Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7723 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 231 

Government procurement. 

Jennifer L. Hawes, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 231—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 231 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

■ 2. In section 231.205–18, revise 

paragraph (c)(iii)(C) to read as follows: 

231.205–18 Independent research and 

development and bid and proposal costs. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(C) For annual IR&D costs to be 

allowable— 

(1) The IR&D projects generating the 

costs must be reported to the Defense 

Technical Information Center (DTIC) 

using the DTIC’s on-line input form and 

instructions at http://www.defense

innovationmarketplace.mil/; 

(2) The inputs must be updated with 

a summary of results at least annually 

and when the project is completed; 

(3) Copies of the input and updates 

must be made available for review by 

the cognizant administrative contracting 

officer (ACO) and the cognizant Defense 

Contract Audit Agency auditor to 

support the allowability of the costs; 

(4) Contractors that do not meet the 

threshold as a major contractor are 

encouraged to use the DTIC on-line 

input form to report IR&D projects to 

provide DoD with visibility into the 

technical content of the contractors’ 

IR&D activities; and 

(5) For IR&D projects initiated in the 

contractor’s fiscal year 2017 and later, as 

a prerequisite for the subsequent 

determination of allowability, major 

contractors must— 

(i) Engage in a technical interchange 

with a technical or operational DoD 

Government employee before IR&D 

costs are generated so that contractor 

plans and goals for IR&D projects benefit 

from the awareness of and feedback by 

a DoD employee who is informed of 

related ongoing and future potential 

interest opportunities; and 

(ii) Use the online input form for IR&D 

projects reported to DTIC to document 

the technical interchange, which 

includes the name of the DoD 

Government employee and the date the 

technical interchange occurred. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–03039 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

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 postdelisting 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7724 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7725 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP16FE16.000</GPH>
7726 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 captiveborn pups and 20 of the original wildcaptured 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 subjectmatter 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 quasiextinction 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7728 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 preybase 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 longterm 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7729 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENT OF RECOVERY CRITERIA FOR THE FOUR ISLAND FOX SUBSPECIES

Subspecies Population Risk-based 

Recovery Criterion 

Threat-based 

Recovery Criterion 

Threat-based 

Recovery Criterion 

Threat-based 

Recovery Criterion 

An island fox subspecies has 

no more than 5 percent risk 

of quasi-extinction over a 

50 year period. 

Golden Eagle Predation: A 

golden eagle management 

strategy is developed and 

approved. 

Golden Eagle Predation: The 

golden eagle prey base of 

deer and elk is removed 

from Santa Rosa Island. 

Disease: A disease prevention 

and management strategy 

is developed, approved, 

and implemented. 

San Miguel 

Island Fox.

2014 numbers increased to 

∼500+; annual survival estimates ∼ 80 percent; since 

2008, extinction risk less 

than 5 percent over the 

next 50 years.

Eagle predation on northern 

Channel Island foxes has 

been negligible since 2006; 

golden eagle management 

strategy is in place.

N/A .......................................... Epidemic response plan developed and implemented; 

foxes vaccinated against 

CDV and rabies continuing; 

CMA signed committing to 

continued monitoring. 

Santa Rosa 

Island Fox.

2014 numbers increased to 

∼800; annual survival estimates greater than 90 percent; since 2011, extinction 

risk less than 5 over the 

next 50 years percent.

Eagle predation on northern 

Channel Island foxes has 

been negligible since 2006; 

golden eagle management 

strategy is in place.

As of 2015, all elk and all but 

a few deer have been removed from Santa Rosa Island.

Epidemic response plan developed and implemented; 

foxes vaccinated against 

CDV and rabies continuing; 

CMA signed committing to 

continued monitoring. 

Santa Cruz 

Island Fox.

2014 numbers increased to 

∼2,500+; annual survival estimates greater than 90 percent; since 2008, extinction 

risk less than 5 percent 

over the next 50 years.

Eagle predation on northern 

Channel Island foxes has 

been negligible since 2006; 

golden eagle management 

strategy is in place.

N/A .......................................... Epidemic response developed 

and implemented; foxes 

vaccinated against CDV 

and rabies continuing; CMA 

signed committing to continued monitoring. 

Santa 

Catalina 

Island Fox. 

2014 numbers increased to 

∼1,700; annual survival estimates greater than 80 percent since 2006; since 

2008, extinction risk less 

than 5 percent over the 

next 50 years.

N/A .......................................... N/A .......................................... Epidemic response plan developed and implemented; 

foxes vaccinated against 

CDV and rabies continuing; 

ongoing relatively high potential for disease vector 

exposure; insufficient longterm 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7730 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonconserved 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 populationlevel 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 longterm 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 laborintensive 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 (spinyheaded 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7732 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 mid2005, 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 ungulatefree 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 laborintensive 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7734 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 humancaused 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 humancaused 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7736 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 (coldblooded), 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 longterm 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 longterm 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7738 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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, postdelisting 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-markrecapture data from trapping foxes on 

grids (Rubin et al. 2007, p. 2–1; Coonan 

et al. 2014, p. 2). Such monitoring has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7740 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 radiocollared 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 radiotelemetry 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 

under MAMMALS, by: 

■ a. Removing the entries for ‘‘Fox, San 

Miguel Island’’, ‘‘Fox, Santa Cruz 

Island’’, and ‘‘Fox, Santa Rosa Island’’; 

and 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Fox, Santa 

Catalina Island’’ to read as set forth 

below. 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered 

or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Fox, Santa Catalina 

Island.

Urocyon littoralis 

catalinae.

U.S.A. (CA) ........... Entire ..................... T 742 17.95(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7741 

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS