[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67924-67929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22189]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT78


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final 
Determination Concerning Critical Habitat for the San Miguel Island 
Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa Catalina 
Island Fox

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The San Miguel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis), 
Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae), Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. 
santacruzae), and Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. catalinae) were 
listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), on March 5, 2004. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, do not find any habitat on the four islands occupied by the 
foxes that meets the definition of critical habitat under the Act. 
Because there is no habitat that meets the definition of critical 
habitat for these island fox subspecies, there is none to designate; 
therefore, we are not designating any critical habitat.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on December 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, 
Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the San Miguel Island fox, Santa 
Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox, contact Diane Noda, Field 
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address, 
(telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958). For the Santa 
Catalina Island fox, contact Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 
(telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information 
on the four island fox subspecies, refer to the March 5, 2004, final 
listing rule (69 FR 10335) and the October 7, 2004, proposed critical 
habitat rule (69 FR 60134).

Previous Federal Actions

    For information on previous Federal actions concerning the four 
island fox subspecies, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule (69 
FR 60134; October 7, 2004).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for four island fox subspecies in the 
proposed rule (69 FR 60134; October 7, 2004). We also contacted 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule.
    During the comment period that opened on October 7, 2004 and closed 
on December 6, 2004, we received three comments directly addressing the 
proposed critical habitat designation: two from peer reviewers and one 
from a member of the public. The State of California, where the islands 
on which these subspecies live are located, did not provide comments. 
The two peer reviewers who commented generally supported our proposal 
to not designate critical habitat for the island fox subspecies, 
although one thought additional research was needed. The other 
commenter opposed our proposal. Comments received are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. 
We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from two of the 
peer reviewers. One of the peer reviewers agreed with our conclusion in 
the proposed rule that designating critical habitat would not confer 
additional benefits to the conservation of the four island fox 
subspecies. This peer reviewer's extensive experience with the three

[[Page 67925]]

northern island fox subspecies lead him to believe that there is little 
habitat preferences among island foxes, although the foxes may use some 
habitats more than others. The other peer reviewer generally agreed 
with our proposal but suggested that, with additional study, one 
habitat type might be established as critical habitat for island fox 
subspecies (refer to Peer Review Comments below for additional 
details).
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical 
habitat for the four island fox subspecies, and we address them in the 
following summary.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: A peer reviewer familiar with the three northernmost 
island fox subspecies agreed with the Service's proposal to not 
designate critical habitat for those three island fox subspecies 
because: (1) Island foxes use many, if not all, of the habitats 
available to them on the northern Channel Islands; (2) habitat types on 
these three islands are in many cases less discrete than elsewhere, and 
designation of discrete critical habitat would be difficult; and (3) 
island fox habitat on the northern Channel Islands is already protected 
by the land management policies of the landowners, the National Park 
Service (NPS), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The experience of this 
peer reviewer with the three listed subspecies on the northern Channel 
Islands indicates that there is little habitat preference among island 
foxes and that habitat types on these islands are not discrete enough 
to facilitate designation and demarcation of habitat boundaries. The 
peer reviewer did not speak to the Santa Catalina Island subspecies 
because he does not have expertise with that island.
    The second peer reviewer agreed that the four subspecies of island 
fox are habitat generalists that utilize a wide variety of habitats, 
including coastal dune, grassland, and oak and pine woodland. However, 
his research results indicate at least a few habitats are used somewhat 
more by island foxes while others are used somewhat less. This 
reviewer's research indicated that native, perennial grasslands are 
used by island foxes more than exotic, annual grasslands and that, with 
additional research, native, perennial grasslands could possibly be 
viewed as a primary constituent element (PCE) for the foxes. The 
reviewer is further concerned that exotic, annual grasslands have 
replaced native, perennial grasslands in several areas on the islands. 
The reviewer suggested that the Service could resolve the question of 
the importance of perennial grasslands by: (1) Evaluating the 
significance of perennial grassland habitat to island fox foraging 
ecology and demography (the peer reviewer notes that an experimental 
approach to this evaluation would be the most beneficial); (2) 
quantifying the historic and current distribution of both native 
perennial grasslands and exotic, annual grasslands, and assessing the 
potential for habitat conversion from native, perennial grasslands to 
exotic, annual grasslands; and (3) if native, perennial grasslands were 
shown to be important to foxes, identifying alternative management 
actions that would provide for the conservation of this native habitat.
    Our Response: As noted by both peer reviewers, island foxes are 
habitat generalists and use all the habitats available on the islands. 
One reviewer pointed out that, in some situations, island foxes use 
native, perennial grasslands more than exotic, annual grasslands. 
However, the fact that island foxes may use native, perennial 
grasslands more than exotic, annual grasslands does not by itself 
signify that perennial grasslands contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species. Critical habitat is defined in section 
3(5)(A) of the Act as (i) the specific areas within the geographical 
area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with 
the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require 
special management considerations or protection. The reviewer noted 
that, with additional research and experimentation, native, perennial 
grasslands may be determined to meet the definition of critical 
habitat. However, we must use the best available science available to 
us at this time to make our decision. If research results become 
available in the future and suggest that there are features essential 
to fox conservation that meet the definition of critical habitat, as 
appropriate, the Service will revisit this critical habitat 
determination.

