[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