Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016) 2016 Federal Register, 81 FR 7723-7741; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7723-7741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02669]

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

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: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to
remove 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 to reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l.
catalinae) from an endangered species to a threatened species. This
determination 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 are seeking information and comments from
the public regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting
monitoring plan for the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox,
and Santa Cruz Island fox.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
April 18, 2016. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by April 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-deliver to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170; Division of Policy,
Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section, below, for more
information).
Document availability: A copy of the Recovery Plan for Four
Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) referenced throughout
this document can be viewed at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, or at the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/Ventura/. The post-delisting monitoring plan for the northern Channel
Island fox subspecies (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island
foxes) consists of two documents: the epidemic response plan for
northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire) and the
golden eagle management strategy (NPS 2015a, entire). These documents
will also be posted on http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/Ventura/.

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; by telephone 805-644-1766; or
by facsimile 805-644-3958. If you use a

[[Page 7724]]

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

We intend any final action resulting from this proposal will be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments
or information from other governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Additional information on the distribution, population size,
and population trends of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island
fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox (collectively
referred to as ``island foxes'' below).
(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.
(5) Our draft post-delisting monitoring plan.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, may not meet the standard of information required by
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directs
that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. We must receive your request within 45
days after the date of this Federal Register publication. Send your
request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested,
and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as
how to obtain reasonable accommodation, in the Federal Register and
local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.

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) (USFWS 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 on March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12521), with the notice announcing the
availability of the final recovery plan. This 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, also constitutes a status review for
each subspecies.

Background

The Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon
littoralis) (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 2015, entire) was prepared by USFWS
working with a Recovery Team that included public agency
representatives, landowners, conservancies, zoological institutions,
non-profits, 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. Detailed information from the
Recovery Plan is summarized in the following sections of this proposed
rule: Background, Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation, and
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species. See the Recovery Plan for
more information on the species' ecology, species' biological needs,
and analysis of the threats that may be impacting the subspecies.
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 (see
Figure 1, below). Islands inhabited by island foxes are owned by four
major landowners: The National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Navy
(Navy), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Santa Catalina Island
Conservancy (CIC), all of whom have management authority for wildlife
on their lands (Figure 1). The NPS, TNC, and CIC manage the islands
where the listed subspecies occur.

[[Page 7725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE16.000

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). The island fox is a habitat
generalist, occurring in all natural habitats on the Channel Islands,
although it prefers areas of diverse topography and vegetation (von
Bloeker 1967, pp. 257-258; Laughrin 1977, p. 33; Collins and Laughrin
1979, p. 12). The island fox is primarily nocturnal, but more diurnal
than the mainland gray fox (Collins and Laughrin 1979, p. 12.46; Crooks
and Van Vuren 1995, p. 305; Fausett 1993, p. 30), possibly a result of
historical absence of predators and freedom from human harassment
(Laughrin 1977, pp. 19-20).
Even in the absence of catastrophic events, island fox populations
may have fluctuated markedly over time (Laughrin 1980, entire).
Residents of Santa Cruz Island occasionally noted periods of island fox
scarcity and abundance (Laughrin 1980, p. 745). Santa Catalina Island
fox population levels were low in 1972, and again in 1977 (Laughrin
1980, p. 747); however, by 1994, the adult Santa Catalina Island fox
population was estimated at over 1,300 individuals (Roemer et al. 1994,
p. 393). Demographic analysis indicated that island fox survival was
positively related to the previous year's winter rainfall in the drier
southern islands and negatively related to current and previous year's
winter rainfall in the wetter northern islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
and Santa Cruz Island) (Bakker et al. 2009, p. 87; USFWS 2015 Appendix
2). Thus, indirect evidence suggests effects of climate on island fox
survival.
The four federally listed island fox subspecies (San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes) all experienced
precipitous population declines in the latter half of the 1990s (Roemer
1999, pp. 124-125, 169-171; Timm et al. 2000, pp. 6-7, 16-17; Coonan et
al. 2000, entire; 2005a, pp. 263-264; Roemer et al. 2001, entire). San
Miguel Island foxes declined from 450 individuals in 1994, to 15 in
1999/2000; Santa Rosa Island foxes declined from 1,780 individuals in
1994, to 15 in 1999/2000; Santa Cruz Island foxes declined from 1,465
individuals in 1994, to 55 in 1999/2000; and Santa Catalina Island
foxes declined from 1,342 individuals in 1994, to 103 in 1999/2000.
Island fox populations on the northern Channel Islands (San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) declined by 90 to 95 percent and,
prior to removal of foxes from the wild for captive breeding, were
estimated to have a 50 percent chance of extinction over 5 to 10 years
(Roemer 1999, p. 147; Roemer et al. 2001, p. 312). Thus, by 1999,
researchers considered island fox subspecies on the northern Channel
Islands to be critically endangered (Roemer 1999, p. 180). The Santa
Catalina Island subspecies was considered to be critically endangered
by 2000 (Timm et al. 2000, entire).
The decline of island foxes in the northern Channel Islands (San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) is considered a consequence
of

