Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher, 29532-29589 [2020-09153]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29532
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2018–0105;
FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018–BD85
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Southern Sierra Nevada
Distinct Population Segment of Fisher
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the
Endangered Species Act (Act), as
amended, for the Southern Sierra
Nevada Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti). This
DPS occurs in California. The effect of
this regulation will be to add this DPS
to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: This rule is effective June 15,
2020.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is available
on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2018–0105 and at https://
www.fws.gov/Yreka. Comments and
materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for
public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments,
materials, and documentation that we
considered in this rulemaking will be
available 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenny Ericson, Field Supervisor, Yreka
Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone:
530–842–5763. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
may call the Federal Relay Service at 1–
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if we determine that a species
may be an endangered or threatened
species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, we are required to
promptly publish a proposal in the
Federal Register and make a
determination on our proposal within 1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
year. To the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we must designate
critical habitat for any species that we
determine to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designation of
critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule
will add the Southern Sierra Nevada
DPS of fisher (Pekania pennanti) (SSN
DPS) as an endangered species to the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may 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
identified multiple threats under
various factors that are acting on, and
will continue to act on, the SSN DPS,
the full list of which can be found in our
final Species Report 2016 (Service 2016,
entire).
Of particular significance regarding
implications for the DPS’s status were
loss and fragmentation of habitat
resulting from high-severity wildfire
and wildfire suppression (i.e., loss of
snags and other large habitat structures
on which the species relies), climate
change, and tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestations. Also of
significance were threats related to
potential direct impacts to individual
fishers (e.g., increased mortality,
decreased reproductive rates, increased
stress/hormone levels, alterations in
behavioral patterns), including wildfire,
increased temperatures resulting from
climate change, disease and predation,
exposure to toxicants, collisions with
vehicles, and potential effects associated
with small population size. These
factors are resulting in a cumulative
effect to such a degree that the best
available information indicates the
Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of fisher
meets the definition of an endangered
species.
Peer review and public comment. In
accordance with our joint policy on peer
review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review of listing actions under the Act,
we sought comments from independent
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
both the draft Species Report (Service
2014) as well as the 2014 Proposed Rule
(79 FR 60419, October 7, 2014). We also
considered all comments and
information received during three
public comment periods (and one
extension) for the 2014 Proposed Rule
(79 FR 60419, October 7, 2014; 79 FR
76950, December 23, 2014; 80 FR 19953,
April 24, 2015; 84 FR 644, January 31,
2019) and two comment periods for the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule (84 FR
60278, November 7, 2019; 84 FR 69712,
December 19, 2019). All comments
received during the peer review process
and the public comment periods have
either been incorporated in the final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire), in
this rule, or addressed in the Summary
of Comments and Recommendations
section of the preamble.
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used
We use several acronyms and
abbreviations throughout the preamble
of this final rule. To assist the reader,
we list them here:
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
CAL FIRE = California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection
CBI = California Biology Institute
CCAA = Candidate Conservation Agreements
with Assurances
CDFW = California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CEQA = California Environmental Quality
Act
CFGC = California Fish and Game
Commission
C.I. = confidence interval
DOI = Department of the Interior
DPS = distinct population segment
EKSA = Eastern Klamath Study Area
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
ESU = evolutionarily significant unit
FPR = forest practice rules
GDRC = Green Diamond Resource Company
GNN = gradient nearest neighbor
HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan
MAUCRSA = Medicinal and Adult-Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
NCSO = Northern California/Southern
Oregon
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA = National Forest Management Act
NPS = National Park Service
NSN = Northern Sierra Nevada
NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan
ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry
OGSI = old growth structure index
ONP = Olympic National Park
PECE = Policy for the Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts
RCP = representative concentration pathways
RMP = resource management plan
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
SHA = Safe Harbor Agreements
SNAMP = Sierra Nevada Adaptive
Management Project
SOC = Southern Oregon Cascades
SPI = Sierra Pacific Industries
SSN = Southern Sierra Nevada
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
Previous Federal Actions
We first found the West Coast DPS of
fisher (previously delineated as a
contiguous area encompassing parts of
the three States of Washington, Oregon,
and California) to be warranted for
listing in 2004 and each subsequent year
in the annual Candidate Notice of
Review. On October 7, 2014, we
proposed to list the West Coast DPS of
fisher as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(79 FR 60419; Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–
2014–0041) (hereafter referred to as
2014 Proposed Rule). On April 18, 2016,
we withdrew the proposed rule to list
the West Coast DPS of fisher (81 FR
22710), concluding that the potential
threats acting upon the DPS were not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that they were
singly or cumulatively resulting in
significant impacts at either the
population or rangewide scales such
that the DPS met the definition of an
endangered or threatened species.
On October 19, 2016, the Center for
Biological Diversity, Environmental
Protection Information Center, KlamathSiskiyou Wildlands Center, and Sierra
Forest Legacy filed a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief,
alleging that our determination on the
West Coast DPS of fisher violated the
Act. By Order Re: Summary Judgment
issued on September 21, 2018, the
District Court for the Northern District
of California vacated the listing
withdrawal and remanded the Service’s
final determination for reconsideration.
The Court’s amended order, dated
November 20, 2018, directed the Service
to prepare a new determination by
September 21, 2019.
On January 31, 2019, we reopened the
comment period on the October 7, 2014,
proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS
of fisher as a threatened species (84 FR
644).
On May 17, 2019, the District Court
for the Northern District of California
granted a request by the Service for a 35day extension to comply with the
November 20, 2018, order as a result of
delays due to the Federal Government’s
lapse in appropriations that prohibited
the Service from working on this
determination. The Court’s amended
order directed the Service to submit for
publication a final listing determination
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
or notice of a revised proposed rule by
October 26, 2019, and in the event of
publishing a revised proposed rule,
submit for publication a final listing
determination by April 25, 2020.
On November 7, 2019, we published
a revised proposed rule to list the West
Coast DPS of fisher (84 FR 60278)
(hereafter referred to as 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule). In the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, we evaluated new
information available since 2014 and
reconsidered the best available
information already in our files
(including all peer, partner, and public
comments received during previous
comment periods as well as the two
recent comment periods on the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule). In the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule, we concluded
that the West Coast DPS of fisher
continued to meet the definition of a
threatened species based on cumulative
effects associated with multiple threats
across the DPS’s range.
Additional information on Federal
actions concerning the West Coast DPS
of fisher prior to October 7, 2014, is
outlined in the 2014 Proposed Rule
(October 7, 2014, 79 FR 60419).
Summary of Changes From the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule
Our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
discussed how potential changes from
the proposed rule to the final rule
regarding status would constitute a
logical outgrowth, stating that, ‘‘Because
we will consider all comments and
information received during the
comment period, our final
determination may differ from the
proposed rule. Based on the new
information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we
may conclude that the species is
endangered instead of threatened, or we
may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered
or a threatened species. Such final
decisions would be a logical outgrowth
of this proposal as long as we: (1) Base
the decisions on the best scientific and
commercial data available after
considering all of the relevant factors;
(2) do not rely on factors Congress has
not intended us to consider; and (3)
articulate a rational connection between
the facts found and the conclusions
made, including why we changed our
conclusion (84 FR at 60278–79,
November 7, 2019).’’ Although this
discussion centered on a final decision
regarding the status of the previously
singular West Coast DPS, and the logical
outgrowth leading to that decision from
our Revised Proposed Rule, we have
followed this approach in developing
this final rule in its totality, to include
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29533
our re-evaluation of the DPS and the
resulting status determinations that
followed from our revised DPS
determinations.
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
we presented our delineation of the DPS
for West Coast populations of fishers,
which was revised from the 2014
Proposed Rule. This revised delineation
identified the West Coast DPS as
comprising the two extant historically
native subpopulations, Northern
California/Southern Oregon (NCSO) and
Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN), as well
as the Northern Sierra Nevada (NSN,
also known as the Stirling
subpopulation, as referenced in specific
text regarding the Stirling Management
Unit) and Southern Oregon Cascades
(SOC) subpopulations that resulted from
reintroductions within a portion of the
historical range of the DPS. These four
subpopulation groups occur
geographically in essentially two
groupings: NCSO (including NSN and
SOC subpopulations) and the wholly
separate SSN subpopulation.
In the 2014 Proposed Rule, we
explained that the DPS we proposed to
list included all the fisher
subpopulations in the three western
States (Washington, Oregon, California)
known to be extant at that time. Thus,
the DPS included the fisher
subpopulations in NCSO (including
SOC and NSN), SSN, and Olympic
National Park (ONP) in Washington.
Both the ONP and SOC subpopulations
were established with fishers
translocated from areas outside the three
western States, e.g., British Columbia,
Alberta, and Minnesota; the NCSO and
SSN subpopulations were existing
subpopulations historically indigenous
to this three-State area, and NSN was
established with fishers translocated
from the NCSO source subpopulation.
However, we also included a
discussion of potential alternative DPS
configurations in the 2014 Proposed
Rule, and we requested public comment
and peer review on the two alternative
DPS configurations.
DPS Alternative 1 consisted of a
single DPS encompassing the extant
subpopulations with unique genetic
characteristics in California and
southern Oregon (i.e., NCSO, NSN, and
SSN). Alternative 1 focused on
conservation of known fishers
indigenous to this California and
southern Oregon region, and it excluded
all reintroduced subpopulations
established with non-California/Oregon
fishers (i.e., SOC and ONP). In addition,
Alternative 1 excluded areas to the
north of NCSO where subpopulations of
historically indigenous fishers were
likely extirpated. It included both SSN
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29534
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
and NCSO (which includes NSN),
which each have unique genetic
characteristics; this inclusion would
allow for management of both these
native subpopulations as a single DPS.
In addition, this would allow for
recovery efforts throughout the
historical range in California and
southern Oregon.
DPS Alternative 2 consisted of two
narrowly drawn DPSs around each of
the extant subpopulations with unique
genetic characteristics in California and
southern Oregon (i.e., NCSO with NSN,
and SSN). This alternative also focused
on conservation of known fishers
indigenous to this California and
southern Oregon region with unique
genetic characteristics, and it excluded
all reintroduced subpopulations (i.e.,
SOC and ONP) established with nonCalifornia/Oregon fishers. This
Alternative excluded the areas to the
north of NCSO where fisher
subpopulations were likely extirpated; it
included both NCSO (which includes
NSN) and SSN subpopulations, which
each have unique genetic
characteristics; and it allowed for
management of the subpopulations as
separate DPSs, recognizing the unique
genetic characteristics within each. In
addition, if the magnitude of threats was
found to be different in the two DPSs,
this would allow for different
management for each DPS with regard
to recovery.
We received multiple comments on
our DPS approach and possible
alternative DPS configurations in
response to the 2014 Proposed Rule.
These comments spanned a broad range
of responses from support for the full
three-State DPS to support for each of
the possible Alternatives to support for
other configurations. The basis for the
commenters’ positions was equally
varied; these positions ranged from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
supporting differing genetics between
subpopulations to supporting the need
for different management
considerations. After consideration of
all of these comments, we moved
forward with a modified Alternative 1
in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, with
the exception that we included SOC in
the DPS (as part of NCSO). In the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule, we did not
specifically state that the DPS was based
on focusing on conservation of the
extant subpopulations with unique
genetic characteristics, but we did
explain that the DPS was centered on
what we called the ‘‘historically native’’
subpopulations (i.e., those
subpopulations of known fishers
indigenous to the California and
southern Oregon region with unique
genetic characteristics) and included
SOC because of the recent interbreeding
with indigenous NCSO fishers.
Our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
further sought comment regarding its
revised DPS determination (84 FR at
60279, November 7, 2019). We received
numerous comments regarding the
revised DPS determination in response
to the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, both
during the initial 30-day comment
period and in the subsequent 15-day
comment period. Similar to the
comments received on the 2014
Proposed Rule, the comments received
on the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
expressed support for a wide range of
DPS approaches. Various commenters
suggested reverting back to the threeState DPS (i.e., include Washington
State again), making all subpopulations
(NCSO, SSN, NSN, and SOC) individual
DPSs, having two separate DPSs as in
Alternative 2, and not including SOC in
any DPS configuration.
While the comments presented a
broad range of positions regarding DPS
approaches, there was also a relatively
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consistent theme regarding management
considerations. Many comments
pointed to a concept we presented in
the 2014 Proposed Rule that outlined
alternative DPSs based on recognizing
the unique genetic characteristics
within each subpopulation and allowing
for separate management of these two
population segments (NCSO [including
NSN and SOC] and SSN).
In light of the numerous comments
received during multiple comment
periods over the last 5 years
recommending we reexamine our DPS
configuration, we have again
reevaluated our DPS approach. We
determined that the most appropriate
path forward was to evaluate the two
population segments ((1) NCSO
[including NSN and SOC] and (2) SSN)
as individual DPSs (similar to
Alternative 2 in the 2014 Proposed
Rule). For each population segment, if
both the discreteness and significance
criteria were met, we would then
evaluate the status for that individual
DPS. We determined our analysis would
focus on the conservation of extant
subpopulations historically indigenous
to the California and southern Oregon
region with unique genetic
characteristics (as outlined in the 2014
Proposed Rule) while also allowing for
separate management of the two DPSs if
either or both were warranted for listing.
The concept of the possible need for
different management between the two
DPSs was further strengthened, in part,
by the recent limited introduction of
non-California/Oregon fisher genes into
the NCSO subpopulation via
interbreeding between NCSO and SOC
fishers. We have now determined that
the singular West Coast DPS
configuration should instead be two
separate DPSs: The NCSO DPS and the
SSN DPS.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
The above discussion presents a
logical outgrowth from our 2019
Revised Proposed Rule regarding our
DPS determination for the following
reasons. First, our 2014 Proposed Rule
(79 FR 60419, October 7, 2014)
recognized that for fisher, the Service’s
DPS analysis had started with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
petitioned DPS, which included
portions of California, Oregon, and
Washington, but also pointed out that
the Service had identified smaller areas
within the larger DPS boundary that
would also potentially constitute a valid
DPS, and that may warrant listing under
the Act (79 FR at 60438). The 2014
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29535
Proposed Rule further announced the
Service’s evaluation of a number of
alternative DPSs that may potentially
also be valid DPSs (covering a smaller
entity or entities) and that the Service
was considering in particular the
appropriateness of two of these
alternatives and seeking public and peer
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
ER15MY20.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29536
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
review input on potential DPS
alternatives (79 FR at 60438). One of
these alternatives was Alternative 2,
which consisted of two narrowly drawn
DPSs around the extant subpopulations
with unique genetic characteristics in
California and southern Oregon;
Alternative 2 is similar to the two DPS
approaches we use here. Therefore, the
public has seen this approach presented
before, was aware that we were
considering it and thus could anticipate
that adoption of this approach was
possible, and had several opportunities
to provide comments on the approach.
Second, we outlined the uncertainty
associated with our DPS approach in the
2014 Proposed Rule and alerted the
public to this uncertainty. Specifically,
our 2014 Proposed Rule stated that we
sought peer review and public comment
on the uncertainties associated with the
specific topics outlined in the
Information Requested section and in
the Other DPS Alternatives section.
Specific information from the peer
reviewers and the public on the
proposed DPS and the two alternatives
informed our final listing decision (70
FR at 60441).
Third, our 2014 Proposed Rule
explained to the public that the DPS
approach in our final rule may differ
from the proposed rule as a result of
public comment. We stated that we may
determine that the proposed DPS as set
forth is the most appropriate for fisher
conservation. Alternatively, through
peer review and public comment, we
could determine that one of the
alternative DPSs set forth would be most
appropriate for the conservation of
fisher, and, therefore, any final listing
determination may differ from this
proposal (79 FR at 60438). As outlined
above, we have explained the basis for
this changed DPS and have articulated
a rational connection between the facts
found and our conclusion by which we
have determined to separate the singular
West Coast DPS configuration into two
separate DPSs.
The Secretary has discretion when
determining DPSs based upon the
Congressional guidance that the
authority to list DPS’s be used ‘. . .
sparingly’ while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity and in
consideration of available scientific
evidence of the discrete population
segment’s importance to the taxon to
which it belongs (61 FR 4722, 4725,
February 7, 1996). Our DPS approach of
evaluating the two fisher population
segments ((1) NCSO [including NSN and
SOC] and (2) SSN) as separate DPSs
encourages the conservation of genetic
diversity by focusing on conserving
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
extant native subpopulations with
unique genetic characteristics.
Once we determined that the singular
West Coast DPS should instead be two
separate DPSs, we began individually
evaluating the status of the NCSO DPS
and the SSN DPS. In the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule (84 FR 60278, November
7, 2019), we proposed to list the thensingular West Coast DPS as a threatened
species under the Act, and we also
proposed a concurrent rule under
section 4(d) of the Act for that DPS.
While the magnitude of the threats
discussed below have not changed
substantially from our consideration of
them in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule, what has changed in this analysis
is the consideration of their distribution
across the ranges of the two separate
DPSs, as opposed to applying an
analysis for a singular West Coast DPS,
and then how the impact of those
threats affects each separate DPS where
they occur. This final determination
represents a change to that 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. We now add the SSN
DPS as an endangered species to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
and we present our finding that the
NCSO DPS does not warrant listing
under the Act. As detailed below in the
General Threat Information section and
the specific threats discussions for each
DPS, these final determinations are
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, including
new information received in response to
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule.
Further, we have clearly articulated the
rationales for our conclusions.
Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Under section 3(16) of the Act, we
may consider for listing any species,
including subspecies, of fish, wildlife,
or plants, or any DPS of vertebrate fish
or wildlife that interbreeds when mature
(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such entities are
considered eligible for listing under the
Act (and, therefore, are referred to as
listable entities), should we determine
that they meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species.
Under the Service’s DPS Policy (61 FR
4722, February 7, 1996), three elements
are considered in the decision
concerning the determination and
classification of a possible DPS as
threatened or endangered. These
elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in
relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population
segment to the species to which it
belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification (i.e., is the population
segment endangered or threatened).
A population segment of a vertebrate
taxon may be considered discrete under
the DPS policy if it satisfies either one
of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If a population segment is considered
discrete under one or more of the
conditions described in the Service’s
DPS policy, its biological and ecological
significance will be considered in light
of Congressional guidance that the
authority to list DPSs be used
‘‘sparingly’’ (see Senate Report 151, 96th
Congress, 1st Session). In making this
determination, we consider available
scientific evidence of the DPS’s
importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. Since precise circumstances are
likely to vary considerably from case to
case, the DPS policy does not describe
all the classes of information that might
be used in determining the biological
and ecological importance of a discrete
population. However, the DPS policy
describes four possible classes of
information that provide evidence of a
population segment’s biological and
ecological importance to the taxon to
which it belongs. As specified in the
DPS policy, this consideration of the
population segment’s significance may
include, but is not limited to, the
following:
(1) Persistence of the DPS in an
ecological setting unusual or unique to
the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the DPS
would result in a significant gap in the
range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the DPS represents
the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the DPS differs
markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
To be considered significant, a
population segment needs to satisfy
only one of these criteria, or other
classes of information that might bear
on the biological and ecological
importance of a discrete population
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
segment, as described in the DPS policy.
Below, we summarize discreteness and
significance for each of the DPSs.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Northern California/Southern Oregon
DPS of Fisher (NCSO DPS)
Discreteness
The NCSO DPS is markedly separate
from other North American fisher
populations to the east by enormous
distances, geographical barriers,
unsuitable habitat, and urban
development. Fishers in this DPS are
separated from the Rocky Mountains
and the rest of the fisher taxon in the
central and eastern United States by
natural physical barriers including the
non-forested high desert areas of the
Great Basin in Nevada and eastern
Oregon. Other physical barriers that
separate the NCSO DPS from Rocky
Mountain and eastern United States
fisher populations include large areas
without forests, including urban and
rural open-canopied areas, agricultural
development, and other non-forested
areas.
The NCSO DPS is also markedly
separate from fisher populations to the
north by approximately 560 miles (mi)
(900 kilometers (km)) (to the current
populations of fishers in Canada) and
270 mi (430 km) (to the reintroduced
fisher populations in Washington).
These distances are well beyond the
various reported fisher dispersal
distances (as described in more detail in
Service 2016, pp. 13–14). An additional
component contributing to marked
separation between the NCSO DPS and
fishers in Washington is the Columbia
River and adjacent human
developments (e.g., roads and towns);
these likely act as a physical
impediment to crossing by fishers
dispersing in either direction. While
juvenile fishers dispersing from natal
areas are capable of moving long
distances and navigating various
landscape features such as highways,
rivers, and rural communities to
establish their own home range (Service
2016, pp. 13–14), the magnitude of these
impediments and the distance between
the NCSO DPS and Washington State
fishers would preclude this possibility.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that
any transient individuals from the
NCSO DPS could disperse far enough to
reach the Washington range of
reintroduced fishers, and even if they
attempted to do so, they would likely
not be able to cross the Columbia River.
Not only is the river especially wide and
deep year-round, but in the Cascade
Range, it is bordered on one side by an
interstate highway, a two-lane State
highway on the other side, as well as a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
railroad track on both sides. These
impediments further restrict the ability
of fishers to surpass this obstacle.
In addition, the NCSO DPS is also
markedly separate from the SSN DPS to
the southeast by approximately 130 mi
(209 km) from the southern end of the
NCSO DPS to the northern end of the
SSN DPS. This distance, although less
than that between the NCSO DPS and
Washington fishers, is still several times
beyond the known maximum dispersal
distances for fishers (Zielinski et al.
2005, p. 1402). The intervening habitat
between the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
is additionally characterized by habitat
that is highly altered with reduced
forest density and increased human
development of the landscape further
limiting potential fisher dispersal across
this region (Zielinski et al. 2005, p.
1,403).
In summary, the NCSO DPS is
geographically isolated from all other
populations of the species. Therefore,
the marked separation condition for
discreteness is met by geographical
barriers, urban development, unsuitable
habitat, and distances that are beyond
the known dispersal distance of fishers.
Significance
For the NCSO DPS, we found that a
combination of several of the criteria
listed above provide evidence of its
biological and ecological importance to
the taxon. First, we note that the NCSO
DPS represents a large portion of the
taxon’s range along the Pacific coast,
and its loss would leave a significant
gap between the SSN DPS and all fisher
populations to the north. While we
recognize that the NCSO DPS is
geographically separated from other
fisher populations, and this separation
likely precludes the NCSO DPS from
ever acting as a connection for a
contiguous range of fishers from the
SSN DPS to Canada, we note that its
loss would still result in an even greater
break in the west coast range of fishers
than what currently exists. Furthermore,
the NCSO DPS supports thousands of
individuals, while the SSN supports just
a few hundred, and populations in
Washington are still small. Therefore, a
loss of the NCSO DPS would mean the
majority of the fishers in the West Coast
States would be lost.
Significance is also demonstrated by
the NCSO DPS’s marked difference from
other populations of the species in their
genetic characteristics. The NCSO DPS
is primarily composed of fishers native
to this region of the country and which
are genetically distinct from fishers in
the remainder of North America (for
example, Canada, Rocky Mountains,
and Great Lakes). In addition, fishers in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29537
the NCSO DPS are also genetically
distinct from those found in the SSN
DPS, as we describe in Service 2016 (pp.
134–135). We note the NCSO DPS does
include the translocated SOC
subpopulation, which was established
with fishers not native to this region
(i.e., British Columbia and Minnesota)
and which do not share all the same
genetic characteristics of the native
fishers. However, it is highly unlikely
that the unique genetic characteristics
that have evolved over time as native
fishers in the NCSO DPS have adapted
to the environmental conditions of this
area will be lost as a result of this very
limited introduction of genes from
fishers not indigenous to this region.
Although there is interbreeding between
SOC and indigenous fishers, we base
our conclusion on the fact that SOC
fishers do not appear to have expanded
their range far from their original
reintroduction area since their
translocation over 40 years ago (Barry
2018, p. 23). We therefore conclude that
the loss of fishers in the NCSO DPS
would result in a reduction of the
species’ overall genetic diversity.
In light of the above, we conclude that
the NCSO DPS is significant to the
fisher taxon.
Summary
Given that both the discreteness and
the significance elements of the DPS
policy are met for fisher in the Northern
California/Southern Oregon portion of
its range, we find that the NCSO DPS of
fisher is a valid DPS. Therefore, the
NCSO DPS of fisher is a species under
the Act.
Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of Fisher
(SSN DPS)
Discreteness
Similar to the NCSO DPS, the SSN
DPS is markedly separate from other
North American fisher populations to
the east by enormous distances,
geographical barriers, unsuitable
habitat, and urban development. Fishers
in this DPS are separated from the
Rocky Mountains and the rest of the
taxon in the central and eastern United
States by natural physical barriers
including the non-forested high desert
areas of the Great Basin in Nevada and
eastern Oregon. Other physical barriers
that separate the SSN DPS from Rocky
Mountain and eastern United States
fisher populations include large areas of
unsuitable habitat such as urban and
rural open-canopied areas, agricultural
development, and other non-forested
areas.
As noted above, the SSN DPS is
markedly separate from the NCSO DPS
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29538
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
by approximately 130 mi (209 km). The
intervening habitat between the NCSO
DPS and SSN DPS is highly altered with
reduced forest density and increased
human development of the landscape,
further limiting potential fisher
dispersal across this region (Zielinski et
al. 2005, p. 1,403). In addition, the SSN
DPS is also considerably farther away
from the Washington State and Canada
fisher populations than the NCSO DPS,
clearly meeting the marked separation
condition of discreteness.
In summary, the SSN DPS is
geographically isolated from all other
populations of the species. Therefore,
the marked separation condition for
discreteness is met by geographical
barriers, urban development, unsuitable
habitat, and distances that are beyond
the known dispersal distance of fishers.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Significance
For the SSN DPS, we also found that
a combination of the criteria listed
above provides evidence of the
biological and ecological importance to
the fisher taxon. First, we note that the
SSN DPS represents the southernmost
periphery of the taxon’s range. Loss of
the SSN DPS would shift representation
of the taxon at its southern boundary
approximately 400 miles northward to
the range of the NCSO DPS.
We also note that the SSN DPS differs
markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
The SSN DPS is wholly composed of
fishers native to this region of the
country, and these fishers are
genetically distinct from fishers in the
remainder of North America (for
example, Canada, Rocky Mountains,
and Great Lakes). In addition, fishers in
the SSN DPS are also genetically
distinct from those found in the NCSO
DPS. There is high genetic divergence
between the SSN DPS and NCSO DPS
with the populations being separated for
thousands of years (Tucker et al. 2014,
p. 3). The SSN DPS has only a single
mitochondrial DNA haplotype, which is
genealogically unique from the rest of
the fisher taxon, including the NCSO
DPS (Knaus et al. 2011, pp. 7, 11;
Tucker 2019, pers. comm.). In addition,
the SSN DPS has a unique distribution
of alleles in comparison to the NCSO
DPS (Tucker et al. 2012, p. 6). We
therefore conclude that the loss of
fishers in the SSN DPS would result in
a reduction of the species’ overall
genetic diversity.
In light of the above, we conclude that
the SSN DPS is significant to the fisher
taxon.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Summary
Given that both the discreteness and
the significance elements of the DPS
policy are met for fisher in the Southern
Sierra Nevada portion of its range, we
find that the SSN DPS of fisher is a valid
DPS. Therefore, the SSN DPS of fisher
is a species under the Act.
Background
General Species Information
Species Information and Distribution
The fisher is a medium-sized, light
brown to dark blackish-brown mammal
found only in North America, with the
face, neck, and shoulders sometimes
being slightly gray, and the chest and
underside often having irregular white
patches. The fisher is classified in the
order Carnivora, family Mustelidae,
which is 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
mid- and late-successional forests (e.g.,
diverse successional stages, moderate to
dense forest canopies, large-diameter
trees, coarse downed wood, and
singular features of large snags, tree
cavities, or deformed trees). Throughout
their range, fishers are obligate users of
tree or snag cavities for denning, and
they select denning and resting sites
with a high proportion of characteristics
associated with late-successional
forests, such as snags, down wood, and
vertical and horizontal diversity. These
characteristics are maintained and
recruited in the forest through
ecological processes such as fire, insectrelated tree mortality, disease, and
decay (e.g., Service 2016, pp. 64, 123–
124).
Fishers on the west coast of the
continent have historically occurred in
British Columbia, Washington, Oregon,
and California. Fishers indigenous to
the west coast in the contiguous United
States were historically well distributed
in the habitats described above, from the
State of Washington south through
Oregon, and into northern California
and the Sierra Nevada mountains.
Subpopulations of these indigenous
fishers still occur in northern California/
southwestern Oregon and the Sierra
Nevada; however, populations of
indigenous fishers were extirpated from
Washington (Lewis and Hayes 2004, p.
1) and northern Oregon (Aubry and
Lewis 2003, pp. 81–82). Recent surveys
in the northern Oregon Cascades
yielded no fishers (Moriarty et al. 2016,
entire), suggesting they remain absent in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this area, whereas surveys in the
southern Oregon Cascades suggest
fishers in this locale may be shifting to
the south (Barry 2018, pp. 22–23)
compared to their distribution in the
late 1990s (Service 2014 and 2016,
entire, though see current condition
section for NCSO). Fishers in the
southern Oregon Cascades were
translocated from British Columbia and
Minnesota circa 1980. In addition, a
translocation of fishers from
northwestern California to the northern
Sierra Nevada (i.e., NSN) occurred in
2009.
Fishers now occurring and
reproducing in Washington were
established using fishers translocated
from outside this three-State region.
Fishers from British Columbia were
reintroduced to the Olympic Peninsula
from 2008 to 2010 (Happe et al. 2017,
p. viii; Happe et al. 2020, p. 345) and
to the Washington Cascade Range south
of Mt. Rainier from 2015 to 2017 (Lewis
et al. 2018, p. 5). Reproduction has been
documented in both areas. Beginning in
2018, fishers from Alberta were released
in the northern Washington Cascades in
North Cascades National Park; all
animal translocations are expected to be
completed in 2020 (Hayes and Lewis
2006, p. 35; Lewis et al. 2019, pp. 19–
20).
Fishers were once well distributed
throughout their historical range in the
habitats described above. In Oregon and
California, outside of the existing NCSO
DPS and SSN DPS (see Figure 1, above),
fishers are considered likely extirpated,
though occasional sightings, verifiable
and unverifiable, are reported.
Additionally, in California, recent
survey efforts have not detected fishers
south of the reintroduced NSN
subpopulation or north of the SSN DPS.
Additional information on the
species’ biology and distribution is
described in the final Species Report
(Service 2016, pp. 9–12, 25–53).
General Threat Information
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ The Act defines an
endangered species as a species that is
‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range,’’ and
a threatened species as a species that is
‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ because of any of the following
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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. These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and
the effects of the threats—in light of
those actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, and
then analyze the cumulative effect of all
of the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species—such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future. In our determination,
we correlate the threats acting on the
species to the factors in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act.
Potential threats currently acting
upon both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
or likely to affect them in the future, are
evaluated and addressed in the final
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53–
162). The term ‘‘foreseeable future’’
extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that
both the future threats and the species’
response to those threats are likely (50
CFR 424.11(d)). For fisher, in
determining the foreseeable future, the
immediacy of each threat was assessed
independently based upon the nature of
the threat and time period that we can
be reasonably certain the threat is acting
on fisher populations or their habitat. In
general, we considered that the
trajectories of the threats acting on
fisher subpopulations across the DPS’s
range could be reasonably anticipated
over the next 35–40 years. The reader is
directed to the Species Report (Service
2016, entire) for a more detailed
discussion of the threats summarized in
this document (https://www.fws.gov/cno/
fisher/). However, please note that our
most recent consideration of new data
since 2016 (including comments and
information received during the two
comment periods associated with the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule) coupled
with our reevaluation of the entirety of
the best available scientific and
commercial information is represented
and summarized in the various analyses
below.
Our analyses below represent an
evaluation of the biological status of the
two DPSs, based upon our assessment of
the effects anticipated for the identified
threats, consideration of the cumulative
impact of all effects anticipated from the
identified threats, and how that
cumulative impact may affect each
DPS’s continued existence currently and
in the future. We used the best available
scientific and commercial data, and the
expert opinions of the analysis team
members. The threats identified as
having the potential to act upon both
DPSs include: habitat-based threats,
including high-severity wildfire,
wildfire suppression activities, and
post-fire management actions; climate
change; tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation;
vegetation management; and human
development (Factor A). We also
evaluated potential threats related to
direct mortality of fishers including
trapping and incidental capture (Factor
B), research activities (Factor B), disease
or predation (Factor C), collision with
vehicles (Factor E), exposure to
toxicants (Factor E), and potential
effects associated with small population
size (Factor E). Finally, we evaluated the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29539
As we conducted our threats analyses,
we began under the premise that those
with the greatest potential to become
significant drivers of the future status of
both DPSs were: Wildfire and wildfire
suppression; tree mortality from
drought, disease, and insect infestation;
the potential for climate change to
exacerbate wildfire and tree mortality;
threats related to vegetation
management; and exposure to toxicants.
Upon determining that the previous
singular West Coast DPS configuration
should instead be two separate DPSs,
we then also modified our premise
regarding threats with the potential to
become significant drivers of status, and
added to the above list of threats: The
potential for effects from small
population size; disease or predation;
and collision with vehicles. While our
assessment of the status of each DPS
was based on analysis of all identified
threats acting upon them, including the
cumulative effects of those threats, we
are only presenting our detailed
analyses on these specific, potentially
significant threat drivers common to
both DPSs for the purposes of this
rulemaking. We refer the reader to the
Species Report (Service 2016, entire) for
full detailed analyses of all the other
individual threats.
As these potentially significant threat
drivers were relevant to both DPSs,
much of the fundamental information
pertaining to the threats was also
applicable to both DPS analyses.
Although the ultimate conclusion about
the significance of each threat varied
between the DPSs, below we present
scientific information about these
threats common to both DPSs, followed
by DPS-specific evaluations.
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
Our evaluation includes both the
effects of wildfire on fisher habitat as
well as those activities associated with
wildfire suppression that may result in
changes to fisher habitat (for example,
backburning, fuel breaks, and snag
removal). Naturally occurring fire
regimes vary widely within the range of
both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
(Service 2014, p. 58), and fisher habitat
has been burned across a spectrum from
low- to high-severity.
Mixed-severity wildfire includes
patches of low-severity wildfire and
patches of high-severity wildfire (Jain et
al. 2012, p. 47). At the landscape scale,
mixed-severity wildfire effects to fisher
habitat may affect an area’s ability to
support fishers for only a short period
of time due to the patchy nature of
burned and unburned areas.
Additionally, a beneficial aspect of
mixed-severity wildfires (as opposed to
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29540
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
just high-severity wildfires) is that these
wildfires may contribute to the
regeneration of the hardwood
component of mixed-conifer forest used
by fisher (Cocking et al. 2012, 2014,
entire). Further these types of fires can
sustain patches of unburned refugia that
are important for maintaining patches of
higher canopy cover, acting as a source
for future tree regeneration, and
providing habitat for fisher (Blomdahl et
al. 2019, p. 1,049). Mixed-severity
wildfire may reduce some elements of
fisher habitat temporarily, but also helps
to contribute to the ecological processes
necessary to create tree cavities and
other decay and structural abnormalities
essential for denning and resting fishers
(Weir et al. 2012, pp. 237–238). Lowseverity wildfire is unlikely to remove
habitat, and post-wildfire areas that
burned at low-severity are likely still
used by fishers (Naney et al. 2012, p. 6;
Truex and Zielinski 2013, p. 90).
The potential for large, high-severity
wildfires to affect fisher habitat and
fisher populations is concentrated in
northern California–southwestern
Oregon and the Sierra Nevada areas as
compared to the remainder of the
fisher’s historical range in the West
Coast States (Service 2014, pp. 62–63).
In general, high-severity wildfire can
alter fisher habitat by removing forest
canopy, large trees, and structurally
diverse understories, which can take
from decades to a century or more to
regrow (Service 2014, pp. 59–60), but it
may also provide foraging opportunities
for fishers since these post-fire areas are
often abundant with small mammals
that fishers eat (Hanson 2013, p. 27;
Service 2016, p. 66). For example, there
is evidence of fishers associated with
high-severity burned areas, or a mix of
moderate- and high-severity burns
(Service 2016, p. 66), particularly if the
area was structurally complex prior to
the fire (Hanson 2013, p. 28). However,
another study found fishers avoiding
areas of high- and moderate-severity fire
(Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 15), so there
is likely a threshold in high-severity
patch size that influences fisher use of
these areas (also see individual DPS
sections).
Within shrub, grassland, and forested
lands across the western United States
(including the Sierra Nevada, southern
Cascades, and Coast ranges), the
wildfire season length increased over
each of the last four decades, from 65
days in the 1970s to 140 days in the
2000s (Westerling 2016, pp. 3, 8, 10).
The lengthening of the wildfire season
is largely due to declining mountain
snowpack and earlier spring snowmelt,
which contributes to a decrease in
vegetation moisture; this scenario
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
causes wildfires to be more frequent and
larger with an overall increase in the
total area burned (Westerling 2016, pp.
8–9). Throughout the western United
States there has been an increase in the
patch size and total area of fires in
recent decades. The evidence for an
increasing area of high-severity fire is
mixed given that studies present
different historical levels of highseverity fire (Mallek et al. 2013, pp. 11–
17; Stephens et al. 2015, pp. 12–16;
Hanson and Odion 2016, pp. 12–17;
Odion et al. 2016, entire; see Spies et al.
2018, p. 140 for summary of recent
literature), but the scientific consensus
accepts that mixed conifer forests were
characterized by areas burned at low-,
moderate-, and high-severity, with
higher proportions of low-severity than
is currently observed (Safford and
Stevens 2017, p. 50). Given projected
changes in climate, forests are expected
to become more vulnerable to wildfires
over the coming century.
Recent publications on wildfire
occurrence and severity within the
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS continue to
support our conclusions that fire is
likely to have a negative impact on
fisher populations but will depend on
fire size, burn severity, and proximity to
occupied habitat (79 FR 60419, at
60429, October 7, 2014). Recent
information on fishers’ behavioral and
localized population response to
wildfires is available and discussed
below in the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
specific discussions.
Climate Change
Overall, fisher habitat is likely to be
affected by changing climate conditions,
but the severity will vary, potentially
greatly, among different regions, with
effects to fishers ranging from negative,
neutral, or potentially beneficial.
Climate throughout the West Coast
States is projected to become warmer
over the next century, and in particular,
summers will be hotter and drier, with
heat waves that are more frequent
(Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12,423; Tebaldi
et al. 2006, pp. 191–200; Mote and
Salathe´ 2010, p. 41; Salathe´ et al. 2010,
p. 69; Cayan et al. 2012, pp. 4, 10; Mote
et al. 2013, p. 34; Pierce et al. 2013, pp.
844, 848; Ackerly et al. 2018, pp. 6–8;
Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 23, 26, 30;
Dettinger et al. 2018, p. 5; Grantham
2018, p. 6).
In Oregon, Dalton et al. (2017, pp. 4,
8) evaluated greenhouse gas emissions
via global climate models with future
emission pathways called
‘‘representative concentration
pathways’’ (RCPs). They considered
multiple greenhouse gas emission
scenarios, including both RCP 4.5 and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
RCP 8.5. Their analysis indicates that
extreme heat events are expected to
increase in frequency, duration, and
intensity by the 2050s due to warming
temperatures (RCP 4.5 = mean annual
temperature increase predicted on
average 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (2.0
degrees Celsius (°C)); RCP 8.5 = mean
annual temperature increase predicted
on average 5.0 °F (2.8 °C). Summers are
expected to warm more than the annual
average and will likely become drier.
Annual precipitation is projected to
increase slightly, although with a high
degree of uncertainty. Extreme heat and
precipitation events are expected to
increase in frequency, duration, and
intensity.
In California, information from Pierce
et al. (2013) and Safford et al. (2012)
used multiple general circulation
models and downscaling with regional
climate models to develop probabilistic
projections of temperature and
precipitation changes over California by
the 2060s. Predictions indicate an
annual mean temperature increase of
4.3 °F (2.4 °C) by 2060 (Pierce et al.
2013, p. 844). Similarly, and more
recently, Bedsworth et al. (2018, entire)
summarizes 44 technical peer-reviewed
reports to provide a California-wide
climate change assessment. Under two
modeled scenarios, average
temperatures are projected to increase
by 2.5 to 2.7 °F (1.4 to 1.5 °C) in the
early century (2006 to 2039) and 4.4 to
5.8 °F (2.4 to 3.2 °C) in the mid-century
(2040 to 2069) (Bedsworth et al. 2018,
p. 23). Precipitation models suggest that
northern California may become wetter,
while most southern parts of California
will become drier (Bedsworth et al.
2018, p. 25). The authors caution that
‘‘due to large annual variation, changes
in annual mean or long-term
precipitation are not the best metrics to
understand’’ the effects to changes in
precipitation in California (Bedsworth et
al. 2018, p. 25). Specifically, the models
project less overall precipitation with
more extreme daily precipitation, interannual precipitation will be more
erratic, and the number of dry years will
increase (Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 25
citing others; Polade et al. 2017, p. 1).
Higher temperatures during spring
and summer, coupled with early snow
melt, will reduce the moisture of both
live fuels and dead surface fuels by
increasing evaporative demands during
the dry season and lengthening the fire
season (Keeley and Syphard 2016, pp.
2–3; Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 500).
In addition, models project an increase
in lightning frequency that may be
associated with an increase in potential
fire ignitions (Restaino and Safford
2018, p. 500).
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Studies specific to predicting the
effects of climate change on suitable
fisher habitat have produced a wide
range of results. Ecotype conversion
from conifer forest to woodland,
shrubland, or grassland will 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, Figure 3; Lawler et al. 2012,
p. 388; Dettinger et al. 2018, pp. 31–34;
Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 500). On
the other hand, shifts from conifer forest
to hardwood-dominated mixed forest in
the southern Sierra Nevada or Klamath
region could either increase or decrease
the habitat available to fishers (Lawler et
al. 2012, pp. 384–386; Loarie et al. 2008,
p. 4 and Figure 4). Given the more
significant contribution of hardwood
trees to fisher habitat in the drier parts
of both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS, a
shift to increasing hardwoods in more
coastal or higher elevation forest types
could improve habitat, but shifts to
hardwood-dominated stands may also
reduce protective cover from rain and
snowfall (Suffice et al. 2019, pp. 10, 11,
13). Nevertheless, trees are long-lived
and mature forests can persist under
suboptimal conditions, and these factors
can prevent better-suited vegetation
from becoming established until
disturbance removes the original forest
(Sheehan et al. 2015, p. 27).
