Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher, 22709-22808 [2016-08288]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22709-22808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08288]



[[Page 22709]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 74

April 18, 2016

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the 
Proposed Rule To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of 
Fisher; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 22710]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA05


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the 
Proposed Rule To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of 
Fisher

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the 
proposed rule to list the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of 
fisher (Pekania pennanti), a mustelid species from California, Oregon, 
and Washington, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This withdrawal is based on our 
evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information available. 
Our evaluation took into consideration an extensive amount of 
information and comments regarding the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher received during multiple comment periods. Our evaluation of all 
this information leads us to conclude that the stressors acting upon 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher are not of sufficient imminence, 
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that they are singly or 
cumulatively resulting in significant impacts at either the population 
or rangewide scales. We find the best scientific and commercial data 
available indicate that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not 
meet the statutory definition of an endangered or threatened species 
because the stressors potentially impacting the proposed DPS and its 
habitat are not of sufficient magnitude, scope, or imminence to 
indicate that the DPS is in danger of extinction, or likely to become 
so within the foreseeable future. Consequently, we are withdrawing our 
proposal to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species.

ADDRESSES: The withdrawal of our proposed rule, comments, and 
supplementary documents are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. Comments and 
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the 
preparation of this withdrawal, are also available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon 
Street, Yreka, CA 96097; telephone 530-842-5763; or facsimile 530-842-
4517.

DATES: The October 7, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 60419) to list the 
West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species is withdrawn as of 
April 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Ericson, Deputy Field 
Supervisor, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use 
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish this document. Under the Endangered Species 
Act, a species may warrant protection through listing if it is 
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can 
only be completed by issuing a rule. We issued a proposed rule to list 
a distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher in California, Oregon, 
and Washington (identified herein as the ``proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher,'' ``proposed DPS,'' or ``fishers in the west coast States'') in 
2014. This document withdraws that proposed rule because we now 
determine that the threats identified in the proposed rule are not as 
significant as previously thought based on our evaluation of the best 
scientific and commercial information available at this time. Our 
evaluation took into consideration an extensive amount of information 
and comments submitted during the two public comment periods regarding 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. At this time, we do not find any 
indication that fishers or their habitat in the west coast States are 
responding negatively to the stressors to which they are exposed to a 
significant degree at either the population or rangewide scales, nor 
are they likely to do so in the foreseeable future. The best available 
scientific and commercial data lead us to conclude that the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fishers is not in danger of extinction now or in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the proposed DPS 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act, and we are withdrawing the proposed rule.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we can 
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based 
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We now determine that although 
stressors to one or more populations of fishers in the west coast 
States exist, they are not causing significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales that would indicate that the magnitude, 
imminence, or severity of these threats are such that the proposed West 
Coast fisher DPS is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our consideration of the status of the 
species is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing 
proposal and our draft Species Report. We also considered all comments 
and information received during the comment periods. Public comments 
and peer reviewer comments are addressed at the end of this Federal 
Register document.

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document

    We use many acronyms and abbreviations throughout this document. To 
assist the reader, we provide a list of these here for easy reference:

Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
AR = anticoagulant rodenticides
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
CAL FIRE = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CCAA = Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game (see below)
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
DPS = Distinct Population Segment
EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESU = evolutionarily significant unit
FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FPA = Forest Practices Act
FPR = Forest Practice Rules
FR = Federal Register
GNN = gradient nearest neighbor data/maps
KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area
LRMP = Land Resource Management Plan

[[Page 22711]]

LSR = late-successional and old-growth forest reserve (under the 
NWFP)
MDL = Multi-District Litigation
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
MTBS = Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (mapping data)
NCSO = northern California-southern Oregon native population of 
fishers
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA = National Forest Management Act
NSN = northern Sierra Nevada reintroduced population of fishers
NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan
OAR = Oregon Administrative Rules
ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry
ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
OGSI-80 = old-growth structural index of 80 or more, per Davis et 
al. (20XX, entire)
ONP = Olympic Peninsula reintroduced population of fishers (Olympic 
National Park)
RCW = the Forest Practices Act, Revised Code of Washington
RMP = Resource Management Plan
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SNFPA = Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
SOC = southern Oregon Cascades (Crater Lake) reintroduced population 
of fishers
SPI = Sierra Pacific Industries
SPR = Significant Portion of its [species] Range
SSN = southern Sierra Nevada native population of fishers
THP = timber harvest plan
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior
WDFW = Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR = Washington Department of Natural Resources

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the West Coast DPS 
(79 FR 60419; October 7, 2014) of fisher for a detailed description of 
the Federal actions concerning this proposed DPS that occurred prior to 
publication of the proposed listing rule. The proposed listing rule 
established a 90-day comment period, during which we held one public 
hearing and seven public information meetings. We received requests to 
extend this comment period on the proposed rule beyond the January 5, 
2015, due date. In order to ensure that the public had an adequate 
opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule, we extended the 
comment period for an additional 30 days to February 4, 2015 (79 FR 
76950; December 23, 2014).
    On April 14, 2015, we reopened the comment period on our October 7, 
2014, proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher for another 30 
days (80 FR 19953). We also announced a 6-month extension of the final 
listing determination for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher as a 
threatened species to acquire new information and comments regarding 
toxicants and rodenticides and survey information in order to help 
assess distribution and population trends, due to disagreement 
regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data related to 
those issues. The comment period was reopened until May 14, 2015, and 
we announced that we would publish a listing determination on or before 
April 7, 2016.

Background

    In our October 7, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 60419), we proposed to 
list the West Coast DPS of fisher; this DPS included both extant 
populations of fisher and much of the fisher's historical range from 
the southern Sierra Nevada of California north through the States of 
Oregon and Washington. In that proposed rule, we also presented two 
possible alternative DPS configurations for consideration and comment, 
and solicited additional possible DPS alternatives from both peer 
reviewers and the public. Although this presentation of alternative DPS 
delineations is unusual, it reflects, in part, the high level of 
uncertainty and wide range of opinions within the Service regarding the 
appropriate status of the DPS. In our proposed rule, we specifically 
referenced the complexity of the issues under review in our request for 
public comment, and throughout the document we noted the tremendous 
regional variability in the degree to which stressors may be affecting 
fishers or their habitat. Following thorough consideration of all 
information available to us, our decision is that the original DPS 
configuration as presented in the proposed listing rule is most 
appropriate to serve as the focus of our analysis here (see Figure 1). 
Thus throughout this document, when we refer to the ``analysis area,'' 
we are referring to the area within that DPS boundary.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 22712]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18AP16.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    Although much of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is a 
genetically unique (i.e., native NCSO and SSN populations, and 
reintroduced NSN population) and markedly separate population segment 
from the rest of the fisher's range in North America, fishers in the 
west coast States have similar life-history and habitat requirements 
across their entire range. In the proposed rule and this document, we 
use information specific to fishers in the west coast States where 
available. Where fisher-specific data and studies from the west coast 
States were not available, we used information from fisher studies from 
elsewhere in North

[[Page 22713]]

America. This approach follows the scientific management principles and 
practices followed by the wildlife and land management agencies that 
have responsibility for management of both fishers and their habitat 
within the west coast States.
    A detailed discussion of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's 
description, taxonomy, habitat, life-history characteristics (e.g., 
reproduction), habitat description, habitat use (e.g., dispersal and 
food habits), and distribution and abundance is available in the final 
Species Report (Service 2016, entire), prepared by a team of Service 
biologists. The team included biologists from the Service's Yreka, 
Sacramento, Arcata, and Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Offices within 
the Pacific Southwest Region, the Western Washington and Oregon Fish 
and Wildlife Offices within the Pacific Region, staff from both the 
Pacific Southwest and Pacific Regions of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and staff from our national Headquarters Office. The final Species 
Report (Service 2016, entire) represents a compilation of the best 
scientific and commercial data available concerning the biological 
status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, including present and 
potential future stressors to fishers in this DPS.
    We consider a stressor to be any activity or process that may have 
some negative effect on fishers or their habitat--for example, timber 
harvest activities or wildfire that results in the removal of denning 
structures required by fishers for successful reproduction, or 
mortality of individuals from vehicle collisions, disease, or 
predation. Stressors are primarily related to human activities, but can 
be natural events and act on fishers at various scales and intensities 
throughout the analysis area. All species experience stressors; 
however, we consider a stressor to rise to the level of a threat to the 
species (or in this case the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers) if the 
magnitude of the stressor is such that it is resulting in significant 
impacts at either the population or rangewide scales to fishers or 
their habitat. As described in our proposed rule (79 FR 60419, p. 
60427), in considering what stressors might constitute threats, we must 
look beyond the mere exposure of the DPS to the stressor to determine 
whether the DPS responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual 
negative impacts to the DPS. In our draft Species Report, we attempted 
to evaluate the magnitude of the effects of identified stressors to the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and its habitat by quantifying the 
severity and scope of those stressors. That analysis required us to 
make assumptions or extrapolate impacts in an effort to quantify 
stressors in areas where stressor-specific information was not 
available. Our presentation of the scope and severity of stressors in 
quantitative terms may have created a false sense of precision with 
regard to the level of scientific accuracy underlying these estimates. 
To avoid this perception, in our final Species Report we use a 
qualitative approach to describe stressors (i.e., stressors are 
categorized as low, moderate, or high, as defined in that Report). We 
use quantitative data wherever available, but if specific data are 
lacking, we rely on qualitative evidence to derive a qualitative 
descriptor of each stressor, based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, rather than extrapolating. The 
quantitative measures from the draft Species Report are preserved and 
provided in Appendix C in the final Species Report. A key point for our 
determination regarding the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, however, 
is that our ultimate conclusion regarding the status of the DPS remains 
the same regardless of whether we consider the stressors to the DPS in 
quantitative or qualitative form: Fishers within the west coast States 
have been exposed to multiple stressors, in some cases over many 
decades, and per surveys over the past decade or more, the best 
available data do not indicate significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales. In other words, stressors may be 
impacting some individual fishers or habitat in one or more 
populations, but the best available information does not show that the 
stressors are functioning as operative threats on the fisher's habitat, 
populations, or the proposed DPS as a whole to the degree we considered 
to be the case at the time of the proposed listing. Thus, we no longer 
find that the stressors are functioning as operative threats on the 
proposed DPS to the extent that listing is warranted (see Summary of 
Basis for This Withdrawal, below).
    The final Species Report and other materials relating to this final 
agency action can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. [Note: In the draft Species Report and the 
proposed listing rule we identified ``threats'' to the proposed DPS. 
However, in this withdrawal and based on our evaluation of the best 
scientific and commercial information available, as described above, we 
now refer to the threats identified in the proposed rule as 
``stressors,'' because the best available data do not indicate 
significant impacts across the proposed DPS at either the population or 
rangewide scales, as described above].

Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal

    At the time of our October 7, 2014, proposed rule, we had concluded 
that fishers are still absent from much of their historical range (the 
two original extant populations have not expanded), threats at the time 
of the 2004 finding are still in place, and some threats since the time 
of the 2004 Finding have increased or are new. We additionally 
concluded that it is too early to determine if the reintroduced 
populations will persist (79 FR 60419, p. 60436). Threats identified in 
the 2014 proposed rule included habitat loss from wildfire and 
vegetation management, toxicants, and the cumulative impact and 
synergistic effects of these and other stressors in small populations.
    We have reviewed and considered the best scientific and commercial 
data available to us, including public comments, Federal and State 
agency comments, peer review comments, issues articulated at the public 
hearing and public meetings, and all new information brought to our 
attention during the public comment periods, relevant to the 
conservation status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. There was 
a significant amount of varied scientific, Service, other agency, and 
public opinion regarding the status of fisher both prior to, and 
following, the October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419), proposed listing of the 
West Coast DPS of fisher. The equivocal nature of the information 
regarding potential threats and status of the proposed West Coast DPS 
of fisher at the time of our proposed rule led us to ask the public for 
input on many questions we posed in the proposed listing rule to help 
us better understand the degree of threats faced by the proposed DPS 
and its status. By reconsidering the information available to us prior 
to the proposed listing as well as all new information received after 
the proposed rule was published, we have considered all best scientific 
and commercial information available at this time.
    Upon careful consideration and evaluation of all of the information 
before us, we have arrived at a different conclusion regarding the 
status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers. In our proposed 
determination, we identified stressors that could impact the fishers in 
the west coast States negatively and identified some of those stressors 
(wildfire and fire suppression,

[[Page 22714]]

vegetation management, and small population size and isolation) as 
threats. We also identified exposure to toxicants (specifically ARs) 
and cumulative effects from multiple stressors as threats, although 
there were uncertainties at that time. We applied the standards we had 
laid out in our proposed rule: ``This determination does not 
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of 
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely 
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of stressors that could 
impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that 
listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are 
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act.'' (October 7, 2014; 79 FR 60419, p. 60427).
    We now conclude that the threats we identified are not of such 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude that they are manifesting in terms 
of significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. 
Further, we conclude that in the foreseeable future it is likely that 
fishers in the west coast States will continue to maintain their 
populations in the face of these stressors just as they have 
demonstrated the capacity to do so in recent times. We relied on an 
evaluation of the foreseeability of those stressors and the 
foreseeability of the effect of the stressors on the proposed DPS, 
extending this time period out only so far as we can rely on the data 
to formulate reliable predictions about the status of the proposed DPS, 
and not extending so far as to venture into the realm of speculation. 
In this case, many of the stressors fell into a foreseeable future 
timeframe within which we concluded the effects of stressors on the 
proposed DPS could be reliably projected out over a time period of 
approximately 40 years.
    Therefore, we conclude that the stressors acting on the proposed 
West Coast DPS are not so great that fishers in the DPS are currently 
in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future (threatened). We acknowledge that fishers no longer 
occur in areas of their historical range in Washington, Oregon, and 
California, and fishers in the west coast States are not actively 
expanding their occupied range. However, to meet the statutory standard 
for listing, we must determine that the proposed DPS is currently in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Our 
evaluation of all of the best scientific and commercial data available 
does not allow us to draw this conclusion at this time. As we cannot 
conclude that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher meets the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act, we 
must withdraw our proposed rule. Our complete rationale for withdrawing 
our proposal is outlined in the Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species and Determination sections of this document.

Species Information

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
fishers in the west coast States is presented in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, entire; Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041). The 
fisher is a medium-sized, light-brown to dark blackish-brown mammal, 
with the face, neck, and shoulders sometimes being slightly gray; the 
chest and underside often has irregular white patches. The fisher is 
classified in the order Carnivora, family Mustelidae, a family that 
also includes weasels, mink, martens, and otters (Service 2016, p. 8). 
The occurrence of fishers at regional scales is consistently associated 
with low- to mid-elevation coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood 
forests with characteristics of late-successional forests (large-
diameter trees, coarse downed wood, and singular features of large 
snags, tree cavities, or deformed trees). Historically, fishers were 
well-distributed throughout the analysis area in the habitats described 
above. In Washington and Oregon, outside of the existing known 
reintroduced populations, fishers are considered likely extirpated 
(although on occasion individual fishers may be detected; specific to 
the Oregon Cascades, ODFW commented that the absence of fishers cannot 
be determined without dedicated surveys following a peer-reviewed 
protocol, and it is possible that fishers occur at low population 
levels). In California, recent survey efforts have not detected fishers 
in the northern Sierra Nevada, outside of the reintroduced population. 
Key fisher habitat includes forests with diverse successional stages 
containing a high proportion of mid- and late-successional 
characteristics. Throughout their range, fishers are obligate users of 
tree or snag cavities for denning, and they select resting sites with 
characteristics of late-successional forests. Late-successional forest 
characteristics are maintained and recruited in the forest through 
ecological processes such as fire, insect-related tree mortality, 
disease, and decay (e.g., Service 2016, pp. 64, 123-124).
    Fishers are found only in North America. Fishers on the west coast 
are found in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. The 
proposed West Coast DPS of fishers encompasses the area where fishers 
historically occurred throughout western Washington, western Oregon, 
and California to the Sierra Nevada (Service 2016, pp. 25-29). 
Currently, the fishers in the west coast States include two original 
native fisher populations (Northern California-Southwestern Oregon 
Population (NCSO) and the Southern Sierra Nevada Population (SSN)). 
There are three reintroduced populations--Olympic Peninsula 
Reintroduced Population (ONP) in Washington, Southern Oregon Cascades 
(SOC) Reintroduced Population in Oregon, and the Northern Sierra Nevada 
Reintroduced Population (NSN) in California. Based on survey data and 
genetic information submitted during the two public comment periods, 
the SOC and NSN reintroduced populations are now considered to be 
within the boundary of the NCSO population area (Service 2016, pp. 38-
41). An additional reintroduction site in the South Washington Cascades 
was established in December 2015. Following are brief accounts of the 
populations and the new reintroduction site in the South Washington 
Cascades. Primary stressors and conservation activities are introduced 
in these summaries and described in more detail in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species section below, and fully evaluated and 
described in the ``Review of Stressors'' section of the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-162). Conservation efforts resulting from 
the plans and strategies being implemented within each of the 
population areas are described in detail in the final Species Report in 
either the ``Conservation measures to reduce the stressors related to 
habitat or range of the species'' section (Service 2016, pp. 115-122), 
or, when applicable, within specific stressor discussions of the final 
Species Report.
    Here we describe (from north to south) the known native and 
reintroduced populations of fisher within the west coast States, as 
well as one recent reintroduction:

(1) Reintroduced Population--Olympic Peninsula (ONP)

    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in 
cooperation with Olympic National Park, United States Geological 
Survey, and others, began to reintroduce fishers onto Park

[[Page 22715]]

Service lands on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington in January 2008 
(Lewis and Happe 2008, p. 7). These reintroductions were complete at 
the end of 2010 with a total of 90 fishers (40 males and 50 females) 
relocated from British Columbia to Olympic National Park (Lewis et al. 
2011, p. 4). WDFW monitored translocated fishers for several years with 
radio-telemetry and were able to evaluate post-release survival, home-
range establishment, reproduction, and resource selection of founding 
individuals. Initial findings indicate that survival was highly 
variable among release years (Lewis et al. 2012, pp. 5-8), but project 
researchers confirmed reproduction seven times from 2009 to 2011 (Lewis 
et al. 2012, pp. 9-10). A second monitoring phase consisting of 
noninvasive surveys of fisher distribution and relative abundance 
started during summer 2013, which was designed to determine whether a 
self-sustaining population of fishers has been established in the 
Olympic Peninsula. In 2013 and 2014 the monitoring team detected 
fishers in 14 of the 132 areas sampled, including 6 of the founding 
fishers and 7 new recruits to the population (Happe et al. 2014; Happe 
et al. 2015). Sixteen fishers were also detected with non-project 
cameras, trapping, and as carcasses (Happe et al. 2014; Happe et al. 
2015). Monitoring of fishers on the Olympic Peninsula will continue for 
a number of years to determine both the extent of their distribution 
and success in establishing a population. Current indications (wide 
distribution and documentation of reproduction) are encouraging, but 
the success of this reintroduced Olympic Peninsula population will not 
be known for several years.
    The Olympic Peninsula population is not physically or 
demographically connected to any other populations of fishers. 
Population size and trend information are not known at this time. The 
most significant stressors on this reintroduced population are 
predation and collisions with vehicles. Conservation efforts being 
implemented for this population are associated with the State of 
Washington Fisher Recovery Plan (Hayes and Lewis 2006), which is 
focused on reintroduction efforts, and NPS management in accordance 
with the Organic Act of 1916, as amended (54 U.S.C. 100100) and the 
National Park Service General Authorities Act of 1970 (54 U.S.C. 
100101(b)) (see Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below). In addition, in 
January 2016, the Service received an application for a Section 
10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit from the WDFW to implement a 
draft Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for 
fisher. The Service announced the availability of the draft CCAA and 
EA, and a 30-day open comment period on February 29, 2016 (81 FR 
10269). If the Enhancement of Survival Permit is issued, WDFW would 
hold the permit and be responsible for enrolling non-Federal Washington 
landowners in the CCAA and issuing certificates of inclusion; see the 
final Species Report for further details (Service 2016, p. 118).

(2) New Reintroduction Site--South Washington Cascades

    The WDFW began a fisher reintroduction project in the South 
Cascades of Washington State on December 3, 2015. Between December 3, 
2015, and February 10, 2016, project employees released 23 fishers from 
the Cispus Learning Center along the Cispus River, just south of Mount 
Rainier National Park. This project is the second phase of WDFW's 
efforts to recover fishers in Washington according to the Washington 
State Recovery Plan for the Fisher (Hayes and Lewis 2006). The 
reintroduction plan (Lewis 2013) calls for a total of 160 fishers to be 
released into the Cascade Mountains at a rate of 40 per year for 4 
years (2 years in the South Cascades, 2 years in the North Cascades). 
The source population for the fishers (British Columbia) is the same as 
for the Olympic National Park reintroduction. The Washington fisher 
recovery plan has the goal of establishing multiple self-sustaining 
populations of fishers in Washington (Hayes and Lewis 2006). We are not 
referring to this group of fisher individuals in the South Cascades as 
a population at this time because they have not yet had the opportunity 
to successfully reproduce. These animals are not physically or 
demographically connected to any other populations of fishers. At this 
time, we do not have any direct evidence of stressors affecting these 
newly reintroduced fishers, although it is likely that the most 
significant stressors will be predation and collisions with vehicles, 
and potentially wildfire on the east side of the Cascade crest. HCPs 
and the NWFP are being implemented within the vicinity of this 
reintroduction site, thus providing general conservation benefits for 
these fishers and their habitat (see ``Conservation measures to reduce 
stressors related to habitat or range of the species'' in the final 
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 115-122). In addition, all 
reintroduced fishers in the State of Washington would benefit from the 
implementation of the CCAA under development, as described above, if 
finalized.

(3) Northern California-Southwestern Oregon (NCSO), Which Includes the 
Original Native Fisher Population and the Southern Oregon Cascades 
(SOC) and Northern Sierra Nevada (NSN) Reintroduced Populations

    Fishers in the SOC portion of the NCSO population stem from a 
translocation of 24 fishers from British Columbia and Minnesota to the 
area west of Crater Lake between 1977 and 1981 (Aubry and Lewis 2003, 
p. 84). Based on survey and research efforts starting in 1995 genetic 
evidence shows these fishers continue to persist (Drew et al. 2003, p. 
57; Aubry et al. 2004, pp. 211-215; Wisely et al. 2004, p. 646; Pilgrim 
and Schwartz 2014-2015, entire). Little survey work has occurred north 
of this population, although a radio-collared juvenile male dispersed 
34 mi (55 km) northeast of this population to the Big Marsh area on the 
Deschutes National Forest (Aubry and Raley 2006, p. 5). West of Big 
Marsh, over the Cascade crest, the first verifiable contemporary 
detection of a fisher on the Willamette National Forest occurred in 
2014 (Wolfer 2014, pers. comm.); however, genetic evidence was not 
obtained to determine whether or not this individual was from fishers 
reintroduced from British Columbia and Minnesota.
    Information is not available on population size for the SOC portion 
of NCSO population. Recent detections of fisher in areas where they 
were not previously recorded (e.g., north and eastern portions of 
Crater Lake National Park and portions of the Lakeview and Medford BLM 
study area) may or may not represent an expansion of this population. 
However, based on the current survey efforts along with multiple 
unsolicited sightings of fishers in the past few years on the Lakeview 
District BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area (KFRA) where fishers were 
previously not detected (based on protocol surveys conducted from 1998 
to 2001), fishers are now being detected in the KFRA (Hayner 2016, 
pers. comm.).
    Fishers in the NSN portion of the NCSO population stem from a 2009 
to 2012 translocation of 40 fishers from Humboldt, Siskiyou, and 
Trinity counties, California, to the SPI Stirling Management Unit in 
Butte, Plumas, and Tehama counties, California. Ongoing monitoring of 
fishers that were reintroduced have confirmed that fishers born onsite 
have established home ranges and have successfully reproduced. Trapping 
efforts in the fall

[[Page 22716]]

of 2015 as part of ongoing monitoring of the reintroduced population 
indicate a minimum of 49 fishers (34 females, 15 males), 9 more 
individuals than were originally introduced.
    Population size estimates for the approximately 17,375 mi\2\ 
(45,000 km\2\) NCSO population (excluding the SOC and NSN reintroduced 
populations) using various methodologies range from a low of 258-2,850 
individuals, based on genetic data (Tucker et al. 2012, pp. 7, 9-10), 
to a high of 4,018 individuals based on extrapolation of data from two 
small study areas within the NCSO population to the entire NCSO 
population (Self et al. 2008, pp. 3-5). A recent 2015 estimate of 632-
1,165 fishers was based on data collected by CDFW as part of a meso-
carnivore monitoring program in northern California (Furnas et al. 
2015, pers. comm.). It is important to note that the sampling area for 
the CDFW study excluded southwest Oregon and the coastal redwood of 
California; thus, this estimate is not representative of the entire 
area within the NCSO population.
    Population trend information for the NCSO population is based on 
two long-term studies. The NCSO population includes the area in both 
the SOC and NSN reintroduced fisher populations.
    (1) The Hoopa study area is approximately 145 mi\2\ (370 km\2\) in 
size and represents the more mesic portion of the NCSO population area. 
Fisher studies have been ongoing since 1996. The population trend from 
2005-2012 indicates a lambda (population growth rate) of 0.992 (C.I. 
0.883-1.100) with a higher lambda rate for females 1.038 (0.881-1.196) 
than males 0.912 (0.777-1.047) (Higley et al. 2014, p. 102, Higley 
2015, pers. comm.). Demographic parameters are showing a decrease in 
annual male fisher survival. A lambda of approximately 1.0 indicates a 
stable overall population trend.
    (2) The Eastern Klamath Study Area (EKSA) is approximately 200 
mi\2\ (510 km\2\) in size and represents the more xeric portion of the 
NCSO population area. Monitoring has been conducted since 2006. 
Estimates for lambda from 2006-2013 are 1.06 (C.I. 0.97-1.15) (Powell 
et al. 2014, p. 23). This lambda of approximately 1.0 indicates a 
current stable population within the study area.
    The major stressors experienced by the NCSO population are wildfire 
and fire suppression activities, vegetation management, ARs, and, in 
some areas, predation. Within the Oregon portion of the NCSO population 
two fishers were tested for the presence of ARs; exposure to ARs were 
found in both. Conservation measures that benefit fishers include those 
being implemented within the portion of the range covered by the NWFP, 
including potential measures associated with section 7 consultations in 
overlapping northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 
designated critical habitat. The principal conservation efforts 
currently in progress in Oregon include the recently signed 
intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for fisher 
conservation, and, upon finalization, the western Oregon fisher CCAA 
(81 FR 15737). A strong desire to implement the western Oregon fisher 
CCAA is exhibited by us receiving, as of mid-March 2016, letters of 
intent from nine different landowners (private and ODF) covering nearly 
2 million ac (809,371 ha); most of these letters also commit to 
financial or in-kind support of a coordinated program of work to 
increase our understanding of fisher populations and potentially 
reintroduce fishers in Oregon. In addition, ODFW has committed, via a 
separate letter of intent, to submit a budget request of $1,000,000 to 
the Oregon legislature to fund and administer the CCAA and other fisher 
conservation actions in Oregon. For the portion of the NCSO population 
in California, ongoing monitoring efforts for the SPI Stirling 
Management Area CCAA indicate the reintroduction efforts may result in 
establishment of an additional fisher population in the northern Sierra 
Nevada. The NEPA process will soon be initiated for the approximately 
1.6 million-ac (647 thousand-ha) CCAA for fishers on SPI ownership in 
the Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada mountains. If completed and 
implemented, this proposed CCAA could secure habitat for the fishers 
for the 10-year time period of the permit and likely retain important 
fisher habitat components into the future.

(4) Original Native Population--Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN)

    The SSN native population of fisher is small and is geographically 
separated from the remainder of the fishers in the west coast States. 
The SSN population is found in Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and 
Kern counties in California. While historically the population extended 
farther north, today the northern limit is the Merced River in Yosemite 
National Park in Mariposa County. The southern limit is the forested 
lands abutting the Kern River Canyon, while the eastern limit is the 
high-elevation, granite-dominated mountains, and the western limit is 
the low-elevation extent of mixed-conifer forest. Multiple lines of 
genetic evidence suggest that the isolation of the SSN population from 
other populations of fisher within the west coast States is 
longstanding and predates European settlement (Knaus et al. 2011, 
entire; Tucker et al. 2012, entire; Tucker 2015, pers. comm., pp. 1-2).
    No census of the SSN fisher population has been conducted. 
Estimates for the SSN population range from a low of 100 to a high of 
500 individuals (Lamberson et al. 2000, entire). A recent estimate of 
256 female fishers was based on available habitat (Spencer et al. 2016, 
p. 44). Other population estimates are: (1) 125-250 adult fishers 
(Spencer et al. 2011, p. 788); (2) fewer than 300 adult fishers 
(Spencer et al. 2011, p. 801); and 276-359 fishers, including juveniles 
and subadults (Spencer et al. 2011, p. 802). The latter estimate was 
based on extrapolation from portions of the population where fishers 
have been intensely studied to the range of the entire population.
    An 8-year monitoring study that sampled 139.5 units (i.e., sample 
sites)/year showed no declining trend in occupancy. However, this study 
had been designed to be run for 10 years while sampling 288 units/year 
and was intended to have an 80 percent probability of detecting a 20 
percent decline over 10 years (Zielinski et al. 2013, p. 11; Tucker 
2013, p. 82). As a result of the smaller sample size and shorter 
duration, the results of this study must be considered inconclusive. 
Another study of radio-collared fishers monitored from 2007 through 
2014 in the SSN population showed the survival rate (calculated using 
demographic parameters) of adult males, but not females, is lower than 
other populations in the west coast States, and estimates a lambda of 
0.97 (C.I. 0.79-1.16) (Sweitzer et al. 2015a, pp. 781-783; Sweitzer et 
al. 2015b, p. 10). Population growth in the SSN population area is thus 
estimated to trend less than 1.0; the authors suggest the population is 
not in persistent decline, however, but is offset by periods of 
stability or growth (Sweitzer et al. 2015a, p. 784). Although the 
authors express concern for the population and the need for continued 
monitoring, their research suggests a basically stable trend when 
considered together with information on population size and density 
(Sweitzer et al. 2015b, p. 10).
    The major stressors on this population are wildfire and fire 
suppression activities, vegetation management, high mortality rates 
from predation, and small population size. Potential conservation 
measures include the development of the Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher 
Conservation Strategy (Spencer et al. 2016, entire).

[[Page 22717]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
    A thorough analysis and discussion of the stressors that may impact 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is included in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, entire) associated with this document (and 
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2014-0041). All potential threats of which we are aware that are acting 
upon fishers or their habitat within the proposed West Coast DPS 
currently or in the foreseeable future were evaluated and addressed in 
the final Species Report, and are summarized in the following 
paragraphs.
    Many of the stressors on fisher populations and their habitat are 
present throughout the proposed DPS's range, although their effects 
vary across the range. For example, the population and habitat in the 
SSN population area likely will continue to be more susceptible to the 
various stressors than will the NCSO population area given SSN's 
smaller population size and more limited amount of unoccupied, suitable 
habitat available. Nevertheless, at this point in time, our review and 
consideration of the best available information does not indicate that 
loss of or declines in these populations, or a contraction of their 
ranges, is either ongoing or is likely to occur in the foreseeable 
future (see ``Review of Stressors'' section of the final Species Report 
(Service 2016, pp. 53-162) and Determination section of this document). 
As discussed in the stressor summaries and Determination sections, 
below, our evaluation of the best available information leads us to 
conclude that the native populations will persist into the future 
(which is also likely for the reintroduced populations, although more 
time is needed to confirm their persistence with certainty), and that 
as a whole the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. 
Although our finding that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is not 
endangered or threatened does not depend on it, we anticipate that the 
fishers in the new reintroduction in the South Washington Cascades will 
likely survive and reproduce (Lewis 2013, pp. 4-5), based on our past 
experience with other fisher reintroductions. If successful, the South 
Washington Cascades fisher reintroduction will provide an additional 
population in the future that would provide even greater insurance 
against the fisher's risk of extinction in the west coast States caused 
by possible catastrophic events (see redundancy discussion under the 
Small Population Size and Isolation, below). Finally, the best 
available information indicates that these populations will continue to 
receive direct or indirect management that we reasonably can predict 
will contribute to the conservation of fishers in the west coast States 
as a whole, although these future conservation activities (and the 
anticipated future population in the South Washington Cascades), are 
not relied upon as part of the basis for this decision.
    The stressors that are of highest current or future scope and 
magnitude within the range of the proposed DPS (i.e., the most 
significant stressors overall across the range of the proposed DPS) 
include those that may result in current or future habitat destruction 
or modification and natural or human-induced stressors affecting 
fishers in the west coast States (i.e., wildfire and fire suppression, 
and vegetation management) and exposure to toxicants (specifically 
ARs). These impacts, along with those that are currently considered 
less significant or minor (i.e., rural or suburban development, forest 
insect and tree diseases, climate change, trapping and incidental 
capture, research activities, disease or predation, collisions with 
vehicles, and small population size), also have the potential to act 
cumulatively or synergistically to negatively affect the populations of 
fishers in the west coast States.
    Forest insects and tree diseases were discussed as stressors in the 
draft Species Report with respect to their influence on habitat loss 
and fragmentation and the potential synergistic effects associated with 
climate change (Service 2014, pp. 72, 146, 170-172). However, this 
stressor was not summarized in the proposed listing rule. We have 
included a summary of forest insects and diseases in this document.
    We recognize that multiple stressors have impacted individuals of 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and their habitat, as well as 
populations in some cases, and that these stressors may be considered 
ongoing (and expected to continue into the future) in certain areas 
within the proposed DPS's range. Given these ongoing impacts, and the 
various recommendations or concerns expressed from partners, species 
experts, and the public, we intend to continue monitoring the 
biological status of the populations of fisher within California, 
Oregon, and Washington through active Service-directed science efforts 
and through the efforts of cooperating Federal, State, and private 
entities. If at any time in the future the stressors appear to be 
rising to the level such that listing may be warranted, we will 
initiate a status review as appropriate.
    Following are summary evaluations of stressors assessed for the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher: (1) Wildfire and fire suppression; 
(2) forest insects and tree diseases; (3) effects of climate change; 
(4) vegetation management; (5) development (including linear 
infrastructure); (6) trapping and incidental capture; (7) research 
activities; (8) disease or predation; (9) collision with vehicles; (10) 
exposure to toxicants; (11) small population size and isolation; and 
(12) cumulative or synergistic effects. The inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms is also evaluated. We have evaluated these 
stressors consistent with the five statutory factors set forth in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, although the factors are not set forth in 
this document.
    The final Species Report (found at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041) presents the best available information 
currently known: We note that the final Species Report now describes 
the magnitude (scope and severity) of various stressors using the terms 
low, medium, and high. While we have also included as Appendix C the 
more quantitative evaluation we employed for the draft Species Report, 
that quantitative analysis implied a greater level of certainty or 
precision in assessing effects than is supported by the underlying 
information. The final Species Report includes: (1) A discussion of the 
stressors that may be impacting the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers, 
based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial 
information available at the time of the withdrawal; (2) inclusion of 
corrections

[[Page 22718]]

or clarifications, where applicable, such as those identified by peer 
reviewers or other public commenters; (3) inclusion of significant new 
information since the proposed listing rule, where applicable; and (4) 
summary conclusions of our assessment of the best scientific and 
commercial information currently available.
    The following sections provide a summary of the past, current, and 
potential future impacts to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and 
its habitat. Please see the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-
162) for a full evaluation of the stressors evaluated for the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher.

Wildfire and Fire Suppression

    Our evaluation of the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat 
included those activities associated with fire suppression that may 
result in removal of fisher habitat (for example, backburning, fuel 
breaks, and snag removal). In our proposed listing rule, we stated that 
the naturally occurring fire regimes vary widely across the analysis 
area, and, therefore, the effects of wildfire are also likely to vary 
geographically (Service 2014, p. 58, 62, Figure 13). In general, high-
severity fire has the potential to permanently remove suitable fisher 
habitat, and is very likely to remove habitat for a period of many 
decades while the forest regrows. Moderate-severity fire may also 
remove habitat, but likely in smaller patches and for a shorter length 
of time. Low-severity fire may reduce some elements of fisher habitat 
temporarily, but in general is unlikely to remove habitat.
    Fishers' behavioral and population responses to fires are unknown 
within the West Coast range. Based on fisher information outside of the 
West Coast range and other related species, it is possible that large 
fires, particularly those of higher severity and larger scale, could 
cause shifts in home ranges and movement patterns of fishers in the 
west coast States, lower the fitness of fishers remaining in the burned 
area (due to increased predation, for example), or create barriers to 
dispersal. Fire suppression actions and post-fire management have the 
potential to exacerbate the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat. We 
indicated previously that the scope and severity for this stressor were 
the highest for the Sierra Nevada and northern California-southwestern 
Oregon areas; these are the two areas where the two remaining original 
native populations of fishers are found. We also stated that because 
there is evidence of increasing fire severity in yellow pine-mixed-
conifer forests, which include the majority of fisher habitat in the 
Sierra Nevada, the estimate of the severity of stressors related to 
wildfire is likely to be an underestimate. A number of other 
conclusions were drawn from our analysis, as described in the 
``Wildfire and Fire Suppression'' section of the proposed listing rule 
and draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 58-71). Overall, we 
determined that the scope and severity for this stressor were lower 
throughout most of Oregon and Washington than the Sierra Nevada and 
northern California-southwestern Oregon areas; however, high-severity 
fires that remove fisher habitat have the potential to further disrupt 
habitat connectivity and availability (Service 2014, pp. 57-71).
    We concluded in the proposed listing rule that wildfire and fire 
suppression were a threat to fisher habitat, including in the future, 
based on known or perceived effects to fishers outside of the West 
Coast range and other related species and because the frequency and 
size of wildfires is increasing and will continue to increase in the 
future. We predicted that large fires (particularly those of higher 
severity and larger scale) would cause shifts in home ranges and 
movement patterns, lower the fitness of fishers remaining in the burned 
area, and create barriers to dispersal. We also:
    (1) Considered fire and fire suppression to be particularly 
problematic in the SSN because of the narrow band of habitat that 
comprises SSN and the small population size;
    (2) Stated that the degree to which fire-related effects impact 
NCSO was lower than SSN because the NCSO does not exist in a narrow 
band of habitat and covers a larger area;
    (3) Indicated that fire and fire suppression will likely have some 
negative effect on NCSO because fire will further decrease connectivity 
in the fragmented habitat of NCSO (noting that it was difficult to 
fully determine the impact at NCSO because the locations and severities 
of future fires relative to important habitat components were not known 
at [that] time; and
    (4) Indicated that scope and severity of fire are lower in 
Washington and Oregon given that much of this area is considered to be 
unoccupied but that fire could have a negative impact on existing 
fisher populations if fires occur within or in proximity to occupied 
areas (again, similar to NCSO, noting that the locations and severities 
of future fires relative to important habitat components were not known 
at [that] time).
    In conducting our updated analysis of the best scientific and 
commercial information available, we reviewed information provided by 
commenters and peer reviewers, and made corrections and clarifications 
of wildfire information in the final Species Report as necessary, and 
have clarified the discussion of the effects of wildfire on ecosystems. 
This approach contributed to our goal of describing as accurately as 
possible whether the best available information indicates if this 
stressor is causing impacts to fishers or their habitat in the west 
coast States, and if so, whether those impacts are resulting in 
significant impacts to individuals, populations, or the proposed DPS 
rangewide. For example, in the final Species Report:
    (1) We clarified the fire severity categories, particularly as they 
relate to ``mixed-severity'' fires (Halofsky et al. 2011, entire).
    (2) We included and described the significant beneficial aspects of 
wildfire on the landscape, such as creation or maintenance of some 
structural elements used by fishers, or how some areas of high-severity 
fire may contribute to the regeneration of the hardwood component of 
mixed-conifer forest used by fisher (Cocking et al. 2012, 2014, entire, 
for example).
    (3) We noted how low-severity fires can be critical in the creation 
or maintenance of reproductive habitat for fishers by creating fire 
scars that enhance the formation of cavities that serve as denning 
sites (Weir et al. 2012, pp. 237-238).
    (4) We described how fishers in areas that experience mixed-
severity fires could benefit from associated increases in mammalian 
prey species, including how fishers may use burned forests for foraging 
(e.g., Hanson 2013, p. 27).
    (5) We noted how fragmentation due to fire can increase risk of 
predation due to the lack of cover and higher abundance of predators in 
fragmented landscapes (Naney et al. 2012, pp. 7-8).
    (6) We included discussion of studies (Shatford et al. 2007, pp. 
144-145; Donato et al. 2009, p. 142; Halofsky et al. 2011, p. 14, Baker 
2014, p. 26; Cocking et al. 2014, pp. 94, 102-104) that suggest that 
systems characterized by highly variable natural disturbances, such as 
mixed-severity fire regimes, are relatively resilient to recurrent 
severe fire, and that severe, short-interval fires do not result in 
loss of species richness, including hardwood and conifer species 
(suggesting that such fires promote vigorous regeneration of mixed-
conifer forest).
    In sum, these corrections, clarifications, and revised discussions 
in the final Species Report provide a clearer picture of the degree to 
which fisher may be able to use burned

[[Page 22719]]

landscapes and potential effects of wildfire to fisher habitat across 
the landscape.
    When considering all scientific and commercial information 
available regarding wildfire and fire suppression activities (including 
new information since the time of the proposed listing rule), we 
maintain that wildfire is a natural ecological process that occurs 
throughout the range of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. As 
stated above, there are some indications that wildfire may be 
increasing in terms of frequency, severity, and magnitude, although 
these projected increases are greater in California and southern Oregon 
than areas further north. Whether fires may be increasing in severity 
is subject to continuing debate; thus, it is necessary for us to use 
our best professional judgment based on the best fire effects 
information available. Studies on the effects of wildfire on fisher 
habitat, although limited, demonstrate a variety of both positive and 
negative consequences, depending on the specific circumstances (see 
``Effects of fire on fisher habitat elements'' in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 63-65)). If the severity and extent of the 
fire is such that substantial areas of canopy and large trees are lost, 
it may take decades for the area to support fisher reproduction. If the 
fire severity is low or mixed, important habitat elements to fisher can 
be both created and removed within a home range, such that the burned 
habitat may continue to support both fisher foraging and reproduction. 
The degree to which fire may affect fisher populations is unknown, but 
all indications are that the population response would be specific to 
the forest type, landscape location, size, and intensity of the fire.
    Another factor to consider regarding wildfires is the potential for 
overlay of future fires with fisher-occupied habitat, and the 
subsequent potential likelihood of wildfire-displaced fishers moving 
successfully into nearby suitable unoccupied habitat. Although fishers 
are not abundant throughout their known current range, their 
distribution where found covers very large geographic areas of habitat. 
Because of this broad distribution, even in the event that wildlife 
frequency and severity increases rather than decreases, it is extremely 
unlikely that any wildfires would be of such magnitude that they would 
cover an entire fisher population area. Therefore, while future 
wildfires may affect individual fishers, with the potential of 
displacement rather than injury or death, there will likely also be 
unaffected fishers outside the wildfire zones.
    Coupled with this likelihood is the fact that throughout the 
analysis area, there are numerous areas of suitable but currently 
unoccupied habitat. While some of these areas may be inaccessible to 
extant fisher populations, due to being far removed from the known 
current fisher distribution or to existing landscape patterns that are 
not conducive to dispersal, there are other areas of suitable 
unoccupied habitat that are adjacent to occupied habitats or connected 
to them via dispersal-conducive landscapes. This combination of 
available and accessible suitable habitat with the likelihood that any 
future wildfires would be extremely unlikely to affect entire fisher 
population areas, suggests as it relates to wildfires that habitat is 
not limiting for fishers across the west coast States. We also note 
that there are active hazardous fuels reduction plans and projects 
being actively implemented throughout the analysis area (such as those 
on Federal lands described in the National Fire Plan, or on private 
lands in California via California Fire Safe Council or CAL FIRE 
wildfire prevention grants (see ``Conservation measures that may reduce 
impacts of fire effects'' in the final Species Report (Service 2016, 
pp. 76-77)), which should help reduce the future frequency, size, and 
severity of wildfires.
    Our updated analysis of the best information now available leads us 
to change our previous conclusion that wildfire and fire suppression 
rise to the level of a threat, particularly given that the best 
available data do not indicate habitat impacts are significant at 
either the population or rangewide scales. In other words, following 
wildfire events and subsequent salvage operations, no surveys or other 
information have shown this stressor to be functioning as an operative 
threat on the fisher's habitat to the degree we considered to be the 
case at the time of the proposed listing. We have reached this 
conclusion given:
    (1) Our evaluation of past and continued predicted impacts of 
wildfire in the future across the landscape within the range of the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher;
    (2) The beneficial as well as negative aspects of wildfire to 
fisher habitat;
    (3) The beneficial aspects of current and continued management 
activities into the future to help reduce wildfire impacts (e.g., fuels 
reduction projects that reduce the risk of high-severity wildfires 
while retaining appropriate habitat structures, composition, and 
configuration for fishers); and
    (4) The presence of suitable but unoccupied habitat available to 
the fisher throughout the west coast States (although to a greater 
extent in the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range.), coupled 
with the extremely low likelihood that future wildfires would impact 
entire fisher population areas, and the lack of data to demonstrate 
that this stressor is manifesting itself to a significant degree across 
the proposed DPS such that the fisher populations in the west coast 
States are in decline across its range due to significant wildfire 
impacts to their habitat.
    We acknowledge that individual fishers in the proposed West Coast 
DPS (or potentially portions of one or more populations) likely are 
impacted as a result of the level of impact this stressor is having on 
fisher habitat, particularly to a greater extent in the California 
portions of the proposed DPS's range, and that these impacts to fisher 
habitat could increase in magnitude in the future within portions of 
the proposed DPS's range. However, the best available information does 
not suggest that fisher habitat will experience significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales in the future as a result of 
wildlife fire and suppression activities given: (1) Future wildfires 
are expected to continue at a similar rate and severity across the 
landscape as has been occurring in the recent past, (2) wildfires are 
not expected to be high severity in all cases such that they destroy 
habitat for entire populations, (3) forest ingrowth is expected to 
continue to provide suitable habitat across the proposed DPS's range to 
help offset some future wildfire impacts, and (4) future low- or mixed-
severity wildfires are expected to continue to provide some benefits to 
fisher habitat to help offset some future wildfire impacts.

Climate Change

    At the time of the proposed rule, we stated that, overall, fisher 
habitat is likely to be affected by climate change, but the severity 
will vary, potentially greatly, among different regions, with effects 
to fishers ranging from negative, neutral, or potentially beneficial. 
Climate change is likely to alter the structure and tree species 
composition of fisher habitat, and also result in changes to habitat of 
prey communities and ultimately prey availability. However, studies of 
climate change present a range of effects including some that indicate 
conditions could remain suitable for fisher. Climate throughout the 
analysis area is projected to become warmer over the next century, and 
in particular, summers will

[[Page 22720]]

be hotter and drier, with more frequent heat waves. In the northern 
portion of the analysis area, winters will likely become wetter, but 
even these areas will likely experience increased water deficits during 
the growing season. Climate modeling projections are done at a large 
scale, and effects to species can be complex, unpredictable, and highly 
influenced by local-level biotic and abiotic factors. Although many 
climate models generally agree about the changes in temperature and 
precipitation, the consequent effects on vegetation are more uncertain. 
Therefore, it is not clear how changes in forest type, species 
composition, or growth rate will affect the availability of fisher 
habitat and its ability to support fisher populations (Service 2014, 
pp. 71-84). Consequently, we concluded that climate change was not 
viewed as a threat to fisher habitat at that time or in the foreseeable 
future.
    Based on our evaluation of the best available information known at 
this time, we reaffirm our previous conclusion that climate change does 
not rise to the level of a threat now nor do we anticipate it as a 
threat in the foreseeable future. Most predictions of future conditions 
are relatively general in nature, and provide little specificity with 
regard to timeframes or geographic region of occurrence that would be 
informative in terms of our consideration of future habitat conditions 
for fishers within the analysis area. This same viewpoint applies even 
after taking into consideration new information available since the 
time of the proposed listing rule. Overall, we place relatively greater 
weight on studies or models that are more narrowly focused on fisher 
habitat needs, specifically, or are downscaled to our geographic region 
of interest. Studies specific to predicting the effects of climate 
change on suitable fisher habitat have produced a wide range of 
results. Ecotype conversion to woodland, shrubland, or grassland would 
result in the loss of suitable fisher habitat. This type of shift is 
predicted, for example, in the southern Sierra Nevada (Gonzalez et al. 
2010, Fig. 3; Lawler et al. 2012, p. 388). On the other hand, shifts 
from conifer forest to hardwood-dominated mixed forest in the southern 
Sierra Nevada or Klamath region are unlikely to have negative effects 
on fishers, and the species' response may be relatively neutral to such 
a change (Lawler et al. 2012, pp. 385-386; Loarie et al. 2008, p. 4 and 
Fig. 4). Some studies have suggested that fishers may experience an 
overall net gain of suitable habitat in response to climate change, for 
example due to reduced snowpack, or that areas inhabited by fishers 
will remain in climate refugia (Burns et al. 2003, p. 11476; Olson et 
al. 2014, pp. 93, 94, 97). Others predict that fisher distribution will 
remain largely stable (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 143 and Table 9.6, 
Figures 9.3-9.5). All of these predictions are accompanied by a wide 
range of assumptions and caveats. In sum, predictions regarding future 
habitat suitability for fishers in response to climate change are not 
consistent, and the likely specific response of the species to these 
predicted changes remains highly uncertain. Moreover, we find that the 
best available information does not indicate that this stressor is 
causing or contributing to significant habitat loss or range 
contraction at either the population or rangewide scales, nor do we 
anticipate that it will do so in the future. Finally, there is also 
suitable but unoccupied habitat available for fishers throughout the 
analysis area where fisher populations occur, although to a greater 
extent in the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range. These areas 
likely would help offset any potential foreseeable future impacts to 
fisher habitat from climate change (i.e., we do not have information to 
suggest that fishers are habitat limited currently or expected to 
become so in the future).
    With regard to direct impacts to fishers in the west coast States, 
fishers may be sensitive, physiologically, to warming summer 
temperatures (Zielinski et al. 2004, p. 488; Slauson et al. 2009, p. 
27; Facka 2013, pers. comm.; Powell 2013, pers. comm.). If so, fishers 
likely will either alter their use of microhabitats or shift their 
range northward and upslope, in order to avoid thermal stress 
associated with increased summer temperatures, as demonstrated by 
fishers in California that choose rest sites in areas of cooler 
microclimate (Zielinski et al. 2004, p. 488), and based on studies that 
have made projections for future range shifts specifically for fishers 
(Lawler et al. 2012, entire; Burns et al. 2003, entire; Olson et al. 
2014). However, there is no information to suggest that such changes 
will result in significant, negative impacts to fishers or their 
habitat at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, the best 
scientific and commercial information currently available does not 
indicate that significant impacts at either the population or rangewide 
scales as a result of direct effects of climate change are occurring, 
nor is there any indication that these scales of impacts are likely to 
occur in the foreseeable future.

Vegetation Management

    Vegetation management techniques of the past (primarily timber 
harvest) have been implicated as one of the two primary causes for 
fisher declines across the United States. Many fisher researchers have 
suggested that the magnitude and intensity of past timber harvest is 
one of the main reasons fishers have not recovered in Washington, 
Oregon, and portions of California, as compared to the northeastern 
United States (Service 2014, pp. 54-56). At the time of the proposed 
rule, we stated that vegetation management techniques have, and can, 
substantially modify the overstory canopy, the numbers and distribution 
of structural elements, and the ecological processes that create them. 
There are also areas where habitat may not be the limiting factor for 
current or potential fisher populations and where habitat is being 
managed intentionally or incidentally in ways that benefit fisher. For 
example, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which was adopted by the 
U.S. Forest Service and the BLM in 1994 to guide the management of more 
than 24 million ac (9.7 million ha) of Federal lands in Washington, 
Oregon, and northwestern California within the range of the northern 
spotted owl, provides the basis for conservation of the spotted owl and 
other late-successional and old-growth forest associated species, such 
as fisher, on Federal lands (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 1994, 
entire). The NWFP incorporates seven land allocations--Congressionally 
Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs), Adaptive Management 
Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn 
Areas, Riparian Reserves, and Matrix. Much of the NWFP area currently 
provides fisher habitat, which is expected to increase over time. The 
Matrix, which represents only 16 percent of the Federal land within the 
NWFP area, is the Federal land outside the other six NWFP land 
allocations and is the area in which most timber harvest and other 
silvicultural activities are conducted. LSRs, which cover 30 percent of 
the NWFP area, are expected, in combination with the other allocations 
and standards and guidelines, to maintain a functional, interactive, 
late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem and are designed to 
serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species 
including fishers. Stand management is limited in LSRs, is subject to 
review, and does not

[[Page 22721]]

contribute to probable sale quantity (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 
1994b, pp. A-4, C-12, C-13, C-39).
    At the time of the proposed rule, we concluded that data 
limitations in most sub-regions across the analysis area prevented us 
from quantifying what proportion of the treatments in the data sets we 
used may be outside the scope of habitat loss or downgrade (e.g., areas 
subject to vegetation management activities that may still function as 
fisher habitat post-treatment). Thus, at that time, the severity scores 
presented in the draft Species Report and summarized in the proposed 
listing rule represented our best estimate and constituted a relatively 
broad range to incorporate this uncertainty. Our previous quantitative 
analysis of stressors resulting in habitat loss also did not account 
for ingrowth of fisher habitat over our 40-year analysis timeframe and, 
therefore, provided no values for net habitat loss (or gain); although 
we acknowledged that ingrowth occurs, primarily on Federal lands, we 
lacked the data at that time to quantitatively estimate that ingrowth 
(Service 2014, pp. 84-92). Although we recognized data limitations in 
most subregions across the analysis area and we did not account for 
ingrowth, we found that vegetation management was a threat because 
activities that remove or substantially degrade fisher habitat through 
the removal of large structures and overstory canopy are projected to 
take place within the analysis area over the next 40 years.
    Based on information and comments received from peer reviewers and 
the public, we reevaluated our analysis (as stated previously) and 
changed our approach to rely on qualitative evidence to derive a 
qualitative descriptor of each stressor, rather than extrapolating. 
Several sources of data currently available provide information on past 
changes in vegetation in different areas of the proposed West Coast DPS 
of fisher's range. Because of the large area encompassed by the fisher, 
these different sources are not directly comparable and do not easily 
combine to paint a complete picture of the vegetation trends within the 
west coast States. The limitations of this information were 
acknowledged in our proposed rule, and we explicitly requested 
information from the public to better inform our analysis of this 
stressor and to help us make a final determination. Specifically, we 
requested information related to the scope and severity of vegetation 
management on Federal land within the range of the fisher, and 
scientific or commercial information on the type, scope, and severity 
of vegetation management (timber harvest, restoration thinning, fuels 
reduction, etc.) on non-Federal land in Oregon and Washington. We also 
requested scientific evaluation of our use of the northern spotted owl 
habitat data as a surrogate for fisher habitat data, and its use in our 
draft Species Report as the best available data to determine the scope 
and severity of vegetation management effects on Federal lands.
    Currently, there is no analysis that explicitly tracks changes in 
fisher habitat in recent decades where loss specifically attributable 
to vegetation management specifically can be determined. Therefore, we 
used other available information, as described below, and our best 
professional judgment to analyze the potential effects of this stressor 
on the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. After considering the best 
available data, including comments received from peer reviewers and the 
public regarding the vegetation management stressor analysis presented 
in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 85-96) and summarized in 
the proposed listing rule, we updated and reconsidered our analysis. 
Our updated analysis included the use of several different sources of 
information to depict net forest vegetation changes caused by 
vegetation management activities within the west coast States. With the 
exception of the non-Federal timber harvest database in California (CAL 
FIRE THP 2013), all of these sources are either new or updated since 
the time of the proposed listing rule (Davis et al. 20XX, entire; USDA 
Forest Service 2016, entire; Spencer et al. 2016, entire; gradient 
nearest neighbor (GNN) data/maps). Because we were able to utilize 
these sources of data, we did not need to rely on northern spotted owl 
habitat data as a surrogate for fisher habitat data in our final 
evaluation. Our analysis is described in detail in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-111) and summarized as follows.
    While historical loss of older forests via timber harvest through 
much of the 1900s resulted in a substantial loss of fisher habitat in 
the west coast States, harvest volume has sharply declined throughout 
this area since 1990, primarily on Federal lands, but also on non-
Federal lands. Although timber harvest is still ongoing throughout the 
west coast States, habitat ingrowth is also occurring, offsetting some 
of those losses. For example, modeling in the southern Sierra Nevada 
region indicates that ingrowth of fisher habitat has even replaced 
habitat lost by all disturbances in the southern Sierra Nevada region 
since 1990, resulting in a net gain of habitat since that time in that 
area (see below in this section).
    Within the NWFP region, we used information from the draft late-
successional and old-growth forest monitoring report (Davis et al. 
20XX, entire) to assess changes in fisher habitat as a result of 
vegetation management. Over a 20-year period (1993-2012), Davis et al. 
(20XX, pp. 5-6, 13-16) tracked changes in forests classed as OGSI-80, 
which represents forests that begin to show stand structures associated 
with older forests (e.g., large live trees, snags, down wood, and 
diverse tree sizes). Though OGSI-80 forests are not a comprehensive 
representation of fisher habitat, we considered this report the best 
available scientific and commercial information to assess changes in 
fisher habitat within the NWFP area. This information was the only data 
set available that identified the amount of acres lost to specific 
disturbance types (e.g., timber harvest or vegetation management, fire) 
and calculated specific acres of forest ingrowth, allowing us to 
explicitly track loss of a specific forest type (OGSI-80) to a specific 
disturbance category (vegetation management). All remaining data sets 
provided a net change in vegetation type but did not categorize or 
quantify the disturbance types (e.g., acres and type of loss, acres of 
ingrowth). In these areas, where available, we had to look separately 
at timber harvest data to assess loss to vegetation management.
    Although loss of older-forest habitat due to timber harvest on non-
Federal lands (21.8 percent since 1993) was substantially greater than 
on Federal lands (1.2 percent since 1993), in combining all ownerships, 
the percent loss due to timber harvest over the past 20 years was low 
(8.2) (Service 2016, Table 6). This translates to a 4.1 percent loss 
per decade (see Table 6 in the final Species Report). The net loss of 
habitat, however, is somewhat less because 4.1 percent per decade does 
not include ingrowth of OGSI-80 stands, which were recruited at a rate 
of 6 percent over the 20-year period, or 3 percent per decade (Service 
2016, Table 6). However, it is not an entirely accurate representation 
to subtract total ingrowth from total loss to vegetation management 
without also considering all other disturbances that may be offset by 
ingrowth. We evaluate net vegetation changes as a result of all 
disturbance types separately below. The projection of vegetation loss 
may also be an overestimate given that projections in the NWFP showed 
older forest recruitment on Federal lands would replace losses to the 
degree that within

[[Page 22722]]

50 to 100 years, older forests would be within the range of amounts 
occurring prior to logging and extensive fire suppression (Davis et al. 
20XX, p. 6). Thus, older forest recruitment rates on Federal lands 
would result in a future increase in ingrowth, offsetting losses more 
than what is currently projected based on ingrowth rates over the first 
20 years of the NWFP.
    Elsewhere in the west coast States, while we could track vegetation 
changes over time, the available data did not indicate the amount or 
types of disturbances affecting the specific vegetation types; that is, 
we could only determine net vegetation change of a particular 
vegetation type, not the specific amount of that type that was lost to 
a specific disturbance type, unlike in the NWFP area. Timber harvest 
records were available for the Sierra Nevada region, but idiosyncrasies 
in the Forest Service FACTS database (see Spencer et al. (2016, p. A-
30)) and the fact that the available private lands database (CAL FIRE 
timber harvest plans) did not indicate types of treatment or what 
portion of the plans may have actually been implemented, led to 
concerns in translating acres of ``treatment'' as depicted in these 
databases into on-the-ground changes in forest vegetation types that 
could represent fisher habitat. Instead, we relied on net vegetation 
change data to display actual changes in forests that represent fisher 
habitat, realizing that net changes include other disturbances and that 
vegetation management will be some unknown portion of that change.
    In the Sierra Nevada region, we approximated fisher habitat change 
using a GNN vegetation trend analysis to track changes in forests with 
large structural conditions thought to be associated with fisher 
habitat. Note that the vegetation category tracked in this analysis is 
not equivalent to the OGSI-80 forests used by Davis et al. (20XX, 
entire), where the net change in OGSI-80 stands was 5.9 percent over a 
20-year period, or almost 3 percent per decade. Instead, we used 
predefined GNN structure conditions describing forests with larger 
trees (greater than 20 in (50 cm)), realizing this may not include all 
vegetation types used by fishers. This analysis showed that net loss of 
forests with larger structural conditions was 6.2 percent across all 
ownerships over the past 20 years, which equates to a loss of 3.1 
percent per decade. Outside of the NWFP area, in the eastern Washington 
Cascades and eastern Oregon Cascades regions, net losses were 3.2 and 
9.5 percent, respectively, translating to 1.6 and 4.8 percent per 
decade. These losses, while incorporating ingrowth, included all 
disturbances (e.g., fire) across all ownerships, so the loss due to 
timber harvest is actually less. In the single analysis where fisher 
habitat was actually modeled and tracked through time (southern Sierra 
Nevada region), ingrowth of fisher habitat actually replaced habitat 
lost by all disturbances between 1990 and 2012, equivalent to an 
increase of 151 mi\2\ (390 km\2\) of fisher habitat at the female home 
range scale, or a 7.8 percent increase in suitable cells during the 22-
year analysis window (Spencer et al. 2016, p. A-21). The authors note 
that their analysis window did not include the large fires of 2013 and 
2014, but that even with those losses, a net increase in fisher habitat 
still results (Spencer et al. 2016, p. 44).
Vegetation Management Summary
    In the southern Sierra Nevada, fisher habitat appears to be 
increasing despite losses to vegetation management and recent large 
wildfires. Within the NWFP area, where we were able to explicitly track 
loss of older forest structural condition due to vegetation management 
activities, the scale of loss was at a low level (4.1 percent per 
decade) and was partly compensated by ingrowth. We incorporated 
ingrowth by looking at net forest change over time, although we could 
not quantify amounts lost to specific disturbance types throughout the 
west coast States; outside of the NWFP area, net loss of forests with 
larger structural conditions ranged from 1.6 to 4.8 percent per decade, 
depending on the region, for all disturbance types. Although the 
habitat types tracked in the GNN analysis for the non-NWFP area is not 
the same as the OGSI-80 vegetation type tracked in the NWFP area, the 
net change in the OGSI-80 type (almost 3 percent per decade) is 
relatively similar to that observed in forests with larger structural 
condition outside the NWFP area.
    Based on our analysis of the best scientific and commercial 
information available, we find that forest losses were less than 5 
percent per decade, either when looking at just total vegetation 
management loss within the NWFP area, or looking at net loss (i.e., 
incorporating ingrowth) that included all disturbances, knowing 
vegetation management comprises some proportion of that loss. Given the 
large home range of fishers and the geographic extent of forest 
management activities throughout the analysis area, some fisher 
individuals are likely affected as a result of habitat impacts. While 
these individual fishers are affected to some degree as a result of 
loss of cover and structural features associated with various 
vegetation management activities, we have not found evidence of a 
population-level response directly from vegetation management 
activities to fisher habitat. Fishers occur in landscapes and stands 
where timber harvest has occurred (e.g., Slauson et al. 2003, pp. 7-9; 
Self and Callas 2006, entire; Hamm et al. 2012, pp. 421-422; Clayton 
2013, pp.7-19; Niblett et al. 2015, entire), but there is no 
information on how different vegetation management activities affect 
fisher populations and their persistence within the west coast States. 
Analysis is further confounded because the category of vegetation 
management contains activities ranging from those that result in 
substantial loss of habitat attributes valuable to fishers (e.g., large 
clearcut harvests that remove almost all tree canopy and structural 
features) to activities that modify habitat at small-scale levels yet 
retain functionality (e.g., minor reductions in canopy cover and 
retention of structural features suitable for rest sites, den sites, or 
prey production).
    We have found no empirical evidence that vegetation management is 
manifesting itself to a significant degree across the proposed West 
Coast DPS in a way that is causing habitat-related impacts that are 
causing fisher to decline across its range currently, or that suggests 
an expected decline across its range in the future. Furthermore, there 
are large areas of suitable but unoccupied habitat available throughout 
the west coast States where fisher populations occur, although to a 
greater extent in the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range. 
Overall across the proposed DPS's range, this suggests that habitat may 
not currently be a limiting factor for fisher populations in these 
States, and that these areas likely would help offset any potential 
future impacts to fisher habitat from potential future vegetation 
management activities. Overall, the best available scientific and 
commercial information summarized above and presented in detail in the 
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-111) leads us to conclude 
that impacts from vegetation management do not rise to the level of a 
threat given the lack of information indicating that these activities 
are significantly affecting habitat currently at either the population 
or rangewide scales. We also find that these activities are not likely 
to significantly affect habitat at either the population or rangewide 
scales in the foreseeable future because our analysis of loss/
alteration of habitat shows the trend to be slightly declining (with 
actual increases in habitat in the

[[Page 22723]]

SSN population area); fishers can continue to utilize some managed 
landscapes; we have detected no population-level response of fishers to 
vegetation management activities; and habitat does not appear to be 
limiting for fishers across the proposed DPS.

Development (Including Linear Infrastructure)

    We stated in the proposed listing rule and draft Species Report, 
and we reaffirm here, that human population density within the analysis 
area varies considerably, but density in all areas appear to be 
increasing. Human population growth within the analysis area may 
increase needs for housing, services, transportation, and other 
infrastructure, likely placing ever-greater demands on land, water, and 
other natural resources. Specifically, human infrastructure growth 
includes recreational opportunities such as ski area developments, 
vacation cabins, trails, and campgrounds. Besides permanently removing 
potential fisher habitat, human developments in rural areas are 
changing land use from forest to other land cover types, which has the 
potential to fragment previously continuous habitat or hamper fisher 
movements. Overall, human developments associated with population 
growth (including linear and other infrastructure) will likely have an 
increasing impact on fisher habitat into the future, but the severity 
varies depending on the type and location of development.
    We stated in the proposed listing rule that the scope of the human 
development stressor (which implied inclusion of linear and other 
infrastructure) is relatively low throughout the analysis area, with 
the majority of impacts most likely occurring within the Sierra Nevada, 
Coastal Washington, and Western Washington Cascades portions of the 
proposed DPS's range. The best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that, although an insignificant amount of 
suitable habitat is undergoing development such that individual fishers 
may be impacted, significant impacts to fisher habitat do not appear to 
be occurring at either the population or rangewide scales, nor is there 
any indication that these scales of impacts to suitable habitat are 
likely to occur in the future. Thus, we reaffirm our previous 
conclusion that development is not a threat to fisher habitat within 
the proposed West Coast DPS now and in the foreseeable future.

Forest Insects and Tree Diseases

    Potential impacts associated with forest insects and tree diseases 
were described in the ``Anthropogenic Influences'' section of the draft 
Species Report (Service 2014, p. 72) and mentioned in the proposed 
listing rule within the context of potential ``anthropogenic mortality 
stressors'' that could be synergistically impacting fisher along with 
other stressors. Confusion in the draft Species Report resulted in 
conflation of anthropogenic stressors and stressors related to forest 
insects and diseases, because they were combined in a single section 
wherein only insects and diseases were discussed and not anthropogenic 
factors (Service 2014, p. 72). We revised the final Species Report to 
separate those stressor discussions and we have provided clarification 
in the final Species Report regarding these potential anthropogenic 
stressors (Service 2016, pp. 77-78), including correcting the title of 
the potential stressor to ``Forest Insects and Tree Diseases,'' and we 
provide a stand-alone summary of our analysis of this stressor below.
    In the proposed rule, we found that the usual pattern of localized 
outbreaks and low density of tree-damaging forest insects and tree 
diseases are beneficial, providing structures conducive to rest and den 
sites used by fishers or their prey (Service 2014, p. 72). However, we 
noted that it is possible that large, area-wide epidemics of forest 
disease and insect outbreaks could potentially displace fishers if 
canopy cover is lost, and if salvage and thinning prescriptions in 
response to outbreaks degrade the habitat (Naney et al. 2012, p. 36). 
Examples of potential forest insect or tree diseases that have been 
present within the west coast States but to our knowledge have not 
resulted in impacts to fisher habitat include:
    (1) Mountain pine beetle, which is currently known in British 
Columbia (Weir and Corbould 2008, entire; 2010, entire)); and
    (2) Sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum), which is currently 
known to impact forests in southwestern Oregon and northwestern 
California.
    At this time, the best available information does not indicate that 
any forest insects or tree diseases are significantly affecting the 
proposed DPS currently. Moreover, although some diseases have been 
present within the west coast States for many years, the best available 
data do not indicate that they would result in significant impacts to 
fisher habitat at either the population or rangewide scales in the 
foreseeable future. Based on our evaluation of the best scientific and 
commercial information currently available, we find that fishers at the 
individual, population, and rangewide levels are beneficially affected 
by forest insects and tree diseases through their creation of 
structures used by fishers for denning and resting, as well as 
structures used by fisher prey. Localized outbreaks that result in 
canopy loss substantial enough to reduce the stand's suitability for 
fisher habitat may affect individuals, but there is no evidence to 
indicate any impacts to fishers currently or in the foreseeable future. 
Thus, forest insects and tree diseases do not constitute a threat to 
the proposed DPS either currently or in the foreseeable future.

