[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45-52]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33610]
[[Page 45]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes
vulpes necator) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical
habitat. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing this subspecies may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of
the subspecies to determine if listing Sierra Nevada red fox is
warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding this subspecies. Based on the status review, we will issue a
12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before March 5, 2012. The deadline
for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
this date. After March 5, 2012, you must submit information directly to
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below). Please note that we might not be able to
address or incorporate information that we receive after the above
requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103, which is the docket number for this action. Then
click on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Send a Comment or Submission.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0103; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all information we
receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for
Information section, below, for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Leyse, Sacramento Field Office
Listing/Critical Habitat Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825; by telephone at (916) 414-6600; or by facsimile
at (916) 414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on Sierra
Nevada red fox from governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We
seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing Sierra
Nevada red fox is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act,
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose
to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information
on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation for the species'';
and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via
http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any
personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If
your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this personal identifying information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will
[[Page 46]]
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment during normal business hours at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On April 27, 2011, we received a petition dated April 27, 2011,
from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Sierra Nevada
red fox be listed as endangered or threatened, and that critical
habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified
itself as such and included the requisite identification information
for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a May 24, 2011,
letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act was not warranted. We also stated that we were required to complete
a significant number of listing and critical habitat actions in Fiscal
Year 2011 pursuant to court orders, judicially approved settlement
agreements, and other statutory deadlines, but that we had secured
funding for Fiscal Year 2011 to allow publication of a finding in the
Federal Register in early Fiscal Year 2012. This finding addresses the
petition.
Species Information
Sierra Nevada red fox is classified in the mammalian order
Carnivora, family Canidae, and is one of 10 subspecies of red fox
recognized in North America (Larivi[eacute]re and Pashitschniak-Arts
1996, pp. 1-2; Aubry 1997, p. 55). The Sierra Nevada red fox can be
distinguished from other red fox subspecies based on morphology,
coloration, and habitat use (Roest 1977, p. 13). The Sierra Nevada red
fox was first described by Merriam (1900, as cited in Roest 1977, p. 1)
as the species Vulpes necator, but was considered by Grinnell et al.
(1937, p. 377) to be a subspecies of the red fox. The scientific
community continues to recognize the Sierra Nevada red fox as a
subspecies (Roest 1977, p. 1; Larivi[eacute]re and Pashitschniak-Arts
1996, pp. 1-2; Aubry 1997, p. 55; Sachs et al. 2010, p. 1542).
Therefore, we accept the classification of the Sierra Nevada red fox as
a subspecies of the red fox.
The red fox is a relatively small canid with an elongated snout,
large ears, slender legs and body, and a bushy tail with a white tip
(Larivi[eacute]re and Pashitschniak-Arts 1996, p. 2; Aubry 1997, p.
55). Sierra Nevada red fox is typically red, but can occur in black or
silver phases (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 377; Roest 1977, p. 1), and is
generally smaller than other red fox subspecies in North America
(California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1987, p. 3).
Historically, Sierra Nevada red fox occupied high-elevation areas
of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges in California
(Zielinski et al. 2005, p. 1389), ranging from Tulare County north to
Sierra County, and from the vicinity of Lassen Peak and Mt. Shasta west
to the Trinity Mountains in Trinity County (Grinnell et al. 1937, p.
381). However, a recent study by Sachs et al. (2010, p. 1536) indicates
that the historical range of Sierra Nevada red fox includes the
southern Cascade mountain range in Oregon, as far north as the Columbia
River. The current distribution of Sierra Nevada red fox is believed to
be restricted to two small populations: one in the vicinity of Lassen
Peak (Perrine 2005, p. 105; California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) 2011, pp. 54-60) and the other in the vicinity of Sonora Pass
(Perrine et al. 2010, notes in proof; CNDDB 2011, pp. 54-60). Although
its entire historical range was not surveyed, systematic surveys by
Zielinski et al. (2005, p. 62010, p1389) failed to detect Sierra Nevada
red fox. The U.S. Forest Service recently conducted carnivore surveys
on National Forest System lands throughout the Sierra Nevada using
track plates and remotely triggered cameras, but Sierra Nevada red fox
were detected only in the Lassen National Forest and Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest (Perrine et al. 2010, notes in proof and p. 8). Current
population levels of Sierra Nevada red fox are unknown, but the
subspecies is believed to occur at very low density (Perrine et al.
2010, p. 9).
While the red fox is one of the most studied carnivores, little is
known about Sierra Nevada red fox ecology (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 14).