Consequently, the increase in the
hardwood component of fisher habitat
in predominantly conifer areas may not
occur until after fires have changed the
composition of the existing stand to
allow hardwood establishment. All of
these circumstances add to the
uncertainty associated with climate
change and how it relates to fisher.
Other studies suggest that climate
change will adversely impact forest
habitat by intensifying large-scale, highseverity wildfire, drought, and tree
mortality (Kadir et al. 2013, pp. 132,
137; Westerling 2016, pp. 1–2;
Westerling 2018, pp. 21–23; Bedsworth
et al. 2018, p. 64; Dettinger et al. 2018,
pp. 28–29; Stephens et al. 2018a, p. 77;
Stephens et al. 2018b, p. 162; Restaino
and Safford 2018, pp. 493–505). A wide
range of assumptions and caveats
typically accompanies these types of
predictions. For example, fire modeling
shows a decline in future
(approximately 100 years) fire
intensities after the existing woody
vegetation is burned (Restaino and
Safford 2018, p. 499), but it is uncertain
if the resulting vegetation and
composition will be suitable for fisher.
Variables predicting fisher resting
habitat as described by Zielinski and
Gray 2018 (p. 903) include stand
characteristics such as high canopy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
closure, large basal area of conifer and
hardwood trees, and diameter and age of
dominant conifers. To date, climate
change has not significantly affected
resting habitat for fishers, which,
according to Zielinski and Gray (2018,
pp. 899, 903), has remained stable over
the past 20 years across the Californiaportion of the range, although habitat
suitability tends to be lower on private
lands than public lands. However, when
considering resting habitat trends over
these 20 years to determine potential
future resting habitat conditions in light
of climate change projections, data from
the Sierra National Forest (within a
portion of the SSN DPS) indicates the
beginning of a negative trend in resting
habitat suitability (Zielinski and Gray
2018, p. 903), whereas resting habitat
examined within the NCSO DPS varied
greatly (i.e., suitable resting habitat
decreased in the Shasta-Trinity National
Forest, increased in the Six Rivers
National Forest, and remained
unchanged over time for both the
Klamath and Mendocino National
Forests).
In addition to the potential climate
change effects to fisher habitat
discussed above, some researchers have
suggested climate change may cause
direct effects to fishers, including
increased mortality, decreased
reproductive rates, alterations in
behavioral patterns, and range shifts.
Fishers may be especially 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.). As a result, researchers (e.g.,
Burns et al. 2003, Zielinski et al. 2004,
Lawler et al. 2012, Olson et al. 2014)
theorize that fishers likely will either
alter their use of microhabitats or shift
their range northward and upslope, in
order to avoid the thermal stress
associated with increased summer
temperatures. Preliminary research on
fisher occupancy and climate begins to
support these theories. For example,
during a drought in central and
southern California from 2012 to 2015,
fisher utilized higher elevation areas
that were otherwise inaccessible due to
snowpack during other years (Tucker
2019, pers. comm.). Although fisher
occur across a wide range of
precipitation levels and minimum
temperatures, and appear able to utilize
higher elevations in years with less
snowpack, it is unknown how the
interaction of vegetation, fire regimes,
and competition with other species will
influence future fisher occupancy
patterns in a changing climate (Zielinski
et al. 2017, pp. 542–543).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29541
The best available information
indicates there is a link between
changing climate conditions and the
resulting changes to overall habitat
suitability and availability for fishers
throughout their range. There is also a
link between changing climate
conditions and the potential to increase
fisher stress levels when habitat changes
occur. More specifically, these changes
affect the amount and distribution of
habitat necessary for female fishers to be
able to have places to den and raise
their young. We provide three examples
below.
First, ongoing climate change in
California is likely to result in
significant or amplified wildfire
activity, with the area burned and fire
severity likely to increase (Hurteau et al.
2019, pp. 1, 3; Moritz et al. 2018, p. 36).
This in turn can result in reduced
denning habitat availability for fishers
(e.g., Sheehan et al. 2015, pp. 20–22;
Dalton et al. 2017, p. 46).
Second, under modeled increases in
drought conditions, tree mortality and
large-scale high-severity wildfire are
likely to increase in frequency, size, and
severity, especially if fuel loads in
forests are not decreased (Young et al.
2017, p. 78; Westerling and Bryant 2008,
pp. S244–S248; Abatzoglou and
Williams 2016, pp. 11,770, 11,773;
Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 29–30; Larvie
et al. 2019, p. 1; Westerling 2018, pp.
21–23). Some models suggest that fire
severity may be independent from fire
intensity; thus, a lower-intensity fire
could kill more trees if they are also
experiencing a severe drought (Restaino
and Safford 2018, p. 500). Although we
can expect that seasonal summer
dryness may prolong future droughts, it
is unknown whether droughts in the
future will be worse than our worst
droughts in the past (Keeley and
Syphard 2016, p. 6; Bedsworth et al.
2018, pp. 26, 57). Regardless, it appears
that climate change is intensifying the
effects of drought, given that changing
climate conditions are estimated to have
contributed 5 to 18 percent to the
severity of one of the worst recent
droughts in 20th-century California
history (Williams et al. 2015, p. 6,819;
Keeley and Syphard 2016, p. 6). The
combination of drought and wildfire can
result in loss of adequate forest-canopy
cover and individual trees that provide
habitat suitable for denning female
fishers (e.g., CBI 2019a, p. 9).
Third, the observed increases in
wildfire activity in Oregon and
California are partially due to climate
change; increasing wildfire activity is
expected under future warming, which
in turn can increase tree mortality from
disease and insects like mountain pine
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29542
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
beetles (Dalton et al. 2017, p. 46;
Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 64).
Widespread tree mortality (climate
related or not) is likely to result in
fishers experiencing reduced fitness
(e.g., a positive relationship between
higher amounts of tree mortality and
higher cortisol levels in fishers;
Kordosky 2019, pp. 14, 36) and an
overall reduction in forest-stand
conditions suitable for denning (CBI
2019a, entire; Green et al. 2019a, pp. 3–
4). Most forests will experience some
form of climate stress by the late 21st
century and higher temperatures will
result in more droughts in California,
revealing the interconnected nature of
climate, wildfire, and tree mortality that
collectively can shift forest composition
and structure (Larvie et al. 2019, pp. 12–
14; Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 502)
and further challenge the ability of
fishers to locate suitable habitat.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Tree Mortality From Drought, Disease,
and Insect Infestation
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule,
this section was titled ‘‘Forest Insects
and Tree Diseases’’; we have changed
the title to more accurately describe the
threat. Localized tree mortality from
insect outbreaks and tree diseases are
natural processes, and they provide
structures used by fisher for rest and
den sites as well as their prey. However,
widespread insect and disease outbreaks
can alter the overall distribution and
abundance of fisher habitat. For
example, severe drought events in
California since 2010, combined with
insect outbreaks and tree diseases, have
led to more than 147 million dead trees
in California (California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protections (CAL
FIRE) and USFS 2019, no page number).
Although both the NCSO DPS and SSN
DPS experienced tree mortality during
the recent drought, the magnitude of
this effect on the landscape differed
tremendously between each DPS (CAL
FIRE and USFS 2019, no page number).
The highest levels of tree mortality
occur in the southern Sierra Nevada due
to increased susceptibility to forest
insects and tree disease from the severe
drought while most of the NCSO DPS
experienced background levels (0–5
dead trees per acre) of tree mortality
(CAL FIRE and USFS 2019, no page
number; California Tree Mortality Task
Force 2020, entire).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
magnitude and intensity of past timber
harvest is one of the main reasons
fishers have not recovered in the
western United States as compared to
the northeastern United States (Service
2014, pp. 54–56). At the time of the
2014 Proposed Rule, we stated that
vegetation management techniques
have, and can, substantially modify the
overstory canopy, the numbers and
distribution of structural elements
available for use by fisher, and the
ecological processes that create them.
An increase in open areas, such as those
resulting from timber harvest, may
increase the risk of predation on fishers
by bobcats and other predators that
frequent these areas (see the Predation
and Disease section below). Overall,
fisher home ranges comprise mosaics of
forest-stand types and seral (stand age)
stages but often with a high proportion
of mid- to late-seral forests (Raley et al.
2012, p. 231).
Fishers occupy managed landscapes
and stands where timber harvest and
other vegetation management activities
occur; the degree to which fishers tend
to be found in these areas often depends
on a multitude of factors, including the
scale, intensity, and rate of activities;
the composition and configuration of
suitable habitat; and the amount and
type of retained legacy structures
(Service 2016, pp. 59–60; Thompson
and Clayton 2016, pp. 11–16, 22; Niblett
et al. 2017, pp. 14–17; Marcot et al.
2018, p. 400; Powell et al. 2019, entire;
Parsons 2018, pp. 31, 53–55, 63; Purcell
et al. 2018, pp. 60–61, 69–70). Fishers
tolerate some clearcuts in their home
ranges, though the mean proportion
tends to be below 25 percent of their
home-range area (Powell et al. 2019, p.
23). Fishers are also observed denning
in areas where as much as 25 percent of
the area near the den sites is in openings
(Niblett et al. 2017, p. 17). Some level
of open areas or younger stands may
provide suitable prey for fishers
(Parsons 2018, pp. 26–29, 53–55). Yet
even in these situations, fishers are
associated with forests that contain
structures associated with older forests,
such as complex canopies, down wood,
hardwoods, and trees with microsites
conducive to denning, resting, or
supporting prey (Niblett et al. 2017, pp.
16–17; Powell et al. 2019, pp. 19–23).
Therefore, for vegetation management it
is important to maintain decadent
structures that serve as den and rest
trees and that likely required much time
and site-specific conditions to develop
(Matthews et al. 2019, p. 1,313). Overall,
it appears fishers can tolerate
management activities that promote
forest heterogeneity (variation) and that
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consider the natural range of variation
in forest structure, distribution, and
composition when identifying and
protecting valuable habitat elements
(Thompson et al. 2019b, pp. 13–14).
While historical loss of mature and
older forests via timber harvest through
much of the 1900s resulted in a
substantial loss of fisher habitat in
California and Oregon, 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 NCSO and SSN DPSs,
habitat ingrowth (i.e., forest stands
becoming habitat as a result of forest
succession) is also occurring, offsetting
some of those losses. We address this for
each of the DPSs below.
Exposure to Toxicants
Wildlife can encounter a wide range
of chemicals in the environment.
Fertilizers and pesticides (e.g.,
herbicides, insecticides, and
rodenticides) are among the most
common chemicals wildlife are exposed
to and impacted by, especially near
urban and agricultural areas. Of these
chemicals, the rodenticides are the
longest lasting and therefore the easiest
to test for, track, and understand
impacts to species. Both the draft and
final Species Reports detail the
exposure of fishers to rodenticides in
Oregon and California (Service 2014,
pp. 149–166; Service 2016, pp. 141–
159).
The rodenticides impacting fishers
include first- and second-generation
anticoagulant rodenticides and
neurotoxicant rodenticides. Firstgeneration anticoagulant rodenticides
are in a bait form that rodents consume
for several consecutive feedings (i.e.,
sublethal doses) to deliver a lethal dose.
Second-generation rodenticides are
significantly more potent than firstgeneration rodenticides, and a lethal
dose can be ingested in a single feeding.
Additionally, second-generation
rodenticides are more likely than firstgeneration rodenticides to poison
predatory wildlife (e.g., fishers) that eat
live or dead poisoned prey because they
are more persistent in the environment.
Neurotoxicant rodenticides are
delivered in either single or multiple
doses and have highly variable potency
(multiple hours or days). Both first- and
second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides as well as neurotoxicant
rodenticides are used to kill small
mammals that are destroying crops.
Rodenticides impair an animal’s ability
to produce several key blood-clotting
factors (anticoagulant rodenticides) or
affect brain and liver function
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(neurotoxicant rodenticides).
Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure
causes bleeding from the nose and
gums, extensive bruises, anemia,
fatigue, difficulty breathing, and also
damage to small blood vessels, resulting
in spontaneous and widespread
hemorrhaging.
A sublethal dose of a rodenticide can
produce significant clotting
abnormalities and hemorrhaging,
leading to a range of symptoms, such as
difficulty moving and a decreased
ability to recover from physical injury.
Ingestion of the neurotoxicant
bromethalin, which has been detected
in DPS fisher carcasses, has fast-acting
and physical effects such as
unsteadiness and weakness, and at
higher dosage levels, seizures. Both
anticoagulant and neurotoxicant
rodenticides can change or impede
normal fisher movement and foraging
behaviors and therefore may increase
the probability of mortality from other
sources such as predation or vehicle
collision. In addition, anticoagulants
bioaccumulate and become increasingly
prevalent in predators; as they continue
to eat contaminated prey, they
accumulate more and more
anticoagulant (Lopez-Perea and Mateo
2018, p. 165). Contaminated rodents are
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).
Rodenticide use in agricultural or
urban areas is common and wildlife
exposure rates can be high. For
example, in California 70 percent of
tested mammals were positive for at
least one anticoagulant rodenticide
(Hosea 2000, p. 238). And across the
world, 58 percent of tested predators
were positive for anti-coagulant
rodenticides (Lopez-Perea and Mateo
2018, p. 172). Not surprisingly,
mammals are most impacted by
rodenticides, when compared to birds,
reptiles, and insects; and generalist
species that eat a variety of prey species
are more likely to be contaminated
relative to specialist species that feed on
one or a few species (Lopez-Perea and
Mateo 2018, pp. 163, 173).
Predators that are (a) nocturnal, (b)
opportunistic in feeding habitats where
rodents are an important part of their
diet, and (c) nonmigratory and live close
to or within landscapes that are heavily
impacted by human activities are more
likely to be exposed to rodenticides and
have relatively high liver-residue
concentrations of multiple rodenticide
compounds (Hindmarch and Elliott
2018, p. 251). Because fishers are
territorial, nonmigratory mammals, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
females remain particularly tied to their
territories (Arthur et al. 1993, p. 872),
they are among the species that are more
vulnerable to rodenticide exposure.
Additionally, fisher diets consist
primarily of small mammals (Golightly
et al. 2006, entire), which are the target
species for rodenticides (Gabriel et al.
2015, entire; Thompson et al. 2014, pp.
97–98). Top predators within the range
of fishers, including northern spotted
owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) and
barred owls (S. varia), have also been
exposed to rodenticides (Franklin et al.
2018, p. 1; Gabriel et al. 2018, p. 1).
Data available since completion of the
final Species Report in 2016 continue to
document exposure and mortalities to
fishers from rodenticides in both the
NCSO and SSN DPSs (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, entire;
Powell et al. 2019, p. 16). Here we
discuss data specific to both the NCSO
and SSN DPS; more DPS-specific
information is found in the NCSO DPS
and SSN DPS discussions below. Fisher
carcasses have been collected and tested
for their cause of death and their
exposure to rodenticides (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data). Data
for 97 fisher carcasses collected in
California in the period 2007–2014
indicate 81 percent of fishers tested
positive for one or more rodenticides,
and 48 fishers collected from 2015–2018
indicate 83 percent tested positive
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished
data). Using data from both the SSN and
the NCSO DPS and comparing the
periods 2007–2011 and 2012–2014,
mortalities due to rodenticide toxicosis
increased from 5.6 to 18.7 percent
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished
data, p. 2). And, from 2015 to 2018,
additional fisher mortalities due to both
anticoagulant and neurotoxicant
rodenticides have been documented,
including the toxicosis of neonatal kits
in the womb (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, p. 4). The probability
of fisher mortality increases with the
number of anticoagulant rodenticides a
fisher has been exposed to, and most
fishers are exposed to more than one
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 15).
The primary source of rodenticide
exposure to fishers is from illegal
marijuana grow sites on public, private,
and tribal lands in California and
Oregon (Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 14–15;
Thompson et al. 2014, pp. 97–98). In the
mid- to late 1970s, 90 percent of the
marijuana consumed in the United
States came from abroad (Brady 2013,
pp. 70–71). Marijuana cultivation in
California really began in 1974 or 1975,
and by 1979, 35 percent of the
marijuana consumed in California was
from California (Brady 2013, pp. 70–71).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29543
By 2010, 79 percent of all the marijuana
consumed in the United States came
from California (Brady 2013, pp. 70–71).
Information on the amount and types
of rodenticides have been collected at
more than 300 illegal grow sites in
California from 2012 through 2018
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished
data, pp. 5–7). Through this time period
the use of second-generation
rodenticides decreased. This is likely
because of regulation changes in 2014
that placed additional restrictions on
the use of second-generation
rodenticides in California (California
Department of Pesticide Regulation
2014). The change in policy has led to
a more intensive use of first-generation
anticoagulant rodenticide and the
highest amount of neurotoxicant
rodenticide use since 2012 (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp. 5–
7).
In order to evaluate the risk to fishers
from illegal grow sites and any
differences between populations, we use
a Maximum Entropy model to identify
high and moderate likelihood of illegal
grow sites being located within habitat
selected by fisher in California and
Oregon (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, pp. 7–10). This
model indicates that 44 percent of the
habitat modeled (combined NCSO and
SSN DPSs) for fishers is within areas of
high and moderate likelihood for illegal
grow sites—see also the individual DPS
sections below. However, the extent to
which the use of toxicants occurs on
marijuana grow sites on private land, as
well as other agricultural, commercial,
and public land sites within the range
of the fisher (and habitats that fishers
select for), is unknown.
Illegal grow sites are regularly
discovered in California (617 from 2012
through 2018, and 2,039 from 2004
through 2018) (Gabriel and Wengert
2019, unpublished data, p. 7). Lawenforcement specialists estimate they
locate and raid roughly 20 to 40 percent
of sites each year and only about 10
percent of those are remediated
(Thompson et al. 2017, p. 45). If these
estimates are accurate, it is reasonable to
conclude that thousands of illegal grow
sites—known and unknown, and with
an undetermined amount of toxicants
present—remain scattered within both
the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS (Gabriel et
al. 2015, entire; Thompson et al. 2017,
p. 45). Rodenticides persist in the
landscape, with first-generation
rodenticides having a half-life of up to
16 days and second-generation
rodenticides having a half-life up to 307
days (Shore and Coeurdassier 2018, p.
146).
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29544
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
As discussed, both the draft and final
Species Reports detail the exposure of
fishers to rodenticides (Service 2014,
pp. 149–166; Service 2016, pp. 141–
159). Below we summarize new
information:
(1) Rodent diversity—Illegal grow
sites that were treated with rodenticides
contained only mice, as compared to
untreated sites where rodenticides were
not used and where large-bodied
rodents (e.g., woodrats, squirrels,
chipmunks) were found. The absence of
larger rodents at treated sites suggests
that larger-bodied rodents may be
impacted by rodenticides more than
smaller bodied rodents. These largebodied rodents are the prey species
fishers prefer (Gabriel et al. 2017, p. 10).
Further, illegal grow sites may act as
‘‘sinks’’ for prey moving in from
neighboring areas meaning less prey is
available for fisher (Gabriel 2018, pers.
comm.).
(2) Law Enforcement Activities—
During the ‘‘Operation Forest Watch,
Department of Justice’’ campaign in
California between October 2017 and
September 2018, more than 20,000
pounds of fertilizer, pesticides, and
chemicals were removed from 160
illegal grow sites (Department of Justice
(DOJ) 2018, p. 2). Of these, 89 percent
were confirmed or strongly suspected to
have carbofuran or methamidophos (i.e.,
insecticides (non-rodenticides) that
cause central nervous system
dysfunction), up from the previous
year’s total of 75 percent (DOJ 2018, p.
2). Estimates vary of the number of
illegal grow sites that necessitate
reclamation of toxicants, but as of 2018,
766 known illegal grow sites are still in
need of reclamation (DOJ 2018, p. 2).
(3) Effect of legalization—Since the
2014 Proposed Rule, recreational
marijuana cultivation and use became
legal in Oregon (2015) and California
(2016). The data are mixed with respect
to how legalization is affecting illegal
grows sites on public lands. Some
studies find that illegal grow sites on
National Forests have decreased in
States where marijuana was legalized
(Klassen and Anthony 2019, p. 39;
Prestemon et al. 2019, p. 1). Conversely,
many law-enforcement officials have
found no indication that illegal grow
sites have decreased with cannabis
legalization, and may in fact be
increasing, in part due to legalization
providing an effective means to launder
illegal marijuana (Hughes 2017, entire;
Bureau of Cannabis Control California
2018, pp. 28, 30; Sabet 2018, pp. 94–95;
Fuller 2019, no page number; Klassen
and Anthony 2019, p. 45). Data from
fisher monitoring suggests that illegal
grow sites are dropping in number but
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
are getting larger (impacting more fisher
home ranges) (Gabriel 2018, pers.
comm.). And, law-enforcement actions
have caused illegal grow sites to
disperse further, which makes them
more difficult to locate (Gabriel 2018,
pers. comm.). Other uncertainties make
it difficult to reach conclusions about
trends in the abundance and frequency
of illegal grow sites this soon after
legalization, including legal marijuana
market forces, the clandestine nature of
the black market, Federal illegality and
trends of legalization in other States,
State taxation of marijuana, local
employment and economic conditions,
and regulatory and law enforcement
responses (Hughes 2017, entire; Bureau
of Cannabis Control California 2018, pp.
28, 30; Sabet 2018, pp. 94–95; Fuller
2019, no page number; Klassen and
Anthony 2019, pp. 45–46; Prestemon et
al. 2019, pp. 9–11).
Legalization has resulted in an
increase in legal marijuana cultivation.
At this time, we have limited data about
the prevalence of rodenticide use on
legal private grow sites and whether
fishers are at risk from rodenticide use
on private land. In urban-wildland
interfaces, or where private lands abut
public forestland or occur as inholdings,
legal grow sites are more likely within
fisher home ranges (e.g., Franklin et al.
2018, p. 3).
(4) Reclamation Efforts—Existing law
enforcement cannot keep up with illegal
marijuana activities (Bureau of Cannabis
Control California 2018, p. 30; Wendt
2019, pp. 4–6). In addition, support
from States and local governments to
Federal law enforcement on public
lands (e.g., U.S. Forest Service (USFS))
has dwindled as they redirect resources
to regulate the legalized marijuana
industry (Bureau of Cannabis Control
California 2018, p. 30; Klassen and
Anthony 2019, p. 45).
The California Comprehensive
Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety
Act of 2016 specifies that, after control
and regulation of the program, 20
percent of the marijuana tax fund
(established by this Act) shall be given
to California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) for (1) cleanup,
remediation, and restoration of
environmental damage in watersheds
affected by marijuana cultivation (a
portion of which may be distributed
through grants); and (2) the stewardship
and operation of State-owned wildlife
habitat areas and State park units to
prevent illegal cultivation, and use
(Comprehensive Medical Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act 2016, pp. 43–
44). This language is not included in the
2017 Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA)
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that updates the 2016 Act (MAUCRSA
2017, entire).
In 2017, CDFW used their Regulation
and Forest Restoration funds for their
newly formed Cannabis Restoration
Grant Program (CDFW 2017a, p. 3). The
program funded the restoration of
watersheds impacted by marijuana
cultivation, including removing trash
and equipment, diversion removal,
riparian enhancements, and streambank
stabilization (CDFW 2017b, p. 1). Funds
for projects in 2017 totaled $1,300,000
(CDFW 2017a, p. 1). Monies from this
program went to fund four efforts for
watersheds within the range of the
NCSO DPS (CDFW 2017a, p. 2). The
largest and widest-ranging of these
efforts included the removal and
remediation of rodenticides at illegal
grow sites. Monies were not made
available in 2018 or 2019, but it is our
understanding there are plans to add
monies to this grant program in the
future.
The CROP Project (Cannabis Removal
on Public Lands) is a citizen-based
organization established in 2018 with
the primary goals of: (1) Securing and
increasing State and Federal resources
for illegal-grow-site reclamation; (2)
increasing U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) USFS law
enforcement and overall presence on
National Forests; and (3) implementing
a Statewide public education campaign,
focusing on the human health risks
associated with ingesting unregulated
marijuana (www.cropproject.org).
Successful accomplishment of these
goals could substantially improve the
discovery and reclamation of illegal
grow sites, but it is too early to
determine the degree to which this
program reduces the threat of toxicants
to fishers.
Please also see Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms in both the NCSO and the
SSN DPS discussions below for more
information on voluntary conservation
efforts that address illegal grow sites.
At this time, our evaluation of the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding toxicants and
their effects on fishers leads us to
conclude that individual fishers within
both DPSs have died from toxicant
exposure, fishers suffer a variety of
sublethal effects from exposure to
rodenticides, and the potential for
illegal grow sites within fisher habitat is
high. The exposure rate of more than 80
percent of fisher carcasses tested in
California has not declined between
2007 and 2018 (Gabriel and Wengert
2019, unpublished data, pp. 3–4), while
poisoning has increased since 2007
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 7). We do not
know the exposure rate of live fishers to
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
toxicants since this information is
difficult to gather and has not been
collected. In addition, the minimum
amount of anticoagulant and
neurotoxicant rodenticides required for
sublethal or lethal poisoning is
unknown. Specific information on
fishers and toxicants within the NCSO
DPS and the SSN DPS is described in
the DPS-specific sections below.
Potential for Effects Associated With
Small Population Size
Small populations are vulnerable to a
rapid decline in their numbers and
localized extinction due to the
following: (1) Loss of genetic variability
(e.g., inbreeding depression, loss of
evolutionary flexibility), (2) fluctuations
in demographic parameters (e.g., birth
and death rates, population growth
rates, population density), and (3)
environmental stochasticity or random
fluctuations in the biological (e.g.,
predation, competition, disease) and
physical environment (e.g., wildfire,
drought events, flooding) (Primack
2014, pp. 252–268). We note that forest
carnivore populations, including fisher,
are often isolated and generally occur in
low densities (Service 2016, p. 29).
While we do not have data across the
entire fisher range on the West Coast
demonstrating that fishers are exhibiting
specific effects associated with small
population size, consideration of these
three elements along with life-history
traits can provide an extinctionvulnerability profile for both the NCSO
DPS and SSN DPS. Fishers in Oregon
and California are currently restricted to
two historically extant indigenous
populations (NCSO and SSN), one
extant reintroduced subpopulation
(NSN, established with fishers from
NCSO), and one subpopulation
established with fishers from outside
this region (SOC). We recognize the two
geographic areas of fisher, SSN and
NCSO (the latter of which includes the
SOC and NSN for this analysis), are
geographically isolated from one
another with no evidence of and very
little opportunity for genetic
interchange. 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; Knaus et al. 2011,
p. 11). Despite their isolation and the
small size of the SSN DPS, the native
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS have persisted
over a long period of time.
At this point in time, fishers in both
the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS are
reduced from their original/historical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
range within the West Coast States. The
best available information suggests these
populations are expected to remain
isolated from one another (as has been
apparent since pre-European
settlement). Estimates of fisher
population growth rates for the NCSO
DPS and the portion of the SSN DPS
surveyed do not indicate any overall
positive or negative trend (see Current
Condition section for the NCSO DPS
below), with the exception of the
recently reintroduced subpopulation in
the NSN, which has steadily grown
since its translocation beginning in
2009. The vulnerabilities related to
small population size for each DPS are
further described below.
Disease and Predation
We evaluated information on disease
and predation in our 2016 Species
Report (Service 2016, pp. 128–132). In
addition, we evaluated the following
new information available regarding
disease or predation since the time of
our 2014 Proposed Rule (e.g., Gabriel et
al. 2015, pp. 5–8, 12–16; Sweitzer et al.
2016a, pp. 444–448; Integral Ecology
Research Center 2017, p. 2; Barry 2018,
pp. 39–40; Green et al. 2018a, p. 549;
Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 39–40, 50–51, 53,
72; CDFW 2019, entire). Although we
did not identify this threat in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule as one that may
have been a potentially significant
driver of future status, we are
considering this new information in this
Final Rule in light of our DPS
determination that has resulted in two
separate DPSs; the magnitude and scale
of the effect disease or predation may
have on each DPS may differ as a result
of the DPS-specific demographics and
distribution. Predation and disease are
the two greatest sources of mortality for
fishers of identified mortality sources
studied in California (Gabriel et al.
2015, p. 6; Sweitzer et al. 2016a, p. 447).
Of 183 California fishers where the
mortality source was identified, 67
percent died from predation and 13
percent from a combination of disease,
injury, or starvation (Sweitzer et al.
2016a, p. 447). Gabriel et al. (2015, p. 7)
was able to separate disease from other
mortality sources and found that 15
percent of 136 necropsied fishers died
of disease.
Several viral and bacterial diseases
are known to affect mustelids, including
fishers. Known diseases that have
caused fisher mortality in the area of the
NCSO and SSN DPSs include canine
distemper virus, Toxoplasma gondii (a
protozoal infection), and several
bacterial infections (Gabriel et al. 2015,
pp. 7–8; see Service 2016, pp. 128–130
for diseases summary). Disease only has
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29545
a minor impact where it has been
studied in the SSN DPS (Spencer et al.
2015, p. 66), and it comprises a
substantially smaller portion of fisher
mortalities compared to predation.
We do not know if current predation
rates are similar to historical rates in the
area of the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS.
Comparing predation rates to
populations outside of the West Coast is
not informative because most of those
populations are trapped, skewing the
mortality source results (e.g., Lofroth et
al. 2010, p. 62, Table 6.3). Recent
research in California suggests that
landscape changes as a result of
disturbances over the past century may
have altered the carnivore community
and affected predation rates on fishers
by bobcats (Wengert 2013, pp. 59–66,
93, 97–100) where an increased
proximity to open and brushy areas
(vegetation selected for by bobcats)
increases the risk of predation on
fishers. Mountain lions and bobcats are
major predators of fishers. Of 90 fishers
that died from predation or were killed
by other animals, 90 percent were killed
by members of the cat family (Felidae)
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 5). Sublethal
effects of toxicants may also result in
higher than normal mortality rates
associated with disease and predation,
but we do not know what portion of
identified mortalities would not have
occurred but for the presence of
sublethal levels of toxicants in the
individual (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 16;
Sweitzer et al. 2016a, p. 448).
Disease and predation are naturally
occurring sources of mortality, although
the associated mortality rates may be
increased by human-caused factors such
as vegetation management or toxicants
(Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 14, 16).
Predation has been identified as the
most important factor limiting fisher
populations in California (Sweitzer et al.
2016a, p. 448). High levels of predation
may explain why fisher populations
have not expanded into unoccupied
suitable habitat throughout much of the
NCSO and SSN DPSs (Gabriel et al.
2015, p. 16). However, the reintroduced
NSN subpopulation appears to be
growing despite mortalities due to
predation, indicating that other factors
such as fisher dispersal distance
through unsuitable habitat may also
limit fisher expansion (Powell and
Zielinski 1994, pp. 60–61; Aubry and
Lewis 2003, p. 88) and that
reintroductions can play an important
role in recovery for the species (Green
et al. 2020, p. 13).
Vehicle Collisions
Fisher collisions with vehicles have
been documented at multiple locations
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29546
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
within the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS. We
summarize this information in the final
fisher Species Report (Service 2016, pp.
137–138). Although we did not analyze
this threat in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule, this information warrants
consideration in this Final Rule,
particularly because we expect this
threat to act differently in each of the
newly-identified NCSO DPS and SSN
DPS based on population size and
proximity to human development. In
general, fisher collisions with vehicles
documented in California are relatively
rare, representing less than 2 percent of
documented mortalities (Gabriel et al.
2015, p. 15). And, vehicle-related
mortalities may be a more local concern
associated with specific high-traffic
areas (Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 7 and 15,
Table 2).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Many Federal and State existing
regulatory mechanisms provide a
benefit to fishers and their habitat. For
example, trapping restrictions have
substantially reduced fisher mortality
throughout the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
of fisher. In some places, forestmanagement practices are explicitly
applied to benefit fishers or other
species with many similar habitat
requirements, such as the northern
spotted owl. State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms have abated the
large-scale loss of fishers to trapping
and minimized the loss of fisher habitat,
especially on Federal land (Service
2014, pp. 117–141). Additionally,
rodenticides are regulated under Federal
and State laws. However, fishers are still
exposed to rodenticides where they are
used (see NCSO and SSN DPS specific
sections on Exposure to Toxicants and
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms).
Finally, voluntary conservation
measures are in place that provide a
benefit to fishers and their habitat.
These measures include Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), Candidate
Conservation Agreements with
Assurances (CCAAs), Safe Harbor
Agreements (SHAs), Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs), and other
conservation strategies, as described for
each DPS below (see NCSO and SSN
DPS specific sections on Voluntary
Conservation Measures below).
Final Listing Determination for NCSO
DPS of Fisher
Current Condition
The NCSO DPS comprises a mix of
ownerships, with similar amounts of
private and Federal ownership (Table
1). The USFS is the predominant
Federal land manager within the DPS.
TABLE 1—LAND OWNERSHIP OR MANAGEMENT FOR THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA/SOUTHERN OREGON DISTINCT
POPULATION SEGMENT OF FISHER
California (CA)
Agency
Acres
(ac)
Oregon (OR)
Percent (%)
for CA
ac
NCSO total
% for OR
ac
%
Bureau of Land Management ..................
Forest Service ..........................................
Bureau of Indian Affairs ...........................
National Park Service ..............................
State and Local ........................................
Private ......................................................
864,221
8,433,567
211,998
353,235
473,997
10,951,353
4.0
39.5
1.0
1.7
2.2
51.3
945,910
2,332,813
72
186,934
20,637
1,824,961
17.8
43.8
0.0
3.5
0.4
34.3
1,810,130
10,766,380
212,070
540,170
494,635
12,776,315
6.8
40.4
0.8
2.0
1.9
47.9
Total Acres * ......................................
21,346,412
100.0
5,327,797
100.0
26,674,209
100.0
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
* Acres and % may not sum due to rounding and because some other owners with less land are not included.
Population condition and abundance
information for the NCSO DPS is
presented for three different geographic
portions of this DPS. First, the SOC
portion west and south of Crater Lake in
the Southern Oregon Cascade Range is
predominantly represented by
reintroduced individuals from British
Columbia and Minnesota. However,
recent analyses have documented that at
least some of these reintroduced SOC
individuals and native NCSO
individuals are overlapping in range,
with confirmed interbreeding (Pilgrim
and Schwartz 2016, entire; Pilgrim and
Schwartz 2017, entire). Second, the
NSN portion is represented by native,
reintroduced fishers whose genetic
stock is from fishers relocated from the
Klamath-Siskiyou and Shasta-Trinity
subregions (in the historically native
NCSO DPS). These animals were
relocated into the northern Sierra
Nevada. This geographic portion of the
NCSO DPS occurs on land known as the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) Stirling
Management Unit in Butte, Plumas, and
Tehama Counties, California (Powell et
al. 2019, p. 2). Third, the remainder of
the native fishers in the NCSO DPS
occupy the Klamath-Siskiyou
Mountains in southern Oregon and
northern California, the California Coast
Range Mountains, the Shasta-Trinity
subregions in northern California, and
the western portion of the southern
Cascades in northern California.
Fishers in the SOC portion of the
NCSO DPS stem from a translocation of
30 fishers from British Columbia and
Minnesota to the southeastern Cascade
Range and west of Crater Lake between
1977 and 1981, after an earlier
reintroduction in 1961 failed (Aubry
and Lewis 2003, p. 84; Lofroth et al.
2010, pp. 43–44). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2014–2017, entire; Moriarity et al. 2017,
entire; Barry 2018, pp. 6, 22–24;
Moriarty et al. 2019, p. 23).
Prior to 2015, survey work in the
Oregon Cascades north of the NCSO
DPS was limited to opportunistic or
small-scale efforts. Verifiable fisher
detections did not exist, except for two
single fishers: One just north of the SOC
subpopulation in 2014 (Wolfer 2014,
pers. comm.) and a single dispersing
juvenile male detected in the same
general area in the 1990s (Aubry and
Raley 2006, p. 5); this finding suggests
occasional individuals may disperse
north through the central Oregon
Cascades. Over the winter of 2015–2016,
systematic camera surveys occurred in
the northern Oregon Cascades
(specifically, the southern portion of the
Mt. Hood National Forest and northern
portion of the Willamette National
Forest). No fishers were detected
(Moriarty et al. 2016, entire), suggesting
fishers may not reach this far north in
the Oregon Cascades. Additionally,
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
surveys over the past 3 years have not
detected fishers north of the Rogue
River in the central Oregon Cascades
(Barry 2018, pp. 22–23) (see below).
Information is not available on
population size for the SOC portion of
the NCSO DPS. In the northern portion
of the SOC area, fishers were detected
in the northern and eastern portions of
Crater Lake National Park between 2013
and 2015 (Mohren 2016, pers. comm.).
Outside of the Park, large-scale
systematic surveys were conducted in
2016 and 2017 north and west of Crater
Lake National Park and south to the
Klamath Falls Resource Area (south of
the reintroduction area) of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Lakeview
District (Barry 2018, entire). Few fishers
were detected in an area west of Crater
Lake National Park where fishers were
captured and radio-collared in the early
1990s by Aubry and Raley (2002,
entire). Within the Klamath Plateau
(generally the Klamath Falls Resource
Area described above, but including
surrounding non-Federal lands),
Moriarty et al. (2019, pp. 5, 21)
identified 31 to 41 individuals from
2015 to 2018, concluding that fishers in
the SOC area do not appear to be
expanding from where they were
initially reintroduced.
In comparing this range estimate with
a coarse baseline range estimate
provided by the Service, Barry (2018,
pp. 22–24) determined that there was a
67 percent range reduction for the SOC
subpopulation, concluding that SOC
fishers ‘‘appear to have contracted,
shifted south, or the previous
population extent was incorrectly
estimated’’ (Barry 2018, pp. 22–24).
Given the lack of systematic range-wide
fisher monitoring in Oregon, the author,
however, urged caution when
comparing his analysis with the
baseline range estimate provided by the
Service, and we agree. Our baseline
range estimate used by Barry (2018, p.
31, Figure 3) was derived by
encompassing verifiable fisher locations
since 1993 in southwest Oregon. Our
boundaries were based on modeled
fisher habitat and readily identifiable
features such the Rogue River. These
range maps included scattered, disjunct
detections with intervening areas of few
to no fisher detections (e.g., see Service
2016, p. 34, Figure 7); consequently, our
range map likely encompassed areas
with limited fisher occurrence. Hence,
comparing our coarse range map with
Barry’s fisher distribution, which was
quantitatively modeled from systematic
detection surveys to delineate areas
with a higher probability of fisher
occurrence, should indeed be
interpreted with caution. Our coarse
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
range map certainly included areas with
limited numbers or lack of fishers;
consequently, a 67 percent range
reduction using that map as a baseline
comparison overestimates any change in
fisher distribution in the SOC
subpopulation to some extent. We do
concur, however, that SOC fishers seem
to have shifted their distribution, and
acknowledge that their distribution may
be contracting to some degree. Further,
we acknowledge Barry’s (2018, pp. 22–
24) assertion that the SOC
subpopulation has had ample time since
their reintroduction to colonize beyond
the reintroduction area and has failed to
do so, suggesting that either our
understanding of suitable habitat may
be incorrect, there may be unknown
barriers limiting their distribution, or
other factors may limit this
subpopulation.
Barry (2018, p. 23) also concluded
that the SOC subpopulation appears
small and relatively isolated given the
number and spacing of detections.
However, there is interbreeding with
indigenous fishers near the Klamath
Plateau area, suggesting fishers in the
southern part of the SOC subpopulation
are not isolated.
Fishers in the NSN portion of the
NCSO DPS stem from a 2009 to 2011
translocation of 40 fishers (24 females,
16 males) from Humboldt, Siskiyou, and
Trinity Counties, California, to the SPI
Stirling Management Unit. Ongoing
monitoring has confirmed that fishers
born onsite have established home
ranges and have successfully
reproduced. Trapping efforts in the fall
of 2017 as part of ongoing monitoring of
the reintroduced subpopulation indicate
a minimum of 61 fishers (38 females, 23
males), which is 21 more than were
originally introduced (Powell et al.
2019, p. 2). Overall, 220 individual
fishers were identified between 2009
and 2017 with a young age structure,
suggesting healthy reproduction and
recruitment (Powell et al. 2019, p. 2).
Although the subpopulation appears to
be stable or growing, statistical
conclusions will be difficult to draw
until year 10 in 2020 (Powell et al. 2019,
p. 2). The authors also concluded that
the subpopulation is unlikely to go
extinct in the next 20 years, barring
dramatic decreases in survival and
reproduction caused by stochastic
events. We also recently received a draft
manuscript concluding that estimated
recruitment and survival probability of
fishers in the NSN subpopulation ‘‘had
stabilized and were quite high,
indicating that this new population of
fishers may be self-sustaining’’ (Green et
al. 2020, p. 11).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29547
Older estimates for the NCSO DPS
(minus SOC and NSN) 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 DPS to the
entire NCSO DPS (Self et al. 2008, pp.
3–5). In 2017, a new estimate was
developed for the NCSO DPS that
includes southern Oregon and coastal
California but still excludes SOC and
NSN (Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 2–3). This
study used detection/non-detection
survey data from across much of the
NCSO DPS to calculate an average
density of 6.6 fishers per 39 mi2 (100
km2) across the area they defined for the
NCSO DPS (Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 12–
15). Using this estimate of fisher
density, the NCSO DPS is estimated to
be 3,196 individuals (2,507–4,184; 95
percent Confidence Interval (C.I.)) and
fishers were detected at 41 percent of
321 paired camera stations (Furnas et al.
2017, pp. 10, 12). Density models
indicate a core area of predicted high
density (greater than 10 fishers per 39
mi2 (100 km2) from between about 25 to
50 mi (40 to 80 km) inland from the
coast in the California Coast Range and
southern Klamath Mountains in
California (Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 12–
13). CDFW determined in their status
assessment for fishers in California that
the assessment done by Furnas, when
applied to fishers in the California
portion of NCSO, suggests that fishers
are common and widespread (estimated
to occur at 60 percent of sample units
in California) (CDFW 2015, p. 55).