Trapping and Incidental Capture

    Historical, unregulated fur trapping (prior to the 1930s) appears 
to have been the primary initial cause of the marked contraction in 
fisher distribution across the Pacific States. The effects of current 
trapping, which are limited to incidental capture and an unknown amount 
of poaching, are significantly reduced compared to the previous effects 
of widespread unregulated legal trapping of fishers. In our proposed 
listing rule, we stated that the severity of the potential stressor of 
trapping and incidental capture is extremely low throughout the 
analysis area (Service 2014, pp. 106-108), and, therefore, we did not 
consider trapping to be a threat to the fisher, including in the 
future. Since that time, minimal new information has become available 
regarding trapping activities, none of which results in any significant 
changes or differences in our understanding of this stressor.
    Based on our evaluation of the best available information currently 
known, we reaffirm our previous conclusion that the severity of 
trapping (and incidental capture) throughout the analysis area is 
extremely low, and is not expected to increase in the foreseeable 
future. Our current analysis reveals that where impacts occur as a 
result of trapping, those impacts are affecting few individuals (i.e., 
a total of eight individuals since 1975, including three in Washington 
(Happe 2015, pers. comm.) and five in Oregon (Robart 1982, pp. 3, 8; 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1998, entire; ODFW 2007, 
p. 1)) to a minor degree as opposed to significant impacts to entire 
populations or significant impacts rangewide. Given that widespread, 
unregulated legal trapping of fishers is not expected to occur in the 
future, potential future impacts from trapping and incidental capture 
are expected to remain extremely low. Thus, we

[[Page 22724]]

conclude that the scope and magnitude of impacts resulting from 
trapping and incidental capture do not rise to the level of being a 
threat to the fisher in the west coast States, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

Research

    Although scientific research is necessary to fully understand the 
various aspects of fishers' life-history needs and population status in 
the west coast States, some research techniques (e.g., trapping, 
handling, and attachment of radio-telemetry transmitters to fishers) 
have potential risks to individual animals, including injury and 
mortality. Current research and monitoring efforts vary greatly by 
subregion across the three States. We concluded in the proposed listing 
rule and reaffirm here that research is not a threat to the continued 
existence of fisher, now or in the future. Both the draft Species 
Report (Service 2014, pp. 113-115) and final Species Report (Service 
2016, pp. 127-128) describe impacts that have occurred to only a few 
individuals throughout the analysis area, which the best available data 
indicate will remain at an extremely low level into the future. Our 
evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information currently 
available lead us to conclude that research activities are not causing 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales such 
that they constitute a threat to the proposed DPS now, nor are they 
expected to do so in the foreseeable future.

Disease or Predation

    Several viral and bacterial diseases are known to affect mustelids, 
including fishers, but it is unclear how these diseases affect wild 
populations of fishers. Potential predators of fishers include mountain 
lions, bobcats, coyotes, and large raptors. Disease and predation are 
stressors that can cause direct mortality of fishers, and both are 
documented to occur throughout the analysis area. Minimal new 
information is available regarding disease or predation since the time 
of our proposed listing rule, none of which results in any significant 
changes or differences in our understanding of these stressors.
    Based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial 
information currently available, neither disease nor predation are 
considered threats to fisher. Our analysis reveals that, for both 
disease and predation, impacts are affecting individuals to a minor 
degree within the various populations as opposed to significant impacts 
to entire populations or the proposed DPS rangewide. Additionally, the 
best available information does not indicate that disease or predation 
would increase in the future to a significant degree such that fishers 
in the west coast states are likely to experience significant impacts 
at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, we reaffirm our 
conclusion that the scope and magnitude of impacts resulting from 
disease or predation do not rise to the level that are considered 
threats to the proposed DPS, now or in the foreseeable future.

Collision With Vehicles

    In the proposed listing rule, we stated that roads are sources of 
vehicle-collision mortality of fishers and disrupt habitat continuity, 
particularly in high-use, high-speed areas. Collision with vehicles is 
a stressor that causes direct mortality of fishers, and thus, we found 
that collision with vehicles has the potential to be a stressor to 
extant fisher populations. We stated in the proposed rule that vehicle 
collisions have the potential to occur throughout all occupied areas, 
but we concluded that vehicle collisions are not a threat to fisher 
based on known impacts at the individual level. No new information has 
been discovered or provided since the time of the proposed listing rule 
to indicate that fisher collisions with vehicles are increasing or 
decreasing.
    Based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial 
information currently available, we reaffirm our previous conclusion 
that vehicle collisions are not a threat to fisher, both currently and 
in the future (Service 2016, pp. 137-138). We found that individual 
fishers may be killed by vehicles in multiple populations, with a 
greater risk occurring in portions of the fisher populations that also 
harbor paved, major roads where vehicles travel at fast speeds and 
possibly at a higher volume of traffic compared to many dirt roads. The 
best available data indicate that vehicle collisions are a substantial 
source of anthropogenic mortality for fisher populations, but we have 
no information to indicate that the frequency of collisions with 
vehicles is going to increase in the future, or that this source of 
mortality is having or will have significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales. Based on the scope and magnitude of 
this stressor, we reaffirm our conclusion that fisher collisions with 
vehicles are not a threat to the fisher in the proposed DPS, now or in 
the foreseeable future.

Exposure to Toxicants

    Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs), which are intended to kill small 
pest mammals, impair an animal's ability to produce several key blood 
clotting factors. Anticoagulant exposure is manifested by such 
conditions as bleeding nose and gums, extensive bruises, anemia, 
fatigue, and difficulty breathing. Anticoagulants also damage the small 
blood vessels, resulting in spontaneous and widespread hemorrhaging. A 
sublethal dose of an AR can produce significant clotting abnormalities 
and hemorrhaging, leading to a range of symptoms, such as difficulty 
moving and the decreased ability to recover from physical injury, which 
may increase the probability of mortality from other sources.
    The final Species Report details the exposure of toxicants to 
fishers in the west coast States (Service 2016, pp. 141-159), which is 
summarized herein. Relatively recent research documenting exposure to 
toxicants in a number of fishers, and mortalities of individual fishers 
directly caused by ARs, has raised concerns regarding potential 
individual- and population-level impacts of toxicants. Exposure to ARs, 
resulting in death in some cases, has been documented in fishers in the 
two native populations (NCSO and SSN), and the reintroduced ONP 
population. However, sources of AR exposure in fishers have not been 
conclusively determined.
    The number of fishers determined to have had exposure to toxicants 
varies across the proposed DPS's range, with the majority of records 
known from California. Large quantities of ARs have been found at 
illegal marijuana cultivation sites within occupied fisher habitat on 
public, private, and tribal lands in California (Gabriel et al. 2012a, 
p. 12; Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 97-98). In Oregon, AR residues were 
found in both fisher carcasses tested (Gabriel 2015, pers. comm.). 
Marijuana cultivation sites are not common in Washington and only three 
fishers can confidently be documented as having been exposed to 
rodenticides in Washington (Happe et al. 2015, pp. 38-39). Six other 
carcasses of fishers reintroduced in Washington have tested positive 
for AR, but those individuals may have been exposed in British Columbia 
before translocation (Happe in litt. 2015). Of the three fishers that 
were exposed in Washington, it appears that exposure occurred as a 
result of legal applications in residential areas given they were found 
near human habitation where ARs can be legally applied (Happe in litt. 
2015).
    We stated in the proposed listing rule that the scope of toxicants 
as a stressor varied across the landscape and that our determination 
regarding the scope was

[[Page 22725]]

influenced by the availability of data for different parts of the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's range. In those areas where data 
were available, we stated that the severity of the stressor was 
comparable to that of disease, noting that the data used to estimate 
the severity of toxicants were based solely on mortality (i.e., four 
mortalities from California). We concluded at that time that ARs are 
likely a threat to fisher populations, but that we did not have 
specific information about the population-level effects.
    Our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding toxicants and their effects on fishers at this time 
leads us to conclude that individual fishers within three populations 
(i.e., NCSO, SSN, and ONP) have been found dead from other causes and 
also were found to be exposed to ARs at sublethal levels with an 
unknown degree of impact to those individuals. In addition, 15 
mortalities directly caused by AR exposure have been documented in the 
NCSO and SSN populations in California (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 5; 
Wengert 2016, pers. comm.). The best available information reveals 
little regarding the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, 
and no rangewide studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level 
impacts across the proposed DPS's range. However, the broad use of ARs 
at illegal marijuana cultivation sites in California, which has been 
documented to occur within or adjacent to portions of the proposed 
DPS's range, could be impacting portions of the California populations. 
The extent to which the legal use of ARs occurs at agricultural and 
commercial sites within the range of the fisher is unknown.
    Our analysis of this stressor also includes a further evaluation of 
a variety of toxicant information (in response to comments by peer 
reviewers). New information included (but is not limited to):
    (1) Concentrations of active ingredients in bait (Erickson and 
Urban 2004) and a description of how exposure to ARs is confirmed 
(Vandenbrouke et al. 2008; Rattner et al. 2014). Erickson and Urban 
(2004, p. 94) specifically noted that no consistent trends associate 
residue concentrations with levels at which adverse effects occur. 
Thus, at what level of toxicant exposure fishers may be experiencing 
adverse impacts remains unknown.
    (2) Clarification or corrections related to ARs found in the dead 
fishers tested from the ONP population. Happe (2015, pers. comm.) noted 
that the first released individuals found dead were all captured near 
residential areas/private lands in British Columbia prior to their 
release into the Olympic Peninsula. Exposure from legal use of 
brodifacoum in British Columbia cannot be ruled out because their 
deaths occurred well within the half-lives reported for brodifacoum 
persistence in mammalian tissue. Two subsequent mortalities among the 
translocated individuals on the Olympic Peninsula tested positive for 
bromadiolone too long after their relocation from British Columbia to 
have been exposed there. These individuals were found near rural areas 
where rodenticides could have been used legally. The most recent fisher 
mortality that tested positive for an AR was born to a translocated 
female, and was found on the border of the Port Angeles city limits, 
surrounded by a low-density housing area and commercial development. 
Thus, AR impacts for the Olympic Peninsula reintroduction area could be 
from legally applied sources.
    (3) Rodent diversity at marijuana cultivation sites. Wengert (2015, 
pers. comm.) reports that rodent diversity is reduced to only mice at 
marijuana cultivation sites that are treated with rodenticides, as 
compared to nearby untreated sites where large-bodied rodents (e.g., 
woodrats, squirrels, chipmunks), which are the prey species that the 
fisher prefers, are found. This finding provides support for the 
possibility that fishers could experience indirect effects such as prey 
shifting outside of current home ranges, or prey depletion due to 
impaired reproduction, starvation, or physiologic (hematologic, 
biochemical and endocrine) changes.
    (4) Estimating the extent of fisher exposure to ARs and determining 
the source(s) is difficult because the delay in toxicity caused by ARs 
and their persistence within food webs can result in contaminated 
rodents being found within and adjacent to treated areas weeks or 
months after bait application (Geduhn et al. 2014, pp. 8-9; Tosh et al. 
2012, pp. 5-6; Sage et al. 2008, p. 215).
    The only new regulatory measure of which we are aware of specific 
to ARs (in addition to those existing regulatory mechanisms identified 
in the proposed listing rule) is related to the State of California's 
new 2014 prohibition on the sale of second generation ARs (brodifacoum, 
bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum) to the general public. 
While the State of California has prohibited these sales to the general 
public, they are still widely available and can be purchased by anyone 
with a State-issued pesticide applicator's license. No records are kept 
on the sale and use of rodenticides that can be used to determine 
whether this new measure will reduce the illegal and legal uses of the 
second-generation ARs (see Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below, for 
additional discussion). Overall, our evaluation of new information, 
including the one new regulatory measure, provides clarity and 
corrections to some information presented in the draft Species Report.
    Marijuana cultivation sites are present within or near both native 
fisher populations in the proposed West Coast DPS, and potentially 
other areas within the west coast States. There are other possible 
sources of ARs from legal applications in agriculture and around 
buildings in rural areas. Furthermore, the recent legalization of 
marijuana in the State of Oregon adds an additional element of 
uncertainty to evaluation of this stressor, as it is unknown whether or 
how this policy change may potentially affect exposure rates (for 
example, whether there may be a trend toward indoor-grow operations, 
which would potentially reduce exposure of wildlife to ARs). The 
incidence of fisher exposure to toxicants from all uses across its 
range is unknown and the best available data are very limited 
(including known mortalities of only 15 individuals in California). 
However, the best available information does not suggest that any of 
the fisher populations where exposure has been documented are in 
decline, nor does it suggest that significant AR impacts would occur as 
operative threats on the fisher populations in the west coast States as 
a whole to the degree that there would likely be significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales in the future. The best 
available information at this time does not demonstrate there are 
significant deleterious sublethal effects in fishers at the population 
and rangewide scales. In addition, we are not aware of any information 
that indicates use of ARs will increase within the range of the 
proposed DPS in the future. Therefore, the best available information 
does not indicate that exposure to toxicants rises to the level of a 
threat, and this conclusion is supported by our finding that the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is not experiencing significant 
impacts at either the population or rangewide scales, currently or in 
the foreseeable future.

Small Population Size and Isolation

    A principle of conservation biology is that small, isolated 
populations are subject to an increased risk of extinction from 
stochastic (random) environmental, genetic, or demographic events. 
Fishers appear to have several characteristics related to small

[[Page 22726]]

population size that increase the species' vulnerability to extinction 
from stochastic events and other threats on the landscape. Extremely 
small populations of low-density carnivores, like fishers, are more 
susceptible to small increases in mortality factors due to their 
relatively low fecundity and low natural population densities. Fishers 
may also be prone to instability in population sizes in response to 
fluctuations in prey availability. Low reproductive rates retard the 
recovery of populations from declines, further increasing their 
vulnerability. These factors together imply that fishers are highly 
prone to localized extirpation, their colonizing ability is somewhat 
limited, and their populations are slow to recover from deleterious 
impacts.
    A scarcity of verifiable sightings in the Western and Eastern 
Cascades in Washington and Oregon, coastal Oregon, and the north and 
central sections of the Sierra Nevada indicates that populations of 
fishers in southwestern Oregon and California are isolated from fishers 
elsewhere in North America. Fishers in the west coast States are 
currently restricted to two extant native populations and three 
reintroduced populations, the latter of which are known to be 
relatively small in size.
    We concluded at the time of the proposed rule that the isolation of 
small populations and associated increased risk of extinction from 
stochastic events constituted a threat to the proposed West Coast DPS 
of fisher. However, as described above, that conclusion was based 
largely on the application of general theoretical principles regarding 
the implications of small population size and isolation for the 
persistence of some generic species. We continue to recognize that 
fisher populations in the west coast States are, for the most part, 
relatively small and geographically isolated from one another (with the 
likely exception of the NCSO population, which now overlaps the NSN and 
SOC reintroduced populations), with little opportunity for genetic 
interchange. However, we note that populations of forest carnivores are 
often isolated and generally occur in low densities; because we lack 
specific information about genetic processes in small, isolated forest 
carnivore populations, it is unknown whether generalities about 
persistence based on untested theoretical models may apply to fisher 
(Ruggiero et al. 1994, p. 146). In the specific case of fishers in the 
west coast States, our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial 
information available indicates that the separation of the SSN and NCSO 
populations occurred a very long time ago, possibly on the order of 
more than a thousand years, pre-European settlement (Tucker et al. 
2012, pp. 1, 7). Despite their size and isolation, the native NCSO and 
SSN populations have persisted over a long period of time, and 
interchange between the native NCSO population and the reintroduced NSN 
and SOC populations may be beginning to occur (see Service 2016, pp. 
38-41, 48).
    Estimates of fisher population growth for the NCSO population and 
the portion of the SSN population surveyed do not indicate any overall 
positive or negative trend as a result of the various stressors acting 
upon those populations (Service 2016, pp. 42-50). At this point in 
time, we do not have information to indicate that these portions of the 
proposed DPS are expected to change to a negative trend in the 
foreseeable future given the projected current and future level of 
impacts from the various stressors, and, in some instances, offsetting 
beneficial effects from some stressors (e.g., wildfire, forest insects, 
and tree diseases that can create habitat components needed by 
fishers). The NCSO population, which encompasses the NSN reintroduced 
site, covers a relatively large geographic area of approximately 15,444 
mi\2\ (40,000 km\2\). Although the areas monitored for population trend 
are limited, for the Hoopa study, the population trend from 2005-2012 
indicates a lambda (population growth rate) of 0.992 (C.I. 0.883-1.100) 
with a higher lambda rate for females 1.038 (0.881-1.196) than males 
0.912 (0.777-1.047) (Higley et al. 2014, p. 102, Higley 2015, pers. 
comm.) and 1.06 (C.I. 0.97-1.15, years 2006-2013) for the EKSA (Powell 
et al. 2014, p. 23) (a population growth rate of 1.0 indicates a stable 
population; confidence intervals that bound 1.0 indicate the growth 
rate is not statistically different from 1.0). For the SSN population, 
which is smaller and estimated to range anywhere in size from 100 to 
500 individuals (Service 2016, pp. 48-50), the population growth rate 
is estimated as 0.97 (C.I. 0.79-1.16, years 2007-2014) (Sweitzer et al. 
2015a, p. 784). The population growth rate for the SSN population is 
slightly less than 1.0, but nonetheless because the confidence 
intervals include 1, this indicates a statistically stable trend. The 
reintroduced SOC population has now persisted for more than 30 years, 
despite a very small founding population (Service 2016, pp. 48-50). The 
ONP and NSN populations were reintroduced too recently to determine 
likelihood of long-term persistence, but initial results indicating 
that these populations are breeding and expanding are encouraging.
    Overall, although fisher populations are relatively small and 
geographically isolated, our evaluation of the best scientific and 
commercial information leads us to conclude that the separation of the 
two native populations is longstanding. The best available information 
does not suggest any negative consequences in terms of population 
abundance or other indicators across the west coast States, or that 
small population size or isolation are likely to cause significant 
impacts at either the population or rangewide scales in the future. In 
addition, recent and ongoing reintroductions to establish additional 
populations of fishers within the west coast States reduce the 
likelihood of loss to random stochastic events. Based on all of these 
considerations, we now conclude that small population size and 
isolation are not threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, 
currently or in the foreseeable future.
Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation
    In this section, we synthesize the information above to evaluate 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation as they relate to fishers in 
the proposed West Coast DPS. Resiliency refers to the capacity of an 
ecosystem, population, or organism to recover quickly from disturbance 
by tolerating or adapting to changes or effects caused by a disturbance 
or a combination of disturbances. Redundancy, in this context, refers 
to the ability of a species to compensate for fluctuations in or loss 
of populations across the species' range such that the loss of a single 
population has little or no lasting effect on the structure and 
functioning of the species as a whole. Representation refers to the 
conservation of the diversity of a species, including genetic makeup.
    The degree of resiliency of a species (or DPS) is influenced by 
both the degree of genetic diversity across its range and the number of 
individuals. Resiliency increases with increasing genetic diversity or 
a higher number of individuals; it decreases when the species has less 
genetic diversity or fewer individuals. In the case of the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher, resiliency may be slightly lower to some 
degree because the total population size is considered by some as 
small, although forest carnivores generally occur at low densities 
(Ruggiero et al. 1994, p. 146).
    From a genetics standpoint, fisher from the ONP population (as well 
as for

[[Page 22727]]

the new southern Washington Cascades reintroduction site) were sourced 
from British Columbia, and fisher from the SOC population were sourced 
from both British Columbia and Minnesota. Fisher from the NSN 
population area were sourced from native fishers in northwestern 
California. Fisher within this proposed DPS (NCSO, NSN, and SSN 
populations) contain unique genetic haplotypes not found elsewhere 
within the range of the fisher in North America (Knaus et al. 2011, p. 
7). Wisely et al. (2004, pp. 642-643) demonstrated a gradient of 
genetic diversity in fisher populations along the Pacific Coast, with 
allelic richness highest in native populations in British Columbia and 
the reintroduced SOC population, and lowest in the southern Sierra 
Nevada.
    Multiple, interacting populations across a broad geographic area 
(redundancy) provide insurance against the risk of extinction caused by 
catastrophic events. As was known at the time of the proposed listing 
rule, population redundancy continues to exist across the west coast 
States as a result of the presence of two native populations across 
southern Oregon (northern California and the Sierra Nevada (NCSO and 
SSN populations, noting that the SOC and NSN reintroduced populations 
now have overlapping boundaries with the native NCSO population)), as 
well as two reintroduction locations, including the ONP population and 
the new South Washington Cascades reintroduction site. There is also an 
additional reintroduction site (new as of December 2015 (see Species 
Information, above)) in the South Washington Cascades that is expected 
to start reproducing in the near future. The existence of the five 
broadly distributed populations (and the new reintroduction site) 
increases the probability that fisher populations in the west coast 
States will persist into the future and contribute to long-term genetic 
and demographic viability across the fisher's West Coast range; 
however, more time is needed to determine with accuracy the viability 
of the reintroduced populations. If any of the five populations 
(particularly the native populations) were to be permanently lost, the 
fisher's population redundancy in the west coast States would be 
lowered, thereby decreasing the fishers' chances of survival in the 
face of potential environmental, demographic, and genetic stochastic 
factors and catastrophic events (extreme drought, wildfire, etc.). 
However, our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial 
information available does not indicate that there are any stressors 
acting upon any of the populations that are of such imminence or 
magnitude that we would anticipate the wholesale loss of any of these 
populations, and particularly not the native populations. Thus, we 
conclude there is sufficient redundancy at present to sustain the 
fishers in the west coast States over the long term, and continued and 
future reintroductions of fishers will continue to strengthen the 
degree of redundancy in the west coast States into the future.
    The aggregate number of individuals across multiple populations 
increases the probability of demographic persistence and preservation 
of overall genetic diversity by providing an important genetic 
reservoir (representation). We consider representation across the west 
coast States to be high, with five different groups (two native (NCSO 
and SSN) and three reintroduced (ONP, SOC, and NSN)) across California, 
Oregon, and Washington (although we note it is early to conclude with 
certainty the persistence of two of these reintroduced populations). 
Although there may be some risk that any of the small reintroduced 
populations could fail to persist within the short-term future, the 
level of representation across the west coast States at this time 
reduces the likelihood of future extirpation of these fishers. In 
addition, preliminary results of the recent reintroductions are 
encouraging, demonstrating successful reproduction and population 
expansion, and additional reintroduction efforts are both ongoing and 
planned.
    Our current analysis reveals that small population size by itself 
is not a threat to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. A species (or 
DPS) with a relatively small number of small populations may be a 
concern when there are significant threats to the species such that one 
or more populations are likely to be permanently lost. However, fishers 
in the west coast States comprise three geographically separated 
populations, including one (NCSO) that overlaps with two reintroduced 
populations (SOC and NSN), as well as a new (as of December, 2015) 
reintroduction site in the South Washington Cascades (see Species 
Information, above). While each of the populations is considered 
relatively small (except, perhaps for the NCSO), as discussed above, 
the two native populations have continued to persist for a long time in 
the face of all of the identified stressors (noting that fisher 
exposure to toxicants (ARs) is a recently identified stressor), and 
there is no indication that any of the monitored populations are 
exhibiting a population growth trend that is other than essentially 
stable. In addition, our evaluation of the best available information 
does not suggest that any of the stressors acting within the proposed 
DPS are likely to result in the extirpation of these populations, 
acting either singly or in concert, either now or in the future; this 
is particularly true for the established native populations of fisher. 
Furthermore, recent information suggests that three of these fisher 
populations (NCSO, NSN, and SOC population) may no longer be separate 
breeding populations, as indicated by at least one documented 
occurrence of dispersal and potential reproduction. Connectivity 
between populations reduces the potential risk posed by small 
population sizes. This information, combined with the absence of 
stressors that rise to the level of a threat, supports our position 
that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher populations demonstrate 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation currently and in the future.

Cumulative Effects

    Consistent with our approach for the proposed rule, we took into 
consideration all of the stressors operating within the west coast 
States. We previously stated in the proposed rule that the sizes of the 
fisher populations within the proposed West Coast DPS are reduced from 
historical levels due to historical trapping and past loss of late-
successional habitat and, therefore, are overall more vulnerable to 
extinction from random events and increases in mortality. We previously 
evaluated the potential for cumulative effects of multiple stressors, 
although we were unable in the proposed rule to quantify the scope and 
severity of these cumulative effects and the variation of these effects 
between subregions. We did, however, determine that the various 
stressors were not occurring in equal magnitude across the analysis 
area and that cumulative effects from these stressors may be occurring 
more in some subregions than others.
    The most likely scenarios for potential cumulative impacts on 
fisher that we identified previously and reaffirm here are:
     Alterations to habitat could increase fishers' 
vulnerability to predation.
     Sublethal exposure to ARs could potentially increase the 
death rates from predation, collisions with vehicles, disease, or 
intraspecific conflict.
     Stressors associated with the effects of climate change, 
such as increased risk of wildfire and forest disease, and 
environmental impacts of human

[[Page 22728]]

development, could interact to cause large-scale ecotype conversion 
including shifts away from fisher habitat types, which could impact the 
viability of populations and reduce the likelihood of reestablishing 
connectivity.
     Diseases that are currently present among mammal 
populations and also overlap the fisher's range in the west coast 
States could be exacerbated by climate change, such that fishers 
experience impacts at either the population or rangewide scales.
     Development activities could cause increases in fisher 
collisions with vehicles, conflicts with domestic animals, and 
infections contracted from domestic animals.
    At this time, we find no indication that stressors are manifesting 
themselves to a significant degree on fishers, both singly or 
cumulatively, across the west coast States at either the population or 
rangewide scales currently, nor are they expected to do so in the 
future. We reach this conclusion because the best available information 
does not indicate that one or more stressors (by themselves or 
cumulatively) are expected to interact to such a degree that they would 
significantly contribute to decreased reproductive viability, reduced 
distribution, or significant loss of habitat for the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher. Additionally, there is also suitable but 
unoccupied habitat available throughout the analysis area where fisher 
populations occur (including in the SSN population area, although to a 
lesser extent compared to the northern portion of the proposed DPS's 
range). These areas likely would help offset any potential future 
impacts to fisher habitat from habitat-related cumulative impacts over 
the next 40 years.
    Overall, we recognize that fishers in the west coast States have 
been exposed to multiple stressors, in some cases over many decades. 
The stressors may be impacting some individual fishers or habitat in 
one or more populations, but those stressors are not acting on the 
fisher's habitat, populations, or the proposed DPS as a whole such that 
the stressors are functioning cumulatively as operative threats on the 
proposed DPS. Thus, the best available scientific and commercial data 
at this time do not show that combined impacts of the most likely 
cumulative impact scenarios are resulting in significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales, including when taking into 
consideration small population sizes. Fisher populations today in the 
west coast States are smaller and their range has been reduced compared 
to historical conditions, which potentially increases the vulnerability 
of the fisher to cumulative low- or medium-level impacts. However, the 
best available information does not suggest that current fisher 
populations in the west coast States are experiencing population 
declines or further reductions in distribution, which would be 
indicative of such impacts and likely to be demonstrated through survey 
information (which is not evident in the best available information). 
Cumulatively, the stressors to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
have not manifested in operative threats across the range of the DPS. 
Moreover, our analysis of the stressors does not indicate that they are 
expected to increase in the foreseeable future to a degree that their 
cumulative effects would be significantly different than current 
levels. Thus, the best available scientific and commercial data do not 
indicate that these stressors are cumulatively causing now or will 
cause in the future a substantial decline of the total extant 
populations of fishers across the range of the proposed West Coast DPS. 
Therefore, we have determined that the cumulative impacts of these 
potential stressors do not rise to the level of a threat, now or in the 
future.

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In the final Species Report, we evaluated whether existing 
regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address the stressors 
impacting fishers in the west coast States. We stated in the proposed 
listing rule and we reaffirm here that there are many Federal and State 
existing regulatory mechanisms that provide a benefit to fishers and 
their habitat. For example, trapping regulations have substantially 
reduced fisher mortality throughout the analysis area. There are places 
in the analysis area where forest management practices are explicitly 
applied to benefit fishers or other species with many similar habitat 
requirements, such as the northern spotted owl. In addition, some 
habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are in place and are intended to 
provide a benefit to fishers and their habitat. Also, as of August 6, 
2015, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to list the 
southern Sierra Nevada Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of the 
fisher as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species 
Act (CESA). Consequently, take, under the CESA definition, is 
prohibited in the SSN population area.
    Take of fishers in Oregon is also prohibited through its 
designation as a protected nongame species, although the definition of 
take under Oregon law is different from the definition of take under 
the Act. The fisher is State-listed as endangered in Washington, where 
take (e.g., hunting, trapping) is prohibited and environmental analyses 
need to occur for projects that may affect fishers. State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms have abated the large-scale loss of fishers to 
trapping and loss of fisher habitat, especially on Federal land 
(Service 2014, pp. 117-141). Rodenticides are regulated under Federal 
and State laws. However, fishers may still be exposed to such 
rodenticides in certain areas where they can still be used legally. 
Fishers are also exposed to some degree to rodenticides used illegally 
(as discussed below).
Federal Regulatory Mechanisms
Forest Service and BLM
    A number of Federal agency regulatory mechanisms pertain to 
management of fisher (and other species and habitat). Most Federal 
activities must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA requires Federal 
agencies to formally document, consider, and publicly disclose the 
environmental impacts of major Federal actions and management decisions 
significantly affecting the human environment. NEPA does not regulate 
or protect fishers, but requires full evaluation and disclosure of the 
effects of Federal actions on the environment. Other Federal 
regulations affecting fishers are the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act 
of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) and the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976, as amended (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
    NFMA specifies that the Forest Service must have a land and 
resource management plan to guide and set standards for all natural 
resource management activities on each National Forest or National 
Grassland. In addition, the fisher has been identified as a sensitive 
species by the Forest Service throughout the analysis area. BLM 
management is directed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1704 et seq.). This legislation provides 
direction for resource planning and establishes that BLM lands shall be 
managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. This 
law directs development and implementation of resource management 
plans, which guide management of BLM lands at the local level. Fishers 
are also designated as a

[[Page 22729]]

sensitive species throughout the analysis area on BLM lands.
    In addition, the NWFP was adopted by the Forest Service and BLM in 
1994 to guide the management of more than 24 million ac (9.7 million 
ha) of Federal lands in portions of western Washington and Oregon and 
northwestern California within the range of the northern spotted owl. 
The NWFP Record of Decision amends the management plans of National 
Forests and BLM Districts and is intended to provide the basis for 
conservation of the spotted owl and other late-successional and old-
growth forest associated species on Federal lands. However, the BLM is 
currently revising their Resource Management Plan (RMP) (a draft RMP/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in April 2015 (USDI 
BLM 2015, entire)), which, if approved, would change their management 
direction from the existing NWFP. Once signed, a revision would replace 
the NWFP for BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, totaling 
approximately 2.5 million ac (1.0 million ha). Although a decision has 
yet to be made, BLM's preferred alternative (Alternative B), as stated 
in their EIS (USDI BLM 2015, p. 76), would allocate a slightly smaller 
amount of their landscape to timber harvest management as compared to 
the NWFP (22 percent and 28 percent, respectively). The BLM preferred 
alternative, however, shows a larger amount of LSR acreage than what is 
designated under the NWFP. Another reason is that BLM is adding all 
stands identified as structurally complex forest, creating scattered 
patches of older-forest reserves across BLM ownership (USDI BLM 2015, 
pp. 32-33, 50). Because BLM's decision is not final, our analysis in 
the final Species Report and summarized in this document is limited to 
their existing management under the NWFP.
    The NWFP is important for fishers because it created a network of 
late-successional and old-growth forests (LSRs) that currently provide 
fisher habitat, and the amounts of habitat are expected to increase 
over time. Also, the National Forest and BLM units with anadromous fish 
watersheds provide buffers for riparian reserves on either side of a 
stream, depending on the stream type and size. With limited exceptions, 
timber harvesting is generally not permitted in riparian habitat 
conservation areas, and the additional protection guidelines provided 
by National Forests and BLM for these areas may provide refugia and 
connectivity among more substantive blocks of fisher habitat. 
Furthermore, the NWFP, while anticipating losses of late-successional 
and old-growth forests in the initial decades of plan implementation, 
projected that recruitment would exceed those losses within 50 to 100 
years (Davis et al. 20XX, p. 6).
National Park Service
    Statutory direction for the 1.6 million ha (4 million ac) of 
National Park Service lands in the analysis area is provided by 
provisions of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended 
(54 U.S.C. 100100) Land management plans for the National Parks within 
the west coast States do not contain specific measures to protect 
fishers, but areas not developed specifically for recreation and 
camping are managed toward natural processes and species composition 
and are expected to maintain fisher habitat. In addition, hunting and 
trapping are generally prohibited in National Parks (e.g., 16 U.S.C. 
60, 98, 127, 204c, and 256b).
Tribal Lands
    Several tribes in the analysis area recognize fishers as a 
culturally significant species, but only a few tribes have fisher-
specific guidelines in their forest management plans. Some tribes, 
while not managing their lands for fishers explicitly, manage for 
forest conditions conducive to fisher (for example, marbled murrelet 
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) habitat, old -forest structure restoration). 
Trapping is typically allowed on most reservations and tribal lands, 
and is frequently restricted to tribal members. Whereas a few tribal 
governments trap under existing State trapping laws, most have enacted 
trapping laws under their respective tribal codes. However, trapping 
(in general) is not known to be a common occurrence on any of the 
tribal lands.
Rodenticide Regulatory Mechanisms
    The threats posed to fishers from the use of rodenticides are 
described above under ``Exposure to Toxicants.'' In the final Species 
Report, we analyzed whether existing regulatory mechanisms are able to 
address the potential threats to fishers posed from both legal and 
illegal use of rodenticides. As described in the final Species Report, 
the use of rodenticides is regulated by several Federal and State 
mechanisms (e.g., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
of 1947, as amended, (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.; California Final 
Regulation Designating Brodifacoum, Bromadiolone, Difenacoum, and 
Difethialone (Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticide Products) as 
Restricted Materials, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 
2014). The primary regulatory issue for fishers with respect to 
rodenticides is the availability of large quantities of rodenticides 
that can be purchased under the guise of legal uses, but are then used 
illegally in marijuana grows within fisher habitat. The amounts of 
rodenticides commercially available for purchase (but which could then 
be used for illegal purposes) are greater than the amount of 
rodenticides that could be expected to kill or harm individual fishers. 
Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its 2008 Risk 
Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides (EPA 2008, entire), which 
issued new legal requirements for the labelling, packaging, and sale of 
second generation anticoagulants, and California's Department of 
Pesticide Regulation, through a new rule effective in July 2014, which 
restricts access to second generation anticoagulants, are attempting to 
reduce the risk posed by second generation anticoagulants. Although it 
is currently not clear that these mechanisms have yet been effective in 
addressing the potential threat of rodenticide and its effects on 
fishers, the best available information does not support concluding 
that rodenticide impacts rise to the level of a threat. We reach this 
conclusion because there is no evidence that ARs are having significant 
impacts to fishers at either the population or rangewide scales (see 
additional discussion under Exposure to Toxicants, above).
State Regulatory Mechanisms
Washington
    The fisher is listed as endangered in Washington (Washington 
Administrative Code 232-12-014, Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.020 WSR 
98-23-013 (Order 98-232), Sec.  232-12-014, filed 11/6/98, effective 
12/7/98). This designation imposes stringent fines for poaching and 
establishes a process for environmental analysis of projects that may 
affect the fisher. The primary regulatory mechanism on non-Federal 
forest lands in western Washington is the Washington State Forest 
Practices Rules, title 222 of the Washington Administrative Code. These 
rules apply to all commercial timber growing, harvesting, or processing 
activities on non-Federal lands, and they give direction on how to 
implement the Forest Practices Act (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 
76.09) and Stewardship of NonIndustrial Forests and Woodlands (RCW 
76.13). The rules are administered

[[Page 22730]]

by WDNR. The Washington State Forest Practices Rules do not 
specifically address fishers and their habitat requirements; however, 
some habitat components important to fishers, like snags, downed wood, 
and canopy cover, are likely to be retained in riparian management 
zones as a result of the rules. Land conversion from forested to non-
forested uses is interrelated to private timber harvest, but is 
primarily regulated by individual city and county ordinances that are 
influenced by Washington's Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70a). In some 
cases, these ordinances result in maintaining forested areas within the 
range of the fisher.
Oregon
    In Oregon, the fisher is a protected nongame species (Oregon 
Administrative Rules (OAR) 635-044-0130). In addition, ODFW does not 
allow trapping of fishers in Oregon. Although fishers can be injured 
and/or killed by traps set for other species, known fisher captures are 
infrequent. State parks in Oregon are managed by the Oregon Parks and 
Recreation Department, and many State parks in Oregon provide forested 
habitats suitable for fisher. The Oregon Forest Practice Administrative 
Rules (OAR chapter 629, division 600) and Forest Practices Act (Oregon 
Revised Statutes (ORS) 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990(1) and 527.992) 
(Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) 2010, entire) apply to all non-
Federal and non-Tribal lands in Oregon, regulating activities that are 
part of the commercial growing and harvesting of trees, including 
timber harvesting, road construction and maintenance, slash treatment, 
reforestation, and pesticide and fertilizer use. The OAR provides 
additional guidelines intended for conserving soils, water, fish and 
wildlife habitat, and specific wildlife species while engaging in tree 
growing and harvesting activities, and these rules may result in 
retention of some structural features (i.e., snags, green trees, downed 
wood) that contribute to fisher habitat. There are approximately 
821,000 ac (332,300 ha) of State forestlands within the analysis area 
that are managed by ODF, and management of these State forest lands is 
guided by forest management plans. Managing for the structural habitats 
as described in these plans should increase habitat for fishers on 
State forests.
California
    At the time of the proposed rule, fishers were a Candidate Species 
in California; thus, take (under the CESA definition) was prohibited 
during the candidacy period. On June 10, 2015, the California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) submitted its status review of 
the fisher to the California Fish and Game Commission, indicating that 
listing of the fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada ESU as threatened 
was warranted, but that fishers in the Northern California ESU were not 
threatened (CDFW 2015, entire). On August 6, 2015, the California Fish 
and Game Commission voted to list the southern Sierra Nevada ESU of the 
fisher as a threatened species under the CESA. Consequently, take, 
under the CESA definition, is prohibited only in the southern Sierra 
Nevada portion of the proposed DPS's range. It is also illegal to 
intentionally trap fishers in California.
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) can provide 
protections for a species that meets one of several criteria for rarity 
(CEQA 15380). Fishers throughout the proposed DPS's range in California 
meet these criteria, and under CEQA a lead agency can require that 
adverse impacts be avoided, minimized, or mitigated for projects 
subject to CEQA review that may impact fisher habitat. All non-Federal 
forests in California are governed by the State's Forest Practice Rules 
(FPR) under the Z'Berg Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, a set of 
regulations and policies designed to maintain the economic viability of 
the State's forest products industry while preventing environmental 
degradation. FPRs do not contain rules specific to fishers, but they 
may provide some protection of fisher habitat as a result of timber 
harvest restrictions.

Determination

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors listed in 
section 4(a)(1)(b) of the Act in assessing whether the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher meets the definition of a threatened or endangered 
species, including: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    We examined the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the current and foreseeable future potential 
threats faced by fishers in the west coast States. We relied on an 
evaluation of the foreseeability of those stressors and the 
foreseeability of the effect of the stressors on the proposed DPS, 
extending this time period out only so far as we can rely on the data 
to formulate reliable predictions about the status of the proposed DPS, 
and not extending so far as to venture into the realm of speculation. 
In this case, many of the stressors fell into a foreseeable future 
timeframe within which we concluded the effects of stressors on the 
proposed DPS could be reliably projected out over a time period of 
approximately 40 years. Thus, for the purposes of this determination, 
we consider the foreseeable future to extend over a time period of 
roughly 40 years, as previously described in the proposed listing rule, 
based on the time horizons for which the effects of the various 
stressors on the proposed DPS can be reliably projected into the future 
(as described under the various stressor discussions in the Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 54, 58-162)).

Summary of Previous Determinations

    At the time of our 2004 12-month finding, the proposed West Coast 
DPS of fisher was described as having lost much of its historical 
habitat and range. Specifically, the 2004 12-month finding stated (69 
FR 18771, April 8, 2004) that the fisher is considered to be extirpated 
or reduced to scattered individuals in Washington, extant fisher 
populations in Oregon are restricted to two genetically distinguishable 
populations in the southern portion of the State, and extant fisher 
populations in California consist of two remnant populations located in 
northwestern California and the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. 
Regarding population size, the 2004 12-month finding stated that the 
relative reduction in the range of the fisher on the West Coast, the 
lack of detections or sightings over much of its historical 
distribution, and the high degree of genetic relatedness within some 
populations indicate the likelihood that extant fisher populations are 
small (69 FR 18772). In addition, threats to the proposed West Coast 
DPS of fisher were described, including habitat loss and fragmentation, 
incidental capture, removal of important habitat elements such as 
cover, mortality from vehicle collisions, decrease in the prey base, 
human disturbance, small population size and isolation, and the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (69 FR 18791). The threats 
were described as occurring across the fisher's range in the west coast 
States, resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and 
abundance (69 FR 18792). The 2004 12-month finding also stated that 
additional reintroduced populations of fishers will reduce the 
probability that

[[Page 22731]]

a stochastic event would result in extirpation of fishers in the west 
coast States, and we would evaluate any conservation strategy developed 
to determine whether the strategy sufficiently removes threats to the 
fisher so that it no longer meets the definition of a threatened 
species under the Act (69 FR 18792). Since the 2004 12-month finding, 
reintroductions have occurred in the ONP and NSN populations, and 
another has begun in the South Washington Cascades; however, a multi-
State conservation strategy has not been finalized and implemented.
    At the time of our proposed listing in 2014, we found that the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher met the definition of a threatened 
species (likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range within the foreseeable future) based on our 
analysis of the scope and severity of threats impacting the DPS. We 
found that the main threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
were habitat loss from wildfire and vegetation management, as well as 
toxicants, and the cumulative impact and synergistic effects of these 
and other stressors in small populations. We also stated that the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher was not in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range because it existed in: (1) Two separate 
native populations (one small population estimated at approximately 300 
fishers and one with population size estimates ranging from 258 to 
4,018 fishers) that have persisted; and (2) three reintroduced 
populations that provide redundancy, representation, and resiliency for 
the extant populations. We also determined that the threats acting on 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher were not all imminent and not 
evenly distributed across the DPS. We found at that time that the 
proposed DPS was likely to become endangered throughout all of its 
range in the foreseeable future based on multiple threats impacting the 
two extant native original populations and the cumulative and 
synergistic effects of the threats on small populations in the west 
coast States. We reached that conclusion based on an analysis of the 
best scientific and commercial information available at that time, as 
presented in detail in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, entire).
    At the time of our proposed listing in 2014, we found there to be 
considerable uncertainty regarding the level of impacts (magnitude and 
immediacy of threats) from various stressors potentially affecting the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. Specifically because of this 
uncertainty, we sought peer review and public comment on what we 
clearly identified as several complex issues with regard to the status 
of the DPS (see Information Requested section of the proposed rule (79 
FR 60419)) and our proposal to list as a threatened species. For 
example, we requested information to assist us in evaluating the 
magnitude and overall immediacy of threats to fisher populations within 
the proposed DPS (including toxicants, wildfire, climate change, and 
vegetation management), and comments on the methodology for developing 
stressor scope and severity, adequacy in revealing assumptions and 
uncertainties, appropriateness of data extrapolations, and 
applicability and interpretation of quantitative stressor values 
presented in the draft Species Report. Through our initial evaluation 
of peer review and public comments received, we determined that these 
complex issues, as they related to our 2014 analysis and the status of 
fishers in the west coast States, deserved additional analysis. 
Consequently, we published a 30-day extension of the initial comment 
period (79 FR 76950; December 23, 2014) and then later opened an 
additional comment period concurrent with our announcement of a 6-month 
extension of the final determination of whether to list the West Coast 
DPS of fisher as a threatened species (80 FR 19953; April 14, 2015). We 
received a variety of opinions and material (e.g., conflicting 
information, some scientific disagreement) from the peer reviewers and 
from the public and conservation partners.

Current Determination

    As indicated above regarding feedback from peer reviewers, the 
public, and conservation partners, we received a substantial amount of 
varied scientific, other agency, and public input on our proposal to 
list the West Coast DPS of fisher. In addition, we held numerous 
internal Service discussions regarding interpretation of the best 
available information and what it meant for the status of fisher both 
prior to and following the October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419), proposed 
listing of the West Coast DPS of fisher. During these internal 
discussions, varied opinions were expressed and vetted. The extensive 
disparity in comments received (including those from peer reviewers and 
others) during the open comment periods highlighted the fact that 
considerable uncertainty remained as to potential threats to fisher and 
its current and future status.
    Our regulations direct us to determine if a species is endangered 
or threatened due to any one or combination of the five threat factors 
identified in the Act (50 CFR 424.11(c)). We consider cumulative 
effects to be the potential threats to the species in totality and 
combination; this finding constitutes our cumulative effects analysis. 
The discussions summarized above and provided in detail in the final 
Species Report evaluated the individual impact of the following 
potential threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and its 
habitat: (1) Wildfire and fire suppression (Factor A); (2) forest 
insects and tree diseases (Factor A); (3) effects of climate change 
(Factors A and E); (4) vegetation management (Factor A); (5) 
development, including linear infrastructure (Factor A); (6) trapping 
and incidental capture (Factor B); (7) research activities (Factor B); 
(8) disease or predation (Factor C); (9) collision with vehicles 
(Factor E); (10) exposure to toxicants (Factor E); (11) small 
population size and isolation (Factor E); and (12) cumulative or 
synergistic effects. We also evaluated the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). Our determination as reflected in 
this document thus is based upon an analysis of these stressors in 
accordance with the five factors required by the statute. Although this 
determination utilizes a different structure than what was presented in 
the proposed rule, where each stressor was analyzed under its 
particular statutory factor, it contains the same types of analyses 
that we have previously depicted under the five factor framework.
    Upon careful consideration and evaluation of all of the information 
before us, we have arrived at a different conclusion regarding the 
status of fishers in the west coast States. In our proposed 
determination, we identified stressors that could impact the species 
negatively and identified three of those stressors (wildfire and fire 
suppression, vegetation management, and small population size and 
isolation) as threats. We also identified exposure to toxicants 
(specifically ARs) and cumulative effects from multiple stressors as 
threats, although there were uncertainties at that time. We applied the 
standards we had laid out in our proposed rule, which set forth that 
this determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a 
threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of 
how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere 
identification of stressors that could impact a species negatively is 
not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we 
require evidence that these stressors are

[[Page 22732]]

operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act (October 7, 2014; 79 FR 60419, p. 60427). Following our analysis of 
all the best available scientific and commercial information, we now 
conclude that, although fishers in the west coast States have clearly 
been exposed to multiple stressors, in some cases over many decades, 
the best available data do not indicate significant impacts at either 
the population or rangewide scales, currently or in the foreseeable 
future. In other words, stressors may be impacting some individual 
fishers or habitat in one or more populations, but the information we 
have does not show that the stressors are functioning as operative 
threats on the fisher's habitat, populations, or the proposed DPS as a 
whole to the degree we considered to be the case at the time of the 
proposed listing. Thus, the stressors acting upon fisher populations 
are not of such imminence, intensity, or magnitude that they are 
manifesting themselves at either the population or rangewide scales, 
nor is there evidence to suggest that they will do so in the future 
(i.e., the next 40 years). Absent evidence of significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales, in this case we cannot 
conclude that the stressors acting on fishers or their habitat within 
the proposed West Coast DPS are so great that the DPS is currently in 
danger of extinction (an endangered species), or that it is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future (definition 
of a threatened species). Therefore, the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened 
species, and we are withdrawing the proposed rule to list the West 
Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is an endangered or a threatened species 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' 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.'' On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy 
interpreting the phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 
FR 37578). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be 
an endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion 
of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a 
threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to 
all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the 
range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently 
an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of its range, but 
the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so 
important that, without the members in that portion, the species would 
be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is 
considered to be the general geographical area within which that 
species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular 
status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is an endangered 
or a threatened species throughout an SPR, and the population in that 
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than 
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. It is important to note 
that we do not base a determination to list a species on the status of 
the species in lost historical range; in other words, lost historical 
range cannot be considered an SPR. The focus of an SPR analysis is the 
status of the species in its current range.
    The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including 
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and 
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether 
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status 
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the 
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its 
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and 
no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither an 
endangered nor a threatened species throughout all of its range, we 
determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species 
throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the 
species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it 
is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of 
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either 
an endangered or a threatened species. To identify only those portions 
that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is 
substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be 
significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those 
portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We 
emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a 
determination that the species is an endangered or a threatened species 
throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in 
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. 
In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species 
are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely 
to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of 
threats apply only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet 
the biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of 
that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the 
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions will 
not warrant further consideration.
    If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and 
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to 
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of 
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other 
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an 
endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate 
analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a 
threatened species in the SPR.
    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats 
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant'' 
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine 
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species 
there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a 
threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to 
determine if that portion is ``significant.''
    Because we determined that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is 
neither endangered nor threatened

[[Page 22733]]

throughout all of its range, we must next determine whether the 
proposed DPS may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion 
of its range. To do this, we must first identify any portion of the 
proposed DPS's range that may warrant consideration by determining 
whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The 
portions may be significant, and (2) the proposed DPS may be in danger 
of extinction in those portions or is likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. We note that a positive answer to these questions 
is not a determination that the proposed DPS is endangered or 
threatened within a significant portion of its range, but rather a 
positive answer to these questions confirms whether a more detailed 
analysis is necessary.
    Our current evaluation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, as described earlier in this document and in our final 
Species Report, leads us to conclude that the stressors acting upon 
fishers in the west coast States are not of sufficient imminence, 
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that they are singly or 
cumulatively resulting in significant impacts at either the population 
or rangewide scales currently or in the foreseeable future. Thus, the 
proposed DPS does not meet the definition of endangered or threatened 
under the Act. For this SPR analysis we first evaluated whether the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher may be in danger of extinction in 
portions of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future. To make this determination, we considered whether the stressors 
affecting the entire proposed DPS might be manifesting themselves in 
the form of significant impacts at the population scale only in certain 
portions of the range, such that the fisher in those portions may be an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act.
    We have determined that currently and in the foreseeable future:
    (1) The stressors affecting the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
occur in most populations within the west coast States but are not 
having significant impacts at the population scale in any portion of 
the proposed DPS's range. For example, ARs may be more problematic in 
certain populations (e.g., NCSO, SSN); however, as described above in 
the Exposure to Toxicants section, they are not resulting in 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales.
    (2) The fisher is not exhibiting population declines in any portion 
of its range.
    Thus, at this time, fishers in any portion of their range in the 
west coast States do not meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. Because we determined that no portion 
of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's range may be in danger of 
extinction in those portions or is likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future, it was not necessary to assess whether any portion 
of the range may be significant under the SPR policy. Therefore, in 
accordance with our SPR policy, no portion of the range of the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher warrants further consideration to determine 
whether the West Coast DPS of fisher is endangered, or threatened 
throughout a significant portion of its range.
    We encourage the continuing development and implementation of 
positive conservation actions for the benefit of fishers and their 
habitat, as exemplified by the CCAAs currently underway in association 
with our State and private conservation partners, to ensure against the 
future need to reconsider the listing of fisher in the west coast 
States.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by January 5, 2015. This proposed rule also announced one 
public hearing and seven public informational meetings held in 
California, Oregon, and Washington. This comment period was 
subsequently extended an additional 30 days, as announced on December 
23, 2014 (79 FR 76950), and closed on February 4, 2015. Finally, the 
Service announced the reopening of the comment period on April 14, 2015 
(80 FR 19953), for an additional 30 days, and we announced a 6-month 
extension of the final determination of whether or not to list the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher due to substantial disagreement 
regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides 
(including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to 
surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey 
results) to help assess distribution and population trends. This second 
comment period on the proposed listing rule closed on May 14, 2015.
    We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific 
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited 
them to comment on the proposal (we additionally solicited peer review 
at this time; see Peer Review, below). We also received requests for 
public hearings. We held one public hearing in Redding, California, on 
November 17, 2014. We held seven public informational meetings in: (1) 
Yreka, California, on November 13, 2014; (2) Medford, Oregon, on 
November 17, 2014; (3) Arcata, California, on November 20, 2014; (4) 
two meetings in Lacey, Washington, on November 20, 2014; (5) Visalia, 
California, on December 3, 2014; and (6) Turlock, California, on 
December 4, 2014. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment and 
advertisement of the information and public hearings were published in 
the Seattle Times, The Oregonian, Herald and News, Medford Tribune, 
Eureka Times-Standard, Siskiyou Daily News, Redding Record Searchlight, 
Sacramento Bee, Modesto Bee, and Fresno Bee.
    During the two comment periods, we received more than 460 comment 
letters directly addressing the proposed listing of the West Coast DPS 
of fisher. Submitted comments were both for and against listing the 
DPS, including some for and against listing different geographic 
configurations of the DPS. During the November 17, 2014, public 
hearing, 12 individuals (3 from the same organization) commented on the 
proposed rule; all were opposed to the proposed listing. All 
substantive information provided during the comment periods has been 
incorporated into the final Species Report and, where applicable, 
summarized or addressed in this withdrawal. As noted in our proposed 
rule, comments that merely express support for or opposition to a 
particular action may not meet the standard of information required 
under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, which directs that determinations 
as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must 
be made ``solely on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial data available'' (79 FR at 60422).
    A substantial amount of new information was received from peer 
reviewers and the public (including old information of which we were 
not aware and some literature published just prior to the proposed 
listing rule publication), all of which we have reviewed, considered, 
and incorporated (where applicable and appropriate) into the final 
Species Report, this Federal Register document, or our files. We also 
reviewed and considered other new information such as recently 
published journal articles and unpublished reports associated with 
management activities or research projects. All of this new information 
was considered for this final decision.

[[Page 22734]]

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from 27 appropriate and 
independent specialists with scientific expertise that included 
familiarity with fisher and their habitat in the west coast States, 
including biological needs and threats. We received responses from 22 
of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. Peer reviewer comments are addressed 
in the following summary and incorporated into this withdrawal document 
as appropriate.

Peer Review Comments Received

Climate Change
    (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers did not believe that the Service's 
summary of climate change impacts in the proposed rule matched the 
analysis of climate change in the body of the draft Species Report. The 
peer reviewers disagreed with the Service's conclusion that climate 
change is not a threat now or in the future. A third peer reviewer 
pointed to several statements in the draft Species Report that the 
reviewer believed supports climate change as a threat, such as 
``ecotypes that support fisher habitat may decrease in area;'' ``where 
habitat area decreases the number of fishers that can be supported by 
the habitat will also decrease;'' and ``loss of habitat could threaten 
the viability of native and reintroduced populations, and would reduce 
the likelihood of reestablishing connectivity between populations.'' 
This peer reviewer noted that the Service found other complex and 
unpredictable stressors to pose a threat to the fisher, such as 
wildfire and vegetation management; the peer reviewer believed that if 
those issues can conclusively be determined to pose a threat to the 
fisher, then climate change should also be found to pose a significant 
threat to the species. On the other hand, a fourth peer reviewer was 
pleased that the Service acknowledged uncertainty where it exists and 
agreed with the Services' conclusion in the proposed rule [79 FR 60433] 
that we do not have sufficient data to reliably predict the effect of 
climate change on fisher populations at this time.
    Our Response: The summary of climate change in the proposed rule 
[79 FR 60429] stated that, although many climate models generally agree 
about the changes in temperature and precipitation, the consequent 
effects on vegetation are more uncertain. Therefore, it is not clear 
how changes in forest type, species composition, or growth rate will 
affect the availability of fisher habitat and its ability to support 
fisher populations (Service 2014, pp. 71-84). Consequently, at this 
time, climate change is not viewed as a threat to fisher habitat now or 
in the future. We have not received any new information that would lead 
us to change this conclusion; all of the best scientific and commercial 
data available to us continues to underscore the uncertainty with 
regard to the projected effects of climate change specific to fishers 
and fisher habitat.
    In the Summary of the Effects of Climate Change on Fisher Habitat 
section (Service 2014, p. 80), the draft Species Report stated: ``In 
all or most sub-regions of the analysis area, fisher habitat will be 
altered, with likely shifts away from conifer forest and towards an 
increased hardwood component, or from maritime conifer forest to drier 
temperate conifer forest. It is uncertain how these habitat shifts will 
affect fisher populations. Modeling projections are done at a large 
scale and effects to species can be complex, unpredictable, and highly 
influenced by local level biotic and abiotic factors.'' Although we did 
not consider climate change to be a threat to fisher or their habitat, 
we did discuss in the proposed rule (79 FR 60434-60435) that we 
considered climate change to be one of multiple synergistic factors 
acting on small population size, although the impacts would depend on 
the scope and severity of each of the stressors. We also noted the 
potential for climate change-induced habitat shifts in the future 
according to modeling projections and how those may affect fisher 
populations, although it is important to note that there are inherent 
uncertainties in modeling climate change habitat effects into the 
future and across the fisher's range in the west coast States. We do 
not agree that modeling future wildfire and vegetation management 
habitat effects are as complex and unpredictable as modeling those of 
climate change because we used past effects of these stressors to 
predict into the future. We have no information on past effects of 
climate change to project into the future.
    Our analysis of all the best scientific and commercial data 
available, including new information received during the open comment 
periods, reaffirms our initial conclusion that we do not have 
sufficient data to reliably predict the effect of climate change on 
fisher populations at this time. For example, some models project that 
ecotypes that support fisher habitat may decrease in area in response 
to the effects of climate change. However, as noted in both our draft 
and final Species Reports, depending on the emissions scenario 
considered and other variables, various models also predict that fisher 
habitat may increase in area, remain relatively stable, or shift in 
range.
    We have clarified in the final rule that climate change, by itself, 
is not a threat. In addition, the cumulative and synergistic effects of 
climate change and other stressors acting on small populations do not 
pose a threat to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, based on 
insufficient evidence that climate change acting alone or 
synergistically on small populations is having significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales, or is likely to do so within 
the foreseeable future.
    (2) Comment: Several peer reviewers noted that, because fishers 
prefer habitat at low- to mid-elevations and areas with no snowfall, 
there would likely be an increase in their habitat as global 
temperatures increase. One peer reviewer mentioned that a decrease in 
snowpack could lead to more fisher habitat at higher elevations, and 
allow increased habitat connectivity through those mountaintops. 
Another peer reviewer stated that the Service should consider how 
alterations in snowpack could benefit the fisher, but opined that there 
would not be any significant net benefit to such decreases in snowpack 
when compared to the other negative impacts of climate change.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 13) 
discussed the effects of snow conditions and ambient temperatures on 
fisher activity and habitat use and concludes that fishers' reaction to 
snow likely depend on a myriad of factors and are variable across the 
range of the species. We mentioned the possible benefits of lower 
snowfall amounts, and the drawbacks of less precipitation falling as 
snow, to fishers and their habitat (Service 2014, p. 76). Peer 
reviewers also pointed us to more recently available modeling efforts 
that additionally suggested fishers may benefit to some degree from 
climate change as a consequence of reduced snowpack; we have 
incorporated this information into our final Species Report (Service 
2016, pp. 78-98).
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer believed that climate change would 
have a positive impact on fishers because climate change is expected to 
result in increased hardwood species, which develop the cavities used 
by nesting fishers much more rapidly than conifers do, and because an 
increase in hardwood species in a forest usually

[[Page 22735]]

results in increased diversity in prey species.
    Our Response: The ``Climate Change Effects on Fisher Habitat'' 
section of the final Species Report contains an in-depth discussion of 
the effects of climate change across the fisher's range in the west 
coast States. In the Klamath region, for example, Lawler et al. (2012, 
pp. 385-386) predict a shift from conifer to hardwood-dominated mixed 
forests and woodlands, by the end of the twenty-first century. We agree 
that in some instances, climate change may have a positive impact on 
fishers because of an increase in the diversity of hardwood species, 
which in turn may lead to an increase in the number of den structures, 
and abundance and diversity of prey species. However, it is important 
that we note the distinction between any possible benefits of increased 
hardwoods and the potentially negative impacts of a vegetation shift 
toward a woodland community.
    However, as we stated in both the draft and final Species Reports, 
it is uncertain how these habitat shifts will affect fisher 
populations, and because modeling projections are done at a large 
scale, effects to species can be complex, unpredictable, and highly 
influenced by local level biotic and abiotic factors (Service 2014, p. 
80; Service 2016, p. 84, 87-88, 91-95). Because of the uncertainty of 
the effects of climate change on fisher populations, the Service does 
not agree with the peer reviewer that we can conclude climate change 
will have an overall positive impact on fishers.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the mid-century 
projections of climate change presented in the draft Species Report are 
flawed because they were developed by extrapolating predictions out 100 
years and then adjusting backward in time. The peer reviewer pointed 
out that projections for the late 21st century are an order of 
magnitude less certain than those for mid-century because of the 
cumulative error associated with longer runs of the models plus the 
multiple errors associated with the many feedbacks in the global 
system. The peer reviewer claimed that the approach used in the draft 
Species Report, in which effects projected for the late 21st century 
were halved, magnifies these errors and is inappropriate. The peer 
reviewer suggested it would be more accurate to rely on models that are 
designed for mid-century projections, even if there are fewer 
available. The peer reviewer noted that this problem undermines the 
conclusions drawn in the draft Species Report regarding the timing, 
scope, and severity of the effects of climate change on fisher habitat.
    Another peer reviewer stated that the correlative climate change 
models we used in the draft Species Report are not robust because the 
time periods chosen were not random. Thus, the peer reviewer stated 
that the 8-fold increase is a model extrapolation that is not accurate 
for the purposes of this analysis.
    Our Response: We agree with these criticisms. Taking end of century 
projections and then adjusting backward in time is not appropriate, as 
it improperly assumes that the rate of change is linear and constant 
over time, which is not the case and leads to misleading results. We 
have modified our final Species Report to present projections only in 
the timeframes over which they were modeled and reported. We have used 
mid-century results only if they were available to us, but as so many 
models project out over a roughly 100-year timeframe, we have reported 
late century results as well. We note that late century results are 
provided for informational purposes only, as we consider predictions on 
that long-term timeframe to be beyond our foreseeable future for the 
purposes of making reliable predictions about the effects of stressors 
on the conservation status of the fisher. As described in our final 
Species Report, most climate change models are in agreement until mid-
century, or approximately 40 years from now, at which point they 
diverge in magnitude and severity depending on the emissions scenario. 
For this reason we chose 40 years in the future as that period of time 
over which we could make reliable predictions with regard to the 
potential effects of climate change on fishers and fisher habitat.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the assumption in the 
draft Species Report that vegetation change would occur rapidly and 
begin immediately was not supported by studies that use empirical data. 
The peer reviewer cited several studies that suggest that shifts in 
tree distribution caused by climate change will be slow, and that these 
changes will be slowed or prevented by interspecific competition. The 
peer reviewer further noted that climate is not a strong predictor of 
tree growth or species limits in low-elevation forests, and that 
existing data (Ettinger and Lambers 2013) predict a much slower effect 
of climate change on tree species than was described in the draft 
Species Report, and that the effect may be outside of the foreseeable 
future range described in the proposed listing rule.
    Our Response: We have incorporated discussion of additional studies 
and models into our final Species Report. Although we acknowledge the 
ongoing debate and uncertainty as to the potential rate of vegetation 
change and tree species range shifts in response to climate change, we 
are required use our expertise to make a determination based on the 
best available evidence. In most cases, as suggested by the peer 
reviewer, the best available scientific data suggests that range shifts 
for long-lived tree species are likely to occur relatively gradually, 
and likely extend beyond our foreseeable future timeframe. However, we 
also recognize the possibility of some more relatively rapid range 
shifts in some portions of the analysis area, particularly in response 
to significant disturbance events. For example, models are in agreement 
regarding biogeographic shifts in vegetation cover over time, and the 
uncertainty as to when these shifts will occur and how they may 
specifically affect fishers within the analysis area is too great for 
us to rely upon these predictions with any confidence in our 
evaluation.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that it will be difficult to 
predict the effects of climate change on fine-scale landscape and 
habitat features, particularly as the effects of climate change on fire 
and drought are not expected to be consistent across the historical 
range of fishers in the western United States. The peer reviewer cited 
a study (Rapacciulo et al. 2014) that showed significant variation in 
biogeographic feature response to predicted climate change throughout 
California. Another peer reviewer also cited the work of Rapacciuolo et 
al. (2014) as providing further evidence that forest habitat would 
likely be more favorable to fisher. Therefore, based on this 
information, the second peer reviewer stated that it is probable that 
the potential effects of climate change may not be relevant to fisher 
conservation within the foreseeable future (40 years) horizon 
considered in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: We generally agree with both peer reviewers 
assessments, and have incorporated the information from the referenced 
study into our final Species Report. We have additionally acknowledged 
the uncertainty associated with climate change projections beyond a 40-
year time horizon with particular regard to predicting future 
conditions specific to fisher. Overall, we found the projections from 
multiple studies provided an array of likely outcomes, ranging from a 
decrease in suitable habitat to an increase in suitable habitat, with 
some

