[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59952-59975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20864]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058; FXES11130900000C2-167-FF09E42000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To Delist the Coastal California Gnatcatcher
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to remove the coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that delisting the
coastal California gnatcatcher is not warranted at this time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 31,
2016.
ADDRESSES: This finding, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this finding, is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding will also be available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office,
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250,
Carlsbad, CA 92008; by telephone at 760-431-9440; or by facsimile at
760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we administer the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, which are set forth in title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations in part 17 (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12).
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, for any petition that we receive
to revise either List by adding, removing, or reclassifying a species,
we must make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt if the
petition contains substantial scientific or commercial information
supporting the requested action. In this finding, we will determine
that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether any species are endangered
species or threatened species and expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from the Lists. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of
the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but precluded as though
[[Page 59953]]
resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these
12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
Since the coastal California gnatcatcher was first identified as a
category 2 candidate species in 1982, it has been the subject of
numerous Federal Register publications. We published a final rule to
list Polioptila californica californica as a threatened species under
the Act on March 30, 1993 (58 FR 16742), and we affirmed that
determination in 1995 (60 FR 15693; March 27, 1995). Critical habitat
for the subspecies was first established via a final rule that
published on October 24, 2000 (65 FR 63680), and a revised final
critical habitat rule was published on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 72010).
The most recent Federal action prior to 2014 was our 2011 90-day
finding on a petition to delist the coastal California gnatcatcher (76
FR 66255; October 26, 2011). We concluded at that time that the
petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that delisting the coastal California
gnatcatcher may be warranted (76 FR 66255; October 26, 2011). A summary
of all previous Federal actions can be found at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08X.
Species Information
The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) is a member of the avian family Polioptilidae (Chesser et
al. 2010, p. 736). The bird's plumage is dark blue-gray above and
grayish-white below. The tail is mostly black above and below. The male
has a distinctive black cap, which is absent during the winter. Both
sexes have a distinctive white eye-ring. This subspecies occurs
primarily in or near vegetation categorized as coastal scrub, including
coastal sage scrub. This vegetation is typified by low (less than 3
feet (ft) (1 meter (m)), shrub, and sub-shrub species that are often
drought-deciduous (O'Leary 1990, p. 24; Holland and Keil 1995, p. 163;
Rubinoff 2001, p. 1,376). Within the United States, the subspecies is
restricted to coastal southern California from Ventura and San
Bernardino Counties, south to the Mexican border. Within Mexico, its
range extends from the U.S.-Mexico border into coastal Baja California
south to approximately El Rosario, Mexico, at about 30 degrees north
latitude (Grinnell 1926, p. 499; AOU 1957, p. 451; Miller et al. 1957,
p. 204; Atwood 1991, p. 127; Phillips 1991, pp. 25-26; Atwood and
Bontrager 2001, p. 3).
In our 2010 5-year review, we reported an estimate of 1,324
gnatcatcher pairs over an 111,006-acre (ac) (44,923-hectare (ha)) area
on lands owned by city, county, State, and Federal agencies (public and
quasi-public lands) of Orange and San Diego Counties (Service 2010, p.
8). We indicated that this study sampled only a portion of the U.S.
range of the subspecies (the coastal regions), and that it was limited
to 1 year (Winchell and Doherty 2008, p. 1,324). Standardized,
rangewide population trends and occupancy estimates for the coastal
California gnatcatcher (within the United States or Mexico) are not
available at this time given the limited and incomplete survey
information as well as the variability in the survey methods and
reporting.
Since the publication of the 2010 5-year review, we have received
the following results from limited surveys of the coastal California
gnatcatcher within the U.S. portion of the range:
(1) 25 nests (with 11 successes out of 29 nesting attempts) within
the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP) for the year 2014 in eight of the
plan's designated core areas (Biological Monitoring Program 2015, p.
8);
(2) 122 pairs and 33 single males (155 territories) within the City
of Carlsbad (under the San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation
Plan (San Diego County MHCP) in 2013, an increase of 28 territories
from 2010 despite little change in survey area (City of Carlsbad 2013,
p. 2);
(3) for Orange County, 12.7 percent occupancy within the Central
Reserve and 34.3 percent occupancy in the Coastal Reserve (plus 17
other incidental observations) (Leatherman Bioconsulting 2012, p. 5);
and
(4) 436 occupied sites for the coastal California gnatcatcher on
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Camp Pendleton) (San Diego County) in
2014, including 122 territorial males, 283 pairs, and 31 family groups,
with an additional 53 transient individuals identified (Tetra Tech
2015, p. ii). We will continue to work with our partners to gather data
on coastal California gnatcatcher populations and trends.
Since listing, we have updated information regarding the range of
the subspecies. In our 2010 5-year review (Service 2010, pp. 6, 8;
Table 1), we presented our estimate of the existing range of the
coastal California gnatcatcher at that time. We also updated the extent
of the subspecies' range in Baja California, Mexico, using the coastal
sage scrub vegetation map prepared by Rebman and Roberts (2012, p. 22)
and observations of California gnatcatchers (all subspecies of
Polioptila californica) (in Baja California (www.ebird.org; accessed
December 15, 2015). This information is combined in the range map shown
in Figure 1. We currently estimate 56 percent of the range is in the
United States and 44 percent of the range is in Baja California,
Mexico.
For additional information on the general biology and life history
of the coastal California gnatcatcher, please see our most recent 5-
year status review (Service 2010), available at the following Web
sites: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08X and http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 59954]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU16.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Petition History
On May 29, 2014, we received a combined petition from the Center
for Environmental Science, Accuracy, and Reliability; Coalition of
Labor, Agriculture and Business; Property Owners Association of
Riverside County; National Association of Home
[[Page 59955]]
Builders; and the California Building Industry Association
(collectively, petitioners), requesting that the coastal California
gnatcatcher be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (List) under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a).
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; or (3) a determination that
the original scientific data used at the time the species was listed,
or interpretation of that data, were in error.
The petition did not assert that the coastal California gnatcatcher
is extinct, nor do we have information in our files indicating that the
coastal California gnatcatcher is extinct. The petition did not assert
that the coastal California gnatcatcher has recovered and is no longer
an endangered species or threatened species, nor do we have information
in our files indicating the coastal California gnatcatcher has
recovered (further detail on the status of the coastal California
gnatcatcher is presented in the Summary of the Five Factors section
below). The petition also did not contain any information regarding
threats to the coastal California gnatcatcher.
The petition asserts that the original scientific data used at the
time the species was classified were in error and that the best
available scientific data show no support for the taxonomic recognition
of the coastal California gnatcatcher as a distinguishable subspecies
(Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 1). The petition's assertions are
primarily based on the results of genetic and ecological analyses
published in Zink et al. (2013). The petition maintains that, based on
this new information, the Service cannot continue to rely on
morphological measurements to determine whether the coastal California
gnatcatcher is a valid (distinguishable) subspecies (Thornton and
Schiff 2014, pp. 31-32).
The petition asserts that the morphological information originally
used to distinguish the subspecies is flawed, citing published and
unpublished critiques, alternative analyses, and other interpretations
of morphological characteristics of California gnatcatchers (Thornton
and Schiff 2014, pp. 14-21). The petition also contends that available
genetic data do not support the coastal California gnatcatcher as a
distinguishable subspecies (Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 28). As
evidence, the petition cites two published scientific articles in
particular, Zink et al. (2000) and Zink et al. (2013), which were
included as part of the petition. The petition asserts that these two
studies ``constitute the best available scientific data'' (Thornton and
Schiff 2014, p. 28) regarding the subspecific status of the coastal
California gnatcatcher.
The petition discusses the results of both Zink et al. (2000) and
Zink et al. (2013). Zink et al. (2000) examined variation within the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region and three mtDNA genes of the
California gnatcatcher species as a whole and concluded that the
genetic information did not support recognition of infraspecific taxa
(subspecies) in the California gnatcatcher, including the coastal
California gnatcatcher subspecies (Thornton and Schiff 2014, pp. 20-
23). The petition further asserts that the genetic analysis presented
in Zink et al. (2013, entire), based on eight different nuclear markers
or loci and a reduced data set from Zink et al. (2000, entire), did not
identify geographic groupings that corresponded with any previously
recognized subspecies (Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 28). The petition
states that the nuclear DNA analysis in Zink et al. (2013) is
consistent with a conclusion that the range of the California
gnatcatcher has recently expanded from southern Baja California and
that the species ``is not divisible into discrete, listable units''
(Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 29).
The petition also provides results from an ecological niche model
from Zink et al. (2013, pp. 453-454). The study presented results from
niche divergence models constructed for California gnatcatchers
represented in mesic coastal sage scrub (``northern population'')
versus southern populations. The petition asserts that the model
results indicate that the two groups do not exhibit significant niche
divergence if the backgrounds of each environment are taken into
account; it further states that the results from the ecological niche
model support the petition's assertions that there is no valid
taxonomic subdivision of the California gnatcatcher (Thornton and
Schiff 2014, pp. 29-30). The petition concludes that the best available
data indicate that the California gnatcatcher (the species as a whole)
``is not divisible into discrete, listable units, but instead is a
single historical entity throughout its geographic range'' (Thornton
and Schiff 2014, p. 32).
On December 31, 2014, we published in the Federal Register a 90-day
finding (79 FR 78775) that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that delisting may be warranted. With
publication of the finding, we initiated a review of the status of the
subspecies. We requested further information from the public on issues
related to the coastal California gnatcatcher such as: Taxonomy;
biology; new morphological or genetic information; consideration of the
coastal California gnatcatcher as a distinct population segment (DPS);
and information on the methods, results, and conclusions of Zink et al.
(2000; 2013). In our status review below, we first examine whether the
coastal California gnatcatcher is a valid subspecies, and thus a
``species'' as defined in section 3 of the Act. According to section
3(16) of the Act, we may list any of three categories of vertebrate
animals: A species, subspecies, or a distinct population segment of a
vertebrate species of wildlife. We refer to each of these categories as
a ``listable entity.'' If we determine that there is a species, or
``listable entity,'' for the purposes of the Act, our status review
next evaluates whether the species meets the definitions of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' because of any of
the five listing factors established under section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
In response to our information request associated with the status
review of the subspecies, we received more than 39,000 letters. Most
responders submitted form letters that opposed delisting of the coastal
California gnatcatcher. Some submitted additional reports and
references for our consideration. New information submitted included
survey and trend data for localized areas, information related to
effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms, information on restoration
efforts, and information on threats to the subspecies and its habitat
in the United States and in Mexico.
Additionally, multiple parties submitted critical analyses of
information presented in the petition and in Zink et al. (2013),
including a then ``in press'' (prepublication) scientific paper that
was subsequently published in the journal The Auk: Ornithological
Advances (McCormack and Maley 2015) that disputed the methods and
results presented in Zink et al. (2013). We received several responses
from members of the scientific community, many of which provided
critiques of the methods and
[[Page 59956]]
interpretations of Zink et al. (2013), including critiques of the
statistical analyses of the information presented, the selection and
number of loci used in the genetic analyses, the methods and
interpretation of the niche model, and the conclusion by Zink et al.
(2013) that a lack of detection of genetic structure necessarily meant
a lack of taxonomic distinctiveness (Andersen 2015, pers. comm.; Cicero
2015, pers. comm.; Fallon 2015, pers. comm.; Patten 2015, pers. comm.).
We also received reanalyses of the genetic data used by Zink et al.
(2013) (Andersen 2015, pers. comm.; McCormack and Maley 2015).
One commenter expressed support for the petition's arguments and
the conclusions reached by Zink et al. (2013) and dismissed the
findings of McCormack and Maley (2015) (Ramey 2015, pers. comm.). We
received two responses from Zink dated March 2, 2015, and June 8, 2015
(Zink 2015a, pers. comm.; Zink 2015b, pers. comm.), and we received a
response from one of the petitioners dated March 2, 2015 (Thornton
2015, pers. comm.), that directly addressed the critiques submitted by
many of the other responders. These additional responses and additional
supporting materials are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058.
Given the diverse and conflicting information submitted by the
public and members of the scientific community in response to our
request for information (79 FR 78775; December 31, 2014), we convened a
scientific review panel. Through a Science Advisory Services contract
process, the Service contracted Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure and
Environment, Inc. (hereafter Amec Foster Wheeler) to assemble a panel
of independent experts to provide individual input on the available
data concerning the subspecies designation of the coastal California
gnatcatcher. Amec Foster Wheeler selected six panelists in accordance
with peer review and scientific integrity guidelines from the Office of
Management and Budget's Final Information Quality Bulletin (OMB 2004).
The selected panelists each had between 19 and 35 years of experience
in their respective fields, which included avian conservation,
conservation genetics, taxonomy, population genetics, and systematics.
An experienced facilitator with expertise in genetics and genetic
techniques was also selected by Amec Foster Wheeler to assist and guide
the panelists in their discussions during a 2-day workshop. Additional
details regarding the selection of the panelists and their
qualifications are available in the Final Workshop Review Report for
the California Gnatcatcher Facilitated Science Panel Workshop
(hereafter ``science panel report'') (Amec 2015, pp. 2-3, and Appendix
D). This report is available as a supporting document we used in
preparing this finding on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058. Conflict of interest forms were
submitted by each panelist. The Service was not involved in any portion
of the selection process, nor were we aware of the panelists'
identities prior to the workshop.
Prior to the workshop, the Service prepared a list of relevant
literature and Federal Register documents related to the science and
listing history of the coastal California gnatcatcher. The panelists
requested that we provide summaries of the subspecies' listing history,
taxonomy, the Service's listable entity and DPS policies, and a summary
of public comments. All documents were relayed to the panelists through
the Amec Foster Wheeler Project Manager. A complete list of information
and references provided is available in the workshop science panel
report (Amec 2015, Appendix B).
The workshop was held at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on
August 17-18, 2015. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a forum
for the panelists to review the summary documents provided and to
discuss the issues relevant to the taxonomic and systematic issues for
the subspecies (see workshop agenda in Amec 2015, p. A-1). During the
contracting process, the Service developed a Statement of Work with
five suggested questions that the panelists consider during the
workshop regarding the taxonomy and systematics issues related to the
coastal California gnatcatcher. These are provided in the Amec Foster
Wheeler science panel report (Amec 2015, p. A-2). Service personnel did
not participate in the workshop discussions or interact with the
panelists, with the exception of a brief question-and-answer session on
the second day when the panelists requested clarification related to
previous Federal actions and Service policies (for example, the DPS
policy).
In our Statement of Work, we indicated that the panelists (to be
selected by Amec) would include avian genetic and taxonomic researchers
as well as experts in avian phylogeographic studies. We also requested
that the Contractor would have sufficient experience and understanding
in the field of genetics in order to be able to lead and facilitate the
discussion of the panelists. The proposal for the facilitated expert
panel workshop submitted by Amec to the Service on May 5, 2015 (revised
May 13, 2015), included a summary of the six panelists' experience
(ranging from 19 to 35 years each) and general areas of expertise in
the fields of molecular genetics, avian conservation genetics, avian
systematics, conservation genetics, population genetics, and avian
molecular genetics. One of the panelists selected by Amec was
subsequently replaced due to a scheduling conflict. The proposal also
included the qualifications of the facilitator and Amec's Project
Manager. We received the panelists' individual curriculum vitae with
the draft and final workshop reports. After reviewing the panelists'
individual curriculum vitae, we confirmed the six panelists are
qualified experts in the fields of molecular genetics, avian
conservation genetics, avian systematics, conservation genetics,
population genetics, and avian molecular genetics. The Project Manager
also noted in Amec's proposal that several panelists had requested that
their individual memoranda be presented in the final report without
attribution. Although we did not have knowledge of the attribution of
the individual memorandums to the six panelists, we determined that all
panelists are subject matter experts qualified to evaluate the
scientific information presented in the petition. Additional details
about the workshop process and the panelist discussions are available
in the science panel summary report (Amec 2015, pp. 5-7).
After the workshop, each panelist individually prepared a
memorandum that addressed topics relevant to the scientific information
presented in the petition (for example, Zink et al. 2013) and to the
subspecific taxonomic status of the coastal California gnatcatcher. We
discuss the key information from those memoranda in the following
section. In discussing specific supporting information and other
comments presented in the individual memoranda, we refer to the
panelists and their memos by the numbers randomly assigned to them by
Amec Foster Wheeler (Panelist 1, Panelist 2, etc.) or to the Amec
Workshop Report page number (Amec 2015).
Key Information From the Science Panel Memoranda
The panelists were not asked to reach a consensus. However, all six
panelists found that the arguments presented by Zink et al. (2000;
2013) were not convincing, and that the coastal California gnatcatcher
is currently a
[[Page 59957]]
valid (distinguishable) subspecies. Panelists made the following
points:
The criteria used to distinguish subspecies should include
multiple lines of evidence, such as morphology, genetics, and ecology.
As such, the use of phylogenetic criteria alone to distinguish (or fail
to distinguish) the coastal California gnatcatcher as a subspecies is
not appropriate.
Patterns of differentiation should be applied based on
proposed mechanisms of evolution and the geologic age at which those
events occurred, and the appropriate tools must be applied to
adequately test those hypotheses. Based on the biogeographic history of
the region, the infraspecific divergence in the coastal California
gnatcatcher is of recent origin (less than 12,000 years before present,
see Zink et al. 2000, 2013); therefore, the subspecies is likely in the
earliest stages of adaptive differentiation.
Relatedly, the amount of divergence in a small number of
neutral genetic markers (genes that are not subject to selective
pressures and, therefore, change slowly over time through accumulation
of random changes) is likely to be small and unlikely to demonstrate
genetic differences between subspecies.
The genetic analyses conducted by Zink et al. (2000, 2013)
contain insufficient information to detect subspecies limits. The
panelists stated that the methods of Zink et al. (2000; 2013) for
analyzing the data were not appropriate for detecting recent,
infraspecific divergence, as likely occurred in the case of the coastal
California gnatcatcher.
Panelists generally concurred that genetic studies that
examine neutral genetic markers should not overturn existing subspecies
boundaries, especially when divergence is not detected.
Panelists provided detailed information on the limitations of the
conclusions that can be made based on the analyses presented in Zink et
al. (2013) and other currently available information. In addition, the
panelists concluded that two prior peer reviews had addressed the
morphological data on the coastal California gnatcatcher, and that
there was no new information in the materials provided or in the
petition regarding the morphology of the coastal California
gnatcatcher. Several panelists also provided recommendations for
additional analyses and areas of research for future taxonomic studies.
In late 2015, Zink et al. submitted to the Service what was then an
in-press manuscript (Zink 2015c, pers. comm.) that was subsequently
published in The Auk: Ornithological Advances in January 2016
(available electronically December 2015). The article (Zink et al.
2016) presented additional interpretation and analysis of the data and
models from Zink et al. (2013). Zink et al. (2016) responded to the
criticisms of McCormack and Maley (2015) and argued that: (1)
Subspecies listed under the Act should have one major character that is
distinct or diagnostic; (2) the choice of loci and statistical methods
used by Zink et al. (2013) to analyze nuclear DNA were correct; and (3)
interpretations of the niche analysis in Zink et al. (2013) are
correct, and the California gnatcatcher overall has a wide ecological
tolerance. Zink et al. (2016) concluded that no evidence for genetic
structure exists among California gnatcatchers, and thus that the
coastal California gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies. Because the
in-press article was received after the science panel met in August
2015, the information presented in this paper was not available for
review by panelists. However, the Service reviewed Zink et al. (2016)
and took into consideration its interpretation of the best available
data in weighing all the evidence, including the data and analyses
provided by the panelists, in making a final determination. Additional
information regarding our analysis of Zink et al. (2016) is provided in
the Listable Entity Determination section below.
Listable Entity Determination
The petition asserts that the coastal California gnatcatcher should
be delisted. Working within the framework of the regulations for making
delisting determinations, as discussed above, the petition asserts that
the original data we used in our recognition of the coastal California
gnatcatcher as a subspecies, and thus a listable entity under the Act,
were in error. In determining whether to recognize the coastal
California gnatcatcher as a valid (distinguishable) subspecies, we must
base our decision on the best available scientific and commercial data.
Additionally, we must provide transparency in application of the Act's
definition of species through careful review and analyses of all the
relevant data. Under section 3 of the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02, a ``species'' includes any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
As such, a ``species'' under the Act may include any taxonomically
defined species of fish, wildlife, or plant; any taxonomically defined
subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant; or any distinct population
segment of any vertebrate species as determined by us per our Policy
Regarding the Recognition of District Vertebrate Population Segments
(61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996).
Our implementing regulations provide further guidance on
determining whether a particular taxon or population is a species or
subspecies for the purposes of the Act: ``the Secretary shall rely on
standard taxonomic distinctions and the biological expertise of the
Department and the scientific community concerning the relevant
taxonomic group'' (50 CFR 424.11). For each species, section 4(b)(1)(A)
of the Act mandates that we use the best scientific and commercial data
available for each individual species under consideration. Given the
wide range of taxa and the multitude of situations and types of data
that apply to species under review, the application of a single set of
criteria that would be applicable to all taxa is not practical or
useful. In addition, because of the wide variation in kinds of
available data for a given circumstance, we do not assign a priority or
weight to any particular type of data, but must consider it in the
context of all the available data for a given species.
For purposes of being able to determine what is a listable entity
under the Act, we must necessarily follow a more operational approach
and evaluate and consider all available types of data, which may or may
not include genetic information, to determine whether a taxon is a
distinguishable species or subspecies. As a matter of practice, and in
accordance with our regulations, in deciding which alternative
taxonomic interpretations to recognize, the Service will rely on the
professional judgment available within the Service and the scientific
community to evaluate the most recent taxonomic studies and other
relevant information available for the subject species. Therefore, we
continue to make listing decisions based solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available for each species under
consideration on a case-specific basis.
In making our determination whether we recognize the coastal
California gnatcatcher as a distinguishable subspecies, and thus,
whether the petitioned action is warranted, we will consider all
available data that may inform the taxonomy of the coastal California
gnatcatcher, such as ecology, morphology, genetics, and behavior. In
particular, in this review, we focus on evaluating all new submitted
and available data and analyses, including but not limited to the 2014
petition, the
[[Page 59958]]
studies by Zink et al. (2000; 2013; 2016), McCormack and Maley (2015),
and the science panel report (Amec 2015, entire) in the context of all
the available data.
We do not address the petition's critiques or its citations to
analyses and alternative interpretations of Atwood's morphological data
(Thornton and Schiff 2014, pp. 14-21). In our 2011 90-day finding (76
FR 66255; October 26, 2011), we noted that on March 27, 1995, the
Service published in the Federal Register (60 FR 15693) an extensive
review of the Atwood data (including independent scientific analyses of
the Atwood data) received during the public comment periods concerning
the subspecies classification of the coastal California gnatcatcher. In
that 1995 Federal Register document, we affirmed our earlier
determination that the coastal California gnatcatcher is a valid
subspecies (58 FR 16742, March 30, 1993; 58 FR 65088, December 10,
1993) and affirmed the coastal California gnatcatcher's threatened
status under the Act. Thus, all of these critiques, analyses, and
interpretations regarding Atwood's findings were previously considered
by the Service in the 1995 listing determination and the 2011 petition
decision. The 2014 petition provided no new information or analysis
related to the morphological study of the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
In our 2011 90-day finding (76 FR 66255; October 26, 2011), we
provided a summary of our use of Atwood's morphological data as a part
of a large suite of previous studies. We continue to consider those
data to be part of the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding taxonomy of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Furthermore,
on September 15, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit by the Building Industry
Association of Southern California and other plaintiffs that sought to
overturn the listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher. As part of
that lawsuit, the court ordered the Service to release to the public
the underlying data that formed the basis for Dr. Atwood's taxonomic
conclusions. Given the court's 1995 ruling upholding the Service's
recognition of the coastal California gnatcatcher as a valid
subspecies, and the fact that no new data were presented by petitioners
regarding morphological characteristics of California gnatcatchers, we
do not further examine the petition's arguments about morphological
data in this 12-month finding.
We also do not discuss the petition's assertions that because the
Service has relied on mtDNA evidence in evaluating other species or
subspecies for listing under the Act (Thornton and Schiff 2014, Exhibit
D), we may not discount such information here. As discussed above, we
base each listing decision on the best scientific and commercial data
available for the individual species under consideration. Those data
may or may not include results of genetic evaluations, including mtDNA
analyses. Any data from genetic studies must be considered in the
context of the suite of other relevant data available for a particular
species. We previously considered the mtDNA data referenced in the
petition along with other available information in our 2011 petition
finding and concluded that the best available scientific and commercial
information supports recognition of the coastal California gnatcatcher
as a distinguishable subspecies.
As such, in this determination, we focus on the following topics:
(1) Defining subspecies criteria for the coastal California
gnatcatcher; (2) interpretations of the results of analyses from
genetic studies used in the petition; and (3) interpretations of the
results of an ecological niche model used in the petition.
Defining Subspecies Criteria for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher
In determining whether to recognize the coastal California
gnatcatcher as a distinguishable subspecies, we must first define the
criteria used to make this decision given the available information.
The petition notes that subspecies divisions are often arbitrary or
subjective (Thornton and Schiff 2014, pp. 21-22). Indeed, within the
ornithological and taxonomic literature, there are no universally
agreed-upon criteria for delineating, defining, or diagnosing
subspecies boundaries. Historically, multiple researchers (for example,
Mayr (1943); Rand (1948); Amadon (1949)) proposed that at least 75
percent of the individuals of a subspecies should be separable from
other populations by a particular characteristic. The American
Ornithologists' Union (AOU) Committee on Classification and
Nomenclature of North and Middle American Birds (formerly known as the
Check-list Committee), the widely recognized scientific body
responsible for standardizing avian taxonomy in North America (Haig et
al. 2006, p. 1587), gives their standard definition of subspecies with
guidance on interpreting criteria (AOU 2015, entire):
Subspecies should represent geographically discrete breeding
populations that are diagnosable from other populations on the basis
of plumage and/or measurements, but are not yet reproductively
isolated. Varying levels of diagnosability have been proposed for
subspecies, typically ranging from at least 75 to 95 percent.
Because subspecies represent relatively young points along an
evolutionary time scale, genetic differentiation between subspecies
may not necessarily parallel phenotypic divergence. Thus, subspecies
that are phenotypically but not genetically distinct still warrant
recognition if individuals can be assigned to a subspecies with a
high degree of certainty.
In the scientific literature, multiple authors have provided
definitions with a wide-ranging variety of criteria for defining or
refining the taxonomic rank of subspecies for avian taxa (for example,
McKitrick and Zink (1988); Amadon and Short (1992); Strickberger
(2000); Helbig et al. (2002); Patten and Unitt (2002); Avise (2004);
Zink (2004); Futuyma (2005); Cicero and Johnson (2006); Haig et al.
(2006); Phillimore and Owens (2006); Rising (2007); Skalski et al.
(2008); Fitzpatrick (2010); Haig and D'Elia (2010); Patten (2010);
Remsen (2010); and Patten (2015)); however, there is no consensus in
the literature for defining subspecies criteria for avian taxa
(Sangster 2014, p. 212).
The science panelists who were convened to evaluate the taxonomy
and systematics of the coastal California gnatcatcher provided their
individual recommendations for criteria used to define subspecies as
described in the scientific literature. Most of the panelists
highlighted the AOU subspecies criteria as the standard for avian taxa
(Amec 2015, Panelist 1, p. 101; Panelist 3, p. 111; Panelist 4, pp.
116-117; Panelist 5, p. 124; Panelist 6, p. 135). Panelist 2 provided
the definition of subspecies from Haig et al. (2011), which states
that, ``subspecies is generally defined as a breeding population that
has measurably distinguishable genotypes or phenotypes (or both) and
occupies a distinct geographic area within its species range (Avise
2004, Patten 2010, Remsen 2010).'' However, all panelists affirmed that
multi-evidence criteria should be used for distinguishing the coastal
California gnatcatcher as a subspecies.
The petition bases its argument for delisting on the genetic
analyses presented in Zink et al. (2000) and Zink et al. (2013) and the
results of the ecological niche model discussed in Zink et al. (2013).
The conclusions drawn from these analyses are based on the authors'
overall frame of reference that the ``gnatcatcher populations and
subspecies are not monophyletic'' at either the geographic or taxonomic
level of organization (Zink et al. 2016, p. 65),
[[Page 59959]]
and that no monophyletic units are found within the gnatcatcher
consistent with any ``hierarchical Linnaean taxon'' or any other unit
based on the ``traditional 75 percent rule'' to define subspecies (Zink
et al. 2016, p. 65). In other words, the petition relies on a cladistic
classification approach, generally used for describing species rather
than subspecies, and which is based entirely on monophyletic taxonomic
groups (Mallet 2007, p. 1). This phylogenetic species concept also
invokes the concept of reciprocal monophyly (exclusive coalescence), in
which all individuals in a given group have a common ancestor not
shared by any other group, and all individuals in that group should be
genetically distinct and distinguishable from members of other
populations.
However, the science panelists explicitly rejected the use of
reciprocal monophyly for defining subspecies status for the coastal
California gnatcatcher (Amec 2015, p. 105). Reciprocal monophyly is
rarely used by avian taxonomists, even in defining taxa at the species
level, and this approach is not shared by the majority of scientists
(Amec 2015, pp. 126, 104; Sangster 2014, p. 208). Many scientists
consider subspecies to be incipient species that are not yet fully
reproductively isolated (Amec 2015, p. 126), and the subspecies of the
California gnatcatcher have likely not been separated for sufficient
time to display characteristics of reciprocal monophyly (Amec 2015, p.
106). Additionally, because there are a number of gene lineages
contained within any population, if a population becomes geographically
(or genetically) divided into two distinguishable entities, a
significant amount of time is required before each of the branches will
become ``fixed for different, reciprocally monophyletic gene lineages
at any single gene'' (Mallet 2007, p. 7).
In evaluating the best available information regarding the
taxonomic and systematic status of the coastal California gnatcatcher,
we disagree with the petition's argument, and conclude that a multi-
evidence criteria approach is most appropriate for distinguishing
subspecies. In accordance with the science panelists and conclusions in
the scientific literature (Sangster 2014; McCormack and Maley 2015), we
do not accept that reciprocal monophyly is an appropriate criterion for
distinguishing subspecies of avian taxa in the case of the coastal
California gnatcatcher.