Sierra Nevada red fox is one of three high-elevation montane subspecies
referred to as mountain foxes (Aubry 1997, p. 55). It is found in
alpine and subalpine habitats typically above 1,525 meters (m) (5,000
feet (ft)) elevation, including meadows, dense mature forests, talus
(rocks accumulated at the base of a cliff, chute, or slope), and fell
fields (treeless rock-strewn areas dominated by scattered plants or
grasses) (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 18; CNDDB 2011, pp. 1-60). Radio
telemetry data indicate that Sierra Nevada red fox are most active at
dusk and at night (Perrine 2005, p. 114). Habitat use by Sierra Nevada
red fox varies seasonally. During the summer (generally June to
November (Perrine 2005, p. 160)), they prefer barren, high-elevation
habitats (Perrine 2005, p. 137) and utilize high-elevation shrub and
conifer communities in proportion to their availability (Perrine 2005,
p. 161). During the winter (generally November to June (Perrine 2005,
p. 160)), they are associated with mature closed-canopy forest (Perrine
2005, p. 163) and preferentially select forested areas for travel,
possibly to avoid deep snow (Benson et al. 2005, p. 128). A study of
Sierra Nevada red fox in the vicinity of Lassen Peak suggests that the
subspecies requires large home ranges averaging 2,323 hectares (ha)
(5,740 acres (ac)), with individual home ranges ranging from 262 ha
(647 ac) to 6,981 ha (17,250 ac) (Perrine 2005, p. 137). The Sierra
Nevada red fox demonstrates seasonal elevation migration, moving to
lower elevations during the winter months (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 21),
presumably to areas where prey are more readily available due to lower
snow depths (Perrine 2005, p. 146). Sierra Nevada red fox, like other
red fox in North America, appear to be opportunistic predators and
foragers, with a diet primarily composed of small rodents (Perrine et
al. 2010, p. 24).
Little is known about Sierra Nevada red fox reproductive biology.
Other red fox subspecies are predominately
[[Page 47]]
monogamous and mate over several weeks in the late winter and early
spring (Aubry 1997, p. 57). The gestation period for red fox is 51 to
53 days, with birth occurring from March through May in sheltered dens.
Sierra Nevada red fox have been documented to use natural openings in
rock slides, talus, and riven (broken) granite as denning sites
(Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 394), and it is likely that earthen dens are
also used (Aubry 1997, p. 58). Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 394) reports
that litter size averages six pups with a range of three to nine pups;
however, recent evidence suggests that litter sizes of two to three is
more typical (Perrine 2005, p. 152). The pups are weaned by 8 to 10
weeks of age, begin exploring their parents' home range by 12 weeks,
and disperse in the early fall when fully grown (Perrine et al. 2010,
pp. 14-15).
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to Sierra Nevada red fox, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The petition asserts that Sierra Nevada red fox habitat is
threatened by logging, fire suppression, domestic livestock grazing,
and recreation, including over-snow vehicle (OSV) (such as snowmobile)
and off-road vehicle (ORV) use. The petition also states that the
structural changes associated with logging and fire suppression
activities could facilitate invasion by coyotes and nonnative red fox,
resulting in increased competition, predation, and possible
interbreeding with nonnative red fox (Center for Biological Diversity
2011, pp. 18 and 22). Predation related to logging is discussed under
Factor C, while competition and interbreeding is discussed under Factor
E.
Logging--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition claims that logging has reduced the extent of old
conifer forest by 82 percent within the southern Cascade mountains and
by 79 percent within the eastern Cascade mountain forests, with similar
reductions in the Sierra Nevada (Center for Biological Diversity 2011,
p. 18). Perrine (2005, p. 137) found that Sierra Nevada red fox
detections were positively associated with dense, mature, mid-elevation
forests exhibiting canopy cover greater than 40 percent and trees
larger than 60 centimeters (cm) (23.6 inches (in)) diameter at breast
height. Winter home ranges of Sierra Nevada red fox are dominated by
Sierran mixed conifer, red and white fir communities in which fox use
the cavities under logs and trees, and tree wells (area of loose or no
snow around the trunk of a tree), as day rest sites (Perrine 2005, p.
146; Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 17). The petitioners
state that the removal of the large trees that form tree wells or that
fall and provide cavities that Sierra Nevada red fox use as day rests,
as well as the structural changes of forest complexity associated with
logging, render habitats less suitable for Sierra Nevada red fox
(Center for Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 17-18).
Logging--Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and
Available in Service Files
Approximately 80 percent of Sierra Nevada red fox's range occurs on
National Forest System Lands (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p.