Comments Related to Policy Issues

    (2) Comment: A commenter challenged statements in the proposed rule 
that the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value 
for most listed species and stated that species with critical habitat 
are twice as likely to recover as species without designated critical 
habitat.
    Our Response: We have not been able to independently verify 
commenter's claim that species with critical habitat are twice as 
likely to recover as species without critical habitat. Of the 14 
species delisted or proposed for delisting under the Act, only 3 had 
designated critical habitat. We believe that, in most cases, 
cooperative conservation through voluntary measures, our grant 
programs, and the recovery planning process along with regulatory 
measures such as section 7 consultations, the section 9 protective 
prohibitions of unauthorized take, and the section 10 incidental take 
permit process provide greater incentives and conservation benefits 
than does the designation of critical habitat.
    (3) Comment: A commenter challenged statements in the proposed rule 
that critical habitat designations, and litigation to compel the 
Service to make them, consumes a significant amount of the agency's 
resources and is unduly burdensome for that reason.
    Our Response: Through two administrations, the FWS has provided 
information and testimony regarding the relatively few benefits 
provided by critical habitat. Nevertheless, we have also proceeded with 
designation of such habitat. In the case of the island fox, we are not 
designating any critical habitat because there is no habitat that meets 
the definition. As a result, the relative worth of a designation is not 
an issue.

Comments Related to the Proposal To Not Designate Any Critical Habitat

    (4) Comment: A commenter stated that, in the final listing rule for 
the island foxes (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), the Service found that 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the San Miguel, Santa 
Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina island fox subspecies. However, in 
the proposed critical habitat rule (69 FR 60134; October 7, 2004), the 
Service concluded that there is no habitat that meets the definition of 
critical habitat. The Service has not provided an adequate or rational 
justification for why it has reversed its position.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that we designate 
critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at 
the time a species is listed as endangered or threatened. Designation 
is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) 
The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or (2) such designation of 
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. Although we 
determined in the March 5, 2004, final listing rule

[[Page 67926]]

