[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