11). Historical logging activities in the Sierra Nevada have resulted
in the reduction of habitat that may be used by the Sierra Nevada red
fox. Prior to logging in the Sierra Nevada, suitable forested habitat
was projected to occur on 55 percent of National Forest lands, while
logging reduced the suitable habitat to 13 percent of National Forest
lands (SNEP 1996, p. 99). The largest extant population of Sierra
Nevada red fox occurs in the vicinity of Lassen Peak within both Lassen
National Park and Lassen National Forest. Lassen National Forest
currently has planned fuels treatment projects that may affect
approximately 19,584 ha (48,392 ac), including approximately 929 ha
(2,296 ac) that contain habitat suitable for red fox (USDA Forest
Service 2009, pp. 509-510). Although forested habitats utilized by
Sierra Nevada red fox have historically undergone logging or fuels
treatment activities, and future treatment is planned in suitable
habitat that may be occupied by the fox, neither the petition nor our
files contain information about potential ongoing or future threats
that may occur as a result of logging activities. Although the
information does not support the petitioner's assertions on this
subject, we will further consider effects that logging may have on the
subspecies' habitat in our status review.
Fire Suppression--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that fire suppression activities impact the
natural role of fire in developing the habitat components used by
Sierra Nevada red fox (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 22).
The petition also states that forest openings, fell fields, and early-
seral (period from disturbance to crown closure of conifer stands)
post-fire habitats are important components for Sierra Nevada red fox
as these areas provide habitat for a majority of the fox's prey base
(Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 22). Finally, the petition
claims that fire suppression
[[Page 48]]
activities may result in direct impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox, as
well as alter and fragment the structure of the habitat. The potential
for fire suppression activities to directly impact Sierra Nevada red
fox individuals is addressed under Factor E below.
Fire Suppression--Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
We do not have any information in our files, nor does the petition
provide specific information, on the reduction or fragmentation of
foraging habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox due to fire suppression. The
petition also does not document that wildfire is necessary to create or
maintain this foraging habitat. While the petition does provide general
information about historical fire intervals in the Sierra Nevada, it
does not provide any specific information about fire intervals or the
likelihood of future fires within Sierra Nevada red fox's current
range. Although the information does not support the petitioner's
assertions on this subject, we will further consider effects that fire
suppression activities may have on the subspecies' habitat in our
status review.
Domestic Livestock Grazing
The petition states that domestic livestock grazing impacts Sierra
Nevada red fox foraging habitat by removing the vegetative habitat
components that support their prey (Center for Biological Diversity
2011, p. 20). Because the information presented in the petition is
related more closely to prey availability than Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat, the threat from domestic livestock grazing will be discussed
below in Factor E.
Recreation--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that recreational activities (including OSV,
ORV, dirt bike activity, hiking, and camping) can degrade Sierra Nevada
red fox habitat, interfere with normal behavior, and cause shifts in
habitat use. The petition did not include any information on the
habitat alteration other than to state that habitat degradation occurs.
All recreational impacts presented in the petition are related to
direct impacts to the subspecies, such as death, injury, increased
competition, or behavioral changes, which are discussed under Factor E.
Recreation--Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and
Available in Service Files
We do not have any information in our files, nor does the petition
provide any information, on the degradation of Sierra Nevada red fox
habitat due to recreation.
Although the information does not support the petitioner's
assertions on this subject, we will further consider effects that
recreation may have on the subspecies' habitat in our status review.
Factor A Summary
The petitioner states that Sierra Nevada red fox habitat is
threatened by logging, fire suppression, domestic livestock grazing,
and recreation (including OSV and ORV use). While the petition provides
information about historical impacts to habitat from logging and fire
suppression, it does not provide any information about current or
future threats due to logging and fire suppression practices within the
subspecies' range. Our files contain some information about proposed
fuels treatment projects on the Lassen National Forest that would be
within the subspecies' range. However, we have no information available
in the petition or our files to indicate that Sierra Nevada red fox
individuals or populations respond negatively to habitat impacts
resulting from logging and fire suppression, nor do we have information
regarding potential ongoing or future threats that may occur as a
result of these activities. Although the information does not support
the petitioner's assertions about activities discussed above, we will
further investigate whether the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is threatening the
subspecies in our status review.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes.