[[Page 22736]]

studies predicting that large areas of the fisher's current range will 
remain relatively stable. In sum, our review of the best available 
information for the time period beyond a 40-year time horizon did not 
produce any clear, consistent predictions for the consequences of 
climate change with regard to fishers and fisher habitat across the 
west coast States over the time horizon considered here. However, 
within the 40-year timeframe (i.e., foreseeable future), we have 
concluded that there is no information to suggest that climate change 
will result in significant, negative impacts to fishers or their 
habitat at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, climate 
change does not rise to the level of a threat (see Climate Change, 
above).
    (7) Comment: Two peer reviewers recommended that the Service assess 
the effects of climate change on prey and prey habitat. One peer 
reviewer highlighted multiple new recent studies assessing the future 
impacts of climate change on small mammals, as well as on mustelids.
    Our Response: We have incorporated additional discussion of the 
potential effects of climate change on the abundance and diversity of 
fisher prey species into our final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 
83-86). However, like so many of the projections with regard to climate 
change, the results of studies are equivocal with regard to the 
potential impacts of climate change on prey populations. Although some 
studies suggest a possible decrease in prey, or that prey may shift in 
range in response to climate change (e.g., Moritz et al. 2008, entire), 
others suggest that prey populations may remain steady or even increase 
in response to predicted changes in vegetation, such as increased areas 
of shrubland, that will result in increased ecotype diversity and thus 
greater foraging opportunities for fisher (e.g., Safford 2006, and 
references therein). In addition, the fact that fishers are generalist 
predators helps buffer fishers from potential declines in any 
particular prey species, as they are able to take advantage of a wide 
variety of prey species that may be available.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer commended the way that the Service 
outlined concerns related to climate change. However, the peer reviewer 
also expressed puzzlement that the proposed listing rule did not 
identify climate change as a threat to fisher. The peer reviewer noted 
the fisher is a habitat specialist, and California is the southernmost 
part of its range on the west coast, and stated that the effects of 
climate change have been shown to have the highest effects on species 
in the southern portion of their ranges. Based on the number, scope, 
and severity of the stressors associated with climate change, and 
particularly the way that climate change interacts with other stressors 
facing the fisher, the peer reviewer asserted that climate change is a 
threat to the fisher.
    Our Response: Please see response to Comment (1) above.
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the uncertainty inherent 
with climate change predictions should not preclude its recognition as 
a stressor, as there is some degree of uncertainty present in all 
stressors. The peer reviewer stated that climate change was the only 
stressor in the draft Species Report that was not recognized as a 
threat due to uncertainty, and the rationale for that was not clear. 
The peer reviewer stated that, due to the synergistic effects of 
climate change with other stressors, it should be considered as an 
important threat impacting the fisher and its habitat.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (1) above. As 
described in our final Species Report, we carefully evaluated all 
existing and new information provided by peer reviewers and public 
comment regarding the potential effects of climate change specific to 
fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS. Based on the best scientific 
and commercial information available at this time, we conclude that, 
although we can make general predictions about future environmental 
conditions as a consequence of climate change on a relatively broad 
scale, this information does not allow us to draw any reliable 
conclusions with regard to the future availability of the specific 
habitat elements and conditions required to sustain the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher. In addition, the best available scientific and 
commercial data do not indicate likely significant impacts to fisher in 
terms of direct mortality as a consequence of climate change in the 
analysis area. Studies specific to fishers in the face of predicted 
climate change scenarios are equivocal in their results, and there is 
no general scientific agreement that points to ongoing or future 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales to the 
West Coast DPS of fisher as a consequence of climate change. Therefore, 
although we recognize the effects of climate change as a stressor, we 
cannot conclude that climate change rises to the level of a threat to 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher now or in the foreseeable future.
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer considered the estimates of tree 
species distributional changes to be too rapid, stating that they were 
calculated at less than 100 years, whereas the lifespan of forest trees 
in the Pacific Northwest is typically greater than 100 years. Based on 
the lifespan, the peer reviewer stated that shifts in tree species 
distribution will occur on a much longer time scale.
    Our Response: We have incorporated discussion of additional studies 
and models into our final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 83-89), and 
acknowledge the ongoing debate and uncertainty as to the potential rate 
of vegetation change and tree species range shifts in response to 
climate change. In most cases, as suggested by the peer reviewer, the 
best available scientific data suggests that range shifts for long-
lived tree species are likely to occur relatively gradually, and likely 
extend beyond our foreseeable future timeframe. However, we also 
recognize the possibility of some more relatively rapid range shifts in 
some portions of the analysis area, particularly in response to 
significant disturbance events (for example, drought and severe fire). 
Nonetheless, although we may observe the beginning of shifts in tree 
species distribution in response to climate change in the relatively 
near future, we conclude there is no evidence to suggest that 
widespread, wholesale changes in tree species distribution are likely 
to be realized within the analysis area in the foreseeable future. We 
have updated the final Species Report to more clearly express this 
interpretation of the best available scientific data. See also our 
response to Comment (5).
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the references from the 
work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 
the draft Species Report are out of date, and suggested that we use the 
most recent data from the Fifth Assessment Report, which uses new model 
runs using the Representative Concentration Pathways instead of older 
emissions scenarios. The peer reviewer noted that results are similar 
enough that much of the substance remains unchanged, but urges the 
Service to use the most up-to-date data.
    Our Response: We have updated the final Species Report with 
information from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Collision With Vehicles
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer referenced unpublished data about 
11 fisher deaths due to collisions with vehicles on the Olympic 
Peninsula, and asked if those deaths had been included in calculations 
of vehicle mortality in Table 22 of the draft Species Report. The peer 
reviewer noted that the

[[Page 22737]]

number of fisher collisions with vehicles in the Olympic Peninsula 
appear to be higher than elsewhere in the range of the proposed DPS.
    Our Response: At the time of writing the draft Species Report, we 
were aware of the 11 documented fisher deaths by vehicles (Service 
2014, p. 147). However, the severity scores presented for Washington (1 
to 4) were based on severity calculated for the NCSO population (as 
part of our quantitative analysis) because we lacked data for 
quantifying Washington-specific severity. We acknowledge that Lewis 
(2014, p. iii) reported 20 percent mortality from vehicle strikes and 
that this percentage is higher than many other reported mortality rates 
for vehicle strikes. However, we are not updating the calculations of 
severity in the final Species Report for any of the stressors 
evaluated. We received comments indicating that the quantitative 
approach we used in the draft Species Report implies a greater level of 
precision, accuracy, and certainty than we have; so, for that reason 
(as described earlier in this document), we now present our assessment 
of the stressors in qualitative, rather than quantitative, terms, to 
avoid creating a false sense of precision with regard to the level of 
scientific accuracy underlying our estimates. In the final Species 
Report and the ``Collision With Vehicles'' section of this document, we 
conclude (including consideration of information specific to fishers on 
the Olympic Peninsula) that vehicle strikes do not rise to the level of 
a threat to fisher in Washington or any portion of the fisher's range 
in the proposed West Coast DPS.
Completeness and Accuracy
    (13) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that transparency would 
be aided by making reports of fisher observations public information, 
and suggested that if these observations were considered sensitive 
material, they could be presented at a relatively coarse scale to avoid 
precise location information.
    Our Response: All comments, including location data submitted as 
part of the public comment periods for the proposed rule are available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2014-0041. We received many detection data sets during the public 
comment period, and this information is currently being reviewed for 
redundancy against the survey records we had obtained previously. The 
fisher locality database currently consists of more than 17,000 
positive and negative locality data records. When this quality control 
process is complete, we hope to be able to create an updated map of 
positive and negative survey information. We will make maps of this 
information available when we have completed this quality control 
process.
    (14) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that some additional, 
upfront discussion of taxonomy would help clarify the relationship 
between fishers in the west coast States (now recognized in the 
monotypic genus Pekania) and what were until recently recognized as 
three subspecies of Martes pennanti--M.p. pennanti, M.p. Columbiana, 
and M. p. pacifica. The peer reviewer believed the relationship between 
fishers in the west coast States and these three formerly recognized 
subspecies was not clear. Furthermore, the peer reviewer stated that it 
was unclear when the word ``fisher'' was used in the draft Species 
Report whether it referred specifically to fishers in the proposed West 
Coast DPS or possibly to fishers in general. The peer reviewer 
suggested this distinction is important, as Rocky Mountain or Eastern 
North American populations of fishers, although potentially used for 
surrogate information, may be biologically very different.
    Our Response: Because we have never referred to fishers in the 
proposed West Coast DPS as a portion of a subspecies, we have not 
revised the history of fisher taxonomy in the final Species Report, as 
the peer reviewer requested. Both the draft and final Species Reports 
distinguish between references to the species as a whole (Pekania 
pennanti) and to fishers in the west coast States, in those instances 
where the distinctions were unclear. We agree that there are important 
biological and habitat differences among fisher populations that are 
found in the eastern, central, northwestern, and Pacific regions of the 
species' range, most studies of which were conducted in regions outside 
of the proposed West Coast DPS, as indicated in the draft and final 
Species Reports.
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the draft Species 
Report adopt some standard nomenclature for the various regions and 
subregions referenced throughout the document. The peer reviewer noted 
that many readers may not be familiar with the geography of the area in 
question or the alternate systems of geographical classification that 
have been used historically. In particular, the peer reviewer suggested 
that the report should present the system of geographic units to be 
used early in the document to provide clarity for the reader.
    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestion by the peer reviewer. 
However, we used different descriptions of subregions in the draft 
Species Report depending on whether we were referring to the review of 
stressors or to the habitat model regions. Figure 11 in the draft 
Species Report (Service 2014, p. 49) provided a map of the analysis 
area subregions for review of the stressors and now appears in the 
final Species Report (Service 2016, on page 56).
    (16) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that it was unclear from the 
presentation in the draft Species Report that there was supporting 
methodology behind the habitat modeling. The peer reviewer asked that 
the methods either be integrated into the final Species Report itself, 
or be cited directly within the report to provide transparency as to 
how the models were derived.
    Our Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The 
supporting methodology for the habitat modeling results presented in 
the draft Species Report was in the document `` Habitat Modeling 
Methods For The Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment Species 
Assessment,'' which was made available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. We have included 
the methodology as Appendix B in the final Species Report, as 
suggested. In addition, we have revised the final Species Report so 
that it refers to this methodology document.
Detection Probability
    (17) Comment: One peer reviewer requested a more detailed 
discussion of the way detection probability estimates from different 
studies were calculated. The peer reviewer noted that there were 
considerable differences between the methodologies in the quoted 
studies.
    Our Response: The purpose of the draft and final Species Reports is 
to summarize the best available scientific and commercial information 
regarding the fisher. A detailed discussion of the various 
methodologies used to calculate detection probabilities in different 
studies is beyond the scope of the species report. However, to aid the 
reader, we have provided in the final Species Report citations to the 
literature concerning the different studies to allow readers easier 
access to the details of the methodologies. We appreciate the comment.
    (18) Comment: One peer reviewer appreciated the thorough analysis 
of known fisher detections, but requested more clarity on any negative 
detections for fishers, particularly given the secretive nature of 
fishers. The peer

[[Page 22738]]

reviewer queried if detections outside of the expected range of fisher 
indicated an expanding population, males in search of mates, or 
increased survey effort combined with improved detection ability 
through use of digital cameras. The peer reviewer recommended including 
a map of all positive and negative surveys for fisher that followed 
appropriate detection protocols.
    Our Response: Figure 6 in the draft Species Report included all 
opportunistic and systematic surveys (with both positive and negative 
results), as well as fisher trapping efforts for research and other 
verifiable records (e.g., fisher telemetry data) since 1993. 
Opportunistic and systematic surveys (with both positive and negative 
results), fisher trapping efforts for research, and other verifiable 
records (e.g., fisher telemetry data) from 1993-2013. A comparison of 
Figure 6 with Figure 7 (which presents all locality records from 1993 
to the present with reliability ratings 1 and 2) illustrates the areas 
where surveys, trapping efforts, or research have occurred, but fishers 
have not been detected at a reliability rating of 1 or 2 since 1993.
    We received many detection data sets during the public comment 
period, and this information is currently being reviewed for redundancy 
against the survey records we had obtained previously. The fisher 
locality database currently consists of more than 17,000 positive and 
negative locality data records. As we received new detection 
information, we reviewed information, and in particular, sought 
instances where such detections occurred outside the currently expected 
range. At this time, we cannot reliably conclude whether these new 
detections are based on improved or increased monitoring methods, or a 
biological response by fishers, nor is it possible to determine the 
reason for the detections (i.e., whether it is a male in search of a 
mate, etc.). However, as discussed in the final Species Report, we do 
have some evidence of potential contact among the NCSO, NSN, and SOC 
populations. Several coordinated and comparable carnivore detection 
surveys are underway this winter throughout the Oregon Cascades that 
will aid in our understanding of fisher distribution in western Oregon.
Development
    (19) Comment: One peer reviewer provided comments on the assessment 
of human population growth as a threat to fisher. The peer reviewer 
noted that recent demographic data in Oregon supports the Service's 
assessment that human population growth is not a threat to fishers 
because much of rural Oregon is experiencing slow to no population 
growth even as urban areas increase in size; yet the reviewer believed 
our assessment may still overestimate the overall effect, with parts of 
rural Oregon experiencing slow to no population growth and other rural 
areas expected to decrease in population size through 2040. The peer 
reviewer also noted that Oregon's Land Use Planning System makes the 
development of forested areas difficult and requested that this 
situation be acknowledged in the final Species Report.
    Our Response: We reviewed the information on Oregon's Land Use 
Planning system and have incorporated this information into our 
description of regulatory mechanisms in the final Species Report. In 
addition, we have reviewed the information regarding projected 
population growth in rural Oregon and incorporated that information 
into the final Species Report. Any overestimate of the development 
stressor (which is what we assume the peer reviewer was referring to 
when describing ``human population growth'' impacts) as observed by the 
commenter is within the realm of precision provided by our current 
analysis. Furthermore, any error as a result of a possible overestimate 
of this stressor did not change our final determination that 
development is not a threat to fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS.
Disease or Predation
    (20) Comment: One peer reviewer provided data on incidences of 
canine distemper in southern Oregon between 2010 and 2014, which was an 
outbreak that affected multiple species of mid-sized carnivores, 
including fox, coyote, and raccoon. The peer reviewer stated that 
fisher may have been affected by this outbreak.
    Our Response: We have included this information on the incidences 
of canine distemper in southern Oregon between 2010 and 2014 in the 
final Species Report. However, we note that we lack evidence that 
fisher were affected.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
    (21) Comment: Four peer reviewers supported reconfiguration of the 
proposed DPS boundary to either Alternative 1 or 2 for one or more of 
the following reasons that they believe are biologically appropriate:
    (1) Genetic evidence (Tucker et al. 2012) suggests a break in the 
distribution along the length of the Sierra Nevada, including that the 
fisher population was isolated prior to European settlement.
    (2) The SSN population harbors distinctly different habitat, fire 
regimes, geography, and ownership patterns, suggesting that fishers in 
this area behave differently, have different needs, and will require a 
different conservation strategy than the rest of the West Coast 
fishers.
    (3) The SOC and NCSO populations show no genetic exchange despite 
their relatively close proximity, and thus should not be part of a 
single DPS.
    (4) The introduced fisher populations should not be included in the 
proposed DPS because they are more closely associated with their source 
populations as opposed to native populations.
    (5) Alternative 2 is the most appropriate configuration based on 
the small number of animals present [note: we presume the commenter was 
referring to the SSN population] throughout the identified potentially 
suitable habitat, and the current risks identified for the small 
population as compared to the NCSO population.
    (6) Alternative 2 is the most appropriate configuration because 
both nuclear and mtDNA research support a clear division between the 
Sierra Nevada and the remainder of the fishers in North America. 
Comprehensive research suggests that the SSN population is a well-
supported DPS, with a separate/second DPS along the West Coast being 
everything north of the SSN population.
    (7) The NCSO population should be managed as a separate management 
unit (although not necessarily a DPS) from the reintroduced populations 
with British Columbia origins.
    Our Response: We solicited comments from peer reviewers and the 
public regarding the possibility of different DPS configurations for 
fishers in the west coast States. We recognize and appreciate that 
there are many possible approaches to delineating potential DPSs, and 
that there may be valid arguments in support of (or against) aspects of 
each. However, at this time, our end decision is to use the original 
DPS configuration as presented in the proposed listing rule. Per 
section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations, we have 
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding the potential threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the 
fisher and have herein withdrawn our proposal to list this DPS.
    (22) Comment: Eight peer reviewers suggested not changing the 
proposed DPS configuration from what was described in the 2004 proposed 
listing rule to either of the proposed alternatives for one or more of 
the following reasons:

[[Page 22739]]

    (1) Alternative 1 is not reasonable because it would exclude the 
ONP population based on genetic distinctiveness, yet includes the NCSO 
and SSN populations despite the fact that they are genetically 
distinct.
    (2) Alternative 1 would result in the exclusion of suitable habitat 
in Oregon and Washington that may be important to fishers given future 
climate change predictions.
    (3) Alternative 2 is inappropriate because genetic evidence 
(statistical differences in neutral markers) is not strong enough to 
split the two Sierra Nevada populations and fails to protect the 
northern Sierra Nevada population when\if it expands from the 
reintroduction area. Additionally, there is an absence of samples from 
the currently unoccupied area to justify splitting the proposed DPS in 
California.
    (4) Alternative 2 is inadequate to improve the fisher's status 
throughout the west coast.
    (5) Neither alternative engenders recovery, although Alternative 1 
is better than Alternative 2 because it promotes connectivity.
    (6) Excluding much of Oregon and Washington (as in Alternative #1) 
or the currently unoccupied area in the Sierra Nevada (as in 
Alternative #2) is contrary to the goal of restoring the species to its 
historical range.
    (7) Neither alternative provides for future climate change concerns 
that may result in a northward shift of fishers, as well as their 
habitat and prey. One peer reviewer asserted that this specific area 
north of the Alternative 1 and 2 boundaries is germane to the proposed 
DPS's recovery given the species past distribution from British 
Columbia to California, and the habitat modeling results that indicate 
future suitable habitat focused north of both the Alternative 1 and 2 
boundaries.
    (8) Neither alternative is supported by strong evidence for the 
historical distribution of fishers in significant portions of 
Washington and Oregon; thus, an effort to conserve the taxon should not 
exclude areas where their return via management actions is 
scientifically justified.
    (9) Neither alternative includes the SOC population.
    (10) Both alternatives prevent what should be a long-term 
conservation goal of reconnecting all fisher populations to Canada.
    (11) Neither alternative provides the combined conservation of 
preserving the native genetics and expanding the range of the proposed 
DPS to reoccupy suitable habitat in Washington and Oregon.
    One of these eight peer reviewers stated that Alternative 1 or 2 
should only be considered if they were found to be the only politically 
feasible path at the current time to ensure the long-term conservation 
of fishers in the west coast States. Another one of the eight peer 
reviewers also stated that a separate DPS for the SSN population would 
likely be beneficial to allow special management for recovery.
    Our Response: Listing decisions made under section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act are to be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available. Although we recognize that our DPS policy 
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) provides relatively great latitude in 
terms of the identification of a potential DPS--that is, there may be 
numerous possible configurations of DPSs identified for any one 
vertebrate species--the fundamental evaluation of whether any potential 
DPS meets the criteria of our DPS policy remains grounded in science. 
We first evaluate any potential DPS to determine whether it meets our 
criteria for discreteness and significance; the latter criterion, in 
particular, is specifically identified as a measure of the population's 
``biological and ecological significance.'' Considerations as to 
whether a particular DPS may be politically feasible do not enter into 
our evaluation. Additionally, we note it would be predecisional to draw 
a DPS boundary with an eye to where the species should be.
    As noted above, we solicited comments from peer reviewers and the 
public regarding the possibility of different DPS configurations for 
the West Coast populations of fisher. However, at this time, our end 
decision is to use the original DPS configuration as presented in the 
proposed listing rule.
    (23) Comment: One peer reviewer who did not specify a preferred DPS 
configuration (but provided concerns related to each as described in 
the proposed rule) stated that if the Service proceeds with listing the 
DPS as proposed in 2004, then the cumulative population size and 
effective population size are so large that the threats leading to the 
proposed DPS's extinction would be diminished, which comes into play 
regarding the Service's concerns about small population dynamics. The 
peer reviewer expressed a much graver concern if the DPS configuration 
was revised into multiple DPSs, and in particular, about a SSN DPS and 
its likely ability to persist into the future.
    Our Response: We understand the peer reviewer's position and agree 
that a small DPS may be inherently more vulnerable to stressors that 
could potentially reduce long-term viability as compared to a larger 
DPS. We do wish to clarify for the public that our process for 
delineating a particular DPS does not include an assessment as to 
whether any particular configuration may be more or less likely to meet 
the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. Our 
evaluation under the DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) follows 
a three-step process in which we first determine whether the particular 
population in question is discrete, and if so, whether that population 
is also biologically and ecologically significant to the taxon to which 
it belongs. If a population segment is both discrete and significant 
(i.e., it qualifies as a DPS), then at that point we evaluate its 
potential status based on the Act's definitions of endangered or 
threatened and a review of the factors enumerated in section 4(a) of 
the Act. We do not consider it appropriate to first determine whether a 
population may potentially meet the definition of endangered or 
threatened under the Act, prior to our evaluation of whether the 
population in question may qualify as a valid DPS. See also our 
response to Comment (22).
    (24) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the NCSO population is 
expanding beyond the boundary described in the proposed listing rule 
(referencing genetics data that has documented at least one occurrence 
of a male fisher having traversed from the NCSO population to the SOC 
population). Given this information and the 40-year time horizon for 
our evaluation, the peer reviewer suggested that the Service combine 
the SOC and NCSO populations as one unit for conservation purposes, as 
they will likely become indistinguishable over this time period.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's opinion. Our end 
decision at this time is to use the original DPS configuration as 
presented in the proposed listing rule. As this single DPS encompasses 
most of the fisher's historical range in Washington, Oregon, and 
California, the question of whether to potentially combine the SOC and 
NCSO populations for the purposes of delineating any smaller DPS is 
moot. This information will be useful and an important consideration, 
however, as we continue to develop management strategies and to work 
toward the conservation of fisher throughout its range, and we thank 
the peer reviewer for the information. We note that in our final 
Species Report we have combined both the SOC and NSN populations within 
the greater NCSO population.

[[Page 22740]]

    (25) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that the Service did not 
use recent molecular genetic information (e.g., Knaus et al. 2011, 
Tucker et al. 2012, Tucker 2013, Tucker et al. 2014) to distinguish 
potential separation of DPSs between the NCSO and SSN populations. The 
peer reviewer stated that these literature sources suggest long-term 
isolation of the NCSO and SSN populations (similar to DPS Alternative 2 
as opposed to one large three-State DPS as outlined in the proposed 
listing rule).
    Our Response: We have expanded our discussion of the available 
information regarding the molecular genetics of fisher populations in 
our final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 133-137). We solicited 
comments from peer reviewers and the public regarding the possibility 
of different DPS configurations for fishers in the west coast States. 
We also recognize that molecular genetic information could be utilized 
to delineate potentially different population segments. Many different 
biological or ecological considerations may come into play in 
delineating potential DPSs; as a result, it is often possible to 
identify multiple possible DPS configurations, all of which may 
technically meet our DPS criteria of discreteness and significance. 
However, at this time, our end decision is that the original DPS 
configuration as presented in the proposed listing rule is most 
appropriate.
    (26) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that if the proposed DPS 
configuration changes to Alternative #2, the Service should account for 
a recovery area large enough in the SSN population area to support a 
population size that would not suffer the stochastic genetic and 
demographic effects of small populations. The peer reviewer stated that 
this may require expanding the current SSN population boundary outlined 
in DPS Alternative #2 further north.
    Our Response: At this time, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to 
list the West Coast DPS of fisher under the ESA, and our end decision 
is to use the original DPS configuration as presented in the proposed 
listing rule. If in the future we consider an alternative DPS that 
includes the SSN population, we will thoroughly consider the most 
appropriate northern boundary of the SSN population area.
Distribution
    (27) Comment: One peer reviewer requested clarification on how the 
range extent for the Olympic Peninsula population was calculated, and 
provided new information from Lewis (2014) on range expansion in 
Western Washington.
    Our Response: In regard to Table 1 in the draft Species Report, the 
range extent for fisher on the Olympic Peninsula was calculated using 
GIS by roughly approximating the area of the Olympic Peninsula where we 
knew reintroduced fishers to have been generally reported. The peer 
reviewer is correct that Lewis (2014) reported a larger study area, 
thus our estimate of current range extent for the Olympic Peninsula is 
slightly undervalued. We have not amended Table 1 in the final Species 
Report, however, as the differences are relatively minor. We did use 
the best available information to conclude that the proposed West Coast 
DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act (see Determination, above).
    (28) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that evidence indicated 
fishers have expanded their range and probably increased in population 
density and abundance in north coastal California and possibly other 
portions of the NCSO region, though they acknowledged that such an 
increase was not a large area and may not be significant relative to 
the overall proposed DPS. The peer reviewer's conclusions were based on 
historical information from maps (e.g., Grinnell et al. 1937), 
photographs, and tracking records as compared to the current fisher 
distribution. The peer reviewer stated that the historical trapping of 
martens and not fishers in the redwood zone (west coast) is compelling 
evidence that fishers did not historically occur in this coastal strip 
of old-growth redwood forests, yet current fisher distribution records 
indicate fishers are ``commonly found'' in the redwoods, and cites 
Thompson (2008) in reporting one of the highest densities of fishers on 
the west coast. The peer reviewer also stated that this comparison 
suggests that there are several other areas where the current fisher 
distribution may have increased, although information on historical 
trapping effort in those areas was not available. The peer reviewer 
further observed that expansion into the redwood region occurred in 
spite of extensive logging and loss of old-growth forest that occurred 
there since the time of Grinnell et al.'s (1937) map, speculating that 
historical logging practices left more of the structural features that 
fishers depend upon (e.g., snags, downed woody debris, den and rest 
trees), and that clearcutting redwood forests increases the densities 
of prey species such as dusky-footed wood rats.
    Our Response: The peer review specifically mentioned northern 
coastal California as an example of where fisher distribution may have 
expanded, but didn't elaborate on what other portions of the NCSO 
population may also exhibit an expansion. As such, we limit our 
response to the northern coastal California region described by the 
peer reviewer.
    We agree with the peer reviewer that there may be localized 
expansion of fisher distribution. The peer reviewer's comment that 
fishers did not historically occur in the coastal strip of old-growth 
redwood forests is supported by Grinnell et al.'s (1937, p. 216) 
historical distribution map, which excludes coastal coniferous forest 
habitat in north coastal California in Del Norte, Humboldt, and 
Mendocino counties. Zielinski et al. (1997, p. 385) reported several 
fisher detections within coastal ``redwood-Douglas fir'' habitat in 
southern Del Norte and northern Humboldt counties based on surveys 
conducted between 1989 and 1994. Figure 7 in the draft and final 
Species Report (Service 2014, p. 31; Service 2016, p. 34) and Figure 1 
of the proposed listing rule show numerous recent (i.e., since 1993) 
fisher detections within coastal coniferous forest habitat throughout 
Del Norte County and in northern Humboldt County.
    The peer reviewer's assertion that an increase in ``. . . 
population density and abundance in north coastal California'' is 
similar to conclusions presented by Slauson et al. (2003, pp. 10-11). 
Slauson et al. (2003, pp. 10-11) noted that, although fishers were not 
historically known to be common in old-growth redwood forests, they 
have more recently been found in this area, despite over 90 percent of 
the old-growth redwood forest being logged and most of the area being 
managed on short rotations. Slauson et al. (2003, pp. 10-11) also noted 
that fisher detections suggested they used second-growth forest 
habitats more than old-growth redwoods in this area.
    Both the proposed listing rule and draft Species Report (Service 
2014, pp. 13-17) cite numerous studies that suggest fishers are 
consistently associated with low to mid-elevation coniferous and mixed-
conifer and hardwood forests with abundant physical structure. The key 
aspects of fisher habitat are best represented in areas that are 
comprised of forests with diverse successional stages containing a high 
proportion of mid- and late-succcessional characteristics. In addition, 
fishers avoid larger open areas such as meadows and clearcuts. 
Extensively logged areas may contain

[[Page 22741]]

suitable habitat for some fisher prey species, but generally lack 
abundant large structural elements (e.g., trees, snags, logs) required 
for denning and resting. However, Raley et al. (2012), cited in the 
Habitat Associations section of the draft Species Report (Service 2014, 
p. 15), reported that it may benefit fishers to have a diversity of 
forest conditions within their home ranges to increase access to prey, 
provided important habitat features supporting reproduction (den sites) 
and thermoregulation den and rest sites) are available. Consistent with 
Raley et al.'s (2012) assertions, Slauson et al. (2003, p. 11) found 
that the redwood second-growth stands in which fishers were found were 
among the most structurally complex, as well as near old-growth redwood 
patches.
    Multiple commenters provided information on fisher use of managed 
landscapes and this information was also presented in the draft Species 
Report (Service 2014, p. 17). In addition, we have noted the historical 
change in fisher occurrence in the redwood portion of the proposed DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    (29) Comment: One peer reviewer requested further details on the 
Forest Service's Fisher Analysis Suitability Tool, which was mentioned 
in the draft Species Report. The peer reviewer was particularly 
interested in determining how the tool has been used by Forest Service 
biologists and what impacts, if any, it has had on project planning.
    Our Response: We appreciate the interest; however, further 
elaboration regarding the use of the Forest Service's Analysis 
Suitability Tool in project planning for fishers is outside the scope 
of this rulemaking. We recommend that questions regarding the tool or 
impacts of its use be directed to the Forest Service.
    (30) Comment: One peer reviewer discussed the Service's use and 
interpretation of a study by Zielinski et al. (2006) in our discussion 
of ``Existing Regulatory Mechanisms that may Address Stressors'' in the 
draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 123). The peer reviewer urged 
caution ``when considering expanding late-successional reserves for a 
species that can use managed forests.'' The peer reviewer also 
cautioned extrapolation of the study's results because the analysis 
generates a theoretical set of new reserves based on models for fisher 
and northern spotted owls. The peer reviewer claimed that the draft 
Species Report does not adequately take into account the fisher's 
ability to use managed forest reserves because: (1) The study did not 
address the necessary size of a reserve to support fisher, (2) much of 
the suitable habitat predicted by the fisher model occurred on Federal 
land, and (3) the study asserted that the fisher's use of private 
timber lands was due to climatic factors and vegetation types rather 
than seral stage (it does not fully investigate the possibility that 
fishers may use younger forests).
    Our Response: The peer reviewer may have misunderstood our reason 
for including Zielinski et al. (2006, pp. 409-430) in the draft Species 
Report. The purpose of the ``Existing Regulatory Mechanisms that may 
Address Stressors'' section in the draft and final Species Reports is 
to present the best available information on any regulatory mechanisms 
that are currently in place and to discuss how these mechanisms affect 
stressors acting on the proposed DPS. For example, a regulatory 
mechanism could ameliorate, exacerbate, or have no effect on the 
stressors. Our discussion in the draft and final Species Reports does 
not anticipate expanding late-successional reserves, but merely 
attempts to gather all pertinent information that may inform the topic 
of the benefits or drawbacks of existing regulatory mechanisms may 
inform the topic of the benefits or drawbacks of existing regulatory 
mechanisms. We did not intend to suggest that Zielinski et al. (2006, 
pp. 409-430) is a source for the approximation of reserve sizes for 
fishers, that fisher habitat is only present on Federal land, or that 
fishers avoid younger forests. Nevertheless, we did add to the final 
Species Report the caveats noted by Zielinski et al. (2006, p. 426) to 
qualify their conclusions (Service 2016, pp. 166-167).
    We acknowledge fishers' use of managed landscapes (Federal and non-
Federal), multiple seral stages, and potential climate-related 
influences. We received numerous comments in that regard. Please see 
our responses to peer review Comments (37), (39), and (57), below.
    (31) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested adding more detail on the 
Oregon State Wildlife Action Plan and its conservation strategy to the 
final Species Report, and provided some suggested language. The peer 
reviewer also discussed the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) and 
provided clarification on protections that benefit fisher habitat 
within Riparian Management Areas. Finally, the peer reviewer discussed 
the protections afforded to forested habitat from Goal 4 of the Land 
Use Planning Act, and recommended adding more detail on these 
protections to the final Species Report. The peer reviewer believed 
that, without these additions, the Species Report would overestimate 
the threats to fisher in Oregon.
    Our Response: We have added fisher-specific information from the 
Oregon Conservation Strategy to the final Species Report, as well as 
expanded the description of the riparian regulations from the Oregon 
Forest Practices Act. In addition, we added information on Oregon's 
Land Use Planning Act into the regulatory mechanisms description in the 
final Species Report.
    (32) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the Service's 
conclusion about the effectiveness of NEPA and the Forest Service's 
Sensitive Species Program in conserving the fisher. The peer reviewer 
stated that NEPA analyses often find effects to individuals rather than 
populations, and that these analyses do not account for cumulative 
population effects as a result of vegetation management activities. The 
peer reviewer concluded that these two programs result in superficial 
analyses and are less effective for protecting species than described 
in the draft Species Report.
    Our Response: The Service considers NEPA to be an important 
environmental disclosure statute. Our discussion of NEPA in the draft 
Species Report and proposed rule in the Federal Register clearly states 
that the evaluation of projects under NEPA does not regulate or protect 
fisher nor does it require or guide potential mitigation for project 
impacts. Our characterization of the Forest Service sensitive species 
program was that protections afforded the fisher as a sensitive species 
largely depend on LMPs or LRMPs and on site-specific project analyses 
and implementation. We appreciate the peer reviewer's comment, but 
stand by our characterization of these two mechanisms (NEPA and the 
Forest Service's Sensitive Species Program).
Fisher Biology
    (33) Comment: One peer reviewer was surprised that the draft 
Species Report did not include a section on community ecology or 
community interactions, particularly on potential negative interactions 
between fishers and martens or other forest carnivores. The peer 
reviewer stated that a discussion of community ecology (including 
consideration of the references provided) would allow exploration of 
potential synergistic interactions with existing stressors.
    Our Response: Our decision to withdraw our proposed rule to list 
the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species is based on our 
determination

[[Page 22742]]

that the stressors (including predation by other forest carnivores) 
acting upon the proposed DPS are not of sufficient imminence, 
intensity, or magnitude such that they are singly or cumulatively 
resulting in significant impacts at either the population or rangewide 
scales now or in the foreseeable future. Our analysis of cumulative 
effects of stressors including predation by other forest carnivores 
adequately considers interaction between fishers and other forest 
carnivores.
    (34) Comment: One peer reviewer was surprised to note that all 
estimates of fisher population size and habitat occupancy were all from 
unpublished reports. The peer reviewer thought that more estimates 
should be taken from peer-reviewed papers or official reports, but did 
not provide any references or examples.
    Our Response: Contrary to the peer reviewer's observation, we 
included available published and peer-reviewed information in 
describing fisher population size and occupancy in the draft Species 
Report, such as Zielinski et al. (2004, 2013) (Service 2014, pp. 40, 
43). We also added newly published information, such as Sweitzer et al. 
(2016) that became available for the final Species Report (Service 
2016, pp. 60, 66, 69). We acknowledge that most of the population 
information used is in unpublished reports, but, as required by the 
Act, we must use the best scientific and commercial information 
available to reach our determination. Thus, in addition to the 
published information, we also used information concerning population 
size and habitat occupancy found in several unpublished reports (see 
Species Information section of this document and the ``Distribution and 
Abundance'' section of the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 25-
53)).
    (35) Comment: One peer reviewer called attention to a sentence in 
the habitat stressors summary of the draft Species Report that stated, 
``. . . habitat loss, modification, and fragmentation appear to be 
significant stressors to fishers.'' The peer reviewer noted that, 
though the document provides support for conclusions about habitat 
alteration and habitat loss through supporting literature or original 
analysis, there is no analysis of habitat fragmentation. The peer 
reviewer suggested that any analysis of habitat fragmentation should 
use a landscape metric, such as a comparison of patch size distribution 
over time, or a change in inner patch distances. In addition, the peer 
reviewer noted that the draft Species Report needs to cite references 
or original analysis to support conclusions made about fragmentation.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer is correct that we did not 
specifically model the effects of habitat fragmentation on fishers in 
the proposed West Coast DPS. However, the results of the Fisher 
Analysis Area Habitat Model (Service 2014, Figures 2 and 3) did show 
that, in certain areas, connectivity within fisher population areas is 
disrupted as a result of habitat quality. We have revised the final 
Species Report to include references to the results of the Fisher 
Analysis Area Habitat Model and other literature that relates to 
habitat fragmentation (Service 2016, pp. 58-62, Appendix B).
Forest Management
    (36) Comment: One peer reviewer believed that the draft Species 
Report overstated the scope and severity for the stressor of timber 
harvest in Washington. The peer reviewer suggested that the reason for 
the issue might be that the analysis combined private and State lands, 
which have different levels of timber harvest. The peer reviewer 
further noted that low-density rural land in Washington seems to 
support fishers.
    Our Response: Although the scope is correct as presented in the 
draft Species Report, we agree with the peer reviewer that including 
State lands with other non-Federal lands in the Washington portion of 
this analysis leads to an overestimation of severity (we stated this on 
page 95 of the draft Species Report). In any case, we have revised our 
assessment of stressors presented in the draft Species Report, as our 
presentation of the scope and severity of stressors in quantitative 
terms may have created a false sense of precision with regard to the 
level of scientific accuracy underlying these estimates. As described 
earlier in this document, in our final Species Report we use 
quantitative data wherever available, but if specific data are lacking, 
we rely on qualitative evidence to derive a qualitative descriptor of 
each stressor, based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, rather than extrapolating. We, therefore, present a 
qualitative description of timber harvest on State lands and other non-
Federal lands in our final Species Report, which we have concluded is 
most appropriate for our analysis; this adjustment should address any 
concerns expressed by the peer reviewer in regard to the potential 
overestimate of scope and severity of this stressor in Washington. 
Finally, although fisher may be able to persist on low-density rural 
lands in Washington in some instances as the reviewer suggests, we do 
not have sufficient data to confirm or evaluate fisher use of this 
habitat type.
    (37) Comment: One peer reviewer believed the draft Species Report 
failed to consider that managed forests may preserve or create new 
habitat for fisher, even in the face of climate change. The peer 
reviewer asserted that not all fisher habitat will be left subject to 
``natural processes'' and, therefore, recommended that the Service 
consider whether managed forests may serve as refugia for fisher.
    Our Response: The effects of vegetation management, and by proxy 
managed forests, on fishers, and the range of impacts that 
silvicultural treatments may have on fisher habitat, are discussed in 
the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 86-87, 94-95), and expanded 
discussion is provided in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 
98-111). Because the outcomes of forest management are variable 
depending upon the objectives of the treatments, it is not appropriate 
to consider all managed forests as potential refugia for fisher. Both 
the draft and final Species Reports acknowledge that managed forests 
provide habitat for fishers if those forests provide sufficient amounts 
and adequate distribution of key habitat and structural elements 
required by fishers. The revised discussion on this topic in the final 
Species Report addresses the concerns of the peer reviewer.
    We further interpret the peer review comment to suggest that forest 
management may ameliorate the effects of climate change on fisher 
habitat by shifting forest tree species to those that are more drought 
resistant (e.g., pine) or by reducing stocking levels so that forests 
are more resistant to catastrophic wildfire. While there is much 
uncertainty about the localized effects of climate change within the 
various subregions of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, we agree 
that active management of forests may improve drought tolerance and 
reduce the severity and intensity of wildfires.
    (38) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that while a certain 
population had high tolerance for both fuels reduction and recreational 
use, other populations may not show the same tolerance. The peer 
reviewer also noted that while fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada 
had shown some tolerance to fuel treatments, all watersheds had not 
seen such pressure. The peer reviewer concluded that more work is 
needed on the issue of commercial logging and thinning, and its effect 
on fisher.

[[Page 22743]]

    Our Response: Fisher response to disturbance is likely to vary 
depending upon the ambient levels of noise and activity that occur 
within individual home ranges, as well as the existing condition and 
configuration of habitat. The scale, intensity, and distribution of 
disturbance events, such as vegetation management and recreation, may 
alter the overall ability of the landscape to support fishers (Powell 
and Zielinski 1994, p. 64; Weir and Corbould 2010, pp. 408-409; Naney 
et al. 2012, entire). Although there is no published work evaluating 
the direct effects of fuel treatments on fisher populations, various 
studies indicate that management to reduce fire risk or restore 
ecological resilience may be consistent with maintaining landscapes 
that support fishers in both the short and long term, provided that 
treatments retain appropriate habitat structures, composition, and 
configuration (Spencer et al. 2008, entire; Scheller et al. 2011, 
entire; Thompson et al. 2011, entire; Truex and Zielinski 2013, entire; 
Zielinski 2013, pp. 17-20). However, some recent research also 
indicates that certain types of fuels reduction treatments, such as 
mechanical thinning, may result in fisher avoidance of treated areas, 
at least in the short term (e.g., Garner 2013; see final Species 
Report, p. 68). We agree that more research is needed to fully 
understand the impacts of vegetation management on fisher habitat and 
the ability of fisher to persist in managed landscapes.
    (39) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that the habitat features 
described for the fisher in the draft Species Report were too narrow. 
The peer reviewer pointed out that fishers have been documented on 
managed forest lands, and concluded that the Service should consider a 
broader range of habitat features in the final Species Report, 
including younger forests and stands with residual black oak.
    Our Response: The draft and final Species Reports acknowledge that 
managed forests provide habitat for fishers if those forests provide 
sufficient amounts and adequate distribution of key habitat and 
structural elements (Service 2014, p. 17, citing Self and Callas 2006, 
entire and Reno et al. 2008, pp. 9-16; Service 2016, p. 19). The peer 
reviewer comment cited personal communications and unpublished data 
that were not provided to us and are not available to us; therefore, we 
are unable to include these data in our final Species Report. Through 
the public and peer review process, however, we did receive additional 
documentation of fisher habitat use that was used in an expanded 
discussion of fisher use of managed forests that we have incorporated 
into our final Species Report.
    (40) Comment: One peer reviewer agreed with the Service that there 
are no estimates available of the fitness of fisher populations in 
different habitats, and that obtaining this information is unlikely 
given the difficulty of estimating demographic parameters for fishers. 
Thus, the peer reviewer questioned how the Service was able to assess 
impacts of habitat management on fishers. Given that timber harvesting 
was primarily responsible for the complete extirpation of fishers in 
some areas concurrent with the persistence or recovery of fishers in 
other areas, the peer reviewer suggested that the amount, spatial 
pattern, or type (silvicultural technique) of timber harvesting be 
assessed to determine whether a different impact--trapping--had a 
serious effects on fishers everywhere in the west coast (as suggested 
in the draft Species Report).
    The peer reviewer also suggested that there should be a strong 
correlation between the relative amount of late-seral and old-growth 
forests modeled as high quality fisher habitat not subjected to timber 
harvest and the persistence of fishers in the west coast. The peer 
reviewer's brief analysis of this situation suggested that the 
persistence or recolonization of fishers may not strongly correlate 
with past timber harvest, particularly in portions of the NCSO 
population that may have experienced high levels of past timber harvest 
with fragmented regions of high-quality habitat.
    Our Response: As noted in the draft Species Report, individual 
stressors potentially acting on fisher or fisher habitat may also be 
acting in concert with other stressors. Though not explicitly discussed 
in the draft Species Report, the combined effects of past trapping and 
past timber harvest may have influenced the patterns of extirpation/
recolonization the peer reviewer is questioning.
    Past trapping of fishers appears to have been the primary initial 
cause of fisher population losses in the Pacific States (Service 2014, 
p. 112). Trapping and unregulated harvest varied by location, and were 
likely influenced by topographic features (Service 2014, pp. 110-111). 
Localized extirpations or greatly reduced numbers of individual fishers 
as a result of trapping mean that it became more difficult for 
remaining fishers to find one another and successfully recolonize 
previously occupied habitat. Adding to this scenario, large-scale loss 
of important habitat components from timber harvest also reduced the 
available habitat and increased fragmentation, making it difficult for 
remaining fishers to encounter other fishers.
    Specific data are not available to quantify the severity of 
trapping by each sub-region (Service 2014, p. 112). Because of this 
lack of data, it is difficult to determine if the NCSO population was 
either not subjected to the trapping pressures observed in other areas, 
or that the types of timber harvest in the area were more conducive to 
the persistence of fishers on the landscape.
    (41) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the Service's statement 
that the magnitude and intensity of timber harvest is ``one of the main 
reasons that fisher have not recovered on the west coast as compared to 
the northeast U.S.'' The peer reviewer agreed that timber harvest has 
been a primary impact; however, the peer reviewer questioned the 
Service's statement implying that timber harvest in the northeastern 
United States has been less severe than the western United States. The 
peer reviewer requested clarification, given that there have been 
substantial losses of old-growth on the east coast and current 
estimates indicate that only 1 percent of old-growth forests remain 
there, and given there is little Federal ownership and significantly 
higher human population densities that create more fragmented and 
intensively managed forests in the east as compared to the west coast.
    Our Response: We did not mean to suggest that timber harvest in the 
eastern United States was more or less severe than in the western 
United States. We reviewed the statement questioned by the peer 
reviewer and offer the following clarification. The draft Species 
Report (Service 2014, p. 56) stated: ``Consequently many fisher 
researchers have suggested that the magnitude and intensity of past 
timber harvest is one of the primary causes for fisher declines across 
the United States (Douglas and Strickland 1987, p. 512; Powell 1993, 
pp. 77-80, 84; Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 41) and has been offered 
as one of the main reasons fishers have not recovered in Washington, 
Oregon, and portions of California as compared to the northeastern 
United States (Aubry and Houston 1992, p. 75; Powell 1993, p. 80; 
Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 39, 64; Lewis and Stinson 1998, p. 27; 
Truex et al. 1998, p. 59).'' This was not meant to be a comparison of 
the relative severity of timber harvest in the west or the east. 
Rather, timber harvest and trapping declined in the 1930s in the 
eastern United States, and abandoned farmland began to return to a 
forested condition

[[Page 22744]]

(Powell 1993, p. 80). Large-scale loss of important habitat components 
resulted from previous forest management practices that began in the 
1800s and ended in the early 1990s in the west (Service 2014, p. 55). 
Thus, habitat in the eastern United States was recovering while much of 
the western United States continued to be harvested. Fisher in the 
eastern United States, therefore, have had more time to recolonize 
habitats under reduced trapping pressure and increased habitat 
availability than fisher in the west.
    (42) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the draft Species 
Report did not include any consideration of habitat recruitment from 
riparian buffer and leave trees, features that the peer reviewer 
asserts will increase habitat connectivity and lead to the eventual 
creation of structural features essential to fisher. The peer reviewer 
noted that private industrial and managed lands make up a substantial 
portion of the analysis area, and that these lands are subject to 
forest practice rules to preserve these features. The peer reviewer 
provided references regarding legacy structures and dead wood in 
managed forest lands.
    Our Response: The draft and final Species Reports (Service 2014, 
pp. 119-144; Service 2016, pp. 162-189) and the ``Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms'' section of this document provide discussion of the 
Federal, tribal, and State regulatory mechanisms for Washington, 
Oregon, and California. Protection measures for riparian areas are a 
widespread standard in managed forests lands, with larger buffers and 
more stringent retention requirements typically associated with Federal 
and State lands than on other ownerships (Service 2014, p. 143). Many 
areas retained as riparian buffers or for other management goals (e.g., 
spotted owl special emphasis areas under Washington Forest Practice 
Rules, anchor habitats on Oregon State Forests, occupied site buffers 
on multiple ownerships, and Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones on 
private land in California) are not large enough to support a fisher 
home range (Service 2014, p. 143). However, they may provide habitat 
patches that allow fisher to move across the landscape, providing 
connectivity to and facilitating dispersal between larger blocks of 
fisher habitat either within existing ownerships among neighboring 
ownerships (Service 2014, p. 143). We reviewed the references provided 
by the peer reviewer and updated the final Species Report, as 
appropriate. Please see also our responses to Comments (171) and (188), 
below.
    (43) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that the severity ranking 
given to stressors related to vegetation management was too high, as it 
did not adequately consider the ability of the fisher to use managed 
forest habitat. The peer reviewer provided several references that 
demonstrate the use by fishers of fire-treated forest stands. Overall, 
the peer reviewer stated that the Service should reevaluate the 
severity of habitat stressors in light of the fisher's use of managed 
forest habitat.
    Our Response: We received multiple comments suggesting that we had 
understated the degree to which fishers may utilize a variety of 
successional stages of forests as well as actively managed forests. Our 
final Species Report incorporates a more robust discussion of the types 
of habitats used by fishers for their various life-history needs. With 
the exception of the fisher habitat trend analysis done for the 
southern Sierra Nevada, our final analysis of vegetation management was 
limited to looking at trends in vegetation classification based on 
predefined vegetation and structural classes that we related to fisher 
habitat quality. We considered fisher use of managed forests and 
structurally complex younger forests in selecting these predefined 
vegetation and structural conditions, when available, and noted their 
use in our vegetation management analysis in the final Species Report 
(Service 2016, pp. 98-111). Based on our thorough evaluation of the 
best scientific and commercial data available with regard to the 
present and future effects of vegetation management, as well as other 
stressors identified for fishers, fisher populations do not currently 
appear to be in decline, and no specific threats were identified as 
having significant impacts to the fisher or its habitat at either the 
population or rangewide scales. For more discussion, see the Vegetation 
Management section of this document and the final Species Report.
Fuels Treatments
    (44) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the draft Species Report 
seemed to lack a section that evaluated the comparative negative direct 
effects and indirect beneficial effects of fuel treatment on fisher 
habitat. The peer reviewer noted that the coefficient of vegetation 
management calculated in the draft Species Report seems to assume that 
all forest acres affected by fuel treatment are degraded, when some 
studies have shown that fishers seem to tolerate the level of fuel 
treatment necessary to reduce fire severity. The peer reviewer stated 
that, although there are negative impacts from fuels treatment, there 
are also indirect benefits, and it is important for the Service to 
consider that tradeoff in the final Species Report.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer is correct in that the draft 
Species Report primarily (but not completely) focused on the negative 
aspects of fuels treatments on fisher habitat. In the data sets we used 
to calculate the coefficient of vegetation management, we could not 
determine the degree of habitat modification or removal that was 
planned in the treated areas. On private lands, we did not estimate 
amount of habitat lost to fuels treatments because we only had 
information for commercial timber harvest plans. Further, we recognize, 
as described in the final Species Report, that fuels treatments may 
indirectly benefit fisher habitat by reducing the severity and extent 
of fires occurring within or adjacent to fisher habitat, but we could 
not filter such types of treatment out of the available data, as 
acknowledged in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 93). See 
also our response to Comment (58).
    Our assessment in the final Species Report has been updated to 
include additional discussion of the effects of fuels reductions 
treatments on fishers and fisher habitat; although there are many 
indirect benefits from some treatments, we note that our assessment of 
the best available scientific information additionally identified some 
potentially negative effects as well (Service 2016, pp. 99-111).
    (45) Comment: One peer reviewer observed some tolerance by fishers 
to light fuel reduction activities. The peer reviewer provided three 
examples of female fishers inhabiting areas currently or recently 
subject to fuel treatment, but noted that the treatment in that area 
had been minimal. The peer reviewer also thought that one fisher may 
have remained in a fuel treatment area because she was surrounded on 
all sides by other female fishers and may have been unable to relocate. 
The peer reviewer concluded that some fishers may experience delayed 
responses to fuel treatment, but overall may also tolerate areas 
treated for fuels that maintain large-diameter trees and canopy 
closure.
    Our Response: We appreciate the observations provided by the peer 
reviewer. The peer reviewer also provided a monitoring report to 
support the observations, and we considered this new information, in 
addition to other information received from other commenters, in our 
final analysis.

[[Page 22745]]

Genetics
    (46) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the genetic 
separation of the Southern Sierra Nevada population might not be due to 
geographic separation, but due to a genetic bottleneck caused by 
overharvesting.
    Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this suggestion, and 
acknowledge there are a variety of historical mechanisms that may have 
contributed to the genetic structure currently observed in native 
fisher populations (see the new genetic information discussion in the 
``Small Population Size and Isolation'' section of the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 133-136).
    (47) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that, although the 
Service reviewed recent fisher genetic information, it did not appear 
that this information was used in distinguishing the proposed DPS 
boundaries (for example, the peer reviewer noted the genetic separation 
of the NCSO and SSN populations). The peer reviewer provided multiple 
sources to back up the assertion.
    Our Response: In the proposed listing rule we solicited comments 
from peer reviewers and the public regarding the possibility of 
different DPS configurations for fishers in the west coast States. We 
thank the peer reviewer for the information provided, but note that 
genetic information represents only one of the criteria that we may 
consider in determining whether a population may meet the requirements 
of our 1996 DPS policy. We did use genetic information along with other 
information, including that provided by the peer reviewer, to aid in 
our final decision regarding the DPS boundary. For our final analysis, 
we also provided an expanded discussion of genetics in the final 
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 133-136). At this time, our end 
decision is to use the original DPS configuration as presented in the 
proposed listing rule, which is consistent with Congressional direction 
that the Services apply the DPS policy ``sparingly.'' See also our 
response to Comment (25).
    (48) Comment: One peer reviewer provided new information from the 
individual's nearly completed study on fisher DNA. The results show 
that the SSN population was the most genetically separate from any 
other sampled area. The peer reviewer stated that these results support 
the SSN as a DPS, with the second DPS as everything north of this 
population. The peer reviewer also stated that these results support 
the NCSO as a separate management unit, but not a separate DPS from the 
SOC introduced population. A second peer reviewer concurred that the 
SSN population is genetically separate from the NCSO population.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (47).
    (49) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the draft Species Report 
did not discuss low genetic diversity related to small population size, 
and suggested that discussion of low genetic diversity be added to the 
final Species Report.
    Our Response: We direct the peer reviewer to our discussion of low 
genetic diversity in relation to small population size in the section 
``Small Population Size and Isolation,'' which was presented on pages 
145-147 of the draft Species Report. We have expanded this discussion 
in the final Species Report to incorporate the additional information 
provided by the peer reviewer, particularly with regard to the 
relatively low genetic diversity of the SSN population.
    (50) Comment: One peer reviewer, while acknowledging that he was a 
senior author on one of the references cited, stated that genetics 
studies support long-term genetic differentiation of fisher populations 
in northern California and in the southern Sierra Nevada (citing to 
Knaus et al. 2011 and Tucker et al. 2012). The peer reviewer stated 
that it is possible that gene flow may once have occurred between these 
populations, since fishers have been observed historically in the 
region that currently separates the two populations. However, the peer 
reviewer believed that the genetic data suggest if some level of 
connectivity did once exist, it was relatively minor and may not have 
contributed to the currently observed population structure.
    Our Response: We received many comments regarding the genetic 
separation of the NCSO and SSN populations, particularly with regard to 
the question of whether connectivity should be ``restored'' between 
these populations. Several commenters believed that, given the evidence 
for longstanding genetic differentiation between these populations, 
introducing gene flow between them at this point would do more harm 
than good. Others believed that introducing additional genetic 
diversity to the SSN population might be beneficial. Clearly, there are 
mixed opinions on this matter. Regardless of listing status, all of 
these considerations will be taken into account in future management 
efforts for West Coast populations of fisher.
    (51) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that we add a table to 
the final Species Report that shows the sources of reintroduced fishers 
and the dates when they were reintroduced. The peer reviewer also 
requested clarification on whether the genetic origin of the 
reintroduced fishers had been determined, if these fishers were 
distinct from the origin population at the Great Lakes, and what the 
presence of this genetic material might mean for the management and 
recovery of the west coast fisher.
    Our Response: The information showing the sources of reintroduced 
fishers and dates when they were introduced can be found in the draft 
(Service 2014, pp. 35-37) and final Species Reports (Service 2016, pp. 
37-41; 50-53). Although the peer reviewer brings up a good point in 
terms of the potential implications of genetic differences between 
reintroduced and native populations in terms of future management 
considerations for West Coast fisher populations, such considerations 
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    (52) Comment: One peer reviewer provided new information on genetic 
analyses done on fishers found in the southwest portion of the 
reintroduced SOC population area. The analyses detected one male fisher 
in the range of the Cascades population (east of Interstate 5) that was 
genetically grouped with the NCSO population, and another fisher that 
did not have enough DNA for complete genetic analysis, but that 
appeared to match the NCSO population. Given these examples, the peer 
reviewer believed that the NCSO and the SOC populations should be 
grouped as a single population, as it is possible that in the 
foreseeable future time horizon used in the draft Species Report, these 
populations could exchange enough individuals to become genetically 
indistinguishable. As such, any revision to the DPS boundary should not 
separate the NCSO population from the SOC population.
    Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for the new information 
indicating geographic overlap from individuals genetically associated 
with both the NCSO and SOC populations; this information will be useful 
in future management considerations for fisher, and we have updated our 
final Species Report to reflect this information. For the purposes of 
considering different DPS delineations, we solicited comments from peer 
reviewers and the public regarding the possibility of different DPS 
configurations for the West Coast population of fishers. We received 
many comments expressing support or opposition for various DPS options, 
or suggesting entirely new

[[Page 22746]]

options. Following our careful consideration of all information, at 
this time, our decision is to use the original DPS configuration as 
presented in the proposed listing rule.
Habitat
    (53) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the percentage of 
National Park area in ``high elevation'' and not expected to contain 
suitable fisher habitat reported on page 126 of the draft Species 
Report (67 to 85 percent of National Parks in the analysis area) is too 
large. Based on telemetry information from the Olympic Peninsula 
population, this peer reviewer recommended using 4,700 ft (1,433 m) as 
the elevation cut-off.
    Our Response: Delineations of suitable habitat for fishers in the 
draft Species Report were not made with elevation-based cut-offs; areas 
of suitable habitat were predicted based on snow pack, temperature, 
forest cover, and other variables (see Appendix C of the final Species 
Report). The clearest and most accurate presentation of suitable 
habitat in National Parks is provided by the data presented in Appendix 
A of the final Species Report. The sentence that prompted this peer 
review comment has been removed and replaced with the following: ``In 
addition, higher elevation areas comprise much of National Park lands 
in the analysis area; these areas are typically classified as alpine 
and above elevations expected to contain suitable fisher habitat.'' 
(Service 2016, p. 170).
    (54) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned why we did not include 
discussion or evaluation of the factors that may have allowed fishers 
to continue to persist in some but not other portions of its historical 
range, and relatedly, whether or not much of the west coast was ever 
good habitat for fishers. For example, the peer reviewer noted that the 
fisher has completely disappeared from much of its range in Washington 
and Oregon even though the current habitat models suggest that 40 
million ac (16.2 million ha) of high- and intermediate-quality habitat 
currently exist (albeit fragmented in areas but with extensive blocks 
of habitat that should have the potential to support substantial 
populations of fishers).
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that fishers likely 
completely disappeared from Washington despite substantial suitable 
habitat remaining on the Olympic Peninsula and in the Cascades. We did 
not include a lengthy discussion in the draft Species Report as to the 
factors that may have allowed fishers to continue to persist in some 
but not other portions of the historical range, but we did cite several 
sources that suggest that fishers were extirpated from Washington by 
trapping (both direct and incidental) and by predator control 
(poisoning) (e.g., Lewis and Hayes 1998). In our draft Species Report, 
we acknowledged that a significant amount of high-quality habitat 
remains unoccupied by fishers in the analysis area. In addition, based 
on our consideration of comments received and our current analysis, in 
our final determination we now underscore the point suggested by the 
peer reviewer, that lack of suitable habitat does not appear to be a 
limiting factor for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher throughout 
the majority of its range.
    (55) Comment: One peer reviewer asked about the assessment of 
habitat fragmentation in the draft Species Report. The peer reviewer 
noted that, although the draft Species Report refers to habitat in the 
NCSO population as highly fragmented, there are no formal assessments 
of habitat fragmentation in the draft Species Report, and no reasoning 
to support habitat fragmentation as a stressor to the fisher. The peer 
reviewer also stated that it is not clear why the NCSO population area 
is called the most fragmented landscape in the draft Species Report; 
the peer reviewer thought that the SSN population would be more 
fragmented, given that the habitat occurs in a narrow elevation band. 
The peer reviewer also found it odd that the NCSO population area is 
fragmented but considered occupied, while much of Washington and Oregon 
is considered unfragmented but also unoccupied. The peer reviewer 
requested that the final Species Report include a summary of both known 
and potential effects of habitat fragmentation.
    Our Response: The relatively more fragmented habitat of the NCSO 
population is considered occupied due to documented contemporary 
observations of fisher in that geographic region, as opposed to large 
areas of apparently suitable unfragmented habitat in Oregon and 
Washington where we lack detections of fisher (thus these areas are 
considered unoccupied). The peer reviewer's comparison to unoccupied 
and unfragmented habitat in Washington is not directly relevant because 
the likely cause of fisher extirpation on the Olympic Peninsula and in 
the Cascades was historical trapping (both direct and incidental) and 
predator control (poisoning), and not a result of habitat conditions. 
See also our responses to Comment (54).
    (56) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that there is no evidence 
that fishers are associated with riparian habitat.
    Our Response: In many previous reviews and summaries of fisher 
habitat, riparian areas and buffers have often been highlighted as one 
of the key habitat features that improve a landscape's ability to 
support fishers (69 FR 18770, April 8, 2004, p. 18773; USDA Forest 
Service and USDI BLM 1994a, pp. J2-54, J2-56-J2-57, J2-79). Powell et 
al. (2003, p. 641) found that in forest types subject to frequent fires 
that remove woody structures near the ground, fishers are closely 
associated with riparian areas which do not burn as often. Although 
recent analysis of information across the west indicates that the 
fisher's pattern of use of riparian areas is not consistent among 
studies (reviewed by Lofroth et al. 2010, p. 94), the best available 
data do indicate that fishers utilize riparian areas (for example, 
Engstrom (2015, in litt., pp. 1-4) recently detected fishers in 
riparian areas located approximately one mile within the 1992 Fountain 
Fire perimeter). Many of the riparian areas may also provide habitat 
patches that allow fisher to move across the landscape, providing 
connectivity to and facilitating dispersal between larger blocks of 
fisher habitat either within existing ownerships or among neighboring 
ownerships.
    (57) Comment: Multiple peer reviewers questioned how heavily the 
draft Species Report relied on old-growth forests in the description of 
fisher habitats. Several of these peer reviewers asserted that fishers 
used more habitat types than just old-growth forests, and that the 
analysis of stressors overemphasized the importance of old-growth 
forests.
    One peer reviewer noted that the Ashland fisher monitoring project 
has found that fishers use multiple habitat types, including chaparral 
(the peer reviewer hypothesizes that the fishers utilize this habitat 
in the winter while searching for prey). The peer reviewer noted that 
all habitat types used by fisher in the monitoring project had greater 
than 60 percent canopy cover. Another peer reviewer noted that fishers 
in the ONP population seem to be selecting a mosaic of mixed-ownership 
partially managed forests over old-growth.
    Another peer reviewer agreed with the draft Species Report that 
prey availability may impact the distribution of fishers. The peer 
reviewer asserted that late-successional habitat, regardless of 
elevation, was not a limiting factor for fisher home ranges. A fourth 
peer

[[Page 22747]]

reviewer noted that the fisher's use of managed forests and more 
diverse forest types is supported in the literature and in successful 
reintroductions in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania. That peer 
reviewer noted that because of the draft Species Report's overreliance 
on old-growth forest, the recruitment of forest structures in the late-
successional reserves as set aside by the NWFP were not accounted for 
in the overall measurement of the stressor of habitat loss. The fourth 
peer reviewer also believed that this oversight would lead to an 
overestimation of the impacts of habitat loss.
    Finally, another peer reviewer asserted that fishers in central 
British Columbia are well-adapted to a mosaic of forest ages and 
structural types that result from normal fire intervals. The peer 
reviewer suggested that, based on this evidence, large amounts of old-
growth forests might not be ideal for the fisher.
    Our Response: As a basic life-history requirement, fishers need 
large standing and down trees with cavities to give birth and raise 
their young, and these cavities must be sufficiently large to 
accommodate the mother and her kits (reviewed by Lofroth et al. 2010, 
p. 119; Coulter 1966, p. 81). Depending upon the tree species and 
ecological conditions, cavity formation in large trees or snags may 
require greater than 100 years to develop (Raley et al. 2012, pp. 242-
244; Weir et al. 2012, pp. 234-237). These trees often have 
characteristics associated with late-seral conditions (e.g., large 
diameter, large limbs, mistletoe brooms) that are most commonly 
associated with old-growth stands. We acknowledge that these trees may 
exist outside of intact old-growth stands, as remnants from previous 
natural (e.g., fire) and anthropogenic (e.g., timber harvest) 
disturbances. Because these cavities are essential for fisher, we 
placed a fair amount of emphasis on the importance of historical and 
current distribution of old-growth to fisher in our draft Species 
Report. We did not state, nor did we mean to imply, that fishers are 
obligate users of old-growth forests.
    In our draft Species Report, we discuss the use of managed, 
younger, and mid-seral forests (e.g., Service 2014, pp. 15, 17, 56, 
88). Fisher will use these forest types if high canopy cover and 
complex structural elements are present to provide denning, resting, 
and foraging opportunities. We also recognize that habitat recruitment 
was not quantified in the draft Species Report and is important for 
understanding fisher use of habitat in the future. We received many 
comments on this topic, and have data available that allow us in the 
final Species Report to evaluate expected ingrowth of forests likely to 
provide suitable fisher habitat throughout most of the proposed DPS 
(see additional discussion on ingrowth in the ``Vegetation Management'' 
section of the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-111)).
    (58) Comment: One peer reviewer requested more information on the 
calculation of the stressor of timber harvest on fisher. The peer 
reviewer believed that the way timber harvest was measured in the 
proposed listing rule resulted in an overestimation of the degree of 
threat attributed to timber harvest. The peer reviewer noted that many 
even-age harvest plans and permits report gross acres rather than net 
harvested acres, and that regulated and non-regulated or voluntary 
retention areas are not accounted for by the permits. The peer reviewer 
also stated that it was unclear if the Service's analysis of timber 
harvest distinguished between even-aged and uneven-aged harvest. The 
peer reviewer noted that uneven-aged harvest can result in increased 
levels of removal of structural components required by fishers. 
Finally, the peer reviewer asserted that the analysis of habitat loss 
due to forestry and vegetation management focused only on acres removed 
and did not consider any enhancements to habitat due to managed 
forestry on private timberlands, including increases in prey available 
to fisher.
    Our Response: Quantifying the effects to fisher habitat from 
vegetation management across the west coast States is challenging and 
complex due to many factors, including, but not limited to differences 
in forest types, silvicultural practices, project-specific objectives, 
and regulatory mechanisms. We received numerous comments on our draft 
calculations of scope and severity of stressors potentially impacting 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. As described more fully 
elsewhere in this document, we found that our initial quantification of 
stressors may have conveyed a false sense of precision in our 
assessment, as we had to rely on extrapolation in areas where we did 
not have specific quantitative data available. In our final Species 
Report, we provide a qualitative description of stressors to explain 
the degree of impact a stressor may have on fishers or their habitat, 
as demonstrated by the best scientific and commercial data available. 
We recognize and acknowledge that reporting mechanisms for harvested 
acres may over- or underestimate the actual amount of acres treated; 
however, information is not readily available to inform further 
refinement of that estimate. Similarly, data are not readily available 
across the west coast States to assess differences between even- and 
uneven-aged management.
    In our final Species Report, we have used the best available 
information to estimate the effects of vegetation management on the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, including consideration of all 
comments and new information received during the comment periods on 
this rulemaking. Excellent sources of new information became available 
to us for the analysis of the effects of vegetation management within 
the analysis area, including the recently released NWFP 20-year late-
successional old-growth monitoring report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire) 
within the area covered by the NWFP (most of the proposed DPS except 
the Sierra Nevada and eastern portions of the Oregon and Washington 
Cascades), the Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) vegetation trend 
analysis for the Sierra Nevada portion of the analysis area outside of 
the NWFP area, and fisher habitat modeling associated with the southern 
Sierra Nevada fisher conservation strategy.
    We received multiple comments on the recruitment of fisher habitat 
on Federal and non-Federal lands and the extent to which regulatory 
mechanisms may provide for fisher habitat. Please see additional 
related responses, such as Comments (38) and (42) above, and (75), 
(189), (215), and (229) below.
    Finally, we received two other peer review comments regarding 
managed lands and prey, and we have incorporated additional discussion 
of how some forms of vegetation management may affect prey species 
composition or abundance in our final Species Report. See also our 
response to peer review Comment (83).
    (59) Comment: One peer reviewer provided references to demonstrate 
that fishers in Oregon have been found in managed forests and even 
brush fields, and that fishers have been found in heavily logged areas 
elsewhere in their range. The peer reviewer noted that, although 
fishers do require structures related to late-successional forests, 
fishers can use a mosaic of habitats with managed forest stands next to 
old-growth forests, particularly if the managed stands retain high 
canopy closure.
    Our Response: We thank the commenter for the additional information 
regarding fisher use of managed landscapes; we received multiple 
comments on this subject from various commenters, and have incorporated 
an expanded discussion of