We next examine the available data regarding factors appropriate
for evaluating the subspecific status for the coastal California
gnatcatcher. As described above, we reviewed and summarized the
available morphological data in detail in previous Federal actions,
including the 2011 90-day finding (76 FR 66255; October 26, 2011). No
new information regarding the morphological characteristics of
California gnatcatchers was submitted in the petition or in response to
our request for information in our 2014 90-day finding (79 FR 78775;
December 31, 2014). Because there was no new morphological information
or analyses to review, the panelists considered the previous peer
reviews and summaries of morphological data to represent the best
available information and relied on this information in their
evaluations (Amec 2015, p. 4). In the following sections, we,
therefore, focus our discussion on the genetic and ecological
information presented in the petition to delist the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
We note that our evaluation applies specifically to the coastal
California gnatcatcher and not to avian subspecies in general. Each
possible subspecies has been subject to unique evolutionary forces,
different methods of selection will act on each subspecies (genetic
drift versus allopatric speciation), and the potential divergence time
(recent versus more distant) will, therefore, lead to different
signals, particularly genetically; as such, the methods for detecting
each will be different (Amec 2015, pp. 101-102).
Analyses of Genetic Data Presented in the Petition
The petition relies on the results of a nuclear DNA analysis
presented by Zink et al. (2013) as evidence that delisting the coastal
California gnatcatcher is warranted based on taxonomic error. As
described above, this analysis examined eight nuclear loci and
concluded that no genetic structure was apparent within California
gnatcatchers. In other words, any differences in California
gnatcatchers represent a geographic cline, and thus all differences
occur gradually along a north-south gradient and do not represent sharp
distinctions between unique groups. The petition states that Zink et
al. (2013) provided the data and analysis requested by the Service in
our 2011 90-day finding (76 FR 66255; October 26, 2011) (Thornton and
Schiff 2014, p. 30) and the best available information supporting the
assertion that the coastal California gnatcatcher is not a valid
subspecies. It is true that we recognized in the 2011 petition finding
that results from nuclear DNA analyses are likely to better detect
genetic evidence of population differentiation than mtDNA data (76 FR
66258; October 26, 2011). However, we did not suggest that the results
of nuclear DNA studies would or should be considered determinative of
the coastal California gnatcatcher's taxonomic status. Rather, we
stated that future consideration of the status of the taxon ``should
wait for analyses of a variety of morphological, genetic (including
nuclear and mtDNA) and behavioral evidence'' (76 FR 66258; October 26,
2011). Consistent with our 2011 petition finding, we consider multi-
evidence criteria involving multiple lines of genetic, morphological,
and ecological scientific data to provide the best approach to
determining the taxonomic status of the coastal California gnatcatcher.
With regard to the genetic evidence relied on in the current
petition, multiple commenters from the scientific community and members
of the science panel expressed concern regarding the nuclear DNA
analysis and conclusions of Zink et al. (2013). Several panelists
stated that Zink et al. (2013) chose markers with slow mutation rates
that are inappropriate to evaluate the status of the coastal California
gnatcatcher, given that their lineage diverged recently, likely within
the last 12,000 years (for example, Panelist 6; Amec 2015, p. 147). For
example, one science panelist stated that the loci chosen by Zink et
al. (2013) do not in fact meet the standards recommended by the Service
and the 2004 science panel, as described in the 2011 petition finding
(76 FR 66255; October 26, 2011), given that loci with high mutation
rates were requested (Amec 2015, p. 126).
We received information from the panelists and others from the
scientific community (in response to our 90-day finding (79 FR 78775;
December 31, 2014)) regarding the statistical methods presented in Zink
et al. (2013). For example, Panelist 4 stated that the statistical
analysis chosen for the nuclear loci genetic analysis (STRUCTURE) might
be inappropriate because this method is not a statistically powerful
approach for identifying genetic distinctions when divergence (genetic
separation between two new groups) is modest, particularly given the
small sample sizes used by Zink et al. (2013) (Amec 2015, p. 118).
We also received information regarding the approach and analysis of
the nuclear markers used by Zink et al. (2013). Several commenters and
members of the science panel found that McCormack and Maley's (2015)
reanalysis of the data was more appropriate for considering subspecies
than the original analysis by Zink et al. (2013). Additionally, several
panelists found that the McCormack and Maley
[[Page 59960]]
(2015) analysis did support an observed population structure in
California gnatcatchers (Amec 2015, Panelist 2, p. 108; Panelist 4, p.
118; Panelist 5, p. 126). However, one panelist (Amec, pp. 145-146)
criticized both Zink et al. (2013) and McCormack and Maley (2015) for
having too small of a sample size to reach any conclusions from
analysis of nuclear data. We acknowledge that the sample sizes for the
studies are small; however, as previously discussed, we must rely upon
the best available scientific and commercial data for making our
conclusions; as such, we take both interpretations of the study into
consideration in our analysis.
As previously noted, Zink et al. (2016) presented a rebuttal to
many of the critiques raised by McCormack and Maley (2015); however,
this article was not available when the science panel workshop was
convened. Our review of the information presented indicates that Zink
et al. (2016) do not provide substantial defense to the claims that the
markers they selected were inappropriate for analyzing population
structure of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Zink et al. (2016)
state that these loci and the mtDNA used in Zink et al. (2000) have
detected evolutionarily distinct lineages in other species along the
same distribution of the coastal California gnatcatcher, such as the Le
Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), the curve-billed thrasher (T.
curvirostre), and the canyon towhee (Melozone fusca). However, their
comparison is not supported by documentation of any potential genetic,
morphological, or ecological similarities between the coastal
California gnatcatcher and these species that would provide a strong
basis for their conclusion that unrelated species with different life
histories and evolutionary histories might necessarily experience
similar rates and patterns of genetic divergence.
Zink et al. (2016) also contend that the reanalysis of the data
presented in McCormack and Maley (2015) is invalid because the data do
not represent the original subspecies boundary as defined by Atwood
(1988) at 28[deg] N. (Zink et al. (2016, p. 63) also perform a
statistical analysis finding no structure in the population regardless
of how it is divided). Still, we note that the range of the coastal
California gnatcatcher subspecies as defined by the original listing in
1993 (58 FR 16742; March 30, 1993) is at 30[deg] N., and several
reanalyses of the morphological data (Atwood 1991, entire; Banks and
Gardner 1992, entire; Link and Pendleton 1994, entire) have supported
the southern limit of the range of the subspecies to be at
approximately 30[deg] N.
We reaffirm that the best available information indicates that the
30[deg] N. is still the appropriate line to delineate the approximate
southern limit of the subspecies' range, and, therefore, the genetic
analyses based on that boundary are appropriate for considering the
subspecific status. In support of this assessment, one science panel
member also questioned the division of subspecies boundaries by Zink et
al. (2013), stating that the presence of rare alleles north of the
30[deg] N. boundary provides additional supporting scientific
information that the coastal California gnatcatcher subspecies is
valid. This panelist further noted that the choice by Zink et al.
(2013) to use the 28[deg] N. boundary does not answer the question as
to whether genetic structure would have been detected if the accepted
30[deg] N. latitudinal break was chosen (Amec 2015, p. 127). Zink et
al. (2016, p. 61) dismiss the significant genetic structure observed in
two loci in the reanalysis of McCormack and Maley (2015), stating that
their statistical result ``was driven by an excess of rare alleles as a
result of larger sample sizes in the north . . . as well as by
population expansion'' (citing Zink et al. 2013). However, this
assessment does not address the implication of rare alleles in the
north, which, as noted by the science panelists and McCormack and Maley
(2015), provides evidence of population structure. In fact, one panel
member noted that the observation of rare alleles found in McCormack
and Maley (2015) was especially significant given that the smaller
population size in the north has been attributed to the presence of
reported population declines or bottlenecks, which often remove rare
alleles (Allendorf et al. 2013, p. 109) (Amec 2015, p. 127).
An additional difference in the views regarding the genetic
analysis presented in Zink et al. (2013) relates to how scientists
interpret negative results. The petition argues that a lack of
structure detected means that such genetic or population structure is
overall lacking. However, negative results (such as failure to detect
structure) can be interpreted as either the true absence of genetic
structure or as simply inconclusive. Several panelists stated that they
found the results of Zink et al. (2013) to be inconclusive overall. In
addition, one panel member noted that the methods used in Zink et al.
(2013) might lack adequate statistical power to detect population
structure, given that relatively few loci were used (Amec 2015, p.
125). This highlights the significance of the detection of structure by
McCormack and Maley (2015, pp. 382-383), despite the small number of
markers used.
We also received information from the science community and from
the panelists regarding the use of only a small number of neutral
genetic markers by Zink et al. (2013). Two panelists stated that the
observed morphological difference between the northern and southern
populations of California gnatcatchers is likely only caused by a very
small portion of the genome (Santure et al. 2013, p. 3959; Poelstra et
al. 2014, p. 1414; Amec 2015, pp. 113, 117). Thus, the chance of
detecting that difference using few neutral genetic markers is very
small. The apparent absence of species-wide genetic structure at a
handful of neutral markers unconnected to phenotype does not
necessarily indicate the absence of important adaptive differences
among specific groups (Amec 2015, p. 118).
The petition contends that use of DNA data can result in more clear
and decisive answers regarding subspecies limits than morphological
characteristics (Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 21). We concur with the
petition's assertions and the panelists' summaries that genetic data
can in some cases provide clear diagnostic information regarding the
geographic limits of related populations, which can then be interpreted
and applied in assessing taxonomic treatments. However, we also concur
with the panelists that evaluation of genetic data must be thorough,
analyzed using genetic markers appropriate for the time scale of likely
divergence, and analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. We
agree with the panelists that the number and type of genes tested by
Zink et al. (2013) were insufficient, and that the analysis relied upon
in the petition was too limited to ``prove the negative''; that is, we
do not agree with the assertion in the petition that the coastal
California gnatcatcher subspecies is not valid based on analysis of DNA
data and the original listing was in error. Rather, we conclude that
the best available genetic information, including independent
evaluations from the science panelists and reanalyses of data from
members of the scientific community (for example, Andersen 2015, pers.
comm.; McCormack and Maley 2015), indicates that there is some genetic
evidence for population structure in the California gnatcatcher and
that this evidence provides some support for the distinguishability of
the coastal California gnatcatcher as a subspecies. As discussed above,
we consider multi-evidence criteria involving multiple lines of
genetic,
[[Page 59961]]
morphological, and ecological scientific data to provide the best
approach to determining the taxonomic status of the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
One recommendation made by five of the six science panelists was
that existing or any newly collected samples be reanalyzed using large
numbers of genomic data (AMEC 2015, pp. 102, 109, 121-122, 131, 141),
particularly, thousands to tens of thousands of single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs) that represent a large portion of the genome. On
July 6, 2016, Zink sent to the Service an accepted abstract to be
presented at the 2016 North American Ornithology Conference in August
(Zink 2016b, pers. comm.). The abstract references a study in which
V[aacute]quez-Miranda and Zink examine thousands of SNPs for the
coastal California gnatcatcher and other Baja California bird species.
The authors state that the study results show a lack of population
structure in the coastal California gnatcatcher (Zink 2016b, pers.
comm.).
The science panelists who recommended the use of SNPs included
several provisos. They cautioned that the SNP dataset be analyzed using
samples from individuals across the range of the California gnatcatcher
species, appropriate hypothesis testing be used, appropriate
statistical methods be used (for example, testing for outlier loci
(Funk et al. 2012, p. 493)), and the data be released publicly to allow
for transparency of analysis (AMEC 2015, pp. 104, 121, 131, 141, 151).
If incorrect methodology is used, the SNP analysis will unlikely be
able to identify adaptive divergent groups, particularly given that the
vast majority of SNPs in any dataset will be neutral (Amec et al. 2015,
p. 131; Funk et al. 2012, p. 492-494). As stated previously, given the
recent genetic separation (divergence) of the coastal California
gnatcatcher, adaptive divergence of its genomic structure (that is,
those few key genes responding to local selection pressures) is likely
represented in only a few SNP loci, which can be difficult to locate
even within a large set of SNPs (Amec 2015, p. 121).
The underlying study identified by Zink (2016b, pers. comm.) has
not been provided to us and has not been peer-reviewed or published.
The abstract submitted by Zink (2016b, pers. comm.) did not include
information regarding the sampling methods used in the study or the
statistical methods used to analyze the samples. The division between
subspecies of California gnatcatchers used by V[aacute]quez-Miranda and
Zink appears to be located farther south than the recognized boundary
for the subspecies at 30[deg] N., which may confound the results (Zink
2016b, pers. comm.). In sum, the submitted abstract does not provide
sufficient detail and information to enable us to adequately evaluate
its conclusions. Therefore, we do not consider the abstract to provide
the best available information regarding the subspecific status of the
gnatcatcher. We will consider the underlying study and data, along with
all new information provided on the coastal California gnatcatcher, as
we receive it.
Ecological Niche Model
The petition also relied on the results of an ecological niche
model constructed by Zink et al. (2013). In general, an ecological
niche model represents an estimation of the different niches (for
example, existing, potential, occupied) and uses estimates of suitable
conditions from observations of species' presence (Peterson et al.
2011, p. 271). The model is then constructed (usually with a
specialized computer program) by overlaying that occurrence data with
environmental data such as temperature, precipitation, elevation,
vegetation type, or other habitat characteristics. The model then can
be used for a variety of functions; for example, it can be used to
predict an entity's occurrence elsewhere on the landscape or compare
two populations or subspecies to determine similarities of occurrence,
as was the case for Zink et al. (2013). The model constructed by Zink
et al. (2013) compared temperature and precipitation data for habitats
throughout the range of the California gnatcatcher species as a whole.
The petition asserts, based on the results of the ecological niche
model that, although California gnatcatchers in the northern portion of
their range inhabit a distinctive coastal scrub habitat, no background
environmental differences or climactic differences are present
(Thornton and Schiff 2014, p. 30). Zink et al. (2013, p. 456) also
stated that the results of their niche model indicate that California
gnatcatchers overall exhibit broad ecological tolerance. The petition
asserted that the lack of differentiation in the modeled niches is
indicative of no evidence for subspecies divisions based on the
variables included in the model.
In response to our request for information in our 90-day finding
(79 FR 78775; December 31, 2014), we received differing interpretations
of the ecological niche model from Zink et al. (2013). For example,
McCormack and Maley (2015, p. 384) disagreed with the interpretation of
the niche model results stating that the model results provided
evidence of strong differentiation between the ecological niches of
different populations of California gnatcatchers and that Zink et al.
(2013) had improperly failed to reject their null hypothesis that the
niches and background areas were equally divergent. We also received
information from one member of the public who indicated that he was
provided the opportunity to comment on a draft version of the Zink et
al. (2013) paper and had identified ``fundamental flaws'' with the
ecological niche model analysis that were not addressed in the final
publication (Atwood 2015, pers. comm.).
The science panelists also disagreed with the interpretation of the
results of the ecological niche model presented in Zink et al. (2013).
One panelist cited the lack of clarity as to how the model results were
interpreted, and the panelist concluded that the model results do show
differences in the environments inhabited by the coastal California
gnatcatcher and the other subspecies farther south, in support of the
conclusions of McCormack and Maley (2015) (Amec 2015, p. 113).
