[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19925-19935]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-20]
[[Page 19925]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0017]
[MO 92210-0-0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its
United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened
with Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list a distinct population segment
(DPS) of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in its Northern Rocky Mountain
(NRM) range, including portions of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as
endangered or threatened and designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing a DPS of fisher in the NRMs of the
United States may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to
determine if listing the fisher in the NRMs of the United States is
warranted. To ensure that this status review is complete, we are
requesting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding this species or DPS. Based on the status review, we will
issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B)
of the Act. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this
species if and when we initiate a listing action.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before June 15, 2010. After this
date, you must submit information directly to the Montana Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
below). Please note that we may not be able to address or incorporate
information that we receive after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket number FWS-R6-ES-2010-0017 and then follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2010-0017; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana
Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT;
telephone (406) 449-5225. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the
fisher from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We
seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends;
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures and programs for the
species, its habitat, or both;
(f) Information on the fisher species rangewide for the purpose of
determining if the fisher in its NRM range constitutes a DPS or a
significant portion of the range of the species; and
(g) Differences between Canada and the United States in control of
exploitation, management, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
pertaining to the fisher and its habitat that would support the use of
the international boundary to delimit a DPS in the NRMs.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' 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.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references and page numbers) to allow us to verify any scientific
or commercial information you include.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the fisher
in the NRMs as a DPS is warranted, we will propose critical habitat
(see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), in accordance with
section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at
the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, within the
geographical range currently occupied by the fisher, we request data
and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species'';
(2) Where these features are currently found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection, including managing for the potential
effects of climate change.
In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' We also are seeking
information documenting the historic range and distribution within that
range of the fisher in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and other areas
adjacent to these States, and the contiguous land areas in Canada
including the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. The Service
does not designate critical habitat in areas where a species is not
listed; however, identifying the historic distribution of fisher in
areas contiguous with the NRMs may inform the extent and type of
habitat that may be required for recovery. Please provide specific
comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think
we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for
listing, and why such habitat meets the definition of critical habitat
in section 3 of the Act
[[Page 19926]]
and the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which is
subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On March 6, 2009, we received a petition dated February 24, 2009,
from the Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity,
Friends of the Bitterroot, and Friends of the Clearwater (petitioners)
requesting that the fisher in the United States NRMs be considered a
DPS and listed as endangered or threatened, and critical habitat be
designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 9, 2009,
letter to the petitioners, we responded that we had reviewed the
information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section
4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated that we could not
address the petition further at that time because of staff and budget
limitations. This finding addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 5, 1990, we received a petition dated May 29, 1990, from
Mr. Eric Beckwitt, Forest Issues Task Force, Sierra Biodiversity
Project, and others requesting that the Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti
pacifica) be listed as an endangered species in California, Oregon, and
Washington under the Act. On January 11, 1991, we published a 90-day
finding (56 FR 1159) indicating that the fisher in the Pacific States
is a distinct population that is geographically isolated from
populations in the Rocky Mountains and British Columbia and represents
a listable entity under the Act. The finding also indicated that the
petition had not presented substantial information indicating that a
listing may be warranted because of a lack of information on fisher
habitat needs, population size and trends, and demographic parameters
(56 FR 1159).
On December 29, 1994, we received a petition dated December 22,
1994, from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation requesting that two fisher
populations in the western United States, including the States of
Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, be listed
as threatened under the Act. Based on our review, we found that the
petition did not present substantial information indicating that
listing the two western United States fisher populations as a DPS was
warranted (61 FR 8016, March 1, 1996). The best scientific evidence at
that time indicated that the range of the fisher was contiguous across
Canada with some areas having abundant populations, and through
southward peninsular extensions, was contiguous with the United States
Rocky Mountain and Pacific populations (61 FR 8016). No evidence was
presented in the petition to support physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral separations (61 FR 8016).
On December 5, 2000, we received a petition dated November 28,
2000, from 12 organizations, with the lead organizations identified as
the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Forest
Protection Campaign, requesting that the West Coast DPS of the fisher,
including portions of California, Oregon and Washington, be listed as
endangered and critical habitat be designated under the Act. A court
order was issued on April 4, 2003, by the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, that required the Service to submit for
publication in the Federal Register a 90-day finding on the 2000
petition (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton et al., No.
C 01--2950 SC). On July 10, 2003, we published a 90-day petition
finding that the petition provided substantial information that listing
may be warranted and initiated a 12-month status review (68 FR 41169).
On April 8, 2004, we published a warranted 12-month finding for listing
of the fisher's West Coast DPS (69 FR 18770). A listing action was
precluded by higher priorities and the West Coast DPS was added to our
candidate species list.
The West Coast fisher was included in the Service's candidate
notices of review in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (70 FR 24870, May
11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6,
2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009).
Species Information
Description
The fisher, as described by Powell (1981, p. 1), is light brown to
dark blackish-brown, with the face, neck, and shoulders sometimes being
slightly gray. The chest and underside often have irregular white
patches. The fisher has a long body with short legs and a long bushy
tail. At 3 to 6 kilograms (kg) (6.6 to 13.2 pounds (lbs)), male fishers
weigh about twice as much as females (1.5 to 2.5 kg (3.3 to 5.5 lbs)).
Males range in length from 90 to 120 centimeters (cm) (35 to 47 inches
(in)), and females range from 75 to 95 cm (29 to 37 in) in length.
Fishers may show regional variation in typical body weight. For
example,
[[Page 19927]]
fishers in the Pacific States may weigh less than fishers in the
eastern United States (Seglund 1995, p. 21; Dark 1997, p. 61; Aubry and
Lewis 2003, p. 87).
Taxonomy
We accept the characterization of the fisher as a species, Martes
pennanti, based on the review of the systematics of the genus Martes by
Anderson (1994, pp. 21-25). The fisher is classified in the order
Carnivora, family Mustelidae, a family that also includes weasels,
mink, martens, and otters (Anderson 1994, p. 14). It is a member of the
genus Martes, subgenus Pekania, and occurs only in North America
(Anderson 1994, pp. 22-23). Goldman (1935, p. 177) recognized three
subspecies of fisher, although he stated they were difficult to
distinguish: (1) Martes pennanti pennanti in the east and central
regions; (2) M. p. columbiana in the central and northwestern regions
that include the NRMs; and (3) M. p. pacifica in the western region. A
subsequent analysis questioned whether there is a sufficient basis to
support recognition of different subspecies (Hagmeier 1959, entire).