[[Page 22748]]

fisher use of managed landscapes in our final Species Report. Following 
our thorough evaluation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we have ultimately determined that vegetation management 
does not pose a threat such that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act.
Habitat Model
    (60) Comment: One peer reviewer requested more discussion on how 
spatial independence was handled in the creation of the habitat model, 
and whether spatial correlation was treated as a desirable factor in 
creating the Maxent portion of the habitat model.
    Our Response: Spatial correlation was not treated as a desirable 
factor. As noted in the document, ``Habitat Modeling Methods For The 
Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment Species Assessment,'' 
which is now included as Appendix B in the final Species Report, 
location data points used to fit the model were filtered to ensure 
spatial independence by using a minimum nearest-neighbor distance of 
3.1 mi (5 km).
    (61) Comment: Three peer reviewers requested more information on 
how verified fisher detections were determined for the habitat model. 
They asked if telemetry data had been used, and if not, why not. The 
peer reviewers also asked if camera trap locations were used, and noted 
that this may be a biased method (compared to relatively unbiased 
telemetry) that would lead to overestimates of populations, 
particularly if scent lures are used.
    Two of the peer reviewers questioned if using camera traps for 
fisher detections was ideal for building a habitat model. The first 
peer reviewer also discussed the results of a study in Idaho, where it 
was not unusual to have only a single detection of fisher through 
camera or hair trapping. The peer reviewer stated that in such cases, 
the density of fishers on the landscape is likely to be low, and so any 
model that uses detections rather than resident animals may potentially 
overestimate abundance and include poor-quality habitat. The peer 
reviewer recommended that the Service build a model based on telemetry 
and one based on occurrence data, and compare the results of the two 
models.
    Another peer reviewer stated that camera trap detections should not 
be used unless the model is being used to look at connectivity at a 
coarse landscape scale. The peer reviewer and other researchers could 
provide the Service with telemetry and GPS locations to assist in 
refining the model.
    Our Response: As one of the peer reviewers implied, habitat models 
may be used for a variety of purposes, and the most appropriate source 
data may vary depending on the purpose of the model. In this case, the 
main purpose of the model was to identify, at a large landscape scale, 
areas that would be expected to support some level of fisher use. 
Therefore, in regions where adequate quantities of fisher detection 
data were available, we based the model on the locations of verifiable 
detections of fishers, including camera trap detections, but not 
including telemetry locations. As described in our response to Comment 
(60), these detection locations were then filtered to a minimum nearest 
neighbor distance of 3.1 mi (5 km) to ensure spatial independence.
    As one peer reviewer noted, survey methods that use scent lures 
(and bait lures) may not present an accurate picture of fine-scale 
habitat use because these methods may attract fishers to habitats that 
they would otherwise not prefer. However, at the large scale of our 
habitat model, we considered this source of bias to be less important 
than the type of bias that could be introduced by reliance on telemetry 
data. Although telemetry data give a relatively accurate picture of the 
fine-scale habitat use of an individual fisher, at this scale of 
analysis, the use of telemetry data would do little more than identify 
telemetry study areas within the overall analysis area. Furthermore, it 
is likely that most telemetry locations are within 3.1 mi (5 km) of a 
camera survey location and, therefore, are already represented at the 
scale of our habitat model. The use of camera, hair snare, and track 
plate detection data allowed us to develop models that were more 
representative of the entire SSN and NCSO population areas, rather than 
focusing on telemetry study areas, some of which contain unique habitat 
conditions not found elsewhere in the analysis area.
    Models based on telemetry locations would likely be very helpful at 
a finer scale to identify habitats used for particular functions of 
fisher life history, such as denning, resting, or foraging. Such a 
model would likely be of great use to land managers who are interested 
in managing for fisher habitat values, and we would appreciate the 
opportunity to collaboratively participate with researchers interested 
in developing a telemetry-based model. However, this particular type of 
model was less useful for the large-scale analyses presented in the 
draft and final Species Reports.
    (62) Comment: One peer reviewer alleged that the habitat model was 
at too coarse a scale to be of assistance with fine-scale management 
for fishers on Federal land. The peer reviewer did not object to the 
use of the habitat model for large-scale analyses such as the draft 
Species Report, but was concerned that others may try to use the model 
inappropriately for more fine-scale uses, such as slowing or stopping 
proposed projects within fisher habitat.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that our habitat 
model, which is intended for use at the landscape scale, is not 
appropriate at the fine scales necessary for many forest management 
decisions. Use of the model at fine scales, such as the forest stand 
scale, would not be appropriate. The documentation that accompanies the 
model makes it clear that it is intended for use at the landscape 
scale, and we hope that all potential users of the model will read this 
documentation carefully and avoid such misuse.
    (63) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the current habitat 
models, which the Service relied on in the draft Species Report, may 
have focused on the wrong primary signal for why fishers currently 
occur where they do. Specifically, the peer reviewer indicated that the 
current habitat models focus on mature and older forests as the most 
important habitat feature for high-quality habitat (thus resulting in 
millions of acres of habitat projected to be high and intermediate 
quality for fishers) as opposed to forested stands that support 
abundant food sources.
    Our Response: We disagree that the habitat models developed for the 
draft Species Report focus on mature and older forests as the primary 
feature for high-quality habitat. In the Oregon and Washington Cascades 
and Olympic Mountains, where an expert modeling approach was used, the 
most important variable was dense forest, which could be of any age 
class. The expert models do include one component that is correlated 
with mature or older forests, but also include another component that 
represents prey diversity, which is in line with the peer reviewer's 
suggestion. In the remainder of the range, the Maxent computer 
algorithm, rather than human judgment, was used to select variables and 
fit models of relative habitat suitability for fishers. Only one of the 
variables selected (i.e., basal area-weighted canopy height) is likely 
to be related to the age of the forested stand, and this variable was 
only selected in the models for the Sierra Nevada modeling regions. For 
more information

[[Page 22749]]

on the variables included in the models, please see the updated version 
of the document entitled ``Habitat Modeling Methods For The Fisher West 
Coast Distinct Population Segment Species Assessment,'' which is now 
included as Appendix B in the final Species Report.
    (64) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that occupancy modeling in 
the Sierra Nevada does not distinguish between source and sink habitat, 
such as source areas that contain highly productive females, and sink 
habitat where juvenile males may be dispersing. The peer reviewer 
requested that we add more information on this subject to the species 
report.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that occupancy 
modeling only indicates whether or not a fisher is detected at a site 
and does not tell how the fisher is using the site or whether the site 
is high-quality (source) or low-quality (sink) habitat.
    (65) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that the Service add 
references to the published fisher habitat model into the final Species 
Report. It was not initially clear to the peer reviewer that the 
habitat model had been published as a separate report.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (16).
    (66) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether reports of 
fisher observations could be made public in an online database, stating 
that doing so would aid in transparency.
    Our Response: We received many detection data sets during the 
public comment period, and this information is currently being reviewed 
for redundancy against the survey records we obtained previously. The 
fisher locality database currently consists of more than 17,000 
positive and negative locality data records. We are currently working 
through a quality control process to evaluate the data; therefore, the 
data are not in a format that is readily shareable at this point.
    (67) Comment: Multiple peer reviewers suggested that the 
presentation of habitat modeling in the species report would be 
improved by including a more detailed discussion of how the habitat 
model was created. One peer reviewer specifically requested detail on 
which of the 22 environmental predictors considered were determined to 
be useful in predicting fisher habitat, as well as those that were 
identified as not making a significant contribution to the predictive 
power of the model. Another peer reviewer specifically requested 
information on model performance and parameter weighting. That peer 
reviewer also noted that there seemed to be more data available for 
California than Oregon and Washington, and recommended that the Service 
discuss the implications of that difference in data availability on 
model performance, interpretation, and results. A third peer reviewer 
noted that the habitat model seemed ``off'' for a portion of the 
Olympic Peninsula, and suggested the Service compare the baseline 
locality data to the model results.
    Our Response: We encourage these peer reviewers to read the updated 
white paper describing how the habitat model was developed (Habitat 
Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment 
Species Assessment, now included as Appendix B in the final Species 
Report). The appendix discusses the differences in data availability 
between California, Oregon, and Washington, and describes the variety 
of approaches (fitted Maxent, projected Maxent model, or expert model) 
we used to address these differences. We also added information 
regarding the variables that were selected by the Maxent process for 
use in the modeling regions where the Maxent models were used. We have 
not added detailed information about parameter weighting or model 
performance, as these are beyond the intended scope of the document.
    With regard specifically to Washington data in the habitat model, 
we acknowledge that the habitat model is an approximation of fisher 
habitat on the Olympic Peninsula, and that actual fisher use of the 
landscape may suggest different areas that are or are not likely to be 
used by fishers. However, fisher home range data on the Olympic 
Peninsula is based on the habits of the first reintroduced animals over 
an approximately 5-year period, and may not reflect all of the habitats 
that will be used by fishers in the future. Therefore, the habitat 
model has an appropriate level of accuracy for the purposes of our 
analysis. We thank the peer reviewer for providing the information, 
which will be useful in guiding future management decisions.
    (68) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that there were several 
factors not accounted for in the habitat models, including annual tree 
growth, the process by which forest stands develop into seral stages, 
the influence of natural disturbance events on the fisher and its prey, 
and the overall distribution and vulnerability of fisher prey.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that the habitat 
model did not account for every variable that might be useful for a 
comprehensive understanding of fisher habitat and its development over 
time. We note that we are not required to create the best possible 
information products, but rather, according to section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act, we are required to use the best available scientific and 
commercial information in determining a species' status under the Act. 
Here, we took the additional step of developing a seamless model of 
potential habitat quality for fishers across the west coast evaluation 
area.
    Every habitat model is not necessarily a simplification of reality. 
The type of model used and the particular simplifications to be made in 
a given model must be selected based on the purpose of the model, the 
input data available, and other practical considerations such as the 
timeframe allotted for the model's creation. The main purpose of our 
fisher habitat model was to identify areas on the landscape that might 
be expected to support some level of fisher presence, both within the 
current range of fishers and in the portions of the historical range 
where fishers are rare or absent. Therefore, where reliable fisher 
detection data were available, we used Maxent models, which are 
empirically fitted models widely used to answer questions of this 
nature. Where reliable fisher detection data were not available, we 
constructed an expert model, which is another standard type of model 
used in situations where empirically fitted models are not feasible. We 
note that, contrary to the peer reviewer's comment, we did incorporate 
information about prey distribution and diversity into the expert 
models. The dynamic, detailed models of habitat development suggested 
by the peer reviewer would be needlessly complex for the primary 
purpose of our modeling effort, although they might have been helpful 
in analyses of vegetation management (for which we did not use our 
fisher habitat model) and wildfire (for which we did use our habitat 
model, but with some caveats). However, even if a model of the type 
suggested by the peer reviewer were eminently appropriate for the 
purposes of our evaluation, such a model was not available for us to 
use.
    (69) Comment: One peer reviewer requested information on why the 
results of the habitat model used in the species report differed so 
widely from the model in Lewis and Hayes (2004).
    Our Response: The peer reviewer did not specify any particular 
differences between the two models. There are a number of differences 
in the overall framework and purpose for the two models, their input 
data, and the format of the output, as shown in maps of the two models' 
results. However, the

[[Page 22750]]

differences between the two models are relatively minor. Please see our 
response to Comment (220) for more information about two specific 
differences (i.e., the amounts of habitat at high elevations and in the 
Eastern Washington Cascades), and some of the general similarities 
between the two models.
    (70) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the habitat model was 
likely over parametrized, particularly in the portions of the analysis 
area where data are scarce, and that there were likely too few data 
points per model parameter for the scale at which the habitat model was 
being extrapolated.
    Our Response: We assume the peer reviewer may have mistakenly 
interpreted the methods for the expert models (used in areas where data 
were scarce or nonexistent) as applying also to the Maxent models (used 
in areas where data were available). The parameters the peer reviewer 
discusses were used in the expert models, but not in the Maxent models. 
The expert models were not fitted to data, and, therefore, the concept 
of over-parameterization is not applicable. We added more information 
about the variables used for the Maxent models to the document 
``Habitat Modeling Methods For The Fisher West Coast Distinct 
Population Segment Species Assessment,'' which is now included as 
Appendix B in the final Species Report.
    (71) Comment: One peer reviewer was concerned that private and 
industrial forest lands may have been poorly sampled for the data set 
used as inputs for the habitat model.
    Our Response: We disagree that private industrial forest lands were 
underrepresented in the data used as input for the habitat model. The 
data set we used was compiled from a number of sources, including 
surveys of private industrial forest lands. We have added more 
information on these data sources to the document ``Habitat Modeling 
Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment Species 
Assessment,'' which is now included as Appendix B in the final Species 
Report.
    (72) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that the method of 
relating survey results to predicted habitat by assigning occupancy to 
hexagons was potentially circular and involved too many assumptions. 
The peer reviewer asked: If fisher survey data were used to build the 
habitat model, wouldn't the hexagons with high-valued habitat also 
correspondingly contain a high number of positive surveys? Further, the 
peer reviewer was unable to determine whether the results showing 
negative surveys in modeled habitat supported or contradicted the 
Service's assertion that there is considerable habitat in the NCSO 
region that is unoccupied.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer is correct that the model was based 
on survey results, as was the hexagon analysis of the survey results. 
However, the model input data consisted of only positive detections 
that were filtered to a minimum nearest-neighbor distance of 3.1 mi (5 
km). The data set used in the hexagon analysis was a larger dataset 
that contained negative survey results and additional positive survey 
results that were not included in the model input data set. The hexagon 
analysis showed that there were quite a few areas of predicted habitat 
that had been surveyed for fishers, but only with negative results. 
There are several possible interpretations of this result that we took 
into consideration, such as:
    (1) The habitat model may have overpredicted the amount of suitable 
habitat in the NCSO region, and that these areas with negative surveys 
are not truly habitat, perhaps due to the influence of some factor that 
was not included in the set of environmental inputs to the model.
    (2) There may be unoccupied suitable habitat in the NCSO region, 
which we further discuss in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 
39). This possibility could, in turn, have multiple explanations, 
including a population that has not yet reached carrying capacity 
following the population reductions due to trapping in the early 20th 
century, or internal fragmentation preventing the population from 
occupying all available habitat within the NCSO region.
    (73) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the habitat model has 
assigned all forest lands within a Federal forest as high-quality 
habitat. The peer reviewer noted that this designation would make 
managing for fisher difficult on Federal lands.
    Our Response: The habitat model used in our evaluation was intended 
as an analysis tool, not as a management tool. As noted in our response 
to Comment (61), it is intended for use at the landscape scale, and 
should not be used at finer scales to identify forest stands to be 
treated or avoided.
Habitat Recruitment
    (74) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that the Service add an 
analysis of the effects of habitat recruitment to the final Species 
Report. One peer reviewer asserted that if only habitat losses are 
considered without any attempt to quantify gains, then the resulting 
analysis will significantly overestimate the degree of threat from 
logging and vegetation management practices. The second peer reviewer 
requested more information be added, particularly with regard to when 
the transition from existing low-quality forest to high-quality, late-
successional habitat might be expected. The peer reviewer acknowledged 
the inherent difficulties in estimating recruitment, but suggested an 
analysis on the differences in habitat recruitment for different land 
ownerships and forest management regimes, and suggested some potential 
methods for estimating total habitat recruitment.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter regarding the need to 
incorporate vegetation recruitment, which we have done in our final 
Species Report by incorporating the results of the NWFP 20-year late-
successional/old-growth monitoring results (Davis et al. 20XX, entire); 
this report, as well as additional sources, allowed us to estimate 
ingrowth within the analysis area. This report looks at changes in 
forests with old-forest structural characteristics for the past 20 
years (the extent of NWFP implementation), categorizing forest loss by 
different disturbance mechanisms, including timber harvest, and also 
recording ingrowth of older forests. This analysis also records 
activities on non-Federal as well as Federal ownership. Based on our 
analysis of the best available information regarding the availability 
of suitable habitat for fisher throughout the west coast states, 
including new information, we agree with the commenter that vegetation 
management is not a threat to fishers in the west coast States and 
that, ultimately, the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers is not 
threatened with extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
    (75) Comment: One peer reviewer believed that habitat recruitment 
needed to be considered for effects on fisher within the foreseeable 
future. The peer reviewer noted that within the period of foreseeable 
future detailed in the draft Species Report, many forests would develop 
characteristics suitable for occupation by fisher. The peer reviewer 
also noted that though the estimates of gross forest loss in the draft 
Species Report provide information on habitat disturbance, these 
calculations ignore potential forest growth. The peer reviewer provided 
information on forest growth rates and potential calculations for how 
to measure volume of forest added in the foreseeable future range used 
in the draft Species Report, and suggested adding that method or 
another to quantify forest recruitment to the final Species Report.

[[Page 22751]]

    Our Response: As stated in our draft Species Report, there is a 
high degree of uncertainty when modeling changes to forest conditions 
and the point at which the forested condition becomes suitable (Service 
2014, p. 86). We recognize that forested ecosystems are not static and 
that, if allowed to grow, forested stands may become suitable habitat 
for fisher. During our comment periods, we received information and 
suggestions for methods to use to estimate habitat recruitment for 
fisher. We have reviewed this information and incorporated it into the 
final Species Report. Included in the new scientific and commercial 
data available to us was the NWFP 20-year late-successional old-growth 
monitoring report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire); this report, as well as 
additional sources, allowed us to estimate ingrowth within the west 
coast States. As described in the conclusion of the ``Vegetation 
Management'' section of our final Species Report, while historical loss 
of older forests through timber harvest resulted in a substantial 
historical loss of fisher habitat, harvest volume has sharply declined 
since 1990, primarily on Federal lands, but on non-Federal ownership as 
well. Modeling in the southern Sierra Nevada region indicates that 
ingrowth of fisher habitat has replaced habitat loss by all 
disturbances in the southern Sierra Nevada region since 1990, resulting 
in a net gain of habitat since that time. On Federal lands in the NWFP 
region, habitat ingrowth has been greater than that lost due to timber 
harvest in all fisher subregions except for the western Oregon 
Cascades.
Maps/Sightings
    (76) Comment: Three peer reviewers discussed how the regional 
boundaries were drawn for Western Washington. One peer reviewer 
asserted that if the Olympic Mountains region was defined by elevation, 
the Quimper Peninsula and the Coastal Plains should not be separated. A 
second peer reviewer was unclear on the exact boundary of the Olympic 
Mountains region; the reviewer noted that Table 3 and Figure 11 in the 
draft Species Report present conflicting information on whether the 
eastern side of the Olympic Mountains was included in that region. A 
third peer reviewer recommended including the eastern Olympic Mountains 
in the Washington coast region rather than the Olympics Mountains 
region.
    The second peer reviewer also stated that the eastern Olympic 
Peninsula and the Kitsap Peninsula are more similar to each other than 
they are to the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough area, and that that 
portion of the peninsula has been frequently used by the reintroduced 
fisher population. The peer reviewer recommended that the entire 
Olympic Peninsula be included in the Coastal Washington subregion as 
outlined in the draft Species Report. The third peer reviewer 
recommended omitting the Kitsap Peninsula entirely due to human 
development.
    Our Response: Our draft Species Report relied upon geographic 
subregions as identified in a recent threats assessment specific to 
fisher conducted by Naney et al. (2012). We acknowledge that the 
regional boundaries used are an approximation of ecoregions that could 
potentially have been delineated differently. The peer reviewers 
correctly pointed out that there may be good reasons to have included 
portions of Puget Trough subregion into the Coastal Washington 
subregion instead. However, the analysis area subregions we utilized 
are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of our analysis. Therefore, 
in the final Species Report, we have retained the analysis area 
subregions, as originally presented.
    (77) Comment: Two peer reviewers provided feedback on Figure 4 in 
the draft Species Report. One peer reviewer suggested that Figure 4 
should be updated to clarify which of the more than 5,000 fisher 
records were used as the 456 verified records in the habitat model. The 
peer reviewer stated that a visual display of the two categories of 
records would also help by highlighting any potentially problematic 
areas on a geographic scale for the habitat model. The second peer 
reviewer requested that the 456 verified records be identified in 
Figure 4, or that a map showing just those records be added to the 
final Species Report.
    Our Response: We developed a supplement to the draft Species Report 
entitled ``Habitat Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct 
Population Segment Species Assessment'' by Fitzgerald et al. (2014, 
entire), which is included as Appendix B in the final Species Report. 
This methodology paper describes which locality records were used to 
model habitat as follows: ``Fisher detection points were filtered by 
removing non-verified detections (no physical evidence to verify fisher 
identification), detections prior to 1970, detections of translocated 
animals, and telemetry detections. Remaining localities were further 
filtered to ensure spatial independence by using a minimum nearest-
neighbor distance of 3.1 mi (5 km). If two or more detections were 
within 3.1 mi (5 km) of one another, the most reliable and recent was 
retained, or in case of a tie, by random selection. A total of 456 
detections remained after filtering for model calibration, with 72 from 
the Southern Sierra Nevada, 185 from the Klamath and Southern Cascades, 
and 199 from the California and Southern Oregon Coast'' (Fitzgerald et 
al. 2014, p. 2).
    We agree that a map showing which verified records were used in the 
habitat model could improve understanding of our habitat modeling 
methodology. This would be a good addition to Fitzgerald et al. 2014 
and will consider adding this map during future revisions to that 
document.
    (78) Comment: One peer reviewer objected to many of the categories 
of reliability ratings. The peer reviewer referenced a study by 
McKelvey et al. (2008), which states that for an area from where a 
species is believed to have been extirpated, only the most reliable 
ratings should be used (those defined in the species report as 
reliability rating 1). The peer reviewer noted that the draft Species 
Report mentions these issues, and that it is confusing that maps 
subsequent to that discussion still include all categories of 
reliability rating. The peer reviewer noted that the distinction 
between reliability ratings is particularly important in the gap 
between the NCSO and SSN populations, as there have been no confirmed 
(reliability rating 1) records in the central Sierra north of Yosemite 
since the nineteenth century. The peer reviewer recommended adding or 
revising maps (e.g., color coding, clarifying map legends) to clarify 
all of the reliability ratings within the proposed DPS, and overall 
increasing the number of maps in the report to include more that show 
the most reliable fisher detections.
    Our Response: We appreciate the opinion of the peer reviewer and 
concerns about appropriate use of reliability ratings to describe the 
contemporary distribution of fisher. We evaluated McKelvey et al. 
(2008), referenced by the peer reviewer, in our draft Species Report 
and used it in conjunction with Aubry and Lewis (2003, entire) to 
minimize the potential overestimation of the species' current 
distribution (Service 2014, p. 28). We have appropriately described and 
mapped the best available data in the area of concern expressed by the 
peer reviewer (i.e., the ``gap'' between the NCSO and SSN populations). 
In addition, we have added new information in the final Species Report 
on historical detections of fishers in the ``gap'' (Service 2016, pp. 
32, 39-40).
    We included a number of maps showing reliability ratings to 
visually

[[Page 22752]]

demonstrate the variation of the location data within historical and 
contemporary time periods. Figure 7 in the draft Species Report showed 
the locality records that we determined represent the best available 
information for the contemporary distribution of fisher (Service 2014, 
p. 31), and additional maps are not necessary to make this point.
Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat Surrogate
    Comment (79): Multiple peer reviewers and other commenters 
questioned the suitability of northern spotted owl habitat as a 
surrogate for fisher habitat in our draft Species Report, particularly 
noting that although the two species may overlap in terms of habitat 
requirements for breeding, in general fishers are capable of using a 
wider variety of habitats than northern spotted owls. They stated that 
using the northern spotted owl consultation data on habitat removed or 
degraded would thus lead to a potential overestimate of habitat loss 
for fishers. On the other hand, some peer reviewers (and other 
commenters) believed that northern spotted owl habitat is an 
appropriate surrogate for fisher habitat and represents the best 
available science. These peer reviewers (and commenters) believed that 
although the shortcomings of the approach were acknowledged and 
described, the Service should provide more detail in this regard. We 
received many peer review and public comments on this subject, 
expressing mixed opinions.
    Our Response: In our final Species Report, additional data were 
available that allowed us to evaluate the stressor of vegetation 
management without using northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate. 
The available data also allowed us to measure net vegetation change 
(that is, account for vegetation ingrowth), and address concerns raised 
regarding our previous analysis potentially overestimating habitat loss 
for fishers. The data used in our final analysis were the recently 
released NWFP 20-year late-successional old-growth monitoring report 
(Davis et al. 20XX, entire) within the analysis area covered by the 
NWFP (most of the proposed DPS except the Sierra Nevada and eastern 
portions of the Oregon and Washington Cascades), the Gradient Nearest 
Neighbor (GNN) vegetation trend analysis for that portion of the 
proposed DPS outside of the NWFP area, and fisher habitat trends 
associated with the southern Sierra Nevada fisher conservation 
strategy.
    (80) Comment: One peer reviewer called into question the initial 
calculation of northern spotted owl critical habitat, and believed that 
the issues with the owl analysis would be exacerbated when the model 
was extrapolated to predict fisher occupancy. The peer reviewer stated 
that the GNN modeling approach used in the northern spotted owl 
critical habitat rule was a poor predictor of owl occupancy in several 
forests in the fisher analysis area, and that the owl model did a poor 
job of estimating nesting and roosting habitat. The peer reviewer added 
that it may not be appropriate to use the northern spotted owl model 
outside the Sierra Nevada, and cited a report that demonstrated that 
the owl's roosting and nesting habitat outside of the Sierras was 
poorly predicted by the critical habitat model. The peer reviewer 
concluded that the northern spotted owl surrogate may underestimate 
required habitat for fisher, as northern spotted owls tend to forage in 
younger forest types outside of their core nesting and roosting 
habitat.
    Our Response: The commenter appears to have misunderstood the 
nature of the northern spotted owl habitat data used as a surrogate for 
our evaluation of fisher habitat negatively affected by management 
activities in our draft Species Report. We did not rely on designated 
critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; we used documented 
section 7 consultations on activities that removed or downgraded 
northern spotted owl habitat within the NWFP area as a proxy for 
estimating the potential effects of vegetation management on the loss 
of fisher habitat on Federal lands throughout the proposed DPS (Service 
2014, p. 88). In any case, our final Species Report does not rely on 
northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate for fisher habitat in any 
form, as better data became available to us. See also our response to 
Comment (79).
Population Estimates
    (81) Comment: One peer reviewer believed that the Service's use of 
genetic data to estimate an effective population size and then 
extrapolate to an actual population size was inappropriate. The peer 
reviewer demonstrated this belief by noting that the Service's 
estimates resulted in the NCSO population being substantially smaller 
than the SSN population, which contradicted the Service's 
characterization that the SSN population is vulnerable and is a smaller 
population than the NCSO population. Further, the peer reviewer stated 
that the number of fisher detections reported in the NCSO region make 
the Service's lower limit estimate appear flawed and unsupported.
    Our Response: Species face an increased vulnerability to extinction 
when the effective population size is low and where there is limited 
genetic exchange (Kyle et al. 2001, p. 343; Wisely et al. 2004, p. 
646). The effective population size is not an estimate of the entire 
population as a whole, rather it is an estimate of the breeding 
individuals in a population, often based on genetic information 
(Service 2014, p. 145). The current population information presented in 
the final Species Report is updated and presented in Species 
Information, above.
    Population size estimates provided in the draft Species Report 
(Service 2014, pp. 37-43) and final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 
42-53) come from multiple sources and were not all derived in the same 
manner. We use these estimates as the best available information for 
overall population size and recognize the uncertainty associated with 
these estimates. The estimate of NCSO population size as derived from 
the effective population size was at the lower end of the range of 
estimates for that population, as presented in the draft Species 
Report; we note that the upper range estimate of 4,018 individuals that 
was also presented well exceeds all estimates of population size for 
the SSN population. Updated population estimate information is found in 
the Species Information section of this document.
    The peer reviewer also raised a concern about an apparent disparity 
between the population size estimates and detections reported in the 
draft Species Report. We assigned a numerical reliability rating to 
each fisher detection and presented the locality records from 1993 to 
the present for detections with reliability ratings 1 and 2 in Figure 7 
of the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 28, 31). The locality 
data include information from research studies, Federal and non-Federal 
landowners, and members of the public. This data set includes more 
records than those presented (and ultimately extrapolated to population 
estimates) in the scientific studies conducted within portions of the 
proposed West Coast DPS subregions. Therefore, we understand the 
concern of the peer reviewer, but we do not agree that the difference 
between population estimates and detection data is flawed or otherwise 
undermines support for our conclusions.
    Throughout the draft and final Species Reports, we discuss the 
geographic extent of stressors potentially acting on the NCSO and SSN 
populations. The SSN population is at the southern extent of the 
species'

[[Page 22753]]

distribution and occupies a smaller overall area than the NCSO 
population, which is more central to the species' distribution. The 
separation of the SSN population from other populations in the proposed 
DPS's distribution may mean that this population is less able to 
respond to stochastic events than other populations (e.g., NCSO) 
(Service 2014, p. 145). Our assessment of the SSN and NCSO populations 
and potential stressors is based upon the best available scientific and 
commercial information.
Prey
    (82) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested adding a discussion of 
the impact of highly variable mast crops on prey variability. They also 
suggested further analysis on how those changes affect fisher prey in 
the SSN population given historical extirpation of prey species 
(porcupine and snowshoe hare) that are still available elsewhere in the 
fisher's range across the west coast States.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer did not provide specific references 
for us to consider regarding mast crops or the historical extirpation 
of prey in the SSN population. The draft Species Report acknowledges 
the potential impacts of Sudden Oak Death on fisher habitat and habitat 
for prey species (Service 2014, p. 72). As also noted in the draft 
Species Report, fishers are opportunistic predators and have a diverse 
diet (Service 2014, p. 13). Though porcupine and snowshoe hare numbers 
may be less abundant, as suggested by the peer reviewer, we did not 
find that prey were limited in the SSN population. Thus, an analysis of 
the impact of mast variability on fisher prey species in the SSN 
population is not necessary.
    (83) Comment: Two peer reviewers believe that the draft Species 
Report overlooked the positive effects that vegetation management has 
on the fisher prey base. One peer reviewer referenced several studies 
that found a positive effect on small mammal species from a variety of 
timber thinning activities. The peer reviewer noted that, although data 
are available to quantify the effect of thinning specifically on fisher 
prey, the data have not been analyzed, and so the importance of this 
factor as compared to other requirements (denning locations, other 
demographic factors) is not well understood.
    Our Response: We discussed the importance of a diversity of 
available forest conditions within fisher home ranges to increase their 
access to a greater diversity and abundance of prey species, as long as 
important habitat features supporting reproduction and thermoregulation 
are available (Service 2014, p. 14). We also reviewed the references 
cited by the peer reviewer (Verschuyl et al. 2011; Klenner and Sullivan 
2003; Waldien 2005; Carey and Wilson 2001), and the final Species 
Report incorporates information from these sources where applicable.
Reintroductions
    (84) Comment: One peer reviewer did not agree that there are any 
current indications from the Olympic National Park reintroduction (ONP 
population) that are encouraging, as was stated in the draft Species 
Report. The peer reviewer speculated that fisher may not survive at the 
ONP population, similar to the near extirpation of northern spotted owl 
in this same area, which has similar habitat needs as the fisher.
    Our Response: Based on a review of reintroduction results not 
referenced by this peer reviewer in his comments (Happe et al. 2014; 
Lewis 2014; Happe et al. 2015), we maintain our assessment that current 
indications from the reintroduced ONP population are encouraging. In 
the 7 years since animals were first translocated to ONP, researchers 
have found the reintroduced fishers to be widely distributed, 
reproducing, and in some cases long-lived. Habitat models suggest an 
adequate quantity of suitable habitat, and actual fisher use has 
included an even broader range of habitat, both in terms of elevation 
and age-class. We disagree with this peer reviewer's comparison to 
northern spotted owl survival for two reasons: first, spotted owls have 
experienced a severe threat from the invasion of barred owls that is 
not likely relevant to fishers. Second, although fishers do depend on 
many of the same habitat characteristics as northern spotted owls, as 
acknowledged in our final Species Report, fishers are not as 
specialized in their use of habitat and can make use of a broader range 
of habitats than can northern spotted owls.
    (85) Comment: One peer reviewer believes that the Service presented 
an accurate summary of available data on fisher reintroduction efforts. 
The peer reviewer asserted that reintroductions throughout California, 
Oregon, and Washington were the best method for reconnecting these 
populations to those in Canada.
    Our Response: The reintroduction of fishers into the west coast 
States is one means to augment the reestablishment of extirpated or 
depleted populations within their historical range. While it is too 
soon to determine if the new introductions are successful, we (and our 
partners) continue to monitor the stability of translocated fisher in 
the new reintroduction areas. The final Species Report identifies a 
number of stressors that may be acting on fisher in the analysis area, 
including the reintroduced populations. Though we are withdrawing our 
proposal to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as threatened, we will 
continue to monitor stressors as we develop management strategies and 
work with our partners toward the conservation of fisher throughout its 
range.
    (86) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that, although the draft 
Species Report cited research by Knaus et al. (2011), that study's main 
conclusion was not explicitly stated in the draft Species Report. The 
peer reviewer noted that mitochondrial DNA evidence supports the idea 
that fisher may have existed as disjunct populations rather than a 
metapopulation with continuous gene flow before European settlement. 
This molecular research may indicate that reestablishing fisher along 
the Sierra Nevada to allow for gene flow may not correspond with the 
history of the species, and has important implications for the proposed 
listing. The peer reviewer also noted that the conclusions from Knaus 
et al. (2011) may be in contradiction to a study by Drew et al. (2003), 
who supported reintroductions with fishers from British Columbia.
    Our Response: The final Species Report incorporates information 
from these comments. The source of fisher for potential future 
reintroductions is a management issue beyond the scope of the listing 
process.
    (87) Comment: One peer reviewer asked how a severity rating could 
be assigned to an area where no fishers are currently extant.
    Our Response: The severity of a stressor is the ``level of damage 
to fisher populations or their habitat that can reasonably be expected 
from the stressor . . .'' (Service 2014, p. 51). The commenter is 
correct--a severity rating is not appropriate where the species is 
assumed to be extirpated (e.g., Eastern Washington Cascades, Western 
Washington Cascades, and Coastal Oregon subregions) based on the best 
available information. In the final Species Report, we moved the 
analysis quantifying stressors to Appendix C and we instead provide a 
qualitative categorization of stressors to identify each stressor's 
magnitude of impacts to those fisher populations that are known to 
occur across the west coast States. Our explanation of this change and 
conclusions are outlined in detail in Background, above.

[[Page 22754]]

Rodenticides
    (88) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that rodenticide exposure 
from illegal marijuana grow sites in northern California and southern 
Oregon is a significant concern, although they believe the magnitude of 
impacts in Oregon are far lower than California. The peer reviewer also 
stated that recent legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington 
and Oregon may reduce the scope and severity of this threat across the 
proposed DPS. Similarly, another peer reviewer claimed that rodenticide 
impacts are an emerging threat to fishers in some parts of its range, 
but that it is speculative to consider the use of rodenticides to be an 
overall threat to fisher populations by relying on numerous assumptions 
(e.g., density of marijuana growing operations, whether each operation 
uses ARs).
    Our Response: We have reviewed the best scientific and commercial 
information available, including new information received, which 
enabled us to provide clarity and corrections in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159) and this document with respect to 
illegal marijuana grow sites and associated rodenticide exposure. The 
extent to which the legal use of ARs occurs at agricultural and 
commercial sites within the range of the fisher is unknown. Two fisher 
carcasses from Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, both of which 
tested positive, and only three fishers can be confidently documented 
to have been exposed in Washington. None of these were in the vicinity 
of a known marijuana grow, and the Washington fishers were found near 
rural areas where rodenticides could have been used legally.
    The contention that recent legalization of recreational marijuana 
in Washington and Oregon may reduce the scope and severity of this 
threat is unlikely (given the main application of this stressor has not 
been in Washington or Oregon), and it is too soon to tell what, if any, 
effect the recent legalization will have on illegal marijuana grow 
sites and exposure of fishers to rodenticides. There are, as yet, no 
rodenticide labels that allow application to marijuana as a crop; thus, 
any use of rodenticides within a marijuana grow, legal or otherwise, 
would be illegal under State and Federal laws.
    We note the uncertainty as to the severity of impact that this 
stressor may have, given data are minimal across Oregon and Washington 
in particular, including the lack of information rangewide regarding 
potential sublethal effects of toxicants to fishers within the proposed 
West Coast DPS (i.e., we only have information on 15 mortalities 
rangewide). Therefore, the best available information does not support 
concluding that these impacts rise to the level of a threat, based on 
the insufficient evidence that ARs are functioning as an operative 
threat on the fisher such that the proposed DPS is experiencing 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales.
    (89) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that the impact of 
rodenticides is a concern in particular to adult female fishers, 
although the data that demonstrate impacts (e.g., 4 of 58 radio-tagged 
individuals in California for one study were found dead from 
rodenticides) does not appear to represent a population- or DPS-wide 
impact. The peer reviewer is concerned about the high rate of 
rodenticide residues discovered in fishers. However, the peer reviewer 
noted that detection of these compounds does not prove that 
rodenticides are an etiologic (causal) agent of mortality. 
Additionally, the peer reviewer stated that secondary consequences of 
poisons on immune response, reproductive output, etc., have some 
uncertainties.
    Our Response: We have reviewed and added information on the 
potential for reproductive effects from rodenticide exposure to the 
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 156-159) and this document (see 
Exposure to Toxicants, above). Exposure to ARs has been documented to 
cause fetal abnormalities, miscarriages, and neonatal mortality in 
mammals. The timing of AR use at cultivation sites (April-May) may also 
be important, because this timeframe coincides with increased energetic 
requirements of pregnant or lactating female fishers, and the reduction 
of prey has been documented at illegal grow sites where ARs were 
applied. We also added information to the final Species Report on the 
sublethal effects of rodenticides, including the symptoms of toxicosis 
(Service 2016, pp. 150-157), which without treatment can lead to 
mortality. Symptoms include lethargy, anorexia, ataxia, anemia, 
lameness from bleeding in the joints, and difficulty breathing. 
Finally, we included a summary of the literature discussing the 
association between liver residue concentrations, symptoms of 
toxicosis, other adverse effects, and mortality.
    The new information we have evaluated provides clarity and 
corrections to some information presented in the draft Species Report, 
including the lack of information rangewide regarding potential 
sublethal effects of ARs to fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS 
(i.e., we have information on only 15 mortalities rangewide (Gabriel et 
al. 2015, p. 5; Wengert 2016, pers. comm.). Despite additional 
information regarding potential sublethal effects, the level of 
exposure that would be expected to result in such effects in fishers 
remains unknown. The best available information does not support a 
conclusion that these impacts rise to the level of a threat, based on 
our review of the best available data, which indicates that ARs are not 
functioning as an operative threat on the fisher (i.e., the proposed 
DPS is not experiencing significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales), currently or in the foreseeable future.
    (90) Comment: One peer reviewer was unable to determine the 
percentage of illegal marijuana grow sites at which ARs have been 
detected, as presented in the draft Species Report. Further, the peer 
reviewer stated that, if ARs are assumed to be at all sites, the 
Service overestimated the scope and severity of this threat.
    Our Response: We do not know the percentage of illegal marijuana 
grow sites where ARs have been detected. We also note the uncertainty 
as to the severity of impact that this stressor may have (including at 
illegal marijuana grow sites across the west coast States), given data 
are minimal across Oregon and Washington in particular. There is also a 
lack of information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of 
toxicants to fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS (i.e., we have 
information on only 15 mortalities rangewide; see our response to 
Comment (91)). Therefore, the best available information does not 
support a conclusion that these impacts rise to the level of a threat, 
our review of the best available data, which indicates that ARs are not 
functioning as an operative threat on the fisher (i.e., the proposed 
DPS is not experiencing significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales), currently or in the foreseeable future..
    (91) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that we explain the 
differences in prevalence of large marijuana grow operations using 
rodenticide between private and public lands. The peer reviewer also 
articulated that there is an unrecognized benefit to fisher from 
private forest management operations as a result of the increased 
scrutiny of private land area by managers and biologists, resulting in 
less likelihood of illicit marijuana grow sites on those lands.

[[Page 22755]]

Given the knowledge of grow operation locations from flight-based 
inventories, the peer reviewer ascertained that it could be possible to 
determine the proportion of large grow operations on private versus 
public lands, and incorporate the differences in the calculated 
stressors and impact categories.
    Our Response: Detection of grow operations from the air does not 
provide any information on whether or not rodenticides are being used. 
In addition, if rodenticides are used, air surveys would not identify 
which rodenticides are used or how much may be applied and when. 
Furthermore, there are no rodenticide labels that allow application to 
marijuana as a crop; thus, any use of rodenticides within a marijuana 
grow would be illegal under State and Federal laws.
Stressors
    (92) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the Service that 
reduction in the amount of late-successional forest had been 
responsible for the extirpation of fishers in Washington. The peer 
reviewer stated that trapping, fur harvest, and predator control 
efforts were in fact responsible for the disappearance of fishers in 
the State, particularly in Olympic National Park where logging did not 
occur.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer's assessment that 
trapping, fur harvest, and predator control efforts were predominantly 
responsible for the extirpation of fishers from Washington State. This 
situation is certainly true for areas that were not logged, like 
Olympic National Park, just as the peer reviewer suggests. The 
reduction of late-successional forests, however, is likely to have been 
a factor in the significant decline of fisher occupancy across some of 
Washington State, particularly in the Puget Trough and other areas now 
developed and densely populated. Our statement in the draft Species 
Report (p. 57) that the peer reviewer specifically disagreed with said, 
``a reduction in the amount of late-successional forests occurred . . . 
and has been implicated as a primary cause of fisher declines across 
the analysis area.'' We maintain that this sentence is correct; 
however, to clarify, this sentence is in reference to historical 
declines of fisher across the analysis area, because there have been 
numerous peer-reviewed journal articles that make this implication, and 
implications at the scale of the analysis area would not necessarily 
apply to mountainous regions in Washington State.
    (93) Comment: One peer reviewer recommended including a discussion 
of accidents (i.e., drowning, falls, being struck by limbs or trees, 
lightning strikes, wildfire) as natural sources of mortality. The peer 
reviewer specifically described documentation of 10 fishers jumping 
into large, empty tanks/bins on Green Diamond property, suggesting 
their natural curiosity, inquisitive attitude, and potential for 
``accident prone'' situations.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report included a discussion of 
natural causes of mortality for fishers (Service 2014, p. 10). The 
discussion highlights interspecific and intraspecific conflict and 
starvation as non-predation and non-disease related sources of natural 
mortality. While it is not feasible to provide an exhaustive list and 
analysis of all natural mortality sources in the final Species Report, 
we revised the information therein to include the data provided by the 
peer reviewer.
    (94) Comment: One peer reviewer thought it was not logical that the 
proposed listing rule considered disease and predation as naturally 
occurring sources of mortality, but did not consider naturally 
occurring wildfires or climate change the same way.
    Our Response: The distinction with regard to disease and predation 
is intended to underscore the fact that these are natural sources of 
mortality that are to be expected in every animal population, and to 
make the point that we would only consider these stressors to pose a 
threat to fisher if they were occurring at levels outside the range of 
normal variability. We agree that wildfire and climate change could 
potentially be considered natural processes; we did not specifically 
identify them as such here, however, because of the strong suggestion 
that these processes are synergistically intertwined and potentially 
elevated above natural background levels due to anthropogenic forcing. 
In any case, whether we call a stressor ``naturally occurring'' or not 
has no bearing on our analysis; whether naturally occurring or 
otherwise, we evaluate all stressors under the same standard as laid 
out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether a species may 
meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species as 
a consequence of the effects of that stressor.
    (95) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the draft Species 
Report's estimate of 90-95 percent scope for loss of late-successional 
forest for Coastal Washington was too high. The peer reviewer requested 
clarification on whether areas such as national parks, high-elevation 
forests, or other remote areas were included in the calculation of 
scope.
    Our Response: The data used to estimate scope for loss of late-
successional forests from past activities and disturbances comes from 
Bolsinger and Waddell (1993, p. 3). The authors found that less than 10 
percent of logging or other activities occurred in old-growth stands on 
National Forests in Oregon and Washington combined, indicating that 
these stands were generally undisturbed (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993, p. 
8). As the draft Species Report states (Service 2014, pp. 57-58), we 
assumed that timber harvest occurred ubiquitously on both public and 
private land in the past, except for in national parks, high-elevation 
areas, and more remote inaccessible areas. In addition, the Coastal 
Washington region has been highly urbanized throughout the Puget Trough 
for a long time. Therefore, we disagree with the peer reviewer that an 
estimate of 90-95 percent scope is unreasonable. However, for reasons 
described earlier in this document, in the final Species Report we have 
changed our evaluation of scope and severity from quantitative values 
to qualitative values, so we no longer refer to a scope of 90-95 
percent.
    (96) Comment: One peer reviewer believed that the scope of the 
stressor for research was overestimated in Coastal Washington. The peer 
reviewer provided information from a study on the rates of collar 
shedding and mortalities, and other information on research practices 
(which do not include trapping or anaesthetizing fishers).
    Our Response: The draft Species Report identified a number of 
factors that were considered as potential lethal or sublethal effects 
of research-related activities on fisher (Service 2014, p. 113). We 
similarly acknowledged that research in Coastal Washington does not 
involve live-trapping, but that fishers in this reintroduced population 
are exposed to radio-collar related stressors. We based our scope and 
severity analyses on the best available information at the time, which 
included survival rates and population growth estimates. The 
information provided by the peer reviewer indicates that eight fishers 
shed their collars and none of the recovered mortalities in the study 
area were collar-related.
    The draft Species Report provided the figures used to determine the 
scope of research-related stressors in Coastal Washington (Service 
2014, p. 114). The draft Species Report used the data from ongoing 
research in the SSN and NCSO populations to calculate severity for 
research-related stressors (Service 2014, p. 114). We have updated our 
analysis in the final Species Report to include

[[Page 22756]]

the information specific to Coastal Washington provided by the peer 
reviewer. In addition, we have changed from a quantitative to a 
qualitative assessment of stressors.
    (97) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned why the scope and 
stressors focused only on negative changes in fisher populations. The 
peer reviewer asked if there were any forecast circumstances that were 
expected to result in positive changes for fishers.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer is correct that the draft Species 
Report defined stressors as those activities or processes resulting in 
the ``destruction, degradation, or impairment of west coast fisher 
populations or their habitat'' (Service 2014, p. 46). Within the 
discussion of both wildfire and vegetation management, however, we do 
identify positive elements. For example, in our draft Species Report we 
identified wildfire as having the potential to increase vegetative 
diversity and create snag and down wood habitat elements (Service 2014, 
p. 59). Further, we indicated that not all vegetation management 
activities are ``detrimental to fisher habitat, depending upon their 
objectives and implementation'' (Service 2014, p. 87). The beneficial 
effects of wildfire and vegetation management may be realized later in 
time, such as while vegetation that remains post-fire or vegetation 
treatment recovers, or while prey communities respond to understory 
treatments. Our final Species Report presents an expanded discussion on 
these topics.
    (98) Comment: One peer reviewer asked why the scope and severity 
impacts for each stressor were not combined to calculate an overall 
numeric impact, or ranked according to severity of threat to the 
fisher.
    Our Response: As described more fully elsewhere in this document, 
we found that our initial quantification of stressors required us to 
make assumptions or extrapolate impacts in an effort to quantify 
stressors in areas where stressor-specific information was not 
available. We believe our presentation of the scope and severity of 
stressors in quantitative terms may have created a false sense of 
precision with regard to the level of scientific accuracy underlying 
these estimates. To avoid this perception, in our final Species Report 
we use a qualitative approach to describe stressors (i.e., stressors 
are categorized as low, moderate, or high, as defined in that Report). 
We use quantitative data wherever available, but if specific data are 
lacking, we rely on qualitative evidence to derive a qualitative 
descriptor of each stressor, based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, rather than extrapolating. See the 
introductory text to the ``Magnitude of a Stressor's Impact'' 
discussion under the ``Review of Stressors'' section of the final 
Species Report.
Synergistic (Cumulative) Effects
    (99) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that climate change and 
its secondary effects, including effects on wildfire regimes, pose the 
most serious long-term threat to fisher populations in California.
    Our Response In our draft Species Report, we concluded that the 
synergistic effects of climate change and wildfire combined with forest 
insect and disease agents may cause widespread ecotype conversions. We 
similarly acknowledged that habitat loss may be greater in some 
subregions due to synergistic effects, and identified synergistic 
increases in wildfire associated with climate change as a population-
level stressor (Service 2014, p. 171). However, upon review and 
consideration of all of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including comments and new information received during the 
open comment periods on our proposed rule, we now acknowledge the 
possibility of widespread ecotype conversions, but additionally 
recognize the uncertainty associated with such predictions in regard to 
their specific effects on fishers or fisher habitat. In addition, we 
recognize the uncertainty surrounding the timeframe within which such 
conversions are likely to occur, should they do so. We do not have 
evidence to suggest that synergistic increases in wildfire associated 
with climate change are resulting in any significant impacts at either 
the population or rangewide scales, nor does that information suggest 
significant impacts at these scales in the foreseeable future. Overall, 
taking all of this information into consideration, we conclude that we 
do not have sufficient evidence to suggest that the synergistic effects 
of these stressors were such that we consider fishers to be in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, 
now or within the foreseeable future. Please also see our response to 
Comment (1), above.
    (100) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we consider using 
the term ``compounded effects'' instead of synergistic effects, given 
that the analysis of stressors does not address additivity or 
potentiation.
    Our Response: The term synergistic effect is used to describe the 
situation when one or more stressors exacerbate the effects of another 
stressor, causing effects that are greater than the sum of individual 
stressors. Similarly, we use the term cumulative effect to address the 
additive or compensatory effects of multiple stressors. These terms 
appropriately describe how multiple stressors may interact with one 
another. We appreciate the reviewer's point that synergistic effects 
are not necessarily the same as compounded effects.
    (101) Comment: One peer reviewer requested that the Service add an 
analysis of the synergistic effects between human development in 
vegetation management, particularly in wildland/urban interfaces. The 
peer reviewer pointed out that, in those areas, vegetation management 
and fuels treatment are often especially aggressive in order to prevent 
wildfire. The peer reviewer asked if the Service had considered this 
point in its conclusion that human development is of low concern to 
fishers and their habitat.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer and have added this 
consideration in the Synergistic effects section of the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 160-162).
Wildfire
    (102) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that it is inappropriate 
to present predicted habitat loss to wildfire in such definitive terms, 
such as a projected 8-fold increase in area burned in the Western 
Washington Cascades over the next 60 years, because the models on which 
this projection are based are subject to great variability. As 
presented in the draft Species Report, the peer reviewer stated the 
analysis implies that the Service has greater precision in our 
predictions than is actually available, especially in west-side 
forests. The peer reviewer said the same applies to projections made in 
the draft Species Report with regard to the projected increases of fire 
severity and extent in response to climate change. The peer reviewer 
suggested that the best analysis to date on this subject is Gedalof et 
al. (2004).
    Our Response: We agree that providing a quantitative estimate of 
scope and severity--even with a broad range of potential values--
implies that we have greater precision in our assessment than is 
accurate. As a result, in our final Species Report we describe what is 
known and what is not known about the scope and severity of each 
stressor in qualitative terms, as supported by the best available 
scientific and commercial information.
    (103) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the 
characterization of the stressor of naturally occurring wildfires. The 
peer reviewer stated that wildfire should be considered ``an

[[Page 22757]]

ecological disturbance that results in a potential long-term habitat 
enhancement rather than a short-term negative stressor.'' The peer 
reviewer also disagreed with the Service's discussion of wildfire 
suppression in the context of fisher habitat degradation (e.g., snag 
removal, fire breaks), stating it was more appropriate to view large-
scale wildfire suppression as the removal of a naturally ecological 
process that creates fisher habitat over the long term.
    Our Response: We appreciate and understand the peer reviewer's 
perspective of short-term and long-term effects of wildfire to fisher 
habitat. Fire severity is one determinant of whether fire impacts are 
more likely to be short-term or long-term, as well as the potential for 
benefits to fisher habitat from fire. We assume that the peer reviewer, 
in stating that large-scale fire suppression removes fire as a 
naturally occurring ecological process, was really referring to decades 
of fire exclusion as removing a naturally occurring ecological 
process--that is, long-term (over the course of decades) suppression of 
fires to the degree that has changed forest structure and composition 
and has changed associated fire behaviors--not the direct effects of 
individual fire suppression actions that can remove fisher habitat. If 
this is a correct assessment of the peer reviewer's comment, we concur 
with the peer reviewer and recognize that wildfire is part of a natural 
disturbance regime and that fishers evolved in forests subject to 
wildfires. Similarly, we understand that western forests are highly 
managed and decades of suppression activities have moved some forests 
away from historical fire return intervals and fire severities. We have 
expanded our discussion of the effects of wildfire in the final Species 
Report to ensure it is a balanced discussion of both the potential 
negative and positive effects of fire.
    (104) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the draft Species 
Report's emphasis on wildfire as having a negative effect on fisher 
habitat, and believed that the report overemphasized the negative 
aspects of fire without discussing the benefits of fire. Additionally, 
the peer reviewer stated that ongoing wildfire suppression on public 
lands and limitation of controlled burns on private lands is likely to 
have the greatest negative impact to fisher habitat by prohibiting the 
creation of late-seral habitat elements (e.g., cavities, basal hollows, 
and structural deformities) on which the fisher and other species rely.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct--our draft Species Report 
does place an emphasis on the negative aspects of wildfire as it 
pertains to fisher habitat. There are few studies on fisher use of 
burned landscapes (e.g., Hanson 2013, entire) and hypotheses by others 
(e.g., Powell and Zielinski 1994, p. 64) that timber management may 
replicate the effects of small stand-replacing fires on fisher. The 
lack of peer-reviewed information specific to this subject limits our 
ability to do more than speculate on potential benefits of wildfire to 
fisher. We do recognize, however, that wildfire can be beneficial to 
forested ecosystems that fisher inhabit. For example, low-severity 
fires may increase understory vegetative diversity and create coarse 
woody debris (Service 2014, pp. 59), which are beneficial to fisher 
prey species and provide a source for den and rest structures for 
fisher.
    Wildfire suppression often includes the removal of snags or other 
large trees, but the scales at which this happens vary (Service 2014, 
p. 61). On the other hand, fire also creates many of the structural 
elements that are of concern to the commenter. While some of these 
elements may be removed by suppression activities, recruitment of these 
elements also occurs as a result of fire. We have expanded our 
discussion of the effects of wildfire in the final Species Report to 
ensure it is a balanced discussion of both the potential negative and 
positive effects of fire.
    (105) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the Service's 
characterization in the draft Species Report that high-severity 
wildfire has the potential to ``permanently remove suitable fisher 
habitat'' and that wildfire is likely to remove habitat for a period of 
many decades. The peer reviewer disagreed with this characterization 
because fisher habitat should be viewed as dynamic, in part because 
wildfire has the potential to create ideal fisher habitat with a mosaic 
of older pockets of forest with ample opportunities for denning and 
resting, and young seral stages with an abundance of food for fishers.
    Our Response: High-severity wildfire is more likely to remove 
forest cover from large blocks of habitat, which in the post-fire 
landscape, lack the canopy cover and structural elements needed by 
fisher (Jones and Garton 1994, pp. 380-382; Weir and Harestad 1997, pp. 
257-258; Weir and Corbould 2008, p. 2). Several decades may be needed, 
depending upon forest type, to regrow forests that contain the canopy 
cover and structures associated with fisher habitat. We agree that 
fisher habitat is dynamic, but we recognize that there is not universal 
agreement regarding either the historical occurrence or potential 
impacts of high-severity fire with regard to fisher habitat. In our 
final Species Report, we have incorporated additional discussion of the 
various viewpoints from different researchers on this subject. For 
example, we note that in Sierra mixed-conifer forests, some researchers 
suggest that a historical fire regime characterized by mixed-severity 
fires, with high-severity fires occurring at moderate to long 
intervals, may have produced the heterogeneous forests with abundant, 
dense, late-successional habitat characteristics favored by fishers 
(Hanson 2013; Baker 2014; Cocking et al. 2014).
    (106) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that there is no evidence 
in the literature that fishers need or can persist in large homogenous 
blocks of late-successional or old-growth coniferous forests. Thus, the 
peer reviewer believed that wildfire in the absence of or limitations 
on salvage should be viewed as natural disturbance events that may have 
some short-term impacts, but overall positive, long-term impacts that 
help maintain a dynamic landscape that meets all the necessary habitat 
needs for fishers.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report does not state that fishers 
require large homogenous blocks of late-successional or old-growth 
forests, nor did we mean to imply this. We agree that wildfire is a 
natural disturbance that may have short-term and long-term impacts to 
fisher habitat, some of which are likely to be beneficial. Please also 
see our responses to Comments (103), (104), and (105), above.
    (107) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the standard 
terminology for grading severity of fire is now low, high, and mixed 
severity, and referred us to Halofsky et al. (2011). The peer reviewer 
noted that the term ``mixed severity'' allows for patches of different 
severities, and subsumes the terms ``moderate'' and ``medium.'' 
Depending on the spatial scale of analysis, the peer reviewer believed 
it is possible that most fire in the regions of interest is of mixed 
severity. Finally, the peer reviewer stated that the distributions of 
patch sizes are important, given that large, high-severity patches may 
fragment habitat even if they are not the dominant severity.
    Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this information, and 
have incorporated it into our final Species Report.
    (108) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that Tables 6 and 7 in 
the draft Species Report, which presented

[[Page 22758]]

the estimated scope and severity of wildfire-related stressors, were 
faulty and overestimated the percent of available habitat likely to 
burn over the next 40- and 100-year time periods. They stated that this 
error is because the projections were based on extrapolations from past 
burns, which did not account for areas that may have burned more than 
once. The peer reviewer suggested that these projections could be 
corrected by using GIS to overlay the 27 years of available Monitoring 
Trends in Burn severity (MTBS) mapping data and adjusting for burned 
areas that might otherwise be counted twice, leading to inflated future 
estimates. The peer reviewer also suggested the Service consider Kolden 
et al. (2012) for information on accounting for the proportion of 
unburned area within fires.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report explained that short fire-
return intervals in the Sierra Nevada, NCSO population, Eastern Oregon 
Cascades, and Eastern Washington Cascades could lead to the 
overestimation (i.e., double counting) of scope for wildfire (Service 
2014, p. 63). We also noted that the area burned per year is likely to 
increase, causing an underestimation of scope for wildfire (Service 
2014, p. 63). While not stated in the draft Species Report, this 
observation implies that the overestimation and underestimation offset 
one another.
    We appreciate the suggestions from the peer reviewer regarding how 
we may improve our assessment of scope and severity for wildfires. As 
explained in the Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal and Determination 
sections of this document, in our final Species Report, we did not rely 
upon quantitative estimates of scope and severity, as we concluded they 
conveyed a false sense of precision. We have revised our assessment of 
the stressors in the final Species Report accordingly and considered 
the peer reviewer's comments in our assessment.
    (109) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the use of a study 
by Hanson (2013, entire) that discussed the fisher's use of landscapes 
post-fire. The peer reviewer asserted that this study was unreliable 
and urged the Service to find other peer-reviewed literature on this 
subject to add to the final Species Report.
    Our Response: Peer-reviewed literature on fisher use of burned 
landscapes is minimal. While the peer reviewer may not agree with 
Hanson (2013, entire), it is one of the only peer-reviewed, published 
research studies available documenting observations of fisher using 
burned areas. We received numerous pieces of information during the 
comment periods for the proposed rule, some of which included recent 
study results on fisher use of burned landscapes (both peer-reviewed 
and published and unpublished observations). The final Species Report 
has been updated to reflect this information as appropriate.
    (110) Comment: One peer reviewer believed that the draft Species 
Report overemphasized the negative effects of fire while 
underemphasizing the benefits of fire. The peer reviewer recommended 
that the final Species Report provide a more thorough discussion of the 
benefits of fire, such as the creation of downed wood and other denning 
structures, the increase of prey abundance, and specific benefits of 
fire found in Oregon forests.
    Our Response: We agree, and have attempted to provide a more 
balanced discussion of the effects of fire in the final Species Report, 
including both detrimental and beneficial effects with regard to 
suitable fisher habitat throughout the analysis area. Please also see 
our responses to Comments (103), (104), and (105), above.

