.org); one fox drowning
due to entanglement in a food container (Vickers 2012a p. 2); one death
from being trapped in a recycling barrel (Vickers 2012b, p. 1); and two
deaths in 2014 from drowning in water or sediment containers (King and
Duncan 2015, p. 18). Types of human-caused harm other than vehicle
strikes and domestic dog attacks in urbanized areas are varied, but
they do not have a population-level impact at this time or in the
future.
Fire
On the northern Channel Islands, the frequency and intensity of
wildland fire is less than on the adjacent mainland, because there are
fewer ignition sources on the islands, and the typical maritime fog
moisture inhibits fire spread. Natural lightning-strike fires are
extremely rare; only three fires between 1836-1986 on the Channel
Islands were started by lightning (Carroll et al. 1993, p. 77). On the
northern Channel Islands, there are far fewer human-started fires than
on the mainland or on Santa Catalina Island, as there are no permanent
human occupants on the northern Channel Islands.
Sediment cores indicate that fire on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz
Islands increased in frequency during the past 5,000 years and peaked
during the historic period (200 years ago), though frequency and
intensity are still far less than on the adjacent mainland (Anderson et
al. 2010, p. 792). Because of this, island foxes on the northern
Channel Islands have experienced very few large wildland fire events.
The recent removal of grazers may increase fuel loads and thus the
likelihood of
[[Page 7735]]
larger fires, though cool and foggy conditions will continue to limit
wildland fire spread. Additionally, the NPS adheres to a policy of
total suppression on the Channel Islands, due to resource concerns
(Kirkpatrick 2006, entire), reducing the chance that wildland fires
will become large.
Though not identified as a threat at the time of listing, Santa
Catalina Island regularly experiences wildfires (CIC 2011) that could
reduce food availability, alter the habitat, or directly result in the
loss of individual foxes (USFWS 2004, p. 10347). The most devastating
wildfire on record was the Island Fire ignited on May 10, 2007, which
burned 4,760 ac (1,926 ha) (CIC 2011). The second largest fire in
recent history (1999-2011) was the Empire Fire, which was started by
lightning on July 22, 2006, and burned 1,063 ac (430 ha). Duncan and
King's (2009, p. 384) findings indicate fire seasonality has an
influence on fox survival; fires that occur when pups are young and
most dependent on adults for mobility are most damaging, but in
general, neither the Island Fire nor the Empire Fire seemed to have
significant effects at the population level (Duncan and King 2009, p.
384).
In summary, wildfires are infrequent on the northern Channel
Islands and more frequent on Santa Catalina Island. On all islands,
while wildfire can result in mortality of individuals, especially
juveniles, depending on when the fires occur, wildfire does not pose a
significant population-level impact to the island fox at this time nor
do we anticipate it posing a significant population-level impact in the
future.
Drought
The Channel Islands, as well as the rest of the State of
California, are currently in the midst of a drought that began in 2012
and, as of mid-January 2016, has not abated (State of California 2016,
https://ca.gov/drought/ accessed January 19, 2016). Island foxes have
endured many droughts during their 10,000-year persistence on the
islands (California Department of Water Resources 2015, https://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/droughtinfo.cfm). Deep multi-year
droughts have occurred on the Channel Islands about once every 2
decades since 1900 (T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data). General drought
conditions in the late 1920s and early 1930s combined with overgrazing
denuded most vegetation, particularly on San Miguel Island, creating
massive sand barrens, remnants of which are still evident today
(Johnson 1980, entire). Even so, island foxes survived this period of
soil erosion and episodic landscape stripping.
The current period of intensive island fox monitoring and research
began in 1993, after a 6-year drought concluded. The current drought is
the first opportunity to study the effect of drought on island foxes,
where foxes have recovered to historic numbers. On San Miguel Island,
average adult weights declined in 2013 and 2014, to the lowest ever
recorded, and fox reproduction was negligible in 2013 and 2014 (Coonan
et al. 2014, p. 28; T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data). During this time,
mortality also increased, and many fox carcasses were emaciated (Coonan
et al. 2014, pp. 6-7). On Santa Catalina Island, it appears that
decreasing precipitation may result in a reproductive decline; however
adults' weights were not similarly affected during this time (King and
Duncan 2015, pp. 21-22). These effects were not seen on neighboring
Santa Rosa Island, where foxes are not yet at carrying capacity or pre-
decline levels. Fox weights increased on Santa Rosa Island in the
drought years, reproduction was higher, and foxes had higher body
condition scores than on San Miguel Island. It is apparent that one
response of island foxes to drought is to curtail reproduction,
especially if the population is at carrying capacity (Coonan 2015, pp.