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that Sierra Nevada red fox is threatened by
accidental capture or poaching in California, Oregon, and Nevada, and
by legal trapping in Oregon and Nevada (Center for Biological Diversity
2011, pp. 24-25).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Sierra Nevada red fox's current range is restricted to two areas of
California (Perrine 2005, p. 105; CNDDB 2011, pp. 54-60), a State in
which hunting for Sierra Nevada red fox is prohibited (Title 14
California Code of Regulations Section 460). California does allow
hunting and trapping of other furbearing animals, and it is possible
that Sierra Nevada red fox could be accidentally trapped (Center for
Biological Diversity 2011, p. 25). However, neither the petition nor
Service files present any evidence of incidental killing of Sierra
Nevada red fox while trapping other furbearers. Trapping of Sierra
Nevada red fox is allowed in the adjacent States of Oregon and Nevada;
however, Sierra Nevada red fox is not known to occur in these States.
Factor B Summary
The information provided in the petition and in our files does not
indicate that any impact from overutilization is occurring to Sierra
Nevada red fox. However, we will further investigate overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in
our status review for this subspecies.
C. Disease or Predation
The petition states that Sierra Nevada red fox is threatened by
salmon poisoning disease, disease transmission by domestic dogs, and
increased coyote predation due to recreation activities, logging, and
fire suppression activities in logged forests (Center for Biological
Diversity 2011, pp. 21-28).
Salmon Poisoning Disease (SPD)--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states that Sierra Nevada red fox are threatened by
salmon poisoning disease (SPD), which is found in wild populations of
salmonid fish in northern California, Oregon, and Washington, but also
could be spread to other areas through fish stocking, and is fatal to
dogs, foxes, and other canids (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p.
25). Salmon poisoning disease is caused by Neorickettsia helminthoeca,
a bacteria that can be carried by trout and salmon. If an infected fish
is ingested by a dog or other canid, the bacteria can result in fever,
anorexia, vomiting, and bloody diarrhea, with a 90 percent mortality
rate if untreated (Rikihisa et al. 1991, p. 1928). The disease has also
been detected in at least three State hatcheries and four private farms
in northern California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 28).
If infected trout and salmon are present in waters within Sierra
Nevada red fox's current range and Sierra Nevada red fox consume
infected fish, the likelihood of red fox mortality is high (Perrine et
al. 2010, p. 28). The petition provides a list of 47 water bodies
within the subspecies' approximate current range that were stocked with
trout or salmon by CDFG between 2002 and 2006 (Center for Biological
Diversity 2011, Appendix B). The petitioner indicates that potential
[[Page 49]]
exposure of the Sierra Nevada red fox to infected fish is a threat to
the subspecies.
The petition also claims that the risk of Sierra Nevada red fox
exposure to SPD is increased by fire retardant use (Center for
Biological Diversity 2011, p. 28). Fire retardants are used on National
Forest lands to combat wildfires. Exposure of fish to these retardants
is known to result in substantial fish kills (USFWS 2008, p. 30). While
the risk is small, if fire retardants were used in an SPD-infected
waterway within the current range of the subspecies, the threat of SPD
to Sierra Nevada red fox would be increased by the fox foraging on dead
fish.
Salmon Poisoning Disease (SPD)--Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service Files
SPD has been documented in both hatchery and wild salmonids in
northern California (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 28). In order to limit the
spread of SPD beyond this area, CDFG does not allow salmonids from
their northern California hatcheries to be stocked south of the Feather
River (Beale 2011, pers. comm.). The Sierra Nevada red fox population
in the Sonora Pass area is located far to the south of the Feather
River, where the potential for stocking infected fish does not exist.
Therefore, only the fox population in the vicinity of Lassen Peak has
the potential to be impacted by SPD. Because SPD has been documented in
both hatchery and wild fish populations in northern California (Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 28), it is likely that this disease occurs within the
range of the Sierra Nevada red fox. Within the area where the disease
occurs, Sierra Nevada red fox may be exposed to infected fish as the
result of scavenging for dead fish, misapplication of aerial fish
stocking, or the use of dead salmonids as bait for camera stations
(Perrine et al. 2010, p. 28).
Although salmonid mortality from the use of fire retardants could
potentially increase exposure of Sierra Nevada red fox to SPD, current
guidelines minimize exposure of salmonids to fire retardants. The
aerial application of fire retardant by the U.S. Forest Service is
governed by guidelines that provide for a 91-m (300-ft) buffer around
all aquatic features (USDA Forest Service 2011a, p. 7). Additionally,
based on calculations of misapplication over the past 3 years, there is
a 0.42 percent chance of fire retardant being applied to aquatic
features (USDA Forest Service 2011a, p. 104). Although mortality of
salmonids due to fire retardant application may be high, the likelihood
that fire retardant will cause the mortality of salmonids infected by
SPD and that Sierra Nevada red fox will consume the dead infected fish
is extremely low. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the use of fire
retardants will appreciably contribute to the spread of the disease.
