[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66987-67006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23949]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
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; revisions and reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
revisions to the critical habitat we proposed on October 19, 2021, 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). As a result of the critical habitat
revisions, we now propose to designate a total of approximately 595,495
acres (240,988 hectares) as critical habitat for the Southern Sierra
Nevada DPS of fisher across six units (one unit of which is further
subdivided into two subunits) in California. This amounts to an overall
increase of 41,041 acres (16,609 hectares) in our proposed critical
habitat designation for the DPS, which includes revisions to all six
units. We invite interested parties to comment on the revisions
described in this document. Comments previously submitted on the
October 19, 2021, proposed rule need not be resubmitted, as they will
be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: The comment period is reopened for the proposed rule published
on October 19, 2021, at 86 FR 57773. So that we can fully consider your
comments on the revisions described in this document in our final
determination, submit your comments on or before December 22, 2022.
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.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may obtain copies of the October 19,
2021, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060.
[[Page 66988]]
Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the 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 https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
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.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our October 19, 2021, proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of fisher
(86 FR 57773), the revisions to the proposed critical habitat
designation that are described in this document, and our revised draft
economic assessment (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation.
We will consider information and recommendations from all interested
parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Southern Sierra
Nevada 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 or biological
features essential to the conservation of the DPS should be included in
the designation and why;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the DPS in
Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties in
California that should be included in the designation (in particular,
areas that occur outside of the new model described in this document)
because they either were 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 were 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
(2) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(3) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the DPS's proposed critical habitat.
(4) 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.
(5) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely
economic impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas, in particular those covered by a
conservation program or plan, that we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and 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 why. These areas may include Federal,
Tribal, State, county, local, or private lands with permitted
conservation plans (such as habitat conservation plans, safe harbor
agreements, or conservation easements) covering the species or non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat.
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 Southern Sierra
Nevada DPS of fisher and its habitat.
(7) 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.
If you submitted comments or information on the October 19, 2021,
proposed rule or the associated DEA during the comment period that was
open from October 19, 2021, to December 20, 2021, please do not
resubmit them. Any such comments are already part of the public record
of this rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the
preparation of our final determination. Our final determination will
take into consideration all written comments and any additional
information we receive during the initial comment period and this
reopened comment period. The final decision may differ from this
revised proposed rule, based on our review of all information we
receive during this rulemaking proceeding.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the
methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be
posted on the website. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060, or by appointment, during normal
business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
[[Page 66989]]
CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-
0060, or by mail from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this document only those topics
directly relevant to the revisions of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN) DPS of fisher.
For more information on the species, its habitat, and previous Federal
actions concerning the SSN DPS of fisher, refer to the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2021 (86 FR 57773).
Our proposed critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher consists of the
October 19, 2021, proposed rule as modified by the revisions described
in this document.
On October 19, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR
57773) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the SSN DPS of
fisher in six units (one unit of which was further divided into three
subunits) encompassing approximately 554,454 acres (ac) (224,379
hectares (ha)) in California. In addition, we announced the
availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation. We
accepted comments on the proposed rule and DEA for 60 days, ending
December 20, 2021. Based on information we received during the public
comment period, we propose to revise the critical habitat designation
and are, therefore, reopening the comment period to allow the public
additional time to submit comments on the revisions outlined herein.
Although the critical habitat designation for the fisher was
proposed when the regulatory definition of habitat (85 FR 81411,
December 16, 2020) and the 4(b)(2) exclusion regulations (85 FR 82376,
December 18, 2020) were in place and in effect, those two regulations
have been rescinded (87 FR 37757, June 24, 2022, and 87 FR 43433, July
21, 2022) and no longer apply to any designations of critical habitat.
Therefore, for the final rule designating critical habitat for the
fisher, we will apply the regulations at 424.19 and the 2016 Joint
Policy on 4(b)(2) exclusions (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
New Information and Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat
During the public comment period for the October 19, 2021, proposed
rule, we received 63 comment letters on the proposed critical habitat
designation. We received information regarding site-specific areas that
two Federal landowners and a peer reviewer believe meet the definition
of critical habitat but were not included in the October 19, 2021,
proposed rule. We also received comments notifying us of a new Fisher
Reproductive Habitat Suitability Model (2021 Reproductive Model). We
also had conversations with species experts to identify additional
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat (see Habitat
Analysis, below, for more details). We subsequently determined that the
2021 Reproductive Model and comments received on site-specific habitat
areas are now the best available information upon which to base
critical habitat. Under our methodology, the use of this new
information results in needed revisions to the critical habitat
boundaries presented in our October 19, 2021, proposed rule;
specifically, our new analysis of the best available information (i.e.,
the 2021 Reproductive Model and other site-specific information) has
resulted in changes to all six units described in the October 19, 2021,
proposed critical habitat designation. The revised proposed units are
in the same counties in California as those in the October 19, 2021,
proposed critical habitat designation. The revised proposed units are
described in this document.
We propose the following unit revisions, all of which are areas
occupied by the SSN DPS of fisher at the time of listing. The revisions
are summarized here, and the full descriptions and acreage changes
follow in Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation, below:
(1) We are revising the six existing proposed units of critical
habitat based on the 2021 Reproductive Model that prompted our
reanalysis of the best available information and on the comments we
received during the October 19, 2021, proposed rule's initial comment
period. Proposed Unit 3 no longer includes subunits, and proposed Unit
4 now includes two subunits.