6, 8, 13; Coonan et al. 2010, p. 28). Given the past demonstrated
ability of island foxes to survive pervasive drought, current healthy
population numbers and apparent ability to respond to drought by
shifting resource allocation, we do not consider drought to be a threat
to island foxes at this time or in the future.
Global Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a
typical period for such measurements (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450). The term
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability
of one or more measures of climate (for example, temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, whether the change
is due to natural variability or human activity (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has
increased since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global
climate system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some
regions of the world and decreases in other regions (for these and
other examples, see Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85; IPCC 2013b,
pp. 3-29; IPCC 2014, pp. 1-32). Results of scientific analyses
presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in global
average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by
natural variability in climate and is ``very likely'' (defined by the
IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the observed increase
in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of
human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of
fossil fuels (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35; IPCC 2013b, pp. 11-12 and
figures SPM.4 and SPM.5). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs
comes from analyses by Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it
is extremely likely that approximately 75 percent of global warming
since 1950 has been caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, entire;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527,
529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield very
similar projections of increases in the most common measure of climate
change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global
warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the magnitude and
rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all
the projections is one of increasing global warming through the end of
this century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume
that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong
scientific support for projections that warming will continue through
the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change will be
influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (Meehl et al.
2007, pp. 760-764, 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn
et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529; IPCC 2013b, pp. 19-23). See IPCC 2013b
(entire), for a summary of other global projections of climate-related
changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation.
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species.
[[Page 7736]]
These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as threats in combination and interactions of
climate with other variables (for example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC
2014, pp. 4-11). Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of
climate change vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the
degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to
cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate
variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the type,
magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a species
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22; IPCC 2014, p. 5). There is no single method for
conducting such analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al.
2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical
approaches to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our
consideration of the best scientific information available regarding
various aspects of climate change.
Probably the most potentially vulnerable aspect of island fox
biology to climate change is indirect effects from affected
invertebrates that are parasites and disease vectors. Invertebrates,
because they are exothermic (cold-blooded), are particularly responsive
to the effects of a warming climate that typically speeds development
and enhances survival. For disease vectors such as mosquitos, survival
may occur where it was previously too cold during the coolest nights of
the year for overwintering. Invertebrates are also particularly well-
suited to adapt to a changing climate because they have short
generation times and a high reproductive output (Parmesan 2006, pp.
654-656). The warming climate typically has resulted in increased
abundance and expanded ranges of parasites such as nematodes and ticks,
as well as diseases they transmit (Parmesan 2006, pp. 650-651; Studer
et al. 2010, p. 11). Climate change also produces ecological
perturbations that result in altered parasite transmission dynamics,
increasing the potential for host switching (Brooks and Hoberg 2007, p.
571). Moller's (2010, p. 1158) analysis of parasites on avian hosts
over a 37-year period suggests climate change predictions for parasite
effects should be made with caution, but that climate can alter the
composition of the parasite community and may cause changes in the
virulence of parasites (Moller 2010, p. 1158). Therefore, climate
change may change and could potentially increase the parasites and
disease vectors to which island foxes are exposed.
Considering that island foxes are opportunistic feeders, and
climate warming could increase the subspecies' insect prey base
abundance, it is possible climate change could positively affect food
quantity and quality. Increased consumption of insect species by mice
associated with a warmer, drier climate on South African islands has
been documented (Chown and Smith 1993, pp. 508-509). Because island
foxes have shown relative plasticity with regard to utilizing nonnative
species (Cypher et al. 2011, p. 13), most invasions of nonnative
potential prey species are not likely to negatively affect island fox
food resources. The only potential negative effect of climate change on
the insect prey base of island foxes would be if increased storm
intensity and frequency reduced prey abundance, as Roemer (1999, p.
