[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53315-53333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18778]


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

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:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 
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 are reclassifying the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. 
catalinae) from an endangered species to a threatened species. This 
action 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 also announce the availability of a final post-
delisting monitoring plan for the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa 
Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox.

DATES: This rule is effective September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office's Web 
site at http://www.fws.gov/Ventura/. Comments, materials, and 
supporting documentation considered in this rulemaking are available on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2015-0170, and are available for public inspection by appointment, 
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

[[Page 53316]]

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, 
CA 93003; by telephone 805-644-1766; or by facsimile 805-644-3958. The 
post-delisting monitoring plan for the San Miguel Island fox, Santa 
Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox is available on our 
Endangered Species Program's national Web site (http://endangered.fws.gov) and on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170.

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; telephone 805-644-1766; 
facsimile 805-644-3958. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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) (Service 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12521), with the 
notice announcing the availability of the final recovery plan. On 
February 16, 2016, we published in the Federal Register a status review 
and proposed rule (81 FR 7723) 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.

Background

    Please refer to the final Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of 
Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) (Service 2015, entire) for a summary of 
background information on island fox taxonomy, life history, and 
distribution. We prepared the Recovery Plan by working with a Recovery 
Team that included public agency representatives, landowners, 
conservancies, zoological institutions, nonprofits, 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.

Range of the Species

    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. 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). We recognize the range of each subspecies 
to be the island that it inhabits. Islands inhabited by island foxes 
are owned by four major landowners: the National Park Service (NPS), 
the U.S. Navy, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Santa Catalina 
Island Conservancy (CIC), all of whom have management authority for 
wildlife on their lands. NPS and TNC manage San Miguel Island, Santa 
Rosa Island, and Santa Cruz Island; in this rule, we reference these 
three islands as the northern Channel Islands CIC manages the majority 
of fox habitat on Santa Catalina Island, except the City of Avalon. 
Santa Catalina Island is the only island with a permanent human 
population. Human use of the three northern Channel Islands is 
restricted to visitors and NPS and TNC staff.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We did not make substantive changes in this final rule based on the 
comments that we received during the public comment period, but we 
added text to clarify some information presented in the proposed rule, 
added new information to the climate change analysis, and revised 
population data to reflect information updated since the publication of 
the proposed rule. For example, peer reviewers recommended we include 
information about genetic variability present in the current island fox 
populations and new information about climate change. This information 
and other clarifications are incorporated into the final rule where 
appropriate, including in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations, 
below.

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. We published a notice 
announcing the availability of the final recovery plan for the San 
Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and 
Santa Catalina Island fox on March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12521).
    The recovery plan (Service 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 species to 
threatened species and to remove island fox subspecies from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Please see the February 16, 2016, 
proposed rule (81 FR 7723) for a detailed discussion of the recovery 
goal, objectives, and criteria and how they apply to the status of the 
San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, 
and Santa Catalina Island fox. The objectives and progress toward these 
objectives (measured by explicit criteria) are summarized below.

Recovery Objectives

    Recovery objectives identify mechanisms for measuring progress 
toward and achieving the recovery goal of delisting 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 (Aquila chrysaetos) 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

[[Page 53317]]

objectives 1 and 2 should be met for that subspecies.
    Island fox recovery criteria are measurable standards for 
determining whether a subspecies has achieved its recovery objectives 
and may be considered for downlisting or delisting. Island fox recovery 
criteria in the recovery plan (Service 2015, pp. 50-55) are organized 
by factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act to demonstrate how criteria 
indicate threats under that factor have been ameliorated. The following 
is a summary of the recovery criteria.
    To address recovery objective 1, 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 as determined by use of the 
population viability graphing/analysis tool found in appendix 2 of the 
recovery plan (Service 2015, pp. 131-136).
    To address recovery objective 2, the magnitude and imminence of 
disease and predation threats must be reduced. This is accomplished 
when the following has occurred:
    C/1: Golden eagle predation (applies only to the northern Channel 
Islands): 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, and the golden eagle 
prey base of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and Roosevelt elk (Cervus 
canadensis roosevelti) is removed from Santa Rosa Island.
    C/2: Disease: A disease management strategy is developed, approved, 
and implemented that includes vaccination recommendations and 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.
    Population monitoring has been implemented for each listed 
subspecies, and population viability analyses using the graphing/
analysis tool found in appendix 2 of the recovery plan (Service 2015, 
pp. 131-136) 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 2015, island fox populations had increased 
to greater than 700 individuals on San Miguel Island, greater than 
1,200 on Santa Rosa Island (Guglielmino and Coonan 2016, pp. 12, 18), 
greater than 2,100 on Santa Cruz Island (Boser 2016a, pers. comm.), and 
greater than 1,800 on Santa Catalina Island (King and Duncan 2016, p. 
10). 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 (the maximum 
population size of a species that the habitat can support) (Coonan 
2015a, p. 8). We conclude, based on population viability analyses, that 
recovery objective 1 is achieved for all four island fox subspecies. 
Detailed results of the graphing/analysis tool through 2015 can be 
found in the supplementary material ``Results of graphing/analysis tool 
to assess island fox recovery criterion E/1'' (derived from Guglielmino 
and Coonan 2016, pp. 17, 22; Boser 2016b, pers. comm.; King and Duncan 
2016, p. 13) on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170.
    To ensure that land managers are able to respond in a timely 
fashion to predation by golden eagles, a final golden eagle management 
strategy has been approved (NPS 2015a, entire), and is being 
implemented by NPS and TNC. The strategy outlines actions, many of 
which have already been implemented by 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 deer 
and elk from Santa Rosa Island.
    To ensure that land managers are able to respond in a timely 
fashion to a potential or incipient disease outbreak, the epidemic 
response plans for northern Channel Islands foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, 
entire) and Santa Catalina Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2014, entire) 
are currently implemented by NPS, TNC, and CIC. These plans provide 
direction for monitoring, vaccination for canine distemper virus and 
rabies annually to a subset of each island fox population, and response 
if mortality is detected. Additionally, NPS and TNC are committed 
through signed conservation management agreements (CMAs) to monitor and 
conduct other management actions for detecting and appropriately 
responding to predation by golden eagles or a potential disease 
outbreak in the future, as recommended in the golden eagle management 
strategy and epidemic response plans (Service and NPS 2015; Service and 
TNC 2015). The golden eagle management strategy and epidemic response 
plans are found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170 and on our Endangered Species Program's 
national Web site (http://endangered.fws.gov).
    With the golden eagle management strategy in place, complete 
removal of golden eagles and their nonnative prey-base from the 
northern Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 
Islands), development and implementation of an epidemic response plan, 
and population levels consistent with long-term viability, recovery 
objectives 1 and 2, and the associated recovery criteria, are met for 
the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes. With 
population levels consistent with long-term viability, recovery 
objective 1 is met for the Santa Catalina Island fox. However, 
objective 2 has not been met for the Santa Catalina Island fox because 
currently there are no assurances that current monitoring and 
management actions will continue in the future, and, because Santa 
Catalina Island has an elevated risk compared to the northern Channel 
Islands of introduced pathogens from the mainland, a disease outbreak 
could occur without detection or appropriate response to mediate the 
threat to the subspecies.