[[Page 7726]]

hyperpredation by nonnative golden eagles (Roemer et al. 2001, entire).
The presence of nonnative prey species (feral pigs on Santa Cruz
Island, and mule deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island) and an open
ecological niche created by the extirpation of bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) from the islands as a result of
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) poisoning (USFWS 2004, p. 10343)
enabled golden eagles to colonize the islands successfully and prey
heavily on island foxes, which evolved in the absence of predators. In
contrast, the decline of island foxes on Santa Catalina Island is
considered a consequence of canine distemper virus (CDV). Analysis of
CDV isolated from a Santa Catalina Island fox during the late 1990s
epidemic indicated it was most closely related to the strain found in
mainland raccoons (Timm et al. 2009, p. 339), and a number of stowaway
raccoons have been removed from Santa Catalina Island (King and Duncan
2014, p. 20). Therefore, the catastrophic population decline of Santa
Catalina Island foxes was likely caused by CDV transmitted from a
raccoon accidentally transported from the mainland (Timm et al. 2009,
p. 341). Other sources of mortality of island foxes have been
identified, particularly for foxes on Santa Catalina Island, such as
motor vehicle strikes, interactions with feral cats and dogs, and
drought, but were not considered to have contributed substantially to
declines of the four subspecies of island foxes.
In response to the catastrophic declines of 1999/2000, captive
breeding was implemented on all islands. All known remaining island
foxes on San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands were brought into captivity
in 1999 and 2000, respectively. By 2004, captive populations from both
islands exceeded the target captive population size of 40 animals and
allowed initial releases back to the wild (Coonan and Schwemm 2009, p.
366; Coonan et al. 2005a, p. 168-169). On Santa Cruz Island, 18
representative adult island foxes were brought into captivity in 2001,
and the population grew to 62 individuals by 2005; releases of captive-
born foxes were subsequently concluded in July 2008 (Hudgens and
Sanchez 2009, p. 16). On Santa Catalina Island, 27 foxes were brought
into captivity from the isolated west end of the island in 2000. From
2001 to 2004, foxes were released from captivity, including 37 captive-
born pups and 20 of the original wild-captured adults (Schmidt et al.
2005, p. 17). Additionally, 32 foxes were moved from the west end of
Santa Catalina Island to the depleted east end, with subsequent high
survival. The success of these programs allowed all the captive
breeding facilities to close by 2008.
For more information about the biology and historical population
status and observed declines of island fox populations, please see the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 5-19).

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. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include:
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions
to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species (or not)
because of one or more of five threat 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. Section 4(b) of the Act
requires that the determination be made ``solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available.'' Recovery criteria
should therefore indicate when a species is no longer an endangered
species or threatened species because of any of the five statutory
factors.
Thus, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the USFWS,
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed
species and measurable objectives against which to measure progress
towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis
of the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine
whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the
recovery plan.
The Recovery Plan (USFWS 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 to threatened
and to remove island fox subspecies from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We summarize these goals and then discuss progress
toward meeting the recovery objectives.

Recovery Goal

The goal of the Recovery Plan is to recover the San Miguel Island
fox, the Santa Rosa Island fox, the Santa Cruz Island fox, and the
Santa Catalina Island fox so they can be delisted (removed from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife) when existing
threats to each respective subspecies have been ameliorated such that
their populations have been stabilized and have increased. The interim
goal is to recover these subspecies to the point that they can be
downlisted from endangered to threatened status. Each listed subspecies
may be considered for downlisting or delisting independently of the
other subspecies.

Recovery Objectives

Recovery objectives identify mechanisms for measuring progress
toward and achieving the recovery goal 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 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 objective 1 and recovery objective 2 should be
met for that subspecies.

Recovery Criteria

Island fox recovery criteria are measurable standards for
determining whether a subspecies has achieved its recovery objectives
and may be

[[Page 7727]]

considered for downlisting or delisting. Criteria presented in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 50-53) represent our best assessment of
the conditions most likely to result in a determination that
downlisting or delisting of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and the Santa Catalina Island fox is
warranted. Achieving the prescribed recovery criteria is an indication
that a subspecies is no longer an endangered species or a threatened
species. Each recovery criterion applies to all four subspecies, except
where noted otherwise.
As presented in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 50-55), the
discussion of criteria below is organized by factors under 4(a)(1) to
demonstrate how criteria indicate threats under that factor have been
ameliorated.
Factor A: The present destruction, modification or curtailment of
its habitat or range.
There are no recovery criteria for this factor. Herbivory by
nonnative species resulted in habitat degradation on the Channel
Islands. While habitat degradation was not identified as a primary
threat to island foxes, presence of nonnative herbivores responsible
for habitat degradation provided a prey base for golden eagles to
become established and predate island foxes on the northern Channel
Islands. If threats under Factors C and E are ameliorated, the habitat
improvements expected to occur with removal of herbivores responsible
for habitat degradation may provide a long-term benefit to the island
fox subspecies; however, these habitat improvements are not necessary
for recovery.
Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, scientific or educational
purposes.
Overutilization is not a currently known threat for these
subspecies; therefore, there are no recovery criteria that address
threats under this factor.
Factor C: Disease or predation.
Disease and predation were identified as primary threats to island
foxes. To address recovery objective 2, the magnitude and imminence of
disease and predation threats must be reduced. The Recovery Plan (USFWS
2015, p. 51) states that this is accomplished when the following have
occurred:
C/1: Golden eagle predation (applies only to the northern Channel
Islands):
a. To reduce the threat of extinction to the San Miguel Island fox,
Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox, 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. The strategy will be developed by the
land manager(s) in consultation with the USFWS and including review by
the appropriate Integrated Island Fox Recovery Team Technical Expertise
Group or the equivalent. This strategy includes:
Response tactics (including the use of helicopters and
net-guns) to capture nesting golden eagles and any transient golden
eagle responsible for significant island fox predation, per the golden
eagle response strategy;
Tactics to minimize the establishment of successful
nesting golden eagles;
An established island fox monitoring program that is able
to detect an annual island fox predation rate caused by golden eagles
of 2.5 percent or greater, averaged over 3 years (Bakker and Doak 2009,
entire); and
An established mortality rate or population size threshold
that, if reached due to golden eagle predation, would require land
manager(s) to bring island foxes into captivity.
b. The golden eagle prey base of deer and elk is removed from Santa
Rosa Island.
C/2: Disease:
A disease management strategy is developed, approved, and
implemented by the land manager(s) in consultation with the USFWS and
includes review by the appropriate Integrated Island Fox Recovery Team
Technical Expertise Group or the equivalent. This strategy includes:
Identification of a portion of each population that will
be vaccinated against diseases posing the greatest risk, for which
vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccinations and fox numbers
vaccinated will be developed in consultation with appropriate subject-
matter experts;
Identification of actual and potential pathogens of island
foxes, and the means by which these can be prevented from decimating
fox populations;
Disease prevention;
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; and
A process for updating the disease strategy as new
information arises.
Factor D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was not identified
as a primary threat to island foxes, and, therefore, there are no
recovery criteria that address threats under this factor.
Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Small population size and vulnerability to stochastic or
catastrophic events were identified as primary threats to the species
under Factor E. To address recovery objective 1, that each federally
listed subspecies of island fox exhibits demographic characteristics
consistent with long-term viability, 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 (addresses objective 1). This
risk level is based on the following:
Quasi-extinction is defined as a population size of fewer
than or equal to 30 individuals.
The risk of quasi-extinction is calculated based on the
combined lower 80 percent confidence interval for a 3-year running
average of population size estimates, and the upper 80 percent
confidence interval for a 3-year running average of mortality rate
estimates.
This risk level is sustained for at least 5 years, during
which time the population trend is not declining. A declining trend is
defined as the 3-year risk-level being greater in year 5 than year 1.

