[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31663-31666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the Swift Fox as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 12-month
finding for a petition to list the swift for (Vulpes velox) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of all
available scientific and commercial information, the Service finds that
listing this species is warranted but precluded by other higher
priority actions to amend the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 12,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions concerning this petition
should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre,
South Dakota 57501-5408. The petition finding, supporting data, and
comments are available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald R. (Pete) Gober, Field Supervisor, at the above address,
telephone (605) 224-8693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition to
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that
contains substantial scientific and commercial information, the Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) make a finding within 12 months of the
date of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is
(a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded from
immediate proposal by other pending proposals of higher priority.
Notice of the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal
Register. This notice meets that requirement for a 12-month finding
made earlier for the petition discussed below. Information contained in
this notice is a summary of the information in the 12-month finding,
which is the Service's decision
[[Page 31664]]
document. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires that petitions for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded should be
treated as through resubmitted on the date of such finding, i.e.,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months.
A petition dated February 22, 1992, from Mr. Jon C. Sharps was
received by the Service on March 3, 1992. The petition requested the
Service to list the swift fox (Vulpes velox) as an endangered species
in the northern portion of its range, if not the entire range. A 90-day
finding was made by the Service that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. The
90-day finding was announced in the Federal Register on June 1, 1994
(59 FR 28328).
The Service has reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the
petition, other available literature and information, and has consulted
with biologists and researchers familiar with the swift fox. On the
basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, the
Service finds the petition presented information indicating that the
listing may be warranted but the immediate listing of the species is
precluded by work on other species having higher priority for listing.
The petition and its referenced documentation states that the swift
fox once occurred in abundant numbers throughout the species'
historical range. The species was known from the Canadian Prairie
Provinces south through Montana, eastern Wyoming, and North and south
Dakota to the Texas Panhandle. The petitioner asserts that the swift
fox has declined and is considered rare in the northern portion of its
range. The petitioner indicates that the swift fox is extremely
vulnerable to human activities such as trapping, hunting, automobiles,
agricultural conversion of habitat, and prey reduction from rodent
control programs. The petitioner requests that, at a minimum, the swift
fox be listed as an endangered species in Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Nebraska. Justification for such action as cited by the
petitioner includes the present status of the species and its habitat
in the petitioned area, the strong link to the prairie dog ecosystem,
the large distance from the kit (Vulpes macrotis)-swift fox zone of
intergradation, and the potential for these populations to contain the
northern subspecies (Vulpes velox hebes).
In 1970, the Service listed the northern swift fox as endangered
(35 FR 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation was removed in the United
States due to controversy over its taxonomy; however, the designation
as endangered in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July 25, 1980).
In 1970, the Service listed the northern swift fox as endangered
(35 FR 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation was removed in the United
States due to controversy over its taxonomy; however, the designation
as endangered in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July 25, 1980).
The Service reviewed information regarding the status of the swift
fox throughout its range. Historically, the swift fox was considered
abundant throughout the Great Plains and the Prairie Provinces of
Canada (Hall and Kelson 1959; Egoscue 1979; Zumbaugh and Choates 1985;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest 1991). Beginning in the
late 1800's to early 1900's, the swift fox declined in numbers, and the
northern population disappeared with the southern population decreasing
in numbers (Cary 1911; Warren 1942; Egoscue 1979; Bee et al. 1981;
FaunaWest 1991).
In the mid-1950's, the swift fox staged a limited comeback in
portions of its historical range (Long 1965; Kilgore 1969; McDaniel
1976; Sharps 1977; Hines 1980; FaunaWest 1991). However, this
reappearance was limited in nature and, in recent years, many of these
populations have again declined. Several factors are provided as
reasons for the decline of the species throughout much of its
historical range. These factors include (1) loss of nature prairie
habitat through conversion for agricultural production and mineral
extraction, (2) fragmentation of the remaining habitat, creating a less
suitable cropland-grassland habitat mosaic, (3) degradation of habitat
due to prairie-dog control activities, (4) predation and interspecific
competition, and (5) the species' vulnerability to human activities
such as predator control, trapping, shooting, and collisions with
automobiles (Hillman and Sharps 1978; Hines 1980; Armbruster 1983;
Uresk and Sharps 1986; Jones et al. 1987; Sharps 1989; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest 1991; Carbyn et al. 1992).
Currently, swift fox exist in highly disjunct populations in a
greatly reduced portion of the species' historical range (Hines 1980;
Jones et al. 1987; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; FunaWest 1991).
Swift fox are believed to be extirpated in North Dakota. Remnant
populations remain in Montana and Oklahoma. Small, disjunct populations
of unknown status remain in South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas,
Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. There is limited but encouraging
evidence that some reoccupation of its former range may be occurring in
Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. New Mexico also
appears to contain localized populations distributed throughout reduced
portions of the State's historical range. However, there has been no
biological or scientific evidence presented to the Service during the
extended status review period to confirm the viability or stability of
any of these populations. Seventy to 75 percent of remaining swift fox
populations are believed to reside on private lands, with the remaining
populations on Federal lands belonging to the U.S. forest Service, the
National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Department of the Army.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The following information is a summary and discussion of the five
factors or listing criteria as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing
provisions of the Act and their applicability to the current status of
the swift fox.