Although subspecies taxonomy as described by Goldman (1935, p. 177) is
often used in literature to describe or reference fisher populations in
different regions of its range, and recent consideration of genetic
variation indicates patterns of population subdivision similar to the
earlier described subspecies, it is not clear whether Goldman's
designations of subspecies are taxonomically valid (Kyle et al. 2001,
p. 2345; Drew et al. 2003, p. 59). For the purposes of this finding, we
are evaluating whether the petition presents substantial information
that the fisher in the NRM qualifies as a DPS of the full species
(i.e., M. pennanti), because that is the action requested by the
petition.
Biology and Habitat
Fishers are opportunistic predators primarily of snowshoe hares,
squirrels, mice, and birds (Powell 1993, p. 18). Carrion and plant
material (e.g., berries) also are consumed (Powell 1993, p. 18). The
fisher is one of the few predators that kills porcupines, and porcupine
remains have been found more often in the gastrointestinal tract and
scat of fisher than any other predator (Powell 1993, p. 135). As
dietary generalists, fishers tend to forage in areas where prey is both
abundant and vulnerable to capture (Powell 1993, p. 100).
Fishers are estimated to live up to 10 years (Arthur et al. 1992,
p. 404; Powell et al. 2003, p. 644). Both sexes reach maturity their
first year but may not be effective breeders until 2 years of age
(Powell et al. 2003, p. 638). Fishers are solitary except during the
breeding season, which is generally from late February to the middle of
May (Wright and Coulter 1967, p. 77; Frost et al. 1997, p. 607).
Uterine implantation of embryos occurs 10 months after copulation;
active gestation is estimated to be between 30 and 60 days; and birth
occurs nearly 1 year after copulation (Wright and Coulter 1967, pp. 74,
76; Frost et al. 1997, p. 609; Powell et al. 2003, p. 639). Litter
sizes for fishers range from one to six with a mean of two to three
kits (Powell et al. 2003, pp. 639-640). Newborn kits are entirely
dependent and may nurse for 10 weeks or more after birth (Powell 1993,
p. 67). Kits develop their own home ranges by one year of age (Powell
et al. 2003, p. 640). Populations of fisher fluctuate in size, and
reproductive rates may vary widely from year to year in response to the
availability of prey (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 43).
Fisher home ranges vary in size across North America from 16 to 122
square kilometers (km\2\) (4.7 to 36 square miles (mi\2\)) for males
and from 4 to 53 km\2\ (1.2 to 15.5 mi\2\) for females (Powell and
Zielinski 1994, p. 58; Lewis and Stinson 1998, pp. 7-8; Zielinski et
al. 2004, p. 652). In the NRM, home ranges for males range from
approximately 30 to 120 km\2\ (8.7 to 35 mi\2\) during winter and
summer (Jones 1991, p. 83). Females range from 6 to 75 km\2\ (1.7 to 22
mi\2\) during winter, with a reduction in summer from 6 to 60 km\2\
(1.7 to 17.5 mi\2\) (Jones 1991, p. 83). The abundance of vulnerable
prey may play a role in home range selection (Powell and Zielinski
1994, p. 57). Fishers exhibit territoriality with little overlap
between members of the same sex; however, overlap between opposite
sexes is extensive and possibly related to the density of prey (Powell
and Zielinski 1994, p. 59).
Fishers live in coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood forests
and avoid areas with little or no cover (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p.
39). They are found commonly in mature forest cover and prefer late-
seral forests over other habitats (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 52).
Riparian forests and habitat close to open water such as streams are
important to fishers in northern California and the Rocky Mountains of
Idaho (Buskirk and Powell 1994, p. 285). In Idaho, old-growth forests
of grand and subalpine fir are used extensively (Jones 1991, p. 113).
The physical structure of the forest and prey associated with forest
structures are thought to be the critical features that explain fisher
habitat use, rather than specific forest types (Buskirk and Powell
1994, p. 286), and habitat use can vary by season and by activity
(Jones 1991, p. 88). In the Rocky Mountains, fishers avoid areas of
deep, fluffy snow and select riparian areas with relatively gentle
slopes and dense canopy cover that may provide protection from snow
during winter (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 54). Cavities and branches
in trees, snags, stumps, rock piles, and down timber are used as
resting sites, and large diameter live or dead trees are selected for
natal and maternal dens (Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 47, 56). Powell
and Zielinski (1994, p. 54) suggest that habitat suitable for resting
and denning sites may be more limiting for fishers than foraging
habitat.
A more extensive review of fisher biology can be found in the
Service's 12-month finding on a petition to list the West Coast DPS of
the fisher (69 FR 18770, April 8, 2004).
Distribution
At the time of European settlement, fishers were found in the
forests across North America in Canada from approximately 60[deg] north
latitude, extending south into the United States along the Appalachian,
Pacific Coast, and NRMs (Gibilisco 1994, p. 60). In the late 1800s and
early 1900s, fishers experienced reductions in range, decreases in
population numbers, and local extirpations attributed to over-trapping,
predator control, and habitat destruction in the United States, and to
a lesser extent in Canada (Brander and Books 1973, p. 53; Douglas and
Strickland 1987, p. 512; Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 39). Since the
1950s, fishers have recovered in some of the central (Minnesota,
Wisconsin) and eastern (New England) portions of their historic range
in the United States as a result of trapping closures, habitat
regrowth, and reintroductions (Brander and Books 1973, pp. 53-54;
Powell 1993, p. 80; Gibilisco 1994, p. 61; Lewis and Stinson 1998, p.
3; Proulx et al. 2004, pp. 55-57). Fishers have not returned to the
areas south of the Great Lakes to Appalachia. In the western range,
fisher distribution occurs in a few disjunct and relatively small areas
of their former range in Oregon and California, and recently
reintroduced individuals represent the species on the Olympic Peninsula
of Washington State (Proulx et al. 2004, p. 58; National Park Service
2009).
