12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sierra Nevada Red Fox As an Endangered Or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule

Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 195 October 8, 2015

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 60990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR normal business hours at the U.S. Fish any petition to revise the Federal Lists and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, and Plants that contains substantial Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. scientific or commercial information 50 CFR Part 17 Please submit any new information, suggesting that listing a species may be [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103; materials, comments, or questions warranted, we make a finding within 12 4500030113] concerning this finding to the above months of the date of receipt of the street address. petition. In this finding, we will Endangered and Threatened Wildlife FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determine that the petitioned action is: and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, U.S. (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento warranted, but the immediate proposal as an Endangered or Threatened Fish and Wildlife Office (see of a regulation implementing the Species ADDRESSES); by telephone at 916–414– petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether AGENCY: 6600; or by facsimile at 916–414–6712. Fish and Wildlife Service, species are endangered or threatened, Interior. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the and expeditious progress is being made ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition to add or remove qualified species from finding. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. the Federal Lists of Endangered and SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Threatened Wildlife and Plants Wildlife Service (Service), announce a (‘‘warranted but precluded’’). Section 12-month finding on a petition to list Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes This Document treat a petition for which the requested necator) as an endangered or threatened We use many acronyms and action is found to be warranted but species under the Endangered Species abbreviations throughout this 12-month precluded as though resubmitted on the Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After finding. To assist the reader, we provide date of such finding, that is, requiring a review of the best available scientific a list of these here for easy reference: subsequent finding to be made within and commercial information, we find 12 months. We must publish these 12- Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as month findings in the Federal Register. that listing the entire Sierra Nevada red amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) fox subspecies is not warranted. We BWRA = Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area Previous Federal Actions were also petitioned to evaluate two CBD = Center for Biological Diversity On April 27, 2011, we received a populations within the subspecies’ CDFG = California Department of Fish and petition dated April 27, 2011, from the range as potential distinct population Game (see below) Center for Biological Diversity, segments (DPSs). We find that both the CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG) requesting that Sierra Nevada red fox be Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada CESA = California Endangered Species Act listed as endangered or threatened, and population segments of the Sierra CFR = Code of Federal Regulations that critical habitat be designated under Nevada red fox meet the Service’s DPS dbh = diameter at breast height the Act. The petition also requested that policy criteria, and therefore are valid DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid we evaluate two populations within the DPSs. After review of the best available DPS = distinct population segment subspecies’ range as potential distinct scientific and commercial information EFF = elokomin fluke fever population segments (DPSs) under the for these two DPSs, we find that listing Forest Service = U.S. Forest Service Service’s DPS Policy: One in the the Southern Cascades DPS is not FR = Federal Register INRMP = integrated natural resources Southern Cascades (south of the warranted at this time, and listing the management plan Columbia River) and the other in the Sierra Nevada DPS is warranted. IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Sierra Nevada Mountains. The petition Currently, however, listing the Sierra Change clearly identified itself as such and Nevada DPS is precluded by higher ISAB = Independent Scientific Advisory included the requisite identification priority actions to amend the Lists of Board LRMP = land and resource management plan information for the petitioner, as Endangered and Threatened Wildlife required by title 50 of the Code of and Plants. Upon publication of this 12- MWTC = Marine Warfare Training Center mtDNA = mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic Federal Regulations (CFR) at section month finding, we will add the Sierra acid 424.14(a). In a May 24, 2011, letter to Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red NFMA = National Forest Management Act the petitioner, we responded that we fox to our candidate species list. We (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) reviewed the information presented in will develop a proposed rule to list the NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service the petition and determined that issuing Sierra Nevada DPS as our priorities NPS = National Park Service NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan an emergency regulation temporarily allow. We will make a determination on listing the species under section 4(b)(7) critical habitat during development of ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife of the Act was not warranted. We also the proposed listing rule. In the interim OHV = off-highway vehicle stated that we were required to period, we will address the status of the OPLMA = Omnibus Public Land complete a significant number of listing candidate DPS through our annual Management Act (Pub. L. 111–11) and critical habitat actions in Fiscal candidate notice of review (CNOR). Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Year 2011 pursuant to court orders, DATES: The finding announced in this SPD = salmon poisoning disease judicially approved settlement document was made on October 8, 2015. SNFPA = Sierra Nevada Forest Plan agreements, and other statutory Amendment ADDRESSES: This finding is available on SPR = significant portion of [a species’] range deadlines, but that we had secured the Internet at http:// USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture funding for Fiscal Year 2011 to allow www.regulations.gov at Docket Number USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior publication of a finding in the Federal FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103. Supporting Register in early Fiscal Year 2012. documentation we used in preparing Background On January 3, 2012, we published in this finding is available for public Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 the Federal Register a 90-day finding inspection, by appointment, during U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for (77 FR 45) that the petition presented

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60991

substantial information indicating that 1981, p. 938; Larivie´re and characterized by specialized adaptations listing may be warranted and that Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, pp. 1–2; Aubry to cold areas (Sacks et al. 2010a, p. initiated a status review. This notice 1997, p. 55; Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1523, 1524). Such adaptations include a constitutes the 12-month finding on the 1535; ITIS 2014, p. 1). The Sierra particularly thick and deep winter coat April 27, 2011, petition to list the Sierra Nevada red fox can be distinguished (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 377) and small Nevada red fox as an endangered or from lowland-dwelling red fox toe pads (4 millimeters (mm) (0.2 inches threatened species. subspecies based on its smaller size and (in)) across or less) that are completely This finding is based upon the use of high-elevation, snow-covered covered in winter by dense fur to Species Report titled ‘‘Species Report, habitat (Roest 1977, p. 13; Perrine et al. facilitate movement over snow (Grinnell Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes 2010, p. 5). The Sierra Nevada red fox et al. 1937, pp. 378, 393; Sacks 2014a, necator)’’ (Service 2015) (Species was first described by Merriam (1900, p. 30). The Sierra Nevada red fox and Report), a scientific analysis of available pp. 662, 664) as the species Vulpes other montane subspecies also tend to information prepared by a team of necator, but was redesignated as a be smaller than other red foxes (Perrine Service biologists from the Service’s subspecies of North American red fox et al. 2010, p. 5), which may facilitate Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, (Vulpes fulva necator) in 1936 (Bailey movement over snow by lowering Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath 1936, pp. 272, 317), and then as a weight supported per square centimeter Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Roseburg subspecies of a single red fox species of footpad (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific stretching across Europe, Asia, and 17). Southwest Regional Office, Pacific North America (Vulpes vulpes necator) Sierra Nevada red fox use multiple Regional Office, and National in 1957 (Churcher 1957, p. 202; habitat types in the alpine and Headquarters Office. The purpose of the Churcher 1959, p. 519). The scientific subalpine zones (near and above Species Report is to provide the best community continues to recognize the treeline) (California Department of Fish available scientific and commercial Sierra Nevada red fox as a subspecies and Game (CDFG) 1987, p. 3). In information about Sierra Nevada red fox (Roest 1977, p. 1; Larivie´re and addition to meadows and rocky areas so that we can evaluate whether or not Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, pp. 1–2; Aubry (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the subspecies warrants protection 1997, p. 55; Sacks et al. 2010a, p. 1542). 2009, p. 506), Sierra Nevada red fox use under the Act. In it, we compiled the Therefore, we accept the classification high-elevation conifer habitat of various best scientific and commercial data of the Sierra Nevada red fox as a types (Perrine 2005, pp. 63–64). Nearest available concerning the status of the subspecies of the red fox. Other red fox the treeline in the Lassen sighting area, subspecies, including past, present, and subspecies found nearest the Sierra where habitat use has been best future stressors. As such, the Species Nevada red fox’s range include the documented, the subspecies frequents Report provides the scientific basis that closely related and morphologically subalpine conifer habitat dominated by informs our regulatory decision in this similar Cascade red fox (occurring in the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) and document, which involves the further Washington Cascades north of the mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) application of standards within the Act Columbia River (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. (Perrine 2005, pp. 6, 63–64; California and its regulations and policies. The 1528, 1536), and the Sacramento Valley Department of Fish and Wildlife Species Report can be found on the red fox (occurring in the Sacramento (CDFW) undated, p. 3; Verner and Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, Valley of California (Sacks et al. 2010a, Purcell undated, p. 3). Such conifer Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103. pp. 1523–1524, 1535)). Additionally, habitat has been described as typically ‘‘open’’ (Verner and Purcell undated, p. Summary of Species Information descendants of red fox originally imported from eastern and more 1), and ‘‘patchy’’ (Lowden 2015, p. 1). A thorough review of the taxonomy, northern areas of North America into We lack similarly specific habitat genetics, habitat use, life history, range, California and Oregon as fur-farm stock descriptions for Oregon. distribution, and occurrence (described as ‘‘nonnative red fox’’ Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon, and information for the Sierra Nevada red herein) reside in lowland areas of at the Lassen sighting area in California, fox is presented in the Species Report California and Oregon (Sacks et al. have also been found to descend during (Service 2015, pp. 6–14), available on 2010a, pp. 1524). winter months into high-elevation the Internet at http:// The red fox is a relatively small canid conifer areas below the subalpine zone www.regulations.gov under Docket No. with an elongated snout, large ears, (Perrine 2005, pp. 63–64; Aubry et al. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0103; a summary of slender legs and body, and a bushy tail 2015, p. 1). In the Lassen sighting area, this information is presented below. We with a white tip (Larivie´re and this habitat consists primarily of red fir used data specific to the Sierra Nevada Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, p. 2; Aubry (Abies magnifica), white fir (Abies red fox when they were available. When 1997, p. 55; Perrine 2005, p. 1; Perrine concolor), and lodgepole pine (Pinus such information was lacking, we relied et al. 2010, p. 5). Red foxes typically contorta) (Perrine 2005, pp. 63–64; on information regarding other North have primarily red fur, but can also CDFW undated, p. 3; Barrett 1988, p. 3). American red fox subspecies in general, occur in a ‘‘cross phase’’ (primarily Winter sightings have occurred as low including montane red fox such as grayish-brown, with darker lines along as 1,410 m (4,626 ft) in the Lassen Cascade red fox (Vulpes vulpes the back and shoulders) or ‘‘black sighting area (Perrine 2005, pp. 2, 162), cascadensis) or Rocky Mountain red fox phase’’ (also called the silver phase; and 1,280 m (4,200 ft) in Oregon (Aubry (V.v. macroura), as well as other primarily black with occasional silver et al. 2015, p. 1). Possible reasons for subspecies of lowland red fox, such as guard hairs) (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine this elevational migration include the Sacramento Valley red fox (V.v. et al. 2010, p. 5). Cross and black phases lessened snow depths at lower patwin). We make these distinctions in are generally rare, but tend to be more elevations (Perrine 2005, pp. 80, 81), the text that follows, when applicable. common in cold mountainous areas unsuccessful dispersal movements by Sierra Nevada red fox is classified in (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine et al. 2010, nonbreeding individuals (Statham et al. the mammalian order Carnivora, family p. 5). 2012, p. 130), and lack of suitable prey Canidae, and is one of 10, 11, or 13 The Sierra Nevada red fox and two at high elevations in the Lassen area subspecies of red fox recognized in other montane subspecies (i.e., Cascades (Perrine 2005, p. 30). While on these North America by various sources (Hall and Rocky Mountain red foxes) are lower winter ranges, the subspecies has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 60992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

shown a preference for mature closed The average lifespan, age-specific of Sierra Nevada red fox was believed to canopy conifer forests, despite the rarity mortality rates, sex ratios, and be restricted to two small populations: of this forest structural category (less demographic structure of Sierra Nevada One in the vicinity of Lassen Peak than 7 percent) in the area studied red fox populations are not known, and (Perrine 2005, p. 105; California Natural (Perrine 2005, pp. 67, 74, 90). Similar are not easily extrapolated from other Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2011, pp. elevational migrations are not known for red fox subspecies because heavy 54–60) and the other in the vicinity of the Sonora Pass sighting area (Statham hunting and trapping pressure on those Sonora Pass (Perrine et al. 2010, notes et al. 2012, p. 130). other subspecies likely skew study in proof; CNDDB 2011, pp. 54–60). Both Dispersal distances have not been results (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 18). these populations are on Federal lands, documented for Sierra Nevada red fox, However, one study within a portion of with the exception of some small but one study found juvenile male red the Lassen sighting area found that three private inholdings in the Lassen area. foxes in the American Midwest Sierra Nevada red fox lived at least 5.5 Systematic carnivore surveys conducted dispersed 30 km (18.6 mi) on average, years (CDFW 2015, p. 1), and a another from 1996 to 2002 throughout the Sierra while juvenile females dispersed an study within a portion of the Sonora Nevada and Cascades Mountains of average of 10 km (6.2 mi) (Statham et al. Pass sighting area found the average California did not detect any Sierra 2012, p. 130). A few young American annual adult survival rate to be 82 Nevada red fox (Zielinski et al. 2005, Midwest red foxes (5 percent) dispersed percent, which is relatively high for red pp. 1385, 1387), indicating the over 80 km (50 mi) in their first year foxes (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, subspecies was likely extirpated or in (Statham et al. 2012, p. 130). 14–15, 24). low densities in the regions sampled; Although little direct information Sierra Nevada red fox appear to be according to Figures 1 and 3 in Zielinski exists regarding the Sierra Nevada red opportunistic predators and foragers, et al. (2005, pp. 1387, 1389), the fox’s reproductive biology, there is no with a diet primarily composed of small currently known Lassen sighting area evidence to suggest it is markedly rodents, but also including deer carrion was within the 1996–2002 sampling different from lowland-dwelling North (Odocoileus hemionus) (particularly in area. The population levels of Sierra American red fox subspecies (Aubry winter and spring) and manzanita Nevada red fox at that time were 1997, p. 57). Those subspecies are berries (Arctostaphylos nevadensis) unknown, but the subspecies was predominately monogamous and mate (particularly in fall) (Perrine et al. 2010, believed to occur at very low density over several weeks in the late winter pp. 24, 30, 32–33). Sierra Nevada red (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9). and early spring (Aubry 1997, p. 57). fox are most active at dusk and at night The gestation period for North (Perrine 2005, p. 114), when many Following publication of our 90-day American red fox is 51 to 53 days, with rodents are most active. High-elevation finding in the Federal Register (77 FR birth occurring from March through lagomorphs, such as snowshoe hare 45; January 3, 2012), the Sierra Nevada May in sheltered dens (Perrine et al. (Lepus americanus) and pika (Ochotona red fox’s range has been confirmed (via 2010, p. 14). Sierra Nevada red fox use princeps), also are diet components of a combination of genetics and natural openings in rock piles at the the subspecies, although they were not photographic evidence) to extend into base of cliffs and slopes as denning sites an important food source in the Lassen the Oregon Cascades (Figure 1, below) (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 394). They may sighting area, possibly due to scarcity in as far north as Mt. Hood, significantly also dig earthen dens similar to Cascade the region (Perrine 2005, pp. 29–30). extending the subspecies’ range beyond red foxes (although this has not been its historically known range in directly documented) (Aubry 1997, p. Distribution/Range California. Specifically, five sighting 58; Perrine 2005, p. 153). Sierra Nevada In 1937, Grinnell et al. (1937, pp. areas (i.e., clustered locations of recent red fox litters are reported by Grinnell 381–382) defined the range of the Sierra Sierra Nevada red fox sightings) have et al. (1937, p. 394) to average six pups Nevada red fox in California as three been identified on Federal lands in with a range of three to nine; however, separate areas: (1) The area of Mt. Oregon where surveys have occurred, in recent evidence suggests that litter sizes Shasta, primarily in the Cascades but addition to the two known sighting of two to three are more typical, and extending slightly into the Trinity areas in California as described in the that reproductive output is generally Mountains; (2) in the California 90-day finding (77 FR 45). Sierra low in montane foxes (Perrine 2005, pp. Cascades around Lassen Peak; and (3) Nevada red fox are thus known from a 152–153). along the upper elevations of the Sierra total of seven sighting areas, located in Home range sizes of Sierra Nevada red Nevada Mountain Range from Tulare to the vicinity of (north to south) Mt. fox have not been studied throughout Sierra Counties. A study by Sacks et al. Hood, Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat, the range of the subspecies. However, (2010a, p. 1536) extended the historical Willamette Pass, and Crater Lake in Perrine (2005, pp. 2, 159) found within range into the Cascade Mountains of Oregon; and Lassen and Sonora Pass in a portion of the Lassen sighting area that Oregon to the Columbia River. This California (Figure 1, below). The two adult Sierra Nevada red fox established range includes those mountainous areas California sighting areas were known in summer home ranges averaging 2,564 that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in the 1930s to be occupied by Sierra hectares (ha) (6,336 acres (ac)), with California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and Nevada red fox (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. individual home ranges ranging from 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et 381–382) and were found to still be 262 ha (647 ac) to 6,981 ha (17,250 ac) al. 2015, pp. 2–3; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3, occupied in 1993 and 2010 (Perrine (Perrine 2005, pp. 2, 159). Winter home 13–14, line 7). We note that the 2005, pp. 4, 167–168; Statham et al. ranges were larger, averaging 3,255 ha historical range description for Sierra 2012, p. 123). The five Oregon sighting (8,042 ac) and ranging from 326 to 6,685 Nevada red fox provided earlier by areas were first identified in 2012 and ha (806 to 16,519 ac) (Perrine 2005, p. Grinnell et al. (1937, pp. 381–382) did 2013, after publication of our 90-day 159). Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. 2, 9, not include the Oregon Cascades, finding (77 FR 45). Additional sightings 11) found within a portion of the Sonora because it was presumed these montane within the current Oregon sighting areas Pass sighting area that minimum home fox were the Cascades red fox have been reported as recently as 2014 range estimates averaged 910 ha (2,249 subspecies. (e.g., Doerr 2015, pp. 1, 8, 11–14), and ac), and were maintained both winter At the time of the 90-day finding (77 surveys in portions of the subspecies’ and summer. FR 45; January 3, 2012), the distribution range are ongoing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60993

N A

Miles 0 '31.5 75 ·150

0 eo 120 240 Kilometers

• Sierra Nevada Red Fox Occurrence Record

~ Cascades Historical Range lSJ Sierra Nevada H isto rica I Range

Figure !-Historical range and sighting areas of Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) from recent records (2000-2015). The historical range in Oregon is derived from Sacks et al. (2010a, p. 1536), who determined that museum specimens of Oregon montane red foxes were Sierra Nevada red fox. The historical range in California is based on Perrine et al. (2010, p. 4), which is based on Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 382).

It is possible that Sierra Nevada red surveyed, or have been surveyed only Sierra Nevada red fox population foxes may occur in additional areas sporadically. numbers as ‘‘relatively small, even in beyond the seven specific sighting areas Population/Abundance Information the most favorable territory,’’ and described above, particularly in the reported that Sierra Nevada red fox Oregon Cascades within any areas of Based on interviews with trappers, likely occurred at densities of 1 per 2.6 suitable habitat that have not been Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 390) described square km (1 per square mi). Perrine et

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP08OC15.004 60994 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

al. (2010, p. 9) concluded from this that after the 1940s (about twice per year in discovery of this subspecies’ occupation Sierra Nevada red fox likely occur at the 1950s and 1960s) (Schempf and at multiple sighting areas within the low population densities even within White 1977, p. 44). The reduced harvest Oregon Cascades. However, the best areas of high relative abundance. and sightings of Sierra Nevada red fox available information since the 90-day Historical trapping information in in California led to a prohibition on red finding (77 FR 45; January 3, 2012) California from CDFW and Schempf and fox trapping throughout the State in indicates multiple individuals have White (1977, p. 44) indicates that the 1974, and to listing the subspecies as been identified in five sighting areas (5 numbers of Sierra Nevada red fox threatened under the California genetic records and 10 photographic numbers trapped in California fell Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1980 records at Mt. Hood; 1 to 4 records each considerably in the mid-1900s as (Statham et al. 2012, p. 123). We note at the remaining four Oregon sighting compared to trapping data reported by that fur trapping for red fox (regardless areas) (Table 1, below). Surveys are Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 389). The of the subspecies or origin) in Oregon average annual harvest of Sierra Nevada remains legal Statewide. ongoing in the Oregon portion of the red fox pelts in California declined from Information (both historical and subspecies’ range, and we anticipate the 1920s (21 pelts per year) to the current) is not available regarding the additional sightings and individuals to 1940s and 1950s (6.75 pelts per year) abundance or trends of Sierra Nevada be identified with continued surveys in (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 389; Perrine red fox populations in Oregon, suitable habitat areas. 2005, p. 154). Sightings became rare particularly given the very recent

TABLE 1—CURRENT KNOWN SIGHTING AREAS OF SIERRA NEVADA RED FOX IN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA [north to south]

Primary Estimated population Location 1 State County land owners 2 size

Mt. Hood ...... OR ...... Clackamas and Hood Mt Hood National Forest ...... Unknown. River. Mt. Washington ...... OR ...... Linn, Jefferson, and Willamette and Deschutes National Forests ...... Unknown. Deschutes. Dutchman Flat ...... OR ...... Deschutes ...... Deschutes National Forest ...... Unknown. Willamette Pass ...... OR ...... Lane ...... Willamette National Forest ...... Unknown. Crater Lake ...... OR ...... Klamath and Douglas .... Crater Lake National Park, Rogue River-Siskiyou Unknown. National Forest, Fremont-Winema National Forest. Lassen ...... CA ...... Lassen, Plumas, and Lassen National Forest and Lassen Volcanic Na- 42 adults Tehama. tional Park. (21 breeding, 21 nonbreeding 3 Sonora Pass ...... CA ...... Tuolumne, Mono, and Toiyabe portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe Na- 29 adults Alpine. tional Forest, Stanislaus National Forest, and (14 breeding, 15 non- Yosemite National Park. breeding.4 1 The number of Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas may not be the same as the actual number of populations. Researchers have not yet determined the precise number or locations of Sierra Nevada red fox populations that reside in the Oregon Cascades. 2 Land ownership for known sighting areas is based on surveys that have primarily occurred to date on Federal lands. It is likely that Sierra Ne- vada red fox reside within contiguous, suitable habitat on intervening or adjacent private/public lands where surveys have not yet occurred. 3 Twenty-one breeding adults, with 95 percent confidence interval of 13 to 34 (Sacks et al. 2010a, pp. 1532, 1536–1537). Twenty-one nonbreeding adults (estimated range of 0 to 42, based on rough estimates of ratios of nonbreeders to breeders in other red fox subspecies) (Sacks 2015, pp. 1–2). 4 Fourteen breeding adults (estimated range 10 to 20) (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 14). Fifteen nonbreeding adults (estimated range of 0 to 30, based on rough estimates of ratios of nonbreeders to breeders in other red fox subspecies) (Sacks 2015, pp. 1–2; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14).