187) hypothesized occurred on Santa Cruz Island in the mid-1990s.
Global climate change has the potential to negatively and
positively affect island fox populations. There is still uncertainty
associated with predictions relative to the timing, location, and
magnitude of future climate changes. Probably the most vulnerable
aspect of island fox biology to climate change is indirect effects to
the fox from affected invertebrates. Though difficult to quantify,
change in global climate could impact island fox populations on each
island and may pose a threat to this species that is not yet reflected
in studied population dynamics. As with most endangered species,
predicting likely future climate scenarios and understanding the
complex effects of climate change are high priorities for island fox
conservation planning. While we cannot accurately predict the effects
of climate change on island fox subspecies because the foxes are
generalists and exhibit plasticity with regards to prey and habitat
use, we do not expect negative effects of such magnitude that would
cause major declines. However, we anticipate ongoing monitoring and
management will detect any significant changes in population health and
allow for management responses, including possible relisting.
Summary of Factor E
In summary, during the period when the population was at its
lowest, the four subspecies of Channel Island foxes were extremely
vulnerable to extinction from stochastic events. The populations have
now increased substantially and the likelihood of extinction has
accordingly been reduced. The combined effects of interactions with
feral cats and domestic dogs, motor vehicle collisions, mortality due
to wildfire, and other human-caused mortalities result in the deaths of
multiple individuals throughout Santa Catalina Island on an annual
basis, but they do not constitute a combined threat to the relatively
large population at this time nor do we anticipate that they will in
the future. While we cannot accurately predict the effects of climate
change on island fox subspecies because the foxes are generalists and
exhibit plasticity with regards to prey and habitat use, we do not
consider climate change to be a threat to island foxes now nor in the
foreseeable future.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting Island Foxes
At time of listing in 2004 (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), predation
by golden eagles was the primary threat to San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and
Santa Cruz Island foxes, and disease was the primary threat to the
Santa Catalina Island fox. The threat of predation by golden eagles on
the northern Channel Islands has been significantly reduced since the
time of listing. This reduction in predation by golden eagles is in
direct response to the extensive removal of golden eagles from the
northern Channel Islands, golden eagle prey being removed successfully
from Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, and the successful
reintroduction of bald eagles.
Potential disease outbreaks continue to pose a threat to Santa
Catalina Island foxes due to relatively uncontrolled movement of
vectors from the mainland that carry diseases the population may not be
vaccinated against. The primary measures in place on all islands to
reduce these threats are vaccination of a subset of the fox population
for CDV and rabies, and monitoring of population sentinels to detect
the start of another epidemic and respond appropriately to mitigate the
outbreak. While disease is currently controlled on Santa Catalina
Island, we do not have assurance that monitoring and management of
Santa Catalina Island foxes necessary to detect and mitigate an
epidemic in Santa Catalina Island foxes will continue into the future.
During the period when the island fox populations were at their
lowest, they were extremely vulnerable to extinction from stochastic
events. Although there will always be some inherent risk of extinction
due to stochastic events because each island fox subspecies is a single
breeding population, the populations have now increased substantially,
returning to historical
[[Page 7737]]
population highs, and the threat of extinction from demographic
stochasticity has accordingly been reduced.
Mortality due to motor vehicle strikes, habitat loss, ear mite
infection, ear canal cancer, feral cats, and domestic dogs results in
loss of individuals, but these mortality factors are not considered
independent threats to fox populations at this time because populations
are relatively large. The impacts of climate change are hard to
predict. Some effects to island fox populations could be negative while
others could be positive. Predicting likely future climate scenarios
and understanding the complex effects of climate change are high
priorities for island fox conservation planning, but climate change is
not considered to be a threat at this time.
