Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

ranges are not hard and fast boundaries beyond which individuals cannot go, so range maps are our best attempt to capture where the species is likely to occur, based on available information.
For the Sierra Nevada DPS, our range map was based both on detections known at this time and on Sierra Nevada DPS preferred habitat features identified by Cleve et al. 2011, entire.
Our range map was not based on elevational contour lines; however, we note that the range map includes several areas below 2,469 m 8,100 ft, and so comports with the commenters point about Sierra Nevada red fox detections.
We have confirmed that all but three Sierra Nevada DPS detections are within the mapped range. The three foxes not within the mapped range were found within one fifth of a mile of State Highway 395 Quinn in litt. 2020, unpublished data, and presumably reflect use of that highway as a dispersal corridor. Two of the three were scat detections both from the same individual near the highway in the town of Lee Vining, and the third was a road-killed individual on State Highway 395 just south of the junction with State Highway 108 Quinn in litt.
2020, p. 1. These three detections were at elevations ranging from 2,074 to 2,152
m 6,805 to 7,059 ft Quinn in litt. 2020, unpublished data. A fourth detection below 2,469 m 8,100 ft specifically at 2,311 m 7,581 ft occurred in the valley of the West Walker River, just south of the MWTC and within the mapped range Quinn in litt. 2020, unpublished data. All other detections were above 2,469 m 8,100 ft.
More detailed GIS mapping information is available from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office on request. The range map is also available on the internet at https ecos.fws.gov/
ecp.
3 Comment: The USFS noted that recent detections of Sierra Nevada DPS
foxes near Dunderberg Peak and Virginia Lakes change the extent of the gap in detections mentioned in the proposed rule from 77.2 km 48 mi to 19.3 km 12 mi.
Our Response: The detections are north of the gap, but we have removed discussion of the gap in order to avoid possible confusion regarding the estimated range which does not have gaps versus the location of Sierra Nevada DPS detections.
Comments From States 4 Comment: The CDFW provided information on the Lassen population of Sierra Nevada red foxes, noting in particular that the population is highly inbred and so cannot be used for
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:19 Aug 02, 2021

Jkt 253001

translocations to help solve genetic issues in the Sierra Nevada DPS until it recovers.
Our Response: Our listing analysis did not extend to the status of the Lassen population see the 12-month finding October 8, 2015, 80 FR 60990
regarding the range of the Southern Cascades DPS, but we will incorporate this information and all other pertinent information received into our recovery plan for the Sierra Nevada DPS.
Comments From Local Governments 5 Comment: Two county boards of supervisors requested that, if the Sierra Nevada red fox is listed as endangered, we seek interagency coordination and public review prior to completing a recovery plan. One county board was concerned that a recovery plan would not allow important fuels reduction or forest health projects to proceed.
Our Response: While we explain further below that recovery plans are not intended, nor do they have the regulatory force, to disallow projects, we first note that fuels reduction or forest health actions typically take place below the elevational range of the Sierra Nevada DPS.
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are determined necessary for the recovery and protection of listed species. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake or refrain from undertaking specific actions, and are not regulatory documents. When developing recovery plans, our process includes seeking public comment prior to finalizing them. We also coordinate with stakeholders and interested parties during the recovery planning process.
We also participate in the Sierra Nevada Red Fox Working Group discussed under Summary of Existing Regulatory Measures and Voluntary Conservation Efforts, above, which is an interagency organization.
6 Comment: One county board of supervisors noted that snowmobile impacts in the Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area may be minimal due to lack of trail grooming, minimum snow depth requirements, date restrictions on use, and permit requirements for snowmobile users. These points were also raised by the USFS.
Our Response: We acknowledge the information provided indicates snowmobiling in the BWRA is unlikely to have population-level impacts on Sierra Nevada DPS foxes. We will consider any additional information that may come to light when writing the recovery plan for the species, and as otherwise necessary in consultation with Federal agencies.

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

41753

7 Comment: Two county boards of supervisors requested input into any restrictions on snowmobile operations that might result if the species is listed as endangered.
Our Response: The USFS will work with us in accordance with Act requirements 16 U.S.C. 1536a2 to ensure that their policies do not jeopardize the species. Any changes to current land management practices will involve public comment as required by applicable environmental laws.
8 Comment: A county board of supervisors stated that there is not enough information regarding Sierra Nevada DPS viability to know whether listing would help the species thrive.
Our Response: The Act requires our listing determination to be based solely on whether the best scientific and commercial information indicates the species meets the definitions of an endangered or threatened species see Determination section, below 16
U.S.C. 1533b1A; 50 CFR 424.11b.
The purpose of listing is to provide the regulatory protections needed to prevent further decline on a trajectory toward extinction. Although the listing itself is not intended to help the species thrive, subsequent components of the Act e.g., recovery plans may provide the necessary mechanisms for the species to thrive and recover.
9 Comment: One county board of supervisors noted the large degree of variation that exists in our initial estimate of 10 to 50 adult Sierra Nevada DPS foxes in the population, and also noted the possibility of other undiscovered populations. The board stated that knowledge of population numbers is insufficiently precise to support listing.
Our Response: We have revised population estimates in this final rule to an estimate of 18 to 39 individuals based on additional information that has been made available through the public comment process Sacks and Quinn 2020, p. 1; CSERC et al. 2020, pp. 23;
CDFW 2020, pp. 34; See Demographics, above. This estimate includes the results of camera trapping and scat searches throughout the DPSs range. Additionally, as discussed under Deleterious Effects Associated With Small Populations, the Sierra Nevada DPS appears to have been subject to inbreeding effects in the recent past, which is consistent with known information on small population size effects Quinn et al. 2019, pp. 559560, 571; Sacks and Quinn 2020, p. 2.
Therefore, the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that fewer than 50 individuals currently remain in the DPS. While the exact
E:FRFM03AUR1.SGM

03AUR1