[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57773-57801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Southern Sierra Nevada 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
designate critical habitat for the federally endangered Southern Sierra
Nevada distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti)
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
we propose to designate approximately 554,454 acres (ac) (224,379
hectares (ha)) in six units in California as critical habitat for the
Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of fisher. We also announce the availability
of a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 20, 2021. 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 a
public hearing, in writing, at the address
[[Page 57774]]
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by December 3, 2021.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (presented above in the document headings). For
best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the
docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. Then, click on
the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: The coordinates or plot
points or both from which the critical habitat maps are generated are
included in the decision file and are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060. Any
additional supporting information that we developed for this critical
habitat designation will be available at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we determine
that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we are
required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can be completed
only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This document proposes to designate
critical habitat for the federally endangered Southern Sierra Nevada
DPS of fisher in portions of six counties (Tulare, Kern, Fresno,
Madera, Mariposa, and Tuolumne) in the State of California. Please note
that, under the Act, the term ``species'' includes any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS)
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife, which interbreeds when
mature. Therefore, in this document, we may refer to the Southern
Sierra Nevada DPS of fisher as a ``DPS'' or as a ``species.''
The basis for our action. Under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, if we
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species we
must, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, designate
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, 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
protections; 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 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must
make the designation on the basis of the best scientific data available
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from the critical habitat designation if we determine that the benefits
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless we determine, based on the best
scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area will
result in the extinction of the species.
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule
For the convenience of the reader, a list of the abbreviations and
acronyms used in this proposed rule follows:
Act = Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
Cal Fire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CBI = Conservation Biology Institute
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
DEA = draft economic analysis
DoD = Department of Defense
DPS = distinct population segment
FR = Federal Register
IEc = Industrial Economics, Incorporated
IEM = incremental effects memorandum
INRMP = integrated natural resources management plan
IRMP = integrated resources management plan (Tule River Indian Tribe
of the Tule River Reservation, California)
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
NPS = National Park Service
SCE = Southern California Edison
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SSA = species status assessment
SSN = Southern Sierra Nevada
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
WUI = wildland-urban interface
Information Requested
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 other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the SSN DPS of
fisher;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (85 FR
29532; May 15, 2020) and that contain the physical and
[[Page 57775]]
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species, should
be included in the designation and why;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species
in Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, and Tuolumne counties in
California that should be included in the designation because they (1)
are occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or
biological feature that is essential to the conservation of the species
and that may require special management considerations, or (2) are
unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the
conservation of the species;
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the
conservation of the species; and
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain the physical and biological
feature essential to the conservation of the species; and
(iii) Explaining whether or not unoccupied areas fall within the
definition of ``habitat'' at 50 CFR 424.02 and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the SSN DPS of fisher's proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding specific areas.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act; whether the benefits of potentially excluding any
specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act; and, in particular, whether any areas
should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
based on a conservation program or plan, and why. These may include
Federal, Tribal, State, county, local, or private lands with permitted
conservation plans covering the species in the area such as habitat
conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, or conservation easements,
or non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that are
under development. Detailed information regarding these plans,
agreements, easements, and partnerships is also requested, including:
(a) The location and size of lands covered by the plan, agreement,
easement, or partnership;
(b) The duration of the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;
(c) Who holds or manages the land;
(d) What management activities are conducted;
(e) What land uses are allowable; and
(f) If management activities are beneficial to the SSN DPS of
fisher and its habitat.
(8) Ongoing or proposed conservation efforts that could result in
direct or indirect ecological benefits to the associated habitat for
the SSN DPS of fisher. We would evaluate whether these efforts provide
an ecological benefit to the DPS and contribute to the recovery of the
species, and if so, these areas could be considered for exclusion from
the final critical habitat designation.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. If you
request the exclusion of any areas from the final designation, please
provide credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful
economic or other relevant impact supporting the benefit of exclusion
of that particular area. Also, please note that submissions merely
stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration
without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be
considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(2) of the Act
directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the
basis of the best scientific information 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 website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
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 hardcopy 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.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), our final critical habitat
designation may not include all areas proposed, may include some
additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, and may
exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher in this
document. For more information on the DPS, general information about
fisher habitat, and previous Federal actions associated with
[[Page 57776]]
listing fishers that occur in the Sierra Nevada portion of the species'
range, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 2020 (85 FR 29532) and associated supporting
documents, available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0105.
Supporting Documents
An analysis was completed for the fisher in 2016 (Service 2016a,
entire), prior to the full implementation of the current Species Status
Assessment Framework, ver. 3.4 (Service 2016b, entire). At this time,
the best available information regarding a full status assessment for
the SSN DPS of fisher is a combination of the 2016 species report
(Service 2016a, entire) and the analysis and information presented in
the final listing rule (85 FR 29532; May 15, 2020). Additionally, a
team of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts,
collected and analyzed the best available information (including the
information presented in the 2016 species report and final listing rule
and any new information available since the SSN DPS was listed as an
endangered species) to support this proposed critical habitat
designation. As such, the science used and presented in this proposed
rule represents a compilation of the best scientific information
available.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we are seeking the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate specialists regarding the science that informs
this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the
science behind our critical habitat designation is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will consider
any comments we receive, as appropriate, before making a final agency
determination.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely, by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However,
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific
parameters: (1) When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will
only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of
[[Page 57777]]
the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated
Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures,
and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best
scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from a species status assessment (SSA) report and
information developed during the listing process for the species;
however, for this species, because the SSA framework was not yet
available, we applied a slightly different framework using the 2016
species report and the analysis and information presented in the final
listing rule (85 FR 29532; May 15, 2020). Additional information
sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or
outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan
for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
As the regulatory definition of ``habitat'' reflects (50 CFR
424.02), habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
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 Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
There is currently no imminent threat of overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (see 16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(B)) identified for the SSN DPS of fisher, and
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to
initiate any such threat. Threats of taking or other human activity are
not expected to increase due to the identification of critical habitat;
habitat impacts are a threat to the species, as noted in the final
listing determination for the SSN DPS of fisher (85 FR 29532; May 15,
2020), and we stated that these effects are from causes that can be
addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. The species occurs solely within the United
States, and available habitat, particularly those areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat, provides significant conservation
value.
Overall, our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial information indicates there are areas within the range of
the DPS that meet the definition of critical habitat. Therefore,
because none of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because the Secretary has not
identified other circumstances for which this designation of critical
habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation
of critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher is prudent.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the SSN
DPS of fisher is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)
state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking; or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where the species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the SSN DPS of fisher.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate critical
habitat from within the geographical area occupied
[[Page 57778]]
by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species'' as
the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not
limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features,
sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions.
Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of
conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and
connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the
conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective
cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that
maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses,
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic
fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with
conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality,
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition,
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats
that are protected from disturbance.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the SSN DPS of fisher from studies of the species' habitat,
ecology, and life history, which are described more fully in the final
listing rule (85 FR 29532; May 15, 2020) and the species report
(Service 2016a, entire) that was developed to supplement the proposed
listing rule (79 FR 60419; October 7, 2014) and revised proposed
listing rule (84 FR 60278; November 7, 2019).
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We have determined that there is one feature, which is considered
both physical and biological, that is essential to the conservation of
the SSN DPS of fisher. We derive this feature from studies of the
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in the final listing rule (85 FR
29532; May 15, 2020) and the species report (Service 2016a, entire)
that was developed in conjunction with the proposed listing rule. These
background documents are available on http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060.
We have determined that the following feature, which is considered
both physical and biological in character, is essential to the
conservation of the SSN DPS of fisher: Suitable, high-quality denning
habitat that includes intermixed foraging and dispersal areas. Such
habitat provides structural features for parturition, raising kits,
protection from adverse weather conditions, facilitation of safe
movement, sites to rest and thermoregulate, foraging opportunities, and
cover to reduce predation risk for adults and young. The
characteristics of this physical and biological feature include:
(a) Forest types described as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
eastside pine, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), montane hardwood-conifer,
montane hardwood, montane riparian, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa),
Sierran mixed conifer, or white fir (Abies concolor) of California
Wildlife Habitat Relationships size and density classes 4D, 5M, 5D, or
6 (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, entire; Thompson et al. 2020, p. 7).