(2) We are adding some area to Units 1, 3, 4, and 5 based on
comments we received from Federal partners and one peer reviewer during
the October 19, 2021, proposed rule's initial comment period regarding
the accuracy of existing versions of habitat models and follow-up
conversations with species experts to evaluate the new modeled
reproductive habitat information (Craig 2021, in. litt., pp. 3-4, 13-
14; Sweitzer 2021, in litt., pp. 3-7; Muldoon 2021, in litt., p. 1;
Tucker 2022, pers. comm.). According to Thompson et al. (2021a, pp. 8,
10) and species expert opinion, the 2021 Reproductive Model's accuracy
is decreased in certain areas due to a sampling bias in the data used
to create the model (see Habitat Analysis, below, for more details).
Therefore, this revised proposed rule includes areas that species
experts suggest support the physical and biological feature despite
being omitted by the 2021 Reproductive Model. The areas added include
extending Unit 1 to the south to better reflect fisher habitat use on
the Kern Plateau based on regional monitoring; extending Unit 3 towards
the Hume Lake area where occupancy monitoring and recent detections of
adult females indicate habitat quality was undervalued by the 2021
Reproductive Model; adding an area east of Mammoth Pool Reservoir in
Unit 4 that supports successful reproduction in atypical, high-
elevation habitat that was underrepresented by the 2021 Reproductive
Model; extending Unit 5 around the Shuteye Pass area that supports
multiple female home ranges and contains atypical, high-elevation
habitat that was underrepresented by the 2021 Reproductive Model; and
extending Unit 5 to include atypical, high-elevation habitat
underrepresented by the 2021 Reproductive Model along Glacier Point
Road in Yosemite National Park where fishers have been consistently
detected.
(3) We are editing the physical and biological feature to ensure
its clarity and to better reflect the inclusivity of reproductive
habitat, which consists of denning, foraging, and dispersal areas. This
is consistent with the approach taken by experts for the development of
the 2021 Reproductive Model.
(4) We are revising the criteria used to identify critical habitat
to use the best available science including the 2021 Reproductive
Model, expert opinion on additional areas that contain the physical and
biological feature that is essential to the conservation of the
species, and research on fisher use of post-fire landscapes.
(5) We are continuing to consider the exclusion of Southern
California Edison Company (SCE) lands and the Tule River Indian
Reservation as described in our October 19, 2021, proposed rule.
However, the acreages of revised proposed critical habitat on SCE and
Tule River Indian Tribe lands, and thus the acreages considered for
exclusion, have changed based on the revised criteria. As described in
our October 19, 2021, proposed rule, the considered exclusion of the
Tule River Indian Reservation is based on our partnership with the
Tribe, the Tribe's long history of managing and protecting forest
resources, and fisher-specific conservation measures the Tribe
implements when conducting activities (Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2021,
pp. 16-
[[Page 66990]]
27). The Tribal acreage within Unit 2 considered for exclusion has
decreased from 16,246 ac (6,574 ha) to 14,622 ac (5,917 ha) due to a
reduction in the amount of predicted suitable habitat on the
Reservation according to the 2021 Reproductive Model. The SCE acreage
within Unit 4 and considered for exclusion has decreased from 10,254 ac
(4,150 ha) to 8,322 (3,368 ha) mainly due to our consideration of the
effects of the Creek Fire on fisher habitat.
All of the lands in the above-described revised proposed units were
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied, contain the
physical or biological feature to support life-history functions
essential to the conservation of the SSN DPS of fisher, and may require
special management considerations or protection from threats as
described in the October 19, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 57773). Revised
proposed unit descriptions follow for all six units, and short textual
descriptions of each proposed unit are also updated in the regulatory
text of the critical habitat designation.
The DEA for the proposed critical habitat designation (IEc 2021,
entire) has been revised (IEc 2022, entire) and addresses additional
information and considerations by the Service. Based on consultation
history for the SSN DPS of fisher and with consideration of this
revised proposed rule, the number of section 7 efforts is likely to be
approximately 8 formal consultations, 52 informal consultations, and 4
technical assistance per year on average, with the highest costs
anticipated in Units 2 and 5 (IEc 2022, pp. 2, 14-15). The additional
administrative (incremental) cost of addressing adverse modification in
these consultations is likely to be less than $180,100 (2022 dollars)
per year (IEc 2022, pp. 2, 17, 19). This represents an $800 increase in
the annual administrative cost relative to the July 1, 2021, version of
the DEA.
Revised Physical or Biological Feature Essential to the Conservation of
the Species
We derive the specific physical or biological feature 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 2016,
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).
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. Additional information can be found in the final
listing rule (85 FR 29532, May 15, 2020) and the species report
(Service 2016, entire) that was developed in conjunction with the
proposed listing rule. These background documents are available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2021-0060.