When mortality mechanisms or other stressors occur together, one
may exacerbate the effects of another, causing effects not accounted
for when stressors are analyzed individually. Synergistic or cumulative
effects may be observed in a short amount of time or may not be
noticeable for years into the future, and could affect the long-term
viability of island fox population. For example, if a stressor hinders
island fox survival and reproduction or affects the availability of
habitat that supports island foxes, then the number of individuals the
following year(s) will be reduced, increasing vulnerability to
stochastic events like a disease epidemic or wildfire. While
synergistic or cumulative effects may occur when mortality mechanisms
or other stressors occur together, given the robust populations and
ongoing management and monitoring, these effects do not pose a
significant population-level impact to island foxes at this time nor do
we anticipate that they will in the future.
Finding
We have assessed the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes in
this proposed rule. At the time of listing in 2004 (69 FR 10335; March
5, 2004), the Santa Catalina Island fox experienced a devastating CDV
epidemic that resulted in an almost complete loss of the eastern
subpopulation, which made up the majority of the island population. The
precipitous decline of the northern Channel Island foxes (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) that led to their listing as
endangered species was the result of depredation by golden eagles,
facilitated by the presence of a nonnative, mammalian prey-base on the
northern Channel Islands.
The threat of disease to the Santa Catalina Island fox has been
ameliorated through implementation of programs to provide vaccinations,
ear mite treatments, and a sentinel monitoring program to aid in
detection of and facilitate a response to an epidemic. However, we do
not have assurances that this monitoring and management as prescribed
in the epidemic response plan will continue into the future.
As a result of concerted management efforts, golden eagle predation
has been reduced to such a degree that it is no longer considered a
threat to the northern island subspecies. Additional management
efforts, including captive breeding and ongoing vaccinations for
disease, have contributed to the substantial increase of all island fox
populations. Although golden eagles will most likely continue to
occasionally occur on the islands as transients, the removal of the
nonnative prey-base and the constant presence of bald eagles are
permanent, long-term deterrents to golden eagles establishing breeding
territories and remaining on the northern Channel Islands. Ongoing
management and monitoring are designed to detect any reemergence of
threats and to take corrective actions should any threats be detected.
Based on the information presented in this status review, the
recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan have been achieved and the
recovery objectives identified in the Recovery Plan have been met for
the three northern Channel Island subspecies of island fox. San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox abundance has increased steadily
to the point where the number of individuals is again within the range
of historical population estimates. Population viability analyses
strongly indicate that the northern Channel Island foxes have an
acceptably small risk of extinction and current population levels are
consistent with long-term viability. Additionally, the primary threat
(golden eagles) to northern Channel Island foxes has been controlled,
and ongoing management and monitoring are in place to ensure that
threats continue to be managed in the future. This information
indicates that these three subspecies are no longer at immediate risk
of extinction, nor are they likely to experience reemergence of threats
and associated population declines in the future. We, therefore,
conclude that the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes
are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges,
nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
The Santa Catalina Island fox exhibits demographic characteristics
consistent with long-term viability. The population has continued to
increase over the past 11 years, reaching an estimated high of 1,852
individuals in 2013 (King and Duncan 2015, p. 11), then dropping
slightly to 1,717 in 2014 (King and Duncan 2014, p. 11). Population
viability analysis indicates the Santa Catalina Island fox population
has an acceptably small risk of extinction--less than 5 percent since
2008. With population levels consistent with long-term viability, the
intent of recovery objective 1 has been met for the Santa Catalina
Island fox. However, objective 2 has not been met because we do not
have assurance that the monitoring and management as prescribed in the
epidemic response plan for Santa Catalina Island foxes will be funded
and implemented in the future to ensure that the threat of disease
continues to be managed. While population levels are currently
consistent with long-term viability (indicating that the subspecies is
no longer in danger of extinction in the immediate future), lack of
adequate control of potential vectors along with lack of assured long-
term monitoring could allow for lapses in management and monitoring and
reemergence of disease that may cause epidemics and population declines
before they can be detected and acted upon. We have coordinated with
CIC to determine their ability to enter into an agreement to provide
assurances of long-term implementation of the epidemic response plan.
