[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60419-60443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23456]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA05
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of fisher (Pekania
pennanti), a mustelid species from California, Oregon, and Washington,
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we
finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections
to this species. The effect of this regulation will be to add this
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: Written Comments: We will accept comments received or postmarked
on or before January 5, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received
by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive
requests for additional public hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by November 21, 2014.
Public Informational Meetings and Public Hearing: We will hold one
public hearing and seven public informational meetings. The public
hearing will be held on:
(1) November 17, 2014, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in Redding,
California.
The seven public informational meetings will be held on:
(2) November 13, 2014, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Yreka,
California.
(3) November 17, 2014, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Medford,
Oregon.
(4) November 20, 2014, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in Arcata,
California.
(5) November 20, 2014, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and another from
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in Lacey, Washington.
(6) December 3, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Visalia,
California.
(7) December 4, 2014, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Turlock,
California.
ADDRESSES: Comment Submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the
Search box, enter the Docket Number for this proposed rule, which is
FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment
Now!'' Please ensure that you have
[[Page 60420]]
found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
(2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Headquarters, MS:
BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
Public Informational Meetings and Public Hearing: We will hold one
public hearing and seven public informational meetings at the locations
listed below:
(1) Redding, California: Red Lion, 1830 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA
96002.
(2) Yreka, California: Best Western Miner's Inn, 122 E. Miner St.,
Yreka, CA 96097.
(3) Medford, Oregon: Rogue Regency Inn, 2300 Biddle Rd., Medford,
OR 97504.
(4) Arcata, California: Arcata Public Library, 500 7th St., Arcata,
CA 95521.
(5) Lacey, Washington: Lacey Community Center, Banquet A, 6729
Pacific Ave. SE., Lacey, WA 98503.
(6) Visalia, California: Visalia Convention Center, 303 E. Acequia
Ave., Visalia, CA 93291.
(7) Turlock, California: California State University, Stanislaus
Campus, Faculty Development Center, Room 118, 1 University Circle,
Turlock, CA 95382.
People needing reasonable accommodation in order to attend and
participate in any of the public informational meetings or the public
hearing should contact Erin Williams, Field Supervisor, Yreka Fish and
Wildlife Office, as soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South
Oregon Street, Yreka, CA 96097, by telephone 530-842-5763 or by
facsimile 530-842-4517. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider
for listing any species, including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, or
plants, or any distinct population segment (DPS) of vertebrate fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature. Critical habitat shall be
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any
species determined to be an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and
designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
This rule will propose the listing of the West Coast DPS of fisher
(Pekania pennanti) as a threatened species. At this time, we have found
the designation of critical habitat to be ``not determinable'' for the
West Coast DPS of fisher. The West Coast DPS of fisher is a candidate
species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal,
but for which development of a listing regulation has been precluded by
other higher priority listing activities. This rule reassesses all
available information regarding status of and threats to the West Coast
DPS of fisher. In addition, this rule requests consideration and
comments on potential alternative DPSs.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the main threats to the
West Coast DPS of fisher are habitat loss from wildfire and vegetation
management; toxicants (including anti-coagulant rodenticides); and the
cumulative and synergistic effects of these and other stressors acting
on small populations.
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider
all comments and information received during the comment period, our
final determination may differ from this proposal.
A team of biologists within the Service prepared a draft Species
Report for the West Coast DPS of fisher (Service 2014, entire). This
draft Species Report represents a compilation of the best scientific
and commercial data available through December 2013 concerning the
status of the species, including the past, present, and future
stressors to this species. The draft Species Report will be peer-
reviewed along with this proposed rule during the comment period. The
draft Species Report and other materials relating to this proposal can
be found on the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office Web site at:
www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/. The draft Species Report can also be found
on http://www.regulations.gov in this docket for this proposal as a
supporting document. Any new information that has become available
since December 2013 or received during the public comment period will
be incorporated, as appropriate, into the final species report. In
addition, if substantial new information since December 2013 is
considered, we may open an additional comment period before the final
rule.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
Because in this proposed rule we are seeking peer review and public
comment of some particularly complex issues with regard to the status
of the species and identification of potential distinct population
segments, we are providing additional background information in
association with several of our questions to aid in understanding the
context for the questions posed. Moreover, again due to the complexity
of the issues under review, we are requesting information as outlined
below to ensure that our final determination is based on the best
scientific and commercial information available. We particularly seek
comments and information concerning:
(1) The West Coast DPS of fisher's historical and current biology,
range, status, distribution, and population size and trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
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;
[[Page 60421]]
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both; and
(f) Data regarding the current status and trend for the extant
native populations in the proposed DPS.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors, including:
(a) Information regarding the magnitude and overall immediacy of
threats; and
(b) Information and data concerning whether the factors that may
affect the continued existence of the species are evenly distributed
across the historical range of the species in Washington, Oregon, and
California.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats, and biological, commercial trade,
or other relevant data indicating actions or factors that may benefit
fishers (such as fuels treatments that reduce the risk of fires).
(4) Scientific or commercial information on the expansion of
populations, especially with respect to verified evidence of
reproduction, including the verified locations of any individuals or
populations of this species not already documented in the draft Species
Report (Service 2014, entire).
(5) Information that may assist the Service in designating habitat
as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
including information as to whether the designation of critical habitat
is prudent and determinable.
(6) Scientific or commercial information concerning the listable
entity defined in this proposed rule, or concerning possible
alternative DPS options as outlined below in the Other DPS Alternatives
section; scientific or commercial information concerning whether a
separate DPS would be appropriate that encompasses the areas where the
West Coast DPS of fisher are considered to be likely extirpated,
although on occasion individual fishers may be detected (Washington and
most of Oregon); and whether it is appropriate to include areas within
a DPS where native fishers are considered to be likely extirpated
(Washington and most of Oregon). The Service is also interested in
comments regarding other potential DPS configurations not outlined in
the Other DPS Alternatives section.
(7) Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to
issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of threatened species. We seek data that support
various management actions and regulations that could be utilized to
develop a potential section 4(d) rule necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of fisher, should it be listed as a
threatened species.
(8) Any additional genetic information that is important to
consider for conservation management of fishers in the proposed DPS or
other potential DPS configurations. In particular, we seek public
comment on scientific information and perspective regarding potential
restoration of connectivity between certain populations of fishers that
was not available at the time of the 2004 Finding (described below
under Previous Federal Actions). We direct the public to the recent
publications of Tucker (2013), Tucker et al. (2012), Knaus et al.
(2011), and the earlier publications of Warheit (2004), Wisely et al.
(2004), and Drew et al. (2003), and we particularly seek comment
regarding:
(a) Whether and how this information that has become available
since the 2004 Finding may result in a different conclusion from that
reached in 2004 regarding the DPS determination and the impact of
population isolation on the fisher's overall conservation status.
(b) Whether genetics in the Northern California-Southwestern Oregon
(NCSO) population should be managed separately from genetics in the
Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN) population, including scientific basis,
and how these data may be used to evaluate alternative DPS
configurations.
(c) Whether genetics of fishers in Oregon and Washington should be
managed separately from genetics in NCSO, including scientific basis,
and how these data may be used to evaluate alternative DPS
configurations.
(d) Whether various reintroduced populations should be managed
based on genetic considerations, including scientific basis.
(9) Scientific data indicating whether the Klamath River, the Rogue
River, and Interstate 5 may act as filters or barriers to fisher
movement between the native NCSO population and the reintroduced
Southern Oregon Cascades (SOC) population, and how these data may be
used to evaluate alternative DPS configurations.
(10) Information regarding the scope and severity of the potential
threat of anti-coagulant rodenticides throughout the proposed DPS as
well as data on potential sublethal effects from disease and toxicants
and scientific or commercial information regarding whether there is a
difference in the scope and severity of rodenticides among NCSO, SSN,
the reintroduced populations, and the rest of the historical range.
(11) Scientific or commercial information regarding the scope and
severity of the potential threat of other causes of direct mortality
(such as vehicle collisions and disease) throughout the proposed DPS
and scientific or commercial information regarding differences in the
scope and severity of these causes of direct mortality among NCSO, SSN,
the reintroduced populations, and the rest of the historical range.
(12) Scientific or commercial information regarding the scope and
severity of the potential threat of wildfire throughout the proposed
DPS; in particular, we are interested in public comment on whether and
how new research that has become available since the 2004 Finding may
affect our evaluation of habitat loss from fire as a potential threat
to fishers; and information on the potential tradeoff in terms of risk
to fishers from habitat loss as a consequence of wildfire and the
potential degradation or removal of habitat by removing structural
forest components utilized by fishers in the course of fuel treatments.
We ask for comment on this issue in the context of information
indicating that climate change is expected to further exacerbate the
loss of habitat in certain areas of the DPS, particularly in the SSN
and NCSO populations, as noted in the draft Species Report. We direct
the public to recent studies indicating that certain populations of
fishers may experience relatively high vulnerability to habitat loss
from wildfires, in turn leading some to recommend evaluating,
prioritizing, and implementing fuels treatment to reduce the amount and
severity of habitat loss (see Scheller et al. 2011, Mallek et al. 2013,
Thompson et al. 2011, Underwood et al. 2010, Truex and Zielinski 2013,
Zielinski 2013a, Zielinski et al. 2013b). In addition, some of these
researchers have suggested that carefully applied treatments to reduce
fire risk may be consistent with maintaining fisher habitat. In the
context of this new information, we are seeking:
(a) Scientific or commercial information to aid in evaluating the
tradeoff between loss of fisher habitat value that may occur when
forests are treated to reduce severity of future fires and the loss of
fisher habitat that occurs
[[Page 60422]]
when untreated stands are consumed by wildfire; and
(b) Scientific or commercial information regarding potential
differences in the scope and severity of wildfire among NCSO, SSN, and
the rest of the historical range.
(13) Scientific or commercial information regarding the scope and
severity of the potential stressor of climate change throughout the
proposed DPS and scientific or commercial information regarding
differences in the scope and severity of climate change among NCSO,
SSN, and the rest of the historical range. We are also seeking
scientific or commercial information regarding how the potential direct
effects of climate change may manifest in fishers throughout the
proposed DPS.
(14) Scientific or commercial information on the scope and severity
of vegetation management on Federal land within the range of the
fisher, but outside the range of the northern spotted owl in California
(we used the northern spotted owl data as a surrogate for fisher data
because we do not have fisher-specific information), and scientific or
commercial information on the type, scope, and severity of vegetation
management (timber harvest, restoration thinning, fuels reduction,
etc.; see draft Species Report for details) on non-Federal land in
Oregon and Washington. The most useful information would be quantified
in terms of acres harvested rather than board-foot volume.
(15) Scientific evaluation of the use of northern spotted owl
habitat data as a surrogate for fisher habitat data, and its use as the
best available data to determine the scope and severity of vegetation
management effects on Federal lands. The Service elected to use
northern spotted owl habitat data as a surrogate for habitat data that
are lacking for fishers because there is a vast amount of information
on northern spotted owl habitat that has been collected, analyzed, and
monitored over the past several decades throughout all but the Sierra
Nevada portion of the proposed DPS for fisher. Northern spotted owls
use habitat types and structural components similar to what fishers
use, but fishers also use some habitat types that are not suitable or
are poor-quality habitat for northern spotted owls. Therefore, we are
seeking comment on:
(a) The strengths and weaknesses of using northern spotted owl
habitat data as a surrogate for fisher data, and whether or not and why
it is an appropriate surrogate; and
(b) Whether or not and why there is another appropriate surrogate
or approach.
(16) Information on the effects of livestock grazing on habitat for
fisher prey within the proposed DPS.
(17) Information to assist in evaluating whether or not the
existing amount and distribution of habitat may be limiting for fishers
within the proposed DPS. We ask for public comment on this issue in the
context of information indicating that there are areas of high- and
intermediate-quality fisher habitat distributed throughout most of the
DPS. At the same time, however, for the most part, existing fisher
populations do not appear to have expanded into nearby unoccupied
habitat. We are seeking scientific data that will help to elucidate our
understanding of the following:
(a) Whether or not the existing amounts and distribution of habitat
are limiting for fishers within the DPS; and
(b) Whether and how the current type and amount of habitat loss
(for example, as a consequence of wildfire, climate change, or various
types of vegetation management) may or may not be a threat to the
persistence of fishers within all or portions of the DPS.
(18) Information to assist in evaluating the magnitude and overall
immediacy of threats to fisher populations within the proposed DPS, or
any of the potential alternative DPSs, in light of new information that
has become available regarding occupancy or abundance of fishers in
specific study areas since the 2004 Finding (Zielinski 2013a; Hamm et
al. 2012; Hiller 2011; Matthews et al. 2011, Hamm et al. 2012).
(19) Comments on the methodology for developing stressor scope and
severity, adequacy in revealing assumptions and uncertainties,
appropriateness of data extrapolations, and applicability and
interpretation of quantitative stressor values in the draft Species
Report.
(20) Information to assist in quantifying habitat recruitment
through ingrowth of intermediate- and high-quality fisher habitat.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles, other publications, or unpublished data
sets) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information
you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information may not meet the standard of information
required section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, which directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hard copy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hard copy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we have sought the
expert opinions of a minimum of five appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is
to ensure that our listing determination and critical habitat
designation are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. The peer reviewers will have expertise in such things as
fisher biology, ecology, and genetics and are concurrently reviewing
the draft Species Report; their review of the proposed rule and draft
Species Report will inform our final determination. We invite comment
from
[[Page 60423]]
the peer reviewers during this public comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 5, 1990, we received a petition from Sierra Biodiversity
Project to list the Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) as
endangered in California, Oregon, and Washington. We published a notice
in the Federal Register (56 FR 1159) on January 11, 1991, stating that,
while the petition provided evidence that the Pacific fisher
represented a potential listable entity (``a distinct population that
interbreeds''--a definition that predates the 1996 policy (61 FR 4722)
regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate populations), it did
not present substantial information indicating that the requested
action may be warranted.
On December 29, 1994, we received a petition from the Biodiversity
Legal Foundation to list two fisher (Martes pennanti) populations in
the western United States (the Coastal Range population in Washington,
Oregon, and California; and the Rocky Mountain population in Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming) as threatened. On March 1, 1996, the Service
published a notice in the Federal Register (61 FR 8016) finding that
the petition did not present substantial information indicating that
the two fisher populations at issue constitute distinct vertebrate
population segments listable under the Act.
On December 5, 2000, we received from the Center for Biological
Diversity and other groups a petition dated November 28, 2000, to list
a DPS of the fisher that includes portions of California, Oregon, and
Washington as an endangered species pursuant to the Act, and to
concurrently designate critical habitat for this distinct population
segment. A court order was issued on April 4, 2003, by the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, that required us to
submit for publication in the Federal Register a 90-day finding on the
November 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 (68 FR 41169) that the petition provided
substantial information that listing may be warranted and initiated a
12-month status review. Through a stipulated order, the court set a
deadline of April 3, 2004, for the Service to make a 12-month finding
under 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). On April 8, 2004, we published a 12-
month status review (69 FR 18769) finding (2004 Finding) that the West
Coast DPS of fisher was warranted for listing, but was precluded by
higher priority actions; through the 2004 Finding, the West Coast DPS
of fisher was added to our candidate species list. Candidates are those
fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a
listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing
activities. The West Coast DPS of fisher was included in all of our
subsequent annual Candidate Notice of Reviews (CNORs) (78 FR 70103,
November 22, 2013; 77 FR 69993, November 21, 2012; 76 FR 66370, October
26, 2011; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 74 FR 57804, November 9,
2009; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 71
FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005). The West
Coast DPS of fisher has a listing priority number of 6, which reflects
a species with threats that are high in magnitude and not imminent.
On June 10, 2007, Sierra Forest Products, Inc., challenged the
Service's April 8, 2004, Finding of warranted but precluded for the
West Coast DPS of the fisher by asserting that the Service violated the
Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to specify whether
the West Coast DPS of the fisher is a DPS of a species or a DPS of a
subspecies (Sierra Forest Products, Inc, v. Kempthorne et al., No.
2:1007-cv-00060-JAM GGH). On June 6, 2008, the Eastern District Court
in California determined the record contained scientific support for
the Service's determination that the West Coast DPS of the fisher is a
DPS of a species and that the Service's determination in this regard
was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
District Court finding by memorandum opinion issued January 6, 2010
(Sierra Forest Products, Inc., v. Kempthorne, et al. (No. 08-16721)).
On April 8, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged
the Service's alleged lack of expeditious progress on pending listing
proposals, and in particular regarding the west coast DPS of fisher,
for species for which the Service had found listing to be warranted but
precluded (Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar (No. 3:10-cv-
01501-JCS)(N.D. California)). This challenge was resolved by stipulated
dismissal and approved by the court on October 5, 2011, based on the
Service's agreement in the context of a larger multidistrict litigation
to submit a proposed rule or a not-warranted finding regarding the West
Coast DPS of fisher to the Federal Register by the end of Fiscal Year
(September 30) 2014 (In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline
Litig., Misc. Action No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C.)).
We published a notice of initiation of status review and
solicitation of new information for the West Coast DPS of fisher in the
Federal Register on March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16828).
Background
Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Based on the November 28, 2000, petition, we considered whether the
potential distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) of fisher as
described by the petitioners meets the definition of a DPS as described
in the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act (DPS
Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
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.
Under the Service's DPS Policy, three elements are considered in
the decision concerning the establishment and classification of a
possible DPS. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
In evaluating the distribution of fisher in the species' West Coast
range, we examined information in published range maps, published works
that included historical occurrences, unpublished studies related to
fisher distribution, and other submitted data. Fisher distribution in
the species' West Coast range is discussed in detail in the
``Distribution'' section of the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp.
23-46). We made a DPS determination in our initial 2004 Finding (April
8, 2004; 69 FR 18769); below we summarize discreteness and significance
for fisher in the species' West Coast range.
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be
[[Page 60424]]
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
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.
(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.
Under the Service's DPS policy, a population segment of a
vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it is either markedly
separate or delimited by international governmental boundaries. All
West Coast populations of fishers are markedly separated from fisher
populations to the east by geographical barriers, unsuitable habitat,
and urban development. The native fisher populations on the West Coast
are separated from native populations to the north by approximately 900
km (560 mi), and it is extremely unlikely that transient individuals
could disperse far enough to provide a functional population connection
between the native NCSO population and Canadian populations. In
addition, the Olympic National Park (ONP) reintroduced population is
also physically isolated from known fisher populations in British
Columbia by 400 km (250 mi) and by urban development in the greater
Seattle/Vancouver area. In summary, fisher populations on the West
Coast in Washington, Oregon, and California are geographically isolated
from all other populations of the species. Therefore, the marked
separation condition for discreteness is met by geographical filters/
barriers, urban development, and distances that are beyond the known
dispersal distance of fishers.
Regarding the international governmental boundaries condition for
discreteness, we conclude that this condition can also be met due to
differences in exploitation, management of habitat, conservation
status, and regulatory mechanisms between the United States and Canada
that collectively play a role in delimiting the northern boundary of
the analysis area along the international border with Canada. These
differences include the United States' land management under the
National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600),
and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1712), which
provide for protection of wildlife habitat; many of the associated
management plans address fisher as a sensitive species (Service 2014,
pp. 117-124). Alternatively, Canada has no overarching forest practice
laws governing management of its national lands similar to those in the
United States. In addition, the fisher can be legally harvested by
licensed trappers under regional regulations in Canada, whereas
trapping the species has been prohibited for decades in Washington,
Oregon, and California (Service 2014, pp. 106-108). Overall, both the
marked separation and international governmental boundary conditions
are met, and they each individually satisfy the discreteness element of
the DPS policy for the fisher in the species' West Coast range.
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 DPSs be used
``sparingly'' (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In
making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of
the DPS'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 population segment's
biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs.
As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), this
consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but
is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or
unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the DPS would result in a significant gap
in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the DPS represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the DPS differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
To be considered significant, a population segment needs to satisfy
only one of these conditions, or other classes of information that
might bear on the biological and ecological importance of a discrete
population segment, as described in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). Three of these criteria are met for the fisher in
the species' West Coast range. We found that loss of the species from
its West Coast range in the United States would represent a significant
loss of the species from a unique ecological setting because fishers in
the West Coast inhabit landscapes dominated by different forest types,
climate, and predator-prey relationships compared to fishers in the
rest of the range of the taxon. We also found that loss of the West
Coast populations of fisher would result in a significant gap in the
range because it would significantly impact representation of the
species by shifting the southern boundary of the taxon more than 1,600
km (994 mi) to the north and would create a significant gap in the
range of the taxon because of its situation at the southern periphery
of the species' range. Finally, we found that populations of fisher in
the species' West Coast range (NCSO and SSN) differ markedly from other
populations of the species in their genetic characteristics because
these native fisher populations on the West Coast are genetically
distinct from fishers in the remainder of North America (for example,
Canada, Rocky Mountains, and Great Lakes) and from each other. As a
result, loss of the fisher in the species' West Coast range would
result in the reduction in the species' genetic diversity. Overall, the
unusual or unique ecological setting, significant gap in the range of
the taxon, and marked genetic differences conditions are met, and they
each individually satisfy the significance element of the DPS policy
for fisher in the species' West Coast range.