After reviewing the 2021 Reproductive Model and comments we
received on our October 19, 2021, proposed rule, we are revising the
physical and biological feature to better align with the best available
science. While the 2015 Pre-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability
Model and the 2020 Post-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability
Model we used as the basis of our October 19, 2021, proposed rule
focused entirely on known dens, the 2021 Reproductive Model took a
broader approach at identifying the habitats that fishers require to
successfully reproduce. In addition to habitat required for denning,
the 2021 Reproductive Model also took into consideration rearing
habitat (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 2). This includes foraging areas
where females can capture prey to feed their young, and dispersal areas
that mothers use to move their kits between dens and juveniles use to
disperse from their natal home ranges to establish their own home
ranges. Oftentimes, these denning and rearing habitats can overlap or
even be the same (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 2). Collectively, these
habitats each play an important role in a female fisher successfully
raising her kits. Therefore, we revise our physical and biological
feature to better capture this more inclusive ``reproductive habitat''
that is essential to the conservation of the species. We also revise
the physical and biological feature to include additional forest types
that fishers use to support reproduction (Muldoon 2021, in litt., p. 1;
Thompson et al. 2020, p. 7).
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 reproductive habitat
that includes intermixed denning, 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, white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies
magnifica), or lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) of California Wildlife
Habitat Relationships size and density classes 4M, 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
[[Page 66991]]
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.
Revised Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
Based on the release of the 2021 Reproductive Model and after
reviewing peer and public comments on our October 19, 2021, proposed
rule, we revised the criteria used to identify critical habitat. This
new information represents the best available science that forms the
basis of our proposed designation. In summary, we made the following
revisions to the criteria for identifying critical habitat:
(1) Replace the 2015 Pre-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability
Model and the 2020 Post-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability
Model with the 2021 Reproductive Model;
(2) Include additional areas that species experts suggest were
underrepresented or undervalued by the 2021 Reproductive Model but
support the physical and biological feature and are essential to the
conservation of the species (see Habitat Analysis, below, for more
details);
(3) Use wildfire burn severity data to identify areas that no
longer support the physical and biological feature due to impacts of
recent wildfires; and
(4) Exclude buildings and the defensible space around buildings
solely via text instead of using Cal Fire's housing density data to
spatially remove these areas on the associated critical habitat maps.
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,
expert opinion, and reasonable inferences regarding female home range
size and the effect of high severity wildfire, we conducted a habitat
analysis to identify the spatial extent of the physical and biological
feature (see Habitat Analysis, below).
(3) Based on the results of these analyses, we delineated six
discrete critical habitat units (including one unit--Unit 4--that is
subdivided into two subunits) separated by evidence of genetic
discontinuity and gaps in contiguous reproductive habitat typically
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, University of California (UC)
Berkeley Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project, USFS Sierra Nevada
Carnivore Monitoring Program, and National Park Service (NPS)
databases;
(2) Models developed by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI),
including the 2021 Reproductive Model and the 2020 Post-Drought Fisher
Landscape-Scale Habitat Suitability Model (2020 Landscape-Scale Model);
(3) Wildfire data from the joint U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-USFS
Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) project; 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,
NPS, and UC Berkeley 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 2015 (Zielinski et al. 2013, pp. 8-10; Tucker 2019, pers.
comm.), indicating that, in general, sites that were previously
occupied continued to be occupied into the mid-2010s. Analyses on
occupancy during recent years (2016-2021) are ongoing (Craig 2021, in
litt., p. 3).
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.
Habitat Analysis
We used two habitat models developed by CBI to better understand
the broad-scale spatial extent of reproductive habitat in the southern
Sierra Nevada. Our analysis was largely focused on reproductive habitat
because this habitat type is essential for successful denning, rearing
of kits, and juvenile recruitment. Reproductive habitat also supports
other life-history activities necessary for female and male survival,
such as foraging, resting, and dispersal. Therefore, sustaining and
enhancing the broad-scale spatial extent of reproductive habitat,
composed of fine-scale denning, foraging, and dispersal areas, is vital
to conservation and recovery of the species (Thompson et al. 2021a, p.
9).
We used the 2021 Reproductive Model (Thompson et al. 2021a, entire)
to identify the broad-scale spatial extent of reproductive habitat.
This 2021 Reproductive Model used a combination of fisher observations
indicative of
[[Page 66992]]
habitat used by female fishers for raising their young, including known
den locations, detections of family groups, and detections of adult
females during the denning period (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 3). The
2021 Reproductive Model also includes 12 biotic and abiotic predictors
including climate, hydrology, and forest structure variables (Thompson
et al. 2021a, pp. 4, 6). By using a combination of fisher observation
data paired with a variety of environmental variables, the 2021
Reproductive Model's results are representative of habitat that is most
likely to support fisher reproduction (i.e., habitat that supports
potential dens plus foraging areas that females use to capture prey and
dispersal areas that connect multiple dens within a home range and
allows juveniles to disperse from their natal ranges to establish their
own home ranges). There are known instances where female fishers have
denned and successfully reproduced outside of the modeled extent of
predicted reproductive habitat (see more details regarding
underrepresentation and undervaluation of habitat quality below). Model
results are not intended to conclude complete absence of dens or
fishers outside of the predicted areas. It is important to note that
the 2021 Reproductive Model merely predicts the areas that are most
likely to support fisher reproduction, rather than representing the
absolute area where fishers will successfully reproduce (Thompson et
al. 2021a, p. 9).
The 2021 Reproductive Model's output is presented as two classes:
high-quality and moderate-quality reproductive habitat. However, the
suitability thresholds are somewhat subjective, and the modelers
cautioned that the boundaries between the two classes should not be
treated as absolutes (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 10). For the purposes
of identifying the spatial extent of the physical and biological
feature, we considered both high-quality and moderate-quality modeled
reproductive habitat to represent suitable habitat most likely to
support successful reproduction.
