Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10335

K. Other commencement of construction of the foxes from all islands under the species Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean unit. U. littoralis and assigning each island (2) [Reserved] population a subspecific designation (U. Air Act, petitions for judicial review of l. catalinae on Santa Catalina Island, U. this action must be filed in the United [FR Doc. 04–4987 Filed 3–4–04; 8:45 am] l. clementae on San Clemente Island, U. States Court of Appeals for the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P l. dickeyi on San Nicolas Island, U. l. appropriate circuit by May 4, 2004. littoralis on San Miguel Island, U. l. Filing a petition for reconsideration by santacruzae on Santa Cruz Island, and the Administrator of this final rule does DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. l. santarosae on Santa Rosa Island). not affect the finality of this rule for the Recent morphological and genetic purposes of judicial review nor does it Fish and Wildlife Service studies support the division of the U. extend the time within which a petition littoralis complex into six subspecies for judicial review may be filed, and 50 CFR Part 17 that are each limited in range to a single shall not postpone the effectiveness of RIN 1018–AI28 island (Gilbert et al. 1990; Wayne et al. such rule or action. This action may not 1991; Collins 1991a, 1993; Goldstein et be challenged later in proceedings to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the San Miguel al. 1999). Each subspecies is enforce its requirements. (See section reproductively isolated from the others 307(b)(2).) Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa by a minimum of 5 kilometers (3 miles) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 69 Catalina Island Fox as Endangered of ocean waters. The island fox is closely related to the mainland gray fox, Environmental protection, Air AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, U. cinereoargenteus, but is smaller in pollution control. Interior. size and darker in coloration (Moore Dated: February 27, 2004. ACTION: Final rule. and Collins 1995). Michael O. Leavitt, The island fox is a very small canid, Administrator. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and weighing approximately 3 to 6 pounds Wildlife Service (Service), determine (1.4 to 2.7 kilograms) and standing ■ Part 69 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code endangered status pursuant to the approximately 1 foot (0.3 meter) tall. of Federal Regulations is amended to Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, The tail is conspicuously short. Dorsal read as follows: as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for coloration is grayish-white and black. PART 69—[AMENDED] four subspecies of island fox (Urocyon The base of the ears and sides of the littoralis): San Miguel Island fox (U. l. neck and limbs are cinnamon-rufous in ■ 1. The authority citation for part 69 littoralis), Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. color, and the underbelly is a dull continues to read as follows: santarosae), Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. white. Island foxes display sexual size Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7545(c), (g), and (i), santacruzae), and Santa Catalina Island dimorphism (males being larger and and 7625–1. fox (U. l. catalinae). This final rule heavier than females) (Moore and Collins 1995). ■ extends the Federal protection and 2. Section 69.41 is amended by adding recovery provisions of the Act to these Island foxes inhabit the six largest paragraph (h) to read as follows: subspecies. islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa § 69.41 New exemptions. DATES: This final rule is effective April Cruz, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and 5, 2004. San Clemente Islands) off the coast of * * * * * southern California. Genetic evidence ADDRESSES: (h) Pursuant to section 325(a) of the The complete file for this suggests that all island foxes are Clean Air Act (CAA) and a petition rule is available for inspection, by descended from one colonization event submitted by the Governor of United appointment, during normal business (Gilbert et al. 1990), possibly from States Virgin Islands on July 21, 2003, hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife chance overwater dispersal during (‘‘2003 Petition’’), the Administrator of Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife which foxes rafted on floating debris EPA conditionally exempts Virgin Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, (Moore and Collins 1995). Fossil Islands Water and Power Authority Ventura, CA 93003. evidence indicates that island foxes (‘‘VIWAPA’’) from certain CAA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inhabited the northern Channel Islands requirements. Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa (1) A waiver of the requirement to Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Cruz) between 10,000 to 16,000 years obtain a PSD permit prior to Office, at the address above (telephone ago (Orr 1968). However, island foxes construction is granted for the electric 805/644–1766; facsimile 805/644–3958). are thought to have existed on the generating unit identified in the 2003 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: northern Channel Islands even before Petition as Unit 23, St. Krum Bay plant that time, during a period when Santa Background in St. Thomas with the following Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel were condition: The island fox was first described as one land mass referred to as (i) Unit 23 shall not operate until a Vulpes littoralis by Baird in 1857 from ‘‘Santarosae,’’ last known to have been final PSD permit is received by the type locality of San Miguel Island, united 18,000 years ago (Johnson 1978, VIWAPA for this unit; Santa Barbara County, California. 1983). The island fox was thought to (ii) Unit 23 shall not operate until it Merriam (1888, in Hall and Kelson have reached the southern Channel complies with all requirements of its 1959) reclassified the island fox into the Islands (San Nicolas, San Clemente, and PSD permit, including, if necessary, genus Urocyon and later described Santa Catalina) much more recently retrofitting with BACT; island foxes from Santa Catalina, San (2,200 to 3,800 years ago), most likely (iii) If Unit 23 operates either prior to Clemente, and Santa Cruz Islands as introduced to these islands by Native the issuance of a final PSD permit or three separate taxa (U. catalinae, U. Americans as pets or semidomesticates without BACT equipment, Unit 23 shall clementae, and U. littoralis santacruzae) (Collins 1991a, b). However, island fox be deemed in violation of this waiver (Merriam 1903). Grinnell et al. (1937) remains recently recovered from San and the CAA beginning on the date of revised Merriam’s classification, placing Nicolas Island suggest this introduction

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10336 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

was earlier, approximately 5,200 years Island foxes are omnivores, taking a landscape features, and habitat type ago (Vellanoweth 1998). wide variety of seasonally available (Laughrin 1977; Crooks and Van Vuren Genetic evidence confirms the pattern plants and animals (Collins and 1996; Thompson et al. 1998; Roemer et of dispersal suggested by archeological Laughrin 1979; Collins 1980; Kovach al. 2001a). Estimates of territory size and geological findings (Gilbert et al. and Dow 1981; Moore and Collins 1995; range from 59 acres (ac) (24 hectares 1990). The pattern of genetic relatedness Crowell 2001). Island foxes forage (ha)) in mixed habitat (Crooks and Van supports the geological evidence of the opportunistically on any food items Vuren 1996) and 214 ac (87 ha) in sequence of isolation for each island, encountered within their home range. grassland habitat (Roemer 1999) on and each population, as rising sea levels Diet is determined largely by Santa Cruz Island, to 190 ac (77 ha) in separated Santarosae into the northern availability, which varies by habitat and canyons on San Clemente Island Channel Islands. Santa Cruz separated island, as well on a seasonal and annual (Thompson et al. 1998). Island fox from the other northern Channel Islands basis. Island foxes prey on native deer territory configuration changes after the first, about 11,500 years ago, followed mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and death and replacement of paired male by the separation of San Miguel and harvest mice (Reithrodontomys foxes, but not after the death and Santa Rosa about 9,500 years ago. megalotis catalinae), as well as on replacement of paired females or Together with the fossil record, genetic introduced house mice (Mus musculus) juveniles, indicating that adult males evidence indicates that San Clemente and rats (Rattus rattus and R. are involved in territory formation and was the first southern Channel Island norvegicus). Small mammals may be maintenance (Roemer et al. 2001a). colonized, probably by immigrants from especially important prey during the Although island foxes appear San Miguel. Dispersal then occurred breeding season, because they are large, monogamous, copulations with from San Clemente to San Nicolas and energy-rich food items that adult foxes individuals other than the mate are then Santa Catalina (Gilbert et al. 1990). can bring back to their growing pups common and often result in offspring. Island forms of species generally have (Garcelon et al. 1999). In addition to Courtship activities occur from late less genetic variability than their small mammals, island foxes feed on January to early March; genetic evidence mainland counterparts (Gill 1980), and ground-nesting birds such as horned suggests that inbreeding avoidance island foxes are no exception. Mainland larks (Eremophila alpestris), Catalina occurs (Roemer et al. 2001a). Recent gray foxes are more variable both quail (Callipepla californica endocrine assays on fecal samples from morphologically and genetically than catalinensis), and western meadowlarks San Miguel Island indicate that, unlike island foxes (Wayne et al. 1991; (Sturnella neglecta), and a wide variety all other canids studied to date, island Goldstein et al. 1999). The smaller the of insect prey (Moore and Collins 1995). foxes are induced rather than island size the lower the island fox At certain times of the year, foxes feed spontaneous ovulators (Bauman et al. population size and genetic variability heavily on orthopterans (e.g., 2001), which means that female island seems to be. The smallest island fox grasshoppers and crickets) (Crooks and foxes do not enter estrous unless males populations, San Miguel and San VanVuren 1995), especially Jerusalem are present. Young are born from late Nicolas, show the least genetic crickets (Stenopelmatus fuscus). Less April through May after a gestation variability, with San Nicolas having common in the diet are amphibians, period of approximately 50 days. Island virtually no genetic variability, which is reptiles, and carrion of marine mammals foxes give birth to their young in simple highly unusual among mammal (Collins and Laughrin 1979). Island dens, which are usually not excavated populations. This lack of variability foxes feed on a wide variety of native by the foxes themselves (Moore and likely occurred as a result of a past plants, including the fruits of manzanita Collins 1995). Rather, any available population bottleneck (Gilbert et al. (Arctostaphylos spp.), summer holly sheltered site (e.g., brush pile, rock 1990; Goldstein et al. 1999); such a (Comarostaphylis spp.), toyon crevice, or hollow stump) is used bottleneck occurred on San Nicolas (Heteromeles arbutifolia), cactus (Laughrin 1977). Litter size ranges from Island in the mid-1970s (Laughrin (Opuntia spp.), island cherry (Prunus one to five pups (Moore and Collins 1980). ilicifolia), sumac (Rhus spp.), rose (Rosa 1995). Laughrin (1977) found an average The diminutive island fox is the spp.), nightshade (Solanum spp.), and litter of 2.17 for 24 dens on Santa Cruz largest native carnivore on the Channel huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.) (Moore Island; this estimate likely reflected the Islands. The island fox is a habitat and Collins 1995). Fruiting shrubs do number of pups weaned rather than generalist, occurring in valley and not occur on San Miguel Island, where born. The average size of 35 litters born foothill grasslands, southern coastal island foxes rely more on the fruits of in captivity since 1999 is 2.3 (Coonan et dunes, coastal bluff, coastal sage scrub, the lowgrowing sea-fig, Carpobrotus al. in prep.). Both island fox parents maritime cactus scrub, island chaparral, chilensis. care for the young (Garcelon et al. 1999). southern coastal oak woodland, The island fox is a docile canid, By 2 months of age, young foxes spend southern riparian woodland, Bishop exhibiting little fear of humans in many most of the day outside the den and will (Pinus muricata) and Torrey pine (Pinus instances. Although primarily remain with their parents throughout torreyana) forests, and coastal marsh nocturnal, the island fox is more diurnal the summer. Some pups disperse from habitats. Although foxes can be found in than the mainland gray fox (Collins and their birth territories by winter, a wide variety of habitats on the islands, Laughrin 1979; Fausett 1993). Their although others may stay on their natal they prefer areas of diverse topography more diurnal activity is thought to be a territories into their second year and vegetation (Von Bloeker 1967; result of both the historical absence of (Coonan 2003a). Island foxes can mate Laughrin 1977; Moore and Collins large predators and freedom from at the end of their first year (Collins and 1995). Laughrin (1973, 1980) found human harassment on the islands Laughrin 1979), although most breeding woodland habitats to support higher (Laughrin 1977). involves older animals. Coonan et al. densities of island foxes due to Mated island foxes maintain (1998) found that only 16 percent of increased food availability, while territories that are separate from the females under the age of 2 bred over a Crooks and Van Vuren (1995) found territories of other pairs (Crooks and 5-year period, in contrast to 60 percent island foxes to prefer fennel grasslands Van Vuren 1996; Roemer et al. 2001a). of older females. and avoid ravines and scrub oak Island fox home range size varies with Due to the low reproductive output of (Quercus spp.) patches. sex, season, population density, island foxes, survival of adults is the

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10337

most important factor influencing San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands previously recorded (41 foxes per mi2 population growth rate (Roemer 1999; have island fox populations estimated at (15.8 foxes per km2) in one study area), Roemer et al. 2001b, d). Compared with approximately 595 and 614 individuals, resulting in an island-wide estimate of the gray fox, island fox populations are respectively (D. Garcelon, unpublished 450 adults (Coonan et al. 1998). Annual skewed toward older adults (Laughrin data; Schmidt and Garcelon 2003). San populationmonitoring using capture- 1980; Garcelon 1988). Adult island Clemente Island has not experienced the mark-recapture techniques documented foxes live an average of 4 to 6 years sharp declines seen on other islands; a substantial decline in island fox (Moore and Collins 1995), although this however, 13 years of trapping data populations on San Miguel Island may be an underestimate (Coonan et al. indicate that island fox densities have between 1994 and 1999 (Coonan et al. 1998). Island foxes may live 8 to 10 slowly declined since the early 1990s 1998; Coonan et al. in review). During years in captivity or in the wild in the (Garcelon 1999; D. Garcelon, this time period, island fox populations absence of catastrophic mortality forces unpublished data). Populations of the dropped from an estimated 450 adults (Tim Coonan, National Park Service, in San Nicolas Island fox appear to be in 1994 (Coonan et al. 1998) to 15 foxes litt. 2002). stable. However, its small population in 1999 (T. Coonan, unpublished data) In the 1970s, island foxes were found size (Roemer et al. 1994), insular nature, as a result of predation by golden eagles. at higher densities than any other canid lack of resistance to canine distemper In 1999, NPS captured 14 (4 males species, likely due to the lack of and other diseases (Garcelon et al. and 10 females) of the 15 remaining competition and predation compared 1992), high densities (Schmidt and foxes from San Miguel Island to protect with the island foxes’ mainland canid Garcelon 2003), and low genetic the subspecies from further losses from counterparts (Laughrin 1980). At the variability (Wayne et al. 1991) increase predation by golden eagles and to time of Laughrin’s early studies, island the vulnerability of this subspecies initiate a captive propagation program. fox populations were stable on all (Roemer 1999). Protective measures The remaining island fox, a lone female, islands except Santa Catalina (Laughrin have been put in place on these islands, evaded capture efforts until September 1973). Pre-decline trapping on Santa such as reducing speed limits, educating 2003, when she was captured and Cruz Island in 1993 and 1994 island inhabitants and visitors, brought into captivity. Four years’ reconfirmed that island foxes existed at implementing a wildfire management captive breeding has increased the high densities, with an average of 21.3 plan, managing feral cat populations, captive San Miguel Island fox foxes per mi2 (8.2 foxes per km2) in administering canine distemper population to 38 individuals. 1994 (Roemer et al. 1994). vaccinations, and removing all feral Island foxes held in captivity are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, ungulates, to prevent further decline of likely to be exposed to increased and Santa Catalina island foxes have these two subspecies. The statuses of parasite loads due to artificial densities experienced precipitous declines in the these subspecies are discussed further and unnaturally low mobility. On San last 8 years (Coonan et al. 1998, 2000; in Issue 16 under our responses to Miguel Island, captive island foxes have Roemer 1999; Timm et al. 2000; Roemer public comments. been found to have high parasite loads et al. 2001b). The island fox population of Angiocaulus spp., Spirocerca spp., on San Nicolas Island has remained San Miguel Island Fox (Urocyon and Uncinaria spp. (L. Munson, stable and the population on San littoralis littoralis) unpublished data; Sharon Patton, Clemente appears to have experienced a San Miguel Island is owned by the University of Tennessee, pers. comm. gradual decline. Total island fox Department of the Navy but is managed 2003). These parasites, thought to have numbers rangewide have fallen from by the National Park Service as part of had minor effects on the population in approximately 6,000 individuals in the Channel Islands National Park the past (see Coonan et al., in review), 1994 (Roemer et al. 1994) to fewer than through a series of memoranda of may have significant effects on 1,660 individuals in 2003 (Coonan understanding between these agencies. individual fox health due to the 2003b). By 2001, island fox populations The first quantitative surveys for island facilitation of their spread and density on San Miguel and Santa Cruz Islands foxes on San Miguel Island were by the captive breeding situation. For had declined by an estimated 80 to 90 conducted by Laughrin in the early example, fox handlers have reported percent and were found to have a 50 1970s (Laughrin 1973). Trap efficiency high incidence of rectal bleeding in the percent chance of extinction over the was high (43 percent), and Laughrin captive San Miguel population, likely next 5 to 10 years (Roemer 1999; concluded that island fox populations due to Uncinaria (a type of hookworm). Roemer et al. 2001b). During the period were stable at 7 foxes per square mile Hookworms feed on the inner lining of of decline, island fox population (mi2) (2.7 foxes per square kilometer the small intestine and cause loss of monitoring was not conducted on Santa (km2)), although this may be an blood or hemorrhaging to the host, Rosa Island; however, anecdotal underestimate. In the late 1970s, the sometimes to the point of severe anemia observations and recent trapping efforts island foxes on San Miguel had an and death. The NPS is working to showed that a similar decline occurred average density of 12 foxes per mi2 (4.6 address this threat by developing a for this subspecies as well (Roemer foxes per km2), for a total estimated treatment process for hookworm in 1999; Coonan 2003a). Island fox population of 151 to 498 individuals coordination with the veterinary team of populations on the northern Channel (Collins and Laughrin 1979). Island the Island Fox Conservation Working Islands are considered critically foxes on San Miguel Island were not Group. Captive breeding programs to endangered and in need of immediate surveyed again until 1993, when the facilitate recovery are planned to conservation action (Coonan et al. 1998; NPS instituted a long-term population continue for these four island fox Roemer 1999; Roemer et al. 2001c). On study, which recorded an average subspecies. Therefore, exposure to Santa Catalina, island fox populations density of 20 foxes per mi2 (7.7 foxes increased parasitic loads will continue all but disappeared from the larger per km2) on two trapping grids and to be a threat. eastern portion of the island. This estimated the total population at more Until September 2001, all captive San decline is attributed to a canine than 300 foxes (Roemer et al. 1994; Miguel Island foxes were held in one distemper outbreak that swept through Coonan et al. 1998). A third trapping breeding facility, putting the subspecies the population in 1999 (Timm et al. grid was added the following year, and in danger of extinction due to a 2000). yielded island fox densities higher than catastrophic event such as wildfire or

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10338 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

disease outbreak. The NPS moved half hunt and subsequent cull provide Island in early 2002 (Coonan and Rutz the captive foxes into a second breeding golden eagles with a food source at a 2003). facility on San Miguel Island in October time of year where food resources are During 2002, 18 island foxes on Santa 2001 to minimize this risk (Coonan and usually depleted. Through a settlement Cruz Island were captured and brought Rutz 2002). between the special use permittee and into captivity. One of these foxes gave the NPS, deer and elk will be removed birth to 5 pups, 3 of which were Santa Rosa Island Fox (Urocyon from the island by 2011, with released back into the wild, bringing the littoralis santarosae) populations slated for decrease total captive population to 20 by Santa Rosa Island is owned and beginning in 2008. December 2002 (Coonan and Rutz 2003). managed by the NPS. The earliest island An additional 10 pups born in 2003 fox trapping study from Santa Rosa Santa Cruz Island Fox (Urocyon brought the total captive population to reported a trapping efficiency of 50 littoralis santacruzae) 30 individuals. percent and a density of 11 foxes per The majority (75 percent) of Santa Islandwide transect trapping in 2002 mi2 (4.2 foxes per km2) (Laughrin 1973). Cruz Island is owned by The Nature revealed that a minimum of 68 foxes Few population data have been Conservancy, with the remaining 25 were alive in the wild on Santa Cruz collected on Santa Rosa Island foxes percent owned by NPS. Santa Cruz Island (D. Garcelon, unpublished data). since Laughrin’s studies. Although Island is the largest of the Channel Additional island foxes are expected to population monitoring was not Islands and has supported the highest be present on the island, but the total conducted on Santa Rosa Island during known densities of island fox in the past number of island foxes in the wild is the period of decline, trapping data (Laughrin 1973). Laughrin (1971) likely fewer than 100 (Schmidt and collected in 1998 and 2000, as well as estimated the island fox population of Garcelon 2003). Since December 2000, anecdotal evidence, suggested that Santa Cruz Island to be approximately the Institute for Wildlife Studies has Santa Rosa experienced a decline 3,000 individuals. Average density radio-tracked 53 individual foxes. similar to those on Santa Cruz and San between 1973 and 1977 was 20.4 foxes Twenty of these foxes have died; 16 of Miguel Islands (Roemer 1999; Roemer et per mi2 (7.9 foxes per km2) (Laughrin the 20 mortalities were attributed to al. 2001b). During 132 trap nights in 1980). Following Laughrin’s studies, golden eagle predation based on 1998, trap success was 4.8 percent, and island fox populations on Santa Cruz physical evidence at the carcass only 9 individuals were captured Island were not surveyed again until recovery site (Institute for Wildlife (Roemer 1999). Anecdotal sightings by 1993, when the average density was Studies, unpublished data). park and ranch staff in the late 1990s 21.2 foxes per mi2 (8.2 foxes per km2) Annual survivorship of wild island became much less frequent than in (Roemer et al. 1994). Since that time, the foxes on Santa Cruz Island, as previous years (Coonan 2003a). population has decreased from an determined by ongoing radiotelemetry, Believing that fewer than 100 island estimated 1,312 in 1993 to 133 was 61 percent in 2001 and 70 percent foxes remained on Santa Rosa Island (T. individuals in 1999 (Roemer 1999; in 2002. Golden eagle trapping appears Coonan, pers. comm. 1999), the NPS Roemer et al. 1994, 2001b). In 1998, to have improved annual survivorship captured 14 adult foxes (5 males and 9 trapping efficiency was low (2.9 of island foxes, as the 2001 and 2002 females) to initiate captive breeding in percent), and island fox density ranged survivorship is significantly higher than March 2000. The last known fox in the from 0.0 to 6.2 foxes per mi2 (0.0 to 2.4 the 39 percent survivorship recorded wild on Santa Rosa Island was brought foxes per km2), the lowest ever reported during the island fox population into captivity in March 2001 (Coonan from Santa Cruz Island (Roemer 1999). decline. However, an island fox and Rutz 2002). Three years’ captive Population monitoring efforts in 2001 population model indicates that breeding has increased the captive yielded captures of 75 individual foxes. survivorship needs to be at least 80 population to 56 (Coonan 2003b). As Of these, 27 were outfitted with radio percent in order for the populations to with San Miguel Island, approximately collars. The highest numbers of foxes stabilize or increase (Roemer et al. in half the captive foxes were moved to a were captured in the areas of relatively prep.). second facility in October 2001 (Coonan high cover. Five of the 27 radio-collared Santa Cruz Island is currently and Rutz 2002). foxes died during 2001; their deaths occupied by a large feral pig (Sus scrofa) Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk were attributed to predation by golden population (estimated at approximately (Cervus elaphus) are present on Santa eagles (David Garcelon, Institute for 3,000 to 5,000 individuals), which Rosa Island and assist in supporting Wildlife Studies, pers. comm. 2001a). facilitates the colonization of the island breeding golden eagles, the main The Island Fox Conservation Working by golden eagles. TNC and the NPS are predator of island fox. Deer numbers in Group, a team of experts convened by planning to begin an islandwide pig 2002 fluctuated between 424 and 686 the NPS to recommend appropriate eradication program in spring 2004, deer (Schreiner et al. 2003), while recovery actions for the island fox, which will take years to complete (NPS approximately 601 elk remain on the found that ‘‘the existence of one pair of 2002). island (Nathan Vail, in litt. 2003). golden eagles on the island as of Numbers of deer and elk are presently October 1, 2001, will warrant bringing Santa Catalina Island Fox (Urocyon at their lowest numbers since the herds foxes into captivity as the necessary littoralis catalinae) were established, as the result of a conservative step in preserving the Twelve percent of Catalina Island is negotiated settlement agreement Santa Cruz Island fox population in private ownership, while the between the NPS and the commercial (Coonan 2001).’’ Intensive trapping remaining 88 percent is owned by the hunting operation managing the herds. efforts to capture and relocate the Catalina Island Conservancy. Santa The presence of these ungulates on the remaining golden eagles in the spring Catalina Island has the largest human island likely facilitates the presence of and summer of 2001 resulted in three population, a large population of golden eagles in two ways: (1) Deer captures; however, four eagles remained domestic dogs, and the highest degree of fawns provide live prey for golden on the island (B. Latta, pers. comm. human activity and accessibility of the eagles as evidenced by prey remains 2001). Thus, the NPS and The Nature Channel Islands. Island fox numbers on found in nests (Coonan 2003a); and (2) Conservancy (TNC) initiated captive Santa Catalina Island have fluctuated carcasses of deer and elk from an annual breeding of island foxes on Santa Cruz widely over the past 30 years. In

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10339

Laughrin’s early 1970s studies, only 2 resulted in capture of 161 individuals 28, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 7596), island foxes were trapped on Santa (67 at the east end, 94 at the west end) we discontinued the designation of Catalina Island for a trap efficiency of 6 and a conservative population estimate category 2 candidates. Thus, all six percent and an average estimated of 215 foxes islandwide (119 on the subspecies of island fox were not density of 0.3 fox per mi2 (0.1 fox per west end, and 96 on the east end) included in the 1996 and subsequent km2) (Laughrin 1973). This density was (Kohlmann et al. 2003). NORs until our October 30, 2001 (66 FR 37 percent lower than any other island A captive propagation program for the 54808), NOR in which the San Miguel, during this study. The reason for past Santa Catalina Island fox was initiated Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa low island fox numbers on Santa in 2001. The Institute for Wildlife Catalina Island foxes were included as Catalina Island is unknown; the Studies captured 16 adults (10 females candidate species. Candidate species are available food and habitats are and 6 males) between February and those species being considered for comparable to those on the other mid-March 2001 as the founder listing by the Secretary but which are islands. Island fox numbers on Santa population for the captive breeding not yet the subject of a proposed listing Catalina Island increased slightly program. The pregnant females from the rule (50 CFR 424.02(b). between 1975 and 1977, with average founder group gave birth to a total of 18 On June 1, 2000, we received a estimated densities of 0.77 fox per mi2 pups. Twelve of these pups died within petition from the Center for Biological (0.29 fox per km2) (Propst 1975) and 0.8 7 days of birth, likely due to stress to the Diversity (Center) in Tucson, Arizona, fox per mi2 (0.30 fox per km2) (Laughrin females from capture during late and the Institute for Wildlife Studies in 1980). During 1989 and 1990, average pregnancy. The six remaining pups Arcata, California, requesting that we density estimates increased, ranging were released onto the east end of the add four subspecies of island fox, the from 6.7 to 33.1 foxes per mi2 (2.6 to island in the fall of 2001. Eight pups San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa 12.8 foxes per km2) (Garcelon et al. were released as part of this program in Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and 1991). The Santa Catalina Island fox 2002, and 15 were released in 2003. Santa Catalina Island fox, to the list of population increased to an estimated During 2002, 10 additional foxes were endangered species pursuant to the Act. 1,342 foxes by 1994 (Roemer et al. brought into captivity from the west end Due to a lack of funding, we initially did 1994). to replace captive breeding stock. Early not issue a 90-day finding in response In 1999, the Santa Catalina Island fox results of the captive breeding-release to the petition. In response to our lack population experienced a dramatic program are promising. Of the 14 pups of action on the petition, the Center sent decline attributed to canine distemper, released in 2001 and 2002, 11 are us a 60-day notice of intent to sue on presumably introduced by domestic known to be alive and at least 3 captive December 4, 2000. In the October 30, dogs, in the eastern portion of the island reared foxes are reproducing (Institute 2001, NOR, however, the island foxes (Timm et al. 2000). Santa Catalina for Wildlife Studies, unpublished data). were included as candidate species for Island is separated into a large eastern In addition to the captive breeding which listing was warranted but side of 40,000 ac (16,190 ha) and a small program, the Santa Catalina precluded by higher priority listing western side of 8,000 ac (3,240 ha) by Conservancy and the Institute for actions (66 FR 54808); as noted in the a narrow isthmus, which has apparently Wildlife Studies initiated a NOR, the Service considered that the served as a barrier to the canine translocation program in 2001 to re- island foxes, and all other candidate distemper virus. Anecdotal accounts of establish island foxes on the east side of species, as having been subject to a fox absence in the summer of 1999 the island. Seven of 10 juvenile island positive 90-day finding and a resulted in renewed trapping efforts to foxes were relocated from the west end warranted-but-precluded 12-month ascertain the status of the species, and to the east end in 2001, and all of the finding (66 FR 54814). We proposed to investigation of a potential disease- 12 foxes that were relocated in 2002 list the four subspecies of island fox on related decline. Two live foxes and one remain in the population (Institute for December 10, 2001 (66 FR 63654). The deceased fox recovered from the eastern Wildlife Studies, unpublished data). proposed rule satisfied a measure in the portion of the island tested positive for The translocation effort has been settlement agreement with the Center canine distemper virus or had high discontinued to avoid adverse effects to (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. antibody titers (a measure of the west end population, but appears to Norton, Civ. No. 01–2063 (JR) (D.D.C.)), concentration), constituting the first have been successful as a population entered by the Court on October 2, 2001. positive record of canine distemper in augmentation mechanism for the east On April 22, 2003, the Center filed island foxes (Timm et al. 2000). end. At least 6 of the translocated foxes suit against the Service for failure to Previous studies had found no evidence are known to be reproducing on the east finalize the listing and for failure to of canine distemper in Santa Catalina end, and at least 4 pups have been publish a final determination regarding Island foxes (Garcelon et al. 1992). A produced in the wild by translocated critical habitat. (Center for Biological trapping effort conducted during this animals. Diversity v. Williams, et al. No. CV–03– time period resulted in a minimum 2729 AHM). In a settlement of that Previous Federal Action population estimate of only 100 foxes lawsuit, the Service agreed to submit the for the year 2000 (Kohlmann et al. We published an updated candidate final listing determination to the 2003), compared to an islandwide Notice of Review (NOR) for animals on Federal Register on or by March 1, population estimate of 1,342 foxes December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). This 2004, and if prudent, submit a proposed reported in 1994 (Roemer et al. 1994). notice included all six subspecies of rule to designate critical habitat to the Island fox trapping efforts during island fox in a list of category 2 Federal Register on or by October 1, 2000 and 2001 resulted in capture of candidate species. We maintained all 2004, and a final determination 137 island foxes on the western end and six subspecies of island fox as category regarding critical habitat on or by 37 on the eastern portion of Santa 2 candidates in subsequent notices: November 1, 2005. Catalina Island, and a conservative September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), population estimate of 225 foxes January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), November Summary of Comments and Responses islandwide (Kohlmann et al. 2003; D. 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804) and November In the December 10, 2001, proposed Garcelon, unpublished data). 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). As announced rule (66 FR 63654), we requested all Monitoring conducted in 2001 and 2002 in a notice published in the February interested parties to submit factual

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10340 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

reports or information that might grasslands comprised of non-native Our response: We are not aware of contribute to development of a final annual grasses, it greatly reduces the any studies that have been or are rule. A 60-day comment period closed amount of cover available to island planned to be conducted on these on February 8, 2002. We contacted foxes and (2) feral pigs and deer provide subjects. Funding for research has been appropriate Federal agencies, State an unnatural prey base for golden focused on those areas identified as agencies, county and city governments, eagles, which has facilitated the being most crucial for the recovery of scientific organizations, and other colonization of the northern Channel the island fox. On Santa Cruz, Santa interested parties and requested Islands by golden eagles. Removing non- Rosa, and San Miguel islands, financial comments, and notified affected native animals is essential to break the resources have gone into removing the landowners of the proposed listing. We link that attracts golden eagles to the primary threat, golden eagles, and published public notices of the northern islands, where they also prey constructing and operating captive proposed rule, which invited general on island foxes. breeding facilities. Because island foxes public comment, in the Santa Barbara Issue 2: Several commenters pointed existed on all islands for thousands of News Press and Ventura County Star on out that the rapid decline in fox years without the presence of deer, elk, December 15, 2001. We requested peer populations over the last 6 years pigs, and cattle, the Service concludes review in compliance with our policy, occurred concurrently with the removal that removing these species should not published in the Federal Register on of non-native species, including pigs affect the long-term conservation of July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270). We did not and cattle, and the reduction of deer and island foxes once the ecosystem has receive any requests for a public elk. The commenters proposed that the been restored to more natural hearing, and no public meeting was removal of non-native species caused conditions. held. the decline of the island foxes. The Service, the NPS, and the Island During the public comment period, Our response: Declines of island foxes Fox Conservation Working Group have we received written comments from 11 only occurred concurrently with the identified a concern with the timing of individuals, businesses, and removal of non-native species on Santa eradication of pigs from Santa Cruz organizations. In all, one commenter Rosa Island. On San Miguel Island, no Island. Pig carcasses will be left to opposed the listing and two supported non-native species removal programs decompose on the island, rather than continued protection of the subspecies occurred during the period of decline, being transported to the mainland. If proposed for listing. The remaining and on Santa Cruz Island, 9,000 sheep golden eagles remain on the island, the eight commenters stated neither were removed after island fox numbers widespread availability of pig carcasses opposition nor support for the ruling, had declined. An analysis of the best may increase golden eagle numbers and but provided additional information on available data regarding the island fox impede capture efforts by making bait the causes of decline and threats to the population declines (Coonan et al. 2000; less attractive. In addition, once pigs island fox. Issues raised by the Roemer et al. 2001b and 2002; Coonan have been removed or their numbers commenters, and our response to each, 2003) has not revealed a causal link substantially decreased, lingering are summarized below. between the removal of cattle on Santa golden eagles may switch to island foxes Issue 1: Several commenters stated Rosa Island and the decline. The remaining in the wild. The Service, that the rule lists the introduction of removal of cattle from Santa Rosa Island NPS, and TNC are working to develop non-native herbivores as the primary may have negatively affected foxes, as measures to decrease the probability of cause of the fox decline. One the cattle fed on the non-native annual the negative effects of pig removal on commenter further pointed out that, if grasses and kept them in check. island foxes. Although the removal of non-native herbivores were the cause of Although island foxes may have been pigs may have short-term negative decline, the fox population on Santa negatively affected by the proliferation effects on island foxes, this action is Rosa Island should have been decimated of non-native annual grasses following essential to deter golden eagles from in the 1870s, when more than 100,000 the removal of cattle (Roemer and colonizing the islands, and will head of sheep (Ovis aries) were present. Wayne 2003), we do not believe that facilitate the long-term recovery of the Several commenters noted that foxes this was the cause of decline. As island fox. flourished for over 130 years with described in the rule, predation by Issue 4: One commenter noted that extensive grazing by cattle (Bos taurus) golden eagles is the primary cause of after burros (Equus asinus) were and sheep, and for close to 70 years decline on the three northern Channel removed from San Miguel Island, with the added presence of pigs, elk, Islands. We are not aware of any data vegetation piled up, making the island and deer. that show that the decline of island impossible to penetrate. The conversion Our response: Although the foxes is due to the removal of non- of once-open hunting grounds to degradation of habitat that occurred due native herbivores. In addition, island impenetrable forest may have affected to the introduction of non-native foxes existed on the islands for the ability of foxes to find food. herbivores is the first threat presented in thousands of years without the presence Our response: No impenetrable forests the rule (under Factor A), this threat of deer, elk, pigs, and cattle. Therefore, currently exist on San Miguel Island. was not identified as the primary cause it seems unlikely that removing non- When the San Miguel Island fox began of the island fox decline. The Service native species would cause a decline in to decline, the NPS conducted a study concluded that the primary cause of island foxes. to determine if food availability was the decline for island foxes is from Issue 3: Two commenters cause of decline. They concluded that predation by golden eagles on Santa recommended that objective research be the availability of food was not the Cruz, San Miguel, and Santa Rosa conducted prior to the removal of deer cause of decline (Coonan et al. 1998; Islands and canine distemper on Santa and elk on Santa Rosa Island to study Crowell 2001). Numbers of alligator Catalina Island. However, the the impacts of removing non-native lizards (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), introduction of non-native mammals to animals. Another commenter asked if mice, and sea-figs, important the northern Channel Islands has the Service or NPS had conducted any components of the San Miguel Island facilitated declines of island foxes in research to find out if pigs and cattle fox diet, did not decrease during the two ways: (1) By type-converting have a positive impact on fox period of decline. In addition, the woodland and scrub habitats to open populations. decrease in fox numbers was not

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10341

accompanied by declines in adult fox humans played a role in the population carrion available from the 300 to 400 weight, making lack of food unlikely as decline. feral pigs shot annually, as well as from a cause of decline. Our response: The best available data the normal death of piglets. In addition, Issue 5: One commenter stated that do not support a causal link between the carrion from cattle, elk, and deer would the removal of greater than 35,000 sheep increased trapping and studies by have been available to island foxes. The and 3,000 cattle on Santa Cruz Island scientists. In fact, no trapping of island decline of island foxes on Santa Rosa resulted in an explosion of fennel foxes occurred during declines on Santa Island corresponded with the removal of (Foeniculum vulgare), which now forms Catalina and Santa Rosa islands. pigs from the island. ‘‘miles of impenetrable fennel-forests.’’ Surveys that include capture and Our response: Island foxes are The commenter poses that the loss of handling of island foxes are conducted omnivorous and do feed upon carrion, the island foxes’ open hunting habitat biannually on San Nicolas Island, which when available. No studies of food caused the population crash. Another has had stable or increasing island fox availability were conducted on Santa commenter speculated that foxes numbers for approximately a decade. Rosa Island during the period of needed the more open habitat that Between 2000 and 2003 (following the decline; however, environmental grazing animals provided on all islands, decline on Santa Catalina Island), the conditions should have been similar to and the removal of those animals led to Catalina Island Conservancy increased those on San Miguel Island, where food the decline. capture and handling of island foxes. availability was ruled out as a cause of Our response: Non-native fennel During this time period, the size of the decline (Coonan et al. 1998; Crowell covers approximately 10 percent of island fox population has increased. 2001). Although the decline of island Issue 7: One commenter asked about Santa Cruz Island (Breton and Klinger foxes on Santa Rosa Island occurred the sizes of the fox populations on the 1994). The densest stands of fennel are after pig removal, the best available data Channel Islands prior to the influence of concentrated in approximately 1,800 ac concerning island fox declines do not Europeans. (730 ha) (in the isthmus area; an implicate feral pig removal as the cause Our response: We have no data on fox additional 1,600 acres in the central of the declines (Coonan et al. 2000; numbers on the Channel Islands prior to Roemer et al. 2001b and 2002; Coonan valley on Santa Cruz Island are the influence of Europeans. We do know 2003). We believe that removing pigs dominated by fennel (NPS 2002). The from the fossil record that foxes existed has had a net beneficial effect on island best available data do not support the on the islands; however, this foxes, by removing the food source that conclusion that island foxes find the information cannot be used to supports their main predator, the golden fennel to be impenetrable. In a recent determine numbers. eagle thereby discouraging golden eagles study to determine distribution and Issue 8: One commenter stated that from staying on the islands. abundance of island foxes on Santa Cruz government efforts to rescue island Issue 11: One commenter pointed out Island, most foxes were found in the foxes will fail because the foxes are that there is some disagreement on central valley and isthmus area. Of the being managed as a ‘‘climax’’ species. which habitats island foxes prefer, and 82 foxes trapped during the study, 22 Our response: We are not sure what that scrub and woodland habitat exist were trapped in the thick fennel stands the commenter meant by managing on Santa Rosa Island, yet no foxes on the isthmus (Dennis et al. 2001). The foxes as a ‘‘climax’’ species. Island foxes remain. high percentage of island foxes found in are found in all habitats on the island, Our response: The proposed rule these stands may be due to the fact that including native habitats such as oak states that the island fox is a habitat the fennel provides foxes with cover woodlands. Our management for island generalist, occurring in all habitats from aerial predation by golden eagles. foxes has focused on addressing the found on the islands. Some authors Crooks and Van Vuren (1995) found primary causes of decline (golden eagles have indicated that island foxes prefer more foxes in the fennel grasslands than on the northern Channel Islands and areas of diverse topography and in ravines and patches of scrub oak on canine distemper on Santa Catalina vegetation (Von Bloeker 1967; Laughrin the isthmus. As with San Miguel Island, Island) and on captive propagation of 1977; Moore and Collins 1995). no available data support the idea that island foxes to bolster numbers. Laughrin (1973, 1980) found woodland island foxes were limited by food Issue 9: Two commenters disputed habitats to support higher densities of availability. Although island foxes (pre- the conclusion that the presence of deer island fox due to increased food decline) could be found in all vegetative on Santa Rosa Island is a threat to the availability, while Crooks and Van community types occurring on the fox, as the deer ‘‘likely’’ compete for Vuren (1995) found island foxes to island, they appear to prefer vegetative flowering and fruiting branches of prefer fennel grasslands and avoid communities that provide some cover. native shrubs. One commenter stated ravines and scrub oak patches. Because As described above, for most of the that no scientific evidence is cited to of the generalist nature of the island fox, island foxes’ evolutionary history, non- support this assertion. studies conducted at different times native herbivores were not present on Our response: Competition between under variable environmental the islands. Because island foxes existed deer and island foxes has not been conditions may produce different for thousands of years in the more dense studied on Santa Rosa Island. In the results. Scrub and woodland habitat vegetation with increased cover that presence of a healthy island fox only comprise about 5 percent of Santa occurred on the island before the population, competition for food Rosa Island; the majority of the island introduction of non-native herbivores, resources with deer may occur. Deer is covered by non-native annual removing these species should not affect have been shown to have a significant grasslands (Clark et al. 1990). Although the long-term conservation of island browsing effect that reduces the amount some habitats providing cover do foxes once the other threats to its of flowering and seed production on the remain on Santa Rosa Island, these continued existence have been removed. Santa Rosa Island manzanita habitats have not protected island foxes Issue 6: One commenter pointed out (Arctostaphylos confertiflora) on some from golden eagle predation, as no that the decrease in the fox population study plots (Schreiner et al. 2003). island foxes currently exist in the wild coincided with increased trapping and Issue 10: Three commenters pointed on the island. fox studies by the NPS and other out that Santa Rosa Island foxes may Issue 12: Several commenters stated scientists, and that it is possible that have been supported in large part by that the island fox decline on Santa

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10342 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Rosa Island coincided with NPS they exhibit more diurnal behavior than San Clemente Island fox population was assumption of the ranch. These mainland gray foxes and can commonly ‘‘slow,’’ pointing out that the decline, if commenters recommended further be seen during the daytime. Evidence of continued over time, would probably investigation of NPS management as a golden eagle predation at island fox lead to extinction in the next 100 years. cause of decline. carcass sites, as well as the remains of Our response: We limited our analysis Our response: The best available data island foxes found in a nest on Santa in the proposed rule to the four concerning the island fox decline on Rosa Island, indicate that golden eagles subspecies on which we were Santa Rosa Island points to the golden are finding and preying upon island petitioned. The petition included eagle as the cause of decline (Roemer foxes. substantial information concerning the 1999; Roemer et al. 2001b, 2002; Issue 15: One commenter was threats to these four subspecies. We did Coonan 2003b; Coonan et al. in review; skeptical that introducing bald eagles not receive a petition for the San Institute for Wildlife Studies (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) would assist Clemente and San Nicolas island unpublished data). We are aware of no the island fox situation. subspecies. In addition, because we information that indicates that NPS Our response: We acknowledge that determined that listing was not needed, management was responsible for the the effectiveness of bald eagles in we did not make these subspecies presence of golden eagles on the island. assisting with island fox recovery is candidates in the October 2001 NOR. We are also not aware of other data uncertain. Restoring bald eagles to the We will continue to monitor the San supporting NPS management as a cause northern Channel Islands may deter Nicolas Island fox and San Clemente of decline. See responses to issues 2, 5 future golden eagles from becoming Island fox to determine if they warrant and 6. resident and attempting to nest on the listing. Issue 13: Two commenters doubted islands, especially if the majority of the Issue 17: Three commenters stated the importance of golden eagle prey base for the golden eagle is that the entire island fox species should predation in the island fox declines. removed. Bald and golden eagles are be listed, as with precipitous declines One only rarely observed golden eagles fairly equally matched in interspecific on 4 of 6 islands where it occurs, it on the Santa Rosa Island, while another antagonistic interactions; in most cases, meets the definition of endangered: asked if there have been sightings of the territory holder will have the numerous successful hunting attempts advantage (B. Latta, pers. comm. 2001). ‘‘any species which is in danger of by golden eagles on island foxes. If bald eagles successfully breed and extinction throughout all or a significant Our response: Direct observations of create territories, they may be able to portion of its range.’’ golden eagles on the northern Channel discourage future colonization by Our response: The Endangered Islands have been rare, even by teams of nonterritorial golden eagles. However, Species Act allows for listing of species, biologists working on golden eagle our recovery actions for the island fox subspecies, or distinct population removal. However, golden eagles do not hinge upon the success of bald segments. Because island foxes have commonly leave behind evidence of eagle reintroduction. Removing golden subspecific status on each island where island fox carcasses that leaves little eagles and conditions attracting them to they occur, this taxonomic level is the doubt as to their involvement. Specific the islands is the singlemost important appropriate level upon which to evidence found at numerous fox recovery action for the Santa Cruz, evaluate our listing decisions. As carcasses implicating golden eagle Santa Rosa, and San Miguel island fox discussed previously, the island foxes predation includes plucking spots, and will be implemented regardless of on San Clemente Island and San Nicolas golden eagle feathers, talon holes, and the status of bald eagles on the islands. Island do not warrant listing under the carcasses typically left by eagles Unlike golden eagles, which forage on ESA. (evisceration, degloving of limbs (i.e., land, bald eagles are primarily marine Peer Review pulling flesh away from bone as in feeders, and coexisted with island foxes removing a glove), damage to fragile in the past. Remains from an historic In accordance with our July 1, 1994, bones). In addition, numerous island fox bald eagle nest indicate that island foxes Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer bones have been found in golden eagle constituted less than 0.5 percent of Review in Endangered Species Act nests on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa faunal elements found, and these Activities (59 FR 34270), we solicited islands (Latta 2001; B. Latta, pers. remains were speculated to be review from five experts in the fields of comm. 2003), indicating that golden scavenged rather than hunted (Collins et ecology, conservation, genetics, eagles were present on the island before al. 2003; Paul Collins, Santa Barbara taxonomy, pathology, and management. 2000 and preyed upon island foxes. Museum of Natural History, pers. Four of these have direct experience Issue 14: One commenter stated that comm. 2003). with island foxes, while the fifth is a golden eagles had been regular visitors Issue 16: Two commenters questioned well-known mammalogist. The purpose to the islands for years and that island why the proposed listing rule did not of such a review is to ensure that listing foxes had dealt with aerial predators for include the San Clemente Island fox and decisions are based on scientifically eons. Also, due to the more nocturnal the San Nicolas Island fox subspecies, sound data, assumptions, and analyses, nature of foxes, they would not be as these populations also have threats to including input from appropriate visible when golden eagles were their continued existence. San Nicolas experts. Three reviewers sent us letters foraging. Island foxes have unusually low genetic during the public comment period Our response: The behavior of the variability, increasing their supporting the listing of the four island island fox suggests an evolutionary susceptibility to disease. One fox subspecies. All three provided history lacking in predation. As commenter presented information corrections on minor factual issues, described in the proposed rule, the only concerning threats to the San Clemente interpretation of data, and citations. One known predator of island foxes was the Island fox from the management recommended that the entire island fox red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), program for the San Clemente species be listed, while another which preyed only occasionally on loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus recommended further scrutiny and young island foxes (Laughrin 1973; mearnsi). Another commenter disputed monitoring for the San Clemente Island Moore and Collins 1995). Although the characterization contained in the fox. Their information has been island foxes are primarily nocturnal, proposed rule that the decline of the incorporated, as appropriate.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10343

Summary of Factors Affecting the vegetative cover available to island piglets, common ravens (Corvus corax), Species foxes. Brandt’s cormorants (Phalacrocorax Section 4 of the Endangered Species B. Overutilization for commercial, pencillatus), and western gulls (Larus recreational, scientific, or educational Act and its implementing regulations occidentalis), were found in the nest. In purposes. Although island foxes were (50 CFR part 424) issued to implement September 1999, surveys by the Santa used in the past for pelts and the listing provisions of the Act Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group ceremonial uses by Native Americans establish procedures for adding species (SCPBRG) identified 12 resident golden (Collins 1991b), island foxes are not to the Federal Lists. A species may be eagles, including possibly 5 breeding currently known to be exploited for determined to be an endangered or pairs on Santa Cruz Island. commercial, recreational, scientific, or At the time we published the threatened species due to one or more educational purposes. proposed rule, golden eagles breeding of the five factors described in section C. Disease or predation. Predation. on Santa Cruz Island were thought to 4(a)(1) of the Act. These factors and Recent island fox declines on San ‘‘commute’’ to Santa Rosa and San their application to the four island fox Miguel, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa Miguel Islands to feed. On Santa Rosa subspecies are as follows: islands have been attributed to and San Miguel Islands, eagles find A. The present or threatened predation by golden eagles (Roemer fewer alternative prey species to island destruction, modification, or 1999; Roemer et al. 2001b, 2002; foxes (e.g., no feral pigs on Santa Rosa curtailment of its habitat or range. Coonan et al. in review). Roemer (1999) and San Miguel islands as occur on Habitat on all islands occupied by linked 19 of 21 documented island fox Santa Cruz Island) and foxes have less island foxes has been altered by a mortalities on Santa Cruz Island cover from vegetation to hide them from history of livestock grazing, cultivation, between April 1994 and July 1997 to avian predators (Roemer 1999). and other disturbance. A century and a golden eagles. Most (90 percent) of these However, since the proposed rule was half of grazing by non-native herbivores, mortalities occurred in 18 months published, we have obtained including sheep, goats (Capra hircus), between April 1994 and September information that two breeding pairs rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), deer, 1995. On San Miguel Island, 5 of 7 appeared to have successfully bred on elk, cattle, pigs, and horses (Equus mortalities of radio-collared foxes were Santa Rosa Island during the period caballus) resulted in substantial impacts attributed to golden eagle predation when island fox numbers were to the soils, topography, and vegetation between 1998 and 1999 (Roemer et al. declining (Latta 2003). Remains of of the islands (Coblentz 1980; Johnson 2001b; Coonan et al. in review). No island foxes, deer fawns, and numerous 1980; O’Malley 1994; Peart et al. 1994). mortality data exist from Santa Rosa birds were found during an excavation Damage to native island plants and their Island, but due to its location between of one of the nests on Santa Rosa Island, habitats on the northern Channel Santa Cruz and San Miguel islands, indicating that golden eagles were Islands by introduced stock and game island foxes on Santa Rosa Island likely breeding on the island before island animals is discussed in our 1997 listing experienced similar predation pressures foxes were taken into captivity in 1999 of 13 endemic island plants as from golden eagles. and 2000. endangered or threatened (62 FR 40954). As island foxes did not evolve with Before golden eagles started using the Even after the removal of non-native the presence of a large avian predator, northern Channel Islands in the 1990s, grazers on some islands, habitat they are likely not vigilant towards the only known predator of island foxes recovery is slow (Hochberg et al. 1979) avian predators, and thus provide an was the red-tailed hawk (Buteo and threatened by the spread of non- easy target for golden eagles (Roemer et jamaicensis), which preyed only native plants that became established al. 2001b). Golden eagle predation occasionally on young island foxes during the ranching era. These exotic continues to be the leading cause of (Laughrin 1973; Moore and Collins species continue to invade and modify mortality of island foxes on Santa Cruz 1995). The docile and inquisitive nature island fox habitat, resulting in lower Island. In 3 years of islandwide radio of the island fox (Laughrin 1977) diversity of vegetation and habitat tracking on the island, 16 of 20 island suggests an evolutionary history lacking structure, and reduced food availability. fox mortalities were attributed to golden predation (Carlquist 1974). The replacement of native shrub eagle predation (Institute for Wildlife The recent colonization of the communities by non-native annual Studies, unpublished data). Annual northern Channel Islands by golden grasslands has reduced protective cover survivorship of Santa Cruz Island foxes, eagles is likely a combination of two for island foxes, making them more as estimated from radiotelemetry, was factors: (1) Introduction of exotic vulnerable to predation (Roemer 1999; 61 percent in 2001 and 70 percent in mammals on the northern Channel Coonan et al. in review). Annual 2002 (Coonan 2003b). This level of Islands, resulting in a historically grasslands also offer fewer food survivorship is below the 80 percent unprecedented prey base, and (2) the resources to foxes, and the seeds of non- required for an increasing island fox extirpation of bald eagles from the native annual grasses can become population (Roemer et al. in prep.). islands as a result of lodged in the eyes of island foxes, The current level of golden eagle dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) causing occasional damage or temporary activity on the northern Channel Islands poisoning. Historically, the small blindness (Laughrin 1977). is unprecedented (Roemer et al. 2002). population of vertebrate island fauna In summary, the habitat of island Golden eagles were known to would have provided little prey for foxes on all islands has been subject to occasionally visit the islands but never golden eagles, which rely on a diet of substantial human-induced changes to establish residence (Diamond and small terrestrial vertebrates. Before the over the past 150 years. Although these Jones 1980; Jones and Collins, in prep.). ranching era on the Channel Islands, changes have resulted in some adverse The first known active golden eagle nest transient golden eagles landing on the effects to island foxes described above, on the Channel Islands was located on islands would have found little prey to they are unlikely to have directly caused Santa Cruz Island in 1999 (Latta 2001), encourage them to establish permanent the observed declines. However, the but golden eagles were likely residence. Furthermore, nesting bald habitat changes indirectly contributed to established on the island as early as eagles would have discouraged foraging the effects of other factors (e.g., 1994 (Roemer et al. 2001b). Island fox golden eagles from establishing predation) by reducing the amount of remains, along with the remains of feral residence by aggressively defending

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10344 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

their already established territories. attempt to breed (general data for GEs) breeding programs on Santa Rosa and Bald eagles are represented in the (Lockie 1964). Watson et al. (1992) San Miguel islands. Two captive-born prehistoric fossil record of the northern found golden eagle densities to be island fox juveniles released to the wild Channel Islands (Guthrie 1993) and bred highest in areas where there were in December 2002 were killed by golden there until 1960, when nest failures, as abundant dead sheep and/or deer. In eagles soon after they left rearing pens. a result of DDT contamination, one location, golden eagle density Captive-raised foxes may be more extirpated them from the northern declined when deer management was vulnerable to predation than wild-raised Channel Islands (Kiff 1980). The altered in a manner that resulted in foxes, and could continue to incur northern Channel Islands (Anacapa, reduced carrion availability (Watson et considerable predation with just a few Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel) al. 1989). Until unnatural prey sources eagles on the islands. likely supported more than 14 pairs of on the islands are eliminated, removal We are currently investigating the bald eagles before their decline (Kiff of golden eagles may be temporary, and feasibility of reintroducing bald eagles 1980). the continued presence of golden eagles to the northern Channel Islands Roemer et al. (2001b) modeled time- would likely prevent recovery of island (Valoppi et al. 2000). As part of this energy budgets and predation rates of foxes. Under the provisions of a feasibility study, juvenile bald eagles golden eagles on Santa Cruz Island to settlement agreement between the NPS were released on Santa Cruz Island in determine if the precipitous decline in and the commercial hunt operators, deer 2002 and 2003. Currently, 15 bald eagles island foxes could be attributed to and elk will be removed from Santa inhabit Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa predation alone. They concluded that Rosa Island permanently by 2011, with islands (D. Garcelon, in litt. 2003). The the island fox declines on the northern decreases in both populations slated to feasibility study is being conducted as a Channel Islands are a consequence of begin in 2008. pilot project to assess the potential hyperpredation, defined as when the Golden eagles have not been recorded breeding success of bald eagles on the availability of one prey species, that can breeding on San Miguel Island. No tall northern Channel Islands, and will sustain high predation rates, leads to the trees that could support a golden eagle include several aspects of monitoring extinction of another prey species that nest exist on this island. However, bald eagle movement and exposure to 2, becomes an alternate food resource for because empirical evidence linked 2-Bis (p-chlorophenyl)-1, 1- a shared predator (Courchamp et al. golden eagle predation to 5 of 7 island dechloroethylene (DDE), the 1999). In this case, the large feral pig fox carcasses discovered in 1998 and metabolized form of DDT. The presence population provided sufficient prey 1999 (Roemer et al. 2001b; Coonan et al. of territorial golden eagles on the base for the golden eagle to colonize in review), golden eagles breeding on islands may hinder bald eagle Santa Cruz Island: A resident golden the other two islands must have reintroduction, because territorial eagle population could not have been ‘‘commuted’’ to San Miguel Island to golden eagles may chase away non- supported by the native terrestrial feed. The island fox would have been nesting bald eagles (B. Latta, pers. vertebrate fauna alone (Roemer et al. the largest prey item available for these comm. 2001). Conversely, the presence 2001b). Their model indicates that as commuting golden eagles, as no larger of territorial bald eagles on the northern few as 6 golden eagles could have non-native herbivores were present Channel Islands may assist in driven the island fox populations to the during the period of decline. Golden discouraging transient golden eagles current low levels. Between 1999 and eagles have never been recorded from establishing breeding territories on the present, 31 golden eagles have been breeding on Santa Catalina Island and the islands. However, the success of translocated from Santa Cruz Island are not known to be a threat to that bald eagle introduction efforts is (Latta 2003). Currently, 8 golden eagles subspecies. uncertain, and would take years to are thought to remain on the islands. To protect island foxes on the discern, due to the long time it takes for Three adults that have bred or northern Channel Islands from further bald eagles to reach sexual maturity (4 attempted breeding in the past are declines, the NPS, the Service, and TNC years or more). Therefore, if thought to be on Santa Rosa Island, funded a golden eagle removal program, reintroduction efforts are successful, while 3 (3 breeding adults and 2 which began on Santa Cruz Island in bald eagles will not nest on the islands subadults) remain on Santa Cruz Island. August of 1999 and was expanded to until 2006. Because Santa Cruz Island is The remaining golden eagles include Santa Rosa Island in 2003. large enough for many eagle breeding constitute a substantial threat, seriously Between the fall of 1999 and October territories, a large resident bald eagle jeopardizing the success of releases of 2003, 31 golden eagles were captured population would be necessary to be captive island foxes on San Miguel and and removed from Santa Cruz and Santa successful in discouraging future Santa Rosa Island, and preventing Rosa islands, with the majority (29) colonization by golden eagles from the recovery of island foxes in the wild on being captured on Santa Cruz (Latta mainland. Santa Cruz Island. 2003). Eight golden eagles are thought to Disease. On Santa Catalina Island, the Non-native deer and elk on Santa remain on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa large, sudden decline in island foxes has Rosa Island provide a food source that Islands. been attributed to canine distemper, helps golden eagles establish territories Due to trap wariness, the abundance most likely brought to the island by a and attempt breeding on the island. of feral pig and other prey, and the domestic dog (Timm et al. 2000). The Fawn remains have been found in a harsh topography of Santa Cruz Island, steep and sudden pattern of decline on golden eagle nest on Santa Rosa Island the remaining golden eagles have Santa Catalina Island is typical of a (Coonan 2003b), and golden eagles proven difficult to trap (B. Latta, pers. disease outbreak rather than the slower likely feed upon carrion and gut piles comm. 2001). Thus, despite these efforts decline pattern seen on the northern from the commercial hunt of elk and to remove golden eagles from the Channel Islands from predation (Timm mule deer occurring between August islands, golden eagle predation et al. 2000). In addition to positive and December each year. In addition to continues to be the main cause of testing for canine distemper in foxes the commercial hunt, between 200 and mortality of island foxes on Santa Cruz caught on the east end of Santa Catalina 500 deer are culled annually. The Island and would likely constitute a Island, the evidence suggesting a availability of carrion in winter serious predation threat to any foxes disease-related decline versus other determines whether golden eagles subsequently released from captive causes are: (1) The population decline

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10345

on Santa Catalina Island is of a similar Although the outbreak of canine also affect population viability or magnitude (90 percent) as that on the distemper that precipitated the sudden individual health (L. Munson, pers. northern Channel Islands, but occurred decline of island foxes on Santa Catalina comm. 2001). The most common within 1 year rather than the steady 6- Island has apparently run its course, the antibodies found in island foxes are year decline seen on San Miguel, Santa Santa Catalina Island subspecies canine adenovirus and canine Cruz, and Santa Rosa Islands; (2) the remains susceptible to another outbreak parvovirus (Garcelon et al. 1992; declines on the northern islands are of the disease due to the continued Fritcher et al. in prep.). Canine islandwide, while the geographically exposure to domestic dogs that may herpesvirus, coronavirus, leptospirosis, restricted western population on Santa transmit the virus. and toxoplasmosis have been recorded Catalina Island has remained relatively Administration of an experimental at low levels (Garcelon et al. 1992; healthy; and (3) sick foxes have been canine distemper vaccine developed for Coonan et al. 2000; Roemer et al. seen on Santa Catalina Island but not on ferrets (another species highly 2001b). The relative occurrence of the northern islands (G. Roemer, pers. susceptible to canine distemper) to canine adenovirus was similar before comm. 2000). some island foxes captured on Santa and after the population crashes on Two healthy adult foxes caught on the Catalina Island has had promising these islands, while antibodies for east end of Santa Catalina Island in 1999 preliminary results (S. Timm, pers. parvovirus were detected from a small had high antibody titers to canine comm. 2001). With further testing, the number of samples from 1994, but not distemper virus, constituting the first vaccine may prove useful for protecting detected in 1995 or 1997 samples positive records of canine distemper in island foxes on all islands from future (Coonan et al. 2000). More recent island fox. A necropsy of one island fox canine distemper outbreaks. One information shows an increase in the identified the cause of death as canine hundred thirty-eight island foxes in prevalence of parvovirus on Santa distemper (Timm et al. 2000). No island captivity and in the wild on Santa Catalina Island in 2001 and 2002, a foxes tested positive for canine Catalina Island have been administered period of time when that population distemper in a previous comprehensive vaccinations and booster shots during was beginning to recover from canine serologic survey of all islands (Garcelon 2001 and 2002. Currently, 95 percent of distemper (Fritcher et al. in prep.). et al. 1992), nor did any foxes from San island foxes on the west end and 45 Canine parvovirus has been found in Clemente, Santa Cruz, or San Miguel percent of foxes on the east end of Santa other wild canids and can result in test positive for canine distemper virus Catalina Island have been vaccinated mortality of pups, prior to emergence during the period (1994 to 1997) of the against canine distemper virus from the den (Garcelon et al. 1992). fox decline on the northern islands (Kohlmann et al. 2003). The Island Fox Canine adenovirus may be typically (Roemer et al. 2001b). Conservation Working Group present in the island fox populations The absence of antibodies to canine recommends expanding the canine (Garcelon et al. 1992), with little effect distemper virus in any island foxes distemper vaccination program to other on individual health. However, because during these studies implies that, either islands (Coonan 2003b). both Santa Catalina and Santa Cruz the virus had never been introduced to A recent serosurvey of island foxes islands have never been exposed to the islands, or the species is highly showed that wild foxes on Santa canine adenovirus (Garcelon et al. 1992; susceptible to the virus and none Catalina, San Nicolas, San Clemente, Fritcher et al. in prep.), these subspecies survive infection. Previous studies had and Santa Cruz Islands had evidence of are naı¨ve to the virus and would be found no evidence of canine distemper exposure to canine distemper virus more susceptible to exposure to in Santa Catalina Island foxes (Garcelon (Fritcher et al. in prep.). This result was adenovirus. et al. 1992), although a recent assay of surprising given the results of an earlier wild island fox blood samples study that did not find evidence of Antibodies to canine heartworm discovered evidence of previous canine distemper virus exposure (Dirofilaria immitis) have been exposure to canine distemper virus on (Garcelon et al. 1992). San Nicolas and documented in four island fox all islands with wild foxes (Coonan Santa Cruz Islands had the highest subspecies (San Miguel, Santa Cruz, 2003). Although the ramifications of this canine distemper virus antibody Santa Rosa, and San Nicolas island discovery are not entirely understood, it prevalence. Given the high numbers of foxes) (Roemer et al. 2000). Despite the is now believed that the virus may island foxes on San Nicolas Island, the high seroprevalence (i.e., occurrence) of occasionally affect wild island fox canine distemper virus appears to not heartworm in these populations populations, but that some individuals have the same effect as on Santa (between 58 and 100 percent in 1997), survive (as evident by the existence of Catalina Island, perhaps indicating that heartworm is not thought to be survivors with evidence of exposure). the different islands were exposed to responsible for the decline of island Because wild foxes with antibodies viruses of differing morbidity (Fritcher foxes for the following reasons: (1) against canine distemper virus have et al. in prep.). Seroprevalence on San Nicolas Island, immunity, and thus protection against All island fox populations have been where the population is stable, is higher the next outbreak, a greater degree of surveyed for other canine diseases and than on Santa Cruz Island, where the protection could be conferred to wild parasites. Although island foxes are population is decreasing (Roemer et al. populations by vaccinating wild foxes known to carry antibodies for a variety 2001b); (2) heartworm antibodies were against canine distemper virus. As the of canine diseases, none of these could present in all four subspecies in or closely related mainland gray fox is explain the type or geographic before 1988, pre-dating the population highly susceptible to canine distemper distribution of the observed decline on declines; (3) seroprevalence in the San virus, island foxes likely have high the northern Channel Islands (Garcelon Miguel population was high in 1994, susceptibility as well (Garcelon et al. et al. 1992; Coonan et al. 2000; Roemer when densities on that island reached 1992). This hypothesis is supported by 1999; Roemer et al. 2001b). Although the highest levels ever recorded for the deaths of two island foxes in zoos pathology work has not identified a island foxes; and (4) necropsy results from the inappropriate administration of specific cause of population decline have found few adult worms in the modified live canine distemper vaccine (with the exception of canine distemper hearts of island foxes and no evidence (Linda Munson, University of California virus on Santa Catalina Island), some of heartworm disease (Roemer 1999). at Davis, pers. comm. 2001). underlying diseases or parasites may However, heartworm may have

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10346 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

contributed to mortality in older foxes Federal law governs the management Cruz Island) or the results are not yet (Roemer et al. 2001b), exacerbating the of NPS (San Miguel, Santa Cruz, and determinable (Santa Rosa Island). While conservation crisis for the island fox. Santa Rosa islands) and Navy (San we have been working with NPS to Necropsies performed at the Miguel Island) lands, including the remove the threats to island foxes from University of California at Davis have National Environmental Policy Act golden eagle predation and disease, the detected an unusually high degree of (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, success of these efforts and captive thyroid atrophy (characterized by a the National Park Service Organic Act, breeding and feral pig removal remains complete absence of colloid in the and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. uncertain. Steps are underway to thyroid gland) in island foxes from San Many federally listed plant and animal understand the prevalence of disease Clemente, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, species, including 14 listed plants, the and the potential use of vaccination. and San Miguel Islands (L. Munson, brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), However, even with the ongoing pers. comm. 2001). The cause of thyroid the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris conservation efforts, the low population atrophy in island foxes has yet to be nereis), the island night lizard (Xantusia numbers and uncertainty of the investigated; thyroid atrophy in other riversiana), and the western snowy effectiveness of these efforts leave the species has been linked to high levels of plover (Charadrius alexandrinus island fox in danger of extinction. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). It is nivosus), occur on the Channel Islands. San Miguel Island is under the unclear how thyroid atrophy is affecting NPS management is further dictated by jurisdiction of the Navy, but the NPS fox populations (L. Munson, pers. Department of the Interior policies and assists in managing the natural, historic, comm. 2001). Pathology work on 89 NPS policies and guidelines, including and scientific values of San Miguel foxes has also detected an increased NPS guidelines for natural resources Island through a Memorandum of prevalence of emaciation (20 percent management (NPS 1991), and the Agreement (MOA) originally signed in pre-1994; 47 percent post-1994); it is Channel Islands National Park 1963, an amendment signed in 1976, unknown why increased emaciation has Management Plan (NPS 1985). Both the and a supplemental Interagency occurred. NPS and the Navy have adequate Agreement (IA) signed in 1985. The In summary, we have concluded that authority to manage the land and MOA states that the ‘‘paramount use of disease and predation under Factor C activities under their administration to the islands and their environs shall be result in substantial extinction risk for benefit the welfare of the island fox. The for the purpose of a missile test range, four subspecies of island fox. NPS developed a recovery strategy for and all activities conducted by or in Specifically, predation of island foxes island foxes on the northern Channel behalf of the Department of the Interior by golden eagles was directly Islands to guide their recovery options. on such islands, shall recognize the responsible for the decline of island This strategy contains many elements of priority of such use’’ (Navy 1963). The foxes on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and the recovery plans outlined in section 4 Navy currently does not actively use San Miguel Islands, while an outbreak of the Act. San Miguel Island. In addition to San of canine distemper virus was directly The NPS has implemented portions of Miguel, Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa responsible for the decline of the Santa their recovery strategy to prevent the islands also lie wholly within the Catalina Island fox. extinction of the island foxes in the near Navy’s Pacific Missile Test Center D. The inadequacy of existing term. Despite the best efforts of the NPS, (PMTC) Sea Test Range. The 1985 IA regulatory mechanisms. The primary the populations have significantly provides for PMTC to have access and causes of the decline of the island fox declined in recent years such that on use of portions of those islands, for are unprecedented predation by golden San Miguel, no foxes remain in the expeditious processing of any necessary eagles and the rapid transmission of wild, on Santa Rosa, there are likely no permits by NPS, and for mitigation of canine distemper through the Santa foxes in the wild, on Santa Cruz, damage of park resources from any such Catalina Island subspecies. Federal, approximately 68 foxes remain in the activity (Navy 1985). Should the Navy State, and local laws have not been wild, and on Santa Catalina, no longer require use of the islands, sufficient to prevent past and ongoing approximately 215 foxes remain in the NPS would seek authorization for the losses of island foxes. wild. islands to be preserved and protected as In 1971, the State of California listed Because the number of foxes on San units within the NPS system (Navy the island fox as State-rare (a Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 1976). To date, conflicts concerning designation later changed to islands declined to extremely low protection of sensitive resources on San threatened), which means that it may numbers as a result of predation by Miguel Island have not occurred. The not be taken without a special (i.e., golden eagles, the NPS and The Nature Navy contributed $100,000 to island fox scientific collecting) permit (California Conservancy captured the remaining conservation efforts on San Miguel Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 41) individuals and initiated a captive Island in 2000 and 2001. or an incidental take permit issued breeding program. Captive breeding On islands managed by Federal pursuant to section 2081 of the efforts prevented the almost assured agencies, prohibitions against bringing California Endangered Species Act. extinction of the San Miguel and Santa domestic pets to the islands exist. These However, this protection applies Rosa island foxes, but the existence of prohibitions are difficult to enforce and generally only to actual possession or animals bred in captivity alone is not violations are known to occur. Boaters intentional killing of individual sufficient to ensure recovery; there must have been observed bringing pets animals, or actual death of individual be successful reintroduction of the onshore to all three northern Channel animals incidental to otherwise lawful island foxes to the wild. Although Islands with island fox populations. On activity. State law does not require captive breeding has been conducted for Santa Catalina Island, health certificates Federal agencies to avoid or compensate approximately three years, and the or quarantines are not necessary to bring for impacts to the island fox and its number of island foxes in captivity has domestic pets to the islands, exposing habitat. There are currently no State increased, this has not resulted in a island foxes to increased risk of disease. regulatory mechanisms designed to substantial reduction in the extinction On Santa Rosa Island, a ranching protect island foxes on federally risk for the fox, as island fox releases enterprise operating under a special use managed lands, including San Miguel, have either not occurred (San Miguel permit from the NPS is allowed to have Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands. Island), have been unsuccessful (Santa ranch dogs on the island provided that

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10347

the dogs have proof of vaccination in efforts, the island foxes meet the San Nicolas Island fox has an unusually compliance with Santa Barbara County definition of endangered. low degree of genetic variability (Gilbert regulations, which requires only rabies E. Other natural or manmade factors et al. 1990; Wayne et al. 1991; Goldstein shots. affecting its continued existence. et al. 1999), which may have been due Federal protection of golden eagles by Several other factors, including to a major historical bottleneck (Gilbert the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection competition from introduced species et al. 1990). A lack of genetic variability Act of 1962, as amended, has increased and stochastic environmental factors, can correspond to a reduced resistance the golden eagle population on may have negative effects on island to disease or physical abnormalities due mainland California (Brian Walton, foxes and their habitats. to inbreeding. Due to the low numbers SCPBRG, pers. comm. 2000). As a result, Competition with feral cats. CDFG, in of individuals in the captive breeding golden eagles have expanded their range recommending the retention of the programs and the lack of wild in order to establish breeding territories. threatened classification of the island populations on San Miguel and Santa The protections afforded golden eagles fox under State law, cited competition Rosa Islands, low genetic variability limit management alternatives to protect with feral cats on Santa Catalina, San threatens the island foxes from these island foxes. Lethal removal of golden Nicolas, and San Clemente Islands islands. The threat also exists on Santa eagles would require a depredation (CDFG 1987). The effects of cats on Cruz and Santa Catalina islands, permit from the Service. Such a permit island foxes are unknown and may although the bottleneck was less severe would allow golden eagles to be taken differ among islands. Feral cats on these islands. by firearms, traps, or other suitable outweigh island fox by an average of 2 Stochastic environmental and means, except by poison or from aircraft to 1 and may negatively affect island population factors. Island endemic (50 CFR 22.23(b)(1)). The regulatory foxes by direct aggression, predation on species have high extinction risk due to restrictions on taking golden eagles limit young, disease transmission, and isolation and small population sizes the effectiveness of golden eagle competition for food resources (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Because removal, as the very steep topography (Laughrin 1978). Island fox population the island fox is restricted to small on Santa Cruz Island makes lethal decreases on San Nicolas Island were islands, it is more subject to the effects removal of golden eagles from the accompanied by a concomitant increase of environmental perturbations and ground infeasible. in feral cat populations (Laughrin 1978). decline of birth rates due to low The golden eagle is considered a fully The presence of feral cats increases the densities (i.e., Allee effects, Allee 1931) protected species by the State of risk of a transfer of infectious disease to than species occurring on the mainland. California (California Fish and Game island foxes (Roelke-Parker et al. 1996). Reduced population size exposes the Code, section 3511). Fully protected Feral cats have been found to displace island fox to both catastrophic species may not be taken or possessed island foxes from habitats on San environmental events (e.g., drought, at any time, and no licenses or permits Nicolas Island (Kovach and Dow 1985). wildfire, or disease) and demographic may be issued for their take except for As has been seen on San Nicolas and factors (e.g., skewed sex ratios) that collecting these species for necessary San Clemente islands, feral cats are could cause or hasten extinction. scientific research and relocation of the extremely difficult to eradicate, Wildfires could affect island foxes by bird species for the protection of requiring ongoing yearly programs to reducing food availability, altering livestock. However, on October 9, 2003, keep numbers controlled (Phillips and vegetation, or resulting in the death of this law was amended by SB412, which Schmidt 1997). No feral cat control individual foxes (especially pups during allows the California Department of Fish exists on Santa Catalina Island due to the denning season). On San Miguel and and Game to authorize the take of fully local ordinances and resistance to lethal Santa Rosa Islands, which no longer protected species for scientific research, control from the residents of the island. have wild populations, the including research on recovery for other Lack of genetic variability. As a concentration of all island foxes into imperiled species. Therefore, the State population becomes genetically small geographic areas increases the law no longer prohibits take of golden homogenous, its susceptibility to vulnerability of these subspecies to eagles for the purpose of recovering the disease, parasites, and extinction disease outbreaks. The extremely small island fox if the appropriate increases (O’Brien and Evermann 1988) captive island fox population sizes on authorization is granted. and its ability to evolve and adapt to San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz California State law (Food and environmental change is diminished Islands puts those populations at risk of Agricultural Code 31752.5) prohibits (Templeton 1994). The four island fox extinction due to demographic factors as lethal control of feral cats unless cats are subspecies that have suffered large well. For example, 4 of the 14 original held for a minimum of six days. This population declines could be at risk of island foxes brought into the captive law prevents the Catalina Island having reduced genetic variability. Such propagation program on San Miguel Conservancy from taking steps to population or demographic Island were male. Skewed sex ratios eradicate feral cats on the island, as it ‘‘bottlenecks’’ (severe crashes in may hinder recovery efforts for the does not have adequate facilities to hold population resulting in abnormally low species, because island foxes typically cats (see Factor E). numbers) may result in reductions in form long-standing pair bonds and In summary, the existing regulatory genetic variation, depending on the size unpaired females have never been mechanisms have not prevented the of the bottleneck and the growth rate of recorded to raise a litter. steep declines of the four island fox the population afterward (Meffe and Road mortalities. The fearless nature subspecies and will not ensure their Carroll 1997). In fact, at least one of island foxes, coupled with relatively recovery. One Federal law (the Bald and previously variable microsatellite locus high vehicle traffic on the southern Golden Eagle Protection Act) and two is now fixed (i.e., one DNA marker no Channel Islands, results in a number of State laws (California Fish and Game longer exhibits any genetic variability) vehicle collisions each year on islands Code, section 3511, and Food and in the San Miguel Island captive with human populations (Wilson 1976; Agricultural Code 31752.5) have population (Gray et al. 2001). The effect Garcelon 1999; G. Smith, unpublished delayed or precluded the of population bottlenecks on island fox data). For example, on San Nicolas implementation of needed recovery genetic variation is demonstrated by an Island where vehicle collisions are the actions for island foxes. Despite current example from San Nicolas Island. The largest documented mortality source, an

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10348 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

average of 13 fox carcasses attributed to emerged as a result of the decline rather fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, Santa Rosa vehicle collisions are recovered each than a cause. Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox year (G. Smith, unpublished data). On We have carefully assessed the best fit the definition of endangered as San Clemente Island, vehicle strikes scientific and commercial information defined in the Act. available regarding the past, present, claimed a minimum of 26 foxes between Critical Habitat the years 1991 and 1995 (Garcelon and future threats faced by these taxa in 1999), while in earlier times, Wilson determining to propose this rule. The Critical habitat is defined in section 3 (1976) estimated that approximately 25 precipitous declines of the four island of the Act as: (i) The specific areas island foxes were killed each year. fox subspecies addressed in this rule are within the geographical area occupied Although no records have been kept, primarily due to predation from golden by a species, at the time it is listed in vehicle collisions likely cause a number eagles (on San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and accordance with the Act, on which are of island fox deaths on Santa Catalina Santa Cruz islands) or canine distemper found those physical or biological Island each year. Vehicle collisions on virus (on Santa Catalina Island), as well features (I) essential to the conservation the northern Channel Islands are as indirect and direct effects of the of the species and (II) that may require introduction of non-native mammals on special management consideration or uncommon due to low traffic volume all islands. Other threats include disease protection and, (ii) specific areas and the rough unpaved nature of most and competition from feral cats, road outside the geographical area occupied roads. mortality on Santa Catalina Island, and by a species at the time it is listed in In summary, other threats analyzed natural events, all of which could accordance with the provisions of under Factor E either directly contribute diminish or destroy the small extant section 4 of the Act, upon a or may contribute to the decline of populations. Existing regulatory determination by the Secretary that such island foxes. However, the threat of mechanisms are inadequate to protect areas are essential for the conservation roadkill alone is unlikely to have been these taxa. See Tables 1–4 for of the species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means a cause of decline, and the reduced summaries of the status, major threats, the use of all methods and procedures genetic variability and the increased conservation actions, and effectiveness needed to bring the species to the point probability of extinction due to for each of the four subspecies. Based on at which listing under the Act is no stochastic factors are risks that have our evaluation, the San Miguel Island longer necessary.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF STATUS, MAJOR THREAT, CONSERVATION ACTIONS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE SAN MIGUEL ISLAND FOX SAN MIGUEL ISLAND FOX [0 = Number of foxes in wild; 38 = Number of foxes in captivity; 450 = Number of foxes in 1994]

Major threat causing decline Conservation action Assess effectiveness

Predation by golden eagles Capture island foxes for sanctuary from predation ...... Successful in preventing the near-term extinction of the San Miguel Island fox. Implement captive breeding for augmentation of popu- Captive breeding has been successful in maintaining lation. and increasing the captive population. However, there are inherent problems with captive breeding (e.g., disease, captive stress syndrome resulting in mortality, low productivity, etc.) Reintroduce foxes from captive breeding into the wild .. This effort has not been implemented on San Miguel Is- land due to continued threat of predation by golden eagles. The reintroduction program will be experi- mental, and there are inherent uncertainties that may affect its success (e.g., inexperience of captive-born animals). Decrease the threat of predation from golden eagles Unsuccessful to date, although see (b) below. by: (a) Eight golden eagles remain on Santa Cruz and (a) Removing golden eagles from the northern Santa Rosa islands. This is larger than the num- channel islands; ber expected to cause extinction of island foxes and in 7–10 years. Eagles from those islands are (b) Removal of feral pigs from Santa Cruz Island transient visitors to San Miguel Island. Golden so that golden eagles are not sustained or at- eagles continue to be the singlemost important tracted to the northern Channel Islands. threat. (b) This action is proposed to begin being imple- mented in summer/fall 2004, and will take 4–6 years to complete. Summary: The island fox population on San Miguel Island has decreased by over 80% since 1994. Currently, removing golden eagles from the northern Channel Islands is the single-most important recovery action, and these efforts have not been successful to date. Reintroduction of foxes on San Miguel Island has not been implemented due to the threat of predation by golden eagles. Captive breeding and reintroduction pro- grams are expensive, and long-term funding is not assured.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10349

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF STATUS, MAJOR THREAT, CONSERVATION ACTIONS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE SANTA ROSA ISLAND FOX SANTA ROSA ISLAND FOX [6–7 = Number of reintroduced foxes; 56 = Number of foxes in captivity; >1,000 = Number of foxes in 1994]

Major threat causing decline Conservation action Assess effectiveness

Predation by golden eagles Capture island foxes for sanctuary from predation ...... Successful in preventing the extinction of the Santa Rosa Island fox in the near term. Implement captive breeding for augmentation of popu- Captive breeding has been successful in maintaining lation. and increasing the captive population. However, there are inherent problems with captive breeding (e.g., disease, captive stress syndrome resulting in mortality, low productivity, etc.). Reintroduce foxes from captive breeding into the wild .. This program is experimental. Eight foxes released in 2003, 1 and possibly 2 of which were killed by gold- en eagles. If one more fox is killed by an eagle, the remainder will be recaptured and returned to captivity to avoid further losses. Furthermore, there are inher- ent uncertainties that may affect the success of re- introduction programs (e.g., inexperience of captive- born animals). Decrease the threat of predation from golden eagles Unsuccessful to date, although see (b) below. by: (a) Eight golden eagles remain on Santa Cruz and (a) Removing golden eagles from the northern Santa Rosa islands. This is larger than the num- channel islands; ber expected to cause extinction of island foxes (b) Removing feral pigs so that golden eagles are in 7–10 years. Golden eagles continue to be the not sustained or attracted to northern Channel single most important threat. Islands; (b) This action is proposed to begin being imple- and mented in summer/fall 2004, and will take 4–6 (c) Managing deer and elk hunts on Santa Rosa years to complete. Island to reduce availability of carcasses as food (c) Park Service and permittee working coopera- source for golden eagles. tively for changes in operations. By current agreement, reduction in deer and elk numbers will occur by 2008 and animals eliminated by 2011. Summary: The island fox population on Santa Rosa Island has decreased by approximately 95% since 1994. Currently, removing golden ea- gles from the northern Channel Islands is the single-most important recovery action, and these efforts have not been successful to date. Preda- tion by golden eagles continues to be the leading cause of mortality of island foxes in the wild on Santa Rosa Island. Captive breeding and re- introduction programs are expensive, and long-term funding is not assured.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF STATUS, MAJOR THREATS, CONSERVATION ACTIONS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE SANTA CRUZ ISLAND FOX SANTA CRUZ ISLAND FOX [∼70 = Number of foxes in wild; 40 = Number of foxes in captivity; 1,300 = Number of foxes pre-decline]

Major threat causing decline Conservation action Assess effectiveness

Predation by golden eagles Capture island foxes for sanctuary from predation ...... Successful in preventing the extinction of the Santa Cruz Island fox. Implement captive breeding for augmentation of popu- Captive breeding has been successful in maintaining lation. and increasing the captive population. However, there are inherent problems with captive breeding (e.g., disease, captive stress syndrome resulting in mortality, low productivity, etc.). Reintroduce foxes from captive breeding into the wild .. This effort is experimental and unsuccessful to date. Five of nine foxes released in winter 2003 were killed by golden eagles. The remainder were recaptured and returned to captivity to avoid further losses. Fur- thermore, there are inherent uncertainties that may affect the success of reintroduction programs (e.g., inexperience of captive-born animals).

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10350 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF STATUS, MAJOR THREATS, CONSERVATION ACTIONS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE SANTA CRUZ ISLAND FOX—Continued SANTA CRUZ ISLAND FOX [∼70 = Number of foxes in wild; 40 = Number of foxes in captivity; 1,300 = Number of foxes pre-decline]

Major threat causing decline Conservation action Assess effectiveness

Decrease the threat of predation from golden eagles Unsuccessful to date, although see (b) below. by: (a) Eight golden eagles remain on Santa Cruz and (a) Removing golden eagles from the northern Santa Rosa islands. This is larger than the num- channel islands; ber expected to cause extinction of island foxes and in 7–10 years. Golden eagles continue to be the (b) Removing feral pigs from Santa Cruz Island so singlemost important threat. that golden eagles are not sustained or attracted (b) This action is proposed to begin being imple- to northern Channel Islands. mented in summer/fall 2004, and will take 4–6 years to complete. Summary: The island fox population on Santa Cruz Island has decreased by approximately 90% since 1994. Currently, removing golden ea- gles from the northern Channel Islands is the single-most important recovery action, and these efforts have not been successful to date. Preda- tion by golden eagles continues to be the leading cause of mortality of island foxes in the wild on Santa Cruz Island. Captive breeding and re- introduction programs are expensive. Seventy-five percent of Santa Cruz Island is owned by the Nature Conservancy. Long-term funding is not assured.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF STATUS, MAJOR THREATS, CONSERVATION ACTIONS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE SANTA CATALINA ISLAND FOX SANTA CATALINA ISLAND FOX [200 = Number of foxes remaining in wild; 40? = Number of foxes in captivity; 1,200 = Number of foxes in 1998]

Major threat causing decline Conservation action Assess effectiveness

Disease ...... Remove/reduce causes of future disease transmission These measures have not been implemented, and we by: don’t know how successful they will be (i.e., if addi- (a) Requiring vaccinations for animals coming to tional measures are needed). the island, (b) Removing feral cats, which act as vectors for disease. Vaccinate wild foxes for canine distemper virus (CDV) Effective for strain of CDV that caused decline. Not ef- fective against other strains. Use captive breeding to augment populations ...... Captive breeding was successful in the short term fol- lowing the decline. Because reproductive rates and survival are currently similar to those in wild, captive breeding is being phased out. Summary: The island fox population on Santa Catalina Island has decreased by 80%. Two of the symptoms of the threat (i.e., low population numbers, immunity to canine distemper) have been successfully addressed by captive breeding and vaccination of wild foxes from the canine distemper virus. However, the threat of disease itself has not been addressed, and thus the population continues to be susceptible to cata- strophic disease outbreaks. This risk is especially heightened now due to the low numbers of Santa Catalina Island foxes relative to historical population sizes. The following three actions need to be implemented in the future to recover the Santa Catalina Island fox: (1) Work with resi- dents of Catalina Island to have pets receive appropriate vaccinations; (2) work with boat concessionaires to require proof of vaccination for any pets coming to the island in the future; and (3) develop educational materials to inform island residents and visitors of the threats to island foxes from disease and measures they can implement to assist in protecting foxes.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as be expected to increase the threats to the the future. Designating critical habitat amended, and implementing regulations subspecies and may provide some may also produce some educational or (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the benefits. The primary regulatory effect informational benefits. Therefore, maximum extent prudent and of critical habitat is the section 7 designation of critical habitat is prudent determinable, the Secretary designate requirement that agencies refrain from for the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa critical habitat at the time the species is taking any action that destroys or Cruz, and Santa Catalina island foxes. determined to be endangered or adversely modifies critical habitat. Because the designation of critical threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR While a critical habitat designation for habitat is prudent for the San Miguel, 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of habitat currently occupied by this Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa critical habitat is not prudent when one species would not be likely to change Catalina Island foxes, we will under the or both of the following situations the section 7 consultation outcome terms of the settlement in CBD v. exist—(1) The species is threatened by because an action that destroys or taking or other human activity, and adversely modifies such critical habitat Williams et al, submit a proposed identification of critical habitat can be would also be likely to result in designation for publication on or by expected to increase the degree of threat jeopardy to the species, there may be October 1, 2004, followed by a final to the species, or (2) such designation of instances where section 7 consultation determination submitted for publication critical habitat would not be beneficial would be triggered only if critical on or by November 1, 2005. Section to the species. habitat is designated. Examples could 4(b)(6)(C)(I) of the ESA states that final In the case of these subspecies, include unoccupied habitat or occupied listing determinations may be issued designation of critical habitat would not habitat that may become unoccupied in without critical habitat designations

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10351

when it is essential that such often established to develop recovery researchers, private individuals, and determinations be promptly published. plans. When completed, a copy of the environmental groups to implement recovery outline, draft recovery plan, or these recovery actions for the island fox. Available Conservation Measures final recovery plan will be available Please let us know if you are Conservation measures provided to from our office (see ADDRESSES) or from interested in participating in recovery species listed as endangered or our website (http://endangered.fws.gov). efforts for the San Miguel, Santa Rosa, threatened under the Endangered Implementation of recovery actions Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina island Species Act include recognition, generally requires the participation of a foxes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION recovery actions, requirements for broad range of partners, including other CONTACT). Additionally, we invite you to Federal protection, and prohibitions Federal agencies, States, non- submit any further information on the against certain practices. Recognition governmental organizations, businesses, species whenever it becomes available through listing encourages public and private landowners. Examples of and any information you may have for awareness and results in conservation recovery actions include habitat recovery planning purposes (see actions by Federal, State, and local restoration (restoration of vegetation, ADDRESSES). agencies, private organizations, and hydrology, etc.), research, captive Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, individuals. The Act provides for propagation and reintroduction, and requires Federal agencies to evaluate possible land acquisition and outreach and education. The recovery of their actions with respect to any species cooperation with the States and requires many listed species cannot be that is proposed or listed as endangered that recovery actions be carried out for accomplished solely on our National or threatened and with respect to its all listed species. Funding may be Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, critical habitat, if any is designated. available through section 6 of the Act National Parks, and other Federal lands. Regulations implementing this for the State to conduct recovery Because many species occur primarily interagency cooperation provision of the activities. Recovery planning and or solely on private lands, achieving Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. implementation, the protection required recovery of these species requires Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires of Federal agencies and the prohibitions cooperative conservation efforts on Federal agencies to confer with the against certain activities involving listed private lands. The island fox occurs Service on any action that is likely to animals are discussed, in part, below. primarily on federal land. jeopardize the continued existence of a The primary purpose of the Act is the The funding for recovery actions can species proposed for listing or result in conservation of endangered and come from a variety of sources, destruction or adverse modification of threatened species and the ecosystems including Federal budgets, State proposed critical habitat. If a species is upon which they depend. The ultimate programs, and cost share grants for non- subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) of goal of such conservation efforts is the federal landowners, the academic the Act requires Federal agencies to recovery of these listed species, so that community, and non-governmental ensure that activities they authorize, they no longer need the protective organizations. Information on the fund, or carry out are not likely to measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of Service’s grant programs that can aid in jeopardize the continued existence of the Act requires the Service to develop species recovery can be found at: http:/ the species or destroy or adversely and implement plans for the /endangered.fws.gov/grants/index.html. modify its critical habitat. If a Federal conservation of endangered and The NPS in conjunction with FWS action may affect a listed species or its threatened species (‘‘recovery plans’’). has developed a recovery strategy for critical habitat, the responsible Federal The recovery process involves halting or island foxes on the northern Channel agency must enter into consultation reversing the species’ decline by Islands (Coonan 2003a) that provides with the Service, under section 7(a)(2) addressing the threats to its survival. the basis for recovery actions on San of the Act. The goal of this process is to restore Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands listed species to a point where they are islands. Essential recovery actions on are entirely federally-owned and secure, self-sustaining and functioning these islands will likely include: managed. Although 75 percent of Santa components of their ecosystems, thus Complete removal of golden eagles, Cruz Island is owned by TNC, the entire allowing delisting. maintenance of captive breeding island lies within the Channel Islands Recovery planning, the foundation for facilities, keeping a studbook to inform National Park and Channel Islands species recovery, includes the captive breeding pairings, releases of National Marine Sanctuary, and TNC development of a recovery outline as island foxes into the wild, monitoring and the NPS coordinate many of the soon as a species is listed, and later, wild populations, developing and resource management activities preparation of draft and final recovery implementing vaccination protocols, occurring on the island. Santa Catalina plans, and revision of the plan as and conducting public outreach and Island is the only island fox locality that significant new information becomes education. does not have substantial Federal available. The recovery outline—the On Santa Catalina Island, essential involvement. Federal agency actions first step in recovery planning—guides recovery actions will likely include that may affect the San Miguel, Santa the immediate implementation of urgent implementing measures to reduce the Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina recovery actions, and describes the transmission of canine diseases to the island foxes and may require conference process to be used to develop a recovery island, vaccinating wild foxes for or consultation with us include, but are plan. The recovery plan identifies site protection against canine distemper, not limited to, those within the specific management actions that will monitoring wild populations, exploring jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of achieve recovery of the species, the role that non-native deer and bison Engineers, the Navy, the NPS, and the measurable criteria that determine when have on island fox habitats, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric a species may be downlisted or delisted, controlling feral cats to reduce Administration. and methods for monitoring recovery competition and disease transmission The listing of the San Miguel, Santa progress. Recovery teams, consisting of risk. Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina species experts, federal and state We will be working with the NPS, island foxes as endangered would agencies, non-government CDFG, TNC, the Navy, the Catalina provide for the development and organizations, and stakeholders, are Island Conservancy, academic implementation of a recovery plan for

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 10352 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

these taxa. Such a plan will bring 34272), to identify to the maximum 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species together Federal, State, and local efforts extent practicable at the time a species Act); for the conservation of these taxa. The is listed those activities that would or (2) The transportation of unvaccinated plan will establish a framework for would not constitute a violation of domestic animals, which transmit agencies to coordinate activities and to section 9 of the Act. The intent of this diseases or parasites to island foxes, cooperate with each other in policy is to increase public awareness of causing serious injury or death on the conservation efforts. The plan will set the effect of this listing on proposed and San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, or recovery priorities and estimate the ongoing activities within the species’ Santa Catalina Islands; costs of the tasks necessary to range. (3) Activities that actually kill or accomplish the priorities. It will also We believe that, based on the best injure a San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa describe site-specific management available information, the following Cruz, or Santa Catalina island fox by actions necessary to achieve the actions are not likely to result in a significantly impairing essential conservation of the San Miguel, Santa violation of section 9, provided these behavioral patterns (such as breeding, Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Catalina activities are carried out in accordance feeding or sheltering) through Island foxes. Additionally, pursuant to with existing regulations and permit significant habitat modification or section 6 of the Act, we would be able requirements: degradation (e.g., via excavating, to grant funds to the State for (1) Possession, delivery, or movement, compacting, grading, discing, or management actions promoting the including interstate transport and removing soil or vegetation) in such a protection and recovery of the San import into or export from the United way as to facilitate the introduction or Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and States, involving no commercial spread of non-native species of plants or activity, of dead specimens of these taxa Santa Catalina Island foxes. that would result in the removal of a that were collected prior to the date of The Act and its implementing den; regulations set forth a series of general publication in the Federal Register of a (4) Destruction or alteration of San prohibitions and exceptions that apply final regulation adding these taxa to the Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, or Santa to all endangered wildlife. The list of endangered species; Catalina Island fox dens, even when prohibitions in section 9(a)(2) of the (2) Actions that may affect the San seasonally unoccupied when the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.21 for Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, or Santa destruction results in the den no longer endangered species, make it illegal for Catalina Island foxes that are being able to be used for breeding any person subject to the jurisdiction of authorized, funded, or carried out by a purposes; and the United States to take (includes Federal agency, when the action is harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, conducted in accordance with an (5) Discharges or dumping of toxic wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or incidental take statement issued by us chemicals or other pollutants into San to attempt any of these), import or under section 7 of the Act; Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, or Santa export, ship in interstate commerce in (3) Actions that may affect the Santa Catalina Island fox habitat, including the course of commercial activity, or sell Cruz or Santa Catalina Island foxes that dens or burrows, that results in death or or offer for sale in interstate or foreign are not authorized, funded, or carried injury of the species or that results in commerce any listed species. It is also out by a Federal agency, when the degradation of their occupied habitat. illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, action is conducted in accordance with Questions regarding whether specific transport, or ship any such wildlife that an incidental take permit issued by us activities would constitute a violation of has been taken illegally. Further, it is under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. To section 9 of the Act should be directed illegal for any person to attempt to obtain a permit, an applicant must to our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office commit, to solicit another person to develop a habitat conservation plan and (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for commit, or to cause to be committed, apply for an incidental take permit that copies of the regulations regarding listed any of these acts. Certain exceptions minimizes and mitigates impacts to the species and inquiries regarding apply to our agents and State species to the maximum extent prohibitions and permits may be conservation agencies. practicable; and addressed to the U.S. Fsh and Wildlife Permits may be issued to carry out (4) Actions that may affect the San Service, Endangered Species Permits, otherwise prohibited activities Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, or Santa 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR involving endangered wildlife under Catalina Island foxes that are conducted 97232–4181 (503/231–2063; facsimile certain circumstances. Regulations in accordance with the conditions of a 503/231–6243). governing permits are codified at 50 section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for scientific National Environmental Policy Act CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are research or to enhance the propagation available for scientific purposes, to or survival of the species. We have determined that an enhance the propagation or survival of We believe that the following actions Environmental Impact Statement and the species, and/or for incidental take in could result in a violation of section 9; Environmental Assessment, as defined the course of otherwise lawful activities. however, possible violations are not under the authority of the National Permits are also available for zoological limited to these actions alone: Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need exhibitions, educational purposes, or (1) Unauthorized collecting, trapping, not be prepared in connection with special purposes consistent with the capturing, killing, harassing, regulations adopted pursuant to section purposes of the Act. Requests for copies sale,delivery, or movement, including 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the of the regulations on listed species and interstate, and foreign commerce, or Service’s reasons for this determination inquiries about prohibitions and permits harming, or attempting any of these was published in the Federal Register may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and actions, of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Santa Cruz, or Santa Catalina island References Cited Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, foxes without a permit (research OR 97232–4181 (503/231–2063, activities where San Miguel, Santa Rosa, A complete list of all references cited facsimile 503/231–6243). Santa Cruz, or Santa Catalina Island herein is available upon request from It is our policy, as published in the foxes are trapped or captured will the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR require a permit under section (see ADDRESSES section).

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 44 / Friday, March 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 10353

Author Regulation Promulgation Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– The primary authors of this notice are ■ 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. Bridget Fahey, Ventura Fish and Accordingly, we amend part 17, Wildlife Office, and Sandy Vissman, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the ■ 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth adding the following, in alphabetical ADDRESSES section). below: order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 PART 17—[AMENDED] Endangered and threatened species, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. Exports, Imports, Reporting and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 recordkeeping requirements, continues to read as follows: * * * * * Transportation. (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* MAMMALS

******* Fox, San Miguel Is- Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... E 742 NA NA land. littoralis. Fox, Santa Catalina Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... E 742 NA NA Island. catalinae. Fox, Santa Cruz Is- Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... E 742 NA NA land. santacruzae. Fox, Santa Rosa Is- Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... E 742 NA NA land. santarosae.

*******

Dated: March 1, 2004. Steve Williams, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 04–4902 Filed 3–4–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:12 Mar 04, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM 05MRR1