It was believed that fishers were extirpated from the NRMs of the
United States by the 1930s (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 41). In five
separate reintroduction efforts, fishers were translocated from the
Midwest and
[[Page 19928]]
British Columbia to the NRMs between 1959 and 1991 (Vinkey et al. 2006,
p. 268; Jones 1991, p. 1). The recent discovery of a native lineage of
fisher coexisting with descendents of translocated individuals
indicates that fishers in Idaho and Montana were not extirpated as
previously thought (Drew et al. 2003, p. 57; Vinkey 2003, pp. 9, 30;
Schwartz 2007, p. 924). Fishers are distributed in northwest and west-
central Montana and northern and north-central Idaho with rare
detection in southwestern Idaho (Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) 2006, pp. 7-24; Vinkey 2003, p. 54). Snowtrack surveys have
documented fisher in Glacier National Park in the 1980s and the Greater
Yellowstone area in the late 1990s, but more verified records are
needed to confirm the presence of fisher in these areas (Vinkey 2003,
pp. 52, 60).
Population Status
Accurate information on fisher densities and abundance outside the
northeastern United States is limited. Estimates of fisher abundance
and vital rates are difficult to obtain and often based on harvest
records, trapper questionnaires, and tracking information (Douglas and
Strickland 1987, p. 522). Populations may vary widely based on habitat
composition and prey availability (York 1996, p. 4). In Maine, the
density of female fishers ranged from 0.09 to 0.36 per km\2\ (0.39
mi\2\) in summer to 0.05 to 0.12 per km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\) in winter
(Arthur et al. 1989, pp. 674, 678). In high-quality habitats in British
Columbia, fisher densities were between 0.01 and 0.0154 per km\2\ (0.39
mi\2\), and the total late-winter population in the province was
between 1,113 and 2,759 individuals (Weir 2003, p. iv). The Service's
(2008, p. 9) review of population data from California shows recent
densities of 0.16 fisher per km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\) in the 65-km\2\ (25.1
mi\2\) Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation study site, and between 113 to
147 adult female individuals in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Little is known of the status of fishers in the Rocky Mountains. Vinkey
(2003, p. 33) evaluated a translocation effort in the Cabinet Mountains
of Montana in the 1990s and concluded that the population is small and
limited in distribution, based on a small number of captures or
detections coupled with a high proportion of recaptures. Vinkey (2003,
p. 61) also reviewed historical records and carnivore research in
Montana and concluded that the fisher is one of the lowest-density
carnivores in the State. One population estimate for the Clearwater
region of northern Idaho is possibly 0.04 fishers per km\2\ (0.39
mi\2\) in an 80 km by 16 km (50 mi by 10 mi) corridor in the Lochsa
study area (Lucas 2006, p. 85).
Evaluation of Listable Entities
Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any
species, including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, or plants, or any DPS
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). Such entities are considered eligible for listing under the
Act (and, therefore, are referred to as listable entities) should we
determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species. In this case, the petitioners have requested that the fisher
in the United States NRMs be considered a DPS and listed as endangered
or threatened under the Act.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
The Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries) developed a joint
policy that addresses the recognition of DPSes of vertebrate species
for potential listing actions (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Under the
DPS policy, two basic elements are considered in the decision regarding
the establishment of a population of a vertebrate species as a possible
DPS. We must first determine whether the population qualifies as a DPS;
this requires a finding that the population is both: (1) Discrete in
relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; and (2)
biologically and ecologically significant to the species to which it
belongs. If the population meets the first two criteria under the DPS
policy, we then proceed to the third element in the process, which is
to evaluate the population segment's conservation status in relation to
the Act's standards for listing as an endangered or threatened species.
These three elements are applied similarly for additions to or removals
from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
Our evaluation of significance is made in light of congressional
guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) that the
authority to list DPSes be used ``sparingly'' while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity. If we determine that a population
segment meets the discreteness and significance standards, then the
level of threat to that population segment is evaluated based on the
five listing factors established by the Act to determine whether
listing the DPS as either endangered or threatened is warranted.
Discreteness
Under our DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
two conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of
the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological,
or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation);
or (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 FR 4722).
Substantial information is presented in the petition and other
documents in our files indicating that the fishers in the NRMs may be
geographically separate from other fisher populations. The range of the
fisher in the West Coast Range of Washington, Oregon, and California is
considered separated from the NRMs by natural physical barriers,
including the nonforested high desert areas of the Great Basin in
Nevada and eastern Oregon and the Okanogan Valley in eastern
Washington, major highways, urban and rural open-canopied areas, and
agricultural development (69 FR 18770). Historic and recent range maps
show no connection in the contiguous United States between occurrences
in the NRMs and the fisher populations in the Midwest and Great Lakes
area (Hagmeier 1956, p. 151; Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 313;
Gibilisco 1994, p. 64; Proulx et al. 2004, p. 57).
Prior to 2003, fisher range maps depicted the NRM region
interconnected with British Columbia (Gibilisco 1994, p. 64; Lewis and
Stinson 1998, p. 3). An analysis of fisher habitat suitability and
harvest and survey information indicates that the southernmost
extension of fishers in British Columbia likely occurs in the central
part of the province over 200 km (124 mi) north of the international
border, and that fisher populations in Canada are no longer contiguous
with fisher populations in the western United States (Weir 2003, pp.
17-19). Although the fisher distribution has been adjusted to reflect
the more recent understanding of fisher habitat ecology, highly
fragmented and low suitability fisher habitat does exist in the
Kootenay region of southeastern British Columbia between the NRMs of
the United States and central British Columbia (Weir 2003, p. 18).
Fishers were considered rare or extirpated from the Kootenay
[[Page 19929]]
region in the mid-1990s, prompting a reintroduction effort to expand
the presence of the species in British Columbia and ``to connect
isolated US populations with healthy and increasing populations in
central B.C.'' (Fontana et al. 1999, p. 1). Fishers released in Canada
as part of the relocation program were using habitats in Montana
(Fontana et al. 1999, p. 18). Weir et al. (2003, pp. 19-20) considered
the possibility, though unlikely, that the Cabinet Mountains in Montana
were the source of two fishers detected in the Kootenay area in
southeast British Columbia. A reintroduced fisher population was
thought to persist in southeast British Columbia, but the observed
survival rate of translocated adults and the few cases of confirmed
reproduction in the assessment area were not likely sufficient for the
population to expand and become self-sustaining (Weir et al. 2003, pp.
24-25).
We have no information indicating that an active connection was
established between central British Columbia and the United States as a
result of the translocation efforts, or that fishers in the NRMs of
Montana and Idaho are functionally connected to larger population areas
in Canada. We seek additional information for our status review to
clarify the geographic separation of the fisher in the NRMs of the
United States from other areas of fisher occupation including Canada,
and to clarify a geographical delineation of a NRM DPS.