A. The Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range. The swift fox is a
prairie-dwelling species that generally requires 518 ha to 1,296 ha
(1,280 to 2,300 acres) of short to midgrass prairie habitat with
abundant prey to support a pair (Cameron 1984; Jones et al. 1987;
Rongstad et al. 1989; Jon Sharps, Wildlife Systems, pers. comm. 1993).
Swift fox habitat is comprised of level to gently sloping topography
containing an open view of the surrounding landscape (<15 percent
slope), abundant prey, and lack of predators and competitors (Cutter
1958a; Hillman and Sharps 1978; Hines 1980; Fitzgerald et al. 1983;
Lindberg 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest 1991;
Carbyn et al. 1992).
Historically, the species was distributed throughout the contiguous
short to midgrass prairie habitat from the south-central Prairie
Provinces in Canada to the southern portions of the western Great
Plains. In recent times, the swift fox has experienced a significant
reduction in its historic range due to a combination of human
activities. Based on current range-wide swift fox distribution
information, the Service estimates that the swift fox is extirpated
from 80 percent of its historical range. Within the remaining 20
percent of its historical range, swift fox populations exist in
scattered,
[[Page 31665]]
isolated pockets of remnant short to midgrass prairie habitat. The
Service estimates that swift fox may actually occupy only half of the
remaining 20 percent of its historical range.
Habitat loss and fragmentation has occurred due to a variety of
human activities such a agricultural conversion of the prairie and
mineral extraction. Beyond direct agricultural conversion, the
remaining short to midgrass prairie ecosystem has been significantly
altered due to creation of a grassland-cropland mosaic, with continued
reduction of the prairies rodent prey base and modification of the
native predator community. Roadways also alter the availability and
suitability of habitat, thus fragmenting swift fox habitat and exposing
them to traffic, trapping, shooting, predator control, and rodent
control.
B. Overutilization from commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Commercial trapping for other furbearers occurs
throughout the range of the swift fox. Often swift fox are harvested
incidental to commercial trapping for other furbearers such as coyotes
(McDaniel 1976; Sharps 1984; Jones et al. 1987; U.S. fish and wildlife
Service 1990). Unlike other furbearers, swift fox pelts are not
particularly valuable (Arnold 1925; Jones et al. 1987; FaunaWest 1991).
This lack of value and pelt quality has not completely stopped trade in
swift fox pelts. Protection is minimal because the swift fox is unwary
and naive, making it susceptible to trapping, ragardless of whether it
is the targeted species. Legal and/or incidental take of the species is
expected to continue.
The swift fox is legally harvested in four States (Colorado, New
Mexico, Kansas, and Texas). In Wyoming, it is a protected species by
virtue of its nongame status, but it is still legal to buy and sell
swift fox pelts. In addition, Wyoming has supplied 25 to 30 swift fox
per year to Canada for their recovery program. Harvest data received
from the above States is insufficient to assist the Service in the
determination of population trends or to determine the actual numbers
being legally harvested on an annual basis. The New Mexico data shows a
significant (95 percent) decrease in the kit-swift fox harvest in
recent years, but its significance relative to swift fox status cannot
be determined. The Colorado data shows that harvest of kit/swift fox
has decreased from a high of 3,322 animals during the 1981-1982 season
to 161 animals (fox) in 1990 and 373 animals in 1991, respectively.
Harvest data from Kansas indicates that between 1982 and 1994, 1,220
swift fox were harvested from approximately 23 counties located in the
western-most one-fourth of the State. Jones (1987) reports that
available harvest data from Texas is limited, but it shows an annual
harvest of between 300 and 500 animals.
C. Disease and predation. The effects of infectious diseases in
swift fox are relatively unknown. However, they are susceptible to most
diseases that plague canids (FaunaWest 1991). Studies conducted in
California on the kit fox noted canine parvovirus as a major disease
(FaunaWest 1991). Since parvovirus is found throughout the U.S. and is
fatal to domestic dogs, it is probably also fatal to swift foxes. Other
diseases documented in kit foxes include canine hepatitis, tularemia,
brucellosis, toxoplasmosis, and coccidiomycosis (FaunaWest 1991). Many
of these diseases are known to be widespread and their presence in
swift fox populations is highly probable.
Because of major changes to the faunal community of the western
Great Plains ecosystem, the swift fox has become extremely vulnerable
to predation from coyotes. Historically, the gray wolf (Canis lupus)
was the dominant canid in the Great Plains hierarchy. The gray wolf was
not considered a significant predator on swift fox and, because it
targeted large ungulates, it probably provided swift fox with a source
of carrion (Moravek 1990; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990;
FaunaWest 1991). The coyote and red fox, while widely distributed in
specific habitats, were not generally considered abundant because of
the wolf's dominant canid role in the western Great Plains ecosystem
(Johnson and Sargeant 1977). Coyotes are now the most abundant and
widely distributed canid on the Great Plains (Alan Sargeant, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1992). Studies have shown that
predation by coyotes has a severe impact on the survival of swift fox
(Robinson 1961; Reynolds 1986; Rongstad et al. 1989; Sharps 1989;
Moravek 1990; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; Carbyn et al. 1992).