Achievement of Recovery Criteria

Golden eagle predation is no longer a threat due to successful
golden eagle removals, nonnative prey removal, and bald eagle recovery.
Recovery criterion C/1 addresses golden eagle predation in the northern
Channel Islands (it does not apply to the Santa Catalina Island fox). A
final golden eagle management strategy has been approved (NPS 2015a,
entire), which involves actions that have already been implemented by
the 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 the deer and elk from Santa Rosa
Island. In addition, as bald eagles reestablish their populations on
the northern Channel Islands, they reduce the probability that golden
eagles will recolonize because bald eagles aggressively defend their
territories from golden eagles (USFWS 2004, pp. 10343-10344). Due to
ongoing management as prescribed in the final golden eagle management
strategy, current eagle predation is minimal, and has had a negligible
effect on fox population trends; therefore, the intent of recovery
criteria C/1 has been met.

[[Page 7728]]

Monitoring associated with criteria C/1 will be accomplished as
part of the epidemic response plan for the northern Channel Island
subspecies (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This monitoring will allow
detection of mortality related to depredation of island fox by golden
eagles (as well as early detection of mortality related to a disease
epidemic). As described above, ongoing management has reduced eagle
predation on island foxes in the northern Channel Islands to minimal
levels. Consequently, we recognize golden eagle predation is no longer
a threat to foxes on the northern Channel Islands, and the current
monitoring strategy allows for a rapid response to any identified
mortalities resulting from predation or disease. National Park Service
and TNC have committed through signed conservation management
agreements (CMAs) to carrying out monitoring and other management
actions as recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al.
2013, entire) for the next 5 years (USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC
2015). Prior to the expiration of the CMAs, the parties will meet to
review, modify, and re-enter into a CMA.
Recovery criterion C/2 addresses the threat of disease to all four
island fox subspecies. The intent of recovery criterion C/2 is
currently being met for the Santa Catalina Island fox; however, the
Santa Catalina Island fox subspecies has the highest risk of disease
introduction and low assurance of continued implementation of the
epidemic response plan in the future, creating uncertainty that this
criterion will continue to be met in the future. Santa Catalina Island
has the highest risk of disease introduction because movement of
potential vectors such as domestic dogs, cats, and stow-away raccoons
between the mainland and the island is not controlled. The island has
heavy visitation and many points of access, and there are no
restrictions on visitors transporting domestic pets to the island, no
restrictions or inspections required of vessels visiting from the
mainland, and leash laws for dogs are difficult to enforce (King and
Duncan 2011, p. 15; Anderson 2012, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1;
Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. obs.; King 2015, p. 1). The
Catalina Island Conservancy (CIC) has approved and is currently
implementing an epidemic response plan for Santa Catalina Island foxes
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The CIC annually vaccinates a portion of
the subspecies' population against CDV and rabies when vaccines are
available (King 2015, pers. comm.) and monitors for detection of
potential epidemics as recommended in the epidemic response plan
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire), although currently there are no
assurances to ensure monitoring will continue into the future on Santa
Catalina Island. If there is a lapse in continued implementation of the
epidemic response plan, a potential disease outbreak could occur
without detection or appropriate response to mediate the threat to the
subspecies.
A final disease management strategy has also been approved in the
form of an epidemic response plan for the northern Channel Island fox
subspecies (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This epidemic response plan
is currently implemented by the NPS and TNC, and provides direction for
monitoring, vaccination for canine distemper virus and rabies annually
to a portion of each island fox population, and response if mortality
is detected. While disease was not responsible for the decline of
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands, these subspecies, like
all island fox subspecies, will always be at some risk of a disease
outbreak and population decline because of their small population sizes
and isolation. However, the risk potential for disease outbreak has
been and continues to be reduced through implementation of the epidemic
response plan. Additionally, NPS and TNC have committed through signed
CMAs to carrying out monitoring and other management actions for
detecting and appropriately responding to a potential disease outbreak
into the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens
et al. 2013, entire; USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC 2015).
Recovery criterion E/1, which is intended to indicate when
population levels are sufficiently robust to withstand natural
variation in demographic parameters and avoid potential extirpations
from stochastic or catastrophic events, has been achieved for all four
island fox subspecies. This recovery criterion is attained when the 3-
year means of adult mortality rate versus population size and
confidence intervals lie below 5 percent risk of subspecies-specific
quasi-extinction for 5 consecutive years (see Supplementary Material
``Results of graphing/analysis tool to assess island fox recovery
criterion E/1'' posted on http://www.regulations.gov for more details).
Population monitoring has been implemented for each listed subspecies,
and population viability analyses 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 2014,
island fox populations had increased to greater than 500 on San Miguel
Island (Coonan 2015, pp. 7, 13), greater than 800 on Santa Rosa Island,
greater than 2,500 individuals on Santa Cruz Island (Bakker 2015, p.
4), and greater than 1,700 on Santa Catalina Island (King and Duncan
2014, p. 11). 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 (Coonan
2015, p. 8). We conclude, based on population viability analyses, that
the intent of recovery criterion E/1 has been achieved for all four
island fox subspecies. The graphing/analysis tool used to assess
attainment of recovery criterion E/1 and associated discussion is found
in Appendix 2 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 131-136). Detailed
results of the tool through 2014 can be found in the Supplementary
Material ``Results of graphing/analysis tool to assess island fox
recovery criterion E/1'' (derived from Coonan 2015, p. 12, 16; Boser
2015, p. 8; King and Duncan 2015, p. 12) on http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170.