The Kern Plateau, where females have repeatedly been detected
during regional monitoring surveys (Craig 2021, in litt., p. 3), 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 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 Kern
Plateau is excluded from the 2021 Reproductive Model (Thompson et al.
2021a, p. 4). To ensure that essential areas of suitable habitat on the
Kern Plateau are considered for inclusion in critical habitat, we used
CBI's 2020 Landscape-Scale 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 2020 Landscape-
Scale 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
reproductive habitat on the Kern Plateau.
To determine if a patch of reproductive habitat, or high-quality
habitat in the case of the Kern Plateau, is essential to the
conservation of the DPS, 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 reproductive 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 reproductive habitat 12,500 ac (5,059 ha) or larger are
included in the revised proposed critical habitat designation. We also
included one additional patch that plays an important role for the DPS
despite being slightly smaller than our minimum size threshold. This
patch is approximately 12,049 ac (4,876 ha) and is located within the
average juvenile female dispersal distance (3.04 mi (4.9 km) (Spencer
et al. 2015, p. 20)) of two subpopulations with high occupancy rates.
In addition to providing a moderately large patch of reproductive
habitat, this patch also provides important connectivity between the
two robust subpopulations (Coleman 2022, pers. comm.). Further, this
patch is of heightened importance to the DPS when considering the
impacts that recent fires have had on surrounding habitats (Coleman
2022, pers. comm.).
The models used for our analysis resulted in outputs with several
``holes'' where modeled reproductive habitat quality dropped below a
threshold set by the modelers based on their understanding of
reproductive 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,
especially for males. Due to their proximity to denning habitat and
their utility to support other life-history needs of the fisher, 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 we include them in the proposed critical habitat
designation.
The modelers note that sampling bias in the 2021 Reproductive
Model's training data (i.e., data used to build the model) may result
in limited accuracy of the model's results in certain areas (Thompson
et al. 2021a, pp. 8, 10). In some circumstances, this sampling bias
resulted in the 2021 Reproductive Model predicting certain areas to be
of low quality even though the area supports fisher and fisher habitat.
This undervaluing of habitat quality is most likely to occur at higher
elevations where training data were lacking or in areas with slightly
different habitat composition than represented by the training data
(Thompson et al. 2021a, pp. 8, 10). Thus, Thompson et al. (2021a, p.
10) recommends using the 2021 Reproductive Model in concert with
additional information, such as species expert opinion on habitat
quality and availability in local areas. To ensure our methodology does
not inadvertently omit areas that support the physical and biological
feature and are essential to the conservation of the species, we
solicited expert opinion to identify areas where the 2021 Reproductive
Model or the 2020 Landscape-Scale Model may have underrepresented
habitat availability and quality. Using these identified areas
[[Page 66993]]
of additional habitat availability, we include the following areas that
support the physical and biological feature and are essential to the
conservation of the species despite being outside of the modeled area:
(1) We added unmodeled habitat to the southern extent of Unit 1 on
the Kern Plateau. This model correction better reflects fisher habitat
use based on regional monitoring (Craig 2021, in litt., pp. 3, 13).
This added area is also important considering the impacts of wildfires
that have altered habitat in surrounding areas (Craig 2021, in litt.,
p. 3).
(2) We added unmodeled habitat to the northern extent of Unit 3 in
the Hume Lake area where consistent occupancy throughout the duration
of USFS's monitoring program and recent detections of adult females
confirm the use of habitat in this area and thus suggest the 2021
Reproductive Model undervalues habitat quality here (Tucker 2022, pers.
comm.).
(3) We added a patch of unmodeled habitat east of Mammoth Pool
Reservoir that contains the physical and biological feature, has been
consistently occupied throughout the duration of USFS's monitoring
program's history, and supports successful reproduction as indicated by
detections of adult females and kits (Craig 2021, in litt., pp. 4, 14;
Tucker 2022, pers. comm.). In addition to supporting reproduction, this
area also provides important connectivity between occupied areas to the
south and west. This area contains atypical, high-elevation habitat
that the 2021 Reproductive Model undervalued in quality (Tucker 2022,
pers. comm.).
(4) We added unmodeled habitat to the southeastern extent of Unit 4
to include an area around Shuteye Peak, Little Shuteye Peak, and
Shuteye Pass. This area, which consists of atypical habitat at higher
elevations that the 2021 Reproductive Model undervalues in quality,
supports several adult females' home ranges that were monitored for the
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project Fisher Study (Sweitzer 2021,
in litt., pp. 3-7; Sweitzer et al. 2015, entire). In addition to
supporting known reproduction, this area was also identified as an
important habitat corridor for fishers making both long- and short-
distance dispersal movements (Sweitzer 2021, in litt., pp. 4, 6-7;
Sweitzer et al. 2015, p. D109).
(5) We added unmodeled habitat to the northeastern extent of Unit 5
to include occupied habitat along Glacier Point Road in Yosemite
National Park based on consistent detections of males and females by
the NPS (Muldoon 2021, in litt., p. 1). This area consists of atypical
habitat types at high elevations that were underrepresented in the 2021
Reproductive Model despite the importance for the persistence of the
species.
Within the areas modeled as reproductive habitat and the additional
essential areas that support reproduction according to species experts,
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
support the fisher's life-history activities.