(b) Forest stands in or near drainages with clusters of large,
mature trees and snags, high canopy cover (generally greater than or
equal to 60 percent), complex horizontal and vertical forest structure
(e.g., multilayered canopy, moderate shrub cover, downed wood,
vegetation of varying age classes), a moderate intermix of California
black oak (Quercus kelloggii), and fairly steep slopes (greater than or
equal to 17 percent) (Zhao et al. 2012, p. 117; Spencer et al. 2015,
pp. 33-35; Green et al. 2019, entire).
(c) Multiple large diameter trees (live or dead), such as conifers
greater than or equal to 35 inches (in) (89 centimeters (cm)) and
hardwoods greater than or equal to 25 in (63 cm) in diameter (Spencer
et al. 2015, p. 39), with cavities that provide secure natal and
maternal den sites (Green et al. 2019, p. 136). Some of these large
diameter trees or snags should also have branch platforms, broken top
platforms, mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infections, and other
deformities or structures that provide resting sites (Green et al.
2019, p. 136).
(d) Shrub and tree clumps, large downed logs, and other structures
that provide continuous dense cover or patches of dense cover that are
close together to provide protection from predators (Spencer et al.
2015, p. 33; Green 2017, pp. 101-102).
(e) Intermixed foraging areas that typically include a diversity of
vegetation types and seral stages to support a variety of prey species
(such as western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), Douglas squirrels
(Tamiasciurus douglasii), California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus
beecheyi), dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), and other small
mammals) (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 30), and structures that provide
fishers resting sites and protection from predators.
(f) Intermixed dispersal areas that provide connectivity between
patches of denning habitat to allow for movement of individuals within
subpopulations. Dispersal areas must contain structures and habitat
characteristics that facilitate resting and safe movement (Spencer et
al. 2015, p. 52). These habitat characteristics and structures include
some overhead cover from trees or shrubs (i.e., greater than 30 percent
for male dispersal and greater than 60 percent for female dispersal
(Tucker et al. 2017, pp. 14-15; Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10)), snags,
downed logs, or other components to protect fishers from predation and
allow for sufficient resting opportunities.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the SSN DPS
of fisher may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce the threats to the
[[Page 57779]]
species; these threats are fully described in the final listing rule
(85 FR 29532; May 15, 2020, pp. 85 FR 29564-29569). We determined that
the ongoing threats that result in losses of individual fishers or
impede population growth of the SSN DPS include: (1) Loss and
fragmentation of habitat from high severity wildfire; wildfire
suppression (i.e., long-term/historical absence of beneficial, low
severity forest fires typically resulting in reduced fuels and healthy
forest stands that subsequently have a greater likelihood of
withstanding catastrophic, high severity wildfires); climate change;
tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect infestation;
vegetation management; and development; and (2) potential direct
impacts to individuals (e.g., increased mortality, decreased
reproductive rates, increased stress/hormone levels, alterations in
behavioral patterns) from wildfire, increased temperatures, increased
tree mortality, disease and predation, exposure to toxicants, vehicle
collisions, and potential effects associated with small population
size.
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities
that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to:
(1) Implementing beneficial forest management practices, especially the
use of prescribed fire that reduces fuel load and improves overall
forest health, which reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire and
improves habitat resiliency; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance,
fragmentation, and destruction from vegetation management and other
habitat-altering activities through the use of best management at
multiple scales (e.g., stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape
scale); (3) maintaining and promoting dense canopy cover, large trees,
and other habitat components that fishers require for reproduction or
protection from predation; (4) maintaining and enhancing habitat
connectivity; (5) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass
marijuana grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (6) improving
the efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. These management activities
would protect the physical and biological feature for the SSN DPS of
fisher by reducing the threats acting on the species and maintaining
the forest structure and characteristics that are necessary for fishers
to fulfill their life-history needs.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. We determined that occupied areas
are sufficient for contributing to the conservation of the SSN DPS of
fisher, following our evaluation of all suitable habitat across the
DPS's range that has documented use by fishers.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the
time of listing, we employed the following basic steps to delineate
critical habitat (which are described in detail in the text following
this list):
(1) We compiled fisher detection data and determined the geographic
area that was occupied by the species at the time of listing (see
Occupancy Analysis, below).
(2) Using the best available science, including habitat models and
reasonable inferences regarding female home range size, we conducted a
habitat analysis to identify essential patches of fisher habitat (see
Habitat Analysis, below).
(3) Based on the results of these analyses, we delineated six
discrete critical habitat units (including one unit--Unit 3--that is
subdivided into three subunits) separated by evidence of genetic
discontinuity and gaps in contiguous denning habitat associated with
major river canyons (see Mapping Critical Habitat Units, below).
Data Sources
For our occupancy analysis, habitat analysis, and subsequent unit
delineations, we used a variety of data sources that provide
information regarding the occupied range of the fisher, the spatial
extent of suitable fisher habitat, and habitat condition, including:
(1) Fisher observation data from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Natural Resource Information System, Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management
Project--Sugar Pine Fisher Project, USFS Sierra Nevada Carnivore
Monitoring Program, and National Park Service (NPS) databases;
(2) Models developed by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI),
including the Pre-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability Model,
Post-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability Model, and Post-Drought
Fisher Landscape-Scale Habitat Suitability Model;
(3) Housing density data (part of the Wildlife Urban Interface
dataset) from the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection's (Cal Fire) Fire and Resource Assessment Program; and
(4) Lake, reservoir, and pond dataset from California Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
Occupancy Analysis
We used recent fisher observation data to identify the geographic
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We reviewed USFS
and NPS fisher detection data including visual observations, remote
camera detections, scat and hair samples, tracks, and radio telemetry
locations from 1990-2020. This timeframe overlaps with the beginning of
extensive surveying and monitoring efforts in the Sierra Nevada that
continue today (Zielinski et al. 1995, entire) and recent northward
population expansion of fishers that has occurred over the last few
decades (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131). Fisher occupancy has remained
relatively stable throughout the southern Sierra Nevada from 2002
through 2019 (Zielinski et al. 2013, pp. 8-10; Tucker 2019, pers.
comm.), indicating that, in general, sites that were previously
occupied remain occupied today.
Based on these data, we determined that the northern extent of the
geographic area occupied at the time of listing was the Tuolumne River
in Yosemite National Park (Mariposa County) and the southern limit was
the Greenhorn Mountains in Sequoia National Forest (Kern County). The
eastern limit of the current species' range is the high-elevation,
granite-dominated mountains and the western limit is the low-elevation
extent of mixed-conifer forest.
We are not proposing to designate any areas outside of the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing because
we did not find any unoccupied areas to be essential for the
conservation of the species. We determined that a critical habitat
designation limited to the geographic areas occupied by the species is
adequate to ensure the conservation of the species. The occupied areas
identified for designation are those areas
[[Page 57780]]
that require some form of protection to achieve recovery, and they
contribute to the DPS's resiliency, redundancy, and representation
across its range.
Habitat Analysis
We used several habitat models developed by CBI to better
understand the broad-scale spatial extent of denning habitat. Our
analysis was largely focused on denning habitat because this habitat
type is essential for female survival and reproduction, and denning
structures are considered the most limiting habitat element for fishers
(Spencer et al. 2015, p. 33). Denning habitat also supports other life-
history activities necessary for female and male survival, such as
foraging, resting, and dispersal. The models used for our analysis may
overestimate current denning habitat quality in certain fine-scale
areas, but these fine-scale areas are expected to support foraging and
dispersal and would be included in established and potential fisher
home ranges. Therefore, protecting and enhancing the broad-scale
spatial extent of denning habitat, including the fine-scale foraging
and dispersal areas, is vital to conservation and recovery of the
species.