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, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. ``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 or delisted on the same basis.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. 
Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of 
whether the species is endangered or

[[Page 53318]]

threatened because of the five categories of threats specified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as 
endangered 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.'' The population viability analyses used to 
determine the risk of quasi-extinction (the population level below 
which extinction is likely due to demographic or genetic effects), 
which we define as a population size of less than or equal to 30 
individuals for each subspecies, estimates risk over a 50-year period 
(Bakker et al. 2009, entire; Service 2015, p. 52). Therefore, we 
estimate 50 years to be the timeframe in which, given the amount and 
substance of the best available data, we can anticipate events or 
effects, or reliably extrapolate threat trends, 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). 
Consequently, we have assessed the threats discussed in this rule with 
reference to this 50-year foreseeable future timeframe.
    The word ``range'' in the significant portion of its range phrase 
in the definition of endangered species and threatened species refers 
to the range in which a species currently exists. For the purposes of 
this analysis, we first evaluate the status of each subspecies 
throughout its range, which we consider to be the island that any given 
island fox subspecies inhabits. We then consider whether any of the 
subspecies are in danger of extinction or likely to become so in any 
significant portion of their ranges.
    Primary threats to island foxes identified in the March 5, 2004, 
listing rule (69 FR 10335) include predation by golden eagles, disease, 
and stochastic risks to small populations and lack of genetic 
variability. Since the listing, impacts of feral cat aggression, 
poisoning, and entrapment on Santa Catalina Island, and fire, drought, 
and global climate change for all four islands were identified as 
possible new threats. A thorough analysis and discussion of the current 
status of the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina 
Island foxes are found in the recovery plan (Service 2015, pp. 21-29) 
and 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 
(81 FR 7723; February 16, 2016). 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.

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 (i.e., feral sheep, goats, rabbits, cattle, horses, 
Roosevelt elk, mule deer, and pigs) and nonnative plant invasion was 
identified as a threat under Factor A impacting island foxes (69 FR 
10335; March 5, 2004). The impacts of nonnative herbivores and 
nonnative plants resulted in conversion of native coastal sage scrub, 
chaparral, and oak woodlands to annual grasses. Annual grasslands 
constitute less preferred habitat for island foxes (Laughrin 1977, p. 
22; Roemer and Wayne 2003, pp. 1,256-1,257) and do not provide cover 
from predators such as golden eagles (Roemer 1999, pp. 99, 190-191). 
Annual grasslands also offer fewer food resources to foxes, and the 
seeds of annual grasses can become lodged in the eyes of island foxes, 
causing damage or temporary blindness (Laughrin 1977, p. 41).
    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 and island foxes (Laughrin 1973, p. 14; 
Schoenherr et al. 1999, pp. 191-194; Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636; Jones 
et al. 2016, p. 2). Currently, impacts to island fox habitats are 
primarily attributed to continued modification by nonnative plant 
species, resulting in lower vegetation diversity, less diverse habitat 
structure, and reduced food availability.
    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; NPS staff would continue to 
eradicate, where feasible, nonnative flora and fauna from the islands.
    The majority of island fox habitat on all four islands is currently 
in some form of conservation ownership and management by NPS, TNC, or 
CIC. Therefore, we expect that habitat loss as a result of conversion 
due to development would be rare or limited. However, there is the 
potential for some development on privately owned lands that are not in 
conservation ownership. The island fox, as the species Urocyon 
littoralis (incorporating all six subspecies), is listed as threatened 
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which provides a 
level of protection from possession or intentional killing of 
individual animals. CESA may also authorize take incidental to 
otherwise lawful activities, such as development on the privately owned 
TNC-managed lands on Santa Cruz Island and privately owned lands on 
Santa Catalina Island. For habitat conversion resulting from authorized 
development projects, minimization and mitigation of impacts resulting 
from authorized take are required under CESA and the environmental 
review process under the California Environmental Quality Act. Santa 
Catalina Island foxes are most likely to be impacted by the potential 
for land-use change on non-conserved lands, including development and 
recreational activities. 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 (i.e., feral sheep, cattle, Roosevelt elk, mule deer, 
and pigs), nonnative plant invasion, and land-use change on non-
conserved lands may continue to have some negative effects on island 
foxes, nonnative animals and plants no longer result in significant 
habitat impacts that could affect the island fox subspecies at either 
the population or rangewide scales that we would consider a current 
threat to any of the subspecies of island fox.

[[Page 53319]]

Additionally, given planned continued management by NPS and other land 
owners, we do not anticipate that nonnative animals and plants will 
have significant habitat impacts 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 no longer occur. 
Research scientists are currently engaged in recovery activities via 
Service-issued section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits. Researchers 
conducting studies on NPS property must have a valid Research and 
Collecting Permit through NPS. The State of California requires a 
Scientific Collecting Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to 
collect, capture, mark, or salvage species listed as threatened under 
CESA for scientific and educational purposes (Fish and Game Code 
section 1002; and title 14, sections 650 and 670.7). Currently, none of 
the four subspecies is being threatened by overutilization for any 
purposes, and we expect, even without the protections of the Act, 
research activities to be managed by the State and by land management 
agencies to ensure that such activities do not result in 
overutilization in the future.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    For Santa Catalina Island fox at the time of listing, a canine 
distemper virus (CDV) epidemic was considered the primary threat (69 FR 
10335; March 5, 2004) to the subspecies. The listing rule also 
expressed some concern regarding the potential impacts of canine 
adenovirus and canine parvovirus. For the northern Channel Islands 
foxes (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) at the time 
of listing, golden eagle predation was the primary threat (69 FR 10335; 
March 5, 2004), but potential for disease was also a concern, 
particularly given the small population sizes at the time.
Disease
    Santa Catalina Island: 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 
1,812 individuals island-wide in 2015 (King and Duncan 2016, p. 10).
    In 2014, a final epidemic response plan was approved and is being 
implemented by CIC to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a 
potential future disease outbreak for Santa Catalina Island foxes 
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). CIC annually monitors sentinel foxes 
(unvaccinated, radio-collared foxes whose death will be detected by 
monitoring) 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.). However, production of the CDV vaccine was 
discontinued and was not available in 2013. CIC vaccinated for both CDV 
and rabies in 2013 and 2014 with the last of the vaccine (King and 
Duncan 2015, pp. 13, 23). A new product was made available in 2015 
(King and Duncan 2016, p. 9); however, the new vaccine does not appear 
to be as effective against CDV, and the authors suggest this is not an 
adequate replacement (King and Duncan 2016, p. 23). While foxes have 
been vaccinated and we expect vaccinations to continue as effective 
vaccines become available, efficacy and availability of vaccines will 
require ongoing evaluation by the Island Fox Conservation Working Group 
as part of implementing the epidemic response plan. The Island Fox 
Conservation Working Group is a multi-disciplinary group of experts, 
originally convened by NPS in 1999, to evaluate available island fox 
status information and develop strategies to recover the island fox 
populations to viable levels (Service 2015, p. 6).
    In addition, ear tumor prevalence in the Santa Catalina Island fox 
population remains an actively managed source of mortality (Vickers et 
al. 2011, pp. 9-10). 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).
    While CIC is currently implementing ongoing monitoring and 
management, at this time there is no assurance of continued funding for 
long-term monitoring and management that could detect a novel disease 
outbreak and facilitate threat abatement, as recommended in the 
epidemic response plan. Lack of assurances for long-term monitoring and 
management for Santa Catalina Island fox is of particular concern 
because the island has a permanent human population, experiences heavy 
visitation, and has many points of access. The presence of a permanent 
human population on the island poses a greater risk of disease 
introduction than that for the northern Channel Islands. CIC manages 
the majority of fox habitat on the island but does not manage the City 
of Avalon, and, therefore, CIC does not control all potential avenues 
for introduction of possible disease vectors. 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, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 
and 2014, pers. obs.; King 2015, p. 22). Transport of domestic and wild 
animals to and from Santa Catalina Island and their presence on the 
island increases the risk to island foxes of another disease outbreak. 
Additionally, with unrestricted access to the island by residents and 
visitors, there is the possibility of inadvertently transporting other 
animals that could carry disease; 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). 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). Because access to the island by potentially 
unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated domestic animals is not 
controlled or managed, there is a higher risk of disease introduction 
for Santa Catalina Island than for the three northern Channel Islands.
    CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on the island (but not the 
City of Avalon) and implements measures