The indigenous population of fishers
in Oregon was estimated to have a 26
percent range reduction compared to
verifiable fisher records collected since
1993 (Barry 2018, p. 22). However, the
author notes this comparison should be
treated with caution, and we agree. This
estimate is subject to the same
limitations as described earlier in this
section for the SOC fisher
subpopulation. That is, the coarse range
map the author used for a baseline
comparison included areas with limited
numbers or even lack of fishers, so a 26
percent range reduction overestimates
any change in the indigenous fisher
population in Oregon.
Trend information for fishers within
the NCSO DPS is based on the following
two long-term study areas. As indicated
above, we now consider the NCSO DPS
to include the areas previously
represented as the SOC and NSN
reintroduced fisher subpopulations.
The Hoopa study area is
approximately 145 mi2 (370 km2) on the
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation north
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29548
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
of California State Highway 299 and
near State Route 96, which is largely
surrounded by the Six Rivers National
Forest and other private lands. The
study area represents the more mesic
portion (containing a moderate amount
of moisture) of the NCSO DPS. Fisher
studies have been ongoing since 1996.
The population trend in the period
2005–2012 indicates declining
populations with lambda 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.).
The authors concluded that ‘‘the
population as a whole is essentially
stable’’ (Higley et al. 2014, p. 31), but
they raised concerns about declines in
survival of males over the last 3 years
of the study; they believed the decline
was associated with toxicant poisoning
associated with illegal marijuana
growing and that males were at a higher
risk because of their larger home ranges
compared to females (Higley et al. 2014,
pp. 32, 38).
The Eastern Klamath Study Area
(EKSA) is approximately 200 mi2 (510
km2) in size straddling the California/
Oregon border. This study area
represents the more xeric portion
(containing little moisture; very dry) of
the NCSO DPS. Monitoring has occurred
since 2006 (Green et al. 2018b, entire).
Fishers in this study area were a source
for translocating fishers to the NSN
reintroduction site elsewhere in the
DPS. The removal of nine fishers over
a 2-year period in 2009 and 2010
(equivalent to 20 percent of the
population) did not affect fisher
abundance or density in the study area
(Green et al. 2017, p. 9).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
After fires in this study area in 2014,
the estimated number of fishers
declined by 40 percent from the year
before the fire (Green et al. 2019b, p. 8).
Prior to the fire, this population varied
in the annual number of fishers and
lambda trends (increasing and
decreasing) (Green et al. 2016, p. 15,
Table 1) (Table 2), indicating ‘‘the
population of fishers in the Klamath
was relatively stable before the fires
occurred and for the three years
immediately following the removal of
fishers for translocations’’ (Green et al.
2016, p. 8). Modeling results suggest the
post-fire decline was because of the fire.
Although the fire notably affected
fishers in this population in the 2 years
immediately following, the fate of the
fishers affected by the fire is unknown;
it is possible that some fishers may have
emigrated out of the burned areas
(Green et al. 2017, pp. 9–10) or may
reoccupy areas that burned at lower
severities in the future. Credible
intervals (a statistical measure of
uncertainty) surrounding abundance
estimates of fishers both pre- and postfire overlap; although the post-fire
estimate is at the lower range of the prefire estimate, the fisher population
estimate post-fire does not appear to be
substantially different from the lowest
estimates in the pre-fire years (Green et
al. 2019b, p. 18; Matthews and Green
2020, pers. comm.). Hence, even with
the immediate decline in the local fisher
population after the fire, the latest
population estimate still appears to be
within the statistical range of variation
of pre-fire estimates. Data since 2016
have not yet been analyzed to assess the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
EKSA population trend over the past
few years.
In the absence of limiting factors,
populations tend to steadily increase
(lambda >1) until the population growth
becomes restricted. Within the NCSO
DPS, this situation has been occurring
in the NSN reintroduced population as
it expands to fill available habitat
(Powell et al. 2019, pp. 2, 4). Healthy
populations will then naturally
fluctuate around their upper limit, or
carrying capacity, increasing in some
years and decreasing in other years
(Figure 2). This trend is exhibited in the
data from the EKSA, where annual
estimates of abundance for fishers have
varied, yielding increasing and
decreasing growth rates from year to
year prior to the 2014 fires (Table 2).
This occurrence is consistent with
normal variation for populations that
are neither growing nor declining, but
fluctuating near carrying capacity. For
both the Hoopa and the EKSA studies,
the authors’ use of the term ‘‘stable’’
(Higley et al. 2014, p. 31; Green et al.
2016, p. 8) implies that the lambda rates
are not swinging dramatically from year
to year, but rather annual abundance
estimates are fluctuating around a
steady value consistent with normal
population variation. There are still
uncertainties regarding the post-fire
declines from the EKSA study area
(addressed below in Wildfire and
Wildfire Suppression section) as well as
the reduced male survival rates in the
Hoopa study area. However, the best
available data suggests that populations
are exhibiting variability that may be
consistent with populations at or near
carrying capacity.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
29549
TABLE 2—DERIVED POSTERIOR PARAMETER ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL POPULATION DENSITY, ABUNDANCE, AND POPULATION GROWTH OF FISHERS IN THE KLAMATH. PARAMETERS ARE PRESENTED AS MEDIAN [95% CREDIBLE INTERVAL]
(GREEN ET AL. 2016, P. 15)
[These estimates have since been reparameterized (Matthews and Green 2020, pers. comm.), indicating a population exhibiting typical
fluctuations both increasing and decreasing around K for this time period]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
6.64 [4.94, 8.35] ...........................
6.64 [4.94, 8.18] ...........................
6.99 [5.62, 8.69] ...........................
6.47 [5.11, 8.18] ...........................
5.79 [4.43, 7.33] ...........................
6.47 [5.11, 8.18] ...........................
6.3 [4.94, 8.18] .............................
6.99 [5.62, 8.69] ...........................
Fishers in the NCSO DPS have
rebounded substantially from their low
in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 227) suggested
no more than 300 fishers occurred in all
of California. Fishers currently occupy
much of their historical range in
northwestern California, including the
redwood region, which may be an
expansion from their historical
distribution (CDFW 2015, p. 23); fisher
detections have increased in northern
coastal California since the 1990s,
though it is not known as to whether
this increase is due to a range
expansion, recolonization, increased
survey effort, or whether fishers
remained undetected in earlier surveys
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Abundance
Jkt 250001
39
39
41
38
34
38
37
41
[29,
[29,
[32,
[29,
[26,
[28,
[27,
[32,
49]
48]
50]
47]
43]
46]
46]
50]
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
(CDFW 2015, p. 50). Recent monitoring
information submitted during the public
comment period on the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule indicates fishers
continue to occur across much of
northern coastal California; systematic
camera surveys on private timber lands
found fishers at 65 of 93 (70 percent)
camera stations (Green Diamond
Resource Company [GDRC] 2019, p. 8)
during the 2018–2019 winter, suggesting
fishers are well-distributed across the
company’s lands. In Oregon, fishers also
appear to have expanded from low
numbers in the 1940s, when fishers
were considered extremely rare and
perhaps close to extirpation (see Barry
2018, pp. 16–17 for summary), to being
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Lambda
1 [0.71, 1.35]
1.06 [0.78, 1.4]
0.92 [0.67, 1.2]
0.91 [0.64, 1.21]
1.09 [0.78, 1.45]
0.98 [0.72, 1.33]
1.11 [0.81, 1.49]
‘‘relatively common’’ where the
indigenous population is found (Barry
2018, p. 22). Fishers also appear to be
widespread and common throughout
much of the DPS (CDFW 2015, pp. 54–
55).
The major habitat-based threats
experienced by the NCSO DPS are loss
of complex canopy forests and den/rest
sites and fragmentation of habitat from
high-severity wildfire, wildfire
suppression activities (e.g.,
backburning, fuel breaks, and snag
removal), and vegetation management
(e.g., fuels reduction treatments, salvage,
hazard tree removal). Major non-habitat
related threats are exposure to toxicants
and, in some areas, predation. In
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
ER15MY20.001</GPH>
Density
(fishers/100 km2)
Year
29550
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
addition to these threats acting on the
NCSO DPS, several conservation efforts
are also designed to benefit fishers.
These efforts include those being
implemented within the portion of the
range covered by the Northwest Forest
Plan (NWFP) including the conservation
and retention of late seral habitats and
a network of reserved land use
allocations, which provide fisher
habitat. We summarize conservation
measures and regulation mechanisms
that address some of these threats below
in the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
section.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Threats
As described above in the General
Threats Information section, we
determined our foreseeable future
timeframe for evaluating the status of
the NCSO fisher based upon the period
for which we can reasonably determine
that both the future threats and the
species’ responses to those threats are
likely. In general, we considered that
the trajectories of the threats acting on
fisher subpopulations across the DPS’s
range could be reliably predicted for 35–
40 years into the future.
We estimated this timeframe as a
result of our evaluation of an array of
time periods used in modeling. For
example, climate models for areas with
fisher habitat, HCPs, and timber harvest
models generally predict 50 to 100 years
into the future, and forest planning
documents often predict over shorter
timeframes (10 to 20 years). We
considered 40 years at the time of the
2014 Proposed Rule, and given the 5year time period since, we are
modifying the foreseeable future time
period to a range of 35–40 years. This
is a timeframe that we can reasonably
determine that both the future threats
and the species’ responses to those
threats are likely. This time period
extends only so far as the predictions
into the future are reliable, including a
balance of the timeframes of various
models with the types of threats
anticipated during the 35- to 40-year
time period.
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
Direct evidence of fisher population
response to wildfire is limited. In a
monitored fisher population in the
Klamath-Siskiyou area, declines in the
overall fisher population occurred after
wildfires in the study area in 2014
(Green et al. 2019b, entire). This
population of fishers has been
monitored since 2006. As noted by
Green et al. (2019b, p. 4): ‘‘Previous
research indicates this population of
fishers had been relatively stable up to
2013, despite approximately 20% of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
population being translocated elsewhere
between 2009 and 2011.’’ Fisher
numbers in the study area declined 40
percent from 2013, the year prior to the
fires. This decrease became apparent the
first full year following the fires (2015)
and persisted into the following year
(Green et al. 2019b, p. 8, Figure 2).
While the fate of the fishers affected by
the fire is unknown, it is possible that
some fishers may have emigrated out of
the burned areas (Green et al. 2017, pp.
9–10) or may reoccupy areas that
burned at lower severities in the future.
The reduced population estimate
appears to be within the statistical range
of variation of pre-fire estimates, as
evidenced by overlapping credible
intervals. The post-fire population
decline of 40 percent is based on a
comparison with the population
estimate from 2013, which was the
highest measured population estimate
compared to all previous years, with 39
animals estimated (Green et al. 2017, p.
19; 2019b, pp. 15–18). The post-fire
population estimate was not evaluated
in context with the overall pre-fire
population trend and its overall
variation; such a comparison would
likely yield a less dramatic population
change. In addition, monitoring data
since 2016 is not yet fully evaluated.
Both of these tasks are currently
underway (Matthews and Green 2020,
pers. comm.). Fisher densities declined
across all wildfire severity types, but
they declined the most in areas with
more than a 50 percent loss of tree basal
area, consistent with other studies
(Green et al. 2019b, pp. 6, 9). The
authors note that their data represent
only the short-term effects of fires, and
any negative effects may not persist. We
do not know the fate of individual
fishers that left the population after the
fire and whether their fitness was
ultimately compromised. But this
analysis does suggest that high-severity
fires can have immediate and
substantial effects on local fisher
numbers.
Within the Biscuit Fire area in
southwest Oregon, which burned in
2002, surveys conducted in 2016 and
2017 did not detect fishers within the
burn perimeter (Barry 2018, pp. 22–23),
suggesting the fires have extirpated
fishers from the burn area. However,
detection records do not suggest fishers
were ever abundant in the area prior to
the fire (Service 2016, pp. 24, 33, 34,
and 35, Figures 4, 6, 7, and 8). We do
acknowledge, however, that a large part
of this area, is within the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness Area, where surveys were
likely limited due to restricted access.
Therefore, fisher occupancy in some
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
areas of the Biscuit Fire remains
unknown.
Given projected changes in climate,
forests are expected to become more
vulnerable to wildfires over the coming
century. For example, the proportion of
forests considered highly suitable for
wildfire in the Klamath Mountains is
projected to increase from 18 percent to
48–51 percent by the end of the century,
with most of that increase projected to
occur on Federal lands (Davis et al.
2017, p. 180). Fire return intervals in
low- to mid-elevation forests in
Northwest California and the Sierra
Nevada Mountains have among the
highest departure rates from historical
fire return intervals in the State (Safford
and Van de Water 2014, pp. iii, 17, 22,
36–37). And, fire return intervals in the
Coast Range and Klamath Mountains in
Oregon are expected to decrease by half,
which would result in a near tripling of
the annual area burned in this century
compared to last (Sheehan et al. 2015,
pp. 20–22; Dalton et al. 2017, p. 46). We
note that the projected increases include
fires of all severity types, so the
potential wildfire areas do not translate
directly to an amount of fisher habitat
removed. In the case of low- and
moderate-severity fires, these may
actually create elements used by fishers.
An analysis of fire effects on fisher
habitat was done centering on the
Klamath Basin and encompassing the
NCSO (CBI 2019b and 2019c, entire).
The study looked at fisher habitat
patches large enough to support five or
more breeding female home ranges (CBI
2019b, p. 16) and labeled them as core
habitat; the study also identified fisher
linkage areas, which were areas on the
landscape identified as least-cost
pathways to connect the core habitats
(CBI 2019b, pp. 3, 16). They found that
24 percent of modeled fisher core areas
and 24 percent of modeled fisher
linkage areas were considered at risk of
at least temporary loss due to severe
fires (CBI 2019c, pp. 22, 25). It is
important to note that these percentages
do not total to 48 percent of the fisher
habitat in the study area; core areas are
larger patches of fisher habitat, while
linkage areas may or may not comprise
suitable habitat, but instead represent
‘‘least cost’’ paths between core areas.
To update our 2014 analysis of
wildfire effects within the NCSO DPS,
we conducted an analysis similar to the
one completed for the 2014 draft
Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 62–
64; Service 2019b, unpublished data).
Using the fisher habitat map developed
for the 2014 Proposed Rule (Service
2016, Appendix B) and USFS data for
burn severity for 2008–2018 (USFS
2019), we estimated the effects of high-
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
severity wildfire to fisher habitat (high
and intermediate categories) over the
past 11 years. We assumed wildfires
that burned at high severity (greater
than 50 percent basal area loss) changed
fisher habitat to a condition that would
not be selected by fishers for denning
and resting (although this result may not
always be the case, as described above
in the General Species Information
section). Use of greater than 50 percent
basal area loss is consistent with recent
fire effects analyses on fishers based on
the recent results as reported in Green
et al. (2019b, p. 6). Overall, high- and
intermediate-quality fisher habitat in the
NCSO DPS decreased by 526,424 ac
(213,036 ha) from 7,050,035 ac
(2,853,047 ha) to 6,523,610 ac
(2,640,011 ha), or approximately 7.5
percent was lost as a result of wildfires
since 2008; this is an average loss of 6.8
percent per decade.
For comparison purposes, in our 2014
draft Species Report, we estimated 4
percent of fisher habitat would be lost
over the next 40 years due to highseverity wildfire, or 1 percent per
decade (Service 2014, p. 64). Our 2014
area of analysis for the NCSO
subpopulation was based on 27 years of
fire data from 1984 to 2011 and assessed
approximately 24,080,693 ac (9,745,111
ha), compared to the 10,459,612 ac
(4,232,855 ha) assessed in our recent
analysis above. The results of our new
analysis are based on fire data from the
period 2008 to 2018, an 11-year period
of the most recent fire activity, which
suggests our earlier estimates of changes
to fisher habitat from wildfire over the
next 40 years may have been an
underestimate. However, while this
increase in area burned may be
consistent with the projections for
wildfire increases in the DPS, the
magnitude of increase in burned fisher
habitat (i.e., from 1 percent per decade
in our 2014 analysis to 6.8 percent in
our 2019 analysis) may not be a true
reflection of the rate of change between
the two time periods because of the
different temporal (28 years v. 11 years)
and geographic (the area analyzed in
2014 was twice as large as the area
assessed in 2019) scales used in the
comparison. Nevertheless, we recognize
the increase in fire activity within the
NCSO.
The geography of the Klamath
ecoregion, which makes up much of the
NCSO where fishers occur, is steep and
complex. The variation in elevation and
aspect shapes vegetation composition
and distribution. This environment
influences fuels and ultimately fire
behavior and location (Taylor and
Skinner 1998, p. 297; Taylor and
Skinner 2003, p. 714; Skinner et al.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
2018, pp. 179–180). Consequently, fires
tend to be more prevalent on drier sites,
while less frequent on moister sites,
which tend to be areas more consistent
with fisher habitat. While these patterns
may or may not continue with the
effects of climate change, we can use
management such as the recent fuels
reduction MOUs (see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms below) to
leverage existing topography and
vegetation condition to better manage
for wildfires.
We acknowledge that large-scale
wildfires affect fisher habitat,
particularly given the predicted
increases in wildfire associated with
climate change by the end of the
century. We also acknowledge that fires,
even large fires, are part of the natural
fire regime within the NCSO DPS, and
fishers have sustained themselves and
coexisted with wildfire for centuries.
Into the future, it will be important to
have areas that can maintain
reproducing fishers while severely
burned areas can regenerate into fisher
habitat again, whether that is foraging
habitat within a decade or two, or
denning and roosting habitat several
decades beyond. Existing land
allocations like late-successional
reserves from the NWFP on Federal
lands throughout much of the NCSO
DPS, especially in the areas with the
greatest fire severities, will be necessary
to manage these areas to return to forest
habitat with complex structure. This
process will ensure suitable habitat lost
to fires will be managed to develop the
overstory and structural features
conducive to fishers. In the interim,
retaining important structural features
in burned areas, per reserve land
allocation standards and guidelines,
will facilitate the use of these areas by
prey and foraging fishers within a few
decades following high-severity fires.
Although fire risk is expected to
increase with climate change, it is not
expected to be uniform across the DPS,
as described above in this section. The
sporadic and episodic nature of fires
will help ameliorate some of the risk to
fishers across the DPS as a whole. There
are effects to local fisher populations
immediately after a high-severity fire
(e.g., Green et al. 2019b, entire). But
fishers are well distributed across the
NCSO DPS, including coastal areas such
as the redwood region that may be less
prone to wildfire risk. This distribution
provides redundancy to loss of fishers
after a local fire event. Plus, fishers
appear to use high severity burned
areas, at least for dispersal and foraging
(Service 2016, p. 66), suggesting that
even severely burned areas can continue
to provide some benefits to fishers
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29551
within a decade or two after the fire.
The redundancy exhibited by the NCSO
DPS, with multiple subpopulations
distributed across a substantial range of
habitat (see Resiliency, Redundancy,
and Representation section), will allow
the NCSO DPS of fishers to absorb the
impact of fires, demonstrating the DPS’s
ability to withstand catastrophic events.
Climate Change
The general climate change related
effects discussed above (see General
Threats Information) apply to the NCSO
DPS, in addition to the following effects,
which are more specific to the NCSO
DPS. In particular, Siskiyou and Trinity
Counties in interior northern California
are projected to see the greatest
temperature increases for the North
Coast Region (Grantham 2018, p. 17). In
the Klamath Mountains, models suggest
precipitation is likely to fall
increasingly as rain rather than snow,
becoming mainly rain-dominated by
mid-century (Dalton et al. 2017, p. 17).
Significant or amplified wildfire
activity, with increased area burned and
severity can result in reduced denning
habitat availability for fishers in the
Coast Range and Klamath Mountains.
These two areas are projected to
experience wildfire return intervals
decreased by half and thus result in a
near tripling of the annual area burned
in this century compared to last
(Sheehan et al. 2015, pp. 20–22; Dalton
et al. 2017, p. 46). Fire return intervals
in low- to mid-elevation forests in
Northwest California and the Sierra
Nevada Mountains have among the
highest departure rates from historical
fire return intervals in the State (Safford
and Van de Water 2014, pp. iii, 17, 22,
36–37).
Overall, the best available scientific
and commercial information suggests
that changing climate conditions
(particularly warmer and drier
conditions) are influencing other threats
to fishers and their habitat within the
NCSO DPS, in particular the potential
for increased wildfire frequency and
intensity. However, this is not to say
that the DPS will experience
widespread or a uniform distribution of
climate-driven wildfire events. Even
under conditions for a potential increase
in wildfire frequency, wildfires will
remain sporadic and episodic across the
range of the DPS, further moderated by
the slope and aspect of terrain
throughout the range (e.g., influencing
susceptibility to wildfire, and creating a
mosaic of fire severity). The DPS’s wide
variety of topography, vegetation, and
climate conditions in its array of
physiographic provinces (Service 2016,
pp. 15–17, 28–29, 38–39) results in
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29552
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
unpredictable variability in how these
provinces will respond to changing
climate conditions. Please see
additional discussion about potential
impacts to fishers or their habitat
associated with wildfire (Wildfire and
Wildfire Suppression above).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Tree Mortality From Drought, Disease,
and Insect Infestation
Specific to the NCSO DPS, sudden
oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) has
caused some tree mortality in
southwestern Oregon and northwestern
California, but it is not causing
widespread losses of oaks (California
Oak Mortality Task Force 2019, p. 1;
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)
2016, pp. 1–2). This finding suggests
widespread loss of oaks used by fisher
or fisher prey is not occurring as a result
of sudden oak death. Overall, warmer
and drier climate conditions are
projected for the NCSO DPS; however,
the varied composition of the vegetation
(e.g., Lofroth et al. 2011, pp. 34–90) in
the DPS suggests insect outbreaks and
disease due to drought-related stress on
trees are more likely to be localized
should they occur; therefore, future
widespread tree mortality impacts to
fisher habitat are not anticipated in the
NCSO DPS.
Vegetation Management
Although local analyses across the
NCSO DPS have assessed fisher habitat
at several scales (see Lofroth et al. 2011,
pp. 34–90 for study summaries, and
Raley et al. 2012, pp. 234–235 for list of
additional studies), there is no analysis
available that explicitly tracks changes
in fisher habitat in recent decades across
large portions of the DPS, and which
includes fisher habitat ingrowth as well
as habitat loss to specific disturbances.
Therefore, we used other available
information, as described below, to
analyze the potential effects of this
threat on fishers in the NCSO DPS. In
addition to the draft Species Report
(Service 2014, pp. 85–96), we used
several different sources of information
to depict forest vegetation changes
caused by vegetation management
activities and offset by ingrowth within
the range of the NCSO DPS. With the
exception of the non-Federal timber
harvest database in California (CAL
FIRE) 2013), all of these sources are
either new or updated since 2014 (Davis
et al. 2015, entire; USFS 2016, entire;
Spencer et al. 2016, entire; Spencer et
al. 2017, entire; gradient nearest
neighbor (GNN) data/maps). With these
available data, we did not need to rely
on northern spotted owl habitat data as
a surrogate for fisher habitat data in this
evaluation. Our revised methodology is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
described in detail for the historical,
three-State range of the DPS in the 2016
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp.
98–111); we summarize it below and
describe how it applies to the NCSO
DPS.
Within the portion of the NCSO DPS
overlying the Northwest Forest Plan
region (generally most of the NCSO DPS
except for the northern Sierras), we used
information from the draft latesuccessional and old-growth forest
monitoring report (Davis et al. 2015,
entire) to assess changes in structural
habitat elements associated with fisher
habitat (i.e., large trees, down wood,
snags) as a result of vegetation
management. This information included
use of the ‘‘old growth structure index’’
(OGSI), which is an index that consists
of four structural elements associated
with older forests: (1) The density of
large live trees; (2) the density of large
snags; (3) the amount of down wood
cover; and (4) the tree size diversity of
the stand. Over a 20-year period (1993–
2012), Davis et al. (2015, pp. 5–6, 16–
18) 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, the
condition does track forests that contain
structural elements consistently used by
fishers in habitat studies across the DPS,
even in areas with substantially open
areas and managed young stands
(Lofroth et al. 2010, pp. 81–121; Service
2016, pp. 15–21; Niblett et al. 2017, pp.
16–17; Powell et al. 2019, pp. 21–23;
Matthews et al. 2019, pp. 1,309, 1,313;
Moriarty et al. 2019, pp. 29–30, 46–49).
We acknowledge there is some
unknown level of overrepresentation of
stands that may not be occupied by
fishers and underrepresentation of
stands that fishers may actually occupy
(Service 2016, p. 102), and we do not
suggest that OGSI–80 is a surrogate for
fisher habitat proper. Hence, we do not
consider it a model of fisher habitat.
However, OGSI–80 does cover a
majority of the NCSO DPS and provides
a way to assess regional-scale trends in
forests that contain the structural
elements consistently used by fishers
(e.g., large snags, down wood, and large
live trees). This information was the
only data set available that identified
the number of acres lost to timber
harvest or vegetation management (as
well as disturbances from fire and
insects) and the number recruited by
forest ingrowth. This OGSI–80 data set
allows us to track changes as a result of
vegetation management and forest
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
recruitment. In using the OGSI–80 data,
we do not expect there to be substantial
differences in relative trends for
disturbances and ingrowth effects on
OGSI–80 stands compared to trends in
their effects on fisher habitat.
Details of our analysis of Davis et al.
(2015, entire) are explained in the 2016
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp.
101–102). We have since modified that
analysis to include only data for the
areas (physiographic provinces) that
cover the current range of fishers in the
NCSO DPS. The California portion of
the NCSO DPS covers all of the
California physiographic provinces
analyzed in Davis et al. (2015, pp. 10,
30–31). The Oregon portion of the
NCSO DPS occurs mostly within the
Oregon Klamath province, but overlaps
somewhat into small portions of the
western and eastern Cascades provinces
(Davis et al. 2015, pp. 10, 30–31). We
assessed the results of including and
excluding the data from these two
Cascades provinces. Because no
substantial differences were revealed
between the two data sets, we report
here the results of including only the
Oregon Klamath province data along
with data for all of the California
physiographic provinces that are
covered by the NWFP.
Although loss of OGSI–80 forests due
to timber harvest on non-Federal lands
(11.1 percent since 1993) was
substantially greater than on Federal
lands (1.0 percent since 1993), in
combining all ownerships, the percent
loss due to timber harvest from 1993 to
2012 was low (5.0 percent). This
translates to a 2.5 percent loss per
decade. However, this may
underestimate future harvest trends
because timber harvest volume within
the NWFP area on Federal lands has
been on a general upward trend since
2000. During the first decade of NWFP
implementation, Federal agencies
offered, on average annually, 54 percent
of the timber harvest sale goals
(probable sale quantity or PSQ)
identified in the Plan, whereas volume
offered in 2012 was at about 80 percent
of the PSQ identified in the NWFP, as
agencies became more familiar with
implementing the NWFP (BLM 2015, p.
340; Spies et al. 2018, pp. 8–9). In
addition, BLM has recently revised their
management plans in western Oregon
and is no longer operating under the
NWFP. Consequently, that agency is
predicting an increase in timber volume
above the NWFP sale quantity in the
first decade of implementation (through
circa 2025) (BLM 2015, pp. 350–352).
Recent litigation may also increase
timber harvest on BLM (see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms section). Hence,
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
overall harvest trends on Federal lands
may be increasing and may be closer to
or more than rates observed in the last
decade of NWFP implementation (2003
to 2012).
The net loss of OGSI–80 conditions to
timber harvest, however, is somewhat
less because 2.5 percent per decade does
not include ingrowth of OGSI–80
stands. Ingrowth represents those stands
that did not meet the OGSI–80
structural thresholds at the beginning of
the 20-year monitoring period but,
through vegetation succession, reached
those thresholds at the end of the
monitoring period. Stands that grow
into the OGSI–80 condition are assumed
to offset the loss of other OGSI–80 to
disturbance such as vegetation
management. However, we acknowledge
that OGSI–80 stands exist on a
continuum, and OGSI–80 stands lost to
timber harvest or some other
disturbance are not necessarily
equivalent in structural quality to stands
that recently cross a threshold of being
classified as OGSI–80. That is, the
longer stands remain in the OGSI–80
classification, the more likely they are to
contain more old-forest structural
conditions that benefit fishers.
Ingrowth of OGSI–80 stands within
the NWFP portion of the DPS occurred
at a rate of 8 percent over the 20-year
period, or 4 percent per decade
(calculated from Davis et al. (2015,
Tables 6 and 7, pp. 30–31)). This
ingrowth more than offsets the OGSI–80
stands lost to vegetation management.
However, there is still an overall net
loss of OGSI–80 stands in the DPS
because all disturbances (i.e., wildfire
and forest insects and pathogens) need
to be considered. When all disturbances
and ingrowth are factored in, there is a
net loss of 1 percent per decade.
However, vegetation management
affects a small portion of those habitat
components used by fisher within the
NWFP area. Furthermore, ingrowth rates
are expected to increase in the
foreseeable future on Federal lands
within the NWFP area because forests
regenerating from the post-World War II
harvest boom starting in the 1940s are
beginning to meet the OGSI–80
threshold (Davis et al. 2015, p. 7).
We note that we incorporated the loss
of OGSI–80 stands to wildfire into this
analysis of vegetation management only
to fully consider the degree to which
ingrowth can offset loss of OGSI–80
stands to disturbance. We use a different
metric to address the loss of fisher
habitat to wildfire (see the Wildfire and
Wildfire Suppression section). For the
wildfire analysis, we were able to obtain
data from past wildfires and overlay it
on fisher habitat to better represent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
fisher habitat loss to high-severity
wildfires as well as to incorporate the
effects from more recent wildfires than
those analyzed by Davis et al. (2015, p.
29).
Outside of the NWFP portion of the
DPS (primarily Sierra Nevada region),
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
determine net change in a particular
vegetation type, but could not quantify
the amount 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 FACTS (Forest Service Activity
Tracking System) 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-theground 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 approximate conditions
suitable for fisher habitat, although we
realize that net changes include other
disturbances and that vegetation
management will be some unknown
portion of that change.
For the Sierra Nevada Range (note
that this includes the entire range, as we
were not able to split out the SSN DPS
from the NCSO DPS), we approximated
fisher habitat change using a vegetation
trend analysis to track changes in forests
with large structural conditions thought
to be associated with fisher habitat (see
Service 2016, p. 106 for a description
related to using GNN data). The
vegetation category tracked in this
analysis is not equivalent to the OGSI–
80 forests used by Davis et al. (2015,
entire). Instead, the available data
limited us to using predefined structure
conditions describing forests with larger
trees (greater than 20 in (50 cm)). We
realize this process may not include all
vegetation types used by fishers. This
analysis showed that net loss of forests
with larger structural conditions in the
Sierra Nevada Range was 6.2 percent
across all ownerships over the past 20
years, which equates to a loss of 3.1
percent per decade. However, this
amount is loss associated with all
disturbance types, including wildfire,
insects, and disease, that occurred from
1993 through 2012. Hence, vegetation
management is some unknown subset of
this loss.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29553
Vegetation management is not
affecting large areas of the NCSO DPS,
though fragmentation could be
restricting fisher movements in
localized areas or increasing predation
risk. For example, fishers continue to
persist in actively managed landscapes
(GDRC 2019, no page numbers), and
fishers reintroduced into the Sierra
Nevada portion of the NCSO DPS on SPI
lands, which are managed for timber
production, suggest that fisher
populations can become established and
persist in a landscape where substantial
portions were historically and are
currently managed for timber
production (Powell et al. 2019, entire;
Green et al. 2020, entire). Hence, we
conclude that vegetation management is
a low-level threat because of the small
proportion of area harvested in the
NCSO DPS and because of the
widespread distribution of fishers and
their occurrence in actively managed
landscapes.
Exposure to Toxicants
As described above in the General
Threat Information section, rodenticides
analyzed as a threat to the NCSO DPS
of fishers include first- and secondgeneration anticoagulant rodenticides
and neurotoxicant rodenticides. Both
the draft and final Species Reports
detail the exposure of the NCSO DPS of
fishers to rodenticides in northern
California and southern Oregon (Service
2014, pp. 149–166; Service 2016, pp.
141–159). Data available since the
completion of the final Species Report
in 2016 continue to document exposure
and mortalities to fishers from
rodenticides in the NCSO DPS (Gabriel
and Wengert 2019, unpublished data,
entire). Data for 48 fisher carcasses
collected in the range of the NCSO DPS
in the period 2007–2018 indicate 36
fishers (75 percent) tested positive for
one or more rodenticides (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data), while
13.5 percent of fisher mortalities with a
known cause in the NCSO DPS from
2007 through 2014 were attributable to
rodenticides (7 of 52 mortalities)
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 6). Using data
from both the SSN and the NCSO DPSs,
mortalities due to rodenticide toxicosis
increased from 5.6 to 18.7 percent since
the collection and testing of fisher
mortalities using data comparing the
periods 2007–2011 to 2012–2014
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished
data, p. 2). From 2015 to 2018,
additional NCSO DPS fisher mortalities
due to both anticoagulant and
neurotoxicant rodenticides have been
documented (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, p. 4). At the Hoopa
study site, population monitoring found
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29554
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘the population as a whole is essentially
stable’’ (Higley et al. 2014, p. 31), but
there are concerns about declines in
survival of males over the last 3 years
of the study. The authors speculate this
decline in male survival is attributed to
toxicant poisoning associated with
illegal grow sites and that males were
identified as being at a higher risk for
poisoning because of their larger home
ranges compared to females (Higley et
al. 2014, pp. 32, 38).
To evaluate the risk to NCSO DPS
fishers from illegal grow sites, we use a
Maximum Entropy model to identify
high and moderate likelihood of illegal
grow sites being located within fisher
habitat (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, pp. 7–10) in Oregon
and California. This model indicates
that 54 percent of habitat modeled for
NCSO DPS fishers is within areas of
high and moderate likelihood for
marijuana cultivation.
The majority of our illegal grow site
data comes from California, and data are
limited for the amount of pesticides
used in Oregon. The USFS documented
63 trespass grows between 2006 and
2016, with toxicants present at all these
sites (Clayton 2019, pers. comm.). In a
separate effort, only one illegal grow site
in southern Oregon has been sampled
using the same protocol as 300 illegal
grow sites in California where the
amount and type of rodenticide at a site
is tracked. This southern Oregon
location had 54 pounds (lb) (24.5
kilograms (kg)) of first-generation
anticoagulant rodenticide and 8 lb (3.6
kg) of neurotoxicant rodenticide
dispersed around the site (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, p. 7).
As of January 24, 2020, 2,138 legal
marijuana cultivation permits were
active in counties within the NCSO and
SSN DPSs in California (California
Department of Food and Agriculture
2020, entire), and 423 legal marijuana
operations have been approved as of
January 17, 2020, in Oregon counties
occupied by fishers (Oregon Liquor
Control Commission 2020, entire).
Toxicant use on the landscape, and
especially anticoagulant rodenticides, is
a problem for fisher. However, the NSN
subpopulation has grown to the point of
becoming self-sustaining (Green et al.
2020, p. 11; Powell et al. 2019, p. 4)
even with 11 of 12 fishers testing
positive for anticoagulant rodenticides
(Powell et al. 2019, p. 17). This finding
suggests that toxicants may not be
having a limiting effect on growth in
this subpopulation. And, at EKSA only
small annual variations were seen in the
lambda value (Table 2) from 2006 to
2013 (Green et al. 2016, p. 15). This
period is at the same time as toxicant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
data were being collected (Gabriel et al.
2015, entire; Gabriel et al. 2017, entire;
Gabriel and Wengert, unpublished data
2019, entire), and presumably there
were illegal grow sites distributed
throughout the landscape. Illegal
marijuana cultivation has been
occurring in California since the mid1970s. To some degree, the fisher’s
widespread distribution and relative
commonness in the NCSO DPS diffuses
the potential for a significant percentage
of the subpopulation to be exposed to
these toxicants. The presence of illegal
grow sites on the landscape since the
mid-1970s suggests that the fisher has
been living with this threat for some
time.
We do not know what level of
toxicant exposure is occurring in live
fishers in the wild. The best available
mortality data are limited (19
individuals in California (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, p. 5),
and of the 2 fishers found in Oregon that
were tested for rodenticide exposure,
both tested positive (Clayton 2016, pers.
comm.). We also do not know how the
legalization of marijuana will change
grow-site location and potentially affect
exposure and mortality rates of fishers
due to rodenticides.
We view toxicants as a potentially
significant threat to fishers in the NCSO
DPS because of the reported exposure
rate of toxicants in the NCSO DPS, the
reported mortalities of fishers from
toxicants in the NCSO DPS, the variety
of potential sublethal effects due to
exposure to rodenticides (including
potential reduced ability to capture prey
and avoid predators), and the degree to
which illegal cannabis cultivation
overlaps with the range and habitat of
fisher in the NCSO DPS. The exposure
rate of 75 percent of fisher carcasses
tested in the NCSO DPS has not
declined between 2007 and 2018
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished
data, pp. 3–4), while toxicosis has
increased since 2007 (Gabriel et al.
2015, p. 7). As noted above, we do not
know the exposure rate of live fishers to
toxicants because this data is difficult to
collect. In addition, the minimum
amount of anticoagulant and
neurotoxicant rodenticides required for
sublethal or lethal poisoning of fishers
is currently unknown. In spite of the
widespread nature of illegal grow sites
and their known association with illegal
rodenticide use, as well as the
prevalence of toxicants occurring in
tested fishers, the NCSO subpopulation
may be demonstrating an ability to
withstand this threat with regard to
population growth (see discussions
above in Current Condition section
regarding observed population growth
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and fluctuation information in NSN and
at the EKSA and Hoopa sites).
Illegally used toxicants like
rodenticides remain a threat to fishers
within the NCSO DPS now and in the
foreseeable future. Where illegal
marijuana grow sites occur on the
landscape and overlap with fisher
ranges, illegally used pesticides have a
high potential to harm those exposed
individual fishers. However, while the
threat of people developing illegal grow
sites is widespread, we also note that
such sites are generally widely
dispersed within remote landscapes
across the DPS range (i.e., illegal
growers look to be as isolated and
hidden as possible). This situation
would suggest that potential for
significant exposure to fishers is
generally limited to where the grow
sites are located. However, while there
is no certain discernible trend regarding
whether illegal grow sites may increase
or decrease as a result of marijuana
legalization, it will still likely take many
years before the currently existing sites
can be found and remediated.
Potential for Effects Associated With
Small Population Size
The NCSO DPS, which encompasses
both the SOC and NSN reintroduction
sites, covers a relatively large
geographic area of approximately 15,444
mi2 (40,000 km2). Overall, the NCSO
DPS has not expanded beyond our
previous estimates; however, the SOC
subpopulation may have contracted
(Barry 2018, p. 22; Moriarty et al. 2019,
p. 5) while the NSN subpopulation
continues to grow (Powell et al. 2019, p.
2). Please see the Current Condition
section above for detailed information
on subpopulation size estimates.
Generally, the ability of a species (or
DPS) to withstand a catastrophic event
(i.e., bounce back from an event that
may result in the loss of a population or
large proportion of individuals) is lower
with relatively few populations or a
very limited distribution across the
landscape. Overall, the NCSO DPS has
not appeared to grow or expand, despite
the availability of suitable habitat.
However, multiple, well-distributed
subpopulations (i.e., NCSO, NSN, and
SOC) continue to exist across the DPS;
this occurrence includes aggregates of
individuals in geographic areas within
NCSO (i.e., EKSA fishers, fishers in and
around Redwood National Park, Hoopa
fishers, or fishers spread downslope of
the Siskiyou Crest). At this time, the
best available information for monitored
fishers within the DPS (e.g., Green 2017,
Higley et al. 2014, Powell et al. 2014,
entire; Sweitzer et al. 2015a, entire) does
not indicate whether the NCSO DPS is
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
increasing, stable, or declining. Tucker
et al. (2012, pp. 8, 11) found low genetic
diversity within the NCSO population
(and SSN population), but the NCSO
population (and SSN population) had
also exhibited low genetic diversity
from samples collected between 1880
and 1920, suggesting that the currently
low diversity occurred prior to when the
historical samples were taken, and thus
prior to European settlement. However,
fishers have rebounded from substantial
population reductions that resulted
from historical trapping and habitat
loss, and they are currently widespread
and common across the DPS. Fishers are
well distributed across the NCSO DPS,
without barriers for genetic exchange
between and among its subpopulations
(e.g., genetically homogeneous fishers
occupy either side of the Klamath River
adjacent to a two-lane, paved highway
(Service 2016, p. 113). Genetic diversity
decreases moving southward with the
peripheral areas having the lowest
genetic diversity (Wisely et al. 2004,
entire). Low genetic diversity can result
in inbreeding depression, and one way
to assess the risk of inbreeding
depression is to determine the effective
population size. An effective population
size is the number of individuals in an
ideal population that would result in
the same level of inbreeding or genetic
drift as that of the population under
study (Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, p.
578). It is usually substantially smaller
than the actual number of individuals in
the population, often 10 to 20 percent of
the census (actual) population size
(Frankham 1995, p. 100). An effective
population size estimate of 128
individuals for northwestern California
suggests inbreeding depression is not a
problem (Tucker et al. 2012, pp. 7–8, 10)
when compared to thresholds of 50 or
100 individuals from the established
literature discussing effective
population sizes (Jamieson and
Allendorf 2012, entire; Frankham et al.
2014, entire).
As we have described herein and
previously, the NCSO DPS is isolated
from other fisher populations, and small
relative to the taxon as a whole. As
such, the risks of small population size
effects and of extinction exist. However,
the broad distribution of the DPS across
its range, in combination with the DPS
occurring in multiple subpopulations
with no barriers to genetic exchange
within and between those
subpopulations, and the low likelihood
of a catastrophic event at a scale that
could hypothetically affect the entire
DPS, indicates that the risks of small
population size effects and of extinction
are very low.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Disease and Predation
A general description of disease and
predation on fishers is provided above
(see General Species Information and
Summary of Threats). Specific to the
California portion of the NCSO DPS, of
42 fisher mortalities analyzed, 54
percent were a result of predation and
19 percent were caused by disease
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 7, Table 2). It is
not unexpected that predation is the
greatest source of mortality given the
suite of larger, generalist predators that
occupy the NCSO DPS (e.g., coyotes,
bobcats, and mountain lions). As noted
in the General Species Information and
Summary of Threats section, we do not
know whether observed predation rates
are substantially different from
historical rates, or whether they are
comparable with other populations not
subjected to trapping. We acknowledge
that sublethal effects of toxicants as well
as a possible increase in exposure to
generalist predators as a result of habitat
modification may result in higher
predation rates than what historically
occurred (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 14).