The ecological niche model presented by Zink et al. (2013) was
constructed using broad-scale bioclimatic variables. Two panelists
stated that habitat variables such as vegetation type, structure, or
composition should have been used for constructing the niche model
since these variables incorporate a better ecological approach for
distinguishing subspecies (Amec 2015, pp. 119, 148). In addition, our
assessment of available vegetation maps from Mexico and documentation
provided in the literature (for example, Rebman and Roberts 2012, p.
25) indicate that there is a clear distinction between plant
communities in Baja California at about the 30[deg] N. latitude and,
therefore, separate ecological niches; two panelists also emphasized
the distinction between habitat types (Amec 2015, pp. 104, 129).
Further support for the interpretation of McCormack and Maley
(2015) is provided in a new paper by Theimer et al. (2016). In that
study, the researchers examined an ecological niche model performed by
Zink (2015, pp. 79-82) for the southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus). From that model, Zink (2015, pp. 83-84)
concluded that the southwestern willow flycatcher showed no ecological
distinctiveness from other willow flycatchers. However, Theimer et al.
(2016, pp. 292-293) reconstructed the Zink (2015) ecological niche
model comparing the southwestern willow flycatcher and an unrelated
species, the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and found no
ecological distinctiveness
[[Page 59962]]
between the two species. In other words, the model was unable to
predict any difference in niche (specific habitat) use between the two
unrelated species. Theimer et al. (2016) state that the reason for this
is the use of overly broad environmental data that may fail to detect
ecological distinction on a finer scale, such as that which might be
expected for subspecies or closely related species that would be
expected to have some ecological characteristics in common. Theimer et
al. (2016, p. 294) argued that ecological niche models needed to
include other habitat characteristics beyond broad measures of
temperature and precipitation that were used for both the southwestern
willow flycatcher and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Zink et al.
2013; Zink 2015). The authors further concurred with McCormack and
Maley (2015) that Zink et al. (2013) had improperly failed to reject
the null hypothesis for their niche model (Theimer et al. 2016, p.
294).
In the Zink et al. (2016) article, published in response to the
critique of Zink et al. (2013) by McCormack and Maley (2015), Zink et
al. (2016, p. 63) defended their interpretation of the California
gnatcatcher ecological niche model, stating that most widespread
species occupy different climactic niches. They stated that the fact
that one portion of the California gnatcatcher species population
occupies mesic versus xeric habitat does not necessarily indicate that
there are evolved niche differences (Zink et al. 2016, p. 63).
Following the publication of the article by Theimer et al. (2016),
which, as discussed above, presented a differing analysis and
interpretation of the niche modeling results presented in Zink (2015)
for the southwestern willow flycatcher, Zink submitted a draft copy of
a scientific article to the Service on July 1, 2016, responding
specifically to Theimer et al. (2016)'s critique (Zink 2016a, pers.
comm.). In the draft article, Zink argues that the reanalysis by
Theimer et al. (2016) only found weak partitioning between niches and
that the Zink (2015) study used standard methodology for ecological
niche models. However, the draft article does not address the larger
concern raised by Theimer et al. (2016) that the environmental data
used for the analyses presented in Zink (2015) for the southwestern
willow flycatcher as well as our similar concern for the niche model
results presented in Zink et al. (2013) for the coastal California
gnatcatcher were too coarse to reliably detect differences in
ecological niches. The best available information indicates that there
is a difference in habitat used by the populations of the California
gnatcatchers north of 30[deg] N. latitude and the populations farther
south, and this habitat difference is consistent with both observed
morphological differences and the slight genetic variation (as
described in Analyses of Genetic Data Presented in the Petition above)
that occurs at the 30[deg] N. latitude that has defined the southern
limit of the range of the coastal California gnatcatcher since the time
of listing. Therefore, we conclude that ecological differences help
distinguish the coastal California gnatcatcher as a subspecies.
Summary
After careful review of the best available information including
information presented in the petition, information submitted by the
public, information provided by the science panelists, and all other
available information, we find that the results of the genetic analyses
and niche modeling presented in Zink et al. (2000; 2013; 2016) do not
provide sufficient information to support the petition's assertion that
the coastal California gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies and was
listed in error. While the analyses presented by Zink et al. (2013)
provide additional information related to the genetic characteristics
of the California gnatcatcher, there are significant concerns with the
methods used and the interpretations of the results. We reject the
petition's argument that subspecies listed under the Act should have
one major character that is distinct or diagnostic. We concur with the
input from the assessments provided by the science panelists and the
information submitted by the scientific community and the public in
response to our request for information, and our determination is based
on all available data that may inform the taxonomy of the coastal
California gnatcatcher. Multi-evidence criteria involving multiple
lines of genetic, morphological, and ecological scientific data support
our recognition of the coastal California gnatcatcher as a
distinguishable subspecies. Therefore, we conclude that the best
scientific and commercial information available indicate that the
coastal California gnatcatcher is a distinguishable subspecies, and we
continue to recognize it as a listable entity under the Act (that it is
a ``species'' as defined in section 3 of the Act and is thus eligible
to be listed as a threatened species or endangered species).
Having reviewed the best available information regarding the
taxonomy of the coastal California gnatcatcher and determined it is a
distinguishable subspecies, we next evaluate information regarding its
appropriate status under the Act.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or
threatened species because of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the coastal
California gnatcatcher in relation to these five factors is discussed
below. 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. We then attempt to determine if that factor rises to the
level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk
of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as
an endangered species or threatened species 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 is not
sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species meets the definition of an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
In 2010, we conducted a threats analysis in our 5-year review for
the coastal California gnatcatcher (Service 2010, entire). The
following analysis of
[[Page 59963]]
factors affecting the species is a summary and update of the
information presented in the 2010 analysis, which is incorporated by
reference in this section. We updated the summary presented here, where
appropriate, with new information from the literature or received from
the public in response to our request for information in the 90-day
finding (79 FR 78775; December 31, 2014). As described above in
Background, the petitioners did not provide information on any of the
factors. However, several respondents to our request did submit
information regarding factors affecting the species. Our 2010 5-year
review is available online at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket
Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058 as a Supporting Document (ID: FWS-R8-ES-
2011-0066-0003) and at our Environmental Conservation Online System Web
page http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B08X
or by request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The following sections include summary evaluations of nine
potential threats to the coastal California gnatcatcher that we
identified in the 2010 5-year review as having impacts on the
subspecies or its habitat throughout its range in the United States and
Mexico. Potential threats that may impact the subspecies are those
actions that may affect individuals or habitat either currently or in
the future, including habitat loss from urban and agricultural
development (Factor A), grazing (Factor A), wildland fire (Factor A and
Factor E), vegetation type conversion (Factor A), climate change
(Factor A and Factor E), disease (Factor C), predation (Factor C),
fragmentation (Factor A and Factor E), and brood parasitism (Factor E).
We also evaluate the extent to which existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) may ameliorate threats associated with the other factors. We
further note that potential impacts associated with overutilization
(Factor B) were evaluated in the 2010 5-year review, but we concluded
that this factor had low or no impacts, overall, across the subspecies'
range (see Service 2010, p. 21). We did not receive any information
that impacts associated with overutilization have changed since that
time. Based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we
have not identified any new threats to the coastal California
gnatcatcher since the 2010 5-year review.
To provide a temporal component to our evaluation of threats, we
first determined whether we had data available that would allow us to
reasonably predict the likely future impact of each specific threat
over time. Overall, we found that, for many threats, the likelihood and
severity of future impacts became too uncertain to address beyond a 50-
year timeframe. For example:
The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, in
conjunction with the Service's Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP)
process established under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act has
established long-term NCCP/HCPs within the U.S. range of the coastal
California gnatcatcher. These plans address development impacts on the
subspecies and its habitat for 50 to 75 years into the future,
depending on the plan terms and conditions. We, therefore, consider 50
years a reasonable timeframe for considering future impacts.
Laws governing urban development under State environmental
laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act and the NCCP
Act, have remained largely unchanged since 1970 and 1991, respectively;
thus, we consider existing regulatory mechanisms sufficiently stable to
support a 25- to 50-year timeframe.
In analyzing potential impacts from disease, predation,
grazing, and brood parasitism, we considered all available information
regarding any future changes that could alter the likelihood or extent
of impacts. We had no such information extending beyond a 50-year
timeframe.
Although information exists regarding potential impacts
from climate change beyond a 50-year timeframe, downscaled climate
model projections for this region extend only to the 2060s.
Therefore, a timeframe of 50 years is used to provide the best
balance of scope of impacts considered versus certainty of those
impacts.
Urban and Agricultural Development
The largest impacts to coastal sage scrub in California, including
within the range of the coastal California gnatcatcher, both past and
present, have been due to the effects of urbanization and agriculture
(Cleland et al. 2016, p. 439). Development for urban use involves
clearing of existing vegetation. Urban development not only results in
buildings, roads, and other infrastructure, which are permanent, but
also includes ``temporary'' impacts, such as pipeline installation or
heavy equipment activity adjacent to permanent urban development
(Service 2010, p. 12). Without active habitat restoration actions,
sites formerly supporting coastal sage scrub vegetation that have
undergone severe disturbance (from heavy equipment and earth-moving
activities) require decades to recover (Stylinski and Allen 1999, p.
550). At the time of listing, we reported that 58 to 61 percent of
coastal sage scrub habitat had been lost in the three counties that
supported about 99 percent of the coastal gnatcatcher population in the
United States; we further identified urban and agricultural development
as the primary cause for this loss of habitat (58 FR 16751; March 30,
1993).
Urban development has continued to occur throughout the range of
the coastal California gnatcatcher, and in our 2010 5-year review we
concluded that urban development was an ongoing threat to the
subspecies (Service 2010, pp. 12-15; 21). For the purposes of this
status review, we evaluated the current protection status of coastal
sage scrub (the primary habitat type that supports the coastal
California gnatcatcher) within the U.S. range of the subspecies using
geospatial data from the U.S. Geological Survey. We note, however, that
the distribution of the coastal California gnatcatcher within the
United States is not necessarily the same as the distribution of
coastal sage scrub vegetation, because not all coastal sage scrub is
occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers at any given time (Winchell
and Doherty 2014, entire). Our analysis for the U.S. portion of the
range found that 16 percent of coastal sage scrub receives permanent
protection and minimal human use; 35 percent is permanently protected
from urban development but allows multiple uses including off-highway
vehicle use or mining; and 49 percent has no assured protections
preventing urban development (Service 2016a).
Currently, much of the subspecies' range in the United States,
which includes coastal sage scrub as well as other habitat types and
some partly developed areas, is included in completed NCCP/HCP plans
where the coastal California gnatcatcher is a ``covered species.''
Other NCCP/HCPs within the subspecies' range in the United States are
in various stages of development, such as the North County Multiple
Species Conservation Plan in north-central San Diego County, the Orange
County Transportation Authority M2 NCCP/HCP, and the Rancho Palos
Verdes NCCP/HCP in Los Angeles County. Within the northernmost portion
of the subspecies' range in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, the draft
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP is the only plan in development. Though
the above list represents plans that are not yet
[[Page 59964]]
permitted or fully implemented, specific conservation measures are
included in these plans that provide protections for the subspecies and
its habitat. Implementation of existing HCPs and the ongoing
development of additional NCCP/HCPs have significantly reduced the
impacts of urban development to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat
in the United States by directing urban development away from some
areas of coastal scrub vegetation while establishing habitat reserves
that provide conservation benefits to the subspecies and other species.
These plans are making substantial contributions to the conservation of
the subspecies by creating a network of managed preserves with linked
core habitat areas.
As reported in our 2010 5-year review, we estimated that 59 percent
of suitable (modeled) coastal sage scrub habitat would be conserved
with full implementation of four currently permitted NCCP/HCPs and one
HCP (Service 2010, p. 15). For that analysis, modeled habitat consisted
of coastal scrub vegetation within the U.S. portion of the range of the
coastal California gnatcatcher as defined by reported observations,
elevation, and coastal scrub vegetation (using CDF (2002) vegetation
data). Using updated vegetation data (CDF 2015), we prepared a new
geospatial analysis of the previously modeled coastal scrub habitat
within the subspecies' range and within the planning-area boundaries of
these NCCP/HCPs (as compared to the 2010 analysis that estimated acres
of habitat expected to be conserved with full implementation). Based on
our 2016 analysis, our revised estimate found that these plans
encompass approximately 55 percent of the coastal sage scrub habitat
within the U.S. range of the coastal California gnatcatcher (Service
2016a). We also evaluated the amount of land currently within
conservation reserves established under these plans and estimated that
approximately 47 percent of the plans' conservation targets have been
reached (Service 2016a). This means that 28 percent of habitat in the
U.S. portion of the coastal California gnatcatcher's range is currently
conserved by NCCP/HCP plans.
Outside of the United States, urban development continues and is
expected to continue into the future (Harper et al. 2011, p. 26; Meyer
et al. 2016, pp. 10 and 13). Conservation of vegetation within the
California floristic province of Baja California, Mexico, is receiving
increasing attention (Meyer et al. 2016, p. 14). Two privately managed
reserves were recently established in Baja California north of 30[deg]
N. latitude: (1) Punta Mazo in 2012, which consists of a portion of the
tidal estuary and sand dune plant community at San Quint[iacute]n Bay;
and (2) La Reserva Natural Valle Tranquilo, purchased in 2006 and
expanded in 2013, a 20,000-ac (9,094-ha) reserve south of San
Quint[iacute]n (Riley 2016, pers. comm.), which is at the very southern
edge of the California floristic province found in Baja California, at
the transition from coastal sage scrub/chaparral to desert plant
communities (Meyer et al. 2016, pp. 12-13). Two Federal parks are also
found in mountainous areas in northwestern Baja California. However,
collectively, these four conservation areas encompass very little
suitable California gnatcatcher habitat. No equivalent regulatory
mechanisms to the NCCP/HCP process exist in Mexico. In that portion of
the subspecies' range, Federal, State, and local laws provide limited
protections to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat (see the Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms section below).
In order to estimate the distribution of coastal sage scrub in
northern Baja California, we created a digital map of the coastal sage
scrub vegetation defined by and illustrated in Rebman and Roberts
(2012, p. 22). Based on the digitized version of this published map, we
created a boundary of the area in northern Baja California that
contains coastal sage scrub vegetation; this acreage totaled
approximately 1,862,413 ac (753,691 ha). We then prepared a coarse
estimation of extant coastal sage scrub vegetation from our delineation
of Rebman and Roberts (2012, p. 22) by removing those areas that have
been converted to urban and agricultural development, as estimated from
composite aerial images from ESRI World Imagery (2013). We estimated
approximately 1,704,406 ac (689,749 ha) of coastal sage scrub habitat
in northern Baja California, from 30[deg] N. to the United States-
Mexico border (Service 2016a). This represents a difference of 158,007
ac (63,942 ha), or about 8.5 percent, from the map prepared by Rebman
and Roberts (2012, p. 22) of their estimate of coastal sage scrub
vegetation. Though this figure represents a rough estimate of coastal
sage scrub vegetation in northern Baja California as of 2013, it is the
only available analysis of change in amount of coastal sage scrub
habitat available to us at this time.
In our 2010 5-year review, we indicated that the threats to the
coastal California gnatcatcher as a result of agricultural development
have been tempered in recent years by implementation of regulatory
mechanisms, especially the State of California's NCCP process and the
Federal HCP process (Service 2010, p. 14). We also indicated that the
rate of loss of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat due to
agricultural development has declined in its southern California range.