Substantial information presented in the petition and documents in
our files may support discreteness of fishers in the NRMs based on the
presence of a unique genetic signature consistent with isolation and a
relic native population (Drew et al. 2003, p. 59; Vinkey et al. 2006,
p. 267; Schwartz 2007, p. 924). Descendants of native fisher found in
Idaho and west-central Montana have unique haplotypes of the
mitochondrial genome that are found nowhere else in fisher populations
(Drew et al. 2003, p. 59; Vinkey et al. 2006, p. 269; Schwartz 2007, p.
922). Populations in the NRMs also demonstrate a genetic legacy
consistent with previous translocations from the mid-western United
States and British Columbia (Drew et al. 2003, p. 59; Vinkey et al.
2006, pp. 268-269).
The petition states that the international boundary between the
United States and Canada contributes to the discreteness of the NRM
fisher population based on significant differences in management of
fishers and habitat. However, the petition offers no example of a
specific law, regulation, policy, population status, or management
prescription that would support the assertion of significant
differences. For us to determine that the international boundary serves
as a basis for discreteness, we need some evidence that differences in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist between the two countries that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. The petition did
not provide any information that such differences exist.
Information in our files indicates that Canada does not have a
national law governing management of national lands like the United
States has in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614). A substantial portion of the occupied
fisher range in Montana and Idaho is managed under the NFMA. However,
we do not have any information indicating that the differences in
management between the United States and Canada are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. If anything, fishers would have
more protection in the United States due to the NFMA. We have no
information that fishers are impacted by either the lack of an
overarching forest management regulatory mechanism in Canada, or the
application of the NFMA in the United States NRMs.
Information in the petition and our files indicates that legal
trapping for fishers occurs in both British Columbia and the NRM. In
the United States, legal trapping occurs only in Montana; however, we
are analyzing the NRMs as a DPS, not as individual States. The petition
did not present any information, nor do we have any in our files, that
distinguishes differences in trapping regulations or harvest between
the United States and Canada, and the application to discreteness. The
applicability of the international boundary to the discreteness of a
NRM DPS will be investigated further during the species status review.
In summary, the petition and other documents in our files present
substantial information indicating that the NRM population of fisher in
the United States may meet at least one of the criteria for
discreteness under the DPS policy based on marked physical separateness
and genetic distinctness.
Significance
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of
the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological
and ecological significance will be considered in light of
congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSes be used
``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity
(see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In making this
determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably
from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of
information that might be used in determining the biological and
ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy
describes four possible classes of information that provide evidence of
a discrete population segment's biological and ecological importance to
the taxon to which it belongs. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR
4722), this consideration of the population segment's significance may
include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions
to be considered significant. Furthermore, other information may be
used as appropriate to provide evidence for significance.
The petition presents three points supporting the significance of a
DPS in the NRMs of the United States: (1) The NRM region of the United
States is ecologically unique because it is situated in a unique
ecoregion as described by Bailey (1996, entire) and exhibits
significant ecological differences from the closest fisher habitat in
central British Columbia; (2) the NRM region represents a significant
part of the range based on representation and geographic size; and (3)
the fisher population in north-central Idaho and west-central Montana
share a genetic haplotype unique to the taxon.
The petitioners claim that fishers in the NRMs of the United States
exist in an unusual or unique ecological setting based on Bailey's
(1996, entire) ecoregion delineations and descriptions of fisher study
sites in British Columbia and Idaho (Jones 1991, pp. 3-4; Weir 1995,
pp. 20-26). Bailey's ecoregion
[[Page 19930]]
classification is a descriptive four-level hierarchy differentiating
geographic areas based on climate, vegetation (species dominants) or
natural land covers, and soils. It is one of several classification
systems used in the past and present by government and private land
managers to inform management decisions.
While it appears that the known fisher distribution in the NRMs of
the United States is in a different ecoregion classification than the
closest population concentration in Canada (Bailey 1996, map), the
significance of this difference to the taxon is not explained in the
petition. Descriptions of fisher habitat in Idaho (Jones 1991, pp. 3-4)
and British Columbia (Weir 1995, pp. 20-26) show considerable
similarities in vegetation. Differences are seen in precipitation and
temperature between the Idaho and British Columbia sites, but climate
conditions also vary within the individual study sites (Weir 1995, pp.
20-26). It is not clear if the descriptions of these small geographic
areas are representative of the range of fisher in either British
Columbia or the NRMs in the United States.
The petitioners express support for uniqueness based on general
descriptions of climate and vegetation. Information in the petition and
in our files indicates that fishers inhabit various types of late-
successional coniferous forests throughout most of their range, and the
dominant tree species, which can be influenced by climate and soils,
may vary from region to region (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 52).
Forest structure and prey availability are more important habitat
selection criteria for fishers than the type of forest, tree species,
or general climate characteristics (Buskirk and Powell 1994, pp. 286,
295; Weir 1995, p. 19). While the NRM ecoregion may be different from
other ecoregions, we did not find any evidence in the petition or in
our files indicating that the difference in classification is
significant to the fisher.
Information in the petition and in our files supports the
petitioner's assertion that a loss of the fisher in the NRMs would
result in a significant gap in the range of the fisher. The fisher is
only found in Canada and the United States. The distribution of fisher
in the United States occurred historically in four peninsular
extensions from Canada and constituted the southern-most distribution
of fisher in North America. The connection with Canada is now lost, or
is highly fragmented, in the western United States. Fishers in the NRMs
of the western United States are separate from the eastern United
States populations by over 1,280 km (800 mi) of nonforested habitat,
lands converted for agriculture, and urban development. In the western
United States, the fisher's distribution occurs in the forested areas
of the NRMs in northern Idaho and western Montana, and a few disjunct
and relatively small areas of the species' former West Coast range in
Oregon, Washington, and California. The West Coast fishers are
considered separated from the NRMs by natural physical barriers as well
as other physical impediments such as major highways, urban and rural
open-canopied areas, and agricultural development. The extirpation of
fishers in the NRMs would be the loss of one of the four existing
southern-most extensions of the taxon's range, and would result in a
significant gap in the range of the fisher.
The fisher population in the NRMs of the United States exhibits the
genetic legacy of translocations from British Columbia and the Midwest
as well as a relic native population once thought extirpated. The loss
of the fisher in the NRMs could result in the loss of unique haplotypes
of the mitochondrial genome associated with the native population
described as genetically distinct from fisher in the remainder of North
America (Drew et al. 2003, p. 57; Vinkey et al. 2006, p. 269; Schwartz
2007, p. 924).