Summary of Recovery Criteria

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 have been met for the San Miguel, Santa
Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes (see Table 1, below). With population
levels consistent with long-term viability, recovery objective 1 has
been met for the Santa Catalina Island fox. However, objective 2 has
not been met because currently there are no assurances to ensure
monitoring and management actions will continue into the future on
Santa Catalina Island and, because this island has a high risk of
introduced pathogens from the mainland, a disease outbreak could occur
without detection or appropriate response to mediate the threat to the
subspecies (Table 1).

[[Page 7729]]

Table 1--Summary of Achievement of Recovery Criteria for the Four Island Fox Subspecies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Risk-based Threat-based Recovery Threat-based Threat-based
Subspecies Recovery Criterion Criterion Recovery Criterion Recovery Criterion
An island fox Golden Eagle Golden Eagle Disease: A disease
subspecies has no Predation: A golden Predation: The prevention and
more than 5 percent eagle management golden eagle prey management strategy
risk of quasi- strategy is base of deer and is developed,
extinction over a 50 developed and elk is removed from approved, and
year period.. approved.. Santa Rosa Island.. implemented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Island Fox. 2014 numbers Eagle predation on N/A................. Epidemic response
increased to ~500+; northern Channel plan developed and
annual survival Island foxes has implemented; foxes
estimates ~ 80 been negligible vaccinated against
percent; since 2008, since 2006; golden CDV and rabies
extinction risk less eagle management continuing; CMA
than 5 percent over strategy is in place. signed committing
the next 50 years. to continued
monitoring.
Santa Rosa Island Fox. 2014 numbers Eagle predation on As of 2015, all elk Epidemic response
increased to ~800; northern Channel and all but a few plan developed and
annual survival Island foxes has deer have been implemented; foxes
estimates greater been negligible removed from Santa vaccinated against
than 90 percent; since 2006; golden Rosa Island. CDV and rabies
since 2011, eagle management continuing; CMA
extinction risk less strategy is in place. signed committing
than 5 over the next to continued
50 years percent. monitoring.
Santa Cruz Island Fox. 2014 numbers Eagle predation on N/A................. Epidemic response
increased to northern Channel developed and
~2,500+; annual Island foxes has implemented; foxes
survival estimates been negligible vaccinated against
greater than 90 since 2006; golden CDV and rabies
percent; since 2008, eagle management continuing; CMA
extinction risk less strategy is in place. signed committing
than 5 percent over to continued
the next 50 years. monitoring.
Santa 2014 numbers N/A.................. N/A................. Epidemic response
Catalina............. increased to ~1,700; plan developed and
Island Fox........... annual survival implemented; foxes
estimates greater vaccinated against
than 80 percent CDV and rabies
since 2006; since continuing; ongoing
2008, extinction relatively high
risk less than 5 potential for
percent over the disease vector
next 50 years. exposure;
insufficient long-
term monitoring and
management
assurance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 on, reclassifying
species on, or removing species from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. ``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 on the same basis.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of endangered species or threatened species. Determining
whether a species is recovered requires consideration of whether the
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of the
five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For
species that are already listed as endangered species 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.'' For the purposes of this rule, we define the
``foreseeable future'' to be 50 years because the population viability
analyses to determine the risk of quasi-extinction for each subspecies
are over a 50-year period (Bakker et al. 2009, entire). Therefore, we
estimate 50 years to be the extent to which, given the amount and
substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or
reliably extrapolate threat trends, such that reliable predictions can
be made 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).
A thorough analysis and discussion of the current status of the San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes is
detailed in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 21-29). Primary threats
to island foxes identified in the listing rule included predation by
golden eagles, disease, and stochastic risks to small populations and
lack of genetic variability. Since listing, impacts of feral cat
aggression, poisoning, and entrapment on Santa Catalina Island, and
fire, drought, and global climate change for all four islands have been
identified as possible new threats. 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.

