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


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170; FFXES11130000-156-FF08E00000]
RIN 1018-BA71


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the San 
Miguel Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, and Santa Cruz Island Fox 
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and 
Reclassifying the Santa Catalina Island Fox From Endangered to 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to 
remove the San Miguel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis), Santa 
Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae), and Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. 
santacruzae) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and to reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. 
catalinae) from an endangered species to a threatened species. This 
determination is based on a thorough review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats 
to the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz 
Island fox have been eliminated or reduced to the point that each of 
the subspecies no longer meets the definition of an endangered species 
or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), and that the threats to the Santa Catalina Island fox 
have been reduced to the point that the subspecies can be reclassified 
as a threatened species. We are seeking information and comments from 
the public regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting 
monitoring plan for the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, 
and Santa Cruz Island fox.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; by telephone 805-644-1766; or 
by facsimile 805-644-3958. If you use a

[[Page 7724]]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested

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

Public Hearings

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

Previous Federal Actions

    On December 10, 2001, we published a proposal to list four 
subspecies of island foxes as endangered species (66 FR 63654). Please 
refer to this proposed rule for information on Federal actions prior to 
December 10, 2001. On March 5, 2004, we published a final rule listing 
the four subspecies of island foxes as endangered species (69 FR 
10335). Please refer to the final Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of 
Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) (USFWS 2015, entire) for a detailed 
description of Federal actions concerning this species. We did not 
designate critical habitat for the four subspecies of island fox, as 
explained in our November 9, 2005, final critical habitat determination 
(70 FR 67924).
    We published a notice announcing the initiation of a review of the 
status of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz 
Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox under section 4(c)(2) of the 
Act on March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12521), with the notice announcing the 
availability of the final recovery plan. This proposed rule to remove 
the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and the Santa Cruz 
Island fox from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 
and to reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered 
species to a threatened species, also constitutes a status review for 
each subspecies.

Background

    The Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon 
littoralis) (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 2015, entire) was prepared by USFWS 
working with a Recovery Team that included public agency 
representatives, landowners, conservancies, zoological institutions, 
non-profits, and academics. The Recovery Plan includes discussion of 
the following: Species description and taxonomy, habitat use, social 
organization, reproduction, distribution and abundance, threats to the 
subspecies, and recovery strategies. Detailed information from the 
Recovery Plan is summarized in the following sections of this proposed 
rule: Background, Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation, and 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species. See the Recovery Plan for 
more information on the species' ecology, species' biological needs, 
and analysis of the threats that may be impacting the subspecies.
    The island fox (Urocyon littoralis), a diminutive relative of the 
gray fox (U. cinereoargenteus), is endemic to the California Channel 
Islands. Island foxes inhabit the six largest of the eight Channel 
Islands (San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa 
Catalina Island, San Nicolas Island, and San Clemente Island) and are 
recognized as distinct subspecies on each of the six islands (see 
Figure 1, below). Islands inhabited by island foxes are owned by four 
major landowners: The National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Navy 
(Navy), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Santa Catalina Island 
Conservancy (CIC), all of whom have management authority for wildlife 
on their lands (Figure 1). The NPS, TNC, and CIC manage the islands 
where the listed subspecies occur.

[[Page 7725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16FE16.000

    Both morphologic and genetic distinctions support the 
classification of separate subspecies of island foxes for each island 
(Collins 1993, entire; Gilbert et al. 1990, entire; Goldstein et al. 
1999, entire; Wayne et al. 1991a, entire). The island fox is a habitat 
generalist, occurring in all natural habitats on the Channel Islands, 
although it prefers areas of diverse topography and vegetation (von 
Bloeker 1967, pp. 257-258; Laughrin 1977, p. 33; Collins and Laughrin 
1979, p. 12). The island fox is primarily nocturnal, but more diurnal 
than the mainland gray fox (Collins and Laughrin 1979, p. 12.46; Crooks 
and Van Vuren 1995, p. 305; Fausett 1993, p. 30), possibly a result of 
historical absence of predators and freedom from human harassment 
(Laughrin 1977, pp. 19-20).
    Even in the absence of catastrophic events, island fox populations 
may have fluctuated markedly over time (Laughrin 1980, entire). 
Residents of Santa Cruz Island occasionally noted periods of island fox 
scarcity and abundance (Laughrin 1980, p. 745). Santa Catalina Island 
fox population levels were low in 1972, and again in 1977 (Laughrin 
1980, p. 747); however, by 1994, the adult Santa Catalina Island fox 
population was estimated at over 1,300 individuals (Roemer et al. 1994, 
p. 393). Demographic analysis indicated that island fox survival was 
positively related to the previous year's winter rainfall in the drier 
southern islands and negatively related to current and previous year's 
winter rainfall in the wetter northern islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, 
and Santa Cruz Island) (Bakker et al. 2009, p. 87; USFWS 2015 Appendix 
2). Thus, indirect evidence suggests effects of climate on island fox 
survival.
    The four federally listed island fox subspecies (San Miguel, Santa 
Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes) all experienced 
precipitous population declines in the latter half of the 1990s (Roemer 
1999, pp. 124-125, 169-171; Timm et al. 2000, pp. 6-7, 16-17; Coonan et 
al. 2000, entire; 2005a, pp. 263-264; Roemer et al. 2001, entire). San 
Miguel Island foxes declined from 450 individuals in 1994, to 15 in 
1999/2000; Santa Rosa Island foxes declined from 1,780 individuals in 
1994, to 15 in 1999/2000; Santa Cruz Island foxes declined from 1,465 
individuals in 1994, to 55 in 1999/2000; and Santa Catalina Island 
foxes declined from 1,342 individuals in 1994, to 103 in 1999/2000. 
Island fox populations on the northern Channel Islands (San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) declined by 90 to 95 percent and, 
prior to removal of foxes from the wild for captive breeding, were 
estimated to have a 50 percent chance of extinction over 5 to 10 years 
(Roemer 1999, p. 147; Roemer et al. 2001, p. 312). Thus, by 1999, 
researchers considered island fox subspecies on the northern Channel 
Islands to be critically endangered (Roemer 1999, p. 180). The Santa 
Catalina Island subspecies was considered to be critically endangered 
by 2000 (Timm et al. 2000, entire).
    The decline of island foxes in the northern Channel Islands (San 
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands) is considered a consequence 
of

[[Page 7726]]

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

Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include: 
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the 
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions 
to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect 
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the 
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species (or not) 
because of one or more of five threat factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b) of the Act 
requires that the determination be made ``solely on the basis of the 
best scientific and commercial data available.'' Recovery criteria 
should therefore indicate when a species is no longer an endangered 
species or threatened species because of any of the five statutory 
factors.
    Thus, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the USFWS, 
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed 
species and measurable objectives against which to measure progress 
towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the 
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis 
of the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine 
whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened 
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the 
recovery plan.
    The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 47-53) includes the recovery 
goals, recovery objectives, and recovery criteria that we outline below 
to reclassify the island fox subspecies from endangered to threatened 
and to remove island fox subspecies from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. We summarize these goals and then discuss progress 
toward meeting the recovery objectives.

Recovery Goal

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

Recovery Objectives

    Recovery objectives identify mechanisms for measuring progress 
toward and achieving the recovery goal for each subspecies.
    Recovery Objective 1: Each federally listed subspecies of island 
fox exhibits demographic characteristics consistent with long-term 
viability.
    Recovery Objective 2: Land managers are able to respond in a timely 
fashion to predation by nesting golden eagles or significant predation 
rates by transient golden eagles, to potential or incipient disease 
outbreaks, and to other identified threats using the best available 
technology.
    In order for any one of the four listed subspecies of island fox to 
be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status, 
recovery objective 1 should be met for that subspecies. In order for 
any one of the four listed subspecies of island fox to be considered 
for delisting, recovery objective 1 and recovery objective 2 should be 
met for that subspecies.

Recovery Criteria

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

[[Page 7727]]

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

Achievement of Recovery Criteria

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

[[Page 7728]]

    Monitoring associated with criteria C/1 will be accomplished as 
part of the epidemic response plan for the northern Channel Island 
subspecies (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This monitoring will allow 
detection of mortality related to depredation of island fox by golden 
eagles (as well as early detection of mortality related to a disease 
epidemic). As described above, ongoing management has reduced eagle 
predation on island foxes in the northern Channel Islands to minimal 
levels. Consequently, we recognize golden eagle predation is no longer 
a threat to foxes on the northern Channel Islands, and the current 
monitoring strategy allows for a rapid response to any identified 
mortalities resulting from predation or disease. National Park Service 
and TNC have committed through signed conservation management 
agreements (CMAs) to carrying out monitoring and other management 
actions as recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al. 
2013, entire) for the next 5 years (USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC 
2015). Prior to the expiration of the CMAs, the parties will meet to 
review, modify, and re-enter into a CMA.
    Recovery criterion C/2 addresses the threat of disease to all four 
island fox subspecies. The intent of recovery criterion C/2 is 
currently being met for the Santa Catalina Island fox; however, the 
Santa Catalina Island fox subspecies has the highest risk of disease 
introduction and low assurance of continued implementation of the 
epidemic response plan in the future, creating uncertainty that this 
criterion will continue to be met in the future. Santa Catalina Island 
has the highest risk of disease introduction because movement of 
potential vectors such as domestic dogs, cats, and stow-away raccoons 
between the mainland and the island is not controlled. The island has 
heavy visitation and many points of access, and there are no 
restrictions on visitors transporting domestic pets to the island, no 
restrictions or inspections required of vessels visiting from the 
mainland, and leash laws for dogs are difficult to enforce (King and 
Duncan 2011, p. 15; Anderson 2012, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; 
Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. obs.; King 2015, p. 1). The 
Catalina Island Conservancy (CIC) has approved and is currently 
implementing an epidemic response plan for Santa Catalina Island foxes 
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The CIC annually vaccinates a portion of 
the subspecies' population against CDV and rabies when vaccines are 
available (King 2015, pers. comm.) and monitors for detection of 
potential epidemics as recommended in the epidemic response plan 
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire), although currently there are no 
assurances to ensure monitoring will continue into the future on Santa 
Catalina Island. If there is a lapse in continued implementation of the 
epidemic response plan, a potential disease outbreak could occur 
without detection or appropriate response to mediate the threat to the 
subspecies.
    A final disease management strategy has also been approved in the 
form of an epidemic response plan for the northern Channel Island fox 
subspecies (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire). This epidemic response plan 
is currently implemented by the NPS and TNC, and provides direction for 
monitoring, vaccination for canine distemper virus and rabies annually 
to a portion of each island fox population, and response if mortality 
is detected. While disease was not responsible for the decline of 
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands, these subspecies, like 
all island fox subspecies, will always be at some risk of a disease 
outbreak and population decline because of their small population sizes 
and isolation. However, the risk potential for disease outbreak has 
been and continues to be reduced through implementation of the epidemic 
response plan. Additionally, NPS and TNC have committed through signed 
CMAs to carrying out monitoring and other management actions for 
detecting and appropriately responding to a potential disease outbreak 
into the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens 
et al. 2013, entire; USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS and TNC 2015).
    Recovery criterion E/1, which is intended to indicate when 
population levels are sufficiently robust to withstand natural 
variation in demographic parameters and avoid potential extirpations 
from stochastic or catastrophic events, has been achieved for all four 
island fox subspecies. This recovery criterion is attained when the 3-
year means of adult mortality rate versus population size and 
confidence intervals lie below 5 percent risk of subspecies-specific 
quasi-extinction for 5 consecutive years (see Supplementary Material 
``Results of graphing/analysis tool to assess island fox recovery 
criterion E/1'' posted on http://www.regulations.gov for more details). 
Population monitoring has been implemented for each listed subspecies, 
and population viability analyses indicate all subspecies have an 
acceptably small risk of extinction. The extinction risk has been less 
than 5 percent since 2008 for San Miguel, Santa Cruz, and Santa 
Catalina Islands, and since 2011 for Santa Rosa Island. As of 2014, 
island fox populations had increased to greater than 500 on San Miguel 
Island (Coonan 2015, pp. 7, 13), greater than 800 on Santa Rosa Island, 
greater than 2,500 individuals on Santa Cruz Island (Bakker 2015, p. 
4), and greater than 1,700 on Santa Catalina Island (King and Duncan 
2014, p. 11). All populations with the exception of Santa Rosa Island 
are at or above their pre-decline population estimates (Coonan 2015a, 
pers. comm.; King and Duncan 2014, pp. 1, 10). On San Miguel Island, 
low reproductive effort coupled with declining survival suggests that 
the San Miguel Island subspecies has reached carrying capacity (Coonan 
2015, p. 8). We conclude, based on population viability analyses, that 
the intent of recovery criterion E/1 has been achieved for all four 
island fox subspecies. The graphing/analysis tool used to assess 
attainment of recovery criterion E/1 and associated discussion is found 
in Appendix 2 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 131-136). Detailed 
results of the tool through 2014 can be found in the Supplementary 
Material ``Results of graphing/analysis tool to assess island fox 
recovery criterion E/1'' (derived from Coonan 2015, p. 12, 16; Boser 
2015, p. 8; King and Duncan 2015, p. 12) on http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170.

Summary of Recovery Criteria

    With the golden eagle management strategy in place, complete 
removal of golden eagles and their nonnative prey-base from the 
northern Channel Islands, development and implementation of an epidemic 
response plan, and population levels consistent with long-term 
viability, the intent of recovery objectives 1 and 2, and the 
associated recovery criteria have been met for the San Miguel, Santa 
Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes (see Table 1, below). With population 
levels consistent with long-term viability, recovery objective 1 has 
been met for the Santa Catalina Island fox. However, objective 2 has 
not been met because currently there are no assurances to ensure 
monitoring and management actions will continue into the future on 
Santa Catalina Island and, because this island has a high risk of 
introduced pathogens from the mainland, a disease outbreak could occur 
without detection or appropriate response to mediate the threat to the 
subspecies (Table 1).

[[Page 7729]]



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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species on, reclassifying 
species on, or removing species from the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as 
including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and 
any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species 
may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species 
because of any one or a combination of the five factors described in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be 
reclassified on the same basis.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's 
definition of endangered species or threatened species. Determining 
whether a species is recovered requires consideration of whether the 
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of the 
five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 
species that are already listed as endangered species or threatened 
species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats 
currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely 
to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting 
or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
    A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term 
``foreseeable future.'' For the purposes of this rule, we define the 
``foreseeable future'' to be 50 years because the population viability 
analyses to determine the risk of quasi-extinction for each subspecies 
are over a 50-year period (Bakker et al. 2009, entire). Therefore, we 
estimate 50 years to be the extent to which, given the amount and 
substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or 
reliably extrapolate threat trends, such that reliable predictions can 
be made concerning the future as it relates to the status of the four 
subspecies of island fox (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa 
Catalina Island foxes).
    A thorough analysis and discussion of the current status of the San 
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes is 
detailed in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015, pp. 21-29). Primary threats 
to island foxes identified in the listing rule included predation by 
golden eagles, disease, and stochastic risks to small populations and 
lack of genetic variability. Since listing, impacts of feral cat 
aggression, poisoning, and entrapment on Santa Catalina Island, and 
fire, drought, and global climate change for all four islands have been 
identified as possible new threats. The following sections provide a 
summary of the past, current, and potential future threats impacting 
the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island 
foxes.

[[Page 7730]]

Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Habitat or Range

    At the time of listing in 2004, habitat modification by nonnative 
grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion was identified as a threat 
under Factor A impacting island foxes (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004). The 
listing rule identified habitat modification as causing some adverse 
effects to island foxes, particularly conversion to grasslands, but 
considered it unlikely to have directly caused the observed declines. 
Annual grasslands constitute less preferred habitat for island foxes 
(Laughrin 1977, p. 22; Roemer and Wayne 2003, pp. 1256-1257) and do not 
provide cover from predators such as golden eagles (Roemer 1999, p. 99, 
190-191). It is difficult to quantify the effects of past habitat loss 
and/or alteration on the status of island foxes. However, habitat on 
all islands occupied by island foxes has been affected by a combination 
of livestock grazing, cultivation, and other disturbances, particularly 
nonnative animal and plant invasion and urbanization on Santa Catalina 
Island. Although it is possible that these habitat changes may have 
exacerbated the effects of other threats, island fox populations 
remained relatively stable prior to the commencement of golden eagle 
predation in the mid-1990s and disease in 1999.
    Eradication programs on all islands have greatly reduced the number 
of nonnative herbivores on the islands and therefore the magnitude of 
impacts to the habitat (Laughrin 1973, p. 14; Schoenherr et al. 1999, 
pp. 191-194; Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Currently, impacts to island 
fox habitats are primarily attributed to continued modification by 
nonnative plant species, resulting in lower vegetation diversity and 
habitat structure. The seeds of nonnative annual grasses can also cause 
occasional damage or blindness by becoming lodged in the eyes and ears 
of island foxes.
    National Park Service (NPS) guidance supports the continued 
management of island fox habitat to benefit northern Channel Islands 
subspecies of island foxes. Title 54 of the U.S. Code, section 100101, 
paragraph (a), states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use 
of the National Park System . . . to conserve the scenery, natural and 
historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for 
the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild 
life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for 
the enjoyment of future generations.'' Specifically, in its management 
plan, Channel Islands National Park identified restoration and 
maintenance of natural ecosystems and processes as a priority; Park 
staff would continue to eradicate, where feasible, nonnative flora and 
fauna from the islands.
    The island fox, as the species Urocyon littoralis (incorporating 
all six subspecies), is listed as threatened under the California 
Endangered Species Act (CESA) (section 2081(b)), which does provide a 
level of protection from actual possession or intentional killing of 
individual animals and actual death of individual animals incidental to 
otherwise lawful activity, such as habitat conversion, on the privately 
owned TNC-managed lands on Santa Cruz Island and privately owned lands 
on Santa Catalina Island. Santa Catalina Island foxes are impacted by 
the potential for land use change on non-conserved lands, including 
development and recreational events such as off-road vehicle racing. 
CESA contributes to the conservation of the species by providing a 
mechanism to reduce or regulate some individual sources of mortality 
and to review and permit development projects that may impact island 
foxes and their habitat on private lands.
    While past and ongoing effects of habitat modification by nonnative 
grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion may have some negative 
effects on island foxes, nonnative animals and plants no longer impact 
the habitat to the extent that would cause population-level declines 
that we would consider a threat to any of the subspecies of island fox 
now or in the future.

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    As stated in the listing rule (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), 
although island foxes were used in the past for their pelts by Native 
Americans (Collins 1991, p. 215), these activities are no longer 
occurring. Research scientists are currently engaged in recovery 
activities via USFWS-issued 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits. Our analyses 
have determined these research activities do not pose a threat to any 
island fox populations. Therefore, overutilization is not a threat to 
any of the island fox subspecies at this time or in the future.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    A canine distemper virus (CDV) epidemic was considered the primary 
threat to Santa Catalina Island fox at the time of listing (69 FR 
10335; March 5, 2004). The listing rule also expressed some concern 
regarding the potential impacts of canine adenovirus and canine 
parvovirus. At the time of listing, golden eagle predation was the 
primary cause for the decline of northern Channel Islands foxes (San 
Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) (69 FR 10335; March 5, 
2004), but potential for disease was also a concern, particularly given 
the small population sizes at the time.
Disease
    Infectious Pathogens: In the past, disease severely impacted the 
island fox population on Santa Catalina Island. The eastern 
subpopulation of the Santa Catalina Island fox was estimated to be 
1,342 in 1990 (Roemer et al. 1994, p. 393). Subsequent surveys 
conducted in 1999 and 2000 indicated the eastern island fox 
subpopulation had declined by over 90 percent in 10 years due to CDV 
(Timm et al. 2000, p. 17), likely transmitted from a raccoon that 
arrived from the mainland (Timm et al. 2009, p. 339). After a captive 
rearing and augmentation program was initiated, the eastern and western 
subpopulations were estimated to have reached 219 and 141 foxes in 
2004, respectively (Schmidt et al. 2005, p. 11; King and Duncan 2011, 
p. 19). Population estimates have since greatly increased on Santa 
Catalina Island, surpassing the estimate from 1990, reaching a total of 
1,717 individuals island-wide in 2014 (King and Duncan 2015, p. 10).
    In 2014, a final epidemic response plan was approved and is being 
implemented to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a 
potential future disease outbreak for Santa Catalina Island foxes 
(Hudgens et al. 2014, entire). The Catalina Island Conservancy annually 
monitors sentinel foxes inhabiting many areas of the island to 
facilitate early detection of a potential epidemic (King and Duncan 
2011, p. 15). Island foxes have been and continue to be vaccinated 
against CDV and rabies (King 2015, pers. comm.). At this time, however, 
there is no assurance of continued funding for long-term monitoring and 
management that could detect a novel outbreak and facilitate threat 
abatement, as recommended in the epidemic response plan.
    Transport of domestic and wild animals to and from Santa Catalina 
Island increases the risk to island foxes of another disease outbreak. 
Santa Catalina Island currently allows visitors and residents to own 
and transport pets, including domestic dogs and cats, to and from the 
island (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15), and dogs are frequently observed 
off-leash (Anderson 2012,

[[Page 7731]]

pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, pers. 
obs.; King 2015, p. 22). There is no quarantine period for transported 
pets, and proof of current vaccination is only required by the City of 
Avalon when licensing dogs (rabies only), and for CIC employees and 
lessees with pets living in company-owned housing (King and Duncan 
2011, p. 15). The CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on the island 
(except the City of Avalon) and through their regulations requires all 
nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed; they also require 
that all dogs and cats be vaccinated against distemper and rabies, and 
they should be leashed at all times (CIC 2015, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). Enforcement of CIC regulations is labor-
intensive and costly, because the island is large, there are many 
remote coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and the CIC 
does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas regularly. 
Reduction of disease introduction risk also occurs through CIC outreach 
and education of local authorities and the public; to date, four 
stowaway raccoons have been removed from the island, but a fifth 
observed in 2010 was not captured (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15). 
Therefore, current measures to control introduction of diseases by 
domestic animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while 
providing some protection, are limited.
    Disease does not appear to be a significant mortality factor on the 
northern Channel Islands, although Leptospirosis (infectious bacterium) 
was found to be a mortality source for two Santa Rosa Island foxes in 
2010 (Coonan and Guglielmino 2012, p. 21). Unlike on Santa Catalina 
Island, dogs and other pets are not permitted on the northern Channel 
Islands to reduce this risk of introduction of disease; however, dogs 
are occasionally illegally brought onto the islands. Channel Islands 
National Park General Management Plan prohibits pets from all Park 
islands, except for guide dogs for visually impaired persons (NPS 
2015b, pp. 468, 487).
    In 2013, a final epidemic response plan was approved and is being 
implemented to detect and facilitate appropriate response to a 
potential disease outbreak for the northern Channel Islands (Hudgens et 
al. 2013, entire). Sentinel foxes are monitored to facilitate early 
detection of a potential epidemic (Hudgens et al. 2013, pp. entire), 
and foxes have been and continue to be vaccinated against CDV and 
rabies when vaccines are available. Also, the Park identified island 
foxes as an ecosystem element for which they will conduct long-term 
annual population monitoring as part of the Park's long-term ecological 
monitoring program, regardless of their status under the Act. Both NPS 
and TNC have committed through signed CMAs (USFWS and NPS 2015; USFWS 
and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions into 
the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan for northern 
Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire).
    Ear Canal Cancer: There is concern about the rate of ear canal 
cancer in Santa Catalina Island foxes and how it might affect long-term 
population viability. The first cases of ear canal cancer were 
documented in 2000 and 2001, with increased detection through 2007 
(Timm et al. 2002, p. 26; Kohlmann et al. 2003, p. 39; Schmidt et al. 
2004, p. 15; Schmidt et al. 2005, p. 11; Munson et al. 2009, p. 5). 
This cancer can have an aggressive clinical course, with local 
invasion, tissue damage, and metastasis, leading to death (Munson et 
al. 2009, p. 1). Ear inflammation correlated with cancer incidence in 
Santa Catalina Island foxes is triggered by ear mite infestations 
(Munson et al. 2009, pp. 3-4), and the severity can be reduced through 
aracacide application (Vickers et al. 2011, pp. 9-10). Treatment with 
aracacide is now standard practice by CIC during trapping of Santa 
Catalina Island foxes (King and Duncan 2011, p. 3). Since 2008, over 
1,000 treatments were applied, and the prevalence of mites has been 
reduced in the fox population from 87 percent to 28 percent. Tumor 
prevalence in the Santa Catalina Island fox population remains an 
actively managed source of mortality (Vickers et al. 2011, pp. 9-10). 
However, we do not have long-term assurances that CIC will continue to 
carry out monitoring and management actions into the future as 
recommended in the epidemic response plan (Hudgens et al. 2014, 
entire).
    Parasites: Parasites have not been confirmed as a direct mortality 
source of island foxes; however, concurrent infection with a pathogen, 
such as Spirocerca (nematode), can negatively impact host health and 
decrease immunity (Munson 2010, pp. 134-136). In a species-wide survey, 
Spirocerca was found in a high prevalence of necropsied island foxes, 
but in most cases appeared to have little effect on the population 
(Munson 2010, pp. 129, 134-136). Preliminary genetic analysis and the 
location of lesions suggest that the Spirocerca found in island foxes 
may be a different species than S. lupi, which occurs in domestic dogs 
and other North American carnivores on the mainland. Currently, 
Spirocerca is not a major health concern for most island foxes. 
However, if island foxes are ever brought to the mainland for research 
or captive breeding, efforts should be made to prevent transmission of 
Spirocerca from island foxes to mainland carnivores and vice versa.
    Infection by parasites other than Spirocerca has been suspected as 
the cause of mortality in several island foxes, but is not considered a 
significant mortality factor. Infection by hookworms (Uncinaria 
stenocephala) and a lungworm (Angiocaulus gubernaculatus) may have 
contributed to two mortalities in the San Miguel Island fox subspecies 
(Coonan et al. 2005b, p. 38). In 2013, the San Miguel Island fox annual 
survival rate declined from approximately 90 percent to about 80 
percent; 5 of the 11 mortalities that occurred in radio-collared foxes 
had evidence of acanthocephalans (spiny-headed worms), a parasite never 
before recorded in island foxes (Coonan 2014, p. 6).
    In summary, the possibility exists for domestic or wild animals 
carrying a disease or parasite to migrate or be transported to all the 
Channel Islands, although vector movement via boat is frequent to Santa 
Catalina Island. On all islands, an epidemic response plan is approved 
and being implemented (Hudgens et al. 2013, 2014 entire), which 
includes that a subset of foxes are vaccinated when vaccines are 
available and monitored to detect and respond to a potential disease 
outbreak (Coonan 2010, pp. 24-29; see appendices 3 and 4 in Recovery 
Plan (USFWS 2015)). The NPS and TNC have committed (USFWS and NPS 2015; 
USFWS and TNC 2015) to carrying out monitoring and management actions 
into the future as recommended in the epidemic response plan for 
northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire); therefore, 
we consider the potential threat of disease adequately controlled for 
the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes at this time 
and into the future. We do not at this time have the assurance of 
continued implementation of the epidemic response plan on Santa 
Catalina Island. Disease was the main threat to Santa Catalina Island 
foxes at the time of listing in 2004, and given the lack of assurance 
for continued implementation of the epidemic response plan to detect 
and mitigate for future disease outbreaks, we still consider potential 
disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island fox.

[[Page 7732]]

Predation
    As identified in the listing rule, golden eagle predation was the 
primary cause for the decline of the northern Channel Islands fox 
subspecies and the primary reason for the listing under the Act (69 FR 
10335; March 5, 2004). Before golden eagles started using the northern 
Channel Islands in the 1990s, the only known predator of island foxes 
was the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), which preyed only 
occasionally on young island foxes (Laughrin 1973, pp. 10-11; Moore and 
Collins 1995, p. 4). Because of the lack of predators, island foxes did 
not evolve vigilance and are easy targets for golden eagles (Roemer et 
al. 2001, p. 316). Colonization of the northern Channel Islands by 
golden eagles was likely a combination of two factors: (1) Introduction 
of nonnative mammals on the northern Channel Islands, resulting in a 
historically unprecedented prey base for golden eagles (USFWS 2004, p. 
10338); and (2) an open ecological niche created by the extirpation of 
bald eagles from the islands as a result of DDT poisoning (USFWS 2004, 
p. 10343).
    In the 2004 listing rule, the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle 
Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the California Fish and 
Game Code, section 3511, were thought to have delayed or precluded the 
implementation of needed recovery actions for island foxes. The 
protections afforded to golden eagles by the BGEPA were thought to 
limit lethal management alternatives to protect island foxes. The 
California Fish and Game Code, section 3511, deemed golden eagles a 
fully protected species, which would not have allowed any take to be 
authorized. In 2003, California amended this law to allow authorization 
of the take of fully protected species for scientific research, 
including research on recovery for other imperiled species (Senate Bill 
412).
    To address the unprecedented number of golden eagles and the 
effects they were having on island foxes, in August 1999, the NPS and 
TNC initiated a nonlethal golden eagle removal program to protect 
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands. Between November 1999 and 
July 2006, 44 golden eagles, including 22 adults or near adults, were 
removed from Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands and released in 
northeastern California (Latta et al. 2005, p. 348; Coonan et al. 2010, 
pp. 59-61). Satellite telemetry affixed to the first 12 translocated 
golden eagles confirmed that none of the relocated eagles attempted to 
return to the islands for the 1.5-year life of the transmitter (USFWS 
2015, p. 30). Ten nestlings were removed by hand from seven different 
nests (two from Santa Rosa Island and five from Santa Cruz Island) and 
fostered into mainland golden eagle nests or released. By mid-2005, 
seven golden eagles were estimated to remain on the northern Channel 
Islands, and removal efforts yielded diminishing returns. The last 
eagles captured and removed from the islands were a pair of nesting 
golden eagles and their chick on Santa Cruz Island in 2006 (Coonan et 
al. 2010, p. 62), and there has been no record of breeding golden 
eagles on the northern Channel Islands since that time.
    Genetic work supports the long-term success of eagle translocation 
efforts. Sonsthagen et al. (2012, pp. entire) investigated the genetics 
of mainland golden eagles and those translocated from the islands, 
finding that the island population was likely the result of one 
colonization event. The likelihood of another successful golden eagle 
colonization is low, given changes in nonnative prey availability and 
monitoring/mitigation by land management agencies.
    To ensure that golden eagles would be less likely to attempt to 
establish territories again on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, TNC 
and the NPS initiated a program in 2005 and 2011, respectively, to 
remove nonnative animals from those islands (Macdonald and Walker 2007, 
p. 20). The last known pig was removed from Santa Cruz Island in 
January 2007 (Parkes et al. 2010, p. 636). Deer and elk were removed 
from Santa Rosa Island as part of an agreement with the former owners 
of the island. All elk and all but a few deer had been removed by 2015, 
resulting in an island that was essentially ungulate-free for the first 
time in over 150 years (Coonan 2015b, pers. comm.).
    The 2004 listing rule also identified the extirpation of bald 
eagles from the Channel Islands as a likely contributor to the 
colonization of the northern Channel Islands by golden eagles. Bald 
eagles aggressively defend their territories from golden eagles (USFWS 
2004, pp. 10343-10344), and their presence on the islands likely would 
have discouraged dispersing golden eagles from establishing residence. 
Prior to listing, NPS, Institute for Wildlife Studies, and TNC were 
actively engaged in the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program to 
reintroduce bald eagles to the Channel Islands, including Santa 
Catalina Island. The success of bald eagle reintroduction on the 
Channel Islands continues, with approximately 50 total resident bald 
eagles on the islands (Montrose Settlements Restoration Program 2015, 
p. 1).
    In summary, although golden eagle predation of island foxes may 
occasionally occur (Coonan et al. 2014, p. 374), predation has been 
significantly reduced and is not considered a significant threat. This 
reduction in predation by golden eagles is in direct response to the 
extensive removal of golden eagles from the northern Channel Islands, 
golden eagle prey being removed successfully from Santa Rosa and Santa 
Cruz Islands, and the successful reintroduction of bald eagles.
Summary of Factor C
    To reduce the threat of disease, a subset of each island fox 
subspecies is protected from CDV and rabies through preventative 
vaccinations when available and through monitoring as recommended in 
epidemic response plans to detect and facilitate appropriate responses 
in the event of an epidemic. Mortality due to disease was the primary 
reason for the decline and listing of Santa Catalina Island foxes. 
Currently, the potential for an epidemic remains on Santa Catalina 
Island because of heavy visitation, many points of access, and few 
controls for pets and stowaway wild animals that could carry disease. 
In addition, we do not have the assurance of continued implementation 
of the epidemic response plan into the future on Santa Catalina Island 
to detect and mitigate for future disease outbreaks. Therefore, we 
still consider potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa 
Catalina Island fox at this time.
    Mortality due to golden eagle predation was the primary reason for 
the decline and listing of northern Channel Islands foxes (San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes). This threat has been 
substantially reduced by measures including the complete removal of 
golden eagles, eradication of golden eagles' nonnative prey, and 
reintroduction of bald eagles, such that we no longer consider 
predation to be occurring at such a level that would cause population-
level declines on the northern Channel Islands now or in the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the four island fox 
subspecies discussed under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the USFWS to take into account ``those efforts, if any, being 
made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a 
State or foreign nation, to protect such

[[Page 7733]]

species. . . .'' In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret 
this language to require the USFWS to consider relevant Federal, State, 
and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may 
minimize any of the threats we describe in the threat analyses under 
the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the 
species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing 
regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and 
regulations; an example would be State governmental actions enforced 
under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
    For currently listed species, we consider the adequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the 
protections of the Act. If this proposal is made final, the San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes would no longer be protected 
under the Act; Santa Catalina Island foxes would remain protected under 
the Act as a threatened species. Therefore, we examine whether other 
regulatory mechanisms will remain in place after delisting, and the 
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that 
future threats will be reduced or minimized.
    Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any 
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to 
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the 
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats.
    As discussed under Factor C, the primary threats of golden eagle 
predation and disease have been ameliorated though management, 
monitoring, and CMAs on the northern Channel Islands. Other threats 
affecting all currently listed island foxes, such as habitat 
modification by nonnative grazing animals and nonnative plant invasion 
(Factor A), have been and are being controlled through appropriate 
management and conservation ownership as described in Factor A, and we 
anticipate that these efforts will continue into the future. Other 
sources of mortality are assessed under Factor E and found to not exert 
a significant population-level effect on island foxes now or in the 
future. Consequently, we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are 
adequate to address these specific threats. The remaining threat is the 
potential for a disease epidemic on Santa Catalina Island because of 
heavy visitation, many points of access, and few controls for pets and 
stowaway wild animals that could carry disease. In addition, we do not 
have the assurance of continued implementation of the epidemic response 
plan into the future on Santa Catalina Island to detect and mitigate 
for future disease outbreaks. Therefore, under Factor C, we still 
consider potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa 
Catalina Island fox at this time. Consequently, our analysis here 
examines how existing regulatory mechanisms address this remaining 
identified threat.
    The CIC manages the majority of fox habitat on Santa Catalina 
Island (except the City of Avalon) and through its regulations requires 
all nonnative animals entering CIC property be licensed and that all 
dogs and cats be vaccinated against distemper and rabies (CIC 2015, 
http://www.catalinaconservancy.org). Reduction of the risk of disease 
introduction also occurs through CIC outreach and education of local 
authorities and the public. However, enforcement of CIC regulations is 
labor-intensive and costly because the island is large with many remote 
coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and the CIC does not 
have the funding or staff to patrol these areas regularly. Therefore, 
current measures to control introduction of diseases by domestic 
animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, while providing 
some protection, are limited and thus do not fully address the threat 
of disease to Santa Catalina Island fox (see Factor C discussion, 
above).
Summary of Factor D
    In summary, we have discussed that the threats previously facing 
the northern Channel Islands subspecies of island fox have been 
removed; disease remains a threat to the Santa Catalina population of 
island fox. Consequently, our Factor D analysis examines how existing 
regulatory mechanisms address this identified threat. Enforcement of 
CIC regulations, which are meant to limit the risk of disease 
introduction, is labor-intensive and costly because the island is large 
with many remote coves and beaches where private boats can anchor, and 
the CIC does not have the funding or staff to patrol these areas 
regularly. Thus, current measures to control introduction of diseases 
by domestic animals and stowaway wildlife on Santa Catalina Island, 
while providing some protection, are limited in addressing the threat 
of disease to Santa Catalina Island fox. Therefore, we still consider 
potential disease outbreaks to be a threat to the Santa Catalina Island 
fox at this time under Factor C that is not addressed by existing 
regulatory mechanisms, but, in and of itself, the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms is not a current threat to any of the 
subspecies, nor is it expected to become a threat in the future.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    The 2004 listing rule identified stochastic risks to small 
populations and lack of genetic variability as threats to all four 
island fox subspecies under Factor E (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004). Road 
mortalities were also discussed under Factor E in the 2004 listing 
rule. Since the time of listing, the impacts of feral cat aggression, 
poisoning, and entrapment on Santa Catalina Island, and fire, drought, 
and global climate change for all four islands have been identified as 
possible new threats.
Small Population Size
    Island endemics, such as island foxes, have a high extinction risk 
due to isolation (i.e., no other populations to ``rescue'' a declining 
or extirpated one) and small total population sizes relative to 
mainland subspecies (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, entire), both of which 
make them more vulnerable, especially to stochastic events such as 
drought and wildfire (Miller et al. 2001, entire; Kohlman et al. 2005, 
entire). Each island fox subspecies is a single breeding population, 
(with San Miguel Island being the smallest population), which makes 
their populations inherently small and thus they may become more 
vulnerable to extinction when the size of a breeding population 
declines. In addition to small population size and the associated 
increased probability of extinction, lower and reduced genetic 
variation may make an island species less adapted to existing pressures 
and less capable of adaptation to new threats. Thus, small population 
size and low genetic diversity can have synergistic effects with 
respect to population decline. During the period when the island fox 
populations were at their lowest, they were extremely vulnerable to 
extinction from stochastic events. The populations have now increased 
substantially, returning to historical population highs, and the threat 
of extinction from demographic stochasticity has accordingly been 
reduced.
    The island fox populations have reduced or low genetic diversity 
due to the population bottlenecks they experienced during past extreme 
population lows (Gray et al. 2001, p. 8; Gray 2002, pp. entire). This 
lack of

[[Page 7734]]

variability could be attributed either to extensive inbreeding or to 
bottlenecking resulting from low population densities (George and Wayne 
1991, entire). However, island foxes have apparently existed for 
thousands of years with low effective population sizes (the number of 
individuals that can contribute genes equally to the next generation; 
low is defined as 150 to 1,000) and low genetic variability (Wayne et 
al. 1991a, p. 1858; 1991b, p. entire). While additional genetic 
diversity was lost during the recent declines, island foxes are 
probably tolerant of low genetic variation, occasional bottlenecks, and 
higher inbreeding because there is little evidence of inbreeding 
depression in island foxes (Coonan et al. 2010, pp. 13-15). Therefore, 
we do not consider reduced genetic diversity to be causing population-
level effects at this time or in the future.
Motor Vehicles
    The fearlessness of island foxes, coupled with relatively high 
vehicle traffic on Santa Catalina Island, results in multiple fox 
collisions each year. On the northern Channel Islands, vehicle use very 
limited, restricted to only land management personnel and researchers. 
On Santa Catalina Island, vehicle collision was considered the ``number 
one cause of fox mortality'' on Santa Catalina Island (CIC 2009, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org), and it remains the most frequently 
reported cause of death. In 2014, at least 20 foxes died from vehicle-
related trauma (King and Duncan 2015, pp. 18-19). In some cases, during 
the breeding season, mortality of parents (lactating females or 
foraging males) may result in additional loss of offspring 
(Wolstenholme 2011, pers. comm.; King 2012g, p. 1). The increase in 
annual average vehicle-strike deaths is likely due to an increased fox 
population size on the island, and the island-wide 25 mile per hour 
speed limit (CIC 2015, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org) likely 
minimizes the number of vehicle strike mortalities that would otherwise 
occur. Although mortality by motor vehicles is not considered a 
population-level threat at this time or in the future, vehicles strikes 
remain the primary human-caused source of individual mortality on Santa 
Catalina Island.
Interactions With Feral Cats and Domestic Dogs
    Feral cats and domestic dogs occur on Santa Catalina Island. Feral 
cats weigh approximately twice as much as island foxes, and they may 
negatively affect foxes through interactions including direct 
aggression and competition for food and habitat resources (Laughrin 
1978, pp. 5-6; Kovach and Dow 1981, p. 443). Although hawks and owls 
may occasionally kill cats, there are no significant predators of cats 
on Santa Catalina Island that can control their population (Guttilla 
2007, p. 8).
    Direct aggression between Santa Catalina Island foxes and cats has 
been documented in the wild, primarily near public coves and 
campgrounds that provide food and shelter (Guttilla 2007, p. 9). 
Researchers have routinely captured foxes that have severe injuries 
consistent with cat encounters (Guttilla 2007, p. 9). Aggressive 
exclusion of foxes by feral cats has also been observed. When cats move 
into fox habitat, foxes are no longer observed; when cats are no longer 
resident, foxes move back in to occupy the area (King 2013c, pers. 
comm.; Anderson 2013, pers. obs.).
    In the 2004 listing rule (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), we noted 
that the Food and Agricultural Code 31752.5 prohibited lethal control 
of feral cats unless cats are held for a minimum of 6 days, which was 
thought to prevent CIC from taking steps to eradicate feral cats on 
Santa Catalina Island. In 2008, a Feral Animal Task Force was convened 
by the City of Avalon, with representatives of the CIC and other island 
stakeholders, to address feral and free-ranging cats in the city and on 
the rest of the island, and most importantly, to draft legislation for 
consideration by the City Council for approval and incorporation into 
City ordinance. This task force is not currently active, however, and 
progress has stalled in initiating new feral cat control measures and 
enacting new legislation (King 2011e, pers. comm.). Although 
competition and other negative interactions with feral cats can affect 
individual foxes, they do not pose a population-level threat at this 
time or in the future.
    Instances of fox mortality from dog attacks have been observed over 
the past decade: Two in 2005 (Gaffney 2011, p. 1; Munson and Gaffney 
2011, p. 1), one in 2010 (King and Duncan 2011, pp. 12-13), two in 2011 
(King and Duncan 2012, p. 14), two probable in 2012 (King 2012a, p. 1; 
2012b, p. 1), and one in 2015 (King 2015, p. 1). Because the likelihood 
of finding foxes killed by domestic dogs and identifying dogs as the 
mortality source is relatively low, these mortalities are likely 
underreported (Wolstenholme 2011, pers. comm.). It is common for dogs 
to be observed off-leash in campgrounds and other areas of the island 
outside of the City of Avalon (King and Duncan 2011, p. 15; Anderson 
2012, pers. obs.; King 2012a, p. 1; Vissman and Anderson 2013 and 2014, 
pers. obs.; King 2015, p. 1). While mortality due to domestic dog 
attacks has been reported, it is limited in effect to individual foxes, 
and does not have a significant impact to fox populations at this time 
or in the future.
Poisoning and Entrapment
    Other impacts to Santa Catalina Island foxes resulting from human 
interaction include mortality from poisoning and entrapment. A Santa 
Catalina Island fox died in 2012 from rodenticide poisoning (Duncan and 
King 2012, p. 4), another was euthanized because of poisoning in 2014 
(King and Duncan 2015, p. 18), and a third was sickened in 2014 by 
insecticide poisoning (King and Duncan 2015, p. 20). Entrapment of 
foxes may occur in areas where development projects are ongoing. 
Examples include: Two foxes falling into a power line pole construction 
pit (CIC 2009, http://www.catalinaconservancy.org); one fox drowning 
due to entanglement in a food container (Vickers 2012a p. 2); one death 
from being trapped in a recycling barrel (Vickers 2012b, p. 1); and two 
deaths in 2014 from drowning in water or sediment containers (King and 
Duncan 2015, p. 18). Types of human-caused harm other than vehicle 
strikes and domestic dog attacks in urbanized areas are varied, but 
they do not have a population-level impact at this time or in the 
future.
Fire
    On the northern Channel Islands, the frequency and intensity of 
wildland fire is less than on the adjacent mainland, because there are 
fewer ignition sources on the islands, and the typical maritime fog 
moisture inhibits fire spread. Natural lightning-strike fires are 
extremely rare; only three fires between 1836-1986 on the Channel 
Islands were started by lightning (Carroll et al. 1993, p. 77). On the 
northern Channel Islands, there are far fewer human-started fires than 
on the mainland or on Santa Catalina Island, as there are no permanent 
human occupants on the northern Channel Islands.
    Sediment cores indicate that fire on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 
Islands increased in frequency during the past 5,000 years and peaked 
during the historic period (200 years ago), though frequency and 
intensity are still far less than on the adjacent mainland (Anderson et 
al. 2010, p. 792). Because of this, island foxes on the northern 
Channel Islands have experienced very few large wildland fire events. 
The recent removal of grazers may increase fuel loads and thus the 
likelihood of

[[Page 7735]]

larger fires, though cool and foggy conditions will continue to limit 
wildland fire spread. Additionally, the NPS adheres to a policy of 
total suppression on the Channel Islands, due to resource concerns 
(Kirkpatrick 2006, entire), reducing the chance that wildland fires 
will become large.
    Though not identified as a threat at the time of listing, Santa 
Catalina Island regularly experiences wildfires (CIC 2011) that could 
reduce food availability, alter the habitat, or directly result in the 
loss of individual foxes (USFWS 2004, p. 10347). The most devastating 
wildfire on record was the Island Fire ignited on May 10, 2007, which 
burned 4,760 ac (1,926 ha) (CIC 2011). The second largest fire in 
recent history (1999-2011) was the Empire Fire, which was started by 
lightning on July 22, 2006, and burned 1,063 ac (430 ha). Duncan and 
King's (2009, p. 384) findings indicate fire seasonality has an 
influence on fox survival; fires that occur when pups are young and 
most dependent on adults for mobility are most damaging, but in 
general, neither the Island Fire nor the Empire Fire seemed to have 
significant effects at the population level (Duncan and King 2009, p. 
384).
    In summary, wildfires are infrequent on the northern Channel 
Islands and more frequent on Santa Catalina Island. On all islands, 
while wildfire can result in mortality of individuals, especially 
juveniles, depending on when the fires occur, wildfire does not pose a 
significant population-level impact to the island fox at this time nor 
do we anticipate it posing a significant population-level impact in the 
future.
Drought
    The Channel Islands, as well as the rest of the State of 
California, are currently in the midst of a drought that began in 2012 
and, as of mid-January 2016, has not abated (State of California 2016, 
http://ca.gov/drought/ accessed January 19, 2016). Island foxes have 
endured many droughts during their 10,000-year persistence on the 
islands (California Department of Water Resources 2015, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/droughtinfo.cfm). Deep multi-year 
droughts have occurred on the Channel Islands about once every 2 
decades since 1900 (T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data). General drought 
conditions in the late 1920s and early 1930s combined with overgrazing 
denuded most vegetation, particularly on San Miguel Island, creating 
massive sand barrens, remnants of which are still evident today 
(Johnson 1980, entire). Even so, island foxes survived this period of 
soil erosion and episodic landscape stripping.
    The current period of intensive island fox monitoring and research 
began in 1993, after a 6-year drought concluded. The current drought is 
the first opportunity to study the effect of drought on island foxes, 
where foxes have recovered to historic numbers. On San Miguel Island, 
average adult weights declined in 2013 and 2014, to the lowest ever 
recorded, and fox reproduction was negligible in 2013 and 2014 (Coonan 
et al. 2014, p. 28; T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data). During this time, 
mortality also increased, and many fox carcasses were emaciated (Coonan 
et al. 2014, pp. 6-7). On Santa Catalina Island, it appears that 
decreasing precipitation may result in a reproductive decline; however 
adults' weights were not similarly affected during this time (King and 
Duncan 2015, pp. 21-22). These effects were not seen on neighboring 
Santa Rosa Island, where foxes are not yet at carrying capacity or pre-
decline levels. Fox weights increased on Santa Rosa Island in the 
drought years, reproduction was higher, and foxes had higher body 
condition scores than on San Miguel Island. It is apparent that one 
response of island foxes to drought is to curtail reproduction, 
especially if the population is at carrying capacity (Coonan 2015, pp. 
6, 8, 13; Coonan et al. 2010, p. 28). Given the past demonstrated 
ability of island foxes to survive pervasive drought, current healthy 
population numbers and apparent ability to respond to drought by 
shifting resource allocation, we do not consider drought to be a threat 
to island foxes at this time or in the future.
Global Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and 
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate 
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of 
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a 
typical period for such measurements (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability 
of one or more measures of climate (for example, temperature or 
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, whether the change 
is due to natural variability or human activity (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has 
increased since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global 
climate system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some 
regions of the world and decreases in other regions (for these and 
other examples, see Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85; IPCC 2013b, 
pp. 3-29; IPCC 2014, pp. 1-32). Results of scientific analyses 
presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in global 
average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by 
natural variability in climate and is ``very likely'' (defined by the 
IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the observed increase 
in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of 
human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of 
fossil fuels (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35; IPCC 2013b, pp. 11-12 and 
figures SPM.4 and SPM.5). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs 
comes from analyses by Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it 
is extremely likely that approximately 75 percent of global warming 
since 1950 has been caused by human activities.
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in 
temperature and other climate conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, entire; 
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 
529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield very 
similar projections of increases in the most common measure of climate 
change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global 
warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the magnitude and 
rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all 
the projections is one of increasing global warming through the end of 
this century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume 
that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong 
scientific support for projections that warming will continue through 
the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change will be 
influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (Meehl et al. 
2007, pp. 760-764, 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn 
et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529; IPCC 2013b, pp. 19-23). See IPCC 2013b 
(entire), for a summary of other global projections of climate-related 
changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation.
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species.

[[Page 7736]]

These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may 
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as threats in combination and interactions of 
climate with other variables (for example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 
2014, pp. 4-11). Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of 
climate change vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the 
degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to 
cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate 
variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the type, 
magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a species 
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (Glick et al. 
2011, pp. 19-22; IPCC 2014, p. 5). There is no single method for 
conducting such analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 
2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical 
approaches to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our 
consideration of the best scientific information available regarding 
various aspects of climate change.
    Probably the most potentially vulnerable aspect of island fox 
biology to climate change is indirect effects from affected 
invertebrates that are parasites and disease vectors. Invertebrates, 
because they are exothermic (cold-blooded), are particularly responsive 
to the effects of a warming climate that typically speeds development 
and enhances survival. For disease vectors such as mosquitos, survival 
may occur where it was previously too cold during the coolest nights of 
the year for overwintering. Invertebrates are also particularly well-
suited to adapt to a changing climate because they have short 
generation times and a high reproductive output (Parmesan 2006, pp. 
654-656). The warming climate typically has resulted in increased 
abundance and expanded ranges of parasites such as nematodes and ticks, 
as well as diseases they transmit (Parmesan 2006, pp. 650-651; Studer 
et al. 2010, p. 11). Climate change also produces ecological 
perturbations that result in altered parasite transmission dynamics, 
increasing the potential for host switching (Brooks and Hoberg 2007, p. 
571). Moller's (2010, p. 1158) analysis of parasites on avian hosts 
over a 37-year period suggests climate change predictions for parasite 
effects should be made with caution, but that climate can alter the 
composition of the parasite community and may cause changes in the 
virulence of parasites (Moller 2010, p. 1158). Therefore, climate 
change may change and could potentially increase the parasites and 
disease vectors to which island foxes are exposed.
    Considering that island foxes are opportunistic feeders, and 
climate warming could increase the subspecies' insect prey base 
abundance, it is possible climate change could positively affect food 
quantity and quality. Increased consumption of insect species by mice 
associated with a warmer, drier climate on South African islands has 
been documented (Chown and Smith 1993, pp. 508-509). Because island 
foxes have shown relative plasticity with regard to utilizing nonnative 
species (Cypher et al. 2011, p. 13), most invasions of nonnative 
potential prey species are not likely to negatively affect island fox 
food resources. The only potential negative effect of climate change on 
the insect prey base of island foxes would be if increased storm 
intensity and frequency reduced prey abundance, as Roemer (1999, p. 
187) hypothesized occurred on Santa Cruz Island in the mid-1990s.
    Global climate change has the potential to negatively and 
positively affect island fox populations. There is still uncertainty 
associated with predictions relative to the timing, location, and 
magnitude of future climate changes. Probably the most vulnerable 
aspect of island fox biology to climate change is indirect effects to 
the fox from affected invertebrates. Though difficult to quantify, 
change in global climate could impact island fox populations on each 
island and may pose a threat to this species that is not yet reflected 
in studied population dynamics. As with most endangered species, 
predicting likely future climate scenarios and understanding the 
complex effects of climate change are high priorities for island fox 
conservation planning. While we cannot accurately predict the effects 
of climate change on island fox subspecies because the foxes are 
generalists and exhibit plasticity with regards to prey and habitat 
use, we do not expect negative effects of such magnitude that would 
cause major declines. However, we anticipate ongoing monitoring and 
management will detect any significant changes in population health and 
allow for management responses, including possible relisting.
Summary of Factor E
    In summary, during the period when the population was at its 
lowest, the four subspecies of Channel Island foxes were extremely 
vulnerable to extinction from stochastic events. The populations have 
now increased substantially and the likelihood of extinction has 
accordingly been reduced. The combined effects of interactions with 
feral cats and domestic dogs, motor vehicle collisions, mortality due 
to wildfire, and other human-caused mortalities result in the deaths of 
multiple individuals throughout Santa Catalina Island on an annual 
basis, but they do not constitute a combined threat to the relatively 
large population at this time nor do we anticipate that they will in 
the future. While we cannot accurately predict the effects of climate 
change on island fox subspecies because the foxes are generalists and 
exhibit plasticity with regards to prey and habitat use, we do not 
consider climate change to be a threat to island foxes now nor in the 
foreseeable future.

Overall Summary of Factors Affecting Island Foxes

    At time of listing in 2004 (69 FR 10335; March 5, 2004), predation 
by golden eagles was the primary threat to San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and 
Santa Cruz Island foxes, and disease was the primary threat to the 
Santa Catalina Island fox. The threat of predation by golden eagles on 
the northern Channel Islands has been significantly reduced since the 
time of listing. This reduction in predation by golden eagles is in 
direct response to the extensive removal of golden eagles from the 
northern Channel Islands, golden eagle prey being removed successfully 
from Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, and the successful 
reintroduction of bald eagles.
    Potential disease outbreaks continue to pose a threat to Santa 
Catalina Island foxes due to relatively uncontrolled movement of 
vectors from the mainland that carry diseases the population may not be 
vaccinated against. The primary measures in place on all islands to 
reduce these threats are vaccination of a subset of the fox population 
for CDV and rabies, and monitoring of population sentinels to detect 
the start of another epidemic and respond appropriately to mitigate the 
outbreak. While disease is currently controlled on Santa Catalina 
Island, we do not have assurance that monitoring and management of 
Santa Catalina Island foxes necessary to detect and mitigate an 
epidemic in Santa Catalina Island foxes will continue into the future.
    During the period when the island fox populations were at their 
lowest, they were extremely vulnerable to extinction from stochastic 
events. Although there will always be some inherent risk of extinction 
due to stochastic events because each island fox subspecies is a single 
breeding population, the populations have now increased substantially, 
returning to historical

[[Page 7737]]

population highs, and the threat of extinction from demographic 
stochasticity has accordingly been reduced.
    Mortality due to motor vehicle strikes, habitat loss, ear mite 
infection, ear canal cancer, feral cats, and domestic dogs results in 
loss of individuals, but these mortality factors are not considered 
independent threats to fox populations at this time because populations 
are relatively large. The impacts of climate change are hard to 
predict. Some effects to island fox populations could be negative while 
others could be positive. Predicting likely future climate scenarios 
and understanding the complex effects of climate change are high 
priorities for island fox conservation planning, but climate change is 
not considered to be a threat at this time.
    When mortality mechanisms or other stressors occur together, one 
may exacerbate the effects of another, causing effects not accounted 
for when stressors are analyzed individually. Synergistic or cumulative 
effects may be observed in a short amount of time or may not be 
noticeable for years into the future, and could affect the long-term 
viability of island fox population. For example, if a stressor hinders 
island fox survival and reproduction or affects the availability of 
habitat that supports island foxes, then the number of individuals the 
following year(s) will be reduced, increasing vulnerability to 
stochastic events like a disease epidemic or wildfire. While 
synergistic or cumulative effects may occur when mortality mechanisms 
or other stressors occur together, given the robust populations and 
ongoing management and monitoring, these effects do not pose a 
significant population-level impact to island foxes at this time nor do 
we anticipate that they will in the future.

Finding

    We have assessed the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the 
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina Island foxes in 
this proposed rule. At the time of listing in 2004 (69 FR 10335; March 
5, 2004), the Santa Catalina Island fox experienced a devastating CDV 
epidemic that resulted in an almost complete loss of the eastern 
subpopulation, which made up the majority of the island population. The 
precipitous decline of the northern Channel Island foxes (San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) that led to their listing as 
endangered species was the result of depredation by golden eagles, 
facilitated by the presence of a nonnative, mammalian prey-base on the 
northern Channel Islands.
    The threat of disease to the Santa Catalina Island fox has been 
ameliorated through implementation of programs to provide vaccinations, 
ear mite treatments, and a sentinel monitoring program to aid in 
detection of and facilitate a response to an epidemic. However, we do 
not have assurances that this monitoring and management as prescribed 
in the epidemic response plan will continue into the future.
    As a result of concerted management efforts, golden eagle predation 
has been reduced to such a degree that it is no longer considered a 
threat to the northern island subspecies. Additional management 
efforts, including captive breeding and ongoing vaccinations for 
disease, have contributed to the substantial increase of all island fox 
populations. Although golden eagles will most likely continue to 
occasionally occur on the islands as transients, the removal of the 
nonnative prey-base and the constant presence of bald eagles are 
permanent, long-term deterrents to golden eagles establishing breeding 
territories and remaining on the northern Channel Islands. Ongoing 
management and monitoring are designed to detect any reemergence of 
threats and to take corrective actions should any threats be detected.
    Based on the information presented in this status review, the 
recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan have been achieved and the 
recovery objectives identified in the Recovery Plan have been met for 
the three northern Channel Island subspecies of island fox. San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox abundance has increased steadily 
to the point where the number of individuals is again within the range 
of historical population estimates. Population viability analyses 
strongly indicate that the northern Channel Island foxes have an 
acceptably small risk of extinction and current population levels are 
consistent with long-term viability. Additionally, the primary threat 
(golden eagles) to northern Channel Island foxes has been controlled, 
and ongoing management and monitoring are in place to ensure that 
threats continue to be managed in the future. This information 
indicates that these three subspecies are no longer at immediate risk 
of extinction, nor are they likely to experience reemergence of threats 
and associated population declines in the future. We, therefore, 
conclude that the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes 
are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges, 
nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    The Santa Catalina Island fox exhibits demographic characteristics 
consistent with long-term viability. The population has continued to 
increase over the past 11 years, reaching an estimated high of 1,852 
individuals in 2013 (King and Duncan 2015, p. 11), then dropping 
slightly to 1,717 in 2014 (King and Duncan 2014, p. 11). Population 
viability analysis indicates the Santa Catalina Island fox population 
has an acceptably small risk of extinction--less than 5 percent since 
2008. With population levels consistent with long-term viability, the 
intent of recovery objective 1 has been met for the Santa Catalina 
Island fox. However, objective 2 has not been met because we do not 
have assurance that the monitoring and management as prescribed in the 
epidemic response plan for Santa Catalina Island foxes will be funded 
and implemented in the future to ensure that the threat of disease 
continues to be managed. While population levels are currently 
consistent with long-term viability (indicating that the subspecies is 
no longer in danger of extinction in the immediate future), lack of 
adequate control of potential vectors along with lack of assured long-
term monitoring could allow for lapses in management and monitoring and 
reemergence of disease that may cause epidemics and population declines 
before they can be detected and acted upon. We have coordinated with 
CIC to determine their ability to enter into an agreement to provide 
assurances of long-term implementation of the epidemic response plan. 
CIC indicated that they could not ensure availability of long-term 
funding at this time that would allow them to commit to long-term 
implementation of the epidemic response plan. Overall, we recognize 
that CIC's efforts have significantly contributed to a reduction of 
impacts to the Santa Catalina fox and its habitat on the island. As a 
result, we have determined that the Santa Catalina Island fox is no 
longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, but instead 
is threatened with becoming endangered in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range. We, therefore, propose a change in status 
for the Santa Catalina Island fox from an endangered species to a 
threatened species at this time. Because we have determined the Santa 
Catalina Island fox is likely to become an endangered species in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, no portion of its range 
can be significant for purposes of the definitions of endangered 
species

[[Page 7738]]

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

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Having determined that the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 
Island foxes are not in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, 
throughout all of their ranges, we next consider whether there are any 
significant portions of their ranges in which the island foxes are in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so. Under the Act and our 
implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is an 
endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy 
interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 
FR 37578). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be 
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, 
the entire species is listed as an endangered species or a threatened 
species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all 
individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range 
of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently 
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered 
to be the general geographical area within which that species can be 
found at the time USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes 
any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is 
endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that 
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than 
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
    The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including 
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and 
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether 
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status 
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the 
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its 
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and 
no SPR analysis will be required. Because we are proposing to list the 
Santa Catalina Island fox as a threatened species under the Act, we are 
not conducting an SPR analysis for this subspecies. If the species is 
neither endangered nor threatened throughout all of its range, we 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened throughout a 
significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the species as an 
endangered species or a threatened species, respectively; if it is not, 
we conclude that the species is neither an endangered species nor a 
threatened species.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of 
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either 
endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant 
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial 
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) 
the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering 
these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the 
species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of 
its range--rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed 
analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this 
analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further 
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply only to 
portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based 
definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly 
would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of 
the entire species), those portions will not warrant further 
consideration.
    If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and 
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis. As 
discussed above, to determine whether a portion of the range of a 
species is significant, we consider whether, under a hypothetical 
scenario, the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is 
so important that, without the members in that portion, the species 
would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This analysis considers 
the contribution of that portion to the viability of the species based 
on the conservation biology principles of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. (These concepts can similarly be expressed in terms of 
abundance, spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity.) The 
identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or 
other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We must go through a 
separate analysis to determine whether the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the SPR. To determine whether a 
species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the 
same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is 
endangered or threatened throughout its range.
    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats 
it faces, it may be more efficient to address either the significance 
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine 
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.''
    Applying the process described above, we evaluated the respective 
ranges of the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa 
Cruz Island fox to determine if any area could be considered a 
significant portion of any one of the subspecies' range. As mentioned 
above, one way to identify portions for further analyses is to identify 
any natural divisions within the range that might be of individual 
biological or conservation importance to the species. We conducted our 
review based on examination of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015; entire) 
and other relevant and more recent information on the biology and life 
history of the northern Channel Island foxes. Because each of the three 
northern Channel Island fox subspecies is a narrow endemic where the 
foxes on each island

[[Page 7739]]

constitute a single population, we determined that there are no natural 
divisions or separate areas of the range of each subspecies that 
contribute separately to the conservation of that particular 
subspecies. In other words, for each subspecies of island fox, there is 
only one biologically defined portion, and there are no separate 
portions that contribute incrementally to the conservation (i.e., to 
the redundancy, resiliency, and representation of the species). We also 
examined whether any portions might be endangered or threatened by 
examining whether threats might be geographically concentrated in some 
way. Although some of the factors we evaluated in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species section, above, may continue to affect 
each of the subspecies, the factors affecting island foxes generally 
occur at similarly low levels throughout their ranges. The entire 
population of each subspecies is equally affected by threats and by the 
amelioration of such threats throughout their ranges. Based on our 
evaluation of the biology of the subspecies and current and potential 
threats to the island foxes, we conclude that no portion of the ranges 
of the three subspecies of the northern Channel Islands foxes warrants 
further consideration to determine if it is significant. In other 
words, threats have been sufficiently ameliorated, and all individuals 
and all portions of the range of each subspecies interact to such an 
extent that it is not reasonable to conclude that any portion of the 
range can have a different status than any other portion.
    In conclusion, we find that the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa 
Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox are no longer in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, nor 
are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, at 
this time, the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island fox no 
longer meet the definitions of an endangered species or a threatened 
species under the Act, and we propose to remove these species from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Act.

Effects of This Rulemaking

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

Peer Review

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

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than 
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted (50 CFR 
17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring is to 
verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it 
has been removed from the protections of the Act. The monitoring is 
designed to detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain 
itself without the protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any 
time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status 
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, 
including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of 
the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate 
with the States in development and implementation of post-delisting 
monitoring programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with 
section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases 
of post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of 
other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the 
species' conservation post-delisting.

Post-Delisting Monitoring Overview

    If we make this proposed rule final, the post-delisting monitoring 
is designed to verify that northern Channel Island foxes (San Miguel, 
Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) remain secure from risk of 
extinction after their removal from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by detecting changes in population trend and 
mortality/survival. Post-delisting monitoring for the northern Channel 
Island fox subspecies would be conducted as recommended in the epidemic 
response plan for northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, 
entire) and golden eagle management strategy (NPS 2015a, entire). These 
documents are posted on http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/Ventura/.
    Although the Act has a minimum post-delisting monitoring 
requirement of 5 years, the draft post-delisting monitoring plan for 
northern Channel Island foxes includes a 10-year monitoring period to 
account for environmental variability (for example, extended drought) 
that may affect fox populations and to document the range of population 
fluctuation as fox populations reach carrying capacity. If a decline in 
abundance is observed or a substantial new threat arises, post-
delisting monitoring may be extended or modified as described below.
    Island foxes would be monitored for both population size and trend, 
and for annual survival and cause-specific mortality, as specified by 
the epidemic response plan for northern Channel island foxes (Hudgens 
et al. 2013, entire) and the golden eagle management strategy (NPS 
2015a, entire). Monitoring as recommended in these plans is currently 
being implemented. Population size and trend are estimated using 
capture-mark-recapture data from trapping foxes on grids (Rubin et al. 
2007, p. 2-1; Coonan et al. 2014, p. 2). Such monitoring has

[[Page 7740]]

been implemented for island foxes since the late 1980s. The monitoring 
provides a continuous record of population fluctuation, including 
decline and recovery, upon which population viability analysis was used 
to develop island fox demographic recovery objectives (Bakker and Doak 
2009, entire; Bakker et al. 2009, entire).
    Annual survival and cause-specific mortality of island foxes would 
be monitored, as it is now, via tracking of radio-collared foxes. 
Mortality checks would be conducted weekly on radio-collared foxes, and 
necropsies would be conducted on fox carcasses to determine the cause 
of mortality. A sample of at least 40 radio-collared foxes is 
maintained on each island, as that is the number of monitored foxes 
determined to be necessary to detect an annual predation rate of 2.5 
percent (Rubin et al. 2007, p. 2-20). This level of radio-telemetry 
monitoring is part of the epidemic response plan and the golden eagle 
management strategy for island foxes on the northern Channel Islands 
(Hudgens et al. 2013, pp. 7-11).
    The USFWS, NPS, and TNC would annually review the results of 
monitoring, which would include annual estimated adult population size, 
annual adult survival, and identified causes of mortality. If there are 
apparent sharp declines in population size and/or survival or the 
appearance of significant mortality causes, the data would be reviewed 
by the Island Fox Conservation Working Group for evaluation and 
assessment of threat level. Monitoring results may also reach 
thresholds which precipitate increased monitoring or implementation of 
management actions, as specified in the epidemic response plan and 
golden eagle management strategy. At the end of the 10-year post-
delisting monitoring period, USFWS, NPS, and TNC would determine 
whether monitoring should continue beyond the 10-year monitoring 
period.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Proposed Rule

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    We determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to 
section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons 
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 
FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0170, or upon request from the Field Supervisor, 
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary author of this proposed rule is the Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office in Ventura, California, in coordination with the 
Pacific Southwest Regional Office in Sacramento California, and the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office in Carlsbad, California.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, under MAMMALS, by:
0
a. Removing the entries for ``Fox, San Miguel Island'', ``Fox, Santa 
Cruz Island'', and ``Fox, Santa Rosa Island''; and
0
b. Revising the entry for ``Fox, Santa Catalina Island'' to read as set 
forth below.


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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


[[Page 7741]]

Sec.  17.95  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(a) by removing the entries for ``San Miguel Island 
Fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis)'', ``Santa Cruz Island Fox (Urocyon 
littoralis santacruzae)'', and ``Santa Rosa Island Fox (Urocyon 
littoralis santarosae)''.

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