In summary, information in the petition and our files may support
the significance of a DPS in the NRMs of the United States based on
evidence of genetic distinctness and evidence that loss of the DPS may
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Summary
On the basis of the preceding discussion, we believe that the
petition and other documents present substantial information that the
NRM population of the fisher in the United States may be both discrete
and significant within the meaning of our DPS policy, and therefore may
constitute a DPS. A discussion of the potential DPS's conservation
status in relation to the Act's standards for listing as an endangered
or threatened species follows.
Evaluation of Information for this Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the fisher in the NRMs, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that fishers are threatened by habitat loss
and destruction from logging and roads (69 FR 18770; Douglas and
Strickland 1987, p. 518; Freel 1991, p. 2; Jones 1991, pp. 116-117;
Aubry and Houston 1992, p. 75; Buskirk 1992, p. 318; Buck et al. 1994,
p. 375; Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 64; IDFG 1995, p. 10; Carroll et
al. 1999, p. 1357), and habitat loss and destruction is the primary
threat to fishers in the NRMs. The petitioners assert that fishers are
at risk from naturally occurring and climate change-accelerated fire,
insects, and disease outbreaks (Ridler 2008); and they assert, without
documentation, that fishers are especially vulnerable to habitat
alteration because past logging reduced their range and habitat to a
point that any additional loss of habitat from human action threatens
the fishers' persistence. The petition states that the majority of
fisher habitat in the NRMs is within seven national forests where an
average of 8,000 hectares (ha) (20,000 acres (ac)) of forest was logged
annually between 2002 and 2006 (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2008, entire). An additional average 28,000 ha (70,000 ac) was lost
annually to fire, insects, and disease during that period (USDA 2008,
entire). Approximately 1.3 million ha (3.2 million ac) of national
forest land was logged or experienced fire or disease between 1945 and
2006 (USDA 2008, entire). Other forested lands are managed for timber
revenue by private corporations, the States of Montana and Idaho, and
Tribal governments; harvest of at least some of these lands is
[[Page 19931]]
expected in the future (Idaho Department of Lands 2007, entire; Montana
Department of Natural Resources 2008, entire; Plum Creek 2009, entire;
Potlatch 2008, entire; Ridler 2008, entire).
The petition lists a wide range of impacts that could deteriorate
or cause direct loss of fisher habitats. Silviculture treatments may
alter structural and vegetation diversity by a number of mechanisms and
reduce cover and den and resting sites (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p.
518; Aubry and Houston 1992, p. 75; Buskirk 1992, p. 318; Buck et al.
1994, p. 375; Carroll et al. 1999, p. 1375). Roads directly remove
habitat, cause displacement, inhibit dispersal, and contribute to
increased fisher mortality, fragmentation, and isolation (Freel 1991,
p. 2; Jones 1991, pp. 116-117; Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 62; IDFG
1995, p. 10; Ruediger et al. 1999, pp. 1-2). The petition states that
forests across the region have high incidence and intensity of fire,
insects, and disease outbreaks due to drought and higher temperatures
related to climate change; fisher habitat is further reduced by the
removal of timber and wildland-urban interface treatments to reduce
fire risk.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Information in the petition and in our files indicates that past
habitat loss due to logging, fire, and clearing of land for agriculture
and settlement together with trapping contributed to the near
extermination of fisher populations over much of their former range in
the United States and much of eastern Canada by the early 1900s (Powell
and Zielinski 1994, p. 41; Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 512). There
are few reports quantifying habitat loss in specific locations, but in
1984, it was estimated that fishers occupied over 4.3 million km\2\
(1.6 million mi\2\) in Canada and the United States, reduced from 6.4
million km\2\ (2.5 million mi\2\) of occupied range before the
settlement of North American by Europeans (Douglas and Strickland 1987,
p. 513). Land clearing and frequent fires had reduced the forested area
in the northeastern United States by nearly 50 percent by the mid-
1800s, and rangewide habitat loss increased as human settlement moved
west (Powell and Zielinksi 1994, p. 41).
The fisher in the NRMs was considered extirpated by the 1930s
(Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 41). Presently, the fisher
representation in Montana and Idaho includes a recently discovered
remnant native population and descendants of fishers relocated from the
Midwest and British Columbia in the 1960s and 1990s (Drew et al. 2003,
p. 57; Vinkey 2003, pp. 9, 30; Schwartz 2007, p. 924). It is not clear
from the limited information available to us during this 90-day review
what role past land uses played in the near extirpation of the fisher
in the NRMs by 1930. We do know that extensive forestry drastically
reduced the amount of old-growth or late-successional forests in the
NRMs, especially on private lands in the lower-elevation commercial
timber zones (Habeck 1988, p. 202). National forest lands that comprise
approximately 6 million ha (15 million ac) in the NRMs have retained
more area of mature forest than private commercial lands but have
experienced close to 1 million ha (2.5 million ac) of silviculture
removal--nearly a third by clear-cutting methods--just in the past 65
years (Habeck 1988, p. 202; USDA 2008, entire).
The legacy of timber harvest, combined with continued commercial
forestry and other factors, may limit the capacity of the NRM area to
support fishers today. Fishers rely on large areas of primarily late-
successional coniferous forest with fairly dense canopies and large
trees, snags, and down logs for denning and resting; vegetated
understory and large woody debris appear important for prey species
(Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 52). These mature forest characteristics
may take at least 120 years or more to develop (Green et al. 1992, p.
6). Fishers evolved in forests where fire and windthrow were common,
and small silviculture treatments or harvest may resemble the natural
disturbances and the succession that follows (Powell and Zielinski
1994, p. 64). Therefore, the effects of present-day timber harvest and
management of forests for harvest on the capacity of the NRMs to
support fishers may be influenced by multiple factors, including the
location, scale, and juxtaposition of treatments to previous
disturbances, and the suitability of the location to provide fisher
habitat under natural conditions.
In the NRMs, fishers forage in young to medium-age stands adjacent
to larger patches of mature forest (Jones 1991, p. 92). However, large
clear-cuts or numerous adjacent smaller cuts, and open areas such as
roads, combined with the loss of large patches of late-successional
conifer habitat, may alter suitability and fragment habitat and limit
fisher population size (Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 42, 64). Where
the key habitat elements are patchy or limited in distribution, fishers
are forced to range over larger areas. Fishers in Montana and Idaho
have the largest recorded home ranges of the United States' fishers,
possibly influenced by the fragmentation or low quality of forest
resources (Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 58, 60).