that designation of critical habitat was prudent for the island foxes, 
in the proposed critical habitat rule, we found there is no habitat on 
the four islands occupied by the foxes that meets the definition of 
critical habitat under the Act. Critical habitat is defined under the 
Act as ``specific areas on which are found those physical or biological 
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that 
may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) 
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the 
time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species.'' We have found no areas on the 
four islands occupied by island foxes that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the species' conservation and that may 
require special management. Accordingly, we have determined to 
designate no critical habitat for the four island fox subspecies. Also, 
there are no specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time they were listed that are essential for the 
conservation of the species. As noted by the two peer reviewers who 
commented on the proposed critical habitat rule, the four subspecies of 
island foxes are habitat generalists that use all habitats available on 
the islands. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that any specific areas 
are essential to the conservation of the foxes, and thus, there are no 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. For further 
discussion, see the Critical Habitat section of this document. 
Accordingly, we have not reversed our position. We in the past made a 
general finding that designation of critical habitat would be prudent, 
in accordance with the statutory and regulatory standards for making 
that finding. However, when we examined the issue more closely, 
preparing to making an actual proposal, we found no habitat that met 
the statutory and regulatory standards for designation as critical 
habitat. These are unrelated issues.
    (5) Comment: A commenter stated that it cannot reasonably be 
disputed that the foxes need some habitat to survive and recover. If 
all of the islands can effectively be used by the foxes (assuming all 
populations recover to the point where they can exist in the wild), 
then all of the four islands, which constitute the entirety of the 
foxes' extremely limited range, should be designated as critical 
habitat.
    Our Response: The Act defines critical habitat in part as 
``specific areas on which are found those physical or biological 
features (i) essential to the conservation of the species.'' We agree 
with the commenter that the island foxes require habitat in order to be 
recovered and that the foxes are able to use the habitat in existence 
on each of the four islands. However, critical habitat does not require 
nor demand the designation of a species' entire range; in fact, 
Congress has expressly cautioned us against that. Here, we have 
determined that the island foxes do not require specific types of 
habitats, but rather are habitat generalists. As such, we are unable to 
identify any physical or biological features essential to the four 
island fox subspecies' conservation that may require special 
management, and thus have found no habitat that meets the Act's 
definition of critical habitat.
    (6) Comment: The commenter stated the Service's contention that 
there are no current or anticipated threats to the island habitat (69 
FR 60135) is disingenuous because in the final listing rule for the 
four subspecies of island fox, the Service stated that over the last 
150 years, habitat on all the islands where the island fox occurs has 
been affected by livestock grazing, cultivation, and other 
disturbances.
    Our Response: Although many, if not all, the habitats used by 
island foxes on the three northern Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa 
Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island) have been altered, the island foxes 
thrived in these altered habitats prior to the dramatic declines that 
led to their endangered status. These declines were not the result of 
threats to any of the habitats used by the four subspecies, but rather 
were due to predation and disease. It wasn't until golden eagles 
(Aquila chrysaetos) became established on the islands that island fox 
numbers declined dramatically. Even if all the habitats on these 
islands were restored to a pristine condition, the island foxes cannot 
recover to their previous abundance until predation by golden eagles is 
eliminated or reduced dramatically. Similarly, the population of Santa 
Catalina Island fox did not decline until a severe outbreak of canine 
distemper occurred. For all four subspecies, habitat does not appear to 
be a factor limiting the current population growth rate, nor is it 
likely to limit future population growth.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In developing the final designation of critical habitat for the 
four subspecies of island fox, we reviewed public comments received on 
the proposed designation of critical habitat (69 FR 60134; October 7, 
2004) and incorporated these comments as appropriate in this final 
rule. We also updated the numbers of island foxes in captivity and in 
the wild where appropriate. We are not aware of any new, significant, 
biological or management information for the four subspecies that would 
make us reconsider the provisions of our proposed rule. While we have 
made no major changes to the rule, we have made a minor administrative 
change: Instead of adding text pertaining to the four subspecies of 
island fox to 50 CFR 17.97 as proposed, we are adding text to 50 CFR 
17.95.

Background

    Since the proposed critical habitat was published (October 7, 2004; 
69 FR 60134), there have been additional releases of island foxes on 
both Santa Rosa Island and San Miguel Island; several foxes have been 
killed by golden eagles on Santa Rosa Island. Currently, on Santa Rosa 
Island there are at least 14 foxes in the wild and 50 foxes in 
captivity. On San Miguel Island, there are at least 10 foxes in the 
wild and 48 in captivity. Wild foxes on both islands are successfully 
reproducing (Tim Coonan, NPS, pers. comm. 2005).