More specifically, 1890-1930 was an intensive agricultural period in
California with the expansion of dry land farming as well as rapid
growth of intensively irrigated fruit and vegetable crops (Preston et
al. 2012, p. 282). An unknown amount of coastal sage scrub within the
U.S. range of the coastal California gnatcatcher was lost or modified
during this time period.
The post-World War II population boom resulted in the conversion of
many large agricultural areas to urban and suburban developments in
southern California (Preston et al. p. 282). We used data from the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the Division of Land
Resource Protection in the California Department of Conservation (CDC)
to evaluate land use changes in California since 1984 (CDC 2016).
Although not all areas of some counties have been inventoried, a review
of these data for San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside
Counties indicate net losses in prime farmland, from 1984 to 2012, of
8,508 ac (3,443 ha), 16,874 ac (6,829 ha), 12,326 ac (4,988 ha), and
82,611 ac (33,431 ha) (CDC 2016), respectively, for a total net loss of
120,319 ac (48,691 ha). Correspondingly, the reported net gains in
urban and built-up land for the same time period and the same counties
were 107,988 ac (43,701 ha), 59,264 ac (23,983 ha), 53,113 ac (21,494
ha), and 161,615 ac (65,403 ha) (CDC 2016), respectively, for a total
net increase of 381,980 ac (154,582 ha). These numbers indicate that,
although agricultural activities have declined in southern California,
these former farmlands have likely transitioned to urbanized areas
rather than been allowed to revert to or been restored as native
habitats.
Because of the limited regulatory mechanisms in Mexico (see
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section below), agricultural activity
continues to be a stressor within the subspecies' range in that country
as a result of land clearing for both agriculture and grazing
practices, particularly in northwestern Baja California (for example,
Harper et al. 2011, pp. 28 and 31; Meyer et al. 2016, p. 10). These
effects are likely to continue into the future.
In summary, urban development was identified as a threat at the
time of listing and as an ongoing threat in our 2010 5-year review. Our
2016 evaluation of conserved lands established within
[[Page 59965]]
the U.S. range of the subspecies indicates that approximately 55
percent of suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat is targeted
for conservation by five regional NCCPs/HCPs, and that 47 percent of
that goal has been achieved. Although the impact of urban development
has been curtailed in NCCP/HCP planning areas and has decreased since
the time of listing, conservation of the subspecies and its habitat
within the plan areas is not expected until current conservation plans
are more fully implemented and future conservation plans are approved
and permitted in other portions of the subspecies' range. Suitable
habitat that is not yet conserved may be subject to urban development
or other stressors. Furthermore, although lands within conserved areas
are not at risk of destruction or modification from development, other
threats, as discussed below, remain. Additionally, some areas of
suitable habitat would remain outside areas targeted for conservation
and could be developed or impacted in the future. Therefore, urban
development continues to result in the destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the coastal California gnatcatcher's habitat, and
represents a current, medium-level stressor to the coastal California
gnatcatcher across its range in the United States and Mexico that has
the potential to result in the loss of gnatcatchers at the population
level and the loss of large but isolated patches of habitat. This
stressor will continue to impact the subspecies and its habitat into
the future.
The impacts to the subspecies related to agricultural development
is low in the United States, but our recent evaluation of remaining
coastal sage scrub habitat in Baja California indicates that
agricultural development remains as a medium- to high-level stressor
for the subspecies' range in Mexico; we anticipate these impacts will
continue into the future.
Grazing
Effects of grazing and browsing from cattle, sheep, and goats
include eating and trampling of coastal scrub plants. In the 2010 5-
year review, we found that the effects of grazing can result in the
loss and modification of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat and
promote vegetation type conversion (the modification of one habitat
type to another through the effects of one or more stressors working
individually or in combination--ultimately resulting in the destruction
of the original habitat type) (see the Vegetation Type Conversion
section below); at that time, we concluded that grazing was a minor
threat to the subspecies (Service 2010, pp. 18, 21). Data from the FMMP
indicate that there have been substantial declines in grazing land in
San Diego and Riverside Counties from 1984 to 2012. These declines
range from approximately 19,500 to 34,000 acres (7,689 to 13,759 ha). A
smaller decline was reported for Orange County (3,265 ac (1,321 ha)),
and a small increase was reported for Los Angeles County (6,066 ac
(2,455 ha)) (CDC 2016), though not all areas of these counties have
been inventoried. Overall, grazing is considered a low-level stressor
within the subspecies' range in the United States that has a temporary
impact to only small amounts of habitats and individual gnatcatchers,
due to the decline in grazing activity and increased regulation of
grazing by local jurisdictions (for instance, city ordinances).
The effects of grazing practices to coastal California gnatcatcher
habitat in Mexico are less concentrated as compared to the United
States because livestock are seasonally moved. However, grazing in
coastal scrub habitat in Mexico can still result in vegetation type
conversion, and as noted above, land clearing for grazing purposes has
been documented within northern Baja California (Meyer et al. 2016, p.
10). Therefore, grazing continues to pose a medium-level stressor that
temporarily impacts large patches of habitat and gnatcatchers at the
population level within the subspecies' range in Mexico.
Wildland Fire
Wildland fire can result in the direct loss of the coastal scrub
plants that the coastal California gnatcatcher uses for foraging,
breeding, and sheltering. In our 2010 5-year review, we found that
wildland fire poses a threat to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat
(Service 2010, pp. 15-18, 21). In that review, we noted that, absent
other disturbances, coastal scrub vegetation can re-grow in some areas
post-wildland fire in as little as approximately 3 to 5 years (Service
2010, p. 21). However, new information suggests that the process needed
for coastal scrub vegetation to recover sufficiently to provide
suitable habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher is more
complex. Winchell and Doherty (2014, p. 543) examined coastal
California gnatcatcher recolonization rates after the wildland fires of
2003 in San Diego County; they found that coastal California
gnatcatchers recolonize burned areas from the outside in, ``[moving] in
from the fire perimeter, rather than colonizing the center of the
burned area immediately'' (see also van Mantgem et al. 2015, p. 136).
Moreover, the quality of the habitat where recolonization occurs is
also important, with higher-quality unburned habitat supporting source
populations for recolonization of burned areas and higher-quality
burned habitat being more likely to be recolonized as the vegetation
regrows (Winchell and Doherty 2014, p. 543). This study concluded that
the coastal California gnatcatcher will recolonize burned areas, but
that it can take more than 5 years post-burn for populations to reach
pre-burn occupancy levels, even in higher-quality habitat areas
(Winchell and Doherty 2014, p. 543).
Similarly, a 2012 study of coastal California gnatcatchers within
the Central and Coastal Reserves in Orange County found that, following
two large fires in 2007 (Windy Ridge and Santiago Fires) that burned
approximately 75 percent of the Central Reserve, occupancy of surveyed
plots in 2011 (4 years post-fire) was 10.1 percent (7 of 65 plots) in
burned areas (Leatherman Bioconsulting Inc. 2012, pp. i, 5). The
severity of these fires within the Central Reserve also affected
occupancy, with no occupancy of coastal California gnatcatchers
observed within severely burned plots, as compared to 23 percent
occupancy for lightly burned plots (Leatherman Bioconsulting Inc. 2012,
p. 5). The 2007 fires resulted in a large loss of coastal sage scrub
habitat in the Central Reserve, and the study found that only 12.7
percent of plots were occupied by the subspecies as compared to 34.3
percent of occupied plots for the Coastal Reserve (Leatherman
Bioconsulting Inc. 2012, p. 5). These findings are supported by an
observation made by one land manager who submitted information to us in
response to our request for information in our recent 90-day finding
(79 FR 78775; December 31, 2014). This land manager indicated that it
took 10 years of restoration activities after the 2003 San Diego
wildland fires for coastal California gnatcatcher to return to
previously occupied habitat in certain burned areas within San Diego
County (Johanson 2015, pers. comm.). The U.S. Geological Survey, in
partnership with the San Diego Management and Monitoring Program, is
conducting additional research to better understand the effects of
wildland fire on coastal California gnatcatcher occupancy within
coastal scrub vegetation in southern California (Kus and Preston 2015,
entire).
As discussed in our 2010 5-year review (Service 2010, pp. 15-18),
the frequency of wildland fire has risen due to an increase in rates of
ignition along
[[Page 59966]]
the urban-wildland interface and controlled burning practices in
Mexico. The greater number of fires, many of which have burned large
areas of coastal scrub, has resulted in more areas of young growth
coastal scrub vegetation that do not provide suitable coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat. The 2010 5-year review noted that
roughly 235,226 ac (95,193 ha) of modeled coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat in the United States burned from 2003 to 2007
(Service 2010, pp. 15-17), which included several very large fires (see
Service 2010, p. 16, Figure 3). As noted above (see Urban and
Agricultural Development section), that analysis used modeled habitat
consisting of coastal scrub vegetation within the U.S. portion of the
range of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Using updated fire
perimeter spatial data from the California Department of Fire and
Forestry Protection (CDF) (CDF 2014) and our previously defined modeled
coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, we estimated that 54,429 ac
(22,027 ha) burned from 2008-2014, which also includes areas that may
have burned during both the 2003-2007 and 2008-2014 time periods
(Service 2016a). For southern California fires in 2015, we evaluated
fire perimeter geospatial data and determined that the Calgrove Fire
(439 ac (177.6 ha) total) in Los Angeles County burned approximately
167.5 ac (67.8 ha) of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat (Service
2016a). In total, from 2003 to 2015, approximately 289,822 ac (117,286
ha) or about 45 percent of modeled coastal California gnatcatcher
habitat has burned.
Wildland fire, and how often it reoccurs in an area, is a major
contributor to vegetation type conversion from coastal sage scrub to
annual grassland, a vegetation type that does not support the breeding,
feeding, or sheltering needs of the coastal California gnatcatcher.
This is particularly problematic when frequency of wildland fires
increases above the historic fire regime for coastal sage scrub, which
increases the incidence of vegetation type conversion. In conjunction
with several other stressors, wildland fires promote the growth of
nonnative plant species, which can outcompete and displace native plant
species. This occurrence results in the modification and, ultimately,
the loss of coastal scrub habitat. Furthermore, the senescence of these
annual nonnative annual plants creates higher fuel loads than are found
in native coastal scrub habitat, accelerating the effects of the
wildland fire-type conversion feedback loop (see Vegetation Type
Conversion section below). Our spatial data show that a total of about
53,343 ac (21,587 ha) of modeled coastal California gnatcatcher habitat
in the United States has burned at least twice since 2003, with some
areas having burned three to four times (Service 2016a).
At the time of listing, wildland fire was identified as a
substantial threat to the coastal California gnatcatcher and its
habitat; it was further identified as an ongoing threat in the 2010 5-
year review. Although currently established NCCP/HCPs provide for the
establishment of coastal sage scrub reserves and include fire
management as one of their primary objectives, there is no mechanism or
conservation measure currently in place that can fully prevent the
recurrence of natural or human-caused destructive wildland fires in
coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. Therefore, wildland fire
represents a medium-level stressor leading to the destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range of the coastal
California gnatcatcher that causes large-scale, temporary alterations
to coastal sage scrub habitat and may result in the loss of some
gnatcatcher pairs throughout the subspecies' range. According to the
best available data, it will continue to impact the subspecies and its
habitat into the future.
Vegetation Type Conversion
The presence of invasive, nonnative plant species, in combination
with one or more stressors, such as severe physical disturbance (for
example, clearing by heavy machinery), livestock activity, wildland
fire, and anthropogenic atmospheric pollutants (particularly nitrogen
compounds) can cause a shift from native plants towards a nonnative
plant community and result in vegetation type conversion. In the 2010
5-year review, we found that vegetation type conversion of coastal sage
scrub to nonnative grasses was an ongoing threat to the coastal
California gnatcatcher, given that nonnative grasses do not support
breeding for the subspecies (Service 2010, pp. 18-21). Depending on the
influencing factors, this conversion can occur over various temporal
and spatial scales. In particular, the nonnative annual plant-wildland
fire feedback loop can result in the type conversion of large areas of
habitat over a relatively short period of time (Service 2010, pp. 15-
18). Information provided to us by two land managers within reserves in
San Diego County indicates that active management to control nonnative
vegetation is needed to maintain habitat quality due to re-occurring
wildand fires (Center for Natural Lands Management 2015, pers. comm.;
Johanson 2015, pers. comm.).
The NCCP/HCP planning process includes measures for managing
coastal scrub vegetation, and current management is reducing the
magnitude of the effects of type-conversion within the range of the
coastal California gnatcatcher in the United States. Habitat is being
added as managed reserves under the NCCP/HCPs at a pace that is roughly
in keeping with habitat losses from urban development and other covered
activities. However, the process is not yet complete for the decades-
long permits issued for the NCCP/HCPs within the subspecies' range. In
addition, management plans for each preserve area are not yet complete
for these long-term plans, and ensuring sufficient resources for
perpetual management of the reserves that addresses existing and future
stressors, poses a challenge common to all regional NCCP/HCPs. These
circumstances can lead to uncertainty regarding whether long-term
management can adequately address vegetation type conversion in the
future.
Therefore, vegetation type conversion represents a medium-level
stressor leading to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range of the coastal California gnatcatcher and causing
long-term habitat alterations and impacts to gnatcatchers across the
range of the subspecies. The best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that vegetation type conversion will continue to
have long-term impacts into the future.
Climate Change
Background
In this section, we consider observed or expected environmental
changes resulting from ongoing and projected changes in climate. The
effects of climate change were not addressed in detail in previous
status reviews.
As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
the term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (IPCC 2013a, p. 1,450). The term ``climate change'' thus
refers to a change in the mean or the variability of relevant
properties, which persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer, due to natural conditions (for example, solar cycles) or human-
caused changes in the composition of
[[Page 59967]]
atmosphere or in land use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1,450).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate
system is unequivocal and many of the observed changes in the last 60
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4).
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to
accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 2013,
p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of
extinction pressures, such as land use and invasive species, which will
likely place extinction rates in this era among just a handful of the
severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's geological record
(American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) 2014, p.
17).
Examples of various other observed and projected changes in climate
and associated effects and risks, and the bases for them, are provided
for global and regional scales in recent reports issued by the IPCC
(2013c, entire; 2014, entire), and similar types of information for the
United States and regions within it can be found in the National
Climate Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire).
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most
of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-
20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate and
is ``extremely likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 95 to 100 percent
likelihood) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2013b,
p. 17 and related citations).
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions. Model results yield very
similar projections of average global warming until about 2030;
thereafter, the magnitude and rate of warming vary through the end of
the century depending on the assumptions about population levels,
emissions of GHGs, and other factors that influence climate change.
Thus, absent extremely rapid stabilization of GHGs at a global level,
there is strong scientific support for projections that warming will
continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of
change will be influenced substantially by human actions regarding GHG
emissions (IPCC 2013b, 2014; entire).
Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the
only scientific information available for us to use. However, projected
changes in climate and related impacts can vary substantially across
and within different regions of the world (for example, IPCC 2013c,
entire; IPCC 2014, entire) and within the United States (Melillo et al.
2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they
are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses
of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a discussion
of downscaling).