The effects of habitat loss and fragmentation may be emphasized by
territorial exclusion between members of the same sex, which increases
the space needed to support viable populations (Powell and Zielinski
1994, p. 59). In the NRMs, fishers may be more vulnerable to habitat
changes caused by fire, drought, and insect infestation even within
historical variability due to diminished mature late-seral forest
structures at a landscape level.
The loss of older forest and increased fragmentation from human
activities has likely reduced the capacity of the NRMs to support
fishers. To our knowledge, there is no comprehensive mapping of fisher
habitat for the NRMs. Consequently, it is not clear how current
management of public and private forest lands is limiting further loss
of habitat suitability on a landscape scale. However, we will seek
additional information regarding forest management during the status
review process.
From information in the petition and readily available in our
files, private or State trust lands in Northern Montana and Idaho are
managed for commercial wood production and timber harvest, which may
prevent succession to the mature forest stages preferred by fishers
(Idaho Department of Lands 2007, p. 22; Montana Department of Natural
Resources 2008, entire; Plum Creek 2009, entire; Ridler 2008, entire).
Timber harvest is expected to continue on commercial lands; future
increases in harvest and reduction of the harvest rotation period are
expected on Idaho State trust lands (Ridler 2008, p. 2). We expect
timber harvest to continue on Federal lands in the future based on
mandates of the Multiple-Use and Sustainable Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528
et seq.) and the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) has managed for old-growth forest under forest plan direction
since the 1990s (Green et al. 1992, p. 1) and considers the fisher a
sensitive status species (Macfarlane 1994, p. 177); however, no
information is provided in the petition and we have no information
available in our files indicating the effectiveness of this management
in protecting or augmenting old-growth forest types for fisher habitat.
The real estate value of commercial timber lands is spurring a
transition to
[[Page 19932]]
residential and commercial development in areas of western Montana
(Stromnes 2002, entire; McQuillan 2007, entire). For example, Plum
Creek Timber Company, whose holdings are concentrated in northwest and
north-central Montana and coincide with areas of verified fisher
distribution (Vinkey 2003, p. 54), expects to develop 8,000 to 16,000
ha (20,000 to 40,000 ac) over the next 10 to 15 years in addition to
over 14,000 ha (35,000 ac) already sold (McQuillan 2007, entire). The
company's own land development subsidiary describes the development of
company lands, once held for timber production, as residential lots
ranging in size from 2 to 4 ha (5 to 10 ac) (McQuillan 2007, entire).
Development in forested environments may increase roads and remove
additional forest vegetation structure or prey habitat in order to
maintain defensible space around structures (wildlife-urban interface);
however, although foraging and resting habitat may be removed by road
construction, fishers do not appear to avoid the road itself (Lewis and
Stinson 1998, p. 7; Schwartz et al. 2006, p. 6).
The economic recession starting in late 2008 may have an impact on
commercial timber harvest and the conversion of timber lands to
residential development; however, no information was included in the
petition and we have no information in our files to evaluate the
effects of the economic downturn on these activities at this time.
Silviculture timber removals on national forest lands in the NRMs
have trended downward over the past decade; however, the forested areas
affected by fire have increased to over 85,600 ha (214,000 ac) in the
past decade compared to less than 4,000 ha (10,000 ac) affected between
1945 and 1997 (USDA 2008, entire). This increase could reflect an
increase in environmental conditions that promote fire, such as drought
and disease, or management of fire as a natural force in shaping forest
composition and distribution.
The petitioners do not present specific information about how
global climate change has affected or is likely to affect the fisher in
the NRMs in a way that differs from past climate variability. Warming
of the climate globally is considered unequivocal (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 2); however, predicting local climate
trends and determining how those trends will affect certain species is
uncertain. Furthermore, we do not have information indicating how the
fisher might behaviorally respond to any climate changes. Without
additional information, the effect of long-term climate change on the
fisher is unclear and could result in either a net positive or negative
effect on the species. However, we will seek additional information
regarding the potential effects of climate change during the status
review process.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, based on our evaluation of the information presented in
the petition and in our files, we determine that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing the fisher in the NRMs
may be warranted. This is due to the present and potential future
modification and destruction of habitat from commercial timber harvest
and commercial wood production by methods that may prevent succession
to the mature forest stages preferred by fishers. This is also due to
the transition of some commercial timber lands to residential and
commercial development in areas of western Montana. Based on our
evaluation of information in our files and the petition, we determine
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating
that listing the fisher in the NRMs may be warranted due to climate
change. However, we will evaluate the effects of climate change on the
fisher when we conduct our status review.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners cite numerous sources indicating the susceptibility
of fisher populations to excessive trapping and implicating trapping as
a major factor in historic declines in fisher populations (Powell 1979,
p. 153; Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 524; Powell and Zielinski 1994,
pp. 44-45; IDFG 1995, pp. 6, 13; Garant and Crete 1997, p. 363; Powell
1994, p. 101). The petitioners state that trapping is the second
greatest threat to fishers in the NRMs. The petitioners indicate that
fishers are impacted tremendously by both intentional and incidental
trapping (i.e., capture in traps set for other species) (Powell and
Zielinski 1994, pp. 44-45; IDFG 1995, p. 12; Lewis and Zielinski 1996,
p. 294) in Montana and incidental trapping in other parts of the range.
The petitioners state that fisher trapping in Montana is regulated and
quotas are set by the State wildlife agency (Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2007, p. 7). The petitioners assert, without
documentation, that because of the fisher's low population density, any
trapping death is incompatible with their persistence. Trapping for
fishers is not legal in the State of Idaho, but incidental capture of
fishers does occur in traps set for other legally harvested species
(IDFG 2007, p. 19). The petitioners speculate that the unreported
incidental take of fishers is high in the NRM range.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The fisher has been trapped for commercial purposes since the early
1800s. Over-trapping has contributed to the reduction in size and
extirpation of fisher populations across the species' range (Douglas
and Strickland 1987, p. 512). By the mid-1900s, heavy trapping pressure
and the use of strychnine as a trapping and general predator control
agent, in addition to habitat loss (discussed above under Factor A),
eliminated or greatly reduced fisher numbers in low to mid-elevation
coniferous forests and areas with year-round accessibility (Douglas and
Strickland 1987, p. 512). The number of fishers trapped, an indicator
of fisher population size, declined in Canada by 40 percent between
1920 and 1940, and the fisher in the NRMs was considered extirpated by
the 1930s (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 41). Trapping was discontinued
after 1929 in Minnesota because of population declines across the Great
Lake States (Berg and Kuehn 1994, p. 262), and trapping was prohibited
in Maine between 1937 and 1954 due to a severe constriction of the
fisher range in the State (Krohn et al. 1994, p. 137). Over-trapping is
implicated in the loss of fisher populations in the Pacific Northwest
(Lewis and Zielinski 1996, p. 191; Aubry and Lewis 2003, pp. 81-82).