The best available information for the 2015, p. 1). At this time, there are no population(s) abundance or trend of Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas empirical data on which to base an Sierra Nevada red fox within these (north to south) is summarized below. estimate of either current population(s) sighting areas. More information is available for the abundance or trend of Sierra Nevada red • Lassen sighting area—This sighting Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas fox within this sighting area. area includes lands managed by Lassen because they have been studied more • Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat, National Forest and Lassen Volcanic thoroughly, and over a longer time. Willamette Pass, and Crater Lake National Park (including the Caribou • Mt. Hood sighting area—This sighting areas—Lands within these Wilderness), and some private sighting area includes the general sighting areas are owned and managed inholdings primarily as timberlands vicinity surrounding Mt. Hood. Lands by: (1) Willamette and Deschutes (CDFW 2015, p. 1). Sacks et al. (2010a, within this sighting area are owned and National Forest (Mt. Washington); pp. 1532, 1536–1537) estimated that the managed by Mt. Hood National Forest. Deschutes National Forest (Dutchman effective size of the population at the Approximately 15 sightings of Sierra Flat); Willamette National Forest Lassen sighting area (referred to in the Nevada red fox (consisting either of (Willamette Pass); and Crater Lake study as the modern Southern Cascades photographs or genetically tested scat or National Park, and Rogue-River- population) is 21 breeding individuals, hair) have been made in the area, and Siskiyou and Fremont-Winema National with a 95 percent confidence interval of three individuals have been Forests (Crater Lake). At this time, 13 to 34 breeding individuals (see also distinguished from the Mt. Hood similar to the Mt. Hood sighting area, Statham et al. 2012, pp. 122, 123). The sighting area (Akins 2014, entire; Akins there are no empirical data on which to ‘‘effective size’’ of the population refers and Sacks 2014, entire; Akins and Sacks base an estimate of either current to the number of breeding individuals in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60995

an ‘‘ideal’’ population (with discreet, through September 2014 used genetic Sierra Nevada red fox (0.44) was lower non-overlapping generations, equal tests to identify eight individuals. With than at the Lassen sighting area (0.53), contribution of all members to the next the exception of a female killed on U.S. suggesting that the population size at generation, and free mixing prior to Highway 395, possibly while dispersing, the Sonora Pass sighting area may be mate choice) that experiences the same all Sierra Nevada red fox sightings were smaller (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13– amount of genetic drift (random change found within an area of 13,000 ha 14). Current heterozygosity levels at the in gene frequencies) as the actual (32,124 ac), extending both north and Sonora Pass sighting area are also population (Lande and Barrowclough south from California State Route 108, considerably lower than heterozygosity 1987, pp. 88–89). Actual Sierra Nevada within 3 km of the Sierra Crest (Quinn levels present historically (0.64), thus red fox populations are likely to be and Sacks 2014, p. 10). This study area indicating a negative trend in somewhat larger than their effective constituted 20 to 50 percent of the population size (Quinn and Sacks 2014, population sizes because they include contiguous high-quality habitat for the pp. 13–14). Reductions in the diversity non-breeding individuals, including subspecies in the region (Quinn and of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) since pups, and (possibly) adult offspring Sacks 2014, p. 14), with the remainder historical times also indicate a decline remaining on their parent’s territory to of the high-quality habitat primarily in population numbers (Quinn and help raise their siblings. Such ‘‘helpers’’ extending south into the northern Sacks 2014, p. 14). are not uncommon in other red fox portion of Yosemite National Park Sacks et al. (2015, pp. 3, 9) found no subspecies, though clear evidence of (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 36). evidence to indicate that any Sierra them has not been demonstrated in Thus, the Sacks et al. (2015, entire) Nevada red fox successfully produced Sierra Nevada red fox (Wildlife Online study area south into the northern surviving, non-hybrid pups during their 2015, p. 60; Sacks 2015, pp. 1–2). A portion of Yosemite National Park is 3-year period within the study area at high-end estimate of actual population what we have roughly defined as the the Sonora Pass sighting area. However, size for the Lassen sighting area might Sonora Pass sighting area. However, we two adult females were determined therefore assume two non-breeders for note that this sighting area has been genetically to be the daughters of a every breeder, resulting in a total poorly surveyed for Sierra Nevada red known breeding Sierra Nevada red fox population of about 63 individuals fox due to rough terrain. It is likely that pair (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 9). (Sacks 2015, p. 2). the data obtained by Quinn and Sacks Additionally, we note that hybridization CDFW obtained 187 Sierra Nevada (2014, entire) is representative of the of Sierra Nevada red fox with nonnative red fox scat and hair samples from the entire population in the region because red fox is also known to occur within Lassen sighting area between 2007 and the area studied was of high quality this small population (see Hybridization 2013, and was able to genetically habitat similar to the rest of the high With Nonnative Red Fox, below). identify 18 separate individuals from quality habitat in the region (Quinn and those samples (CDFW 2015, p. 1), Sacks 2014, p. 14), and because the area Summary of Information Pertaining to thereby tending to support the low studied was large enough to support the the Five Factors effective population size estimate (i.e., assumption that the Sierra Nevada red Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 21 breeding individuals) of Sacks et al. fox included in the study were and implementing regulations (50 CFR (2010a, p. 1532). CDFW was also able to representative of the larger population 424) set forth procedures for adding identify the source individuals for over (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 10, 14). species to, removing species from, or 100 Sierra Nevada red fox genetic Based on the extent of suitable habitat reclassifying species on the Federal samples collected within the Caribou in the Sonora Pass sighting area, and on Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wilderness (immediately east of Lassen the number of adult Sierra Nevada red Wildlife and Plants. Under section Volcanic National Park within the fox per hectare in the surveyed portion 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be sighting area) in 2012 and 2013, finding of the habitat at any given time (usually determined to be an endangered or that no new individuals (i.e., offspring) six adults in 13,000 ha (32,124 ac)), threatened species based on any of the entered the population within the study Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. 3, 11, 14) following five factors: area during those years (CDFW 2015, p. estimated the total number of adult (A) The present or threatened 2). Thus, successful reproduction in that Sierra Nevada red fox in the entire destruction, modification, or portion of the sighting area during those Sonora Pass sighting area to be 14, with curtailment of its habitat or range; years was low or nonexistent. However, a likely range of 10 to 20. Repeated (B) Overutilization for commercial, CDFW cameras did photograph a Sierra resampling of individuals over the 3- recreational, scientific, or educational Nevada red fox near the Caribou year study period (2011 through 2014) purposes; Wilderness in 2009 that appeared suggests that most adults with territories (C) Disease or predation; visibly pregnant (CDFW 2015, p. 2). overlapping the study area were found (D) The inadequacy of existing • Sonora Pass sighting area—This (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14). regulatory mechanisms; or sighting area includes the general However, Quinn and Sacks (2014, pp. (E) Other natural or manmade factors vicinity surrounding Sonora Pass, 11, 14; Sacks 2015, p. 1) indicated their affecting its continued existence. which includes lands that are owned estimates were ‘‘crude,’’ and that the In making this finding, information and managed by Humboldt-Toiyabe total number of adults in the population pertaining to the Sierra Nevada red fox National Forest, Stanislaus National could possibly be as high as 50 due to in relation to the five factors provided Forest, and Yosemite National Park. The the presence of nonbreeding helpers at in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed Sonora Pass sighting area includes natal den sites. below. In considering what factors several multi-year Sierra Nevada red fox Low population size estimates for the might constitute threats to a species, we residents (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 2), Sonora Pass sighting area were also must look beyond the mere exposure of and so may be considered a population supported by analyses of genetic the species to a particular factor to site rather than merely a dispersal area diversity (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. evaluate whether the species may from some undiscovered population. 13–14). For instance, the average respond to that factor in a way that Researchers (Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3) heterozygosity (a measure of genetic causes actual impacts to the species. If conducting a 3-year study in a portion diversity) in nuclear deoxyribonucleic there is exposure to a factor but no of the sighting area from October 2011 acid (DNA; from the cell nucleus) for response, or only a positive response,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 60996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

that factor is not a threat. If there is To provide a temporal component to Species Report describes impacts using exposure and the species responds our evaluation of potential stressors the following general categories: negatively, the factor may be a threat (i.e., impacts into the future), we first • A low-level impact indicates a and we then attempt to determine if that determined whether we had data stressor is impacting individual Sierra factor rises to the level of a threat, available that would allow us to Nevada red fox currently or in the meaning that it may drive or contribute reasonably predict the likely future future, or a stressor is resulting in a to the risk of extinction of the species impact of each specific stressor over minor amount of habitat impacts or such that the species warrants listing as time. Overall, we found that, for all possibly temporary habitat impacts an endangered or threatened species as potential stressors, the likelihood and currently or in the future. • those terms are defined in the Act. severity of future impacts became too A medium-level impact indicates a However, the identification of factors uncertain to address beyond a 50-year stressor is impacting Sierra Nevada red that could impact a species negatively is timeframe. For example: fox at the population (or sighting area) not sufficient to compel a finding that • Logging and grazing impacts on level currently or in the future, or a the species warrants listing. The National Forest lands are largely stressor is resulting in more serious information must include evidence regulated by the Northwest Forest Plan impacts to suitable habitat at the sufficient to suggest that these factors (NWFP) and the Sierra Nevada Forest population (or sighting area) level Plan Amendment (SNFPA). These currently or in the future. are operative threats that act on the • species to the point that the species governing regulations were first adopted A high-level impact indicates a meets the definition of an endangered or in 1994 and 2004, respectively, but the stressor is significantly impacting Sierra threatened species under the Act. primary impetus for their adoption was Nevada red fox at the subspecies level currently or in the future, or a stressor An analysis of the potential threats for the question of how best to carry out is causing significant impacts to suitable the Sierra Nevada red fox is included in logging, grazing, and vegetation habitat at the subspecies level currently the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) management actions in a manner that is or in the future. associated with this document (and sustainable over the long term and that available at http://www.regulations.gov is consistent with applicable laws, Competition With Coyotes under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011– including the Muliple Use—Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Endangered Both coyotes and Sierra Nevada red 0103). All potential threats (identified in foxes are opportunistic predators with the Species Report as ‘‘stressors’’ or Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 considerable overlap in food consumed ‘‘potential stressors’’) of which we are (USDA 1994, p. 5). As these governing (Perrine 2005, pp. 36–37). Perrine (2005, aware that may be acting upon the laws have remained in place for 40 to pp. 84, 105) suggests that competition Sierra Nevada red fox currently or in the 50 years, and an important management with coyotes (Factor C), as well as future (and consistent with the five goal under those laws has been ‘‘long- predation as described below, is likely listing factors identified above) were term sustainability’’ (USDA and USDI a primary reason why the range of Sierra evaluated and addressed in the Species 1994, p. 5), we consider 50 years a Nevada red fox is restricted to such high Report, and are summarized in the reasonable timeframe for considering elevations. Any competition likely following paragraphs. future impacts. varies in intensity with prey The following sections include • Laws governing hunting and availability, specifically including in the summary evaluations of nine potential trapping of red foxes in California and Lassen sighting area where competition threats to the Sierra Nevada red fox that Oregon have remained largely may be stronger during winter months may have low or medium-level impacts unchanged since 1974 and 1978, when Sierra Nevada red fox descend in on the subspecies or its habitat. respectively (CDFG 1987, p. 4; Oregon elevation. See the Predation by Potential threats that may impact the Department of Fish and Wildlife Domestic Dogs or Coyotes section, subspecies in Oregon and California are (ODFW) 2011, p. 26); thus, we consider below, and Summary of Species those actions that may affect individuals regulatory mechanisms sufficiently Information section, above, for or sighting areas either currently or in stable to support a 50-year timeframe. additional discussion and background the future, including: Wildfire and fire • In analyzing potential impacts from information on Sierra Nevada red fox/ suppression (Factors A and E); climate disease, small isolated populations, coyote interactions. change (Factor A); hunting and trapping hybridization, coyote competition, and Coyotes occur throughout the current (Factor B); disease, to include salmon vehicles, we considered all available range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, but poisoning disease (SPD), elokomin fluke information regarding any future typically at lower elevations during fever (EFF), and potentially mange, changes that could alter the likelihood winter and early spring when distemper, or rabies) (Factor C); or extent of impacts. We had no such snowpacks are high. If snowpacks are competition and predation by coyotes, information extending beyond a 50-year reduced in area due to climate change, which could be exacerbated in the timeframe. coyotes would likely encroach into future dependent on climate change • Although information exists high-elevation areas during early spring impacts to habitat (Factors C and E); regarding potential impacts from when Sierra Nevada red fox are predation by domestic dogs (Factor C); climate change beyond a 50-year establishing territories and raising pups. hybridization with nonnative red fox timeframe, the projections depend on an Even in the absence of direct predation, (Factor E); vehicles (Factor E); and small increasing number of assumptions, and the tendency of coyotes to chase off red population size and isolation, thus become more uncertain with foxes generally, and to compete with specifically for the Lassen and Sonora increasingly large timeframes. Sierra Nevada red fox for prey, may Pass sighting areas (Factor E). We also Therefore, a timeframe of 50 years is interfere with the ability of the note that potential impacts associated used to provide the best balance of subspecies to successfully raise with logging/vegetation management scope of impacts considered, versus offspring (Service 2015, pp. 48–51). and grazing were evaluated but found to certainty of those impacts. Coyotes were rare or nonexistent in result in low or no impacts, overall, Each potential stressor was evaluated the Oregon Cascades prior to about across the subspecies’ range (see Service to determine the likely impact to Sierra 1930, but their numbers increased after 2015, pp. 23–27, 30–32). Nevada red foxes or their habitat. The that time due to the extirpation of gray

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60997

wolves (Canis lupus), which is a species Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes, subjected to an overly large, high- that tends to compete with and help below), there may be an overall severity wildfire). However, there are no control coyote population numbers as medium-level impact on the subspecies reports of direct mortality to red foxes, opposed to impacting smaller species (i.e., impacts to multiple populations). including the Sierra Nevada subspecies, like red fox (Toweill and Anthony 1988, However, this stressor does not rise to from fires (Tesky 1995, p. 7). p. 507). Coyote populations also the level of a threat currently or in the Fire suppression can change suitable benefitted from clearcutting, which left future because information indicates habitat conditions for the Sierra Nevada numerous forest openings in which coyote presence (and potential red fox to denser stands of trees with productivity of berries and prey species competition) is likely occurring within fewer open meadow or shrub areas, was increased (Toweill and Anthony portions of most of the sighting areas, thereby potentially reducing the prey 1988, p. 511); however, timber practices and the best available data indicate, at base for the subspecies (Factor E). Fire today are much improved compared to most, potential impacts to individuals. suppression could also lead to direct those used in the past, in large part due Also, information indicates that coyote effects on Sierra Nevada red fox by to the NWFP and beneficial populations occurring in the southern allowing greater fuel buildup, thereby management operations as outlined in portion of the Cascade Range in Oregon producing larger and hotter wildfires. the National Forests LRMPs. Coyote and California may be naturally Researchers (Miller 2003, p. 379; Truex numbers may also be controlled to an controlled as a result of the current wolf and Zielinski 2013, p. 85) indicate that unknown degree into the future given packs that are likely to increase in size potential current and future concerns the recent establishment of two packs of into the future, thus decreasing the are associated with historical policies of the federally endangered gray wolf in likelihood of coyotes causing a wildfire suppression in western North the southern Cascades between the subspecies-level impact on the Sierra America that have led to unnatural fuel Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas, Nevada red fox. accumulations and an increased risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfires, and likely future growth of these packs Wildfire and Fire Suppression or establishment of additional wolf which may also be the case specifically packs. Restoration of wolves to the Wildfires may impact Sierra Nevada within the Sierra Nevada red fox’s Cascades in sustainable populations red fox by modifying suitable habitat range. would likely lower coyote population that the subspecies relies on for Although wildfire and fire numbers or exclude them from higher multiple aspects of its life history (e.g., suppression have the potential to result reducing denning habitat, reducing or elevation forested areas, thereby in negative impacts to Sierra Nevada red eliminating habitat conditions that facilitating the persistence of Sierra fox or their habitat, short-term habitat support an adequate prey base) (Factor Nevada red fox populations (Levi and impacts from all but the largest fires can A). In general, wildfires in western also benefit Sierra Nevada red foxes by Wilmers 2012, p. 926); wolves are States, including California and Oregon, encouraging growth of grasses and unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra have been more frequent, larger, and shrubs, which in turn lead to increases Nevada red fox because they tend to more intense in the past 50 years, and in small mammal populations preyed on take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8). particularly in the past 15 years by the subspecies (Tesky 1995, p. 7), as Overall, the potential increase of (Independent Scientific Advisory Board well as increases of fruiting shrubs that coyote competition as it relates to (ISAB) 2007, pp. 22–23). These are an important supplementary food shifting or modified habitats, or increases are directly correlated with source (Tesky 1995, p. 8; Perrine 2005, diminished snowpack levels from climate change (ISAB 2007, pp. 22–23; p. 191). These benefits, coupled with potential climate change impacts, may USDA 2004, p. 6) (see Climate Change, active vegetation or management still occur throughout the range of the below), and are likely to continue. Long- strategies that help reduce hazardous subspecies. The best available data term habitat changes caused by fuel accumulations (such as those indicate presence of coyotes at the same wildfires acting in concert with strategies outlined in the SNFPA, elevations as Sierra Nevada red fox increased temperatures and altered NWFP, and LRMPs, the latter of which during certain times of the year; moisture regimes could possibly result include the Mt. Hood, Willamette, however, there is no information to in tree morality or long-term removal of Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, Rogue indicate any population-level impacts. forested habitat that the subspecies River, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Coyote populations in the southern relies on. Tahoe, El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Cascades sighting areas might not grow Wildfire could also potentially impact Inyo, Sequoia, and Humboldt-Toiyabe over the next 50 years given a decrease individual Sierra Nevada red fox National Forest LRMPs within the range in clearcutting as compared to historical directly through mortality (Factor E). of the subspecies) could have the timber activity, continued presence of However, fires generally kill or injure a greatest impact on Sierra Nevada red snowpacks at high-elevation areas that relatively small proportion of animal fox. Additionally, wildfire is not a major are not favorable to coyotes, and the populations, particularly if they are disturbance of habitat within the range presence and potential increase in wolf mobile (Lyon et al. 2000, pp. 17–20), of the Sierra Nevada red fox, primarily presence in Oregon and northern and the best available data do not due to the subspecies’ residence at high- California. As a result, based on the indicate that wildfire is causing loss of elevation areas of the Cascades and information presented above and in the individual Sierra Nevada red fox. If Sierra Nevada. Recent wildfires have Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 48– direct mortality of individual Sierra occurred in portions of the Mt. Hood 51), the best available data indicate that Nevada red fox occurs, we expect the (2011 Dollar Lake fire), Dutchman flat the impact of coyote competition with impact to be discountable because the (2012 Pole Creek fire), Lassen (2012 Sierra Nevada red fox may occur across subspecies is capable of rapid Reading fire), and Sonora Pass (2013 the subspecies’ range at similar levels evacuation from an approaching fire, Rim fire) sighting areas. These wildfires (i.e., potential impacts to individuals) and adequate suitable habitat exists are not expected to have permanent, into the future, although potentially to adjacent to the existing sighting areas to long-term impacts that would prevent a lesser degree in the southern Cascades. establish a new home range (provided the subspecies from remaining or Similar to the potential impacts the majority of the suitable habitat returning to these areas. For example, resulting from coyote predation (see within the sighting area vicinity is not following the 2012 wildfire at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 60998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Dutchman Flat (which was a stand- used to weigh relevant information, 522–523). In addition to increased tree replacing wildfire), Sierra Nevada red including uncertainty, in various mortality, water deficit from climate fox were recently detected within the aspects of climate change. change is also expected to decrease fire perimeter at two locations Global climate projections are seedling establishment and tree growth (McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015), informative, and in some cases, the only in many currently forested areas, indicating minimal impacts to the scientific information available. thereby altering tree species subspecies given the short time period However, projected changes in climate distributions (Littell et al. 2013, p. 112). between the wildfire and the recent and related impacts can vary Montane scrub communities, which 2014 detections in this sighting area. substantially across and within different require less water, may tend to increase, Based on the analysis contained regions of the world (e.g., IPCC 2007, thereby decreasing and isolating areas of within the Species Report and pp. 8–12). Therefore, we use appropriate habitat for the subspecies. summarized above, we expect an ‘‘downscaled’’ projections (see Glick et For example, soil types at higher increased risk of wildfire overall, and al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of elevations may not support dense the recent occurrence of such fires at or downscaling) when they are available forests with a 40 percent or greater near various Sierra Nevada red fox and have been developed through canopy cover (Fites-Kaufman et al. sighting areas impacts the subspecies’ appropriate scientific procedures, 2007, pp. 457–458). Thus, this type of habitat, at least minimally, for periods because such projections provide higher vegetation change/shift could lead to of few to several years. The prevalence resolution information that is more greater competition and predation from of such fires is likely to increase in the relevant to spatial scales used for coyotes (which are better adapted to future due to climate change (see analyses of a given taxon. For this drier and warmer conditions; see Climate Change, below). However, there analysis across the range of the Sierra Competition with Coyotes, above). are no reports of direct mortality to red Nevada red fox, downscaled projections Potential shifts in future vegetation type foxes from wildfires, and wildfires can are used in addition to some California may lead to range shifts for the Sierra improve habitat for red foxes by and Pacific Northwest regional climate Nevada red fox in some localities, removing competing vegetation and models, which generally encompass a although information is not available to encouraging production of grasses and range of sensitivities to low-emission indicate precisely where nor how shrubs favored by small mammals and medium- to high-emission rapidly this may occur. It is important (Tesky 1995, p. 7), which the Sierra scenarios. The differences between to note that studies of climate change Nevada red fox depends upon as a prey higher- and lower-emissions scenarios present a range of effects, although base. Accordingly, these potential are minimal in the next few decades, conditions are not expected to change to impacts are balanced with the potential but become increasingly pronounced a degree that would be considered benefits, thus resulting in our after the mid-21st century (Mote and significant within the next 50 years. consideration of wildfire and fire Salathe´ 2010, p. 39; Cayan et al. 2009, Overall, it is not clear how finer-scale suppression to constitute a low-level p. 7). However, the current emissions abiotic factors may shape local climates impact that does not rise to the level of trajectory is higher than any of the and influence local vegetation trends a threat either currently and into the emissions scenarios used in climate either to the benefit or detriment of future. projections for California and the Pacific Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is the Northwest (Hansen et al. 2013, pp. 1–2). Climate Change timeframe clear over which these Therefore, the projections we discuss influences may be realized. ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and here may underestimate the potential variability of weather conditions over effects of climate change. The Sierra Nevada red fox’s currently time, with 30 years being a typical All simulations project a larger suitable habitat may also be affected by period for such measurements, although increase in temperature across the climate change with relation to reduced shorter or longer periods also may be analysis area over the 21st century than snowpack, which in turn could result in used (Intergovernmental Panel on occurred during the 20th century. habitat conditions more suitable for Climate Change [IPCC] 2013, p. 1,450). Projections for temperature increases coyotes, thus potentially increasing the The term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers across the analysis area range from 1 level of competition from or predation to a change in the mean or variability of °Celsius (C) to 3 °C (1.8 °Fahrenheit (F) by coyotes. This is discussed in more one or more measures of climate (e.g., to 5.4 °F) by mid-century and from 2 °C detail in the Predation by Domestic Dogs temperature or precipitation) that to 5.8 °C (3.6 °F to 10.4 °F) by late in or Coyotes (above), Competition With persists for an extended period, the 21st century (Mote et al. 2013, p. 34; Coyotes (above), and Cumulative Effects typically decades or longer, whether the Pierce et al. 2013, p. 844; Cayan et al. (below) sections. In general, given the change is due to natural variability, 2012, p. 4; Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 14; best available information, we expect human activity, or both (IPCC 2013, p. Mote and Salathe´ 2010, p. 41; Hayhoe coyotes to remain throughout the Sierra 1,450). A recent synthesis report of et al. 2004, p. 12423). Nevada red fox’s range, but we do not climate change and its effects is Over the past 50 years, warming expect coyote populations to grow over available from the IPCC (IPCC 2014, temperatures have led to a greater the next 50 years based on the current entire). proportion of precipitation falling as and past best available information Changes in climate may have direct or rain rather than snow, earlier snowmelt, regarding coyote presence. The potential indirect effects on species (Factor A). and a decrease in snowpack throughout for coyote competition or predation These effects may be positive, neutral, the western United States (Kapnick and exists, and it may possibly increase as or negative, and they may change over Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3448; Halofsky et it relates to shifting habitats from time, depending on the species and al. 2011, p. 21). The consequent potential climate change impacts. other relevant considerations, such as lengthening of summer drought and However, any increase would likely be interactions of climate with other associated increases in mean annual minimal into the future given the variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation, temperature have, in recent decades, continued presence of snowpack at fire frequency) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, caused increased tree mortality rates in high-elevation areas over the next 50 18–19). Typically, expert judgment and mature conifer forests in the range of the years. Additionally, it is probable that appropriate analytical approaches are SNRF (van Mantgem et al. 2009, pp. the presence of wolves (which are likely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60999

to compete with coyotes but not Sierra threat to Sierra Nevada red fox habitat we have no evidence to suggest that the Nevada red fox (see Competition With now or in the future, although we will subspecies is in decline as a Coyotes (above)) could be reduced continue to seek additional information consequence of fur trapping. currently and into the future concerning how climate change may Based on the analysis contained particularly in areas with newly affect the subspecies’ habitat. within the Species Report and established wolf packs (such as the two summarized above, we consider the Trapping or Hunting wolf packs currently known to occur legal fur trapping of Sierra Nevada red between the Crater Lake and Lassen Trapping for Fur fox as having no overall impact to Sierra sighting areas in the Southern Cascades. The Sierra Nevada red fox has Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass, Overall, studies of climate change historically been hunted and trapped for Lassen, and Crater Lake sighting areas, as there is no legal fur trapping for present a range of effects on vegetation its thickly furred pelt, which was the Sierra Nevada red fox in California and and snowpack levels, including those most valuable of any terrestrial animal at Crater Lake National Park. Fur that indicate conditions are likely to in California (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. trapping harvest for red fox in the four remain suitable for Sierra Nevada red 396–397). The average yearly harvest in remaining Oregon sighting areas is fox throughout its range into the next 50 California was approximately 21 relatively minimal, and red fox years. It is also probable that the animals in the 1920s (Grinnell et al. harvested are likely not trapped or severity of potential impacts to Sierra 1937, p. 389); by the 1940s and 1950s minimally trapped in the high Nevada red fox habitat will likely vary (over the 20-year period), the average elevations where the Sierra Nevada red across the range, with effects to the yearly harvest in California had fox resides. Thus, we estimate at most subspecies potentially ranging from decreased to 6.75 animals (Perrine 2005, a low level of impact to the four negative to neutral. The most significant p. 154). Legal Sierra Nevada red fox fur northernmost sighting areas in Oregon. potential future impact is reduced trapping in California ended in 1974 We estimate that the potential impacts snowpack levels that in turn could make (CDFG 1987, p. 4; Perrine 2005, p. 2). of fur trapping on Sierra Nevada red fox Sierra Nevada red fox habitat more Until recently, Sierra Nevada red fox in in Oregon (outside of the Crater Lake suitable to coyotes and thus cause the Oregon were considered to be Cascade sighting area) will continue at a similar fox to shift up in elevation to remain in foxes—of the same subspecies that level, both currently and into the future, higher snowpack areas. If this occurs, it occupied the Cascades in Washington because the best available data do not would likely pose the greatest risks to (Sacks et al. 2010a, p. 1536). Fur suggest that either fur trapping effort or the subspecies at the Sonora Pass trapping is regulated and remains legal impacts are likely to change. sighting area because the currently throughout Oregon (Factor B), although Additionally, of note for California, we occupied area is relatively small, with a information is not available regarding expect that nearly all Sierra Nevada red narrow elevational range, and the historical hunting and trapping fox that are accidentally captured in box subspecies is already occupying the pressures on foxes in the Oregon traps (body-gripping traps are illegal in highest elevations in the area. Sighting Cascades. California) set for other furbearer areas at Lassen and Crater Lake also may Due to regulatory protections, hunting species, or that are live-trapped for be at an elevated risk into the future and trapping do not constitute a current research purposes, will be released because the subspecies is already using or likely future stressor to Sierra Nevada unharmed. As a result of this best most of the highest elevation habitats populations in California or at the Crater available information for Oregon and available. In considering these factors, Lake sighting area in Oregon, as there is California, we have determined that fur the Species Report ascribed a medium- no legal hunting or fur trapping for trapping, overall, does not have a level impact to Sierra Nevada red fox for Sierra Nevada red fox in California or at significant population-level impact this stressor (Service 2005a, pp. 47–48). Crater Lake National Park where the across the subspecies’ range and Modeling projections are done at a large sightings in that area are known. In the therefore does not rise to the level of a scale, and effects to species’ habitat can counties where the other four Oregon threat currently nor is it likely to be complex, unpredictable, and highly sighting areas occur, low numbers of red increase into the future. influenced by local-level biotic and foxes are harvested, some of which may abiotic factors. Although many climate be Sierra Nevada red fox. Fox harvest Trapping for Research Purposes models generally agree about potential rates in Oregon have generally been low, We consider the potential impacts of future changes in temperature and a however, and have been declining in live-trapping and handling for research greater proportion of precipitation recent years. Hunting and trapping purposes (Factor B) on Sierra Nevada falling as rain rather than snow, the potentially impact individual Sierra red fox as discountable. There is limited consequent effects on snowpack levels Nevada red fox within the four Oregon distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox and possibly vegetation changes are sighting areas (excluding Crater Lake). research projects across the subspecies’ more uncertain, as is the rate at which However, in the absence of more range (e.g., noninvasive sampling (hair any such changes might be realized. definite information regarding and scat collection), camera-trapping, or Therefore, it is not clear how or when population levels of the subspecies in both, at Sonora Pass, Lassen, Mount changes in snowpack levels, forest type, Oregon, we do not consider such Hood; and in other Oregon sighting or plant species composition will affect harvest levels likely to produce areas as funding permits). The best the distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox detrimental impacts to Sierra Nevada available data indicate that no Sierra habitat. Thus, uncertainty exists when red fox populations, as a whole, across Nevada red fox have been injured or determining the level of impact climate its range. These activities therefore killed as a result of research-related live- change may have on Sierra Nevada red constitute stressors meeting the trapping or handling efforts. Available fox habitat. Consequently, at this time definition of low-level impact. The best information does not suggest that there and based on the analysis contained available data indicate that relatively would be any change to the level of within the Species Report and few red fox (some of which may be anticipated impacts of live-trapping and summarized above, we have determined Sierra Nevada red fox) are removed from handling for research purposes into the that we do not have reliable information an unknown number of populations as future, and, therefore, we find that the to indicate that climate change is a a result of fur trapping in Oregon, and potential impacts to the Sierra Nevada