CIC indicated that they could not ensure availability of long-term
funding at this time that would allow them to commit to long-term
implementation of the epidemic response plan. Overall, we recognize
that CIC's efforts have significantly contributed to a reduction of
impacts to the Santa Catalina fox and its habitat on the island. As a
result, we have determined that the Santa Catalina Island fox is no
longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, but instead
is threatened with becoming endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. We, therefore, propose a change in status
for the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered species to a
threatened species at this time. Because we have determined the Santa
Catalina Island fox is likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, no portion of its range
can be significant for purposes of the definitions of endangered
species
[[Page 7738]]
or threatened species (see 79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) (also see
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis, below).
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes are not in danger of extinction, or likely to become so,
throughout all of their ranges, we next consider whether there are any
significant portions of their ranges in which the island foxes are in
danger of extinction or likely to become so. Under the Act and our
implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is an
endangered species or a threatened species. 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.'' On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy
interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79
FR 37578). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as an endangered species 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
endangered or threatened 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 USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes
any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is
endangered or threatened 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 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 will be required. Because we are proposing to list the
Santa Catalina Island fox as a threatened species under the Act, we are
not conducting an SPR analysis for this subspecies. If the species is
neither endangered nor threatened throughout all of its range, we
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened throughout a
significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the species as an
endangered species or a threatened species, respectively; if it is not,
we conclude that the species is neither an endangered species nor a
threatened species.
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 endangered or threatened 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. As
discussed above, to determine whether a portion of the range of a
species is significant, we consider whether, under a hypothetical
scenario, 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. This analysis considers
the contribution of that portion to the viability of the species based
on the conservation biology principles of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. (These concepts can similarly be expressed in terms of
abundance, spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity.) The
identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is
in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We must go through a
separate analysis to determine whether the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the SPR. To determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the
same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is
endangered or threatened throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address either the significance
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.''
Applying the process described above, we evaluated the respective
ranges of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa
Cruz Island fox to determine if any area could be considered a
significant portion of any one of the subspecies' range. As mentioned
above, one way to identify portions for further analyses is to identify
any natural divisions within the range that might be of individual
biological or conservation importance to the species. We conducted our
review based on examination of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015; entire)
and other relevant and more recent information on the biology and life
history of the northern Channel Island foxes. Because each of the three
northern Channel Island fox subspecies is a narrow endemic where the
foxes on each island
[[Page 7739]]
constitute a single population, we determined that there are no natural
divisions or separate areas of the range of each subspecies that
contribute separately to the conservation of that particular
subspecies. In other words, for each subspecies of island fox, there is
only one biologically defined portion, and there are no separate
portions that contribute incrementally to the conservation (i.e., to
the redundancy, resiliency, and representation of the species). We also
examined whether any portions might be endangered or threatened by
examining whether threats might be geographically concentrated in some
way. Although some of the factors we evaluated in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section, above, may continue to affect
each of the subspecies, the factors affecting island foxes generally
occur at similarly low levels throughout their ranges. The entire
population of each subspecies is equally affected by threats and by the
amelioration of such threats throughout their ranges. Based on our
evaluation of the biology of the subspecies and current and potential
threats to the island foxes, we conclude that no portion of the ranges
of the three subspecies of the northern Channel Islands foxes warrants
further consideration to determine if it is significant. In other
words, threats have been sufficiently ameliorated, and all individuals
and all portions of the range of each subspecies interact to such an
extent that it is not reasonable to conclude that any portion of the
range can have a different status than any other portion.
In conclusion, we find that the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox are no longer in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, nor
are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, at
this time, the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox no
longer meet the definitions of an endangered species or a threatened
species under the Act, and we propose to remove these species from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Act.
Effects of This Rulemaking
If this proposed rule is made final, it would revise 50 CFR
17.11(h) to remove the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island
foxes from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and would
reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered species to
a threatened species. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, or Santa Cruz Island foxes.
Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with the USFWS
under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out may affect the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, or Santa Cruz Island fox. As a result of their removal from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h), we
would also remove the entries at 50 CFR 17.95(a) (Critical habitat--
fish and wildlife) for the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes; currently, each entry specifies that no areas meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for the
applicable subspecies. We would retain the entry at 50 CFR 17.95(a) for
the Santa Catalina Island fox.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. A peer review panel will conduct an assessment of the
proposed rule, and the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposed delisting. This assessment will be completed during the
public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted (50 CFR
17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring is to
verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it
has been removed from the protections of the Act. The monitoring is
designed to detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain
itself without the protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any
time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of
the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate
with the States in development and implementation of post-delisting
monitoring programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with
section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases
of post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of
other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the
species' conservation post-delisting.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Overview
If we make this proposed rule final, the post-delisting monitoring
is designed to verify that northern Channel Island foxes (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) remain secure from risk of
extinction after their removal from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by detecting changes in population trend and
mortality/survival. Post-delisting monitoring for the northern Channel
Island fox subspecies would be conducted as recommended in the epidemic
response plan for northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013,
entire) and golden eagle management strategy (NPS 2015a, entire). These
documents are posted on https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/Ventura/.
Although the Act has a minimum post-delisting monitoring
requirement of 5 years, the draft post-delisting monitoring plan for
northern Channel Island foxes includes a 10-year monitoring period to
account for environmental variability (for example, extended drought)
that may affect fox populations and to document the range of population
fluctuation as fox populations reach carrying capacity. If a decline in
abundance is observed or a substantial new threat arises, post-
delisting monitoring may be extended or modified as described below.
Island foxes would be monitored for both population size and trend,
and for annual survival and cause-specific mortality, as specified by
the epidemic response plan for northern Channel island foxes (Hudgens
et al. 2013, entire) and the golden eagle management strategy (NPS
2015a, entire). Monitoring as recommended in these plans is currently
being implemented. Population size and trend are estimated using
capture-mark-recapture data from trapping foxes on grids (Rubin et al.
2007, p. 2-1; Coonan et al. 2014, p. 2). Such monitoring has
[[Page 7740]]
been implemented for island foxes since the late 1980s. The monitoring
provides a continuous record of population fluctuation, including
decline and recovery, upon which population viability analysis was used
to develop island fox demographic recovery objectives (Bakker and Doak
2009, entire; Bakker et al. 2009, entire).
Annual survival and cause-specific mortality of island foxes would
be monitored, as it is now, via tracking of radio-collared foxes.
Mortality checks would be conducted weekly on radio-collared foxes, and
necropsies would be conducted on fox carcasses to determine the cause
of mortality. A sample of at least 40 radio-collared foxes is
maintained on each island, as that is the number of monitored foxes
determined to be necessary to detect an annual predation rate of 2.5
percent (Rubin et al. 2007, p. 2-20). This level of radio-telemetry
monitoring is part of the epidemic response plan and the golden eagle
management strategy for island foxes on the northern Channel Islands
(Hudgens et al. 2013, pp. 7-11).
The USFWS, NPS, and TNC would annually review the results of
monitoring, which would include annual estimated adult population size,
annual adult survival, and identified causes of mortality. If there are
apparent sharp declines in population size and/or survival or the
appearance of significant mortality causes, the data would be reviewed
by the Island Fox Conservation Working Group for evaluation and
assessment of threat level. Monitoring results may also reach
thresholds which precipitate increased monitoring or implementation of
management actions, as specified in the epidemic response plan and
golden eagle management strategy. At the end of the 10-year post-
delisting monitoring period, USFWS, NPS, and TNC would determine
whether monitoring should continue beyond the 10-year monitoring
period.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48
FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, or upon request from the Field Supervisor,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is the Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office in Ventura, California, in coordination with the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office in Sacramento California, and the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office in Carlsbad, California.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, under MAMMALS, by:
0
a. Removing the entries for ``Fox, San Miguel Island'', ``Fox, Santa
Cruz Island'', and ``Fox, Santa Rosa Island''; and
0
b. Revising the entry for ``Fox, Santa Catalina Island'' to read as set
forth below.
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Fox, Santa Catalina Island....... Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA)........ Entire............. T 742 17.95(a) NA
catalinae.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7741]]
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by removing the entries for ``San Miguel Island
Fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis)'', ``Santa Cruz Island Fox (Urocyon
littoralis santacruzae)'', and ``Santa Rosa Island Fox (Urocyon
littoralis santarosae)''.
Dated: January 29, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-02669 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