We used a combined output from CBI's Pre-Drought Fisher Denning
Habitat Suitability Model (Spencer et al. 2015, pp. A-8-A-12) and the
Post-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability Model (Thompson et al.
2020, p. 6) to identify the broad-scale spatial extent of denning
habitat. The pre-drought denning model used den locations and an array
of environmental predictors from 2013 or earlier but did not account
for recent drought, tree mortality, and wildfires that have
significantly altered the landscape within the DPS. Fishers' response
to these landscape-scale changes is not yet fully understood, but
preliminary findings indicate that females are still denning in many
areas that previously supported breeding fishers, despite the changes
to the landscape (Green 2020a, pers. comm.). The availability of live
forest has decreased across the landscape, but these data suggest that
areas that previously supported denning fishers still support the best
available habitat, even in an altered state (Green 2020b, pp. 17-18).
Experts believe that this pattern may justify continued use of pre-
drought data for modeling and analyses (Green 2020b, p. 18). The post-
drought denning model includes more recent canopy cover data (i.e.,
this model may reflect current habitat conditions more accurately), but
recent den location data were not available to be incorporated into the
updated model. Therefore, we determined that a combined output from
these two denning models captures areas that previously supported, and
likely still support, denning fishers and areas that currently provide
the best available habitat. In other words, the combined output
represents the best prediction of suitable denning habitat currently
available.
The Kern Plateau, which contains a known breeding population of
fishers, has unique environmental conditions due to differences in
climate, geology, and vegetation compared to the west-slope of the
Sierra Nevada (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 44). These unique conditions
result in true differences in denning habitat value on the Kern Plateau
compared to the rest of the fisher's range (Spencer et al. 2015, p.
35). For this reason, the denning models fail to accurately predict
denning habitat in this part of the range. To ensure that essential
areas of suitable habitat on the Kern Plateau are considered for
inclusion in critical habitat, we used CBI's Post-Drought Fisher
Landscape-Scale Habitat Suitability Model, which predicts the
probability of fisher occurrence (also interpreted as a measure of
habitat quality) (Spencer et al. 2015, pp. A-1--A-4). Areas that are
strongly selected for by fishers have a predicted probability of fisher
occupancy (i.e., habitat suitability) of 0.41 and higher (Spencer et
al. 2015, p. 42). For the purposes of our analysis, we consider habitat
above this threshold to be ``high-quality habitat.'' Using the post-
drought habitat suitability model, we identified all high-quality
habitat on the Kern Plateau. We compared this high-quality habitat with
fisher detection data and determined that this output is an appropriate
surrogate for denning habitat on the Kern Plateau.
To determine if a patch of denning habitat, or high-quality habitat
in the case of the Kern Plateau, is essential to the conservation of
the species, we considered the size of the patch in relation to fisher
ecology. We compared patch size with female territory size to determine
the minimum size patch necessary to aid in the conservation of the
species. Based on an analysis of female home ranges, species experts
identified an average female breeding territory size of 2,471 acres as
the appropriate scale to assess fisher habitat (Spencer et al. 2016, p.
27). This average territory size takes into account overlap between
neighboring female home ranges and variation in habitat quality. This
territory size is also similar to the average size of a female fisher's
core use area, which is the portion of the home range where an animal
spends a majority of its time (Spencer et al. 2015, pp. 17-18). For the
purposes of our analysis, we rounded this territory size up and
consider a female home range size to be 2,500 acres. We determined
patches of denning habitat that are of an appropriate size to support a
subpopulation (i.e., at least five female fishers based on analyses
conducted by Spencer et al. (2015, pp. 41-42)) as essential to the
conservation of the species. Therefore, patches of denning habitat
12,500 ac (5,059 ha) or larger are included in the proposed critical
habitat designation. We also included one additional patch that plays
an important role for the DPS despite being smaller than the area we
determined was necessary to directly support a subpopulation. While
this patch is only able to support three females, it is located within
the average juvenile female dispersal distance (3.04 miles (Spencer et
al. 2015, p. 20)) of two subpopulations with high occupancy rates. The
location and significant amount of contiguous denning habitat provides
important connectivity between the two robust subpopulations,
highlighting its importance for the conservation of the DPS.
The models used for our analysis resulted in outputs with several
``holes'' where modeled denning habitat quality dropped below a
threshold set by the modelers based on their understanding of denning
habitat selection by fishers. Based on our review of aerial imagery,
canopy cover, and other data, the habitat within these holes is still
expected to support fisher foraging or dispersal. Due to their
proximity to denning habitat and their utility to support other fisher
life-history needs, we determined that the habitat within these holes
can play an essential role in an established home range or for a
dispersing female or male fisher. Therefore, we determined that these
areas contain the physical and biological feature essential to the
conservation of the SSN DPS of fisher and are included in the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Within the areas modeled as denning habitat, and the additional
areas that support foraging and dispersal, we identified and removed
certain areas that do not contain the physical and biological feature
or are not essential to the conservation of the species. First, we
removed all lakes, reservoirs, and ponds from the proposed designation
because these features do not contain fisher habitat. Next, we
identified areas with high human activity (i.e., areas with houses and
buildings) that, although they may support fishers and their
[[Page 57781]]
habitat, are not essential to the conservation of the species. Fishers
are less likely to den in areas with high levels of human activity,
such as immediately adjacent to human structures (Spencer et al. 2017,
p. 4). Furthermore, areas surrounding homes and buildings generally
have been and will be treated heavily to reduce the risk of fire to
lives and property. These intense fuels treatments (such as removing
all ground vegetation within the defensible space surrounding a
building) typically result in reduced habitat quality for fishers. We
used housing density data from Cal Fire to identify areas with greater
than zero housing units per acre and removed these areas of low quality
habitat from the proposed designation.
Mapping Critical Habitat Units
Consistent with previous analyses conducted for the Southern Sierra
Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment (Spencer et al. 2015, pp. 41-52,
A-4--A-5), six discrete units (including one unit--Unit 3--that is
subdivided into three subunits) were delineated based on evidence of
genetic discontinuity and gaps between patches of modeled denning
habitat, typically associated with major river canyons. Unit 1 (Kern
Plateau) and Unit 2 (South Sequoia) were separated based on a break in
modeled habitat continuity along the Kern River Canyon. Unit 2 abuts
Unit 3 (North Sequoia), but the units were delineated based on evidence
of genetic discontinuity (Tucker et al. 2014, pp. 129-132; Spencer et
al. 2015, pp. 10, 46). Consistent with Spencer et al. (2015, pp. 41,
46), we used Bear Creek in Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest to
separate Units 2 and 3 (Subunit 3A). Breaks in contiguous patches of
denning habitat separated Subunit 3A (Dillonwood Grove) from Subunit 3B
(Homes Nose-Paradise Peak), and Subunit 3B from Subunit 3C (Muir
Grove). Unit 3 (Subunit 3C) and Unit 4 (South Sierra) are separated by
a gap in suitable habitat and evidence of genetic subdivision
associated with the Kings River Canyon (Tucker et al. 2014, pp. 129-
132). Unit 4 and Unit 5 (North Sierra) are separated by the San Joaquin
River and the associated discontinuity of suitable fisher habitat.
Tucker et al. (2014, pp. 131-132) found slight genetic separation
between the areas mapped as Unit 4 and Unit 5. Finally, Unit 5 and Unit
6 (Stanislaus) are separated by the break in modeled habitat along the
Merced River.
Finally, we used a geoprocessing tool to smooth the boundaries of
the units to improve implementation of the proposed designation. This
will simplify analyses to determine if a particular location or project
area falls within the designation. This exercise had a negligible
impact on the area proposed as critical habitat.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings (including 100 feet (30.5 meters) of defensible space
surrounding buildings), pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack the physical and biological feature necessary for the SSN
DPS of fisher. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect
the exclusion of such developed lands. Additionally, the dataset we
relied on to remove human structures from the proposed designation may
have inadvertently omitted some houses and communities. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical and
biological feature in the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the
physical and biological feature that is essential to support life-
history processes of the species.