Next, we considered the impact of recent wildfires on fisher
habitat. The fisher's use of post-fire landscapes is not well
understood because few studies on the topic exist, but high-severity
fire is believed to have significant negative effects on the fisher and
its habitat (Craig 2021, in litt., p. 2). One recent study in the
southern Sierra Nevada found that fishers avoid areas dominated by
high- and moderate-severity fire and the fisher's use of post-fire
habitat may center on larger, more contiguous patches of low-severity
burns or unburned islands and on fine-scale topographic features
associated with landscape concavity (e.g., ravines) (Thompson et al.
2021b, p. 235). A study conducted on the Northern California-Southern
Oregon DPS of fisher concluded that fisher abundance decreased
significantly in areas of low-, moderate-, and high-severity wildfire
(Green et al. 2022, p. 12). The fisher's use of a burned area appears
to gradually increase as time since the fire passes. Both Thompson et
al. (2021b, pp. 235-236) and Green et al. (2022, p. 14) found that
fishers began to explore the burned landscape after 2 or more years
post-fire as vegetative cover, such as shrubs, begin to recover. In a
study on the Kern Plateau, fishers were detected deeper into burned
patches when surveyed 10+ years post-fire, mirroring Thompson et al.'s
(2021b, p. 236) conclusion that fishers' willingness to venture farther
into burned habitat increases over time (Hanson 2013, pp. 26-27; Hanson
2015, pp. 499-500).
While high-severity fire may not completely remove all suitable
fisher habitat, it likely precludes successful reproduction, at least
until the habitat structure required for raising kits recovers. Hanson
(2015, p. 500) concluded that the fisher's use of high-severity burn
areas revolves around foraging, rather than denning. Green et al.
(2022, p. 14) posited that the two fishers detected within the studied
burned areas were likely dispersing individuals that were attempting to
establish home ranges, although one of the individuals (a female) was
not detected in follow-up surveys, indicating she did not successfully
establish a home range in the area. Similarly, Thompson et al. (2021b,
p. 238) concluded that dispersing fishers may be drawn to burned
landscapes with increased prey availability and reduced conflict with
territorial adults, but post-burn habitat is unlikely to support
reproduction due to lack of resting and denning structures, at least in
the short term.
Based on the best available science, we determined that the
physical and biological feature does not occur in areas that recently
burned in large, contiguous patches at high severity, especially along
the periphery of modeled reproductive habitat patches. The 2021
Reproductive Model used vegetation data from 2016, and, therefore, does
not account for impacts of recent wildfires. We used MTBS Differenced
Normalized Burn Ratio data from all wildfires that overlapped modeled
fisher habitat from 2016 through 2020 to identify vegetation burn
severity classes of individual fires. Using these data, we excluded
from the critical habitat designation the burned areas that no longer
support the physical and biological feature. Although MTBS data for
2021 wildfires are not currently available for analysis in this revised
proposed designation, we will consider the appropriateness of using
2021 data following our methodology described here if the data become
available while we are preparing the final rule. Incorporating these
data in our final rule could potentially reduce the area designated as
critical habitat if burn severity data suggest the physical and
biological feature was removed in certain areas due to the 2021 fires.
Finally, we considered areas with high human activity (i.e., areas
immediately surrounding houses and buildings) that, although they may
support fishers and their habitat, are not essential to the
conservation of the DPS. 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). Further, areas surrounding
homes and buildings generally have been and will be treated heavily to
reduce the risk of fire to human life 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 did not
[[Page 66994]]
geospatially remove houses and buildings and the defensible space
around them from the maps under Proposed Regulation Promulgation,
below, because accurate geospatial data were not available to us.
However, buildings and the 100 feet (30.5 meters) of defensible space
around buildings have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and
are not proposed for designation as critical habitat because they do
not contain the physical and biological feature. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these textually excluded lands, even if within the boundaries of
critical habitat as shown by the maps of the rule, 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.
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 4--that is
subdivided into two subunits) were delineated based on evidence of
genetic discontinuity and gaps between patches of modeled 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. Unit 3 and Unit 4 (South Sierra; Subunit 4A--
Blue Canyon) 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). A break in modeled reproductive habitat
separates Subunit 4A from Subunit 4B (Mammoth Pool East). Unit 4
(Subunit 4B) 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 in the
vicinity of the Merced River.
Under this revised proposal, six units (including one unit--Unit
4--that is subdivided into two 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 revised 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 https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2021-0060.
Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
In total, we now propose to designate approximately 595,495 ac
(240,988 ha) in six units (one unit of which is subdivided into two
subunits). The six areas we propose as critical habitat (from south to
north) are: (1) Kern Plateau; (2) South Sequoia; (3) North Sequoia; (4)
South Sierra, including two subunits; (5) North Sierra; and (6)
Stanislaus. The revised proposed critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment, at this time, of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat, and all units were occupied at the time
of listing and are considered currently occupied by the species. The
table below shows the proposed unit names, land ownership, and
approximate acreage.
This document also presents brief descriptions of the revised
units, including the reasons why they meet the definition of critical
habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher. All units contain the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection. This
revised proposed critical habitat designation includes overlap of two
units 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). This revised proposed rule also includes
overlap of one unit each with portions of designated critical habitat
for the federally threatened Little Kern golden trout (Oncorhynchus
aguabonita whitei) (see 50 CFR 17.95(e) and 43 FR 15427, April 13,
1978) and the federally endangered California condor (Gymnogyps
californianus) (see 50 CFR 17.95(b) and 41 FR 41914, September 24,
1976). Overlap of proposed critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher
includes 6,568 ac (2,657 ha) of Yosemite toad designated critical
habitat, 7,847 ac (3,176 ha) of Little Kern golden trout designated
critical habitat, and 118 ac (48 ha) of California condor designated
critical habitat. Acreages of overlap are noted in the applicable unit
descriptions, below.