[[Page 53320]]

intended to control introduction of disease. CIC regulations require 
all nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed; they also 
require that all dogs and cats entering CIC property be vaccinated 
against distemper and rabies, and be leashed at all times (CIC 2015, 
http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). However, 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 CIC does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas 
regularly. CIC also conducts outreach and education of local 
authorities and the public to promote efforts to reduce the risk of 
disease introduction. However, because of unrestricted transport of 
domestic animals to the island, the City of Avalon's limited 
vaccination requirements, and limited enforcement ability of CIC, 
current measures to control introduction of diseases by domestic 
animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while providing 
some protection, are limited.
    Northern Channel Islands: Disease does not appear to be a 
significant mortality factor on the northern Channel Islands. Dogs and 
other pets are not permitted on the northern Channel Islands to reduce 
the risk of an introduced disease. Dogs are occasionally illegally 
brought onto the islands, but transport of domestic animals to the 
northern Channel Islands is much more limited than on Santa Catalina 
Island. 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 by NPS and TNC to detect and facilitate appropriate 
response to a potential disease outbreak for the northern Channel 
Islands (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). Infection by parasites continues 
to be suspected as the cause of mortality in several island foxes, but 
is not considered a significant mortality factor (Coonan et al. 2005b, 
p. 38; Coonan 2014, p. 6). Sentinel foxes are also monitored on the 
northern Channel Islands to facilitate early detection of a potential 
epidemic (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire), and foxes have been and 
continue to be vaccinated against CDV and rabies. Efficacy and 
availability of vaccines will require ongoing evaluation by the Island 
Fox Conservation Working Group as part of implementing the epidemic 
response plan. Also, the NPS identified island foxes as an ecosystem 
element in the Mediterranean Coast Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan, 
for which they will conduct long-term annual population monitoring as 
part of NPS's long-term ecological monitoring program, regardless of 
the island fox's status under the Act (Cameron et al. 2005, p. 3-3). 
Both NPS and TNC have committed through signed CMAs (Service and NPS 
2015; Service and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management 
actions in the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan for 
northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire).
    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. The possibility is greater for Santa Catalina Island 
due to a permanent human population, heavy visitation, and many points 
of access. On all islands, an epidemic response plan is approved and 
being implemented (Hudgens et al. 2013 and 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 (Service 2015)). NPS and TNC have committed (Service and NPS 2015; 
Service and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions 
in 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 now and in 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 increased risk of disease 
introduction and 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 now and in the future.
Predation
    As identified in the 2004 listing rule, golden eagle predation was 
the primary cause for the decline of the northern Channel Islands fox 
subspecies and the primary reason for listing the species as endangered 
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 were 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 (69 FR 10335, March 5, 2004, p. 10338); and (2) an 
open ecological niche created by the extirpation of bald eagles 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the islands as a result of 
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) poisoning (Service 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 did not allow 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, 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). There has been no record of breeding golden eagles on the 
northern Channel Islands since that time.
    To ensure that golden eagles would be less likely to attempt to 
establish territories again on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, TNC 
and 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 feral pig was removed from Santa Cruz Island in 
January 2007 (Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Nonnative mule deer and elk 
were removed from Santa Rosa

[[Page 53321]]

Island as part of an agreement with the former owners of the island. 
All elk and all but a few deer were 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 (69 FR 
10335, March 5, 2004, pp. 10343-10344), and their presence on the 
islands likely would have discouraged dispersing golden eagles from 
establishing residence. Prior to listing, NPS, the 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. 2014a, p. 374), predation has been 
extensively reduced and is no longer resulting in significant impacts 
at the population scale. 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. NPS and TNC are committed through signed 
conservation management agreements (CMAs) to monitor and conduct other 
management actions for detecting and appropriately responding to a 
potential disease outbreak in the future, as recommended in the 
epidemic response plans (Service and NPS 2015; Service and TNC 2015). 
Therefore, the best available data indicate potential disease outbreaks 
are no longer a threat to the Santa Rosa Island fox, San Miguel Island 
fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox now and in the future.
    Mortality due to disease was the primary reason for the decline and 
listing of Santa Catalina Island foxes. Currently, the epidemic 
response plan is being implemented on Santa Catalina Island, but 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, there is 
no assurance of continued implementation of the epidemic response plan 
in the future on Santa Catalina Island to detect and mitigate for 
future disease outbreaks, and the new CDV vaccine may not be adequate. 
Efficacy and availability of vaccines will require ongoing evaluation 
by the Island Fox Conservation Working Group as part of implementing 
the epidemic response plan. Overall, the best available data indicate 
potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island 
fox now and in the future.
    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. Additionally, NPS and TNC are committed 
through signed CMAs to monitor and conduct other management actions for 
detecting and appropriately responding to predation by golden eagles in 
the future, as recommended in the golden eagle management strategy 
(Service and NPS 2015; Service and TNC 2015). Thus, given the recent 
golden eagle and prey-base eradication efforts and reintroduction of 
bald eagles to prevent golden eagle presence in the future, along with 
ongoing management commitments, we no longer consider predation by 
golden eagles to be a threat resulting in significant impacts at the 
population scale (e.g., result in a population decline) 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 Service 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 species.'' In relation to 
Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require us to 
consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and 
other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe 
in the threats 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 existing 
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the 
protections of the Act. Therefore, we examine whether other regulatory 
mechanisms would remain in place if the species were delisted, and the 
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that 
future threats will be reduced or minimized.
    In our discussion under Factors A, B, C, and E, we evaluated the 
significance of the threat as mitigated by any such conservation 
efforts and existing regulatory mechanisms. Where threats exist, 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 noted in our discussion under the other factors, conservation 
measures and existing regulatory mechanisms (such as continued 
implementation of the epidemic response plan and golden eagle 
management strategy) have reduced the primary threats of disease and 
predation by golden eagles on the northern Channel Islands and will 
continue to be controlled through appropriate management. Other 
previously identified threats affecting the San Miguel Island fox, 
Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island 
fox, such as habitat modification by nonnative grazing animals and 
nonnative plant invasion and habitat conversion (Factor A), have been 
and are continuing to be controlled through appropriate management, and 
we anticipate that these efforts will continue in the future. Other 
sources of mortality are assessed under Factor E and found to not exert 
significant impacts on island foxes at either the population or 
rangewide scales, now or in the future. Consequently, we find that 
conservation measures along with existing regulatory mechanisms are 
adequate to address these specific threats.