Six units (including one unit--Unit 3--that is subdivided into
three subunits) are proposed for designation based on the physical and
biological feature being present to support the fisher's life-history
processes. All of the units contain the identified physical and
biological feature (and all characteristics of the physical and
biological feature) and support multiple life-history processes.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the maps,
as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end
of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2021-0060.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the SSN DPS of
fisher. All units are considered occupied at the time of listing. The
critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the SSN DPS of fisher. The six areas we propose as critical habitat
(from south to north) are: (1) Kern Plateau; (2) South Sequoia; (3)
North Sequoia, including three subunits; (4) South Sierra; (5) North
Sierra; and (6) Stanislaus. Table 1 shows the proposed critical habitat
units and the approximate area of each unit. Units 4 and 5 overlap with
portions of designated critical habitat for the federally threatened
Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus) (see 50 CFR 17.95(d) and 81 FR 59046,
August 26, 2016).
Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the SSN DPS of Fisher (South to North)
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit in
Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type acres (hectares) Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1--Kern Plateau........................ Federal....................... 64,131 (25,953) Yes
State......................... 0
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 654 (265)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 64,785 (26,218)
------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57782]]
Unit 2--South Sequoia....................... Federal....................... 93,106 (37,679) Yes
State......................... 2,147 (869)
Tribal *...................... 16,246 (6,574)
Unclassified/Private.......... 4,138 (1,674)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 115,637 (46,797)
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3--North Sequoia....................... Federal....................... 12,943 (5,238) Yes
Subunit 3A: Dillonwood Grove................ State......................... 1,315 (532)
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 967 (391)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 15,225 (6,161)
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3--North Sequoia....................... Federal....................... 9,369 (3,791) Yes
Subunit 3B: Homes Nose-Paradise Peak........ State......................... 0
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 0
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 9,369 (3,791)
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3--North Sequoia....................... Federal....................... 85,526 (34,611) Yes
Subunit 3C: Muir Grove...................... State......................... 386 (156)
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 2,170 (878)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 88,082 (35,645)
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4--South Sierra........................ Federal....................... 46,123 (18,665) Yes
State......................... 0
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 14,900 (6,030)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 61,023 (24,695)
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 5--North Sierra........................ Federal....................... 137,430 (55,616) Yes
State......................... 0
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 9,800 (3,966)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 147,230 (59,582)
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 6--Stanislaus.......................... Federal....................... 52,304 (21,167) Yes
State......................... 0
Tribal........................ 0
Unclassified/Private.......... 798 (323)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 53,102 (21,490)
------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... Federal....................... 500,933 (202,721) Yes
State......................... 3,848 (1,557)
Tribal........................ 16,246 (6,574)
Unclassified/Private.......... 33,426 (13,527)
------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 554,454 (224,379)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
* These lands are held in Federal trust status by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the Tule River Indian
Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California.
We present brief descriptions of all units and subunits, and
reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the SSN
DPS of fisher, below.
Unit 1: Kern Plateau
Unit 1 consists of 64,785 ac (26,218 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Tulare County, California. Unit 1 is situated on
the Kern Plateau, east of the Kern River, west of South Fork Kern River
and Kennedy Meadows, north of Sirretta Peak, and south of Templeton
Mountain. Lands within this unit include approximately 64,131 ac
(25,953 ha; 99 percent) in Federal ownership (Inyo National Forest and
Sequoia National Forest, USFS) and 654 ac (265 ha; 1 percent) in
private ownership. General land use within this unit includes forest
management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree
management, forest restoration, prescribed fire), grazing, and
recreation.
Unit 1 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of
[[Page 57783]]
the species. This unit is the only unit not on the west slope of the
Sierra Nevada; is located on the Kern Plateau, which supports unique
environmental conditions compared to the rest of the fisher's range due
to differences in climate, geology, and vegetation; and has a complex
mosaic of mixed-age forest stands intermixed with open areas and
shrublands (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 44). Additionally, fishers in this
unit occupy higher elevations than in other units, likely due to the
lesser accumulation of snow on the Kern Plateau (Spencer et al. 2015,
p. 44). The unique environmental conditions of this unit provide
important redundancy and representation for the DPS.
Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants; and
potential for effects associated with small population size. Special
management considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate
the threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; and (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass
marijuana grow sites and other sources of toxicants. Federal lands in
this unit are managed under the Land Management Plan for the Inyo
National Forest (USFS 2019, entire) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment (USFS 2004, entire).
Unit 2: South Sequoia
Unit 2 consists of 115,637 ac (46,797 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Kern and Tulare Counties, California. This unit
extends northward from the southwestern tip of the Sierra Nevada and
Greenhorn Mountains until it abuts Subunit 3A to the north, where there
is evidence of genetic discontinuity between the two subpopulations in
the area of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (Mountain Home)
(Tucker et al. 2014, pp. 129-131). Bear Creek in the Tule River
Watershed serves as the northern boundary of Unit 2 from the western
edge of the unit to a wildland-urban interface (WUI) associated with
Mountain Home. The boundary follows the northern border of this WUI and
then continues to the northeast until the eastern edge of the unit. The
unit lies north and west of the Kern River and east of Springville and
California Hot Springs. Lands within this unit include approximately
92,924 ac (37,605 ha; 80 percent) managed by USFS (Sequoia National
Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument) and 182 ac (74 ha; less than 1
percent) managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Also, there
are 2,147 ac (869 ha; 2 percent) in State ownership (Cal Fire and State
Lands Commission), 16,246 ac (6,574 ha; 14 percent) that are Tribal
lands (i.e., the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation,
California), and 4,138 ac (1,674 ha; 4 percent) in private ownership.
We are considering excluding the 16,246 ac (6,575 ha) of the Tule River
Reservation based on the Tribe's long history of managing natural
resources on the Reservation. General land use within this unit
includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction,
hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed fire), grazing,
recreation, residential development, and management for protection of
natural resources.
Unit 2 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
unit is important for the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of
the DPS because it supports the highest recorded fisher occupancy rates
(Tucker 2020, pers. comm.), the highest predicted average habitat
quality (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46), and the highest genetic diversity
(Tucker et al. 2014, entire) in the DPS. This unit supports habitat
features and conditions that are optimal for successful denning, such
as scattered giant sequoia groves and relatively abundant old-growth
mixed-conifer forest with large sugar pines, high basal areas, high
diversity of tree diameter classes, and dense canopy cover (greater
than 70 percent) (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46).
Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants;
potential for effects associated with small population size; disease
and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana
grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the
efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. Federal lands in this unit
are managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004,
entire), the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan (USFS
2012, entire), and the Approved Resource Management Plan for the
Bakersfield Field Office (BLM 2014, entire).
Unit 3: North Sequoia
Unit 3 consists of 112,676 ac (45,597 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Tulare and Fresno Counties, California. Unit 3 is
composed of three subunits.
Subunit 3A: Dillonwood Grove
Subunit 3A consists of 15,225 ac (6,161 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Tulare County, California. This subunit is located
west of Moses Mountain, east of Battle Mountain, and south of Homes
Nose, and it abuts Unit 2 to the south (see the boundary description
for Unit 2, above). Lands within this subunit include approximately
7,337 ac (2,969 ha; 48 percent) managed by USFS (Giant Sequoia National
Monument and Sequoia National Forest) and 5,606 ac (2,269 ha; 37
percent) managed by NPS (Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks).
Also, there are 1,315 ac (532 ha; 9 percent) in State ownership (Cal
Fire) and 967 ac (391 ha; 6 percent) in private ownership. General land
use within this subunit includes forest management (e.g., timber
harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration,
prescribed fire), grazing, recreation, and management for protection of
natural resources.