[[Page 7730]]

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 and nonnative plant invasion was identified as a threat
under Factor A impacting island foxes (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004). The
listing rule identified habitat modification as causing some adverse
effects to island foxes, particularly conversion to grasslands, but
considered it unlikely to have directly caused the observed declines.
Annual grasslands constitute less preferred habitat for island foxes
(Laughrin 1977, p. 22; Roemer and Wayne 2003, pp. 1256-1257) and do not
provide cover from predators such as golden eagles (Roemer 1999, p. 99,
190-191). It is difficult to quantify the effects of past habitat loss
and/or alteration on the status of island foxes. However, habitat on
all islands occupied by island foxes has been affected by a combination
of livestock grazing, cultivation, and other disturbances, particularly
nonnative animal and plant invasion and urbanization on Santa Catalina
Island. Although it is possible that these habitat changes may have
exacerbated the effects of other threats, island fox populations
remained relatively stable prior to the commencement of golden eagle
predation in the mid-1990s and disease in 1999.
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 (Laughrin 1973, p. 14; Schoenherr et al. 1999,
pp. 191-194; Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Currently, impacts to island
fox habitats are primarily attributed to continued modification by
nonnative plant species, resulting in lower vegetation diversity and
habitat structure. The seeds of nonnative annual grasses can also cause
occasional damage or blindness by becoming lodged in the eyes and ears
of island foxes.
National Park Service (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; Park
staff would continue to eradicate, where feasible, nonnative flora and
fauna from the islands.
The island fox, as the species Urocyon littoralis (incorporating
all six subspecies), is listed as threatened under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) (section 2081(b)), which does provide a
level of protection from actual possession or intentional killing of
individual animals and actual death of individual animals incidental to
otherwise lawful activity, such as habitat conversion, on the privately
owned TNC-managed lands on Santa Cruz Island and privately owned lands
on Santa Catalina Island. Santa Catalina Island foxes are impacted by
the potential for land use change on non-conserved lands, including
development and recreational events such as off-road vehicle racing.
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 and nonnative plant invasion may have some negative
effects on island foxes, nonnative animals and plants no longer impact
the habitat to the extent that would cause population-level declines
that we would consider a threat to any of the subspecies of island fox
now or 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 are no longer
occurring. Research scientists are currently engaged in recovery
activities via USFWS-issued 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits. Our analyses
have determined these research activities do not pose a threat to any
island fox populations. Therefore, overutilization is not a threat to
any of the island fox subspecies at this time or in the future.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

A canine distemper virus (CDV) epidemic was considered the primary
threat to Santa Catalina Island fox at the time of listing (69 FR
10335; March 5, 2004). The listing rule also expressed some concern
regarding the potential impacts of canine adenovirus and canine
parvovirus. At the time of listing, golden eagle predation was the
primary cause for the decline of northern Channel Islands foxes (San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) (69 FR 10335; March 5,
2004), but potential for disease was also a concern, particularly given
the small population sizes at the time.
Disease
Infectious Pathogens: 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
1,717 individuals island-wide in 2014 (King and Duncan 2015, p. 10).
In 2014, a final epidemic response plan was approved and is being
implemented to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a
potential future disease outbreak for Santa Catalina Island foxes
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The Catalina Island Conservancy annually
monitors sentinel foxes 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.). At this time, however,
there is no assurance of continued funding for long-term monitoring and
management that could detect a novel outbreak and facilitate threat
abatement, as recommended in the epidemic response plan.
Transport of domestic and wild animals to and from Santa Catalina
Island increases the risk to island foxes of another disease outbreak.
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,

[[Page 7731]]

pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers.
obs.; King 2015, p. 22). 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). The CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on the island
(except the City of Avalon) and through their regulations requires all
nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed; they also require
that all dogs and cats be vaccinated against distemper and rabies, and
they should be leashed at all times (CIC 2015, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). 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 the CIC
does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas regularly.
Reduction of disease introduction risk also occurs through CIC outreach
and education of local authorities and the public; 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).
Therefore, current measures to control introduction of diseases by
domestic animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while
providing some protection, are limited.
Disease does not appear to be a significant mortality factor on the
northern Channel Islands, although Leptospirosis (infectious bacterium)
was found to be a mortality source for two Santa Rosa Island foxes in
2010 (Coonan and Guglielmino 2012, p. 21). Unlike on Santa Catalina
Island, dogs and other pets are not permitted on the northern Channel
Islands to reduce this risk of introduction of disease; however, dogs
are occasionally illegally brought onto the islands. 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 to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a
potential disease outbreak for the northern Channel Islands (Hudgens et
al. 2013, entire). Sentinel foxes are monitored to facilitate early
detection of a potential epidemic (Hudgens et al. 2013, pp. entire),
and foxes have been and continue to be vaccinated against CDV and
rabies when vaccines are available. Also, the Park identified island
foxes as an ecosystem element for which they will conduct long-term
annual population monitoring as part of the Park's long-term ecological
monitoring program, regardless of their status under the Act. Both NPS
and TNC have committed through signed CMAs (USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS
and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions into
the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan for northern
Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire).
Ear Canal Cancer: There is concern about the rate of ear canal
cancer in Santa Catalina Island foxes and how it might affect long-term
population viability. The first cases of ear canal cancer were
documented in 2000 and 2001, with increased detection through 2007
(Timm et al. 2002, p. 26; Kohlmann et al. 2003, p. 39; Schmidt et al.
2004, p. 15; Schmidt et al. 2005, p. 11; Munson et al. 2009, p. 5).
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). Since 2008, over
1,000 treatments were applied, and the prevalence of mites has been
reduced in the fox population from 87 percent to 28 percent. Tumor
prevalence in the Santa Catalina Island fox population remains an
actively managed source of mortality (Vickers et al. 2011, pp. 9-10).
However, we do not have long-term assurances that CIC will continue to
carry out monitoring and management actions into the future as
recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al. 2014,
entire).
Parasites: Parasites have not been confirmed as a direct mortality
source of island foxes; however, concurrent infection with a pathogen,
such as Spirocerca (nematode), can negatively impact host health and
decrease immunity (Munson 2010, pp. 134-136). In a species-wide survey,
Spirocerca was found in a high prevalence of necropsied island foxes,
but in most cases appeared to have little effect on the population
(Munson 2010, pp. 129, 134-136). Preliminary genetic analysis and the
location of lesions suggest that the Spirocerca found in island foxes
may be a different species than S. lupi, which occurs in domestic dogs
and other North American carnivores on the mainland. Currently,
Spirocerca is not a major health concern for most island foxes.
However, if island foxes are ever brought to the mainland for research
or captive breeding, efforts should be made to prevent transmission of
Spirocerca from island foxes to mainland carnivores and vice versa.
Infection by parasites other than Spirocerca has been suspected as
the cause of mortality in several island foxes, but is not considered a
significant mortality factor. Infection by hookworms (Uncinaria
stenocephala) and a lungworm (Angiocaulus gubernaculatus) may have
contributed to two mortalities in the San Miguel Island fox subspecies
(Coonan et al. 2005b, p. 38). In 2013, the San Miguel Island fox annual
survival rate declined from approximately 90 percent to about 80
percent; 5 of the 11 mortalities that occurred in radio-collared foxes
had evidence of acanthocephalans (spiny-headed worms), a parasite never
before recorded in island foxes (Coonan 2014, p. 6).
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, although vector movement via boat is frequent to Santa
Catalina Island. On all islands, an epidemic response plan is approved
and being implemented (Hudgens et al. 2013, 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 (USFWS 2015)). The NPS and TNC have committed (USFWS and NPS 2015;
USFWS and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions
into 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 at this time
and into 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 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.