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

red fox from trapping for research the same manner as SPD (with the same rise to the level of a threat currently nor purposes do not rise to the level of a flatworm vector and snail host) is it likely to increase into the future. threat. (Rikihesa 2014, pp. 1–3). The presence of SPD and EFF within Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes Disease the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox Sierra Nevada red fox could be Numerous pathogens are known to is considered minimal, with no predated on by domestic dogs at cause severe disease (Factor C) in exposures detected within the recreational areas (such as ski lodges or canids. Those that have the highest subspecies. As stated above, SPD is national parks) within their sighting potential to have population-level native in western Oregon, from the coast areas, and in the course of being hunted impacts on Sierra Nevada red fox are to the western slopes of the Cascades with dogs, in any of the Oregon sighting sarcoptic mange, canine distemper, and (Headley et al. 2009, p. 2), and EFF is areas other than at Crater Lake (Factor rabies (Perrine 2010, pp. 17, 28), as well endemic throughout Oregon. Thus, all C). Dogs are more likely to interact with as SPD and EFF. Although the CDFW five Oregon sighting areas are subject to Sierra Nevada red fox at the Crater Lake (2015, p. 2) has noted cases of rabies exposure. We also consider the and Willamette Pass sighting areas (but and distemper in gray foxes (Urocyon likelihood of exposure of SPD and EFF they also could potentially be found cinereoargenteus) in Lassen County, the in the Oregon Cascades to have along many other roads or recreational best available data do not indicate remained constant (but low) in recent areas (e.g., hiking trails) within the impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox from years, and expect that it will continue subspecies’ range), where they are these three diseases in any of the seven at the same level into the future. The allowed on roads, parking lots, sighting areas. Future impacts of such Lassen sighting area is outside the campgrounds, and picnic areas. To date, diseases on any given population are historical range of SPD (Todoroff and one documented case of Sierra Nevada difficult to predict, but the low Brown 2014, p. 6), and we have no red fox predation by a dog exists (i.e., population densities of the subspecies information regarding presence of EFF a radio-collared female Sierra Nevada (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9) should make at that location. However, rainbow trout red fox was found dead in October 2002, transmission within a population or from various hatcheries are stocked in as a result of a dog attack within 175 m sighting area less likely except within the Lassen National Forest for (574 ft) of a ski chalet in the Lassen family groups. The relative isolation of recreational fishing (Todoroff and sighting area (Perrine 2005, p. 141)). the sighting areas themselves should Brown 2014, p. 15). The Sonora Pass Overall, the best available information make transmission from one such area sighting area is unlikely to be exposed indicates that predation by dogs is not to another less likely, particularly for because CDFW does not stock fish from producing population-level or the Lassen, Sonora Pass, Crater Lake, northern California south of the Feather subspecies-level effects to Sierra Nevada and Mt. Hood sighting areas because River in order to prevent transmittal of red fox currently, nor is this stressor they are the most physically separated diseases (including SPD and EFF) (Beale expected to increase in the future. from the sighting areas nearest to them. 2011, p. 1). Therefore, predation by dogs is SPD and EFF are known to occur Overall, despite possible exposure to considered a low-level impact that may within the subspecies’ range and could pathogens, no outbreaks of sarcoptic potentially impact individuals across potentially result in bacterial infections mange, canine distemper, rabies, SPD, the subspecies’ range (although more that are typically fatal to canids. Foxes or EFF have been detected in Sierra likely in two of the seven sighting areas) are highly susceptible to SPD, as are Nevada red fox, and we have no and, therefore, does not rise to the level domestic dogs and coyotes (Cordy and evidence to suggest that disease has of a threat to the subspecies currently Gorham 1950, p. 622; Headley et al. impacted Sierra Nevada red fox in the nor is it likely to increase into the 2009, p. 1). The responsible bacterium, past, nor do we have evidence to suggest future. Neorickettsia helminthoeca, is that any diseases are present currently Sierra Nevada red fox could also be transmitted to canines when they eat or will be present in the future in any predated by coyotes (Factor C). Sierra infected fish (generally, but not solely, of the Sierra Nevada red fox sighting Nevada red fox and coyotes both are salmonids—trout or salmon), or infected areas. Additionally, given the current opportunistic predators with Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon sighting areas are disjunct from one considerable overlap in food consumed spp.) (Headley et al. 2009, pp. 3, 4; another, this would be beneficial in (Perrine 2005, pp. 36–37). Although no Rikihesa 2014, p. 2). The range of the terms of reducing the ease of direct documentation of coyote SPD (and thus presumably of the host transmission of disease between the predation on Sierra Nevada red fox is snail) extends north from California sighting areas, should an outbreak available, coyotes will chase and (north of the Sonora Pass sighting area, occur. Thus, as presented in the Species occasionally kill other North American but including the Lassen sighting area) Report and summarized here, the best red fox subspecies, and are considered through western Oregon (including the available scientific and commercial data important competitors of red fox western slopes of the Cascades) to the do not indicate that a disease outbreak generally (Perrine 2005, pp. 36, 55; Olympic Peninsula of Washington State has had, or is likely to have, a Perrine et al. 2010, p. 17). Thus, red (Headley et al. 2009, p. 2). Naturally significant population-level effect on foxes tend to avoid areas frequented by occurring cases of SPD infection have Sierra Nevada red fox. We note that coyotes (though not necessarily to the been found in red foxes in the past there is a low probability that a disease point of complete exclusion) (Perrine (Todoroff and Brown, p. 5), though outbreak may occur. We anticipate that 2005, p. 55). Additional discussion never in Sierra Nevada red fox. if there should be an outbreak, it will specifically related to coyote Additional future opportunities for likely have a low effect on all seven competition with Sierra Nevada red fox ingestion of infected fish may occur in sighting areas combined, as the distance is presented in Competition With the Lassen sighting area, as between them makes it unlikely that the Coyotes, above. improvements to Pine Creek allow effects of such an outbreak would The general tendency of red foxes to infected Eagle Lake trout to spawn in spread. Thus, we have determined that avoid coyotes often relegates them to headwaters of the creek within the disease has a low-level population suboptimal habitats and has likely been Lassen sighting area. EFF is widely impact across the range of the Sierra an important factor determining red fox present in Oregon and is transmitted in Nevada red fox and, therefore, does not distribution (Perrine 2010, p. 20; Sacks

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61001

et al. 2010b, p. 17). Perrine (2005, pp. year-round territory in the high- habitat more favorable to coyotes; and 84, 105) suggests that predation (and elevation portions of the range (Quinn the overall inability of the populations competition; see Competition With and Sacks 2014, p. 12). Sierra Nevada at those three locations to shift up in Coyotes, above) from coyotes is likely a red fox are likely to be most vulnerable elevation (i.e., the Crater Lake, Lassen, primary reason why the range of Sierra to predation and competition from and Sonora Pass populations appear at Nevada red fox is restricted to such high coyotes during early spring because or near the highest elevations available elevations. Sierra Nevada red fox typically establish for the subspecies). However, at this Minimal information exists on Sierra territories and begin raising pups time, the best available data indicate Nevada red fox and coyote interactions around that time. In some sighting areas, that predation is not impacting the with relation to the potential for the subspecies may be able to respond Sierra Nevada red fox at the subspecies- predation. Perrine’s (2005, pp. 73–74) to reduction of snowpacks and level to the degree that any more than investigations at the Lassen sighting encroachment of coyotes by retreating to individuals at a couple of the sighting area during summer months found higher elevations to raise pups. But in areas may be affected both currently and coyotes present at all elevations with a the Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass into the future. Further, the best positive correlation between Sierra sighting areas, Sierra Nevada red fox available data do not indicate that Nevada red fox and coyotes during that already occupy the highest available potential future changes in shifting time (which was a likely artifact of their elevations. habitat at high elevations (as suggested common affinity for roads (Perrine 2005, Recently, two packs of gray wolves by climate models) would occur within p. 83)). However, Perrine (2005, p. 192) have become established in the the next 50 years to such a degree that found coyote population density to be Southern Cascades between the Crater coyote numbers would increase greater at lower elevations, thus Lake and Lassen sighting areas (one significantly throughout the subspecies’ producing an elevational separation pack each in Oregon and California). It range to the point that coyote predation between most coyotes and the Sierra is probable that restoration of wolves to would rise to the level of a threat. Nevada red fox population. During the Southern Cascades in sustainable Therefore, based on the analysis winter months in the Lassen sighting populations would lower coyote contained within the Species Report area, Perrine (2005, pp. 30, 78) found population numbers or exclude them and summarized above, we have that both Sierra Nevada red fox and from higher elevation forested areas, determined that predation does not rise coyotes descended to lower elevations, thereby facilitating the persistence of to the level of a threat currently nor is where mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) nearby Sierra Nevada red fox it likely to increase into the future. (and more specifically in the case of populations (Levi and Wilmers 2012, p. Sierra Nevada red fox, mule deer 926); wolves are unlikely to compete Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox carrion) became important components heavily with Sierra Nevada red fox Hybridization of Sierra Nevada red of their diets. Perrine (2005, p. 31) also because they tend to take larger game fox with other nonnative red fox (Factor notes that Sierra Nevada red fox may (ODFW 2015, p. 8). At this time in E) could result in outbreeding potentially benefit from the presence of Oregon, ODFW’s conservation depression or genetic swamping (Quinn coyotes during winter by scavenging objectives for the wolf include and Sacks 2014, pp. 16–17). deer carcasses killed by coyotes. establishment of seven breeding pairs in Outbreeding depression is a reduction However, Sierra Nevada red fox, whose western Oregon for 3 consecutive years in survivorship or reproduction caused main winter food source (at the Lassen (ODFW 2010, p. 17). In California, the by an influx into the population of study site) was small rodents rather than wolf pack discovery is so new that alleles from other areas. Such a deer (Perrine 2005, p. 24), tend to stay CDFW and the Service have just reduction can be caused by the loss of at higher elevations than coyotes, initiated coordination efforts, and we locally adaptive alleles, or by the thereby reducing potential predation. anticipate additional conservation- breakup of co-adapted gene complexes At this time, the best available data related coordination efforts in the near (i.e., groups of alleles that work together indicate that coyotes are present year- future. Accordingly, we consider it to provide a particular ability or round throughout the subspecies’ range, likely that the current wolf population advantage in the native habitat) but generally at lower elevations than will expand over the next 50 years to (Templeton 1986, pp. 106–107; Quinn Sierra Nevada red fox during winter and effectively overlap the Crater Lake and Sacks 2014, p. 17). Genetic early spring when snowpacks are high sighting area, and possibly the swamping occurs when continued (Service 2015, p. 52). Regardless, Willamette Pass, Dutchman Flat, and influx of outside alleles cause the information does not indicate there has Mt. Washington sighting areas (ODFW replacement of most native alleles, been any coyote predation on Sierra 2015, pp. 3, 4). Therefore, we currently effectively turning what was once a Nevada red fox, nor is there any lack information that coyote predation native population into a population of information to indicate that coyotes are on Sierra Nevada red fox is likely to some other subspecies or species. increasing at any of the sighting areas. occur over the next 50 years at the The best available data indicate that However, as climate change progresses, Crater Lake sighting area, or at the three hybridization with nonnative red fox climatologists predict that snowpacks more-northerly Oregon sighting areas. has been documented within the Sierra are expected to diminish in the future Based on the best available scientific Nevada red fox’s range at two sighting (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3448; and commercial data, we find that areas. First, hybridization with Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 21). Thus, higher predation may have had an overall low- nonnative red fox is occurring at the elevations with deep snowpack that level impact to the Sierra Nevada red Sonora Pass sighting area (Quinn and currently deter coyotes may become fox due to the presence of coyotes co- Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). Researchers more favorable to them, potentially occurring at multiple sighting areas documented interbreeding between increasing the likelihood of coyote within the subspecies’ range; the female Sierra Nevada red fox and two predation in the future. For instance, in potential for predation in the Crater male nonnative red foxes, resulting in the Sonora Pass sighting area, unusually Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass sighting seven hybrid pups in 2013, and an low snowpacks occurred in 2013 (Rich areas into the future given climate additional four hybrid pups in 2014 2014, pers. comm., p. 1), which allowed model projections of decreased (Sacks et al. 2015, p. 3). These hybrids a family of four coyotes to establish a snowpack levels that may make the were the only clear indication of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

successful reproduction in the study Lake sighting area, given the high level heavily skewed by chance from 50:50 area between 2011 and 2014. In of recreational activity within or (Soule and Simberloff 1986, p. 28). comparison, only eight full-blooded adjacent to those sighting areas. Inbreeding depression may result from Sierra Nevada red fox were identified in However, no snowmobile-related the accumulation of deleterious alleles the area during those years (Sacks et al. incidents have been reported. (gene variants) in the population (Soule 2015, p. 3). Second, two Sierra Nevada Researchers are currently investigating 1980, pp. 157–158). This happens red fox individuals at the Mt. Hood potential impacts of snowmobile because alleles in general tend to be lost sighting area show evidence (via genetic activity to Sierra Nevada red fox in the quickly from small populations due to testing of mtDNA) of past hybridization Sonora Pass sighting area in accordance the chance nature of reproduction with nonnative red foxes, although the with Standard 32 from the SNFPA, (genetic drift) (Soule 1980, pp. 157– timing and extent of that hybridization which requires activities near verified 158). Additionally, inbreeding effects remains unknown (Akins and Sacks Sierra Nevada red fox sightings to be may occur because closely related 2015, p. 1). analyzed to determine if they have a individuals are likely to share many of Based on the information presented potential to affect the subspecies (USDA the same deleterious alleles, and are above and in the Species Report 2004, p. 54; Rich 2014, p. 1). Results are thus more likely to pass two copies of (Service 2015, pp. 42–43), the best not yet available, in part because the a deleterious allele to their young, even available data indicate that nonnative snowpack has been low during the last if non-deleterious versions of the gene red fox are currently present in one two winters (those ending in 2013 and still remain in the population (Soule sighting area (i.e., the Sonora Pass 2014), and, therefore, the area has not 1980, pp. 157–158). Over time, sighting area) and historically known been available for snowmobile use (Rich inbreeding depression also commonly from the Mt. Hood sighting area but not 2014, p. 1). Additionally, although no results in low reproductive success known to be present currently. These studies have been completed, the mere (Soule 1980, pp. 157–158; O’Brien 2003, are the only sighting areas within the location of the Sierra Nevada red fox pp. 62–63; Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. subspecies’ range where hybridization sightings in these areas suggest that the 15). Given the best available information has been documented to date, although subspecies adjusts to the noise involved, on Sierra Nevada red fox at this time, it is possible that nonnative red fox and that sufficient Sierra Nevada red fox we evaluated information suggesting could occur in other portions of the prey remain in such areas. that Sierra Nevada red fox populations subspecies’ range. At this time, based on Overall across the Sierra Nevada red may be small or isolated from one the best available scientific and fox’s range, few Sierra Nevada red fox another to the degree that such negative commercial information, this stressor are killed as the result of collisions with effects may be realized in the does not rise to the level of a threat to vehicles. We expect that in the future a subspecies. the subspecies because information small number of individuals will be It is probable that Sierra Nevada red indicates hybridization is currently struck by vehicles, including dispersing fox population densities have always occurring within portions of only one juveniles searching for unoccupied been relatively low, although historical sighting area across the subspecies’ suitable habitat for establishment of a populations likely have not been as range, with only a single record of past home range. However, the best available isolated as they appear to be today, hybridization occurring at the Mt. Hood information does not suggest any particularly in California. Based on sighting area, and we have no significant increases in vehicular traffic interviews with trappers, Grinnell et al. information to indicate this level of or new roads are likely in areas where (1937, p. 396) described Sierra Nevada impact will increase into the future. the subspecies occurs. Therefore, based red fox population numbers as on the information presented above and ‘‘relatively small, even in the most Vehicles in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. favorable territory,’’ and reported that Collision with vehicles (Factor E) is a 53–55), the best available data indicate the subspecies likely occurred at known source of mortality for the Sierra that the impact of vehicle collisions on densities of 1 per 2.6 square km (1 per Nevada red fox currently and is Sierra Nevada red fox will be minor and square mi). Perrine et al. (2010, p. 9) expected to continue into the future, continue at similar levels into the concluded from this that Sierra Nevada given the presence of roads within the future, resulting in a low-level impact red fox likely occur at low population range of the subspecies. A low density on the subspecies (i.e., impacts to densities even within areas of high of roads with heavy traffic traveling at individual Sierra Nevada red foxes as relative abundance. Additionally, high speeds (greater than 45 miles per opposed to populations); therefore, this although data are not available across hour) suggest that few individuals die stressor does not rise to the level of a the historical range of the subspecies, from vehicle collisions. There are a total threat. the best available information suggests of three reports since 2010 of road-killed that Sierra Nevada red fox distribution Small and Isolated Population Effects Sierra Nevada red foxes across the within California (i.e., Lassen and subspecies’ range, one each occurring at Small, isolated populations (Factor E) Sonora Pass sighting areas) has the Sonora Pass sighting area (California are more susceptible to impacts overall, contracted in the recent past. For State Highway 395), the Crater Lake and relatively more vulnerable to example, Schempf and White (1977, p. sighting area (main Park road near extinction due to genetic problems, 44) examined CDFW sighting and administration building), and near demographic and environmental trapping data and found that in Silver Lake, Oregon, about 80 km (50 fluctuations, and natural catastrophes California, the number of sightings and mi) west of the Crater Lake sighting area (Primack 1993, p. 255). That is, the trappings fell considerably in the mid- (Statham et al. 2012, p. 124; Mohren smaller a population becomes, the more 1900s as compared to similar data 2015, p. 1; Doerr 2015, p. 14). likely it is that one or more stressors reported by Grinnell et al. (1937, p. Snowmobiles are another potential could impact a population, potentially 389). source for collisions and noise reducing its size such that it is at At present, we have identified at least disturbance (Factor E) in all sighting increased risk of extinction. Particularly seven sighting areas: (1) Five in the areas with the exception potentially of small populations may suffer Oregon Cascades from Mt. Hood south the Lassen sighting area and a small area reproductive decreases due to to the Crater Lake vicinity; (2) one in the in the northwest portion of the Crater demographic stochasticity: A sex ratio southern extent of the Cascades in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61003

California (Lassen sighting area); and (3) mi), 45 km (28 mi), 50 km (31 mi), and it appears that considerable suitable one in the Sierra Nevada mountain 250 km (155 mi), respectively, and there habitat occurs at the appropriate range (Sonora Pass sighting area) (see are no clear barriers to dispersal, elevation throughout portions of the Figure 1, above). This represents a particularly within Oregon. Although subspecies historical range in the Sierra significant increase in our knowledge of these data are based on dispersal Nevada. the subspecies’ distribution as information for a different geographic Based upon the analysis contained compared to that known at the time of location and habitat type, it is the best within the Species Report and the 90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3, available dispersal information for red summarized above, we determined that 2012), which at that time included only fox, indicating that dispersal of Sierra impacts associated with small the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting Nevada red fox could be rare but population size is an overall moderate- areas. Surveys and incidental sightings possible between the majority of level impact, specifically as it relates to conducted in 2012 and 2013 include 35 sighting areas in the Southern Cascades the Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting from near Mt. Hood, 13 from around Mt. range. Based on our evaluation of the areas, which may be small and isolated Washington, 2 from near Dutchman best available information, the Sonora enough to be at risk of impacts from Flat, 8 from around Willamette Pass, Pass sighting area (and population) inbreeding depression and chance and 43 from the area of Crater Lake within the Sierra Nevada portion of the deleterious events. The primary risk of National Park (Sacks 2014b, pp. 3–5; subspecies’ range appears isolated, such impacts is in the future (within 50 Cascadia Wild 2014, p. 1). As a result given that it is 150 km (93 mi) from the years), although evidence of low of the newly identified area of the Lassen population to the north, with no reproductive success based on studies historical range in the Oregon Cascades, known Sierra Nevada red fox sightings in portions of both populations (see researchers have not yet determined the or populations to the south. At this Population/Abundance Information, exact number of individuals or time, the combined small size and above) suggest this could constitute a populations that currently exist in apparent isolation of the Sonora Pass current impact of inbreeding Oregon, nor the distribution of those population make future impacts from depression, but to an unknown degree. populations. It is likely the number of inbreeding depression and from Overall across the subspecies range at individuals actually sighted is less than stochastic events possible. this time, the best available information the number of actual individuals As stated above, information is not indicates that Sierra Nevada red foxes present in these sighting areas because available on population size and various may be reduced in distribution relative the same individual may be sighted life-history characteristics specific to the to their historical range (and possibly numerous times (Perrine 2005, pp. 147, Sierra Nevada red fox within the Oregon reduced in numbers relative to 148). Surveys are continuing at the time Cascades portion of the subspecies’ abundance); however, there is no range. The majority of information of publication of this document. empirical evidence that the Sierra In most cases of small populations, available on population size and life Nevada red fox is in decline across its genetic interchange need occur only history of the subspecies is from the two range. Thus, small or isolated occasionally between populations (a California sighting areas, both of which population size effects do not rise to the minimum of 1 migrant per generation, have been identified as two separate level of a threat either currently or in possibly up to 10 migrants per populations that are not interbreeding the future. generation) to offset the potential (based on genetic information (Statham negative impacts of inbreeding (e.g., et al. 2012, pp. 129–130)). Population Cumulative Effects Mills and Allendorf 1996, p. 1516; size for these known populations We estimate the potential impact of Wang 2004, entire). In addition, include: (1) Lassen—42 adults, or 21 each stressor described above acting depending on population sizes and the breeding and 21 nonbreeding alone on Sierra Nevada red fox distance between them, the ability of individuals; and (2) Sonora Pass—29 even a few individuals to move between adults, or 14 breeding and 15 individuals, populations, and suitable population areas can preserve the nonbreeding individuals (see Table 1, habitat. However, Sierra Nevada red fox potential for recolonization or above, for additional details). and suitable habitat can also be affected augmentation (Brown and Kodric- As stated above, survey efforts are by all or some of the stressors acting Brown 1977, entire). underway throughout the Oregon together. The combined effects of those For the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Cascades, having been limited to stressors could impact the subspecies or Southern Cascades range, suitable California prior to June 2010 (when the suitable habitat in an additive or habitat that could harbor additional Service learned that the Oregon synergistic manner. Acting together, one individuals or provide for dispersal Cascades range was newly considered to or more stressors could impact occurs between the Oregon sighting be a part of the subspecies’ historical individuals, a portion of a sighting area areas, as well as between the range). In the Sierra Nevada portion of or population, or available suitable southernmost Oregon sighting area the subspecies’ range, the majority of habitat to varying degrees or magnitude, (Crater Lake) and the northernmost information has been provided from whereas alone a single stressor may not California sighting area (Lassen). various carnivore and fox surveys significantly impact the subspecies or Although the Sierra Nevada red fox’s between 1996 and 2014 (Perrine 2005; its habitat. dispersal distance is not known, Mohren 2014; Sacks 2014b; Ferland Based on our analysis of all stressors Statham et al. (2012, p. 130) state that 2014; Akins 2014; Doerr 2015, pp. 1– that may be impacting Sierra Nevada juvenile male red foxes in the American 14). These surveys have been extensive red fox or their habitat, if any Midwest dispersed an average of 30 km throughout large portions of this portion cumulative impacts occur, they would (18.6 mi); juvenile females dispersed an of the range to such a degree that we do do so under the following two scenarios: average of 10 km (6.2 mi); and a few not anticipate other populations of (1) Potential increased competition young red foxes (5 percent) dispersed Sierra Nevada red fox currently within with coyotes on Sierra Nevada red fox over 80 km (50 mi) in their first year. the Sierra Nevada. Given the above as a result of high-elevation forested Distances between the Southern information, we consider the Sonora areas becoming more suitable for Cascades range sighting areas (north to Pass sighting area (population) to coyotes following potential impacts south) are 90 km (56 mi), 25 km (15.5 currently be isolated and small although from climate change (i.e., lowered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61004 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