Subunit 3A is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
subunit supports high fisher occupancy rates (Tucker 2020, pers.
comm.), suggesting it supports relatively high population densities
(Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46) compared to other areas within its range,
which provides resiliency for the DPS. This subunit has high predicted
habitat value due to mature forest conditions and numerous giant
sequoia groves and other mixed-coniferous forests with
[[Page 57784]]
high basal area, dense canopies, and abundant black oaks which support
denning features (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46).
Threats identified within this subunit include wildfire and
wildfire suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to
toxicants; potential for effects associated with small population size;
disease and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana
grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the
efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. Federal lands in this
subunit are managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS
2004, entire), the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan
(USFS 2012, entire), and the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
General Management Plan (NPS 2012, entire).
Subunit 3B: Homes Nose-Paradise Peak
Subunit 3B consists of 9,369 ac (3,791 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Tulare County, California. This subunit is located
north and west of Homes Nose, east of Case Mountain, and south of
Paradise Peak, and it crosses the East Fork Kaweah River. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 9,283 ac (3,757 ha; 99 percent)
managed by NPS (Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks) and 86 ac (35
ha; 1 percent) managed by BLM. General land use within this subunit
includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction,
hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed fire), grazing,
recreation, and management for protection of natural resources.
Subunit 3B is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
subunit has high predicted habitat value due to mature forest
conditions and numerous giant sequoia groves and other mixed-coniferous
forests with high basal area, dense canopies, and abundant black oaks
which support denning features (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46).
Threats identified within this subunit include wildfire and
wildfire suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to
toxicants; potential for effects associated with small population size;
disease and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana
grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the
efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. Federal lands in this
subunit are managed under the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
General Management Plan (NPS 2012, entire) and the Approved Resource
Management Plan for the Bakersfield Field Office (BLM 2014, entire).
Subunit 3C: Muir Grove
Subunit 3C consists of 88,082 ac (35,645 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Tulare and Fresno Counties, California. This
subunit lies north of Paradise Peak, extending northwest across the
North Fork Kaweah River to the Kings River Canyon. A sinuous arm of the
unit extends east along the southern edge of the Kings River Canyon to
approximately Cedar Grove. Lands within this subunit include
approximately 44,793 ac (18,127 ha; 51 percent) managed by USFS (Giant
Sequoia National Monument, Sequoia National Forest, and Sierra National
Forest) and 40,733 ac (16,484 ha; 46 percent) managed by NPS (Sequoia
and Kings Canyon National Parks). Also, there are 386 ac (156 ha; less
than 1 percent) in State ownership (State Lands Commission) and 2,170
ac (878 ha; 2 percent) in private ownership. General land use within
this subunit includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels
reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed
fire), grazing, recreation, and management for protection of natural
resources.
Subunit 3C is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
subunit supports high fisher occupancy rates (Tucker 2020, pers.
comm.), suggesting it supports relatively high population densities
(Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46) compared to other areas within its range,
which provides resiliency for the DPS. This subunit has high predicted
habitat value due to mature forest conditions and numerous giant
sequoia groves and other mixed-coniferous forests with high basal area,
dense canopies, and abundant black oaks which support denning features
(Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46).
Threats identified within this subunit include wildfire and
wildfire suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to
toxicants; potential for effects associated with small population size;
disease and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana
grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the
efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. Federal lands in this
subunit are managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS
2004, entire), the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan
(USFS 2012, entire), and the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
General Management Plan (NPS 2012, entire).
Unit 4: South Sierra
Unit 4 consists of 61,023 ac (24,695 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. Patterson Mountain marks
the approximate southern tip of Unit 4, which then continues to the
northwest approximately to Pine Ridge. From there, the unit forms a
nearly complete ring around Shaver Lake. The San
[[Page 57785]]
Joaquin River and Big Creek are immediately north of the unit. Lands
within this unit include approximately 46,123 ac (18,665 ha; 76
percent) in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest, USFS) and 14,900
ac (6,030 ha; 24 percent) in private ownership. Of the private lands in
this unit, we are considering excluding 10,254 ac (4,150 ha) owned by
Southern California Edison Company based on their forest management
practices that are compatible with fisher conservation by providing
suitable fisher habitat and reducing threats to the DPS. General land
use within this unit includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest,
fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed
fire), grazing, recreation, and residential development.
Unit 4 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
unit is located between the areas with high occupancy rates to the
south and the recently re-colonized areas to the north, indicating the
habitat in this unit is essential for continued population and range
expansion. Approximately 3,089 ac (1,250 ha) of the unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the federally threatened Yosemite toad
(see 50 CFR 17.95(d) and 81 FR 59046, August 26, 2016).
Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants;
potential for effects associated with small population size; disease
and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana
grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the
efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. Federal lands in this unit
are managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004,
entire).
Unit 5: North Sierra
Unit 5 consists of 147,230 ac (59,582 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Madera and Mariposa Counties, California. Unit 5
lies north and west of the San Joaquin River, east of Bass Lake and
California State Route 49, and south of the Merced River and the
unincorporated community of El Portal. Lands within this unit include
approximately 106,240 ac (42,994 ha; 72 percent) managed by USFS
(Sierra National Forest), 31,008 ac (12,548 ha; 21 percent) managed by
NPS (Yosemite National Park), 157 ac (64 ha; less than 1 percent)
managed by BIA (a public domain allotment held in trust status; not
affiliated with a recognized Tribe), and 25 ac (10 ha; less than 1
percent) managed by BLM. Also, there are 9,800 ac (3,966 ha; 7 percent)
in private ownership. General land use within this unit includes forest
management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree
management, forest restoration, prescribed fire), grazing, recreation,
and residential development.
Unit 5 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
unit supports relatively high predicted habitat quality with a high
proportion of shade-tolerant incense cedar and white fir that fishers
use for denning and resting (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 49). This unit was
recently re-colonized in the 1990s (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131), and
its habitat is essential to support the species' continued northern
expansion. Approximately 129 ac (52 ha) of the unit overlap with
designated critical habitat for the federally threatened Yosemite toad
(see 50 CFR 17.95(d) and 81 FR 59046, August 26, 2016).
Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants;
potential for effects associated with small population size; disease
and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and
destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale)
from vegetation management activities through the use of conservation
measures; (3) preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana
grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the
efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new
wildlife road crossings on major roadways. Federal lands in this unit
are managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004,
entire), Yosemite National Park General Management Plan (NPS 1980,
entire), and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Bakersfield
Field Office (BLM 2014, entire).
Unit 6: Stanislaus
Unit 6 consists of 53,102 ac (21,490 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California. Unit 6
is situated between the Merced River to the south and the Tuolumne
River to the north, with Buck Meadows to the west and Tamarack Flat and
Aspen Valley to the east. Lands within this unit include approximately
30,209 ac (12,225 ha; 57 percent) managed by USFS (Stanislaus National
Forest) and 22,096 ac (8,942 ha; 42 percent) managed by NPS (Yosemite
National Park). Also, there are 798 ac (323 ha; 2 percent) in private
ownership. General land use within this unit includes forest management
(e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest
restoration, prescribed fire), grazing, recreation, and residential
development.
Unit 6 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
unit represents the northernmost extent of the species' current range
and was recently re-colonized over the previous decade, with possible
evidence of reproduction documented for the first time in 2020 (Stock
2021, pers. comm.). This northward expansion and establishment of a
subpopulation north of the Merced River improves the redundancy of the
DPS.
Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants;
potential for effects associated with small population size; disease
and predation; and vehicle collisions. Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management practices,
especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to
fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat
[[Page 57786]]
disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the stand scale, home-
range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation management activities
through the use of conservation measures; (3) preventing, locating, and
remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and other sources of
toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing road-crossing
structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on major
roadways. Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire) and the Yosemite
National Park General Management Plan (NPS 1980, entire).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action.