Table of Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the SSN DPS of Fisher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Land ownership Approx. changes in Previous unit
Critical habitat unit by type Approx. acres hectares acres numbering
(hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1--Kern Plateau......... Federal........ 77,397 31,322 +13,266 (5,369) No Change.
State.......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Tribal......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Unclassified/ 781 316 +127 (51)......
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.. 78,178 31,637 +13,393 (5,419)
-------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--South Sequoia........ Federal........ 125,568 50,815 +32,462 No Change.
(13,136).
State.......... 3,461 1,401 +1,314 (532)...
Tribal \1\..... 14,622 5,917 -1,624 (657)...
Unclassified/ 6,310 2,554 +2,172 (880)...
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66995]]
Unit Total.. 149,962 60,687 +34,325
(13,890).
-------------------------------------------------
Unit 3--North Sequoia \2\.... Federal........ 108,015 43,712 +177 (72)...... Formerly
State.......... 1,889 765 +188 (77)...... Subunits 3A,
3B, and 3C.
Tribal......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Unclassified/ 5,048 2,043 +1,911 (774)...
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.. 114,952 46,519 +2,276 (922)...
-------------------------------------------------
Unit 4--South Sierra \3\..... Federal........ 60,462 24,467 +14,339 (5,802) Unit subdivided
State.......... 0 0 0 (0).......... into two
subunits
(below).
Tribal......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Unclassified/ 15,638 6,328 +738 (298).....
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.. 76,100 30,796 +15,077 (6,101)
-------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4A: Blue Canyon...... Federal........ 46,499 18,817 No subunit in New Subunit.
State.......... 0 0 previous
proposed rule
\4\.
Tribal......... 0 0
Unclassified/ 15,638 6,328
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Subunit 62,137 25,146
Total.
-------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4B: Mammoth Pool East Federal........ 13,963 5,650 No subunit in New Subunit.
State.......... 0 0 previous
proposed rule
\4\.
Tribal......... 0 0
Unclassified/ 0 0
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Subunit 13,963 5,650
Total.
-------------------------------------------------
Unit 5--North Sierra......... Federal........ 135,918 55,004 -1,512 (612)... No Change.
State.......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Tribal......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Unclassified/ 9,865 3,992 +65 (26).......
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.. 145,783 58,996 -1,447 (586)...
-------------------------------------------------
Unit 6--Stanislaus........... Federal........ 29,920 12,108 -22,384 (9,059) No Change.
State.......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Tribal......... 0 0 0 (0)..........
Unclassified/ 601 243 -197 (80)......
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.. 30,521 12,352 -22,581 (9,138)
-------------------------------------------------
Total.................... Federal........ 537,279 217,429 +36,346
(14,708).
State.......... 5,350 2,165 +1,502 (608)...
Tribal......... 14,622 5,917 -1,624 (657)...
Unclassified/ 38,243 15,476 +4,817 (1,949).
Private.
-------------------------------------------------
Total....... 595,495 240,988 +41,041
(16,609).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ These lands are held in Federal trust status by the United States for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the
Tule River Reservation, California.
\2\ In the October 19, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 57773), Unit 3 consisted of three subunits. Under this revised
proposed rule, we determined that subdividing this unit into subunits was not appropriate because there is no
genetic differentiation or significant breaks of contiguous habitat within the unit.
\3\ In this revised proposed rule, we propose that Unit 4 consists of two subunits, whereas there were no
subunits within Unit 4 in the October 19, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 57773). For this revised proposed rule, a
significant break in contiguous habitat within Unit 4 indicates that the unit should be managed as two
subunits.
\4\ Previous proposed rule refers to the October 19, 2021, proposed rule published at 86 FR 57773.
The revised proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the
map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented
at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. The
rule portion of this document depicts all the proposed critical habitat
units as revised by this proposal. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the revised proposed critical habitat designation
in the discussion of revised proposed individual units, below.
Unit 1: Kern Plateau
Unit 1 consists of 78,178 ac (31,637 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, north of Cannell Peak, and south of Templeton Mountain. Lands
within this unit include approximately 77,397 ac (31,322 ha; 99
percent) in Federal ownership (Inyo National Forest and Sequoia
National Forest, USFS) and 781 ac (316 ha; 1
[[Page 66996]]
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 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; and exposure to toxicants.
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 149,962 ac (60,687 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Kern and Tulare Counties, California. This unit
extends northward from approximately Woodward Peak in the Greenhorn
Mountains until it abuts Unit 3 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). The northern boundary of Unit 2 roughly follows
Bear Creek in the Tule River Watershed until its headwaters, then
continues in a linear northeasterly path to the eastern edge of the
unit. The unit lies west of Isabella Lake, the Kern River, and
Sagebrush Gulch. Unit 2 is east of Springville and California Hot
Springs. Lands within this unit include approximately 124,750 ac
(50,484 ha; 83 percent) managed by USFS (Sequoia National Forest, Giant
Sequoia National Monument) and 818 ac (331 ha; 1 percent) managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Also, there are 3,461 ac (1,401
ha; 2 percent) in State ownership (Cal Fire), 14,622 ac (5,917 ha; 10
percent) that are Tribal lands (i.e., the Tule River Indian Tribe of
the Tule River Reservation, California), and 6,310 ac (2,554 ha; 4
percent) in private ownership. We are considering excluding 14,622 ac
(5,917 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 reproduction,
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). Approximately
7,847 ac (3,176 ha) of the unit overlap with designated critical
habitat for the federally threatened Little Kern golden trout (see 50
CFR 17.95(e) and 43 FR 15427, April 13, 1978).