snowpack levels, increased incidence best available data at this time indicate predation associated with the recently and extent of wildfires). that: established wolf pack (approximately 24 (2) A combination of potential (1) Potential impacts associated with km (15 mi) south of the Crater Lake stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping, hunting and trapping (Factor B), SPD sighting area). SPD and other diseases, competition and other diseases (Factor C), and (c) Some unknown level of nonnative and predation from coyotes, vehicles (Factor E) are negligible or red fox hybridization may continue into hybridization with nonnative red fox, nonexistent, and there is no indication the future within portions of the Sierra and vehicles) that directly result in that these stressors are expected to Nevada red fox’s range. However, the death or loss of reproductive ability for change into the future to such a degree best available data do not indicate that the Sierra Nevada red fox. that they would significantly contribute hybridization would increase to a Here we consider the impacts of each to decreased reproductive viability of significant degree throughout the Sierra of these potential cumulative effect the Sierra Nevada red fox either by Nevada red fox’s range within the next scenarios: themselves or cumulatively. 50 years such that the extent and Models of climate change predict (2) As discussed above under magnitude of impacts would be potential increases in temperature Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes, significant contributors to the overall within the Sierra Nevada red fox’s range Competition With Coyotes, and potential cumulative impacts to the Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox of the southern Cascades and Sierra subspecies across its range. At this time, sections, coyotes and nonnative red fox Nevada ranges. In turn, this could result hybridization is of concern specifically are currently known to occur in in lower snowpack levels and an at the Sonora Pass sighting area as multiple areas within the Sierra Nevada increase in the number and extent of opposed to across the entire range of the red fox’s range. Coyote abundance at wildfires, leading to increased subspecies (given the Sonora Pass high-elevation areas could increase in competition and predation from coyotes sighting area’s apparent small and the future if decreased snowpack levels that currently (and primarily) reside at isolated population size and recent lack at high elevations occur, potentially of reproduction with its own lower elevations in habitat that is more resulting in more favorable habitat subspecies). favorable to them. As described in our conditions for them. It is possible that In summary, the best available analyses discussing coyote predation nonnative red fox could also increase in scientific and commercial data at this (see Predation by Domestic Dogs or numbers in the future, or result in time do not show that combined effects Coyotes, above) and competition (see impacts greater than what has currently of the most likely cumulative impact Competition With Coyotes, above), we been observed. However, based on scenarios are resulting in significant expect that impacts associated with climate models and possible resultant individual-level effects to the Sierra coyotes may continue to occur in most changes in vegetation types, such Nevada red fox, or population-level sighting areas throughout the range of increases in abundance of either of these effects across multiple populations/ the Sierra Nevada red fox into the are not likely in the next 50 years. sighting areas. Although all or some of future, and that lowered snowpack Therefore, we do not believe increases the stressors could potentially act in levels or wildfire impacts that may in nonnative red foxes or coyotes will concert as a cumulative threat to the result in a shift in Sierra Nevada red fox contribute to cumulative effects to the Sierra Nevada red fox, there is distribution (where possible) is not Sierra Nevada red fox. Information to ambiguity in either the likelihood or likely over the next 50 years. Thus, we support this includes: level of impacts for the various stressors expect similar levels of competition and (a) The continued presence and at the population or rangewide level, or predation as what may be occurring spread of wolves across the west, it is the data indicate only individual-level currently throughout the subspecies reasonable to assume the two wolf packs impacts. It is probable that Sierra range, or possibly lowered levels as a now established in the Southern Nevada red fox populations today are result of the recent establishment of gray Cascades (i.e., between the Crater Lake smaller than historical times, which wolves in the southern portion of the and Lassen sighting areas) will remain potentially increases the vulnerability of Oregon Cascades. Therefore, the best and increase in pack size given ongoing the subspecies to potential cumulative available data at this time do not suggest conservation, thus further decreasing low- or medium-level impacts. that the cumulative effects of increased the likelihood and magnitude of coyote- Although the Lassen and Sonora Pass coyote numbers and climate change rise related impacts (due to expected populations experienced a bottleneck or to the level of a threat to the Sierra competition between wolves and decline in the recent past (Sacks et al. Nevada red fox overall. coyotes (see Competition With Coyotes, 2010a, pp. 1523, 1536), the best When a population is small, the above)) within this portion of the available information does not provide relative importance to the population of subspecies’ range into the. reliable evidence to suggest that Sierra each potentially reproducing individual (b) The majority of the Sierra Nevada Nevada red fox sighting areas (or known is increased. Thus, potential stressors red fox’s range harbors high-elevation populations specifically at the Lassen that directly result in death or loss of area above elevations considered and Sonora Pass sighting areas) are reproductive ability for individual suitable for coyotes. Thus, Sierra currently experiencing population Sierra Nevada red fox where their Nevada red fox could utilize this declines or further reductions in populations are known to be small additional area if snowpack levels distribution, which would be indicative could have a greater relative impact on decrease from their current extent. The of such impacts. Thus, the best available small populations than on larger ones. least amount of additional high- scientific and commercial data do not As indicated above, the stressors that elevation area available for Sierra indicate that these stressors are could potentially impact the Nevada red fox to shift upwards is at the cumulatively causing now or will cause reproductive ability of the Sierra Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas, in the future a substantial decline of the Nevada red fox include hunting and and no shift up in elevation appears Sierra Nevada red fox across its range. trapping, SPD and other diseases, available at the Crater Lake sighting Therefore, we have determined that the competition and predation from area. However, the latter is also the cumulative impacts of these potential coyotes, hybridization with nonnative closest sighting area to benefit from stressors do not rise to the level of a red fox, and collision with vehicles. The decreased potential coyote competition/ threat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61005

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Service must have an LRMP to guide C11; USDA 2015, p. 4), all of which Existing regulatory mechanisms that and set standards for all natural includes habitat managed over the long affect the Sierra Nevada red fox include resource management activities on each term that will likely continue to benefit laws and regulations promulgated by National Forest or National Grassland. the Sierra Nevada red fox. the Federal and individual State Current LRMPs within the range of the Forest Service lands outside of the governments (Factor D). Federal Sierra Nevada red fox were developed NWFP areas (a portion of lands within agencies manage nearly all of the lands under the 1982 planning rule (47 FR the Lassen and Sonora Pass Sighting represented by the currently known 43026; September 30, 1982, pp. 43037– areas) operate under LRMPs that have sighting areas, with the exception of a 43052), which required the Forest been amended by the SNFPA, which few private inholdings in the Lassen Service to maintain viable populations was finalized in 2004 (USDA 2000, sighting area. No tribal governments of existing native and desired nonnative volume 3, chapter 3, part 4.4.1, pp. 2– (sovereign entities with their own vertebrate species. Recently revised 18; USDA 2001, entire; USDA 2004, system of laws and regulations) own or NFMA planning rules (77 FR 21162, entire). The SNFPA requires fire and manage lands within potentially April 9, 2012) require National Forests fuels management projects in most areas suitable habitat within the range of the to use an ecosystem and species-specific to retain at least 40 percent (preferably subspecies. Stressors acting on the approach in their LRMPs to provide for 50 percent) canopy cover within a Sierra Nevada red fox for which the diversity of plant and animal treatment unit, and effectively requires governments may have regulatory communities and maintain the retention of trees 63.5 cm (25 in) control include impacts associated with persistence of native species in the plan diameter at breast height (dbh) in most wildfire and fire suppression (Factor areas. As stated above, the Sierra treated areas (USDA 2004, pp. 3, 50). A—habitat modification or loss), injury Nevada red fox is a sensitive species of This is close to the preferred winter or mortality due to fur trapping (Factor conservation concern under these new habitat characteristics discussed above B), and collision with vehicles (Factor rules in all the National Forests in for the Lassen Sighting area (60 cm (23.6 E). These regulations differ among which it occurs. in) dbh and 40 percent or greater canopy closure). SNFPA Standard and government entities, are explained in The NWFP (USDA and U.S. Guideline #32 requires the Forest detail in the Species Report (Service Department of the Interior (USDI) 1994, Service to conduct an analysis to 2015, pp. 58–63), and are summarized entire) was adopted by the Forest determine whether activities within 8 below. Service in 1994, to guide the km (5 mi) of a verified Sierra Nevada Federal management of over 9.7 million ha (24 red fox sighting have the potential to million ac) of Federal lands (USDA and Forest Service affect the species (USDA 2004, p. 54). It USDI 1994, p. 2) in portions of western also mandates a limited operating The Forest Service policy manual Washington and Oregon, and period of January 1 to June 30 as (USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22) allows northwestern California within the necessary to avoid adverse impacts to for designation of sensitive species of range of the northern spotted owl (Strix potential breeding, and it requires 2 management concern. The Sierra occidentalis caurina). The NWFP years of evaluations for activities near Nevada red fox is a sensitive species amends the LRMPs of National Forests sightings that are not associated with a where it occurs on National Forests in (i.e., the Mt. Hood, Willamette, den site. California (U.S. Forest Service Region 5) Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, and Additionally, in accordance with the and in Oregon (U.S. Forest Service Rogue River National Forest’s LRMPs) requirements of the SNFPA, vehicle use Region 6) (USDA 2013, p. 1; Chapman and is intended to provide the basis for that may impact Sierra Nevada red fox 2015, Excel attch., wksht. 2, line 655). conservation of the spotted owl and is managed to a limited extent to reduce The Sensitive Species Policy is other late-successional, old-growth potential impacts to Sierra Nevada red contained in the Forest Service Manual, forest associated species on Federal fox (e.g., limiting OHV use to designated section 2670.32 (USDA Forest Service lands. The NWFP is important for the OHV use areas and trails, limiting 2005, section 2670.32) and calls for Sierra Nevada red fox because the snowmobile use in the Sonora Pass National Forests to assist and coordinate conservation initially established to sighting area to a designated BWRA with other Federal agencies and States benefit the northern spotted owl also area). All Oregon sighting areas include to conserve these species. Special creates a network of late-successional roads and snowmobile trails, though the consideration for sensitive species is and old-growth forests that help meet relative areas devoted to such use differ. made during land use planning and the Sierra Nevada red fox’s habitat Those areas with off-road, regulated activity implementation to ensure requirements (see Summary of Species travel include: species viability and to preclude Information, above, and the ‘‘Habitat’’ (1) Mt. Hood sighting area is mostly population declines that could lead to a section of the Species Report (Service designated wilderness, although a few Federal listing under the Act (USDA 2015, pp. 14–16)) at four of five Oregon off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails exist Forest Service 2005, section 2670.22). sighting areas (i.e., Mt. Hood, Mt. near Sierra Nevada red fox sightings at At this time, proposed activities that Washington, Dutchman Flat, and lower elevations. occur within National Forests within Willamette Pass Sighting areas). (2) The Mt. Washington sighting area the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox Additionally, the NWFP establishes has many miles of snowmobile and will include measures to avoid or reserve lands (consisting of OHV trails. minimize project-related impacts to the Congressionally Reserved Areas such as (3) The Dutchman Flat sighting area subspecies and its habitat. Wilderness Areas, Late Successional harbors numerous snow-parks, with National Forest management is Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn many miles of snowmobile and OHV directed by the Multiple-Use Sustained- areas, and any additional reserved areas trails. Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 identified by the LRMP for the National (4) Willamette Pass is a high-use U.S.C. 528 et seq.) and the National Forest in question) that are managed to recreational area at all times of the year, Forest Management Act of 1976, as protect and enhance conditions of late- including extensive use of snowmobiles, amended (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600 et successional and old-growth forest and snow groomers at the Willamette seq.). NFMA specifies that the Forest ecosystems (USDA and USDI 1994, C8– pass Ski Area; the effects to the local

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61006 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Sierra Nevada red fox population are maintain Sierra Nevada red fox habitat. so accidental harvest of Sierra Nevada unknown at this time. Prescribed fire is often used as a habitat red fox incidental to legal trapping of (5) The Lassen National Forest management tool by the Park Service. other species is unlikely (see Trapping prohibits wheeled vehicle travel except The effects of these burns on the or Hunting, above). Between 2000 and on designated routes and limited OHV subspecies have not been directly 2011, approximately 150 trapping use areas (USDA 2009, pp. iii, 461). studied, the best available data do not permits were sold annually in Additionally, National Forest’s indicate direct mortality to red foxes California; thus, the effects of legal LRMPs that are covered by the SNFPA from fires, and fuels reduction through trapping to all species combined are (Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Tahoe, prescribed fire will likely benefit Sierra probably low (Callas 2013, p. 6). El Dorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and Nevada red fox in the long term by Licensed trappers must pass a trapping Sequoia National Forests) or within the reducing the threat of Sierra Nevada red competence and proficiency test and Intermountain Region (Humboldt- fox habitat loss (Truex and Zielinski must report their trapping results Toiyabe National Forest) provide direct 2013, p. 90; Zielinski 2014, pp. 411– annually. Scientists who are trapping and indirect protections to Sierra 412). Additionally, hunting and Sierra Nevada red foxes for research Nevada red fox and their habitat (e.g., trapping are generally prohibited in purposes must obtain a memorandum of implementing fuels reduction activities National Parks, which is the case at both understanding from the State (California to reduce the likelihood of overly large, Crater Lake and Lassen Volcanic Fish and Game Code, sections 1002 and high-severity wildfire) beyond those National Parks where Sierra Nevada red 1003, and section 650). Additionally, National Forests that limit OHV and fox are known to reside. strict trapping and handling protocols snowmobile vehicle activity. must be adhered to by researchers to Finally, the Omnibus Public Land State ensure the safety of study animals. Management Act of 2009 (OPLMA) Oregon (Pub. L. 111–11, p. 1059) establishes the Summary of Existing Regulatory Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area for Sierra Nevada red fox in Oregon may Mechanisms control of winter vehicles on Forest be hunted and trapped, including with Overall, existing Federal and State Service land, consisting of about 2,833 use of dogs (635 Oregon Administrative land-use plans include some general ha (7,000 ac) in the northern portion of Rules 050–0045(1), 0045(8)). As conservation measures for northern the Sonora Pass sighting area (USDA discussed above (see Trapping or spotted owl habitat that are not specific 2010, p. 4). The OPLMA states that the Hunting, above, and the ‘‘Hunting and to Sierra Nevada red fox but nonetheless winter use of snowmobiles is allowed in Trapping’’ section of the Species Report provide a benefit to the subspecies, for the Recreation Area, subject to terms (Service 2015, pp. 32–34)), actual example through the maintenance and and conditions established by the impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox are recruitment of late-successional forest Secretary of Agriculture. Prior to difficult to determine because of record- and old-growth habitat. Most passage of the OPLMA, the area had keeping conventions, but likely to be management plans address structural been under consideration for relatively low because relatively few red habitat features (e.g., snags that could be designation as wilderness, although fox (some of which may be Sierra utilized as denning structures) or land snowmobile use had been allowed in Nevada red fox) are removed from an allocations (e.g., reserves, wilderness the area since 2005 (USDA 2010, pp. 3– unknown number of populations as a areas) that contribute to the Sierra 4). The Forest Service has completed a result of fur trapping in Oregon, and we Nevada red fox’s habitat. These land-use management plan that calls for have no evidence to suggest that the plans are typically general in nature and monitoring of impacts to wildlife subspecies is in decline as a afford relatively broad latitude to land (USDA 2010, p. 9), and is proceeding consequence of fur trapping. managers, but with explicit sideboards with evaluations of impacts to Sierra California for directing management activities. Nevada red fox in accordance with Federal regulatory mechanisms have Standard 32 from the SNFPA (see The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) abated the large-scale loss of late-seral Vehicles, above). prohibits possession, purchase, or coniferous forest habitat. Much of the ‘‘take’’ of threatened or endangered land in Federal ownership across the National Park Service species without an incidental take range of the Sierra Nevada red fox is Statutory direction for the National permit, issued by CDFW. The Sierra managed for interconnected blocks of Park Service lands that overlap the Nevada red fox was designated as a late-successional forests that are likely Sierra Nevada red fox’s range is threatened species under CESA in 1980 to benefit the Sierra Nevada red fox. provided by provisions of the National (CDFW 2014, p. 12). Therefore, CESA Timber harvest has been substantially Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as establishes protections to Sierra Nevada reduced on Forest Service lands within amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the red fox by emphasizing early the NWFP area, and does not occur on National Park Service General consultation to avoid potential impacts National Park Service lands, and Authorities Act of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a– to the subspecies, and to develop existing management is designed to 1). Natural resources are managed to appropriate mitigation planning to offset maintain or increase the amount and ‘‘preserve fundamental physical and project caused losses associated with quality of coniferous forest that provides biological processes, as well as the listed subspecies. Sierra Nevada red fox habitat, including individual species, features, and plant The State of California classifies red the ability of these areas to potentially and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS foxes as a furbearing mammal that is help connect populations of the 2006, p. 36). Land management plans protected from commercial harvest (14 subspecies. Outside of public (Federal) for the National Parks do not contain California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.) ownership, forest practice rules provide specific measures to protect Sierra 460), and provides protection to Sierra no explicit protection for Sierra Nevada Nevada red fox or their habitat, but Nevada red foxes in the form of fines red fox; however, there are limited areas not developed specifically for between $300 and $2,000, and up to a protections for habitat of value to the recreation and camping are managed year in jail for illegal trapping (114 subspecies. toward natural processes and species C.C.R. 465.5(h)). Body-gripping traps are Based on the analyses contained composition and are expected to also generally prohibited in California, within the Species Report (Service 2015,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61007

pp. 58–63) and summarized above on is warranted if, based on our review of consideration of wildfire and fire the existing regulatory mechanisms for the best available scientific and suppression to constitute an overall the Sierra Nevada red fox, we conclude commercial data, we find that the low-level impact that does not rise to that the best available scientific and stressors to the Sierra Nevada red fox the level of a threat both currently and commercial information, overall, are so severe or broad in scope as to into the future. indicates that the existing regulatory indicate that the subspecies is in danger • The severity of potential climate mechanisms are adequate to address of extinction (endangered), or likely to change impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox impacts to the subspecies from the become endangered within the habitat will likely vary across its range, stressors for which governments may foreseeable future (threatened), with effects to the subspecies have regulatory control (i.e., wildfire throughout all or a significant portion of potentially ranging from negative to and fire suppression (Factor A), injury its range. neutral. Although many climate models or mortality due to fur trapping (Factor For the purposes of this evaluation, generally agree about the changes in B), and collision with vehicles (Factor we are required to consider potential overall temperature and precipitation E)). impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox (the latter as it relates to precipitation into the foreseeable future. Based on the falling potentially more as rain as Conservation Efforts best available scientific and commercial opposed to snow at some upper Because the Sierra Nevada red fox has information and to provide the elevations), the consequent effects on only been documented to date to occur necessary temporal context for assessing the landscape are more uncertain, as is on Forest Service and NPS lands, stressors to Sierra Nevada red fox, we the rate at which any such changes primary conservation actions currently determined 50 years to be the might be realized. Therefore, it is not fall to those land management agencies, foreseeable future because the clear how or when changes in snowpack as well as the States. Various likelihood and severity of future at the upper elevations will affect the conservation and management efforts impacts became too uncertain to address distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox or have been occurring since beyond a 50-year timeframe (see coyotes, the latter of which may approximately 1974, including: (1) examples and further discussion for this compete or predate upon the Significant subspecies-specific time period in the general discussion subspecies. Overall, we lack sufficient protections in California from hunting above under Summary of Information information to predict with any and trapping as a California-stated listed Pertaining to the Five Factors). certainty the future direct or indirect species in 1980; (2) minimized impacts We evaluated each of the potential impacts of climate change on Sierra from various stressors by the Forest stressors in the Species Report (Service Nevada red fox habitat or populations. Service as a result of its sensitive 2015, pp. 21–58) for the Sierra Nevada Consequently, we have determined that species designation in California (since red fox, and we determined that the we do not have reliable information to 1998) and Oregon (since 2015); and (3) following are factors that have either suggest that climate change rises to the National Park Service protections at the minimally impacted individuals, to the level of a threat to the Sierra Lassen and Crater Lake sighting areas impacted one or more sighting areas (or Nevada red fox now or in the future (i.e., associated with their requirement to known populations), or may potentially conditions are not expected to change to ‘‘preserve fundamental physical and impact individuals, sighting areas, or a degree that would be considered biological processes, as well as known populations in the future: significant within the next 50 years), individual species, features, and plant wildfire and fire suppression (Factor A), although we will continue to seek and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS habitat impacts due to the effects of additional information concerning how 2006, p. 36). All beneficial conservation climate change (Factor A), trapping (for climate change may affect Sierra Nevada or management actions are described fur and research purposes) (Factor B), red fox habitat. above and in the Species Report disease (Factor C), predation (Factor C), • Trapping or hunting for Sierra (Service 2015, p. 63) and under the hybridization with nonnative red fox Nevada red fox fur has no impact to the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor E), competition with coyotes subspecies in California because section, above. We also note that we (Factor E), collisions with vehicles trapping for Sierra Nevada red fox is anticipate coordinating with our Federal (Factor E), and small and isolated illegal in California. Possible illegal fur and State partners in the future if we population size effects (Factor E). Our trapping in California, as well as collectively determine that translocation analysis resulted in the following rangewide potential impacts associated of Sierra Nevada red fox individuals to conclusions for each of the stressors: with live-trapping for research purposes different populations are prudent to aid • Wildfire or fire suppression impacts or incidental trapping of Sierra Nevada in the conservation of the subspecies. may occur throughout the range of the red fox (when intentionally trapping for Sierra Nevada red fox. There may be an other furbearer species), is not expected Finding overall increased risk of wildfire, as to result in population-level impacts. As required by the Act, we considered demonstrated by recent occurrence of Some Sierra Nevada red fox could be the five factors in assessing whether the wildfires and potential predictions into trapped in Oregon where fur trapping Sierra Nevada red fox is an endangered the future related to temperature and for all red fox subspecies is legal, or threatened species throughout all of precipitation (see Climate Change). At although we estimate that potential its range. We examined the best this time, there are no reports of direct impacts will not be significant at the scientific and commercial data available mortality to red foxes from wildfires, population- or rangewide-level based on regarding the past, present, and future and wildfires can improve habitat for the best available trapping data for stressors faced by the Sierra Nevada red red foxes by removing competing Oregon. Additionally, potential impacts fox. We reviewed the petition, vegetation and encouraging production to Sierra Nevada red fox from live- information available in our files, and of grasses and shrubs favored by small trapping and handling for research other available published and mammals (Tesky 1995, p. 7), which the purposes is discountable because the unpublished information, and we Sierra Nevada red fox depends upon as best available data indicate that no consulted with recognized Sierra a prey base. Accordingly, these potential Sierra Nevada red fox have been injured Nevada red fox and habitat experts, and impacts are balanced with the potential or killed during research-related live- other Federal and State agencies. Listing benefits, thus resulting in our trapping efforts. Available information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61008 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

does not suggest that there would be any models) would occur within the next 50 individuals) has contracted from the change to the level of anticipated years to such a degree that coyote past in California. This contraction impacts of live-trapping and handling numbers would increase throughout the cannot be determined with certainty for for research purposes into the future. subspecies’ range to the point that Oregon given the Sierra Nevada red Thus, impacts from fur trapping and coyote predation or competition would fox’s range in the Oregon Cascades is a trapping for research purposes across rise to the level of a threat. recent discovery since publication of the the Sierra Nevada red fox’s range do not • Hybridization with nonnative red 90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3, rise to the level of a threat. fox has been documented to occur in 2012). We note that the Sierra Nevada • Disease has not been documented two sighting areas, although one (Mt. red fox rangewide distribution and within Sierra Nevada red fox Hood) is a genetic record indicating possibly abundance may have declined individuals or the known populations. hybridization at some point in the past. at some point in the past based on The prevalence of possible past Recent hybridization was documented historical trapping numbers (Grinnell et exposure to lethal pathogens within the at the Sonora Pass sighting area based al. 1937, p. 389; Schempf and White subspecies has not been determined, on recent research in a portion of the 1977, p. 44) compared to our current and we have no information to suggest sighting area. Hybridization involved knowledge of the subspecies’ abundance that disease is currently present in any interbreeding between female Sierra and distribution, where available. The portion of the subspecies’ range. At this Nevada red fox and two male nonnative abundance, trend, and numbers of point in time, there is a low probability red foxes, which resulted in seven Sierra Nevada red fox populations in that a disease outbreak may occur. We hybrid pups in 2013, followed by an Oregon are unknown, although recent anticipate that if there should be an additional four hybrid pups in 2014 surveys within the Oregon Cascades are outbreak, it would likely have a low (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 16, 30). Although documenting the presence of Sierra impact on all seven sighting areas interbreeding is documented, it is only Nevada red fox. Although the known combined since the distance between known to be a current impact within a sighting areas are disjunct, the dispersal those sighting areas makes it unlikely portion of one sighting area across the capabilities of Sierra Nevada red fox that an outbreak would spread to all subspecies’ range. At this time, based on suggest the potential for interchange of seven sighting areas. Thus, disease does the best available scientific and individuals between sighting areas, with not rise to the level of a threat. commercial information, this stressor • the exception of the Sonora Pass Predation is possible by both does not rise to the level of a threat sighting area where genetic analysis domestic dogs and coyotes, the latter of because information indicates reveals a clear separation and lack of which could also potentially include hybridization is currently occurring breeding with the next closest northern competition with coyotes for resources. within a portion of only one sighting Sierra Nevada red fox population in the For domestic dogs, although one area across the subspecies’ range. We Lassen sighting area. The best available documented case of a dog attack on have no information to indicate this data at this time indicate that although Sierra Nevada red fox (resulting in level of impact will increase across the Sierra Nevada red fox may be reduced death) has occurred, data indicate that subspecies’ range in the future. in abundance or distribution relative to predation by dogs is not expected to • Potential vehicle impacts include their historical numbers and range, increase in the future based on our both collisions and noise disturbance. there is no empirical evidence that any evaluation of recent information. Thus, Collisions with vehicles are rare, but current populations of Sierra Nevada population-level or subspecies-level they can be expected into the future. red fox in Oregon are in decline. Thus, effects to Sierra Nevada red fox are not Known rates of mortality due to small or isolated population size effects likely to occur both currently or in the collisions with vehicles have been low when considering the subspecies across future. For coyotes, predation and for Sierra Nevada red fox, and the best its entire range do not rise to the level competition have an overall medium- available information does not suggest of a threat either currently or in the level impact to the Sierra Nevada red increases in vehicular traffic or roads to be built in areas where the subspecies foreseeable future. fox due to: • (a) The presence of coyotes co- occurs. In addition to collisions, Sierra Potential cumulative impacts to the occurring at multiple sighting areas Nevada red fox could be impacted from Sierra Nevada red fox are possible; within the subspecies’ range. noise disturbance associated with however, the most likely scenarios for (b) The potential for increased recreational areas; however, the cumulative impacts are likely to only predation in the Crater Lake, Lassen, magnitude of impacts from noise is occur from the following two scenarios: and Sonora Pass sighting areas into the unknown, and the location of the (1) Potential increased competition with future given climate model projections subspecies’ sightings in these areas and predation by coyotes on Sierra of decreased snowpack levels that may suggest that they adjust to the noise Nevada red fox as a result of high- make the habitat more favorable to involved. Overall, it is reasonable to elevation areas becoming more suitable coyotes. expect the impact of vehicles on Sierra for coyotes as a result of climate change; (c) The overall inability of the Nevada red fox to be minor and and (2) a combination of potential populations at those three locations to continue at similar levels into the stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping in shift up in elevation. future, thus not rising to the level of a Oregon, SPD and other diseases, However, the best available data threat. competition and predation from indicate that predation and competition • Small, isolated populations are coyotes, hybridization with nonnative are not impacting the Sierra Nevada red susceptible to inbreeding depression, red fox, vehicles) that directly result in fox at the subspecies-level to the degree and are more susceptible to losses from death of loss of reproductive ability for that any more than individuals at a other stressors. Therefore, we evaluated the Sierra Nevada red fox. Based on the couple sighting areas may be affected whether the Sierra Nevada red fox may best available data at this time and as both currently and into the future. have small and isolated populations described above, none of these possible Additionally, there is no indication that where these negative effects are likely to cumulative impacts are likely to occur potential future changes in snowpack be realized. At this time, evidence currently nor are they likely to increase levels or shifting habitat at high suggests that Sierra Nevada red fox or into the foreseeable future to such a elevations (as suggested by climate distribution (and likely numbers of degree that the effects are expected to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61009