Given the high mortality associated with SPD disease in canids, and
the potential pathways for exposure of Sierra Nevada red fox to SPD as
the result of fish stocking in the Lassen National Forest area, we find
that the information provided in the petition, as well as other
information in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due
to transmission of SPD. We will review the possible effects of SPD to
Sierra Nevada red fox more thoroughly in our 12-month status review.
Domestic Dog Predation and Disease--Information Provided in the
Petition
The petition asserts that exposure of Sierra Nevada red fox to
domestic dogs places them at risk of attack, death, or diseases such as
rabies, sarcoptic mange, canine distemper, and parvovirus (Center for
Biological Diversity 2011, p. 28).
The petition asserts that the risk of domestic dog predation and
disease is associated with the presence of roads and recreational sites
within the subspecies' range (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p.
22). Pierre et al. (2010, p. 28) found that road development and
recreational sites within the Sierra Nevada red fox's range increases
the risk of interaction with domestic pets and exposure to diseases.
Domestic Dog Predation and Disease--Evaluation of Information Provided
in the Petition and Available in Service Files
Diseases commonly associated with domestic dogs have been
documented in other subspecies of red fox, and can be fatal (Little et
al. 1998, p. 623). Both Lassen National Park and Lassen National Forest
contain recreation areas that are within the Sierra Nevada red fox's
current range (Perrine 2005, p. 149; USDA Forest Service 2009, p. 510).
A number of documented sightings have occurred in campgrounds, in
parking areas, and along roads in Lassen National Park where Sierra
Nevada red foxes have begged for food from humans (Perrine 2005, p.
28). The use of these areas by humans and their domestic dogs increases
the risk of transmitting diseases such as canine distemper, rabies, and
sarcoptic mange to Sierra Nevada red fox (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 28),
leading to a decreased level of fitness and potential mortality. In a
radiotelemetry study of Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Peak area,
Perrine (2005, p. 141) documented mortality of three collared
individuals, attributing the death of one directly to a dog attack.
Given that the Sierra Nevada red fox populations are believed to be
small in number and restricted to two locations (Perrine 2005, p. 105;
CNDDB 2011, pp. 54-60), an outbreak of canine distemper or other lethal
disease, as well as predation by domestic dogs, could have a
population-level impact. Therefore, we conclude that there is
substantial information in the petition and in our files to indicate
that attacks and transmission of disease from domestic dogs may be a
threat to Sierra Nevada red fox.
Coyote Predation--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition claims that changes in forest structure resulting from
logging, recreation, and fire suppression facilitate the movement of
coyotes into the Sierra Nevada red fox's range (Center for Biological
Diversity 2011, pp. 18-22). The petition further claims that increased
presence of coyotes could result in increased predation upon Sierra
Nevada red fox, thus potentially reducing their population and
reproductive success.
Coyote Predation--Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition
and Available in Service Files
The petition does not provide any information, nor do we have any
in our files, to indicate that changes in forest structure resulting
from logging, recreation, and fire suppression facilitate the movement
of coyotes into the Sierra Nevada red fox's range. The abundance and
distribution of coyotes has been demonstrated to affect the
distribution of the red fox in North Dakota (Sargeant et al. 1987, p.
291), and, although no predation of red fox by coyotes was observed in
this study, numerous accounts of coyotes predating upon red fox have
been documented (Sargeant and Allen 1989, p. 631). In the Lassen Peak
area, Perrine (2005, pp. 83-84) documented range overlap of Sierra
Nevada red fox and coyotes, especially in summer habitat use. As
coyotes are known to prey upon foxes and occur in areas occupied by the
Sierra Nevada red fox, predation of the Sierra Nevada red fox by
coyotes is likely. Because the subspecies is believed to occur at a
very low density (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 9), predation by coyotes
could significantly impact the population. Therefore, we conclude that
there is substantial information in our files to indicate that
[[Page 50]]
coyote predation may be a threat to Sierra Nevada red fox. We will
review the possible effects of coyote predation on Sierra Nevada red
fox more thoroughly in our 12-month status review.
Factor C Summary
The petition states that Sierra Nevada red fox is threatened by
SPD, disease transmission by domestic dogs, and increased coyote
predation in logged forests. The information contained in the petition
and in our files indicates that SPD has been found in California and
has the potential to be introduced to water bodies within the
subspecies' range. In addition, diseases carried by domestic dogs are
known to kill red fox, and the petition provides information about the
presence of Sierra Nevada red fox at recreational sites where they
could interact with humans and their pets. While the Perrine (2005, pp.