Other Comments Received (Federal, State, Local Government, Tribal, 
Public)

Adult Survival
    (111) Comment: One commenter presented new information that, 
although the overall population trend was stable to increasing in the 
Hoopa study (Higley et al. 2013), estimates were declining for male-
only annual population estimates, male survival, and male-only lambda. 
The commenter suggested the primary reason for these declines could 
possibly be related to AR poisoning associated with illegal marijuana 
cultivation.
    Our Response: We thank the commenter for pointing out this 
information about decreasing male population estimates, survival, and 
population growth rates on the Hoopa study area that had not been 
included in the draft Species Report. The final Species Report reflects 
this information but notes there is no direct evidence to support the 
suggestion that AR poisoning may be the cause.
Climate Change
    (112) Comment: One Federal agency suggested that an explanation for 
the absence of fishers in the central and northern Sierra Nevada is 
likely due to a combination of differences in vegetation disturbance 
regimes (including wildfire), flat topography in the north, and extreme 
temperatures in the north. The agency stated that: (1) Resting sites 
tend to be on steep slopes in canyons rather than ridges and close to 
water, as reported by Zielinski et al. (2004); and (2) denning sites 
are in heavily forested areas with dense canopy cover, on steep slopes, 
and in areas with low summer temperatures. The agency also stated that 
this information supports the fisher's preference of areas with low 
heat loads and reduced temperature variability. The agency noted that 
the scope and severity of the potential threat of climate change is 
likely to be different as there are significant differences in 
vegetative ecology, topography, and climate from northern to southern 
Sierra Nevada. Additionally, the agency claimed that genetic evidence 
points to a 1,000-year or more genetic differentiation between fishers 
in the southern Cascade Range and those in the southern Sierra Nevada. 
Thus, the agency claimed that it is reasonable to assume that there 
were and continue to be some vegetative or climate-based causative 
factors for this separation and contraction of the fisher range.
    Our Response: The Federal agency's comment is contributing to the 
discussion in the draft and final Species Reports regarding the reason 
for the long-term separation between fishers in the SSN population and 
those in the southern Cascade Range in California. Researchers (e.g., 
Tucker et al. 2012, p. 12) found the reasons for this gap 
``perplexing,'' but postulate that the steeper terrain in the southern 
Sierra Nevada, which discouraged human settlement, may be a factor. The 
Federal agency provides some speculation as to differences between the 
two areas that may contribute to the gap between the two fisher 
populations. However, based on our evaluation of the best scientific 
and commercial information available at this time, we are withdrawing 
the proposed rule to list the DPS (see Determination, above). If in the 
future we reconsider listing fishers in the west coast States, we will 
consider the potential relevance of these comments regarding the causes 
of the separation between fishers in the Cascade Range and the southern 
Sierra Nevada.
    (113) Comment: The State of Oregon acknowledged that climate change 
is an issue of global significance, stating that it is not certain 
whether climate change will result in negative effects to the fisher. 
The State claimed that more focused research is needed on the effect of 
climate change on many species, including the fisher, to more 
accurately predict the specific effects of climate change on the west 
coast. Thus, the State asserted that a Federal listing under the Act 
would not reduce the risk

[[Page 22759]]

to fisher from climate change. Alternatively, another public commenter 
requested that we specifically recognize climate change as a threat in 
the final rule.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act sets forth the factors 
used to evaluate whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. The current and future 
effects of climate change were identified as a stressor to fisher 
(Service 2014, pp. 72-85; 148-151); in particular, changes in habitat 
due to wildfire are expected to be exacerbated by the effects of 
climate change (Service 2014, pp. 79-80). While we recognized the 
effects of climate change as an ongoing and future stressor, we did not 
in the proposed rule and currently do not identify climate change 
effects in and of themselves as a threat to the fisher (see Climate 
Change, above). We do not dispute the projected changes in climate as 
modeled by the IPCC report; however, the best available scientific and 
commercial information does not allow us to make specific predictions 
of the changes in climate and the future response of fishers or their 
habitat.
    (114) Comment: Several commenters claimed that climate change 
impacts on fishers in the west coast States are real and likely 
profound, and should be considered by the Service as one of many 
factors impacting the survival of this already threatened species. 
Further, two of these commenters specifically spoke to climate change's 
influence on wildfire, indicating that climate change will result in an 
increase in large, high-severity wildfires with longer and drier fire 
seasons.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (10) above. In 
addition, we have added discussion to our final Species Report of the 
potential synergistic effects of climate change and wildfire, and 
incorporated the results of new research provided to us as a 
consequence of peer reviewer and public comment.
Collision With Vehicles
    (115) Comment: One commenter and one Federal agency expressed their 
concerns about fisher collisions with vehicles as a well-documented 
source of mortality and threat to fisher conservation, which is 
contrary to our conclusion in the draft Species Report and proposed 
rule. In cooperation with the Sierra National Forest and Yosemite 
National Park, the public commenter, who participates on a Vehicle 
Collision subgroup of the Southern Sierra Fisher Working Group, helped 
develop and implement mitigation measures to reduce roadkill mortality 
along Wawona Road/State Highway 41 (which is a location that the 
Federal agency noted is an example of a moderate-to-heavy traffic 
traverse in high-quality fisher habitat). The commenter stated that in 
the SSN population at least 21 known fisher mortalities from collisions 
with vehicles have occurred within the past 2 decades, including 9 in 
the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project study area on the Sierra 
National Forest, 10 in Yosemite National Park, and 2 in Sequoia-Kings 
Canyon National Parks (Spencer et al. 2015; Otto 2015, pers. comm.). 
The commenter also expressed concern that fisher collisions with 
vehicles will likely become more severe over time as the number and 
size of roads increase, thereby further limiting fisher dispersal among 
historically connected populations.
    Our Response: We agree that fisher collisions with vehicles are a 
stressor that causes injury and mortality. This issue appears to be 
localized where fisher home ranges overlap highways that have high 
speed limits and traffic density, which is the case with State Highway 
41 within and south of Yosemite National Park. This stretch of highway 
is responsible for 38 percent of the 34 known fisher highway 
mortalities in California between 1993 and 2013 (Sweitzer et al. 2015b, 
p. 10). No other single road is known to result in this level of fisher 
mortality, and we do not foresee the construction of any significant 
number of similar high-speed, high-density roads within the fisher's 
range. As a result, the current magnitude of this stressor is not 
likely to have an overall significant impact at either the population 
or rangewide scales such that the stressor rises to the level of a 
threat to the proposed DPS. Please see our updated discussion in the 
``Collision With Vehicles'' section of this document and the final 
Species Report.
Completeness and Accuracy
    (116) Comment: The State of Oregon indicated that the draft Species 
Report did a good job of summarizing known fisher detections; however, 
it was not clear which areas were surveyed that did not result in 
fisher detections.
    Our Response: Figure 6 in the draft Species Report included all 
opportunistic and systematic surveys, as well as trapping efforts and 
other reports since 1993. In comparing Figure 6 and Figure 7 (which 
presents all locality records from 1993 to present with reliability 
ratings 1 and 2), the difference between these two figures represents 
the areas where surveys or trapping efforts have occurred, but fishers 
have not been detected since 1993. We have revised the legends to 
Figures 6 and 7 in the final Species Report to reflect this 
information.
    (117) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service's review 
process was incomplete at the time of the proposed rule because the 
wealth of data and knowledge available on fishers in the California 
portion of the proposed DPS was not incorporated in the analysis. A 
second commenter described the draft Species Report as incomplete with 
an insufficient accounting of available data, and had omissions of 
information that was misleading to the public. Alternatively, another 
commenter stated that the Service provided sufficient information in 
the draft Species Report and proposed rule to demonstrate that the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is in need of protections under the 
Act. One Federal agency also supported the accuracy and quality of the 
data used for the threats analysis (describing a sufficient description 
of the magnitude and overall immediacy of threats).
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to 
use the best available scientific and commercial information in 
determining a species' status under the Act. We developed the draft 
Species Report by synthesizing and analyzing the best available data. 
Due to internal review processes, there was a lag time between the 
completion of the draft Species Report and the publication of the 
Federal Register document. Since then, we have received and analyzed a 
significant amount of new information, including information we 
obtained through the two comment periods, new literature publications, 
and some older publications published prior to the proposed listing 
rule of which we were not aware. Consequently, our final Species Report 
represents a review and synthesis of all of the best available 
scientific and commercial information.
    (118) Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the Service 
has delayed listing the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher.
    Our Response: We have not delayed listing the fisher. We have 
followed the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements that govern 
adding species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In 
2004, we determined the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher warranted 
listing (69 FR 18769, April 8, 2004), but immediate action to list the 
DPS was precluded by other higher priority listing actions at that 
time. The proposed DPS became a candidate for listing with a listing 
priority number (LPN) of 6 which reflected high magnitude but non-
imminent threats. Each year after 2004,

[[Page 22760]]

the proposed DPS was reevaluated and candidate status reaffirmed with 
the same LPN. We continued to closely track the status of the proposed 
DPS, and if an emergency situation had developed, would have moved 
quickly to invoke protections of the Act as appropriate. As a result of 
the 2010 MDL agreements (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline 
Litig., Misc. Action No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C.)), 
the proposed listing rule for the West Coast DPS of fisher was 
scheduled to be, and was, submitted to the Federal Register in fiscal 
year 2014, publishing on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419). As a result of 
the comments received on the proposed rule, we have evaluated all of 
the best scientific and commercial information available. We have 
determined that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is not in danger 
of extinction now nor is it likely to become in danger of extinction in 
the foreseeable future. Therefore, through this document, we withdraw 
the proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher.
Critical Habitat
    (119) Comment: Several commenters requested that the Service 
finalize the proposed listing rule and also designate critical habitat 
(some noting specific areas they believe are critical for the taxon or 
factors that the Service should consider). Some of these commenters 
specifically requested that the Service designate critical habitat 
concurrent with the time of listing because they anticipate additional 
impacts to the fisher and its habitat associated with continued logging 
activities.
    Our Response: On October 7, 2014, the Service published a proposed 
rule to list the fisher and made a finding that critical habitat was 
not determinable for the species (79 FR 60419). A not determinable 
finding allows us one additional year to either propose critical 
habitat or find critical habitat is not prudent. Since we are 
withdrawing the proposed rule rather than finalizing the listing of the 
West Coast DPS of fisher, we will not be designating critical habitat 
for the DPS.
    (120) Comment: Two commenters agreed with the Service's finding 
that a critical habitat designation was not determinable. One commenter 
stated that given substantial uncertainty concerning the proposed DPS 
application to west coast fisher populations (e.g., potentially 
excluding most of Oregon and Washington and distinguishing between 
California populations), it is not appropriate to propose critical 
habitat when taxonomic, genetic, functional, geographic, and 
conservation boundaries are uncertain. Alternatively, the second 
commenter urged the Service to reconsider its ``not determinable'' 
finding, stating that critical habitat should be designated at the very 
least in the southern Sierra Nevada and northwestern California.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule to list the species, we stated 
that the information sufficient to perform a required analysis of the 
impacts of the critical habitat designation is lacking due to the 
considered DPS alternatives and our request to seek public and peer 
review input on these alternatives (79 FR 60419). In our evaluation of 
the best scientific and commercial information available at this time, 
described in the Determination section, above, we have determined the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species. Therefore, we are withdrawing the 
proposed rule to list the DPS and we will not be issuing a proposal to 
designate critical habitat.
Current Conservation Efforts
    (121) Comment: One Federal agency urged the Service's consideration 
of the Southern Sierra Nevada Conservation Strategy for the final 
Species Report and decision, including non-specific beneficial actions 
and fisher-specific conservation measures.
    Our Response: We considered drafts of the Southern Sierra Nevada 
Fisher Conservation Strategy because the strategy was not finalized 
until shortly before our publication of this document. Unfortunately, 
the contents and recommendation in this strategy have not yet been 
adopted by the Forest Service.
    (122) Comment: The State of Washington, one tribe, one Federal 
agency, and one other commenter declared that listing the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher in Washington is unlikely to significantly improve 
the recovery of the species and would instead hinder its recovery. For 
example, the State expressed concerns that its ongoing fisher recovery 
program, which is implemented with numerous conservation partners, 
could be hindered or slowed as a consequence of a Federal listing. The 
State of Washington articulated that the program is expected to recover 
the fisher in Washington, allow WDFW to remove the fisher from the 
State endangered species list, and also preclude the need to federally 
list the species under the ESA. The tribe and Federal agency 
highlighted the recovery work being conducted by WDFW, NPS, the Forest 
Service, and other partners, which includes addressing recovery needs 
associated with private timberlands and tribal governments that are 
willing to participate in fisher recovery. All commenters expressed 
concern that if a Federal listing is finalized, the current support of 
partners will wane or possibly fail because of the added risk of 
additional regulations for reintroduced fishers occupying their lands, 
or that future reintroductions of fishers from British Columbia (via 
the current strong partnership between Federal and State agencies with 
the British Columbia Ministry of Environment in Canada) could be 
affected. Further, the Federal agency emphasized the existing 
monitoring and management activities that benefit the fisher could be 
impacted by the additional regulatory burden associated with a Federal 
listing. The State requested that the Service delineate a DPS boundary 
that does not include the State of Washington. One public commenter 
also championed completion of the draft CCAA in Washington to ensure 
the conservation of fishers in the State.
    Our Response: We fully support and encourage the development of a 
CCAA to ensure the conservation of fisher in the State of Washington; 
such an agreement will provide benefits to both the proposed DPS and 
our conservation partners, and may help to preclude any need for 
listing in the future. We recognize that our conservation partners may 
be less likely to cooperate with reintroduction efforts once a species 
is listed under the Act, given previous articulated concerns related to 
the potential for additional regulatory burden resulting from the 
presence of an endangered or threatened species. We cannot, however, 
take such a consideration into account in a listing decision, which is 
statutorily required to be made based solely on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information (emphasis ours). In 
other words, we cannot consider the potential political, social, or 
economic ramifications of a listing in our final determination. We 
solicited comments from peer reviewers and the public regarding the 
possibility of different DPS configurations for the West Coast 
populations of fisher. At this time, our end decision is to use the 
original DPS configuration as presented in the proposed listing rule. 
Consistent with our statutory standard, based solely on our assessment 
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we have 
concluded that the proposed DPS is not currently in danger of 
extinction (endangered), or likely to

[[Page 22761]]

become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (threatened). Therefore, we are withdrawing the 
proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher (see Determination, 
above).
    (123) Comment: The State of Washington explicitly requested 
recognition of the WDNR State Trust Lands HCP and its ecological 
benefits to the fisher in the final rulemaking process.
    Our Response: The ecological benefits of the WDNR State Trust Lands 
HCP for fisher were recognized on pages 93, 103, and 132 of the draft 
Species Report and on page 60434 of the proposed listing rule (October 
7, 2014; 79 FR 60419). They were fully considered in our evaluation of 
conservation efforts that may offset stressors to the West Coast DPS of 
fishers in our prior analysis, in the final Species Report, and this 
document.
    (124) Comment: One commenter declared that listing the fisher as an 
endangered or threatened species would have little impact across the 
west coast States if wildfire and illegal marijuana cultivation on 
National Forest lands are not addressed. The commenter invited the 
Service to work with their organization to seek more funding to enhance 
forest management activities and increase the frequency of marijuana 
eradication efforts on National Forest lands.
    Our Response: The proposed rule identified both wildfire and 
illegal marijuana cultivation as elements of the main threats to the 
fisher in the west coast States. Ongoing efforts to ameliorate the 
effects of both elements are currently being implemented on National 
Forest lands. Through a Section 6 Agreement, we are currently working 
with CDFW to fund research that investigates the effects (and conducts 
cleanup) of marijuana grow sites on National Forest lands. To date, 
this work has resulted in the remediation of 24 trespass marijuana grow 
sites on Hoopa Tribal Lands and the Six Rivers, Plumas, and Shasta-
Trinity National Forests, including the Trinity Alps Wilderness (IERC 
2015a, Appendix A; IERC 2015b, p. 1; IERC 2015c, p. 1). We welcome the 
opportunity to work with the commenter to continue and expand this 
effort and also recommend the commenter contact the Forest Service 
directly to discuss management of wildfire on National Forest lands.
    (125) Comment: One commenter asserted that reliance on Federal 
lands for the conservation of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, as 
well as other late-seral-dependent species such as the northern spotted 
owl, has not been sufficient to date to curtail the decline of those 
forest species; thus, listing the fisher is warranted. The commenter 
stated that recent estimates (Strittholt et al. 2006) show only about 
36 percent of LSRs actually include late-successional forests, with the 
majority of the designated reserves expected to acquire such conditions 
over decades. For these reasons, the commenter believed that existing 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to conserve the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher.
    Our Response: The final Species Report describes how State and 
Federal regulatory mechanisms have abated the large-scale loss of 
fishers to trapping and habitat loss, and how ingrowth of older forest 
habitat on Federal lands in the NWFP range (which has the LSR land 
allocations mentioned by the commenter) is increasing as predicted in 
the NWFP (Service 2016, pp. 164-167). Given the success of State and 
Federal regulatory mechanisms in reducing these threats, we determined 
in the proposed listing rule and reaffirm in this document that the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher (see Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, 
above).
    (126) Comment: One commenter asserted that the past (i.e., the 
decade prior to 2014) likelihood of listing the fisher has had a 
positive effect on timberland owners voluntarily addressing numerous 
questions regarding the distribution and population status of fisher on 
their lands throughout California. The commenter claimed that if 
listing the fisher as a threatened species had occurred years ago, many 
of the voluntary research programs in existence today might be 
nonexistent, and those resources would have instead been channeled 
towards meeting the minimum regulatory guidance of a yet-to-be-
determined incidental take standard. This commenter and a few other 
commenters declared their voluntary conservation efforts on private 
lands are both in response to the Service's encouragement and their 
desire to address the conservation needs of fishers. Two of these 
commenters articulated that listing the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher would not only impede future conservation efforts (e.g., 
completion of HCPs, CCAAs) but also appear as a punishment for the 
beneficial conservation actions implemented to date for the fisher and 
its habitat.
    Our Response: We do not have discretion not to list a species if 
listing is warranted, which means a species meets the definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species. In the case of the fisher 
populations on the west coast, in 2004, we determined the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher warranted listing (69 FR 18769; April 8, 2004), but 
immediate action to list the species was precluded by other higher 
priority listing actions at that time. See additional discussion on 
this history in our response to Comment (118), above.
    With regard to this withdrawal of the proposed listing rule, there 
is an extensive amount of varied scientific, Service, other agency, and 
public opinion regarding the status of the proposed DPS both prior to, 
and following, the October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419), proposed listing of 
the West Coast DPS of fisher. Given this variance and the extensive 
disparity in comments received (including peer reviewers) during the 
two open comment periods, we considered it necessary to re-evaluate all 
of this best available scientific and commercial information previously 
reviewed, and the new information received, to formulate a final 
decision. Upon careful consideration and evaluation of all of the 
information before us, we have arrived at a different conclusion 
regarding the status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers. 
Specifically, we conclude that the stressors acting upon the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude to indicate that that they are singly or cumulatively 
resulting in significant impacts at either the population or rangewide 
scales. Based on this current assessment, we find that the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher is not in danger of extinction currently, and 
is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species, and we are withdrawing the proposed 
rule to list the DPS as a threatened species (see Determination, 
above).
    (127) Comment: Several commenters requested implementation of 
specific conservation or recovery actions (or a comprehensive strategy) 
for fishers in the west coast States, including management activities 
that would improve the overall landscape for fishers and other species. 
Many of these actions were recommended to the Service because the 
commenters believed they would ensure the long-term conservation of the 
fisher. Some of the recommendations were provided by commenters who 
believe the taxon would go extinct without them, or by

[[Page 22762]]

commenters who believe that the recommended actions would be sufficient 
to reduce the level of impact of a stressor(s) such that the associated 
impacts would not rise to the level of a threat.
    Our Response: We appreciate the recommendations provided by 
commenters to continue the management and conservation of the fisher. 
Despite the withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the DPS (see 
Determination, above), the actions recommended by these commenters are 
still important to the conservation of fishers in the west coast 
States. We encourage ongoing monitoring and management for the benefit 
of fishers, although any actions undertaken will not be under a Federal 
regulatory context. Rather, we expect that the conservation efforts 
implemented by State, Federal, and private entities will continue into 
the future and the conservation recommendations provided by commenters 
may be adopted as voluntary actions by entities working to conserve the 
fisher in California, Oregon, and Washington.
Detection Probability
    (128) Comment: One commenter suggested that the extremely low 
densities of fishers elude standard survey techniques on Mendocino 
Redwood Company's lands in coastal Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. 
Additionally, the commenter specifically suggested that because fishers 
were ``probably absent'' from their lands, the Service should exclude 
their land from the proposed DPS boundaries.
    Our Response: Although not clearly articulated, it appears the 
commenter was referring to the absence of fisher detections from 47 
track plate station locations (surveyed between 2004 and 2008) within 
its holdings in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California. We agree 
with the commenter's suggestion that fishers may be present in very 
small numbers, but were not detected due to the survey methods employed 
(i.e., Zielinski et al. 1995, pp. 67-89). Zielinski et al. (1995, p. 
10) state clearly that their survey methods should be used to determine 
``presence'' of fishers, but should not be used to conclude ``absence'' 
of fishers ``until additional research is conducted on the 
probabilities of detecting individuals known to occur in an area.'' 
Therefore, individual fishers may not be detected by Zielinski et al.'s 
1995 survey methods if they occur in extremely low densities. We also 
acknowledge the commenter's note that when survey methods were 
subsequently changed (mainly an increase in the survey period 
recommended by Slauson et al. (2009)), a fisher was detected at two 
survey stations in 2013, confirming the presence of fishers on its 
lands.
    The fisher's range in the west coast States includes many areas 
with suitable habitat where fishers probably do not occur, including 
suitable habitat areas in coastal Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. 
Additionally, the best scientific and commercial information, which 
includes that presented by the commenter, does not support the 
commenter's assertion that fishers are ``probably absent'' from their 
lands because: (1) A lack of detections using Zielinski et al.'s (1995) 
survey protocol between 2004 and 2008 does not confirm absence of 
fishers, and (2) fisher presence was confirmed in 2013 using newer 
survey methodology. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's 
assertion that because fishers were ``probably absent'' from its lands, 
that we should exclude their land from the proposed DPS boundary.
Development
    (129) Comment: One commenter stated that road construction and 
maintenance removes and fragments fisher habitat, thus creating 
barriers to dispersal, causing collisions, creating loss of cover that 
increases vulnerability to predators, facilitating access to poachers, 
and indirectly leading to logging and firewood cutting. Additionally, 
the commenter stated that roads bisect the fisher's habitat in the west 
coast States and create concerns about dispersal and mortality, which 
in turn lead to significant impacts to already small and isolated 
fisher populations.
    Our Response: As described in both our draft and final Species 
Reports, we considered the potential effects (including fragmentation) 
of such activities on fishers and fisher habitat in our evaluation of 
stressors related to development, linear features (highways and other 
infrastructure), and fisher collisions with vehicles (see associated 
discussions under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, above). 
Although the activities mentioned by the commenter can have a negative 
effect on fisher individuals, we found no evidence to suggest that such 
stressors are of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude singly 
or cumulatively resulting in significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales, currently or in the foreseeable future.
    (130) Comment: One commenter stated that development is the 
greatest threat to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. A second 
commenter stated that development often results in direct conversion of 
forested lands that would otherwise provide suitable fisher habitat. 
Conversely, the State of Oregon declared that development is unlikely 
to be a significant stressor to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
[in Oregon] given the substantive amount of Federal ownership, Oregon's 
land use planning system, and low human population growth in rural 
areas, all of which prevent or limit human development within fisher 
habitat.
    Our Response: No additional information was provided to support the 
public comment that development is the greatest threat to the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher; based on this statement alone, our analysis 
and conclusion that human development does not pose a significant 
threat to fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS remains unchanged. We 
concur with the comment that forest conversion can be a result of 
development, and we acknowledged this possibility in the draft Species 
Report and the proposed rule, as well as in the final Species Report 
and this document. We also concur with the comment that development is 
unlikely to be a significant stressor. We reviewed the information 
regarding Oregon's Land Use Planning system and incorporated that 
information in our description and analysis of the development 
stressor; we also evaluated and included this information in the 
existing regulatory mechanisms section of the final Species Report and 
this document. The range of comments received regarding potential 
impacts of human development either support our original conclusion 
that this stressor is not a threat, or do not provide additional 
information or data contesting our prior conclusion. We have reaffirmed 
that conclusion in this document.
Disease or Predation
    (131) Comment: One commenter stated that although they agree with 
the Service's conclusion that disease or predation are important 
stressors on the West Coast DPS of fisher, more information is needed 
to better understand the relationship between these stressors and 
fisher viability. Specifically, the commenter found that the statement 
in the draft Species Report that predation and disease appear to be the 
most significant cause of mortality is not consistent with other 
statements regarding the uncertainty of the effects of disease on wild 
populations of fishers. For these reasons, the commenter concluded that 
disease and predation should not be significant threats that lead to 
listing the proposed

[[Page 22763]]

DPS, and that this factor should not alone, or in combination, lead to 
the listing of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher.
    Our Response: Consistent with our determination in the proposed 
listing rule, we do not consider disease or predation to be threats to 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, now or in the future. Our 
finding in the draft Species Report that disease and predation are the 
most prevalent sources of direct mortality of fishers should not be 
construed to mean that these factors present significant threats to 
fishers in the west coast States. Thus, the proposed listing rule 
concluded that ``although they are the most prevalent sources of direct 
mortality among individual fishers within the study areas for which we 
have information, it is unknown how disease and predation rates 
influence fisher population trends in general'' (79 FR 60431). Disease 
and predation are naturally occurring sources of mortality, and we do 
not have data that indicate either of these stressors has increased 
beyond the levels in which fishers have evolved; we make this 
clarification in the ``Disease or Predation'' section of the final 
Species Report.
    (132) Comment: One commenter noted that disease and predation are 
natural processes that affect all wildlife populations, and it is in 
those areas where populations are extremely low (such as the SSN 
population) that the risk of random disease events may be most 
significant.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that in general, small 
populations are more susceptible to disease outbreaks that may result 
in population declines. The ``Cumulative and Synergistic Effects of 
Stressors'' sections of the draft and final Species Reports discuss the 
cumulative and synergistic effects of many stressors, including 
disease, acting on small, disjunct populations (Service 2014, pp. 144-
172; Service 2016, pp. 128-132). Our current analysis reveals that for 
both disease and predation, impacts are affecting individuals to a 
minor degree within the various populations as opposed to significant 
impacts to entire populations or significant impacts rangewide. Thus, 
we reaffirm our position that the scope and magnitude of impacts 
resulting from disease or predation are not considered threats to the 
fisher, now or in the future. Please see the ``Disease or Predation'' 
sections of this document and the final Species Report for additional 
discussion.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
    (133) Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the Service to 
list the entire range of fishers in the west coast States as a single 
DPS throughout its historical range (we also note that many others 
supported listing in general). Alternatively, numerous commenters 
supported either one of the potential alternative DPS configurations as 
presented in the proposed rule, or suggested additional potential DPS 
configurations for consideration as more appropriate for listing, for a 
variety of reasons. Others offered the opinion that the evidence 
presented does not support the need to list the proposed West Coast DPS 
of fisher under the Act.
    Our Response: We appreciate the depth of thought and consideration 
given by many commenters to the question of which DPS configuration may 
be most appropriate for fishers in the west coast States. We may list 
as endangered or threatened any species, which includes, as defined by 
section 3(16) the Act, ``any distinct population segment of any species 
of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' In 
order to interpret this phrase in a clear and consistent fashion, the 
Service and NOAA issued a joint Policy Regarding the Recognition of 
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species 
Act (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The policy is clear that, in 
accordance with the statutory requirement to use the best available 
scientific data in determining the status of a species, our application 
of the DPS policy must follow sound biological principles (thus 
questions of whether or not a particular DPS may be politically 
acceptable, or other non-biological considerations, do not enter into 
our deliberations). The policy stipulates that in order to qualify as a 
DPS, the population in question must be both discrete and significant 
to the taxon to which it belongs. As demonstrated by the great variety 
of potential DPSs suggested by commenters here, the policy creates the 
possibility for any number of possible different varied configurations, 
and many of these could possibly be argued to meet these criteria. At 
the same time, Congress has instructed the Service and NOAA to utilize 
the authority to designate DPSs ``sparingly and only when the 
biological evidence indicates that such action is warranted'' (61 FR 
4722; February 7, 1996). Taking all of these considerations into 
account, after thorough consideration and deliberation, at this time 
our end decision is to use the original DPS configuration as presented 
in the proposed listing rule.
    (134) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service look more 
closely at fisher populations within and outside of the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher to see whether distinctions within the proposed DPS 
are equal to or stronger than distinctions between West Coast fishers 
and other North American fishers. The commenter theorized that there 
would be significant implications for fisher conservation if the 
Service lumps into a single DPS fisher populations and habitat that are 
naturally separated and which the commenter believes should not be 
combined.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns, and we 
received many comments on the degree of genetic separation between the 
different populations of fishers (both native and reintroduced) within 
the boundaries of the proposed West Coast DPS. Some commenters 
encouraged us to undertake actions that would allow for connectivity 
and gene flow between some or all of these populations. Other 
commenters cautioned against the harm that might result from 
reconnecting populations that may potentially have remained naturally 
isolated from each other for hundreds if not thousands of years, and 
have thus diverged genetically (e.g., this argument was made in support 
of maintaining separation between the SSN and NCSO populations). 
Notwithstanding these arguments, we note that the potential delineation 
of a DPS that combines multiple subpopulations within a single 
administrative boundary does not preclude the separate management of 
those populations or habitats for different purposes or needs, as 
appropriate. In any case, we have concluded that the West Coast DPS of 
fisher as described in our proposed listing rule and in this document 
does not warrant listing; therefore, our proposed rule to list the DPS 
as a threatened species is withdrawn (see Determination, above).
    (135) Comment: One commenter stated that the 2004 DPS was derived 
on the premise that fisher populations in Oregon and Washington are 
isolated remnants of a larger west coast fisher population that became 
contracted and isolated by human activity. The commenter stated that 
this premise is not consistent with Tucker et al. (2012), which 
suggests that the existing populations of west coast fishers are the 
result of natural and evolutionary isolation that was not caused by 
human activity and is not amenable to remedy by human management under 
the Act.

[[Page 22764]]

Additionally, because the Service found fishers extirpated in 
Washington and Oregon, and Tucker et al. (2012) suggests that 
extirpated fishers were naturally distinct from fisher populations 
currently residing in California, the commenter asserted that it may 
not be appropriate to list non-existent populations. Further, the 
commenter questioned whether existence of naturally isolated 
populations in California should serve as justification for listing of 
fishers in Oregon and Washington based on a false premise that 
reintroduced Oregon and Washington fishers are a stepping stone for 
reconnecting interbreeding populations in British Columbia and 
California that were naturally isolated long before anthropogenic 
influence. Multiple commenters questioned the inclusion of Oregon and 
Washington in the boundary for the West Coast DPS of fisher, given that 
native fishers are apparently absent from the majority of their former 
range in these two States, despite an abundance of moderate- and high-
quality habitat available.
    Our Response: The DPS as proposed was based on the overall 
historical distribution of fishers throughout Oregon, Washington, and 
California. We did not mean to imply that there is universal agreement 
regarding the historical distribution of fishers within across the west 
coast States. In our draft Species Report, we specifically noted the 
differences of opinion regarding the question of whether fisher 
distribution was formerly relatively continuous within across the west 
coast States, or naturally more disjunct (citing, for example, to 
differences between the view expressed by Grinnell et al. (1937), 
versus Knaus et al. (2011) or Tucker et al. (2012) [noting the work of 
Tucker et al. (2012) is specific to the California populations, and did 
not address the larger west coast population as suggested by the 
commenter]). Furthermore, the delineation of a single DPS boundary 
around multiple populations does not necessarily mean that we must 
manage toward the unification of those populations into one single, 
continuous population. A DPS boundary is an administrative construct, 
within which we maintain the flexibility to manage populations 
separately, as appropriate and necessary for conservation.
    We appreciate the depth of thought and consideration given by many 
commenters to the question of deriving a DPS configuration that may be 
most appropriate for West Coast fishers. Please see our response to 
Comment (133) for an explanation of our DPS policy and how it 
determines the DPSs we can develop. In applying our DPS policy, and 
after thorough consideration and deliberation, at this time our end 
decision is to use the original DPS configuration as presented in the 
proposed listing rule. Per section 4 of the Act and its implementing 
regulations, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding current and potential future 
threats to the West Coast DPS of the fisher and are withdrawing our 
proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above). Although fishers 
are not located in large portions of Oregon and Washington, ongoing 
research and monitoring within the west coast States will inform how 
best to manage the various fisher populations given their different 
genetic compositions.
    (136) Comment: Many commenters stated that there may be 
connectivity between the SSN and other populations of fishers in the 
west coast States, thus implying that the proposed DPS boundaries are 
appropriate. Alternatively, one Federal agency stated that the NCSO, 
SOC, and SSN populations of fisher are geographically separated and 
genetically distinct (reproductively and functionally isolated), and 
that there is no information regarding the contraction or extirpation 
of populations. Therefore, the agency suggested the Service reconsider 
its rationale for considering the aggregate of all three populations as 
a single DPS. A second Federal agency specifically suggested that, 
should the Service determine that the SSN population merits listing, it 
should be listed as a DPS in and of itself (and managed as such) 
because there is no functional relationship between these other 
populations and the SSN population that has been isolated for hundreds 
of years (Tucker et al. 2012). The second Federal agency also 
recommended extreme caution with respect to reconnecting the 
longstanding 261-mi (420-km) gap in the species' historical range, 
which could result in unintended consequences from the mixing of 
divergent genomes.
    Our Response: We received many comments regarding the potential for 
connectivity between the SSN population and other fisher populations 
within the west coast States; some saw the ``restoration'' of 
connectivity as critical to the long-term viability of fishers, and 
some cautioned against trying to ``reconnect'' divergent populations 
when the evidence suggests they have been naturally separated for a 
very long period of time. In either case, we note that any final 
decision on managing fisher populations with regard to potential 
connectivity is neither precluded nor mandated by the identification of 
these populations as a DPS. We solicited comments from peer reviewers 
and the public regarding the possibility of different DPS 
configurations for the West Coast populations of fisher. However, at 
this time, our decision is to use the original DPS configuration as 
presented in the proposed listing rule. Please also see our responses 
to Comments (23) and (134).
    (137) Comment: Assuming one or more populations of fishers in 
Oregon become listed under the Act, one Federal agency requested 
clarification regarding the management of fishers in Oregon based on 
genetic considerations, particularly those fishers that occur in the 
NCSO population. Specifically, the commenter inquired whether fishers 
in Oregon and Washington outside of the NCSO population should be 
managed separately from those in the NCSO population that may be 
genetically different. The Federal agency also stated that (from a 
regulated agency standpoint) there is little utility in attempting to 
manage the NCSO population separately from the SOC population, in part 
because current information indicates it is likely that interbreeding 
is occurring and there is not a practical way to separate the two 
populations for the section 7 consultation process.
    Our Response: According to section 4 of the Act and its 
implementing regulations, we have assessed the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future 
threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and are withdrawing 
our proposal to list this DPS. Because there are conservation issues 
that, while of concern, do not rise to the level of meeting the 
standards for listing the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher under the 
Act, we will closely follow the management of fishers and their status 
within the west coast States. Ongoing research and monitoring within 
the west coast States will inform how best to manage the NCSO and SOC 
populations; the issue of appropriate management taking into account 
genetic considerations is independent of a DPS delineation under the 
Act. See also our response to Comment (135).
    (138) Comment: The State of Oregon asserted that for multiple 
reasons listing the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher as threatened 
under the Act may not be appropriate at this time. However, if the 
Service does list fishers in the west coast States as threatened, the 
State encouraged the Service to consider DPS Alternative 2 as described 
in the proposed listing rule, which focused on

[[Page 22765]]

extant native populations with unique genetic characteristics and 
excludes reintroduced populations established with non-California/
Oregon fishers. Among the alternative DPSs listed in the proposed 
listing rule, the State indicated that Alternative 2 appears to 
minimize the Federal regulatory ``overlay'' and recognizes the need (as 
much as possible) to develop and maintain positive working 
relationships among Federal and non-Federal landowners to achieve 
fisher conservation goals.
    Our Response: Per section 4 of the Act and its implementing 
regulations, we have assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the 
proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher and are withdrawing our proposal 
to list this DPS. We solicited comments from peer reviewers and the 
public regarding the possibility of different DPS configurations for 
West Coast fishers. However, at this time, our decision is to use the 
original DPS configuration as presented in the proposed listing rule.
    (139) Comment: The State of Washington supported conservation of 
fishers in the west coast States, although they suggested an 
alternative DPS configuration that included only populations within 
Oregon and California, with the Columbia River as the northern 
boundary. They stated that this DPS configuration is appropriate for 
conservation of fishers in California, where conservation has already 
been initiated, and Oregon, where the Act's protections would likely 
assist in the development of an active fisher recovery program. The 
State indicated that providing the Act's protections would 
significantly complicate the ongoing State conservation program being 
implemented for the reintroduced population in Washington. Further, the 
State argued that fishers in Washington are discrete from the other 
populations, and are not significant in the same way that the native 
California populations are. Specifically, the State argued that fishers 
in Washington should not be included in the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (133), and our 
response to Comment (149) for an explanation of our DPS policy. We 
solicited comments from peer reviewers and the public regarding the 
possibility of different DPS configurations for the West Coast 
populations of fisher. However, at this time, our end decision is to 
use the original DPS configuration as presented in the proposed listing 
rule. We have determined that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, as 
previously defined, does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered 
or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to list the West 
Coast DPS of fisher (see Determination, above), and the question of 
whether the DPS should include Washington State or not is moot.
    (140) Comment: One Federal agency stated that any DPS listed by the 
Service that includes the NCSO population and also excludes the SOC 
population would be counter to the Alsea Valley Association v. Evans 
court ruling (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. 
Or. 2001), appeal dismissed, 358 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004). The Federal 
agency asserted that movement of fishers occurs between the NCSO 
population and the SOC population (supported by data) demonstrating 
that these two populations cannot meet the Service's discreteness 
policy as two separate DPSs. They stated that mature individuals within 
the NCSO and SOC populations can interact and interbreed; it is unknown 
if that is occurring currently, but they emphasized that interbreeding 
should be expected in the future.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (133). We have 
chosen to retain the DPS configuration as published in our proposed 
rule for our evaluation (79 FR 60419). At this time, we are withdrawing 
the proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher under the Act 
(see Determination, above). If in the future we consider listing of an 
alternative DPS that includes the NCSO population and excludes the SOC 
population, we will thoroughly evaluate the Alsea Valley Association v. 
Evans court ruling and other considerations raised in this comment. 
However, we note that we did not propose to list the SOC population as 
a separate DPS.
    (141) Comment: One Federal agency suggested that fisher populations 
in the State of Washington are not at risk, relative to populations in 
other portions of the three-State range under consideration, implying 
that the population in Washington should not be included in any DPS, 
should fishers in the west coast States be listed under the Act. They 
pointed out that based on WDFW's evaluation of fisher habitat in the 
State of Washington, the primary factors attributed to extirpation of 
the species from that State (e.g., loss and fragmentation of forested 
habitats, overtrapping) were no longer operative, citing to Lewis and 
Hayes (2004). Further, they pointed out the following regarding other 
potential threats:
     With regard to the more recently identified stressor of 
ARs, the NPS does not administer rodenticides in the Olympic, North 
Cascades, or Mount Rainer National Parks and works with cooperators and 
concessions to preclude the use of these agents (although the level of 
potential illegal use in park areas is unknown). In addition, the 
Federal agency noted that only one of five of the recent fisher 
mortalities recovered in the Olympic peninsula recovery area (2013-
2014) showed AR exposure, and as that individual was recovered just 
outside the city limits of Port Angeles, they surmise it most likely 
was exposed at a residential setting. The Federal agency suggested that 
more recent data indicate the key risk factor of AR exposures for 
fisher in California may not be as relevant in Washington.
     The high-quality fisher habitat in Washington's national 
parks and adjacent national forests is minimally threatened by wildfire 
due to the hyper-oceanic climate with relatively high rainfall, as 
compared to the more arid eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains and 
south into portions of Oregon and California.
     The reintroduced Washington population does not share the 
unique genetic characteristics of the California populations.
    Our Response: See our responses to Comment (133) regarding our 
consideration of a final DPS. In addition, we thoroughly discussed and 
considered the regional variability in stressors to fisher populations 
and habitat in the west coast States in both our draft and final 
Species Reports and this document. This evaluation has led us to the 
conclusion that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is not in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor 
is it likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 
are withdrawing our proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher.
    (142) Comment: One Federal agency disagreed with the Service that 
the SSN population of fishers may warrant consideration for listing 
because that population is small and isolated from other fisher 
populations. They questioned whether the SSN population is actually 
imperiled, for the following reasons:
    (1) There is no evidence that the distribution of the SSN 
population has contracted from historical levels, and there is no 
reason to believe that there has been any change in abundance of this 
population. The locality records presented in the draft Species Report 
indicated a stable distribution over the last century, and the findings 
of Tucker

[[Page 22766]]

et al. (2012) indicated that the SSN population has been isolated from 
other fisher populations since well before European settlement. The 
weight of evidence suggested that either: (a) The SSN population 
responds to stressors differently than other fisher populations that 
have experienced range contractions, or (b) stressors within this 
population are less severe than they are elsewhere in the species' 
range.
    (2) There is no evidence that fishers have declined in abundance in 
contemporary times. Current estimates of abundance are similar to 
estimates of carrying capacity, suggesting that the current 
distribution and abundance of the SSN population remain similar to 
historical levels. Recent estimates of population growth in the SSN 
population from the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project suggest 
it has ranged from stable to positive; there have been no studies 
indicating negative growth.
    (3) There is no evidence that the potential stressors identified in 
the listing proposal have negatively impacted population dynamics of 
the SSN population. Without at least correlative evidence of an 
association between stressors and population decline, it is difficult 
to argue that the stressors are indeed operative threats that act on 
the species. As an example, it is acknowledged in the draft Species 
Report that the impact of AR exposure on vital rates at the population 
level is unknown. Therefore, although there may be an underlying cause 
and effect relationship, it is premature to rely on the existing 
evidence to support a listing.
    Our Response: We have included consideration of the Federal 
agency's comments and other information suggesting that the SSN 
population may or may not be imperiled, as outlined in the three points 
above. Many of the considerations pointed out by the agency played a 
role in our final decision; ultimately, we have concluded that the 
stressors acting on fishers in the West Coast DPS are resulting in 
population level or rangewide declines, such that fishers in the DPS 
are in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, at this time, we are withdrawing the 
proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher under the Act (see 
Determination, above).
    (143) Comment: One tribe questioned and disagreed with the 
Service's inclusion of Washington as part of the proposed West Coast 
DPS of fisher. Specifically, the tribe suggested DPS Alternatives 1 or 
2 (as described in the proposed listing rule) to provide a more 
reasonable basis for the species listing because the Washington 
population of fishers is discrete based on distance and the barrier of 
the Columbia River, both of which provide a low likelihood of genetic 
interchange, as shown by genetic research. Further, the tribe asserted 
that the historical Washington fisher population is more related to 
fishers from central British Columbia, as reported by Lewis and Hayes 
(2004).
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (133).
    (144) Comment: One local government stated that lands within 
Lincoln County (Oregon) should be removed from the proposed DPS 
boundary because fishers have never been seen in the county 
historically or currently.
    Our Response: There is a recorded observation of a fisher in 
Lincoln County, Oregon, from the 1990s. There are also observations of 
fishers in adjacent Tillamook County to the north and coastal Lane 
County to the south. Although none of these records provide verifiable 
evidence (i.e., no evidence that can be subject to independent review 
such as photos, tracks, genetic material), they were recorded by 
observers estimated to be of fair or good reliability in the Oregon 
Biodiversity Information Center database. Given the historical habitat 
in the coast range of Oregon, the current distribution of fishers based 
on verifiable records, and the existing unverifiable observations 
scattered through the central and northern coastal counties, it is 
reasonable to conclude that fishers were likely historically present in 
the northern Oregon Coast Range, which includes Lincoln and Tillamook 
Counties, and the western end of Lane County. While there may not be 
any verifiable records that fishers occurred in Lincoln County, we must 
make conclusions based on the best available information, which in our 
view, indicates that fishers were likely historically present in the 
northern Oregon Coast Range. Because our proposed DPS boundary was 
derived in part based on the historical range of fishers in the west 
coast, we consider it appropriate to include Lincoln County within the 
DPS boundary. At any rate, based upon our assessment of the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, 
and future threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher, we are 
withdrawing our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above); 
therefore, the point is moot.
    (145) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed DPS boundary 
for the listable entity should be solely within California (i.e., 
native populations only that include a DPS for the SSN population, and 
a DPS for the remainder of California that excludes all lands and 
nonnative fisher populations that may occur in Oregon). Additionally, 
this commenter asserted that listing should not be warranted for both 
of their suggested DPSs (with another commenter supporting a not 
warranted finding for the SSN population area) based on the health of 
the suggested DPSs, lack of threats to each DPS, and the conservation 
measures in place for these populations.
    Our Response: Regarding potential DPS delineations, please see our 
response to Comment (133). We solicited comments from peer reviewers 
and the public regarding the possibility of different DPS 
configurations for the West Coast populations of fisher, and considered 
many potential variations. However, at this time, our end decision is 
to use the original DPS configuration as presented in the proposed 
listing rule. Furthermore, based on our evaluation of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we have concluded that the 
proposed DPS does not meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act (see Determination, above).
    (146) Comment: Two commenters stated that fishers are extirpated in 
Washington and Oregon, and that reintroduced fishers in these two 
States are genetically distinct from native fishers in California, 
which argues against combining all native fishers into a single DPS.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (133).
    (147) Comment: Two commenters asserted that a DPS including native 
fisher populations in Oregon and California should not be expanded to 
include lands within the remainder of Oregon and Washington that are 
inhabited by reintroduced fishers. The commenter stated that genetic 
research demonstrates that reintroduced fishers in Oregon and 
Washington are not closely related to native fishers in California. A 
third commenter stated that these genetic differences explain why NCSO 
should be managed separately between these two regions (i.e., 
Washington and Oregon populations managed separately than the NCSO 
population), also citing Aubry and Lewis (2003) as support for two 
disjunct, genetically isolated populations in the southwest portion of 
Oregon and the southern Cascades portion of Oregon (the latter of which 
is reintroduced). Additionally, one of these commenters specified that 
the State of Washington considers fishers

[[Page 22767]]

likely extirpated (Lewis and Stinson 1998). Therefore, with the 
exception of native fishers in southwestern Oregon (i.e., south of the 
Rogue River and west of Interstate 5), the Service should exclude most 
of Oregon and all of Washington from any DPS.
    Additionally, one commenter articulated that if fishers in the west 
coast States and other fisher populations are genetically divergent, 
morphologically distinct, or specially adapted to diverse habitats for 
prehistoric, natural, or evolutionary reasons, then it is logical and 
scientifically consistent for the Service to reconsider whether the 
fishers in the west coast States actually contain (within its 
geographic range and populations) the same natural, prehistoric, and 
evolutionary separation that the Service relies on to distinguish the 
proposed West Coast DPS from other fishers.
    Our Response: Regarding the delineation of DPSs, please see our 
response to Comment (133). We solicited comments from peer reviewers 
and the public regarding the possibility of different DPS 
configurations for the West Coast populations of fishers. However, at 
this time, our decision is to use the original DPS configuration as 
presented in the proposed listing rule and based on our assessment of 
the best scientific and commercial data available we have withdrawn our 
proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above). Although fishers 
are not located in large portions of Oregon and Washington, ongoing 
research and monitoring within the west coast States will inform best 
management practices for the various fisher populations given their 
different genetic compositions. See also our responses to Comments 
(135) and (137).
    (148) Comment: Two commenters asserted that the lack of fisher in 
Oregon and Washington (other than the reintroduced populations) 
supports the premise that fishers are extirpated from the majority of 
their former range in these two States, despite an abundance of 
moderate- and high-quality habitat, and it also supports an argument 
that fishers were likely not well distributed historically within the 
Service's analysis area. Additionally, the commenter stressed that the 
contiguous population that occurs in northern California and the 
extreme southwestern portion of Oregon should not be included with the 
remainder of coastal Oregon, the Oregon Cascades, or the State of 
Washington as a DPS. Further, the commenter believed this assumption is 
supported by Knaus et al. (2011), which indicates that genetic 
distinction exists between the two California fisher groups and all 
other groups in their study.
    Our Response: We disagree that the current lack of fishers in large 
parts of Oregon and Washington supports an argument that fishers were 
likely not well distributed historically within the proposed West Coast 
DPS. Present-day distributions are not necessarily a reflection of 
historical distributions, particularly given the tremendous trapping 
pressures fishers underwent in the early 1900s. These effects, combined 
with additional mortality from predator control efforts, followed by 
subsequent habitat loss in the mid to late 1900s, have substantially 
reduced the numbers and distribution of fishers. Although the record is 
not sufficient to fully describe the specific historical distribution, 
given the past distribution of forest conditions that likely supported 
fishers, and the well-established record of fisher population and 
distribution declines through trapping records and other sources, we 
conclude fishers were historically distributed throughout much of the 
proposed DPS, although populations may not have been fully contiguous.
    We solicited comments from peer reviewers and the public regarding 
the possibility of different DPS configurations for the West Coast 
population of fishers. We recognize and appreciate that there are many 
possible approaches to delineating potential DPSs, and that there may 
be valid arguments in support of (or against) aspects of each (see our 
response to Comment (133)). However, at this time, our decision is to 
use the original DPS configuration as presented in the proposed listing 
rule. Although fishers are not located in large portions of Oregon and 
Washington, ongoing research and monitoring within the west coast 
States will inform how best to manage the various fisher populations 
given their different genetic compositions.
    (149) Comment: One commenter contended there is little evidence 
that an extant population of fisher remains in Oregon and Washington, 
and that there is little hope that any fishers found or reintroduced 
into Oregon and Washington would reconnect with the NCSO population of 
fishers. Therefore, the commenter believed the Service should evaluate 
an alternative DPS as the listable entity.
    Our Response: The commenter is incorrect in stating that there are 
no extant fishers in Oregon. On the contrary, fishers in the NCSO 
population occupy southwest Oregon. In addition, a reintroduced 
population (SOC population) has persisted in the southern Oregon 
Cascades for well over 30 years. With respect to Washington, fishers 
from a recent reintroduction on the Olympic Peninsula are reproducing, 
and though it is too early to say whether this population will persist, 
results from monitoring are encouraging. Additionally, fisher 
reintroductions are both ongoing and planned in the Washington 
Cascades.
    The commenter did not provide any support for their statement that 
fishers in Oregon, at least, would not reconnect with the NCSO 
population. Recent data shows spatial overlap of individuals from the 
NCSO and SOC populations, suggesting that these two populations are 
beginning to intersect. There has been limited monitoring of fishers in 
Oregon to robustly describe their distribution, but recent and ongoing 
surveys in the Cascades will better inform our understanding of the 
distribution of the reintroduced SOC population and its relationship 
with the NCSO population. Given our current understanding of suitable 
fisher habitat, it appears that there may be adequate habitat to 
support fishers in the northern Cascades of Oregon and allow 
connectivity with extant fishers in the reintroduced SOC population and 
south to the NCSO population.
    We acknowledge the commenter's point that Washington fishers are 
not likely to reconnect with the NCSO population. The Columbia River is 
almost certainly a considerable barrier to fisher movement in the 
proposed DPS. While it may restrict populations from substantially 
intermingling, it is likely not impenetrable, allowing some genetic 
mixing of fisher populations over the long term. Please see our 
response to Comment (133)).
    At this time, our decision is to use the original DPS configuration 
as presented in the proposed listing rule. Per section 4 of the Act and 
its implementing regulations, we have carefully assessed the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, 
and future threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher and are 
withdrawing our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above).
Distribution
    (150) Comment: One Federal commenter stated that the NCSO and SOC 
populations of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher are 
interconnected, suggesting an increased probability of genetic exchange 
between the two populations into the foreseeable future. The commenter 
provided information to the Service in response to our request for 
information (as outlined in the proposed rule) as to whether the

[[Page 22768]]

Klamath River, the Rogue River, and Interstate 5 may act as filters or 
barriers to fisher movement between the NCSO and SOC populations.
    Our Response: The commenter provided information that was 
previously considered and incorporated in the draft Species Report 
(Farber and Schwartz 2007 in Service 2014, p. 100). Recent information 
from ongoing survey and monitoring efforts in the native NCSO and 
reintroduced SOC populations indicates that two native fishers were 
documented within the area of reintroduced fishers. One of these native 
fishers was part of a radio telemetry study initiated within the NCSO 
population; data collected from this animal indicate that it crossed 
Interstate 5 and continued into areas occupied by the reintroduced SOC 
population. The second native fisher detection in the reintroduced SOC 
population occurred through a hair snare and remote camera study 
initiated within the SOC population. It is unknown if the second native 
fisher dispersed from the NCSO population or if it is part of an 
unknown remnant native population that historically occupied the area 
now considered the reintroduced SOC population. While there is evidence 
that fishers may cross Interstate 5, we do not have information on how 
often this activity may or may not occur. We also do not have 
information about the likelihood of increased genetic exchange between 
the two populations into the foreseeable future, although these 
observations demonstrate that it is certainly possible, or about the 
relative success fishers have when attempting to cross features such as 
interstates or rivers.
    (151) Comment: One commenter stated that although surveys for the 
presence or absence of fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS have not 
been completed for its entire range, they believe that the best 
available data indicate that the proposed DPS is in danger of 
extinction. The commenter stated that a lack of survey information 
should not prevent the Service from making a listing decision, 
particularly given the proposed DPS is ``struggling to survive'' and 
``is considered likely to be extirpated throughout a significant 
portion of its historic range.'' Additionally, if more survey 
information becomes available, the commenter indicated that the Service 
should closely analyze that new information and any potential bias from 
the submitters of that new information.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires that we assess factors 
that may contribute to a species meeting the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species. In our evaluation of all the best 
scientific and commercial information available, we find no evidence of 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales for 
fishers in the proposed DPS (see Determination, above). We have not 
based our decision on a lack of survey information. A compilation and 
analysis of survey records alone would not likely be sufficient to 
evaluate the response of populations to biological stressors that act 
upon the populations. We welcome any new information regarding the 
biological status of fishers in the west coast States, including any 
new survey information that may come available.
    (152) Comment: One commenter stated there is ambiguity when 
comparing historical and contemporary localities of fisher detections 
and states that, compared to the historical distribution of fishers, 
there does not appear to be any contemporary range contraction in 
California. The commenter requested clarification of whether Figure 4 
in the draft Species Report represents all reliability ratings. 
Further, based on a comparison of Figure 7 and Figure 8 in the draft 
Species Report, the commenter stated that fishers are currently 
distributed over a larger geographical area in California and with a 
far greater number of locality records on the northern California coast 
in recent times (after 1993).
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter's assertions that there 
has not been any range contraction in the contemporary time period in 
California. For clarification, Figure 4 in the draft Species Report 
depicts locality information from reports of the species in the 
analysis area from 1896 to the present (Service 2014, pp. 22, 26) and 
therefore, represents all reliability ratings from high reliability to 
unreliable records. We included all records in this figure because it 
provides the best picture of all of the data informing us as to the 
likely historical distribution of fisher within the west coast States; 
we have clarified this in the Figure 4 legend. Regarding comparisons of 
Figures 7 (high-reliability recent records) and 8 (all historical 
records) from the draft Species Report, records prior to 1993 indicate 
a wider historical distribution to the east in the NCSO population. 
While the furthest extent of the north-south distribution in California 
is similar to the historical distribution, there are more records of 
fishers throughout the length of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada Ranges 
of California than there are in the historical distribution. Therefore, 
the current distribution of fishers is not described as being greater 
than it was historically. We agree that there are a greater number of 
locality records from the California coast in recent times than there 
are in the historical record. These recent records reflect the 
significant amount of research that has been conducted along the 
California coast in recent times.
    (153) Comment: One commenter stated that data for the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fishers indicate stable occupancy in the coastal redwoods 
and Sierra Nevada areas with no statistical support for population 
declines. The commenter stated that while the draft Species Report 
acknowledged these studies undertaken on the northern California coast, 
and should take note of new information in Sweitzer et al. (2015a, 
entire) and the CDFW fisher status review, there is little discussion 
of the implications of fisher use of managed forests or how that 
information can be used to predict suitable reintroduction sites in 
Oregon and Washington.
    Our Response: There is an extensive discussion in the Habitat 
Associations section of the draft Species Report (see especially pages 
17 and 18) of fisher use of managed lands, and this discussion has been 
further expanded in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 15-21) 
in response to comments and new information received during the comment 
periods. The commenter acknowledges the discussion in the draft Species 
Report summarizing the results of research on the status (Service 2014, 
pp. 37-46) of fisher populations; this section has also been revised 
and expanded to reflect new information received since the draft 
Species Report was released (Service 2016, pp. 42-53). Reintroductions 
are currently under way in the Washington Cascades, but only Forest 
Service and NPS lands were considered for reintroduction sites. While 
our draft and final Species Reports do not specifically address how 
fisher use of managed lands can be used to determine suitable 
reintroduction sites in Oregon and Washington, such an evaluation is 
beyond the scope of our listing determination. However, the information 
summarized in the final Species Report, our experience with the 
Northern Sierra Nevada Reintroduced Population in California, and the 
information provided by the commenter will all be considered as future 
reintroductions onto managed lands are planned.
    In addition, the lack of evidence for fisher population declines in 
the west coast States, in conjunction with our assessment of the 
stressors to the species, was an important consideration

[[Page 22769]]

in our final determination that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act (see Determination, above).
    (154) Comment: One commenter stated that the fisher populations in 
the proposed West Coast DPS have expanded effectively by almost a half 
million acres in the past 20 years (since 1990), including fisher 
presence now documented in places such as east of Interstate 5, around 
the perimeter of Shasta Lake, and south of the Fountain fire area on 
private lands. The commenter asserted this information supports not 
listing the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers as an endangered or 
threatened species.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs us to determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of factors affecting its continued existence. The presence of 
fishers in locations not previously documented in recent years is not 
necessarily indicative of increasing fisher populations and population 
expansion; for example, an increase in fisher detections may be 
indicative of increased survey effort in recent years.
    The commenter does not present data indicating what methods were 
used to determine that the fisher population area across the proposed 
West Coast DPS has expanded by a half million acres since 1990, nor are 
any negative survey data for prior years presented. We have no evidence 
to suggest that any range expansion has occurred such as described by 
the commenter. Finally, no new data are presented that indicate that 
fishers are evenly distributed throughout this expansion area. The 
comment does not present evidence sufficient to support a listing 
determination. However, based on our assessment of the best scientific 
and commercial data available, we have concluded that the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act, and we are withdrawing the proposed 
rule to list the DPS.
    (155) Comment: One commenter stated that there is no indication 
that the range of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher east of 
Interstate 5 has contracted (as indicated in the draft Species Report 
and proposed rule), and suggests that it may even be expanding. The 
commenter concluded that recent survey results suggest the present 
range is continuous from the Interstate 5/Sacramento River corridor and 
Shasta Lake east through the Pit River area, the Fountain Fire area, 
and further south into eastern Tehama County.
    Our Response: Please see responses to Comments (152) and (154).
    (156) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed West Coast 
DPS of fisher does not occur in the coastal region of Mendocino County. 
The commenter provided negative survey information from multiple survey 
efforts that included extensive, systematic survey efforts across much 
of the Mendocino coastal redwood region, resulting in only one 
detection on the easternmost border of the dominant coastal zone in 
Mendocino County. The commenter suggested their lands should not be 
included in the proposed DPS due to the absence of fishers.
    Our Response: We disagree that fisher do not occur in the coastal 
region of Mendocino County and that the proposed DPS's range should not 
include the commenter's lands in coastal Mendocino County due to the 
apparent absence of fishers. Our position aligns with the information 
provided by the commenter and in our files, specifically: (1) The 
internal report that included a verifiable fisher detection on their 
lands, and (2) positive survey results from CDFW surveys conducted 
within coastal redwood habitat in Mendocino County immediately adjacent 
to their lands. Figure 1 of the proposed rule (79 FR 60419) and Figure 
7 of the draft and final Species Reports (Service 2014, p. 31; Service 
2016, p. 34) show verifiable fisher detection locations in northern 
coastal Mendocino County. These two [identical] maps were created using 
highly reliable fisher detection records from 1993 to present. We do 
agree, however, that based on the lack of suitable fisher habitat 
within the commenter's lands (due to extensive timber harvest over the 
past 100 years), fishers probably occur in very small numbers on their 
lands. Our DPS policy does not exclude lands from a DPS's range based 
solely on the current rarity or perceived absence of the target 
species. In addition, portions of coastal Mendocino County are under 
Federal ownership and contain relatively large amounts of suitable 
fisher habitat. Therefore, excluding all of coastal Mendocino County 
from the proposed DPS's range boundary would exclude large tracts of 
suitable habitat (some occupied and some unoccupied) that occur outside 
of private timber company holdings.
    (157) Comment: One commenter both agreed and disagreed with the 
best available information that we presented regarding distribution of 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers on their lands. The commenter 
stated that their managed timberlands in northern California are 
inhabited by a large, healthy population of fishers, and their managed 
timberlands in Oregon and Washington are not inhabited by native 
populations of fishers. A second commenter also articulated that 
fishers are well documented on their timber lands in California (i.e., 
lands that are managed for commercial timber harvest), asserting that 
the population (based on wording in the comment letter, we assume the 
commenter is referring to the population as a whole in California and 
not just the fisher population on their lands) is stable or expanding.
    Our Response: We agree there is direct physical evidence that 
fishers occur on the first commenter's lands in north coastal 
California (Hamm et al. 2003, p. 203), but disagree that sufficient 
scientific or commercial information exists that suggests fishers occur 
on their lands as a ``large, healthy population.'' Regarding whether 
the fisher population on their lands is ``large,'' the commenter 
provided a single fisher density estimate from a 77-mi\2\ (200-km\2\) 
portion of their lands in north coastal California, which if 
extrapolated across their entire holdings would suggest a relatively 
large population. However, the commenter did not provide a fisher 
population size estimate for their lands in north coastal California, 
possibly because of the difficulty of extrapolating a density estimate 
of a rare forest carnivore from a relatively small study area to an 
entire extant population area. Several fisher studies have been 
conducted since the early 1980s within the NCSO population. However, as 
we stated in the draft and final Species Reports (Service 2014, p. 37; 
Service 2016, p. 42), no published population or density estimates are 
available for the entire [emphasis added] NCSO population, especially 
as currently defined. The lack of such estimates suggest the 
researchers do not believe valid population size estimates can be 
generated by extrapolating density estimates from relatively small 
study areas to the much larger NCSO population area. The same commenter 
also did not present data on demographic parameters (e.g., sex ratio, 
age structure) or vital rates (e.g., birth and death rates) that would 
support a conclusion that the population is currently ``healthy.'' 
Therefore, the commenter's assertion that the fisher population on 
their lands is large and healthy is not supported by the best 
scientific or commercial information available.

[[Page 22770]]

    While we agree with the second commenter's assertion that fishers 
may be ``well documented'' on the commenter's lands, the lack of 
abundance estimates over time, which are required for a population 
trend analysis, make it impossible at this time to conclude that the 
fisher population is stable. However, using the survey methods employed 
by the commenter, we do agree it is possible to detect a relative 
``expansion'' of a fisher population on their lands; that is, an 
expansion that may suggest an increase in fisher distribution.
Economics
    (158) Comment: One local government asserted that listing the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher would result in significant 
socioeconomic and cumulative impacts, and that conservation actions for 
endangered or threatened species should be balanced with potential 
impacts to humans. Two additional public commenters stated that a 
listing would significantly impact rural communities, with one 
commenter specifically addressing Southern Oregon's rural communities, 
timber producers, family farmers, and other natural resources 
industries.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act lists the factors we use 
to determine whether or not a species is endangered or threatened; such 
a determination is to be based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available. While the Act provides for the consideration 
of potential economic impacts in the course of designating critical 
habitat, it does not provide for any such consideration when 
determining whether a species meets the statutory definitions of an 
endangered or a threatened species. Per section 4 of the Act and its 
implementing regulations, we have carefully assessed the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, 
and future threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher and are 
withdrawing our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above). 
Consequently, no Federal protections under the Act will be put in place 
for the proposed DPS, and, therefore, no real or perceived 
socioeconomic or cumulative impacts referred to by the commenter will 
be realized. We note that extensive conservation actions for fishers in 
the west coast States have been implemented and will continue to be 
implemented at the Federal, State, and local levels in the future. We 
are committed to monitoring the biological status of fishers in the 
west coast States, and will continue to do so in the future.
    (159) Comment: Two commenters stated that for this listing 
evaluation for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, the listing 
process should not be rushed, and the Service should allow the public 
and affected stakeholders additional time to review given that a 
potential listing of the fisher will have significant, adverse impacts 
to forest management activities on both Federal and private timberlands 
in California. A second commenter stated that a slow Federal listing 
process would assist the State of California to complete their final 
decision on whether the fisher should be State-listed in California.
    Our Response: We opened a 90-day comment period with the 
publication of the proposed listing rule, and prior to the close of the 
comment period, we extended the comment period for an additional 30 
days (79 FR 76950). Additionally, we held one public hearing and seven 
information meetings between November 17, 2014, and December 4, 2014. 
On April 15, 2015 (80 FR 19953), concurrent with our announcement of an 
additional 30-day comment period, we invoked a 6-month extension of the 
due date of our final decision due to the substantial disagreement 
regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides 
(including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to 
surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey 
results) to help assess distribution and population trends and in our 
notice, we specifically sought information relating to these issues. In 
all, the public had a total of 120 days to provide comment on the 
proposed listing rule and with the 6-month extension of our final 
decision, we have used the maximum time allowed by the Act to complete 
this listing process. With regard to the listing process undertaken by 
the State of California, they implemented their decision-making process 
(which resulted in listing of the SSN ESU under CESA), and we have not 
(and, by law, could not) slowed our process to accommodate the State's 
decision-making process. Our evaluation and that of the State are 
separate, independent processes governed by separate regulatory 
processes and timeframes.
    (160) Comment: One commenter asserted that listing the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher would likely adversely affect their 
organization's members' supply of public timber. Additionally, the 
commenter was concerned about spread of insect, disease, and wildfire 
from poorly managed public lands to their member's lands, and there 
would be a potential ``take'' liability that would constrain private 
land management.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act lists the factors we use 
to determine whether or not a species is endangered or threatened; such 
a determination is to be based solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available. The consideration of the 
potential economic implications of listing a species is not a 
consideration when determining whether a species meets the statutory 
definitions of an endangered or a threatened species (although the Act 
does allow for the consideration of such impacts when designating 
critical habitat). It is also not clear to us how the commenter's 
concern regarding the potential spread of insect, disease, and wildfire 
would result from listing. Following our assessment of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we have withdrawn our 
proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above). Therefore, no 
Federal protections under the Act will be implemented for the species. 
However, we note there are still programs in place that are actively 
engaged in conservation of fishers in the west coast States.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    (161) Comment: The State of Washington argued that there are many 
existing regulatory mechanisms that provide a benefit to fishers and 
their habitat. For example, the State stressed that trapping 
regulations have substantially reduced fisher mortality in the analysis 
area, although they argue that incidental captures may still have a 
meaningful influence on fisher populations, and the Service should not 
underestimate the severity of this threat (i.e., trapping).
    Our Response: We evaluated the existing regulatory mechanisms in 
Washington State for fisher in both our draft and final Species 
Reports, including trapping regulations. We also evaluated trapping as 
a stressor for fisher (Service 2016, pp. 125-127). Trapping for fishers 
is not legal in Washington, and most uses of body-gripping or leg-hold 
traps, which are largely responsible for injury or mortality as a 
result of incidental capture, are also prohibited. Based on our 
analysis, we agree that existing trapping regulations have led to a 
substantial reduction in fisher mortality. However, we found no 
evidence to suggest that incidental captures are having a meaningful 
influence on fisher populations in Washington State, and maintain that 
in the absence of data, any inference in this regard would be 
speculative. Therefore, based on our

[[Page 22771]]

analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we conclude that the severity of trapping as a stressor for fisher 
populations in Washington State has not been underestimated, and that 
all existing regulatory mechanisms have been given appropriate 
consideration (see Trapping and Incidental Capture and Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms, above).
    (162) Comment: The State of Washington stated that, with regards to 
regulatory mechanisms, they expect to restrict the use of pesticides in 
Washington State if pesticide poses a threat to the environment. The 
State asserted that they are willing to use their authority to address 
illegal use or minimize off-target impacts of pesticides through 
administration of a Pesticide Management Strategy and annual 
cooperative agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
If it is found that illegal or off-target use of rodenticides is 
negatively impacting fishers, the State asserted that their 
implementation of the Pesticide Regulatory Program and Natural Resource 
Assessment Section would prevent pesticide use from remaining a threat 
to the fisher in Washington.
    Our Response: We discussed the known effects of illegal and off-
target rodenticides on fishers in the State of Washington in the draft 
Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 152-169) and in our final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159). As described in our final Species 
Report, the best information we have about rodenticide exposure in 
Washington comes from 13 dead fishers from the reintroduced ONP 
population whose carcasses were recovered and tested. Three of the 13 
had been exposed to ARs, and were either born on the Peninsula or had 
resided there for longer than the persistence time for the ARs detected 
(given that the original reintroduced individuals came from British 
Columbia and exposure to toxicants could have occurred at that 
location); the sample size was too small to extrapolate. However, these 
three were found in or near residential areas, suggesting that exposure 
may have resulted from legal use of rodenticides. We appreciate the 
State's commitment to contribute to the conservation of fishers in 
Washington, but at this time we do not have evidence to suggest that 
pesticide use poses a threat to fishers in Washington (see the 
``Toxicants'' sections of this document and the final Species Report 
for additional discussion).
    (163) Comment: The State of Oregon asserted that listing the fisher 
would do little to protect the taxon, and that a Federal listing would 
likely result in unintended consequences or disincentives for private 
landowners to engage in voluntary actions that may promote the 
conservation of the proposed DPS, including habitat protections. 
Additionally, the State indicated that they are already implementing 
conservation actions that address many of the threats described in the 
draft Species Report and proposed rule (e.g., managing to reduce the 
risk of high-intensity wildfire, identifying key wildlife crossing 
points on roads to reduce mortalities from vehicle collisions). 
Finally, the State indicated that listing would not address impacts 
from climate change, disease, or predation, the latter two of which are 
natural processes that affect all wildlife populations.
    Our Response: Listing a species under the Act takes into 
consideration specific factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act 
which may, singly or in combination, contribute to a species meeting 
the definition of an endangered or a threatened species. This 
determination is to be made solely on the basis of the best scientific 
and commercial data available; whether or not listing the species will 
have a beneficial effect in terms of reducing or eliminating identified 
threat factors is not a lawful consideration in this determination. We 
described conservation measures that are currently being implemented to 
ameliorate the stressors to the species in both our final Species 
Report and in this document, including important conservation 
contributions by the State of Oregon.
    (164) Comment: The State of Oregon, plus one other commenter, 
asserted that the draft Species Report misrepresented the requirements 
of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The commenter stated that while the 
report acknowledged no-cut buffers, it failed to account for Oregon's 
basal area and tree count requirements in riparian areas ranging from 
50 to 100 ft (15 to 30 m) on each side of the stream. The State of 
Oregon also provided descriptions for additional protections afforded 
by the Oregon Forest Practices Act for wildlife sites and other 
protected resources.
    Our Response: As described by the commenter, we have included the 
Oregon Forest Practices Act riparian regulations and other information 
in the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section of the final Species 
Report.
    (165) Comment: The State of Oregon stated that listing the fisher 
may do little to address threats such as loss of fisher habitat given 
existing management on Federal lands. Specifically, they stated that 
declines in late-successional forests in western Oregon occurred 
largely during 1880-1990. They reiterated from the NWFP that: (a) A 
primary goal is the restoration and maintenance of late-successional 
and old-growth forests and old-growth dependent species; and (b) that 
the NWFP projected that, over a time horizon of 100 years, the area of 
late-successional and old-growth forest that was depleted by timber 
harvest could be restored and maintained at or near historic levels.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act sets forth the factors 
used to evaluate whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. Listing a species under the 
Act requires the identification of factors affecting the species such 
that it meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species. 
The analysis is strictly a biological analysis; whether the Act can 
make a difference in ameliorating specific threats is not a 
consideration in a listing determination. We acknowledge the 
commenter's statement that habitat on Federal land may recover through 
management under the NWFP, and indeed in our final Species Report we 
were able to incorporate ingrowth that has occurred within the NWFP 
area over the past 20 years, based on the recent NWFP 20-year late-
successional old-growth monitoring report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire). 
Ultimately, we have determined that habitat loss through vegetation 
management, though historically contributing to fisher declines, does 
not currently threaten the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, nor is it 
likely to do so in the future (see Vegetation Management, above). 
According to section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations, we 
have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the 
proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher and are withdrawing our proposal 
to list this DPS (see Determination, above).
    (166) Comment: Several commenters stated that existing regulatory 
mechanisms are adequate for the long-term protection of fishers in the 
west coast States; thus, listing the proposed DPS is not warranted. One 
of these commenters specified that existing Forest Service and BLM 
``sensitive status'' protections and CDFW's ``candidate status'' 
protections are sufficient, and that additional ESA protections would 
only result in added administrative costs and delays in operating and 
management activities. Two other commenters stated that existing 
regulatory mechanisms are adequate based on the beneficial management 
prescribed through the NWFP (reserves, LSRs, and the survey

[[Page 22772]]

and management standards and guidelines for matrix lands) and the 
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), both of which reduce areas 
available for timber management and halted the significant impacts 
associated with destruction/loss of late-successional forests, as well 
as other protective land use designations that benefit fishers and 
their habitat (e.g., Sierra Fisher Conservation Area, Giant Sequoia 
National Monument, and other National Park Service lands). Another 
commenter highlighted the Forest Service and BLM's extensive planning 
efforts to consider sensitive species for every project, which 
contributes substantially to fisher conservation.
    In contrast, four commenters asserted that the existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate because federally protected lands do not 
provide sufficient suitable habitat (or protection of essential habitat 
elements) for fishers. One of these commenters argued that significant 
timber harvest acreage in California occurs via clearcutting or similar 
alternative methods, with other acreage also planned for sanitation-
salvage logging operations and group-selection silviculture (Haines 
2014), none of which (the commenter asserts) benefits the fisher. The 
second commenter stated that an ESA-listing would help address the lack 
of adequate pesticide (specifically rodenticide) regulatory mechanisms 
in Oregon and Washington. The third commenter asserted that reliance on 
the Federal lands LSR system, which provides conservation targeted at 
northern spotted owls and other late-seral-dependent species, is not 
sufficient to ensure conservation and recovery of the fisher because 
current LSR restrictions allow significant alteration and degradation 
of fisher habitat.
    Our Response: We have thoroughly considered all existing regulatory 
and other mechanisms in place that are relevant to stressors identified 
for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, as described in our final 
Species Report and in this document. Our evaluation of all best 
scientific and commercial data available leads us to conclude that the 
stressors acting upon the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher are not of 
sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that that 
they are singly or cumulatively resulting in significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales. As this finding leads us to 
conclude that the stressors acting on the species are not functioning 
as operative threats on the fisher's habitat, populations, or the 
proposed DPS as a whole, we cannot further conclude that existing 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate. Furthermore, our assessment of 
fisher habitat throughout the analysis area indicates that there are 
large areas of currently unoccupied habitat that are of moderate to 
high suitability for fishers; this is particularly true on Federal 
lands.
    (167) Comment: One commenter proclaimed that reliance on the 
Federal lands LSR system to provide for conservation of the northern 
spotted owl and other late, seral-dependent species has not been 
sufficient to curtail the decline of the owl, and will not be 
sufficient to ensure conservation and recovery of the fisher. The 
commenter also alleged that recent estimates show only about 36 percent 
of LSRs include late-successional forests, with the majority of the 
designated reserves expected to acquire such conditions over decades 
(Strittholt et al. 2006). Finally, the commenter claimed that current 
LSR restrictions still allow significant alteration of fisher habitat 
and do not provide protection of elements essential to fisher habitat, 
such as large trees, snags, downed wood, and high canopy closure, and 
that the lack of direction to protect these habitat elements results in 
degradation and destruction of late-successional habitat utilized by 
the fisher.
    Our Response: Please see responses to Comments (125) and (166).
    (168) Comment: One commenter stressed that existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate for addressing illegal and egregious trespass 
marijuana agriculture and associated use of ARs. The commenter noted 
that State and Federal wildlife officials (law enforcement) currently 
have few legal or regulatory mechanisms to ensure best management 
practices for both trespass and cottage industry marijuana growing 
operations.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that some existing 
regulatory mechanisms are not effective in addressing illegal trespass 
marijuana agriculture and associated use of ARs. By definition, illegal 
activities are not compliant with regulations. While the draft Species 
Report indicates that Federal law enforcement agencies have been very 
successful in eradicating (see for example Figure 19 (Service 2014, p. 
156)), and in some cases, remediating illegal marijuana trespass grow 
sites, the draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 142) stated that 
``[t] he primary regulatory issue for rodenticides and fishers is the 
availability of large quantities of rodenticides that can be purchased 
under the guise of legal uses, which can then be used illegally in 
marijuana grows within fisher habitat.'' In addition, we do not know 
how well existing regulatory mechanisms protect fishers from exposure 
to legal uses of rodenticides (Service 2014, p. 144). However, since we 
do not have evidence to suggest that fisher populations within the west 
coast States are exhibiting any significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales as a consequence of exposure to ARs, we 
cannot conclude that the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control 
illegal marijuana grow operations poses a threat to the proposed DPS. 
In addition, please see our response to Comment (166).
    (169) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service strongly 
consider CDFW's comments, information, and recommendations in the final 
decision given that approximately 95 percent of the extant fisher 
populations are located in California.
    Our Response: We have reviewed and considered all comments and 
information provided, including information provided by CDFW, and we 
have incorporated relevant information in this document and the final 
Species Report, where applicable. Our final determination is based upon 
our thorough consideration of all of the best scientific and commercial 
information available to us, including the information provided by 
CDFW.
    (170) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service urge the 
Forest Service and BLM to create and implement forest plan standards 
for fishers, under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
    Our Response: Section 7(a)(1) of the Act states, in part: ``All 
other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the 
assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance 
of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the 
conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed 
pursuant to section 4 of this Act.'' Section 7(a)(1) applies only to 
listed species, and we have determined that listing the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher is not warranted (see Determination, above). 
Therefore, the Act does not require that conservation programs for 
fishers be implemented. However, we will continue to monitor the status 
of the fisher in the west coast States through monitoring associated 
with the various forest and management plans and other conservation 
efforts that occur within the fisher populations or other unoccupied, 
suitable habitat areas and provide recommendations to the Forest 
Service and BLM, as appropriate.
    (171) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service referenced the 
Oregon Forest Practices Act in the existing regulatory mechanisms 
section