Summary of DPS Analysis Regarding Fisher in Its West Coast Range
Given that both the discreteness and the significance elements of
the DPS policy are met for fisher in the species' West Coast range, we
find that the West Coast DPS of fisher is a valid DPS. Therefore, the
West Coast DPS of fisher is a listable entity under the Act, and we now
assess this DPS's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., whether
this DPS meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species
under the Act).
Draft Species Report
We found the West Coast DPS of fisher to be warranted for listing
in 2004 and each subsequent year in the CNOR. Also, we completed a
draft Species Report incorporating new information that has become
available since the 2004
[[Page 60425]]
Finding, including new genetic and survey information. The analysis
area in the draft Species Report covers the range of the 2004 Finding.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60426]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07OC14.000
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of fisher is presented in
the draft Species Report (Service 2014; http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/; http://
[[Page 60427]]
www.regulations.gov). The fisher is a medium-sized light-brown to dark
blackish-brown mammal, with the face, neck, and shoulders sometimes
being slightly gray; the chest and underside often has irregular white
patches. The fisher is classified in the order Carnivora, family
Mustelidae, a family that also includes weasels, mink, martens, and
otters (Service 2014, pp. 8-9). The occurrence of fishers at regional
scales is consistently associated with low- to mid-elevation
environments of coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood forests with
characteristics of late-successional forests (large-diameter trees,
coarse downed wood, and singular features of large snags, tree
cavities, or deformed trees). Historically, fishers were well-
distributed throughout the analysis area in the habitats described
above. In Washington and Oregon, outside of the existing known
populations, fishers are considered likely extirpated (although on
occasion individual fishers may be detected). In California, recent
survey efforts have not detected fishers in the northern Sierra Nevada,
outside of the reintroduced population. Key fisher habitat includes
forests with diverse successional stages containing a high proportion
of mid- and late-successional characteristics. Throughout their range,
fishers are obligate users of tree or snag cavities for denning, and
they select resting sites with characteristics of late-successional
forests. Late-successional forest characteristics are maintained and
recruited in the forest through ecological process such as fire,
insect-related tree mortality, disease, and decay (Service 2014, pp.
13-18).
Fishers are found only in North America, and the West Coast DPS
encompasses the area where fishers historically occurred throughout
western Washington, western Oregon, and California to the Sierra Nevada
(Service 2014, p. 26). Currently, the West Coast DPS of fisher occurs
in two original native populations (Northern California-Southwestern
Oregon Population (NCSO) and the Southern Sierra Nevada Population
(SSN)) and three reintroduced populations (Northern Sierra Nevada
Reintroduced Population (NSN) in California, Southern Oregon Cascades
(SOC) Reintroduced Population in Oregon, and the Olympic Peninsula
Reintroduced Population (ONP) in Washington) (Service 2014, p. 34).
There have been several approaches used to estimate the NCSO population
size in the literature. Based on these various approaches, the NCSO
population estimates range from a total population size of 258 to
4,018. For the SSN, population estimates reveal approximately 300
fishers (Service 2014, pp. 37-42). Regarding the reintroduced
populations, the SOC has persisted for more than 30 years, despite an
apparently small geographic extent, but does not exhibit evidence of
broad-scale population expansion. Both the ONP and the NSN have been
reintroduced within the past 10 years, and it is too early to determine
if the populations will persist. Current indications are encouraging,
but it will take time to determine population trend and stability of
these two new reintroductions (Service 2014, pp. 43-46).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors
affecting its continued existence, as described below. We completed a
comprehensive assessment of the biological status of the West Coast DPS
of fisher, and we prepared a report of the assessment (draft Species
Report), which provides a thorough account of the species' biology and
stressors. In this section, we summarize the information presented in
that assessment (draft Species Report), which can be accessed at Docket
FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041 on http://www.regulations.gov and at http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, and reclassifying species on the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species based on any of the following five
factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
A species is an endangered species for purposes of the Act if it is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and is a threatened species if it is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the West Coast
DPS of fisher in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is summarized below, based on the analysis of
stressors affecting fisher contained in the draft Species Report. In
considering what stressors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the stressor to determine
whether the species responds to the stressor in a way that causes
actual negative impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor
is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds
negatively, the stressor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine the scope, severity, and impact of the potential threat. If
the threat is having a significant impact on the species, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as
those terms are defined by the Act. This determination 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 stressors that could
impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the
Act.
The draft Species Report represents a comprehensive review of the
West Coast DPS of fisher and provides a thorough account of the
species' biology and stressors. In the draft Species Report, we
reviewed and evaluated past, current, and potential future stressors
that may be affecting fishers in the analysis area. For each stressor,
we used the best information available to us to estimate the timing,
scope, and severity of the potential stressor, noting where stressors
may differ regionally (among sub-regions) (Service 2014, pp. 46-51).
The sub-regions analyzed in the draft Species Report include: Coastal
Washington, Western Washington Cascades, and Eastern Washington
Cascades (in Washington); Coastal Oregon, Western Oregon Cascades, and
Eastern Oregon Cascades (in Oregon); Northern California-Southwestern
Oregon (in Oregon and California); and Sierra Nevada (in California)
(Service 2014, p. 47). For the estimations in these sub-regions, we
defined stressors as the activities or processes that have caused,
[[Page 60428]]
are causing, or may cause in the future the destruction, degradation,
or impairment of West Coast fisher populations or their habitat.
The timing is the time period that we can be reasonably certain the
stressor is acting on fisher populations or their habitats. The scope
is the proportion of the fisher analysis area sub-region that can
reasonably be expected to be affected by a stressor within the
appropriate time period of the stressor, given continuation of current
circumstances and trends. The severity is the level of damage to fisher
populations or their habitat (within the scope) that can reasonably be
expected from the stressor within the appropriate period for the given
stressor assuming continuation of current circumstances and trends.
Note that, for the stressors related to habitat, the severity is the
percent of habitat within the scope that is likely to be lost over 40
years, whereas for the stressors related to direct mortality, the
severity is the percent of animals within the scope that are estimated
to die annually. Therefore, a direct comparison cannot be made between
the stressors related to habitat and those related to direct mortality
of fishers. Please refer to the draft Species Report for the time
period over which we analyzed each stressor. The timing (immediacy) of
each stressor was assessed independently based upon the nature of the
stressor and time period that we can be reasonably certain the stressor
is acting on fisher populations or their habitats. In general, we
considered that the trajectories of the stressors acting on fisher
populations within the analysis area could be reasonably anticipated
over the next 40 years (Service 2014, pp. 46-49).
The values and explanations for the scope and severity for each
potential stressor in the draft Species Report reflect our current best
estimate, but we acknowledge that other estimates are also possible.
Depending on the level of data available for each stressor, we made
relative estimates of the impacts of the various stressors discussed
above between sub-regions. In some cases we had empirical data that
supported our estimates (e.g., mortality estimates for some sub-
regions), and in others we extrapolated because we did not have data
available for that area or we extrapolated from other areas. Therefore,
our estimates have the greatest degree of certainty for estimates of
mortality derived from studies in areas with extant populations of
fishers. Estimates derived from extrapolations of data from one sub-
region to another or applied to areas not currently occupied by fishers
have greater uncertainty (for habitat stressors) or are not applicable
(for stressors related to direct mortality). We utilized these
estimates to help us assess the gross level of impact of the various
stressors, rather than as a precise quantification, and we recognize
that we may further refine these estimates upon review of additional
information prior to our final listing determination. Please refer to
the narrative sections for each stressor in the draft Species Report
for important caveats in interpreting scope and severity estimates.
Analysis Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
factors outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act that may affect its
continued existence. In this section, information regarding the status
and threats to this species in relation to the five factors is
summarized below.
All potential stressors currently acting upon the West Coast DPS of
fisher or likely to affect the species in the future are evaluated and
addressed in the draft Species Report; below we consider those
stressors in light of the statutory factors identified above. The
reader is directed to the draft Species Report for a more detailed
discussion of the stressors summarized in this document (http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/).
The draft Species Report evaluated the biological status of the
species and each of the potential stressors affecting its continued
existence (Service 2014, entire). It was based upon the best available
scientific and commercial data and the expert opinion of the draft
Species Report team members. Based on the analyses and discussion
contained therein, in this document we evaluated potential habitat
stressors including wildfire, emergency fire suppression actions, and
post-fire management actions; climate change; current vegetation
management; and human development (Factor A). We also evaluated
potential stressors related to direct mortality of fishers including
trapping and incidental capture, research activities, disease or
predation, collision with vehicles, and exposure to toxicants (Factors
B, C, and E). Finally, we evaluated the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence including direct climate effects and
small population size (Factor E).
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
Wildfire and Fire Suppression
Our evaluation of the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat
included those activities associated with fire suppression that may
result in removal of fisher habitat (for example, backburning, fuel
breaks, and snag removal). For the wildfire and fire suppression
stressor, we found that the naturally occurring fire regimes vary
widely across the analysis area, and, therefore, the effects of
wildfire are also likely to vary geographically. In general, high-
severity fire has the potential to permanently remove suitable fisher
habitat, and is very likely to remove habitat for a period of many
decades while the forest regrows. Moderate-severity fire may also
remove habitat, but likely in smaller patches and for a shorter length
of time. Low-severity fire may reduce some elements of fisher habitat
temporarily, but in general is unlikely to remove habitat.
Fishers' behavioral and population responses to fires are unknown
within the West Coast range, but it seems likely based on fishers
outside of the West Coast range and other related species that large
fires, particularly those of higher severity and larger scale, could
cause shifts in home ranges and movement patterns, lower the fitness of
fishers remaining in the burned area (due to increased predation, for
example), or create barriers to dispersal. Fire suppression actions and
post-fire management have the potential to exacerbate the effects of
wildfire on fisher habitat. Overall, we found that the scope and
severity for this stressor were the highest for the Sierra Nevada and
northern California-southwestern Oregon areas; these are the two areas
where the two remaining original native populations of fishers are
found. Because there is evidence of increasing fire severity in yellow
pine-mixed-conifer forests, which include the majority of fisher
habitat in the Sierra Nevada, the estimate of the severity of stressors
related to wildfire is likely to be an underestimate. Also, because
fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada occurs in a narrow band running
north to south, fires burning at high severity within fisher habitat
have the potential to severely disrupt north-south connectivity of
habitat within the Sierra Nevada which, if lost, could prevent
population expansion. In addition, forests burned at high severity in
this region may be replaced by chaparral or grassland, which may
represent a
[[Page 60429]]
permanent loss of fisher habitat. The fire regime in northern
California and southwestern Oregon is historically extremely variable,
as is the forest composition within this region. In forests with a
large hardwood or redwood component, post-fire stump-sprouting may
speed the recovery of fisher habitat. However, fisher habitat is highly
fragmented in many parts of northern California and southwestern
Oregon, and even temporary losses of habitat may impede dispersal and
increase fragmentation of the resident fisher population. Throughout
most of Oregon and Washington, the scope and severity for this stressor
were lower than the Sierra Nevada and northern California-southwestern
Oregon areas; however, high-severity fires that remove fisher habitat
have the potential to further disrupt habitat connectivity and
availability (Service 2014, pp. 57-71).