Prior to the 1920s, there were no regulations applicable to
trapping fishers (Powell 1993, p. 77). The closure of trapping seasons
in the 1920s and 1930s, reintroductions and augmentations, and land-use
changes helped restore the fisher's presence in many parts of its range
including the NRMs (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 512; Powell 1993,
p. 80; Drew et al. 2003, p. 59; Vinkey 2003, p. 61). Trapping seasons
were reopened in many northeastern and midwestern States between 1949
and 1985, with accompanying regulations intended to prevent
overtrapping and population decline (Powell 1993, p. 80).
Trapping is considered one of the most important factors
influencing fisher populations (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 44).
Fishers are easily trapped (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 523),
[[Page 19933]]
and where trapping occurs, their populations could be negatively
affected (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 64). Fisher populations are
sensitive to the effects of trapping because of a slow reproductive
rate and the sensitivity of population numbers to prey fluctuations
(Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 45). Small or isolated populations may
be more intensely affected than more robust and widespread populations
(Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 45). Where fishers are scarce,
populations may be seriously affected by trapping or incidental
trapping for other species including other furbearers (Powell and
Zielinski 1994, p. 45).
The abundance and trend of fisher populations in the NRMs are not
clear. Although fisher presence has been confirmed in over a dozen
areas, the fisher is one of the lowest density carnivores in the NRM
region (Vinkey 2003, p. 61; IDFG 2006, entire). Montana is the only
State in the NRM region where legal trapping for fishers occurs.
Fishers have been trapped successfully every year since the mid-1980s
in Montana, indicating that fisher populations in some areas are
persisting at some level. Although the fisher is not a targeted species
for harvesting in Idaho, 17 fishers were reported to authorities as
taken incidentally to trapping of other legally harvested species
between 1990 and 2006 (IDFG 2007, p. 19), and Jones (1991, p. 115)
indicates that an estimated 163 fishers were trapped inadvertently in
Idaho between 1978-1982. We expect that incidental killing of fishers
occurs in Montana with similar frequency.
The impact of trapping mortality to fishers in the NRM region is
not clear based on the limited information available on population
status and trend; however, incidental trapping is difficult to control,
and small increases in mortality due to trapping could lead to
population instability and extirpation, especially in small or isolated
populations (Powell 1979, p. 152; Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 45).
State wildlife agencies set trapping quotas based on some consideration
of population status, although we have no information on what criteria
are used to determine harvest quotas for fishers or how fishers are
protected from incidental capture. We will seek additional information
regarding the effects of trapping and incidental mortality of fishers
during the status review process.
Summary of Factor B
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we determine that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing the fisher in the NRMs
may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial or recreational
purposes, specifically legal furbearer trapping and the loss of fishers
in traps set for other species. Incidental trapping is difficult to
control and small increases in mortality due to trapping could lead to
population instability and extirpation.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners present general information on possible disease
risks to the family Mustelidae (69 FR 18770), but nothing specific to
fishers or effects on fishers at a population level. The petitioners
state the importance of research to investigate the possible effects of
climate change on disease processes. The petitioners note that
predation of fishers is reported (Roy 1991, pp. 29, 35) and could be
significant in light of the small number and isolation of fisher
populations.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Fox, bear, great-horned owls, and bobcat prey on fishers, although
there is little evidence to indicate adult fishers have many natural
enemies except humans (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 516). Predation
of translocated fishers in Montana has been reported (Roy 1991, pp. 29,
35), but this was attributed to the relocation techniques used and
fitness of the individual animals (Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 62;
Vinkey 2003, p. 34).
Summary of Factor C
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we determine that the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that listing the fisher in
the NRMs of the United States may be warranted due to disease or
predation. No specific information is presented to indicate that
disease or predation affects fishers at a population level or that
climate change will exacerbate present conditions or create novel
disease or predation processes. However, we will evaluate all factors,
including threats from disease and predation, when we conduct our
status review.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that existing regulatory mechanisms for
public land management agencies have been inadequate in addressing the
decline of fisher habitats from past and ongoing forest practices,
roads and motorized access, and climate change, and addressing the
threats to fisher populations from unsustainable legal trapping in
Montana and incidental trapping throughout the range. The petition
refers in general terms to the inadequacy of regulations relative to
Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands in the NRM region and asserts
that the lack of coordination across administrative boundaries has
contributed to habitat fragmentation and population decline (Rosenberg
and Raphael 1986, pp. 263, 267, 271; Freel 1991, p. 2; Heinemeyer 1993,
pp. 108-109; Heinemeyer and Jones 1994, p. iv; Powell and Zielinski
1994, pp. 42, 45; IDFG 1995, pp. 8, 9, 12, 17; Carroll et al. 1999, p.
1357; Ruediger et al. 1999, pp. 5-6).
Specifically, the petition points to three inadequacies in the
regulatory process for the management of USFS lands in the region: (1)
The standards in national forest plans have not protected old-growth
habitat; (2) the classification of fisher as a ``sensitive'' species
has not prevented the decline of fisher habitat to its current extent;
and (3) the 2008 modification of the NFMA regulations removed standards
to maintain viable populations of native species. The petition asserts
that the existing trapping regulations have resulted in the decline of
fisher populations to the present low level by not preventing poaching,
over-trapping, or incidental trapping.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
As stated in the discussion of Factor A, we determine that the
petition and information in our files present substantial information
that listing may be warranted due to the present and potential future
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat from commercial
timber harvest and commercial wood production that prevents succession
to the mature forest stages utilized by fishers, and the transition of
some commercial timber lands to residential and commercial development.
Past forestry practices combined with continued commercial silviculture
may limit the capacity of the NRMs to support fisher and call into
question the effectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms to protect
fishers on public and private lands. The impacts of roads and motorized
access on fishers are not clear. As stated under Factor A, fishers do
not appear to avoid
[[Page 19934]]
roads (Lewis and Stinson 1998, p. 7; Schwartz et al. 2006, p. 6). There
is limited information available to us at this 90-day finding stage to
make conclusions on the adequacy of specific regulatory mechanisms. We
will evaluate the adequacy of existing specific regulatory mechanisms
further during the status review.