[[Page 22773]]

of the proposed rule but mischaracterized the regulation description 
and the State's associated program in the Species Report. Specifically, 
the commenter asserted that although the Oregon FPA provides for the 
retention of habitat components that may not be explicitly designed to 
protect fishers, the protected habitat is the type of late-successional 
habitat that the Species Report asserts the fisher requires. The 
commenter also added that the draft Species Report included a ``myopic 
view toward old-growth habitat'' by ignoring a large body of science 
recognizing that fisher thrive in a mosaic of habitat conditions. 
Finally, the commenter contended that the Oregon FPA is a sophisticated 
statute that drives a robust and dynamic regulatory environment in 
Oregon that consistently produces high-quality wildlife habitat on 
private lands, including habitat suitable to fisher success, and that 
the draft Species Report's assertion to the contrary is in error.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the 
Oregon FPA protects the type of late-successional habitat 
characteristics that fishers require. At the structure-specific scale, 
the retention of trees and snags as required by the Oregon FPA will not 
meet the needs of denning fishers based on our understanding of their 
use of these structures. As an example, minimum diameters for retained 
snags and green trees under the Oregon FPA are smaller than the inside 
diameter of hollow trees used by denning females. Furthermore, the 
smaller green trees that are retained likely will not have the decay 
that is required for use by denning females, and there is no 
requirement to retain these trees on the landscape for the time needed 
to develop the appropriate size, nor to retain them through multiple 
harvest rotations to allow sufficient time to develop the degree of rot 
necessary to form a hollow stem that provides a den site. Thus, while 
the Oregon FPA requires retention of green trees and snags in harvested 
areas, these retained trees and snags most likely will not meet the 
needs of denning females given the minimum size allowed for retention, 
and the likely loss of these remnants during the next harvest rotation.
    While fishers may use a mosaic of habitat conditions for which some 
level of younger industrial forests may be sufficient at the landscape 
scale, the Oregon FPA requirements for retaining older forest stands 
are limited to specific conditions such as no-cut retention buffers 
around streams and protection of specific wildlife sites. These 
retention areas may or may not be late-successional, depending on what 
forest stand exists at the time they are put in effect. Even if these 
stands are late-successional, they occur on a substantially small part 
of the non-Federally managed landscape compared to the heavily managed 
portion of industrial forest where little structure is likely to occur.
    We have stated in the draft Species Report and in the final Species 
Report that fishers use and even reproduce in managed forest landscapes 
if there are sufficient amounts and an adequate distribution of key 
habitat and structural components important to fishers, noting that 
younger and mid-seral forests may be suitable for fishers if they 
retain the necessary structural complexity and features. While this 
habitat could be provided by timber managers on a discretionary basis, 
as noted above, the minimum size requirements and lack of long-term 
retention under the Oregon FPA will not necessarily result in meeting 
the structural habitat needs of fishers.
    (172) Comment: One commenter declared that the draft Species Report 
is too dismissive of NEPA benefits to fishers. The commenter asserted 
that NEPA, along with other existing regulatory mechanisms, 
significantly contributes to the conservation of fisher, which further 
supports that listing is not warranted. The commenter acknowledged that 
NEPA does not have substantive requirements, but stated that its 
procedural requirements often result in carefully designed, agency 
actions that minimize or mitigate project effects to specific species 
and resources, including fisher. Further, the commenter asserted that 
combining the Forest Service's policy with NEPA requirements makes NEPA 
an action-forcing statute that guides the agency's analysis and 
implementation of all projects that could affect fishers. The commenter 
referenced the Bybee Vegetation Management project on the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest as an example that provides substantial 
conservation benefit to fishers.
    Our Response: We consider NEPA to be an important environmental 
disclosure statute. Our discussion of NEPA in the draft Species Report, 
the proposed rule, and this document (see ``Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms'' sections) clearly states that the evaluation of projects 
under NEPA does not regulate or protect fisher nor does it require or 
guide potential mitigation for project impacts. The individual actions 
analyzed under NEPA are the projects that may or may not benefit 
species.
    (173) Comment: One commenter asserted that current regulatory 
processes and landowner management practices protect fisher populations 
and habitat; thus, the taxon does not require Federal protection under 
the Act.
    Our Response: Per section 4 of the Act and its implementing 
regulations, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future 
threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher, and we have 
determined that the threats we identified in the proposed rule are not 
now and will not in the foreseeable future act on the species in such a 
way that the fisher meets the definition of an endangered or a 
threatened species. Consequently, we are withdrawing our proposal to 
list this DPS (see Determination, above). Current landowner management 
practices that benefit fisher and its habitat are important for the 
conservation of fishers in the west coast States, and we encourage 
those activities to continue, as they will contribute to the 
maintenance of fishers in the west coast States and may preclude the 
need to reconsider listing fisher in the future.
Foreseeable Future
    (174) Comment: One commenter noted that in the proposed rule we 
stated, ``we considered 40 years to be a reasonable estimate of the 
foreseeable future for fisher because it falls within the spectrum of 
predictions into the future and is supported by habitat model and 
climate model predictability.'' However, the commenter noted that the 
Service, in both the draft Species Report and the proposed rule, 
declined to use such models to support conclusions, speculating that 
the Service's conclusion was too uncertain to substantially inform the 
threats evaluation. Similarly, the commenter noted that the draft 
Species Report acknowledged that habitat ingrowth will occur, but 
concludes, ``While we attempt to quantify habitat loss, we were unable 
to quantify habitat recruitment or silvicultural treatments that may 
offset some habitat loss over our 40-year analysis window.'' The 
commenter stated that the draft Species Report made numerous other 
references to uncertainty in modeling and prediction of ingrowth and 
basically refuses to account for ingrowth due to this uncertainty. The 
commenter asserted that the speculative nature and inconsistent 
treatment of the ``foreseeable future'' has ramifications throughout 
the draft Species Report and proposed rule, and suggested that the 
Service acknowledge the degree of

[[Page 22774]]

uncertainty in projecting all stressors across the foreseeable future. 
Finally, the commenter requested that the Service revise the definition 
of ``foreseeable future'' for its final determination to one that is 
supportable by substantial predictive information.
    Our Response: The concept of the ``foreseeable future'' comes into 
play under section 3 of the Act in the definition of a threatened 
species. The Act defines a ``threatened species'' as any species (or 
subspecies or, for vertebrates, distinct population segment) that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not, 
however, define the term ``foreseeable future.'' Furthermore, the 
concept of the foreseeable future is an inherently nebulous construct; 
there is no mathematical formula capable of providing a quantitative 
solution to identifying a precise moment in time when the status of the 
species would transition from threatened status to endangered status.
    We interpret foreseeable future as that extent of time over which 
the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in 
making determinations about the future conservation status of the 
species. In the context of the definition of a threatened species, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time over which events can 
reasonably be anticipated. Our references to ``reliable predictions'' 
are not meant to refer to reliability in a statistical sense of 
confidence or significance; rather the words ``rely'' and ``reliable'' 
are intended to be used according to their common, non-technical 
meanings in ordinary usage. In other words, we consider a prediction to 
be reliable if it is reasonable to depend upon it in making decisions, 
and if that prediction does not extend past the support of scientific 
data or reason so as to venture into the realm of speculation. Our 
approach to defining the general period of time that may be considered 
to constitute the foreseeable future is in accord with the Department 
of the Interior Solicitor's opinion on foreseeable future (M-37021, 
January 16, 2009; p. 9), available on the Internet at https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37021.pdf.
    As suggested in the Solicitor's opinion for our analysis of the 
stressors to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, we are relying on 
an evaluation of the foreseeability of those stressors and the 
foreseeability of the effect of the stressors on the proposed DPS, 
extending this time period out only so far as we can rely on the data 
to formulate reliable predictions about the status of the proposed DPS, 
and not extending so far as to venture into the realm of speculation. 
In this case, many of the stressors fell into a foreseeable future 
timeframe within which we concluded the effects of stressors on the 
proposed DPS could be reliably projected out over a time period of 
approximately 40 years. For the stressor of climate change, for 
example, many different models project changes in temperature, 
precipitation, or other climatic variables over a period of at least 
100 years (see ``Climate Change'' sections of this document and the 
final Species Report). As described in the final Species Report, the 
predicted changes in climatic conditions are generally in agreement 
under the variety of different emissions scenarios considered until 
mid-century; after that point, the trajectory of projected changes 
begin to diverge. For this reason, we conclude that we can reasonably 
rely on predictions regarding future climate changes over a period of 
roughly 40 years, up to that mid-century point. Similarly, we conclude 
it is reasonable to predict changes in forest conditions as a result of 
vegetation management over approximately the same period of time, based 
on forest planning horizons and time needed to observe changes in 
forest conditions (see ``Vegetation Management'' sections of this 
document and the final Species Report). For these reasons, we conclude 
40 years constitutes a reasonable approximation of that period of time 
over which we can reliably predict the effects of several of the 
stressors acting on the proposed West Coast DPS or fisher.
    We agree that for some stressors we do not have sufficient data to 
reliably predict effects on fishers over any specific period of time 
(for example, disease). For these stressors we could only state that 
they are ``ongoing.'' In our final Species Report, we have attempted to 
be more explicit in our acknowledgment of uncertainty regarding 
timeframes and effects of such stressors, and to clearly avoid 
speculation with regard to the potential future effects of a stressor 
if we do not have sufficient scientific data to provide us with a basis 
for projection.
    Finally, we received many comments regarding the failure of the 
draft Species Report to account for habitat ingrowth within the 40-year 
timeframe considered for habitat stressors. We were able to do so in 
our final Species Report within the area covered by the NWFP (which 
covers most of the analysis area, with the exception of the southern 
portion of the proposed West Coast DPS and the area east of the Cascade 
mountains), using the recent NWFP 20-year late-successional old-growth 
monitoring report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire). This analysis looks at 
changes in forests with old-forest structural characteristics for the 
past 20 years (the extent of NWFP implementation), categorizing forest 
loss by different disturbance mechanisms, including timber harvest, and 
also recording ingrowth of older forests. This analysis also records 
activities on non-Federal as well as Federal ownership. It is the only 
large-scale vegetation trend analysis available that classified 
vegetation loss to type of disturbance (i.e., vegetation management 
activities versus wildfire or some other disturbance type). Thus, our 
final Species Report accounts for ingrowth wherever we had data 
available.
Forest Management
    (175) Comment: Two commenters declared that the Service's analysis 
of vegetation management in the draft Species Report and proposed rule 
is incomplete and improperly biased towards negative impacts, including 
an overall impact that appears overestimated. One commenter asserted 
that this may be true for historical logging practices, but modern 
forest practices (e.g., limiting clearcutting, creating riparian 
buffers, implementing green tree and wildlife tree retention 
requirements, replanting, and implementing green-up requirements rules) 
are now ameliorating the negative impacts of historical logging 
practices. The second commenter requested that the Service identify a 
foreseeable future time period for the final rule for which potential 
effects of vegetation management activities are reasonably 
demonstrable, and more carefully analyze the trend in timber harvest 
into the future, noting the accompanying uncertainty when applicable.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report discusses the timeframe of 
the analysis into the future (see introductory text under the ``Review 
of Stressors'' section (Service 2014, pp. 46-50) and points out the 
different timeframes that we took into account to address stressors 
that may impact fishers directly and those that may impact habitat. We 
considered vegetation management over a timeframe of 40 years based on 
the projected management activity that we were aware of at that time, 
and because habitat loss has both an immediate and ongoing effect on 
fisher populations and public and private land-management regimes are 
planned on a multi-decade to 100-year (e.g., Sustained Yield Plans

[[Page 22775]]

under the California Forest Practice Rules) timescale (Service 2014, p. 
50). This 40-year period of time was what we could reasonably rely on 
for predictions about the future in making determinations about future 
conservation status of the proposed DPS. We continue to use this 
timeframe for vegetation management in our final Species Report. For 
the final Species Report we have changed the approach to reporting 
scope and severity to qualitative terms (whereas our uncertainty in the 
draft Species Report was represented as a range of values), our 
vegetation management analysis in the final Species Report continues to 
identify areas of uncertainty. Representing scope and severity as 
qualitative values is a further acknowledgement of this uncertainty. 
Please also see our responses to Comments (43), (58), (99), (181), and 
(215).
    (176) Comment: Six commenters asserted listing is warranted 
primarily due to mismanaged forested areas. Three commenters stated 
that logging activities in the Sierra Nevada have stripped large 
portions of the landscape, large trees, downed logs, and multi-layered 
canopies that shelter animals, including the fisher, all of which have 
led to a steep fisher decline. Further, commenters proclaimed that 
logging has destroyed specific fisher habitats while favoring 
generalist species such as grey fox and striped skunk, which compete 
with fishers. One of the commenters proclaimed that habitat is not 
managed to benefit fishers (especially in the interspersed 
``checkerboard'' areas of Forest Service and private lands) and the 
Forest Service is over-thinning (as opposed to light thinning from 
below of smaller trees, which appears to have no effect on fisher). Two 
of the four commenters also asserted that listing is warranted because 
fisher sightings are fewer than normal, with one of the commenters 
further articulating that well-documented studies (no citations) 
indicate that the logging of late-successional forests on private and 
Federal lands (the preferred habitat of fishers) is the chief culprit 
behind the species' steep decline, and that managing fisher habitat as 
if it were spotted owl or wolverine habitat would be good for fishers.
    Our Response: Many fisher researchers have suggested that the 
magnitude and intensity of past timber harvest is one of the primary 
causes for historical fisher declines across the United States (Douglas 
and Strickland 1987, p. 512; Powell 1993, pp. 77-80, 84; Powell and 
Zielinski 1994, p. 41) and is one of the main reasons fishers have not 
recovered in Washington, Oregon, and portions of California (Aubry and 
Houston 1992, p. 75; Powell 1993, p. 80; Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 
39, 64; Lewis and Stinson 1998, p. 27; Truex et al. 1998, p. 59). We 
note in the final Species Report and in this document (see Vegetation 
Management above), however, that timber harvest volume has sharply 
declined throughout the west coast States since 1990, with rates 
substantially less than that described by most of the above-cited 
researchers. In the Sierra Nevada there has been a net gain of 
potentially suitable fisher habitat in recent years (Service 2016, p. 
108). Vegetation management is not always detrimental to fisher due to 
many factors including differences in forest types and land ownership, 
silvicultural practices, project-specific objectives, and regulatory 
mechanisms, which vary by State and by Federal agencies. For example, 
private forests typically are not managed for features of fisher 
habitat, whereas the loss of intermediate- and high-quality fisher 
habitat on Federal lands due to management actions has declined 
substantially (at least within the NWFP area since its implementation) 
(Kennedy et al. 2012, p. 128). Habitat loss and fragmentation may be 
compounded by a number of factors, which may include competition for 
prey and suitable den and rest sites as suggested by the commenter.
    We disagree that habitat for fisher should be managed as if it were 
spotted owl or wolverine habitat. While northern spotted owl and fisher 
habitat may be similar in some respects, how they use the habitat is 
different. For example, fisher travel widely within their home ranges 
while spotted owls are central place foragers (i.e., foraging is 
restricted to a narrow area associated with a nest or roost structure). 
Wolverines occupy higher elevation, sub-alpine habitats than fisher; 
therefore, we do not find the comparison between fisher and wolverine 
habitat as valid.
    Finally, several of the commenters point to the ``steep decline'' 
in fishers as evidence of the negative impacts of forest mismanagement. 
We agree that fishers have been lost throughout much of their 
historical range, but indications are that these past losses were 
largely due to threats that are no longer functioning as operative 
threats on the landscape. In our evaluation of all best scientific and 
commercial data available to us, we do not have evidence that fishers 
in the proposed West Coast DPS, although reduced from their past 
abundance and range, are currently experiencing declines.
    (177) Comment: One commenter stated that fishers are not threatened 
by habitat loss. This commenter spoke of substantial areas of unused 
habitat throughout its range, which will continue to increase through 
Federal management, private conservation plans, and forest practice 
rules. The commenter also stated that not listing the fisher as 
threatened is further supported by continued presence of fishers in 
commercial forests. Similarly, another commenter stated that fishers 
continue to be found in areas that have a long history of timber 
harvest and road building (and no old-growth).
    Our Response: As discussed in our response to Comment (182), past 
habitat loss is clearly implicated in the historical range contraction 
of fishers. In addition, any ongoing loss of suitable fisher habitat 
will act as a stressor on remaining fisher populations. Fishers require 
forests that provide high canopy cover and complex structural elements 
to provide denning, resting, and foraging opportunities; the continued 
loss or fragmentation of these forest types is therefore expected to 
have a negative effect on fisher reproduction and survival. Although 
the commenters are correct that fishers have on occasion been observed 
in areas with a long history of timber harvest, our understanding of 
how fishers respond to forest management is limited given the wide 
variety of forest treatments that occur, the scales at which fisher 
response is measured (e.g., at the landscape level versus a den site), 
and the specific fisher activity being observed (e.g., denning, 
foraging, travel). Furthermore, there are no data indicating how 
specific forest management activities may affect demography and long-
term persistence of fishers in a given area. Our final Species Report 
has been updated to incorporate available information with regard to 
fisher use of managed or commercial forests.
    As described in our draft Species Report, a significant amount of 
moderate- and high-quality habitat remains available but unoccupied by 
fishers within the analysis area, for example, within the NCSO 
population (Service 2014, p. 39). According to the results of our 
habitat model (presented in Appendix A in the draft Species Report), 
roughly 16 million acres of intermediate- to high-quality fisher 
habitat is present in the analysis area, and approximately 11 million 
acres of lands are currently under some form of protection (NWFP 
reserves, National Parks, Southern Sierra Fisher

[[Page 22776]]

Conservation Area, etc.; Service 2014, pp. 122-126). Recent information 
from the NWFP 20-year late-successional and old-growth monitoring 
report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire) demonstrates that loss of suitable 
habitat in recent decades (as represented by OGSI-80 forests) has 
slowed dramatically, particularly on Federal lands, compared to pre-
1990 levels (Service 2016, pp. 101-105). As projected, ingrowth is 
occurring and the NWFP appears to be on track to meet its targets for 
maintaining or increasing forests in late-successional condition in its 
reserve areas (Service 2016, pp. 100-102). Suitable habitat in the area 
of the SSN population has increased (Spencer et al. 2016, pp. 42-44). 
In addition, Federal, State, and private actions are expected to 
further contribute to the preservation and management of suitable 
fisher habitat in the west coast States, although several agreements 
are still in the preliminary stages, and we have not relied upon them 
in making our final determination here.
    Although some ongoing level of habitat loss and fragmentation is 
anticipated through vegetation management activities, we have no 
information to suggest that it will be so great as to result in likely 
significant impacts to fisher habitat at either the population or 
rangewide scales. Based upon our evaluation of all the best scientific 
and commercial data available, in this final determination we have 
concluded that although past habitat loss was undoubtedly a key factor 
in the historical declines in range and abundance of fishers throughout 
the proposed DPS, it is not currently an operative threat on the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, nor do we have information to 
indicate that it is likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
    (178) Comment: One commenter stated that when considering the 
combined amount of private commercial timberlands, NWFP lands, and 
other public lands with suitable fisher habitat, these areas provide 
more than enough suitable habitat for the fisher. Furthermore, the 
commenter stated that the Service's decision to use northern spotted 
owl habitat as a surrogate for evaluating stressors to fisher habitat 
is arbitrary, capricious, and not based on the best available science.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (176) regarding 
our evaluation of habitat loss as a potential threat to the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher. In reaching our conclusion that the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of a threatened 
species, we found that the amount of suitable habitat for fisher is 
sufficient to maintain viable fisher populations now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    In our final Species Report, additional data were available that 
allowed us to evaluate the stressor of vegetation management without 
using northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate. Our final analysis 
relies instead on the recently released NWFP 20-year late-successional 
old-growth monitoring report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire) within the 
analysis area covered by the NWFP (most of the proposed DPS except the 
Sierra Nevada and eastern portions of the Oregon and Washington 
Cascades) and GNN vegetation trend analysis for the remainder of the 
analysis area.
    (179) Comment: Two commenters (including one local government) 
stated that the Service did not address the adverse effects of 
mechanical thinning on fishers, when considered at the forest-stand 
scale. One of these commenters specifically stated that the draft 
Species Report neglected to show research results that demonstrate 
adverse effects of mechanical thinning on fishers, and that fishers 
actively avoid thinned areas, citing to the dissertation of Garner 
(2013). Another commenter cited Truex and Zielinski (2013, entire) as 
an example of how fisher react negatively to mechanical treatments.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenters that the draft Species 
Report did not specifically address the adverse effects of mechanical 
thinning in the discussion of forest management techniques that 
adversely affect fishers. We appreciate receiving the references, as 
this is new information for us. Although the draft Species Report 
discussed the possible negative effects of understory treatments in 
general on fishers, we have updated the final Species Report to 
specifically address the issue of mechanical thinning and its effect on 
fishers.
    (180) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Forest Service over-
thins their managed forests, which causes conditions that are counter 
to the heavily forested habitat that fishers prefer. Therefore, the 
commenter asserted that the fisher is most harmed by logging. In 
addition, the commenter observed that understory thinning does not 
affect fishers. However, the commenter did not present any new data to 
support either of these observations.
    Our Response: Both our draft and final Species Reports provide a 
comprehensive discussion of forest management effects on fishers on 
public and private lands. We have no evidence, nor did the commenter 
provide any evidence to support their generalization that the Forest 
Service thins too heavily to maintain fisher habitat. Our final Species 
Report discusses the fact that timber harvests focused on restoration 
are more likely to retain and develop habitat structures important to 
fishers, and tend to be more prevalent on Federal lands and some other 
public (e.g., State) lands because of agency missions and regulations 
(Service 2016, p. 119). Regarding the effects of understory thinning, 
such effects to fishers can vary greatly by the ecosystem type, the 
intensity and scale of treatments (Naney et al. 2012, pp. 29-37), and 
the response of the prey communities being affected by the treatments'' 
(Service 2016, p. 107). Therefore, in general, we do not agree that the 
commenter's assertions can be supported as a broad generalization.
    (181) Comment: Several commenters stated that ongoing forestry 
practices on private lands are resulting in conservation for the taxon, 
especially through fisher habitat improvement, which supports the 
likelihood that the proposed DPS does not need Federal protection as a 
threatened species. One commenter articulated that studies in northern 
California have found fishers using landscapes managed primarily for 
timber harvest as opposed to fishers exclusively using late-
successional forests. Another commenter asserted that landowners can 
and are managing for fisher habitat without significant economic harm, 
such as by using working forest conservation easements and establishing 
stream protection zones. Another commenter highlighted Mendocino 
Redwood Company's continued work with the Service on an 80-year joint 
Federal/State multi-species HCP/NCCP as demonstration for private 
industry conservation efforts. One commenter specifically stated that 
forest management in Siskiyou County is beneficial, as demonstrated by 
fishers from this area being used for reintroductions to other areas. 
Another commenter specifically stated that multiple pieces of evidence 
exist (e.g., Weaverville study, Green Diamond's two study areas, SPI 
Stirling translocation area, and Michigan-California EKSA study) that 
demonstrate how managed industrial timberlands provide habitat for 
stable fisher populations. Finally, one commenter stated that, in 
general, fishers extensively use managed landscapes, and the importance 
of continuing retention under sustainable forests initiatives/councils 
contributes to keeping important habitat elements on the landscape.

[[Page 22777]]

    In contrast, several commenters asserted that private lands 
forestry practices are having a negative effect on fisher habitat, 
including the perspective that these forestry practices (primarily 
clearcutting) are the primary issue impacting fisher habitat. Two of 
these commenters specifically highlighted impacts in the Sierra Nevada, 
including one that presented photographs of habitat loss adjacent to 
Forest Service lands in the central Sierra Nevada area, and two others 
who discussed clearcutting concerns near Castle Crags State Park/
Dunsmuir in California. Another commenter specifically stated that the 
practice of clearcutting is occurring on some private lands, and 
combined with herbicide application to prevent understory competition, 
is causing a lack of diversity with very few animals present in these 
areas.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenters from both opposing 
viewpoints that some ongoing private forestry practices across the 
proposed West Coast DPS are consistent with fisher conservation, and 
some are detrimental. Forest conservation easements, multi-species 
HCPs/NCCPs, sustainable forest initiatives, and working with Federal 
and State agencies across the proposed West Coast DPS to fund research 
projects and reintroduction efforts all contribute to fisher 
conservation on private lands. However, forestry practices such as 
clearcutting and broad-scale herbicide application remove understory 
shrubs required by fisher prey species and degrade fisher habitat. 
Though we are withdrawing our proposal to list the West Coast DPS of 
fisher as threatened (see Determination, above), we will continue to 
monitor stressors and work with private landowners to develop 
management strategies that will allow us to work toward the 
conservation of fisher throughout the west coast States. See also our 
responses to Comments (174) and (176).
    (182) Comment: One tribe asserted that the draft Species Report 
over-emphasizes the importance of late-successional forest to fishers, 
while a separate commenter stated that fishers are not as reliant on 
late-successional old-growth forests as the draft Species Report 
indicates (further stating that fishers use a wider range of habitat 
than recognized by the Service), suggesting that fishers are not 
``habitat limited.'' The tribe stated that they recognize the 
importance of older forest stands for rest and den sites (which were 
found to be important for female fishers in Washington (Lewis 2014)); 
however, numerous studies have found fishers to use a variety of forest 
stands including managed forests (citing Klug 1997, Thompson 2008, Self 
and Kerns 2001, Aubrey and Raley 2006, Clayton 2013, Lewis 2014 as 
examples for this comment).
    Our Response: We agree that fishers in the west coast States rely 
on a variety of forest types and we have clarified discussion in the 
final Species Report regarding the fisher's dependence/needs regarding 
late-successional forests and managed forests (Service 2016, pp. 15-
25). Please see our responses to Comments (28), (37), (39), and (57).
    (183) Comment: Regarding overall forest management, one commenter 
requested that the Service address herbicide application as a potential 
threat to the fisher. The commenter stated that broad (aerial) 
application can render entire patches of forest unsuitable for fisher 
and their prey. Additionally, on private lands, removal of deciduous 
trees and shrubs that favor conifers is likely a larger stressor on 
fisher habitat than the species report recognizes.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report addressed herbicide 
application as an example of a silvicultural or fuels reduction 
treatment that may reduce the overall complexity of forest understory 
(Service 2014, p. 109). The effects of understory treatment to fishers 
can vary greatly by the ecosystem type, the intensity and scale of 
treatments (Naney et al. 2012, pp. 29-37), and the response of the prey 
communities being affected by the treatments. We recognize that 
herbicide application, on a broad scale, may alter the ways in which 
fishers use landscapes. The final Species Report includes additional 
discussion on herbicide application and the effects to fisher and their 
prey.
    (184) Comment: One commenter, citing Raley et al. (2012), stated 
that the lack of overarching patterns of selection by fishers for 
particular forest types or seral stages may be due to differences in 
management histories among locales and subsequent influences on forest 
structure. The commenter asserted that the draft Species Report views 
these differences in management histories as static and fails to 
consider associated temporal dynamics, particularly with regard to 
downed large trees and residual trees left post-harvest following early 
20th century forest management practices. These remnant woody 
structures are no longer provided under current management operations, 
and the commenter suggests that the Service's analysis failed to take 
into account the fact that such structures are no longer provided for 
fishers under modern even-aged management practices.
    Our Response: We understand that forest management is not a static 
process; please see the response to Comment (75) for further discussion 
in this regard. We do not deny that some legacy structures used by 
fishers for denning or other activities may be lost in some areas due 
to timber harvest or other activities. However, there are safeguards in 
place on many lands to conserve these structures, as described below. 
In addition, the cavities and other important forest structures used by 
fishers are not only remnants of earlier forest management, but are 
also a result of wildfire and other natural disturbances such as 
forest-related insect and disease outbreaks. These natural events 
continue to occur within the west coast States. Federal lands are 
managed for natural resources and sustained yield of forest products 
under land and resource management plans. The majority of Federal lands 
within the fisher's range in the west coast States are within the NWFP 
boundary and include a network of reserved land use allocations. In 
addition, both the Federal resource management plans and the NWFP 
contain standards and guidelines for snag and coarse woody debris 
retention. Even-aged forest management practices, as mentioned by the 
commenter, are more common on non-Federal lands. State regulations 
provide for the retention of some snag and down woody debris as well as 
other retention areas associated with riparian features, for example 
(Service 2014, pp. 131-141). While the State regulations do not all 
specifically address fisher, structurally important elements of fisher 
habitat will be present, at least minimally, on non-Federal lands. In 
other words, FPRs in all three west coast States do not specifically 
address fishers and their habitat requirements, although some 
management practices will benefit fisher habitat, particularly in the 
SSN population area given the state of California's recent listing of 
this population as an ESU. Future recruitment of cavities and forest 
structures used by fisher will occur through natural and non-natural 
processes within the fisher's range in the west coast States, though 
land ownership will likely determine their rate of recruitment and 
overall abundance.
    (185) Comment: One commenter requested more information regarding 
the Service's assertions that fisher conservation requires extensive 
late-seral forest conditions and that logging practices generally pose 
a threat to fishers. The commenter stated that while this may be true 
for historical

[[Page 22778]]

logging practices and at large scale of analysis, a current and 
accurate status review requires that the Service evaluate all current 
forest practices, which are vastly improved over historical timber 
harvest activities.
    Our Response: We recognize that fishers use a variety of habitat 
types and are not limited to late-seral forest types. Please see our 
response to Comment (57) for additional discussion in this regard. 
Regarding the potential impacts of past, ongoing, and projected future 
impacts of vegetation management on the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher, we received a substantial amount of new information in this 
regard, which is incorporated into our final Species Report. Please see 
our responses to Comments (176) and (177) regarding our updated 
assessment of all of the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding vegetation management, including logging practices, as a 
stressor to fisher in the proposed West Coast DPS.
    (186) Comment: One commenter stated that it is evident that fisher 
have expanded their range or become more abundant in the coastal 
redwood and Douglas-fir forests, noting that much of this area is in 
managed private timberlands. The commenter referred to recent 
information from north coastal California collected by their company--
Green Diamond Resource Company (Diller et al. 2015, Hamm 2013), which 
indicates that fisher detection rates or occupancy appear to be stable 
on their lands. The commenter also referred to data from the Hoopa 
Reservation, which indicates generally stable trends in the population 
on those tribal lands (Higley et al. 2013). The commenter noted that 
the draft Species Report acknowledges these studies, and also stated 
that there is little discussion of the implications of fisher use on 
managed forests in California and how that information may be useful in 
predicting suitable sites for reintroduction.
    Our Response: We agree that fishers do use managed timberlands, but 
whether populations can persist long-term (i.e., for several decades) 
on managed lands is currently unknown. The commenter's lands (i.e., 
Green Diamond Resource Company in north coastal California) are 
surrounded by Federal lands that contain large patches of occupied, 
high-quality fisher habitat. Therefore, these private lands may contain 
more fishers than expected for many managed industrial timberlands 
because the surrounding Federal lands could be a constant source of 
fishers that may or may not persist on the commenter's land. The 
commenter did not present information that suggests fishers can persist 
over the long term on their lands, nor information on the overall 
health of the fisher populations that occupy their lands. However, from 
2009 to late 2011, fishers were translocated from the NCSO population 
to unoccupied habitat within the fisher's historical range in the 
northern Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, within 
industrial timberlands, and have successfully reproduced (Powell et al. 
2014, entire). Population modelling, however, showed that short-term 
population stability cannot be confirmed before year-10 of the project, 
or 2020 (Powell et al. 2014, abstract).
    (187) Comment: One commenter stated that fishers are abundant on 
their managed forest lands in north coastal California, based in large 
part on camera sightings and incidental sightings reported by employees 
and contractors, the validity of which are determined through 
conversations between the person that sights the fisher and commenter's 
biological staff. The commenter stated that this approach lends 
credibility and increases the confidence level of the incidental 
sighting information, although they recognize obvious limitations to 
the use of incidental sightings. Regardless, the commenter believed the 
incidental sighting data should be considered because they corroborate 
the results from rigorous survey methods used throughout the same 
sighting areas during the same time periods, and further supported that 
fishers appear to be abundant and thriving within the commenter's 
managed timberlands (which are not characterized as late-seral 
forests).
    Our Response: The commenter asserts that fishers are abundant on 
their lands in north coastal California based in part on incidental 
sightings by employees and contractors. Incidental fisher sighting data 
can be used for simple, coarse-scale comparisons made between 
geographic areas, to guide systematic survey efforts, or for coarse 
mapping of fisher distribution for internal use by the commenter. 
Incidental sighting information generally is not used by scientists for 
mapping species distribution for peer-reviewed literature, and is not 
used to estimate species abundance. The scientific standard for 
estimating fisher relative abundance and distribution excludes 
anecdotal sighting data and only uses verifiable detection data such as 
physical specimens, photographs, video, tracks, or captures by 
researchers or trappers. Therefore, we have not used incidental 
sightings in our evaluation of abundance estimates. Figure 7 in the 
draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 31) and final Species Report 
(Service 2016, p. 34) illustrates fisher occurrence on the commenter's 
lands in north coastal California, based on fisher detections of high 
reliability using the types of verifiable detection information listed 
above. We have updated our final Species Report, however, to note 
credible observations reported to us of fishers in forests managed for 
timber harvest.
    (188) Comment: One commenter stated that private industrial and 
managed State forest lands represent 33 percent of forest land area in 
the State of Washington. The commenter asserted that much of the 
State's forest land within the historical range of the fisher is 
managed. The commenter also stated that State FPRs govern harvest and 
include provisions for retention and riparian buffers in Washington, 
Oregon, and California. However, the commenter questioned why the draft 
Species Report and proposed rule offered no consideration of habitat 
recruitment from riparian buffers and leave trees, which are expected 
to promote habitat connectivity and develop necessary habitat features 
over time.
    Our Response: We did consider the protections offered by the FPRs 
(and HCP) in Washington, Oregon, and California (Service 2014, pp.103-
105, 132-137). We agree that some areas of privately managed forests 
may provide habitat for at least a portion of the fisher's life-history 
needs (i.e., foraging, and possibly denning where legacy trees persist) 
now or in the future. However, habitat recruitment on private forest 
lands per the FPRs in Washington does not protect the specific 
structures associated with late-successional habitat that fishers 
require, and is unlikely to support an area equivalent to the entire 
home range of a successfully denning female fisher. At the structure-
specific scale, the retention of trees and snags as required by the 
Washington FPRs will not meet the needs of fishers based on our 
understanding of fisher use of these structures. As an example, minimum 
diameters for retained snags and green trees under the Washington FPRs 
are smaller than the inside diameter of hollow trees used by denning 
females. Furthermore, the smaller green trees that are retained likely 
will not have the decay that is required for use by denning females, 
and there is no requirement to retain these trees on the landscape for 
the time needed to develop the appropriate size and to allow for the 
development of rot to the degree that a hollow stem occurs. Thus, while 
Washington FPRs require retention of green trees and snags in harvested 
areas, they most likely will

[[Page 22779]]

not meet the needs of denning females given the minimum size allowed 
for retention.
    While fishers may use a mosaic of habitat conditions that some 
level of younger industrial forests may provide at the landscape scale, 
the Washington FPR requirements for retaining older forest stands is 
limited to specific conditions such as no-cut retention buffers around 
streams and protection of specific wildlife sites. These retention 
areas may or may not be late-successional, depending on what forest 
stand exists at the time they are put in effect. Even if these stands 
are late-successional, or are allowed enough time to become late-
successional, they occur on a substantially small part of the landscape 
compared to the heavily managed portion of industrial forest where 
little structure is likely to occur. Please see Comment (171) above 
regarding Oregon FPRs. In addition, the draft Species Report states 
that the broad objectives of the California FPRs leave uncertainty as 
to the adequacy of habitat protection for fisher denning, resting, and 
reproduction (Service 2014, p. 139). Based on these considerations, we 
could not anticipate a significant amount of habitat recruitment for 
fishers from riparian buffers and leave trees under State FPRs.
    (189) Comment: One commenter asserted that most of the non-Federal 
forest landscape will likely never regain suitable habitat conditions 
for fisher, and that logging will reduce stand density, and reduce dead 
wood abundance and complexity, thus degrading fisher habitat. 
Additionally, the commenter pointed to recent literature (Aubry et al. 
2013) that documents how fishers specifically focus on dead wood for 
resting sites, which is counter to Federal land's aggressive 
prescriptions (``widespread fuel reduction logging'' and ``shifts from 
thinning young stands to logging in mature native forests and/or 
regeneration harvest'') that reduce dead wood recruitment. Therefore, 
the commenter stressed that listing the fisher under the Act will aid 
in the appropriate, critical management of Federal lands, especially 
given the Federal agencies' recent ``push toward more regeneration 
harvest.''
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's views, however, we 
respectfully disagree that non-Federal lands will never be suitable for 
fisher in the future. Our final Species Report provides an evaluation 
of conservation methods and existing regulatory mechanisms on Federal 
and non-Federal lands (Service 2016, pp. 115-122, 162-189). While there 
is clearly more potential impact to fisher habitat from timber 
management practices on non-Federal land, HCPs, CCAAs, and interagency 
conservation strategies (to the extent these are in effect), for 
example, include measures that provide for important aspects of fisher 
life history and habitat needs. We recognize that objectives for timber 
management on non-Federal lands generally provide fewer protections for 
fishers. However, management on State and private lands for older-
forest or for retention of habitat blocks for other species may 
facilitate fisher movements across the landscape or provide future 
habitat as some areas are allowed to develop into older stands.
    We do not have information that indicates Federal agencies are 
implementing more regeneration harvest, and the commenter does not 
provide references or other sources to support this claim. To the 
contrary, and as noted in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 
60-62), timber harvest levels on Federal lands have dropped 
substantially over the past two and one half decades (Gale et al. 2012, 
pp. 4, 10,11, 17; Kennedy et al. 2012, p. 128; Charnley and Long 2014, 
pp. 631-632; WDNR 2016, entire). Federal land managers operate under 
land and resource management plans that guide and set standards for 
natural resource management including protections for sensitive species 
such as the fisher. With regard to concerns about the recruitment of 
dead wood on Federal lands, please see our response to Comment (184), 
above.
    (190) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our statement in the 
draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 87) that the fisher analysis 
area habitat model was used ``as a reference point from which to 
evaluate current habitat conditions across the analysis area and 
estimate the future losses due to ongoing vegetation management 
activities.'' The commenter asserted that this is only partially true 
and that the backbone of the analysis is based on using ``several 
differing sources of information'' in the evaluation of the scope and 
severity of vegetation management because there are no available data 
sources tracking changes specific to fisher habitat across the analysis 
area.
    Our Response: The commenter is correct. The habitat model was used 
as a reference point from which to evaluate current habitat conditions 
across the analysis area; however, it was not used in our analysis of 
habitat loss from vegetation management. The final Species Report has 
been corrected to reflect this point.
    (191) Comment: One commenters noted that the habitat model seemed 
off for a portion of the Olympic Peninsula. The commenter suggested 
reexamining those data and comparing the habitat model to fisher home 
ranges and locations of fisher detections.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the habitat model is an 
approximation of fisher habitat on the Olympic Peninsula, and that 
actual fisher use of the landscape may suggest different areas that are 
or are not likely to be used by fishers. However, fisher home range 
data on the Olympic Peninsula is based on the habits of the first 
reintroduced animals over an approximately 5-year period, and may not 
reflect all of the habitats that will be used by fishers in the future. 
Therefore, the habitat model has an appropriate level of accuracy for 
the purposes of our analysis.
Fragmentation
    (192) Comment: One Federal agency stated that although the Redwood 
National and State Parks preserve the largest remaining contiguous 
section of ancient coastal redwood forest within the original range of 
the fisher, the parks are configured in a linear strip along the coast. 
The agency suggested that listing the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
throughout western Oregon rather than just the NCSO population would 
afford protection to those animals that disperse north from the extant 
range into Oregon and maximize protection of the NCSO population. The 
agency also suggested that fishers are in need of additional 
protections by reducing the potential for habitat loss and increased 
fragmentation caused by intensive forest management on adjacent private 
timber lands that are not covered in an HCP.
    Our Response: Specific to lands mentioned by the commenter in 
western Oregon outside of the NCSO population, the vast amounts of 
Federal lands managed under existing plans provide long-term assurances 
of habitat retention and future habitat development. Also, threats from 
such factors as climate change and rodenticides appear to be less here 
than in the California and perhaps southern Oregon portions of the 
proposed DPS. In spite of multiple stressors identified and evaluated, 
fisher populations do not appear to be in decline, suitable unoccupied 
habitat is available, and no specific threats were identified as having 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. As a 
result of our assessment of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we have withdrawn our proposal to list this DPS, as we could 
not conclude that the DPS meets the

[[Page 22780]]

definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act (see 
Determination, above).
    (193) Comment: One Federal agency noted existing habitat 
fragmentation in the area of Redwood National and State Parks and 
Prairie Creek Redwoods caused by U.S. Highway 101 and the Newton B. 
Drury Scenic Parkway. The commenter also provided information regarding 
the proposed relocation of sections of U.S. Highway 101 to areas of 
old-growth and mature second-growth forest within Del Norte Coast 
Redwoods State Park and Redwood National Park. The commenter asserted 
that such relocations could result in the permanent removal of fisher 
denning habitat, increased fragmentation, and increased mortality risk 
from vehicle collisions.
    Our Response: The commenter appears to be referring to the Last 
Chance Grade project proposed by the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans), which would reroute U.S. Route 101 away from 
the coastline into more interior areas within State and National 
redwood parks that contain habitat suitable for resting and denning 
fishers. The Service agrees with the commenter that the Last Chance 
Grade project would result in the permanent loss of suitable fisher 
habitat and, like all roads, would increase habitat fragmentation and 
potentially increase fisher mortality rates from vehicle collisions. 
Notably, all of the Last Chance Grade bypass routes are primarily 2-
lane road segments unlike the existing 4-lane Prairie Creek Bypass to 
the south on U.S. Route 101 (referred to by the commenter). Therefore, 
the amount of suitable fisher habitat removed would be reduced and the 
probability of roadkill mortality would likely be lower on the 
relocated sections compared to the existing 4-lane Prairie Creek 
Bypass. We will be working with Caltrans to avoid and minimize 
potential impacts to the fisher and suitable fisher habitat from the 
Last Chance Grade project, regardless of the fisher's Federal status.
    (194) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule 
significantly overstates the contribution of logging to forest 
fragmentation. The commenter explained that fishers frequently use 
managed landscapes, and the draft Species Report's assertion that 
fragmentation due to timber harvest can last more than 80 years is in 
error and is not supported by literature (citing Lewis and Stinson 
1998, and Klug 1997). The commenter also stated that even if logging 
creates a short time-window during which fisher prefer other lands, 
individual harvest units are not so large as to negatively affect 
fisher, in part because (a) Fisher female and male home ranges are 
approximately 38 times and 108 times the maximum legal clear-cut size 
in Oregon, respectively; and (b) fishers are highly mobile, and 
fragmentation created by logging in compliance with modern forest 
practice rules is unlikely to have a material effect on the species' 
continued survival. The commenter stressed that this assumption is 
substantiated by Lewis and Stinson (1998) and Klug (1997).
    Our Response: We agree that fishers use managed landscapes; we 
discussed this fact in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 15, 
17, 56, 88), and provide an expanded discussion based on new 
information received in this regard in our final Species Report 
(Service 2016, pp.19-21, 60) We evaluated all of this new information, 
in addition to all information already in our files (including Lewis 
and Stinson 1998 and Klug 1997), in our final determination for the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. As stated in the draft Species 
Report (Service 2014, p. 55), fragmentation from timber harvest or fire 
(depending on harvest method, fire intensity, and site potential) 
ranges in time, from one fisher lifetime (about 10 years) after low-
intensity disturbances in forested systems that regenerate quickly, to 
more than 80 years in the drier areas of California and southern Oregon 
(Agee 1991, p. 32; Franklin and Spies 1991b, p. 108). While we 
understand the points made by the commenter, the types of forest and 
spatial arrangement of clear cut units plays a large role in how 
fishers may use fragmented landscapes. In the redwood region, growing 
conditions are more conducive to quicker vegetative ingrowth than 
conditions in drier forests. Similarly, the topography and spatial 
arrangement of an area may influence the degree to which fragmentation 
affects fisher. For example, there may be fewer clear cuts in steeper 
topography, resulting in less overall fragmentation and lesser impacts 
to fisher movement. Our 80-year estimate is derived from the 
literature, and refers to the transition age from young to mature 
forest (Franklin and Spies 1991b, pp. 91, 108; Davis et al. 2015, p. 
16) and as an estimate of the time it takes forests to exhibit 
important structural features for fisher habitat following fire or 
other natural disturbances. However, neither of these time frames can 
be applied ubiquitously across the entire fisher's range in the west 
coast States to estimate fisher habitat regeneration time after clear 
cutting. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that a definitive 
statement can be made about the length of time it takes to regenerate 
fisher habitat across the entire proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's 
range. Furthermore, we disagree that a definitive statement can be made 
that negative effects caused by fragmentation are ameliorated by 
fishers' mobility and home range size. See additional discussion on 
this topic in our response to Comments (59), (176), and (177), above.
    (195) Comment: One commenter asserted that we should rely on the 
Zielinski et al. (2010) model to ensure correct classification of 
fisher habitat as opposed to the Carroll et al. (1999) model, which 
they believe overstates the level of habitat fragmentation and 
isolation that the fisher may be experiencing.
    Our Response: We appreciate this comment and suggestion. We 
received numerous comments on habitat modeling. Please see our 
responses to Comments (60) through (73), above, and (219) through 
(227), below, for more information in this regard. The analysis of 
habitat fragmentation and isolation within the proposed West Coast DPS 
of fisher is based on numerous pieces of literature (e.g., Service 
2016, pp. 58-62) and is not limited to those specific to habitat 
models. We have reviewed the references suggested by the commenter and 
taken that information into consideration in our final analysis.
    (196) Comment: One commenter stated that fisher habitat has been 
fragmented due to logging, highways, and urban/industrial development. 
The commenter reasoned that this, in combination with a high male 
mortality rate due to rodenticide toxicosis, will make it difficult for 
fishers to find mates and reproduce.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that some fisher habitat 
has been fragmented by roadways, logging, and urban or industrial 
development. We also agree that there has been mortality associated 
with ARs. However, our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information does not indicate that there is a decline in the 
populations of fisher across the landscape as a result of these 
stressors such that they meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species pursuant to the Act (see Determination, above). The 
best available information does not support the assertion that fishers 
are having difficulty finding mates to reproduce because of habitat 
fragmentation or the toxic effects of rodenticides.

[[Page 22781]]

Fuels Treatments
    (197) Comment: One Federal commenter and one local government noted 
that fuels treatments on public lands were not examined in the draft 
Species Report. Further, they articulated that strategic fuels 
treatments are necessary to return stands to their historical 
condition, which will benefit the conservation of fisher habitat within 
California, particularly in high fire hazard areas on Forest Service 
lands, or other lands that are currently overstocked with trees and 
consequently drawing too much groundwater.
    Our Response: We briefly discussed fuels treatments under the 
``Current Vegetation Management'' stressor and ``Summary of Effects of 
Habitat Stressors'' in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 85-
96, 108-110), and have added a section specific to Fuels Reduction 
Treatments in the final Species Report. As we note in these sections, 
vegetation management is a broad term that encompasses many types of 
activities that impact fisher habitat. Fuels treatments are an example 
of vegetation management. We did not differentiate fuel treatments by 
land ownership for the same reason that we did not differentiate the 
different types of vegetation management activities, because data were 
not available to differentiate acres of those specific treatment types 
across the proposed DPS.
    We recognize that fuels treatments, when appropriately applied, may 
reduce habitat quality at the local scale in the short term to 
facilitate reducing the scale and severity of future fires in the 
landscape. We have added a section to our final Species Report titled 
Conservation Measures That May Reduce Impacts of Fire Effects that 
discusses some of the key fuels reduction programs being implemented on 
public lands within the analysis area. An analysis of impacts to 
groundwater from fuels treatments is outside the scope of this action.
    (198) Comment: Many commenters opposed a final rule that weakens 
the Endangered Species Act protections for the fisher in favor of 
``fisher-friendly forestry.'' One commenter stated that not listing the 
fisher would result in the Service lessening the obligation of the ESA 
upon industries that degrade habitat in pursuit of a greater profit 
margin.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires that we make a decision 
as to whether a species warrants listing based solely on the basis of 
the best available scientific and commercial data information (emphasis 
ours). We cannot consider the potential political, social, or economic 
ramifications of a listing in our final determination. Consistent with 
our statutory standard, based solely on our assessment of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we have concluded that the 
proposed DPS does not meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range; therefore, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to list the West 
Coast DPS of fisher (see Determination, above). Our decision should not 
be construed as lessening the need to conserve fishers in the west 
coast States and their habitat. We intend to continue monitoring fisher 
populations and managing for their conservation, in partnership with 
other Federal, State, and private entities in the States of Washington, 
Oregon, and California.
    (199) Comment: Two commenters emphasized the benefits of fuels 
treatments (one commenter provided research information showing that 
fishers can tolerate some level of fuel treatment activity). One of 
these commenters specified that the benefits of fuels treatments in 
reducing the risk of destructive wildfire outweighs the short-term 
negative effects to habitat of reductions in canopy cover and numbers 
of downed logs and snags. A third commenter stated that logging has 
been stymied, fires have been suppressed, and lawsuits have prevented 
implementation of necessary fuel treatments. One of these commenters 
also voiced that fuel treatments should be addressed ``first, before 
focusing on any particular species.'' Should the Service list the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, one of the commenters expressed 
trepidation that associated regulations would impose new restrictions 
on the Forest Service's ability to carry out fuel treatments on 
ridgetops.
    Our Response: We understand the concerns and frustrations of the 
commenters and recognize that fuels treatments may have beneficial 
effects to fishers (see our responses to Comments (44), (45), and 
(197), above). We are not entirely certain what the commenter means by 
focusing on fuels treatments prior to any particular species. If the 
commenter is suggesting that we need to remedy the situation between 
logging, wildfire suppression, and litigation prior to evaluating a 
species for listing, then that is outside the scope of the current 
action and the process by which the Service reviews species for listing 
under the Act.
Genetics
    (200) Comment: One public commenter and one Federal agency 
indicated that reconnecting the SSN and NCSO populations may not be 
important, as suggested by recent research that says these two 
populations are genetically distinct. The Federal agency also suggested 
that the two populations could be managed separately as long as the SSN 
population is independently viable.
    Our Response: We appreciate the concerns expressed by the commenter 
and Federal agency; however, the question of whether or not to try to 
connect the SSN population to the NCSO population is a management issue 
beyond the scope of this listing determination.
    (201) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service should 
describe the NCSO and SSN population size and isolation separately 
because there is no information in the draft Species Report to support 
the NCSO population being genetically isolated or contracting.
    Our Response: We are unsure as to what further distinction the 
commenter is asking for, as we discuss the NCSO and SSN populations 
separately throughout the entirety of the draft Species Report, as well 
as in our final Species Report. See also our response to Comment (242).
    (202) Comment: Two commenters disagreed with our characterization 
of the SOC population as being reintroduced because the source 
population was not west coast fishers. The commenters asserted that 
this population comprises fishers that are descendants of fishers 
introduced from Minnesota and British Columbia and, therefore, have 
genetic stock that is not native to Oregon or California. To further 
the conservation and ensure recovery of fishers in the west coast 
States, the commenters suggested that a recovery team evaluate and 
propose how to contend with this subpopulation, with a recognition that 
further genetic research may be necessary.
    Our Response: Per section 4 of the Act and its implementing 
regulations, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future 
threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher, and we have 
determined that the threats we identified in the proposed rule are not 
now, and will not in the foreseeable future, act on the species in such 
a way that the fisher meets the definition of an endangered or a 
threatened species. Consequently, we

[[Page 22782]]

are withdrawing our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, 
above). We understand the point made by the commenter. The genetic 
distinctions between the SOC and NCSO populations will continue to be 
considered as we move forward with their management, regardless of 
Federal listing status.
    (203) Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding the idea 
that the Klamath River or the Klamath River Highway could potentially 
serve as a barrier to dispersal. The commenter noted that Farber and 
Schwartz (2007) did not find that fishers north of the Klamath River 
were genetically different from fishers to the south.
    Our Response: We stated in the draft Species Report that there is 
information from one study in northern California indicating that 
fishers have crossed both the Klamath River and a two-line paved 
highway to interact with fishers on the other side of these features, 
thus maintaining genetically homogenous populations on either side of 
these features (Farber and Schwartz 2007, Tab 6)'' (Service 2014, p. 
100). We presume that the commenter misinterpreted information in the 
draft Species Report, which indicates the Klamath River and Klamath 
River Highway do not serve as barriers to dispersal.
    (204) Comment: One commenter stated that the Olympic Peninsula is 
not a unique population, and suggested that this population does not 
meet the criterion for significance in the Service's 1996 DPS policy. 
Specifically, the commenter asserted that the genetic stock was not 
unique on the Olympic Peninsula when it was introduced to the area and 
that the stock exists from the fisher's origin in Canada.
    Our Response: We did not assess whether the fisher population on 
the Olympic Peninsula, if analyzed alone, would or would not be 
significant as defined in our 1996 DPS policy. The subject of the 
present evaluation is the proposed West Coast fisher DPS, as delineated 
in 2004 (April 8, 2004; 69 FR 18770). The reintroduced Olympic 
Peninsula population falls within the boundaries of this proposed DPS, 
and we do not disagree that the Olympic Peninsula fisher population has 
a genetic origin from British Columbia. However, this fact has no 
bearing on our conclusion that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered or threatened 
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (see 
Determination and Significant Portion of the Range, above).
Habitat
    (205) Comment: One Federal agency commented that our 
characterization of available habitat for the SSN population was 
incorrect. Specifically, the agency stated that habitat amount and 
distribution are not a limiting factor because there is unoccupied 
habitat north of the Merced River and that demographic factors are 
likely preventing fishers from expanding into that available habitat.
    Our Response: Sampling and modeling efforts have not detected 
significant increasing or decreasing trends for fisher in the SSN 
population (Sweitzer et al. 2015a, p. 785). The fisher in the SSN 
population appears to be limited by available habitat throughout a 
majority of its range. The exception is the region north of the Merced 
River, which at present is unoccupied (Service 2016, pp. 40, 48-50). It 
is not known why fisher have not colonized into their former range 
north of the Merced River in Yosemite National Park. Lack of sufficient 
recruitment (demography) for the population to expand may be a factor 
(Sweitzer et al. 2015a, p. 785). The short juvenile dispersal distances 
documented for the species may also be a factor (Service 2016, pp. 13-
14). A s noted in our final Species Report, new information suggests 
that potential suitable habitat is increasing in the SSN population 
area (Spencer et al. 2016, pp. 42-44). Based upon our evaluation of all 
of the best scientific and commercial data available, we have concluded 
that the availability of suitable habitat is not a limiting factor for 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher (see Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species, above).
    (206) Comment: The State of Washington agreed that there are 
significant portions of the fisher's historical range in Washington 
that contain large areas of contiguous high-quality habitat, most 
notably the National Forests and National Parks on the Olympic 
Peninsula and in the Cascade Mountain Range. While these areas are only 
part of the fisher's historical range, the State considered these areas 
as adequate to support self-sustaining fisher populations in 
Washington, and suggested that restoring fishers to these areas would 
constitute substantial recovery of the species. The State mentioned 
that there are other areas that were part of the historical range (much 
of the Puget Sound) that could no longer support fisher populations and 
portions of the historical range (southwest Washington, south of Grays 
Harbor and the Chehalis River, and west of Interstate 5) where fisher 
populations could be restored if forest management targeted the 
development of habitats that support reproductive females (see Lewis 
2014). The State also articulated that the maintenance of southwest 
Washington as managed timberland (as opposed to urban or agricultural 
areas, for example) allows for land management actions (e.g., longer 
rotations, increased production of large snags and down logs, 
protection cavity trees, designation and protection of reserve areas 
and habitat corridors of older forests) that can improve habitat 
conditions for fishers and support fisher population expansion into 
these areas.
    Our Response: As noted in our evaluation of habitat-related 
stressors in this document (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species, above), based upon our evaluation of all of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we have concluded that the 
availability of suitable habitat is not a limiting factor for the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher.
    (207) Comment: One commenter stated that the draft Species Report 
implies that retained vegetation is not valuable unless it is retained 
in perpetuity, which is a position not supported in the literature. The 
commenter continued by stating that the report acknowledges protection 
requirements for northern spotted owls, bald eagles, and great blue 
herons, but discounts their contribution to fisher success with the 
statement, ``[W]ith the exception of the no-cut riparian buffer, these 
are not intended to be retained long-term. Furthermore, these areas, at 
best, would only provide individual structures and small pockets of 
habitat in a landscape that is otherwise typically managed for 
industrial timber harvest with short rotations and limited opportunity 
to grow into suitable fisher habitat.'' The commenter asserted that the 
Service's statement mischaracterizes both the magnitude of the retained 
habitat and its importance to fisher. Finally, the commenter explained 
that landowners must retain a 70-ac (28.3-ha) core of habitat around 
northern spotted owl nests, a 330-ft (100.6-m) buffer around bald eagle 
nests, and a 300-ft (91-m) buffer around great blue heron nests, all of 
which remain in place for the length of time the nests are being used 
by the protected species and coincidentally provide potential fisher 
habitat.
    Our Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenter's 
perception that we mischaracterized the retention of habitat and its 
importance to fisher. When any of the nests of the species mentioned 
are no longer active,

[[Page 22783]]

there are no longer protections for that habitat under the FPRs (e.g., 
Oregon FPRs, OAR 629-665-0010). Therefore, these areas may be subject 
to future vegetation management, including harvest and removal of 
habitat suitable for fishers. Further, while we recognize that forests 
are dynamic, the current management regimen on much of the industrial 
forest land base precludes the likely development of these types of 
patches once they are lost. Finally, given that a female fisher's home 
range averages 18.8 km\2\ (7.3 mi\2\), the size of these patches of 
potential fisher habitat are clearly not sufficient on their own to 
sustain fisher life-history needs (Service 2014, pp. 11, 135). 
Therefore, we maintain our position that such small areas protected for 
the benefit of these other species would result in little benefit to 
fishers in terms of protecting the structures and large areas of 
habitat they require, although, depending on the surrounding landscape 
and the configuration of these patches, they may facilitate movement of 
fishers between more suitable habitat patches.
    (208) Comment: One commenter asserted that their observations of 
fisher have not been in ``classic old-growth of late-successional 
reserves,'' and noted that canopy closure is important but other 
factors are at play.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that fisher are known to use a variety 
of forest types if they are structurally complex and have relatively 
high canopy cover. As described in our final Species Report, multiple 
studies have independently and consistently identified high canopy 
cover as one of the most important variables associated with fisher 
occupancy (Service 2016, pp. 65, 68, 77, 86, 89). The commenter did not 
articulate what the ``other factors at play'' are so we are not able to 
provide further response in that regard. Please also see our response 
to Comment (57), above.
    (209) Comment: One commenter asserted that fisher have been 
detected at open sites (i.e., water holes with no trees in sight, or 
areas that burned 40-50 years ago with high canopy) as opposed to just 
heavily forested areas. Relatedly, two additional commenters stated 
that the Service overemphasized the importance of the late-seral stage 
of forested areas when describing fisher habitat in the draft Species 
Report and proposed rule. A fourth commenter stated they detected 
fishers in areas with little late-successional habitat but complex 
structures and a variety of seral stages, thus highlighting why the 
Service should reemphasize that fisher use a wide variety of habitats 
when complex forest structures are present.
    Our Response: We assume the commenter's statement about ``high 
canopy'' refers to the height to live crown distance, and not that the 
actual percent canopy cover was high. Generally speaking, fisher avoid 
non-forested habitats as they are more susceptible to predation when 
there is a lack of hiding cover; this is not to say, however, that 
fisher may not be observed in such areas on occasion. An abundance of 
coarse woody debris, boulders, shrub cover, or subterranean lava tubes 
sometimes provide suitable overhead cover in non-forested or otherwise 
open areas for daily movements, seasonal movements by males, and 
juvenile dispersal (Buskirk and Powell 1994, p. 293; Powell et al. 
2003, p. 641). We received many comments regarding our perceived 
overemphasis on fisher use of late-successional forests; please also 
see our response to Comment (57), above regarding fisher use of 
multiple forest types.
    (210) Comment: Many commenters asserted that habitat loss has led 
to the fisher's extirpation in all but a few areas, including 
destruction of natural resources that it depends upon. Some commenters 
were more specific in the locality where they believe habitat loss is 
greatest (i.e., Sierra Nevada) or the mechanism for the loss (i.e., 
logging activities, illegal marijuana grows). One commenter described 
that the habitat loss now favors generalist species (such as grey fox 
or striped skunk), which displace and compete with fishers. Another 
commenter requested the Service address the importance of the loss of 
structural habitat elements in fisher habitat in the final rule.
    On the other hand, many commenters claimed that there is an 
abundance of habitat throughout the fisher's range. Several asserted 
that there is substantial suitable habitat that benefits fishers on 
Federal lands (LSRs and other NWFP reserves) and outside of the NWFP 
area, including on private lands and public lands managed under the 
SNFPA (e.g., Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area, Giant Sequoia 
National Monument). One of the commenters noted the Service's 
recognition of the existing reserves and limitation of timber 
management to Matrix areas in the NWFP, and application of other 
minimization measures (e.g., Survey and Manage standards and 
guidelines), all of which, according to the commenter, resulted in 
marked decline of timber harvest activity in the Pacific Northwest. 
Another asserted that habitat loss does not appear to be the primary 
reason that fishers are absent throughout Oregon and Washington, given 
the historical and current abundance of suitable habitat that was never 
or minimally modified (particularly in Oregon and Washington), and 
evidence from historical records that fishers were rare or not well 
distributed throughout western Oregon and Washington. One of the 
commenters asserted that overharvesting through fur trapping is the 
most plausible hypothesis for why fishers are absent from large areas 
of suitable habitat in these two States (as expressed by Aubry and 
Lewis (2003) who concluded that over-trapping appears to have been the 
primary initial cause of fisher population losses in the Pacific 
States). Several commenters also asserted that the currently unused 
suitable habitat areas on both Federal and non-Federal lands will be 
augmented by a long-term increase in availability of fisher habitat 
under Federal management plans, private conservation plans, and forest 
practices regulations applicable to non-Federal timberlands. Finally, 
one of the commenters concluded that, given the vast acreage of late-
successional and old-growth habitat within the NWFP area (10.6 million 
ac (4.3 million ha), the fact that fisher habitat is not limited to 
these older forests, and evidence of frequent occurrence of fishers on 
managed landscapes, shows that habitat availability is not an 
impediment to fishers.
    Our Response: Our draft Species Report identified habitat loss as 
the result of one or more stressors to fisher, and acknowledged that 
the scope and severity of habitat-related stressors differ across the 
analysis area, as noted by the commenters. Habitat loss and 
fragmentation may be compounded by a number of factors, which may 
include competition for prey and suitable den and rest sites. Habitat 
components important to a fisher's use of stands and the landscape can 
be identified broadly as structural elements (for example, snags, down 
wood, live trees with cavities, and mistletoe brooms), overstory cover 
(dominant, co-dominant, and intermediate trees), understory cover 
(vertical and horizontal diversity), and vegetation diversity 
(floristic species) (Lofroth et al. 2010, pp. 119-121). Both the draft 
and final Species Reports provide an appropriate emphasis on the 
importance of structural elements of fisher habitat in our discussions 
of fisher biology and our assessment of stressors.
    While both the draft and final Species Reports document past and 
ongoing activities that contribute to habitat loss for fisher, we agree 
that there are large areas of apparently suitable but unoccupied 
habitat for fisher across

[[Page 22784]]

most of the proposed West Coast DPS, although to a greater extent in 
the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range. The current 
distribution of fisher, based on the best available scientific and 
commercial information, is noticeably less than its historical 
distribution (Service 2014, p. 25, Figure 5). However, evidence 
suggests that a number of factors, not limited to relative habitat 
abundance, may explain why fisher are not known to fully occupy its 
historical range (e.g., other historical stressors such as past 
trapping and intentional poisoning) (Service 2014, pp. 39-40; please 
also see our response to Comment (40) regarding historical trapping and 
distribution of fisher and fisher habitat, as well as our responses to 
Comments (176) and (177).
    Regarding reduced timber activity since implementation of the NWFP, 
we note in our final Species Report the overall decline in timber 
harvest throughout the proposed DPS, not just the NWFP area, since 
1990, acknowledging that the high rates of timber harvests that 
historically affected fishers has dramatically declined. However, we 
wish to clarify timber management is not limited to Matrix land use 
allocations under the NWFP. Timber management may occur within Riparian 
Reserves and late-successional reservess when it is consistent with 
Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and for the development and 
conservation of late-successional conditions, respectively.
    We received multiple comments on fisher use of managed forests and 
have addressed this in our final Species Report (see our response to 
Comments (57) and (217)). We also received multiple comments on the 
recruitment of fisher habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands, and the 
extent to which regulatory mechanisms may provide for fisher habitat. 
We agree that many of the current management plans in place (e.g., 
NWFP, SNFPA) will contribute to the protection and further recruitment 
of additional suitable habitat for fisher within the west coast States, 
and have expanded this discussion in the ``Vegetation Management'' 
section of our final Species Report. Please see our responses to 
Comments (38), (42), (75), and (229). We have ultimately determined 
that stressors resulting in habitat loss do not pose a threat to the 
proposed DPS.
    (211) Comment: One commenter requested that we address the need for 
field verification of snag retention in the final rule because 
``structural habitat components are likely missing or at a lower 
density than required within habitats that are part of greater planning 
efforts.''
    Our Response: Snags, in addition to other structural elements, are 
key components of fisher habitat that are used for denning and resting. 
The final Species Report cites multiple references demonstrating the 
importance of these features. Field verification of snag retention 
could be important to determining the potential for denning or resting 
areas by fisher, but certainly should not be the only factor used to 
determine habitat suitability. That being said, it is important to 
understand that we cannot require Federal land management agencies or 
non-Federal land managers to field verify whether their own regulations 
are or are not being met.
    (212) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service did 
not adequately discuss the quality of fisher habitat on NPS lands. The 
commenter stated that the Service should more carefully evaluate the 
potential suitability of NPS lands as fisher habitat to better 
understand the severity (or lack thereof) of habitat as a stressor 
given NPS's focus on conservation and preservation.
    Our Response: NPS lands account for a relatively small portion of 
the proposed West Coast DPS, approximately 4.53 percent of the area 
(Service 2014, p. 239). Of the NPS lands within the proposed DPS, 
approximately 36.5 percent were modeled as intermediate- and high-
quality habitat (Service 2014, p. 239). While this may appear to be a 
relatively low percentage given their natural resource management 
objectives, much of the National Park Service ownership in the analysis 
area is classified as alpine and above the elevations expected to 
provide habitat for fishers. The draft Species Report discussed the 
contribution of NPS lands to fisher habitat and stressors potentially 
present on those lands (see Service 2014, pp. 125-126, 239, and 
Appendix A). Similarly, our discussion of stressors potentially acting 
on fisher by subregion considers all lands within that subregion, 
including NPS lands.
    (213) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service's analysis 
of habitat-related stressors was significantly overestimated. The 
commenter stated that the analysis: (1) Did not use a habitat layer 
representing the total amount of fisher suitable habitat (as described 
in the ``Habitat Association'' section of the draft Species Report 
(Service 2014, pp. 13-18)); (2) used spotted owl habitat as a surrogate 
for fisher habitat; (3) overstated the amount of fisher habitat that 
would be lost or rendered significantly less suitable for fisher use 
due to the habitat-related stressors; and (4) arbitrarily assigned a 
60-80 percent severity index to current management activities on 
Federal lands.
    Our Response: In response to the commenter's first point, we used 
the best available scientific and commercial information to develop a 
seamless habitat model to approximate habitat conditions within the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. We encourage the commenter to read 
the white paper describing how the habitat model was developed (Habitat 
Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment 
Species Assessment, which is available as Appendix B in the final 
Species Report). Also, please see our other responses to habitat model 
Comments (60) through (73), and (219) through (227).
    We received numerous comments regarding our use of northern spotted 
owl habitat as a surrogate for fisher habitat and our assessment of the 
habitat loss stressor. We were able to utilize other datasets for our 
analysis in the final Species Report, and did not use northern spotted 
owl habitat as a surrogate; please see our responses to comments 
related to northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate (Comments (79), 
(80), (233) through (235).
    We received numerous comments on our quantitative calculations of 
scope and severity of stressors potentially impacting the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher (see explanation in Summary of Basis for This 
Withdrawal and Determination sections, above). In response to those 
comments, we no longer rely on quantifying stressors in our final 
Species Report, as in many cases they required extrapolations where 
specific data were not available, and may have implied a false sense of 
precision in our assessment. In our final Species Report, we instead 
provide a qualitative categorization of stressors to better explain the 
degree of impact a stressor may have on fishers or their habitat 
(Service 2016, pp. 57-58). Our assessment of the severity and scope of 
stressors from the draft Species Report is preserved in Appendix C of 
the final Species Report.
    (214) Comment: Two commenters asserted that fishers have been 
detected in areas consisting of ponderosa pine plantations, scattered 
pine Douglas-fir and white fir remnants, and scarce hardwood habitat 
areas. A second commenter also stated that fishers have been detected 
in 15-20-year-old plantations. The commenters concluded that fishers 
use a wider variety of

