![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Anacapa Deer Mouse as Threatened or Endangered
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56932-56936]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28se06-40]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Anacapa Deer Mouse as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Anacapa deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus anacapae) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find the petition does not present
substantial information indicating that listing the Anacapa deer mouse
may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in
response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available concerning the status of the
subspecies or threats to it or its habitat at any time. This
information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of the
subspecies.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 28,
2006.
ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. Submit new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
subspecies to us at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above), by telephone at
805/644-1766, or by facsimile at 805/644-3958.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 56933]]
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
On November 8, 2002, we received a formal petition, dated October
29, 2002, from the Channel Islands Animal Protection Association and
The Fund for Animals. The petition requested that the Anacapa deer
mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae) be emergency listed as
threatened or endangered in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and contained the names,
addresses, and signatures of the petitioning organizations'
representatives. In response to the petitioner's requests, we sent a
letter to the petitioners dated March 10, 2003, explaining that we
would not be able to address their petition until fiscal year 2004. The
reason for this delay was that responding to existing court orders and
settlement agreements for other listing actions required nearly all of
our listing funding. We also concluded in our March 10, 2003, letter
that emergency listing of the Anacapa deer mouse was not indicated.
Delays in responding to the petition continued due to the high priority
of responding to court orders and settlement agreements, until funding
recently became available to respond to this petition.
Subspecies Information
The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) is an abundant member of
the rodent family Muridae and is widespread throughout much of North
America except for the southeastern United States and some parts of
Mexico. Adults range in size from 119 to 222 millimeters (5 to 9
inches) and weigh from 10 to 24 grams (0.4 to 0.8 ounces). Deer mice
range from grayish to reddish-brown with white underparts, and the tail
is covered with fine hairs and is sharply bicolored (dark above, white
below) (Bunker 2001, pp. 1-6).
Deer mice may breed year-round, but breeding is more frequent
during the warmer months when they may produce a litter every 3 to 4
weeks. Gestation ranges from 22 to 31 days depending on whether or not
the female is lactating; typical litter size is 4 to 6. Deer mice are
primarily nocturnal and have keen senses of vision, hearing, touch, and
smell. Nests may be located in trees, stumps, wood piles, or buildings
and may be constructed of leaves, grasses, shredded bark, moss, paper,
cloth, or any other available material. The home ranges of deer mice
vary from 242 to 3,000 square meters (0.06 to 0.74 acres (ac)). Home
ranges of males are larger than females and show more overlap. Females
defend their territories more than males; therefore their territories
overlap less. Deer mice are omnivorous and eat a wide variety of plant
and animal material including seeds, fruit, flowers, nuts, insects, and
other invertebrates. Deer mice are themselves preyed upon by a variety
of predators, including snakes, birds of prey, and mammalian predators.
Deer mice are found on all eight of the Channel Islands (from north
to south: San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, Santa Barbara,
San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente), and are classified as
separate subspecies on each island (Pergams and Ashley 2000, p. 278).
Deer mice on the Channel Islands are generally darker and somewhat
larger than those on the mainland, with the Anacapa deer mouse being
one of the larger of the Channel Island deer mice (Pergams and Ashley
2000, p. 279). Channel Island deer mice have been variously described
since 1897 (Mearns 1897, pp. 719-724), when they were first identified;
however, von Bloeker (1940, pp. 172-174; 1941, pp. 161-162) first
described those from Anacapa Island as a separate subspecies. As
indicated by its name, the Anacapa deer mouse is the endemic subspecies
to Anacapa Island.
Anacapa Island is one of the five islands that comprise the Channel
Islands National Park and is the closest to the mainland, approximately
15 kilometers (km) (9 miles (mi)) from the nearest point along the
coast. Anacapa Island is approximately 8 km (5 mi) long and is
comprised of three islets, East Anacapa, Middle Anacapa, and West
Anacapa. Anacapa deer mice are known to occur on all three of the
islets. The three islets are in close proximity to each other (less
than 150 meters (450 feet)), and the total area of the three islets
combined is approximately 290 hectares (717 ac). The rugged terrain of
the island is characterized by steep cliffs and canyons, which provide
limited access to the island. Access is also limited by National Park
Service (NPS) regulations and during the nesting season of the
endangered brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis). Vegetation on the
island consists of mainly grasslands and scrub vegetation and is
heavily influenced by nonnative species, including several nonnative
grasses and iceplant (Malephora crocea).