[[Page 53322]]

    The remaining threat to island fox on Santa Catalina Island is the 
potential for a disease epidemic 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 in 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 and in the future. Consequently, our analysis here examines 
how existing regulatory mechanisms address this remaining identified 
threat to the Santa Catalina Island fox.
    There are currently no regulations restricting transport of 
domestic animals to the island, and limited vaccination requirements 
for domestic animals owned by City of Avalon residents, thus providing 
the potential for introduction of disease to the island. CIC manages 
the majority of fox habitat on Santa Catalina Island, but not the City 
of Avalon; CIC regulations require all nonnative animals entering CIC 
property be licensed and that all dogs and cats be vaccinated against 
distemper and rabies (CIC 2015, entire). 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 
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 three northern Channel Islands subspecies of island fox have been 
removed or reduced and are being adequately managed; however, disease 
remains a threat to the Santa Catalina Island fox. In examining how 
existing regulatory mechanisms address this identified threat, we find 
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 potential 
disease outbreaks to Santa Catalina Island fox. Therefore, we still 
consider potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa 
Catalina Island fox now and in the future under Factor C, noting that 
this threat is not addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms.

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, as well as 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 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 levels, and the threat of extinction 
from demographic stochasticity has accordingly been reduced.
    Genetic diversity in island fox populations is considered low due 
to the population bottlenecks they experienced during past extreme, low 
population numbers (Gilbert et al. 1990; Wayne et al. 1991; Goldstein 
et al. 1999; Gray et al. 2001, p. 8; Gray 2002, entire; Aguilar et al. 
2004; Funk et al. 2016, p. 11; Wayne et al. 2016, p. 4). This low 
genetic diversity could compromise the ability of island foxes to 
respond to future environmental change. This lack of variability could 
be attributed either to extensive inbreeding or to bottlenecking 
resulting from low population densities (Funk et al. 2016, p. 11). 
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. 1,858; 
1991b, entire). While additional genetic diversity was lost during the 
recent declines, island foxes appear to be 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 expect 
it to 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 is 
limited, restricted to only land management personnel and researchers, 
and is expected to remain limited into the future. On Santa Catalina 
Island, 10 of the 21 fox mortalities in 2015 were caused by vehicle 
strikes (King and Duncan 2016, p. 18). The island-wide 25 mile per hour 
speed limit (CIC 2015, no page number) likely minimizes the number of 
vehicle strike mortalities that would otherwise occur. Even with 
current mortality of island foxes caused by various factors including 
vehicle strikes, the Santa Catalina Island fox population showed 
significant growth between 2002 and 2015, and has hovered around 1,800 
individual foxes for the past 3 years. Given island fox population 
growth over the past 13 years during a time when the number of vehicles 
on the road has increased, we do not expect the population effect from 
vehicle mortality to increase in the future. Additionally, there is 
less than a 5 percent chance of the Santa Catalina Island fox 
subspecies going extinct given current and expected future conditions 
(King and Duncan 2016, pp. 12-13; Service 2015, pp. 167-168). 
Therefore, even though vehicle strikes remain the primary human-caused 
source of individual mortality on this island, mortality by motor 
vehicles is not considered a threat resulting in

[[Page 53323]]

significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales on 
Santa Catalina Island at this time or in the future.
Interactions With Feral Cats and Domestic Dogs
    Feral cats and domestic dogs occur on Santa Catalina Island and 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). 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 for feral cats (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 California's 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 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 2016, pers. comm.). 
Currently, the CIC practice regarding feral cats is consistent with 
that of the Catalina Island Humane Society: animals trapped 
accidentally during fox-trapping/monitoring are examined, and, if free 
from incurable and contagious disease, are spayed or neutered and 
released. Animals found to test positive for Feline Leukemia or Feline 
Immunodeficiency are humanely euthanized. Younger cats including 
kittens may be adopted from the Catalina Island Humane Society (CIC 
2016, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). Although competition and 
other negative interactions with feral cats can affect individual 
foxes, they are not currently resulting in significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales.
    Instances of fox mortality from domestic dog attacks have been 
observed over the past decade (Gaffney 2011, p. 1; Munson and Gaffney 
2011, p. 1; King and Duncan 2011, pp. 12-13; King and Duncan 2012, p. 
14; King 2012a, p. 1; 2012b, p. 1; 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 significant impacts to island 
fox at either the population or rangewide scales now nor do we 
anticipate that it will in the future.
    We do not anticipate an increase in the number of feral cats and 
domestic dogs on Santa Catalina Island in the future. Because growth of 
the Santa Catalina Island fox population over the past 13 years 
occurred during a time when feral cats and foxes and domestic dogs and 
foxes have been interacting, we do not expect that interactions with 
feral cats or domestic dogs will result in negative population effects 
in the future. Overall, given the lack of significant impacts at either 
the population or rangewide scales, interactions with feral cats and 
domestic dogs are not considered a threat to the Santa Catalina Island 
fox now or in the future.
Poisoning and Entrapment
    Other impacts to Santa Catalina Island foxes resulting from human 
interaction include mortality from poisoning and entrapment (Duncan and 
King 2012, p. 4; King and Duncan 2015, pp. 18, 20; Vickers 2012a, p. 2; 
Vickers 2012b, p. 1; King and Duncan 2015, p. 18). 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, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org); one fox drowning 
due to entanglement in a food container (Vickers 2012a p. 2); one fox 
death from being trapped in a recycling barrel (Vickers 2012b, p. 1); 
and two fox 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. Given the low numbers of foxes affected by poisoning 
or entrapment and the past and current population growth, we do not 
expect the population effect from poisoning or entrapment to increase 
in the future. Therefore, at this time, the best available information 
indicates neither poisoning nor entrapment is resulting in significant 
impacts at either the population or rangewide scales, and there is no 
indication that poisoning or entrapment on Santa Catalina Island will 
increase 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 and 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. Because of this, 
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands have experienced few large 
wildland fire events. The recent removal of nonnative grazers may 
increase fuel loads and thus the likelihood of larger fires; however, 
historically consistent cool and foggy conditions will continue to 
limit wildland fire spread, including in the future. Additionally, 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 (Service 2004, p. 10347). 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. However, in general, the best 
available data indicate that neither the 2006 Empire Fire nor the 2007 
Island Fire had significant effects to island fox 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