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
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 114,952 ac (46,519 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Tulare and Fresno Counties, California. This unit
runs mostly in a north-south linear pattern from the Kings River to the
north until it abuts Unit 2 at Bear Creek to the south (see the
boundary description for Unit 2, above). The unit is located west of
the Great Western Divide and east of Blue Ridge and the communities of
Miramonte and Three Rivers. Lands within this unit include
approximately 31,313 ac (12,672 ha; 27 percent) managed by USFS (Sierra
National Forest and Sequoia National Forest, including Giant Sequoia
National Monument), 72,185 ac (29,212 ha; 63 percent) managed by NPS
(Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks), and 4,517 ac (1,828 ha; 4
percent) managed by BLM. Also, there are 1,889 ac (765 ha; 2 percent)
in State ownership (Cal Fire and State Lands Commission) and 5,048 ac
(2,043 ha; 4 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 management for protection of natural
resources.
Unit 3 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
unit supports high fisher occupancy rates (Tucker 2020, pers. comm.),
suggesting it supports relatively high population densities (Spencer et
al. 2015, p. 46) compared to
[[Page 66997]]
other areas within its range, which provides resiliency for the DPS.
This unit 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
that support denning features (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46).
Approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of the unit overlap with designated
critical habitat for the federally endangered California condor (see 50
CFR 17.95(b); 41 FR 41914, September 24, 1976; 42 FR 47840, September
22, 1977).
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
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), 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).
Unit 4: South Sierra
Unit 4 consists of 76,100 ac (30,796 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. Unit 4 is composed of
two subunits.
Subunit 4A: Blue Canyon
Subunit 4A consists of 62,137 ac (25,146 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. Patterson Mountain marks
the approximate southeastern tip of subunit 4A, which then continues to
the northwest approximately to the communities of Shaver Lake and
Pineridge. Subunit 4A is situated east of Cats Head Mountain and
Burrough Mountain and west of Exchequer Meadow and Bald Mountain. Lands
within this subunit include approximately 46,499 ac (18,817 ha; 75
percent) in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest; USFS) and 15,638
ac (6,328 ha; 25 percent) in private ownership. Of the private lands
within this subunit, we are considering excluding approximately 8,322
ac (3,368 ha) owned by Southern California Edison Company based on of
their forest management practices that are compatible with fisher
conservation by providing suitable habitat and reducing threats to the
DPS. 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 residential
development.
Subunit 4A is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
subunit is located between areas with high occupancy rates to the south
and the recently re-colonized areas to the north, indicating this
subunit is essential for continued population and range expansion.
Approximately 2,598 ac (1,051 ha) of the subunit 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 subunit include wildfire and
wildfire suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to
toxicants; 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).
Subunit 4B: Mammoth Pool East
Subunit 4B consists of 13,963 ac (5,650 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. This subunit is located
east of Mammoth Pool Reservoir and the San Joaquin River, north of
Kaiser Wilderness, south of the South Fork San Joaquin River, and west
of Tule and Sample Meadows. The entirety of lands within this subunit
are in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest; USFS). General land
use within this subunit includes forest management (e.g., timber
harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration,
prescribed fire), grazing, and recreation.
Subunit 4B is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This
subunit supports unique habitat and is at higher elevations than many
other areas within the occupied range of the DPS. In addition to
supporting successful reproduction, this subunit is also important in
providing connectivity for fisher dispersing to and from Unit 5.
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; 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).
Unit 5: North Sierra
Unit 5 consists of 145,783 ac (58,996 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,
California State Route 49, and the community of El Portal, and
[[Page 66998]]
south of the Big Oak Flat Road. Lands within this unit include
approximately 95,378 ac (38,598 ha; 65 percent) managed by USFS (Sierra
National Forest and Stanislaus National Forest), 40,296 ac (16,307 ha;
28 percent) managed by NPS (Yosemite National Park), 51 ac (21 ha; less
than 1 percent) managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (a public
domain allotment held in trust status; not affiliated with a recognized
Tribe), and 193 ac (78 ha; less than 1 percent) managed by BLM. Also,
there are 9,865 ac (3,992 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 3,970 ac (1,606 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; 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 30,521 ac (12,352 ha) of lands in the Sierra
Nevada mountains in Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California. Unit 6
is situated north of the Merced River and the community of El Portal,
south of Sawmill Mountain, east of Scott Ridge, west of Tamarack Flat,
and southwest of Ackerson Meadow. The unit forms a ``U'' to the east,
north, and west around Anderson Flat. Lands within this unit include
approximately 22,078 ac (8,935 ha; 72 percent) managed by USFS
(Stanislaus National Forest) and 7,842 ac (3,174 ha; 26 percent)
managed by NPS (Yosemite National Park). Also, there are 601 ac (243
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; 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) and the Yosemite
National Park General Management Plan (NPS 1980, entire).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this document is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be
amended at 86 FR 57773 (October 19, 2021) 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. Further amend Sec. 17.95(a), as proposed to be amended at 86 FR
57773, in the entry for ``Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra
Nevada Distinct Population Segment (DPS)'', by revising paragraphs (2)
through (11) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population
Segment (DPS)
* * * * *
(2) Within these areas, the physical and biological feature
essential to the conservation of the Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of
fisher is suitable reproductive habitat that includes intermixed
denning, foraging, and dispersal areas. Such habitat provides
structural features for parturition,
[[Page 66999]]
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, white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies
magnifica), or lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) of California Wildlife
Habitat Relationships size and density classes 4M, 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), the
defensible space around buildings (defined as the area of land
surrounding a building that is 100 feet (30.5 meters) or less from the
building's walls), 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, wildfire burn severity data from the U.S. Geological Survey
and U.S. Forest Service, and species expert opinion. 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 https://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) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Figure 1 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (5)
[[Page 67000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.048
(6) Unit 1: Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California.