Presently, the fisher is considered a sensitive species (Forest
Service Manual 2670.22) in the USFS Regions 1 and 4, including the
States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and a sensitive species by the
Bureau of Land Management (Manual 6840) in Idaho and Montana
(University of Wyoming 2003, entire; IDFG 2005, entire; Montana Natural
Heritage Program 2009, entire). The USFS' Sensitive Species Policy
(USFS Manual (2670.32)) calls upon national forests to assist and
coordinate with States and other Federal agencies in conserving species
with viability concerns. However, the petition presents no specific
information, and we have no information readily available in our files,
that would allow for even a cursory analysis of the adequacy of the
USFS sensitive species designation in preventing the decline of fisher
habitat.
The USFS has managed for old-growth forests under forest plan
direction since the 1990s, but the petition presents no specific
information, and we have no information available in our files,
indicating the effectiveness of this management in protecting or
augmenting old-growth forest types for fisher habitat. We have no
information readily available in our files and the petitioners present
no specific information or references of policy, projects, or
activities that have resulted in a decline of fisher populations or
habitat or intent to cause such effects based on the 2008 changes to
the NFMA regulations (73 FR 21468, April 21, 2008). As the result of a
Federal court decision (Citizens for Better Forestry, et al. v. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, et al., No. C08--1927 CW), the Forest
Service reinstated the NFMA amended planning rule of 2000 and is
reevaluating the 2008 amendment (74 FR 67059, December 18, 2009).
The States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming classify the fisher as a
species of concern, and fisher habitat or viability may be addressed at
some level when State programs or activities are reviewed. However, the
petition presents no specific information, and we have no information
readily available to us, that would allow for even a cursory analysis
of the adequacy of the State species designations in preventing the
decline of fisher or their habitat.
As stated in the discussion of Factor A, the petitioners do not
present specific information about how global climate change has
affected or is likely to affect the fisher in the NRMs in a way that
differs from past climate variability. The petitioners present no
information, nor do we have any information in our files, on the
existence of any regulatory mechanism intended to address climate
change in order to assess its adequacy.
The petitioners assert that the existing trapping regulations have
failed to prevent the decline of fisher populations to their low level
today. In the discussion under Factor B, we determine that the petition
and information in our files presents substantial information that
listing may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial or
recreational purposes. Our determination is based upon the potential
effects of incidental mortality associated with other legal trapping
and the sensitivity of fisher populations to additional mortality. It
is not clear whether the existing regulatory mechanisms for trapping
fisher or other furbearers have failed to prevent the decline of fisher
populations. On the one hand, unregulated over-trapping is implicated
in the reduction in size and extirpation of fisher populations across
the species' range in the past (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 512).
However, habitat protection, and reintroductions and population
augmentations, together with the establishment of trapping regulations
that limit harvest, have helped restore and maintain fisher presence in
many parts of the species' range (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 512),
including the NRMs.
Summary of Factor D
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we determine that the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that listing the fisher in
the NRMs may be warranted due to the inadequacy of regulations
addressing climate change. The level of information that we have at
this 90-day finding stage is unclear as to whether the regulatory
mechanisms pertaining to forestry practices, roads and forest access,
and trapping are inadequate. We will evaluate all factors, including
the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, more thoroughly during
our status review of the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that fishers in the NRMs are vulnerable to
random environmental, demographic, and genetic events based on their
low reproductive rates; tendency toward isolation; dependence on old-
growth forests; and small, isolated populations (69 FR 18770; Jones
1991, p. 88; Roy 1991, pp. 42, 47, 60-61; Powell and Zielinski 1994,
pp. 46-48; Weir 2003, p. 25; Wisely et al. 2004, p. 646). They assert
that past and ongoing trapping, forest practices, and road construction
(as cited in the discussions of Factors A and B), and the undocumented
assertion of human-induced climate change and its resulting outbreaks
of fire, insects, and disease, have contributed to the small size and
isolation of fisher populations. The petitioners also state that
isolation erodes genetic diversity, reduces the ability of populations
to respond to changes in the environment, and could lead to a loss of
the affected populations (Wisely et al. 2004, p. 646).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The impacts of forest practices and trapping are discussed under
Factors A and B. We determined under Factor A that the petition does
not present substantial information, and information in our files is
insufficient to indicate that listing the fisher in the NRMs may be
warranted due to climate change. Predicting local climate trends and
determining how those trends will affect species is uncertain. Without
additional information, the effect of long-term climate change on the
fisher in the NRMs is unclear, and the effect could be neutral, a net
positive, or a net negative.
We find that the effects of small populations are not substantially
supported by information in the petition or readily available in our
files. We recognize that small populations may be vulnerable to genetic
problems, demographic variability, and extreme or catastrophic
environmental events. Fishers are considered one of the lowest-density
carnivores in at least part of the NRMs (Vinkey 2003, p. 61); however,
the petitioners do not present information and no information is
available in our files to determine numbers, trends, or demographic
characteristics of fisher populations in the NRM area.
[[Page 19935]]
Summary of Factor E
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we conclude that the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that listing the fisher may
be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors. However, we will
assess all factors, including this one, more thoroughly during our
status review of the species.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the fisher
population in the NRMs as a DPS may be warranted. This finding is based
on substantial information provided by the petitioners and in our files
for Factors A and B. The information provided under Factors C, D, and E
is not substantial. In considering what factors might constitute
threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively,
the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how
significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms
are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical
proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted.
The information shall contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the fisher in the NRMs under the
Act may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is warranted. As part of our status
review we will examine available information on the threats to the
species and make a final determination in a 12-month finding on whether
the species is warranted for listing as endangered or threatened under
the Act. To ensure that the status review is complete, we are
requesting scientific and commercial information regarding the fisher
in the NRMs (as described above under the Information Requested
section). The petition also asks us to designate critical habitat for
this species. If we determine in our 12-month finding that listing the
fisher in its NRM range is warranted, we will address the designation
of critical habitat in the subsequent proposed listing rule, if we
conclude critical habitat is prudent and determinable.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Montana Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above).
Author
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Montana Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 6, 2010
Daniel M. Ashe
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. 2010-8795 Filed 4-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S