[[Page 53324]]

occur, the best available data indicate that wildfire does not pose 
significant impacts to the island fox at either the population or 
rangewide scales currently. In addition, there is no indication that 
fire frequency will increase in the future on the northern Channel 
Islands. On Santa Catalina Island, even given an increase in fire 
frequency since 1999, the island fox population has continued to 
increase (CIC 2016, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). Therefore, we 
do not anticipate wildfire posing a significant population-level impact 
in the future.
Drought
    The Channel Islands, as well as the rest of southern California, 
are currently in the midst of a drought that began in 2012, and, as of 
mid-April 2016, has not abated (United States Drought Monitor 2016, 
entire). Island foxes have endured many droughts during their 10,000-
year persistence on the islands (California Department of Water 
Resources 2015, entire). Deep multi-year droughts have occurred on the 
Channel Islands about once every 2 decades since 1900 (Coonan 2015, 
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 drought is the first opportunity to study the effect of 
drought on island foxes, since 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; Coonan 2015b, 
p. 7; Coonan 2015, unpubl. data). During this time, mortality also 
increased, and many fox carcasses were emaciated (Coonan 2014, pp. 6-
7). However, San Miguel Island fox numbers have remained at or above 
pre-decline levels (Friends of the Island Fox 2015, p. 3). On Santa 
Catalina Island, data indicate 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 (Coonan 2015b, pp. 7-8). It is apparent that one response of 
island foxes to drought is to curtail reproduction, especially if the 
population is at carrying capacity (Coonan et al. 2010, p. 28; Coonan 
2015a, pp. 6, 13). 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. 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 (e.g., 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (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.
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. 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.
    Statewide and regional probabilistic estimates of temperature and 
precipitation changes for California and the greater Los Angeles region 
were evaluated by Pierce et al. (2013, entire) and Sun et al. (2015, 
entire) using dynamic downscaled simulations. Pierce et al. (2013, p. 
854) found that, averaging across all models and downscaling methods, 
the warmest Julys are likely to be far warmer than historical 
temperatures for California. Projections for changes in precipitation 
by the 2060s were less certain; they showed weak overall annual mean 
decreases in precipitation in the southern part of the State, but with 
an increase in summer rain (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 855). Sun et al. 
(2015, p. 4,625) found that temperatures in the greater Los Angeles 
region for two future time periods, midcentury (2041-60) and end of 
century (2081-2100), will almost certainly be outside the interannual 
variability range seen in the baseline (1981-2000), particularly during 
the summer and fall. However, in each scenario and time period, the 
coastal areas warm less than inland areas due to generally lower 
warming over the ocean and the land-sea breeze circulation, which 
introduces a marine influence in the coastal zone (Sun et al. 2015, pp. 
4,621-4,622). This suggests that the Channel Islands, along with the 
mainland's highest elevations and a narrow swath near the coast, may be 
somewhat buffered from the more extreme effects of a warming climate.
    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

[[Page 53325]]

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. 1,158) 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. 1,158). 
Climate change may change and could potentially increase the parasites 
and disease vectors to which island foxes are exposed. However, we 
anticipate ongoing monitoring and management will detect any increase 
or changes in parasites or disease vectors that affect the population 
health of island foxes.
    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. For example, 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). In addition, because island foxes have shown relative plasticity 
with regard to utilizing nonnative insects (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. Given the indications that the 
Channel Islands may be somewhat buffered from the more extreme effects 
of a warming climate and past demonstrated ability of island foxes to 
survive pervasive drought, current healthy population numbers, and the 
apparent ability of foxes to respond to changes in precipitation by 
shifting resource allocation, we do not consider changes in temperature 
or precipitation projected due to climate change to be a threat to 
island foxes at this time or 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 expect negative effects of such magnitude 
that would result in significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales (e.g., cause major declines). 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 populations were at their 
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. Given the past demonstrated ability of island foxes to 
survive pervasive drought, their current healthy population numbers, 
and their 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. 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, habitat 
use, and resource allocation, we do not consider climate change to be a 
threat to island foxes now nor in the 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 for which the population 
may not be vaccinated. The primary measures in place on all islands to 
reduce the threat of disease 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 in 
the future.
    During the period when the island fox populations were at their 
lowest, they were extremely vulnerable to extinction from stochastic 
events. There will always be some inherent risk of extinction due to 
stochastic events because each island fox subspecies is a single 
breeding population. However, the populations have now increased 
substantially, show stable or increasing trends, and are returning to 
historical population levels, and the threat of extinction from 
demographic stochasticity has accordingly been reduced.
    Mortality due to motor vehicle strikes, habitat loss, feral cats, 
and domestic dogs results in loss of individuals, but these mortality 
factors are not resulting in significant impacts to island foxes at 
either the population or rangewide scales as documented by current 
population numbers and trends. When population numbers are healthy, 
island foxes respond to drought by shifting resource allocation; 
therefore, we do not consider drought to be a threat to island foxes at 
this time or in the future. 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.

[[Page 53326]]

Climate change is not considered a threat now or in the future because 
of the past demonstrated ability of island foxes to survive pervasive 
drought, their current healthy population numbers, the indication that 
the Channel Islands may be somewhat buffered from the more extreme 
effects of a warming climate, and the apparent ability of foxes to 
respond to changes in precipitation by shifting resource allocation.
    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 populations. 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. 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. Another example is San 
Miguel Island where there have been combined effects of low 
reproductive output, dry climate, parasites, and low genetic 
variability. However, population estimates for the total San Miguel 
Island fox population likely represents carrying capacity for the 
island (Coonan 2014, p. 8), which has resulted in a general decline in 
reproductive effort as the population has increased. In addition, 
according to population viability analyses the San Miguel Island fox 
subspecies is at acceptably low risk of extinction (Guglielmino and 
Coonan 2016, p. 17) indicating that low reproductive output, dry 
climate, parasites, and low genetic variability do not constitute a 
combined threat to the population at this time nor do we anticipate 
that they will in the future. In conducting this analysis, we have 
considered whether the individual stressors identified for each island, 
considered in combination, result in a threat to the species. The 
combination of low mortality and robust population growth puts each 
island fox subspecies at acceptably low risk of extinction, according 
to population viability analyses. 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 significant impacts to San 
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes at either the 
population or rangewide scales at this time nor do we anticipate that 
they will in the future. Synergistic or cumulative effects do not pose 
significant impacts to Santa Catalina Island fox at either the 
population or rangewide scales at this time given the robust 
populations and current ongoing management and monitoring, but could in 
the future if there are lapses in monitoring and management in the 
future.