[[Page 7732]]

Predation
As identified in the listing rule, golden eagle predation was the
primary cause for the decline of the northern Channel Islands fox
subspecies and the primary reason for the listing 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 are 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 (USFWS 2004, p.
10338); and (2) an open ecological niche created by the extirpation of
bald eagles from the islands as a result of DDT poisoning (USFWS 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 would not have allowed 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, the 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). Satellite telemetry affixed to the first 12 translocated
golden eagles confirmed that none of the relocated eagles attempted to
return to the islands for the 1.5-year life of the transmitter (USFWS
2015, p. 30). Ten nestlings were removed by hand from seven different
nests (two from Santa Rosa Island and five from Santa Cruz Island) and
fostered into mainland golden eagle nests or released. By mid-2005,
seven golden eagles were estimated to remain on the northern Channel
Islands, and removal efforts yielded diminishing returns. The last
eagles captured and removed from the islands were a pair of nesting
golden eagles and their chick on Santa Cruz Island in 2006 (Coonan et
al. 2010, p. 62), and there has been no record of breeding golden
eagles on the northern Channel Islands since that time.
Genetic work supports the long-term success of eagle translocation
efforts. Sonsthagen et al. (2012, pp. entire) investigated the genetics
of mainland golden eagles and those translocated from the islands,
finding that the island population was likely the result of one
colonization event. The likelihood of another successful golden eagle
colonization is low, given changes in nonnative prey availability and
monitoring/mitigation by land management agencies.
To ensure that golden eagles would be less likely to attempt to
establish territories again on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, TNC
and the 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 pig was removed from Santa Cruz Island in
January 2007 (Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Deer and elk were removed
from Santa Rosa Island as part of an agreement with the former owners
of the island. All elk and all but a few deer had been 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 (USFWS
2004, pp. 10343-10344), and their presence on the islands likely would
have discouraged dispersing golden eagles from establishing residence.
Prior to listing, NPS, 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. 2014, p. 374), predation has been
significantly reduced and is not considered a significant threat. 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. Mortality due to disease was the primary
reason for the decline and listing of Santa Catalina Island foxes.
Currently, 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, we do not have the assurance of continued implementation
of the epidemic response plan into the future on Santa Catalina Island
to detect and mitigate for future disease outbreaks. Therefore, we
still consider potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa
Catalina Island fox at this time.
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, such that we no longer consider
predation to be occurring at such a level that would cause population-
level declines 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 USFWS 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

[[Page 7733]]

species. . . .'' In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret
this language to require the USFWS to consider relevant Federal, State,
and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may
minimize any of the threats we describe in the threat 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
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the
protections of the Act. If this proposal is made final, the San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes would no longer be protected
under the Act; Santa Catalina Island foxes would remain protected under
the Act as a threatened species. Therefore, we examine whether other
regulatory mechanisms will remain in place after delisting, and the
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that
future threats will be reduced or minimized.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, 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 discussed under Factor C, the primary threats of golden eagle
predation and disease have been ameliorated though management,
monitoring, and CMAs on the northern Channel Islands. Other threats
affecting all currently listed island foxes, such as habitat
modification by nonnative grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion
(Factor A), have been and are being controlled through appropriate
management and conservation ownership as described in Factor A, and we
anticipate that these efforts will continue into the future. Other
sources of mortality are assessed under Factor E and found to not exert
a significant population-level effect on island foxes now or in the
future. Consequently, we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address these specific threats. The remaining threat is the
potential for a disease epidemic 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, we do not
have the assurance of continued implementation of the epidemic response
plan into 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. Consequently, our analysis here
examines how existing regulatory mechanisms address this remaining
identified threat.
The CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on Santa Catalina
Island (except the City of Avalon) and through its regulations requires
all nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed and that all
dogs and cats be vaccinated against distemper and rabies (CIC 2015,
http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). 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 the 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 northern Channel Islands subspecies of island fox have been
removed; disease remains a threat to the Santa Catalina population of
island fox. Consequently, our Factor D analysis examines how existing
regulatory mechanisms address this identified threat. Enforcement of
CIC regulations, which are meant to limit the risk of disease
introduction, is labor-intensive and costly because the island is large
with many remote coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and
the CIC does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas
regularly. Thus, 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 disease to Santa Catalina Island fox. Therefore, we still consider
potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island
fox at this time under Factor C that is not addressed by existing
regulatory mechanisms, but, in and of itself, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is not a current threat to any of the
subspecies, nor is it expected to become a threat in the future.