lead to or rangewide-level declines. of Sierra Nevada red fox. As indicated extinction throughout all or a significant Therefore, the cumulative impact of above, survey efforts are underway portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened these potential stressors does not rise to throughout Oregon at the time of the species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely the level of a threat. publication of this document. In to become an endangered species within We also evaluated existing regulatory general, the interchange of only a few the foreseeable future throughout all or mechanisms (Factor D) and did not individuals is needed to maintain a significant portion of its range.’’ The determine an inadequacy of existing genetic connectivity between term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any regulatory mechanisms for the Sierra populations over time. As described in subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, Nevada red fox. Specifically, we found this document and the Species Report and any distinct population segment that multiple Federal land use plans (Service 2015, entire), there are stressors [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or (e.g., LRMPs, NWFP, SNFPA), plus State that we find may be having some effect wildlife which interbreeds when regulations in California that prevent on Sierra Nevada red foxes, albeit not to mature.’’ We published a final policy hunting/trapping of Sierra Nevada red the degree that they currently rise to the interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant fox, are being implemented, often level that listing the entire subspecies is Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR providing broad latitude for land warranted. We will continue to monitor 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy managers, but with explicit sideboards the status of the subspecies and evaluate states that (1) if a species is found to be for directing management activities. We any other information we receive. an endangered or a threatened species note that significant Federal efforts have Additional information will continue to throughout a significant portion of its been developed and are being be accepted on all aspects of the range, the entire species is listed as an implemented (e.g., NWFP) to abate the subspecies. If at any time data indicate endangered or a threatened species, large-scale loss of forested habitat-types that protective status under the Act respectively, and the Act’s protections that the Sierra Nevada red fox depends should be provided or if there are new apply to all individuals of the species upon. Beneficial management efforts of threats or increasing stressors that rise wherever found; (2) a portion of the habitat occupied by Sierra Nevada red to the level of a threat, we can initiate range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the fox are also underway on Forest Service listing procedures, including, if species is not currently an endangered and NPS lands that currently constitute appropriate, emergency listing pursuant or a threatened species throughout all of the entire area known to be occupied by to section 4(b)(7) of the Act. its range, but the portion’s contribution Sierra Nevada red fox, which in turn In conclusion, we acknowledge that to the viability of the species is so will promote further recruitment of such the Sierra Nevada red fox populations in important that, without the members in suitable habitat. California (and possibly Oregon) may be that portion, the species would be in None of these impacts, as summarized reduced in size relative to their danger of extinction, or likely to become above, was found to individually or historical abundance, and that the so in the foreseeable future, throughout cumulatively impact the Sierra Nevada subspecies may be reduced in all of its range; (3) the range of a species red fox to a degree such that listing is distribution as compared to its historical is considered to be the general warranted at this time. Based on the range. A listing determination, however, geographical area within which that analysis contained within the Species must be based on our assessment of the species can be found at the time the Report (Service 2015, pp. 21–58), we current status of the subspecies in Service or NMFS makes any particular conclude that the best available relation to the five listing factors under status determination; and (4) if a scientific and commercial information the Act. Section 4 of the Act requires vertebrate species is an endangered or a indicates that these stressors are not that we make such a determination threatened species throughout an SPR, singly or cumulatively causing a decline based solely on the best scientific and and the population in that significant of the Sierra Nevada red fox or its commercial data available. To this end, portion is a valid DPS, we will list the habitat currently, nor are the stressors we must rely on reasonable conclusions DPS rather than the entire taxonomic likely to be significant in the foreseeable as supported by the best available species or subspecies. future to the degree that they would science to assess the current and future result in declines of multiple status to determine whether the Sierra The SPR Policy is applied to all status populations (represented by the seven Nevada red fox meets the definition of determinations, including analyses for sighting areas) such that the subspecies an endangered or threatened species the purposes of making listing, would be in danger of extinction, or under the Act. Based on our review of delisting, and reclassification likely to become so within the the best available scientific and determinations. The procedure for foreseeable future. commercial information pertaining to analyzing whether any portion is an We recognize a need to continue to the five factors, we find that the SPR is similar, regardless of the type of monitor the Sierra Nevada red fox stressors acting upon the Sierra Nevada status determination we are making. throughout its range because the red fox are not of sufficient imminence, The first step in our analysis of the currently known sighting areas are intensity, or magnitude to indicate that status of a species (‘‘species’’ under the disjunct (with an unknown number of the subspecies is in danger of extinction Act refers to any listable entity, populations in Oregon), which in now (endangered), or likely to become including species, subspecies, or DPS) is general could make them more endangered within the foreseeable to determine its status throughout all of susceptible to stressors than species future (threatened), throughout all of its its range. If we determine that the with large, well-connected populations. range. species is in danger of extinction, or There has been relatively little survey likely to become so in the foreseeable effort specifically for Sierra Nevada red Significant Portion of the Range future, throughout all of its range, we fox in portions of its range (e.g., Mt. Under the Act and our implementing list the species as an endangered (or Shasta vicinity, are extending regulations, a species may warrant threatened) species and no SPR analysis southward along the Sierra Nevada from listing if it is an endangered or a is required. If the species is neither an the Yosemite National Park area), as threatened species throughout all or a endangered nor a threatened species opposed to general carnivore surveys, significant portion of its range. The Act throughout all of its range, we which may not be sufficient to defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any determine whether the species is an accurately determine presence/absence species which is ‘‘in danger of endangered or a threatened species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

throughout a significant portion of its status question first. Thus, if we Fur trapping of Sierra Nevada red fox range. If it is, we list the species as an determine that a portion of the range is is illegal in California but legal for other endangered or a threatened species, not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to furbearer species. We expect that nearly respectively; if it is not, we conclude determine whether the species is an all Sierra Nevada red fox that are that listing the species is not warranted. endangered or a threatened species accidentally captured in box traps set When we conduct an SPR analysis, there; if we determine that the species for other furbearer species (or that are we first identify any portions of the is not an endangered or a threatened live-trapped for research purposes) are species’ range that warrant further species in a portion of its range, we do released unharmed. Although illegal fur consideration. The range of a species not need to determine if that portion is trapping specifically for Sierra Nevada can theoretically be divided into ‘‘significant.’’ red fox is also a possibility in California, portions in an infinite number of ways. We consider the historical range of the best available data at this time do However, there is no purpose to the Sierra Nevada red fox to include: (1) not indicate that illegal fur trapping or analyzing portions of the range that are The Southern Cascades (from the incidental legal live-trapping for the not reasonably likely to be significant Columbia River at Mt. Hood south into subspecies for research purposes is and either endangered or threatened. To California, including the area of Mt. resulting in population-level impacts. identify only those portions that warrant Shasta and slightly into the Trinity Overall, we do not find that the further consideration, we determine Mountains, and continuing south to the potential impacts from fur trapping whether there is substantial information Lassen Peak area), and (2) the Sierra (illegal or legal) and live-trapping for indicating that (1) the portions may be Nevada (the upper elevations of the research purposes are geographically significant, and (2) the species may be Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from concentrated in any one portion of the in danger of extinction in those portions Sierra to Tulare Counties). This range Sierra Nevada red fox’s range. Moreover, or likely to become so within the includes those mountainous areas that we do not find that that trapping rises foreseeable future. We emphasize that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in California to the level of a threat to the species, answering these questions in the (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and 1,219 m and therefore it is unlikely that the affirmative is not a determination that (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015, Sierra Nevada red fox would be found the species is an endangered or a pp. 1–2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3, 13–144, to be endangered or threatened in any threatened species throughout a line 7). Based on the best available portion of its range as a result of significant portion of its range—rather, information at this time, the seven trapping. it is a step in determining whether a sighting areas described above account (2) Only two sighting areas (Mt. Hood more detailed analysis of the issue is for the current distribution of the and Sonora Pass) show evidence of required. In practice, a key part of this subspecies. hybridization with nonnative red fox. analysis is whether the threats are However, there are no geographic In considering any significant portion geographically concentrated in some barriers preventing nonnative red fox of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s range, we way. If the threats to the species are from interacting with Sierra Nevada red considered whether the stressors facing affecting it uniformly throughout its fox throughout the remainder of the range, no portion is likely to warrant the subspecies might be different at the subspecies’ range. At the Mt. Hood further consideration. Moreover, if any seven sighting areas where the Sierra sighting area, two Sierra Nevada red fox concentration of threats apply only to Nevada red fox has been found and, individuals show evidence (via genetic portions of the range that clearly do not thus, geographically concentrated in testing of mtDNA) of past hybridization meet the biologically based definition of some portion of the subspecies’ range. with nonnative red foxes (Akins and ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that In the Summary of Information Sacks 2015, p. 1). At a portion of the portion clearly would not be expected to Pertaining to the Five Factors analysis, Sonora Pass sighting area, interbreeding increase the vulnerability to extinction above, we identified the most likely between female Sierra Nevada red fox of the entire species), those portions potential differences associated with and two male nonnative red foxes will not warrant further consideration. trapping or hunting for fur, resulted in seven hybrid pups in 2013, If we identify any portions that may hybridization with nonnative red fox, and an additional four pups in 2014 be both (1) significant and (2) and coyote predation or competition (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). endangered or threatened, we engage in (and its association with climate During the same time period, no a more detailed analysis to determine change). successful fully native reproduction was whether these standards are indeed met. (1) Trapping or hunting for fur is legal documented. If this trend continues, The identification of an SPR does not in Oregon, and thus four Oregon then the Sonora population could create a presumption, prejudgment, or sighting areas may be affected by this become completely hybridized within a other determination as to whether the activity. Population-level impacts of few generations, potentially resulting in species in that identified SPR is an legal Sierra Nevada red fox fur trapping outbreeding depression and genetic endangered or a threatened species. We within the four Oregon sighting areas swamping. must go through a separate analysis to have not been studied, as the impact of To date, the best available data determine whether the species is an trapping on a red fox population indicate that hybridization with endangered or a threatened species in requires an estimate of population nonnative red fox has impacted a few the SPR. To determine whether a abundance, which is currently individuals at two locations. Future species is an endangered or a threatened unavailable for Sierra Nevada red fox hybridization could occur at these two species throughout an SPR, we will use within the Oregon Cascades. Based on or other locations, and therefore we do the same standards and methodology the very few red fox (lowland red fox or not anticipate a concentration of this that we use to determine if a species is other subspecies) being harvested across stressor in any one portion of the an endangered or a threatened species the counties that overlap the Sierra subspecies’ range. throughout its range. Nevada red fox sighting areas, the best (3) The presence of coyotes is likely Depending on the biology of the available data indicate that fur trapping to continue in most if not all areas species, its range, and the threats it is unlikely to result in population-level throughout the range of the Sierra faces, it may be more efficient to address impacts across a significant portion of Nevada red fox, and may potentially the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the the subspecies’ range. result in elevated levels of predation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61011

and competition in the future if climate persistence of nearby Sierra Nevada red from the Center for Biological Diversity change predictions become realized. fox populations (Levi and Wilmers (CBD 2011, pp. 7–8) suggests two The potential impacts from climate 2012, p. 926). Wolves are also not potential DPSs within the range of the change could result in reduced expected to significantly impact the Sierra Nevada red fox (as originally snowpack and vegetation changes, Sierra Nevada red fox given they described by Perrine et al. 2010 and which in turn could result in habitat typically prey upon and compete with Sacks et al. 2010a): a Southern Cascade conditions more suitable for coyotes, larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 2). Given population in the Cascades Mountains thus potentially increasing the level of that (1) ODFW’s current conservation of northern California and Oregon, and coyote predation or competition. These objectives for the wolf include a Sierra Nevada population in the Sierra impacts may be more pronounced at the establishment of seven breeding pairs in Nevada Mountains. The petitioner Crater Lake, Lassen, and Sonora Pass western Oregon for 3 consecutive years stated that they believe the full sighting areas as compared to the (ODFW 2010, p. 17), and (2) the subspecies (comprised of both distinct remainder of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s likelihood that CDFW (in cooperation segments) should be listed, although we sighting areas due to the subspecies with the Service) would develop a note that this statement was made prior already occupying the highest beneficial conservation strategy for to the discovery of new information elevations at Crater Lake and Lassen wolves in California, we consider it documenting the Sierra Nevada red fox sighting areas, and the subspecies likely that the current wolf populations subspecies inhabiting the entire Oregon already occupying a relatively narrow will expand over the next 50 years to Cascades area as far north as Mt. Hood elevational range at the Sonora Pass effectively overlap other portions of the (see Summary of Species Information, sighting area. At this time, it is not clear Sierra Nevada red fox’s historical range above). Further, the petitioner how finer-scale abiotic factors may in Oregon and California in the articulated that the Service should shape local climates and influence local foreseeable future, thus potentially assess whether the [then known] two snowpack levels and vegetation trends contributing to natural coyote control populations (i.e., Lassen and Sonora either to the benefit or detriment of within the Sierra Nevada red fox’s Pass) qualify as DPSs under the Act. Sierra Nevada red fox, nor is the range. As a result of the new information timeframe clear over which these Overall, based on the best available received following publication of the influences may be realized. scientific and commercial information 90-day finding (77 FR 45; January 3, Although information on coyote at this time, we do not anticipate a 2012), and as described above under predation is not available at all three geographic concentration of threats in Summary of Species Information— sighting areas, we note that Perrine one or more sighting areas at a level Distribution/Range, we evaluate here a (2005, p. 192) found coyote population greater than any other (i.e., potential potential Southern Cascades DPS that density at the Lassen sighting area to be impacts associated with climate change includes the Cascade Mountains of greater at lower elevations, thus and coyote predation/competition Oregon from the Columbia River south producing an elevational separation appear uniformly distributed into the California Cascades around between most coyotes and the Sierra throughout the subspecies’ range). At Lassen Peak (including the area of Mt. Nevada red fox population. It is this time, there is significant uncertainty Shasta, primarily in the Cascades but reasonable to assume this same type of as to the severity of impact, and data do extending slightly into the Trinity elevational separation exists at the not indicate that coyote populations Mountains), and a potential Sierra Crater Lake and Sonora Pass sighting will, with certainty, increase as a result Nevada DPS that includes the upper areas, and that it may continue into the of climate change into the foreseeable elevations of the Sierra Nevada foreseeable future. Additionally, the future at a level greater than any other Mountain Range from Tulare to Sierra Sierra Nevada red fox’s main winter in any one portion of the range of the Counties. The best available information food source at the Lassen study site was subspecies. indicates that Sierra Nevada red fox small rodents rather than the coyote’s In summary, our evaluation of the occurs discontinuously throughout preference of deer (Perrine 2005, p. 24); best available information indicates that these mountainous areas at elevations thus, the Sierra Nevada red fox tended the overall level of stressors is not that exceed 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in to stay at higher elevations than coyotes, geographically concentrated in one California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) and thereby reducing potential predation portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et and competition. Although potential range, and that the stressors that have al. 2015, pp. 1–2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3, future climate change impacts could the potential to impact the subspecies 13–14, line 7). promote conditions for coyotes numbers are relatively consistent across its range Section 3(16) of the Act defines the to increase at the higher elevations (Service 2015, entire). Our review of the term ‘‘species’’ to include any (particularly in certain sighting areas), best available scientific and commercial subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, we believe this change is speculative at information indicates that the Sierra and any distinct population segment of this time. Nevada red fox is not in danger of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife We also note that two packs of gray extinction (endangered) nor likely to which interbreeds when mature. We wolves have recently become become endangered within the have always understood the phrase established in the southern portion of foreseeable future (threatened), ‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ to mean that the Oregon Cascades in Oregon and throughout all or a significant portion of a DPS must consist of members of the California, and it is reasonable to its range. Therefore, we find that listing same species or subspecies in the wild predict continued repopulation of the Sierra Nevada red fox as an that would be biologically capable of wolves to the Cascades (currently endangered or threatened species under interbreeding if given the opportunity, occurring between the Lassen and Crater the Act is not warranted at this time. but all members need not actually Lake sighting areas, approximately 24 interbreed with each other. A DPS is a km (15 mi) south of the Crater Lake Distinct Population Segment (DPS) subset of a species or subspecies, and sighting area). Presence of wolves would Analysis cannot consist of members of a different likely lower coyote population numbers Citing the Services’ DPS Policy (61 FR species or subspecies. The ‘‘biological or exclude them from higher elevation 4722) and the best available information species concept’’ defines species forested areas, thereby facilitating the at the time, the April 27, 2011, petition according to a group of organisms, their

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

actual or potential ability to interbreed, populations of the species in its genetic In conclusion, the areas occupied by and their relative reproductive isolation characteristics. the Sierra Nevada red fox within the from other organisms. This concept is a If a population segment is both Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada widely accepted approach to defining discrete and significant (i.e., it qualifies Mountain Ranges are separated by a species. We believe that the Act’s use of as a potential DPS) its evaluation for geologic gap in the range. The best the phrase ‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ endangered or threatened status is based available data currently indicate this reflects this understanding. Use of this on the Act’s definitions of those terms gap represents a lack of population phrase with respect to a DPS is simply and a review of the factors listed in connectivity between the two intended to mean that a DPS must be section 4(a) of the Act. According to our geographic areas. This separation is comprised of members of the same DPS policy, it may be appropriate to further supported by recent genetic species or subspecies. As long as this assign different classifications to studies which demonstrate that the two requirement is met, a DPS may include different DPSs of the same vertebrate closest sighting areas (i.e., known multiple populations of vertebrate taxon. For this 12-month finding and populations that reside at the Lassen organisms that may not interbreed with DPS analysis of the Sierra Nevada red and Sonora Pass sighting areas) show each other. For example, a DPS may fox, we reviewed and evaluated genetic differences, and there is no consist of multiple populations of a fish information contained in numerous indication of gene flow between these species separated into different publications and reports, including but populations. Therefore, we conclude drainages. While these populations may not limited to Aubry 1997, Grinnell et that the two areas are discrete under our not actually interbreed with each other, al. 1937, Perrine 2005, Perrine et al. DPS policy. their members are biologically capable 2010, Sacks et al. 2010a, Sacks et al. Significance of interbreeding. 2015, Schempf and White 1977, and If a population segment is considered The National Marine Fisheries Service Statham et al. 2012. (NMFS) and the Service published a discrete under one of more of the joint Policy Regarding the Recognition Discreteness conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and ecological significance of Distinct Vertebrate Population The best available data indicate will be considered in light of Segments Under the Endangered spatial separation between the Sierra Congressional guidance that the Species Act (DPS Policy) on February 7, Nevada red foxes that occur in the 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the authority to list DPSs be used Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the DPS policy, two elements must be Mountain Ranges. The mountain ranges satisfied in order for a population conservation of genetic diversity. In themselves are geologically divided, and segment to qualify as a possible DPS: making this determination and as currently a large separation exists discreteness and significance. If the described above, this consideration may between the nearest known populations population segment qualifies as a DPS, include, but is not limited to, the (Lassen and Sonora Pass) in these two the conservation status of that DPS is following: (1) Persistence of the discrete ranges. The distance separating the then evaluated to determine whether it population segment in an ecological Lassen and Sonora Pass sighting areas is is endangered or threatened. setting unusual or unique to the taxon; A population segment of a vertebrate approximately 150 km (93 mi), which is (2) evidence that loss of the discrete species may be considered discrete if it greater than the dispersal distance population segment would result in a satisfies either one of the following known from one study of red fox in the significant gap in the range of a taxon; conditions: (1) It is markedly separated Midwest, where 95 percent of the (3) evidence that the population from other populations of the same juvenile American Midwest red fox represents the only surviving natural taxon as a consequence of physical, dispersed less than approximately 80 occurrence of a taxon that may be more physiological, ecological, or behavioral km (50 mi) in their first year (Perrine et abundant elsewhere as an introduced factors; or (2) it is delimited by al. 2010, pp. 14–15). population outside of its historical international governmental boundaries In addition to marked separation (i.e., range; or (4) evidence that the within which differences in control of spatial separation) that currently exists population differs markedly from other exploitation, management of habitat, between the Sierra Nevada red fox in populations of the species in its genetic conservation status, or regulatory the Southern Cascades and Sierra characteristics. mechanisms exist that are significant in Nevada Mountain Ranges, genetic The current known distribution of light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. research shows that the Lassen and genetic variation across the range of the If a population is found to be discrete, Sonora Pass populations (representing Sierra Nevada red fox places a then it is evaluated for significance the Southern Cascades and Sierra disproportionate significance on both under the DPS policy on the basis of its Nevada population segments, the Southern Cascades and Sierra importance to the taxon to which it respectively) are genetically distinct Nevada segments for the maintenance of belongs. This consideration may from each other (Stratham et al. 2012, genetic diversity in the subspecies. As include, but is not limited to, the pp. 129–130). Analyses using both indicated above, the Sierra Nevada red following: (1) Persistence of the discrete mtDNA and microsatellites indicate that fox differs markedly from other population segment in an ecological Sierra Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass subspecies of red fox, and those that setting unusual or unique to the taxon; sighting area are descendants of the occur within the Sierra Nevada segment (2) evidence that loss of the discrete Sierra Nevada red fox population that are genetically distinguishable from the population segment would result in a was historically resident in the Sierra Sierra Nevada red foxes that occur significant gap in the range of a taxon; Nevada range (Statham et al. 2012, pp. throughout the remainder of the (3) evidence that the population 126–129). Lastly, genetic research subspecies range (Statham et al. 2012, represents the only surviving natural indicates that there are no shared pp. 129–130). Further, genetic analyses occurrence of a taxon that may be more mitochondrial haplotypes between the reveal that Sierra Nevada red fox at the abundant elsewhere as an introduced Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada Sonora Pass sighting area are population outside of its historical populations, and there is no evidence of descendants of the Sierra Nevada red range; or (4) evidence that the gene flow between the two populations fox population that was historically population differs markedly from other (Statham et al. 2012, pp. 129–130). resident in the area (Statham et al. 2012,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61013