Although minor genetic differences occur between the deer mice on
the three islets, all of them are classified as the same subspecies
(Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae) based on both similar genetic and
morphological characteristics (Pergams and Ashley 2000, p. 286).
Pergams and Ashley (2000, p. 286) concluded that genetic similarities
between the deer mice on the three islets indicates some migration
between the islets occurs on a regular basis. As noted by Pergams and
Ashley (2000, p. 286), deer mice were thought to be very rare on East
Anacapa since 1966, and possibly extinct since about 1981; they were
again found on East Anacapa in 1997. The genetic research of Pergams
and Ashley (2000, p. 286) suggests either that the deer mice on East
Anacapa were never completely extirpated or that East Anacapa was
recolonized from one of the other islets.
Although not listed as either threatened or endangered by the State
of California, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has
listed the Anacapa deer mouse as a Species of Special Concern.
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
[[Page 56934]]
threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the
Anacapa deer mouse presented in the petition and other information
available in our files at the time of the petition review may pose a
concern with respect to the subspecies' survival. Our evaluation of
these threats is presented below. The petition did not address the five
listing factors directly and did not organize potential threats to the
Anacapa deer mouse by listing factor. In the discussion below, we have
placed the threats listed in the petition under the most appropriate
listing factor.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The petition did not list any threats to the habitat of the Anacapa
deer mouse. We are not aware of any scientific or commercial
information to indicate there are any present or future threats to the
habitat of the Anacapa deer mouse.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not provide information or list any threats to the
Anacapa deer mouse from overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes. We are not aware of any scientific
or commercial information that would indicate there are any past,
present, or future threats to the Anacapa deer mouse from
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
C. Disease and Predation
The petition did not list any threats to the Anacapa deer mouse
from disease or predation. We are not aware of any scientific or
commercial information that would indicate disease or predation poses a
current threat to the Anacapa deer mouse. However, prior to the black
rat (Rattus rattus) eradication program on Anacapa Island, information
from the NPS (2003, p. 1) indicated that one of the most serious
threats to the Anacapa deer mouse was the presence of the introduced
black rat on the island. Black rats were likely first introduced to the
island as a result of shipwrecks (NPS 2006, p. 1). Black rats are known
to prey on Anacapa deer mice, and also compete with them for food and
exclude them from certain habitats (NPS 2003, p. 1). Black rats may
also have been responsible for the disappearance of deer mice on East
Anacapa from at least 1981, until they were again found in 1997
(Pergrams and Ashley 2000, p. 286; NPS 2003, p. 1). As of post-
eradication monitoring in 2005, black rats are no longer found on
Anacapa Island (Howald et al. 2005, p. 305). Therefore, black rats are
not a threat to the Anacapa deer mouse at the present time.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners were concerned that the NPS project to eradicate
black rats from Anacapa Island with poison would result in the
extinction of the Anacapa deer mouse, and that the NPS mitigation plan
for the mouse was insufficient. Specifically, the petition states that,
``The NPS project poisoning Anacapa Island represents the premeditated
man-made destruction of a large percentage of an already jeopardized
population. This demonstrates that the listing by California Fish and
Game [as a Species of Special Concern]
insufficiently protects the rare
Anacapa Deer Mouse, and that Federal listing under the Endangered
Species Act is necessary.''
Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review
The CDFG Species of Special Concern designation does not result in
additional regulatory requirements with regard to Federal activities
such as the NPS's black rat eradication activities, but is intended to
result in special consideration for these animals by CDFG, land
managers, consulting biologists, and others, and focus attention on the
species to avert the need for listing under Federal and State
endangered species laws. For example, the CDFG was one of the parties
involved in formulating the basic plan for eradicating black rats from
Anacapa Island and approving the funding for the Anacapa Island black
rat eradication program (American Trader Trustee Council 2001, pp. 20-
23). As a participant, the CDFG recognized both that the black rat was
a threat to the Anacapa deer mouse (American Trader Trustee Council
2001, p. 21) and that eradicating black rats was likely to have a
positive benefit to the Anacapa deer mouse in the long term (American
Trader Trustee Council 2001, p. 22). However, it was also recognized
that the poisoning of the rats would also poison other species,
including the Anacapa deer mouse, but that the overall benefit to the
island ecology would outweigh the short-term effects (American Trader
Trustee Council 2001, p. 22). The importance of the Anacapa deer mouse
was further recognized in that the NPS developed (NPS 2000, p. 17) and
successfully carried out (Howald et al. 2005, p. 305) a plan for
ensuring the protection of the mouse (for details see E. Other Natural
or Manmade Factors Affecting Continued Existence below). Therefore, the
status of the Anacapa deer mouse as a California Species of Special
Concern played an important role in ensuring the protection of this
subspecies during the planning stages of the black rat eradication
process. We also note that the petition was prepared prior to the final
black rat eradication activities that were completed in November 2002.
Several Federal laws pertaining to national parks act indirectly
protect the Anacapa deer mouse as one of many sensitive park resources.
As noted above, Anacapa Island is part of the Channel Islands National
Park (CINP). CINP was established in 1980, by Public Law (Pub. L.) 96-
199, ``* * * to protect the nationally significant natural, scenic,
wildlife, marine, ecological, archaeological, cultural, and scientific
values of the Channel Islands in the State of California.'' CINP is
also affected by other laws pertaining to national parks. The NPS
Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1) established the National Park Service
and mandated that it ``shall promote and regulate the use of the
Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations * *
* by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of
the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' Redwood National Park Expansion Act
(Pub. L. 95-250) of 1978 directs that within the National Park System,
``authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,
management, administration of these areas shall be conducted in light
of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and
shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for
which these various areas have been established.'' National Parks
Omnibus Management Act of
[[Page 56935]]
1998 (Pub. L. 105-391) directs ``the National Park Service to provide
state-of-the-art management, protection, and interpretation of and
research on the resources of the National Park system.'' This law also
stipulates that ``the trend in the condition of resources of the
National Park System shall be a significant factor in the annual
performance evaluation of each superintendent of a unit of the National
Park System.''
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), as amended (NEPA), requires all Federal agencies to formally
document and publicly disclose the environmental impacts of their
actions and management decisions. NEPA documentation is provided in
either an environmental impact statement (EIS), an environmental
assessment, or a categorical exclusion, and may be subject to
administrative or judicial appeal. The NPS considered the impacts of
black rat eradication on the Anacapa deer mouse in their EIS on the
Anacapa Island Restoration Project (NPS 2000, p. 1-139) and included a
mitigation plan for the Anacapa deer mouse (NPS 2000, p. 17).
Therefore, the State and Federal regulations listed above acted to
ensure that the future of the Anacapa deer mouse was considered and
planned for during the black rat eradication project, and we find that
the petition, supporting information, and information readily available
to the Service does not present substantial information for this factor
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
One of the concerns raised in the petition is the fact that the
Anacapa deer mouse is restricted to a single island and therefore is
vulnerable to extinction. However, the principal threat to the Anacapa
deer mouse presented in the petition was the detrimental effects on the
Anacapa deer mouse from the NPS project to eradicate black rats from
the island. The eradication of black rats on Anacapa Island, which was
initiated in 2001 as part of the Anacapa Island Restoration Project
(NPS 2000, pp. 1-139), involved the aerial application of bait poisoned
with the rodenticide brodifacoum. The petition stated that the
application of brodifacoum to kill black rats would also kill all of
the Anacapa deer mice on the island that had not been brought into
captivity. Furthermore, the petitioners concluded that the NPS plan for
ensuring the survival of the Anacapa deer mouse was insufficient to
guarantee success. The petitioners believed that either the NPS would
not capture enough mice to ensure that there would be a sufficient
number available to repopulate the island or the mouse population would
likely undergo a drastic crash while in captivity, which would again
result in too few to repopulate the island. The petitioners stated
that, although the geneticist for the NPS recommended 333 deer mice be
captured on each of the three islets, the NPS only captured 175 on East
Anacapa. The petitioners believed a crash in the captive population was
likely to result from either the physical and psychological stresses of
capture and confinement or from a rogue pathogen that would rapidly
spread throughout the captive population or from a combination of these
two reasons. Another issue the petitioners raised was the possibility
that holding Anacapa deer mice in captivity could induce a genetic
change that would alter the evolutionary process of the Anacapa deer
mouse and that such a change could occur within just a few reproductive
cycles. The petitioners believed that a genetic change in the captive
Anacapa deer mice could result from the stress of captivity, limited
breeding selection, radical environmental changes, or an unknown
influence. They also believed that this genetic change could be
detrimental to the survival of the Anacapa deer mice once they were
released back to Anacapa Island. The petitioners also stated that the
captive Anacapa deer mice must be released at a specific point in their
population cycle to maximize chances of survival. Finally, the
petitioners believed that the poison bait could remain in the
environment for decades and threaten any Anacapa deer mice released.
Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review
We agree with the petitioners that species, such as the Anacapa
deer mouse, that inhabit islands, especially small islands, are
vulnerable to extinction. However, over the last several hundred years,
most island extinctions have resulted from human-related threats,
especially introduced species such as the black rat (for a review of
island extinctions, see Chapter 20 in Bryant 2005, pp. 1-19). We do not
base a decision to list a species as endangered or threatened because
it is restricted to an island or is simply rare, but because its
existence is threatened by one or more of the five listing factors.
Recognizing the damage black rats were doing to nesting seabirds and
the environment of Anacapa Island, the NPS developed and carried out a
project to eliminate rats from the island as part of their goal to
restore the ecology of the island (NPS 2000, pp. 1-139). Predation by
black rats was probably the main cause for the long-term decline in the
breeding populations of Xantus's murrelets (Synthliboramphus
hypoleucus) and other seabirds observed on Anacapa Island (McChesney et
al. 2000, p. 2). The NPS stated that maintaining the island as rat-free
would improve seabird nesting habitat and aid in the recovery of
crevice-nesting seabirds, such as the Xantus's murrelet and ashy storm-
petrel (Oceanodroma homochra). The abundance of crevice-nesting habitat
at Anacapa Island suggests a potential for Anacapa Island to support
large populations of these species (NPS 2000, p. 6). The removal of
black rats from Anacapa Island would provide a substantial increase in
nesting habitat available to these seabird species in California (NPS
2000, p. 6). The removal of black rats would also benefit the Anacapa
deer mouse in the long term. Rats may have been the cause of
extirpation of deer mice from East Anacapa; deer mice were rediscovered
there in 1997. If not eliminated, the black rats could lead to the
extirpation of deer mice again, which could have serious implications
for the birds of prey that rely on the deer mice as their primary prey
base (NPS 2000, p. 53).
We concur with the petitioners that the use of poison bait to kill
black rats would also kill Anacapa deer mice. This was also recognized
by the NPS (2000, pp. 1-139), and during implementation of the black
rat eradication program, the remaining free-ranging Anacapa deer mice
were killed (Howald et. al. 2005, p. 305). To prevent the extermination
of the Anacapa deer mouse along with the black rats, the NPS developed
and followed a mitigation plan for the Anacapa deer mouse (NPS 2000,
pp. 1-139; Howald et. al. 2005, p. 302). The mitigation plan included
conducting the black rat poisoning over a 2-year period, which allowed
for staggering of the poisoning between East Anacapa and the other
islets so that there would be free-ranging mice at all times on at
least one of the islets. The mitigation plan also called for using bait
that would degrade rapidly, capturing sufficient Anacapa deer mice to
ensure success, releasing mice back to each islet at the appropriate
time, providing supplemental food to the newly released
[[Page 56936]]
mice, and monitoring mouse populations over time (NPS 2000, pp. 17-18).
The black rat eradication program began with the application of
poisoned bait on East Anacapa in December 2001, followed by the release
of the Anacapa deer mice held in captivity onto East Anacapa in spring
2002 (NPS 2003, p. 1), and the poisoning of rats on Middle and West
Anacapa in November 2002 (Howald et. al. 2005, p. 301). Finally,
Anacapa deer mice were released on Middle and West Anacapa in spring
2003 (NPS 2003, p. 1). Subsequent monitoring has shown that the
eradication program successfully eliminated all black rats from the
island (Howald et. al. 2005, p. 305).