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, and 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 (i.e., no other populations to ``rescue'' a declining
or extirpated one) 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 highs, and the threat
of extinction from demographic stochasticity has accordingly been
reduced.
The island fox populations have reduced or low genetic diversity
due to the population bottlenecks they experienced during past extreme
population lows (Gray et al. 2001, p. 8; Gray 2002, pp. entire). This
lack of

[[Page 7734]]

variability could be attributed either to extensive inbreeding or to
bottlenecking resulting from low population densities (George and Wayne
1991, entire). 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. 1858; 1991b, p. entire). While additional genetic
diversity was lost during the recent declines, island foxes are
probably 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 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 very
limited, restricted to only land management personnel and researchers.
On Santa Catalina Island, vehicle collision was considered the ``number
one cause of fox mortality'' on Santa Catalina Island (CIC 2009, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org), and it remains the most frequently
reported cause of death. In 2014, at least 20 foxes died from vehicle-
related trauma (King and Duncan 2015, pp. 18-19). In some cases, during
the breeding season, mortality of parents (lactating females or
foraging males) may result in additional loss of offspring
(Wolstenholme 2011, pers. comm.; King 2012g, p. 1). The increase in
annual average vehicle-strike deaths is likely due to an increased fox
population size on the island, and the island-wide 25 mile per hour
speed limit (CIC 2015, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org) likely
minimizes the number of vehicle strike mortalities that would otherwise
occur. Although mortality by motor vehicles is not considered a
population-level threat at this time or in the future, vehicles strikes
remain the primary human-caused source of individual mortality on Santa
Catalina Island.
Interactions With Feral Cats and Domestic Dogs
Feral cats and domestic dogs occur on Santa Catalina Island. Feral
cats weigh approximately twice as much as island foxes, and they 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). Although hawks and owls
may occasionally kill cats, there are no significant predators of cats
on Santa Catalina Island that can control their population (Guttilla
2007, p. 8).
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 (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 the 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 the 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 2011e, pers. comm.). Although
competition and other negative interactions with feral cats can affect
individual foxes, they do not pose a population-level threat at this
time or in the future.
Instances of fox mortality from dog attacks have been observed over
the past decade: Two in 2005 (Gaffney 2011, p. 1; Munson and Gaffney
2011, p. 1), one in 2010 (King and Duncan 2011, pp. 12-13), two in 2011
(King and Duncan 2012, p. 14), two probable in 2012 (King 2012a, p. 1;
2012b, p. 1), and one in 2015 (King 2015, p. 1). Because the likelihood
of finding foxes killed by domestic dogs and identifying dogs as the
mortality source is relatively low, these mortalities are likely
underreported (Wolstenholme 2011, pers. comm.). It is common for dogs
to be observed off-leash in campgrounds and other areas of the island
outside of the City of Avalon (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15; Anderson
2012, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014,
pers. obs.; 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 a significant impact to fox populations at this time
or in the future.
Poisoning and Entrapment
Other impacts to Santa Catalina Island foxes resulting from human
interaction include mortality from poisoning and entrapment. 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 death
from being trapped in a recycling barrel (Vickers 2012b, p. 1); and two
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.
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 1836-1986 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.
Sediment cores indicate that fire on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz
Islands increased in frequency during the past 5,000 years and peaked
during the historic period (200 years ago), though frequency and
intensity are still far less than on the adjacent mainland (Anderson et
al. 2010, p. 792). Because of this, island foxes on the northern
Channel Islands have experienced very few large wildland fire events.
The recent removal of grazers may increase fuel loads and thus the
likelihood of

[[Page 7735]]

larger fires, though cool and foggy conditions will continue to limit
wildland fire spread. Additionally, the 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 (USFWS 2004, p. 10347). The most devastating
wildfire on record was the Island Fire ignited on May 10, 2007, which
burned 4,760 ac (1,926 ha) (CIC 2011). The second largest fire in
recent history (1999-2011) was the Empire Fire, which was started by
lightning on July 22, 2006, and burned 1,063 ac (430 ha). 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, but in
general, neither the Island Fire nor the Empire Fire seemed to have
significant effects 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 occur, wildfire does not pose a
significant population-level impact to the island fox at this time nor
do we anticipate it posing a significant population-level impact in the
future.
Drought
The Channel Islands, as well as the rest of the State of
California, are currently in the midst of a drought that began in 2012
and, as of mid-January 2016, has not abated (State of California 2016,
http://ca.gov/drought/ accessed January 19, 2016). Island foxes have
endured many droughts during their 10,000-year persistence on the
islands (California Department of Water Resources 2015, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/droughtinfo.cfm). Deep multi-year
droughts have occurred on the Channel Islands about once every 2
decades since 1900 (T. Coonan, NPS, 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 period of intensive island fox monitoring and research
began in 1993, after a 6-year drought concluded. The current drought is
the first opportunity to study the effect of drought on island foxes,
where 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; T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data). During this time,
mortality also increased, and many fox carcasses were emaciated (Coonan
et al. 2014, pp. 6-7). On Santa Catalina Island, it appears 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. It is apparent that one
response of island foxes to drought is to curtail reproduction,
especially if the population is at carrying capacity (Coonan 2015, pp.
6, 8, 13; Coonan et al. 2010, p. 28). 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. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a
typical period for such measurements (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450). The term
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability
of one or more measures of climate (for example, temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, whether the change
is due to natural variability or human activity (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450).
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 (for these and
other examples, see 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 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.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, entire;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527,
529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield very
similar projections of increases in the most common measure of climate
change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global
warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the magnitude and
rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all
the projections is one of increasing global warming through the end of
this century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume
that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong
scientific support for projections that warming will continue through
the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change will be
influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (Meehl et al.
2007, pp. 760-764, 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn
et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529; IPCC 2013b, pp. 19-23). See IPCC 2013b
(entire), for a summary of other global projections of climate-related
changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation.
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species.