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on a
species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
such as habitat fragmentation (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006;
Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011;
Bertelsmeier et al. 2013, entire). In addition to considering
individual species, scientists are evaluating potential climate change-
related impacts to, and responses of, ecological systems, habitat
conditions, and groups of species (see, for example, Deutsch et al.
2008; Berg et al. 2010; Euskirchen et al. 2009; McKechnie and Wolf
2010; Sinervo et al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; McKelvey et al. 2011;
Rogers and Schindler 2011; Bellard et al. 2012).
Temperature
Regional temperature observations for assessing climate change are
often used as an indicator of how climate is changing. The Western
Regional Climate Center (WRCC) has defined 11 climate regions for
evaluating various climate trends in California (Abatzoglou et al.
2009, p. 1,535). The relevant WRCC climate region for the distribution
of the coastal California gnatcatcher in southern California is
primarily the South Coast Region.
Three indicators of temperature, the increase in mean temperature,
the increase in maximum temperature, and the increase in minimum
temperature illustrate trends in climate change in California. For the
South Coast Region, linear trends (evaluated over a 100-year time
period) indicate an increase in mean temperatures (Jan-Dec) of
approximately 2.65 [deg]F (0.49 [deg]F) (1.47
0.27 [deg]C) since 1895 and 4.17 [deg]F (1.21 [deg]F) (2.32
0.67 [deg]C) since 1949 (WRCC 2016, p. 6). Similarly, the
maximum temperature 100-year trend for the South Coast Region shows an
increase of about 1.94 [deg]F (0.52 [deg]F) (1.08 0.29 [deg]C) since 1895 and 3.16 [deg]F (1.32
[deg]F) (1.75 0.73 [deg]C) since 1949 (WRCC 2016, p. 9).
Likewise, the minimum temperature 100-year trend for the South Coast
Region shows an increase of about 3.37 [deg]F (0.52 [deg]F)
(1.87 0.29 [deg]C) since 1895 and 5.19 [deg]F (1.22 [deg]F) (2.88 0.68 [deg]C) since 1949 (WRCC
2016, p. 12). It is reasonable to assume the rate of temperature
increase for this region is higher for the second time period (since
1949) than for the first time period (since 1895) due to the increased
use of fossil fuels in the 20th century. Even if that is not the
mechanism, it is clear temperatures have increased in the South Coast
Region since the start of data collection.
These observed trends provide information as to how climate has
changed in the past. However, we must also consider whether and how
climate may change in the future. Climate models can be used to
simulate and develop future climate projections. Pierce et al. (2013,
entire) presented both statewide and regional probabilistic estimates
of temperature and precipitation changes for California (by the 2060s)
using downscaled data from 16 global circulation models and 3 nested
regional climate models. The study looked at a historical (1985-1994)
and a future (2060-2069) time period using the IPCC Special Report on
Emission Scenarios A2 (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 841). This IPCC-defined
scenario was used for the IPCC's Third and Fourth Assessment reports,
and it is based on a global population growth scenario and economic
conditions that result in a relatively high level of atmospheric GHGs
by 2100 (IPCC 2000, pp. 4-5; see also Stocker et al. 2013, pp. 60-68,
and Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 25-28 for discussions and comparisons of the
prior and current IPCC approaches and outcomes). Importantly, the
projections by Pierce et al. (2013, pp. 852-853) include daily
distributions and natural internal climate variability. Simulations
using these downscaling methods project an increase in yearly
temperature for the southern California coastal region ranging from 1.6
[deg]C to 2.5 [deg]C (2.9 [deg]F to 4.5 [deg]F) by the 2060s time
period, compared to 1985-1994 (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 844). Averaging
across all models and downscaling techniques, the simulations project a
yearly-
[[Page 59968]]
averaged warming of 2.1 [deg]C (3.78[emsp14][deg]F) by the 2060s
(Pierce et al. 2013, p. 842).
Precipitation
Precipitation patterns can also be used as an indicator of how
climate is changing. Killam et al. (2014, entire) evaluated trends in
precipitation for 14 meteorological stations within all of California
using annual precipitation data from the National Climatic Data Center.
This study found an increasing trend in annual precipitation since 1925
for the northern and central regions of California and decreasing or
minimal changes in southern California; however, none of the trends for
these stations were significant (Killam et al. 2014, p. 171). The
authors concluded that it is unclear as to whether there is a
recognizable climate change signal in these precipitation records since
annual variability in precipitation overwhelmed their observed trends,
particularly precipitation patterns attributed to both the El
Ni[ntilde]o-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation
(multidecadal shifts in warm and cool phases in North Pacific sea
surface temperatures) (Killam et al. 2014, p. 168).
Statewide and regional probabilistic estimates of precipitation
changes for California were evaluated by Pierce et al. (2013, entire).
Averaging across all models and downscaling methods, the simulations
projected an annual mean decrease in precipitation for southern
California (approximately 9 percent for the southern California coastal
region) over the 2060-2069 time period compared to the mean over the
1985-1994 time period, but there was significant disagreement across
the models (Pierce et al. 2013, pp. 849, 854).
Dynamic downscaled simulations indicate larger increases in summer
(June-August) precipitation by the 2060s (as compared to statistical
downscaling methods) within the region of California affected by the
North America monsoonal flow (Pierce et al. 2013, pp. 851, 855). The
North American monsoon is a regional-scale circulation that develops
over the American Southwest during the months of July through
September, affecting southern California and other locations in this
region (Douglas et al. 2004, entire). Occasionally, hurricanes and
tropical storms are captured in the monsoon circulation, which can
result in heavy summer rains in the normally dry areas of the Southwest
(Douglas et al. 2004, p. 11). As an example, from July 18-20, 2015,
remnants of tropical storm Dolores, which had developed into a Category
4 hurricane off the coast of Baja California, generated record July
rainfall amounts for several locations in southern California (Fritz
2015, entire). This storm and additional monsoonal-related rain events
during the summer of 2015 in southern California were enhanced by
higher than normal sea surface temperatures and the developing El
Ni[ntilde]o pattern in the Pacific Ocean (Serna and Lin 2015, p. B5).
Climate Change and Coastal California Gnatcatchers
The potential changes in climate described above are expected to
have some effect on the coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.
While the physical and biological mechanisms that result in the
establishment of coastal scrub or chaparral vegetation are unclear,
minimum temperatures, maximum temperatures, and precipitation (both
amount and seasonality) within the southern California coastal region
represent important influences on the subspecies and its habitat
(Franklin 1998, p. 745). As noted above, there is little consensus on
future trends in precipitation in southern California; however, it is
highly likely that minimum and maximum temperatures will continue to
rise. Malanson and O'Leary (1995, p. 219) suggested that higher average
temperatures in the future may create an upslope shift in coastal scrub
vegetation into areas that are currently occupied by chaparral. This
may expand or shift areas that currently provide suitable habitat for
coastal California gnatcatchers. Similarly, because the subspecies'
distribution is thought to be limited by low temperatures (Mock 1998,
p. 415), warmer minimum temperatures may also allow for coastal
California gnatcatchers to survive at higher elevations, thereby
allowing the subspecies to extend its range into areas previously not
occupied (Preston et al. 2008, p. 2,512). In contrast, climate change
may affect nutrient cycling (Allen et al. 1995, entire) or may promote
a wildland fire regime with increased fire frequency (Batllori et al.
2013, entire); both of these effects would create conditions more
favorable for vegetation type conversion to nonnative annual grassland,
which would be unsuitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers.
Climate Change Summary
Climate change due to global warming is influencing regional
climate patterns that may result in changes to the habitat for the
coastal California gnatcatcher into the mid-21st century (approximately
2060s). While climate change may expand or shift the coastal California
gnatcatcher's preferred habitat of coastal scrub vegetation in some
areas, it may also create conditions more favorable for vegetation type
conversion to unsuitable habitat such as nonnative annual grasslands.
The best available regional data on current and potential future trends
related to climate change, within the range of the coastal California
gnatcatcher, indicate that the effects of climate change is a low- to
medium-level stressor at the present time that is anticipated to result
in shifts to the distribution of the subspecies' habitat and that may
potentially affect gnatcatchers at the individual or population level.
Based on model projections, we can reliably predict these changes will
continue into the mid-21st century (2060s).
Disease
Two diseases have been identified as potential threats to the
coastal California gnatcatcher, West Nile virus and Newcastle disease.
These are discussed in greater detail in our 2010 5-year review where
we concluded that disease was not a significant threat to the
subspecies (Service 2010, pp. 21-22). Because known West Nile virus
cases and the range of the coastal California gnatcatcher overlap
geographically, the subspecies has likely been exposed to West Nile
virus. While new information suggests that the impact to birds in North
America has been widespread (George et al. 2015, entire), we have no
evidence of detection of West Nile virus in the coastal California
gnatcatcher and no information indicating that this disease has caused
any decline in coastal California gnatcatcher populations. Furthermore,
Newcastle disease does not appear to have affected gnatcatchers
(Service 2010, p. 22). In summary, there is no evidence that disease is
a stressor at the present time to the coastal California gnatcatcher,
nor do we expect it to be into the future.
Predation
The effects of predation on the coastal California gnatcatcher are
discussed in greater detail in our 2010 5-year review, where we
concluded that predation is not a significant threat to the subspecies
(Service 2010, pp. 22-24). Predation undoubtedly occurs among all life
stages of the coastal California gnatcatcher, but only nest predation
has been previously identified as affecting recruitment and survival at
levels that could have potential effects on the population (such as
reduction in fledging success). Nest predation rates for the coastal
California gnatcatcher are higher than most open-nesting passerines
because they occupy a
[[Page 59969]]
naturally predator-rich environment (Service 2010, p. 23). However, the
life-history strategy of the coastal California gnatcatcher allows
pairs to re-nest repeatedly, compensating for this potential stressor.
Therefore, we conclude that predation continues to represent a low-
level impact to the subspecies that affects individual pairs of
gnatcatchers, but it is not having a population-level impact at the
present time, and this situation is not expected to change into the
future.
Fragmentation
Fragmentation represents a suite of stressors that affect a species
at various levels and scales. At its simplest, it involves a large,
continuous block of habitat being broken up into smaller pieces, which
become isolated from each other within a mosaic of other habitats. It
is, therefore, not unrelated to habitat destruction and type conversion
(see the Urban and Agricultural Development section and Vegetation Type
Conversion sections above). However, changes in proximity to unsuitable
habitat, distance to other areas of suitable habitat, size of habitat,
and the length of time a fragment has been isolated may all have
negative impacts on individuals of the species, such as increased
predation rates, genetic isolation, or increased risk of local
extirpation.
As discussed in our 2010 5-year review, the coastal California
gnatcatcher is not particularly sensitive to edge or distance effects
(Service 2010, p. 32). This characteristic is further supported by new
information indicating that populations of coastal California
gnatcatchers within the United States are fairly well connected over
large areas. However, some populations (for example, the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, greater Ventura County, and Coyote Hills populations) are
currently separated by large distances by areas of non-habitat and,
therefore, are not as well connected with the populations in the rest
of southern California (Vandergast et al. 2014, pp. 8-9). We also noted
in the 2010 5-year review (Service 2010, p. 32) that the coastal
California gnatcatcher appeared to be somewhat susceptible to the
effects associated with small fragment size (area), but new information
suggests otherwise (Winchell and Doherty 2014, p. 543). Our concern at
that time was that small areas of habitat would not support coastal
California gnatcatchers over time and that the loss of the gnatcatcher
population in a given (small) patch would be permanent. While a given
patch of suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat may not always
be occupied by the subspecies, these patches of habitat can be
recolonized over time (Winchell and Doherty 2014, p. 543). Winchell and
Doherty (2014, p. 543) also found that coastal California gnatcatchers
gradually recolonize a regrowing burned area from the perimeter inwards
(see Wildland Fire section above), which indicates that coastal
California gnatcatchers have some level of sensitivity to spatial and
temporal elements in habitat fragments.
Ongoing and anticipated implementation of regional NCCP/HCPs is
expected to create a network of core-and-linkage habitat areas, thereby
preventing or reducing the effects of future habitat fragmentation for
much of the U.S. range of the coastal California gnatcatcher. The core
areas are large, mostly unfragmented areas, while linkage areas are
intended to provide continuous or ``stepping stone'' corridors for
coastal California gnatcatcher movement and dispersal. Thus, as
indicated by new information from Vandergast et al. (2014, entire) and
Winchell and Doherty (2014, entire), the ability of the coastal
California gnatcatcher to move between and recolonize habitat areas
within the U.S. range, including the existing preserve-and-linkage
areas, helps to reduce some of the effects associated with habitat
fragmentation, although connectivity remains somewhat limited at the
larger scales.
The new information we have received since the 2010 5-year review
suggests that fragmentation is a threat of lower magnitude than was
described at the time of listing. However, the effects of fragmentation
are more significant than previously recognized for those coastal
California gnatcatcher populations that have become widely separated
due to urban development and other habitat losses or modifications (for
example, wildland fire), particularly the geographically isolated
populations in Ventura County, Palos Verdes (western Los Angeles
County), and Coyote Hills (northern Orange County) (Vandergast et al.
2014, pp. 8, 12). Therefore, we consider the effects of fragmentation
to represent a low- to medium-level stressor to the subspecies within
portions of its range, and we can reliably predict that this level of
stressor will continue into the future.
Brood Parasitism
Rates of brood parasitism by invasive, nonnative brown-headed
cowbirds (Molothrus ater) appear to vary throughout the range of the
coastal California gnatcatcher, depending upon nearby land uses (for
example, higher rates of brood parasitism near livestock and
agriculture). Because brown-headed cowbirds are thought to have invaded
coastal southern California during the 20th century, any rate of brood
parasitism exceeds the historical rate of parasitism. However, the re-
nesting behavior of the coastal California gnatcatcher following a
failed nesting attempt enables individual birds to reduce the magnitude
of this threat, as opposed to some migratory songbirds that do not re-
nest as readily. Additionally, cowbird trapping has been found to be an
effective tool and has helped to reduce impacts to the coastal
California gnatcatcher (as informed by monitoring) within many of the
reserves established under regional NCCP/HCPs (Service 2010, p. 33).
Additionally, certain ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit holders may be
authorized to conduct coastal California gnatcatcher nest monitoring
activities that may include the removal of brown-headed cowbird chicks
and eggs (with minimal disturbance to nesting gnatcatchers). At the
discretion of the permittee, these activities may further include
replacement of cowbird eggs with dummy eggs to preclude the abandonment
of small clutches. These activities help to decrease the impact of
cowbird parasitism on individual coastal California gnatcatchers. Given
the subspecies' ability to re-nest following nest failure along with
ongoing management, we conclude brood parasitism is a low- to medium-
level stressor affecting some populations of coastal California
gnatcatchers throughout the subspecies' range in the United States, and
we expect this level of stressor will continue into the future. We have
no specific information on the impact of brown-headed cowbirds on
coastal California gnatcatcher populations in Mexico, but brown-headed
cowbirds occur as a breeding species along the length of the Baja
California peninsula (see Erickson et al. 2007, p. 583), including
throughout the range of the coastal California gnatcatcher. We expect
that the level of impact of this stressor in Mexico is similar to that
in unmanaged areas of the United States.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Existing regulatory mechanisms that affect the coastal California
gnatcatcher include laws and regulations promulgated by Federal and
State governments in the United States and in Mexico. In relation to
Factor D under the Act, we consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe
[[Page 59970]]
under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the
species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing
regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and
regulations; an example would be State governmental actions enforced
under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
For currently listed species, we consider the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the
protections of the Act. Potential threats acting on the coastal
California gnatcatcher for which governments may have regulatory
control include impacts associated with urban and agricultural
development, vegetation type conversion, wildland fire, climate change,
and brood parasitism.