However, fishers continue to remain
widely distributed across the DPS, there
is recent evidence of population growth
from the NSN subpopulation, and the
EKSA exhibits seemingly normal
variability in spite of these stressors.
Vehicle Collisions
Vehicle-related mortalities make up a
small portion of overall fisher mortality
across California (see General Species
Information and Summary of Threats
above) and particularly in the NCSO
DPS (Service 2016, p. 138). Although
major paved highways with high-speed
traffic occur throughout the DPS,
available records do not indicate
localized areas of concentrated
mortalities that may substantially
decrease local fisher populations.
Hence, we do not consider vehicle
collisions to be a substantial threat to
fishers in the NCSO DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Forest Service (USFS) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29555
it 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.). The NFMA
specifies that the USFS 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.
Additionally, the fisher has been
identified as a sensitive species and a
species of conservation concern by the
USFS, requiring Forest Plans to include
Standards and Guidelines designed to
benefit fisher. Overall, per USFS
guidelines under the NFMA, planning
rules must consider the maintenance of
viable populations of species of
conservation concern.
BLM management is directed by the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1704
et seq.). This legislation provides
direction for resource planning and
establishes that BLM lands shall be
managed under the principles of
multiple use and sustained yield. This
law directs development and
implementation of resource
management plans, which guide
management of BLM lands at the local
level. Fishers are also designated as a
sensitive species on BLM lands.
In addition, the NWFP was adopted
by the USFS and BLM in 1994 to guide
the management of more than 24
million ac (9.7 million ha) of Federal
lands within the range of the northern
spotted owl, which overlaps with
portions of the NCSO DPS of fisher in
Oregon and northwestern California
(USDA and U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) 1994, entire). The NWFP
Record of Decision amended the
management plans of National Forests
and BLM districts and provided the
basis for conservation of the northern
spotted owl and other late-successional
and old-growth forest associated species
on Federal lands. However, in 2016 the
BLM revised their Resource
Management Plan (RMP), replacing
NWFP direction for BLM-administered
lands in western Oregon, totaling
approximately 2.5 million ac (1 million
ha) (BLM 2016a, 2016b, entire). This
RMP affects BLM lands, which are
mostly in the interior portion of the
NCSO DPS in Oregon and portions of
the SOC subpopulation.
Compared with management under
the NWFP, BLM’s revised RMP results
in a decrease in land allocated for
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29556
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
timber harvest, from 28 percent of their
planning area in the Matrix allocation
under NWFP to 20 percent under their
revised RMP. However, volume of
timber harvest is expected to increase to
278 million board feet per year through
the first decade, up from the highest
NWFP annual amount of about 250
million board feet, and the average
NWFP annual amount of 167 (BLM
2015, pp. 350–352). Forest stand
conditions assumed to represent fisher
habitat are expected to decline in the
first two decades under the revised
RMP, similar to projections under the
NWFP. However, by decade three,
habitat is projected to increase under
the revised plan compared to the NWFP
because more fisher habitat is in reserve
allocations under the revised plan (75
percent of fisher habitat on BLM land)
than under the NWFP (49 percent) (BLM
2015, pp. 1,704–1,709). We
acknowledge that a court recently found
that the revised RMP violated statutes
regulating timber harvest by setting
aside timberland in reserves where the
land is not managed for permanent
forest production and the timber is not
sold, cut, and removed in conformity
with the principle of sustained yield;
the decision has been appealed, and
thus the ultimate outcome is as yet
unknown (American Forest Resources
Council, et al., v. Hammond, et al., 2019
WL 6311896 (D.D.C. November 22,
2019) (appeal pending, American Forest
Resources Council, et al. v. United
States, et al., (D.C. Cir., appeal filed
January 24, 2020)). Thus, while we
recognize that timber harvest on BLM
lands could possibly increase in the
future, at this point we use the existing
RMP in our analysis of regulatory
mechanisms.
Federal lands are important for fishers
because they have a network of latesuccessional and old-growth forests that
currently provide habitat for fisher, and
the amounts of fisher habitat are
expected to increase over time. Also, the
National Forest and BLM units with
watersheds inhabited by anadromous
fish provide buffers for riparian reserves
on either side of a stream, depending on
the stream type and size. With limited
exceptions, timber harvesting is not
permitted in riparian reserves, and the
additional protection guidelines
provided by National Forests and BLM
for these areas may provide refugia and
connectivity between blocks of fisher
habitat. Also, under the NWFP, the
USFS, while anticipating losses of latesuccessional and old-growth forests in
the initial decades of plan
implementation, projected that
recruitment would exceed those losses
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
within 50 to 100 years of the 1994
NWFP implementation (Davis et al.
2015, p. 7). Furthermore, BLM, under its
revised management plans, is also
projecting an increase in forest stand
conditions that are assumed to represent
fisher habitat above current conditions
beginning in the third decade of plan
implementation (BLM 2015, p. 875).
National Park Service
Statutory direction for the National
Park Service (NPS) lands within the
NCSO DPS is provided by the
provisions of the National Park Service
Organic Act of 1916, as amended (54
U.S.C. 100101). Land management plans
for the National Parks within Oregon
and California 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 where it is
present.
Tribal Lands
Several tribes within the NCSO DPS
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, but it is
typically 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 under
the Exposure to Toxicants section,
above. In the 2016 final Species Report
(Service 2016, pp. 187–189), 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 2016
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 at
marijuana grow sites within fisher
habitat. Both the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and
California’s Department of Pesticide
Regulation developed an effort to reduce
the risk posed by the availability of
second-generation anticoagulants to
end-users, through the 2008 Risk
Mitigation Decision for Ten
Rodenticides (EPA 2008, entire). This
effort issued new legal requirements for
the labeling, packaging, and sale of
second-generation anticoagulants, and
through a rule effective in July 2014,
restricted access to second-generation
anticoagulants (California Food and
Agricultural Code Section 12978.7).
State Regulatory Mechanisms
Oregon
The fisher is a protected wildlife
species in Oregon, meaning it is illegal
to kill or possess fishers (Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 635–044–
0430). In addition, Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife does not allow
trapping of fishers in Oregon. Although
fishers can be injured and/or killed by
traps set for other species, known fisher
captures are infrequent (Service 2016, p.
126). State parks in Oregon are managed
by the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department, and many State parks in
Oregon provide forested habitats
suitable for fishers.
The Oregon Forest Practice
Administrative Rules (OAR chapter 629,
division 600) and Forest Practices Act
(Oregon Revised Statutes 527.610 to
527.770, 527.990(1) and 527.992) (ODF
2018, 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.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Management of State forest lands is
guided by forest management plans.
Managing for the structural habitats as
described in existing plans should
increase habitat for fishers on State
forests. However, we acknowledge that
the Oregon Department of Forestry
recently lost a lawsuit on its State Forest
Management Plans that could result in
increased timber harvest and reduced
retention or development of forest area
suitable for fishers, but the ultimate
remedy is still unknown. Hence, we
must use the existing plans in our
analysis of regulatory mechanisms.
California
On June 10, 2015, CDFW submitted
its status review of the fisher to the
California Fish and Game Commission
(CFGC), indicating that listing of the
fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as
threatened was warranted, but that
fishers in the Northern California ESU
(similar to the California portion of the
NCSO DPS) were not threatened (CDFW
2015, entire). CFGC made their final
determination to list the Southern Sierra
Nevada ESU as threatened and that
listing the Northern California ESU was
not warranted on April 20, 2016 (CFGC
2016, p. 10). The determination
regarding the Northern California ESU
was made after concluding that the
cumulative effects of threats would not
threaten the continued existence of
fishers due to the size and widespread
distribution of the fisher population in
the ESU (CDFW 2015, p. 141; CFGC
2016, pp. 7–10). Accordingly, the
Northern California ESU is not listed
under the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA), and take as defined
under CESA of the Northern California
ESU is not prohibited. It remains illegal
to intentionally trap fishers in all of
California (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, § 460
2017). Data on incidental captures of
fishers in traps set for other furbearer
species is not available, but the
requirement to use non-body-gripping
traps suggests that most trapped fishers
could be released unharmed (Service
2016, p. 126).
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 NCSO 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
1973, a set of regulations and policies
designed to maintain the economic
viability of the State’s forest products
industry while preventing
environmental degradation. The FPRs
do not contain rules specific to fishers,
but they may provide some protection of
fisher habitat as a result of timber
harvest restrictions.
Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
An intergovernmental memorandum
of understanding (MOU) for fisher
conservation was signed in 2016 by
Federal and State agencies in Oregon
(DOI et al. 2016, entire) to facilitate and
coordinate fisher conservation activities
among the parties, with an expiration
date of April 2021. While we are not
aware of how the MOU might influence
specific projects (affect actual work on
the ground), we consider the facilitation
and coordination of fisher conservation
activities and the projects that follow a
benefit. Multiple interagency MOUs are
also in place in California with the
intention to coordinate and collaborate
on actions that may reduce wildfire risk
across multiple ownerships; actions that
reduce wildfire may also reduce risk to
habitat loss for multiple species
including the fisher. Since the
publication of the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, an interagency MOU
(titled ‘‘Forest Fuels Reduction and
Species Conservation in California’’)
was signed on February 7, 2020, and
amended on February 12, 2020, by the
USFS, the State, small timber
companies, industrial timber
companies, and the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation to facilitate
coordinated actions that may contribute
to fuels reduction efforts and species
conservation across the various land
ownerships between now and December
2024 (USFS et al. 2020, entire). An
addendum was signed on February 12,
2020, adding additional industrial
timber companies and small timber
companies. This MOU supersedes
multiple previous MOUs from 2017 and
2019 for NSO and CSO (USFS 2020, pp.
1, 13–14). Fisher-specific conservation
measures are included in this MOU, in
addition to conservation measures for
the California and northern spotted
owls. The measures promote fisher
occupancy and habitat through
increased resilience and resistance of
habitat from multiple disturbances,
including uncharacteristic wildfire.
More specifically, participants will
implement activities consistent with the
conservation needs of the fisher
including retention of known natal
dens, retention or recruitment of
hardwoods and structurally diverse
forests, retention of shrubs and smaller
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29557
trees in areas with sparse overstory
cover, and avoid poisoning potential
prey species. While the MOU is not
specific to what fuels reduction
measures will take place on the ground,
the MOU will increase the effectiveness
of fuels management by considering
data and information and coordinating
efforts for entire landscapes across
multiple ownerships (USFS et al. 2020,
p. 3).
There are additional MOUs in
California within the range of the NCSO
DPS for wildfire and fuels management,
that have no specific conservation
measures for fisher, but that include
other species that use habitat similar to
those used by fisher (i.e., northern and
California spotted owls). An MOU was
signed in 2015 by multiple conservation
groups, CAL FIRE, two Federal agencies,
and two prescribed fire councils (USFS
et al. 2015). The MOU is titled
‘‘Cooperating for the purpose of
increasing the use of fire to meet
ecological and other management
objectives,’’ and expires on October 7,
2020. The purpose of this MOU is to
document the cooperation between the
parties to increase the use of fire to meet
ecological and other management
objectives. Peripheral to the 2017 MOU
for California spotted owl (that has been
superseded by the 2020 MOU discussed
above), a challenge cost-share agreement
was signed in 2017 by the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, and the USFS,
Pacific Southwest Region, Regional
Office (USFS 2017); the cost share
agreement expires June 29, 2022. The
agreement is titled ‘‘Pacific Southwest
Fuels Management Strategic Investment
Partnership.’’ The purpose of this
agreement is to document the
cooperation between the parties to
implement a hazardous fuels
management program that reduces the
risk of severe wildfire, protects
ecological values, and reduces the
chance of damage to public and private
improvements.
Finally, an MOU was signed in 2019
by small timber companies, industrial
timber companies, CAL FIRE, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
and the USFS, Pacific Southwest
Region, Regional Office (USFS 2019).
The MOU is titled ‘‘Forest Fuels
reduction and species conservation in
California’’ with a focus on the
California spotted owl and expires on
December 31, 2020. The MOU
approximately covers the area occupied
by the NSN subpopulation of fishers in
the NCSO. The purpose of the MOU,
similar to others mentioned, is to
coordinate and share information on
fuels reductions actions across larger
landscapes to provide species
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29558
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
conservation. We cannot find language
indicating that this MOU was
superseded by the 2020 MOU
(discussed above) but many of the same
landowners are part of both MOUs and
much of the intent is the same.
All of these MOUs and the cost-share
agreement provide collaboration
between Federal partners and nongovernmental organizations to
coordinate and fund fuel reduction
projects within the NCSO DPS, which
when implemented could reduce the
impact of large-scale high-severity fire.
So far, we are aware of two fuel
reduction projects that have been
funded as part of the MOUs within the
NCSO DPS, one on the Lassen National
Forest and one on the Six Rivers
National Forest. Finally, many of the
MOUs expire in the near term; however,
we anticipate, based on past track
records to renew and update the MOUs,
continuing collaboration, and because
many of the same partners occur on
multiple MOUs, partnerships resulting
in conservation of fisher habitat will
continue.
A template CCAA for fishers in
western Oregon (81 FR 15737, March
24, 2016) has been published, and we
have negotiated site plans and issued
permits to five private timber entities
(with three more site plans under
review), as well as Oregon Department
of Forestry (84 FR 4851, February 19,
2019; 84 FR 31903, July 3, 2019).
Conservation actions in the CCAA
include protection of occupied den sites
as well as landowner participation and
collaboration with fisher surveys and
research as part of a defined program of
work. To date, permittees have
committed $200,000 in cash or in-kind
support towards this program of work as
part of meeting conservation measures
within the CCAA.
In 2009, a programmatic Safe Harbor
Agreement (SHA) was completed for
northern spotted owls in Oregon (74 FR
35883, July 21, 2009). The agreement
authorizes the ODF to extend incidental
take coverage with assurances through
issuance of Certificates of Inclusion to
eligible, non-Federal landowners who
are willing to carry out habitat
management measures benefitting the
northern spotted owl. The purpose of
the agreement is to encourage nonFederal landowners to create, maintain,
and enhance spotted owl habitat
through forest management, which
would also benefit fishers given the two
species’ use of similar habitat
components.
For the portion of the NCSO DPS in
California, reintroduction efforts have
resulted in establishment of a fisher
subpopulation in the SPI Stirling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Management Unit (NSN) with the
potential to connect with fishers in the
remainder of the NCSO DPS to the
north. In 2016, an approximately 1.6
million-ac (647 thousand-ha) CCAA for
fishers on lands in SPI ownership in the
Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada
mountains was completed (SPI and
Service 2016, entire). This CCAA
encompasses approximately 5 percent of
potentially suitable fisher habitat in the
California portion of the NCSO DPS, 2.7
percent of which is currently occupied.
Implementation and monitoring have
been underway since that time. The
objectives of this CCAA are to secure
general forested habitat conditions for
fishers for a 10-year time period (2016
to 2026) and the retention of important
fisher habitat components (large trees,
hardwoods, and snags) suitable for
denning and resting into the future.
Although this CCAA expires in 6 years,
SPI has a track record of partnering with
the Service and has demonstrated a
commitment to fisher conservation
through the development of this CCAA.
We anticipate at the end of the CCAA,
SPI will continue to conserve fisher.
This conservation could be embodied in
a new or renewed CCAA, or fisher
conservation could be added to an HCP
that is currently in development for
northern and California spotted owls.
In 2019, the Service finalized for the
Green Diamond Forest Resource
Company HCP (GDRC 2018, entire) an
incidental take permit that is
anticipated to provide a conservation
benefit for fishers and their habitat in
Del Norte and Humboldt Counties,
California (portions of forests on the
west slope of the coastal and Klamath
Mountains). Conservation benefits
anticipated by GDRC include (but are
not limited to): Identifying and retaining
fisher denning and resting trees,
including maintaining a 0.25-mi (0.4km) radius no-harvest buffer around
active fisher dens; fisher-proofing water
tanks and pipes; implementing
measures that detect, discourage, and
remove unauthorized marijuana
cultivation and associated pesticide use;
and cooperating with any Federal or
State-approved fisher capture and
relocation/reintroduction recovery
programs (Service 2019a, p. 2).
In 1999, the Service finalized for the
Pacific Lumber Company (now
Humboldt Redwood Company) HCP
(Pacific Lumber Company et al. 1999,
entire) an incidental take permit that
provides a conservation benefit for
fishers and their habitat in Humboldt
County, California. Conservation
benefits include, but are not limited to:
(1) Retention of late-seral habitats that
provide denning and resting habitat for
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fishers, (2) creation of ‘‘channel
migration zones’’ and ‘‘riparian
management zones’’ to provide
connectivity across the landscape, and
(3) retention and recruitment of suitable
habitat structural elements that provide
late-seral habitat features for fishers
when cut stands reach mid-succession.
Resiliency, Redundancy, and
Representation
In this section, we use the
conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to evaluate how the
threats, regulatory mechanisms, and
conservation measures identified above
relate to the current and future
condition of the NCSO DPS.
Resiliency is defined as the ability of
populations to withstand stochastic
events (events arising from random
factors). Measured by the size and
growth rate of populations, resiliency
gauges the probability that the
populations comprising a species (or
DPS) are able to withstand or bounce
back from environmental or
demographic stochastic events.
Redundancy is defined as the ability
of a species (or DPS) to withstand
catastrophic events, and may be
characterized by the degree of
distribution of the species, either as
individuals of a single population or as
multiple populations, within the
species’ ecological settings and across
the species’ range. The greater
redundancy a species exhibits, the
greater the chance that the loss of a
single population (or a portion of a
single population) will have little or no
lasting effect on the structure and
functioning of the species as a whole.
While such a loss would temporarily
‘‘lower’’ the species’ redundancy
relative to any future catastrophic
events (i.e., a second catastrophic event
causing the loss of another population
or portion before the species was able to
bounce back from the first loss), the
higher a species’ initial redundancy, the
greater the likelihood its structure and
functioning as a whole will be restored
before any subsequent catastrophic
events.
Representation is defined as the
ability of a species (or DPS) to adapt to
changing environmental conditions.
Measured by the breadth of genetic or
environmental diversity within and
among populations, representation
gauges the probability that a species is
capable of adapting to environmental
changes.
As noted above, the resiliency of
species’ population(s), and hence an
assessment of the species’ overall
resiliency, can be evaluated by
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
population size and growth rate. While
data on these parameters are often not
readily available, inferences about
resiliency may be drawn from other
demographic measures. In the case of
the NCSO DPS, the population size
component of resiliency for the overall
DPS may be lower than historical levels
to some degree, based simply on
historical losses. However, we also
know that fishers in the DPS have
rebounded from the lows of the earlyand mid-1900s, and continue to remain
widely distributed and common across
the DPS. Furthermore, forest carnivores
generally occur at low densities
(Ruggiero et al. 1994, p. 146), and fisher
density estimates are widely variable for
many reasons, including changes in
prey populations, seasonal changes
caused by pulses in births or mortalities,
and sampling error (Powell and
Zielinski 1994, p. 43). Effective
population size estimates for the
California portion of the DPS do not
indicate that inbreeding depression is
occurring (see Effects Associated with
Small Population Size). This
combination of qualitative demographic
measures (i.e., population rebound from
historic lows, and effective population
size estimates showing no indication of
inbreeding depression), combined with
the widespread distribution of fishers in
the DPS, leads us to conclude that
existing populations have a high level of
resiliency.
Threats that cause losses of
individuals from a population have the
potential to affect the overall resiliency
of that population, and when losses
occur at a scale large enough that the
overall population size and growth rate
are negatively impacted, this could
reduce the population’s ability to
withstand stochastic events. Although
we identify threats acting upon the
NCSO DPS that likely cause losses of
individuals, evaluation of all the
available information relevant to the
demographic condition of the DPS
supports our conclusion of resiliency. In
addition to the analysis outlined above
in this document, we note that in our
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, several of
the threats we evaluated under the
previously singular West Coast DPS
were mostly pertinent in the range of
the SSN DPS. The threats related to
habitat loss from tree mortality,
mortality factors related to disease,
predation, and vehicle collisions, and
the inherent vulnerability associated
with the small population size, are
predominant in the range of the SSN
DPS, but were determined to not be
potentially significant drivers of future
status in the range of the NCSO DPS. As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
such, these threats have limited, or no
impact on the resiliency of the
populations comprising the NCSO DPS.
Further, we point to the evidence of
population resilience exhibited by
aggregates of individuals in specific
geographic areas in the NCSO DPS in
response to known disturbances or
threats. Namely, fishers in the EKSA
were resilient to removal of 20 percent
of the population within the study area,
with no changes in abundance or
density. In addition, the fisher
population at NSN has grown at a near
steady rate since reintroduction in spite
of exposure to toxicants in 11 of 12
tested fishers in the study area (Powell
et al. 2019, p. 16). Overall, the best
available information indicates that,
although the threats acting upon the
DPS result in losses of individual
fishers, the various subpopulations
comprising the NCSO DPS, and hence
the NCSO DPS as a whole, are resilient
and able to withstand stochastic events.
With regard to redundancy, multiple,
interacting populations across a broad
geographic area or a single wide-ranging
population (redundancy) provide
insurance against the risk of extinction
caused by catastrophic events. As was
recognized in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, the NCSO DPS exhibits
redundancy by being well distributed
and common across a broad geographic
range and comprising multiple smaller
subpopulations (i.e., NCSO, NSN, and
SOC) and aggregates of individuals in
geographic areas (i.e., EKSA fishers,
fishers in and around Redwood National
Park, Hoopa fishers, or fishers spread
downslope of the Siskiyou Crest) (see 84
FR at 60299). Consequently, should
catastrophic events such as wildfire
affect a portion of the DPS, substantial
numbers of fishers will still occur
elsewhere in the DPS. While the loss of
a population within the NCSO DPS, or
a substantial portion thereof, would
have the effect of temporarily lowering
the redundancy of the entire DPS, its
current existing redundancy would be
sufficient to allow its structure and
functioning as a whole to be restored.
Remaining fishers would continue to
serve as a source for recolonizing
disturbed areas as they return to fisher
habitat, contributing to the likelihood
that fishers in the DPS will persist into
the future and contribute to the longterm genetic and demographic viability
across the range.
As noted in our 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, fishers in the three west
coast states, including the NCSO DPS,
occur in smaller numbers and a smaller
distribution than historically. This size
and range reduction due to historical
losses results in a consequent reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29559
in representation, relative to that
historical condition. As such, fishers in
the west coast states have a relatively
reduced ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. However,
similarly to our discussion above
regarding resiliency, the predominant
impact of the historical reduction in
representation for west coast fishers is
seen in the SSN DPS. The NCSO DPS,
even with a reduced range relative to
historical conditions, still exhibits a
wide breadth of genetic or
environmental diversity, and thus has
sufficient capacity to withstand future
environmental changes. Fishers in the
DPS display a high degree of
representation, exhibited by the
ecological variability across the DPS.
Fishers are found across multiple
physiographic provinces (a geographic
region with a specific geomorphology)
in the NCSO DPS that represent a wide
variety of forest types and ecological
conditions, from the Coastal California
province that is wetter with lower
elevations and redwood forests, to the
Klamath province with greater forest
diversity and abundant hardwoods,
including several endemic tree and
other plant species, to the Sierra and
Cascade provinces with higher
elevations and forests that have adapted
to colder and drier conditions. Within
the NCSO DPS, fishers have a capacity
to occupy these different provinces and
environments, reflecting an ability to
adapt to changing environmental
conditions, further contributing to longterm viability across their range.
Although genetic diversity among
fishers sampled in northwest California
is low and has been low since preEuropean settlement (Tucker et al. 2012,
p. 8), fishers have rebounded from
substantial population reductions that
resulted from historical trapping and
habitat loss, and although reduced in
population and range size relative to
historical conditions, they are currently
widespread and common across the
DPS.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’
or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines
an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species
that is ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
a species that is ‘‘likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The Act
requires that we determine whether a
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29560
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
species meets the definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species’’ because of any of the following
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Status Throughout All of Its Range
Our regulations direct us to determine
if a species is endangered or threatened
due to any one or a combination of these
five threat factors identified in the Act
(50 CFR 424.11(c)). Our 2016 final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire) is
the most recent detailed compilation of
fisher ecology and life history, and has
a significant amount of analysis related
to the potential impacts of threats
within the NCSO DPS’s range. In
addition, we collected and evaluated
new information available since 2016,
including new information made
available to us during the recent
comment periods in 2019, to ensure a
thorough analysis, as discussed above.
Across the DPS, the actions or
conditions we identified that were
known to or were reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of the DPS
included:
• Habitat-based threats such as highseverity wildfire, wildfire suppression
activities, and post-fire management
actions (Factor A); climate change
(Factor E); tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation (Factor
A); vegetation management (Factor A);
and human development (Factor A).
• Direct mortality-based threats
including trapping and incidental
capture (Factor B); research activities
(Factor B); disease or predation (factor
C); collision with vehicles (Factor E);
exposure to toxicants (Factor E); and the
potential for effects associated with
small population size (Factor E).
With the exception of trapping for
fishers, which is no longer a lawful
activity in the range of the NCSO DPS,
all of these identified threats have the
potential to negatively affect fishers,
either through direct impacts to
individual animals or to the resources
they need. Regarding incidental capture
resulting from legal trapping for other
species, it is either very rare (Service
2016, p. 126) or has a low chance of
causing injury (through use of live
traps). Regarding the remainder of
threats, we note that the extent and
magnitude of them vary, relative to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
distribution of the DPS across its range
(i.e., not all threats affect every fisher).
In conducting our status assessment
of the DPS, we evaluate all identified
threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors,
and attempt to assess how the
cumulative impact of all threats acts on
the viability of the DPS as a whole. That
is, all the anticipated effects from both
habitat-based and direct mortality-based
threats are examined in total and then
evaluated in the context of what those
combined negative effects will mean to
the future condition of the DPS.
However, for the vast majority of
potential threats, the effect on the DPS
(e.g., total losses of individual fishers or
their habitat) cannot be quantified with
available information. Instead, we use
the best available information to gauge
the magnitude of each individual threat
on the DPS, and then assess how those
effects combined (and as may be
ameliorated by any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts)
will impact the DPS’s future viability.
Based on our understanding of the
available information indicating the
potential magnitude and scale of how
all identified threats may affect the DPS,
we began under the premise that those
with the greatest potential to become
significant drivers of the future status of
the NCSO DPS were: Wildfire and
wildfire suppression; tree mortality
from drought, disease, and insect
infestation; the potential for climate
change to exacerbate both wildfire and
tree mortality; threats related to
vegetation management; and exposure
to toxicants. The available information
about the remaining threats from the list
identified above indicated a lower
potential for becoming significant
drivers.
After conducting our analyses on all
these threats, we found that the NCSO
DPS as a whole will experience:
• Changing climate conditions, likely
in the manner of becoming generally
warmer and drier, with subsequent
potential to affect habitat conditions for
fisher, as well as the potential for
increased stress levels in individual
fishers. However, these potential
reactions to changing climate conditions
will likely vary across the DPS, due to
the DPS’s wide variety of topography
and vegetation in its physiographic
provinces, and unpredictable variability
in how these provinces will respond to
the changing climate conditions.
• Increased potential for wildfire
frequency and intensity, influenced by
changing climate conditions. Wildfire,
while having the potential to cause
significant losses of fishers and their
habitat resources where fires occur, is
sporadic and episodic across the DPS,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and moderated by the slope and aspect
of terrain (e.g., influencing
susceptibility to wildfire, and creating a
mosaic of fire severity) throughout the
range.
• Low likelihood of widespread tree
mortality resulting from climateinfluenced susceptibility to diseases or
insect infestations, similarly moderated
by the slope and aspect of terrain.
• Limited exposure to potential
effects from vegetation management
actions. Although fishers may
experience localized fragmentation of
habitat conditions or an increased risk
of predation where vegetation
management actions will occur, the
available information indicates only a
small proportion of the suitable habitat
in the DPS’s range is likely to undergo
these actions.
• Some continued level of exposure
to toxicants from illegal marijuana grow
sites. Such sites are generally widely
dispersed within remote landscapes
across the NCSO DPS range, suggesting
potential significant exposure to fishers
is limited to where the grow sites are
located. However, where they do occur
within fisher ranges, illegally used
toxicants have the potential to harm
those exposed individual fishers. While
there is no certain discernible trend
regarding whether illegal grow sites may
increase or decrease as a result of
marijuana legalization, it will still likely
take many years before the currently
existing sites can be found and
remediated.
• Some continued level of risk
regarding both the effects associated
with small population size (e.g.,
inbreeding depression) and the general
risk of extinction. As we have described
herein and previously, the NCSO DPS is
isolated from other fisher populations,
and small relative to the taxon as a
whole. As such, the risks of smallpopulation-size effects and of extinction
exist. However, the broad distribution of
the DPS across its range, in combination
with the DPS occurring in multiple
subpopulations with no barriers to
genetic exchange within and between
those subpopulations, and the low
likelihood of a catastrophic event at a
scale that could hypothetically affect the
entire DPS, indicates that the risks of
small-population-size effects and of
extinction are very low.
• Potentially increased incidences of
predation in localized settings (e.g.,
vegetation management action sites),
and continued low incidences of
collisions with vehicles. Both of these
threats are likely to continue, but likely
accounting for losses of only small
numbers of individuals.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
• No change in normal incidence of
disease across the range.
In summary, the NCSO DPS will
experience mortality and sublethal
effects to individual fishers across the
range from the combined threats of
changing climate conditions, wildfire
and wildfire suppression activities,
exposure to toxicants, predation, and
collisions with vehicles. Localized
effects to fisher habitat resources may
also occur as a result of future tree
mortality events or vegetation
management actions, although these
will have a low likelihood of causing
individual fisher losses. All these effects
will be in addition to any mortalities or
sublethal effects the DPS would
typically experience from things such as
age or disease.
At the same time as we conduct our
evaluation of threats to the DPS, we also
assessed how any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts are
likely to eliminate or ameliorate the
effects of those threats on the DPS. We
provided our analyses of existing
regulatory conservation measures and
voluntary conservations efforts above in
this document. In that discussion, we
identified a number of measures that are
likely to provide benefits to the DPS,
either directly or indirectly, in the
manner of maintaining or improving
habitat conditions. Federal and State
agency management plans involving
forest management, while designed, in
part, for the harvesting of timber, also
include provisions for the long-term
maintenance of those forests, providing
for the retention of forest habitat and
structural elements beneficial to fishers.
We also describe regulatory mechanisms
at both the State and Federal level
designed to minimize the potential for
nontarget poisoning by pesticides, as
well as State and voluntary efforts to
remediate illegal marijuana sites
contaminated by rodenticides. In
addition, implementation of existing
conservation measures in the form of a
recently signed MOU will improve
communication and coordination
surrounding the implementation of fuels
reduction projects, which in turn may
help to ameliorate the loss of habitat
due to wildfire. While the MOU is not
specific to what fuels reduction projects
will take place on the ground or where,
the MOU will increase the effectiveness
of fuels management by considering
data and information for entire
landscapes across multiple ownerships.
This process will contribute to the
vegetation management threat in the
form of removing fisher habitat in the
short or long term, depending on the
treatment. However, by retaining
structural elements important to fishers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
and their prey, the treatments are
expected to reduce the risk of fisher
habitat loss to severe wildfires over an
area much larger than the treatment
footprint.
As noted earlier, no information is
available that would allow us to
quantify either the cumulative effect of
the identified threats on the DPS, or the
cumulative effect of existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts to
ameliorate the effects of those threats.
However, in evaluating the anticipated
impact of both in total, we find that the
sum of effects to the DPS are such that:
The resiliency of the various
subpopulations, and hence the DPS as a
whole, will not be significantly
negatively affected; its representation,
i.e., its breadth of genetic and
environmental diversity, will not be
reduced; and its redundancy will
remain as it currently is, with multiple
subpopulations distributed across a
substantial range of habitat.
Upon careful consideration and
evaluation of all of the information
before us, we have analyzed the status
of fishers within the NCSO DPS. In our
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we
evaluated the status of the West Coast
DPS, the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
combined, and concluded that both the
NCSO and SSN were reduced in size
from historical conditions, and that
threats were acting on fishers across the
range of both. However, we also noted
that the distribution of threats and their
effects, both singly and cumulatively,
were likely unequal in magnitude and
scale across the full landscape. While
multiple threats such as wildfire and
wildfire suppression activities, climate
change, exposure to toxicants,
predation, and vehicle collisions will
continue to occur within the range of
the NCSO DPS, we conclude that the
cumulative effect of threats acting on
the DPS now, at their current scale and
magnitude, does not cause the DPS to be
in danger of extinction throughout its
range, especially given the DPS’s overall
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. In addition, we conclude
that the identified threats will not
increase in scale or magnitude in the
foreseeable future such that the DPS
will become in danger of extinction
throughout its range. Thus, after
assessing the best available scientific
and commercial information, we
determine that the NCSO DPS of fishers
is not in danger of extinction throughout
its range, nor likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29561
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Having determined
that the NCSO DPS of fisher is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we now consider
whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in a significant
portion of its range. The range of a
species or DPS can theoretically be
divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways, so we first screen the
potential portions of the range to
determine if there are any portions that
warrant further consideration. To do the
‘‘screening’’ analysis, we ask whether
there are portions of the DPS’s range for
which there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portion may be
significant; and (2) the species may be,
in that portion, either in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. For a particular
portion, if we cannot answer both
questions in the affirmative, then that
portion does not warrant further
consideration and the species does not
warrant listing because of its status in
that portion of its range. Conversely, we
emphasize that answering both of these
questions in the affirmative is not a
determination that the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future throughout
a significant portion of its range—rather,
it is a threshold step to determine
whether a more detailed analysis of the
issue is required.
If we answer these questions in the
affirmative, we then conduct a more
thorough analysis to determine whether
the portion does indeed meet both of the
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ prongs:
(1) The portion is significant and (2) the
species is, in that portion, either in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future.
Confirmation that a portion does indeed
meet one of these prongs does not create
a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species
is an endangered species or threatened
species. Rather, we must then undertake
a more detailed analysis of the other
prong to make that determination. Only
if the portion does indeed meet both
prongs would the species warrant listing
because of its status in a significant
portion of its range.
At both stages in this process—the
stage of screening potential portions to
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29562
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
identify any that warrant further
consideration, and the stage of
undertaking the more detailed analysis
of any portions that do warrant further
consideration—it might be more
efficient for us to address the
‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’
question first. Our selection of which
question to address first for a particular
portion depends on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces. Regardless of which question we
address first, if we reach a negative
answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the second question for that
portion of the species’ range.
For the NCSO DPS, we chose to
address the status question (i.e.,
identifying portions where the DPS may
be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future)
first. To conduct this screening, we
considered whether any of the threats
acting on the DPS are geographically
concentrated in any portion of the range
at a biologically meaningful scale (e.g.,
there are novel threats not seen
elsewhere in the DPS; there is a greater
concentration or intensity of threats,
relative to the same threats seen
elsewhere in the range; or there is a
disproportionate response to the threats
by the individuals in a portion of the
range, relative to individuals in the
remainder of the range).
In our assessment of the NCSO DPS’s
overall status, we evaluated throughout
its range all of the threats identified in
our Species Report, including those
with the potential to become significant
drivers of the DPS’s future status: Highseverity wildfire, wildfire suppression
activities, and post-fire management
actions (Factor A); climate change
(Factor A); tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation (Factor
A); vegetation management (Factor A);
exposure to toxicants (Factor E); and
potential effects associated with small
population size (Factor E). As we
conducted our threats analysis, we
determined that the most significant
drivers of the NCSO DPS’s future status
were: Wildfire and wildfire suppression,
and the potential for climate change to
exacerbate this threat, as well as the
threats related to vegetation
management and exposure to toxicants.
However, for the purposes of our SPR
analysis, we examined the entirety of
the DPS to evaluate whether there may
be a geographic concentration of any of
the identified threats in any portion of
the range at a biologically meaningful
scale.
We found no concentration of any of
these threats in any portion of the NCSO
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
DPS’s range at a biologically meaningful
scale. While high-severity wildfires, and
associated suppression activities and
post-fire management, act in a sitespecific manner, the occurrence of them
in the DPS’s range is random (i.e., not
geographically concentrated in any
portion), and we cannot predict the
portions within the range of the NCSO
DPS where these may occur. Similarly,
climate change, and its associated
influence on the potential threat of
wildfires, will largely act throughout the
NCSO DPS range. All other potential
threats either present a risk of
manifesting randomly in small,
localized places across the range (e.g.,
toxicant exposure, disease or predation,
and vehicle collisions), or manifesting
in a focused manner, but still having
only localized, site-specific effects (e.g.,
vegetation management). Regarding
small population size, the potential for
negative effects can arise in portions of
a species’ range in instances where there
are small, isolated aggregations of
individuals. However, there is no
evidence to suggest that there are any
areas within the NCSO DPS that are
experiencing the deleterious effects
associated with a small population size.
If both (1) a species is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range and (2) the threats to the
species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, then the species
cannot be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in any biologically meaningful
portion of the DPS. For the NCSO DPS,
we found both: The DPS is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future throughout its
range, and there is no geographical
concentration of threats within the DPS
at a biologically meaningful scale, so the
threats to the DPS are essentially
uniform throughout its range. Therefore,
we determine, based on this screening
analysis, that no portions warrant
further consideration through a more
detailed analysis, and the DPS is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range. Our
approach to analyzing significant
portions of the DPS’s range in this
determination is consistent with the
court’s holding in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, No. 16–cv–
01165–JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 24, 2018); Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946,
959 (D. Ariz. 2017); and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL
437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the NCSO DPS of fisher
does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 3(19) of the Act. Therefore, we find
that listing the NCSO DPS of fisher is
not warranted at this time.
Final Listing Determination for SSN
Current Condition
The SSN DPS of fisher is small and is
geographically separated from the
remainder of the species as described
above in the DPS section. While this
DPS has persisted in isolation since
prior to European settlement (Knaus et
al. 2011, entire), the DPS has recently
experienced substantial loss of habitat
and increase in habitat fragmentation
following the 2012–2015 drought
(Thompson et al. 2019a, pp. 8–9). This
period of drought and associated insect
infestation, fire, and tree mortality has
resulted in a 39 percent decline in fisher
foraging and denning habitat in the SSN
DPS in a period of 5 years (Thompson
et al. 2019a, pp. 8–9). The remaining
habitat is much more fragmented (74
habitat patches prior to the drought
compared with 558 following the
drought), and the average patch size of
remaining habitat for the SSN DPS is 92
percent smaller than prior to the 2012–
2015 drought (Thompson et al. 2019a,
pp. 8–9).
The SSN DPS is found in Mariposa,
Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern
Counties in California. Historically, the
SSN DPS likely extended farther north,
but may have contracted due to
unregulated trapping, predator-control
efforts, habitat loss and fragmentation,
or climatic changes. Today the
approximate northern boundary is the
Tuolumne River in Yosemite National
Park (Mariposa County) and 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 DPS from other
populations of native fishers to the
north in California is longstanding and
predates European settlement (Knaus et
al. 2011, entire; Tucker et al. 2012,
entire; Tucker 2015, pers. comm., pp. 1–
2). Ownership within the SSN DPS is
shown in Table 3 below.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
29563
TABLE 3—LAND OWNERSHIP OR MANAGEMENT FOR THE SOUTHERN SIERRA NEVADA DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF
FISHER
Agency
Acres
Percent
of total
Bureau of Land Management ..................................................................................................................................
Forest Service ..........................................................................................................................................................
Bureau of Indian Affairs ...........................................................................................................................................
National Park Service ..............................................................................................................................................
State and Local ........................................................................................................................................................
Private ......................................................................................................................................................................
916,152
3,637,488
56,003
1,337,482
42,123
3,099,276
9.8
39.0
0.6
14.4
0.5
33.3
Total Acres * .....................................................................................................................................................
9,318,596
100.0
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
* Acres and % may not sum due to rounding and because some other owners with less land are not included.
Estimates for the SSN DPS prior to the
2012–2015 drought 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 habitat availability at the time
(Spencer et al. 2016, p. 44). Other
population estimates are: (1) 125–250
adult fishers based on fisher carrying
capacity in currently occupied areas
(Spencer et al. 2011, p. 788); and (2)
fewer than 300 adult fishers or 276–359
fishers that include juveniles and
subadults based on extrapolation from
portions of the DPS where fishers have
been intensely studied to the range of
the entire population (Spencer et al.
2011, pp. 801–802). These population
estimates pre-date the 2012–2015
drought and subsequent habitat loss and
fragmentation; these drought-related
effects may have caused population
declines since the population estimates
of the early 2000’s.
An 8-year monitoring study
throughout the SSN DPS sampled an
average of 139.5 units (range 90–189)
comprising six baited track plate
stations per year during the period
2002–2009 throughout the SSN DPS
showed no declining trend in
occupancy (Zielinski et al. 2013, pp. 3–
4, 10–14; Tucker 2013, pp. 82, 86–91).
Recent analyses conducted over a 14year period (2002–2015) showed that
occupancy rates in 2015 were not
statistically different from 2002,
although rates dipped slightly from
2005–2011 (Tucker 2019 pers. comm.).
Although occupancy patterns show no
declining trends, these analyses do not
provide details on demographic rates,
such as survival and recruitment that
provide more detailed information on
population growth rates, size, or status.
As with the population estimates
described above, these patterns in
occupancy were calculated prior to the
2012–2015 drought and subsequent 39
percent reduction in foraging and
denning habitat and associated habitat
fragmentation. It is unknown how
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
occupancy and survival across the range
of the SSN DPS of fisher have changed
in response to these changes in their
habitat.
Another study (the Sierra Nevada
Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP
Fisher Project)) of radio-collared fishers
monitored from 2007 through 2014 in
the northern portion of the SSN DPS on
49 mi2 (128 km2) of the Sierra National
Forest showed the survival rate
(calculated using demographic
parameters) of adult males, but not
females, is lower than sites in the NCSO
DPS. Specifically, Sweitzer et al. stated
that their analysis ‘‘suggested slightly
negative growth (l = 0.966) for the
period of the research. The upper range
for l (1.155) was well above 1.0,
however, suggesting stability or growth
in some years. The estimated range for
l was consistent with the estimated
population densities, which did not
indicate a persistent decline during 4
years from 2008–2009 to 2011–2012’’
(Sweitzer et al. 2015a pp. 781–783;
Sweitzer et al. 2015b, p. 10).