In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request
reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify
some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on
specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species
or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a
description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of the SSN DPS of fisher include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the configuration,
quality, or availability of denning habitats. Such activities are
large-scale activities (as opposed to small, individual projects) that
appreciably diminish the conservation value of the entire critical
habitat designation. Actions could include, but are not limited to,
vegetation management activities (such as fuels reduction and timber
harvest operations) and residential and commercial development. These
activities could reduce the amount and quality of habitat necessary for
the survival and reproduction of fishers.
(2) Actions that would significantly diminish foraging
opportunities. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the
same types of large-scale activities listed in (1), above. These
activities would eliminate or reduce the habitat
[[Page 57787]]
necessary for fishers to safely forage or reduce the availability of
prey species, reducing the fisher's survival and successful
reproduction.
(3) Actions that would reduce connectivity between patches of
denning habitat. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the
same types of large-scale activities listed in (1), above. These
activities would prevent safe movement of adult fishers, dispersing
subadults, and kits.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. No DoD lands
with a completed INRMP are within the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. We describe below the process that we undertook for
taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of
the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM; Service 2021, entire) considering the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed
designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM
was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects
of the designation of critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher (IEc
2021, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis
on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic
impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out
particular geographic areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation)
and includes any probable incremental economic impacts where land and
water use may already be subject to conservation plans, land management
plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the
habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species.
Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on
evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable
incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. If the
proposed critical habitat designation contains any unoccupied units,
the screening analysis assesses whether those units require additional
management or conservation efforts that may incur incremental economic
impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information
contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation
for the SSN DPS of fisher; our DEA is summarized in the narrative
below.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the Executive Orders' regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to
both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and
reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent
practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the
types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas
likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation
of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the
[[Page 57788]]
SSN DPS of fisher, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 29, 2021
(Service 2021, entire), probable incremental economic impacts
associated with the following categories of activities: Development,
fire management, forestry, hydropower, recreation, tourism,
transportation, and conservation/restoration. We considered each
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. Because the species is already listed, in areas where
the SSN DPS of fisher is present, Federal agencies are required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they
fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. When we
finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, our consultations
would also include an evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the SSN
DPS of fisher's critical habitat. The following specific circumstances
help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and
biological feature identified for critical habitat (i.e., denning
habitat with intermixed dispersal and foraging areas) is the most
important feature essential for the life requisites of the species, and
(2) any actions that would result in sufficient adverse effect to the
essential physical and biological feature of critical habitat would
also constitute jeopardy to fishers. The IEM outlines our rationale
concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation
efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat
for the SSN DPS of fisher. This evaluation of the incremental effects
has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental
economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the SSN DPS of fisher
includes six critical habitat units (including Unit 3, which is
subdivided into three subunits) totaling 554,454 ac (224,379 ha), all
of which were occupied by fishers at the time of listing, and are
currently occupied. Any actions that may affect the species or its
habitat would also affect critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any
additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the
adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as
necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the SSN DPS
of fisher. Therefore, the proposed critical habitat designation is
expected to result in only administrative costs. While additional
analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action
agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances,
these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would
not be significant.
The additional administrative effort (i.e., consideration of
adverse modification during the consultation process) includes an
annual estimate of 8 formal consultations, 52 informal consultations, 2
programmatic consultations, and 4 requests for technical assistance.
Our analysis forecasts no incremental costs associated with project
modifications that would involve additional conservation efforts for
the species. The incremental costs for each programmatic, formal,
informal, and technical assistance effort are estimated to be $5,300
(formal consultation), $2,600 (informal consultation), $9,800
(programmatic consultation), and $420 (technical assistance).
Considering adverse modification of fisher critical habitat during
section 7 consultation will result in a total annual incremental cost
of less than approximately $179,300 (2021 dollars) per year for the
fisher (IEc 2021, Exhibit 5); therefore, the annual administrative
burden is unlikely to generate costs exceeding $100 million in a single
year (i.e., the threshold for an economically significant rule under
Executive Order 12866).
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this proposed rule and
our required determinations. During the development of a final
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we
receive credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful
economic or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we
will conduct an exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We
may also exercise the discretion to evaluate any other particular areas
for possible exclusion. Furthermore, when we conduct an exclusion
analysis based on impacts identified by experts in, or sources with
firsthand knowledge about, impacts that are outside the scope of the
Service's expertise, we will give weight to those impacts consistent
with the expert or firsthand information unless we have rebutting
information. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security,
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat.
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have
reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
credible information, including a reasonably specific justification of
an incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2)
[[Page 57789]]
of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does not provide us
with a reasonably specific justification, we will contact the agency to
recommend that it provide a specific justification or clarification of
its concerns relative to the probable incremental impact that could
result from the designation. If we conduct an exclusion analysis
because the agency provides a reasonably specific justification or
because we decide to exercise the discretion to conduct an exclusion
analysis, we will defer to the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another
Federal agency as to: (1) Whether activities on its lands or waters, or
its activities on other lands or waters, have national-security or
homeland-security implications; (2) the importance of those
implications; and (3) the degree to which the cited implications would
be adversely affected in the absence of an exclusion. In that
circumstance, in conducting a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis, we will give great weight to national-security and homeland-
security concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider whether a
national-security or homeland-security impact might exist on lands not
owned or managed by DoD or DHS. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher are not owned or managed by DoD or
DHS. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or
homeland security. However, if through the public comment period we
receive credible information regarding impacts on national security or
homeland security from designating particular areas as critical
habitat, then as part of developing the final designation of critical
habitat, we will conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to
determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. Other relevant impacts may include, but are
not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local governments, public
health and safety, community interests, the environment (such as
increased risk of wildfire or pest and invasive species management),
Federal lands, and conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To
identify other relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis,
we consider a number of factors, including whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species in the area--such as HCPs, safe
harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances (CCAAs)--or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, public-health, community-interest, environmental, or
social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to
critical habitat.
In the case of the SSN DPS of fisher, the benefits of critical
habitat include public awareness of the presence of fishers and the
importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists,
increased habitat protection for fishers due to protection from
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation
equal to or more than the protections that results from a critical
habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including,
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features;
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the
designation.
We are considering whether to exclude the following areas under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation
for the SSN DPS of fisher:
(1) Unit 4: Southern California Edison; 10,254 ac (4,150 ha).
(2) Unit 2: Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation,
California; 16,246 ac (6,574 ha).
However, we specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or
exclusion of such areas. In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed
analysis of our consideration of these lands for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements and
Partnerships
We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat
designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-
Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant
partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that
are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its
habitat, and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects
on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered
by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed by
private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with
the Service, sometimes through the permitting process under Section 10
of the Act.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) analysis, we
evaluate a variety of factors to determine how the benefits of any
exclusion and the benefits of inclusion are affected by the existence
of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and
their attendant partnerships. The factors we consider may differ,
depending on
[[Page 57790]]
whether we are evaluating a conservation plan that involves permits
under Section 10 or a non-permitted plan. See 50 CFR 17.90(d)(3)-(4).
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), a private electric
utility company and landowner, owns and manages approximately 10,254 ac
(4,150 ha) of lands within Unit 4 of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the SSN DPS of fisher. SCE currently manages these
lands to maintain a natural vegetation structure while enhancing
wildlife habitat, forest and watershed health, as well as providing
recreation opportunities and timber revenue (SCE 2021, p. 1). SCE uses
an uneven-aged timber management system, which replicates and re-
establishes natural ecosystem process resulting in an increase in the
diversity of vegetation, providing a broader range of habitat
characteristics for wildlife to utilize (SCE 2021, p. 4). These forest
management practices have maintained and enhanced vital habitat for
fishers and have reduced threats facing the DPS, including improving
resiliency against severe fire and tree mortality (SCE 2021, pp. 4-5).