Federal Mechanisms
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the NEPA of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, authorize, or carry out.
Prior to implementation of such projects with a Federal nexus, NEPA
requires the agency to analyze the project for potential impacts to the
human environment, including natural resources. However, NEPA does not
impose substantive environmental obligations on Federal agencies--it
merely prohibits an uninformed agency action. Although NEPA requires
full evaluation and disclosure of information regarding the effects of
contemplated Federal actions on sensitive species and their habitats,
it does not by itself regulate activities that might affect the coastal
California gnatcatcher; that is, effects to the subspecies and its
habitat would receive the same scrutiny as other plant and wildlife
resources during the NEPA process and associated analyses of a
project's potential impacts to the human environment.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended (Act)
Upon its listing as threatened, the coastal California gnatcatcher
benefited from the protections of the Act, which include the
prohibition against take and the requirement for interagency
consultation for Federal actions that may affect the species. Section 9
of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the take of endangered and
threatened species without special exemption. The Act defines ``take''
as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). Our regulations define ``harm'' to include significant
habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to
listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Our
regulations also define ``harass'' as intentional or negligent actions
that create the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it
to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns,
which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(50 CFR 17.3).
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all Federal agencies to utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened
species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure
that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or
adversely modify their critical habitat. Because the Service has
regulations that prohibit take of all threatened wildlife species (50
CFR 17.31(a)), unless modified by a rule issued under section 4(d) of
the Act (50 CFR 17.31(c)), the regulatory protections of the Act are
largely the same for wildlife species listed as endangered and as
threatened.
A section 4(d) rule for the coastal California gnatcatcher was
published on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65088). Under that rule,
incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher is not considered
to be a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take results from
activities conducted pursuant to the NCCP Act of 1991 and in accordance
with an approved NCCP plan, provided that the Service determines that
such a plan meets the issuance criteria of an ``incidental take''
permit pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 50 CFR
17.32(b)(2). Under the section 4(d) rule, a limited amount of
incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher within subregions
actively engaged in preparing a NCCP plan will also not be considered a
violation of section 9 of the Act, provided the activities resulting in
such take are conducted in accordance with the NCCP Conservation
Guidelines and Process Guidelines. Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, the Service may issue permits authorizing the incidental take of
federally listed animal species. Incidental take permittees must
develop and implement a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that minimizes
and mitigates the impacts of take to the maximum extent practicable and
that avoid jeopardy to listed species. Incidental take permits are
available to private landowners, corporations, Tribal governments,
State and local governments, and other non-Federal entities. These
permits can reduce conflicts between endangered species and economic
activities and develop important partnerships between the public and
private sectors. As discussed in the Urban and Agricultural Development
section above, we have issued incidental take permits for regional HCP
and HCP/NCCPs covering approximately 59 percent of modeled gnatcatcher
habitat, and two additional HCP/NCCPs are nearing completion.
Since 1993, the Service has addressed impacts to the coastal
California gnatcatcher from urban development and other projects
outside of the NCCP/HCP regional planning effort through the section 7
process. The projects have included residential and commercial
developments, highway-widening projects, and pipeline projects, among
others. Section 7 consultations have also been conducted with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for Clean Water Act permit applications, and
other Federal agencies on specific actions. In addition to
``projects,'' we have consulted with the U.S. Marine Corps to address
potential impacts to the gnatcatcher and its habitat from military
training activities on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Camp
Pendleton) and Miramar Corps Air Station (Miramar), and we have
consulted with the U.S. Navy on actions related to the management of
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Fallbrook (Detachment
Fallbrook).
We reviewed the number of formal section 7 consultations for the
coastal California gnatcatcher in our Tracking and Integrated Logging
System (TAILS) database (initiated in 2007) that were completed from
1996 through March 2016. In total, the Carlsbad and Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Offices completed 320 formal consultations during that time
period (Service 2016b). In all of these consultations, we concluded
that, due to the implementation of conservation measures to avoid,
minimize, and offset impacts to the subspecies and its habitat, effects
of the proposed actions were not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the coastal California gnatcatcher and were not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat for the subspecies. We will continue to evaluate
impacts of proposed projects to the subspecies and its habitat for
those areas outside of the NCCP/HCPs through other provisions of the
Act, such as section 7 consultation,
[[Page 59971]]
recovery implementation, and periodic status reviews.
Our evaluation confirms that urban development and associated
threats continue for the coastal California gnatcatcher, but listing of
the coastal California gnatcatcher under the Act as threatened has
provided protection to the subspecies and its habitat, including the
prohibition against take and the conservation mandates of section 7 for
all Federal agencies.
Sikes Act
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a-670f, as amended) directs the
Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Service and State fish
and wildlife agencies, to carry out a program for the conservation and
rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. The
Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-85) broadened the scope
of military natural resources programs, integrated natural resources
programs with operations and training, embraced the tenets of
conservation biology, invited public review, strengthened funding for
conservation activities on military lands, and required the development
and implementation of an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP) for relevant installations, which are reviewed every 5 years.
INRMPs incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, ecosystem
management principles, provide for the management of natural resources
(including fish, wildlife, and plants), allow multipurpose uses of
resources, and provide public access necessary and appropriate for
those uses without a net loss in the capability of an installation to
support its military mission. An INRMP is an important guidance
document that helps to integrate natural resource protection with
military readiness and training. In addition to technical assistance
that the Service provides to the military, the Service can enter into
interagency agreements with installations to help implement an INRMP.
The INRMP implementation projects can include wildlife and habitat
assessments and surveys, fish stocking, exotic species control, and
hunting and fishing program management.
On Department of Defense lands, including Camp Pendleton,
Detachment Fallbrook, and Miramar, coastal California gnatcatcher
habitat is generally not subjected to threats associated with large-
scale development. However, the primary purpose for military lands,
including most gnatcatcher habitat areas, is to provide for military
support and training. At these installations, INRMPs provide direction
for project development and for the management, conservation, and
rehabilitation of natural resources, including for the subspecies and
its habitat. For example, on Camp Pendleton and MCAS Miramar,
management measures that benefit the coastal California gnatcatcher and
its habitat include nonnative vegetation control, nonnative animal
control, and habitat enhancement and restoration (MCB Camp Pendleton
2007, p. F-25; MCAS Miramar INRMP 2010, pp. 7-18-7-19). Some
restrictions on training and construction activities also apply during
gnatcatcher breeding season to reduce impacts on nesting gnatcatchers
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, p. F-25; MCAS Miramar INRMP 2010, pp. 7-18-7-
19).
Without the protections provided to the subspecies and its habitat
under the Act (that is, if the coastal California gnatcatcher was
delisted), there would be less incentive for the Marine Corps or Navy
to continue to include specific provisions (for example, monitoring) in
their INRMPs to provide conservation benefits to the subspecies, beyond
that provided under a more general integrated natural resource
management strategy at these and other DOD installations.
State Laws Affecting the Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The coastal California gnatcatcher is designated as a Species of
Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) (CDFG 2008). Although this designation is administrative and
provides no formal legal status for protection, it is intended to
highlight those species at conservation risk to State and Federal and
local governments, land managers, and others, as well as to encourage
research for those species whose life history and population status are
poorly known (Comrack et al. 2008, p. 2).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA (California Public Resources Code 21000-21177) is the
principal statute mandating environmental assessment of projects in
California. The purpose of CEQA is to evaluate whether a proposed
project may have an adverse effect on the environment and, if so, to
determine whether that effect can be reduced or eliminated by pursuing
an alternative course of action, or through mitigation. CEQA applies to
certain activities of State and local public agencies; a public agency
must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined under CEQA
as a ``project.''
As with NEPA, CEQA does not provide a direct regulatory role for
the CDFW or other State and local agencies relative to activities that
may affect the coastal California gnatcatcher. However, CEQA requires a
complete assessment of the potential for a proposed project to have a
significant adverse effect on the environment. Among the conditions
outlined in the CEQA Guidelines that may lead to a mandatory finding of
significance are where the project ``has the potential to . . .
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; [or] substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or
threatened species'' (title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Sec. 15065(a)(1)). The CEQA Guidelines further state that a
species ``not included in any listing [as threatened or endangered]
shall nevertheless be considered to be endangered, rare, or threatened,
if the species can be shown to meet the criteria'' for such listing (14
CCR 15380(d)). In other words, CEQA would require any project that may
impact populations of these species to assess and disclose such
potential impacts during the environmental review process (Osborn 2015,
pers. comm.).
The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act
The NCCP program is a cooperative effort between the State of
California and numerous private and public partners with the goal of
protecting habitats and species. The NCCP program identifies and
provides for the regional or area-wide protection of plants, animals,
and their habitats while allowing compatible and appropriate economic
activity. The program uses an ecosystem approach to planning for the
protection and continuation of biological diversity (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP). Regional NCCPs provide
protection to federally listed and other covered species by conserving
native habitats upon which the species depend. NCCPs are usually
developed in conjunction with habitat conservation plans (HCPs)
prepared pursuant to the Act.
The 2010 5-year review discusses the NCCP program in greater
detail. Currently, the following NCCP plans that cover the coastal
California gnatcatcher are approved and being implemented: Multiple
Species Conservation Program (one of four Subregional Plans in San
Diego County with 5 of 11 Subarea Plans approved),
[[Page 59972]]
San Diego County Water Authority NCCP/HCP, San Diego Gas & Electric
NCCP, San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (a second
Subregional Plan in San Diego County with 1 of 6 Subarea Plans
approved), Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP), and Orange County
Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP (CDFW 2015, pp. 12 and 13). Additionally, the
Orange County Transportation Authority M2 NCCP/HCP in Orange County and
the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP in Los Angeles County are nearing
completion. The North County Multiple Species Conservation Plan and the
East County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (CDFW 2015, pp. 12 and
13), the third and fourth Subregional Plans in San Diego County, are
still in the development phase. Finally, the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP is not approved as an NCCP, but this plan is a regionally
significant Service-approved HCP that includes core populations of the
coastal California gnatcatcher and large expanses of coastal sage
scrub.
These plans provide a comprehensive, habitat-based approach to the
protection of covered species, including the coastal California
gnatcatcher, by focusing on lands identified as important for the long-
term conservation of the covered species and through the implementation
of management actions for conserving those lands. These protections are
outlined in the management actions and conservation objectives
described within each plan. However, because the total habitat
protection associated with these plans is not expected until plans are
fully implemented, and because not all areas are covered, habitat loss
is still impacting the gnatcatcher and is expected to continue into the
future.
In our 2010 5-year review, we estimated that 59 percent of modeled
coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in the United States would be
conserved with full implementation of currently permitted, long-term
Regional NCCP/HCPs (Service 2010, p. 15). We reviewed the most
currently available reports for four regional NCCP/HCPs and one HCP to
determine the amount of coastal sage scrub habitat that has been
conserved as of the date of the respective final reports:
For the San Diego County MSCP (City of San Diego, County
of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of Poway, and City of La Mesa),
the total number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat conserved both
inside and outside the preserve planning area is 49,871 ac (20,182 ha);
conserved habitat inside the preserve planning area is approximately
42,129 ac (17,049 ha) or about 68 percent of the plan's target (City of
Chula Vista 2015, p. 35; City of San Diego 2015, p. 15; County of San
Diego 2015, p. 51).
For the San Diego County MSCP, the City of Carlsbad
reported 1,683 ac (681 ha) of coastal sage scrub conserved within their
Habitat Management Preserve system as of December 2015 (84 percent of
target) (Grim 2016, pers. comm.).
For the Orange County Central--Coastal NCCP/HCP (as of the
end of 2013), the amount of coastal sage scrub conserved is 17,809 ac
(7,207 ha) (Nature Reserve of Orange County 2013).
For the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Western
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA 2015, pp. 3-
9--3-10) reported that 11,802 ac (4,776 ha) of coastal sage scrub was
conserved from February 2000 to December 31, 2013.
With the addition of the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP,
which reported coastal California gnatcatcher scrub habitat of 13,135
ac (5,315 ha) within reserves as of December 2013 (Rancho Mission Viejo
2013), the total number is approximately 86,558 ac (35,028 ha) of
coastal sage scrub conserved (within reserves established by these
plans). This amount represents about 47 percent of the total target
(182,976 ac (74,048 ha)) of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat to
be preserved by the five plans described in our 2010 5-year review
(Service 2010, p. 15).
In summary, while conservation is anticipated to continue within
existing plan boundaries within the U.S. range of the coastal
California gnatcatcher, habitat protection occurs in a step-wise
fashion as areas are conserved, and the total habitat protection
associated with a plan is not expected until plans are fully
implemented. Once the plans are fully implemented upon completion of
the permits (which last for 50-75 years), the plans would provide
conservation for much of the 56 percent of the coastal California
gnatcatcher's range in the United States. However, the 44 percent of
the subspecies range in Baja California is not subject to protections
provided by NCCP/HCP plans. Therefore, the subspecies and its habitat
remain susceptible to urban development and associated threats.
Without the protections provided to the subspecies and its habitat
under the Act (that is, if the coastal California gnatcatcher was
delisted), the current NCCP/HCPs may provide some ancillary benefits to
the subspecies given that other federally listed species of plants and
animals covered under these plans are also found within coastal sage
scrub habitat (for example, Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydrays
editha quino)). By continuing to implement the plans, the permittees
would retain incidental take coverage for these other species. However,
permittees under these regional plans could request permit
modifications or request that their long-term permits be renegotiated
should the coastal California gnatcatcher be delisted under the Act.
Similarly, the NCCP/HCPs currently under development in southern
California would likely require reevaluation. However, all conservation
already implemented would continue to provide benefits to the coastal
California gnatcatcher even if it was delisted. Because conservation
and management for the coastal California gnatcatcher has not yet been
fully implemented under the NCCP/HCPs in place and some NCCP/HCPs are
not yet developed, all of the potential conservation anticipated under
these plans is not yet fully assured absent the protections of the Act.
Regulatory Mechanisms in Mexico
As described above (see Urban and Agricultural Development
section), we recently estimated that approximately 1,704,406 ac
(689,749 ha) of coastal sage scrub habitat remains in Baja California
from 30 [deg]N. to the United States-Mexico border (Service 2016a).
The Mexican Government recognizes the atwoodi subspecies of the
California gnatcatcher (see taxonomic classification of Mellink and Rea
1994, pp. 59-62); Mellink and Rea (1994, p. 55) described Polioptila
californica atwoodi as a new subspecies of California gnatcatcher from
northwestern Baja California, Mexico. They defined a range for this
novel subspecies as ``from Rio de las Palmas and Valle de las Palmas
(30 km SE. of Tijuana) in the interior and at least Punta Banda along
the coast south to Arroyo El Rosario, 32 to 30 [deg]N.'' within coastal
sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub plant communities (Mellink and
Rea 1994, p. 55); this distribution mostly overlaps with what the
Service considers to be the listed gnatcatcher subspecies (58 FR 16742;
March 30, 1993).