Additionally, the SNAMP Fisher Project
(later called Sugar Pine) was extended
through 2017. They reanalyzed the data
for radio-collared fishers monitored
from 2007 through 2017 (totaling 139
collared fishers) and concluded the
population was stable with an estimated
lambda of 0.99 (C.I. 0.826 to 1.104)
based on female fisher survival rates
(Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 5–6, 17). These
population estimates for the SSN DPS
do not take into consideration the
extensive tree mortality, habitat loss,
and fragmentation that has impacted
habitat from 2015 to present. Research
is currently being conducted to
determine any potential effects that tree
mortality may have on fisher in the SSN
DPS, but results are not yet available
(Green et al. 2019a, entire).
Extensive areas of suitable habitat
within the SSN DPS remain unoccupied
by fishers, suggesting that habitat may
not be the only limiting factor for this
DPS (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 9). In the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
SSN DPS, the northern portion of the
Stanislaus National Forest is largely
unoccupied, with at least one confirmed
detection north of the Merced River in
Yosemite National Park and the
Stanislaus National Forest (Stock 2020,
pers. comm.). The interaction of all the
threats within the SSN DPS are likely
limiting northward expansion into what
is considered suitable habitat for fisher.
Fisher habitat is lacking landscape-scale
forest heterogeneity in the SSN DPS
compared to historical conditions, with
wildfire and severe drought
disturbances creating large patches of
homogeneous habitat, a situation
exacerbated by past logging practices
and wildfire suppression (Thompson et
al. 2019a, p. 13).
Recent habitat changes from drought,
wildfire, and associated tree mortality
are affecting many of the key
components of fisher habitat such as
complex forest canopy structure and
connected closed-canopy forest
conditions. Only preliminary analyses
have been completed with updated
vegetation information from 2016,
revealing that almost 40 percent
(reduction of 2.3 million acres to 1.4
million acres) of potential fisher
foraging habitat has been lost to
drought, insects and tree diseases, and
wildfire between 2014 and 2016
(Thompson et al. 2019a, pp. 7–8). The
spatial configuration of fisher foraging
habitat also changed, with patch
number increasing from 74 to 558 and
patch size declining from 31,500 ac
(12,748 ha) to 2,600 ac (1,052 ha),
indicating a significantly more
fragmented landscape (Thompson et al.
2019a, p. 8). Within the same affected
area (i.e., not an additive loss), denning
habitat availability also declined by
almost 40 percent and overall patch size
declined from 3,169 ac (1,283 ha) to
2,868 ac (1,161 ha) (Thompson et al.
2019a, p. 9). Current efforts are
underway to incorporate the most recent
and precise vegetation data into a full
revision of the SSN Fisher Conservation
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29564
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Strategy in 2020 (Thompson 2020, pers.
comm.).
The major threats for the SSN DPS are
loss and fragmentation of habitat
resulting from climate change, highseverity wildfire and wildfiresuppression activities, vegetation
management, and forest insects and tree
diseases, as well as direct impacts that
include high mortality rates from
predation, exposure to toxicants, and
potential effects associated with small
population size. Potential conservation
measures are discussed in more detail in
Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
below, and include the development of
the Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher
Conservation Strategy (Spencer et al.
2016, entire) and the associated interim
guidelines that consider the recent tree
mortality (Thompson et al. 2019a,
entire).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Threats
Potential threats currently acting
upon the SSN DPS of fisher or likely to
affect the species in the future are
evaluated and addressed in the final
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53–
162). Our most recent consideration of
new data since 2016 coupled with our
reevaluation of the entirety of the best
available scientific and commercial
information (including comments and
information received during the two
comment periods associated with the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule) is
represented and summarized here.
As we conducted our threats analysis,
we determined that the most significant
drivers of the species’ future status
were: Wildfire and wildfire suppression,
tree mortality from drought, disease,
and insect infestation, and the potential
for climate change to exacerbate both of
these threats, as well as the threats
related to vegetation management,
exposure to toxicants, disease or
predation, collisions with vehicles, and
the potential for effects from small
population size. While our assessment
of the species’ status was based on the
cumulative impact of all identified
threats, as explained above, we are only
presenting our analyses on these
specific primary threat drivers for the
purposes of this final rule. For detailed
analyses of all the other individual
threats, we refer the reader to the
Species Report (Service 2016, entire).
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
Wildfire is a natural ecological
process in the range of the SSN DPS;
however, the mean proportion of highseverity fire and patch size has shifted
compared to historical conditions
(Safford and Stevens 2017, p. viii.) with
increases in the frequency of large
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
wildfires greater than 24,700 acres
(9,996 (ha) (Westerling 2016, pp. 6–7).
Changes in future climate continue to
predict large increases in the area
burned by wildfire (Dettinger et al.
2018, p. 72). We expect these predicted
changes to the fire regime to further
reduce the habitat available for fisher in
the SSN DPS (see Climate Change
section for further detail on future
conditions). We recognize there are
mixed findings as to whether current
conditions are outside of the natural
range of variation and wildfire severity
is increasing (Mallek et al. 2013, pp. 11–
17; Stephens et al. 2015, pp. 12–16;
Hanson and Odion 2016, pp. 12–17;
Odion et al. 2016, entire; Spies et al.
2018, p. 140), but the scientific
consensus accepts that mixed conifer
forests were characterized by areas
burned at low, moderate, and high
severity, with higher proportions of low
severity prior to European settlement
than is currently being observed on the
landscape (Safford and Stevens 2017,
pp. 48–50).
Recent analyses show habitat loss
from high-severity fire throughout the
SSN DPS (Thompson et al. 2019a, p.
10). For this new analysis of effects of
wildfire on fisher habitat in the
southern Sierra Nevada, high-severityfire data was analyzed from 2003 to
2017 (CBI 2019a, pp. 26–28) and
showed a loss of fisher denning (8.5
percent), resting (9.3 percent), and
foraging (7.6 percent) habitat of
approximately 25 percent, with most of
the loss occurring between 2013 and
2017 (approximately 22 percent) (CBI
2019a, p. 28). However, some areas of
denning, resting, and foraging habitat
overlap each other, so the total amount
of habitat lost to high-severity fire is
likely less than 25 percent. In addition,
the wildfires occurring on the Sierra and
Sequoia National Forests bisected and
disrupted connectivity between—or
reduced the overall size of—key core
areas as identified in the SSN fisher
conservation strategy, likely inhibiting
northward population expansion
(Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10; CBI 2019a,
pp. 26–28). It is uncertain how fishers
are using this changed landscape.
Prior to these substantial habitat
changes as a result of recent fire, fishers
persisted in burned landscapes
characterized by lower fire severities
that maintained habitat elements
important to fisher. For example, the
northern portion of the SSN DPS had
lower fisher occupancy in units burned
by either prescribed burning or wildfire
but less than 1 percent of the study area
burned; however, there was no
consistent negative effect of fire on
fisher’s use of habitat (Sweitzer et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2016b, pp. 208, 214, and 221–222).
Results of modeling the variables of
forest structure important to fishers for
denning habitat on the Sierra National
Forest and Yosemite National Park
suggest that suitable denning habitat is
maintained in burned forests, though
primarily those with low-severity
wildfire conditions, as less than 5
percent of areas burned at high severity
were associated with a high probability
of fisher den presence (Blomdahl 2018,
entire). Thus, forests that burn at lower
fire intensities can create important
habitat elements for fisher (e.g., den
trees) within a home range such that the
burned habitat may continue to support
both fisher foraging and reproduction.
Fisher avoided areas affected by highand moderate-severity wildfires in the
French (2014) and Aspen Fires (2013),
and there was a higher probability of
finding fishers in ravines or canyon
bottoms in combination with unburned
or lightly burned patches (Thompson et
al. 2019a, pp. 13–14). In our final
Species Report we reported fisher use of
areas affected by high-severity fire
(Hanson 2015, p. 500; Service 2016, p.
66), so results from these studies may
differ due to the type of analysis used,
the values chosen to identify wildfire
severity classes, or the 2–4 year v. 10year post-wildfire sampling period
(Thompson et al. 2019a, pp. 15–18).
Without demographic data on age class,
survival, or reproduction, it is difficult
to say with certainty whether fisher use
of post-wildfire landscapes is for
dispersal or whether such areas act as
population sinks (Thompson et al.
2019a, pp. 17–18).
As stated above, wildfire has already
resulted in habitat loss and is increasing
in terms of frequency, severity, and
magnitude in the Sierra Nevada. We
conclude that if the severity and extent
of wildfires are such that substantial
areas of canopy and large trees are lost,
multiple decades of forest growth and
structural development are necessary for
those burned areas to support fisher
reproduction. Therefore, based on the
research and data currently available (as
described above and in Service 2014, p.
64; Sequoia Forest Keeper 2019, pers.
comm.; Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10), large
high-severity fires that kill trees and
significantly reduce canopy cover in
fisher habitat (of high and intermediate
quality) are likely to negatively affect
fisher occupancy and reproduction. The
degree to which wildfire affects fisher
populations depends on the forest type,
landscape location, patch configuration,
size, and intensity of the wildfire.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Climate Change
In the Sierra Nevada region, mean
annual temperatures have generally
increased by around 1 to 2.5 degrees °F
(0.5 to 1.4 °C) over the past 75–100 years
(Safford et al. 2012, p. 25). By the end
of the 21st century, temperatures are
projected to warm within the SSN DPS
by 6 to 9 °F (3.3 to 5 °C) on average,
enough to raise the transition from snow
to rain during a storm by about 1,500 to
3,000 ft (457 to 914 m) (Dettinger et al.
2018, p. 5). In addition, California
recently experienced extreme drought
conditions due to lack of precipitation
in the periods 2007–2009 and 2012–
2014 (Williams et al. 2015, pp. 6,823–
6,824). Climate change likely
contributed to the 2012–2014 drought
anomaly and increases the overall
likelihood of drier conditions, including
extreme droughts, within the SSN DPS
into the future (Williams et al. 2015, pp.
6,819, 6,826; Bedsworth et al. 2018, p.
25).
The observed increases in wildfire
activity and tree mortality in the SSN
DPS are partially due to climate change.
The red fir forests in the SSN DPS,
currently found at the upper edge of
fisher elevation range, are expected to
have more frequent fire with species
composition shifting to more fire-prone
species, but it is unclear whether these
forests will become more central to the
range of fisher with warming climate
conditions or if it will remain on the
elevation edge of the SSN DPS (Restaino
and Safford 2018, p. 497; Service 2016,
pp. 87, 138–139). Climate change will
likely continue to increase treemortality events into the future because
drought conditions will increase, which
will continue to weaken trees and make
them susceptible to bark beetles and
disease (Millar and Stephenson 2015,
pp. 823–826; Young et al. 2017, pp. 78,
85).
Overall, at this time, the best available
scientific and commercial information
suggests that changing climate
conditions (particularly increasing air
temperatures coupled with prolonged
and more frequent drought conditions)
are exacerbating other threats to the
fishers and their habitat within the SSN
DPS, including high-severity wildfires,
and tree mortality. Please see additional
discussion about potential impacts to
fishers or their habitat associated with
wildfire (Wildfire and Wildfire
Suppression section, above) and tree
mortality (Tree Mortality from Drought,
Disease, and Insect Infestation section,
below).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Tree Mortality From Drought, Disease,
and Insect Infestation
The recent drought and subsequent
beetle outbreak in the Southern Sierra
Nevada from 2012 to 2015 is one of the
most severe and largest beetle outbreaks
in recent decades (Fettig et al. 2019, p.
176). Over half of the potential fisher
habitat in the SSN DPS has been
significantly impacted by canopy loss
from tree mortality, which is
disproportionately affecting the largest
conifer trees and which are most likely
to serve as den or rest trees for fisher
(CBI 2019a, pp. 3–9, 29; Fettig et al.
2019, pp. 167–168). Although fisher
often use hardwoods for denning and
resting, conifers appear to be more
important for denning and resting in the
SSN DPS than other fisher populations,
and overall den-tree size is much larger
than other portions of the fisher range,
so the loss of large trees has the
potential to disproportionately alter den
availability in the landscape (Green et
al. 2019c, p. 139). Drought effects on
more than 6 million hectares of forest in
California occurred over a multiyear
period from 2011 through 2015, and
more than 500 million large trees have
been affected, primarily from canopy
water content loss, with some of the
largest impacts to forested areas within
the range of the SSN DPS (Asner et al.
2016, p. E252). These trees, spread over
millions of hectares of forest, are more
vulnerable in future droughts, likely
resulting in death and altering future
forest structure, composition, and
function (Asner et al. 2016, p. E253;
Fettig et al. 2019, p. 176).
Limited information is available on
the direct impacts to fisher from tree
mortality; however, the combination of
drought, forest insects, disease, and fire
has led to a 39 percent decrease in
available foraging and denning habitat
along with a substantial increase in
habitat fragmentation and 92 percent
reduction in average habitat patch size.
Both of these effects occurred over a
period of approximately 5 years
(Thompson et al. 2019b, pp. 8–9). The
habitat changes associated with drought,
forest insects, disease, and fire may
result in increased use of areas by large
predators that in turn could increase
predation rates on fisher (Thompson et
al. 2019b, p. 15; also see Predation and
Disease, above in the General Species
Information and Summary of Threats
section, above). The usual patterns of
localized outbreaks and low density of
tree-consuming insects and tree diseases
are beneficial and can create snags,
providing structures conducive to rest
and den site use by fishers or their prey.
The large-scale beetle kill is concerning
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29565
because USFS personnel are already
reporting snag failures, indicating these
snags may fall at a faster rate than other
methods of snag creation (e.g., wind,
fire, age; Larvie et al. 2019, p. 11).
Further, large, area-wide epidemics of
forest disease and insect outbreaks may
displace fishers if canopy cover is lost
and salvage and thinning prescriptions
in response to outbreaks degrade the
habitat (Naney et al. 2012, p. 36; Tucker
2019, pers. comm.).
Preliminary information in the SSN
DPS indicates fishers are avoiding areas
with tree mortality and are more likely
to be found in areas close to streams,
drainages, and ravines where tree
mortality effects were dampened (Green
et al. 2019a, entire). In addition,
increased tree mortality on the
landscape may be associated with
reduced female fisher survival within
the SSN population due to increased
stress hormones (cortisol) (Kordosky
2019, pp. 31–34, 36–40, 54–61, 65–68,
94); however, reduced fisher survival is
also likely influenced by other factors.
Although other studies indicate fishers
tolerate certain levels of canopy loss in
small-scale projects, fisher response to
tree mortality may have been influenced
by the large scale of the tree-mortality
event (Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 16).
Loss of canopy cover and large trees
from tree mortality caused by insects
and tree diseases likely reduces habitat
suitability for fishers, but it is unknown
if the level of habitat loss will
significantly impact the SSN DPS
throughout its range. Although fishers
are using riparian areas with intact
forest canopy, it is uncertain how
patches with sufficient canopy cover are
connected in this changing landscape. It
is likely that tree mortality will continue
to be a threat into the future due to
predicted increases in drought
conditions that will likely continue to
weaken trees and make them
susceptible to bark beetles and disease
(Millar and Stephenson 2015, pp. 823–
826; Young et al. 2017, pp. 78, 85);
therefore, we expect continued loss and
fragmentation of remaining habitat
across the range of the SSN DPS of
fisher.
Vegetation Management
In the SSN DPS, we approximated
fisher habitat change using a vegetation
trend analysis to track changes in forests
with large structural conditions thought
to be associated with fisher habitat
(Service 2016, pp. 98–101). Available
data limited us to using predefined
structure conditions describing forests
with larger trees (greater than 20 in (50
cm)), although we realize this sample
may not include all vegetation types
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29566
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
used by fishers. This analysis showed
that net loss of forests with larger
structural conditions in the SSN DPS
from 1993 to 2012 was 6.2 percent
across all ownerships, which equates to
a loss of 3.1 percent per decade.
In the single analysis where fisher
habitat was actually modeled and
tracked through time for the SSN DPS,
ingrowth of fisher habitat replaced
habitat lost by all disturbances between
1990 and 2012, showing a net increase
in fisher habitat at the female-homerange scale, albeit this net increase is
less than 8 percent over 30 years
(Spencer et al. 2016, pp. 44, A–21, A–
26). However, the authors of this report
have since cautioned that these
conclusions may no longer be accurate
based on the ‘‘dramatic changes [that]
have occurred in Sierra Nevada mixed
conifer forests due to drought and
extraordinary tree mortality’’ from the
2012–2015 drought (Spencer et al. 2017,
p. 1). Consequently, they recommended
delaying application of habitatconservation targets until vegetation
data can be updated and fisher habitat
condition reassessed (Spencer et al.
2017, pp. 1–2). Hence, although our
earlier analysis concluded that fisher
habitat in the SSN DPS may be
increasing, we can no longer support
that conclusion based on recent tree
mortality.
Vegetation management that
maintains structural complexity and
canopy cover that reflect pretreatment
conditions may only have a minor
impact on fisher use of these habitats
(Purcell et al. 2018, p. 60). Overall,
vegetation management may result in
short-term avoidance of fuels reduction
treatments, with no longer term shift in
fisher behavior, but likely depends on
the amount treated each year (Purcell et
al. 2018, p. 69).
On all ownerships combined, loss of
forest with old-forest structures in the
past two decades (1993–2012) was 3.1
percent per decade as a result of all
disturbance types within the SSN DPS.
Additionally, fisher habitat appeared to
be increasing until recent (2012–2015)
tree mortality due to fires and drought.
However, it is difficult to conclude the
degree to which vegetation management
threatens fishers in the SSN DPS. Given
the large home range of fishers and the
geographic extent of forest-management
activities throughout the range of the
SSN DPS, some fisher individuals are
likely affected as a result of habitat
impacts (e.g., Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 60–
61). In addition, still other factors
unrelated to habitat may be limiting
fisher distribution. Consequently, based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
vegetation management effects to fisher
will depend on the spatial distribution
of the activities and whether structural
elements important to fishers are
maintained. Although vegetation
management may threaten fisher now
and in the foreseeable future, many of
the effects are likely exacerbated by
other forms of habitat loss such as tree
mortality from drought and severe
wildfires.
Exposure to Toxicants
As described above in the general
threats section, rodenticides analyzed as
a threat to the SSN DPS of fishers
include first- and second-generation
anticoagulant rodenticides and
neurotoxicant rodenticides. Both the
draft and final Species Reports detail
the exposure of the SSN DPS of fishers
to rodenticides in the Sierra Nevada
(Service 2014, pp. 149–166; Service
2016, pp. 141–159). Data available since
the completion of the final Species
Report in 2016 continue to document
exposure and mortalities to fishers from
rodenticides in the SSN DPS (Gabriel
and Wengert 2019, unpublished data,
entire). Data for 97 fisher carcasses
collected in the range of SSN DPS in the
period 2007–2018 indicate 83 fishers
(86 percent) tested positive for one or
more rodenticides (Gabriel and Wengert
2019, unpublished data), while 5.2
percent of known-cause SSN DPS fisher
deaths from 2007 through 2014 were
attributable to rodenticide toxicosis (6 of
115 total known-cause mortalities)
(Gabriel et al 2015, p. 6). The probability
of fisher mortality increases with the
number of anticoagulant rodenticides to
which a fisher has been exposed
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 15). Using data
from both the SSN DPS and the NCSO
DPS comparing the periods 2007–2011
and 2012–2014, mortalities due to
rodenticide toxicosis increased from 5.6
to 18.7 percent (Gabriel and Wengert
2019, unpublished data, p. 2). From
2015 to 2018, additional SSN DPS fisher
mortalities due to both anticoagulant
and neurotoxicant rodenticides have
been documented (Gabriel and Wengert
2019, unpublished data, p. 4).
In order to evaluate the risk to SSN
DPS fishers from illegal grow sites, we
use a Maximum Entropy model that was
developed to identify high and
moderate likelihood of illegal grow sites
within habitat selected for by fisher
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished
data, pp. 7–10). This model indicates
that 22 percent of habitat modeled for
SSN DPS fishers is within areas of high
and moderate likelihood for marijuana
cultivation. The extent to which the use
of toxicants occurs on legal private land
grow sites within the SSN DPS, as well
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
as other agricultural, commercial, and
public land sites within the range of the
SSN DPS of fisher (and habitats that
fishers select for) is unknown.
At this time, our evaluation of the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding toxicants and
their effects on fishers leads us to
conclude that individual fishers within
the SSN DPS have died from toxicant
exposure. Data indicate a total of 19
mortalities specifically within the
monitored fisher populations (in both
NCSO and SSN DPSs in California) have
been directly caused by toxicant
exposure (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, p. 5). We view
toxicants as a potentially significant
threat given the small population size of
the SSN DPS fishers because of the
reported exposure rate of toxicants in
the SSN DPS, reported mortalities of
SSN DPS fishers from toxicants, the
variety of potential sublethal effects due
to exposure to rodenticides (including
potential reduced ability to capture prey
and avoid predators), and the degree to
which illegal grow sites overlap with
the range and habitat of the SSN DPS of
fisher.
The effect of these impacts to the SSN
DPS is of particular concern because of
the small number of individuals in the
SSN DPS. The exposure rate of more
than 80 percent of fisher carcasses
tested in the SSN DPS has not declined
between 2007 and 2018 (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp. 3–
4), while toxicosis has increased since
2007 (Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 6–7). We
do not know the exposure rate of live
fishers to toxicants because this data is
difficult to collect. The minimum
amount of anticoagulant and
neurotoxicant rodenticides required for
sublethal or lethal poisoning of fishers
is currently unknown; however, we
have evidence of fisher mortality and
sublethal effects as a result of
rodenticides. Although uncertainty
exists in the effect of toxicants on a
small population such as the SSN DPS
of fisher, the lethal and sublethal effects
of toxicants on individuals have the
potential to have population-level
effects and reduce the resiliency of the
DPS as a whole. Overall, rodenticides
are a threat to fisher within the SSN
DPS now and in the foreseeable future.
Potential for Effects Associated With
Small Population Size
The SSN DPS exhibits the following
attributes related to small population
size, to varying degrees, which may
affect its distribution and population
growth:
(1) Loss of large contiguous areas of
historical habitat, including a 39 percent
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
loss of foraging and denning habitat
over the past 5 years (Thompson et al.
2019b, p. 9), in combination with
restriction of the species to forested
habitats that have been lost or modified
due to timber-harvest practices; large,
high-severity wildfires whose frequency
and intensity are in turn influenced by
the effects of climate change; and
increasing forest fuel density from fire
suppression and a lack of low-severity
fire over the recent long term.
(2) Dependence on specific elements
of forest structure that may be limited
on the landscape, including microsites
for denning and resting.
(3) Susceptibility to injury or
mortality due to predation from cooccurring larger predators.
Each of these vulnerabilities may
separately, or together, influence the
magnitude of other threats described in
this analysis for the SSN DPS of fisher.
Some information is available that
demonstrates fisher’s vulnerability to
small-population effects in the SSN
DPS, including overall low genetic
diversity (mitochondrial DNA haplotype
and nuclear DNA allelic richness) for
the entire SSN DPS, limited gene flow,
and existing barriers to dispersal
(Wisely et al. 2004, pp. 642–643; Knaus
et al. 2011, p. 7; see also additional
discussion in Service 2016, pp. 134–
137; Tucker et al. 2014, pp. 131–134),
albeit some of these barriers allow some
gene flow (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131).
However, the recent tree mortality and
several recent large-scale fires acting on
the narrow, linear range of the SSN DPS
have resulted in substantial habitat
fragmentation and reduction in habitat
patch size (Thompson et al. 2019b, pp.
8–9) and are likely to increase barriers
to dispersal, potentially limiting
movement among habitat patches and
preventing northward expansion,
particularly for females, given female
dispersal and associated genetic
connectivity is facilitated by dense
forest habitat (Tucker et al. 2017, p. 10).
At this point in time, the SSN DPS is
considered relatively small, especially
when taking into account the original/
historical range of the species within the
West Coast States, and the population
growth rates do not indicate that the
SSN DPS is increasing. The recent postdrought declines in foraging and
denning habitat and associated habitat
fragmentation further isolate the SSN
DPS from other fishers and limit the
opportunities for movement among
remaining patches within the range of
the SSN DPS. The best available
information suggests the SSN DPS is
expected to remain isolated from other
fishers (as has been apparent since preEuropean settlement). The SSN DPS is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
likely to remain small or be reduced
even further into the future, primarily
given the other stressors that have the
potential to exacerbate the impacts from
threats on small populations. In
addition, average litter size for the SSN
DPS is the lowest reported for the
species, potentially due to diet
limitations, smaller body size, and
lower genetic diversity compared to
other populations (Green et al. 2018a,
pp. 545, 547). Estimates of fisher
population growth rates for the SSN
DPS do not indicate any overall positive
or negative trend.
Population estimates for the SSN DPS
of fisher prior to recent fires, drought
and tree mortality and subsequent 39
percent loss of foraging and denning
habitat range anywhere in size from 100
to 500 individuals (Service 2016, pp.
48–50). Population-growth-rate analyses
have been estimated as 0.97 (C.I. 0.79–
1.16) from 2007 through 2014
throughout the SSN DPS (Sweitzer et al.
2015a, p. 784), and more recently 0.99
(C.I. 0.826 to 1.104) from 2007 through
2017 in a small portion of the SSN DPS
at Sugar Pine (Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 5–
6, 17). Available population estimates
and trend information for the SSN DPS
do not take into consideration extensive
tree mortality that has impacted the
habitat from 2015 to present. Research
is currently being conducted to
determine any potential effects that tree
mortality may be having on the SSN
DPS, but results are not yet available
(Green et al. 2019a, entire). At this point
in time, we do not have sufficient
information to predict whether
population trends of the SSN DPS will
be positive or negative into the
foreseeable future; however, we
anticipate continued loss and
fragmentation of fisher habitat.
Overall, a species (or DPS) with
relatively few individuals may be of
concern when there are significant
threats to the species. The SSN DPS is
considered relatively small and has not
appeared to grow or expand, despite the
availability of unoccupied suitable
habitat. The SSN DPS has been found to
have relatively low genetic diversity,
but there is currently no evidence of
inbreeding depression. The small
population may make the SSN DPS
more vulnerable to threats, but there is
no evidence at this time that small
populations are causing impacts such as
loss of genetic variability or large
fluctuations in demographic parameters
of the SSN DPS.
Disease and Predation
A general description of disease and
predation on fishers overall was
provided earlier (see General Species
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29567
Information and Summary of Threats,
above). Specific to the SSN DPS, of 94
fisher mortalities analyzed, 71 percent
were a result of predation and 14
percent were caused by disease (Gabriel
et al. 2015, p. 7, Table 2). Further,
predation may be one of the limiting
factors in overall population growth for
fishers in the SSN DPS. For example,
research on effects of mortalities on
population growth of fishers in the SSN
DPS found that reducing predation by
25 or 50 percent would increase lambda
from 0.96 to 1.03 or 1.11, respectively;
conversely, removing all mortality
sources but predation would only
increase lambda to 0.97 (Sweitzer et al
2016a, p. 438). While we did not
consider this threat as a potentially
significant driver of future status in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, the
information we received during a public
comment period providing updated
information on mortalities associated
with these factors (i.e., Sweitzer et al
2016a, p. 438), indicated that predation
may be, in fact, be a potentially
significant driver of future status for the
SSN DPS.
Vehicle Collisions
In the SSN DPS, vehicle collisions
contributed to 8 percent of documented
causes of mortality for fishers (Sweitzer
et al. 2016a, p. 438). At the
northernmost boundary of the SSN DPS,
10 fisher roadkill mortalities have been
documented in Yosemite National Park
over the past two decades (Service 2016,
p. 137). Although many factors affect
dispersal and northward population
expansion, it is likely that roads and
associated traffic in Yosemite National
Park combined with other stressors may
inhibit northward expansion of the SSN
DPS (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 21).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
The USFS is the landowner for
approximately 39 percent of the SSN
DPS. 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
it requires full evaluation and disclosure
of the effects of Federal actions on the
environment. Other Federal regulations
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29568
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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.).
The NFMA specifies that the USFS
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.
Additionally, the fisher in the SSN DPS
has been identified as a species of
conservation concern by the USFS; thus,
all Forest Plans within the DPS include
standards and guidelines designed to
benefit fisher. Overall, per USFS
guidelines under the NFMA, planning
rules must consider the maintenance of
viable populations of species of
conservation concern.
In 2004 the USFS amended the Forest
Plans in the SSN DPS with the Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS
2004, entire). The Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment included measures to
increase late-successional forest, retain
important wildlife structures such as
large-diameter snags and coarse downed
wood, and manage about 40 percent of
the plan area as old-forest emphasis
areas. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment also established a 602,100–
ha (1,487,800–ac) Southern Sierra
Fisher Conservation Area with
additional requirements intended to
maintain and expand the fisher
population of the southern Sierra
Nevada. Conservation measures for the
Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation
Area include maintaining a minimum of
50 percent of each watershed in mid-tolate- successional forest (28-cm [11-in]
diameter at breast height (dbh) and
greater) with forest-canopy closure of 60
percent or more. The plan also includes
seasonal protections for known fisher
natal and maternal den sites. The USFS
is currently updating the National
Forest Management Plans (NFMPs)
within the SSN DPS according to the
Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule (36
CFR part 219). A conservation strategy
is in progress (described below in SSN
Voluntary Conservation Measures) that
will provide fisher specific guidance for
the updated NFMPs.
National Park Service
The NPS is the land manager for
approximately 14 percent of the SSN
DPS. Statutory direction for the NPS
lands within the SSN DPS is provided
by provisions of the National Park
Service Organic Act of 1916, as
amended (54 U.S.C. 100101). Land
management plans for the National
Parks within California do not contain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 where it is
present.
Rodenticide Regulatory Mechanisms
The threats posed to fishers from the
use of rodenticides are described under
Exposure to Toxicants, above. In the
2016 final Species Report (Service 2016,
pp. 187–189), 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 2016
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.
Both the EPA and California’s
Department of Pesticide Regulation
developed an effort to reduce the risk
posed by the availability of secondgeneration anticoagulants to end-users,
through the 2008 Risk Mitigation
Decision for Ten Rodenticides (EPA
2008, entire). This effort issued new
legal requirements for the labeling,
packaging, and sale of secondgeneration anticoagulants, and through
a rule effective in July 2014, restricted
access to second-generation
anticoagulants (California Food and
Agricultural Code Section 12978.7).
State Regulatory Mechanisms
California
At the time of the 2014 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,
CDFW submitted its status review of the
fisher to the CFGC, indicating that
listing of the fisher in the Southern
Sierra Nevada Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU) as threatened was warranted
(CDFW 2015, entire). CDFW made their
final determination to list the Southern
Sierra Nevada ESU as threatened on
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
April 20, 2016 (CFGC 2016, p. 10); thus,
take as defined under CESA continues
to be prohibited. It remains illegal to
intentionally trap fishers in all of
California (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, § 460
(2017).
The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) can provide protections for
a species that meets one of several
criteria for rarity (CEQA 15380). Fishers
in the SSN DPS 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
FPRs 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. The FPRs
do not contain rules specific to fishers,
but they may provide some protection of
fisher habitat as a result of timber
harvest restrictions.
Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
There are currently two MOU
agreements in California within the
range of the SSN DPS for wildfire and
fuels management. The first MOU was
signed in 2015 by Sierra Forest Legacy,
California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection, State of California Sierra
Nevada Conservancy, The Wilderness
Society, The Nature Conservancy, The
Sierra Club, Center for Biological
Diversity, DOI–NPS–Pacific Region,
Northern California Prescribed Fire
Council, Southern Sierra Prescribed Fire
Council, and the USDA–USFS–Pacific
Southwest Region. The MOU is titled
‘‘Cooperating for the purpose of
increasing the use of fire to meet
ecological and other management
objectives.’’ The purpose of this MOU is
to document the cooperation between
the parties to increase the use of fire to
meet ecological and other management
objectives. A second MOU was signed
in 2017 by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and the USFS–
Pacific Southwest Region–Regional
Office. The MOU is titled ‘‘Pacific
Southwest Fuels Management Strategic
Investment Partnership.’’ The purpose
of this agreement is to document the
cooperation between the parties to
implement a hazardous-fuelsmanagement program that reduces the
risk of severe wildfire, protects
ecological values, and reduces the
chance of damage to public and private
improvements. While neither MOU
contains specific fisher conservation
activities, projects that reduce the
likelihood of catastrophic wildfire
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
provide benefit to fisher by reducing
habitat loss. Both of these fuel-reduction
MOUs provide collaboration between
Federal partners and non-governmental
partners to organize and fund fuelreduction projects within the SSN DPS,
which could reduce the impact of largescale high-severity fire. So far, no
projects have been funded within the
SSN DPS.
The Sierra Nevada Fisher Working
Group, which includes CBI, Sierra
Nevada Conservancy, USDA–USFS,
NPS, the Service, and CDFW, completed
a conservation strategy in 2016 (Spencer
et al. 2016, entire). The authors of the
conservation strategy later released a
changed-circumstances letter due to
new tree-mortality information (Spencer
et al. 2017, entire). The changedcircumstances letter provides details on
the conservation measures that may no
longer be applicable and an interim
process for designing and evaluating
vegetation-management projects.
Current benefits that still exist for fisher
from the conservation strategy and the
changed-circumstances letter include
long-term desired conditions
representing a range of characteristics to
strive for in various areas to inform finescale assessment of key fisher habitat
elements, including their connectivity
within potential home ranges and across
the landscape (Spencer et al. 2017, pp.
2–6). A revised/final conservation
strategy that addresses the new treemortality information is still in progress
by the CBI. However, preliminary Draft
Interim Recommendations from
December 2019 recognize the
importance of stabilizing key habitat,
restoring landscape permeability, and
promoting landscape heterogeneity
while offering a suite of suggestions to
mitigate potential negative effects of
management actions (Thompson et al.
2019b, pp. 17–33).
Resiliency, Redundancy, and
Representation
In this section, we use the
conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to evaluate how the
threats, regulatory mechanisms, and
conservation measures identified above
relate to the current and future
condition of the SSN DPS.
As noted above, the resiliency of
species’ population(s), and hence an
assessment of the species’ overall
resiliency, can be evaluated by
population size and growth rate. While
data on these parameters is often not
readily available, inferences about
resiliency may be drawn from other
demographic measures. In the case of
the SSN DPS, the population size
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
component of resiliency is lower than
historical levels because the total
population size is small and fragmented
and has been reduced in distribution
relative to historical levels. While there
is some evidence that the SSN DPS of
fishers may have persisted for some
time at relatively low numbers, the DPS
has recently experienced a 39 percent
loss of foraging and denning habitat, a
substantial increase in habitat
fragmentation, and a 92 percent
reduction in habitat patch size following
the 2012–2015 drought (Thompson et al.
2019a pp. 8–9). These negative effects
on fisher habitat have likely had
additional cascading effects on numbers
of individuals through reduction in
habitat, potential increases in predator
abundance, and decreases in
connectivity across the range of the
DPS.
Threats acting on a species or DPS
that cause losses of individuals from a
population have the potential to affect
the overall resiliency of that population,
and losses occurring at a scale large
enough that the overall population size
and growth rate are negatively impacted
could reduce the population’s ability to
withstand stochastic events. The SSN
DPS exists in low numbers across its
range and faces a variety of ongoing
threats that will result in losses of
individual fishers or impede population
growth, including continued loss and
fragmentation of habitat (i.e., from highseverity wildfire and wildfiresuppression actions, climate change,
tree mortality from drought, disease,
and insect infestation, vegetation
management, and development) and
potential direct impacts to individuals
(e.g., increased mortality, decreased
reproductive rates, increased stress/
hormone levels, alterations in
behavioral patterns) from wildfire,
increased temperatures, increased tree
mortality, disease and predation,
exposure to toxicants, vehicle collisions,
and potential effects associated with
small population size. These present
and ongoing threats cumulatively play a
large role in both the current and future
resiliency of the DPS. Of greatest
importance at this time are:
(1) The long-term suitability of habitat
conditions throughout the range of the
SSN DPS given the continued presence/
extent of high-severity and wide-ranging
wildfires and prolonged drought
conditions that exacerbate tree mortality
from drought, disease, and insect
infestation. These conditions: (a)
Reduce the availability of the natural
resources (e.g., appropriate canopy
cover, old-growth forest structure with
large trees and snags, patch size) that
the species relies on to complete its
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29569
essential life-history functions; (b)
contribute to increased stress hormones
(cortisol) and reduced female fisher
survival (as noted in one study in a
portion of the SSN DPS); and (c)
increase habitat fragmentation within
and between populations. The recent
2012–2015 drought and associated tree
mortality and wildfire demonstrated
that this suite of threats can act rapidly
to reduce and fragment fisher habitat
across the range of the DPS.
(2) The sustained presence of
toxicants from marijuana grow sites
across a likely significant proportion of
the landscape that contribute to
continued fisher mortalities and
sublethal effects. Fisher mortalities
continue to occur either by direct
consumption or sublethal exposure to
anticoagulant rodenticides, the latter of
which may increase fisher death rates
from other impacts such as predation,
disease, or intraspecific conflict. In a
small population, such as the SSN DPS
of fisher, the lethal and sublethal effects
of toxicants on individuals have greater
potential to reduce the resiliency of the
population.
(3) Continued fragmentation of habitat
in conjunction with the isolation and
potential inbreeding of the SSN DPS,
especially when taking into account the
threats of toxicant exposure and habitat
losses. These ongoing threats increase
this DPS’s vulnerability to extinction
from stochastic events particularly as
fragmentation continues to reduce
habitat patch size and limit connectivity
across the landscape. Regardless of this
DPS’s potential for growth into the
small amount of available but
unoccupied suitable habitat present, we
do anticipate this DPS will be small into
the long-term future and is at risk of
future reductions in population size due
to continued habitat loss from drought,
wildfire, and tree mortality into the
future (see also Service 2016, pp. 133–
137). Comments received on the 2014
Proposed Rule and 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule generally agree that the
SSN DPS is small.
The SSN DPS of fisher has maintained
its presence across its current range
despite the degree of habitat loss and
fragmentation from prolonged drought
conditions and wildfire impacts,
coupled with mortalities from toxicants
(both anticoagulant and neurotoxicant
rodenticides), and at least some reduced
female survival associated with
increased stress hormones and reduced
habitat suitability documented in a
portion of the SSN DPS (see Tree
Mortality from Drought, Disease, and
Insect Infestation, above). However, the
long-term demographic effects of the
large-scale loss of habitat and increase
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29570
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
in habitat fragmentation following the
2012–2015 drought are not yet
understood. Historical reductions in
range in combination with recent rangewide habitat loss and fragmentation
along with other ongoing threats such as
exposure to toxicants indicate that the
current resiliency of the SSN DPS of
fishers may be quite low. The best
available science and information at this
time indicate that the current resiliency
of the SSN DPS of fisher is low and it
is likely that resiliency of this DPS will
decrease further in the near-term future.
This conclusion is based on the 39
percent loss of foraging and denning
habitat along with 92 percent decrease
in habitat patch size that has occurred
across the range of the SSN DPS of
fisher in the past 5 years and likelihood
that the threats that caused these
declines will continue to operate across
the range of the SSN DPS. The current
and ongoing cumulative impacts to the
SSN DPS associated with current
climate-change-model predictions for
continued periodic but prolonged
drought conditions, predictions of
continued and increased intensity of
wildfires and subsequent habitat loss
and fragmentation in the southern Sierra
Nevada, the high likelihood of
continued presence and spread of forest
insect and tree diseases, and the low
likelihood that a significant proportion
of existing toxicants on the landscape
would be removed in the near-term
future indicate that the range of SSN
DPS is likely to decrease in available
habitat and habitat patch size along with
continued exposure to threats to
individual survival resulting in
continued declines in resiliency.
With regard to redundancy, multiple,
interacting populations across a broad
geographic area or a single wide-ranging
population (redundancy) provide
insurance against the risk of extinction
caused by catastrophic events. Prior to
the 2012–2015 drought, redundancy
was limited across the range of the SSN
DPS as a result of the DPS being a single
fragmented population distributed over
a relatively confined (for a carnivorous
mammal) geographic area. Redundancy
was further limited by the range-wide
loss of foraging and denning habitat
along with the associate increase in
habitat fragmentation and decrease in
habitat patch size, which make the
species as a whole more susceptible to
catastrophic events by further limiting
their distribution. The limited
redundancy of the SSN DPS decreases
the DPS’s chance of survival in the face
of potential environmental,
demographic, and genetic stochastic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
factors and catastrophic events (extreme
drought, wildfire, Allee effects, etc.).
Lastly, we consider the current
representation across the SSN DPS of
fisher to be limited, considering the
DPS’s existence as only a single
fragmented population with low genetic
diversity. The SSN DPS exists in a
limited range of environmental
conditions and has narrow
representation in the environments that
it occupies. An additional concern for
current and future representation in the
SSN DPS of fisher is that fragmented
populations can be more susceptible to
local declines, contributing further to
loss of genetic diversity. As future
droughts, wildfire, and tree mortality
continue to fragment remaining fisher
habitat, the opportunity for loss of
genetic diversity may increase because
of limited connectivity among habitat
patches. Overall, SSN DPS fishers are
represented across a small, fragmented
range and occur in small numbers.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’
or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines
an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species
that is ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
a species that is ‘‘likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The Act
requires that we determine whether a
species meets the definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species’’ because of any of the following
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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
we proposed that the Western DPS of
fisher met the definition of a threatened
species. Recognizing the SSN as a
separate DPS, we now conduct an
analysis of the SSN DPS to determine its
status considering the current condition
of the DPS and current and ongoing
threats. We evaluated threats to the SSN
DPS of fishers and assessed the
cumulative effect of the threats under
the section 4(a)(1) factors. Our 2016
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
final Species Report (Service 2016,
entire) is the most recent detailed
compilation of fisher ecology and life
history, and it has a significant amount
of analysis related to the potential
impacts of threats within the SSN DPS’s
range. In addition, we collected and
evaluated new information available
since 2016, including new information
made available to us during the recent
comment periods in 2019, to ensure a
thorough analysis, as discussed above.
Our analysis as reflected in this rule
included our reassessment of the
previous information and comments
received on the 2014 Proposed Rule
regarding the potential impacts to the
SSN DPS of fisher, as well as our
consideration of new information
regarding the past, present, and future
threats to the DPS, and the comments
and information received during the two
comment periods associated with the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule.