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that we designate critical habitat, 
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species 
is listed as endangered or threatened. Designation is not prudent when 
one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is 
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of 
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat 
to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not 
be beneficial to the species.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as (i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures 
that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to 
the point at which

[[Page 67927]]

listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    In the March 5, 2004, final listing rule, we determined that 
designation of critical habitat was prudent for the island foxes. As 
discussed more fully below, we now find that there are no ``specific 
areas on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require 
special management considerations or protection.'' Further, there are 
no ``specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by [the] 
species at the time it [was] listed that are essential for the 
conservation of the species.''
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in determining which 
areas to propose as critical habitat, we are required to base critical 
habitat determinations on the best scientific data available. The Act 
defines critical habitat as ``the specific areas within the geographic 
area occupied by the species * * * on which are found those physical or 
biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species * 
* * '' According to the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, these features 
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population 
growth and for normal behavior; nutritional or physiological 
requirements, such as food, water, air, light, or minerals; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological distribution 
of a species.
    The island fox, however, is a habitat generalist in all aspects of 
its life history. It does not require particular habitats for food, 
cover, breeding, and denning sites. The foxes are opportunistic 
omnivores, eating a wide variety of plants (e.g., grass, fruits, and 
berries) and animals (e.g., insects, birds, and mice) in whatever 
habitat they use (69 FR 10336). As such, the foxes use all habitat 
available on each of the islands, including riparian, oak woodland, 
pine woodland, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, maritime scrub, and 
grasslands. In general, some of these habitats contain cover from 
aerial predation, however, the nature of the cover is not habitat 
specific. Island fox reproduction is also not limited to a specific 
habitat, as they are known to locate their simple den sites in any 
habitat where they find natural shelter (e.g., brush pile, rock 
crevice, hollow stump, or log) (Laughrin 1977). The island foxes 
thrived in these islands prior to the dramatic declines that led to 
their endangered status. These declines were not the result of threats 
to any of the habitats used by the four subspecies. It wasn't until 
golden eagles became established on the islands that island fox numbers 
declined dramatically on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel 
Islands. Similarly, the population of Santa Catalina Island fox did not 
decline until a severe outbreak of canine distemper occurred. We are 
not aware of any existing or anticipated threats to the island habitats 
that would likely affect island foxes. Accordingly, there is currently 
no information to support a conclusion that any specific habitat within 
these areas is essential. Therefore, we do not believe there are areas 
within the subspecies' habitat that contain specific features essential 
to the conservation of the island fox.
    Adverse effects to the fox that have occurred on the Channel 
Islands have been a result of direct threats to individuals rather than 
to island fox habitat (e.g., disease (canine distemper) and predation 
from golden eagles). Although the habitat of island foxes on all 
islands has been subject to substantial human-induced changes over the 
past 150 years, these changes are unlikely to have directly caused the 
observed declines. These subspecies' precarious situations derive 
almost entirely from golden eagle predation and canine distemper rather 
than from any habitat degradation or loss. Furthermore, habitat does 
not appear to be a factor limiting the current population growth rate, 
nor is it likely to limit future population growth. We believe that 
island fox conservation depends on addressing threats not related to 
habitat.
    As discussed above, declines have been caused largely by predation 
and disease. A critical habitat designation would provide no benefit/
assistance in reducing the effects of predation and disease on 
individual foxes because the regulatory effects of critical habitat 
designations apply to adverse modification or destruction of habitat, 
rather than the particular effects that are causing mortality of 
individual foxes. Moreover, we note that the current threats, predation 
and disease, are being addressed by the conservation actions of the 
NPS, TNC, and Catalina Island Conservancy (CIC) on the islands.
    At the time of listing (March 2004), there were no foxes in the 
wild on San Miguel Island (all San Miguel Island foxes were in captive 
breeding facilities located on San Miguel Island). However, since the 
time of listing, foxes have been released back into the wild on San 
Miguel Island. Additional foxes have also been released on Santa Rosa 
Island since the time of listing. We consider all of the islands to be 
occupied by island foxes at the present time. Although we are not 
designating any critical habitat for any of the four subspecies, areas 
occupied by island foxes will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. The take prohibitions of section 9 (e.g., 
prohibitions against killing, harming, harassing, capturing foxes) also 
continue to apply.
    In accordance with the Act, a critical habitat designation can 
include areas outside the species' range at the time of listing if we 
determine that these areas are essential to the conservation of the 
species. We have not found any areas unoccupied at the time of listing 
or outside of the current range of the four island subspecies to be 
essential for their conservation.
    In summary, we do not find any habitat on the subject islands that 
meets the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act. 
Because there is no habitat that meets the definition of critical 
habitat for the four island fox subspecies, there is none to designate, 
and we are not designating any critical habitat for any of the four 
subspecies.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, 
but will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline 
for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. This rule does not 
designate any areas as critical habitat, and therefore, we did not 
prepare an economic analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Because no critical habitat is being designated in this rule, there 
are no economic effects, and we did not prepare an economic analysis.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule does 
not designate critical habitat for the four island fox subspecies.