1-191) study did not document the predation of Sierra Nevada red fox by
coyotes, coyotes are known to kill and prey upon red fox in other
areas, and there is range overlap between Sierra Nevada red fox and
coyotes. In summary, we find that the information presented in the
petition and in our files presents substantial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the threat of
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that Sierra Nevada red fox are threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment (SNFPA), the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), climate
change initiatives, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as
well as Oregon and California hunting regulations (Center for
Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 28-32).
The petition states that NEPA requires a Federal agency to analyze
the impacts of proposed activities on Sierra Nevada red fox, but does
not require the agency to select an alternative with the least impacts
to the subspecies, nor require the agency to mitigate project impacts
(Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 32). The petition asserts
that the SNFPA provides an outline of discretionary measures that the
U.S. Forest Service may implement for the protection of Sierra Nevada
red fox; however, discretionary actions are not adequate to protect
Sierra Nevada red fox because National Forests are managed for multiple
resource objectives (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 32).
Further, the petition asserts that the NWFP does not specifically
address the protection of Sierra Nevada red fox, but relies on the
protection of other species that may incidentally provide protection to
Sierra Nevada red fox (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 32).
The petition asserts that the climate change initiatives are
insufficient, including California's Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the international United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. The petition claims that these
initiatives are inadequate due to a lack of implementation (Center for
Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 30-32).
The petition claims that the CESA is an inadequate regulatory
mechanism because it does not provide adequate protections for Sierra
Nevada red fox against logging, livestock grazing, recreation, and
other human disturbance (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 29).
The threats of logging, livestock grazing, recreation, and other human
disturbance are addressed under Factors A, C, and E. The petition also
claims that the Oregon furbearer, trapping, and hunting regulations,
and the California hunting regulations, provide inadequate regulatory
mechanisms for Sierra Nevada red fox (Center for Biological Diversity
2011, p. 31). These State hunting and trapping regulations address
overutilization for commercial or recreational purposes, and were
addressed under Factor B above.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petition provides basic information regarding a number of
possible regulatory mechanisms, such as NEPA, SNFPA, NWFP and CESA. It
is not clear from the information provided in the petition or available
in our files that these possible regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to reduce the possible threats of disease and predation (see Factor C)
or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence
(see Factor E).
Factor D Summary
The information provided in the petition and in our files does not
indicate that any impact from the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is occurring to Sierra Nevada red fox. However, we will
further investigate the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in
our status review for this subspecies.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The petition asserts that the following Factor E impacts threaten
Sierra Nevada red fox: Invasion of Sierra Nevada red fox habitat by
coyotes and nonnative red foxes, competition with coyotes and nonnative
red foxes, domestic livestock grazing, recreation, small population
size, and climate change (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 18,
22-32).
Invasion by and Competition with Coyote and Nonnative Red Foxes--
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that Sierra Nevada red fox is threatened by
competition for prey with coyotes and nonnative red foxes and increased
interbreeding with nonnative red foxes, both of which are facilitated
by logging, fire suppression activities, and recreation (Center for
Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 18, 22-32). The petition also asserts
that fire suppression activities may result in the direct mortality or
injury of Sierra Nevada red fox (Center for Biological Diversity 2011,
p. 22).
Invasion by and Competition With Coyote and Nonnative Red Foxes--
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We do not have any information in our files, nor does the petition
provide specific information, on how logging, fire suppression
activities, or recreation has the potential to facilitate invasion by
coyote and nonnative foxes, nor is there any evidence that this
facilitation has occurred. Information contained within our files does
not indicate that competition with nonnative red foxes or interbreeding
is a concern for Sierra Nevada red fox, as there is no indication of
range overlap with any other fox species. Neither the petition nor our
files contain any evidence of fire suppression activities resulting in
the direct mortality of individual Sierra Nevada red foxes.
Coyotes and Sierra Nevada red fox have been documented to have
overlapping summer habitat ranges in the Lassen Peak area (Perrine
2005, pp. 83-84). Winter habitat use by the fox does not correlate
closely with that of the coyote (Perrine 2005, p. 83), presumably
because of snow depths and competition for prey (Perrine 2005, p. 40-
41), resulting in decreased prey
[[Page 51]]
availability in winter months. Competition for prey between coyote and
fox is potentially exacerbated by low prey availability in the area of
Lassen Peak (USDA Forest Service 2009, p. 506). Sargeant et al. (1987,
p. 291) determined that the distribution and abundance of red fox are
affected by the distribution and abundance of coyote. Sargeant and
Allen (1983, pp. 631-632) documented the interactions between coyotes
and other subspecies of red fox, discovering that coyote will
frequently chase foxes and kill them, often not utilizing them as prey.