Determination

    An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act 
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence. As required by section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of the status of these 
species and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether the San 
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes are in 
danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. We examined 
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the 
past, present, and future threats faced by these subspecies. We also 
consulted with species experts and land management staff with NPS, TNC, 
and CIC, who are actively managing for the conservation of island 
foxes.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is 
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, 
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to 
determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant, 
it may drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as an endangered species or 
threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This 
determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. 
The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that 
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the 
point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species under the Act.
    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.
    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.

Northern Channel Islands Subspecies

    Based on the information presented in this final rule and the 
proposed rule (81 FR 7723; February 16, 2016), 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, save Santa Rosa Island where

[[Page 53327]]

numbers are returning to historical population levels. 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 experiencing significant 
impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, these 
island fox subspecies are no longer in danger of extinction throughout 
all of their ranges, nor are they likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future.

Significant Portion of the Range

    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 the Service 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 reclassifying the 
listing status of the Santa Catalina Island fox as a threatened species 
under the Act (see Santa Catalina Island Fox, below), 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

[[Page 53328]]

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' ranges. As mentioned 
above, one way to identify portions for further analyses is to identify 
areas that may be significant, such as 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 (Service 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 
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 notably 
separate or distinct portions that contribute independently 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 under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, above, may 
continue to affect each of the subspecies, the factors affecting island 
foxes generally occur at similarly low levels throughout each of 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.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available and determined 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 significant portions of their ranges, nor 
are they likely to become so within the foreseeable future. As a 
consequence of this determination, we are removing the San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Santa Catalina Island Fox

    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 1,812 in 2015 (King and Duncan 2016, p. 10). 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 currently in danger of extinction), 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 coordinated with CIC to determine 
their ability to enter into an agreement to provide assurances for 
long-term funding and a commitment for long-term implementation of the 
epidemic response plan. Though we do not have assurances of long-term 
funding that would allow them to commit to long-term implementation of 
the epidemic response plan, we recognize that CIC's efforts have 
significantly contributed to a reduction of impacts to the Santa 
Catalina Island fox and its habitat. 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. 
Therefore, we are reclassifying the status of the Santa Catalina Island 
fox from an endangered species to a threatened species. 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 or threatened species (see 79 FR 
37578; July 1, 2014) (also see Significant Portion of the Range, 
above).

Critical Habitat

     Section 4(a)(3)(A) 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.
     On November 9, 2005 (70 FR 67924), we determined that habitat on 
Santa Catalina Island (as well as the other three islands occupied by 
the island fox described herein) did not meet the definition of 
critical habitat under the Act. We made this determination based on the 
island fox being a generalist in all aspects of its life history. We 
stated that foxes are opportunistic omnivores that eat a wide variety 
of plants and animals in whatever habitat they use, and as such, they 
use all habitat available on each of the islands (70 FR 67927). We were 
not aware at that time nor are we aware currently of any existing or 
anticipated threats to Santa Catalina Island habitats that would likely 
affect the Santa Catalina Island fox. Accordingly, we continue to 
conclude that there is no information to support a conclusion that any 
specific habitat on Santa Catalina Island is essential to the 
conservation of the Santa Catalina Island fox. Thus, we do not find any 
habitat on Santa Catalina Island that meets the definition of critical 
habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Because there continues to be no 
habitat that meets the definition of critical habitat for the Santa 
Catalina Island fox, there is none to designate.

Effects of This Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the San Miguel 
Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions 
and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to these subspecies. Federal agencies 
are no longer required to consult with the Service under section 7 of 
the Act in to ensure that any

[[Page 53329]]

action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of these subspecies.
    This rule also revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the Santa 
Catalina Island fox from an endangered species to a threatened species 
on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. However, 
this reclassification does not change the protection afforded to this 
subspecies under the Act. Anyone taking, attempting to take, or 
otherwise possessing this species, or parts thereof, in violation of 
section 9 of the Act or its implementing regulations, is subject to a 
penalty under section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, 
Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
Santa Catalina Island fox. Whenever a species is listed as threatened, 
the Act allows promulgation of special rules under section 4(d) that 
modify the standard protections for threatened species found under 
section 9 of the Act and Service regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 (for 
wildlife) and 17.71 (for plants), when it is deemed necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. No special 
section 4(d) rules are proposed, or anticipated to be proposed, for 
Santa Catalina Island fox, because there is currently no conservation 
need to do so for this subspecies. Recovery actions directed at Santa 
Catalina Island fox will continue to be implemented, as funding allows, 
as outlined in the recovery plan for this species (Service 2015, 
entire).

Future Conservation Measures

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this 
post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a species remains 
secure from risk of extinction after the protections of the Act are 
removed, by developing a program that detects the failure of any 
delisted species to sustain itself. 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.

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan

    NPS and TNC have agreed to partner with us in the implementation of 
the post-delisting monitoring for the northern Channel Island foxes. 
The post-delisting monitoring is designed to verify that 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 will 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 available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov 
at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/Ventura/.
    Although the Act has a minimum post-delisting monitoring 
requirement of 5 years, the 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 will 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 2014, p. 2). Such monitoring has 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 will 
be monitored, as they are now, via tracking of radio-collared foxes. 
Mortality checks will be conducted weekly on radio-collared foxes, and 
necropsies will 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).
    In cooperation with NPS and TNC, we will annually review the 
results of monitoring, which include annual estimated adult population 
size, annual adult survival, and identified causes of mortality. If 
there are apparent sharp declines in population size or survival, or if 
the information indicates the appearance of significant mortality 
causes, the data will 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, NPS, TNC, and the 
Service will determine whether monitoring should continue beyond the 
10-year monitoring period.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7723) in 
the Federal Register, we requested that all interested parties submit 
written comments on the proposal by April 18, 2016. We also contacted 
appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific 
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited 
them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any requests for a 
public hearing. All substantive information provided during comment 
periods has either been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the island fox and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We 
received responses from all three of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the status of the 
island fox. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and 
conclusions, and provided new information and suggestions to improve 
the final rule. This information has been incorporated

[[Page 53330]]

into the final rule as appropriate. The peer reviewer comments are 
addressed in the following summary.