We consider wildfire and fire suppression to be a threat to fisher
habitat now and in the future because the frequency and size of
wildfires is increasing; we expect this trend to continue into the
future; and based on fishers outside of the West Coast range and other
related species, we predict that large fires (particularly those of
higher severity and larger scale) will cause shifts in home ranges and
movement patterns, lower the fitness of fishers remaining in the burned
area, and create barriers to dispersal. We consider fire and fire
suppression to be particularly problematic in the SSN because of the
narrow band of habitat that comprises SSN and the small population
size. The degree to which fire-related effects impact NCSO is lower
than SSN because the NCSO does not exist in a narrow band of habitat
but rather covers a larger area. However, fire and fire suppression
will likely have a negative effect on NCSO because fire will decrease
connectivity in the highly fragmented habitat of NCSO. It is difficult
to fully determine the impact at NCSO because the locations and
severities of future fires relative to important habitat components are
not known at this time. In Washington and areas of Oregon outside of
NCSO, the effect of fire in scope and severity is lower than the other
areas, and much of this area is considered to be unoccupied. Fire in
these areas is likely to have a negative impact on existing fisher
populations only if they occur within or in proximity to occupied
areas; however, as with NCSO, it is difficult to fully determine the
potential impact because the locations and severities of future fires
relative to important habitat components are not known at this time.
Climate Change
Climate change is ongoing, and its effects on fisher habitat are
already occurring in some areas and are likely to increase and become
more readily perceptible in the future. Overall, fisher habitat is
likely to be affected by climate change, but the severity will vary,
potentially greatly, among different regions, with effects to fishers
ranging from negative, neutral, or potentially beneficial. Climate
change is likely to affect fisher habitat by altering the structure and
tree species composition of fisher habitat, and also through the
changes to habitat of prey communities and ultimately on prey
availability. These effects may cause mortality, decrease reproductive
rates, alter behavioral patterns, or lead to range shifts. However,
studies of climate change present a range of effects including some
that indicate conditions could remain suitable for fisher. Climate
throughout the analysis area is projected to become warmer over the
next century, and in particular, summers will be hotter and drier, with
more frequent heat waves. In the northern portion of the analysis area,
winters will likely become wetter, but even these areas will likely
experience increased water deficits during the growing season. Modeling
projections are done at a large scale, and effects to species can be
complex, unpredictable, and highly influenced by local-level biotic and
abiotic factors. Although many climate models generally agree about the
changes in temperature and precipitation, the consequent effects on
vegetation are more uncertain. Therefore, it is not clear how changes
in forest type, species composition, or growth rate will affect the
availability of fisher habitat and its ability to support fisher
populations (Service 2014, pp. 71-84). Consequently, at this time,
climate change is not viewed as a threat to fisher habitat now or in
the future, although we will continue to seek additional information
concerning how climate change may affect fisher habitat.
Vegetation Management
Vegetation management techniques of the past (primarily timber
harvest) have been implicated as one of the two primary causes for
fisher declines across the United States. Many fisher researchers have
suggested that the magnitude and intensity of past timber harvest is
one of the main reasons fishers have not recovered in Washington,
Oregon, and portions of California, as compared to the northeastern
United States (Service 2014, pp. 54-56). Current vegetation management
techniques have, and can, substantially modify the overstory canopy,
the numbers and distribution of structural elements, and the ecological
processes that create them. There are also areas where habitat may not
be the limiting factor for current or potential fisher populations and
where habitat is being managed intentionally or incidentally in ways
that benefit fisher. For example, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP),
which was adopted by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in 1994 to guide the management of more than 24
million ac (9.7 million ha) of Federal lands in Washington, Oregon, and
northwestern California within the range of the northern spotted owl,
provides the basis for conservation of the spotted owl and other late-
successional and old-growth forest associated species, such as fisher,
on Federal lands. The NWFP incorporates seven land allocations
(Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late Successional Reserves, Adaptive
Management Areas, Managed Late Successional Areas, Administratively
Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves, and Matrix). Much of the NWFP area
currently provides fisher habitat, which is expected to increase over
time. The Matrix, which represents only 16 percent of the Federal land
within the NWFP area, is the Federal land outside the other six NWFP
land allocations and is the area in which most timber harvest and other
silvicultural activities will be conducted. Late Successional Reserves
(LSRs), which cover 30 percent of the NWFP area, are expected, in
combination with the other allocations and standards and guidelines, to
maintain a functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth
forest ecosystem and are designed to serve as habitat for late-
successional and old-growth related species including fishers.
Scheduled timber harvest is prohibited from LSRs.
In order to evaluate the current vegetation management stressor on
Federal land, we used data on harvest of northern spotted owl habitat
as a surrogate for the amount of habitat removed or downgraded, which
occurs mostly on Matrix lands, by current vegetation management
activities. Because of the similarity between fisher and northern
spotted owl habitat requirements, we determined this to be one of the
best sources of data to evaluate the potential effects of vegetation
management on loss of fisher habitat on Federal lands throughout the
analysis area. We used timber harvest
[[Page 60430]]
acreage data, approved Timber Harvest Plans, and consultations to
evaluate the stressor of current vegetation management on fisher
habitat.
Our estimates revealed that the total scope of vegetation
management (Federal and non-Federal combined) is the highest in the
Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges, likely due to the prevalence of
non-Federal land ownership in these sub-regions, where timber harvest
rates are substantially higher than on Federal lands (where harvest
rates have substantially declined over the past two decades); the
lowest values for total scope (Federal and non-Federal combined) were
in the Western Oregon Cascades and Sierra Nevada. Overall, we note that
the scope for non-Federal areas is higher than the scope for Federal
areas in all sub-regions. We estimated severity values separately for
the Federal and non-Federal portions of the sub-regions. Because we
derived the scope of vegetation management by identifying the removal
or downgrading of habitat, we ascribed high severity values (60 to 80
percent) for most regions and ownerships within the scope. Data
limitations in most sub-regions prevented us from quantifying what
proportion of the treatments in the data sets we used may be outside
the scope of habitat loss or downgrade (for example, may include
vegetation management activities that may still function as fisher
habitat post-treatment), so the severity scores represent our best
estimate and are a relatively broad range to incorporate this
uncertainty. However, additional data for Federal lands in Washington
allowed us to ascribe lower severity values for this ownership in these
sub-regions. Landscapes with reduced canopy cover may affect fisher by
providing decreased protection from predation, raising the energy costs
of traveling between foraging sites, and providing unfavorable
microclimate and decreased abundance or vulnerability of preferred prey
species (Service 2014, pp. 84-92).
In analyzing stressors related to habitat loss, we only assessed
stressors resulting in habitat loss. We did not account for ingrowth of
fisher habitat over our 40-year analysis timeframe and, therefore,
provide no values for net habitat loss, although we do acknowledge
ingrowth is occurring, primarily on Federal lands (Service 2014, pp.
84-92).
We found that vegetation management is a threat because activities
that remove or substantially degrade fisher habitat through the removal
of large structures and overstory canopy are projected to take place
within the analysis area over the next 40 years. For the Sierra Nevada,
over half of the sub-region is within Federal ownership with less than
1 percent of fisher habitat expected to be treated by vegetation
management that downgrades or removes habitat. Within the Sierra
Nevada, 15 percent of fisher habitat is expected to be affected by non-
Federal vegetation management that downgrades or removes habitat. For
the northwest California-southwest Oregon sub-region, just under half
of the sub-region is within Federal ownership with 1 percent of fisher
habitat expected to be treated by vegetation management that downgrades
or removes habitat. Within the northwest California-southwest Oregon
sub-region, 22 percent of fisher habitat is expected to be affected by
non-Federal vegetation management that downgrades or removes habitat.
In Washington and areas of Oregon outside of NCSO, vegetation
management on Federal lands that downgrades or removes habitat in most
sub-regions is less than 2 percent of fisher habitat, although the
Western Oregon Cascades and Eastern Oregon Cascades range from 5 to 10
percent of fisher habitat. In Washington and areas of Oregon outside of
NCSO, 14 to 37 percent of fisher habitat is expected to be affected by
non-Federal vegetation management that downgrades or removes habitat.
The type of vegetation management and where it occurs is important
to understanding the impacts to fishers. Vegetation management that
removes important habitat elements (such as den sites and canopy cover)
has a greater effect on fishers than activities that maintain these
elements. Vegetation management in or near occupied habitat
(particularly where habitat is fragmented or connectivity is limited)
would have a greater effect on fishers than actions outside of occupied
habitat. The SSN is particularly sensitive to the location and type of
vegetation management because of the narrow band of habitat that
comprises SSN and the small population size. Vegetation management will
likely have a negative effect on NCSO because vegetation management
will decrease connectivity in the highly fragmented habitat of NCSO. In
Washington and areas of Oregon where the reintroductions have occurred,
the effect of vegetation management is less of a concern because
habitat occurs in large contiguous blocks. Outside of these areas, much
of the fisher habitat in Washington and Oregon is considered to be
unoccupied. Although vegetation management outside of occupied areas is
less likely to have a negative impact on the viability of existing
fisher populations, the maintenance of fisher habitat in these areas is
important for future expansion. Maintenance of fisher habitat
throughout the analysis area is additionally influenced by the
differences in regulatory mechanisms among the different ownerships
(see factor D below).
Development
The draft Species Report revealed that human population density
within the analysis area varies considerably, but all areas appear to
be increasing. Human population growth within the analysis area will
increase needs for housing, services, transportation, and other
infrastructure, placing ever-greater demands on land, water, and other
natural resources. Specifically, human infrastructure growth includes
recreational opportunities such as ski area developments, vacation
cabins, trails, and campgrounds. Besides permanently removing potential
fisher habitat, human developments in rural areas are changing land use
from forest to other land cover types, which can fragment previously
continuous habitat or hamper fisher movements. Overall, human
developments associated with population growth will have an increasing
impact on fisher habitat into the future, but the severity varies
depending on the type and location of development. The scope of the
human development stressor is relatively low throughout the analysis
area, but the higher severity values were in the Sierra Nevada, Coastal
Washington, and Western Washington Cascades. Within much of the
analysis area, human development is generally considered to be of
relatively low concern for fishers and occurs at relatively small
spatial scales in forested landscapes (Service 2014, pp. 92-96).