As there is substantial range overlap between coyotes and Sierra Nevada
red fox, there is likely competition for prey items; additionally,
because coyotes are known to kill red foxes, we find that the petition
and information in our files present substantial information to
indicate that interaction with coyotes may be a threat to Sierra Nevada
red fox.
Domestic Livestock Grazing--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states that domestic livestock grazing impacts the
Sierra Nevada red fox's foraging habitat by removing the vegetative
habitat components that support its prey (Center for Biological
Diversity 2011, p. 20). For example, the petition cites a number of
studies that found that high levels of livestock grazing can reduce the
density and biomass of a number of prey species, such as rodents and
birds (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 20-21). The petition
also claims that the use of rodenticides associated with domestic
cattle grazing may also reduce the availability of small prey species
in grazed areas (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 21).
Domestic Livestock Grazing--Evaluation of Information Provided in the
Petition and Available in Service Files
The petition provides some evidence that livestock grazing may
alter the availability of some prey species for Sierra Nevada red fox.
While grazing may result in a decrease in populations of some prey
species, grazing has been demonstrated to increase populations of other
potential prey species (Ratliff 1985, as cited in Perrin et al. 2010,
p. 29). Therefore, there is evidence that grazing may not reduce prey
availability overall, but rather cause a shift in prey species (Perrine
et al. 2010, p. 29). While the petition asserts rodenticide use
associated with cattle grazing causes a reduction in the availability
of prey for Sierra Nevada red fox, the widespread use of rodenticides
on public lands as it relates to grazing has been outlawed (Perrine et
al. 2010, p. 29). Sierra Nevada red fox utilizes a wide variety of prey
species (Perrine 2005, p. 40-41), and there is no information
indicating that the use of rodenticides associated with grazing is
responsible for a reduction in available prey. Therefore, the
information presented in the petition and available in our files does
not support the petitioner's claim that domestic livestock grazing as
it relates to reduced prey may be a threat to the subspecies. However,
we will further investigate the potential impacts of domestic livestock
grazing in our status review for this subspecies.
Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) and Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use--Information
Provided in the Petition
The petition claims that OSV and ORV use have the potential to
result in direct mortality to Sierra Nevada red fox through vehicle
strikes (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 23-24). In addition,
the petition asserts that noise and visual disturbance from the use of
OSVs and ORVs in winter and spring disrupt mating and breeding behavior
(Center for Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 23-24). The petition also
claims that OSVs negatively impact the prey base of Sierra Nevada red
fox by compacting subnivean (beneath the snow layer) spaces that small
mammals use in the winter (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p.
23).
Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) and Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Use--Evaluation of
Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
Recreation areas for both OSVs and ORVs occur in the vicinity of
known Sierra Nevada red fox populations in both the Lassen Peak and
Sonora Pass areas (USDA Forest Service 2009, p. 510; 2011b, p. 29), and
OSV and ORV use in these areas has the potential to interfere with
reproduction and foraging behavior due to noise and visual disturbance
(Center for Biological Diversity 2010, p. 23; USDA Forest Service 2009,
p. 510; 2011b, p. 29). Additionally, according to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, the compaction of snow attributed
to OSVs is likely to result in a decrease in subnivean species utilized
as prey by the fox (USDA Forest Service 2011b, p. 29). While the
response of Sierra Nevada red fox to OSVs and ORVs is largely
undocumented, studies involving other mammalian species have
demonstrated noise disturbance attributed to OSVs and ORVs has resulted
in elevated heart rates and glucocorticoid stress levels, increased
energy expenditure, interference with reproduction and foraging
behavior, and direct or indirect mortality (Baker and Buthmann 2005,
pp. 15-16; Center for Biological Diversity 2011, pp. 23-24; Creel et
al. 2002, pp. 811-812; Ouren et al. 2007, pp. 16, 19). Given that
populations of the Sierra Nevada red fox overlap with OSV and ORV use
areas, the negative responses of other mammal species to OSVs and ORVs,
and the potential reduction in the fox's winter prey base, we find the
petition presents substantial information that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to OSV and ORV use.