Comments From Peer Reviewers

    (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers requested further mention of lack 
of genetic diversity as an important consideration for island foxes. 
They stated that numerous studies have now shown that island fox 
populations lack genetic variation, an outcome of long-term small 
population sizes and bottlenecks, coupled with the pervasive effects of 
genetic drift. The peer reviewers stated that although the threats to 
island fox populations on the northern Channel Islands have either been 
reduced or addressed and the populations have recovered to 
approximately historic levels, the various subspecies lack genetic 
variation, which could compromise their ability to respond to future 
environmental change if managers do not respond to a potential decline 
in a timely manner.
    Our Response: We included the relevant scientific information 
presented by the peer reviewers related to lack of genetic variation in 
this final rule. We anticipate that ongoing monitoring and management 
as described in signed CMAs with NPS and TNC (Service and NPS 2015; 
Service and TNC 2015) will detect any significant changes in population 
health and allow for management responses, including possible 
relisting. If a decline is detected, we will act in concert with NPS 
and TNC in an expedient manner to uncover the agent of the decline and 
implement timely recovery actions as laid out in the golden eagle 
management strategy and epidemic response plans (Hudgens et al. 2013, 
entire; NPS 2015a, entire).
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer requested more information about 
evaluation of recovery objective 1 and recovery criteria E/1. In 
particular, the peer reviewer asked if demographic characteristics 
included measures of genetic characteristics, as the same standards 
should not apply to populations that have lost much of their genetic 
variation.
    Our Response: Recovery objective 1 is that each federally listed 
subspecies of island fox exhibits demographic characteristics 
consistent with long-term viability. Recovery objective 1 is achieved 
when recovery criteria E/1 is met: an island fox subspecies has no more 
than 5 percent risk of quasi-extinction over a 50-year period; recovery 
criteria E/1 has been met. Recovery criteria E/1 is evaluated for each 
species using population viability models presented in Bakker et al. 
(2009) and appendix 2 of the recovery plan (Service 2015, pp. 135-140) 
that incorporate demographic information for each subspecies of island 
fox, which are influenced by genetics and the environment. Genetic 
variation is not one of the demographic characters that is measured, 
although we recognize that genetic variation has an influence on 
demographic characters.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer asked how the quasi-extinction 
number of 30 individuals was derived. The peer reviewer asserted that 
if extreme bottleneck events have occurred, it is highly possible that 
quasi-extinction levels of 30 individuals are not appropriate, and 
numbers this low could essentially extirpate any genetic variation left 
in the population.
    Our Response: Because short- to medium-term risk analysis is most 
important for island fox management, Bakker et al. (2009) ran each 
simulation for 50 years and used a quasi-extinction threshold of 30 
foxes, set by the Service's island fox Recovery Team to further account 
for unidentified biological and sociopolitical uncertainties (Bakker et 
al. 2009, p. 92). We concur with the quasi-extinction level determined 
by the scientists on the island fox Recovery Team. However, we note 
that monitoring and management is designed to intervene well before a 
species would reach a quasi-extinction threshold. Quasi-extinction is 
not the threshold for action; rather, triggers for action would be if 
monitoring results indicate a sharp decline in population size or 
survival or the appearance of a significant mortality source. The 
intent is to avoid the quasi-extinction threshold by a wide margin by 
managing for a low risk of reaching such a threshold over a fairly long 
period of time.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer asked what it would take to delist 
the Santa Catalina Island subspecies.
    Our Response: The best available scientific data for Santa Catalina 
Island suggest that while Santa Catalina Island fox populations have 
increased to self-sustaining levels, potential disease epidemic remains 
an ongoing threat. Once disease and disease risk are controlled and 
managed to the point they are no longer a threat to the subspecies, and 
assuming no other stressors are resulting in significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales, the Santa Catalina Island 
fox could be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (that is, delisted). Controlling the threat of disease would 
include assurances of long-term implementation of the epidemic response 
plan for Santa Catalina Island, which is currently being implemented by 
CIC. We coordinated with CIC to determine their ability to enter into 
an agreement to provide assurances, and they indicated they are 
currently unable to provide assurances for long-term funding and 
management. Though we do not have assurances of long-term funding that 
would allow them to commit to long-term implementation of the epidemic 
response plan, we recognize that CIC's efforts have significantly 
contributed to a reduction of impacts to the Santa Catalina Island fox 
and its habitat.

Public Comments

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule. 
To that end, we specifically sought comments concerning: (1) Additional 
information on the distribution, population size, and population trends 
of the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island 
foxes; (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; and (5) our draft post-
delisting monitoring plan.
    During the open comment period, which closed on April 18, 2016, we 
received 10 comment letters from organizations or individuals directly 
addressing the proposed removal of the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and 
Santa Cruz Island fox from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife, or reclassification of the Santa Catalina Island 
fox from an endangered to a threatened species. Seven of these letters 
opposed the proposal, and three provided support. Two of these letters 
provided substantive comments (beyond a succinct expression of 
agreement or opposition) on the proposed rule, one of which supported 
and one of which opposed our proposal. Substantive information has been 
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. The public comments 
are addressed in the following summary.
Comments From the Public
    (5) Comment: One commenter suggested we conduct a more detailed 
analysis of the effects of global climate change and that we hold 
public meetings to develop a response plan for climate change.

[[Page 53331]]