Consequently, we do not consider development to be a threat to fish
habitat now or in the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Trapping
Unregulated historical trapping appears to have been the primary
initial cause of fisher population losses in the Pacific States. The
effects of current trapping, which are limited to incidental capture
and an unknown amount of poaching, are significantly reduced compared
to the previous effects of widespread unregulated legal trapping of
fishers. Overall, we found that the severity of the potential stressor
of trapping and incidental capture is extremely low throughout the
analysis
[[Page 60431]]
area (Service 2014, pp. 106-108), and therefore, do not consider
trapping to be a threat to the fisher now or in the future.
Research
Although scientific research is necessary to understand the various
aspects of a species' life-history needs and population status, some
research techniques have potential risks to the individual animal
including injury and mortality. Current research and monitoring efforts
vary greatly by sub-region within the analysis area. The draft Species
Report revealed extremely low to nonexistent scope and severity for the
research activity stressor throughout the analysis area (Service 2014,
pp. 109-112). We conclude that research is not a threat to the
continued existence of fisher, now or in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Several viral and bacterial diseases are known to affect mustelids,
including fishers, but it is unclear how these diseases affect wild
populations of fishers. Potential predators of fishers include mountain
lions, bobcats, coyotes, and large raptors. Disease and predation are
stressors related to direct mortality of fishers, and, as described
above, they cannot be directly compared with the stressors related to
habitat (for habitat stressors, the severity is the percent of habitat
within the scope that is likely to be lost over 40 years, whereas for
the stressors related to direct mortality, the severity is the percent
of animals within the scope that are estimated to die annually). The
potential stressors of disease and predation occur throughout the
analysis area. The draft Species Report reveals that, where data exist
to evaluate severity for the group of direct mortality stressors, the
severity of predation throughout the analysis area is higher than that
of disease (Service 2014, pp. 112-116). Disease and predation are
naturally occurring sources of mortality (although the associated
mortality rates may be increased by human-caused factors such as
climate change or vegetation management; see Synergistic effects
section below), and although they are the most prevalent sources of
direct mortality among individual fishers within the study areas for
which we have information, it is unknown how disease and predation
rates influence fisher population trends in general (Service 2014, pp.
112-116 and 167-169). We do not consider disease or predation to be
threats to the fisher, now or in the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
In the draft Species Report, we evaluated the potential for an
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and we found that there
are many existing regulatory mechanisms that provide a benefit to
fishers and their habitat. For example, trapping regulations have
substantially reduced fisher mortality throughout the analysis area.
There are places in the analysis area where forest management practices
are explicitly applied to benefit fishers or other species with many
similar habitat requirements, such as the northern spotted owl. In
addition, some habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are in place and are
intended to provide a benefit to fishers and their habitat. Also,
fisher is a candidate species under the California Endangered Species
Act, and take under that law is prohibited, at least until the
California Fish and Wildlife Commission makes a final determination on
the listing status of fishers.
Take of fishers in Oregon is also prohibited through its
designation as a protected nongame species, although the definition of
take under Oregon law is different from the definition of take under
the Act. The fisher is State-listed as endangered in Washington, where
poaching is prohibited and environmental analyses need to occur for
projects that may affect fishers. State and Federal regulatory
mechanisms have abated the large-scale loss of fishers to trapping and
loss of fisher habitat, especially on Federal land (Service 2014, pp.
117-141). Rodenticides are regulated under Federal and State laws.
However, it is not clear how well those regulations prevent fishers
from exposure to legal uses of these rodenticides. Fishers are also
exposed to rodenticides used illegally (as discussed below).
Federal Regulatory Mechanisms
Forest Service and BLM
There are a number of Federal agency regulations that pertain to
management of fisher (and other species and habitat). Most Federal
activities must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA requires Federal
agencies to formally document, consider, and publicly disclose the
environmental impacts of major Federal actions and management decisions
significantly affecting the human environment. NEPA does not regulate
or protect fishers, but requires full evaluation and disclosure of the
effects of Federal actions on the environment. Other Federal
regulations affecting fishers are the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act
of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) and the National Forest
Management Act of 1976, as amended (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
NFMA specifies that the Forest Service must have a land and
resource management plan to guide and set standards for all natural
resource management activities on each National Forest or National
Grassland. In addition, the fisher has been identified as a sensitive
species by the Forest Service throughout the analysis area. BLM
management is directed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, as amended 43 U.S.C. 1704 et seq.). This legislation provides
direction for resource planning and establishes that BLM lands shall be
managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. This
law directs development and implementation of resource management
plans, which guide management of BLM lands at the local level. Fishers
are also designated as a sensitive species throughout the analysis area
on BLM lands.
In addition, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) was adopted by the
Forest Service and BLM in 1994 to guide the management of more than 24
million ac (9.7 million ha) of Federal lands in portions of western
Washington and Oregon and northwestern California within the range of
the northern spotted owl. The NWFP Record of Decision amends the
management plans of National Forests and BLM Districts and is intended
to provide the basis for conservation of the spotted owl and other
late-successional and old-growth forest associated species on Federal
lands. The NWFP is important for fishers because it created a network
of late-successional and old-growth forests (late-successional
reserves, or LSRs) that currently provide fisher habitat, and the
amounts of habitat are expected to increase over time. Also, the
National Forest and BLM units with anadromous fish watersheds provide
riparian habitat conservation area buffers on either side of a stream,
depending on the stream type and size. With limited exceptions, timber
harvesting is generally not permitted in riparian habitat conservation
areas, and the additional protection guidelines provided by National
Forests and BLM may provide refugia and connectivity among more
substantive blocks of fisher habitat.
Rodenticide Regulatory Mechanisms
The threats posed to fishers from the use of rodenticides are
described below,
[[Page 60432]]
under Factor E. In the draft Species Report, we analyzed whether
existing regulatory mechanisms are able to address the threats to
fishers posed from both legal and illegal use of rodenticides. As
described in the draft Species Report, the use of rodenticides is
regulated by several federal and state mechanisms (e.g., Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947, as amended,
(FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; California Final Regulation Designating
Brodifacoum, Bromadiolone, Difenacoum, and Difethialone (Second
Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticide Products) as Restricted Materials,
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2014). The primary
regulatory issue for fishers with respect to rodenticides is the
availability of large quantities of rodenticides that can be purchased
under the guise of legal uses, but are then used illegally in marijuana
grows within fisher habitat. However, amounts of rodenticides
commercially available for legal use are above those that could be
expected to kill or harm individual fishers. Both EPA, through its 2008
Risk Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides (EPA 2008, entire) which
issued new legal requirements for the labelling, packaging and sale of
second generation anticoagulants, and California's Department of
Pesticide Regulation, through a new rule effective in July 2014, which
restricts access to second generation anticoagulants, are attempting to
reduce the risk posed by second generation anticoagulants. However, at
present, it is not clear that these mechanisms have yet been effective
in addressing the threat of rodenticide and its effects on fishers.
National Park Service
Statutory direction for the 1.6 million ha (4 million ac) of
National Park Service lands in the analysis area is provided by
provisions of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the National Park Service General Authorities
Act of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1). Land management plans for the National
Parks within the West Coast analysis area do not contain specific
measures to protect fishers, but areas not developed specifically for
recreation and camping are managed toward natural processes and species
composition and are expected to maintain fisher habitat. In addition,
hunting and trapping are generally prohibited in National Parks (16
U.S.C. 127).
Tribal Lands
Several tribes in the analysis area recognize fishers as a
culturally significant species, but only a few tribes have fisher-
specific guidelines in their forest management plans. Some tribes,
while not managing their lands for fishers explicitly, manage for
forest conditions conducive to fisher (for example, marbled murrelet
habitat, old-forest structure restoration). Trapping is typically
allowed on most reservations and tribal lands, and is frequently
restricted to tribal members. Whereas a few tribal governments trap
under existing State trapping laws, most have enacted trapping laws
under their respective tribal codes. However, trapping is not known to
be a common occurrence on any of the tribal lands.
State Regulatory Mechanisms
Washington
The fisher is listed as endangered in Washington (Washington
Administrative Code 232-12-014, Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020 WSR
98-23-013 (Order 98-232), Sec. 232-12-014, filed 11/6/98, effective
12/7/98). This designation imposes stringent fines for poaching and
establishes a process for environmental analysis of projects that may
affect the fisher. The primary regulatory mechanism on non-Federal
forest lands in western Washington is the Washington State Forest
Practices Rules, title 222 of the Washington Administrative Code. These
rules apply to all commercial timber growing, harvesting, or processing
activities on non-Federal lands, and they give direction on how to
implement the Forest Practices Act (Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
76.09) and Stewardship of Non-Industrial Forests and Woodlands (RCW
76.13). The rules are administered by the Washington Department of
Natural Resources. The Washington State Forest Practices Rules do not
specifically address fishers and their habitat requirements; however,
some habitat components important to fishers, like snags, downed wood,
and canopy cover, are likely to be retained in riparian management
zones as a result of the rules. Land conversion from forested to non-
forested uses is interrelated to private timber harvest, but is
primarily regulated by individual city and county ordinances that are
influenced by Washington's Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70a). In some
cases, these ordinances result in maintaining forested areas within the
range of the fisher.
Oregon
In Oregon, the fisher is a protected nongame species (Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 635-044-0130). In addition, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife does not allow trapping of fishers in
Oregon. Although fishers can be injured and/or killed by traps set for
other species, known fisher captures are infrequent. State parks in
Oregon are managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and
many State parks in Oregon may provide forested habitats suitable for
fisher. The Oregon Forest Practice Administrative Rules (OAR chapter
629, division 600) and Forest Practices Act (Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS) 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990(1) and 527.992) (Oregon Department of
Forestry 2010a, entire) apply to all non-Federal and non-Tribal lands
in Oregon, regulating activities that are part of the commercial
growing and harvesting of trees, including timber harvesting, road
construction and maintenance, slash treatment, reforestation, and
pesticide and fertilizer use. The OAR provides additional guidelines
intended for conserving soils, water, fish and wildlife habitat, and
specific wildlife species while engaging in tree growing and harvesting
activities, and these rules may retain some structural features (i.e.,
snags, green trees, downed wood) that contribute to fisher habitat.