pp. 126–129). In addition, different segment of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s stepped down in the following mtDNA haplotypes separate the Sierra range would represent: (1) A significant paragraphs as they pertain specifically Nevada red foxes that reside in the gap in the subspecies’ range, and (2) the to the Southern Cascades DPS. The Southern Cascades from those that loss of genetic differences from Sierra range of the Southern Cascades DPS reside in the Sierra Nevada, indicating Nevada red fox in the remainder of the includes high-elevation alpine and a lack of gene flow. Consequently, the subspecies range, as well as from other subalpine zones near and above treeline loss of either the Southern Cascades or subspecies of red fox. (roughly greater than 1,200 m (3,937 ft) the Sierra Nevada segments could result Since we have identified that the in California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8) in a significant curtailment of the Southern Cascades segment and the and 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry genetic variation and diversity of the Sierra Nevada segment of the Sierra et al. 2015, pp. 2–3; Doerr 2015, pp. 2– subspecies. Nevada red fox each meet the DPS 3, 13–14, line 7) that contain conifer Additionally, the loss of the Sierra criteria for discreteness and habitat of various types (Perrine 2005, Nevada segment of the Sierra Nevada significance, we will evaluate each DPS pp. 63–64). These areas occur within the red fox’s range would create a with regard to their potential for listing southern portion of the Cascades significant gap in the geographic range as endangered or threatened using the mountain range from the Columbia of the subspecies, given the southern- five listing factors enumerated in River just north of Mt. Hood (Hood most known population within the section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. River and Wasco Counties, Oregon) Sierra Nevada Mountain range is 1533(a)(1)). Our evaluation of these south to the Lassen Peak area (roughly approximately 241 km (150 mi) south of DPSs follows. the northeast corner of Tehama County the next closest sighting area (Lassen) at Southern Cascades Distinct Population and southeast corner of Shasta County, the southern end of the Southern Segment (DPS) of Sierra Nevada Red California). At this time, Sierra Nevada Cascades. If the Sierra Nevada Mountain Fox red fox are known to reside within a Range segment of the subspecies’ range minimum of six locations across the was lost, this would result in an As described above, section 4 of the range of the Southern Cascades DPS. estimated 40 to 50 percent reduction in Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing In comparison to the five-factor the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox. regulations (50 CFR part 424) describe analysis presented above for the entire Likewise, the loss of the Southern procedures for adding species to the taxon, we are not aware of any Cascades segment of the subspecies’ Federal Lists of Endangered and information to indicate that trapping for range would result in an estimated 50– Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under research purposes (Factor B) is a threat 60 reduction in the range of the Sierra section 4(a), we may list a species on the to the Southern Cascades DPS currently Nevada red fox. basis of any of five factors: (A) The or in the future. Other potential Overall, the two segments (Southern present or threatened destruction, stressors identified specifically for the Cascades and Sierra Nevada) of the modification, or curtailment of its Southern Cascades DPS are discussed Sierra Nevada red fox’s range differ habitat or range; (B) overutilization for below. markedly from each other and from commercial, recreational, scientific, or other subspecies of red fox based on educational purposes; (C) disease or Wildfire and Fire Suppression their genetic characteristics, and loss of predation; (D) the inadequacy of Based on the best scientific and either the Sierra Nevada segment or the existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) commercial information available, the Southern Cascades segment of the Sierra other natural or manmade factors potential effects of wildfire and fire Nevada red fox’s range would create a affecting its continued existence. suppression (Factor A) on the Southern significant gap in the geographic range An endangered species is defined by Cascades DPS are similar to those of the subspecies. Therefore, we the Act, with exception, as ‘‘any species described previously for the Sierra conclude that the two areas are which is in danger of extinction Nevada red fox. When they occur, significant under our DPS policy. throughout all or a significant portion of wildfires typically burn in a range of its range.’’ A threatened species is intensities, resulting in a mosaic of Conclusion of Distinct Population defined as ‘‘any species which is likely habitat effects. Intense, stand-replacing Segment Review to become an endangered species within wildfire (similar to the 2011 Dollar Lake We have evaluated as possible DPSs the foreseeable future throughout all or fire near Mt. Hood) could reduce habitat the populations of Sierra Nevada red fox a significant portion of its range.’’ A availability and quality for this DPS by from both the Southern Cascades species is defined by the Act to include reducing overstory cover. However, Mountain Range and the Sierra Nevada any subspecies of fish or wildlife or even stand-replacing (high severity) Mountain Range, and we have plants, and any distinct population fires do not necessarily result in a addressed the elements our DPS policy segment of any species of vertebrate fish complete loss of habitat or occupancy requires us to consider in deciding or wildlife which interbreeds when by Sierra Nevada red fox, as whether a vertebrate population may be mature. demonstrated by the 2014 detections of recognized as a DPS and considered for An analysis of the potential threats for Sierra Nevada red fox in two locations listing under the Act. In assessing the Sierra Nevada red fox is included in within the Dollar Lake burn area discreteness for both segments, we the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) (McFadden-Hiller and Hiller 2015). considered geological, ecological, and associated with this document (and There is uncertainty concerning the genetic information. As described available at http://www.regulations.gov potential for population-level effects of above, we have determined that both the under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011– wildfire on the Southern Cascades DPS Southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada 0103). All potential threats of which we (and we note that the number of Sierra segments of the Sierra Nevada red fox’s are aware that may act upon the Nevada red fox populations within the range are both discrete and significant Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra range of the DPS is unknown), but it is based on marked physical separation Nevada red fox (hereafter referred to as reasonable to assume that wildfires will (discreteness) and genetic variation/ Southern Cascades DPS) currently or in continue to occur in the Southern characteristics (discreteness and the future are captured within the Cascades mountains into the future, significance). Our analysis reveals that Summary of Information Pertaining to potentially at a rate similar to what has the loss of the subspecies from either the Five Factors section, above, and been occurring in the recent past. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61014 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

most recent wildfires recorded for the fox would shift up in elevation to areas occur, low numbers of red foxes Southern Cascades DPS (not necessarily remain in higher snowpack areas. The are harvested, some of which may be overlapping all of the sighting areas) are: DPS could be at an elevated risk at two Sierra Nevada red fox. The Oregon (1) Mt. Hood sighting area—the 2,428 ha of the six sighting areas across the DPS’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (6,000 ac), high-intensity (i.e., removed range—the Crater Lake and Lassen (ODFW) maintains trapping records by a significant amount of vegetation) sighting areas—because the subspecies county, without recording exact location Dollar Lake wildfire in 2011 (NWCC currently resides close to the highest or elevation, so harvest of Sierra Nevada 2015, pp. 1–2); (2) Dutchman Flat elevation possible at those locations. red fox in Oregon cannot be sighting area—the 10,570 ha (26,119 ac) The remaining four sighting areas distinguished from harvest of lowland Pole Creek burn in 2012 (McFadden- include suitable habitat at higher fox subspecies (Turner 2015). Records of Hiller and Hiller 2015); and (3) Lassen elevations than the elevations currently fox numbers taken from 1989 to 2009 sighting area—the 11,331 ha (28,000 ac) known to be occupied. are not separated by year, preventing Reading wildfire in 2012. Although many climate models inferences regarding trends over time. Land management agencies within the generally agree about potential future The best available information indicates range of the Southern Cascades DPS are changes in temperature and a greater that numbers of red fox harvested were expected to continue to implement proportion of precipitation falling as highest in Lane County (Willamette Pass necessary vegetation or fuels rain rather than snow, the consequent sighting area) and second highest in management strategies (e.g., fire effects on snowpack levels and Linn County (overlaps part of the Mt. management plans, LRMPs) to reduce vegetation composition are more Washington sighting area). The average the likelihood of wide-scale, uncertain, as is the rate at which any harvest of red fox has dropped since catastrophic fires. The future such changes might be realized. 1989 across all eight Oregon counties effectiveness of these treatments is Therefore, it is not clear how or when that contain a Sierra Nevada red fox unknown, but the best available changes in snowpack levels, forest type, sighting area; however, information is information indicates that at least local and plant species composition will not available to determine whether the reductions in fire severity should be affect the distribution of Sierra Nevada harvest decline is due to reduced achieved. red fox habitat within the Southern hunting and trapping effort or reduced Overall, a combination of: (1) The Cascades DPS. Thus, uncertainty exists numbers of red fox. beneficial aspects that wildfires may regarding the level of impact that In the absence of more definite have for the Sierra Nevada red fox (e.g., climate change may have on Sierra information regarding the number of habitat changes that promote an Nevada red fox or their habitat within Sierra Nevada red fox individuals and increase in suitable prey species and the Southern Cascades DPS. Overall, we populations in Oregon, we do not fruiting shrubs that are a supplementary conclude that, based on the best consider the current harvest levels food source); (2) no reports of direct scientific and commercial information likely to produce detrimental impact to impacts from wildfire to Sierra Nevada available at this time, the expected the DPS, as a whole, across its range. red fox; and (3) the broad range that future (i.e., next 50 years) conditions are The best available information also does Sierra Nevada red foxes occur across the not expected to change to a degree that not indicate that the current harvest Southern Cascades (thus preventing a would be considered significant. Thus, levels would increase into the future. single fire from having significant based on the best scientific and These activities therefore constitute a impacts to a significant portion of the commercial information available at this stressor that is not impacting the DPS to DPS’s range), leads us to believe that time, climate change is not a threat to the degree that the subspecies in the wildfire (and associated wildfire the Southern Cascades DPS now or into Oregon Cascades is in decline as a suppression) is not an overall significant the future. consequence of fur trapping. We impact to the Southern Cascades DPS. consider the legal fur trapping within Trapping or Hunting for Fur Therefore, we conclude that based on the Oregon Cascades DPS as having no the best scientific and commercial As described earlier in this document, impact to Sierra Nevada red fox at the information available, wildfire and fire historical unregulated fur trapping Crater Lake and Lassen sighting areas, suppression are not a threat to the (prior to the 1940s) of Sierra Nevada red and a low-level impact at the remaining Southern Cascades DPS now or into the fox is considered by researchers as the sighting areas in Oregon where future. likely cause of the marked contraction relatively few red fox (some of which in Sierra Nevada red fox’s distribution. Climate Change may be Sierra Nevada red fox) may be Until recently, Sierra Nevada red fox in harvested. Therefore, because there is The similarities in ecology and habitat Oregon were considered to be Cascade no overall significant impact across the associations between the Southern foxes—of the same subspecies that DPS’s range both currently and into the Cascades DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox occupied the Cascades in Washington future, based on the best scientific and and the rest of the taxon across its entire (Sacks et al. 2010, p. 1536). Fur trapping commercial information available at this range, combined with the large scales at is regulated and remains legal time, trapping or hunting for fur does which climate change studies are throughout Oregon, although not rise to the level of a threat. conducted, lead us to conclude that our information is not available regarding analysis of the potential effects of historical hunting and trapping Disease climate change (Factor A) for the entire pressures on Sierra Nevada red foxes in We believe that the potential effects of taxon similarly applies to the Southern the Oregon Cascades. disease (Factor C) on the Southern Cascades DPS. The most significant, Due to regulatory protections, hunting Cascades DPS are the same as those potential future impact to the Southern and trapping do not constitute a current previously described for the entire range Cascades DPS from climate change or likely future stressor to Sierra Nevada of the Sierra Nevada red fox. This (likely to manifest itself beyond the 50- red fox that occur on National Park conclusion is based on both our year foreseeable future time period) Service lands at Crater Lake National understanding of the biology/habits of appears to be reduced snowpack levels Park and the entire Lassen sighting area the subspecies, as well as the presence that would make high-elevation areas (as discussed above). In the counties (or lack thereof) of the various diseases more suitable for coyotes, and thus the where the other four Oregon sighting (i.e., SPD, EFF, sarcoptic mange, canine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61015

distemper, and rabies) within the DPS’s Nevada red fox population (Perrine there do not appear to be any range. To avoid redundancy, these 2005, p. 192). geographical barriers separating effects are described in detail above for Overall, Sierra Nevada red foxes are nonnative red fox from Sierra Nevada the entire taxon under Disease. Given better able than coyotes to live in areas red fox, so it is possible that there is no evidence to suggest that of relatively deep snow, thus tending to hybridization could take place in other disease has impacted the Southern remain at higher elevations with sighting areas in the future. However, Cascades DPS population in the past, snowpack where coyotes are less we have no information that indicates nor is there evidence to suggest that common during winter months. Coyotes that hybridization, should it occur, disease currently affects the DPS or is are generally found at lower elevations would rise to the level of a threat to the likely to in the future, we conclude that than Sierra Nevada red fox during DPS. Therefore, the best available disease is not a threat to the Southern winter and early spring when snowpack scientific and commercial information Cascades DPS now or in the future. is high (Service 2015, pp. 48–51). Sierra available does not suggest that Nevada red fox may potentially benefit hybridization within the DPS’s range is Predation by Domestic Dogs or Coyotes, from the presence of coyotes—for a threat now or in the foreseeable future. and Competition With Coyotes example, individuals during winter Vehicles Based on the best scientific and months could benefit by scavenging commercial information available, the deer carcasses killed by coyotes (Perrine Based on the best scientific and potential effects of predation by either 2005, p. 31). Additionally, potential commercial information available, the domestic dogs or coyotes (Factor C), as future coyote impacts could be lessened potential effects of vehicles (i.e., well as competition with coyotes if the two recently established wolf potential road kill and noise (Factor E), on the Sierra Nevada DPS are packs (which may control coyote disturbance) (Factor E) are similar to similar to those described previously for numbers but are unlikely to compete or those described previously for the entire the entire taxon. Given recreational predate upon Sierra Nevada red fox, as taxon. To date, there are two confirmed opportunities and regulations, domestic wolves tend to take larger game (ODFW reports of Sierra Nevada red fox road dogs within Sierra Nevada red fox’s 2015, p. 2)) in the Southern Cascades kills within the Southern Cascades DPS home range territories within the DPS expand. along Oregon State Highway 20 are most likely to occur in the Similar to those impacts described approximately 80 km (50 mi) west of the Willamette Pass, Crater Lake, and above for the entire taxon, we do not Mt. Washington sighting area and two Lassen sighting areas, but domestic dogs have information on associated coyote unconfirmed reports near the Crater could also potentially be found along impacts to the Southern Cascades DPS Lake sighting area. There may also be many other roads or recreational areas (i.e., no information to indicate that noise disturbance activity in the portion (e.g., hiking trails) within the DPS’s coyotes are causing a decline or that of the DPS that overlaps with the Willamette Pass Ski Area or the snow- range. To date, predation by a domestic coyotes are increasing in number) either parks near the Dutchman Flat sighting dog has been documented once within currently nor are they likely to increase area. However, snowmobile-related the range of the Southern Cascades into the future. This could change if climate change-related impacts become impacts are largely unknown, and the DPS—one radio-collared Sierra Nevada realized with significantly lowered best available data do not indicate any red fox died in 2000 at the Lassen snowpack levels; alternatively, potential current or future impacts associated sighting area. See Predation by Domestic future coyote impacts could be lessened with increases in vehicular activity or Dogs or Coyotes, above, for additional if wolf packs expand within the DPS’s noise levels. At this time, information discussion. range. indicates that individual Sierra Nevada Coyotes are known to occur within red foxes within the range of the Oregon Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox the Southern Cascades DPS’s range, Cascades DPS may be impacted be including the following: As described above under the vehicle activity or noise as opposed to (1) Mt. Hood sighting area—One scat Hybridization with Nonnative Red Fox significant impacts across the range of was genetically identified in October discussion for the entire taxon, the DPS. Therefore, based on the best 2013, at an elevation higher than the hybridization of Sierra Nevada red fox scientific and commercial information Sierra Nevada red fox sightings (i.e., at with other nonnative red fox (Factor E) available at this time, we conclude that 1,879 m (6,165 ft) (Akins 2014, p. 2)). could result in outbreeding depression vehicles are not a threat to the Oregon (2) Mt. Washington, Dutchman Flat, or genetic swamping (Quinn and Sacks Cascades DPS now or in the future. and Willamette sighting areas—Four 2014, pp. 16–17). The only indication of detections occurred in recent years at hybridization within the Southern Small and Isolated Population Effects camera stations in the Willamette and Cascades DPS is based on genetic testing Based on the best scientific Deschutes National Forests where Sierra of mtDNA from two Sierra Nevada red information available, we believe the Nevada red fox have also been fox individuals at the Mt. Hood sighting potential negative effects associated documented to occur (McFadden-Hiller area that show evidence of past (not with small and isolated populations and Hiller 2014, pp. 3, 5–6). The recent) hybridization with nonnative within the Southern Cascades DPS are specific locations within the sighting red foxes (Akins and Sacks 2015, p. 1). similar to those presented above for the areas were not identified in McFadden- Although these data indicate that entire taxon. We recognize that the Hiller and Hiller (2014, p. 3). nonnative red fox have bred with the smaller a population becomes, the more (3) Lassen sighting area—Perrine’s Sierra Nevada red fox at one of the six likely it is that one or more stressors (2005, pp. 73–74) investigations at the sighting areas within the DPS’s range at could impact a population, potentially Lassen sighting area found coyotes some time in the past, the best available reducing its overall size, or resulting in present at all elevations during the data do not indicate current impacts associated with genetic summer months. However, coyote hybridization impacts to any of the diversity, inbreeding, and reproduction population density was found to be sighting areas within the DPS. deficiency, all of which can increase a greater at lower elevations, thus Therefore, this stressor does not species risk of extinction. Within the producing an elevational separation currently rise to the level of a threat. As Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra between most coyotes and the Sierra discussed earlier in this document, Nevada red fox, the number and size of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61016 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Sierra Nevada red fox populations in potentially impacting the entire DPS’s Sierra Nevada red fox across the range Oregon are not yet known, in large part range. of the Southern Cascades DPS. due the recent discovery that the Overall across the Southern Cascades Therefore, we have determined that montane red fox thought to have been DPS’s range at this time, the best based on the best scientific and the Cascades subspecies were in fact the available information indicates at least commercial information available at this Sierra Nevada red fox subspecies (see one small population at the southern time, the cumulative impacts of these additional discussion for the Sierra end of its range, and an unknown potential stressors do not rise to the Nevada red fox under the Small and number of populations of unknown size level of a threat for the Southern Isolated Population Effects section, throughout the remainder of the DPS’s Cascades DPS. above). Surveys are ongoing at the time range. Additionally, the best available Existing Regulatory Mechanisms— of publication of this document. Of the data do not indicate empirical evidence Southern Cascades DPS information available for the five that the Sierra Nevada red fox is in Oregon sighting areas, there is no decline across the DPS. Thus, based on Existing regulatory mechanisms that indication that the Oregon populations the best scientific and commercial affect the Southern Cascades DPS or sighting areas are being negatively information available at this time, small include laws and regulations impacted by reduced genetic diversity, or isolated population size effects do not promulgated by the Federal inbreeding depression, or reproduction rise to the level of a threat within the Government, State of Oregon deficiency. Southern Cascades DPS either currently government, and State of California Information is available on the or in the future. government (Factor D). These include population size of the Lassen sighting the following mechanisms that are Cumulative Effects area that occurs on the southern end of described in detail in the Species Report the DPS’s range. Specifically, this The best scientific and commercial (Service 2015, pp. 58–63), and population is considered small and information available at this time does summarized in more detail above under represented by 21 breeding and 21 not indicate that potential cumulative the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms nonbreeding individuals (see Table 1, effects within the Southern Cascades section for the entire taxon: above). Sacks et al. (2010, p. 1536) and DPS are different than the potential (1) Forest Service policy manual Sacks (2015, p. 1) state that the actual cumulative impacts described above for (USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22), size of the Lassen population is likely to the entire taxon. Above, we concluded which allows for designation of be somewhere between 21 and 63 that two cumulative impact scenarios sensitive species of management individuals, depending on the number could potentially occur: concern, of which the Sierra Nevada red of nonbreeding individuals present. (1) Potential increased competition fox is a sensitive species where it occurs Although suitable habitat is limited with coyotes on Sierra Nevada red fox on National Forests in California (U.S. between the Lassen and next closest as a result of high-elevation forested Forest Service Region 5) and in Oregon sighting area in the DPS (i.e., Crater areas becoming more suitable for (USDA 2013, p. 1; Chapman 2015, Excel Lake), suitable habitat is present, and coyotes following potential impacts attch., wksht. 2, line 655). the best available information suggests from climate change (i.e., lowered (2) National Forest management is that dispersal could potentially occur snowpack levels, increased incidence directed by the Multiple-Use Sustained- between sighting areas. We also note and extent of wildfires). Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 that researchers indicate that the Sierra (2) A combination of potential U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and the NFMA (16 Nevada red fox populations are likely stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping, U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA represented by relatively small numbers SPD and other diseases, competition specifies that the Forest Service must (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 396) or low and predation from coyotes, have an LRMP to guide and set population densities (Perrine et al. hybridization with nonnative red fox, standards for all natural resource 2010, p. 9). and vehicles) that directly result in management activities on each National Given the presence of suitable habitat death or loss of reproductive ability for Forest, including the Mt. Hood, conditions and the numbers of Sierra the Sierra Nevada red fox. Willamette, Deschutes, Umpqua, Nevada red fox observed to date without For the purposes of this analysis for Winema, Rogue River, and Lassen comprehensive surveys across the DPS’s the Southern Cascades DPS, and similar National Forests that currently harbor range, it is reasonable to conclude that to the discussion and conclusion suitable habitat or known occurrences of additional Sierra Nevada red foxes presented above for the entire taxon, the Sierra Nevada red fox within the likely occur throughout the range of the best available data at this time do not Southern Cascades DPS, and the Forest DPS. At this time, despite the relatively suggest that the cumulative effects of Service must implement management geographically disjunct nature of the potential increased competition from actions through their LRMPs that known sighting areas across the coyotes associated with possible future provide a conservation benefit to the Southern Cascades DPS, there is no climate change impacts rise to the level DPS. evidence to suggest that the sighting of a threat to the Southern Cascades (3) The NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, areas (and unknown number of DPS. Additionally, although it is entire) guides management over a populations) are entirely isolated from possible that all or some of the stressors portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox one another to the degree that we would could potentially act in concert as a habitat within the Southern Cascades expect the manifestation of significant cumulative threat to the Southern DPS, specifically to provide the basis for negative effects that could potentially Cascades DPS, the best available data conservation of the northern spotted arise in small, isolated populations. indicate ambiguity in either the owl and other late-successional, old- Additionally, although the Lassen likelihood or level of impacts for the growth forest associated species on population is considered small at this various stressors at the DPS-wide level, Federal lands. The NWFP is important time, we believe the number of sighting or the data indicate only individual- for the DPS because it creates a network areas and extent of geographic area level impacts. Thus, data do not of late-successional and old-growth covered by the subspecies within the indicate that these stressors are forests that help meet the Sierra Nevada DPS contribute to the overall low cumulatively causing now or will cause red fox’s habitat requirements, likelihood of a catastrophic event in the future a substantial decline of the discussed above, at the Mt. Hood, Mt.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61017