[[Page 67928]]

Therefore, no regulatory effects will derive from this action; it is 
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), the Service makes the following findings: (a) This rule will 
not produce a Federal mandate, and (b) we do not believe that this rule 
will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because we are 
not designating any areas of critical habitat, this rule will result in 
no regulatory impact on any entities.

Takings

    This rule does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    We are not designating critical habitat in this final rule, and 
therefore this final rule does not have significant federalism effects. 
A federalism assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We are not proposing to designate any areas as critical habitat. It 
is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act in connection with designating critical habitat under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts 
of the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 
Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
tribes on a government-to-government basis. We are not designating any 
areas as critical habitat. No tribal lands are essential for the 
conservation of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa 
Cruz Island fox, or Santa Catalina Island fox.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entries for ``Fox, San Miguel 
Island,'' ``Fox, Santa Catalina Island,'' ``Fox, Santa Cruz Island,'' 
and ``Fox, Santa Rosa Island'' under ``MAMMALS'' in the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species                                                   Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical
                                                         Historic  range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat    Special rules
           Common name              Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals                                                                             ..............  ...........  ...........  .............
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Fox, San Miguel Island..........  Urocyon littoralis   U.S.A. (CA)........  Entire.............  E                       742     17.95(a)  NA
                                   littoralis.
Fox, Santa Catalina Island......  Urocyon littoralis   U.S.A. (CA)........  Entire.............  E                       742     17.95(a)  NA
                                   catalinae.
Fox, Santa Cruz Island..........  Urocyon littoralis   U.S.A. (CA)........  Entire.............  E                       742     17.95(a)  NA
                                   santacruzae.
Fox, Santa Rosa Island..........  Urocyon littoralis   U.S.A. (CA)........  Entire.............  E                       742     17.95(a)  NA
                                   santarosae.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (a) by adding entries for San Miguel 
Island Fox, Santa Catalina Island Fox, Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa 
Rosa Island Fox, in the same alphabetical order as these species occur 
in the table at Sec.  17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *

[[Page 67929]]

    San Miguel Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis)
    We have determined that no areas meet the definition of critical 
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for San Miguel Island fox. 
Therefore, no specific areas are designated as critical habitat for 
this subspecies.
Santa Catalina Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis catalinae)
    We have determined that no areas meet the definition of critical 
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for Santa Catalina Island fox. 
Therefore, no specific areas are designated as critical habitat for 
this subspecies.
Santa Cruz Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis santacruzae)
    We have determined that no areas meet the definition of critical 
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for Santa Cruz Island fox. 
Therefore, no specific areas are designated as critical habitat for 
this subspecies.
Santa Rosa Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis santarosae)
    We have determined that no areas meet the definition of critical 
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for Santa Rosa Island fox. 
Therefore, no specific areas are designated as critical habitat for 
this subspecies.
* * * * *

    Dated: November 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-22189 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P