There are approximately 821,000 ac (332,300 ha) of State forestlands
within the analysis area that are managed by the Oregon Department of
Forestry, and management of these State forest lands are guided by
forest management plans. Managing for the structural habitats as
described in these plans should increase habitat for fishers on State
forests.
California
Fishers are a Candidate Species in California, and take, under the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) definition, is prohibited
during the candidacy period. The California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) is evaluating the status of the species for possible
listing as a threatened or endangered species under the CESA. Thus,
protection measures for fishers are in effect in California at this
time, but the duration of that protection is uncertain. In addition, it
is illegal to intentionally trap fishers in California. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) can provide protections for a species
that, although not listed as threatened or endangered, meets one of
several criteria for rarity (CEQA 15380). Fishers meet these criteria,
and under CEQA a lead agency can require that
[[Page 60433]]
adverse impacts be avoided, minimized, or mitigated for projects
subject to CEQA review that may impact fisher habitat. All non-Federal
forests in California are governed by the State's Forest Practice Rules
(FPR) under the Z'Berg Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, a set of
regulations and policies designed to maintain the economic viability of
the State's forest products industry while preventing environmental
degradation. FPRs do not contain rules specific to fishers, but they
may provide some protection for fishers.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Vehicle Collisions
Regarding the potential stressor of collision with vehicles, roads
are sources of vehicle-collision mortality of fishers and disrupt
habitat continuity, particularly in high-use, high-speed areas.
Collision with vehicles is a stressor related to direct mortality of
fishers. In the draft Species Report, we found that collision with
vehicles has the potential to be a stressor to extant fisher
populations. Collision with vehicles is not a naturally occurring
source of mortality, and where we had data to evaluate this stressor,
the severity of this stressor is likely lower than that of the
naturally occurring stressors of disease and predation, but higher than
the current mortality from human-caused trapping (Service 2014, pp.
144-146). Overall, the scope of the vehicle collision stressor is high
within all occupied areas. The severity of this stressor ranges from 1
to 4 percent of the population that dies annually from this stressor.
At this time, we conclude that vehicle collisions are not a threat to
fisher, although, over time, the impact of this stressor on fishers
will likely accumulate and act synergistically with other stressors to
impact fishers where they occur.
Climate Change
The draft Species Report describes the potential stressor of direct
climate effects to fishers as ongoing and likely to become more
pronounced in the future as warming increases. In addition to the
climate change effects to fisher habitat discussed above, some
researchers have suggested climate change may cause direct effects to
fishers potentially including increased mortality, decreased
reproductive rates, or alterations in behavioral patterns, in addition
to range shifts. Fishers may be especially sensitive, physiologically,
to warming summer temperatures. These observations suggest that fishers
likely will either alter their use of microhabitats or shift their
range northward and upslope, in order to avoid thermal stress
associated with increased summer temperatures. However, we do not have
sufficient data to reliably predict the effect on fisher populations at
this time (Service 2014, pp. 146-148).
Exposure to Toxicants
The draft Species Report describes the potential stressor of
exposure to toxicants. Recent research documenting mortalities from
anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) in California fisher populations has
raised concerns regarding both individual and population-level impacts
of toxicants within the fisher's range in the Pacific States. Exposure
to ARs, resulting in death in some cases, has been documented in
fishers. ARs impair the animal's ability to produce several key blood
clotting factors, and anticoagulant exposure is manifested by such
conditions as bleeding nose and gums, extensive bruises, anemia,
fatigue, and difficulty breathing. Anticoagulants also damage the small
blood vessels, resulting in spontaneous and widespread hemorrhaging. In
addition, sublethal exposure to ARs likely results in sickness, which
may increase the probability of mortality from other sources, and
multiple studies have demonstrated that sublethal exposure to ARs or
organophosphates may impair an animal's ability to recover from
physical injury. A sublethal dose of AR can produce significant
clotting abnormalities and hemorrhaging.
Within the Pacific States, AR exposure in fishers appears to be
widespread, and has been documented in all extant fisher populations in
California. Fishers from the reintroduced ONP population also exhibit
AR exposure. Because most of the fishers that were tested were captured
and relocated from British Columbia, it is unknown whether these
animals were exposed before or after their translocation to the Olympic
Peninsula. A comparison of the areas where ARs are reported as being
applied under labeled uses in California in relation to areas that are
supportive of fisher habitats demonstrates legal applications of ARs
are not likely the source for the ARs that have been observed in
fishers by researchers. Although all sources of AR exposure in fishers
have not been conclusively determined, large quantities of ARs have
been found at illegal marijuana cultivation sites within occupied
fisher habitat on public, private, and tribal lands in California. The
proximity of a large number of marijuana cultivation sites to fisher
populations in California and southwestern Oregon and the lack of other
probable sources of ARs within occupied fisher habitat have led
researchers to implicate marijuana cultivation sites as the source of
AR exposure in fishers. In addition, ARs have been detected in a
majority of fisher carcasses tested in Washington and California, and
ARs have been determined as the direct cause of death for some fisher
mortalities in California. However, it is not known if AR exposure in
fisher carcasses represents the proportion of live fishers exposed,
especially considering the potential sublethal effects of ARs that may
predispose them to mortality.
We found that the scope of the toxicant stressor was best reflected
by a range of values and varied by sub-region, due to differences in
format of available data or the lack thereof. Where we had data
available to evaluate, the severity of the toxicant stressor was
comparable to disease throughout the analysis area, although we note
that disease is a naturally occurring stressor and toxicants are a
human-caused stressor. We based our severity estimates on mortality
rates alone, but we acknowledge that these values likely underrepresent
the population-level effects when considering research conclusions
regarding sublethal levels of rodenticides and other toxicants in a
wide variety of animal species (Service 2014, pp. 149-166).
We view toxicants as a newly identified threat because of reported
mortalities of fishers from toxicants and a variety of potential
sublethal effects. Most fisher carcasses tested in SSN, NCSO, and ONP
have ARs in their tissues, but we do not know the exposure rate of live
fishers. In addition, the minimum amount of AR required for sublethal
or lethal poisoning of fishers is currently unknown; however, we do
have evidence or fisher mortality and sublethal effects as a result of
ARs. Overall, ARs are likely a threat to fisher populations, although
we do not have information about the population-level effects at this
point in time.
Small Population Size
A principle of conservation biology is that small, isolated
populations are subject to an increased risk of extinction from
stochastic (random) environmental, genetic, or demographic events.
Fishers appear to have several characteristics related to small
population size that increase the species' vulnerability to extinction
from stochastic events and other threats on the landscape. Extremely
small
[[Page 60434]]
populations of low-density carnivores, like fishers, are more
susceptible to small increases in mortality factors due to their
relatively low fecundity and low natural population densities. Fishers
may also be prone to instability in population sizes in response to
fluctuations in prey availability. Low reproductive rates retard the
recovery of populations from declines, further increasing their
vulnerability. These factors together imply that fishers are highly
prone to localized extirpation, their colonizing ability is somewhat
limited, and their populations are slow to recover from deleterious
impacts. A scarcity of verifiable sightings in the Western and Eastern
Cascades in Washington and Oregon, coastal Oregon, and the north and
central sections of the Sierra Nevada indicates that populations of
fishers in southwestern Oregon and California are isolated from fishers
elsewhere in North America. Fishers in the analysis area are currently
restricted to two extant native populations and three reintroduced
populations, most of which are known to be small in size. In general,
researchers have identified the greatest long-term risk to fishers as
the isolation of small populations and the higher risk of extinction
due to stochastic events (Service 2014, pp. 147-149). We conclude that
small population size constitutes a threat to fisher, now and in the
future.
Measures To Reduce the Stressors Related to Habitat or Range
As described in detail in the draft Species Report (Service 2014,
pp. 100-105), the fisher is a covered species under the Act in six HCPs
within Washington and California (five in Washington and one in
California). The species is currently known to occur on lands
encompassed by three California HCPs (two that do not cover fisher and
one that does) and two Washington HCPs (one that does not cover fisher,
and one that does). Should fisher become listed and for purposes of
section 10(a)(1)(B), these HCPs include permitted incidental take, and
in covering fisher, they are deemed to minimize and mitigate take and
not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of
the fisher. Nearly all of the HCPs in California that cover areas of
fisher habitat occur in the northwestern portion of the State and are
focused on northern spotted owls. Most of the fisher habitat on private
lands in California is not currently covered under any HCPs. Several
HCPs that do not include fishers as a covered species do provide
ancillary benefits because they focus on providing habitat for species
such as northern spotted owls and anadromous salmonids that provide
some of the habitat conditions beneficial for fisher. These HCPs
require maintenance of relatively intact mature forested habitats along
streams, where fishers may also be present. By preserving or developing
components of habitat structure, these HCPs may benefit fishers above
and beyond what would otherwise be required by forest practice
regulations in individual States. However, the size and amounts of
structural components retained (for example, downed wood, snags, live
trees) are less than what are typically found in fisher habitat. Other
HCPs have resulted in the retention of large blocks of habitat that may
provide refugia for fishers in areas that may otherwise not be
conducive to fisher conservation. The fisher is not a covered species
under any HCPs in Oregon (Service 2014, pp. 100-102).
Regarding other conservation measures, a Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances is in place for the fisher in the Sierra
Nevada for management of fisher denning and resting habitat (Service
2014, p. 102). In addition, a draft Interagency Conservation Strategy
was created, but not finalized and, therefore, is not being implemented
throughout the analysis area. Components of this strategy are, however,
being used by Region 5 of the U.S. Forest Service, as well as the
Service, to further fisher conservation (Service 2014, pp. 102-103). A
State of Washington Fisher Recovery Plan was completed in 2006 that
outlines strategies that seek to restore self-sustaining fisher
populations to the three recovery areas identified in Washington: the
Olympic Mountains, the South Cascade Mountains, and the North Cascade
Mountains (Service 2014, pp. 102-103). The ONP reintroduction occurred
within the Olympic Mountains recovery area under this Recovery Plan,
and, at this point in time, a second reintroduction is in the planning
stages for the North and South Cascade Mountains in Washington.
Finally, on December 4, 2012, the Service designated revised
critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (77 FR 71876) in
California, Oregon, and Washington, and all of this critical habitat is
within the range of the West Coast DPS of fisher. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the northern
spotted owl likely provide ancillary benefit to fishers and fisher
habitat that occur within designated northern spotted owl critical
habitat. Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the
Act, requiring that Federal agencies consult with the Service to ensure
that their actions will not likely result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. In practice in this area, Federal
agencies implement a form of section 7 consultation, ``Streamlined
Consultation,'' where working together the Service and other Federal
agencies can develop projects that minimize effects to critical habitat
and thereby help to meet the Federal agencies' responsibilities to
conserve species and their critical habitat. Thus, implementation of
projects within northern spotted owl designated critical habitat often
focuses on retaining many of the forest types and structural elements
important to fishers and that constitute fisher habitat (for example,
canopy closure, large trees, and vegetation diversity) (Service 2014,
pp. 103-105).