[[Page 22785]]

habitats than those described in the Species Report.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report reported fisher use of a 
wide variety of habitat types including managed landscapes and stands 
that are not mature or late-successional (Service 2014, pp. 13-18). We 
did receive additional information in this regard, however, and have 
revised and expanded our discussion of this topic in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 15-21).
    (215) Comment: One commenter stated that the draft Species Report 
and proposed rule assessment of the potential impacts of vegetation 
management is flawed in several ways, including failure to clearly 
describe and incorporate the results of habitat modeling, failure to 
discriminate between effects in occupied versus unoccupied portions of 
the analysis area, failure to evaluate potential ingrowth of habitat, 
and failure to rigorously assess the potential amount of vegetation 
management in the future.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 18-19) 
provides an overview of habitat models we reviewed, and how and why we 
developed our own habitat model. We developed a white paper to provide 
additional information on the development of the model (see Habitat 
Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment 
Species Assessment, available as Appendix B in the final Species 
Report). Please also see our responses to comments related to the 
Habitat Model.
    We based our assessment of future vegetation management upon the 
best available scientific and commercial information. As described in 
the draft Species Report, we considered habitat information completed 
by others and we used harvest rates over the past 10 years to provide 
reasonable projections of ongoing and future vegetation management 
(Service 2014, pp. 85-96). We also acknowledged that there is much 
variation in harvest rates by landowner and forest type, which lead to 
assumptions about the scope and severity of future vegetation 
management (Service 2014, pp. 92-95).
    In our final Species Report, in response to peer review, public 
comment, and new information received during the comment period, we 
have again evaluated the potential impacts of vegetation management 
throughout the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. New data that became 
available to us allowed us to estimate habitat recruitment throughout 
most of the analysis area, and address many of the concerns expressed 
by the commenter. Please also see our responses to Comments (75), 
(229), and (230). Finally, we received numerous comments on our 
quantitative calculations of scope and severity of stressors 
potentially impacting the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher in our 
draft Species Report. In response to those comments, we no longer rely 
on such quantitative assessments in our final Species Report as they 
implied a false sense of precision in our assessment. For this reason, 
in our final Species Report we provide a qualitative assessment of 
stressors to better explain the degree of impact a stressor may have on 
fishers and/or their habitat.
    (216) Comment: One commenter asserted that fisher recovery depends 
on protection of habitat connectivity to facilitate genetic exchange. 
The commenter stated that there is a lack of exchange between Oregon's 
Siskiyou Mountains and the introduced populations in the southern 
Oregon Cascades, suggesting there is not enough suitable habitat to 
facilitate dispersal. Likewise, the commenter stated that there is no 
exchange between the northern California population and SSN population. 
The commenter provided several suggestions for areas in need of habitat 
connectivity/corridors to facilitate genetic exchange, both within 
populations (e.g., Southern Sierra Nevada) and between populations 
(Southern Cascades up to the introduced population in the Olympics).
    Our Response: Contrary to the commenter's statement, there is 
evidence of individuals from the NCSO population occurring in the same 
geographic area as SOC individuals. Recent and ongoing camera surveys 
have and are informing our understanding of the distribution of these 
two populations. There is mixed opinion on the degree to which genetic 
exchange should occur between the NCSO population and either the SSN or 
the SOC populations, both of which are genetically distinct and have 
been separated from the NCSO population. We will be considering the 
value and risks of genetic exchange and genetic isolation among these 
populations as we move forward with their management. See also our 
response to Comment (136).
    (217) Comment: One commenter stated that the scope and severity 
analysis for habitat significantly overstated the past and future 
effects of habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment. The 
commenter asserted that the common thread for fisher habitat 
association is diversity; fishers need diversity of successional stages 
and forest structures to provide for varied life functions, whereas the 
draft Species Report and proposed rule overemphasized fisher reliance 
on older forests. The commenter acknowledged that fishers need some 
older forest stages for den sites, but a full range of successional 
stages and forest structures for its prey base, and that these varied 
habitat structures should be arranged in a mosaic across the landscape 
in areas sufficient to support fisher home ranges. In a similar vein, 
one Federal agency offered the Ashland watershed study area of the 
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest as an example of an area where 
fishers use a wide variety of habitats, although denning activity is 
constricted to where denning habitat, characterized by the presence of 
suitable denning structures (snags, hardwoods), occurs. The Federal 
agency suggested that this denning habitat is one of the key limiting 
factors for fisher.
    Our Response: Please see our responses to Comments (28) and (57). 
We have ultimately determined that stressors resulting in habitat loss 
do not pose a threat to the proposed DPS. Per section 4 of the Act and 
its implementing regulations, we have carefully assessed the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, 
and future threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and are 
withdrawing our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above).
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
    (218) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must make it a 
priority for the conservation of fishers in the west coast States to 
provide resources and action to assist Green Diamond in completing the 
Forest HCP in a timeframe that rewards Green Diamond for more than 20 
years of investments in conservation, making it one of the best private 
land conservation partners in the history of implementing the Act. The 
commenter also stated that not supporting Green Diamond (either 
intentionally or by neglect) would appear as a punishment given their 
management of timberlands to provide a healthy population of fishers. 
The commenter stated that without a Forest HCP in place, it will become 
a liability if the fisher is listed and Green Diamond has no incidental 
take permit coverage for fishers.
    Our Response: We commend the dedication of Green Diamond for the 
conservation of fisher and other natural resources on its land 
holdings. While we are withdrawing the proposed rule to list the DPS 
under the Act (see Determination, above), this decision does not mean 
that no conservation actions are needed for fisher and its habitat 
within the west coast States. Rather, we acknowledge stressors acting

[[Page 22786]]

on fisher and its habitat will continue now and into the future, and 
will still require management by all interested parties, including 
Federal, State, and private entities. We will continue to work with 
Green Diamond and other landowners and managers for the conservation of 
fisher.
Habitat Model
    (219) Comment: One Federal agency stated that the habitat model did 
not accurately identify a substantial amount of suitable habitat 
available in Crater Lake National Park that could be important for the 
recovery of the fisher, particularly in light of concerns related to 
climate change that may reduce fisher habitat into the future. Although 
the map included in the draft Species Report suggests that nearly 90 
percent of the Park is not considered fisher habitat, the Federal 
agency (National Park Service) claimed that they have information (from 
both observations and collared fishers) indicating the presence of 
fishers in areas that the model describes as ``selected against.'' In 
addition, the Federal commenter stated that two of three fisher 
sightings in the Park were in winter, suggesting fisher utilize habitat 
in the park year-round.
    Our Response: Fisher use of areas that receive high amounts of 
annual snowfall, such as Crater Lake National Park, is variable across 
the range of the species (Service 2014, p. 14). The two fishers 
detected in the Park in winter represent a small sample size and do not 
provide a statistically viable dataset. While the detections may 
demonstrate use of an area that often receives high snowfall, the best 
available scientific and commercial information does not provide 
sufficient information to determine if these observations are typical 
or are anomalies. We also note that relatively few of the fisher 
detection locations provided to us were in areas classified as 
``selected against.'' The habitat model for Crater Lake National Park 
was fitted using reliable fisher detection locations collected within 
and near the park, as well as other reliable fisher detection locations 
from the Klamath and Southern Cascades regions. However, much of the 
area of the park was classified as habitat that, at the landscape 
scale, fishers would be likely to select against. If this 
classification is correct, it does not mean that fishers would never 
travel through such a landscape, but rather that fishers would 
generally use landscapes like these at a much lower rate than would be 
expected if fishers used all types of landscapes in proportion to the 
availability of each type of landscape. It is also possible that any 
future revisions of the model might benefit from a refinement of the 
modeling regions so that fisher habitat use in the Southern Cascades 
might be examined separately. However, given the small number of 
fishers known to use landscapes categorized as ``selected against'' by 
the habitat model, we do not anticipate that any such refinement would 
alter our conclusions about the status of the proposed West Coast DPS 
of fisher.
    (220) Comment: The State of Washington claimed that the habitat 
model used by the Service overestimates the amount and extent of high-
quality habitat in southwestern Washington (south of State Highways 8 
and 12 and west of Interstate 5), and the western coastal portion of 
the Olympic Peninsula. The State articulated that these landscapes are 
dominated by early-seral and young mid-seral stands, and are unlikely 
to provide sufficient high-quality habitat to support reproductive 
females. The State also asserted that the habitat model used for the 
fisher analysis underrepresents the extent of high-quality or moderate-
quality habitat in the Washington Cascades, in particular at higher 
elevations and on the east side. The State declared that these comments 
regarding the accurate representation of the Service's model are based 
on the findings of the habitat analysis provided by Lewis and Hayes 
(2004), and the resource selection findings presented by Lewis (2014, 
chapter 3). If the model is used for the final rule, the State 
requested that more details are provided for readers that describe how 
the model was developed and what measures were used.
    Our Response: For information about the development of the habitat 
models used in the Species Report, we encourage the commenter to read 
the white paper describing how the habitat model was developed (Habitat 
Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment 
Species Assessment, available as Appendix B in the final Species 
Report). The development of habitat models for Washington was a 
challenge, given that we were unable to gain access to location data 
from the fishers reintroduced to the ONP, and there are no other 
recent, reliable fisher location data for Washington. Therefore, for 
southwestern Washington and coastal areas of the Olympic Peninsula, we 
used a projection of a model developed for the Northern California and 
Southern Oregon Coast, and for the Washington Cascades and Olympic 
Mountains, we developed expert models.
    We agree with the State's characterization of the lands in 
southwestern Washington and the western coastal portions of the Olympic 
Peninsula, and we also agree that the habitat model likely 
overestimated the suitability of these landscapes for fishers. Although 
there was high environmental similarity, in terms of the variables used 
in the model, between this region and the region for which the model 
was developed, the relationship between the model variables and the 
landscape suitability for fishers apparently differs between the two 
regions (see also our responses to Comments (63) and (68)). However, a 
reevaluation of the quantity and quality of suitable fisher habitat in 
this area of Washington, where fishers are generally rare or absent, 
would be very unlikely to change the determination to withdraw the 
proposed rule. Therefore, we have not revised the habitat model for 
this area.
    Regarding differences between the habitat model used in the draft 
Species Report and the model presented by Lewis and Hayes (2004), as we 
noted in our response to Comment (69), it appears to us that the 
differences between the two models are relatively minor. We agree that 
there are some differences between the two models in the quantity of 
habitat shown at high elevations and on the east side of the Cascades. 
Since both models are expert models, and fishers are only now being 
reintroduced to the Washington Cascades, it is impossible to know at 
this time whether one model is more correct than the other.
    Regarding the use of resource selection functions derived from 
reintroduced fishers on the Olympic Peninsula, please see our response 
to Comment (68).
    (221) Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the 
habitat variables used for the model that defined the three habitat 
categories (low, intermediate, and high), and they requested more 
explanation/detail from the Service as to the number of acres 
associated with each of the three categories by the different 
subregions, and (in general) more clarity and explanation of the 
methods to better understand the modeling process, definitions, 
assumptions, validation, and applicability of the results.
    Our Response: The explanation/detail requested by the commenters is 
outlined in the updated white paper describing how the habitat model 
was developed (Habitat Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast 
Distinct Population Segment Species Assessment, included Appendix B of 
the final Species Report).

[[Page 22787]]

    (222) Comment: One commenter stated that it was unclear how the 
habitat model could be used to determine habitat selection and 
suitability given that it appears the model is based on presence-only 
data. The commenter asserted that habitat selection analysis typically 
requires an assessment of habitat use versus availability, and it does 
not appear that the Service collected information on unused/available 
habitat.
    Our Response: Presence-only data are commonly used to fit models of 
habitat suitability and habitat selection. Maxent, which we used to fit 
models for the modeling regions within California and Southern Oregon, 
is a particularly widely used presence-only habitat suitability 
modeling platform that is well-accepted in the scientific community. 
Both Maxent modeling and strength-of-selection evaluation rely on 
comparisons between used and available habitat. ``Available habitat'' 
refers to all areas within the modeling region, whether they are used, 
unused, or unsurveyed. Data describing available habitat come directly 
from the environmental data layers used in the model, and no additional 
data are required to identify ``available'' habitat. In contrast, 
presence-absence habitat suitability and selection models require input 
data identifying locations where the species is absent. Although we did 
have data on locations with negative survey results for fishers, these 
could not be used as model input in the presence-only Maxent models. 
However, after the models were developed we did compare the negative 
survey results with the model results. This comparison is described in 
the final Species Report.
    (223) Comment: One commenter requested more clarity and explanation 
of methods to better understand the modeling process, definitions, 
assumptions, validation, and applicability of results. The commenter 
stated that given the large uncertainty with the model, it is difficult 
to assess the validity of assertions used in the report. Additionally, 
the commenter stated that there is no description of model assumptions 
or how they may affect model projections, and the uncertainty over the 
model also limits evaluation of the scope and severity of effects of 
many of the fisher habitat stressors.
    Our Response: We encourage the commenter to read the updated white 
paper, which addresses the commenter's concerns and describes how the 
habitat model was developed (Habitat Modeling Methods for the Fisher 
West Coast Distinct Population Segment Species Assessment, included as 
Appendix B of the final Species Report). In addition, we recommend the 
commenter to review the other responses to comments on the habitat 
model in this section.
    With regard to the evaluation of scope and severity of stressors, 
the habitat model was used only in the evaluation of habitat stressors 
related to wildfire and linear features. Furthermore, the final Species 
Report has been revised to emphasize qualitative analyses of these 
stressors, and the quantitative analyses that relied on the habitat 
model have been moved to Appendix C. Because the habitat model played 
such a limited role in the evaluation of stressors, especially in the 
final Species Report, any uncertainties inherent in the model results 
had little influence on our conclusions about the effects of the 
stressors.
    (224) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not tie 
together the analysis completed to create the fisher habitat model with 
the analysis process used for a northern spotted owl consultation, 
which they believe is necessary to do given the Service's use of 
northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate for fisher habitat (denning 
and nesting sites), and because of the fisher's use of a mosaic of 
habitat types. The commenter also stated that the Service's claim that 
the removal or modification of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting-
foraging habitat is equivalent to tracking the removal or modification 
of fisher habitat is unsupportable by the best available science.
    Our Response: The commenter may have misinterpreted our use of 
northern spotted owl consultation data, which was used as a rough index 
to estimate the scope of fisher habitat loss to vegetation management 
activities on Federal lands throughout the analysis area in the absence 
of quantitative data specific to fisher habitat trends across the 
proposed DPS. In any case, in our final Species Report, we did not rely 
upon documented section 7 consultations on northern spotted owl 
suitable habitat as a surrogate for evaluating the effects of 
vegetation management on fisher habitat. The NWFP 20-year late-
successional old-growth monitoring report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire) 
provided us with an excellent source of information specific to changes 
in forests with old-forest structural characteristics throughout the 
majority of the analysis area; this report, in conjunction with other 
data specific to the Sierra Nevada, formed the foundation of our final 
evaluation of fisher habitat in the final Species Report. Please also 
see our response to Comment (79).
    (225) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service's habitat 
analysis model provided an important foundation for several of the 
analyses in the draft Species Report. However, while the methodology 
for the habitat model itself was made available for public input in 
advance of the proposed listing rule, the commenter stated that 
important portions of the results were not provided. Thus, the reviewer 
questioned what the characteristics were for forests of high- and 
intermediate-quality habitat, how the definitions were derived, and how 
habitat definitions and quantities and fisher use compare to the other 
habitat quantification method used for the northern spotted owl.
    Our Response: We encourage the commenter to read the updated white 
paper describing how the habitat model was developed (Habitat Modeling 
Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population Segment Species 
Assessment, included as Appendix B of the final Species Report). 
Additional information is now included in the white paper regarding the 
variables used to generate the model in regions where Maxent modeling 
was used. (Information regarding the variables used to generate the 
expert models was included in the earlier version, and is still 
included.)
    We are unable to answer the commenter's question about comparisons 
between our fisher habitat model and the northern spotted owl habitat 
surrogate. The quantification of northern spotted owl habitat 
downgraded or removed on Federal lands was derived from a non-spatial 
database, so the locations of these areas of downgraded and removed 
habitat cannot be precisely identified in relation to the fisher 
habitat map. Furthermore, a variety of methods were initially used to 
identify the northern spotted owl habitat, including professional 
judgment by local biologists working in the area of each action. It is 
likely that most of these designations were made at the scale of a 
single forested stand or treatment unit, whereas our fisher habitat 
model was developed at the landscape scale. Even if we knew all of the 
methods used to designate northern spotted owl habitat and had all of 
the maps depicting the locations of the now-removed habitat, it would 
be inappropriate to compare the two directly, because of the difference 
in scales.
    However, we have now developed other methods to determine how much 
fisher habitat has been altered by

[[Page 22788]]

vegetation management on Federal land (see the ``Vegetation 
Management'' section of the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-
111)), and we are no longer relying on the northern spotted owl habitat 
surrogate. Therefore, it would no longer be relevant to attempt such a 
comparison between fisher habitat and the northern spotted owl habitat 
surrogate, even if it were possible to do so. Please also see our 
responses to Comments (79) and (224).
    (226) Comment: One commenter stated that the habitat model would be 
inappropriate for use in describing habitat and species distribution of 
forestlands with moderate to open canopies where complex forest 
structures are present. This commenter claimed that both habitat 
fragmentation and isolation were overstated by the Carroll et al. 
(1999) model, and found the Zielinski et al. (2010) model to have a 
correct classification of fisher habitat. The commenter was concerned 
that the habitat model used for the proposed rule appears to rely on 
forest canopy closure and would not be able to predict forest 
structures needed by fisher.
    Our Response: Although previous research has repeatedly shown that 
fishers are associated with landscapes with a high proportion of dense 
forest cover, there have been fewer studies of fisher habitat use in 
drier regions were canopy cover and closure are relatively low, such as 
the Eastern Cascades or the Kern Plateau, and we acknowledge that 
canopy cover or closure may not be associated with fisher habitat use 
in the same way in these regions as in those regions where fisher 
habitat use has been more thoroughly studied.
    We disagree with the commenter's characterization of our habitat 
model as ``relying on canopy closure.'' Although canopy cover was one 
component of the fisher habitat model used in the draft Species Report, 
it was not the only component, and it was only used in some of the 
modeling regions. In the expert models used for the Washington and 
Oregon Cascades, canopy cover was handled differently on the eastern 
and western sides of the Cascade Crest, in light of the more open 
forest conditions that prevail on the east side. The expert models also 
included a measure that was related to the likely presence of 
structures that fishers could use for denning and resting, and was not 
related to canopy cover.
    The commenter is correct that the model does not, and is not 
intended to, predict the specific locations of forest structures needed 
by fishers, especially given that the model is useful on the landscape 
scale and not on the scale of individual trees. However, at least in 
regions where the expert model was used, it does incorporate the likely 
presence of these structures on the landscape into the assessment of 
fisher habitat suitability.
    For more information, we encourage the commenter to read the 
updated white paper describing how the habitat model was developed 
(Habitat Modeling Methods for the Fisher West Coast Distinct Population 
Segment Species Assessment, included as Appendix B of the final Species 
Report).
    (227) Comment: One commenter asserted that habitat quality (as 
shown in the legend label in Figure 2 of the draft Species Report) is 
typically based on an association with a demographic parameter, and it 
is not evident that the Service used demographic information in their 
analysis. Therefore, the commenter suggested that the Service avoid any 
conclusions regarding habitat quality.
    Our Response: There is no single, standardized definition of the 
phrase ``habitat quality.'' We acknowledge that some scientific 
researchers and authors prefer a definition that refers to demographic 
or fitness effects associated with habitat characteristics, but this 
usage is not universal. Our use of the term was meant in a more generic 
way, and we did not intend to imply any conclusions regarding the 
effects of the habitat categories on the demographic parameters of 
fishers that might be present.
Habitat Recruitment
    (228) Comment: One commenter stated that although the draft Species 
Report includes several statements acknowledging that habitat ingrowth 
could be a factor offsetting habitat loss, the Service declined to 
provide any quantitative or qualitative analysis of this effect, citing 
the ``high degree of uncertainty.'' Further, the commenter stated that 
despite the Service not considering habitat ingrowth, the Service 
proceeded to estimate the scope and severity of vegetation management 
by applying a speculative extrapolation of harvest rates on non-Federal 
lands from the most recent decade to the entire 40-year period. The 
commenter asserted that this approach creates a one-sided analysis of 
the stressor, and believes this was an important factor in designation 
of vegetation as a threat in the proposed rule. The commenter stated 
that the 40-year period is long enough to accrue a substantial 
estimated impact from a hypothetical degree of habitat removal, but not 
accounting for habitat ingrowth over the same period eliminates any 
balancing of effects. The commenter articulated that several available 
sources indicate that ingrowth could be substantial over the course of 
a 40-year foreseeable future (e.g., Spies et al. (2007a, Fig. 3), USDA 
Forest Service and USDI BLM (1994)). Also, the commenter stated that 
there are numerous timber growth and yield models that have been 
extensively tested within the analysis area. In summary, the commenter 
proclaimed that the analysis leading to designation of vegetation 
management as a threat to the fisher in the proposed rule (Factor A) is 
imbalanced and indefensible due to the unsupported selection of the 40-
year foreseeable future and the refusal to account for ingrowth.
    Our Response: We understand the concerns of the commenter and have 
addressed many of these in our responses to peer review comments 
regarding habitat recruitment (see our responses to Comments (42) and 
(75)). We appreciate the references for ingrowth over the course of a 
40-year foreseeable future (please see our response to Comment (174) 
for an explanation of how we derived our foreseeable future timeframe, 
as well as an expanded discussion in our final Species Report (Service 
2016, pp. 100-110). The commenter indicated that there are numerous 
timber growth and yield models that have been extensively tested within 
the analysis area; however, the commenter did not provide any further 
information on the models for us to consider or evaluate further. In 
the end we chose to use the NWFP 20-year monitoring report tracking 
changes in old-growth and late-successional forests (Davis et al. 20XX, 
entire). This information tracked changes by disturbance type over a 
20-year period. We also tracked vegetation changes outside of the NWFP 
area using a GNN dataset. Both of these tools accounted for ingrowth. 
See also our response to Comment (75).
    (229) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the draft 
Species Report and proposed rule did not adequately address the 
potential for regrowth (i.e., ingrowth or recruitment) of fisher 
habitat, particularly on NWFP and other Federal lands as a result of 
various regulatory measures, to better understand the relationship of 
habitat recruitment to fisher viability. One commenter specifically 
stated that vegetation management is not a threat, noting that the 
Service's analysis only considered losses of vegetation/habitat. Two 
other commenters asserted that forest growth has exceeded forest 
harvest in the prior 2 decades, and it may continue over the 40-year 
analysis period considered in the draft Species Report. Finally, one 
commenter claimed

[[Page 22789]]

that it is a reasonable assumption that harvest on privately managed 
lands exceeds that of harvest on Federal- and State-managed lands given 
different objectives for each of those landowners. This commenter also 
stressed a concern that the Service's analysis of habitat stressors 
related to vegetation management resulted in only negative effects to 
fisher habitat given that private forest landowners are required to 
demonstrate a balance of harvest and growth.
    Our Response: We understand the concerns of the commenters and have 
addressed many of these in our responses to Comments (38), (39), (42), 
and (75). We agree with the commenter that it is reasonable to assume 
harvest on non-Federal lands will exceed harvest on Federal- and State-
managed lands and noted that in the draft and final Species Reports. 
The NWFP 20-year old-growth and late-successional monitoring report 
that we used to assess habitat recruitment and habitat loss due to 
vegetation management also confirmed that harvest rates on Federal 
lands are substantially less than on non-Federal lands (Davis et al. 
20XX, p. 24). We also used Davis et al. (20XX, entire) to track net 
vegetation change in the NWFP area, and GNN data (LEMMA 2016) to track 
net vegetation change outside of the NWFP area. Based on these data, 
the commenter is correct in that, in some portions of the NWFP area, 
forest ingrowth has exceeded timber harvest over the past two decades. 
We have used all of this information in our assessment of vegetation 
management as a stressor to fishers.
    (230) Comment: One commenter asserted that recent protocol-
compliant surveys following wildfires (specifically referencing the 
1992 Fountain Fire in California) have shown significant detections of 
fishers, indicating that habitat regrowth/ingrowth following fires has 
occurred. The commenter believes that taking this type of information 
into account when considering habitat recruitment is critical given 
that fire is likely the most significant stressor facing the fisher.
    Our Response: Fires can cause reductions to or removal of important 
elements of fisher habitat, including vegetative diversity, overstory 
canopy cover, understory cover, and key structural elements (large 
hollow trees, large down logs, large live trees) (Service 2014, p. 59). 
The effects to fisher habitat are related to fire severity. For 
example, low-severity fire may reduce some habitat elements while 
increasing others; however, high-severity fire is more likely to remove 
forest cover from large blocks of habitat. (Service 2014, p. 59). The 
recovery of the forest understory after low-severity fire, especially 
on productive sites, can occur within one fisher lifetime (Naney et al. 
2012, p. 6). Research specific to the degree to which fishers use post-
fire landscapes is extremely limited, but we have updated the final 
Species Report to reflect all of the best scientific and commercial 
data available to us on the topic, including the observations of 
fishers following the Fountain Fire (Service 2016, pp. 66-67). We thank 
the commenter for providing the data associated with their study so 
that we may continue to better understand the use of post-fire 
landscapes by fisher.
Maps/Sightings
    (231) Comment: One commenter requested that data in Figures 6 
through 9 of the proposed rule be more clearly stated, also 
recommending that the Service follow the example provided by Aubry and 
Lewis (2003; Figure 2), using data (reliability 1 and 2) for the last 
20 years. The commenter stated that although they have concerns about 
incorrect interpretations that can be drawn from sighting data that 
include points with reliability ratings of 3 and 4, they are also 
concerned with conclusions that can be drawn from specific points in 
Washington with reliability ratings of 1 and 2. For example, two of the 
most recent reliability 2 observations were likely to be of two fishers 
that escaped from Northwest Trek Wildlife Park (observations #53 and 54 
in Appendix A of Lewis and Stinson [1998]) and, therefore, they do not 
indicate native Washington fishers, or the existence of a small 
population or the remnants of one. In addition, the commenter noted an 
incorrect interpretation that could be made from the observation of a 
fisher reintroduced (and radio-collared) in Montana that dispersed to 
Washington and was recovered in Stevens County in 1994 (observation #55 
in Appendix A of Lewis and Stinson 1998). The commenter stated that the 
most recent reliability 1 observation of a fisher that could be native 
to Washington was collected near Lilliwaup Swamp in the eastern portion 
of the Olympic Peninsula in 1969 (Observation #52).
    Our Response: We have revised the legends in Figures 6-9 of the 
final Species Report to more clearly describe the data presented in 
each (Service 2016, pp. 33-36). We agree that fishers were likely 
extirpated from Washington prior to reintroductions starting in 2008, 
and acknowledge that this comment represents the best summary and most 
supportable conclusion regarding the history of fisher extirpation in 
Washington. Accordingly, we included the commenter's description of 
recent fisher detections in Washington into our description of past and 
current distribution in the final Species Report. However, Figures 8 
and 9 were included in the Species Report to show the approximate 
historical distribution of fishers, and are not meant to display a 
temporal or spatial history of likely fisher extirpation in Washington, 
especially since the range of reliability ratings in each of these 
figures is different. Figure 8 presents fisher detection locations with 
all reliability ratings (1-6) to illustrate the probable historical 
distribution of fishers. Figure 9 illustrates that fishers still 
occurred at various locations throughout their historical distribution 
during the period of 1953 to 1993. In this figure, reliability ratings 
of 5 and 6 are not depicted due to their low reliability.
    (232) Comment: One local government stated that the map included in 
the proposed rule was confusing and unclear about how the fisher's 
listing may impact Inyo County, and specifically requested that the 
Service provide a better map to gauge the potential effects of the 
listing action. Another local government stated that the maps were at 
too broad a scale to be helpful, also requesting the basis for the 
boundary in a final listing document. Finally, another commenter stated 
that they question the validity and accuracy of maps in Figures 8 and 9 
(believes data are missing between the two maps) of the draft Species 
Report.
    Our Response: We understand the concerns about needing to clearly 
identify which areas were included in our proposed listing rule. In 
this final finding, however, we are withdrawing our proposal to list 
the West Coast DPS of fisher (see Determination, above). Therefore, we 
will not be providing additional maps in this final finding that would 
provide the requested clarification.
    We assume that one commenter misunderstood the content contained 
within Figures 8 and 9 of the draft Species Report. Figure 8 depicts 
all locality records (reliability ratings 1 through 6) prior to 1993. 
Figure 9 depicts a subset of these records for the time period between 
1953 and 1993 for reliability ratings 1 through 4. Figure 9 is a subset 
of the data contained in Figure 8 and, therefore, contains fewer points 
than Figure 8. In our review, the data in these maps are valid and 
accurate.

[[Page 22790]]

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat Surrogate
    (233) Comment: One tribe in the State of Washington stated that 
northern spotted owl habitat is not a good surrogate for fisher habitat 
because fisher may use younger forests in Washington that have resting 
and denning structural elements. Additionally, the tribe mentioned that 
tribal lands in western Washington impose riparian protection where 
logging occurs and in some instances employ a reserve system that 
protects significant stands of late-successional forest. The tribe 
further articulated that the draft Species Report ignored these 
contributions to fishers in terms of current habitat conditions and 
recruitment of habitat for the future, thus likely inflating the risks 
to fishers in Washington from habitat loss.
    Our Response: The tribe may have misunderstood our use of northern 
spotted owl habitat as a surrogate. We did not use any northern spotted 
owl habitat surrogate to calculate the amount of habitat for fishers in 
Washington now or in the future. The loss or degradation of northern 
spotted owl suitable habitat as documented through section 7 
consultation was used only as a proxy to estimate the potential threat 
from loss of fisher habitat on Federal lands (see also our response to 
Comment (79)). Regardless, in our final Species Report, we did not need 
to rely on northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate for fisher 
habitat loss or degradation, as the results of the NWFP Monitoring 
Report (Davis et al. 20XX, entire), and other data, became available to 
us, providing superior datasets for this analysis.
    The conservation value of some tribal lands for fisher, including 
the Makah Reservation, was described in the draft Species Report 
(Service 2014, pp. 127-128). Although recruitment of habitat (ingrowth) 
on non-Federal lands was not explicitly considered in our draft Species 
Report, the availability of the NWFP Monitoring Report mentioned above 
provided us with the data to estimate ingrowth over the past 20 years 
within that portion of the analysis area that overlaps with the NWFP 
(which covers most of the proposed West Coast DPS, with the exception 
of the Sierra Nevada and east of the Cascades). Also see our response 
to Comment (188) for a discussion of the value of managed forests to 
fisher; we have broadened our discussion of this topic in our final 
Species Report.
    (234) Comment: One Federal commenter asserted that the northern 
spotted owl habitat is a useful proxy for fisher habitat in some parts 
of fisher range, but is inappropriate in California and not useful in 
the NWFP area. The Federal commenter stated that fishers use habitat 
types that northern spotted owls do not, especially because northern 
spotted owls are not present in the southern portion of the fisher's 
range. Additionally, the Federal commenter noted that northern spotted 
owl critical habitat does not include wilderness, Jeffrey pine, or 
serpentine soil areas and, therefore, leaves out some fisher habitat. 
Another Federal commenter also cautioned the Service in using northern 
spotted owl habitat as a surrogate for fisher habitat because while 
northern spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat is likely fisher habitat, 
not all fisher habitat is northern spotted owl nesting/roosting 
habitat, particularly in areas where hardwoods (e.g., oak) are a 
component and may provide cavities suitable for fisher denning. 
Additionally, this second Federal commenter stated that in the drier 
forests in southwest Oregon, some areas not considered northern spotted 
owl habitat (especially with important fisher habitat characteristics 
such as hardwoods and cavities) may function as denning habitat.
    Our Response: At least one of the commenters may have misunderstood 
our use of section 7 consultations on northern spotted owl suitable 
habitat on Federal lands within the NWFP area (see our response to 
Comment (233)), and confused northern spotted owl suitable habitat 
(which we did use to estimate the scope of fisher habitat loss to 
management activities) with northern spotted owl critical habitat 
(which we did not use; see our response to Comment (80)). In any case, 
as described in our response to Comment (79), in our final Species 
Report, we did not use northern spotted owl habitat as a surrogate to 
evaluate the effects of management activities on fisher habitat in the 
analysis area, as better data became available to us for this purpose.
    (235) Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service use spatial 
data, other land cover data, and herbicide application rates to 
understand change within the same timeframe as the northern spotted owl 
habitat data to obtain a more complete picture of fisher habitat loss.
    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestion. However, we used the 
most relevant data coverages of which we are aware for our analysis, 
and the commenter did not provide us with any specific information with 
regard to other sources of data that we may have overlooked.
Policy
    (236) Comment: One local government entity criticized the ``single 
species'' focus of the listing proposal, stating that the CEQA and NEPA 
require consideration of impacts of the proposed rulemaking to humans. 
The commenter requested that the Service take the following into 
consideration in the final listing determination: (1) Impacts to the 
human environment such as management to reduce insect and disease 
damage and catastrophic fire risk, as well as the promotion of 
watershed health; (2) benefits of post-fire salvage logging (we presume 
the commenter means benefits to the human environment, not to fishers); 
and (3) timber targets and their relationship to jobs in mills.
    Our Response: The CEQA and NEPA regulations referenced by the 
commenter do not require proposed listings under the Endangered Species 
Act to consider effects on the human environment, nor can we, by law, 
consider potential economic impacts of a Federal listing in our 
determination. On the contrary, the Endangered Species Act lists the 
specific factors we must use to determine whether or not a species 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species, and 
Section 4 of the Act requires that we base this decision solely on the 
best scientific and commercial data available (see also responses to 
Comments (122) and (158).
    (237) Comment: One commenter expressed concerns that a final 
listing determination could disrupt the collaborative work on fisher 
conservation that has been ongoing in the SSN population, particularly 
if listing leads to closure of the last remaining timber mill, which 
would make it more difficult to carry out fuels treatments.
    Our Response: Please see our responses to Comments (122), (158), 
and (236) for a description of the factors that we may consider in 
making a listing determination under section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act, which does not include concerns such as those noted by the 
commenter here. In any case, as noted previously, we are withdrawing 
the proposed rule to list the fisher under the ESA (see Determination, 
above).
    (238) Comment: One commenter asserted that listing the fisher will 
lead the Forest Service to manage for one species at a time rather than 
managing for ``the whole ecology of the forest.'' For example, the 
commenter stated that the Federal listing of the northern spotted owl 
has restricted logging in the

[[Page 22791]]

Sierra Nevada and prevented appropriate fuels treatments and prescribed 
burning, leading to an unhealthy forest more susceptible to 
catastrophic wildfire. The commenter proclaimed that listing of the 
fisher or any other additional regulation will be counter-productive to 
fisher conservation and cause all the species of the forest to be 
``doomed.''
    Our Response: Please see our responses to Comments (122), (158), 
and (236) for a description of the factors that we may consider in 
making a listing determination under section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act, which do not include concerns such as those noted by the 
commenter here. In any case, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to 
list the fisher under the ESA (see Determination, above). We recognize 
the authorities and independent missions of Federal agencies to manage 
their resources and support their efforts in management of ecosystems 
and species alike. While we have determined that the fisher does not 
meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act, we will continue to work cooperatively with Federal agencies to 
conserve fisher and its habitat in the west coast States for the 
continuing benefit of the American people.
    (239) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed 
designation of critical habitat was not published concurrently with the 
proposed listing rule. Furthermore, the commenter is opposed to the 
development of a section 4(d) rule that would promote fisher-friendly 
forestry and weaken protections for the fisher under the Act.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule to list the DPS, we stated that 
critical habitat was not determinable; a not determinable finding 
regarding critical habitat provides additional time (1 year) under our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(b)(2). However, as we have 
now determined the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the 
definition of an endangered or a threatened species, we are withdrawing 
the proposed rule to list the DPS (see Determination, above), and we 
will not be issuing a proposal to designate critical habitat. Neither 
will we be considering a section 4(d) rule for the proposed DPS since 
4(d) rules can only be promulgated for species listed as threatened 
under the Act.
    (240) Comment: One commenter asserted that although surveys for 
fishers are not complete for all regions of its range, the best 
available information documents that the fisher is in danger of 
extinction. The commenter also stated that the Service's failure to 
conduct surveys for fisher ``does not give the Service a free pass to 
deny listing to a species that is struggling to survive and is 
considered likely to be extirpated throughout a significant portion of 
its historic range,'' and that the Service ``must rely on the available 
data to make a scientific determination.'' Finally, the commenter 
declared that the lack of scientific certainty regarding the population 
trends of fishers in Oregon and Washington due to the Service's own 
failure to complete population surveys should not support a not 
warranted determination, and that the courts have declared that the 
Service must provide benefit of the doubt to the species.
    Our Response: We do not agree with the commenter's assessment. 
Section 4 of the Act requires that we make a determination with regard 
to whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species. Here 
we have conducted a thorough status review, received extensive peer 
review and public comment, and considered all of the best scientific 
and commercial information available regarding the status of the 
fisher, including new information received during our open comment 
periods. We agree it would be preferable to have more extensive survey 
data throughout the fisher's range in the west coast States; however, 
we must make our decision based on the best data available to us at the 
time of our determination. Furthermore, we wish to point out that there 
is no requirement for the Service to conduct surveys for fisher, as 
implied by the commenter. The best available data do not indicate 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales, 
currently or in the future. As a consequence, we cannot conclude that 
fishers in the proposed DPS are in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of their range, or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future (see Determination, above). The commenter 
additionally suggests that fishers have been extirpated from a 
significant portion of their historical range; this concept does not 
enter into our consideration, however, as fishers cannot be in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so in a portion of their range where 
they no longer occur. As explicitly stated in our final SPR policy, we 
do not base a determination to list a species on the status 
(extirpated) of the species in its lost historical range (July 1, 2014; 
79 FR 37577, p. 37583).
    The lack of scientific certainty regarding a species' range, 
status, or population trend is not a basis for listing a species under 
the Act. Although absolute certainty is not required, there must be 
sound scientific support for a listing decision. Per section 4 of the 
Act and its implementing regulations, we have carefully assessed the 
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of the 
fisher, and we have determined that the threats we identified in the 
proposed rule are not now, and will not in the foreseeable future, act 
on the species in such a way that the fisher meets the definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species. Consequently, we are withdrawing 
our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, above).
    (241) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service's proposed 
rule to list the West Coast fisher DPS as threatened is a direct 
acquiescence to the demands of extreme environmental groups as opposed 
to the use of best available science.
    Our Response: As required by section 4 of the Act, we base all 
decisions regarding the potential listing of a species solely on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available; see also 
our responses to Comments (122), (158), and (236), and (240). The 2004 
decision that listing was warranted but precluded, the 2014 proposed 
rule to list the species, and this withdrawal of the proposed listing 
rule are not exceptions. Despite our final determination that the 
protections of the Act are not warranted for the fisher at this time, 
we will continue to work cooperatively with all interested parties in 
the conservation of fishers in the west coast States and their habitat.
Population Estimates
    (242) Comment: Several commenters expressed their general support 
of the proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as threatened 
due to declines in the NCSO and SSN populations. Alternatively, several 
other commenters stated or cited information that indicates the overall 
populations are not declining, including some areas particularly in the 
NCSO population that are stable or increasing. One commenter asserted 
that despite potential threats to the NCSO and SSN populations, they 
are not declining (citing support for this with Higley and Matthews 
(2009), Swiers (2013), and Zielinski et al. (2013)), and another 
commenter specifically noted that some studies in small portions of the 
NCSO population that may show a decline are not indicative of the 
entire NCSO

[[Page 22792]]

population. Another commenter stated that the Service should describe 
the NCSO and SSN population sizes and isolation separately, claiming 
that there was no information in the draft Species Report to support 
NCSO as genetically isolated or contracting (and citing Service 
(2008)), thus indicating that the NCSO population range has been 
consistent for 75 years.
    Our Response: We appreciate the various opinions expressed by 
commenters related to whether the NCSO and SSN populations have 
declined. Our draft Species Report identifies the uncertainties 
associated with relative population stability for the NCSO (Service 
2014, p. 38) and SSN (Service 2014, p. 42) populations. We reviewed 
numerous pieces of information provided during the open comment 
periods, as well as information in our files, and have considered and 
incorporated the new information, where appropriate, into our final 
Species Report. To clarify for the reader, Service (2008) states: 
``Because there is no apparent significant decrease in the extent of 
geographic distribution in NCAL [northern California-southwestern 
Oregon regional population], we infer some level of regional stability 
over the last 75 years, and conclude that the NCAL population meets the 
assumption of stability for the VORTEX modeling exercise.'' Our 
understanding of the extent of the NCSO population has not changed 
since this 2008 reference, except for the expansion of the population 
as a result of the NSN reintroduction. Regarding the request that we 
describe the NCSO and SSN population sizes and isolation separately, we 
are unsure as to what further distinction the commenter is asking for, 
as we discuss the NCSO and SSN populations separately throughout the 
entirety of the draft Species Report. Similarly, we have appropriately 
and accurately represented the data provided in Self et al. (2008) for 
the general reader, and direct those wishing more detail on methods and 
results to the reference itself. Please also see our response to 
Comment (201) above.
    (243) Comment: One commenter asserted that the draft Species Report 
fails to produce a reasonable estimate of the extant NCSO population, 
and further suggested that the Service's estimate of ``as few as 258 
animals in NCSO population'' defies any reasonable logical analysis. 
The commenter stated that the Service should provide a more precise 
population range for the fishers in the NCSO population in order to 
make a fair assessment of the risks to fishers in this population area. 
Another commenter requested the Service conduct a population viability 
analysis of the NCSO population, asserting that there is no other way 
to determine the effect of stressors or their trend on the NCSO 
population.
    Similarly, another commenter asserted that the Service neglected to 
acknowledge what is known about fishers in the NCSO population/region, 
including overestimated impacts of stressors. This commenter also 
declared that the analysis of impacts to the NCSO population was 
arbitrary and capricious, citing numerous studies (i.e., [Klug 1997, 
Farber and Franklin 2006 (although this appears to be incorrect and 
should be Farber and Franklin 2005), Aubrey and Raley 2006, Clayton 
2013]) that do not document any long-term decline in this fisher 
population. Finally, this commenter also noted that reintroductions 
help demonstrate that both the NCSO and SSN populations are stable or 
expanding.
    Our Response: We appreciate the opinion of both commenters. 
However, the final Species Report presents the best available 
information regarding the status of the NCSO population, including the 
applicable references provided by the commenter (see the ``Population 
Status'' section of the Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 42-48) and 
Species Information, above. As noted above in our response to Comment 
(252), we reviewed a substantial amount of new information during the 
open comment periods. The new information, in addition to our analysis 
of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the 
proposed listing rule, was considered for this final decision. Please 
also see our response to Comment (81) above. With regard to the request 
for a population viability analysis, we consider those population 
viability analyses provided in peer reviewed literature and other 
reputable unpublished documents.
    (244) Comment: One commenter asserted that the overall fisher 
population is sufficiently robust to remain viable and thus does not 
warrant listing. Additionally, the commenter noted that the draft 
Species Report supports this conclusion through its discussions on 
recent detections of individuals that have been found where prior 
surveys did not detect them, all of which indicate the proposed DPS may 
actually be larger than estimated. The commenter said this is also 
supported by studies cited in the draft Species Report (e.g., Self et 
al. 2008) that have estimated the West Coast fisher population to be 
large, even though more information is needed to adequately determine 
the population size of fishers in southwest Oregon and northwest 
California. Another commenter similarly noted that the Service has 
underestimated the overall population size, as demonstrated, for 
example, by the recent discovery of fisher by ODFW in the Middle Fork 
Willamette watershed. As such, this second commenter asserted that a 
statistically valid population estimate should be conducted throughout 
the entire region, including wilderness areas and areas outside known 
inhabited areas, prior to any listing decision.
    Our Response: As noted above, we reviewed a substantial amount of 
new information during peer review and public comment periods. All of 
this new information, in addition to our analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available at the time of the proposed 
listing rule, was considered for this final decision. Some of this 
information includes new estimates of population abundance, 
reproduction, and population growth for fisher populations within the 
proposed DPS; all of this information is incorporated into our final 
Species Report and is summarized in this document. We interpret the 
commenter to be recommending that additional information be collected 
to support a statistically valid population estimate. We agree that 
additional surveys would be beneficial in deriving a more robust 
population estimate, but we must make our listing determinations using 
the best scientific and commercial information available at the time of 
the listing determination (see our response to Comment (230). Thus, we 
cannot delay making a listing determination while additional survey 
data are collected. Please also see our response to Comment (81).
    We also wish to correct the commenter's apparent presumption that 
the recent detection of a single fisher in the Middle Fork Willamette 
watershed is indicative of a population increase. We have no population 
estimates for the SOC population, and even if we did, this single 
sighting would not affect any existing estimate. Second, even without a 
population estimate, this sighting, while encouraging, is not 
necessarily indicative of a population expansion of the SOC. There has 
been little monitoring of the northern portion of this population to 
assess distribution; furthermore, in the late 1990s a dispersing 
juvenile male from the SOC population was radio-tracked to the 
Deschutes National Forest, roughly due east of the recent Middle Fork 
sighting but across the Cascade crest (Aubry and

[[Page 22793]]

Raley 2006, p. 5). This alone is not sufficient information to suggest 
that the SOC population has expanded since the early 1990s.
    (245) Comment: One commenter disagreed with the Service's 
conclusion that ``the greatest long-term risk to fishers [is] the 
isolation of small populations and the higher risk of extinction due to 
stochastic events'' and that ``small population size constitutes a 
threat to fisher, now and in the future.'' The commenter noted that 
recent studies indicate that fisher in California and southern Oregon 
are stable and dispersing across the landscape, and that the fisher has 
endured all of the ``stressors'' identified in the draft Species Report 
for decades, or longer. Thus, the commenter stated that this 
information intuitively leads one to conclude that the fisher is not 
threatened or endangered.
    Our Response: As noted above, we reviewed a substantial amount of 
new information that was made available during the open comment periods 
on our proposed rule. We have fully considered and evaluated all of the 
best scientific and commercial data available for this final decision. 
As a result of this assessment, we have reconsidered our evaluation of 
the level of threat posed by small population size and isolation of 
fisher populations, and we no longer conclude that this stressor rises 
to the level of a threat for fisher in the sense that it is either 
singly or in concert causing the proposed DPS to be in danger of 
extinction now or within the foreseeable future. Based on our 
evaluation of fisher population persistence in the face of ongoing 
stressors, we conclude that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does 
not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under 
the Act and are withdrawing our proposed rule (see Determination, 
above).
    (246) Comment: One commenter stated that throughout the draft 
Species Report, population-level impacts from stressors are rarely 
assessed, and it is seldom acknowledged that the degree of impact is 
largely or entirely speculative. Thus, the commenter asserted that the 
Service should not conclude that the fisher is likely to become 
endangered in the future if there is uncertainty as to whether the 
taxon is declining. The commenter requested that the Service better 
explain why purported threats rise to the level of threatened status 
given that the population trend in the NCSO is unknown, that the best 
available scientific information indicates that the population trend in 
the SSN is apparently increasing, and that actual effects of purported 
threats at the population level are unknown. Additionally, the 
commenter requested that the Service explicitly note that density 
estimates from various areas in the NCSO over the past 2 decades 
consistently fall within the range of 5 to 20 fishers per 100 km\2\ 
(38.6 mi\2\), and that the best available scientific information does 
not indicate any widespread decline in density.
    Our Response: In our draft Species Report, the scope of a potential 
stressor was used to describe the proportion of a subregion expected to 
be affected by the stressor. Only the percentage of the population or 
analysis area subregion that may potentially be impacted by the 
stressor was assessed (Service 2014, p. 50). Therefore, depending upon 
the scope of any one stressor, it may or may not have been assessed at 
the population level. When the information available regarding a 
stressor was contradictory or included a wide range of values, we 
provided that information in the draft Species Report to demonstrate 
the uncertainty or variability of the data we reviewed (e.g., Service 
2014, pp. 38, 60, 65-66, 80-81).
    As suggested by the commenter, in this document we have clarified 
that although all species experience stressors, we consider a stressor 
to rise to the level of a threat to the species (or in this case the 
DPS) if the magnitude, intensity, or imminence of the stressor is such 
that it is resulting in significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales. As described in our proposed rule (79 FR 60419, p. 
60427), in considering what stressors might constitute threats, we must 
look beyond the mere exposure of the DPS to the stressor to determine 
whether the DPS responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual 
negative impacts to the DPS. In our draft Species Report, as described 
above, we attempted to evaluate the magnitude of the effects of 
identified stressors by quantifying the severity and scope of those 
stressors. However, that analysis required us to make assumptions or 
extrapolate impacts in an effort to quantify stressors in areas where 
stressor-specific information was not available. Our presentation of 
the scope and severity of stressors in quantitative terms may have 
created a false sense of the level of scientific accuracy underlying 
these estimates. To avoid this perception, in our final Species Report 
we use a qualitative approach to describe stressors (i.e., stressors 
are categorized as low, moderate, or high, as defined in that Report). 
We use quantitative data wherever available, but if specific data are 
lacking, we rely on qualitative evidence to derive a qualitative 
descriptor of each stressor, based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, rather than extrapolating.
    In our final determination, we specifically evaluated whether there 
were any indications that the identified stressors acting on the 
proposed DPS were resulting in any significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales to fishers or their habitat. The best 
available data for the NCSO population were included in that 
assessment. We did not find any indication that the stressors are 
manifesting themselves to a significant degree across the proposed DPS 
such that there are significant impacts (i.e., stressors functioning as 
operative threats) at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, 
we conclude that the stressors acting on the proposed West Coast DPS 
are not so great that fishers in the DPS are currently in danger of 
extinction (endangered), or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future (threatened). As a consequence, we are withdrawing our proposed 
rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher (see Determination, above).
    (247) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service's analysis 
does not support the conclusion that ``a significant amount of high 
quality habitat remains unoccupied within the current boundaries of the 
Northern California-Southwestern Oregon population.'' Specifically, the 
commenter expressed concern that the Service's discussion does not 
evaluate the validity of surveys with absence reported and the extent 
to which this lack impacts the analysis, and questions support for use 
of a 60 percent survey detection rate. Additionally, the commenter 
maintained that the Service's analysis does not inform the public about 
the significance of the substantial amount of high quality habitat that 
remains unsurveyed.
    Our Response: Figure 10 in the draft Species Report illustrates the 
surveyed and unsurveyed suitable habitat within portions of California 
and Oregon (Service 2014, p. 41). Information in the ``Distribution and 
Abundance'' section of the draft Species Report discusses the various 
sources of information that we used to determine where fishers are 
found (Service 2014, pp. 23-41). The draft Species Report (Service 
2014, p. 39) notes that ``Fisher detection probabilities are affected 
by latitude, season, type of survey, and survey effort (Furnas 2014, 
pers. comm.; Slauson et al. 2009, entire), but given reported fisher 
detection probabilities (reviewed by Slauson et al. 2009, pp. 15-19), 
we believe that 60 percent detection

[[Page 22794]]

probability is a conservative estimate that does not place undue 
confidence in the accuracy of negative results.'' Finally, we assume 
the commenter is implying that the ``substantial amount of unsurveyed 
high quality habitat'' is significant because there may be more fisher 
present than current data indicate. However, the results of the Fisher 
Analysis Area Habitat Model (Service 2014, Figures 2 and 3) show that, 
in certain areas, connectivity within fisher population areas is 
disrupted as a result of habitat quality, possibly making it difficult 
for fishers to disperse into some habitat that may be suitable. 
Finally, it is possible that there are more fisher in areas of 
unsurveyed high-quality habitat, but at this time there are no data to 
support a conclusion that these areas are or are not occupied by 
fisher.
    (248) Comment: One commenter asserted that there are fewer than 150 
adult female fishers in the entire Sierra Nevada (although no citation 
was provided), indicating that Federal protections are warranted.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that the SSN population 
is comprised of low numbers of individuals, although the exact number 
is uncertain (see the ``Population Status'' section of the final 
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 48-50) for additional discussion. 
Estimates for the SSN population range from a low of 100 to a high of 
500 individuals (Lamberson et al. 2000, entire). A recent estimate of 
256 female fishers was based on available habitat (Spencer et al. 2016, 
p. 44). Other population estimates are: (1) 125-250 adult fishers 
(Spencer et al. 2011, p. 788); (2) less than 300 adult fishers (Spencer 
et al. 2011, p. 801); and 276-359 fishers including juveniles and 
subadults (Spencer et al. 2011, p. 802). Although we agree that this 
data does not indicate the SSN to constitute a large population of 
fishers, we additionally considered that all of the best scientific and 
commercial data indicate that this population has persisted at a 
relatively low population level for a very long time, in geographic 
isolation and in spite of the stressors acting on the population. We 
have no evidence to suggest that this population is in decline, or that 
its range is contracting. Finally, the SSN is only one of the fisher 
populations within the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher; as described 
above, our evaluation for the purposes of making a final listing 
determination was based on an assessment of the proposed DPS as a 
whole, as originally described in our proposed rule. When we considered 
all the potential impacts from the factors that may be affecting the 
proposed DPS, we determined there is no evidence to suggest significant 
impacts at either the population or rangewide levels, currently or in 
the foreseeable future (see the Determination and Significant Portion 
of the Range sections, above, for additional discussion). As our 
evaluation of all the best scientific and commercial data available did 
not allow us to conclude that the proposed DPS is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range within the foreseeable future, we are withdrawing 
our proposal to list the West Coast DPS of fisher.
Prey
    (249) Comment: One Federal agency stated that abundant large prey 
(i.e., greater than 7 ounces (200 g)) is likely a limited food source 
in the SSN population (citing unpublished data from Slauson and 
Zielinski).
    Our Response: The main potential prey that is missing in the SSN 
population is the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). The best available 
data at this time does not indicate that the lack of this one species, 
which is also missing from much of northwestern California, is limiting 
the population of the fisher in this region.
    (250) Comment: One commenter requested the Service acknowledge 
livestock grazing as a benefit to fisher. Specifically, the commenter 
asserted that vegetation management by livestock grazing allows easier 
access to prey for many species, including fisher. Another commenter 
argued that positive changes to the fisher's prey base as a result of 
vegetation management were overlooked in the Service's analysis.
    Our Response: We are not aware of literature or reports 
specifically describing the benefits of livestock grazing on fisher 
prey, nor did the commenter provide any sources for our consideration. 
The second commenter is correct--our analysis of effects to fisher prey 
species was largely focused on negative impacts to prey habitat (e.g., 
Service 2014, pp. 87 and 109). We reviewed the documents suggested by 
the commenter and updated the final Species Report to reflect this new 
information.
Range Expansion
    (251) Comment: One commenter contended that while the former range 
of fishers in the west coast States was substantially reduced by 
historical activities, there is no indication that the range presently 
occupied by the proposed DPS has diminished during the last 2 decades. 
Additionally, the commenter asserted that the proposed DPS's range 
expanded as a result of two reintroductions that appear successful, and 
there is also empirical evidence suggesting that the proposed DPS's 
range may have expanded naturally in recent years in eastern Shasta 
County, California. Thus, the commenter requested that the Service 
acknowledge in the final rule that the existing range is apparently 
stable or increasing, and evaluate whether purported threats rise to 
the level of threatened status in that context. Another commenter 
indicated that they are currently detecting fishers in areas where they 
did not occur 10, 20, and 30 years prior based on interviews conducted 
with long-time trappers and early survey efforts, indicating that 
fisher populations are growing and recolonizing a portion of the 
proposed DPS's historical range.
    Our Response: In our draft and final Species Reports, we 
specifically note the differences of opinion regarding the question of 
whether fisher distribution was formerly relatively continuous across 
the west coast States, or naturally more disjunct (citing, for example, 
to differences between the view expressed by Grinnell et al. 1937, 
versus Knaus et al. 2011 or Tucker et al. 2012). The first commenter 
appears to refer to the newly introduced fishers within the Olympic and 
Stirling study areas. As stated in the draft Species Report, it is too 
soon to determine if the fishers reintroduced into these areas will 
persist (Service 2014, p. 43-46; Service 2016, pp. 50-53), although as 
discussed in the final Species Report and this document, initial 
indications are encouraging. The reintroductions in these areas are 
within the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and, therefore, would not 
result in expansion of the current DPS. The draft Species Report also 
notes the detections in eastern Shasta County, California, and our 
uncertainty as to whether these detections represent a possible 
expansion or are a result of wide-ranging or dispersing males (Service 
2014, p. 34). Because data were not provided to support the claim that 
fisher now occupy areas they were not occupying 10 to 30 years ago, we 
are not able to verify the locations and/or reliability of the claims 
made by the second commenter.
    In sum, although we do not have sufficient information to 
substantiate the claim that the range of fisher is expanding, we do 
agree there is no evidence that suggests that the present range of 
fisher has diminished within the past few decades. This was one of the 
considerations we took into account as we conducted our final 
evaluation of all of the best scientific and commercial

[[Page 22795]]

data available regarding the status of the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher, including, as noted above, a substantial amount of new 
information obtained during peer review and public comment periods, 
recently published journal articles, and unpublished reports associated 
with management activities and research projects. All of this new 
information contributed to our conclusion that the proposed DPS does 
not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under 
the Act and, therefore, our final determination to withdraw the 
proposed listing of the West Coast DPS of fisher as threatened (see 
Determination, above).
    (252) Comment: One Federal agency stated that the SSN fisher 
population is small (less than 500 individuals; Spencer et al. 2011), 
appears to be stable over about the past decade (Zielinski et al. 
2013), but apparently expanded in size and range from an even smaller 
population during the late 20th century (Tucker et al. 2014).
    Our Response: Tucker et al.'s (2014, p. 131) statement of possible 
recent population expansion refers only to the northern portion of the 
SSN range, north of the Kings River. The small population size of 
fisher in the SSN population and the likely stability of the population 
are reflected in both the draft and final Species Reports. The long-
term persistence of this small population, and lack of evidence for 
current or likely declines in the face of stressors, played a role in 
our final determination that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does 
not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under 
the Act (see also our response to Comment (248)).
    (253) Comment: One commenter asserted that fishers have recolonized 
the central Sierra Nevada on the Stanislaus National Forest, per 
personal observations within areas where the taxon was thought to be 
extirpated.
    Our Response: We use the best available scientific and commercial 
information to make determinations regarding listing species under the 
Act. Specifically regarding locations of fisher in the west coast 
States, as described in our draft and final Species Reports, we do not 
use anecdotal observations to support population distribution and 
extent, only verified location information based on track plate 
surveys, camera stations, scat, or other verifiable information. We 
appreciate the observation and comment.
Reintroductions
    (254) Comment: Several commenters asserted that reintroduction 
efforts on managed timberlands in California (e.g., Stirling 
reintroduction area) and Washington have been successful. One of these 
commenters stated that the fisher has a history of successful 
reintroduction efforts and the draft Species Report provides evidence 
that reintroductions are more likely than not to be effective in the 
west (citing Lewis and Hayes 2004, p. 5). This commenter also stated 
that the fisher translocation effort in northern California shows the 
value of encouraging private partners to be involved with fisher 
conservation and reintroduction. Although not articulated clearly by 
another commenter, we assume this commenter's statements are suggesting 
that reintroductions demonstrate the fisher's adaptability to areas 
actively managed for forest products, and their ability to survive on 
managed timberlands, thus reinforcing the concept that timber 
management is not a threat to the proposed DPS.
    In contrast, another commenter stressed that insufficient time has 
passed since the Stirling reintroduction (and other reintroductions) to 
assess whether fishers will continue to do well in managed forests 
given those forests are gradually converting to even-aged plantations.
    Our Response: While we are encouraged by the status of the 
reintroduction efforts, we agree that it is too soon to determine if 
fisher reintroduced in California and Washington will persist (Service 
2016, pp. 50-53). However, we also agree that early results 
demonstrating reproduction in these populations are encouraging, and 
indications are that fisher reintroductions have a good likelihood of 
success. In addition, we agree there is value in encouraging private 
landowners to be involved with fisher conservation and reintroductions 
and we will continue to look for opportunities to partner with 
landowners to promote fisher conservation. Please also see our response 
to Comment (85) above.
    (255) Comment: One commenter insisted that reintroductions of 
fishers should be the Service's primary goal as opposed to listing 
under the Act, especially given the extensive areas of unoccupied, 
suitable habitat and the likely unwillingness of private landowners to 
accept a listed species being present on their lands. Another commenter 
championed the Service's tools of creating (or continuing to finalize) 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances specifically in 
Oregon and Washington to ensure private landowner cooperation (e.g., 
preventing a barrier to reintroduction activities on private 
timberlands) with the Service's conservation objectives for this taxon.
    Our Response: There are many tools that can be used to further 
species conservation. Listing under the Act is one of those tools, but 
it is not a discretionary tool. Section 4 of the Act lists the factors 
we use to determine whether or not a species is endangered or 
threatened, and requires that we make the determination based solely on 
the best scientific and commercial data available. In the case of the 
fisher, we have determined that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
does not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened species 
(see Determination, above). This means we are withdrawing our proposed 
rule and will not be enacting the protections of the Act at this time. 
However, this determination should not be taken to mean no further 
conservation measures to protect fishers in the west coast States are 
important or will occur. We encourage the continuation of other 
Federal, State, and private conservation efforts in the furtherance of 
fisher and habitat conservation, and are particularly supportive of 
efforts such as further reintroductions and the development of the 
mentioned CCAAs in Washington and Oregon, all of which we expect to 
contribute to maintaining and increasing fisher populations, and 
precluding the need to revisit the conservation status of fishers in 
the west coast States in the future.
Rodenticides
    (256) Comment: Several commenters requested more information on how 
listing the fisher under the Act would ameliorate the threat from ARs 
associated with illegal marijuana growers, as the growers are already 
acting in violation of Federal regulations. Several other commenters 
felt that listing the fisher would not reduce illegal anticoagulant 
rodenticide use, that more law enforcement presence was needed rather 
than additional regulations, that regulations would only impact legal 
use of rodenticides, and that more information on the threat was needed 
before increased resources were dedicated to the problem.
    In contrast, several other commenters believed that listing under 
the Act would increase funding for the Federal Government to combat 
illegal marijuana growers. Other commenters urged the Service to enact 
stronger penalties for illegal use of anticoagulant rodenticides and to 
provide more funding for eradication efforts. One commenter stated that 
the Service should encourage

[[Page 22796]]

the EPA to ban rodenticides within and adjacent to occupied fisher 
habitat.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act lists the factors we use 
to determine whether or not a species is endangered or threatened, as 
defined by the Act. Whether the Act can make a difference in 
ameliorating specific threats is not a consideration in our 
determination of whether the listing of a species is warranted; that 
determination rests solely upon our conclusion regarding the status of 
the species, as informed by the best scientific and commercial data 
available. See also our responses to Comments (122) and (241).
    The Service does not have the authority to regulate the sale or use 
of toxicants, including ARs.
    (257) Comment: Several commenters stated that illegal marijuana 
growers and ARs posed a significant threat to the fisher within the 
proposed West Coast DPS. One commenter stated that the loss of habitat 
was exacerbated by the threat from illegal marijuana growers. Two 
commenters urged the Service to list the fisher under the Act based on 
the impact of ARs given impacts from this stressor alone could drive 
the proposed DPS to extinction.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenters that illegal marijuana 
cultivation and the use of ARs are a growing concern and a current 
stressor to fishers within the proposed DPS. Combined with habitat 
loss, among other factors, this threat may be acting synergistically 
and cumulatively to affect fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS. 
However, the best available information does not support concluding 
that these impacts rise to the level of a threat, based on the 
insufficient evidence that ARs are resulting in significant impacts at 
either the population or rangewide scales (see Exposure to Toxicants, 
above).
    (258) Comment: Some commenters stated that the use of anticoagulant 
rodenticides poses no risk to fishers because it occurs in urban and 
suburban areas. The commenters also stated that there has already been 
recent regulatory activity aimed at preventing wildlife exposures to 
rodenticide. They believed that more regulation of this kind is 
unwarranted and would result in harm to human health by preventing 
necessary pesticide application in urban areas.
    Our Response: The illegal use of ARs is a stressor to fisher in 
certain portions of its range, as discussed in our draft and final 
Species Reports. The claim that use of ARs is limited to urban and 
suburban areas and thus poses no risk to fishers is not supported by 
the evidence (Gabriel et al. 2012, pp. 11-13), which suggests that AR 
contamination of fishers is widespread and not clustered around urban 
or suburban areas. However, based on the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we have determined the level of this stressor 
alone and in combination with other stressors does not rise to the 
level of a threat such that the proposed DPS meets the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species (see Exposure to Toxicants and 
Determination, above). Thus, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to 
list the DPS. As noted above, the Service does not have the authority 
to regulate the sale or use of ARs or other pesticides or toxicants.
    (259) Comment: One commenter provided data from a wildlife 
rehabilitation hospital in San Rafael, California, which indicated that 
among carnivores treated by that organization in 2013-2014, 86 percent 
tested positive for exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides (although we 
note that the commenter did not provide a ratio of mortality to non-
mortality for the carnivores tested). In some cases this was sublethal 
exposure, and in other cases the animal died from toxicosis. The 
commenter stated that ARs are becoming more common, that the use of 
anticoagulant rodenticides poses a significant threat to predatory 
wildlife, and that in concert with small population size, the presence 
of anticoagulant rodenticides is making the fisher more vulnerable to 
extinction.
    Our Response: We agree that 86 percent of carnivores testing 
positive for exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides is a high 
proportion, and reflects widespread exposure to anticoagulant 
rodenticides from a number of sources, not only illegal marijuana 
grows. However, this is only 1 year of data. We are not aware of any 
studies that have tracked the prevalence of ARs in wildlife over a 
number of years. Records on the sale and use of rodenticides do not 
exist, so it is not possible to determine whether ARs are becoming more 
common. Furthermore, we do not yet know what level of exposure creates 
sublethal effects that may compromise an individual animal's 
persistence. We agree that ARs currently pose a significant concern to 
predatory wildlife, as documented by a number of studies cited in the 
final Species Report.
    We find that although individual fishers within three populations 
(i.e., NCSO, SSN, and ONP) have been exposed to toxicants at sublethal 
levels with an unknown degree of impact to those individuals, there is 
a lack of information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects 
of toxicants to fishers within the proposed DPS. Only 15 mortalities 
directly caused by toxicant exposure have been documented within the 
native California populations Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 5; Wengert 2016, 
pers. comm.). Insufficient information exists regarding the extent of 
AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no rangewide studies have 
occurred to evaluate the population-level impacts across the fisher's 
range in the west coast States. Therefore, the best available 
information does not indicate that these impacts rise to the level of a 
threat, based on the insufficient evidence that ARs are resulting in 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales.
    (260) Comment: One commenter believed that the Service neither 
overstated nor understated the threat of toxicants to fishers in 
Washington.
    Our Response: New information about rodenticide exposure to the 
fisher population in Washington documents that three fishers found dead 
from other apparent causes were exposed to ARs. None of these were in 
the vicinity of a known marijuana grow site, and they were found near 
rural areas where rodenticides could have been used legally on private 
land. However, insufficient information exists to draw any further 
conclusions regarding the impact that this exposure is having, either 
on individuals or the population.
    (261) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service's analysis of 
ARs in the draft Species Report and proposed listing rule relied too 
heavily on information from public lands, where illegal marijuana grow 
sites are more common than they are on private lands. The commenter 
further noted that even on public lands, multiple studies have not 
observed a negative demographic response from fishers due to ARs 
(Higley and Matthews 2009, Swiers 2013, Zielinski et al. 2013), and 
that multiple California agencies are beginning to implement 
regulations that will help decrease the impact of anticoagulant 
rodenticides (such as forest practice rules and water quality laws). 
The commenter recommended that the Service review information on ARs on 
both public and private lands to better understand the impacts on 
fishers.
    Our Response: We agree that more data are needed to assess the 
threat to fisher populations posed by the use of ARs on private lands, 
including the threat posed by legal uses, such as around homes, golf 
courses, agricultural buildings, and in forestry. We have reviewed the 
best scientific and commercial information available,