    Our Response: We incorporated additional information into the 
climate change discussion in this rule based on new information that 
was provided by the peer reviewers. 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 result in significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales (e.g., cause major population declines). However, we 
anticipate ongoing monitoring and management will detect any 
significant changes in population health and allow for management 
responses, including possible relisting; therefore, public meetings to 
develop a response plan were not planned.
    (6) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that if the northern 
Channel Islands subspecies are delisted, the disease and predator 
management programs may potentially be defunded.
    Our Response: The post-delisting monitoring is designed to verify 
that northern Channel 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 will 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). 
Funding and implementation of post-delisting monitoring is assured for 
10 years by signed CMAs between the Service, NPS, and TNC (Service and 
NPS 2015; Service and TNC 2015). At the end of the 10-year post-
delisting monitoring period, the Service, NPS, and TNC will determine 
whether monitoring should continue beyond the 10-year monitoring 
period. In addition, NPS identified island foxes as an ecosystem 
element for which they will conduct long-term annual population 
monitoring as part of Channel Island National Park's long-term 
ecological monitoring program, regardless of their status under the 
Act.
    (7) Comment: One commenter stated that the San Miguel Island fox 
population declined from 581 individuals in 2011 (Coonan and 
Gugliolmino 2011, p. 14) to 538 individuals in 2012 (Coonan 2013, p. 
10), despite the high number of pups caught and low number of known 
mortalities. The commenter questioned the 2015 data presented in the 
proposed rule, which indicate that the San Miguel Island population 
rose by approximately 200 from 2014, despite less than a quarter of the 
number of captured pups compared to 2012 and more than triple the 
number of known mortalities. The commenter also pointed out that Santa 
Rosa Island foxes have yet to meet their carrying capacity, and so, 
given that population's limited size, delisting is inappropriate at 
this time.
    Our Response: The population estimates presented in this rule for 
the San Miguel Island fox are based on the best available scientific 
information as reported to the Service by NPS. San Miguel Island fox 
population estimates for the total population (both adults and 
juveniles) reveal that the subspecies has hovered around at least 550 
foxes since 2010, and this likely represents carrying capacity for that 
island (Coonan 2014, p. 8). This is supported by the general decline in 
reproductive effort as the population has increased. On the San Miguel 
Island monitoring grids, only three pups were caught in 2013 and 2014, 
and only seven were caught in 2015, compared to 32 caught in 2012 
(Guglielmino and Coonan 2016, p. 13). The low reproductive output is 
likely due both to high fox density and extended drought. Even given 
this, the overall combination of low mortality and robust population 
growth continues to put the San Miguel Island fox subspecies at 
acceptably low risk of extinction, according to population viability 
analyses (Guglielmino and Coonan 2016, p. 17). The San Miguel 
population reached this level of acceptable extinction risk in 2009, 
and even recent mortality due to drought has not moved the population 
away from acceptable extinction risk.
    Santa Rosa Island foxes have likely not reached carrying capacity. 
Carrying capacity is not a threshold for recovery or for healthy 
populations; rather, carrying capacity is the maximum number of 
individuals that the habitat can support. Most populations function 
below that threshold and still exhibit demographic characteristics for 
healthy, stable populations. Populations do not need to be at carrying 
capacity to have stable or increasing demographics consistent with 
long-term viability. On Santa Rosa Island, significant mortality during 
the early phase of reintroduction and again in 2010 prevented the Santa 
Rosa subspecies from attaining the level of biological recovery that 
the San Miguel and Santa Cruz Islands subspecies had attained by 2013. 
However, the predicted extinction risk (over the next 50 years) has 
been less than 5 percent since 2011 for Santa Rosa Island (Guglielmino 
and Coonan 2016, p. 22). As of 2015, all Roosevelt elk and mule deer 
have been removed from Santa Rosa Island, and the island fox population 
has increased to greater than 1,200 foxes (Coonan 2015b, pers. comm.; 
Guglielmino and Coonan 2016, p. 18). 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, are met for the San 
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes.
    (8) Comment: One commenter presented information on Acanthocephalan 
parasites, which affect the gut of island foxes. The commenter stated 
that Acanthocephalans have been identified as a factor in the deaths of 
over 20 island foxes since 2013. In addition, the commenter pointed out 
that most of the foxes on San Miguel Island have become increasingly 
underweight and probably infected. The commenter expressed that the 
effect this parasite could have on the San Miguel population of island 
foxes is significant and there is too little information on this 
significant issue to proceed with the proposed delisting.
    Our Response: In 2013, necropsies of five radio-collared San Miguel 
Island foxes revealed substantial, and in several cases massive, 
parasitism by an unidentified Acanthocephalan (spiny-headed) parasite 
in the intestines (Coonan et al. 2014b, pp. 11, 12). Six of the 16 
mortalities in 2014 through June 2015 had infection by an 
Acanthocephalan parasite, as did five in 2013 (Coonan 2015b, pp. 7, 8). 
The parasite burdens were associated with one or a combination of 
colitis, enteritis, and emaciation, and likely contributed to mortality 
of the individuals, but have not yet been determined as the cause of 
mortality (Coonan 2015b, p. 2). In 2015, the Island Fox Health Working 
Group discussed the impact of Acanthocephalans to island foxes on San 
Miguel Island and determined that no specific management action or 
treatment is recommended at this time, as cases are continuing, but do 
not appear to be increasing or causing a population decline (Coonan 
2015b, p. 15). Continued monitoring of mortality causes will determine 
whether the parasite is a significant mortality source for San Miguel 
foxes, and requires management. Thus, at this time, the best available 
data indicate that although potential impacts from Acanthocephalan 
parasites may be impacting San Miguel Island fox

[[Page 53332]]

individuals, there are no significant impacts at the population scale 
such that this parasite would be considered a threat to the subspecies. 
We anticipate that ongoing monitoring and management as described in 
signed CMAs with NPS and TNC (Service and NPS 2015; Service and TNC 
2015) will detect any significant changes in population health and 
allow for management responses, including listing in the future if 
warranted.
    (9) Comment: One commenter presented information that the San 
Miguel Island fox population is aging and that there are problems in 
reproduction or survival of pups. Information was presented by the 
commenter that 73 percent of the collared foxes are 4 to 10 years old, 
while 47 percent are 6 to 10 years old. Only 27 percent of these foxes 
are young animals of 1 to 3 years old, which reflects 3 consecutive 
years of poor recruitment for the population, signifying poor birth 
years or poor pup survival. The commenter stated that such an age 
structure puts this population at risk, particularly given the small 
size of the population, dry climate, parasite issue, and low genetic 
diversity among the San Miguel Island foxes.
    Our Response: Population estimates for the total San Miguel Island 
fox population (both adults and juveniles) reveal that it has hovered 
around 550 foxes since 2010, and this likely represents carrying 
capacity for the island (Coonan 2014, p. 8). This is supported by the 
general decline in reproductive effort as the population has increased. 
During annual monitoring efforts, only three pups were caught in 2013 
and 2014, and only seven were caught in 2015, compared to 32 caught in 
2012 (Guglielmino and Coonan 2016, p. 13). The low reproductive output 
is likely due both to high fox density and extended drought, and is to 
be expected as the population hovers around carrying capacity and 
responds to extended drought. This does not in and of itself constitute 
a threat to the San Miguel Island fox population, and low reproductive 
effort has not been identified as a current threat to any island fox 
population.
    The combination of low mortality and the population at likely 
carrying capacity (i.e., 550 foxes since 2010 (Coonan 2014, p. 8)) puts 
the San Miguel Island fox subspecies at acceptably low risk of 
extinction, according to population viability analyses (Guglielmino and 
Coonan 2016, p. 17). We anticipate that ongoing monitoring and 
management as described in signed CMAs with NPS and TNC (Service and 
NPS 2015; Service and TNC 2015) will detect any significant changes in 
population health and allow for management responses, including listing 
in the future if warranted. If a significant decline is detected, we 
will act in concert with NPS and TNC in an expedient manner to uncover 
the agent of the decline and implement timely recovery actions as laid 
out in the golden eagle management strategy and epidemic response plans 
(Hudgens et al. 2013, entire; NPS 2015a, entire).

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with 
listing, delisting, or reclassification of a species as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Endangered Species 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 references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2015-0170 or upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of 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.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we 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''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Listing citations
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed           Status          and applicable
                                                                                                     rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Fox, Santa Catalina Island......  Urocyon littoralis  Wherever found....  T.................  69 FR 10335; 3/5/
                                   catalinae.                                                  2004
                                                                                              81 FR [Insert
                                                                                               Federal Register
                                                                                               page where the
                                                                                               document begins];
                                                                                               8/12/2016
                                                                                              50 CFR 17.95(a)
                                                                                               \CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 53333]]

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: July 21, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18778 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P