We find that the SSN DPS is currently
in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range due to the existing threats that
have resulted in a small population size,
reduced geographic distribution, and
reduced habitat quality resulting in
habitat fragmentation. Because it is
limited to a single, fragmented
population with few individuals and
has experienced recent and rapid loss of
habitat, and given the threats acting
upon it, the current condition of the
SSN DPS across the southern Sierra
Nevada does not demonstrate resiliency,
redundancy, and representation such
that persistence into the future is likely.
At this time, the best available
information suggests that future
resiliency for the SSN DPS of fisher is
low. As discussed above in the ‘‘Risk
Factors for the SSN DPS of Fisher’’
section (along with some detail in the
2014 draft and 2016 final Species
Reports (Service 2014 and 2016, entire)),
the SSN DPS faces a variety of threats
including: loss and fragmentation of
habitat resulting from high-severity
wildfire and wildfire suppression,
climate change, tree mortality from
drought, disease, and insect infestations,
vegetation management, and
development; and potential direct
impacts to individuals (e.g., increased
mortality, decreased reproductive rates,
increased stress/hormone levels,
alterations in behavioral patterns) from
wildfire, increased temperatures,
increased tree mortality, disease and
predation, exposure to toxicants, vehicle
collisions, and potential effects
associated with small population size.
Currently, fishers in the SSN DPS
exist in one small population. Estimates
of population size and trend prior to the
severe 2012–2015 drought suggested the
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
SSN DPS consisted of approximately
300 individuals (range = low of 100 to
a high of 500 individuals), while there
is no statistically detectable trend in
population size or growth. No estimates
are available for population size or trend
following the 39 percent loss of foraging
and denning habitat and 92 percent
reduction in average habitat patch size.
Overall, the SSN DPS of fisher exists as
a single small population that has
persisted but does not appear to be
expanding and has experienced recent
substantial habitat loss, fragmentation,
and reduction in habitat patch size.
We took into consideration all of the
threats operating within the range of
SSN DPS. This DPS is reduced in size
due to historical trapping and past loss
of late-successional habitat and,
therefore, is more vulnerable to
extinction from random events and
increases in mortality. Some examples
of multiple threats on the SSN DPS of
fisher include:
• Destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat, which may
increase fisher’s vulnerability to
predation and loss of genetic diversity
(Factors A, C, and E);
• Impacts associated with climate
change, such as increased risk of
wildfire and tree mortality (tree insects
and disease) (Factors A, C, and E).
Depending on the scope and degree of
each of the threats and how they
combine cumulatively, these threats can
be of particular concern where
populations are small and isolated. The
cumulative effect (all threats combined)
is currently causing rapid loss of habitat
and habitat patch size across the range
of the SSN DPS and exposing SSN DPS
fishers to increased threats from direct
mortality, resulting in low resiliency
and reducing viability for the SSN DPS
as a whole. The SSN DPS is particularly
vulnerable in areas not managed for
retention and recruitment of fisher
habitat attributes, areas sensitive to
climate change, areas susceptible to
large high-severity fires and tree
mortality, and areas where direct
mortality of fishers reduces their ability
to maintain or expand their populations
(Service 2014, pp. 166–169).
Additionally, although there is currently
a wide array of regulatory mechanisms
and voluntary conservation measures in
place to provide some benefits to the
species and its habitat (see ‘‘Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms’’ and
‘‘Voluntary Conservation Measures,’’
above), these measures have not
ameliorated the threats to such a degree
that the DPS is not currently in danger
of extinction. In particular, threats
acting on this small population related
to illegal rodenticide use, increasing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
high-severity wildfires, and prolonged
droughts that exacerbate the effects from
wildfire, forest insects, and tree disease
are operating at a scale much larger than
the current scope of the beneficial
actions. Further, the two MOU
agreements in California within the
range of the SSN DPS for wildfire and
fuels management have no specific
conservation measures for fisher.
The best available information
suggests that identified threats are of
concern across the range of the SSN DPS
because of the narrow band of habitat
that comprises this DPS and its
vulnerability to negative impacts
associated with small population size.
As noted in our analysis, preliminary
habitat-based population models suggest
that the configuration of habitat affects
population numbers in this region, and
that some areas with high-quality
habitat may remain unoccupied even at
equilibrium population sizes, probably
due to restricted connectivity between
these locations and the main body of the
population (Service 2016, p. 44;
Rustigian-Romsos 2013, pers. comm.).
Therefore, the cumulative impacts
related to the habitat-based threats are
likely to have a negative effect on the
SSN DPS because connectivity would
likely decrease further (Service 2016, p.
69).
For the mortality-related threats, we
reaffirm our quantitative assessment
from 2014 regarding potential
cumulative impacts in those portions of
the range of the SSN DPS where data
were available to do so. Modeling
completed for the SSN DPS
demonstrates that a 10 to 20 percent
increase in mortality rates could prevent
fisher populations from the opportunity
to expand in the future (Spencer et al.
2011, pp. 10–12). Coupled with an
increasing trend in habitat-related
threats, the best available information
suggests that cumulative effects to the
SSN DPS of fisher are reducing its
resiliency to such a degree that the DPS
is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Based on our
review of the best scientific and
commercial data available, we have
determined the SSN DPS of fisher meets
the definition of an endangered species
under the Act. Per our 2014 draft and
2016 final Species Reports, as well as
our most recent analysis summarized
herein and based on the comments and
information received on the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule, we find the
cumulative impact of all identified
threats on the SSN DPS, especially
habitat loss and fragmentation due to
high-severity wildfire (Factor A) and
vegetation management (Factor A)
(noting that tree mortality from drought,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29571
disease, and insect infestation is
exacerbated by changing climate
conditions and thus also plays a role
under Factor A), and exposure to
toxicants (Factor E), are acting upon the
SSN DPS to such a degree that it is
currently in danger of extinction. The
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor
D) are not addressing these threats to the
level that the species does not meet the
definition of an endangered species.
Thus, after assessing the best available
information, we conclude that the SSN
DPS of fisher is currently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. In
reaching this conclusion, we have
considered all information received
from species experts, partners, the
public, and other interested parties,
including the variety of available
conservation measures and existing
regulatory mechanisms that may
ameliorate the threats.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. We have
determined that the SSN DPS is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, and accordingly, did not
undertake an analysis of any significant
portion of its range. Because we have
determined that the SSN DPS warrants
listing as endangered throughout all of
its range, our determination is
consistent with the decision in Center
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020
WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in
which the court vacated the aspect of
the 2014 Significant Portion of its Range
Policy that provided the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service do
not undertake an analysis of significant
portions of a species’ range if the
species warrants listing as threatened
throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the SSN DPS of fisher
meets the definition of an endangered
species. Therefore, we are listing the
SSN DPS of fisher as an endangered
species in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29572
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies,
private organizations, and individuals.
The Act encourages cooperation with
the States and other countries and calls
for recovery actions to be carried out for
listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recoveryplanning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to
the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan also identifies recovery
criteria for review when a species may
be ready for downlisting or delisting,
and methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(composed of species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
our website (https://www.fws.gov/
endangered), or from our Yreka Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (for example,
restoration of native vegetation),
research, captive propagation and
reintroduction, and outreach and
education. The recovery of many listed
species cannot be accomplished solely
on Federal lands because their range
may occur primarily or solely on nonFederal lands. To achieve recovery of
these species requires cooperative
conservation efforts on private, State,
and tribal lands.
Following publication of this final
listing rule, funding for recovery actions
will be available from a variety of
sources, including Federal budgets,
State programs, and cost-share grants for
non-Federal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental
organizations. In addition, pursuant to
section 6 of the Act, the State of
California would be eligible for Federal
funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the SSN DPS of fisher.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new
information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information
you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities as well as
toxicant use on Federal lands
administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, USFS, BLM, and NPS;
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the Army Corps of Engineers;
and construction and maintenance of
roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (which includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
to attempt any of these) endangered
wildlife within the United States or on
the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful
to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
species listed as an endangered species.
It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to employees
of the Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for
incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from
the prohibitions, which are found in
sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing.
Based on the best available
information, the following actions may
potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
comprehensive: (1) Unauthorized
modification of the forest landscape
within the range of the SSN DPS; and
(2) unauthorized use of first- and
second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides and neurotoxicant
rodenticides within the range of the
SSN DPS.
Based on the best available
information, the following actions are
unlikely to result in a violation of
section 9, if these activities are carried
out in accordance with existing
regulations and permit requirements;
this list is not comprehensive: (1) Any
actions that may affect the SSN DPS of
fisher that are authorized, funded, or
carried out by a Federal agency, when
the action is conducted in accordance
with the consultation requirements for
listed species pursuant to section 7 of
the Act; (2) any action taken for
scientific research carried out under a
recovery permit issued by us pursuant
to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; (3) land
actions or management carried out
under a habitat conservation plan
approved by us pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act; and (4) recreation
activities that comply with local rules
and that do not result in take of listed
species, including hiking and
backpacking.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species. In the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule (84 FR
60278, November 7, 2019), we
determined that designation of critical
habitat was prudent but not
determinable because specific
information needed to analyze the
impacts of designation was lacking. We
are still in the process of assessing this
information. We plan to publish a
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher in the
near future.
Summary of Comments and Responses
In the 2014 Proposed Rule published
on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419;
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0041),
we requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by January 5, 2015. We
electively held one public hearing and
seven public information meetings
between November 13 and December 4,
2014. The comment period for this rule
was extended (79 FR 76950, December
23, 2014) and reopened (80 FR 19953,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
April 14, 2015) for additional
comments. Following our withdrawal of
this proposed rule (81 FR 22710, April
18, 2016) and subsequent litigation (see
Previous Federal Actions, above), the
District Court for the Northern District
of California reinstated the 2014
Proposed Rule on September 21, 2018.
Given the time that had elapsed and the
availability of new information, we
reopened the comment period on the
2014 Proposed Rule on January 31, 2019
(84 FR 645), requesting that all
interested parties submit new
information or comments by March 4,
2019. We published the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule on November 7, 2019 (84
FR 60278), again requesting that all
interested parties submit written
comments on the proposal by December
9, 2019, and noting that all previously
submitted comments would be fully
considered in the preparation of our
final determination. Finally, we
reopened the comment period on the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule for
additional comments and information to
be submitted by January 3, 2020 (84 FR
69712, December 19, 2019), reiterating
that our final determination would take
into consideration all comments and
any additional information we have
received during the comment periods
described herein.
Notices were published in a variety of
newspapers during the comment
periods inviting general public
comment on the various announcements
between 2014 and 2019 outlined above.
Newspaper notices covered the range of
the DPS and included one or more of
the following: Bellingham World, Chico
Enterprise Record, Eureka TimesStandard, Fresno Bee, Klamath Falls
Herald and News, Olympian,
Oregonian, Peninsula Daily News,
Redding Record Searchlight,
Sacramento Bee, Wenatchee World, and
Yakima Herald Republic. We also
contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
both the 2014 draft Species Report and
the 2014 Proposed Rule. Information
received from these parties was used to
update the 2016 Species Report and the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule. We also
used information received from Federal
and State agencies, Tribes,
organizations, and other partners
throughout the process. All substantive
information provided during the
comment periods outlined above has
either been incorporated directly into
this final determination or addressed
below.
In connection with development of
this final rule, we reviewed comments
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29573
received from the public and peer
reviewers on the 2014 Proposed Rule
and the Draft Species Report, and from
the public on the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. As outlined in the April
2016 Withdrawal (81 FR 22710, April
18, 2016), which provided our full
response to all comments received to
the initial documents, we added new
information, made clarifications, and
made necessary corrections to our final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire) to
reflect the peer and public comments
received to that time. As necessary,
these prior comments have been
reevaluated to inform the development
of this final rule. For those comments
where we determined a further response
was required, they are addressed in our
response to comments section below or
are incorporated in our analysis in the
specific section of the final rule as
appropriate.
4(d) Rule
(1) Comment: Multiple commenters
raised concerns, provided suggestions,
and asked for clarification on the 4(d)
rule in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule.
Our Response: Under section 4(d) of
the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has
the discretion to issue such regulations
as he deems necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of a species
listed as threatened, and can by
regulation prohibit with respect to such
species any act prohibited under section
9(a)(1) for threatened wildlife species. In
this final rule, we determine that the
NCSO DPS does not warrant listing
under the Act and that the SSN DPS
meets the definition of an endangered
species under the Act; therefore, since
neither DPS will be listed as threatened,
the section 4(d) provisions do not apply
and the proposed 4(d) rule has been
removed from this final rule.
Climate Change
(2) Comment: One commenter
asserted that voluntary conservation
efforts on non-Federal lands mitigate
and decrease the threats of climate
change to fisher.
Our Response: We considered both
regulatory and voluntary conservation
measures that are currently being
implemented to reduce the impacts of
the stressors to the species in the final
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 162–
189) and updated in this document (see
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and
Voluntary Conservation Measures,
above), including important voluntary
conservation contributions on nonFederal lands.
We found that listing of the NCSO
DPS was not warranted. We have found
that the SSN DPS meets the definition
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29574
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of an endangered species. At this time,
we continue to assert that fisher habitat
is likely to be affected by changing
climate conditions, but the severity will
vary, potentially greatly, between the
NCSO DPS and the SSN DPS, with
effects to fishers ranging from negative,
neutral, or potentially beneficial. We
cannot at this time conclude that
conservation efforts on non-Federal
lands are mitigating or decreasing the
threats of climate change to fisher
within the NCSO DPS or the SSN DPS.
That said, voluntary actions on nonFederal lands (e.g., CCAA, SHAs, HCPs,
and MOUs), particularly within the
NCSO DPS, provide a conservation
benefit to the species (e.g., actions that
retain key elements of fisher habitat
and/or improve collaboration to reduce
significant spread of high-severity
wildfires) and may contribute to
reducing the overall cumulative impacts
to the NCSO DPS and its habitat.
Overall, anything that reduces impacts
to the species in the future would help
increase its resilience to climate change.
(3) Comment: One commenter
claimed that the best available science
on climate change should be added to
our analysis, including recent modeling
and analysis information related to
warming climate, wildfire severity, and
droughts. This comment also was raised
in comments received on the 2014
Proposed Rule stating that there are
conflicting perspectives on the potential
impacts associated with changing
climate conditions, and the Service
needs to evaluate the best available
information.
Our Response: We have evaluated
new information on climate change that
has become available since the 2014
Proposed Rule, including literature
received and suggested citations during
the comment periods on the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule. All information
received has been reviewed and
analyzed as part of our determination;
the information is included in the
decision record for this determination,
but not necessarily cited in this rule.
Significant new information or updates
are included in the Climate Change
sections above.
Revised Proposed Rule, we added an
additional 15-day comment period
(ending on January 3, 2020) to the
original 30-day comment period for the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule. Moreover,
as noted in our discussion of the DPS
above, we provided the public with
notice of two alternative DPS
configurations in our 2014 Proposed
Rule, which included DPS boundaries
that are very similar to the DPS
configurations that were analyzed in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule and this
final determination.
(5) Comment: One commenter
mentioned that significant new
information has been developed since
the completion of the 2016 final Species
Report, and that the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule mentioned some of the
new data. However, the commenter
stated that the Service did not clarify
how much weight was given to the new
information in the decision to propose
listing the fisher.
Our Response: New information
became available between completion of
the 2016 final Species Report and the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule to list the
fisher as a threatened species, and new
information became available since the
publication of our 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. We are obligated under
the Act to carefully consider whether or
not any new information would affect
our decision to list a species (i.e.,
meeting the definition of an endangered
or a threatened species according to
section 3 of the Act). All new
information provided since the 2016
final Species Report was carefully
analyzed. Our 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule indicated that our conclusion in
the final determination may change
based on the new information we
received in response to the 2019
Revised Proposed rule (84 FR at 60279).
And in fact, we found that the new
information and information submitted
during public comment provided
substantial evidence that threats to the
fisher have been reduced or eliminated
to the extent that listing of the fisher is
not warranted in the NCSO DPS but is
warranted for listing as an endangered
species in the SSN DPS.
Completeness and Accuracy
(4) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the 30-day comment period
for the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule did
not provide the public enough time to
evaluate the changes made to the
proposed rule, which had significant
differences from our previous
determinations.
Our Response: In response to multiple
requests seeking more time to fully
evaluate the information in the 2019
Critical Habitat
(6) Comment: Many commenters
articulated the need for designated
critical habitat for the West Coast DPS
of fisher. Two of these commenters
asserted that critical habitat should have
been proposed concurrent with the
proposed listing rule.
Our Response: We stated in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule that we were in
the process of working with the States
and other partners in acquiring the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
complex information needed to perform
an economic analysis. As stated in II.
Critical Habitat, above, we are still
assessing information and we anticipate
publishing a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat in the near future.
Current Conservation Agreements
(7) Comment: One commenter asked if
landowners will be able to enroll in
CCAAs after a final rule is published.
Our Response: Landowners within the
area of the NCSO DPS can enroll in
CCAAs because we found that listing of
the NCSO DPS was not warranted. Once
a species is listed as threatened or
endangered under the Act, landowners
are not able to enroll in CCAAs for that
species; this applies to the SSN DPS.
However, other conservation tools such
as Safe Harbor Agreements (SHA) can
provide assurances for landowners. A
SHA is a voluntary agreement between
the Service and private or other nonFederal property owners whose actions
contribute to the recovery of federally
listed species. Landowners who fulfill
the conditions of the SHA will not be
subject to any additional or different
management activities without their
consent.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated
that the completion of a marten/fisher
conservation strategy would
complement work being done by the
Forest Service. A second commenter
provided a summary of a draft
conservation strategy for fisher in the
SSN subpopulation, claiming that the
strategy will update fisher and fisher
habitat status, summarize new science,
provide recommendations for
identifying and maintaining key habitat
elements, provide recommendations for
increasing resilience of fisher habitat,
identify potential mitigation for
necessary management (e.g., hazard tree
removal), and identify potential
management options for forest
conditions that support fisher
conservation.
Our Response: The Service supports a
conservation strategy for the benefit of
marten and fisher to complement work
being done by the Forest Service. The
new draft conservation strategy for
fisher in the SSN DPS was reviewed and
discussed above under Final Listing
Determination for SSN under ‘‘Current
Condition’’ and ‘‘Voluntary
Conservation Measures.’’
(9) Comment: One commenter stated
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule was
unclear as to whether or not
conservation measures currently being
implemented for fisher were evaluated.
Therefore, the commenter advised that
the Service cannot rely on those
measures to support conclusions for
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
unregulated take of individuals on
Federal land.
Our Response: The Service evaluates
voluntary conservation measures when
considering the status of a species under
section 4 of the Act. As such, voluntary
conservation measures were considered
in this final rule for fisher. See the
Voluntary Conservation Measures
section, above.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated
that sustainable forestry practices on
private land support fisher conservation
by providing healthy forests, forest
products, and wildlife enhancements.
The commenter claimed that
unnecessary regulations and restrictions
of sustainable forestry practices will
negatively affect fisher populations and
the ability of private landowners to
maintain working forests on their lands.
Our Response: We appreciate the
efforts on private lands to support
healthy forests and provide wildlife
enhancements that benefit fisher, and
we will continue to work with
landowners. We assume the commenter
is concerned that sustainable forestry
practices would be regulated as a result
of listing the fisher under the Act. We
found that listing of the NCSO DPS was
not warranted. We determined that the
SSN DPS meets the definition of
endangered; thus, we are required by
the Act to list it. The Service will work
with partners to continue forest
practices that retain key elements of
fisher habitat that will continue to
contribute to the overall conservation of
the species.
(11) Comment: Multiple commenters
stated that voluntary conservation
measures and multi-entity partnerships
are in place, should receive Federal
support or funding assistance, and
should be the focus of the evaluation of
the status of the fisher. Specifically, the
commenters claimed that Federal and
non-Federal land managers are engaging
in collaborative efforts (e.g., CCAAs,
HCPs, MOUs) to maintain fisher habitat
and minimize wildfire risk, and the
Service failed to acknowledge these
efforts and their contribution to fisher
conservation. Some of these
commenters also stated that the Service
provided little justification to the
determination that conservation
agreements are not acting at a scale and
magnitude sufficient to ameliorate
threats, and that the extent of the
agreements was not considered. An
additional commenter is similarly
concerned that listing the fisher would
mandate section 7 consultation under
the Act for actions implemented under
MOUs, which would hinder
implementation and increase the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. Finally, another
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
commenter suggested that CCAAs,
which cover several million acres, are
being implemented or are sufficiently
certain to be implemented, which
should compel the Service to withdraw
the proposed listing rule.
Our Response: The Service supports
conservation efforts for the benefit of
fisher in both the NCSO DPS and the
SSN DPS. We incorporated additional
information that was received during
the comment period into our analysis
including CCAAs, HCPs, and MOUs that
benefit the NCSO DPS and/or the SSN
DPS of fisher. We found that listing of
the NCSO DPS was not warranted. We
have found that the SSN DPS meets the
definition of endangered; therefore, it is
necessary to carefully assess actions that
may impact the DPS to avoid extinction.
The Service will work with partners to
continue forest practices that retain key
elements of fisher habitat that will
continue to contribute to the overall
conservation of the species. See also the
response to Comment 10 above.
(12) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service did not apply the Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
and asserted that application of this
policy will result in a determination
that listing fisher as a threatened species
is not necessary.
Our Response: In this final rule, the
NCSO DPS is not warranted for listing,
so a PECE analysis is not appropriate.
The SSN DPS is warranted for listing as
an endangered species, and we
conclude that the existing conservation
efforts are not to the level that prevents
the SSN DPS from meeting the Act’s
definition of an endangered species.
(13) Comment: One commenter is
concerned that timber management at a
landscape scale is likely to be
unaffected by listing fisher. Specifically,
the commenter asserted that agreements
with timber companies that exempt
timber management activities will not
provide landscape-scale contiguous
tracts of habitat or sufficient trees with
cavities.
Our Response: We assume the
agreements the commenter refers to are
HCPs, CCAAs, and SHAs. Each HCP,
CCAA, and SHA contains measures to
protect habitats for listed species. While
these may not individually operate at a
landscape scale, the combined efforts
across the range of the species
contribute to the ability of fishers to
move across larger landscapes and to
find trees for denning and resting.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
(14) Comment: Several commenters
believed there should be more than one
DPS (with separate listing decisions) in
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29575
the area described in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule as the West Coast DPS of
fisher. Some commenters stated that the
NCSO and SSN subpopulations are two
separate/isolated geographic areas with
no genetic interchange, and therefore
they should be two separate DPSs,
especially given the apparent
differences in landscape-level threats
and information that they believe
qualifies the SSN as distinct and
significant according to our DPS Policy.
Some of these commenters further
articulated that the DPSs should be
consistent with the ESUs designated in
2015 by the CDFW, including that we
should consider their decision that
listing the Northern California ESU was
not warranted. Two commenters
asserted that the SSN subpopulation
should be a DPS that is listed as
endangered and the NCSO
subpopulation should be a DPS that is
listed as threatened given the
differences in existing conditions and
threats into the future. Finally, another
commenter asserted that the NCSO,
SSN, NSN, and SOC subpopulations
should all be individual DPSs.
Our Response: We received multiple
comments on our DPS approach in both
the 2014 Proposed Rule and 2019
Revised Proposed Rule. As explained in
further detail in this document’s
Summary of Changes from the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule section, we
carefully considered all these
comments, and as a result reevaluated
our DPS approach. We determined that
what we had proposed as the West
Coast DPS in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule should instead be two separate
DPSs, one for the SSN subpopulation,
and one for the several subpopulations
comprising the NCSO geographic area.
We determined our analysis would
focus on the conservation of extant
subpopulations historically indigenous
to the California and southern Oregon
region with unique genetic
characteristics (as outlined in the 2014
Proposed Rule), while also allowing for
separate management of the two DPSs if
either or both were warranted for listing.
For a complete discussion of the logical
outgrowth that led to this outcome,
please refer to the Summary of Changes
section mentioned above, as well as the
detailed Distinct Population Segment
analyses presented herein.
(15) Comment: One commenter agreed
that the DPS configuration should not
include the State of Washington, and
two commenters disagreed, requesting
that we reconsider and include this area
to address the connectivity needs of the
species and consideration of habitat
needed for dispersal. One of the two
commenters that disagreed also
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29576
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
suggested that population monitoring of
recent fisher reintroductions in
Washington would be more readily
supported if this area was included in
the DPS configuration. Relatedly, we
also received multiple comments on the
2014 Proposed Rule suggesting that the
Service needs to consider connectivity
between subpopulations and dispersal
habitat within the DPS configuration,
including habitat in Washington and
Oregon that is north of the current
distribution.
Our Response: As explained in further
detail in both the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, and in this document’s
Distinct Population Segment analyses,
the determination of a DPS is based on
where a population segment actually
occurs on the landscape. A DPS does
not set a geographic boundary, nor ‘‘set
aside’’ connectivity or dispersal habitat
for conservation purposes, but rather
identifies the segment of a population
that is discrete from, and significant to
the taxon as a whole, and that may or
may not require protection under the
Act. Our DPS approach focused on the
extant subpopulations historically
indigenous to the California and
southern Oregon region with unique
genetic characteristics, and such
subpopulations do not occur in
Washington, nor in Oregon north of the
current distribution.
(16) Comment: One commenter
asserted that it is inappropriate to
consider fishers reintroduced in the
State of Washington as nonnative, as
this term typically describes a taxon
occurring outside of its historical range.
The commenter stated that reintroduced
fishers in Washington are from source
populations in British Columbia and
Alberta, which were likely contiguous
and interbreeding with fishers that
historically occurred in Washington.
Our Response: In both the 2014
Proposed Rule and 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, we explained that our
use of the term ‘‘nonnative’’ was
intended to articulate the difference
between the extant fisher
subpopulations that have been
indigenous to the three West Coast
States since before the time of the
original petition (‘‘native’’), and those
current fisher subpopulations that were
established with fishers from outside
the three West Coast States
(‘‘nonnative’’). We recognize that the
fisher populations currently established
in Washington are genetically similar to
historically indigenous Washington
fishers prior to their extirpation, and our
only purpose in the use of the term
‘‘nonnative’’ was to distinguish the
reintroduced Washington fishers from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
those fishers in California and northern
Oregon that are historically extant.
(17) Comment: One commenter stated
that the revised DPS delineation/
description limits opportunities to
implement future conservation
measures throughout the historical
range of the species. They also stated
that excluding historically occupied
fisher habitat in Washington and Oregon
limits opportunities for recovery.
Our Response: Please see our
response to Comment 15. Conservation
measures are not limited throughout the
range of the species by this listing
determination.
(18) Comment: Several commenters
requested that we clearly define the
boundary of the DPS. For example, one
commenter stated that there are only
dispersing fishers in one area within the
delineated boundary as described in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, and there
does not appear to be a breeding
population there. Two commenters
suggested that specific extant
subpopulations are delineated that
include a predicted movement distance,
such as the approach used for the
Humboldt marten (Martes caurina
humboldtensis). Two other commenters
stated that the proposed boundary does
not represent the extant subpopulations
or the specific predicted habitat areas,
noting their belief that the basis for the
current depiction is unclear.
Our Response: Please see our
responses to Comment 14 and Comment
15 regarding the final determination of
DPSs. Additionally, there is no
requirement that all areas of a DPS be
used for breeding. And, when we
identify a DPS, we are simultaneously
evaluating the current range of the
animals comprising the DPS. This
process is identical to our process for
any listed species. Any maps
accompanying these determinations are
intended to illustrate that range, based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the
species’ (or DPS’s) ecology and the
availability of its resource needs on the
landscape, but do not represent a
determination by the Service that all
areas within a generalized range are
occupied by the species. The maps
presented herein depict our
understanding of the current ranges of
both DPSs, with the further
understanding that these ranges are not
necessarily static, and individuals from
either DPS have the potential to expand
or contract from what are the current
range limits.
(19) Comment: One Federal partner
stated their support of listing native
fisher populations wherever they occur,
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
but suggested the area east of Highway
97 in Oregon be excluded.
Our Response: As presented herein,
our final analysis determines that the
NCSO DPS, which includes fishers in
Oregon, does not meet the definition of
either a threatened or endangered
species. As a result, fishers east of
Highway 97 would not be considered
listed under the Act.
(20) Comment: One commenter
asserted that fishers residing in the SOC
subpopulation (reintroduced from
British Columbia and Minnesota)
experience significantly different threats
and existing conditions (e.g., small
population size, surrounding habitat for
expansion) than the NCSO
subpopulation; therefore, these factors
should lead to not including this
subpopulation area in any DPS.
Our Response: As presented herein,
our final analysis includes the SOC
subpopulation within the NCSO DPS.
Although the SOC subpopulation was
established with fishers from British
Columbia and Minnesota, the area
where the SOC occurs lies within the
historical range of the NCSO DPS, and
more importantly, includes
documentation of SOC fishers
interbreeding with fishers of the NCSO
subpopulation (Pilgrim and Schwartz
2016, entire; Pilgrim and Schwartz
2017, entire). Given this interbreeding
activity and the use of suitable habitat
between these two population areas, it
was a sound and logical conclusion to
include all fishers across these areas as
part of the NCSO subpopulation.
However, we found that listing of the
NCSO DPS was not warranted.
Distribution
(21) Comment: One commenter
provided new fisher detection locations
from systematic camera surveys
conducted from October 2018 to
February 2019 and from October 2019
through December 2019 within their
private timberlands in coastal northern
California. The commenter asserts that
the new information indicates that
fishers remain well distributed across
their coastal California timberlands and
that fishers may have expanded into
portions of northern coastal California
where they were not detected during
earlier survey efforts.
Our Response: We thank the
commenter for the new fisher detection
information, which augments our
knowledge of the distribution and
relative abundance of the fisher within
the NCSO. We have included this
information in the NCSO Current
Condition above. We agree that the
submitted information demonstrates
that fishers are well distributed across
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
portions of the commenter’s California
timberlands where surveys were
conducted.
(22) Comment: One commenter
disagreed with information we
presented in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule regarding the historical and current
distribution of fishers in the SSN
subpopulation. The commenter
suggested that our statement that
historically the SSN subpopulation
likely extended farther north than our
current DPS boundary in the Sierra
Nevada was conjecture and that
historical museum specimens are
limited to south of the Tuolumne River,
which is currently the northern
boundary of what was identified in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule as the
Sierra Nevada portion of the DPS.
Further, the commenter mentioned that
our statement that multiple lines of
genetic evidence suggests that the NCSO
and SSN subpopulations have been
isolated since before European
settlement contradicts the previous
assertion that fishers historically
occupied the area between the NCSO
and SSN portions of the DPS. The
commenter also disagreed with our
statement that the current northern
boundary of the SSN subpopulation is
the Tuolumne River in Yosemite
National Park, asserting that the
northern extent of the current occupied
distribution of the SSN subpopulation is
actually the Merced River, varying from
about 10 to 20 miles south of the
Tuolumne River. They stated that only
a single male fisher was recently
detected north of the Merced River and
that there is no fisher population
between the Merced and Tuolumne
Rivers.
Our Response: Although not
confirmed, there are numerous
historical sightings of fishers, many of
them from reported trapping locations
from 1919 through 1924, in the areas
between the SSN and NCSO DPSs
(summarized in CDFW 2015, pp. 17–
19). Thus, we conclude that, at some
point, fishers occupied portions of the
northern Sierra Nevada at least
temporarily. Whether the northern
Sierra Nevada contained a viable
population or only served as a
movement corridor between the current
NCSO and SSN DPSs is unknown. That
said, genetic information supports that
the NCSO and SSN DPSs have been
largely separated for thousands of years
(Tucker et al. 2014, p. 3), so we
determined that separating the NCSO
DPS and SSN DPS was appropriate.
We included the area between the
Tuolumne and Merced Rivers in the
SSN DPS because the area contains
suitable habitat, and fishers found in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
this area would be a part of the SSN
DPS. In addition, the recent detection of
at least one fisher north of the Merced
River indicates that the SSN DPS has
the capability to expand into the area
between the Tuolumne River and the
Merced River (Stock 2020, pers. comm.).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
(23) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the proposed rule fails to
adequately consider existing
conservation efforts that benefit the
fisher and other actions that benefit
other forest species. These efforts
include such things as CCAAs, MOUs,
HCPs, ongoing enforcement agreements
implemented by State and Federal
parties, and conservation agreements for
other species such as spotted owls,
which can benefit fisher. Although
many of these efforts are mentioned in
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, the
commenters believed that there is no
evaluation, both individually and
cumulatively. Other commenters stated
that these efforts must be considered in
combination with the extensive
regulatory framework that already exists
(e.g., the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment for the Forest Service; the
California Forest Practice Rules and the
California Environmental Quality Act
and their roles in the timber harvest
planning process in the State).
Our Response: As noted by the
commenter, our 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule mentions existing conservation
efforts that provide benefits to fisher
and other forest species. In that
proposed rule, we provided an in-depth
discussion about how existing
regulatory mechanisms and other
voluntary conservation efforts benefit
fishers. Each of these regulatory
mechanisms and conservation efforts
were evaluated individually for how
they may provide benefits, and
cumulatively to assess how in
combination they may ameliorate
threats. A similar in-depth analysis is
provided in this current rule, albeit with
analyses specific to both the NCSO DPS
and SSN DPS. Further discussion of
how all of the regulatory mechanisms
and conservation efforts were
considered in the context of the existing
regulatory frameworks and our status
evaluations can be found in the
Determination sections for each DPS in
this final rule document.
(24) Comment: One commenter stated
that the proposed rule does not consider
the widespread participation in
sustainable forest management
certification programs such as the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the
Forest Stewardship Council that
promote forest health and resilience in
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29577
opposition to climate change with
sequestration of carbon in wood
products and renewable reforestation
and harvest cycles.
Our Response: While sustainable
forest management certification
programs require actions by participants
that are ecologically beneficial, the
certification standards are too general to
evaluate the effects of participation on
fisher conservation. As an example, one
of the certification programs lists the
following standards: (1) A program to
protect threatened and endangered
species; (2) a program to locate and
protect known sites of flora and fauna
associated with viable occurrences of
critically imperiled and imperiled
species and communities also known as
Forests with Exceptional Conservation
Value; and (3) support of and
participation in plans or programs for
the conservation of old-growth forests in
the region of ownership or forest
tenure’’ (SFI 2015, p. 6). We believe
these sustainable forest management
certification programs can and do
promote and lead to fisher conservation.
We are not implying that these
standards are faulty. However, as
written these general standards are too
vague to consider their benefit to fishers
and how they may reduce existing
threats. The Service requires specific
information from the participants of the
sustainable forest management
certification program and how they
meet these standards in order to be able
to assess the degree to which they affect
fisher conservation and address the
threats to the species.
(25) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service cannot rationally
assume that BLM lands in the DPS will
be managed in a way to promote
viability or recovery of fisher because of
recent court rulings regarding the
Oregon and California Railroad (O&C)
lands under BLM management. If these
rulings stand, BLM will no longer be
able to place O&C timberlands in
reserves. The final rule must address
how the Service intends to achieve
recovery in light of these rulings.
Our Response: We have
acknowledged the recent court ruling
regarding BLM O&C lands in this rule
and that this decision has been
appealed. However, we must base our
decision on the regulatory mechanisms
currently in place, which are the 2016
revisions to BLM’s western Oregon
resource management plans. We cannot
speculate how the court’s ruling will
ultimately effect BLM management
going forward. For example, the ruling
may stand, it may be overturned by a
higher court, or a settlement may be
reached to implement yet a different
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29578
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
management action. Opportunities to
assess any such changes in BLM
management, once final, will occur
through a new listing petition.
Consequently, we base our conclusion
on the plans in place at the time of our
decision, which are the 2016 western
Oregon resource management plans.
(26) Comment: One commenter said
that assuming the NEPA process will do
good things for fisher is incorrect.
Federal agencies document their actions
under NEPA and whether they comply
with the Endangered Species Act, but
the process itself does not provide a
conservation benefit.
Our Response: We have not assumed
that NEPA will benefit fishers. We
explicitly stated in our 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule (84 FR at 60296,
November 7, 2019), ‘‘NEPA does not
regulate or protect fishers, but requires
full evaluation and disclosure of the
effects of Federal actions on the
environment.’’ We continue to affirm
that statement in this document.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated
that the regulatory mechanisms
embodied in law enforcement agencies
have failed to control illegal cultivation
of marijuana on public lands, leading
directly to the issues described under
the toxicants section of the proposed
rule. The proposed rule should
acknowledge this fact, recognizing and
calling attention to the limitations
imposed on the funding and priorities
under which these agencies operate.
Our Response: We have
acknowledged the difficulties
experienced by law enforcement to
address illegal cultivation of cannabis
on public lands in this rule (see
Exposure to Toxicants section).
(28) Comment: One commenter
observed that the proposed rule does
not acknowledge existing efforts to
address illegal cannabis cultivation on
public lands (e.g., increasing California
State agency staff; CROP Project
(Cannabis Removal on Public Lands),
whose goal is to increase funding for
trespass grow reclamation, increase
USFS Law Enforcement presence, and
implement statewide education on
health risks of unregulated cannabis).
Evaluation of toxicant threat is
incomplete without considering the
regulatory mechanisms related to
cannabis cultivation.
Our Response: We recognize and
commend efforts to clean up illegal
grow sites and remove toxicants from
the landscape. We acknowledge the
CROP Project and their efforts to reduce
and reclaim illegal cannabis cultivation
on public lands (see Exposure to
Toxicants section). We also
acknowledge that CDFW provided
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
money in 2017 through their Cannabis
Restoration Grant Program to clean up
illegal grow sites, and that they may
continue to do so in the future. And we
recognize efforts by private timber
companies (e.g., GDRC HCP) to restrict
access and patrol their lands.
Conversely, we note that Forest Service
law enforcement personnel have
observed that State and local resources
for combatting illegal cultivation on
Federal lands has diminished since
State cannabis legalization, as resources
have been redirected to State and local
regulatory compliance (Klassen and
Anthony 2019, p. 45). There are still
both many unremediated and
undiscovered illegal marijuana sites
across the landscape where further
clean-up efforts are needed. We
commend on-going efforts and
encourage all future funding and cleanup efforts. We also recognize the
magnitude and scope of the problem
that makes the threat of exposure to
toxicants difficult to manage across the
landscape. Please see the NCSO DPS
and SSN DPS discussions above in their
respective Exposure to Toxicants
sections for our assessment of this
threat.
(29) Comment: One commenter stated
that if the fisher is listed, then positive
relationships with landowners will be
impossible and harm proactive,
collaborative, voluntary conservation.
Our Response: We are committed to
creating positive relationships with
landowners. As an example, by working
with commercial timber landowners in
Oregon on fisher CCAAs, we have built
collaborative relationships that have
spilled over into work on proactive
conservation for other species
considered for listing under the Act,
such as the Pacific marten (Martes
caurina) and red tree vole (Arborimus
longicaudus). There are many tools
available to incentivize collaborative,
voluntary conservation for the fisher.
Potential voluntary conservation
opportunities include: CCAAs (such as
the existing agreement with SPI); HCPs
(such as the existing plan with GDRC for
the northern spotted owl); and SHAs
(such as the existing agreement in
Oregon). These agreements and plans
allow landowners to manage their lands
while conserving species, and at the
same time provide landowners
regulatory assurance and incidental take
coverage under the Act for agreed upon
activities. Also, our Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program works with and
funds landowners to implement on-theground conservation efforts on their
lands. Though not all landowners
participate in these various voluntary
conservation opportunities, many
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
continue to work with us to conserve
species.
(30) Comment: One commenter stated
that listing the fisher would also
increase wildfire risk within the fisher’s
range and blunt the effectiveness of
wildfire prevention measures that are
already in place. Private landowners are
currently implementing an MOU that is
designed to lessen wildfire risks within
the fisher’s range. If the fisher were
listed as threatened or endangered,
these wildfire reduction measures
would be slowed down and would
become less effective. Listing the fisher
would also have the consequence of
requiring Federal agencies to consult
under section 7 of the ESA before taking
actions that could affect fisher habitat,
including the fuels reduction efforts
contemplated under the MOU.
Our Response: The MOU referenced
by the commenter pertains to the NCSO
DPS area, which is found not warranted
for listing in this determination. There
is no similar agreement applicable to the
SSN DPS. Consequently, we believe the
concerns expressed are not applicable to
this listing determination. We do not
believe that listing the fisher would
increase wildfire risk in the SSN DPS
because the Service is working with
Federal agencies to develop a
programmatic consultation process to
streamline wildfire reduction activities
that provide for the conservation of
fisher.
Fisher Biology
(31) Comment: Two commenters
pointed out new studies showing that
fishers use managed landscapes. They
both noted that fishers have been
documented using slash piles for
denning. One of them also added that
fishers use areas near timber harvest
units, possibly due to the availability of
prey.
Our Response: Fishers use managed
landscapes on private industrial
timberlands, and this determination
reflects this use. Rather than specifically
mentioning fisher use of slash piles in
our analysis, we considered fisher use of
managed landscapes more broadly in
vegetation management.
Fuels Treatment
(32) Comment: Some commenters
expressed that protecting fishers from
extreme wildfire is important, stating
that wildfires are prevalent in the DPS
and are predicted to increase in
frequency. They indicated that highseverity burns take decades if not
centuries to replace habitat structures
necessary to support fishers and their
prey; therefore, thinning projects and
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
prescribed burns are necessary to
prevent stand-replacing wildfires.
Our Response: High-severity fires can
remove or substantially reduce fisher
habitat; thus, we assessed the
conservation measures in place to
conduct fuel reduction projects (see
Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms).
The Service is working with Federal
agencies within the SSN DPS to develop
a programmatic consultation process to
streamline wildfire reduction activities
that provide for the conservation of
fisher.
Habitat
(33) Comment: Once commenter
states that the use of OGSI–80 as a
surrogate for fisher habitat
underrepresents substantial areas of
occupied fisher habitat in the NCSO and
NSN areas and presented their analysis
of citations (Zielinski et al. 2012; Niblett
et al. 2017; Powell et al. 2019) to
support this interpretation. Specifically,
they referenced application of the
Zielinski et al. (2004) fisher habitat
model on managed landscapes. They
claim that the model is similar to OGSI–
80 in that it is derived from observed
fisher use of large, old trees in old
forests, primarily on public lands.