Additionally, SCE implements a number of avoidance and protection
measures to safeguard biological resources during the implementation of
timber management activities, including fisher-specific measures such
as avoiding the denning period and retaining specific habitat features
that are important to the fisher (e.g., hardwoods, live trees with
cavities or other similar features, snags, platforms and other resting
structures, existing logs and slash) (SCE 2021, pp. 10-12). SCE has
developed a draft plan to guide their management of fisher and fisher
habitat on their forested lands located in the Shaver Lake and Dinkey
Creek areas that describes their current management techniques and
fisher-specific avoidance and protection measures (SCE 2021, entire). A
final plan is expected to be completed before the final designation.
Tribal Lands
Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service--Secretarial Order 3206, American
Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat.
In addition to the general direction discussed above, the Appendix
to S.O. 3206 explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate
fully in any listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal
trust resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat.
Section 3(b)(4) of the Appendix requires the Service to consult with
affected Tribes ``when considering the designation of critical habitat
in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee
lands, or the exercise of Tribal rights.'' That provision also
instructs the Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical
habitat designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed
species, and it requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the
extent to which the conservation needs of the listed species can be
achieved by limiting the designation to other lands.''
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90(d)(1)(i) are
consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary exclusion
analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206, we consult with any Tribe whose
Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee lands, or Tribal rights may
be affected by including any particular areas in the designation, and
we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs of the species
can be achieved by limiting the designation to other areas. We then
weight nonbiological impacts to Tribal lands and resources consistent
with the information provided by the Tribes.
However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or
biological features that may require special management or protection
and unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of a
species), without regard to land ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides
important direction, it expressly states that it does not modify the
Secretary's statutory authority under the Act or other statutes.
There are Tribal lands included in the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher. Using the criteria
described under Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, we have
determined that Tribal lands that are occupied by the SSN DPS of the
fisher contain the feature essential to the conservation of the
species. We have begun government-to-government consultation with the
Tribe, and will continue to do so throughout the public comment period
and during development of the final designation of critical habitat for
the SSN DPS of fisher. We will consider these areas for exclusion from
the final critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with
the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California
Lands that are held in trust by BIA for the Tule River Indian Tribe
of the Tule River Reservation overlap with 16,246 ac (6,574 ha) of Unit
2 of the proposed critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher. We sent a
notification letter in September 2019 to the Tribe describing our
efforts to evaluate the species' status and to develop critical habitat
and soliciting information to aid in our development of a proposed
critical habitat designation. Since then, we have engaged in
conversations with BIA and the Tribe about the proposal. BIA, in
coordination with the Tribe, also reviewed and provided comments on the
draft IEM, in which they expressed support for the exclusion of the
Tribal reservation lands from critical habitat designation. We will
continue to coordinate with the Tribe on this proposal.
The Tribe has a long history of managing and protecting forest
resources on the Reservation. A forest management program that
emphasizes forest health and protection has been in place for over 70
years (Garfield 2021, p. 2). The Tribe's integrated resources
management plan (IRMP) (Lwenya 2013, entire) guides the activities that
occur on the Reservation, including, but not limited to, forest
management (e.g., forest health projects, sustainable timber harvest,
thinning, planting), range management, fire management (e.g.,
suppression, fuels reduction, post-fire rehabilitation, prescribed
burning), and water quality management (e.g., remediation of marijuana
grow sites). Fishers have long been known to occur in the higher-
elevation forests of the Reservation, and both radio telemetry
monitoring and camera surveys have
[[Page 57791]]
documented fisher presence since these efforts began in the early 2010s
(Jensen and Pearson 2021, p. 23). While the IRMP does not offer fisher-
specific management considerations, the Tribe's management practices
are considered generally compatible with fisher conservation by
reducing threats facing the DPS, such as high-severity wildfire (Jensen
and Pearson 2021, p. 38).
We have also recently coordinated with the Tribe and BIA to develop
fisher-specific conservation measures that the Tribe will implement
when conducting resource management activities under the IRMP. These
measures will further ensure that the Tribe's management activities
will minimize adverse effects to the DPS and its habitat and maximize
beneficial effects of forest management to the greatest extent
possible. BIA will enter into section 7 programmatic consultation on
BIA-funded and -permitted activities of the Tribe to ensure that future
actions implemented under the IRMP will not jeopardize the continued
existence of the SSN DPS of fisher.
A final determination on whether the Secretary will exercise her
discretion to exclude this area from critical habitat for the SSN DPS
of fisher will be made at the time of our final determination regarding
critical habitat. We will take into account the Tribe's comments and
carefully weigh the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of the
Tribe's reservation lands.
We may also consider areas not identified above for exclusion from
the final critical habitat designation based on information we may
receive during the public comment period. As noted above, we have
requested that the entities seeking exclusion of areas provide credible
information regarding the existence of a meaningful economic or other
relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion for that particular
area (see 50 CFR 17.90).
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.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this
proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt this proposed critical habitat designation. The
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the critical habitat
[[Page 57792]]
designation for the SSN DPS of fisher will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final as proposed, the
critical habitat designation for the SSN DPS of fisher will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. Operation, management, and maintenance activities of
utility facilities (e.g., hydropower facilities, powerlines, and
pipelines) have been known to occur within the range of the SSN DPS of
fisher and its proposed critical habitat units/subunits (Service 2021,
Table 3); hydropower activities have primarily occurred in Units 2, 3,
4, and 5, and powerline and pipeline utilities activities have occurred
in all units. These are activities that the Service consults on with
Federal agencies (and their respective permittees, including utility
companies) under section 7 of the Act. As discussed in the DEA, the
costs associated with consultations related to occupied critical
habitat would be largely administrative in nature and are not
anticipated to reach $100 million in any given year based on the
anticipated annual number of consultations and associated consultation
costs, which are not expected to exceed $179,300 per year (2021
dollars) (Industrial Economics Inc. 2021, pp. 2, 17-18). In our
economic analysis, we did not find that this proposed critical habitat
designation would significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it is not anticipated to
reach a Federal mandate of $100 million in any given year; that is, it
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations
on State or local governments. Small governments could be affected only
to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely
affect the critical habitat. By definition, Federal agencies are not
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do
not believe that the proposed critical habitat designation would
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Therefore,
a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures or restrictions on use
of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher, and
it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat
does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation.
[[Page 57793]]
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of this
proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource
agencies. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical
habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies.
The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat,
either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a
result, the proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects
either on the States, or on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological
feature(s) of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
State and local governments in long-range planning because they no
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides
several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed
location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
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. The tribal lands in California
included in this proposed designation of critical habitat are the lands
of the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation. We used
the criteria described above under Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat to identify Tribal lands that are occupied by the SSN DPS of
fisher that contain the feature essential to the conservation of the
species. We will consider this area for exclusion from the final
critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with the
requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We began government-to-
government consultation with the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule
River Reservation on September 13, 2019, in a prenotification letter
informing the Tribe that we had begun an analysis of the species'
status and an evaluation of potential critical habitat areas for the
fisher. We solicited information on the Tribe's activities and any
section 7 consultation history in coordination with BIA, and invited
them to discuss the critical habitat process. We have since had
informal government-to-government discussions with the Tribe to explain
the proposal to designate critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher,
and to describe the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Beginning in September 2020, we have been coordinating with the Tribe
and BIA to develop fisher-specific conservation measures that the Tribe
can implement to aid in fisher conservation, and to ensure compliance
of the Tribe's and BIA's activities through section 7 of the Act.
Finally, the Tribe, in coordination with BIA, had an opportunity to
review the draft IEM, and their comments were incorporated into the
final IEM. We will continue to work with the Tribe during the
development of a final rule for the designation of critical habitat for
the SSN DPS of fisher.