Synergistic Effects
We took into consideration all of the stressors operating within
the five disjunct populations of fishers (four small populations and
one with population size estimates ranging from 258 to 4,018); these
populations are reduced in size due to historical trapping and past
loss of late-successional habitat and, therefore, are more vulnerable
to extinction from random events and increases in mortality. We
evaluated the potential for cumulative and synergistic (combination of)
effects of multiple stressors in the draft Species Report, although we
were unable to quantify the scope and severity of synergistic effects
and the variation of these effects between sub-regions. However, just
as stressors are not occurring in equal scope and severity across the
analysis area, it is reasonable to conclude that cumulative and
synergistic effects from these stressors are occurring more in some
sub-regions than others. Some examples of the synergistic effects of
multiple stressors on fisher include:
Alterations to habitat, which may increase fishers'
vulnerability to predation (Factors A and C);
Sublethal exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides may
increase the death rates from predation, vehicle collisions, disease,
or intraspecific conflict (Factors C and E);
Stressors associated with climate change, such as
increased risk of fire and forest disease, and environmental impacts of
human development that will likely interact to cause large-scale
ecotype conversion including shifts away from fisher habitat types,
which could impact the viability of populations and reduce the
likelihood
[[Page 60435]]
of reestablishing connectivity (Factors A and E);
Increases in disease caused by climate change (Factors A,
C, and E); and
Human development, which is likely to cause increases in
vehicle collisions, conflicts with domestic animals, and infections
contracted from domestic animals (Factors A, C, and E).
Depending on the scope and severity of each of the stressors and
how they combine cumulatively and synergistically, these stressors can
be of particular concern where populations are small and isolated.
Cumulative and synergistic stressors will be increasingly important in
the 21st century, particularly in areas not managed for retention and
recruitment of fisher habitat attributes, areas sensitive to climate
change, and areas where direct mortality of fishers reduces their
ability to maintain or expand their populations (Service 2014, pp. 166-
169).
We found that several combinations of cumulative and synergistic
stressors rose to the level of a threat in most fisher populations,
although there is uncertainty surrounding our estimates of the
cumulative and synergistic effects of stressors. As noted above, we had
varying levels of uncertainty about the severity and scope of those
stressors. In the case of anthropogenic mortality stressors, we added
each of these together to arrive at a cumulative estimate, and we
qualitatively estimated the synergistic impacts.
For the habitat-related stressors, we qualitatively assessed the
cumulative and synergistic impacts. While there is uncertainty in these
estimates, these estimates are based on the best available information
at this point in time. For the habitat-related stressors, the
cumulative and synergistic impacts are particularly problematic in the
SSN because of the narrow band of habitat that comprises SSN and its
small population size. In addition, for the habitat-related stressors,
the degree to which cumulative and synergistic impacts affect NCSO is
lower than SSN because the NCSO does not exist in a narrow band of
habitat but rather covers a larger area. The cumulative and synergistic
impacts related to the habitat stressors will have a negative effect on
NCSO because the cumulative and synergistic impacts will decrease
connectivity in the highly fragmented habitat of NCSO. In Washington
and areas of Oregon outside of NCSO, the effect of cumulative and
synergistic impacts related to habitat-related stressors is lower than
the other areas, and much of this area is considered to be unoccupied.
Where extant populations do occur in these areas (SOC and ONP), the
cumulative and synergistic effects are likely relatively greater in SOC
compared to ONP, due to the potentially greater effects of fire
associated with climate change, although in both cases the cumulative
and synergistic effects of stressors remain relatively low.
For the mortality-related stressors, we quantitatively assessed the
cumulative impacts where data were available to do so. For fisher
populations in SSN and NCSO, where data were available, mortality
related to research activities, collisions with vehicles, and
anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning add, in aggregate, 3-17 percent
annual mortality to naturally occurring mortality from disease and
predation (collectively 6-32 percent mortality) and other natural
sources such as starvation. These numbers are comparable to studies
showing that 10-20 percent reductions within the reasonable range of
mortality and reproductive rates would cause fisher populations to
shift from growth to population stagnation (lack of expansion) or
decline. Therefore, we have concern about cumulative effects related to
mortality stressors in these fisher populations. Because we lack
specific mortality estimates for reintroduced populations in Washington
and Oregon outside of NCSO, we are uncertain whether mortality rates
are transferable from the areas with quantitative data. In addition,
because the remainder of the area in Washington and Oregon outside of
NCSO is considered unoccupied by fishers, estimates of direct mortality
do not apply in these areas.
For synergistic effects among mortality stressors, and synergistic
effects between mortality and habitat stressors, we qualitatively
described, above and in the Species Report (Service 2014, Cumulative
and Synergistic Effects section), some of the expected consequences of
these combinations of stressors. While the data lack specificity
supporting conclusions about impacts to fisher populations, or
comparisons between fisher populations, studies indicate that these
synergistic effects may lead to increases in mortality rates in the
future, beyond those reflected in the scope and severity calculations
drawn from current data.
We found that the cumulative and synergistic effects of both
mortality and habitat-related stressors pose a threat based on the
information presented above. We recognize that there will likely be
differences in how these cumulative and synergistic effects present
themselves in the various sub-regions and populations. Considered
collectively, cumulative and synergistic effects of habitat and
mortality-related stressors are particularly problematic in the SSN and
NCSO. In Washington and areas of Oregon outside of NCSO, these effects
are lower than the other areas, and much of this area is considered to
be unoccupied.
The reader is directed to the draft Species Report for a more
detailed discussion of our evaluation of the biology of and threats to
the West Coast DPS of fisher and the influences that may affect its
continued existence. Our conclusions are based upon the best scientific
and commercial data available as reflected in our January 2014 draft
Species Report and the expert conclusions of the draft Species Report
team members.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on: (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of
the above threat factors, singly or in combination. We have carefully
assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding
the past, present, and future threats to the West Coast DPS of fisher.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the West Coast DPS of
fisher meets the definition of a threatened species (likely to become
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within
the foreseeable future) based on the scope and severity of threats
currently impacting the species.
At the time of the 2004 Finding, the West Coast DPS of fisher was
described as having lost much of its historical habitat and range.
Specifically, the 2004 Finding stated that the fisher is considered to
be extirpated or reduced to scattered individuals in Washington,
[[Page 60436]]
extant fisher populations in Oregon are restricted to two genetically
distinguishable populations in the southern portion of the State, and
extant fisher populations in California consist of two remnant
populations located in northwestern California and the southern Sierra
Nevada Mountains (69 FR 18771). Regarding population size, the 2004
Finding found that the relative reduction in the range of the fisher on
the West Coast, the lack of detections or sightings over much of its
historical distribution, and the high degree of genetic relatedness
within some populations indicate the likelihood that extant fisher
populations are small (69 FR 18772). In addition, threats to the West
Coast DPS of fisher were described including habitat loss and
fragmentation, incidental capture, removal of important habitat
elements such as cover, mortality from vehicle collisions, decrease in
the prey base, human disturbance, small population size and isolation,
and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (69 FR 18791). A
Listing Priority Number of 6 was given to the West Coast DPS of fisher
in the 2004 Finding because the overall magnitude of threats was high
and the overall immediacy of threats was not imminent. In addition, the
threats were described as occurring across the range of the DPS,
resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and abundance (69
FR 18792). The 2004 Finding also stated that additional reintroduced
populations of fishers will reduce the probability that a stochastic
event would result in extirpation of the species, and we would evaluate
a completed conservation strategy to determine whether it sufficiently
removes threats to the fisher so that it no longer meets the definition
of a threatened species under the Act (69 FR 18792). Since the 2004
Finding, reintroductions have occurred in ONP and NSN, but a multi-
State conservation strategy has not been finalized and implemented.
Currently, fishers in the West Coast DPS are known to exist in two
extant native populations (one small population and one with population
size estimates ranging from 258 to 4,018) and three small reintroduced
populations (Service 2014, pp. 34-46). The two extant native
populations are the SSN population and the NCSO population. The three
reintroduced populations are the ONP reintroduced population, SOC
reintroduced population, and NSN reintroduced population. The
population estimate of the SSN population is approximately 300
individuals, but there is no statistically detectable trend in
occupancy. There are no discernible positive or negative total trends
in the NCSO population, and studies have suggested both positive and
negative population trends at various times and at localized study
sites. The status and population estimate of the NCSO population as a
whole is unclear. The SOC population has persisted since its
establishment more than 30 years ago, but it does not appear to have
expanded much beyond the area in which it was reintroduced. Fishers
reintroduced into ONP and NSN have successfully bred and produced
young, but it is still too early to determine the long-term persistence
of these populations. Overall, the West Coast DPS of fisher exists in
two separate native populations (one small population and one with
population size estimates ranging from 258 to 4,018) that have
persisted but do not appear to be expanding, and the West Coast DPS of
fisher has been supplemented by one reintroduced population more than
30 years ago and two recent reintroductions for which it is too early
to conclude the degree to which they will persist and contribute to
future fisher conservation.
Based on our draft Species Report, we find the threat of trapping
(Factor B) that was prevalent in the early 1900s is no longer a threat
to the West Coast DPS of fisher, but the two extant populations are not
expanding geographically even though this threat has been removed. The
main threats to the West Coast DPS are habitat loss from wildfire and
vegetation management (Factor A), as well as toxicants (Factor E), and
the cumulative impact and synergistic effects of these and other
stressors in small populations (Factor E). These threats, however, are
not evenly distributed across the DPS. In addition, threats such as
vegetation management are not evenly distributed in scope and severity
across ownerships, for example, with increased harvest rates on non-
Federal lands. Furthermore, habitat loss on Federal lands, particularly
in the NWFP area, has substantially decreased over the past two
decades; this information was not recognized or available for our 2004
Finding.
Fisher populations are fragmented and greatly reduced from their
historical range in the West Coast DPS area. Since the 2004 Finding, we
have more information on many of the threats. For example, it appears
that wildfire is increasing in extent (Factor A), more information on
the potential effects of climate change on fishers (Factor A and E) has
become available, and toxicant exposure has recently been identified as
a threat (Factor E). In addition, data are now available that quantify
overall mortality rates for direct causes of fisher mortality within
study areas. Overall, fishers are still absent from much of their
historical range (the two original extant populations have not
expanded), threats at the time of the 2004 Finding are still in place,
and some threats since the time of the 2004 Finding have increased or
are new. And it is too early to determine if the reintroduced
populations will persist.
Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data
available, we have determined the West Coast DPS of fisher meets the
definition of a threatened species under the Act. The main threats to
the West Coast DPS of fisher are habitat loss from wildfire and
vegetation management, as well as toxicants, and the cumulative impact
and synergistic effects of these and other stressors in small
populations. We find that the West Coast DPS of fisher is not currently
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range because it exists
in two separate native populations (one small and one with population
size estimates ranging from 258 to 4,018) that have persisted, and it
currently exists in three reintroduced populations that provide
redundancy, representation, and resiliency for the extant populations.
In addition, the threats acting on the West Coast DPS of fisher are not
all imminent, and the threats are not evenly distributed across the
DPS. However, we do find that the West Coast DPS of fisher is likely to
become endangered throughout all of its range in the foreseeable future
(estimated as 40 years for the West Coast DPS of fisher) based on
multiple threats impacting the remaining two extant native original
populations and the cumulative and synergistic effects of the threats
on small populations in the West Coast DPS of fisher. In reaching this
conclusion, we have considered available conservation measures and
regulatory mechanisms that may ameliorate these threats, but even after
taking those factors into account, we conclude that the species is
likely to become endangered throughout all of its range in the
foreseeable future. After studying an array of time periods used in
modeling, we estimated 40 years as the foreseeable future for fisher.
For example, climate models pertaining to fisher habitat, HCPs, and
timber harvest models generally predict 50 to 100 years into the
future, and forest planning documents often predict over shorter
timeframes (10 to 20 years). As a result, we considered 40 years to be
a reasonable estimate of the foreseeable
[[Page 60437]]
future for fisher because it falls within the spectrum of predictions
into the future and is supported by habitat model and climate model
predictability.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing the West Coast DPS of fisher
as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
Because we have determined that the West Coast DPS of fisher is a
threatened species throughout all of its range, no portion of its range
can be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of endangered
species and threatened species. See our final policy interpreting the
phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578) for
more information.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review when a species may be ready for
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (for example, restoration of native vegetation), research,
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of California, Oregon, and
Washington would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the West Coast DPS
of fisher. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the West Coast DPS of fisher is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities as well as toxicant use on Federal lands administered by
FWS, the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, and National Park Service; issuance
of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of Engineers;
and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
Analysis Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions
that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)
of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR
17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any
[[Page 60438]]
listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
The prohibitions have certain statutory exemptions, which are found
in section 10 of the Act. We may issue permits to carry out otherwise
prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for
the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
While we are not proposing a section 4(d) rule concurrent with the
proposed listing rule, we are soliciting comments and information
regarding the applicability of such a rule for the species. See the
Information Requested section above for more information.
Other DPS Alternatives
The November 28, 2000, petition we received to list a DPS of the
fisher under the Act targeted the portion of the fisher's range that
included portions of California, Oregon, and Washington. Because the
petitioned action covered the three-State area, and to be responsive to
the petition, we began our analysis with this area constituting the DPS
boundary. We have found fisher in this area to be a valid DPS
warranting listing as a threatened species under the Act (see
Determination section above). However, the range of a species may
theoretically be divided into any of several potential configurations
that may all meet the discreteness and significance criteria of our DPS
policy. In the case of the fisher, we have identified smaller areas
within the larger DPS boundary that would also potentially constitute a
valid DPS, and that may warrant listing under the Act. The historical
fisher populations in most of Oregon and Washington are considered to
be likely extirpated. Studies of neutral genetic variation revealed
that fishers in the West Coast range show a gradient of genetic
diversity, decreasing from north to south consistent with a history of
colonization from the north, but we do not know the genetic identity of
fishers now extirpated from Oregon. New information about genetics and
the current distribution of extant fishers led us to consider two other
DPS alternatives that more closely reflect the areas where native
fishers are known to be currently extant.
Through peer review and public comment we may determine that the
proposed DPS as set forth in this document is the most appropriate for
fisher conservation. Alternatively, we could determine that one of the
alternative DPSs set forth below would be most appropriate for the
conservation of the fisher. Therefore, any final listing determination
may differ from this proposal.
In conducting our status review of the West Coast DPS of fisher, we
evaluated a number of alternative DPSs that may potentially also be
valid DPSs (covering a smaller entity or entities). We are considering
the appropriateness of two of these alternatives, and we are seeking
public and peer review input on potential DPS alternatives. The first
alternative (Alternative 1) consists of a single DPS encompassing the
extant native populations (one DPS that includes NCSO (which includes
the reintroduced native NSN) and SSN (see Figure 2). The second
alternative (Alternative 2) consists of two separate narrowly drawn
DPSs around each of the extant native populations (one DPS around NCSO
(which includes the reintroduced native NSN) and one DPS around SSN)
(see Figure 3). Both of these alternatives would not include the
reintroduced nonnative SOC population, and an option for the boundary
separating the native populations from the nonnative population may be
at the Rogue River and Interstate 5 at the northeast corner of the NCSO
population. In addition, both of these alternatives would not include
the portion of Oregon north of NCSO and all of Washington because
native fishers are considered to be likely extirpated. These
alternatives would also not include the reintroduced population in
Washington (ONP) or the reintroduced population in Oregon (SOC) because
individuals in these areas do not share the unique genetic
characteristics found in the California and southern Oregon NCSO (which
includes the reintroduced native NSN) and SSN populations. Each of
these two DPS alternatives is described below.
Alternative 1: Single DPS Encompassing the Extant Populations With
Unique Genetic Characteristics in California and Southern Oregon
Alternative 1 includes a single DPS covering the NCSO (which
includes the reintroduced NSN) and SSN populations and the area in
between these populations. The northern boundary for this DPS could be
described as generally the Rogue River in Oregon (approximately 20 km
from the northernmost recent verified fisher location in NCSO),
Interstate 5 (which divides NCSO from SOC), the Klamath River, and the
California border. The rest of the boundary would be based on the
historical distribution of fishers as described in the 2004 Finding.
Alternative 1 focuses on conservation of known native west coast
fishers and excludes all reintroduced populations established with non-
California/Oregon fishers. In addition, this alternative excludes the
area to the north of NCSO where native fisher populations are
considered to be likely extirpated. This alternative does include both
the SSN and the NCSO (which includes the reintroduced NSN) populations,
which each have unique genetic characteristics, and it would allow
management of both these native populations as a single DPS, allowing
for recovery efforts throughout the fisher's historical range in
California and southern Oregon.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60439]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07OC14.001
Alternative 2: Two Narrowly Drawn DPSs Around the Extant Populations
With Unique Genetic Characteristics in California and Southern Oregon
Alternative 2 encompasses two separate DPSs: one NCSO (which
includes the reintroduced NSN) DPS and another SSN DPS. The NCSO (which
includes the reintroduced NSN) DPS could be described as the area
generally south of the Rogue River in Oregon (approximately 20 km from
the northernmost recent verified fisher location in NCSO), Interstate 5
(which divides NCSO from SOC), the Klamath River, and the California
border. The NCSO (which includes the reintroduced NSN) DPS southern
boundary could be described as running along the Middle Fork Feather
River (approximately 20 km south of NSN translocated animals) and
California Highway 70. The SSN DPS northern boundary could be described
as running along the
[[Page 60440]]
Tuolumne River (approximately 30 km north of recent verified fisher
locations), which corresponds to a break in habitat continuity
according to the habitat models described in the draft Species Report
(Service 2014, pp. 18-22). The northeastern boundary of the SSN DPS
could be described as running along Tioga Pass Road (State Highway 120)
to its junction with forested areas west of Highway 395. The rest of
the boundary is based on the historical distribution of fishers as
described in the 2004 Finding.
Alternative 2 focuses on conservation of extant native populations
with unique genetic characteristics in California and southern Oregon
and excludes all reintroduced populations established with non-
California/Oregon fishers. In addition, this alternative excludes the
area to the north of NCSO where fisher populations (excluding SOC) are
considered to be likely extirpated. This alternative does include both
the SSN and the NCSO (which includes the reintroduced native NSN)
populations, which each have unique genetic characteristics, and this
alternative would allow for management of the populations as separate
DPSs recognizing the unique genetic characteristics within each
population. In addition, if the magnitude of certain threats were found
to be different in the two DPSs, this alternative would allow different
management for each DPS with regard to recovery.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 60441]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07OC14.002
We seek peer review and public comment on the uncertainties
associated with the specific topics outlined above in the Information
Requested section and in this Other DPS Alternatives section. We
envision that specific information from the peer reviewers and the
public on the proposed DPS and the two alternatives will inform our
final listing decision.
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed
[[Page 60442]]
. . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
Essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' Section 3(3)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the terms ``conserve,''
``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to mean ``to use and the use of
all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.''
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of
the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or
(2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism under Factor B for this species, and
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to
initiate any such threat. Therefore, in the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, a finding
that designation is prudent is warranted. Here, the potential benefits
of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of
the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is
unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential
features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or
county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may
provide some measure of benefit, we determine that designation of
critical habitat is prudent for the West Coast DPS of fisher.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following
situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
Delineation of critical habitat requires, within the geographical
area occupied by the West Coast DPS of fisher, identification of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. Information regarding the West Coast DPS of fisher life
functions and habitats associated with these functions has expanded
greatly in recent years. At this point, the information sufficient to
perform a required analysis of the impacts of the designation is
lacking due to the considered DPS alternatives in this proposed rule
and our request to seek public and peer review input on these
alternatives. A careful assessment of the habitats that may qualify for
designation as critical habitat will require a thorough assessment; we
also need more time to analyze the comprehensive data to identify
specific areas appropriate for critical habitat designation.
Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat to be ``not
determinable'' at this time.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. Specifically, we reached out to Tribes
regarding the March 19, 2013, Notice of Initiation of Status Review (78
FR 16828), and in September 2013, we sent a formal request to Tribes
for their review of the draft Species Report.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Pacific Southwest Regional Office, the Yreka Fish and Wildlife
Office, and the Pacific Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
[[Page 60443]]
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Fisher'' to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under
Mammals to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------ population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Fisher.......................... Pekania pennanti... Canada (Alberta, West Coast DPS: CA, T ........... NA. NA
British Columbia, OR, and WA.
Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Northwest
Territories,
Ontario, Quebec,
Saskatchewan,
Yukon); U.S.A.
(CA, CT, DC, IA,
ID, IL, IN, KY,
MA, MD, ME, MI,
MN, MT, NC, ND,
NH, NJ, NV, NY,
OH, OR, PA, RI,
TN, UT, VA, VT,
WA,WI, WV, WY).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: September 9, 2014.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23456 Filed 10-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P