[[Page 7736]]

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.
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 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. 1158) 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. 1158). Therefore, climate
change may change and could potentially increase the parasites and
disease vectors to which island foxes are exposed.
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. 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). Because island
foxes have shown relative plasticity with regard to utilizing nonnative
species (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. Though difficult to quantify,
change in global climate could impact island fox populations on each
island and may pose a threat to this species that is not yet reflected
in studied population dynamics. As with most endangered species,
predicting likely future climate scenarios and understanding the
complex effects of climate change are high priorities for island fox
conservation planning. 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
cause major declines. However, 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 the population was at its
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. 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
consider climate change to be a threat to island foxes now nor in the
foreseeable 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 the population may not be
vaccinated against. The primary measures in place on all islands to
reduce these threats 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 into the future.
During the period when the island fox populations were at their
lowest, they were extremely vulnerable to extinction from stochastic
events. Although there will always be some inherent risk of extinction
due to stochastic events because each island fox subspecies is a single
breeding population, the populations have now increased substantially,
returning to historical

[[Page 7737]]

population highs, and the threat of extinction from demographic
stochasticity has accordingly been reduced.
Mortality due to motor vehicle strikes, habitat loss, ear mite
infection, ear canal cancer, feral cats, and domestic dogs results in
loss of individuals, but these mortality factors are not considered
independent threats to fox populations at this time because populations
are relatively large. 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, but climate change is
not considered to be a threat at this time.
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 population. 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. 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 a
significant population-level impact to island foxes at this time nor do
we anticipate that they will in the future.

Finding

We have assessed the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes in
this proposed rule. 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.
The threat of disease to the Santa Catalina Island fox has been
ameliorated through implementation of programs to provide vaccinations,
ear mite treatments, and a sentinel monitoring program to aid in
detection of and facilitate a response to an epidemic. However, we do
not have assurances that this monitoring and management as prescribed
in the epidemic response plan will continue into the future.
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.
Based on the information presented in this status review, 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. 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 in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges,
nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
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 1,717 in 2014 (King and Duncan 2014, p. 11). 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 in danger of extinction in the immediate future), 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 have coordinated with
CIC to determine their ability to enter into an agreement to provide
assurances of long-term implementation of the epidemic response plan.
CIC indicated that they could not ensure availability of long-term
funding at this time that would allow them to commit to long-term
implementation of the epidemic response plan. Overall, we recognize
that CIC's efforts have significantly contributed to a reduction of
impacts to the Santa Catalina fox and its habitat on the island. 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. We, therefore, propose a change in status
for the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered species to a
threatened species at this time. 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

[[Page 7738]]

or threatened species (see 79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) (also see
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis, below).

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

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 USFWS 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 proposing to list the
Santa Catalina Island fox as a threatened species under the Act, 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 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' range. As mentioned
above, one way to identify portions for further analyses is to identify
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 (USFWS 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

[[Page 7739]]

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 separate
portions that contribute incrementally 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 in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section, above, may continue to affect
each of the subspecies, the factors affecting island foxes generally
occur at similarly low levels throughout 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.
In conclusion, we find 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 a significant portion of their range, nor
are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, at
this time, the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox no
longer meet the definitions of an endangered species or a threatened
species under the Act, and we propose to remove these species from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Act.

Effects of This Rulemaking

If this proposed rule is made final, it would revise 50 CFR
17.11(h) to remove the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island
foxes from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and would
reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered species to
a threatened species. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, or Santa Cruz Island foxes.
Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with the USFWS
under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out may affect the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa
Island fox, or Santa Cruz Island fox. As a result of their removal from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h), we
would also remove the entries at 50 CFR 17.95(a) (Critical habitat--
fish and wildlife) for the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz
Island foxes; currently, each entry specifies that no areas meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act for the
applicable subspecies. We would retain the entry at 50 CFR 17.95(a) for
the Santa Catalina Island fox.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (50 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. A peer review panel will conduct an assessment of the
proposed rule, and the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposed delisting. This assessment will be completed during the
public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted (50 CFR
17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring is to
verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it
has been removed from the protections of the Act. The monitoring is
designed to detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain
itself without the protective measures provided by the Act. 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. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate
with the States in development and implementation of post-delisting
monitoring programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with
section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases
of post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of
other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the
species' conservation post-delisting.

Post-Delisting Monitoring Overview

If we make this proposed rule final, the post-delisting monitoring
is designed to verify that northern Channel Island foxes (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 would 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 posted on http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at http://www.regulations.gov under
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 draft 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 would 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 et al. 2014, p. 2). Such monitoring has

[[Page 7740]]

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 would
be monitored, as it is now, via tracking of radio-collared foxes.
Mortality checks would be conducted weekly on radio-collared foxes, and
necropsies would 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).
The USFWS, NPS, and TNC would annually review the results of
monitoring, which would include annual estimated adult population size,
annual adult survival, and identified causes of mortality. If there are
apparent sharp declines in population size and/or survival or the
appearance of significant mortality causes, the data would 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, USFWS, NPS, and TNC would determine
whether monitoring should continue beyond the 10-year monitoring
period.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Proposed Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

We determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the 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 all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, or upon request from the Field Supervisor,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is 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.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to 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'' to read as set
forth below.

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------
population where Critical
Special
Historic
range endangered or Status When listed habitat
rules
Common name Scientific name
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mammals

* *
* * * * *
Fox, Santa Catalina Island....... Urocyon littoralis U.S.A.
(CA)........ Entire............. T 742
17.95(a) NA
catalinae.

* *
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page
7741]]

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: January 29, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-02669 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P