Vulnerability of Small Isolated Populations--Information Provided in
the Petition
The petition asserts that the small population size of Sierra
Nevada red fox magnifies the potential for extinction of the subspecies
due to the other threats impacting it (Center for Biological Diversity
2011, p. 33). The petition states that the population size of Sierra
Nevada red fox in the vicinity of Lassen peak is believed to consist of
fewer than 50 individuals, likely as few as 15 (Center for Biological
Diversity 2011, p. 33). Inherent threats related to small population
size include the chance of extinction due to stochastic (random,
unpredictable) events (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 33),
such as genetic drift, demographic fluctuations related to mating and
survival, environmental conditions, and local catastrophes (Lacey 1997,
p. 329).
Vulnerability of Small Isolated Populations--Evaluation of Information
Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
Perrine's (2005, pp. 1-195) radiotelemetry study that covered a
portion of the Lassen Peak area was limited to a sample size of five
individual Sierra Nevada red foxes, which likely represented the entire
fox population within the 311.5-square-kilometer (120.3-square-mile)
study area (Perrine 2005, p. 135). The recently detected Sierra Nevada
red fox population in the Sonora Pass area includes only three
confirmed individuals to date (CNDDB 2011, pp. 54-60); however, there
are no current estimates of population size. Events (such as disease
outbreaks, reproductive failure, or a combination of several events)
could destroy a portion of either of the two populations or an entire
population. The loss of individual Sierra Nevada red fox could further
increase the risk of extirpation resulting from the genetic and
demographic problems inherent to small populations (Lacey 1997, pp.
329, 331). Based on the
[[Page 52]]
information presented in the petition and our files indicating that few
animals exist in only two populations, paired with the risk of
catastrophic events (such as disease; see Factor C), we conclude that
substantial information exists to indicate that Sierra Nevada red fox
could be threatened by vulnerabilities of small populations.
Climate Change--Information Provided in the Petition
The petition claims that anthropogenic climate change poses a
significant threat to Sierra Nevada red fox because it has already
resulted in warmer and drier conditions in the Sierra Nevada and
Cascade mountains (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 34). The
petition asserts that climate projections indicate that temperatures in
the Sierra Nevada will continue to rise and there will be a decrease in
snowpack (Center for Biological Diversity 2011, p. 37), thereby
magnifying the other threats to Sierra Nevada red fox.
Climate Change--Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and
Available in Service Files
Climate change models conducted for the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion
suggest that climate change may potentially have an impact on wildlife
populations in the Sierra Nevada region due to changes in vegetation
communities (PRBO Conservation Science 2011, p. 25). The petition
presents information on projected climate change within the range of
Sierra Nevada red fox, as well as speculation on the potential impact
of climate change on the fox. However, the petitioner does not provide
specific information regarding the impact of climate change on Sierra
Nevada red fox populations. Therefore, the information presented by the
petitioner and readily available in our files does not support the
petitioner's claim that climate change poses a threat to Sierra Nevada
red fox. However, we will further investigate the potential impacts of
climate change in our status review for this subspecies.
Summary of Factor E
The petition states that Sierra Nevada red fox is threatened by
domestic livestock grazing, competition, OSV or ORV use, the
vulnerability of small isolated populations, and climate change. The
information contained in the petition and in our files indicates that
competition with the coyote may result in the direct mortality of
Sierra Nevada red fox, limited availability of prey, and altered
habitat use by Sierra Nevada red fox. OSV or ORV use may interfere with
essential behaviors, such as breeding and feeding, through disturbance
and reduction in prey. Currently, the Sierra Nevada red fox is known
from only two small isolated populations; therefore, small population
size is a factor that may make the fox more vulnerable to other
threats, such as competition, catastrophic events, or genetic or
demographic problems. In summary, we find that the information
presented in the petition and in our files presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action
may be warranted due to the threat of other natural or manmade factors
affecting the subspecies' continued existence.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing Sierra Nevada red fox
throughout its range may be warranted. This finding is based on
information provided under Factors C (disease or predation) and E
(other natural or manmade factors affecting the subspecies' continued
existence). Although information provided under Factors A (the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range), B (overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes), and D (inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms) does not support the petition's assertions, we will further
consider information relating to these factors in the status review.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing Sierra Nevada red fox may be
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing Sierra Nevada red fox under the Act is warranted.
The petition asserts that Sierra Nevada red fox occurs in two
possible distinct population segments (DPS) and implies that, as a
subspecies, Sierra Nevada red fox is also endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range. We conclude that the
petition presents substantial information that listing the entire
subspecies may be warranted. Therefore, we have not specifically
evaluated whether the petition provides substantial information with
respect to the two potential DPSes outlined within the petition, or the
extent to which Sierra Nevada red fox is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range. An analysis of these
additional entities will occur during the status review if we determine
that listing of the entire subspecies is not warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 21, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33610 Filed 12-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P