This entity is listed as threatened under Mexico's NORMA Oficial
Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Environmental Protection--Species of
Wild Flora and Fauna Native to Mexico (Protecci[oacute]n ambiental--
Especies nativas de M[eacute]xico de flora y fauna silvestres--
Categor[iacute]as de riesgo y
[[Page 59973]]
especificaciones para su inclusi[oacute]n, exclusi[oacute]n o cambio--
Lista de especies en riesgo) (SEMARNAT 2010). Threatened species are
defined under Mexican law as those which may be ``in danger of
disappearing in the short or medium term'' if factors that adversely
affect their viability, such as deterioration or modification of
habitat, or directly reduce the size of their populations, continue to
operate (SEMARNET 2010, p. 5). However, enforcement of this law
generally depends upon an individual or a groups' willingness to modify
proposed projects rather than the legal protections provided under the
law (Hinojosa 2008, pers. comm.). Monitoring of compliance with this
law is the responsibility of the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales through its established entities. We do not have
further information regarding the effectiveness of this law for
protecting the coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.
In Mexico, the development of state and municipal plans is designed
to regulate and control land use and various production activities as
well as provide environmental protections and preservation and
sustainability of natural resources (Conservation Biology Institute
2004, p. 31). As an example, an ordenamiento ecol[oacute]gico
(ecological regulation/zoning ordinance) is being developed for the
City of Tijuana to identify [aacute]reas verdes (important natural
resource areas), and the ordenamiento will be used to guide land
development within Tijuana (Conservation Biology Institute 2004, p.
31). Other State and Federal environmental laws in Mexico include Ley
General del Equilibrio Ecol[oacute]gico y la Protecci[oacute]n al
Ambiente and Ley de Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente para el Estado de
Baja California, which require the preparation of an environmental
impact study (manifestaci[oacute]n de impacto ambiental) for any
development project; if the project is determined to result in negative
environmental impacts, the developer must undertake mitigation actions
to minimize these impacts and/or restore natural conditions
(Conservation Biology Institute 2004, p. 31).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Summary
Outside of the Act, few Federal conservation management and
conservation measures exist throughout the U.S. range of the coastal
California gnatcatcher that provide protections to the subspecies and
its habitat. State management and conservation measures are limited
primarily to the planning and implementation of the NCCP Act, and there
is uncertainty as to whether the regional plans would continue to
provide the full conservation benefits anticipated should the
subspecies be delisted under the Act. Limited protection is provided to
the coastal California gnatcatcher through the inclusion of its
designation as a Species of Special Concern within State (CEQA)
planning processes.
Based on the best available data, the listing of the atwoodi
subspecies of the California gnatcatcher by the Mexican Government
provides a limited level of protection or conservation benefit to the
atwoodi populations found in Baja California. Comprehensive reserve
areas for coastal sage scrub and chaparral vegetation have not been
established in northern Baja California. While existing Mexican
regulatory mechanisms may provide some protection for the subspecies,
we lack information on implementation of those mechanisms specifically
related to protection of the coastal California gnatcatcher, protection
of habitat, and abatement of threats.
Therefore, although regulatory mechanisms are in place and provide
some protection to the coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat
throughout its range, absent the protections of the Act (for example,
section 7, section 9, and section 10(a)(1)(B)), these mechanisms would
provide substantially less protection from the stressors currently
acting on the subspecies such as urban and agricultural development.
Moreover, some of the threats faced by the species and its habitat,
including wildland fire, vegetation type conversion, and fragmentation,
are not readily susceptible to amelioration through regulatory
mechanisms.
Cumulative Effects
Threats can work in concert with one another to cumulatively create
conditions that may impact the coastal California gnatcatcher or its
habitat beyond the scope of each individual threat. The best available
data indicate that cumulative impacts are currently occurring from the
combined effects of a number of stressors, including vegetation type
conversion, wildland fire, and the effects of climate change.
These stressors interact in multiple ways. As discussed in the
Wildand Fire section above, the wildland fire-type conversion feedback
loop promotes the degradation and eventual loss of coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat, especially on a local scale where there are short
intervals between fires (Service 2010, pp. 15-18). The effects
associated with climate change have the potential to further contribute
to the vegetation type conversion process, though it is not yet clear
how climate change will interact with the ongoing conversion of coastal
sage scrub to nonnative grasses and other vegetation types unsuitable
for use by the coastal California gnatcatcher. It is also unclear
whether it will increase or decrease the rate of change.
Furthermore, based on our analysis of the best available data, it
is likely that the native plant communities that support the coastal
California gnatcatcher in southern California are presently impacted by
the cumulative effects of wildland fire and the warming effects of
climate change. Yue et al. (2014, entire) developed projections of
wildfire activity in southern California at mid-century (2016-2065)
using the IPCC's A1B scenario (moderate growth in fossil fuel emissions
in the first half of the 21st century but with a gradual decrease after
2050). Using regression models, the study found a likely doubling of
area burned in southwestern California by midcentury, while
parameterization models indicate a likely increase of 40 percent in
this region under this IPCC scenario (Yue et al. 2014, p. 1,973). The
analysis was unique in that the models considered the effects of future
patterns of Santa Ana wind events. It indicates that a projected
midcentury increase in November Santa Ana wind events will contribute
to the increased area burned at that time of year (Yue et al. 2014, p.
1,990). The authors conclude that the results suggest that wildfire
activity will likely increase in southwestern California due to rising
surface temperatures (Yue et al. 2014, p. 1,989).
Stavros et al. (2014, entire) developed regional projections of the
probability of very large wildland fires (defined as greater than or
equal to 50,000 ac (20,234 ha)) under various climate change scenarios
for the western United States. Their model results found a significant
increase in the likelihood and frequency of very large fires for
climate regimes projected in 2031-2060, relative to 1950-2005, in
almost all areas, including southern California (Stavros et al. 2014,
p. 460). These impacts are expected to continue into the future (to the
2060s based on climate change projections).
The climate change-wildland fire connection will likely result in a
reduction in the amount of suitable habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher and will likely lead to a greater chance of vegetation type
conversion that degrades and eventually eliminates coastal California
gnatcatcher
[[Page 59974]]
habitat. Moreover, these stressors, working singly or in combination,
are operating at a landscape scale. These stressors may affect large
areas and may not be addressed by current management plans. Thus, in
the absence of management to counteract the identified effects, these
stressors are contributing to the habitat-degradation and type-
conversion continuum that is occurring throughout the range of the
subspecies. Therefore, as summarized above and as described in our 2010
5-year review, the best available data indicate that the cumulative
effects of vegetation type conversion, wildland fire, and climate
change will continue to act as a high-level stressor on the coastal
California gnatcatcher and its habitat now and into the future.
Finding
In making this finding, we have followed the procedures set forth
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing
provisions of the Act in 50 CFR part 424. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information. We sought input from subject matter experts
and other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. On the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information available, we find that the
petitioned action to delist the coastal California gnatcatcher is not
warranted. Review of the best available scientific and commercial data
did not show that the original determination, made at the time the
species was classified as threatened in 1993, is now in error. Rather,
using a multi-evidence criteria approach, the best available scientific
and commercial data supports the coastal California gnatcatcher as a
valid (distinguishable) subspecies.
For the purposes of our status review, as required by the Act, we
considered the five factors in assessing whether the coastal California
gnatcatcher is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. In
our threats analysis, we examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and foreseeable
future threats faced by the subspecies. We reviewed the information
available in our files, information submitted by the public in response
to our 90-day finding (79 FR 78775; December 31, 2014), and other
available published and unpublished information. As described above in
Background, the petitioners did not provide any new information on any
of the factors. Based on our review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that the current and future threats
are of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that
the coastal California gnatcatcher remains likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. Therefore, the coastal California gnatcatcher currently meets
the definition of a threatened species.
We evaluated each of the potential stressors discussed in the 2010
5-year review (Service 2010, entire), and we determined the following
factors have impacted the coastal California gnatcatcher and its
habitat or may affect gnatcatcher individuals or populations in the
future: Urban and agricultural development (Factor A), grazing (Factor
A), wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E), vegetation type conversion
(Factor A), climate change (Factor A and Factor E), disease (Factor C),
predation (Factor C), fragmentation (Factor A and Factor E), and brood
parasitism (Factor E). Disease (Factor C) and predation (Factor C) are
having only local, small-scale impacts to the coastal California
gnatcatcher and its habitat throughout its range; therefore, we do not
consider disease or predation to be threats at this time.
Additionally, though brood parasitism (Factor E) is affecting
individual coastal California gnatcatcher pairs throughout the species'
range, the impacts in the United States are being reduced through
available regulatory mechanisms and implementation of conservation
measures, such as regional NCCP/HCP management plans and section
10(a)(1)(A) permits. Furthermore, the ability of the coastal California
gnatcatcher to re-nest multiple times in one breeding season helps it
to be resilient to brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds.
Therefore, we do not find that brood parasitism poses a threat to the
coastal California gnatcatcher at the present time, nor do we expect it
to become a threat in the foreseeable future.
At this time, impacts from urban and agricultural development
(Factor A) continue to be a medium- to high-level stressor for the
coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat. Implementation of
existing HCPs and the ongoing development of additional NCCP/HCPs have
significantly reduced the impacts of urban development to coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat in the United States; however, none of
the regional plans are fully implemented. We estimated that these plans
encompass approximately 55 percent of coastal sage scrub habitat and
that approximately 47 percent of the plans' conservation targets have
been reached (Service 2016a), for a total of 28 percent of habitat
conserved overall in the U.S. range of the subspecies by NCCP/HCP
plans. Though we anticipate that additional habitat will be conserved
with full implementation of the existing plans, total conservation of
the areas identified within the plans is not expected until the plans
are fully implemented. Overall, 49 percent of coastal sage scrub in the
United States has no mechanism preventing conversion of the habitat for
urban or agricultural uses (Service 2016a), and Mexico has few areas of
coastal sage scrub protected from development. Therefore, though
substantial progress has been made since the time of listing to
conserve habitat that supports the coastal California gnatcatcher, we
find that urban and agricultural development continues to pose a threat
to the coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.
Though grazing (Factor A) is having only low-level impacts to
coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in the United States, grazing in
coastal scrub habitat in Mexico can still result in vegetation type
conversion, and land clearing for grazing purposes has been documented
within northern Baja California. Therefore, we find that grazing is
posing a threat to the subspecies' habitat in Mexico, though habitat
impacts can be temporary.
Wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E) was identified as a threat to
the coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat both at the time of
listing and in our 2010 5-year review. Based on our analysis, although
currently established NCCP/HCPs provide for the establishment of
coastal sage scrub reserves and include fire management as one of their
primary objectives, there is no mechanism or conservation measure that
can fully prevent the recurrence of natural or human-caused destructive
wildland fires in coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. Therefore, we
find that wildland fire poses a threat to the coastal California
gnatcatcher and its habitat throughout the range of the species and
that this threat will continue to cause impacts into the foreseeable
future.
Vegetation type conversion (Factor A) of coastal sage scrub to
nonnative grasslands is ongoing throughout the range of the coastal
California gnatcatcher. Effects of type conversion are currently being
reduced through habitat management by NCCP/HCPs; however, management
plans for each reserve area are not yet complete, and maintaining
adequate funding for perpetual management of the reserves is a
challenge common to all regional NCCP/HCPs. Therefore, vegetation type
conversion is posing a threat to the
[[Page 59975]]
coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat, and we expect that
these impacts will continue into the foreseeable future.
Climate change (Factor A and Factor E) is a low- to medium-level
stressor that is anticipated to result in shifts to the distribution of
the subspecies' habitat and that may potentially affect gnatcatchers at
the individual or population level into the foreseeable future.
However, the impacts from climate change are not well understood and
under some projections may increase habitat for the species as coastal
sage scrub moves to higher elevations, though the impacts from climate
change on its own are not fully understood. Therefore, while impacts of
climate change are not fully understood, climate change is considered a
low- to moderate-level threat that may affect the distribution of the
subspecies and its habitat in the future.
New information we have received since the 2010 5-year review
suggests that fragmentation (Factor A and Factor E) at small geographic
scales is a threat of lower magnitude than was described at the time of
listing. However, the effects of fragmentation are more significant at
large geographic (landscape) scales than previously recognized for
those coastal California gnatcatcher populations that have become
widely separated due to urban development and other habitat losses or
modifications (such as wildland fire). Therefore, we find that
fragmentation still poses a threat to portions of the coastal
California gnatcatcher subspecies, and we expect that these impacts
will continue into the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, cumulative impacts from climate change and other
factors such as vegetation type conversion and wildland fire have the
potential to significantly alter habitat that currently supports the
coastal California gnatcatcher. The wildland fire-type conversion
feedback loop promotes the degradation and eventual loss of coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat, particularly given the increase in fire
frequency from the historical fire regime. Recent studies (such as
Stavros et al. 2014) indicate that with climate change, fire frequency
and intensity may continue to increase, which would in turn increase
the wildland fire-type conversion feedback loop. The effects associated
with climate change have the potential to further contribute to the
vegetation type conversion process, though the exact impacts to coastal
sage scrub habitat are unknown. Therefore, we find that cumulative
impacts of multiple stressors are a threat to the coastal California
gnatcatcher, and that this threat is likely to continue at the same
level or increase into the foreseeable future.
Available regulatory mechanisms, such as the combined NCCP/HCP
program and INRMPs on local military bases are providing important
protections that help reduce the threats affecting the coastal
California gnatcatcher and its habitat, such as urban development,
vegetation type conversion, and fragmentation. Absent the provisions of
the Act, some of these protections would no longer be in place. In
Mexico, the listing of the atwoodi subspecies of the California
gnatcatcher provides only a limited level of protection or conservation
benefit, and comprehensive reserve areas for coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat have not been established in northern Baja
California. Therefore, absent the protections of the Act, existing
regulatory mechanisms would provide substantially less protection from
the threats currently acting on the subspecies.
Moreover, some of the threats faced by the coastal California
gnatcatcher, such as wildland fire, vegetation type conversion, and
habitat fragmentation, cannot be readily ameliorated through the
application of regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we conclude that the
best available scientific and commercial information indicates that
these threats are continuing to impact the subspecies and its habitat
throughout its range, and that these impacts will continue into the
foreseeable future. At this time, many threats are being reduced
through existing regulatory mechanisms, and we expect that full
implementation of regional NCCPs/HCPs will provide protection to much
of the coastal sage scrub habitat that supports the coastal California
gnatcatcher. However, many areas are not yet protected by existing
plans and other plans are still in development.
Furthermore, many threats remain on the landscape that are not
fully managed, and the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that these threats are likely to continue, such
that the coastal California gnatcatcher is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all its
range. Because we have determined that the coastal California
gnatcatcher is likely to become an endangered species throughout all
its range within the foreseeable future, no portion of its range can be
``significant'' for purposes of the Act's definitions of ``endangered
species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Service's final policy
interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79
FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Therefore, we find that the coastal California
gnatcatcher continues to meet the definition of a threatened species
under the Act, but that the threats are not severe enough at this time
such that the species is in danger of extinction throughout its range.
Therefore, we find that reclassification to an endangered species is
not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the coastal California gnatcatcher to our
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor the subspecies and
encourage additional conservation actions.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov in Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058 and
upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Author(s)
The primary author(s) of this notice are the staff members of the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office and Pacific Southwest Regional
Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 15, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20864 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P