Washington, Dutchman Flat, and As similarly described above in the elevations that are more favorable to Willamette Pass sighting areas. Several Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section coyotes. However, the best available land allocations exist with differing for the whole taxon, the best available data indicate coyotes are not increasing levels of standards and guidelines for scientific and commercial information in numbers currently nor are they likely managing forest resources, all of which indicates that the existing mechanisms to increase into the future, and thus are has had an overall positive impact on are adequate to address impacts to the not impacting this portion of the DPS’s the forests/resources by substantially Southern Cascades DPS from stressors range to the degree that any more than reducing habitat loss from forest for which governments may have individuals might be affected both management activities on Federal lands. regulatory control (i.e., wildfire, injury currently and into the future. (4) The National Park Service Organic or mortality due to fur trapping, and Additionally, there is no indication that Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et collision with vehicles). potential future changes in lowered seq.) and the National Park Service snowpack levels at high elevations (as Finding for the Southern Cascades DPS General Authorities Act of 1970 (16 suggested by climate models) would U.S.C. 1a–1) address natural resources We assessed the best available occur within the next 50 years to such on National Park lands, specifically scientific and commercial information a degree that coyote numbers would within Crater Lake National Park within regarding threats faced by the Southern increase throughout the subspecies’ the Southern Cascades DPS. These Acts Cascades DPS. We have reviewed the range causing coyote predation or require the National Park Service to petition, information available in our competition to rise to the level of a ‘‘preserve fundamental physical and files, and information submitted to us threat. biological processes, as well as following our 90-day finding (77 FR 45; In conclusion, and similar to that individual species, features, and plant January 3, 2012). We also consulted described above for the Sierra Nevada and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS with Sierra Nevada red fox researchers red fox across its entire range, we 2006, p. 36). Sierra Nevada red fox and Federal land managers. We do not believe the Southern Cascades DPS habitat within park boundaries that are find support for the petitioners’ claim harbors significant suitable habitat not developed specifically for recreation that the Southern Cascades DPS may throughout its range. These lands are and camping are managed toward warrant listing as a federally endangered being managed by Federal agencies that natural processes and species or threatened species. The petitioners are providing management and composition, which provides an overall did not outline the threats that they protections to the DPS and its habitat to conservation benefit to the subspecies believe are specific to the Southern benefit the Sierra Nevada red fox. and its habitat. Cascades DPS, although based on our Additionally, the best available data do (5) Although the Sierra Nevada red analysis, we evaluated all stressors not indicate any population-level fox within the Oregon portion of the identified for the entire taxon across declines from any of the stressors Southern Cascades DPS may be hunted Oregon and California. Our analysis of (individually or cumulatively) within and trapped (635 Oregon Administrative the best available information indicates any portion of the DPS’s range. Based on Rules 050–0045(1), 0045(8), the best that the Southern Cascades DPS is not our review of the best available available data do not indicate actual warranted for listing based on the same scientific and commercial information impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox at reasons identified above for the Sierra pertaining to the five factors, we find this time, nor do the data indicate any Nevada red fox across its entire range. that the stressors acting upon the impacts to the subspecies into the Overall, we found that the stressors that Southern Cascades DPS are not of future. may impact the Southern Cascades DPS sufficient imminence, intensity, or (6) Within the Lassen sighting area are not significantly impacting the magnitude to indicate that the DPS is in portion of the Southern Cascades DPS, subspecies either currently or in the danger of extinction now (endangered), the CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits future (such that listing may be or likely to become endangered within possession, purchase, or ‘‘take’’ of warranted). Specifically, we found that the foreseeable future (threatened), endangered or threatened species five stressors (i.e., wildfire and fire throughout all of its range. without an incidental take permit, suppression; trapping or hunting for fur; issued by CDFW. The Sierra Nevada red predation by dogs or coyotes, or Significant Portion of the Range— fox was designated as a threatened competition from coyotes; hybridization Southern Cascades DPS species under CESA in 1980 (CDFW with nonnative red fox; and vehicles) Having determined that the Southern 2014, p. 12). Additionally, the State of may impact individuals at one or more Cascades DPS of the Sierra Nevada red California classifies red foxes as a sighting areas currently or in the future, fox does not meet the definition of an furbearing mammal that is protected but these five stressors are not causing endangered or threatened species from commercial harvest (14 C.C.R. DPS-wide impacts such that the DPS throughout all of its range, we must next 460). meets the definition of an endangered or consider whether there are any Overall, existing regulatory threatened species at this time. significant portions of the DPS’s range mechanisms currently (and into the Currently, the best available data where the DPS is in danger of extinction future) provide substantial protection on indicate that the only known population or is likely to become endangered in the Federal lands for the Southern Cascades in the Southern Cascades DPS (i.e., the foreseeable future. If we identify any DPS. Within the Lassen sighting area Lassen sighting area) may be portions that may be both (1) significant specifically, the Sierra Nevada red fox’s experiencing elevated impacts due to its and (2) endangered or threatened, we State-listed status and protection from small population size. In addition, both would engage in a more detailed commercial harvest provide additional, the Lassen and Crater Lake sighting analysis to determine whether these significant protection for the long-term areas may experience (in the future standards are indeed met. Please see the conservation of the subspecies. beyond the 50-year time period) Significant Portion of the Range Although similar protections from combined pressures from coyote discussion, above, for the entire taxon hunting and trapping are not available predation and competition, as well as for an explanation of relevance of this for the remainder of the DPS’s range in climate change-related impacts that analysis. Oregon, the best available data do not could reduce snowpack levels, thereby We consider the historical range of indicate rangewide impacts to the DPS. creating habitat conditions at high the Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Nevada red fox to include the regulations (50 CFR part 424) describe for the Sierra Nevada DPS are discussed mountainous areas from the Columbia procedures for adding species to the below. River at Mt. Hood south into California, Federal Lists of Endangered and Wildfire and Fire Suppression including the area of Mt. Shasta and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under slightly into the Trinity Mountains, and section 4(a), we may list a species on the Based on the best scientific and continuing south to the Lassen Peak basis of any of five factors: (A) The commercial information available, the area. This range includes those present or threatened destruction, potential effects of wildfire and fire mountainous areas that exceed 1,219 m modification, or curtailment of its suppression (Factor A) on the Sierra (4,000 ft) in Oregon (Aubry et al. 2015, habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Nevada DPS are similar to those pp. 1–2; Doerr 2015, pp. 2–3, 13–14, commercial, recreational, scientific, or described previously for the Sierra line 7) and 1,200 m (3,937 ft) in educational purposes; (C) disease or Nevada red fox. When they occur, California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 8). predation; (D) the inadequacy of wildfires typically burn in a range of Based on the best available information existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) intensities, resulting in a mosaic of at this time, these sighting areas account other natural or manmade factors habitat effects. Intense, stand-replacing for the current distribution of the affecting its continued existence. wildfire (similar to the 2013 Rim fire subspecies within the Southern An endangered species is defined by that burned near the Sonora Pass Cascades DPS. the Act, with exception, as ‘‘any species sighting area) could reduce habitat In considering any significant portion which is in danger of extinction availability and quality for this DPS by of the Southern Cascades DPS, we throughout all or a significant portion of reducing overstory cover. Given this considered whether the stressors facing its range.’’ A threatened species is DPS currently consists of a single the DPS might be different at the six defined as ‘‘any species which is likely population in the Sonora Pass area, one stand-replacing fire could have sighting areas where the Sierra Nevada to become an endangered species within significant impacts on this remaining red fox have been found within the the foreseeable future throughout all or population. However, beneficial aspects Cascades Mountain Range and, thus, a significant portion of its range.’’ A of wildfire would also be expected, geographically concentrated in some species is defined by the Act to include including improving habitat conditions portion of the DPS’s range. We are any subspecies of fish or wildlife or that promote an increased abundance of unable to find a concentration of plants, and any distinct population preferred prey for the Sierra Nevada red stressors in the Lassen area as compared segment of any species of vertebrate fish fox. There is uncertainty concerning the to the remainder of the DPS’s range. or wildlife which interbreeds when Given the extensive coverage of the potential for population-level effects of mature. Southern Cascades DPS compared to the wildfire on the Sierra Nevada DPS, but entire range of the subspecies, we An analysis of the potential threats for it is reasonable to assume that wildfires believe that the significant portion of the Sierra Nevada red fox is included in will continue to occur in the Sierra the range analysis for this DPS is the the Species Report (Service 2015, entire) Nevada mountains into the future, at same as that presented above for the associated with this document (and least at a rate similar to what has entire taxon. We are unable to provide available at http://www.regulations.gov occurred in the recent past. Land any greater level of detail for the Oregon under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011– management agencies within the range portion of the Southern Cascades DPS 0103). All potential threats of which we of the Sierra Nevada DPS are also range given the limited amount of are aware that may act upon the Sierra expected to continue to conduct information available for the Sierra Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox necessary vegetation or fuel Nevada red fox in Oregon. (hereafter referred to as Sierra Nevada management strategies (e.g., fire In summary, our evaluation of the DPS) currently or in the future are management plans, LRMPs, SNFPA) to best available information indicates that captured within the Summary of reduce the likelihood of wide-scale, the overall level of stressors is not Information Pertaining to the Five catastrophic fires. The future geographically concentrated in one Factors section, above, and stepped effectiveness of these treatments is portion of the Southern Cascades DPS down in the following paragraphs as unknown, but the best available range, and the stressors that have the they pertain specifically to the Sierra information indicates that at least local potential to impact the DPS are Nevada DPS. The range of the Sierra reductions in fire severity should be relatively consistent across its range Nevada DPS includes high-elevation achieved. Overall, we conclude that (Service 2015, entire). Our review of the (roughly greater than 1,200 m (3,937 ft)) based on the best scientific and best available scientific and commercial conifer habitat of various types (Perrine commercial information available at this information indicates that the Southern et al. 2010, p. 8) within the Sierra time, wildfire and fire suppression are Cascades DPS of the Sierra Nevada red Nevada mountain range from Sierra to not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS fox is not in danger of extinction Tulare Counties. However, at this time, now or into the future. (endangered) nor likely to become Sierra Nevada red fox are only known Climate Change endangered within the foreseeable to reside within the Sonora Pass future (threatened), throughout all or a sighting area. The similarities in ecology and habitat significant portion of its range. Similar to the five-factor analysis associations between the Sierra Nevada Therefore, we find that listing the presented above for the entire taxon, we DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox and the Southern Cascades DPS of Sierra are not aware of any information to rest of the taxon across its entire range, Nevada red fox as an endangered or indicate that the following are threats to combined with the large scales at which threatened species under the Act is not the Sierra Nevada DPS currently or in climate change studies are conducted, warranted at this time. the future: Overutilization for lead us to conclude that our analysis of commercial, recreational, scientific, or the potential effects of climate change Sierra Nevada Distinct Population educational purposes, including (Factor A) for the entire taxon similarly Segment (DPS) of Sierra Nevada Red trapping for fur (Factor B); SPD or EFF applies to the Sierra Nevada DPS. The Fox diseases (Factor C); or predation by most significant, potential future impact As described above, section 4 of the domestic dogs (Factor C). Other to the Sierra Nevada DPS from climate Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing potential stressors identified specifically change (likely to manifest itself beyond

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61019

the 50-year foreseeable future time Nevada DPS, and given the isolation swamping (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. period) appears to be reduced snowpack and low population numbers in this 16–17; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 2). levels that would make high-elevation area, transmission of a disease into the Hybridization is a recently described areas more suitable for coyotes, and thus population would be less likely, except impact within the Sierra Nevada DPS. In the fox would shift up in elevation to within family groups (Perrine et al. a study conducted from October 2011 remain in higher snowpack areas. If the 2010, p. 9). Given there is no evidence through September 2014, researchers current population does not expand to suggest that disease has impacted the documented interbreeding between throughout other portions of the Sierra Sierra Nevada DPS in the past, nor is female Sierra Nevada red fox and two Nevada DPS’s range in the future, this there evidence to suggest that disease male nonnative red foxes in 2013, impact will likely affect the population, currently affects the DPS or is likely to resulting in 10 hybrid pups (Quinn and given it currently occurs within a in the future, we conclude that disease Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10). This narrow elevational range where the is not a threat to the Sierra Nevada DPS interbreeding was followed by subspecies already occupies the highest now or in the future. documented inbreeding (breeding elevations in the area. between related foxes) between the Although many climate models Predation and Competition From Coyotes nonnative male and one of his hybrid generally agree about potential future female offspring resulting in an changes in temperature and a greater Based on the best scientific and additional backcross hybrid pup in 2014 proportion of precipitation falling as commercial information available, the (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 16, 30). rain rather than snow, the consequent potential effects of predation or This breeding of native Sierra Nevada effects on vegetation and snowpack competition from coyotes (Factors C and red fox with nonnative red foxes is the levels are more uncertain, as is the rate E) on the Sierra Nevada DPS are similar only indication of successful at which any such changes might be to those described previously for the reproduction in the study area during realized. Therefore, it is not clear how entire taxon. Coyotes are present in the the last 3 years (Quinn and Sacks 2014, or when changes in snowpack levels, Sonora Pass sighting area at the same pp. 9–10); this study covered 20 to 50 forest type, and plant species elevation as Sierra Nevada red fox percent of the high-quality habitat composition will affect the distribution during the summer months (although present in the Sonora Pass sighting area. of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat within the average elevation for coyotes The two nonnative male adults that the Sierra Nevada DPS. Thus, appears to be lower than average entered the Sierra Nevada DPS and bred uncertainty exists regarding the level of elevation for the fox (Quinn and Sacks with Sierra Nevada red fox individuals 2014, pp. 11, 35)), and they appear to impact that climate change may have on were not closely related, but both outnumber Sierra Nevada red fox in the Sierra Nevada red fox or their habitat showed a combination of fur-farm stock area (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 12). within the Sierra Nevada DPS. Overall, and Rocky Mountain red fox ancestry However, Rich (2014, p.1) notes that we conclude that, based on the best and likely originated from a population deep snows in the Sonora Pass sighting scientific and commercial information somewhere in the Great Basin of Nevada area tend to keep coyotes below 2,743 available at this time, the expected (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 16). future (i.e., next 50 years) conditions are m (9,000 ft). At this time, the best available Additionally, a third nonnative male of not expected to change to a degree that unknown origin was detected at the would be considered significant. Thus, information indicates the presence of coyotes within the range of the Sierra Sonora Pass sighting area in 2014, but based on the best scientific and it is not known to have bred (Sacks et commercial information available at this Nevada DPS, but we do not have al. 2015, pp. 16, 22). time, climate change is not a threat to information to indicate associated the Sierra Nevada DPS now or into the impacts to the Sierra Nevada red fox Overall, this documented future. (i.e., no information to indicate that hybridization is likely resulting in a coyotes are causing a decline or that reduction in reproduction of native Disease coyotes are increasing in number such Sierra Nevada red fox within the DPS. As described for the Sierra Nevada that they constitute a threat to the DPS) Sacks et al. (2015, p. 14) report reduced red fox subspecies as a whole, either currently or in the future. This genetic diversity in the Sierra Nevada numerous pathogens are known to cause could change if climate change-related red fox at Sonora Pass; specifically, severe disease (Factor C) in canids. The impacts become realized with genetic diversity has declined to two- diseases most likely to affect the Sierra significantly lowered snowpack levels; thirds of its historical estimate in this Nevada DPS are sarcoptic mange, canine alternatively, a potential future coyote area. In addition, Sacks et al. (2015, p. distemper, and rabies. Although SPD impact could be lessened if wolf packs 3) state that lack of breeding among and EFF are diseases that may impact continue to expand outside of Oregon native individuals in the Sierra Nevada Sierra Nevada red fox in the Southern and into the Sierra Nevada mountain DPS over recent years is potentially Cascades DPS (see Disease sections, range. Restoration of wolves in indicative of inbreeding depression. above, for both the taxon as a whole and California in sustainable populations Overall, inbreeding depression and the the Southern Cascades DPS), neither would likely lower coyote population potential for outbreeding depression SPD or EFF have been reported within numbers or exclude them from higher and genomic replacement from the or near the current population at the elevation forested areas, thereby nonnatives represent issues of concern Sonora Pass sighting area. Additionally, facilitating the persistence of Sierra for the Sonora Pass population (Sacks et the Sonora Pass sighting area is unlikely Nevada red fox populations (Levi and al. 2015, p. 3). We have no information to be exposed to these diseases because Wilmers 2012, p. 926); wolves are to indicate that nonnative red fox will CDFW does not stock fish from unlikely to compete heavily with Sierra cease inhabiting and interbreeding with Northern California south of the Feather Nevada red fox because they tend to Sierra Nevada red fox within the Sierra River (Plumas County) to help prevent take larger game (ODFW 2015, p. 8). Nevada DPS into the future. Therefore, transmittal of diseases (including SPD based on the best scientific and and EFF) (Beale 2011, p. 1). Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox commercial information available at this The best available data indicate that Hybridization can result in time, we conclude that hybridization no diseases are affecting the Sierra outbreeding depression or genetic with nonnative foxes is a threat to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Sierra Nevada DPS (currently 2014 (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 3, 16, 30). Nevada DPS overall. Additionally, the represented by a single population in During that same time, no surviving best available data indicate ambiguity in the Sonora Pass sighting area) both native pups were successfully produced either the likelihood or level of impacts currently and into the future. in the study area. Only two adult native for the various stressors at the DPS-wide males were known from the area, and level, or the data indicate only Vehicles one of those was apparently either individual-level impacts. Thus, data do Based on the best scientific and killed or driven off by one of the not indicate that these stressors are commercial information available, the incoming nonnative males. A third cumulatively causing now or will cause potential effects of vehicles (i.e., road nonnative male was documented in the in the future a substantial decline of the kill and noise disturbance) (Factor E) are study area in 2014, but did not Sierra Nevada red fox across the range similar to those described previously for successfully interbreed (Sacks et al. of the Sierra Nevada DPS. Therefore, the entire taxon. To date, there has been 2015, p. 16). based on the best scientific and a single report of a Sierra Nevada red Overall, the best available scientific commercial information available at this fox road kill within the Sierra Nevada and commercial information suggests a time, we have determined that the DPS (prior to 2010 along California State single, extant population of Sierra cumulative impacts of these potential Highway 395), and there may be noise Nevada red fox currently exists in the stressors do not rise to the level of a disturbance activity in the portion of the Sierra Nevada DPS, and the population threat for the Sierra Nevada DPS. DPS that overlaps with the Bridgeport is small, declining, and isolated. There Winter Recreation Area within the has been no indication of native fox Existing Regulatory Mechanisms— Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest or reproduction since 2011. Therefore, Sierra Nevada DPS the Marine’s Corps’ Marine Warfare based on the best scientific and Existing regulatory mechanisms that Training Center (MWTC). However, commercial information available at this affect the Sierra Nevada DPS include snowmobile-related impacts are largely time, we conclude the negative effects of laws and regulations promulgated by unknown, as demonstrated by the Forest reduced genetic diversity and the Federal Government and State of Service’s current investigation in reproduction deficiency are a threat to California governments (Factor D). accordance with Standard 32 of the the Sierra Nevada DPS currently and These include the following SNFPA, results of which are not yet into the future. In addition, these mechanisms that are described in detail available. Additionally, no known negative effects are associated with in the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox have isolation and can also be influenced by 58–63) and summarized in more detail been reported at the MWTC. At this hybridization. At this point in time, above under the Existing Regulatory time, information indicates that however, we do not have information to Mechanisms section for the entire taxon: individual Sierra Nevada red fox within determine how hybridization will (1) Forest Service policy manual the range of the Sierra Nevada DPS may influence genetic diversity and (USDA FS 2005, section 2670.22), be impacted by vehicle activity or noise reproduction. which allows for designation of as opposed to significant impacts across sensitive species of management the range of the DPS. Therefore, based Cumulative Effects concern, of which the Sierra Nevada red on the best scientific and commercial We are not aware of any information fox is a sensitive species where it occurs information available at this time, we to indicate that potential cumulative on National Forests in California (U.S. conclude that vehicles are not a threat effects within the Sierra Nevada DPS are Forest Service Region 5). to the Sierra Nevada DPS now or in the different than the potential cumulative (2) National Forest management is future. impacts described above for the entire directed by the Multiple-Use Sustained- taxon and for the Southern Cascades Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 Small Population Effects DPS. Above, we concluded that two U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and the NFMA (16 The best available genetic data for the cumulative impact scenarios could U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA taxon are indicative of a decline in the potentially occur: specifies that the Forest Service must Sierra Nevada DPS over time. Regarding (1) Potential increased competition have an LRMP to guide and set genetic diversity and the small with and predation from coyotes on standards for all natural resource population of the Sierra Nevada DPS, Sierra Nevada red fox as a result of high- management activities on each National current heterozygosity levels in nuclear elevation forested areas becoming more Forest, including the Humboldt-Toiyabe DNA (i.e., a measure of genetic suitable for coyotes following potential and Stanislaus National Forests that diversity) are considerably lower impacts from climate change (i.e., currently harbor suitable habitat or (average = 0.44) than heterozygosity lowered snowpack levels, increased known occurrences of Sierra Nevada red levels historically (0.64), thus indicating incidence and extent of wildfires). fox within the Sierra Nevada DPS. In a recent negative trend in population (2) A combination of potential addition, the Forest Service must size (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 13–14). stressors (i.e., hunting and trapping, implement management actions through Reductions in the diversity of mtDNA disease, competition and predation from their LRMPs that provide a conservation since historical times also indicate a coyotes, hybridization with nonnative benefit to the DPS. recent decline in population numbers red fox, and vehicles) that directly result (3) The SNFPA requires fire and fuels (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14). in death or loss of reproductive ability management projects in most areas to Consistent with reductions in genetic for the Sierra Nevada red fox. retain at least 40 percent (preferably 50 diversity, there has also been recent To avoid redundancy, these effects are percent) canopy cover within a documented inbreeding in this described in detail above for the entire treatment unit and effectively requires population. As described in the taxon and the Southern Cascades DPS retention of trees 63.5 cm (25 in) dbh in Hybridization With Nonnative Red Fox under Cumulative Effects. Similar to most treated areas (USDA 2004, pp. 3, section, above, two nonnative male red those discussions above, the best 50), which is close to the preferred fox are documented to have entered the available data at this time do not suggest winter habitat characteristics likely population, bred with native that the cumulative effects of increased preferred by the subspecies. individuals, and produced a minimum coyote numbers and climate change rise Additionally, SNFPA requires the Forest of 11 hybrid pups between 2012 and to the level of a threat to the Sierra Service to: (a) Conduct an analysis to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61021

determine whether activities within 8 (Norquist 2014, p. 2) consistent with • 1920s to the 1940s/1950s: Reduced km (5 mi) of a verified Sierra Nevada requirements outlined in the Sikes Act harvest of pelts recorded within red fox sighting have the potential to (16 U.S.C. 670a), which would address California. affect the species (USDA 2004, p. 54), potential impacts to natural resources, • 1940s to 1980: Increasingly rare (b) mandate a limited operating period presumably to include the Sierra sightings in California that led to the of January 1 to June 30 as necessary to Nevada red fox. Because an INRMP is State prohibition on red fox trapping in avoid adverse impacts to potential not yet finalized, we cannot evaluate its 1974, and the State listing of the breeding, and (c) require 2 years of adequacy as a regulatory mechanism. subspecies as a threatened species in evaluations for activities near sightings Overall, existing regulatory 1980 (Statham et al. 2012, p. 123). that are not associated with a den site. mechanisms currently (and into the • 1996 to 2002: Extensive carnivore (4) The OPLMA (Pub. L. 111–11, p. future) provide substantial protection on surveys throughout the Sierra Nevada 1059) established the Bridgeport Winter Federal lands for the Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al., 2005, entire); no Sierra Recreation Area to control winter DPS. Within the Sonora Pass sighting Nevada red fox were observed. vehicles on Forest Service land, area specifically, the Sierra Nevada red • 2010: Discovery of Sierra Nevada consisting of about 2,833 ha (7,000 ac) fox’s State-listed status and protection red fox at what is described herein as in the northern portion of the Sonora from commercial harvest provide the Sonora Pass sighting area. Pass sighting area (USDA 2010, p. 4). additional significant protection for the • 2011 to 2015: Occupancy The OPLMA states that the winter use long-term conservation of the information from a study near Sonora of snowmobiles is allowed in the subspecies. As similarly described Pass (Quinn and Sacks 2014, entire; Recreation Area, but is subject to terms above in the Existing Regulatory Sacks et al. 2015, entire) and from and conditions, which can minimize Mechanisms section for the whole additional camera stations in Yosemite potential impacts to sensitive resources. taxon, the best available scientific and National Park maintained by the The Forest Service has completed a commercial information indicates that National Park Service. This best management plan that calls for the existing mechanisms are adequate to available and most recent information monitoring of impacts to wildlife address impacts to the Sierra Nevada indicates a single population in the (USDA 2010, p. 9) and is proceeding DPS from stressors for which Sonora Pass sighting area as opposed to with evaluations of impacts to Sierra governments may have regulatory its much more extensive historically Nevada red fox (see Vehicles, above). control (i.e., wildfire, injury or mortality occupied area within the Sierra Nevada (5) The National Park Service Organic due to harvest, and injury or mortality mountain range. The Sonora Pass Act of 1916, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et due to collision with vehicles). sighting area extends along the crest of seq.) and the National Park Service the Sierra Nevada Mountains from north General Authorities Act of 1970 (16 Finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS of State Route 108 south into Yosemite U.S.C. 1a–1) address natural resources We assessed the best available National Park (Sacks et al. 2015, pp. 10– on National Park lands, specifically scientific and commercial information 11), overlapping Tuolumne, Mono, and within Yosemite National Park within regarding threats faced by the Sierra Alpine Counties, and including a recent the Sierra Nevada DPS. These Acts Nevada DPS. We have reviewed the sighting documented at the north end of require the National Park Service to petition, information available in our Yosemite National Park during 2015 ‘‘preserve fundamental physical and files, and information submitted to us (Lindelof 2015, pp. 1–2). biological processes, as well as following our 90-day finding (77 FR 45; (2) Declining population and individual species, features, and plant January 3, 2012). We also consulted inbreeding depression—Comparisons of and animal communities’’ (USDI NPS with Sierra Nevada red fox researchers historical and current population 2006, p. 36). Yosemite National Park’s and Federal land managers. We find estimates indicate that the Sierra land management plan (USDI NPS 1980, support for the petitioners’ claim that Nevada DPS, as currently represented pp. 10–11) does not contain specific the Sierra Nevada DPS may warrant solely by the Sonora Pass population, is measures to protect the Sierra Nevada listing as a federally endangered or in decline (Sacks et al. 2010, p. 1532; red fox or its habitat, but does threatened species. Although the Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14). The Sierra characterize the portion of the Park in petitioners did not outline the threats Nevada red fox within the Sierra the Sonora Pass sighting area as a that they believe are specific to the Nevada DPS is comprised of an ‘‘wilderness subzone,’’ wherein ‘‘natural Sierra Nevada DPS, we have identified estimated 14 breeding individuals, with systems and processes will be permitted threats from hybridization with a total adult population size estimate of to follow their minimum intrusion by nonnative red fox and negative effects of 10 to 50 (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 3, man.’’ reduced genetic diversity, inbreeding 10, 11, 14; Sacks et al. 2015, p. 14). (6) The CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) (breeding between related foxes), and Repeated resampling of individuals over prohibits possession, purchase, or reproduction deficiency as the the 3-year study period (October 2011 ‘‘take’’ of endangered or threatened significant factors for this DPS. Overall, through September 2014) suggests that species without an incidental take we believe the Sierra Nevada DPS is most adults with territories overlapping permit issued by CDFW. The Sierra warranted for listing based on the the study area were found (Quinn and Nevada red fox was designated as a following information: Sacks 2014, p. 14). threatened species under CESA in 1980 (1) Range contraction—The Sierra The low population size estimate for (CDFW 2014, p. 12). In addition, the Nevada red fox has experienced a range the single extant population known State of California classifies red foxes as contraction of greater than 90 percent within the Sierra Nevada DPS is a furbearing mammal that is protected from its historical range (based on our supported by analyses of genetic from commercial harvest (14 C.C.R. visual comparison of the historical diversity (Quinn and Sacks 2014, pp. 460). range (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 382; 13–14). For instance, the current average Additionally, we note that the U.S. Perrine et al. 2010, p. 4) to the current heterozygosity (a measure of genetic Marine Corps’ MWTC has lands within extent of the Sonora Pass sighting area) diversity) in nuclear DNA for Sierra a portion of the Sonora Pass sighting within the Sierra Nevada mountain Nevada red fox at the Sonora Pass area. The U.S. Marine Corps has range. We note a reduction of Sierra sighting area (0.44) is considerably initiated preparation of an INRMP Nevada red fox observations based on: lower than heterozygosity levels present