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
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
[[Page 57794]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
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--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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 revising the entry for ``Fisher (Southern
Sierra Nevada DPS)'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
under MAMMALS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Fisher [Southern Sierra Nevada Pekania pennanti... U.S.A. (Southern E 85 FR 29532, 5/15/2020;
DPS]. Sierra Nevada, 50 CFR 17.95(a).\CH\
CA).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by adding an entry for ``Fisher (Pekania
pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment (DPS)''
immediately following the entry for ``Woodland Caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou), Southern Mountain Distinct Population Segment
(DPS)'', to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct
Population Segment (DPS)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Fresno, Kern, Madera,
Mariposa, Tulare, and Tuolumne Counties, California, on the maps in
this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical and biological feature
essential to the conservation of the Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of
fisher is suitable, high-quality denning habitat that includes
intermixed foraging and dispersal areas. Such habitat provides
structural features for parturition, raising kits, protection from
adverse weather conditions, facilitation of safe movement, sites to
rest and thermoregulate, foraging opportunities, and cover to reduce
predation risk for adults and young. The characteristics of this
physical and biological feature include:
(i) Forest types described as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
eastside pine, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), montane hardwood-conifer,
montane hardwood, montane riparian, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa),
Sierran mixed conifer, or white fir (Abies concolor) of California
Wildlife Habitat Relationships size and density classes 4D, 5M, 5D, or
6.
(ii) Forest stands in or near drainages with clusters of large,
mature trees and snags, high canopy cover (generally greater than or
equal to 60 percent), complex horizontal and vertical forest structure
(e.g., multilayered canopy, moderate shrub cover, downed wood,
vegetation of varying age classes), a moderate intermix of California
black oak (Quercus kelloggii), and fairly steep slopes (greater than or
equal to 17 percent).
(iii) Multiple large diameter trees (live or dead), such as
conifers greater than or equal to 35 inches (in) (89 centimeters (cm))
and hardwoods greater than or equal to 25 in (63 cm) in diameter, with
cavities that provide secure natal and maternal den sites. Some of
these large diameter trees or snags should also have branch platforms,
broken top platforms, mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infections, and
other deformities or structures that provide resting sites.
(iv) Shrub and tree clumps, large downed logs, and other structures
that provide continuous dense cover or patches of dense cover that are
close together to provide protection from predators.
(v) Intermixed foraging areas that typically include a diversity of
vegetation types and seral stages to support a variety of prey species
(such as western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), Douglas squirrels
(Tamiasciurus douglasii), California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus
beecheyi), dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), and other small
mammals), and structures that provide fishers resting sites and
protection from predators.
(vi) Intermixed dispersal areas that provide connectivity between
patches of denning habitat to allow for movement of individuals within
subpopulations. Dispersal areas must contain structures and habitat
characteristics that facilitate resting and safe movement. These
habitat characteristics and structures include some overhead cover from
trees or shrubs (i.e., greater than 30 percent for male dispersal and
greater than 60 percent for female dispersal), snags, downed logs, or
other components to protect fishers from predation and allow for
sufficient resting opportunities.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using fisher
habitat suitability models developed by the Conservation Biology
Institute, and critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator Zone 11N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or
both on which each map is based are available to the public at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060 and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 57795]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.000
(6) Unit 1: Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California.
(i) Unit 1 consists of 64,785 acres (ac) (26,218 hectares (ha)) of
occupied habitat on the Kern Plateau, east of the Kern River, west of
South Fork Kern River and Kennedy Meadows, north of Sirretta Peak, and
south of Templeton Mountain. Lands within this unit include 64,131 ac
(25,953) ac in Federal ownership (Inyo National Forest and Sequoia
National Forest) and approximately 654 ac (265 ha) in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[[Page 57796]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.001
(7) Unit 2: South Sequoia, Kern and Tulare Counties, California.
(i) Unit 2 consists of 115,637 ac (46,797 ha) of occupied habitat
in the Sierra Nevada mountains, extending northward from the
southwestern tip of the Sierra Nevada and Greenhorn Mountains until it
abuts Subunit 3A in the area of Mountain Home Demonstration State
Forest (Mountain Home). Bear Creek in the Tule River Watershed serves
as the northern boundary of Unit 2 from the western edge of the unit to
a wildland-urban interface (WUI) associated with Mountain Home. The
boundary follows the northern border of this WUI and then continues to
the northeast until the eastern edge of the unit. The unit lies north
and west of the Kern River and east of Springville and California Hot
Springs. Lands within this unit include 93,106 ac (37,679 ha) in
Federal ownership (Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National
Monument, and BLM), 2,147 ac (869 ha) in State ownership (Cal Fire and
State Lands Commission), 16,246 ac (6,574 ha) of lands that are held in
trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Tule River Indian Tribe
of the Tule River Reservation, and 4,138 ac (1,674 ha) in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[[Page 57797]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.002
(8) Unit 3: North Sequoia, Fresno and Tulare Counties, California.
(i) Unit 3 consists of three subunits comprising 112,676 ac (45,597
ha) of occupied habitat in the vicinities of Dillonwood Grove and Homes
Nose-Paradise Peak in Tulare County, and Muir Grove in both Fresno and
Tulare Counties.
(A) Subunit 3A consists of 15,225 ac (6,161 ha) of occupied habitat
in Tulare County west of Moses Mountain, east of Battle Mountain, and
south of Homes Nose. Subunit 3A abuts Unit 2 to the south. Lands within
this subunit include approximately 12,943 ac (5,238 ha) in Federal
ownership (Giant Sequoia National Monument, Sequoia National Forest,
and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks), 1,315 ac (532 ha) in
State ownership (Cal Fire), and 967 ac (391 ha) in private ownership.
(B) Subunit 3B consists of 9,369 ac (3,791 ha) of occupied habitat
in Tulare County north and west of Homes Nose, east of Case Mountain,
and south of Paradise Peak. Subunit 3B crosses the East Fork Kaweah
River. Lands within this subunit are all in Federal ownership (Sequoia
and Kings Canyon National Parks, and BLM).
(C) Subunit 3C consists of 88,082 ac (35,645 ha) of occupied
habitat in Fresno and Tulare Counties north of Paradise Peak extending
northwest across the North Fork Kaweah River to
[[Page 57798]]
the Kings River Canyon. A sinuous arm of the unit extends east along
the southern edge of the Kings River Canyon to approximately Cedar
Grove. Lands within this subunit include 85,526 ac (34,611 ha) in
Federal ownership (Giant Sequoia National Monument, Sequoia National
Forest, Sierra National Forest, and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks), 386 ac (156 ha) in State ownership (State Lands Commission),
and 2,170 ac (878 ha) in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.003
(9) Unit 4: South Sierra, Fresno County, California.
(i) Unit 4 consists of 61,023 ac (24,695 ha) of occupied habitat in
the Sierra Nevada mountains. Patterson Mountain marks the approximate
southern tip of this unit, which then continues to the northwest
approximately to the unincorporated community of Pineridge. From there,
the unit forms a nearly complete ring around Shaver Lake. The San
Joaquin River and the town of Big Creek are immediately north of the
unit. Lands within this unit include 46,123 ac (18,665 ha) in Federal
ownership (Sierra National Forest) and 14,900 ac (6,030 ha) in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
[[Page 57799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.004
(10) Unit 5: North Sierra, Madera and Mariposa Counties,
California.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 147,230 ac (59,582 ha) of occupied habitat
in the Sierra Nevada mountains north and west of the San Joaquin River,
east of Bass Lake and California State Route 49, and south of the
Merced River and the unincorporated community of El Portal. Lands
within this unit include 137,430 ac (55,616 ha) in Federal ownership
(Sierra National Forest, Yosemite National Park, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management) and 9,800 ac (3,966 ha) in
private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
[[Page 57800]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.005
(11) Unit 6: Stanislaus, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties,
California.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 53,102 ac (21,490 ha) of occupied habitat
situated between the Merced River to the south and the Tuolumne River
to the north, with Buck Meadows to the west and Tamarack Flat and Aspen
Valley to the east. Lands within this unit include 52,304 ac (21,167
ha) in Federal ownership (Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite
National Park) and 798 ac (323 ha) in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
[[Page 57801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC21.006
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-22449 Filed 10-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C