(i) Unit 1 consists of 78,178 acres (ac) (31,637 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 Cannell Peak, and
south of Templeton Mountain. Lands within this unit include 77,397 ac
(31,322) ac in Federal ownership (Inyo National Forest and Sequoia
National Forest) and approximately 781 ac (316 ha) in private
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 67001]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.049
(7) Unit 2: South Sequoia, Kern and Tulare Counties, California.
(i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 149,962 ac (60,687 ha) of
occupied habitat in the Sierra Nevada mountains, extending northward
from approximately Woodward Peak in the Greenhorn Mountains until it
abuts Unit 3 to the north. The northern boundary of Unit 2 roughly
follows Bear Creek in the Tule River Watershed until its headwaters,
then continues in a linear path to the eastern edge of the unit. The
unit lies west of the Kern River from Isabella Lake to its confluence
with the Little Kern River and west of the Little Kern River until the
vicinity between Moses Mountain and Maggie Mountain. Unit 2 is east of
Springville and California Hot Springs. Lands within this unit include
125,568 ac (50,815 ha) in Federal ownership (Sequoia National Forest,
Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Bureau of Land Management), 3,461
ac (1,401 ha) in State ownership (California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and State Lands Commission), 14,622 ac
(5,917 ha) of lands that are held in trust by the United States through
the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the
Tule River Reservation, and 6,310 ac (2,554 ha) in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[[Page 67002]]
Figure 3 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (7)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.050
(8) Unit 3: North Sequoia, Tulare and Fresno Counties, California.
(i) Unit 3 consists of 114,952 ac (46,519 ha) of occupied habitat
in the Sierra Nevada mountains. This unit runs mostly in a north-south
liner pattern from the Kings River to the north until it abuts Unit 2
to the south. The unit is located west of the Great Western Divide and
east of Blue Ridge and the communities of Miramonte and Three Rivers.
Lands within this unit include approximately 108,015 ac (43,712 ha) in
Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest,
Giant Sequoia National Monument, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks, and Bureau of Land Management), 1,889 ac (765 ha) in State
ownership (Cal Fire and State Lands Commission) and 5,048 ac (2,043 ha)
in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
[[Page 67003]]
Figure 4 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (8)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.051
(9) Unit 4: South Sierra, Fresno County, California.
(i) Unit 4 consists of two subunits comprising 76,100 ac (30,796
ha) of occupied habitat in the Sierra Nevada mountains.
(A) Subunit 4A (Blue Canyon) consists of 62,137 ac (25,146 ha) of
lands in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Patterson Mountain marks the
approximate southeastern tip of Subunit 4A, which then continues to the
northwest approximately to the communities of Shaver Lake and
Pineridge. Lands within this subunit include approximately 46,499 ac
(18,817 ha) in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest) and 15,638 ac
(6,328 ha) in private ownership.
(B) Subunit 4B (Mammoth Pool East) consists of 13,963 ac (5,650 ha)
of lands in the Sierra Nevada mountains. This subunit is located west
of Mammoth
[[Page 67004]]
Pool Reservoir and the San Joaquin River, north of Kaiser Wilderness,
south of Ansel Adams Wilderness, and east of Tule, Half Corral, and
Sample Meadows. The entirety of lands within subunit are in Federal
ownership (Sierra National Forest).
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
Figure 5 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (9)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.052
(10) Unit 5: North Sierra, Madera and Mariposa Counties,
California.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 145,783 ac (58,996 ha) of occupied habitat
in the Sierra Nevada mountains north and west of the San Joaquin River;
east of Bass Lake, California State Route 49, and the unincorporated
community of El Portal; and south of Big Oak Flat Road. Lands within
this unit include 135,918 ac (55,004 ha) in Federal ownership (Sierra
National Forest, Stanislaus National Forest, Yosemite National Park,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management) and 9,865 ac
(3,992 ha) in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
[[Page 67005]]
Figure 6 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (10)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.053
(11) Unit 6: Stanislaus, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties,
California.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 30,521 ac (12,352 ha) of occupied habitat
situated north of the Merced River and the community of El Portal and
southwest of Ackerson Meadow. The unit forms a ``U'' to the east,
north, and west around Anderson Flat and Grizzly Flat. Lands within
this unit include 29,920 ac (12,108 ha) in Federal ownership
(Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park) and 601 ac (243
ha) in private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
Figure 7 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS
paragraph (11)(ii)
[[Page 67006]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.054
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-23949 Filed 11-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C