Prior to the application of poison to the island, genetic research
indicated that deer mice from the three Anacapa islets were all the
same subspecies (Pergrams et al. 2000, p. 828). A population viability
analysis was conducted on the Anacapa deer mouse that indicated a total
of 1,000 mice would be required to successfully repopulate the island
and maintain genetic diversity (Pergrams et al. 2000, p. 829). However,
to ensure that the Anacapa deer mouse subspecies was protected and that
healthy deer mouse populations could be restored to Anacapa Island (NPS
2003, p. 1), the NPS captured and released over 1,700 Anacapa deer mice
(Howald et. al. 2005, p. 302). To further ensure the survival of the
Anacapa deer mice released back to the island, the bait used for
poisoning the rats was selected because it would break down in a matter
of days (Howald et. al. 2005, p. 303), thereby eliminating the concern
that captive Anacapa deer mice would be poisoned after being released
back to the island. Many of the Anacapa deer mice were released in the
early spring, which was considered the optimum time because it was the
start of the breeding season and a time when natural food would be most
abundant. Subsequent monitoring of the released population using
marking and recapture techniques showed that the mice were reproducing
in the wild and increasing in numbers (Faulkner 2003). By May 2003, the
population of Anacapa deer mice on East Anacapa had increased to over
8,000 individuals (NPS 2003, p. 1). By August 2003, the estimated
number of Anacapa deer mice had increased to at least 16,000 on East
Anacapa and 2,600 on Middle Anacapa (Faulkner 2003). Finally, the NPS
concluded monitoring Anacapa deer mouse populations in Fall 2004, when
the population was about 13,500 on East Anacapa, 23,400 on Middle
Anacapa, and 42,500 on West Anacapa for a combined total of over 79,000
mice (Gellerman 2005). The NPS did not conduct any type of genetic
research on deer mice either while they were being held in captivity or
after their release. Therefore, we cannot specifically address the
possibility that genetic changes may have occurred in the captive deer
mice. However, based on the rapid increase in numbers that occurred in
the released deer mice, it is unlikely that any significant genetic
change occurred during their captivity or if a change did occur, it was
not detrimental to their recovery.
As a result, we find that the petition, supporting information, and
information readily available to the Service does not present
substantial information for this factor indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
Finding
We evaluated each of the five listing factors individually, and
because the threats to the Anacapa deer mouse are not mutually
exclusive, we also evaluated the collective effect of these threats.
The petitioners raised a concern about the fact that the Anacapa deer
mouse is restricted to a single island and therefore is vulnerable to
extinction, but were primarily concerned that the NPS project to
eradicate black rats from Anacapa Island with poison would result in
the extinction of the Anacapa deer mouse, and that the NPS mitigation
plan for the mouse was insufficient. When the petitioners submitted
their petition in October 2002, the NPS had not yet completed either
the process of eradicating black rats from the island or repopulating
the island with captive Anacapa deer mice. Now that the project is
completed, we know that the NPS was successful not only in eradicating
black rats from the island but also protecting enough Anacapa deer mice
to recover the population on the island. We conclude that the
petitioners' concerns regarding the Anacapa deer mouse mitigation plan,
including the likelihood of an insufficient number of captive mice to
be successful, population crashes while in captivity, detrimental
genetic change, timing of release, and longevity of poisoned bait, are
no longer threats to the Anacapa deer mouse. We are unaware of any
threats to the Anacapa deer mouse that would indicate that the long-
term viability of the subspecies is a concern and that the subspecies
is either in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range or likely to become an endangered species.
Therefore, we find the petition, supporting information, and
information readily available to the Service does not present substantial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition
and evaluated that information in relation to information available to
us. After this review and evaluation, we find the petition does not
present substantial scientific information to indicate listing the
Anacapa deer mouse may be warranted at this time. Although we will not
commence a status review in response to this petition, we will continue
to monitor the subspecies' population status and trends, potential
threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with
regard to the conservation of the Anacapa deer mouse across its range.
We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will
assist with the conservation of the subspecies. If you wish to provide
information regarding the Anacapa deer mouse, you may submit your
information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon
request, from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
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: September 20, 2006.
Marshall P. Jones,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-15874 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P