Applying the model on managed
landscapes resulted in lands classified
as ‘‘poor’’ by the model actually being
occupied by fishers (Niblett et al. 2017;
Powell et al. 2019). Thus, the
commenter opined that projections of
trends based on the OGSI–80 surrogate
cannot be relied upon to represent
amounts of trends in fisher habitat. The
commenter further recommended the
Service address the proportion of
occupied habitat actually represented by
OGSI–80, stating that the OGSI–80
definition excludes substantial amounts
of occupied private and Federal land.
Our Response: In addressing the last
portion of the comment, our intended
use of OGSI–80 is not as a surrogate for
fisher habitat, nor to delineate areas on
the landscape where fishers may or may
not be found. That would not be an
appropriate use because the data
sources for OGSI–80 (gradient nearest
neighbor or GNN) limit the application
of the index to the landscape or regional
scale and not the site-specific or local
scale (Ohman and Gregory 2002, p. 738).
We are not sure why the commenter
concluded that the Zielinski et al. (2004)
model, derived from observed fisher use
of very large old trees and logs in old
forests primarily on public lands, is
similar to OGSI–80. First, OGSI–80 is
not based on fisher use of stands.
Second, OGSI–80 does not indicate a
forest age, but rather structures that are
characteristic with where forests are on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
a general forest succession continuum,
regardless of their age. Hence, a stand
meeting the OGS–I80 condition may be
younger than 80 years old, and stands
substantially older than 80 may not
meet the OGSI80 condition. Third,
OGSI–80 was derived from a network of
plot data systematically placed across
all ownerships, not just Federal lands
(Davis et al. 2015, pp. 13–15). We
compared OGSI–80 trends between
Federal and non-Federal lands in our
analysis.
The commenter’s conclusion as to
why the Zielinski model did not
perform as well on private lands
assessed by Niblett et al. (2017) does not
comport with the conclusion Niblett et
al. (2017, pp. 14–15) made. They note
that Zielinski compiled a resting habitat
suitability score that was a composite of
multiple features of fisher resting
habitat, such as live tree basal area, large
down wood abundance, hardwood basal
area, canopy cover, and mean tree age.
Such an overall composite may be less
meaningful in characterizing fisher
habitat on landscapes assessed by
Niblett et al. (2017, entire) than just
assessing the structural attributes that
fishers use, especially because forest
cover is so low for such a large part of
their study area. In that light, OGSI–80
is similar in that it is characterizing a
single component of fisher habitat, the
structural habitat components that
fishers are associated with, so long as
forest canopy cover meets a minimum of
10 percent. We note that Niblett et al.
(2017, p. 15) still found that, even in
their heavily managed landscape with
large areas absent of forest cover, fishers
still denned in the largest available trees
on the landscape. Depending on the
vegetation zone that encompasses the
Niblett et al. (2017, entire) study area,
the OGSI–80 minimum structural
element thresholds (Davis et al. 2015,
pp. 16–18) may or may not exceed the
den tree and snags used by fishers in
Niblett et al. (2017, p. 15). Nevertheless,
OGSI–80 is not meant to map where
fishers may occur on the landscape, or
to quantify fisher habitat characteristics,
but to characterize trends in those
structural elements that fishers use.
(34) Comment: One commenter stated
that in areas occupied by breeding
female fishers on the Stirling
Management Unit, some habitat
suitability models based on fisher use of
forests with large trees performed very
poorly in predicting fisher home ranges
(Powell et al. 2019, Figure 28 and
others). Consequently, OGSI–80, being
based on large trees, will not represent
areas used by fishers on these
landscapes.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29579
Our Response: As stated in earlier
comments, OGSI–80 is not meant to
map where fishers may occur on the
landscape, or to quantify fisher habitat
characteristics, but to characterize
trends in those structural elements that
fishers use. We also want to clarify the
results of the analysis that the
commenter is describing (Powell et al.
2019, Figure 28 and others). There are
certainly areas of habitat classed by the
different models assessed as either
moderate fisher habitat or even
relatively high-quality fisher habitat
(e.g., Powell et al. 2019, Appendix 2, pp.
64–65) that fishers avoided. The authors
suspect lack of other vital habitat
components in these stands, such as
hardwoods, may be the reason, though
this needs further study (Powell et al.
2019, Appendix 2, pp. 69–70).
Nevertheless, for most of the models
assessed in Powell et al. (2019,
Appendix 2), fishers still selected
habitats on the landscape that generally
encompassed largest tree category and
greatest canopy cover.
(35) Comment: One commenter
believed our statement that substantial
amounts of unoccupied fisher habitat
could suggest that habitat is not limiting
for fisher and, therefore, habitat loss is
not a threat was misleading. They note
that there is not a lot of unoccupied
habitat in the SSN south of the Merced
River, and, indeed, habitat may very
likely be a limiting factor, especially for
females in the currently occupied area.
Unoccupied habitat north of the Merced
may not be accessible due to dispersal
barriers (Merced River, high-severity fire
areas, and heavily used roads in
Yosemite National Park) and, therefore,
is not de facto evidence that habitat is
not a limiting factor.
Our Response: We recognize in the
final rule that the interaction of all the
threats within the SSN DPS are likely
limiting northward expansion into what
is considered suitable habitat for fisher.
In general, fisher habitat is lacking
landscape-scale forest heterogeneity in
the SSN DPS compared to historic
conditions, with wildfire and severe
drought disturbances creating large
patches of homogeneous habitat, which
are exacerbated by past logging practices
and wildfire suppression (Thompson et
al. 2019a, p. 13).
(36) Comment: The proposed rule’s
estimation of habitat trend is
inconclusive and does not indicate
substantial decline. If the definition of
habitat is corrected to include the
known fisher distribution, fisher habitat
has in fact dramatically expanded. This
expanded range is demonstrated by a 24
percent increase in the occupied range
since the CDFW estimate in 2010.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29580
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Our Response: We do not agree with
the conclusion that habitat usable by
fisher has dramatically expanded. A
range expansion for fisher or any other
species does not automatically mean
that habitat has increased. Many factors
serve to limit species distribution (e.g.,
connectivity and fragmentation, prey
and predators, population
demographics), and these factors may or
may not be affected by habitat. Although
not perfect, our analyses for vegetation
management and wildfire show losses of
either fisher habitat or structural
elements used by fishers (as represented
by OGSI–80). Further, the OGSI–80
analysis, which incorporates ingrowth
and is only for the NWFP portion of the
NCSO DPS, indicates a net loss of this
structural condition type. In the SSN,
areas within the previously known
fisher distribution experienced a
reduction of nearly 40 percent due to
fire, drought, and associated tree
mortality. Although we expect ingrowth
to occur, we are uncertain how soon the
landscape will be considered fisher
habitat, particularly because large trees
that often act as a seed source for future
regeneration were disproportionately
affected.
The number of fishers in the NSN
subpopulation is increasing and with
this increase, fishers are expanding and
using new habitats. We are encouraged
by this expansion and commend SPI,
CDFW, and other partners for their
efforts. However, we conclude that this
expansion is due to reintroduction
efforts, not because of an increase or
expansion of new habitat. Prior to the
reintroduction, the habitat existed and
was available, but it was unoccupied.
The commenter suggests that fisher’s
range has expanded by 24 percent since
a CDFW estimate in 2010. Based on the
maps provided and the comment, we
assume this refers to a 24 percent
increase in the occupied range for
NCSO. Judging expansions or
contractions in fisher populations from
ranges drawn by humans on a map can
be problematic because the polygons
created might not capture areas that
have not been surveyed, they likely do
not consider variable survey efforts (i.e.,
opportunistic versus systematic camera
surveys), or a line may closely or loosely
follow a boundary (which can greatly
skew comparisons). In this case, the
CDFW polygon does not include the
NSN subpopulation, nor does it include
all the known fisher sightings in the
area at the time, nor does it consider
areas that may have been undersurveyed. Furthermore, since CDFW’s
2010 estimate is from a Californiaspecific analysis, it does not include
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
areas in Oregon that are occupied by
fisher.
In the most recent review of fisher,
CDFW concludes that fishers currently
occupy much of their historical range in
northwestern California and may have
expanded in the redwood region (CDFW
2015, p. 23); fisher detections have
increased in northern coastal California
since the 1990s, though it is not known
as to whether this increase is due to a
range expansion, recolonization,
increased survey effort, or whether
fishers remained undetected in earlier
surveys (CDFW 2015, p. 50).
In our draft and final Species Report,
we reviewed fisher data (1994–2013) for
accuracy and minimized repetitive
individual sightings. When we use the
data from our species report and overlay
it with (1) newer locations from the
California Natural Diversity Database
(reviewed for accuracy), (2) newer SPI
locations, (3) newer locations from
Collins Pine Company, (4) multiple
newer efforts in southern Oregon
(captured for NCSO in Current
Condition, above), and (5) also consider
historical locations before 1994, the
majority of new locations are infill
within the bounds of our 1994–2013
data (Service 2020, map). There are a
few areas where we see new fisher
sightings, particularly along the eastern
edge of the species’ range. In Oregon, we
expect these new locations are largely a
product of increased survey effort or
research activity rather than an actual
increase in the range, because there are
numerous historical sightings in these
areas. In California, some of this
expansion is because of reintroduction
efforts at NSN, but some may also be
because of an increase in range, or
increased survey efforts. We are also
aware of a few areas where contractions
have been reported in Southern Oregon
near the Biscuit Fire and the SOC
subpopulation. We conclude that there
has been a recent range expansion
because of the reintroduction effort in
the NSN subpopulation. There have also
been some small contractions. And,
there have been some small expansions,
but we are unclear if these are actual
expansions or the result of increased
survey effort.
Habitat Recruitment
(37) Comment: A couple of
commenters stated that OGSI–80 is a
poor surrogate for fisher habitat and
demonstrably under-represents
substantial areas of occupied fisher
habitat in the NCSO and NSN areas and
is not the best scientific information.
There is little evidence that OGSI–80
represents or correlates with fisher
habitat. It may be appropriate for
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
predicting northern spotted owl habitat,
but there is little evidence that
predicted habitat for northern spotted
owl is similar to fisher habitat (cites
Zielinski et al. 2006). Trends in OGSI–
80 should only be used to represent
habitat in areas where that habitat type
occurs and should not be relied upon to
represent fisher habitat trends
elsewhere.
Our Response: We have revised our
vegetation management section to
clarify our use of the OGSI–80 forest
condition. We have explored several
avenues to assess trends in fisher habitat
in the absence of an available DPS-wide
model that displays changes in fisher
habitat over time. For our 2014
Proposed Rule, we used northern
spotted owl habitat as a surrogate for
fisher habitat because that allowed us to
estimate losses through timber harvest.
However, comments from peer
reviewers and the public criticized our
use of spotted owl habitat and that it
may not properly represent fisher
habitat. They also wanted us to consider
ingrowth of fisher habitat and its role in
replacing habitat lost to disturbances
such as vegetation management and fire.
Hence, we have used OGSI–80 because
it is a forest stand condition that is
mapped throughout most of the NCSO
portion of the DPS. We do not consider
it as a model for fisher habitat and
realize that it may include areas that are
not considered suitable for fishers, as
well as not capturing all suitable fisher
habitat. It does, however, allow us to
assess regional-scale trends in the
forests that contain the structural
elements consistently used by fishers
(large snags, down wood, and large live
trees). Although several commenters
believe this is not the best available
data, they have provided no alternatives
to assess trends in this structural
condition (both loss and recruitment) at
a regional scale across the DPS.
Regarding the comment that OGSI–80
should be used to represent habitat only
in areas where the habitat type occurs,
we do not consider OGSI–80 a habitat
type. It represents a structural condition
used by fishers. The OGSI–80 condition
has the potential to be found anywhere
the forest vegetation zones upon which
it was built occur (Davis et al. 2015, pp.
9–10, Figure 4), which is all forested
zones within the NWFP portion of the
DPS. Hence, we are not applying it in
areas outside of its intended use.
(38) Comment: Regarding our use of
OGSI–80 to document trends in
vegetation important to fishers, one
commenter believed it is unlikely that
80-year-old conditions would represent
fisher habitat unless those stands
contained much older features. Another
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
commenter noted that in using OGSI to
measure ingrowth of fisher habitat, the
Service has no idea if the stands with
ingrowth have structures needed by
fisher. Hence, the Service should not
assume that recently developed OGSI–
80 stands are of a quality 80 years postharvest to support fisher denning.
Our Response: See our responses
above regarding our intent in our use of
OGSI–80. OGSI–80 stands are meant to
represent mature forest stands with oldforest remnants. The OGSI–80 threshold
represents the general point in the forest
succession time scale when forests in
the NWFP area begin to develop stand
structure associated with older forest
(Davis et al. 2015, p. 18, Figure 2) and
includes older forest stands on that
succession time scale as well. For stands
to meet the OGSI–80 threshold, they
had to have greater than 10 percent
canopy cover and meet minimum tree
and log size criteria, depending on the
vegetation zone (Service 2016, p. 102).
For the Douglas-fir and white fir/grand
fir forest vegetation zones, which
comprise much of the NCSO, OGSI–80
stands had to have at least one large live
tree greater than 75 cm (29.5 in) dbh or
an average stand diameter greater 37.5
cm (14.25 in) dbh. In addition, stands
had a minimum snag size of 50 cm (19.7
in) dbh and minimum log diameter of
25 cm (9.8 in) (Davis et al. 2015, pp. 17–
18, Table 5). Although average size of
trees and snags used by fishers are often
substantially larger than the minimum
tree and snag diameters used to define
OGSI stands, structures of this size have
been used by resting and denning
fishers in study areas in the DPS (e.g.,
Lofroth et al. 2011, pp. 38, 52, 57, 78).
As we acknowledged in the vegetation
management section, OGSI–80 does not
represent all fisher habitat, and it may
define areas that are not used by fishers,
but it fairly represents trends through
time of forest structures used by fishers.
(39) Comment: One commenter stated
that the proposed rule seems to
significantly overstate the threats to the
NCSO population and the cited data
seems contradictory. Specifically, the
rule states that fire is removing 8
percent of habitat/decade, yet the OGSI–
80 analysis shows only a 1 percent loss/
decade, if that, because of ingrowth
(which is ignored when describing
removal by wildfire). The rule further
states that ingrowth is expected to
increase in the coming decade, which
would seemingly more than compensate
for any loss from any of the disturbances
evaluated.
Our Response: We have revised our
discussion of wildfire threats to clarify
the distinction between the Davis et al.
(2015, entire) analysis of loss of OGSI–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
80 forest to wildfire in the NWFP
portion of the DPS (which covers the
NCSO portion of the DPS) and the
analysis done by the Service to more
directly assess fisher habitat loss to
wildfire. We assume that the
commenter’s statement that fire is
removing 8 percent/decade of fisher
habitat is referring to our projection that
4 to 8 percent of fisher habitat would be
lost to wildfire over the next 40 years in
the NCSO portion of the DPS, based on
our analysis done in the draft species
report (Service 2014, p. 64). That
analysis was done by overlaying
mapped fisher habitat (as determined
through modeling) with severity data
from fires that had occurred from 1984
to 2011. We updated that analysis to
include more recent fires in the NCSO
area (data from 2008 to 2018) and found
that 7 percent of fisher habitat was lost
to high-severity wildfires during that
time period. Davis et al. (2015, pp. 30–
31, Tables 6 and 7) looked at loss of
OGSI–80 stands to wildfire from 1993
through 2012, and their results differ
from ours likely for several reasons,
with the primary one being that they
looked at a different time period than
we did and did not capture more recent
fires. In addition, their analysis did not
include portions of the NCSO DPS that
are outside of the NWFP area.
While forest ingrowth is expected to
increase in the coming decades, so is
loss of habitat to wildfire. Hence, we
cannot conclude whether or not
ingrowth will fully compensate for
projections of loss of fisher habitat.
Upon reconsideration of the threats and
the current condition of the NCSO DPS,
we have determined that the NCSO DPS
of fisher is not in danger of extinction
throughout its range, nor likely to
become so in the foreseeable future.
(40) Comment: One commenter stated
that habitat trend analysis based on
OGSI–80 is inadequate to fully describe
fisher habitat ingrowth. Growth is
occurring on all lands excluded from
OGSI–80 definition, yet growth is
recognized on Federal lands only for the
OGSI–80 type. Growth on remaining
occupied Federal lands and private
lands is acknowledged, but its
importance is not considered. The
Service should consider the
implications of estimated future habitat
ingrowth and fisher population
response (see Powell et al. 2019 final
report, p. 25).
Our Response: We are not using
OGSI–80 to quantify the amount of
fisher habitat ingrowth. It is a means to
assess the trends of those old-forest
structural components used by fishers
throughout the DPS (see our responses
above). Our analysis accounted for
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29581
ingrowth on non-Federal lands, in
including the data from Davis et al.
(2015, pp. 30–31), which addressed
ingrowth from both Federal and nonFederal lands. Ingrowth was over three
times greater on non-Federal lands than
on Federal lands (13.5 percent on nonFederal lands and 4.2 percent on
Federal lands, for a total ingrowth of 8
percent on the combined ownerships
over the 20-year analysis period) within
the combined provinces of the Oregon
Klamath, California Klamath, California
Coast Range, and California Cascades
within the NWFP area of the DPS.
Regarding the reference to Powell et al.
(2019, p. 25), we have incorporated their
assessment of the status of the NSN
reintroduced population into our
analysis.
(41) Comment: One commenter stated
that habitat trends in the HCP/CCAA
covered lands within the NCSO will be
stable to increasing over the foreseeable
future. Combined, these habitat trends
do not support a habitat-related
likelihood of endangered status in the
foreseeable future.
Our Response: Upon further analysis
and consideration of comments, we
have determined that the NCSO DPS is
not in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future.
Implementation of Specific
Conservation and Recovery Actions
(42) Comment: One commenter
requested implementation of specific
conservation or recovery actions for
fishers throughout the West Coast
States, including research and
management activities that would
improve the overall landscape for
fishers. The actions (e.g., cessation of
logging and trapping) were
recommended to the Service because
the commenter believed they would
ensure the long-term conservation of the
fisher.
Our Response: We appreciate the
recommendations provided to conserve
fishers and their habitat. Although no
comprehensive strategy for fishers in the
West Coast States exists, we
acknowledge conservation measures,
strategies, and actions that may benefit
fisher conservation in this rule. We also
recognize that specific management
activities can increase forest resiliency,
and although there may be short-term
negative effects to fishers, certain
actions are likely to have an
overarching, net beneficial impact for
the conservation of fishers in this DPS.
Other Stressors
(43) Comment: One commenter took
issue with the following statement from
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule: ‘‘Now,
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29582
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
these small populations of Pacific Fisher
are threatened by the use of toxic
rodenticides by marijuana growers, and
increasing fire severity exacerbated by
climate change, along with loss of
habitat due to logging.’’ The commenter
states that increasing fire severity
exacerbated by climate change and loss
of habitat due to logging are theory only,
and that only rodenticide is the real
threat. The commenter asserts that no
significant climate change has taken
place in the western Cascades since
1650 and that there has been little to no
logging taking place that affects the
habitat in question. Protection of fisher
from the threat of poisoning due to toxic
rodenticides can, and should be, done
by local ordinance, not by putting our
lands at risk from further
mismanagement by restricting activity
and efforts to reduce current
catastrophic fuel loads. The commenter
then went on to state that the true
danger to fisher is, and will continue to
be, catastrophic wildfire, and
management efforts for that purpose
must continue unimpeded.
Our Response: Our threats analysis
considered the best available science
and considered them holistically when
making our final decision (see Threats
sections, above, for specific information
about each threat). In addition, we
recognize the importance of fuels
reduction treatments that promote forest
heterogeneity while retaining structural
elements important to fishers (for
example, see Voluntary Conservation
Measures section, above).
Policy
(44) Comment: One commenter
asserted that we should more closely
evaluate the five listing factors to ensure
that we are acting on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data
available, rather than speculation or
supposition.
Our Response: Our Policy on
Information Standards under the Act
(published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of
the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our
associated Information Quality
Guidelines (www.fws.gov/
informationquality/), provide criteria
and guidance, and establish procedures
to ensure that our decisions are based
on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for
recommendations to list a species (or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
DPS) as an endangered or threatened
species. We use information from many
different sources, including articles in
peer-reviewed journals, scientific status
surveys and studies completed by
qualified individuals, Master’s thesis
research that has been reviewed but not
published in a journal, other
unpublished governmental and
nongovernmental reports, reports
prepared by industry, personal
communication about management or
other relevant topics, conservation plans
developed by States and counties,
biological assessments, other
unpublished materials, experts’
opinions or personal knowledge, and
other sources. We have relied on
published articles, unpublished
research, habitat modeling reports,
digital data publicly available on the
internet, and the expert opinion of
subject biologists to aid in the
determination that the SSN DPS of
fisher meets the definition of an
endangered species.
Also, in accordance with our peer
review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited peer review
of the 2014 Species Report (Service
2014, entire) from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that
included familiarity with the species,
the geographic region in which the
species occurs, and conservation
biology principles; their feedback was
incorporated into the 2016 final Species
Report (Service 2016, entire), which
remains the foundation of our research
along with our additional analysis
presented in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule and this final rule. Additionally,
we requested comments or information
from other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties over multiple
comment periods for both the 2014
Proposed Rule and the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule (see Previous Federal
Actions, above). Comments and
information we received helped inform
this final rule. Also, we revisited our
threats analysis and determined that the
NCSO DPS is not warranted for listing.
(45) Comment: Three commenters
stated that our discussion of the PECE
Policy in the proposed rule was
insufficient, and asserted that we should
conduct a PECE analysis. Two of these
commenters stated that conducting this
analysis would result in a decision that
the species is not warranted for listing.
The third commenter also claimed that
we failed to consider numerous existing
conservation efforts (e.g., MOUs or
HCPs that address wildfire risk and
enforcement programs) that were
developed to benefit fishers and other
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
species that inhabit forested lands. The
third commenter also claimed that the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule did not
explain why the variety of existing
regulatory mechanisms and voluntary
conservation measures are not at a scale
or magnitude sufficient to ameliorate
the primary significant threats.
Generally, these commenters stated or
implied that we could not reach a
conclusion to list the species as
endangered or threatened when no
analysis under the PECE Policy or a
cumulative effects analysis is
conducted.
Our Response: Upon determining that
our status assessments would be
conducted individually on the NCSO
DPS and SSN DPS, we then evaluated
threats and any potentially ameliorating
measures specific to each. For the NCSO
DPS, as discussed above in its specific
Determination section, our analysis
found that the cumulative effect of
threats acting on the DPS at their
current scale and magnitude did not
cause the DPS to be in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, now or in the
foreseeable future, especially given the
DPS’s overall resiliency, redundancy,
and representation. While we
acknowledged and evaluated various
regulatory mechanisms and
conservation efforts, and the potential
benefits they may provide to the DPS,
we did not rely on them for our
conclusion that the NCSO DPS did not
meet the definition of either an
endangered or threatened species. As
such, no PECE analysis was necessary.
For the SSN DPS, our analysis found
that the cumulative effect of threats
acting on the DPS at their current scale
and magnitude do cause the DPS to be
in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range, in light of the anticipated
effect of the identified threats on the
DPS’s overall resiliency, redundancy,
and representation. Our analysis
included consideration of any potential
benefits provided to the SSN DPS by
existing regulatory mechanisms, as well
as potential benefits that may result
collaterally from existing voluntary
conservation efforts that were not
developed for fisher conservation. In
addition, we considered the benefits
resulting from an existing voluntary
conservation strategy, while noting that
changed circumstances arising from tree
mortality events in the range of the SSN
DPS will require revisions to some of
the strategy’s conservation measures.
While all of the conservation efforts
identified are being implemented and
are effective in some measure, and
therefore do not require a PECE
analysis, we found that they are not
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
ameliorating the threats such that the
SSN DPS did not meet the definition of
an endangered species.
(46) Comment: One commenter
claimed that we did not explain what
new scientific and commercial
information was developed between the
2016 withdrawal (81 FR 22710, April
18, 2016) and the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. The commenter stated
that we changed our position regarding
the efficacy and desirability of
establishing conservation agreements
even though developing and adopting
these types of agreements has expanded
over time.
Our Response: The Summary of
Changes section of the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule noted new information
since completion of the 2016 final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire)
that we evaluated in that proposal. Our
analysis of all new information since the
2016 final Species Report was
summarized and cited where applicable
in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule and
this final rule, including new
information received during the public
comment periods on the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule.
With regard to conservation
agreements, we heavily rely on
voluntary conservation efforts to
provide for the conservation and aid in
recovery of listed species. As stated
above, we have previously and continue
to believe that our relationship with
private, State, tribal, and Federal
landowners is imperative for the
conservation of fishers. We intend to
continue to work cooperatively with
partners and assist where possible.
(47) Comment: One commenter
claimed that the Revised Proposed Rule
failed to provide a rational explanation
for changing a conclusion (in the 2016
withdrawal) that none of the threats
were resulting in species-level impacts.
Additionally, the commenter asserted
that we eliminated discussion of
species-wide threats and instead argued
that individual-level threats
cumulatively rise to the level that listing
is required without showing how each
of the potential threats actually affects
the species.
Our Response: In this final rule, the
Service has examined again the threats
and impacts to the fisher populations,
and that analysis has led to the
conclusions and rationale supporting
this final determination. Addressing the
commenter’s concern, our rationale in
the Threats sections in this final rule
explains how the various threats impact
the species.
(48) Comment: One commenter
argued that we should have analyzed
whether the West Coast DPS of fisher is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
endangered in a significant portion of its
range.
Our Response: Please see our
response to Comment 14 regarding the
DPSs analyzed for this effort. As
presented herein, our analysis of the
NCSO DPS indicated that it was not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, nor likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Upon reaching that
conclusion, we conducted an analysis to
see if there were any portions of the
NCSO DPS that warranted further
consideration as being in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. We did not find any
such portion, and concluded that the
NCSO DPS is not in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in any significant portion of its
range. Regarding the SSN DPS, our
analysis indicated it was in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range,
and therefore did not conduct an SPR
analysis.
Population Estimates
(49) Comment: The proposed rule
incorrectly states that the Hoopa
population was declining during 2005–
2012 (84 FR, at 60285, column 2,
November 7, 2019). This conclusion is
not valid because reported lambda
confidence intervals overlapped 1.0.
The relevance of these data 7 years later
is not evaluated. Also, as noted in
comments on the 2014 listing proposal,
this decline only brought the Hoopa
population from an atypical high
density to a density similar to other
populations in the surrounding region,
a fact not noted in the rule.
Our Response: While there is
uncertainty in concluding whether the
population is increasing or decreasing
given that the lambda confidence
intervals overlap 1, the lambda value of
0.992 for the Hoopa study is a statistic
that indicates a declining population
during the time period measured. We do
not have additional population data
from that study area to indicate the
population trend since 2012. Regarding
the decline from an ‘‘atypical high
density’’ to a level similar to other fisher
populations in the area, the commenter
is referring to Matthews et al. (2011, p.
72) where fishers declined from a
density estimate of 52 (per 100 km2
(38.62)) to 14 between 1998 and 2005.
This decline preceded the 2005 to 2012
analysis. We do not know whether the
slight population decline observed
between 2005 and 2012 is a
continuation of the overall decline from
1993, a reflection of a population that is
currently fluctuating around carrying
capacity, or some other phenomenon.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29583
(50) Comment: One commenter stated
that Green et al. (2019b) (as yet
unpublished) acknowledged that their
results only describe a short-term
situation and confined speculation
about implications to their discussion
section. The 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule did not acknowledge that some of
the fishers displaced by fire may have
survived to emigrate and may not have
been lost to the larger regional
population. The commenter also stated
that the proposed rule did not
acknowledge or evaluate the overlap in
credible interval values from the postfire and pre-fire population estimates,
nor that the upper credible value postfire estimates approached the mean prefire estimates (see Green et al. 2019b,
Table 2 and Figure 2). The commenter
asserted that the proposed rule
uncritically applies this estimate of
post-fire loss to the analysis that
concluded there has been a 7 percent
loss in habitat since 2008. The
commenter claimed that these
oversights create unacknowledged
uncertainty as to the validity and
application of this estimate,
compounded by issues with the 2014
modeling that was addressed in
comments at that time, but not
acknowledged in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule.
Our Response: We elaborate more on
Green et al. (2019b, entire) in this rule,
noting the observation that the post-fire
population estimates have confidence
intervals that overlap with pre-fire
estimates, as well as the uncertainties in
the ultimate fate of fishers in response
to wildfire.
Regarding our evaluation of fisher
habitat loss to wildfires and the
commenter’s assertion that we
‘‘uncritically’’ applied the estimate of
post-fire habitat loss in Green et al.
(2019b, p. 6) to that analysis, we are
referring to the authors’ definition of
high-severity fire, which is a basal area
mortality of greater than or equal to 50
percent. We acknowledge that fishers
may begin moving about these stands
within a decade or two after fires once
stand growth is initiated. However, our
use of the Green et al. (2019b, p. 6)
definition of high-severity fire for the
purposes of quantifying the acres of
fisher habitat that may be unavailable to
fishers in the short term is a reasonable
approach and is not inconsistent with
observations of fisher avoidance of areas
with less than or equal to 30 percent
canopy cover (Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10,
footnote 7).
The use of the fisher habitat model
continues to remain the best available
science regarding a large-scale map of
fisher habitat across the fisher range.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29584
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The comments and responses regarding
the fisher habitat model in the 2016
Withdrawal do not lead us to conclude
that our assessment of habitat loss was
flawed, particularly because it was done
at the DPS-wide scale. We cannot know
whether the estimate of 7 percent of
fisher habitat lost based on modeling is
precise, but it is a reasonable estimate
given the landscape-scale application of
the fisher habitat model.
(51) Comment: One commenter
pointed out that the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule concedes that it is
unknown whether fisher populations
are stable or declining. The commenter
asserted that the proposed rule should
evaluate the implications of the lack of
conclusive information that fishers in
the DPS are declining. Additionally,
they stated that the lack of conclusive
evidence of decline should increase the
burden of proof that the other threats are
indeed demonstrable, conclusive, and
serious. According to the commenter,
given the substantial expansion of the
range, the Service must also consider
whether the population size within the
NCSO and SSN subpopulations is likely
to be expanding, and if there is no
evidence of population decline,
evidence of effects of threats must be
conclusive.
Our Response: To clarify the
statement relied upon by the
commenter, we stated in our 2019
Revised Proposed Rule that, based on
the information available regarding
population growth data, we could not
conclude that populations were stable,
increasing, or declining. All three
scenarios are plausible, given the
available data. However, we also note
that the lack of conclusive evidence of
a decline is also not conclusive
evidence that there is no decline. The
commenter further suggests that, in the
face of inconclusive evidence for a
population decline, we must then
provide conclusive evidence that threats
acting on a species must be
demonstrable and serious. In response,
we reiterate that we did not conduct our
analyses using an assumption that
populations are declining. We merely
presented the available information
regarding population growth, while at
the same time presenting our analyses of
how both threats and conservation
measures are likely to affect the viability
of each DPS.
(52) Comment: One commenter noted
that the proposed rule considers Higley
et al. (2014) and Green et al. (2019b), but
does not evaluate other material in our
possession, specifically Powell et al.
2019, which stated, ‘‘Our best estimates
of survival and reproduction are
consistent with a stable or growing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
population on Stirling.’’ Although this
study differs from the Higley and Green
studies in that it was initiated in an area
newly occupied by fishers, it was of
similar duration to both of them and the
population size was similar to Higley et
al. (2019) and larger than that of Green
et al. (2019b). The conclusions from
Powell et al. (2019) are worthy of
qualified evaluation in an objective
assessment of fisher population trend in
NCSO.
Our Response: We incorporated
information from Powell et al. (2019,
entire) regarding the growth trend of the
Stirling (NSN) reintroduced population
into our analysis for this rule.
(53) Comment: One commenter stated
that available scientific information
indicates that fisher population trends
are not declining and, in Northern
California, they likely are stable or
increasing. The commenter asserted that
these trends have probably contributed
to the substantial expansion of the
species’ range within the last 9 years.
The commenter concluded that there is
no evidence of declines at the
population scale.
Our Response: In the Current
Condition section for the NCSO DPS in
this final rule, we elaborate on
population variability in general and
how that may affect any interpretation
of the available data on NCSO
populations. We are not aware of any
substantial expansion beyond the NSN
translocation and the subsequent growth
of that subpopulation.
(54) Comment: One commenter stated
that the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
describes significant uncertainty
regarding fisher population status and
trend using prior data, despite the
availability of scientific studies that
were developed with robust sample
design and effort. This commenter cited
multiple references for inclusion such
as Furnas et al. 2017 and Powell et al.
2019.
Our Response: We incorporated the
population estimate of Furnas et al.
(2017, p. 12) and the conclusions
regarding the NSN subpopulation into
our analysis of the NCSO DPS (see the
Current Condition section of the NCSO
DPS analysis). We incorporated a
discussion of the fluctuating nature of
populations over time and acknowledge
the fisher’s ability to sustain
populations within the DPS in the
presence of ongoing stressors.
(55) Comment: One commenter
claimed that the Service changed its
interpretation of confidence intervals
with no rationale for the change. They
request that the Service explain how to
interpret a confidence interval so the
public and reviewing courts will
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
understand the technical basis for the
Service’s conclusions.
Our Response: For population
monitoring studies, we have moved
away from discussing confidence
intervals around lambda, preferring
instead in this final determination to
discuss the fluctuations in lambda we
see and how they likely represent
normal fluctuations of a population at or
near carrying capacity (see NCSO
Current Condition, above).
(56) Comment: One commenter noted
that even though one catastrophic
wildfire damaged habitat for several
individual fishers, it would be improper
for the Service to use one event as
justification for listing a species.
Instead, the Service should be reviewing
the entire administrative record, and
affording one event the weight it
deserves in terms of predicting overall
population trends for the species.
Our Response: We have based our
determinations for the NCSO DPS and
the SSN DPS on the best scientific and
commercial data available. We
evaluated threats to the species and
assessed the cumulative effect of the
threats under section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
For the NCSO DPS, we determined that,
in part, because of the population’s
widespread distribution combined with
resiliency and redundancy, it did not
warrant listing. For the SSN DPS, we
concluded that, in part, the small
population size, combined with
substantial habitat loss as a result of
recent tree mortality among other
factors, warranted listing as endangered.
In conclusion, we have based our
decisions on a multitude of factors, not
on a single event.
Rodenticides
(57) Comment: Several commenters
asserted that rodenticides
(anticoagulants or neurotoxicants) are a
significant threat to the DPS, and that
we underestimated the risks to the
species in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule. Some of these commenters
provided information on this threat,
such as illegal grow site activity in
Oregon. Another commenter expressed
concerns related to staffing constraints
on Federal lands that have delayed and
likely will continue to delay cleanup
activities. Another commenter was
concerned that emotional reaction
stimulated by the proposed rule’s
description of the potential effects of
anticoagulant rodenticides and the
potential extent of this threat may
influence the perception of the actual
magnitude of the effect to fishers.
Additionally, the commenter claimed
that the Service did not address an
important gap in present knowledge
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
about anticoagulant rodenticides within
the species’ range, i.e., the degree to
which exposure influences mortality of
fishers within the DPS, which the
commenter asserts should have
substantial bearing on any conclusion
about the magnitude of this threat.
Our Response: Toxicants, especially
rodenticides, are a threat to fisher in
both the NCSO and the SSN DPSs. And,
we agree that finding and cleaning up
after illegal grow sites is problematic
from an ecological, funding, and staffing
perspective. We also agree that the
description of toxicant poisoning elicits
an emotional response. At this time, our
evaluation of the best available
scientific and commercial information
regarding toxicants and their effects on
fishers leads us to conclude that
individual fishers within both DPSs
have died from toxicant exposure,
fishers suffer a variety of sublethal
effects from exposure to rodenticides,
and the potential for illegal grow sites
within fisher habitat is high. But it is
difficult for us to accurately estimate the
effects these rodenticides are having to
fisher as a whole because we do not
understand what proportion of the
population is being negatively affected
(i.e., mortality or sublethal effects).
For the NCSO DPS, in spite of the
ongoing impacts from toxicants, the
NCSO population seems to be
withstanding this threat. For example,
the NSN subpopulation has grown to
the point where the population is selfsustaining, despite the fact that
rodenticide exposure rates are similar to
other areas in California (Gabriel et al.
2015, entire; Powell et al. 2019, p. 16).
And, fisher at EKSA in the Klamath
Mountains in California near the Oregon
border do not show a long-term decline
(Powell et al. 2014, p. 18), despite the
fact that illegal grow sites are in the
area. For the SSN DPS, because this DPS
is much smaller, the lethal and
sublethal effects of toxicants to
individuals have the potential to have
population-level effects and reduce the
resiliency of the DPS as a whole.
(58) Comment: Two commenters
stated that rodenticides are subject to
increased regulation in Oregon and
California; although a timeframe for this
comment was not included, we assume
the commenters were referring to the
time since recreational marijuana use
became legalized in Oregon (2015) and
California (2016). Further, one
commenter argued that legalized and
increased regulation will reduce
trespass and improve environmental
cleanup and restoration of public lands
damaged by illegal marijuana
cultivation (although no data was
provided by the commenter).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Our Response: As discussed in the
general Exposure to Toxicants section
above, the data are mixed with respect
to how legalization is affecting illegal
grow sites on public lands. For example,
some information shows that illegal
grow sites on National Forests have
decreased in States where marijuana
was legalized (Klassen and Anthony
2019, p. 39; Prestemon et al. 2019, p. 1).
On the other hand, many law
enforcement officials have found no
indication that illegal grow sites have
decreased with cannabis legalization,
and it may in fact be increasing, in part
due to legalization providing an
effective means to launder illegal
marijuana (Hughes 2017, entire; Bureau
of Cannabis Control California 2018, pp.
28, 30; Sabet 2018, pp. 94–95; Fuller
2019, no page number; Klassen and
Anthony 2019, p. 45). Illegal grow sites
appear to be dropping in number but are
getting larger (impacting more fisher
home ranges) (Gabriel 2018, pers.
comm.). And, law enforcement actions
have caused illegal grow sites to
disperse further which makes them
more difficult to locate (Gabriel 2018,
pers. comm.). At this time, it is difficult
to reach conclusions about trends in the
abundance and frequency of illegal grow
sites this soon after legalization.
(59) Comment: One commenter
claimed that it is valid to extrapolate
known levels of anticoagulant exposure
to areas where little exposure research
has occurred (e.g., Stanislaus National
Forest), given the high rate of fisher’s
exposure in the Southern Sierras. The
commenter also claimed that the risk to
small population(s) from rodenticides
undercuts any chance of population
recovery.
Our Response: Illegal grow sites are
distributed as discrete patches
throughout much of the NCSO and SSN
DPSs. In the absence of data, it is
reasonable to assume the opportunity
for fisher to be exposed to toxicants is
similar across much of the NCSO and
SSN DPSs (except at higher elevations
where the growing season is shorter and
it is harder to grow marijuana). We also
agree for the SSN DPS, because this DPS
is much smaller, the lethal and
sublethal effects of toxicants to
individuals have the potential to have
population-level effects and reduce the
resiliency of the DPS as a whole. As to
the comment stating the risk to small
population(s) from rodenticides
undercuts any chance of population
recovery, no further evidence was
provided to support this claim. It is the
intent of the ESA that species will
eventually be recovered.
(60) Comment: One commenter
asserted that voluntary conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29585
efforts on non-Federal lands (CCAAs
and HCPs) mitigate and decrease the
threats to fishers from toxicants, further
articulating that these conservation
measures aggressively prevent illegal
drug growing that use anticoagulant
rodenticides.
Our Response: We do not have
information that allows us to compare
and assess the distribution of illegal
grow sites on private versus public
lands. Nor do we have information on
how many acres may benefit from
limiting access to private lands or
information on how many patrols are
being added across what area and at
what frequency. Similarly, we do not
have information that allows us to
address how the voluntary conservation
measures may or may not be affecting
illegal grow sites. Further, not all
voluntary conservation efforts include
measures that address illegal grow sites
(e.g., the Oregon CCAAs). The job of
preventing illegal grow sites across large
areas is extremely difficult and comes
with large staffing and resource needs.
Although we cannot quantify the
effectiveness of these voluntary
conservation measures at lessening the
threat from toxicant exposure at illegal
grow sites, we do expect limiting access
will make it more difficult to establish
illegal grow sites. And increased patrols
(depending on the number of patrols
and the scale of the landscape they are
visiting) will act as a deterrent. We
support voluntary conservation efforts
to limit the impact of toxicant exposure
from illegal grow sites to fisher.
Range Expansion
(61) Comment: Several commenters
claimed that the range of the fisher in
the NCSO subpopulation expanded.
Some of these commenters provided
maps delineating occupied fisher range
(as determined by CDFW in 2010 and
2015), fisher location data from 1980 to
2019, and the Service’s West Coast
Fisher DPS boundary in support of their
conclusion. Further, they questioned the
magnitude of impact of purported
threats in light of this expansion.
Our Response: The maps provided by
the commenters were developed using
data sets from different time periods and
are not directly comparable. Further, we
did not receive data during the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule comment
periods to suggest that the range of the
fisher had expanded. The data we did
receive confirmed what we understood
about the distribution of fisher and
presented in our 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule. We find that the fisher NCSO DPS
is widespread and common to the point
where listing is not warranted at this
time.
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
29586
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Cumulative Effects
(62) Comment: One commenter
asserted that the Service’s analysis of
cumulative effects was missing from the
proposed rule. Further, the commenter
claimed that the threats analysis did not
support the Service’s determination that
the existing regulatory mechanisms are
not sufficient to address the cumulative
impacts of the primary threats,
specifically referring to exposure to
toxicants and habitat loss and
fragmentation due to wildfire and
vegetation management. Additionally,
and in contrast, we note our receipt of
a peer review comment on the 2014
Proposed Rule indicating that
synergistic (cumulative) effects,
primarily climate change and its
secondary effects from wildfire, pose the
most serious long-term threat to fisher
populations, especially in California.
Our Response: In evaluating the status
of a species or DPS, we identify both the
threats acting upon it and any
conservation efforts or mechanisms that
may ameliorate those threats. In
identifying threats, we describe them in
the context of the five listing factors,
and evaluate the scale and magnitude of
their effect on the species in light of
their impacts on the resilience,
redundancy, and representation of the
species. A species’ overall status with
regard to whether it warrants listing is
based on our assessment of the
cumulative effect of all threats and
ameliorating measures combined. This
cumulative analysis is found in the
Determination section of both our 2019
Revised Proposed Rule and this current
document.