[[Page 22797]]

including new information received, which enabled us to provide clarity 
and corrections in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159) 
to some information that was presented in the draft Species Report 
(Service 2014, pp. 152-169). Unfortunately, no records exist on the 
quantities, locations, and use patterns for ARs applied on private 
lands. The extent to which the legal use of ARs occurs at agricultural 
and commercial sites within the range of the fisher is unknown. Two 
fisher carcasses from Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, of 
which both tested positive, and only three fishers can be confidently 
documented to have been exposed in Washington. The Washington fishers 
were not found in the vicinity of a known marijuana grow site, but were 
found near rural areas where rodenticides could have been used legally 
on private land. We note the lack of information rangewide regarding 
potential sublethal effects of ARs to fishers within the proposed West 
Coast DPS. Only 15 mortalities directly caused by AR exposure have been 
documented within the native California populations (Gabriel et al. 
2015, p. 5; Wengert 2016, pers. comm.). Insufficient information exists 
regarding the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no 
rangewide studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level 
impacts across the fisher's range in the west coast States. We do, 
however, recognize Sweitzer et al.'s (2015b, p. 9) observation that 
exposure to ARs may affect fisher survival during the spring to mid-
summer, although they were unable to make a direct link. At this time, 
we have determined that the best available information do not indicate 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales (see 
Exposure to Toxicants, above).
    (262) Comment: One commenter believed that the magnitude of threat 
of ARs to fishers was overstated in the proposed listing rule and 
should be revised. The commenter stated that only one fisher death 
could be attributed entirely to rodenticides, that all other detections 
of rodenticides were proximal to the actual cause of death, and that 
rodenticides do not reach a population-level threat. The commenter 
noted that there had been no evidence of fisher mortalities as a result 
of rodenticides at the Stirling reintroduction site.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the best scientific and commercial 
information available, including new information received, which 
enabled us to provide clarity and corrections in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159) to some information that was 
presented in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 152-169). Two 
fisher carcasses from Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, of 
which both tested positive, and only three fishers can be confidently 
documented to have been exposed to, but not killed by, ARs in 
Washington. Insufficient information exists regarding the extent of AR 
exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no rangewide studies have 
occurred to evaluate the population-level impacts across the fisher's 
range in the west coast States. We note the lack of information 
rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of ARs to fishers 
within the proposed West Coast DPS. At this time, we have determined 
that the best available information do not indicate significant impacts 
at either the population or rangewide scales (see Exposure to 
Toxicants, above). See also our response to Comment (261).
    (263) Comment: One commenter believed the severity of the threat 
from ARs was understated in the draft Species Report and proposed 
listing rule and should be increased because: (1) The analysis does not 
account for rodenticide used to decrease vole and mountain beaver 
damage to conifer seedlings on some private lands in Oregon and 
Washington; (2) the effects on fisher prey from such application of 
rodenticides is unknown; and (3) information on AR use by private 
industrial landowners is lacking. Based on these factors, the commenter 
stated that the Service should use a more conservative estimate of 
anticoagulant impact to fishers, especially in areas of high 
proportions of private land ownership.
    Alternatively, another commenter believed the threat from ARs was 
overstated in the draft Species Report and proposed rule, and that it 
was unprecedented for the Service to take such a minor threat and state 
that it was affecting the species on a population level. The commenter 
stated that only 58 fishers total have been impacted by ARs per the 
draft Species Report, and added that pesticides in general are so 
ubiquitous in our environment that they would even be found in human 
livers.
    Our Response: We agree that more data are needed to assess the 
threat to fisher populations posed by the use of ARs on private lands, 
including the threat posed by legal uses, such as around homes, golf 
courses, agricultural buildings, and in forestry. We have reviewed the 
best scientific and commercial information available, including new 
information received, which enabled us to provide clarity and 
corrections in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159) to 
some information that was presented in the draft Species Report 
(Service 2014, pp. 152-169). Unfortunately, no records exist on the 
quantities, locations, and use patterns for ARs applied on private 
lands. The extent to which the legal use of ARs occurs at agricultural 
and commercial sites within the range of the fisher is unknown. Two 
fisher carcasses from Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, of 
which both tested positive, and only three fishers can be confidently 
documented to have been exposed in Washington. Insufficient information 
exists regarding the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, 
and no rangewide studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level 
impacts across the fisher's range in the west coast States. We note the 
lack of information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of 
ARs to fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS.
    In reference to the potential effects of ARs on fisher prey, 
Wengert (2015, pers. comm.) reports that rodent diversity is reduced to 
only mice at marijuana cultivation sites that are treated with 
rodenticides, as compared to nearby untreated sites where large-bodied 
rodents (e.g., woodrats, squirrels, chipmunks), which are the prey 
species that the fisher prefers, are found. This provides support for 
the possibility that prey depletion may be associated with predator 
home range expansion and resultant increase in energetic demands, as 
well as other indirect effects such as prey shifting, impaired 
reproduction, and starvation.
    With regard to the second commenter's assertions, Gabriel et al. 
(2015, p. 7) found that, between 2012 and 2014, AR exposure to fishers 
in two California populations has increased from 79 percent (46 of 58 
individual fishers) to 85 percent (86 of 101 fishers). In addition, the 
draft (Service 2014, pp. 152-169) and final Species Reports (Service 
2016, pp. 120-121) discuss the fact that for any contaminant, 
collection of dead or moribund individuals is likely to represent only 
a subset of the actual exposure or mortality attributable to that 
contaminant.
    Overall, the best available information at this time does not 
support concluding that the impacts described herein rise to the level 
of a threat, based on the insufficient evidence that ARs or other 
toxicants are resulting in significant impacts at either the population 
or rangewide scales (see Exposure to Toxicants, above).
    (264) Comment: Several commenters stated that fishers in Washington 
were at low risk from ARs because: (1)

[[Page 22798]]

Marijuana was legalized in Washington in 2012; (2) new information 
shows that Washington fishers found to have been exposed to 
rodenticides were animals translocated from British Columbia; and (3) 
the most recent fisher necropsy that detected levels of AR was from an 
animal that lived in close proximity to commercial and residential 
areas.
    Our Response: New information about rodenticide exposure to the 
fisher population in Washington documents that three fishers found dead 
from other apparent causes were exposed to ARs in Washington. Two of 
these were mortalities among the translocated individuals on the 
Olympic Peninsula that tested positive for bromadiolone too long after 
their relocation from British Columbia to have been exposed there. 
These individuals were found near rural areas where rodenticides could 
have been used legally. The most recent fisher mortality testing 
positive for an AR was born to a translocated female, and was found on 
the border of the Port Angeles City Limits, surrounded by a low-density 
housing area and commercial development. Thus, AR impacts for the 
reintroduced ONP population site could be from legally applied sources. 
None of these were in the vicinity of a known marijuana grow site, and 
they were found near rural or suburban areas where rodenticides could 
have been used legally on private land. However, insufficient 
information exists to draw any further conclusions regarding the impact 
that this exposure is having, either on individuals or the Washington 
population. There is not yet sufficient information to conclude what 
the effects of legalizing marijuana will have on fishers, if any.
    (265) Comment: One commenter concurred with the Service that ARs 
are an emerging threat, with the magnitude greatest in California but 
less in southern Oregon. However, a second commenter asserted that the 
best available information demonstrates that ARs pose a significant 
threat to fishers and their habitat, specifically stating that AR 
contamination is widespread in the California-portion of the proposed 
DPS's range. The first commenter also believed that if fishers from the 
SSN population area were lost, it would harm the NCSO population 
through loss of genetic exchange and decline in potential mates and 
overall vigor of the population (citing Service Toxicant Fact Sheet 
2014).
    Our Response: We recognize the potential impacts of ARs and 
associated toxicants throughout the proposed DPS's range, particularly 
in the California population areas. Based on our evaluation of the 
information available at the time of the proposed rule and new 
information received, we have determined that the best available data 
do not indicate significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. Please also 
see our response to Comment (88).
    (266) Comment: One commenter declared that the conclusions about 
the impact of ARs in the draft Species Report and proposed listing rule 
were based on too few data. The commenter stated that though ARs were 
present, the physiological effects of this level of exposure on fishers 
were not clear. The commenter provided as an example the statement in 
the draft Species Report that ``gastrointestinal tract primary 
poisoning cannot be completely ruled out,'' further stating that they 
disagreed with that wording and that few factors can be completely 
ruled out as a threat for any species.
    Our Response: The full sentence in the draft Species Report reads: 
``Though no fisher necropsies in California have detected AR bait 
products in the stomach or gastrointestinal tract, primary poisoning 
cannot be completely ruled out (Gabriel et al. 2012a, p. 8)'' (Service 
2014, p. 159). The statement was made in the context of describing the 
ways that fishers could be exposed to ARs, and explains that the baits 
themselves could be attractive to fishers.
    We have reviewed the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including new information received, which enabled us to 
provide clarity and corrections in the final Species Report (Service 
2016, pp. 141-159) to some information that was presented in the draft 
Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 152-169). Two fisher carcasses from 
Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, of which both tested 
positive, and only three fishers can be confidently documented to have 
been exposed in Washington. Insufficient information exists regarding 
the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no rangewide 
studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level impacts across 
the fisher's range in the west coast States. We note the lack of 
information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of ARs to 
fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS. Therefore, the best 
available information does not support concluding that these impacts 
rise to the level of a threat, based on the insufficient evidence that 
ARs are having significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales.
    (267) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not use 
the best scientific data by inferring the effects of ARs on fishers 
from the effects of those chemicals on other related and non-related 
species. The commenter asserted that some of the species used for this 
analysis are too distantly related, and that the best available science 
does not mean any information that would conceivably have any bearing 
on the fisher's status. The commenter concluded that too little is 
known about the stressor of ARs from illegal marijuana growth 
operations to list the species under the Act.
    Our Response: We explained the limitations in the best available 
data in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 161, 166). We have 
since reviewed the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including information previously available and new 
information received, which enabled us to provide clarity and 
corrections in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159). We 
added information on the range of responses for individuals and species 
from studies of rodenticides. We agree that insufficient information 
exists regarding the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, 
and no rangewide studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level 
impacts across the fisher's range in the west coast States. Finally, 
there is also a lack of information rangewide regarding potential 
sublethal effects of ARs to fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS. 
Therefore, based on our final evaluation of all of the best scientific 
and commercial data available, we conclude that these impacts do not 
rise to the level of a threat, based on the insufficient evidence that 
ARs are having significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales. (see Exposure To Toxicants, above). We also note that 
we used the best available data available for mammals, which is 
consistent with the data used to support pesticide registrations.
    (268) Comment: One commenter stated that the sampling of fishers 
for rodenticide poisoning was not representative, as the sampling 
primarily occurred in two areas in California. The commenter also 
questioned the sampling methodology of only testing dead animals or 
others discovered fortuitously, rather than a random sample. Therefore, 
the commenter stated that the results from California should not be 
extrapolated to the proposed DPS as a whole.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to 
use the best available scientific and commercial information in 
determining a species' status under the Act. Testing for ARs requires 
sampling the liver, which

[[Page 22799]]

cannot be done on a live animal. Consequently, a random sampling 
methodology would require removing live animals from the population and 
euthanizing them before testing, which raises ethical concerns, 
particularly as we are in the early stages of trying to understand the 
magnitude and extent of AR presence. Although the collection of fisher 
carcasses for testing may not be a random sample, it is the best 
available information upon which to base our conclusion.
    We have reviewed the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including new information received, which enabled us to 
provide clarity and corrections in the final Species Report (Service 
2016, pp. 141-159) to some information that was presented in the draft 
Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 152-169). Two fisher carcasses from 
Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, of which both tested 
positive, and only three fishers can be confidently documented to have 
been exposed in Washington. Insufficient information exists regarding 
the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no rangewide 
studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level impacts across 
the fisher's range in the west coast States. We also note a lack of 
information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of ARs to 
fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS. Therefore, at this time the 
best available information does not support concluding that these 
impacts rise to the level of a threat, based on the insufficient 
evidence that ARs are having significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales (see Exposure To Toxicants, above).
    (269) Comment: One commenter asserted that ARs have both direct and 
indirect effects on fecundity and reproduction in female fishers, and 
that these effects may influence both survival and population expansion 
of the proposed DPS.
    Our Response: We have reviewed and added information to our 
analyses in the final Species Report on the potential for reproductive 
effects from rodenticide exposure (Service 2016, pp. 157-159). Exposure 
to ARs has been documented to cause fetal abnormalities, miscarriages, 
and neonatal mortality in mammals. The timing of AR use at cultivation 
sites (April-May) may also be important, because this time coincides 
with increased energetic requirements of pregnant or lactating female 
fishers, and the reduction of prey has been documented at illegal grow 
sites where ARs were applied. However, insufficient information exists 
regarding the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no 
rangewide studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level 
impacts across the fisher's range in the west coast States. We note the 
lack of information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of 
ARs to fishers within the proposed West Coast DPS. Therefore, the best 
available information does not support concluding that these impacts 
rise to the level of a threat, based on the insufficient evidence that 
ARs are having significant impacts at either the population or 
rangewide scales (see Exposure To Toxicants, above).
    (270) Comment: One commenter suggested adding the following 
information to the analysis of ARs: (1) Legal marijuana cultivation on 
remote private lands, and associated AR use; (2) off-label use of 
rodenticides; (3) the current ease of use of large quantities of 
rodenticides and second generation ARs; and (4) population-level 
effects of AR use.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the best scientific and commercial 
information available, including new information received, which 
enabled us to provide clarity and corrections in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159) to some information that was 
presented in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 152-169). 
Unfortunately, no records exist on the quantities, locations, and use 
patterns for ARs applied on private lands. There are no rodenticide 
labels that allow application to marijuana as a crop, so any current 
use of rodenticides within a marijuana grow site would be illegal under 
State and Federal laws, even in States where marijuana is legal.
    The extent to which the legal use of ARs occurs at agricultural and 
commercial sites within the range of the fisher is unknown. Two fisher 
carcasses from Oregon have been tested for rodenticides, of which both 
tested positive, and only three fishers can be confidently documented 
to have been exposed in Washington. None of these were in the vicinity 
of a known marijuana grow site, and the Washington fishers were found 
near rural areas where rodenticides could have been used legally on 
private land. While the State of California in 2014 prohibited the sale 
of the second generation ARs (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, 
and difenacoum) to the general public, they are still widely available 
in California and can be purchased by anyone with a State-issued 
pesticide applicator's license. No records are kept on the sale and use 
of rodenticides that can be used to determine whether this new measure 
will reduce the illegal and legal uses of the second generation ARs 
within the range of the fisher. We also note the lack of information 
rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects of ARs to fishers 
within the proposed West Coast DPS. No rangewide studies have occurred 
to evaluate the population-level impacts across the fisher's range in 
the west coast States. Therefore, the best available information does 
not support concluding that these impacts rise to the level of a 
threat, based on the insufficient evidence that ARs are having 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales (see 
Exposure To Toxicants, above).
    (271) Comment: One commenter asserted that recent regulatory 
changes regarding the use of second generation ARs do not reduce the 
scope or severity of the threat to fishers since the products are still 
widely available in neighboring States for purchase and use by both the 
public and professionals.
    Our Response: While the State of California in 2014 prohibited the 
sale of the second generation ARs (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, 
difethialone, and difenacoum) to the general public, they are still 
widely available in California and can be purchased by anyone with a 
State-issued pesticide applicator's license. No records are kept on the 
sale and use of rodenticides that can be used to determine whether this 
new measure will reduce the illegal and legal uses of the second 
generation ARs within the range of the fisher.
    (272) Comment: One commenter stated that illegal marijuana growth 
should not impact fishers in Washington, as marijuana is not grown 
outdoors there due to a short growing season.
    Our Response: As we noted in the draft Species Report (Service 
2014, p. 167), most marijuana is thought to be grown indoors in western 
Washington, but in eastern Washington it is thought to be grown 
outdoors. However, the principal source of exposure for fishers in 
Washington is still unknown (i.e., legal uses or illegal marijuana 
grows), as is the extent of exposure. Based on the information in 
Figure 21 of the draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 167), as well 
as information received during the open comment periods on the proposed 
rule, we agree that the use of rodenticides at illegal marijuana grows 
is likely considerably less of a stressor in Washington than in other 
portions of the range.
    (273) Comment: Two commenters addressed the recent legalization of 
marijuana in Oregon, stating that one purpose of the law was to reduce 
the

[[Page 22800]]

impact from illegal marijuana growers. One commenter believed that this 
information was not fully considered by the Service in the draft 
Species Report.
    Our Response: Legalization of recreational marijuana in Oregon was 
the result of a ballot initiative that was passed by the Oregon voters 
in November 2014. Because the proposed rule was published prior to the 
passage of this initiative into law, we could not address this issue in 
the proposed rule. We have incorporated a discussion of the recent 
legalization of recreational marijuana in Oregon with regard to its 
potential impacts on fisher in the final Species Report.
    (274) Comment: Two commenters noted that many of the rodenticides 
detected in fishers are not labeled for legal use in forestry 
operations. As an example, the commenters noted that Rozol, a 
rodenticide labeled for forestry use in Oregon, was only found in four 
of the fishers tested by Gabriel et al. (2012a). Based on that 
evidence, and on the stringent and season-specific application 
requirements, the commenter found it highly unlikely that the legal use 
of Rozol to control mountain beavers could negatively impact fisher 
populations.
    Our Response: There is not sufficient evidence to determine whether 
or not legal use of Rozol in forestry applications will affect fisher 
populations. The Rozol application described by the commenter 
(application of Rozol pellets to control mountain beavers in forest 
plantations) is limited to western Oregon and western Washington under 
a special local need label. We do not know to what degree the 
anticoagulant in the Rozol product (chlorophacinone) may affect fishers 
in Oregon because to date only two fishers from Oregon have been tested 
for the presence of anticoagulants, both of which tested positive for 
anticoagulant residue; both carcasses were tested for chlorophacinone, 
but it was not detected. In Washington, where Rozol application is also 
legal, 13 fishers have been tested for anticoagulant rodenticides, but 
none showed the presence of chlorophacinone. The sample sizes from 
Oregon and Washington are too small to satisfactorily conclude that 
Rozol application does not affect fishers.
    The fishers tested by Gabriel et al. (2012a, p. 5), as referenced 
by the commenter, were fisher carcasses found in California, where the 
application of Rozol pellets to control mountain beavers is not legal. 
However, in the State of California, Rozol is registered to control 
voles in forestry plantations, and the State also makes its own 
chlorophacinone baits that can be used to control a number of rodent 
species in forestry plantations. It is, therefore, possible that these 
legal uses of chlorophacinone could have been a source of the 
chlorophacinone detected in the four fishers that tested positive for 
chlorophacinone in California. Thus, we cannot use fisher toxicant 
results from California, where control of mountain beavers by Rozol is 
not legal, to conclude that Rozol application in Oregon or Washington 
specifically to control mountain beavers in forestry plantations is not 
likely to affect fishers.
    We do note that the special local need label for Rozol pellets 
requires application designed to reduce the exposure of the product to 
nontarget species such as fisher (e.g., seasonal restrictions and 
placement of bait underground within beaver holes or burrows). However, 
fishers may still be exposed to the toxin because contaminated mountain 
beavers can still be active for several days after exposure. Mountain 
beavers are known prey for fishers in western Washington, and their 
range overlaps that of fishers in Oregon. As such, we cannot agree with 
the commenter's conclusion that it is highly unlikely that use of Rozol 
for mountain beaver control will negatively impact fishers, as there is 
not yet enough information to support their claim.
    (275) Comment: One commenter stated that over 35 percent of male 
fishers in the Hoopa Valley study area have died due to toxicosis. The 
commenter reasons that these deaths, in combination with habitat 
fragmentation, will make it difficult for fishers to find mates and 
reproduce.
    Our Response: We have included new information in the ``Synergistic 
Effects'' section of the final Species Report (Service 2016, p. 161) 
that long-term studies on the Hoopa Valley Tribal Reservation report a 
toxicosis rate in male fishers of 35 percent from 2005-2012, which may 
be contributing to a decline in male fisher survival in that area over 
the same time period (Higley 2014, pers comm.). Although the biologist 
presenting the information mentioned the possibility that a reduction 
in the number of male fishers in combination with habitat fragmentation 
may result in fewer matings, he did not elaborate on the remark and did 
not provide evidence to support his assertion. The presenter in the 
video also did not posit a possible relationship between the male 
fisher toxicosis-related mortality rate and habitat fragmentation, or 
explain how this combination of stressors would reduce fisher 
reproduction in an additive or synergistic manner. Based on the best 
available scientific information, we conclude that there is no direct 
evidence suggesting that a combination of a greater than 35 percent 
toxicosis-related mortality rate for male fishers and habitat 
fragmentation would make it difficult for fishers to find mates and 
reproduce within the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
    (276) Comment: One commenter stated that fisher mortality due to AR 
use at illegal marijuana grow sites has occurred in close proximity to 
Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP), and that some fisher mortality 
in the RNSP may also have been due to the same factor. The commenter 
provided information on one case where a fisher was found dead at an 
illegal grow site within the boundaries of RNSP. In that case, the 
condition of the fisher prevented testing for AR exposure, although 
bite marks on the skull were suggestive of predation as the ultimate 
cause of death. The commenter suggested that predation may increase 
synergistically when fishers are exposed to ARs, and expressed the 
opinion that there is a high likelihood that additional fisher 
mortality will occur from rodenticide use adjacent to RNSP.
    Our Response: We noted in the draft Species Report (citing Gabriel 
et al. (2012a), ``Exposure to Toxicants'' section)) that the 
relationship of AR concentration found in fishers and rate of fisher 
mortality is unknown. However, since then, Sweitzer et al. (2015b, p. 
9) observed reduced fisher survival that may be a result of secondary 
exposure to toxicants used in marijuana grow sites, although they could 
not make a direct link. We agree that exposure to ARs may predispose 
fishers to predation due to the known physically debilitating effects 
of ARs on fishers and other mammals, and note that sublethal AR 
exposure may also combine with other stressors to have additive or 
synergistic adverse effects (citing Golden et al. 2012). We agree with 
the commenter that AR exposure may make fishers more vulnerable to 
predation, but currently lack adequate information to suggest whether 
exposure actually increases fisher predation rates. We also agree that 
fisher mortalities are likely to occur in the future as a result of 
ingesting lethal levels of ARs and possibly through accumulation of 
sublethal levels of ARs in combination with other stressors. However, 
information is currently lacking to estimate the probability of 
additional fisher mortalities in the future within or near RNSP.
    (277) Comment: One commenter stated that rodenticides have not 
caused

[[Page 22801]]

fisher declines on some private forestlands in Mendocino County, but 
that they could pose a threat to any fishers attempting to recolonize 
the areas. The commenter stated that in the past decade, employees of 
those forestlands have observed an increase in wildlife exposure to ARs 
used at illegal marijuana grow sites. The commenter also stated that 
the managers of these forestlands are concerned with the impacts of 
illegal AR use, and would like to work collaboratively with the Federal 
Government and other land managers to assess the problem and ameliorate 
the issue.
    Our Response: We are not aware of any data regarding the 
populations of fishers on private forestlands in Mendocino County 
before and after the recent increasing trend in illegal marijuana grow 
sites. Based on information presented in the proposed rule (79 FR 
60419) and the draft Species Report, we agree with the commenter that 
ARs are a management concern and look forward to working with the 
landowner and other land managers to assess the problem and ameliorate 
the issue.
    (278) Comment: One commenter believed that the Service's map 
showing illegal marijuana grow sites was misleading because it showed 
illegal marijuana grow sites to be widely dispersed across the 
landscape. The commenter stated that most illegal grow sites were found 
in close proximity to freeways, rather than deeper in forests where 
fishers live. The commenter also stated that in 2013, only six illegal 
marijuana grow sites were found on public lands in Humboldt County.
    Our Response: These comments were made during a November 17, 2014, 
public hearing in Redding, California, after we displayed a map of 
illegal marijuana grow sites prepared by the Service for the hearing. 
The commenter was providing his personal opinion and did not provide 
information to support his claim that illegal marijuana grow sites were 
mostly clustered along freeways and not within areas occupied by 
fishers. The commenter also did not provide information supporting his 
claim regarding the number of illegal grow sites found in Humboldt 
County in 2013. Information presented in the Exposure to Toxicants 
section of the draft Species Report (citing Thompson et al. 2014 and 
Gabriel et al. 2012a) shows that AR exposure in fishers in California 
is widespread, with residues found in 84 percent of fisher carcasses 
tested. Further, the commenter's claim that illegal grow sites are 
clustered around freeways is contradicted by a spatial analysis of AR 
exposure of fishers in California conducted by Gabriel et al. (2012a, 
entire), which suggested that exposure of fishers to ARs was from a 
widespread use of ARs across the landscape. Figure 19 in the draft and 
final Species Reports (Service 2014, p. 156; Service 2016, p. 146; 
source information from Higley et al. 2013) shows dozens of known 
marijuana cultivation sites in Humboldt County in 2010 and 2011. 
Further, only a fraction of illegal grow sites are detected by law 
enforcement, suggesting many more exist than are displayed in Figure 
19. We are unaware of any information that would lead us to conclude 
that the number of cultivation sites in Humboldt County was reduced 
from dozens in 2010 and 2011 to only six in 2013. Therefore, the best 
available information suggests that: (1) Marijuana cultivation sites 
are distributed across the landscape and occur within suitable fisher 
habitat, and are not clustered around freeways outside of suitable 
fisher habitat; and (2) the number of illegal marijuana cultivation 
sites in Humboldt County in 2013 is not substantially different from 
the years for which we had data (2010 and 2011).
    (279) Comment: One commenter stated that Figure 19 in the draft 
Species Report was misleading, as the dots on the map are buffered by a 
2.5-mi (4,000-m) radius to approximate the hypothetical home range of a 
male fisher. The commenter believed that this map leads to an 
overstatement of the threat of ARs from illegal marijuana grow sites, 
as it does not account for the fact that multiple female fishers will 
be found within an area of that size. The commenter stated that because 
female fishers are unlikely to cross another female's territory, they 
might never encounter an illegal marijuana grow site.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter that Figure 19 in the 
draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 156) may overestimate the 
exposure of individual fishers to ARs over these 2 years, but it also 
may underestimate exposure as well, since the information is presented 
at a very broad scale. However, the information in the final Species 
Report reflects the best scientific and commercial information 
available at this time. Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter 
that female home ranges do not overlap (Lafroth et al. 2010, p. 67; 
Higley et al. 2014, Figure 10, p. 86; Powell et al. 2015, Figure 6, p. 
43, and Figure 7, p. 44) and, therefore, disagree with the premise that 
because of that, female fishers may never encounter a trespass 
marijuana cultivation site. In any case, the best available information 
does not support concluding that these impacts rise to the level of a 
threat, based on the insufficient evidence that ARs are having 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales.
    (280) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service lacks 
explicit data to make conclusions about the scope and severity of AR 
use on fishers. They stated that the conclusion in the draft Species 
Report is unreliable, as it is based on faulty assumptions and 
extrapolations rather than substantial data. They stated that the 
Service's analysis incorrectly assumes that all sites use ARs with no 
remediation measures, and that the Service incorrectly assumed an even 
distribution of illegal marijuana cultivation sites across the range of 
the proposed DPS.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (87).
    (281) Comment: One commenter believed the scope of ARs in the draft 
Species Report was too high. The commenter highlighted expert opinions, 
voiced at a symposium, that illegal marijuana cultivation on public 
lands may be decreasing, and moving instead to indoor operations. Based 
on Forest Service estimates of the size of illegal marijuana trespass 
sites and the number of sites eradicated, the commenter stated that it 
appears that only 2 percent of fisher habitat on Forest Service lands 
in California has been impacted by illegal marijuana cultivation, and 
although the effects of toxicants extend beyond these areas, the scope 
of 23 to 95 percent for California given in the draft Species Report is 
too high.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that the scope of 
toxicant exposure is too high. Our method for determining the scope in 
the draft Species Report can be found in Appendix C of the Species 
Report (Service 2016) and involves buffering known illegal marijuana 
cultivation sites eradicated by law enforcement personnel over a 2-year 
period by the area encompassed by a male fisher's home range. The 
summed area of those buffers roughly approximates 23 percent (low 
scope) of the fishers' current range in California (Higley 2013, pers. 
comm.). However, because the number of illegal cultivation sites 
detected and eradicated annually is estimated to be between 15 to 50 
percent of active sites, and many sites have not been remediated 
(toxicants removed), it is possible that as many as 95 percent (large 
scope) of fishers may be exposed to toxicants associated with these 
sites over the next 40 years. We have not received any new information 
that would allow us to refine the scope of toxicant exposure to

[[Page 22802]]

a greater degree because the total amount of habitat destroyed by 
illegal marijuana trespass sites is typically not reported. Further, we 
have not received any new information regarding annual trends in law 
enforcement effort to survey for illegal trespass cultivation sites, 
nor information on the total number of sites located each year. For the 
reasons we have discussed in the ``Exposure to Toxicants'' section of 
the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 141-159), we agree that the 
effects of toxicants extend beyond the actual area where they are 
found. In addition, we caution that many eradicated sites have not been 
remediated (toxicants have been removed from the environment). 
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter and conclude that in 
California, a broad range of scope (from low to high) is supported by 
the data that we have received to date. Although our overall conclusion 
about this stressor has changed (i.e., toxicants are not resulting in 
significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales), we 
have not received any new information that would change our estimates 
of the scope of this stressor as that outlined in the draft Species 
Report.
    (282) Comment: One commenter believed that the best available 
scientific data demonstrated that the scope and scale of the impacts of 
marijuana cultivation on the fisher are significant and shows no 
systematic decrease. The commenter provided a reference to Bauer (2015) 
to support this statement.
    Our Response: We agree that Bauer (2015) supports the conclusion 
that the impacts of marijuana cultivation on northwestern California 
forested ecosystems likely are significant, especially with respect to 
the effects of water withdrawal on streamflow in creeks and rivers. 
However, we disagree that this article supports the conclusion that the 
impacts of marijuana cultivation on the fisher show no systematic 
decrease. Indeed, with regard to effects on wildlife, the article 
states: ``Though these impacts have been documented by state and 
Federal agencies, the extent to which they affect sensitive fish and 
wildlife species and their habitat has not been quantified (Bauer 2015, 
p. 2).'' On the other hand, Gabriel et al. (2015, p. 7) found that, 
between 2012 and 2014, exposure of fishers to toxicants in California 
has increased from 79 percent (46 of 58 individuals tested) to 85 
percent (86 of 101 individuals tested), although the sample size is 
small. Thus, the data we have does not support a conclusion that there 
has been a systematic decrease in the scope and scale of the impacts of 
marijuana cultivation on fishers. However, we note the uncertainty as 
to the severity of impact that this stressor may have rangewide, given 
data are minimal across Oregon and Washington in particular, including 
the lack of information rangewide regarding potential sublethal effects 
of toxicants to fishers (i.e., we only have information on 15 
mortalities rangewide). Therefore, the best available information does 
not indicate that these impacts rise to the level of a threat, based on 
the insufficient evidence that ARs are functioning as an operative 
threat on the fisher such that significant impacts are occurring at 
either the population or rangewide scales.
    (283) Comment: One commenter stated that DDT and DDE had been 
previously found at illegal marijuana cultivation sites, but did not 
provide any further data about use of those pesticides.
    Our Response: Table 10 in the final Species Report (Service 2016, 
pp. 153-155) lists the pesticides found on marijuana cultivation sites 
and specifies which are currently registered in the United States. 
Among those not registered for use in the United States are azinphos 
methyl, methamidophos, methyl parathion, and DDT. There are no 
rodenticide labels that allow application to marijuana as a crop; thus, 
any use of rodenticides within a marijuana grow would be illegal under 
State and Federal laws, regardless of whether marijuana is legal in 
that State.
    (284) Comment: One commenter stated that the threat from illegal 
marijuana growers was overstated in the draft Species Report and 
proposed rule due to the increase in legal medical marijuana in 
California, Oregon, and Washington. Based on this legalization, the 
commenter believed that the drug cartels are less interested in growing 
marijuana on Federal lands, as legal growing of marijuana is now 
possible for some growers on private property. The commenter concluded 
that the impacts of ARs from illegal marijuana growers is short-term 
and on a rapid and measurable decline, as demonstrated in the draft 
Species Report and the decline in sites from the 2010 to 2011 maps. 
This commenter stated that they are working on a report related to the 
illegal growing of marijuana on Federal lands.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (281). We are not 
aware of any information documenting the decline of trespass marijuana 
sites as a result of the legalization of marijuana. In addition, we 
disagree that any trend in the impacts of ARs on fishers can be deduced 
from 2 years of data.
    (285) Comment: Two commenters believed that the threat from illegal 
marijuana growers was overstated. One commenter pointed to publicly 
available information relating to the Forest Service (Region 5), which 
shows a 70 percent decline statewide in California of illegal marijuana 
grow sites from 2009 to 2013, and an estimate that successful Statewide 
raids of illegal grower sites is down 83 percent in 2014. Another 
commenter referred to a private communication with the Forest Service, 
which stated that the number of illegal marijuana plants seized on 
public lands in California declined by approximately 88 percent between 
2009 and 2014.
    Our Response: The commenters provide no information on the amount 
of survey effort for the years for which they are reporting declines in 
the number of plant seizures. Please see our response to Comment (281) 
regarding illegal marijuana grower information.
    (286) Comment: One commenter believed that the Service's analysis 
of ARs from illegal marijuana growers was incomplete, as it did not 
mention that the number of illegal marijuana grow sites is diminishing 
due to increased legalization of marijuana. The commenter suggested 
that the Service obtain information from the U.S. Forest Service Law 
Enforcement Managing and Reporting System Database. The commenter 
stated that this information represented the best available scientific 
data on this matter, and that not using this data would make the 
analysis of scope and severity very speculative.
    Our Response: We are not aware of any information documenting the 
decline of trespass marijuana sites as a result of the legalization of 
marijuana, including related to the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement 
Managing and Reporting System Database. Please see our response to 
Comment (281).
Stressors
    (287) Comment: The State of Washington proclaimed that the factors 
that affect the continued existence of fishers are not evenly 
distributed (noting that this is of greatest concern outside of 
Washington since the native population of the State was extirpated by 
the mid-1900s). With regards to the reintroduced population on the 
Olympic Peninsula, the commenter stated that it is exposed to numerous 
threats (e.g., illegal trapping, vehicle collisions, predation, 
disease, toxicants); however, this reintroduced population's most 
significant threat may be its relatively small size. The commenter 
noted that historical and current information related to small 
population size impacts in Washington is not

[[Page 22803]]

known, yet the commenter also stated that ongoing monitoring indicates 
that the population is widely distributed and reproducing. The 
commenter expressed significant concern that a Federal listing may 
preclude the ability of the State to conduct further reintroductions, 
thus eliminating the most significant, beneficial action that can be 
taken to address threat of small population size.
    Our Response: We agree with the State of Washington that stressors 
are not evenly distributed in the analysis area, as clearly stated in 
both our draft Species Report and our proposed rule. We disagree that a 
Federal listing of fishers in Washington would preclude the ability of 
the State to conduct further reintroductions; there are numerous 
examples of threatened and endangered species that have been 
reintroduced. We acknowledge there may be greater support for 
reintroductions if that effort is not accompanied by real or perceived 
regulatory burdens that may come with a Federal listing under the Act. 
However, such considerations cannot enter into our determination (see 
our response to Comment (122), above). Regardless, based on our 
evaluation of the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
have concluded that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet 
the Act's definition of an endangered or threatened species throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range; therefore, we are 
withdrawing the proposed rule to list (see Determination, above). 
Conservation efforts by WDFW for fishers in Washington, including 
reintroductions, are, therefore, expected to continue unaffected by 
this rulemaking.
    (288) Comment: The State of Oregon disagrees with the Service's 
``overarching concern'' to list the taxon based on a small and isolated 
nature of fisher populations, indicating that there is a lack of 
information on which to base this decision. The State also disagreed 
with the Service's assumption that fisher are absent from the Oregon 
Cascades given they believe this determination without dedicated 
surveys following a peer-reviewed protocol is not reliable. The State 
asserted that it is possible that fisher occur at low population levels 
in portions of their range where they are presumed to be extirpated. 
Also, the State claimed that the Service may have overstated the 
uncertainty about the size of the NCSO population in the draft Species 
Report (i.e., range of 258-4,018 animals ([Service 2014, p. 39]) 
because the lower estimate comes from a study that examined genetic 
isolation in fisher using a technique that may be unreliable for 
estimating population size for management purposes, while the remaining 
references come from the ``gray'' literature and are either unpublished 
studies or personal communication. Overall, the State maintained that 
listing the fisher as a federally protected species/DPS is premature 
without additional research demonstrating the NCSO population is in 
decline and confirmation that fisher has been extirpated from the 
northern portion of the Oregon Cascades.
    Our Response: The Act directs us to use the best scientific and 
commercial information available when determining whether a species is 
threatened or endangered. Regarding our ``assumption'' that fishers are 
absent from the Oregon Cascades, we do acknowledge their presence in 
the southern Cascades. We reference Aubry and Lewis (2003, p. 85), a 
peer-reviewed resource, who reviewed all known fisher occurrence 
records in Oregon. The authors also compiled information from 
standardized surveys, mostly based on sampling techniques recommended 
by Zielinski et al. (1995) and conducted in areas where fishers were 
historically reported. The authors concluded that, outside of the 
southern Cascades and southwest Oregon, fishers ``appear to have been 
extirpated from all other portions of their presumed historical range 
in Oregon.'' Although updated surveys in the central and northern 
Oregon Cascades would give us a more robust handle on fisher 
distributions, we described the known distribution of fishers based on 
the best available scientific and commercial data.
    Regarding our description of the size of the NCSO population in the 
draft Species Report, we agree that the lower estimate of 258 is 
calculated from an effective population size based on genetic data. We 
include this information to represent the best scientific and 
commercial data available and to indicate the breadth of the range of 
values available to us on which to base our listing decision. We also 
have revised our final Species Report to include new population 
estimate values (Service 2016, pp. 42-48). We realize the remaining 
references do not come from peer-reviewed literature, but again, this 
is the best available information, which the Act requires us to use in 
making our listing decision.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the 
proposed West Coast DPS of the fisher and are withdrawing our proposal 
to list this DPS (see Determination, above). We reached this conclusion 
in part because we have no evidence to suggest that any of the 
potential stressors are having significant impacts at either the 
population or rangewide scales (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species, above).
    (289) Comment: Many commenters agreed with the Service's analysis 
regarding stressors affecting the threats that are impacting the 
fisher, including trapping, logging, wildfire, climate change, and 
rodenticides. The following are representative comments. One commenter 
proclaimed that logging of fisher habitat as well as road kill, 
disease, and other human-related impacts to fisher are what continues 
to contribute to decline of fishers across its range. A second 
commenter declared that fishers have declined dramatically in recent 
decades specifically due to trapping, logging, and wildfire (this 
commenter and another declared that the SSN population faces imminent 
extinction from threats). Two more commenters asserted that the species 
across its entire range necessitates listing as endangered primarily 
due to the small size and isolation of the remaining populations, as 
well as continued habitat loss from logging and development, and that 
the Service should ensure that the final listing rule limits mortality 
of fishers to the greatest extent possible. A fifth commenter stated 
that short-term impacts to fishers from logging and human-associated 
noise are likely causing behavior changes and negative impacts to 
fisher prey species. A sixth commenter asserted that small population 
size impacts are so significant that there is a low likelihood that the 
populations would expand other than through reintroduction efforts (as 
demonstrated by the SOC population that has been in place for 30 years 
with no apparent increase in size beyond the reintroduction area). A 
seventh commenter explicitly attributed past and present logging 
activities as the primary, significant threat to the fisher and its 
habitat, noting salvage logging on non-Federal lands in California as 
an impact that is poorly regulated and inadequately monitored.
    In contrast, several commenters declare that the analysis of 
stressors in the proposed rule and draft Species Report overestimated 
actual impacts. One commenter asserted that the Service's threats 
analysis overestimated the level of impact specifically in the southern 
Oregon and northern California region. Another commenter claimed that 
the three primary threats identified by the Service (habitat loss, 
toxicants, and cumulative and synergistic effects) are diminishing

[[Page 22804]]

impacts that are not resulting in population-level effects, thus 
demonstrating why the fisher is not in need of listing under the Act. A 
third commenter stated that there is no immediacy of the threats 
described in the proposed rule to necessitate listing the species as 
threatened or endangered, in part because there are no population-level 
effects, including within the NCSO and SSN populations.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments from those in support of 
and those with concerns regarding our analysis of stressors. The 
analysis of stressors is complex and takes into consideration such 
factors as timing, scope, and severity of stressors potentially acting 
on the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher using the best available 
scientific and commercial information. After review of new information 
and comments received during both the comment periods, as well as 
information used for the proposed rule, the best available information 
does not support concluding that the stressors, individually or in 
combination, have a significant impact at the population or rangewide 
scales. Consequently, we have determined that the proposed West Coast 
DPS of fishers is neither threatened or endangered under the Act and 
are withdrawing our proposal to list this DPS (see Determination, 
above). We will continue to monitor the status of fishers and their 
habitat as we develop management strategies and work toward the 
conservation of fisher throughout its range.
    (290) Comment: One commenter claimed that 
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and 
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) are two chemicals/pesticides 
that are likely impacting fishers and other non-targeted species, and 
as such should be considered as part of the threats analysis.
    Our Response: Evaluating the impacts of pesticide exposures on 
free-ranging wildlife can be difficult and is often limited to carcass 
counts in the field and detection of pesticides in postmortem samples, 
which primarily reflect acute intoxications. Unlike the information on 
ARs, such exposures of DDT are not documented in fishers, and their use 
in marijuana grow sites has been extremely limited (Service 2016, Table 
10). Please see our response to Comment (283).
    (291) Comment: One commenter declared that the Service implied (in 
the draft Species Report) that all stressors result in a negative 
effect on fishers or fisher habitat, and considered this viewpoint to 
be invalid because changes to natural or man-made habitat do not always 
result in negative effects to species. The commenter discussed wildfire 
and timber harvest as two examples to articulate their point, stating 
that wildfire and timber harvest can create habitat loss and 
concurrently create a heterogeneous landscape that benefits fisher prey 
species, and that can also (in the case of wildfire) create snags and 
down wood that facilitates prey, and provides denning and resting 
habitat.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (97).
Synergistic (Cumulative) Effects
    (292) Comment: One commenter asserted that the synergistic impacts 
of climate change and fire behavior pose the most serious long-term 
threat specifically to the California populations, and, accordingly, 
listing is warranted. Another commenter highlighted synergistic habitat 
impacts across the entire range of the taxon (as proposed) as a 
significant concern due to multiple ongoing or future project impacts 
in conjunction with past habitat loss, noting that these impacts to 
already small and isolated fisher populations will likely further 
impair the survival and recovery of the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Comment (1).
    (293) Comment: One commenter highlighted the information in the 
draft Species Report concerning studies that look at larger areas where 
wildfire and rodenticides are present. The commenter asserted that 
there was no decline in fisher populations despite surveys of a larger 
area. The commenter requested that we make this information more 
prominent by including it in the executive summary of the final Species 
Report.
    Our Response: The draft and final Species Reports first review 
stressors individually, including wildfire and exposure to toxicants, 
and then consider whether these stressors act cumulatively or 
synergistically to determine if the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher 
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species according 
to the Act. At this time, the best available information do not 
indicate that these stressors, by themselves or acting cumulatively or 
synergistically with other stressors on small populations, are 
resulting in significant impacts at either the population or rangewide 
scales. Therefore, based on our assessment of the best scientific and 
commercial data available, we have concluded that the proposed West 
Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act, and we are withdrawing our proposed 
rule. While neither the draft nor final Species Report has an executive 
summary, this information is summarized in the Executive Summary, 
above.
Threatened Versus Endangered
    (294) Comment: Many commenters urged the Service to list the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher as an endangered species with no 
reason given, or based on a rationale such as limited distribution, 
isolated population, declining populations, questions about the success 
of a newly reintroduced population, rodenticides, or loss of historical 
habitat. Many other commenters urged the Service to list the taxon as a 
threatened species with no reason given, or based on a rationale such 
as significant threats to its survival (e.g., declining population 
numbers) and conservation, and ongoing threats (most commonly 
referencing degradation and loss of late-successional forests via 
logging activities, and to a lesser extent trapping, rodenticides, 
wildfire, road kill, or small/fragmented populations). In contrast, 
other commenters urged the Service not to list the taxon because they 
believed the populations to be stable or increasing, that there is 
significant suitable habitat available both currently and in the 
future, recovery efforts have occurred or are ongoing, robust State and 
Federal regulatory frameworks exist for the taxon's long-term 
protection, or they claimed the proposed listing was based on 
uncertainty or was speculative.
    Our Response: Sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act, respectively, 
define an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened 
species as one that is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Our task in evaluating a species for a potential listing under 
the Act is to determine whether that species meets the definition of 
either a threatened species or an endangered species, based solely on 
the best scientific and commercial data available. For this reason, 
comments merely expressing support for or opposition to a proposed 
listing, without supporting scientific rationale or data, do not meet 
the standard of information required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 
At this time the best available information does not support concluding 
that the stressors to fishers rise to the level of a threat, either 
singly or considered in

[[Page 22805]]

combination, based on the insufficient evidence that these stressors 
are having significant impacts at either the population or rangewide 
scales. We, therefore, have no scientific information to suggest that 
fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS are currently in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. For 
all of these reasons and as detailed in the Determination section of 
this document, we now conclude that the proposed West Coast DPS of 
fisher does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act, and we are withdrawing our proposed rule.
Trapping
    (295) Comment: The State of Washington and several other commenters 
claimed that we underestimated the severity of trapping as a stressor 
in the draft Species Report and proposed rule, describing this impact 
as one that the Service previously recognized as a significant threat. 
The State claimed that there is a higher likelihood of incidental 
captures in Oregon given: (1) The legal use of leg-hold and body 
gripping traps, (2) the likely less than 100 percent reporting of 
incidental captures, (3) the potential for poaching of fishers with 
higher current pelt prices, and (4) probability of incidental captures 
of fishers in southwestern Oregon in the late 1980s and 1990s as 
reported from other unpublished observations (e.g., J. Lewis (WDFW) and 
K. Aubry (Forest Service)). Additionally, the State claimed that the 
severity of trapping as a stressor in coastal Washington and in 
California may be underestimated because of the potential for fishers 
to be injured when captured in a box/cage-type trap, the less than 100 
percent reporting of incidental captures, and the possibility of 
poaching especially with the higher current pelt prices. Overall, the 
State asserted that a severity value of less than 1 percent is too low 
for the risks that exist in southwestern Oregon, and indicated that 5 
to 10 percent may be more appropriate for Oregon and up to 5 percent 
for coastal Washington.
    Alternatively, two other commenters stated that the severity of 
trapping is low and agreed with our assessment. One commenter asserted 
that trapping prohibitions have sufficiently reduced the effects of 
trapping as a stressor. The other commenter, a tribe in Washington, 
indicated that the threat of trapping is largely nonexistent in 
Washington (and specifically for the reintroduced population) because 
leg-hold and kill traps are not legal for use in Washington for general 
hunting/trapping. Although tribes can still authorize trapping for fur-
bearers, they suggested that it is regulated appropriately and has low 
participation.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment (161) for Washington. In 
addition, this response applies to Oregon [and California] as well. See 
our response to Comment (297).
    (296) Comment: One commenter asserted that historical trapping 
activities for fur-bearing animals were the primary reason for fisher 
population declines, as opposed to old-growth forest loss, which the 
draft Species Report and proposed rule imply was a greater concern. The 
commenter believed that this piece of history (i.e., the idea that the 
British Crown directed trapping throughout Idaho, Oregon, and 
Washington to discourage American settlers from coming into this area) 
should not be overlooked when describing why fisher numbers are lower 
today compared to the past.
    Our Response: We do not disagree that historical trapping likely 
played a key role in past declines in fisher populations. See our 
response to Comment (92).
    (297) Comment: Two commenters disagreed with our conclusion that 
incidental trapping and poaching are not impacts to the taxon and 
requested that we reconsider our conclusion for the final rule.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report determined the severity of 
trapping, including incidental trapping and poaching, to be very low in 
Washington and California and infrequent in Oregon (Service 2014, p. 
112). Information received during public and peer review comment 
periods provided data on the incidental capture of two fishers 
reintroduced to the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. This information 
is consistent with our determination that incidental trapping is very 
low in Washington. We have updated the final Species Report with this 
new information; however, our conclusion regarding stressors associated 
with trapping has not changed. Based on our evaluation of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we see no evidence that 
trapping is resulting in significant impacts to fishers at either the 
population or rangewide scales, such that we would consider trapping to 
pose a threat to the proposed West Coast DPS (see Trapping and 
Incidental Capture, above).
Wildfire
    (298) Comment: One commenter cited Hanson (2013) as the best 
available science for potential impacts of fire on fisher and its 
habitat. Specifically, the commenter stated that fisher do not 
categorically avoid large, mixed-severity fire areas, particularly 
given these types of fires create ``essential aspects of fisher 
habitat.''
    Our Response: Our draft and final Species Report includes a 
discussion of Hanson's (2013, entire) observations of fisher use of 
burned areas in the southern Sierra Nevada. We agree that fishers 
likely use burned landscapes to varying degrees depending upon the 
presence of necessary habitat elements and structures for fisher 
foraging, denning, and resting. We received multiple comments on this 
subject, and have updated the final Species Report to include an 
expanded discussion of fisher use of burned landscapes, including any 
new information that has become available (Service 2016, pp. 62-77).
    (299) Comment: One commenter stated that addressing the risk of 
catastrophic wildfire should be a higher priority than conservation of 
any particular species. We interpret the commenter's various statements 
to imply that listing the fisher, particularly in the Sierra Nevada, 
should not occur, but that efforts should instead focus on wildfire 
prevention due to fire impacts that result in a landscape where 
``nothing survives.''
    In contrast, multiple commenters stated that wildfire is not a 
significant issue or threat. One commenter stated that (in California) 
fewer acreage has burned in the past 5 years as compared to the 
previous 5 years, those fires that do occur are mostly a mosaic of 
high- and low-intensity burns, and the fires create more fisher habitat 
(e.g., prey habitat, denning or nesting structures) than what may be 
destroyed, thus setting the stage for better fisher habitat in the 
future. Five of the commenters articulated that the Species Report 
mischaracterizes, in general, the benefits of fire (or makes 
unsupported assumptions about fishers and fire). Several commenters 
asserted that fire plays a key role in creating prey/foraging habitat 
(which can be enhanced by high-intensity fires (Hanson 2013) that can 
increase prey abundance) and denning/resting structures for fisher. One 
commenter also asserted that 20,000 acres of their lands experienced a 
2008 catastrophic wildfire, which they subsequently salvage logged and 
later (in 2010) documented a fisher natal den inside the salvaged area 
(2 years after the fire and 1 year after salvage logging).
    Our Response: While we understand that catastrophic, or stand-
replacing, fire may impact more than one particular species and that 
the first commenter believes this issue should be addressed

[[Page 22806]]

first, the purpose of this document is to assess the conservation 
status of fisher as required under the Act.
    Fires over the last 5 years (2010 through 2014) in California did 
burn fewer acres than in the previous 5 years (2005 through 2009); 
however, extreme fire activity in 2008 was responsible for a large 
majority of acres burned. A more appropriate comparison would be to 
view a given year against a 5-year average to determine whether fire 
activity has increased or decreased. For example, California wildfires 
burned approximately 308,000 acres in 2015 (https://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2015). When compared to the 5-year 
average of 110,000 acres burned (https://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2015), 2015 was a year of increased fire activity 
in California.
    Fire can have either a negative or positive effect on fisher 
habitat, depending on the specifics of the situation; many variables 
enter into the final outcome with respect to potential habitat 
suitability for fisher, and additionally the post-fire landscape may 
vary in suitability for fishers depending on the aspect of fisher life 
history under consideration (e.g., denning or resting versus foraging 
or movement). We understand that fires can create fisher habitat and 
that fishers have been documented in burned landscapes. We have 
incorporated all additional information submitted during the comment 
periods into our final Species Report, where we provide an expanded 
discussion on this topic (please also see our responses to Comments 
(87), (105), and (298).
    (300) Comment: One Federal agency suggested that the Service use 
the Forest Service's plan for revision of fire risk modeling studies to 
examine the immediacy and scope of the threat of fire on the proposed 
West Coast DPS of fisher.
    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestion by the agency. Although 
these studies were not supplied with the comment letter or during the 
open comment periods, we have used additional fire information made 
available since the proposed listing rule to provide an updated and 
thorough analysis of the immediacy and scope of the threat of fire on 
the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher (see Wildfire and Fire 
Suppression above, and the associated discussion in the final Species 
Report (Service 2016, pp. 62-77). We will coordinate with the agency 
about any fire risk modeling studies available prior to any future 
Species Report updates.
    (301) Comment: One local government expressed concern that species 
typically become listed under the Act after fire burns the landscape. 
We interpret the commenter's remarks to imply that fisher may be listed 
under the Act specifically due to the recent impacts to fisher habitat 
following the recent 2007 Moonlight, 2012 Chips, 2013 Rim, and 2013 
Aspen fires. The commenter stated that listing the fisher would 
preclude appropriate management for restoration, thus increasing the 
risk of fire, and noted that 90 percent of burned areas are not 
salvaged and reforested due to concerns about black-backed woodpecker 
habitat, thus converting the once suitable fisher forested habitat to 
brush ecotypes.
    Our Response: The effect of fire on fishers and fisher habitat was 
one of the many potential stressors evaluated in our review of the 
status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. At this time the best 
available information does not support concluding that the stressors to 
fishers rise to the level of a threat, either singly or considered in 
combination, based on the insufficient evidence that these stressors 
are having significant impacts at either the population or rangewide 
scales currently or in the foreseeable future; this evaluation includes 
the consideration of fire as a stressor. Based on our review of the all 
of the best scientific and commercial information available, we have 
determined that the fisher does not meet the definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species and consequently have withdrawn the 
proposed rule to list the species (see Determination, above).
    (302) Comment: One commenter disagreed with the Service's 
assumption that areas burned at high severity would be unsuitable as 
fisher habitat for several decades afterward, and that the development 
of structures necessary for resting and denning could take up to 100 
years to recover. The commenter suggested that suitable fisher habitat 
may regenerate in relatively short time periods following disturbance 
events, and provided the results of a study done on fisher usage on 
26,000 ac (10,522 ha) of the Fountain Fire in California, which burned 
in August 1992. Specifically, the commenter stated that the Fountain 
Fire burned at very high intensity, subsequent salvage logging was 
completed without specific retention of structures for wildlife 
purposes, and the area was replanted with ponderosa pine from 1993 
through 1997. The commenter went on to articulate that both bait 
stations and photo detections demonstrated that fishers were present in 
50 percent of the replanted forest during the winter of 2013-2014, 
approximately 16 to 20 years after planting. The commenter also 
acknowledged that the absence of adequate structures probably precluded 
denning, but the evidence demonstrated that fishers are using this 
recently regenerated forest, at least for foraging, in much less than 
100 years. Finally, the commenter stated that burned forests on Federal 
and State lands (as opposed to unburned forests) may provide more of 
the structures needed by fishers within a relatively short time.
    Our Response: We agree that the information provided by the 
commenter provides additional insight into fisher use of burned 
landscapes. The replanted areas likely contain dense canopy cover that 
would provide fisher some protection from predators while foraging. We 
also agree that fire is a necessary part of the disturbance regime and 
can lead to the creation of the structural elements used by fisher. We 
have incorporated the information provided by the commenter in our 
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 62-77). Please also see our 
responses to Comments (87) and (105).
    (303) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our assumption in the 
draft Species Report and proposed rule that high-intensity burns will 
increase, stating that calculations do not account for some other 
important potential sources of variation that would likely reduce the 
calculated values for scope and severity into the foreseeable future. 
For example, the commenter asserted that the increasing effect of 
continued forest management on Federal lands in both the NCSO and SSN 
population areas is designed to reduce the intensity of wildfire, 
including multiple fuels reduction projects at various stages of 
planning and implementation, thus helping prevent the taxon from 
potentially becoming an endangered species in the foreseeable future. 
The commenter stated that because the scope and severity estimates for 
wildfire are fairly small, balancing these values against the 
beneficial forest management activities would likely reduce the 
stressor of wildfire to a level of near insignificance. The commenter 
requested that the Service balance the projected effects of wildfire 
with a thorough analysis of the potential for ongoing and future 
vegetation management.
    Our Response: The draft Species Report provided individual analyses 
of the potential effects of wildfire and vegetation management 
stressors on fisher and fisher habitat (Service 2014, pp. 58-72, 85-
96). We recognize that vegetation management may result in

[[Page 22807]]

reduced fire severity and appreciate the examples of planned or ongoing 
efforts by Federal agencies to accomplish fuels reduction projects. We 
have expanded our discussion of this topic in our final Species Report, 
including specific consideration of various fuels treatment projects 
that may ameliorate the effect of future wildfires throughout the 
analysis area (Service 2016, pp 62-77).
    (304) Comment: One commenter urged the Service to consider the 
tradeoffs of mechanical treatments of fisher habitat to reduce fire 
severity given that fisher avoid areas of mechanical treatments. The 
commenter also stated that mechanical treatments may not be effective 
to retain fisher habitat because treated areas can still burn at high 
severity.
    Our Response: We recognize that there are tradeoffs when otherwise 
suitable fisher habitat is treated to minimize the potential for fire 
risk. Depending upon the mechanical treatment, there may be short-term 
reductions in habitat suitability (e.g., alterations to prey habitat); 
however, these treatments can also result in long-term benefits to 
fisher habitat (e.g., minimize risk of stand-replacing fire). We also 
understand that treated areas may still burn at low, moderate, and/or 
high severity levels, related to a variety of factors including the 
spatial arrangement and type of treatments, forest type, and weather. 
We received some new information during our open comment periods 
specific to fisher use of areas that have experienced mechanical 
treatment to reduce fire risk, and incorporated this new information 
into our final Species Report (Garner 2013, entire).
    (305) Comment: Two commenters stated that catastrophic fires, which 
remove fisher habitat, are unlikely to occur on their lands on the 
California coast. One commenter stated this to be true due to the 
natural fire regime, their forest management practices, and effective 
fire suppression, and also provided examples of recent low-severity 
fires to demonstrate their opinion. The second commenter asserted this 
to be true because of their management practices, the strong coastal 
influence, road infrastructure and readily available heavy equipment, 
as well as employee training.
    Our Response: We thank the commenters for suggesting that fisher 
habitat in certain areas of the California coast may not be subject to 
the catastrophic fires occurring elsewhere in the NCSO subregion. As 
described in our final Species Report, there is great variability in 
both observed and projected fire starts, severity, size, and 
effectiveness of suppression capabilities across the range of the 
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher (Service 2016, pp. 62, 67-76).
    (306) Comment: One local government maintained that the Service 
contradicted itself by claiming that loss of habitat by both wildfire 
and vegetation management is a threat to fishers. The commenter 
believed that this type of argument illustrates how the Act (and other 
environmental laws) destroy what they intend to preserve. The commenter 
noted that the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors has declared an 
ongoing state of emergency due to the potential for catastrophic 
wildfire, thus implying that vegetation management is needed to address 
the current situation.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the frustration expressed by the 
commenter. The term ``vegetation management,'' as used and defined in 
our draft Species Report, applied not only to management actions 
intended to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, but also to 
various forms of timber harvest and other activities. We understand and 
agree that strategic vegetation management aimed at fuels reduction can 
minimize the potential for catastrophic, or stand-replacing, fire. 
However, not all forms of vegetation management (e.g., clearcuts, even-
aged management) are beneficial to fishers or necessarily reduce the 
risks of stand-replacing fire. In our final Species Report, we have 
attempted to make a more clear distinction between the various forms of 
vegetation management that we assessed across the fisher's range in the 
west coast States, and have addressed management aimed toward fuels 
reduction separately (Service 2016, pp. 68-69, 98-110).
    (307) Comment: Three commenters stated that the Service's analysis 
of wildfire is incomplete and improperly biased toward negative 
impacts.
     One commenter asserted fire is not a significant threat 
overall, and stated there is no sound science for the assumption in 
Naney et al. 2012 (as discussed in the draft Species Report) that high-
intensity fires lead to permanent loss of conifer forest. The commenter 
asserted (with multiple supporting citations) that existing data 
strongly indicate vigorous conifer regeneration occurs after high-
intensity fire and is not precluded by native shrub cover after fire. 
They suggested there could be type conversion in some circumstances 
(without supporting evidence), but cautioned against this speculation 
noting that ``lagged effects of past fires and recovery rates . . . 
would prevent that from happening and maintain structural diversity on 
the landscape.'' Additionally, the commenter stated that the draft 
Species Report does not present meaningful context about current rates 
and patterns of fire in forests occupied by fisher populations. 
Specifically, the commenter alleged that current fires are heavily 
dominated by low- and moderate-intensity fire effects; fire intensity 
is not increasing; high-intensity fire rotation intervals are currently 
600 to 1,000 years or more in the Sierra Nevada, Klamath/Siskiyou, and 
southern Cascades due to fire suppression, which is far longer than 
natural; and that high-intensity fire occurred historically at long 
rotation intervals (providing multiple citations for each).
     A second commenter stated that the Service fails to 
attribute the benefits of fire absent fire suppression. Specifically, 
the commenter stated that, while firebreaks and back-burning may be 
necessary to stop wildfires, and undeniably inflict impacts that would 
not accrue absent fire, such practices are, in almost all 
circumstances, designed to prevent a fire from growing even larger. The 
commenter suggested that the Service calculate the difference between 
acres burned and acres projected to burn absent wildfire suppression, 
and derive a net anthropogenic conservation benefit. The commenter 
believed that this additional analysis should account for fire 
management regimes, and explicitly contrast the fire suppression 
strategies of the ODF against those of the Forest Service. Absent this 
calculus, the commenter declared the Service's wildfire suppression 
discussion is meaningless.
     The third commenter questions our reference to Powell and 
Zielinski (1994, p. 64) for the hypothesis that fishers evolved in 
forests subject to fires, thus suggesting that management should mimic 
small, stand-replacing fires. The commenter noted that fishers also 
evolved in forests with large stand-replacing fires, so by this same 
logic, burned forests should not have a detrimental effect on fisher 
survival, even absent high quantities of late-successional conifer 
forest.
    Our Response: In response to the first comment, the draft Species 
Report states: ``Some fires may lead to vegetation type conversion from 
forest to shrublands, which may permanently change landscape 
permeability for fishers (Naney et al. 2012, p. 7).'' The emphasis 
should be on ``some''; we are not suggesting that all fires (or high-
severity fires, as suggested by the commenter) lead to conversions from 
forest to shrubland, only that should

[[Page 22808]]

such a conversion occur, it would affect fishers. We reviewed the 
multiple references provided by the commenter and revised the final 
Species Report to refine our discussion of conifer regeneration after 
fire, in addition to discussions of fire intensity and rotation 
(Service 2016, pp. 63-64). We thank the commenter for the additional 
information.
    The second commenter suggested that the final Species Report should 
account for the fact that fire suppression activities would not occur 
but for a wildfire event. Fire suppression activities are a part of 
normal fire-fighting activities and occur within fisher habitat. To the 
extent that fire suppression activities have the potential to impact 
fisher habitat, we have included a discussion of this stressor in the 
final Species Report. The additional calculation, and subsequent 
analysis, suggested by the commenter is outside the scope of this final 
rulemaking process.
    While the logic posed by the third commenter is convincing, there 
is evidence suggesting that in some areas the frequency and size of 
wildfires appears to be increasing, which has the potential to alter 
fisher habitat at rates more rapidly than historically. We acknowledge 
that fishers utilize burned forest and are not obligate users of late-
successional forests; we have also incorporated additional discussion 
of historical fire regimes in forests inhabited by fishers in the west 
coast States in our final Species Report. Please also see our responses 
to Comments (57), (87), and (105).
    (308) Comment: With regard to fisher use of burned landscapes, one 
commenter asserted that literature we relied on should not be used. 
Specifically, the commenter asserted that de Vos (1952) is not a 
credible source because it is unpublished material with anecdotal 
observations, and it is not clear whether areas in question were post-
fire logged, which is a confounding factor. Additionally, the commenter 
asserted that Williams et al. (2007) is not credible because it 
reflects author assumptions with no empirical supporting data and does 
not indicate the extent of post-fire logging.
    Our Response: As noted in the draft Species Report, information 
regarding fisher use of burned landscapes is extremely limited. Our 
discussion of the use of burned areas by fishers is not intended to be 
restricted to areas that had been burned and subsequently harvested. 
While we appreciate the commenter's point of view, we included de Vos 
(1952, pp. 12-13) in this discussion because it is an example of an 
incidental observation of fisher in a burned area during the breeding 
season. We agree that Williams et al. (2007, p. 1) is very general in 
their description of how or to what extent fires and logging degraded 
fisher habitat. We have revised the final Species Report to address 
these comments and to clarify that in both cases the studies cited were 
observational in nature (Service 2016, pp. 65-67).
    (309) Comment: With regard to the Service's discussion (in the 
proposed rule and the draft Species Report) about the threat of 
wildfire to fisher, one commenter stated that management of Forest 
Service lands to reduce wildfire impacts is important to long-term 
fisher viability, and if the Service lists the fisher, increased 
regulatory burden may reduce the Forest Service's ability to prevent 
catastrophic wildfire and its effects to fishers and their habitat. The 
commenter also articulated that based on their experience, it is 
difficult to conduct vegetation management activities on lands that 
harbor federally listed species. The commenter expressed concern 
related to how advocacy groups routinely challenge these projects, 
slowing the Forest Service's ability to accomplish project goals, such 
that listing the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher could potentially 
increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Finally, the commenter 
asserted that even in areas where Forest Service projects are not 
challenged, the threat of ESA litigation slows Federal agencies' 
ability to accomplish treatments that would reduce the threat of fire.
    Our Response: The commenter's concerns appear to be focused on the 
impacts our proposal to list fisher could have on the ability of 
Federal agencies to complete or initiate vegetation management 
projects, some of which may reduce fuels. As noted above, we have 
determined that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not warrant 
listing at this time (see Determination, above), and are withdrawing 
our proposal to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened 
species. Accordingly, the protections afforded by the ESA will not 
apply to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. In addition, responding 
to the commenter's concerns regarding litigation on other species and a 
general perceived threat of litigation over fuel reduction treatments 
is beyond the scope of this document.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041 or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Yreka 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Pacific Regional Office, and Yreka 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 4, 2016.
Noah Matson,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08288 Filed 4-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P