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

historically (0.64), indicating a (4) No evidence of recent ‘‘native’’ risk of extinction. However, if at any relatively recent negative trend in Sierra Nevada red fox reproduction— time we determine that issuing an population size (Quinn and Sacks 2014, The 11 nonnative hybridized pups emergency regulation temporarily pp. 13–14). Reductions in the diversity produced (as described above) are the listing the Sierra Nevada DPS of the of mtDNA since historical times also only clear indication of successful Sierra Nevada red fox is warranted, we indicate a decline in population reproduction in the study area (Sacks et will initiate the action at that time. al. 2015, pp. 3, 10–11) between 2011 numbers (Quinn and Sacks 2014, p. 14). Listing Priority Number—Sierra Nevada and 2014, which covered between 20 Associated with a known small DPS population is the high apparent and 50 percent of the contiguous high- isolation of the Sonora Pass population, quality habitat present in the Sonora The Service adopted guidelines on which has likely resulted in inbreeding Pass sighting area. Although unknown, September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to depression. The Sonora Pass population it is possible that Sierra Nevada red fox establish a rational system for utilizing is approximately 250 km (155 mi) from could have reproduced in portions of available resources for the highest the nearest population to the north the sighting area not covered by the 3- priority species when adding species to (Lassen sighting area), with no known year study. the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Sierra Nevada red fox populations to the In summary, we find that the Wildlife and Plants (Lists). These south. Genetic testing also shows a lack significant threats to the Sierra Nevada guidelines, titled ‘‘Endangered and of migration between the Lassen and DPS both currently and into the future Threatened Species Listing and Sonora Pass populations (Statham et al. are hybridization with nonnative red fox Recovery Priority Guidelines,’’ address 2012, p. 129) (see Discreteness and the negative effects of reduced the immediacy and magnitude of discussion, above). genetic diversity, inbreeding, and threats, and the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in We recognize that the Sierra Nevada reproduction deficiency. These threats descending order to monotypic genera red fox, in general across its entire appear to be having significant impacts (genus with one species), full species, range, has likely always been a on the single remaining population in the DPS at Sonora Pass. These impacts and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct relatively rare species. Grinnell et al. are evident from the best available population segments of vertebrates). We (1937, p. 396) described Sierra Nevada scientific and commercial information assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS of the red fox population numbers as that shows a combination of range Sierra Nevada red fox a listing priority ‘‘relatively small, even in the most contraction of greater than 90 percent number (LPN) of 3 based on our finding favorable territory,’’ and reported that from its historical range, an apparent that the DPS faces threats that are of the subspecies likely occurred at declining population, inbreeding high magnitude and are imminent. densities of 1 per 2.6 square km (1 per depression, hybridization, and no clear These threats include impacts square mi). Perrine et al. (2010, p. 9) indication of successful native Sierra associated with small population size concluded that, based on this Nevada red fox reproduction since at (e.g., inbreeding depression, insufficient information, Sierra Nevada red fox least 2011. These stressors cumulatively reproduction) and hybridization with likely occur at low population densities impact the DPS. nonnative red fox. This is the highest even within areas of high relative On the basis of the best scientific and priority that can be provided to a DPS abundance. The most recent information commercial information available, we of a subspecies under our guidance. Our for the Sierra Nevada DPS indicates a find that the petitioned action to list the rationale for assigning the Sierra Nevada small current population that is likely Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada DPS an LPN of 3 is outlined below. the remnant of a much larger population red fox is warranted. We will make a Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, and likely a remnant of multiple determination on the status of the DPS the magnitude of threat is the first populations within the DPS’s range. as endangered or threatened when we criterion we look at when establishing a (3) Hybridization with nonnative red develop a proposed listing listing priority. The guidance indicates fox—The arrival and documented determination. However, as explained that ‘‘species’’ (defined by the Act to breeding of nonnative red fox into the in more detail below, an immediate include biological subspecies and Sierra Nevada DPS, as documented proposal of a regulation implementing distinct vertebrate population segments) between 2011 and 2014 (Quinn and this action is precluded by higher with the highest magnitude of threat are Sacks 2014, pp. 2, 10) will bring alleles priority listing actions, and progress is those species facing the greatest threats that are otherwise rare or missing from being made to add or remove qualified to their continued existence. These the population, which in turn may help species from the Lists of Endangered species receive the highest listing alleviate inbreeding depression. and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. priority. However, continued breeding of We reviewed the available The threats that the Sierra Nevada nonnative red fox with the native Sierra information to determine if the existing DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox fox are Nevada DPS could lead to outbreeding and foreseeable threats render the Sierra high in magnitude because the major depression, genetic swamping, and Nevada DPS of Sierra Nevada red fox at threats (hybridization with nonnative potentially the eventual extirpation of risk of extinction now such that issuing red fox and inbreeding depression and the Sierra Nevada DPS. The recent study an emergency regulation temporarily insufficient reproduction associated documented interbreeding between listing the species under section 4(b)(7) with small population size) occur female Sierra Nevada red fox and two of the Act is warranted. We determined throughout the range of the Sierra male nonnative red foxes, resulting in that issuing an emergency regulation Nevada DPS. The severity of the effects seven hybrid pups in 2013, and another temporarily listing the DPS is not of these threats and the rapidity with four hybrid pups in 2014 (Sacks et al. warranted for the DPS at this time which they have caused impacts is high 2015, pp. 3, 15–17, 30). One of the four because the threats facing the DPS are given that a minimum of 11 hybrid pups hybrids produced in 2014 resulted from not of an imminent nature that have been produced since 2013 in a the pairing of a nonnative male and one necessitate emergency listing, and the population with an overall population of his hybrid female offspring (Sacks et best available scientific and commercial size of fewer than 50 individuals. In al. 2015, pp. 15–17, 30). The pup was information do not indicate that the addition, during 2013 and 2014, no thus 75 percent nonnative. Sonora Pass population is at imminent successful fully native reproduction was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61023

documented (only hybrid reproduction of the threats change, we will revisit our and 12-month findings on petitions to was documented), suggesting that assessment of the LPN. add species to the Lists or to change the hybridization is negatively affecting Work on a proposed listing status of a species from threatened to native Sierra Nevada red fox determination for the Sierra Nevada endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ reproduction within the Sierra Nevada DPS is precluded by work on higher petition findings on prior warranted- DPS. The Sonora Pass population is the priority listing actions with absolute but-precluded petition findings as only known remaining representative of statutory, court-ordered, or court- required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Sierra Nevada DPS; thus, threats to approved deadlines and final listing the Act; critical habitat petition the population constitute threats to the determinations for those species that findings; proposed and final rules DPS as a whole, and loss of the were proposed for listing with funds designating critical habitat; and population would constitute permanent from Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. This litigation-related, administrative, and loss of the DPS as a whole. There also work includes all the actions listed in program-management functions is no information to indicate that any the tables below under expeditious (including preparing and allocating ongoing conservation efforts are likely progress. budgets, responding to Congressional to reduce the severity of these threats Preclusion and Expeditious Progress and public inquiries, and conducting into the foreseeable future. public outreach regarding listing and Under our LPN guidance, the second To make a finding that a particular critical habitat). criterion we consider in assigning a action is warranted-but-precluded, the We cannot spend more for the Listing listing priority is the immediacy of Service must make two findings: (1) Program than the amount of funds threats. This criterion is intended to That the immediate proposal and timely within the spending cap without ensure that the species that face actual, promulgation of a final regulation is violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 identifiable threats are given priority precluded by pending listing proposals, U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since over those for which threats are only and (2) that expeditious progress is FY 2002, the Service’s budget has potential or that are intrinsically being made to add qualified species to included a critical habitat subcap to vulnerable but are not known to be either of the Lists and to remove species ensure that some funds are available for presently facing such threats. We from the Lists (16 U.S.C. completing Listing Program actions consider the threats facing the Sierra 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). other than critical habitat designations Nevada DPS to be imminent because we Preclusion (‘‘The critical habitat designation have factual information that the threats subcap will ensure that some funding is are identifiable and that the Sierra A listing proposal is precluded if the available to address other listing Nevada DPS is currently facing them Service does not have sufficient activities’’ (House Report No. 107–103, throughout its range. These actual, resources available to complete the 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19, identifiable threats are covered in detail proposal, because there are competing 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until under the discussion of Factors within demands for those resources, and the FY 2006, the Service had to use this finding for the Sierra Nevada DPS, relative priority of those competing virtually the entire critical habitat and currently include hybridization demands is higher. Thus, in any given subcap to address court-mandated with nonnative red fox, and inbreeding fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate designations of critical habitat, and depression and insufficient whether it will be possible to undertake consequently none of the critical habitat reproduction associated with small work on a listing proposal regulation or subcap funds were available for other population size. In addition to their whether promulgation of such a listing activities. In some FYs since current existence, we expect these proposal is precluded by higher priority 2006, we have been able to use some of threats to continue and likely intensify listing actions—(1) The amount of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund in the foreseeable future as there is no resources available for completing the proposed listing determinations for information to indicate that any ongoing listing function, (2) the estimated cost of high-priority candidate species. In other conservation efforts are occurring or completing the proposed listing, and (3) FYs, while we were unable to use any likely to reduce the imminence of these the Service’s workload and of the critical habitat subcap funds to threats into the future. Because these prioritization of the proposed listing in fund proposed listing determinations, threats are currently occurring, they are relation to other actions. we did use some of this money to fund imminent. Available Resources the critical habitat portion of some The third criterion in our LPN proposed listing determinations so that guidance is intended to devote The resources available for listing the proposed listing determination and resources to those species representing actions are determined through the proposed critical habitat designation highly distinctive or isolated gene pools annual Congressional appropriations could be combined into one rule, as reflected by taxonomy. The Sierra process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal thereby being more efficient in our Nevada DPS is an entity that receives a year since then, Congress has placed a work. In FY 2014, based on the Service’s lower priority than would a species as statutory cap on funds that may be workload, we were able to use some of a whole, particularly if the species were expended for the Listing Program. This the critical habitat subcap funds to fund the only one in its genus. The Sierra spending cap was designed to prevent proposed listing determinations. Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red the listing function from depleting For FY 2012, Congress also put in fox faces high-magnitude and imminent funds needed for other functions under place two additional subcaps within the threats, and is a valid taxon at the the Act (for example, recovery listing cap: One for listing actions for subspecies (and DPS) level. Thus, in functions, such as removing species foreign species and one for petition accordance with our LPN guidance, we from the Lists), or for other Service findings. As with the critical habitat have assigned the Sierra Nevada DPS an programs (see House Report 105–163, subcap, if the Service does not need to LPN of 3. 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, use all of the funds within the subcap, We will continue to monitor the 1997). The funds within the spending we are able to use the remaining funds threats to the Sierra Nevada DPS, and cap are available to support work for completing proposed or final listing the DPS’s status on an annual basis, and involving the following listing actions: determinations. To date, in FY 2015, should the magnitude or the imminence Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day based on the Service’s workload, we

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

have not yet determined if we are able median cost for preparing and Finally, proposed rules for to use some of the funds within the publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; reclassification of threatened species to foreign species subcap and the petitions for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a endangered species are lower priority, subcap to fund proposed listing proposed rule with critical habitat, because as listed species, they are determinations. $345,000; and for a final listing rule already afforded the protections of the We make our determinations of with critical habitat, $305,000. Act and implementing regulations. preclusion on a nationwide basis to Prioritizing Listing Actions. The However, for efficiency reasons, we may ensure that the species most in need of Service’s Listing Program workload is choose to work on a proposed rule to listing will be addressed first and also broadly composed of four types of reclassify a species to endangered if we because we allocate our listing budget actions, which the Service prioritizes as can combine this with work that is on a nationwide basis. Through the follows: (1) Compliance with court subject to a court-determined deadline. listing cap, the three subcaps, and the orders and court-approved settlement Since before Congress first established amount of funds needed to complete agreements requiring that petition the spending cap for the Listing Program court-mandated actions within those findings or listing or critical habitat in 1998, the Listing Program workload subcaps, Congress and the courts have determinations be completed by a has required considerably more in effect determined the amount of specific date; (2) section 4 (of the Act) resources than the amount of funds money available for other listing listing and critical habitat actions with Congress has allowed for the Listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the absolute statutory deadlines; (3) Program. It is therefore important that funds in the listing cap—other than essential litigation-related, we be as efficient as possible in our those within the subcaps needed to administrative, and listing program- listing process. Therefore, as we comply with court orders or court- management functions; and (4) section 4 implement our listing work plan and approved settlement agreements listing actions that do not have absolute work on proposed rules for the highest requiring critical habitat actions for statutory deadlines. In FY 2010, the priority species in the next several already-listed species, listing actions for Service received many new petitions years, we are preparing multi-species foreign species, and petition findings— and a single petition to list 404 species, proposals when appropriate, and these set the framework within which we significantly increasing the number of may include species with lower priority make our determinations of preclusion actions within the second category of if they overlap geographically or have and expeditious progress. our workload—actions that have the same threats as one of the highest For FY 2015, on December 16, 2014, priority species. In addition, we take absolute statutory deadlines. As a result Congress passed a Consolidated and into consideration the availability of of the petitions to list hundreds of Further Continuing Appropriations Act, staff resources when we determine species, we currently have over 460 12- 2015 (Pub. L. 113–235), which provides which high-priority species will receive month petition findings yet to be funding through September 30, 2015, at funding to minimize the amount of time initiated and completed. the same level as FY 2014. In particular, and resources required to complete each it includes an overall spending cap of To prioritize within each of the four listing action. $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of types of actions, we developed Listing Program Workload. Each FY that, no more than $1,504,000 can be guidelines for assigning a listing priority we determine, based on the amount of used for listing actions for foreign number (LPN) for each candidate funding Congress has made available species, and no more than $1,501,000 species (48 FR 43098, September 21, within the Listing Program spending can be used to make 90-day or 12-month 1983). Under these guidelines, we cap, specifically which actions we will findings on petitions. The Service thus assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, have the resources to work on in that has $12,905,000 available to work on depending on the magnitude of threats FY. We then prepare Allocation Tables proposed and final listing (high or moderate to low), immediacy of that identify the actions that we are determinations for domestic species. In threats (imminent or nonimminent), and funding for that FY, and how much we addition, if the Service has funding taxonomic status of the species (in order estimate it will cost to complete each available within the critical habitat, of priority: Monotypic genus (a species action; these Allocation Tables are part foreign species, or petition subcaps after that is the sole member of a genus); of our record for this notice and the those workloads had been completed, it species; or part of a species (subspecies listing program. Our Allocation Table can use those funds to work on listing or distinct population segment)). The for FY 2012, which incorporated the actions other than critical habitat lower the listing priority number, the Service’s approach to prioritizing its designations or foreign species. higher the listing priority (that is, a workload, was adopted as part of a Costs of Listing Actions. The work species with an LPN of 1 would have settlement agreement in a case before involved in preparing various listing the highest listing priority). A species the U.S. District Court for the District of documents can be extensive, and may with a higher LPN would generally be Columbia (Endangered Species Act include, but is not limited to: Gathering precluded from listing by species with Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10– and assessing the best scientific and lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed 377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (‘‘MDL commercial data available and rule for the species with the higher LPN Litigation’’), Document 31–1 (D. D.C. conducting analyses used as the basis can be combined with work on a May 10, 2011) (‘‘MDL Settlement for our decisions; writing and proposed rule for other high-priority Agreement’’)). The requirements of publishing documents; and obtaining, species. This is not the case for Sierra paragraphs 1 through 7 of that reviewing, and evaluating public Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red settlement agreement, combined with comments and peer review comments fox. Thus, in addition to being the work plan attached to the agreement on proposed rules and incorporating precluded by the lack of available as Exhibit B, reflected the Service’s relevant information into final rules. resources, the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Allocation Tables for FY 2011 and FY The number of listing actions that we Sierra Nevada red fox with an LPN of 2012. In addition, paragraphs 2 through can undertake in a given year also is 3, is also precluded by work on 7 of the agreement require the Service influenced by the complexity of those proposed listing determinations for to take numerous other actions through listing actions; that is, more complex those candidate species with a higher FY 2017—in particular, complete either actions generally are more costly. The listing priority. a proposed listing rule or a not-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61025

warranted finding for all 251 species consideration the availability of staff We provide below tables cataloguing designated as ‘‘candidates’’ in the 2010 resources. the work of the Service’s Listing candidate notice of review (‘‘CNOR’’) The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Program in FY 2015. This work includes before the end of FY 2016, and complete Nevada red fox was not listed as a all three of the steps necessary for final listing determinations within one candidate in the 2010 CNOR, nor was adding species to the Lists: (1) year of proposing to list any of those the proposed listing for the Sierra Identifying species that warrant listing; species. Paragraph 10 of that settlement Nevada DPS of the Sierra Nevada red (2) undertaking the evaluation of the agreement sets forth the Service’s fox included in the Allocation Tables best available scientific information conclusion that ‘‘fulfilling the that were reflected in the MDL about those species and the threats they commitments set forth in this settlement agreement. As we have face, and preparing proposed and final Agreement, along with other discussed above, we have assigned an listing rules; and (3) adding species to commitments required by court orders LPN of 3 to the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Lists by publishing proposed and or court-approved settlement the Sierra Nevada red fox. Therefore, final listing rules that include a agreements already in existence at the even if the Service has some additional summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of signing of this Settlement Agreement funding after completing all of the work (listed in Exhibit A), will require that data to the rule. After taking into required by court orders and court- substantially all of the resources in the consideration the limited resources approved settlement agreements, we Listing Program.’’ As part of the same available for listing, the competing would first fund actions with absolute lawsuit, the court also approved a demands for those funds, and the statutory deadlines for species that have separate settlement agreement with the completed work catalogued in the tables lower LPNs. In light of all of these other plaintiff in the case; that below, we find that we are making factors, funding a proposed listing for settlement agreement requires the expeditious progress to add qualified the Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra Service to complete additional actions species to the Lists FY 2015. Nevada red fox is precluded by court- in specific fiscal years—including 12- In addition to the work the Service ordered and court-approved settlement month petition findings for 11 species, has completed towards adding qualified agreements, listing actions with absolute 90-day petition findings for 477 species, species to the Lists, on May 10, 2011, and proposed listing determinations or statutory deadlines, and work on the Service filed in the MDL litigation not-warranted findings for 39 species. proposed listing determinations for a settlement agreement that These settlement agreements have led those candidate species with a lower incorporated the Service’s work plan for to a number of results that affect our LPN. FY 2012; the court approved that preclusion analysis. First, the Service Expeditious Progress settlement agreement on September 9, has been, and will continue to be, 2011. Paragraph 10 of that settlement limited in the extent to which it can As explained above, a determination agreement provides, ‘‘The Parties agree undertake additional actions within the that listing is warranted but precluded that the timetables for resolving the Listing Program through FY 2017, must also demonstrate that expeditious status of candidate species outlined in beyond what is required by the MDL progress is being made to add and this Agreement constitute expeditious settlement agreements. Second, because remove qualified species to and from progress in adding qualified species to the settlement is court approved, two the Lists. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ the lists of threatened and endangered broad categories of actions now fall finding, the evaluation of whether species.’’ The Service also filed a second within the Service’s highest priority progress in adding qualified species to settlement agreement that required even (compliance with a court order): (1) The the Lists has been expeditious is a more work in FY 2012. The Service had Service’s entire prioritized workload for function of the resources available for already begun in FY 2011 to implement FY 2012, as reflected in its Allocation listing and the competing demands for that work required by the work plan, Table; and (2) completion, before the those funds. (Although we do not and many of these initial actions in our end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or discuss it in detail here, we are also work plan include work on proposed not-warranted findings for those making expeditious progress in rules for candidate species with an LPN candidate species that were included in removing species from the list under the of 2 or 3. Therefore, both by entering the 2010 CNOR where we have not Recovery program in light of the into the first settlement agreement and already published a not-warranted resources available for delisting, which by completing the listing actions finding or proposed rule. Therefore, is funded by a separate line item in the required by both settlement agreements, each year, one of the Service’s highest budget of the Endangered Species the Service is making expeditious priorities is to make steady progress Program. Thus far, during FY 2015, we progress to add qualified species to the towards completing by the end of 2017 delisted the Oregon chub due to lists. As provided for in the settlement proposed and final listing recovery (80 FR 9126–9150). As agreements and the work plan determinations for the 2010 candidate discussed below, given the limited incorporated into the first agreement, species—based on its LPN prioritization resources available for listing, we find the Service’s progress in FY 2015 system, preparing multi-species actions that we are making expeditious progress include completing and publishing the when appropriate, and taking into in FY 2015 in the Listing Program. following determinations:

FY 2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

10/24/2014 ...... Threatened Species Status for Dakota Skip- Final Listing Endangered and Threatened ..... 79 FR 6367–63748 per and Endangered Species Status for Poweshiek Skipperling. 11/20/2014 ...... Threatened Species Status for Gunnison Final Listing Threatened ...... 79 FR 69191–69310 sage-grouse.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

FY 2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

12/11/2014 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Rufa Red Final Listing Threatened ...... 79 FR 73705–73748 Knot. 12/31/2014 ...... 90-day finding on Monarch Butterfly and Cali- 90-day petition finding Substantial ...... 79 FR 78775–78778 fornia Gnatcatcher. 4/2/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Northern Final Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 17973–18033 Long-eared Bat with 4(d) Rule. 4/7/2015 ...... Endangered Species Status for the Big 12-month petition finding Warranted Pro- 80 FR 18710–18739 Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River posed Listing Endangered. Crayfish. 4/7/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Hum- 12-month petition finding Not warranted ...... 80 FR 18742–18772 boldt Marten as an Endangered or Threat- ened Species. 4/10/2015 ...... 90-Day Findings on Ten Petitions (Clear Lake 90-day petition finding Substantial ...... 80 FR 19259–19263 hitch, Mojave shoulderband snail, Northern spotted owl, Relict dace, San Joaquin Val- ley giant flower-loving fly, Western pond turtle, Yellow-cedar, Egyptian tortoise, Golden conure, Long-tailed chinchilla). 4/23/2015 ...... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Proposed Rule Withdrawal ...... 80 FR 22828–22866 Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Crit- ical Habitat. 6/23/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 12-month petition finding Not warranted ...... 80 FR 35916–35931 Leona’s Little Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened. 6/30/2015 ...... 90-day Petition Findings on 31 Species ...... 90-day petition finding Substantial and not 80 FR 37568–37579 substantial (not substantial for Gray Wolf, Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander, Cali- fornia giant salamander, Caddo Mountain salamander, Colorado checkered whiptail, the DPS of Wild Horse, Olympic torrent salamander, Pigeon Mountain salamander, Weller’s salamander and wingtail crayfish; substantial for alligator snapping turtle, Apalachicola kingsnake, Arizona toad, Blanding’s turtle, Cascade Caverns salamander, Cascades frog, Cedar Key mole skink, foothill yellow-legged frog, gopher frog, green salamander, Illinois chorus frog, Kern Canyon slender salamander, Key ringneck snake, Oregon slender salamander, Relictual slender salamander, Rim Rock crowned snake, Rio Grande cooter, silvery phacelia, spotted turtle, southern hog-nosed snake, and western spadefoot toad). 9/15/2015 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the 12-month petition finding Not warranted No- 80 FR 55286–55304 New England Cottontail as an Endangered tice Candidate removal. or Threatened Species. 9/15/2015 ...... Threatened Species Status for Platanthera Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 55304–55321 integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid). 9/18/2015 ...... 90-Day Findings on 25 Petitions ...... 90-day petition finding Substantial and not 80 FR 56423–56432 substantial (not substantial for Cahaba pebblesnail and the Stephens’ kangaroo rat; substantial for Blue Calamintha bee, California spotted owl, Cascade torrent salamander, Columbia torrent salamander, Florida pine snake, Inyo Mountains salamander, Kern Plateau salamander, lesser slender salamander, limestone salamander, northern bog lemming, Panamint alligator lizard, Peaks of Otter salamander, rusty- patched bumblebee, Shasta salamander, short-tailed snake, southern rubber boa, regal fritillary, Tinian monarch, tricolored blackbird, tufted puffin, Virgin River spinedace, wood turtle, and the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 61027

FY 2015 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR Pages

9/29/2015 ...... Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista Proposed Listing Endangered and Threat- 80 FR 58535–58567 lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine Partridge ened. Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened Species Status for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s Silverbush). 9/30/15 ...... Endangered Status for 49 Species from the Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 80 FR 58820–58909 Hawaiian Islands. 9/30/15 ...... Threatened Species Status for Elfin-woods Proposed listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 58674–58688 warbler. 9/30/15 ...... Threatened Species Status for Eastern Proposed listing Threatened ...... 80 FR 58688–58701 massasauga rattlesnake.

Our expeditious progress also been working on the second step, listed below. Actions in the table are included work on listing actions that we necessary for adding species to the Lists. being conducted under a deadline set by funded in previous fiscal years, and in Some of these actions have been a court through a court order or FY 2015, but have not yet been submitted to the Federal Register; settlement agreement. completed to date. For these species, we however, they have not yet published in have completed the first step, and have the Federal Register. These actions are

FY15 ACTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED

Species Action

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Greater Sage-grouse 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Spe- cies. Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Proposed Listing Endangered and Threatened. Pine Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened Species Status for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett’s Silverbush). Endangered Status for 16 Species and Threatened Status for 7 Spe- Final Listing Endangered and Threatened. cies in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is- lands. Columbia spotted frog—Great Basin DPS ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. Sequatchie caddisfly ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. Four florida plants (Florida pineland crabgrass, Florida prairie clover, Proposed listing. pineland sandmat, and Everglades bully). Kentucky arrow darter ...... Proposed listing. Cumberland arrow darter ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. 6 Cave beetles (Nobletts, Baker Station, Fowler’s, Indian Grave Point, 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. inquirer, and Coleman). Headwater chub ...... Proposed listing. Roundtail chub DPS ...... Proposed listing. Page springsnail ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. Sonoran desert tortoise ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. Goose Creek milkvetch ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal. Sleeping Ute milkvetch ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted Notice Candidate removal Suwannee moccasinshell ...... 12-month petition finding. American eel ...... 12-month petition finding Not warranted.

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2015 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

Washington ground squirrel ...... Proposed listing. Xantus’s murrelet ...... Proposed listing. Black warrior waterdog ...... Proposed listing. Black mudalia ...... Proposed listing. Highlands tiger beetle ...... Proposed listing. Sicklefin redhorse ...... Proposed listing. Texas hornshell ...... Proposed listing. Guadalupe fescue ...... Proposed listing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND FY 2015 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Actions Subject to Statutory Deadline

Miami Tiger Beetle ...... 90-day petition finding.

Another way that we have been We intend that any proposed listing References Cited expeditious in making progress to add action for the Sierra Nevada DPS of the qualified species to the Lists is that we Sierra Nevada red fox will be as A complete list of references cited is have endeavored to make our listing accurate as possible. Therefore, we will available on the Internet at http:// actions as efficient and timely as continue to accept additional www.regulations.gov and upon request possible, given the requirements of the information and comments from all from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife relevant law and regulations, and concerned governmental agencies, the Office (see ADDRESSES). constraints relating to workload and scientific community, industry, or any Authors personnel. We are continually other interested party concerning this considering ways to streamline finding. The primary authors of this document processes or achieve economies of scale, We request that you submit any new are the staff members of the Pacific such as by batching related actions Southwest Regional Office. together. Given our limited budget for information concerning the status of, or implementing section 4 of the Act, these threats to, the Sierra Nevada DPS, the Authority efforts also contribute towards finding Southern Cascades DPS, or the Sierra that we are making expeditious progress Nevada red fox (in general) to our The authority for this section is to add qualified species to the Lists. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office section 4 of the Endangered Species Act The Sierra Nevada DPS of the Sierra (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Nevada red fox will be added to the list available. New information will help us seq.). of candidate species upon publication of monitor Sierra Nevada red fox Dated: September 29, 2015. this 12-month finding. We will continue throughout the subspecies’ range, and Signed: to monitor the status of this DPS as new encourage its conservation. If an information becomes available. This emergency situation develops for the James W. Kurth, review will determine if a change in Sierra Nevada DPS, Southern Cascades Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife status is warranted, including the need DPS, or the subspecies in general, we Service. to make prompt use of emergency listing will act to provide immediate [FR Doc. 2015–25289 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am] procedures. protection. BILLING CODE 4333–15P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08OCP3.SGM 08OCP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3