Furthermore, the red fox, which historically existed in isolated
pockets on the Great Plains, expanded its distribution westward because
of agriculture development (Moravek 1990; A. Sargeant, pers. comm.
1992). Also red foxes undoubtedly compete with swift fox.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The swift fox is
listed as endangered in Nebraska, threatened in South Dakota, and is
protected by regulation in Wyoming. Despite having this protective
status, it is still legal to buy and sell swift fox pelts in Wyoming
(Bob Oakleaf, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1993). The
swift fox is listed as a furbearer in seven States (Colorado, Montana,
Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Texas) and it is
legally harvested in Colorado, Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico). In
Montana, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, no legal harvest of swift foxes is
allowed because of the species' rarity (Arnold Dood, Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, pers. comm. 1993; Sonja Jahrsdoerfer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1993; Randy Kreil, North Dakota
Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1993).
Since the swift fox is not federally protected and its pelts are of
little economic value, there is little effort by the States to
determine the status of the swift fox in their jurisdiction, even
though it is harvested legally or incidentally taken. Other than State
trapping regulations, there is little regulatory protection afforded
the swift fox or its habitat. Efforts by the States to modify
techniques to avoid the unintentional trapping of swift fox are
minimal.
E. Other man-made or natural factors affecting the species'
continued existence. The swift fox is inquisitive in nature, thus
making it extremely vulnerable to human activities. Swift fox are
easily trapped, shot, captured by dogs, or killed along country
roadsides (Kilgore 1969; Hillman and Sharps 1978; Hines 1980; Sharps
and Whitcher 1983; Uresk and Sharps 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1990; Dr. Clyde Jones, Texas Technology University, pers. comm.
1993). Additionally, swift fox are mistakenly taken for coyotes or by
people wishing to remove all canids for fear of livestock predation
(Zegers 1976).
Habitat loss and modification, rodent control programs, and other
human activities often reduce the prey base, impacting the species'
ability to find prey. Historically, the range of the swift fox and
prairie dog overlapped extensively (Hall and Kelson 1959; Sharps 1993).
Swift fox are extremely vulnerable to prey reduction caused by habitat
modification and prairie dog control programs (Hines 1980; Egoscue
1979; Sharps 1984; Sharps 1989; Uresk and Sharps 1986; Moravek 1990).
Where the prey base has been reduced, swift fox often seek out carrion
along roadsides (Hines 1980). Additionally, predator control in the
area is conducted by private individuals who use leg hold traps,
snares, and shoot animals (U.S. Fish Wildlife Service 1990; Sharps
1993; FaunaWest 1991).
[[Page 31666]]
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act states that the Service may make
warranted but precluded findings if it can demonstrate that an
immediate proposed rule is precluded by other pending proposals and
that expeditious progress is being made on other listing actions. Since
September 30, 1993, the Service has proposed the listing of 118 species
and has finalized the listing for 182 species. The Service believes
this demonstrates expeditious progress. Furthermore, on September 21,
1983 (48 FR 43098), the Service published a system for prioritizing
species for listing. This system considers 3 factors in assigning
species' numerical listing priorities on a scale of 1 to 12. The three
factors magnitude of threat, immediacy of threat, and taxonomic
distinctiveness.
After reviewing and considering the scientific merits and
significance of all comments, recommendations, and study proposals
received from State and Federal agencies and from private individuals
relative to the Service's 90-day Administrative Finding, the Service
has concluded that the magnitude of the threat to the swift fox is
moderate throughout its present range. The States of Kansas, Colorado,
and Wyoming have presented evidence that swift foxes have reoccupied
former prairie habitats and have also moved into agricultural lands.
However, scientific evidence also indicates that identifiable threats
to the swift fox exist over the entire 10-State range, and the Service
has concluded that the immediacy of these threats is ``imminent.'' The
Service, in its determination of the current degree of threat to the
species, also considered a long-range conservation strategy document
drafted by an interagency State team which provides a framework of
goals, objectives, and strategies. Implementation of this plan,
including the formation of a swift fox working team should help reduce
some of these threats to its survival. Having considered this draft
conservation strategy document and the significance of the evidence
provided by the aforementioned States, the Service believes that the
magnitude of threats is ``moderate'' but the immediacy of these threats
remains ``imminent.'' Therefore, a listing priority of 8 is assigned
for the species. The Service will reevaluate this warranted but
precluded finding 1 year from the date of the finding. If sufficient
new data or information becomes available in the future regarding the
magnitude of threats, abundance, and health of these swift fox
populations, the Service will reassess the status of the species. The
warranted but precluded finding elevates the swift fox's candidate
species status from category 2 to category 1.
The Service's 12-month finding contains more detailed information
regarding the above decisions. A copy may be obtained from the South
Dakota Field office (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in the rule is available upon
request from the South Dakota Field office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document is David A. Allardyce (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: June 12, 1995.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-14730 Filed 6-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M