(63) Comment: One commenter
claimed that little, if any, actionable
measures exist that could address the
individual-level threats identified by the
Service in order to recover the species.
The commenter asserted that those who
wish to help the species recover have no
clear direction forward, because the
threats described in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule are not assigned any
values and often are inconsistent with
one another. The commenter claimed
that many of these identified threats are
competing in nature. For example, the
commenter stated that severe wildfire
can often be prevented by proper
vegetation management. Similarly, the
commenter stated that vegetation
management can help prevent losses
due to forest insects and tree diseases by
preventing widespread loss of forest
vegetation.
Our Response: Threats acting on the
fisher are complex and interact with
each other such that some threats can
influence how other threats act on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
fisher. These influences can be either
positive (e.g., appropriate vegetation
management that may reduce forest
vulnerability to large-scale tree diseases
or insect outbreaks) or negative (e.g.,
climate change influencing the potential
for high-severity wildfires). In this
context of competing threat influences,
the commenter further suggests the need
to provide a direction forward for those
attempting to recover listed species, as
threats are not assigned any ‘‘values.’’
While we do not assign values to threats
when conducting a status assessment for
a species, we identify those threats that
may have the most significant impacts
to the species’ viability. However, we
also note that efforts to recover a
species, once determined it warrants
listing, are subsequently developed in
light of all the identified threats, where
they occur within the species’ range,
and how they interact with each other
and the species and its environment.
Recovery actions may therefore be
location- or habitat-specific, and address
the competing nature noted by the
commenter.
Threatened v. Endangered
(64) Comment: Several commenters
urged the Service to list the proposed
West Coast DPS of fisher as either
endangered or threatened, or urged
listing without specifying which status
is most appropriate. In contrast, several
other commenters urged the Service not
to list the taxon. Some comments urging
the Service not to list the DPS are either
focused on not listing specifically in the
State of Oregon or not listing the NCSO
subpopulation. All of these comments
with varied opinions are similar in
content and rationales to those received
on the 2014 Proposed Rule.
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. There is
significant information available on
fishers and their habitat in the West
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Coast States; we note there could always
be more data for most analyses to help
lessen uncertainties.
The determination for the NCSO DPS
is that listing is not warranted.
Regarding the SSN DPS, at this time the
best available scientific and commercial
information suggests that the
cumulative impact of the stressors
adversely affecting the SSN DPS of
fisher is such that listing the SSN DPS
of fisher as an endangered species is
appropriate. Of greatest concern at this
time are stressors related to illegal
rodenticide use, increasing high-severity
wildfires, and prolonged droughts that
exacerbate the effects from wildfire,
forest insects, and tree disease. For all
of these reasons and as detailed in the
Determination section of this document,
we conclude that the SSN DPS of fisher
meets the definition of an endangered
species under the Act.
(65) Comment: Two commenters
urged the Service to list the NCSO
subpopulation as a threatened species
and SSN subpopulation as an
endangered species, the latter because
they believe protections for this small,
isolated subpopulation are insufficient
to prevent its extinction and threats are
more immediate (e.g., high-severity
wildfires and drought within its narrow
range have increased in recent years).
Our Response: Please see our
response to Comment 14 and Comment
64, and the analysis for each DPS
contained in this document.
(66) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Rogue-River and Siskiyou area,
where the Ashland fisher population
resides, is recognized as a rich
environment of floristic biodiversity.
The commenter stated that habitat
characteristics deemed important for
fishers are equally critical for smaller
mammals and birds that rely on similar,
if not exact, habitat requirements, and
that species of special concern that also
cohabit this region, such as the northern
spotted owl, the Humboldt marten, and
the northern flying squirrel, would
certainly benefit from the overarching
protection of fisher resources that this
listing could provide. Further, the
commenter claimed that protection of
habitat characteristics for both predator
and prey species would retain an
ecological balance important to the
functionality of forest health and
successional stages (e.g., insect
population control and seed dispersal
roles by mammalian and avian species).
Our Response: We cannot base our
listing decision on the benefits of
habitat protection to other plants and
animals. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
directs us to ‘‘determine whether any
species is an endangered species or a
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
threatened species because of any of the
following 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 recognize the ecological
value of the Rogue River and Siskiyou
area, as well as its contribution to
fishers and other plants and animals.
However, this information did not
contribute to our overall determinations
on the status of the fisher.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Tree Mortality
(67) Comment: One commenter
expressed concern that canopy cover
loss from tree mortality will increase
fragmentation and reduce female fisher
gene flow. The commenter claimed that
tree mortality is resulting in extensive
management along road corridors,
which may further impede connectivity.
Our Response: We discussed the best
available science regarding tree
mortality in both the NCSO DPS and
SSN DPS of this final rule.
Vegetation Management
(68) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Revised Proposed Rule fails to
justify wildfire suppression and
vegetation management activities as
threats. The commenter asserted that the
Service should evaluate the benefits
associated with these activities,
including the decreased risk of severe
wildfire when vegetation is managed
appropriately.
Our Response: Fishers use managed
landscapes, particularly when key
elements such as den and rest trees are
retained and when forest heterogeneity
is promoted (see Vegetation
Management). There can be benefits
associated with vegetation management
including decreased risk of wildfire;
however, there are potential trade-offs to
these activities (e.g., loss of fisher
habitat to reduce wildfire risk in fisher
habitat), which should be weighed
carefully when implementing such
actions.
(69) Comment: One commenter
claimed that wildfire mitigation
activities, which can include vegetation
management, can be effective in longterm preservation of fisher habitat.
Meanwhile, the commenter pointed out
that other Federal agencies, such as the
Forest Service, have recognized that
active forest management is necessary to
address threats from widespread tree
mortality. Overall, the commenter
asserted that the Service failed to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
acknowledge the beneficial effects on
fisher habitat associated with forest and
fuels management.
Our Response: We acknowledge the
benefit of carefully applied fuels
reduction strategies in reducing wildfire
risk while also retaining fisher habitat
structural elements in the final Species
Report (Service 2016, pp. 60, 68–69).
We further acknowledge in this rule
conservation measures designed to
reduce fire risk while also retaining
fisher habitat structural elements.
(70) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service provides no analysis or
supporting citations for its conclusory
statements that removal of ‘‘snags and
other large habitat structures’’ for safety
reasons is a threat to the DPS.
Our Response: For clarification
purposes, we use the term ‘‘threat’’ to
refer in general to actions or conditions
that are known to or are reasonably
likely to negatively affect individuals of
a species, including alteration of habitat
or required resources. Because the fisher
uses snags and large trees for resting and
denning, their removal would have a
negative effect on the species and is, by
this definition, a threat. However, the
mere identification of a threat does not
necessarily mean that the species meets
the statutory definition of an
endangered or threatened species. For
both DPSs, we weighed the cumulative
effects of the threats, along with existing
conservation measures, to make our
determination.
(71) Comment: One commenter stated
that over the last 5 years, a variety of
logging projects within the fisher’s range
have degraded habitat. The commenter
claimed that if current trajectories
continue, we can expect to see more
habitat loss through logging.
Our Response: We recognize that
timber harvest is and will continue to be
an ongoing activity within the fisher
DPSs. However, it affects a small
portion of conditions used by fishers (as
represented by the OGSI–80 condition
in the NCSO DPS). For the NCSO DPS,
we concluded that timber harvest
(vegetation management), combined
with other analyzed threats and the
existing population condition, are not
acting on the DPS to the degree that it
meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act. Conversely,
for the SSN DPS we concluded that
timber harvest (vegetation management),
combined with other analyzed threats
and the existing population condition,
are such that the DPS meets the
definition of endangered under the Act.
(72) Comment: One commenter
observed that the proposed rule
discusses the effects of fire on fisher
habitat and the extended time to recover
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29587
habitat features. The commenter stated
that timber harvest on Federal lands
under existing management plans
allows the removal of live and dead
woody features that are important
components of denning habitat.
Furthermore, the commenter asserted
that timber harvest does not provide the
same ecological effects of fire, also
noting that timber harvest, as currently
practiced by the Forest Service and
BLM, can remove and downgrade fisher
habitat.
Our Response: In this rule and in the
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp.
60–77, 98–111), we acknowledge the
wide variety of effects on fisher habitat
as a result of wildfire and vegetation
management, as well as the different
ecological effects of fire vs. vegetation
management. We also recognize that
timber harvest on Federal lands has
removed, and will continue to remove,
fisher habitat and have factored that
information into our decision,
concluding that such harvest results in
removal of a small portion of fisher
habitat.
(73) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service is inconsistent with our
handling of vegetation management as a
tool to reduce the risk of large-scale,
high-severity wildfire. The commenter
noted that we conclude it is a threat to
fisher in the proposed rule, yet in the
recent finding for the California spotted
owl, the Service concluded that
vegetation management was necessary
to reduce the overall potential for
wildfires to be detrimental to California
spotted owl habitat and ultimately
concluded that the owl did not warrant
listing.
Our Response: The Service relied on
conservation efforts to reduce largescale high-severity fires within the range
of California spotted owl that included
specific measures to identify the greatest
risks to the owl’s known occupied
activity centers and prioritize fuels
reduction work that helps to protect the
greatest number of activity centers on
Federal and private lands, while not
reducing the quality of the highest
quality owl habitat in treated areas.
While these California spotted owl
conservation measures benefit fisher,
they do not explicitly describe how
implementation will benefit fisher.
Since the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule,
we received new MOUs designed to
reduce high-severity wildfire that
include specific conservation measures
to protect fisher habitat within the
NCSO DPS. We have incorporated this
new information into our analysis.
(74) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Service acknowledges in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule that it has
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29588
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
no basis to conclude that fuels
reduction, restoration thinning, or
indeed any other management activity is
a threat to the DPS; there is no
information on how different vegetation
management activities affect fisher
subpopulations and their persistence
within the DPS’s range. The commenter
also claimed that the Service proceeds
to conclude that some forms of
vegetative management, without
specifying which kinds, ‘‘may threaten
fisher.’’ The commenter asserted that,
based on this ‘‘slim reed,’’ the Service
then identified vegetative management
as a threat to the species, specifically
including fuels reduction and
restoration thinning.
Our Response: As noted in our
analyses, a wide range of activities fall
under the broad term, ‘‘vegetation
management.’’ Thus, fisher response to
vegetation management activities can
vary, depending on the type of activity
and its duration and magnitude (Service
2016, p. 110; see Vegetation
Management section). Our analysis of
the effects of vegetation management
(changes in OGSI–80 stands or in GNN
analyses; actual loss of fisher habitat
within the SSN) is somewhat driven by
the features measured in the data sets
we used. That is, in the case of OGSI–
80 stands, activities that reduce canopy
cover to below 10 percent or remove
large structural elements would be
recorded as a reduction in that stand
condition. Such activities may include
clearcuts and some fuels reduction
activities, but likely not thinning
activities. Hence, our analysis focuses
on those vegetation management
activities that likely have the greatest
effect on fishers in terms of removing
canopy cover or structural elements.
These types of vegetation management
activities seem to have the greatest effect
on fishers, although the portion of the
DPS affected by vegetation management
is small.
Wildfire
(75) Comment: One commenter stated
that the duration of impact from highseverity wildfire is not adequately
addressed. In particular, the commenter
claimed that the Service assumes that
habitat lost to high-severity wildfire is
permanent, and therefore does not
consider effects into the foreseeable
future. The commenter specifically
stated that we failed to consider fisher
re-occupancy of the 1992 Fountain Fire,
which was salvage-logged with little
retention of structures used by fisher.
Our Response: The Wildfire and
Wildfire Suppression section of this rule
and the 2016 final Species Report
(Service 2016, pp. 62–66, 77) include
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
discussions of short- and long-term
effects of wildfire on fisher habitat.
Further, the 2016 final Species Report
includes a discussion of fisher reoccupancy of the 1992 Fountain Fire
area (Service 2016, p. 66). Neither the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, this final
rule, nor the 2016 final Species Report
assumes that habitat loss as a result of
high-severity fire is permanent. The
2019 Revised Proposed Rule and this
final rule also consider vegetation
ingrowth (see Vegetation Management,
above) and its ability to represent trends
in forest structural conditions used by
fishers. Therefore, we have already
determined that habitat affected by fire
is not permanent and that fishers may
re-occupy burned areas in the
foreseeable future.
(76) Comment: One commenter stated
that the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
does not make a conclusive statement
regarding the degree to which wildfire
threatens fisher. The commenter cites
Powell et al. (2019, pp. 23–27) and
examples of fisher reoccupying burned
areas (e.g., Fountain Fire) as a reason to
reconsider the threat of extinction from
wildfire within the foreseeable future.
Specific to Powell et al. (2019), the
commenter claimed that extinction risk
for fisher did not exceed 0.25 unless
more than 40 percent of the simulated
area burned, with a decrease in risk
when SPI management was included.
Thus, the commenter asserted there is a
low risk of extinction when modeled at
a high rate of short-term, high-intensity
habitat loss. Lacking any analysis, the
commenter believed the conclusion
should be that the reported rate of loss
of habitat (7 percent over 10 years;
citing 84 FR 60278, p. 60288, November
7, 2019) is not likely to lead to
endangered status in the foreseeable
future.
Our Response: Contrary to the
comment, the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule and this final rule include
statements regarding the degree of
impacts of wildfire on fisher, at the
species level and for both
subpopulations (see Wildfire and
Wildfire Suppression). As we explain,
the impacts are highly variable and
depend on forest type, landscape
location, size, and intensity of the
wildfire. The conclusions reached by
the commenter regarding data in Powell
et al. (2019, pp. 23–27) appear to be
extrapolations of data presented in
figure 16 (Powell et al. 2019, p. 26). We
acknowledge the point the commenter
brings forward, but also note the model
used by Powell et al. 2019 and the data
used to determine the loss of habitat at
7 percent per year are different. As we
describe in Wildfire and Wildfire
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Suppression above, our analysis
addressed potential habitat loss from
wildfires. The analysis completed by
Powell et al. 2019 (entire) more
generally addresses area burned rather
than the potential fisher habitat loss
within that area. Therefore, these two
methods are not directly comparable.
(77) Comment: Multiple commenters
indicated that we did not analyze the
impact of fuel breaks and fuel reduction
projects occurring under MOUs for the
northern spotted owl and the California
spotted owl across Federal, State, and
private ownerships.
Our Response: The final rule includes
an updated discussion of the MOUs (see
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and
Voluntary Conservation Measures)
suggested by the commenter. In
summary, the MOUs have not been in
place very long; therefore, it is difficult
to understand their effectiveness and
subsequently their actual benefits to
fishers and their habitat. However, we
view these MOUs as important
collaboration tools that can achieve the
conservation needs of the fisher across
large landscapes. We will continue to
monitor these efforts into the future.
(78) Comment: One commenter is
concerned that entire populations and
subpopulations of fisher could be
eliminated by stochastic wildfire events
unless steps are taken to increase
protections. Two other commenters are
similarly concerned that climate-related
factors are predicted to increase wildfire
activity; thus, the commenters stated
that forest management is a necessary
tool to minimize the impacts and spread
of wildfire.
Our Response: We agree that the
impacts of wildfire are a significant
concern for fisher (see Wildfire and
Wildfire Suppression section of this
rule). We are optimistic that actions
implemented under voluntary
conservation measures (e.g., MOUs,
CCAAs, HCPs; see Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms and Voluntary
Conservation Measures section of this
rule), including forest management will
provide protection of fisher habitat in
the near and long term.
(79) Comment: One commenter stated
that the analysis of wildfire was not
thoroughly evaluated. Specifically, the
commenter raised concerns about the
Service’s use of OGSI–80 to determine
a less than 1 percent loss of habitat per
decade from wildfire and an analysis
conducted by the Service that showed a
7 percent of high and intermediate
fisher habitat loss to wildfire since 2008.
Our Response: We have revised our
discussion of wildfire threats to clarify
the distinction between the Davis et al.
(2015, entire) analysis of loss of OGSI–
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
29589
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
80 forest to wildfire and the analysis
done by us to more directly assess fisher
habitat loss to wildfire. Please see our
response to comments above and the
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
section of this rule.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
Common name
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
In development of the 2014 Species
Report, we sent letters noting our intent
to conduct a status review and
requested information from all tribal
entities within the historical range of
the West Coast DPS of fisher, and we
provided the draft Species Report to
those tribes for review. We also notified
the tribes via email to ensure they were
aware of the January 31, 2019,
document in the Federal Register to
reopen the comment period on the
October 7, 2014, proposed rule to list
the DPS as a threatened species. As we
move forward in this listing process, we
will continue to consult on a
government-to-government basis with
tribes as necessary.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Yreka Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Scientific name
Where listed
Status
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are
the staff members of the Unified
Interior’s California-Great Basin
Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend part 17.11(h) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Fisher (Southern Sierra
Nevada DPS)’’ in alphabetical order
under Mammals to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
Mammals
*
Fisher (Southern Sierra
Nevada DPS).
*
*
Pekania pennanti ...........
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
U.S.A. (Southern Sierra
Nevada, CA).
*
*
*
E
*
*
85 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 5/15/2020.
*
*
*
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–09153 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\15MYR2.SGM
15MYR2
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29532-29589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09153]
[[Page 29531]]
Vol. 85
Friday,
No. 95
May 15, 2020
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of
Fisher; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29532]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0105; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BD85
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act (Act), as
amended, for the Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti). This DPS occurs in California. The
effect of this regulation will be to add this DPS to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: This rule is effective June 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0105 and at https://www.fws.gov/Yreka. Comments and materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments,
materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking will
be available 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Ericson, Field Supervisor, Yreka
Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone: 530-842-5763. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species may be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule will add the Southern Sierra
Nevada DPS of fisher (Pekania pennanti) (SSN DPS) as an endangered
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may 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 identified multiple threats under various
factors that are acting on, and will continue to act on, the SSN DPS,
the full list of which can be found in our final Species Report 2016
(Service 2016, entire).
Of particular significance regarding implications for the DPS's
status were loss and fragmentation of habitat resulting from high-
severity wildfire and wildfire suppression (i.e., loss of snags and
other large habitat structures on which the species relies), climate
change, and tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect
infestations. Also of significance were threats related to potential
direct impacts to individual fishers (e.g., increased mortality,
decreased reproductive rates, increased stress/hormone levels,
alterations in behavioral patterns), including wildfire, increased
temperatures resulting from climate change, disease and predation,
exposure to toxicants, collisions with vehicles, and potential effects
associated with small population size. These factors are resulting in a
cumulative effect to such a degree that the best available information
indicates the Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of fisher meets the definition
of an endangered species.
Peer review and public comment. In accordance with our joint policy
on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we 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 both the draft Species Report (Service 2014) as well as the 2014
Proposed Rule (79 FR 60419, October 7, 2014). We also considered all
comments and information received during three public comment periods
(and one extension) for the 2014 Proposed Rule (79 FR 60419, October 7,
2014; 79 FR 76950, December 23, 2014; 80 FR 19953, April 24, 2015; 84
FR 644, January 31, 2019) and two comment periods for the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule (84 FR 60278, November 7, 2019; 84 FR 69712, December 19,
2019). All comments received during the peer review process and the
public comment periods have either been incorporated in the final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire), in this rule, or addressed in
the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section of the preamble.
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used
We use several acronyms and abbreviations throughout the preamble
of this final rule. To assist the reader, we list them here:
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
CAL FIRE = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CBI = California Biology Institute
CCAA = Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC = California Fish and Game Commission
C.I. = confidence interval
DOI = Department of the Interior
DPS = distinct population segment
EKSA = Eastern Klamath Study Area
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
ESU = evolutionarily significant unit
FPR = forest practice rules
GDRC = Green Diamond Resource Company
GNN = gradient nearest neighbor
HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan
MAUCRSA = Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
NCSO = Northern California/Southern Oregon
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA = National Forest Management Act
NPS = National Park Service
NSN = Northern Sierra Nevada
NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan
ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry
OGSI = old growth structure index
ONP = Olympic National Park
PECE = Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
RCP = representative concentration pathways
RMP = resource management plan
[[Page 29533]]
SHA = Safe Harbor Agreements
SNAMP = Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project
SOC = Southern Oregon Cascades
SPI = Sierra Pacific Industries
SSN = Southern Sierra Nevada
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
Previous Federal Actions
We first found the West Coast DPS of fisher (previously delineated
as a contiguous area encompassing parts of the three States of
Washington, Oregon, and California) to be warranted for listing in 2004
and each subsequent year in the annual Candidate Notice of Review. On
October 7, 2014, we proposed to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (79 FR 60419; Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-
0041) (hereafter referred to as 2014 Proposed Rule). On April 18, 2016,
we withdrew the proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher (81
FR 22710), concluding that the potential threats acting upon the DPS
were not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate
that they were singly or cumulatively resulting in significant impacts
at either the population or rangewide scales such that the DPS met the
definition of an endangered or threatened species.
On October 19, 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity,
Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center, and Sierra Forest Legacy filed a complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief, alleging that our determination on the West Coast
DPS of fisher violated the Act. By Order Re: Summary Judgment issued on
September 21, 2018, the District Court for the Northern District of
California vacated the listing withdrawal and remanded the Service's
final determination for reconsideration. The Court's amended order,
dated November 20, 2018, directed the Service to prepare a new
determination by September 21, 2019.
On January 31, 2019, we reopened the comment period on the October
7, 2014, proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a
threatened species (84 FR 644).
On May 17, 2019, the District Court for the Northern District of
California granted a request by the Service for a 35-day extension to
comply with the November 20, 2018, order as a result of delays due to
the Federal Government's lapse in appropriations that prohibited the
Service from working on this determination. The Court's amended order
directed the Service to submit for publication a final listing
determination or notice of a revised proposed rule by October 26, 2019,
and in the event of publishing a revised proposed rule, submit for
publication a final listing determination by April 25, 2020.
On November 7, 2019, we published a revised proposed rule to list
the West Coast DPS of fisher (84 FR 60278) (hereafter referred to as
2019 Revised Proposed Rule). In the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we
evaluated new information available since 2014 and reconsidered the
best available information already in our files (including all peer,
partner, and public comments received during previous comment periods
as well as the two recent comment periods on the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule). In the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we concluded that the West
Coast DPS of fisher continued to meet the definition of a threatened
species based on cumulative effects associated with multiple threats
across the DPS's range.
Additional information on Federal actions concerning the West Coast
DPS of fisher prior to October 7, 2014, is outlined in the 2014
Proposed Rule (October 7, 2014, 79 FR 60419).
Summary of Changes From the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
Our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule discussed how potential changes from
the proposed rule to the final rule regarding status would constitute a
logical outgrowth, stating that, ``Because we will consider all
comments and information received during the comment period, our final
determination may differ from the proposed rule. Based on the new
information we receive (and any comments on that new information), we
may conclude that the species is endangered instead of threatened, or
we may conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an
endangered or a threatened species. Such final decisions would be a
logical outgrowth of this proposal as long as we: (1) Base the
decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available after
considering all of the relevant factors; (2) do not rely on factors
Congress has not intended us to consider; and (3) articulate a rational
connection between the facts found and the conclusions made, including
why we changed our conclusion (84 FR at 60278-79, November 7, 2019).''
Although this discussion centered on a final decision regarding the
status of the previously singular West Coast DPS, and the logical
outgrowth leading to that decision from our Revised Proposed Rule, we
have followed this approach in developing this final rule in its
totality, to include our re-evaluation of the DPS and the resulting
status determinations that followed from our revised DPS
determinations.
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule we presented our delineation of
the DPS for West Coast populations of fishers, which was revised from
the 2014 Proposed Rule. This revised delineation identified the West
Coast DPS as comprising the two extant historically native
subpopulations, Northern California/Southern Oregon (NCSO) and Southern
Sierra Nevada (SSN), as well as the Northern Sierra Nevada (NSN, also
known as the Stirling subpopulation, as referenced in specific text
regarding the Stirling Management Unit) and Southern Oregon Cascades
(SOC) subpopulations that resulted from reintroductions within a
portion of the historical range of the DPS. These four subpopulation
groups occur geographically in essentially two groupings: NCSO
(including NSN and SOC subpopulations) and the wholly separate SSN
subpopulation.
In the 2014 Proposed Rule, we explained that the DPS we proposed to
list included all the fisher subpopulations in the three western States
(Washington, Oregon, California) known to be extant at that time. Thus,
the DPS included the fisher subpopulations in NCSO (including SOC and
NSN), SSN, and Olympic National Park (ONP) in Washington. Both the ONP
and SOC subpopulations were established with fishers translocated from
areas outside the three western States, e.g., British Columbia,
Alberta, and Minnesota; the NCSO and SSN subpopulations were existing
subpopulations historically indigenous to this three-State area, and
NSN was established with fishers translocated from the NCSO source
subpopulation.
However, we also included a discussion of potential alternative DPS
configurations in the 2014 Proposed Rule, and we requested public
comment and peer review on the two alternative DPS configurations.
DPS Alternative 1 consisted of a single DPS encompassing the extant
subpopulations with unique genetic characteristics in California and
southern Oregon (i.e., NCSO, NSN, and SSN). Alternative 1 focused on
conservation of known fishers indigenous to this California and
southern Oregon region, and it excluded all reintroduced subpopulations
established with non-California/Oregon fishers (i.e., SOC and ONP). In
addition, Alternative 1 excluded areas to the north of NCSO where
subpopulations of historically indigenous fishers were likely
extirpated. It included both SSN
[[Page 29534]]
and NCSO (which includes NSN), which each have unique genetic
characteristics; this inclusion would allow for management of both
these native subpopulations as a single DPS. In addition, this would
allow for recovery efforts throughout the historical range in
California and southern Oregon.
DPS Alternative 2 consisted of two narrowly drawn DPSs around each
of the extant subpopulations with unique genetic characteristics in
California and southern Oregon (i.e., NCSO with NSN, and SSN). This
alternative also focused on conservation of known fishers indigenous to
this California and southern Oregon region with unique genetic
characteristics, and it excluded all reintroduced subpopulations (i.e.,
SOC and ONP) established with non-California/Oregon fishers. This
Alternative excluded the areas to the north of NCSO where fisher
subpopulations were likely extirpated; it included both NCSO (which
includes NSN) and SSN subpopulations, which each have unique genetic
characteristics; and it allowed for management of the subpopulations as
separate DPSs, recognizing the unique genetic characteristics within
each. In addition, if the magnitude of threats was found to be
different in the two DPSs, this would allow for different management
for each DPS with regard to recovery.
We received multiple comments on our DPS approach and possible
alternative DPS configurations in response to the 2014 Proposed Rule.
These comments spanned a broad range of responses from support for the
full three-State DPS to support for each of the possible Alternatives
to support for other configurations. The basis for the commenters'
positions was equally varied; these positions ranged from supporting
differing genetics between subpopulations to supporting the need for
different management considerations. After consideration of all of
these comments, we moved forward with a modified Alternative 1 in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, with the exception that we included SOC in
the DPS (as part of NCSO). In the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we did
not specifically state that the DPS was based on focusing on
conservation of the extant subpopulations with unique genetic
characteristics, but we did explain that the DPS was centered on what
we called the ``historically native'' subpopulations (i.e., those
subpopulations of known fishers indigenous to the California and
southern Oregon region with unique genetic characteristics) and
included SOC because of the recent interbreeding with indigenous NCSO
fishers.
Our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule further sought comment regarding its
revised DPS determination (84 FR at 60279, November 7, 2019). We
received numerous comments regarding the revised DPS determination in
response to the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, both during the initial 30-
day comment period and in the subsequent 15-day comment period. Similar
to the comments received on the 2014 Proposed Rule, the comments
received on the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule expressed support for a wide
range of DPS approaches. Various commenters suggested reverting back to
the three-State DPS (i.e., include Washington State again), making all
subpopulations (NCSO, SSN, NSN, and SOC) individual DPSs, having two
separate DPSs as in Alternative 2, and not including SOC in any DPS
configuration.
While the comments presented a broad range of positions regarding
DPS approaches, there was also a relatively consistent theme regarding
management considerations. Many comments pointed to a concept we
presented in the 2014 Proposed Rule that outlined alternative DPSs
based on recognizing the unique genetic characteristics within each
subpopulation and allowing for separate management of these two
population segments (NCSO [including NSN and SOC] and SSN).
In light of the numerous comments received during multiple comment
periods over the last 5 years recommending we reexamine our DPS
configuration, we have again reevaluated our DPS approach. We
determined that the most appropriate path forward was to evaluate the
two population segments ((1) NCSO [including NSN and SOC] and (2) SSN)
as individual DPSs (similar to Alternative 2 in the 2014 Proposed
Rule). For each population segment, if both the discreteness and
significance criteria were met, we would then evaluate the status for
that individual DPS. We determined our analysis would focus on the
conservation of extant subpopulations historically indigenous to the
California and southern Oregon region with unique genetic
characteristics (as outlined in the 2014 Proposed Rule) while also
allowing for separate management of the two DPSs if either or both were
warranted for listing. The concept of the possible need for different
management between the two DPSs was further strengthened, in part, by
the recent limited introduction of non-California/Oregon fisher genes
into the NCSO subpopulation via interbreeding between NCSO and SOC
fishers. We have now determined that the singular West Coast DPS
configuration should instead be two separate DPSs: The NCSO DPS and the
SSN DPS.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 29535]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15MY20.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The above discussion presents a logical outgrowth from our 2019
Revised Proposed Rule regarding our DPS determination for the following
reasons. First, our 2014 Proposed Rule (79 FR 60419, October 7, 2014)
recognized that for fisher, the Service's DPS analysis had started with
the petitioned DPS, which included portions of California, Oregon, and
Washington, but also pointed out that the Service had identified
smaller areas within the larger DPS boundary that would also
potentially constitute a valid DPS, and that may warrant listing under
the Act (79 FR at 60438). The 2014 Proposed Rule further announced the
Service's evaluation of a number of alternative DPSs that may
potentially also be valid DPSs (covering a smaller entity or entities)
and that the Service was considering in particular the appropriateness
of two of these alternatives and seeking public and peer
[[Page 29536]]
review input on potential DPS alternatives (79 FR at 60438). One of
these alternatives was Alternative 2, which consisted of two narrowly
drawn DPSs around the extant subpopulations with unique genetic
characteristics in California and southern Oregon; Alternative 2 is
similar to the two DPS approaches we use here. Therefore, the public
has seen this approach presented before, was aware that we were
considering it and thus could anticipate that adoption of this approach
was possible, and had several opportunities to provide comments on the
approach.
Second, we outlined the uncertainty associated with our DPS
approach in the 2014 Proposed Rule and alerted the public to this
uncertainty. Specifically, our 2014 Proposed Rule stated that we sought
peer review and public comment on the uncertainties associated with the
specific topics outlined in the Information Requested section and in
the Other DPS Alternatives section. Specific information from the peer
reviewers and the public on the proposed DPS and the two alternatives
informed our final listing decision (70 FR at 60441).
Third, our 2014 Proposed Rule explained to the public that the DPS
approach in our final rule may differ from the proposed rule as a
result of public comment. We stated that we may determine that the
proposed DPS as set forth is the most appropriate for fisher
conservation. Alternatively, through peer review and public comment, we
could determine that one of the alternative DPSs set forth would be
most appropriate for the conservation of fisher, and, therefore, any
final listing determination may differ from this proposal (79 FR at
60438). As outlined above, we have explained the basis for this changed
DPS and have articulated a rational connection between the facts found
and our conclusion by which we have determined to separate the singular
West Coast DPS configuration into two separate DPSs.
The Secretary has discretion when determining DPSs based upon the
Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPS's be used `. . .
sparingly' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity and
in consideration of available scientific evidence of the discrete
population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs (61 FR
4722, 4725, February 7, 1996). Our DPS approach of evaluating the two
fisher population segments ((1) NCSO [including NSN and SOC] and (2)
SSN) as separate DPSs encourages the conservation of genetic diversity
by focusing on conserving extant native subpopulations with unique
genetic characteristics.
Once we determined that the singular West Coast DPS should instead
be two separate DPSs, we began individually evaluating the status of
the NCSO DPS and the SSN DPS. In the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule (84 FR
60278, November 7, 2019), we proposed to list the then-singular West
Coast DPS as a threatened species under the Act, and we also proposed a
concurrent rule under section 4(d) of the Act for that DPS. While the
magnitude of the threats discussed below have not changed substantially
from our consideration of them in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, what
has changed in this analysis is the consideration of their distribution
across the ranges of the two separate DPSs, as opposed to applying an
analysis for a singular West Coast DPS, and then how the impact of
those threats affects each separate DPS where they occur. This final
determination represents a change to that 2019 Revised Proposed Rule.
We now add the SSN DPS as an endangered species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and we present our finding that the
NCSO DPS does not warrant listing under the Act. As detailed below in
the General Threat Information section and the specific threats
discussions for each DPS, these final determinations are based on the
best scientific and commercial data available, including new
information received in response to the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule.
Further, we have clearly articulated the rationales for our
conclusions.
Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any
species, including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, or plants, or any DPS
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). Such entities are considered eligible for listing under the
Act (and, therefore, are referred to as listable entities), should we
determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species.
Under the Service's DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
three elements are considered in the decision concerning the
determination and classification of a possible DPS as threatened or
endangered. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
A population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered
discrete under the DPS policy if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of
the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological
and ecological significance will be considered in light of
Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used
``sparingly'' (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In
making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of
the DPS's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Since precise
circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the
DPS policy does not describe all the classes of information that might
be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a
discrete population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible
classes of information that provide evidence of a population segment's
biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs.
As specified in the DPS policy, this consideration of the population
segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the
following:
(1) Persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or
unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the DPS would result in a significant gap
in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the DPS represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the DPS differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
To be considered significant, a population segment needs to satisfy
only one of these criteria, or other classes of information that might
bear on the biological and ecological importance of a discrete
population
[[Page 29537]]
segment, as described in the DPS policy. Below, we summarize
discreteness and significance for each of the DPSs.
Northern California/Southern Oregon DPS of Fisher (NCSO DPS)
Discreteness
The NCSO DPS is markedly separate from other North American fisher
populations to the east by enormous distances, geographical barriers,
unsuitable habitat, and urban development. Fishers in this DPS are
separated from the Rocky Mountains and the rest of the fisher taxon in
the central and eastern United States by natural physical barriers
including the non-forested high desert areas of the Great Basin in
Nevada and eastern Oregon. Other physical barriers that separate the
NCSO DPS from Rocky Mountain and eastern United States fisher
populations include large areas without forests, including urban and
rural open-canopied areas, agricultural development, and other non-
forested areas.
The NCSO DPS is also markedly separate from fisher populations to
the north by approximately 560 miles (mi) (900 kilometers (km)) (to the
current populations of fishers in Canada) and 270 mi (430 km) (to the
reintroduced fisher populations in Washington). These distances are
well beyond the various reported fisher dispersal distances (as
described in more detail in Service 2016, pp. 13-14). An additional
component contributing to marked separation between the NCSO DPS and
fishers in Washington is the Columbia River and adjacent human
developments (e.g., roads and towns); these likely act as a physical
impediment to crossing by fishers dispersing in either direction. While
juvenile fishers dispersing from natal areas are capable of moving long
distances and navigating various landscape features such as highways,
rivers, and rural communities to establish their own home range
(Service 2016, pp. 13-14), the magnitude of these impediments and the
distance between the NCSO DPS and Washington State fishers would
preclude this possibility. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that any
transient individuals from the NCSO DPS could disperse far enough to
reach the Washington range of reintroduced fishers, and even if they
attempted to do so, they would likely not be able to cross the Columbia
River. Not only is the river especially wide and deep year-round, but
in the Cascade Range, it is bordered on one side by an interstate
highway, a two-lane State highway on the other side, as well as a
railroad track on both sides. These impediments further restrict the
ability of fishers to surpass this obstacle.
In addition, the NCSO DPS is also markedly separate from the SSN
DPS to the southeast by approximately 130 mi (209 km) from the southern
end of the NCSO DPS to the northern end of the SSN DPS. This distance,
although less than that between the NCSO DPS and Washington fishers, is
still several times beyond the known maximum dispersal distances for
fishers (Zielinski et al. 2005, p. 1402). The intervening habitat
between the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS is additionally characterized by
habitat that is highly altered with reduced forest density and
increased human development of the landscape further limiting potential
fisher dispersal across this region (Zielinski et al. 2005, p. 1,403).
In summary, the NCSO DPS is geographically isolated from all other
populations of the species. Therefore, the marked separation condition
for discreteness is met by geographical barriers, urban development,
unsuitable habitat, and distances that are beyond the known dispersal
distance of fishers.
Significance
For the NCSO DPS, we found that a combination of several of the
criteria listed above provide evidence of its biological and ecological
importance to the taxon. First, we note that the NCSO DPS represents a
large portion of the taxon's range along the Pacific coast, and its
loss would leave a significant gap between the SSN DPS and all fisher
populations to the north. While we recognize that the NCSO DPS is
geographically separated from other fisher populations, and this
separation likely precludes the NCSO DPS from ever acting as a
connection for a contiguous range of fishers from the SSN DPS to
Canada, we note that its loss would still result in an even greater
break in the west coast range of fishers than what currently exists.
Furthermore, the NCSO DPS supports thousands of individuals, while the
SSN supports just a few hundred, and populations in Washington are
still small. Therefore, a loss of the NCSO DPS would mean the majority
of the fishers in the West Coast States would be lost.
Significance is also demonstrated by the NCSO DPS's marked
difference from other populations of the species in their genetic
characteristics. The NCSO DPS is primarily composed of fishers native
to this region of the country and which are genetically distinct from
fishers in the remainder of North America (for example, Canada, Rocky
Mountains, and Great Lakes). In addition, fishers in the NCSO DPS are
also genetically distinct from those found in the SSN DPS, as we
describe in Service 2016 (pp. 134-135). We note the NCSO DPS does
include the translocated SOC subpopulation, which was established with
fishers not native to this region (i.e., British Columbia and
Minnesota) and which do not share all the same genetic characteristics
of the native fishers. However, it is highly unlikely that the unique
genetic characteristics that have evolved over time as native fishers
in the NCSO DPS have adapted to the environmental conditions of this
area will be lost as a result of this very limited introduction of
genes from fishers not indigenous to this region. Although there is
interbreeding between SOC and indigenous fishers, we base our
conclusion on the fact that SOC fishers do not appear to have expanded
their range far from their original reintroduction area since their
translocation over 40 years ago (Barry 2018, p. 23). We therefore
conclude that the loss of fishers in the NCSO DPS would result in a
reduction of the species' overall genetic diversity.
In light of the above, we conclude that the NCSO DPS is significant
to the fisher taxon.
Summary
Given that both the discreteness and the significance elements of
the DPS policy are met for fisher in the Northern California/Southern
Oregon portion of its range, we find that the NCSO DPS of fisher is a
valid DPS. Therefore, the NCSO DPS of fisher is a species under the
Act.
Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of Fisher (SSN DPS)
Discreteness
Similar to the NCSO DPS, the SSN DPS is markedly separate from
other North American fisher populations to the east by enormous
distances, geographical barriers, unsuitable habitat, and urban
development. Fishers in this DPS are separated from the Rocky Mountains
and the rest of the taxon in the central and eastern United States by
natural physical barriers including the non-forested high desert areas
of the Great Basin in Nevada and eastern Oregon. Other physical
barriers that separate the SSN DPS from Rocky Mountain and eastern
United States fisher populations include large areas of unsuitable
habitat such as urban and rural open-canopied areas, agricultural
development, and other non-forested areas.
As noted above, the SSN DPS is markedly separate from the NCSO DPS
[[Page 29538]]
by approximately 130 mi (209 km). The intervening habitat between the
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS is highly altered with reduced forest density and
increased human development of the landscape, further limiting
potential fisher dispersal across this region (Zielinski et al. 2005,
p. 1,403). In addition, the SSN DPS is also considerably farther away
from the Washington State and Canada fisher populations than the NCSO
DPS, clearly meeting the marked separation condition of discreteness.
In summary, the SSN DPS is geographically isolated from all other
populations of the species. Therefore, the marked separation condition
for discreteness is met by geographical barriers, urban development,
unsuitable habitat, and distances that are beyond the known dispersal
distance of fishers.
Significance
For the SSN DPS, we also found that a combination of the criteria
listed above provides evidence of the biological and ecological
importance to the fisher taxon. First, we note that the SSN DPS
represents the southernmost periphery of the taxon's range. Loss of the
SSN DPS would shift representation of the taxon at its southern
boundary approximately 400 miles northward to the range of the NCSO
DPS.
We also note that the SSN DPS differs markedly from other
populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. The SSN DPS
is wholly composed of fishers native to this region of the country, and
these fishers are genetically distinct from fishers in the remainder of
North America (for example, Canada, Rocky Mountains, and Great Lakes).
In addition, fishers in the SSN DPS are also genetically distinct from
those found in the NCSO DPS. There is high genetic divergence between
the SSN DPS and NCSO DPS with the populations being separated for
thousands of years (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 3). The SSN DPS has only a
single mitochondrial DNA haplotype, which is genealogically unique from
the rest of the fisher taxon, including the NCSO DPS (Knaus et al.
2011, pp. 7, 11; Tucker 2019, pers. comm.). In addition, the SSN DPS
has a unique distribution of alleles in comparison to the NCSO DPS
(Tucker et al. 2012, p. 6). We therefore conclude that the loss of
fishers in the SSN DPS would result in a reduction of the species'
overall genetic diversity.
In light of the above, we conclude that the SSN DPS is significant
to the fisher taxon.
Summary
Given that both the discreteness and the significance elements of
the DPS policy are met for fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada portion
of its range, we find that the SSN DPS of fisher is a valid DPS.
Therefore, the SSN DPS of fisher is a species under the Act.
Background
General Species Information
Species Information and Distribution
The fisher is a medium-sized, light brown to dark blackish-brown
mammal found only in North America, with the face, neck, and shoulders
sometimes being slightly gray, and the chest and underside often having
irregular white patches. The fisher is classified in the order
Carnivora, family Mustelidae, which is 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 mid- and late-successional forests (e.g., diverse
successional stages, moderate to dense forest canopies, large-diameter
trees, coarse downed wood, and singular features of large snags, tree
cavities, or deformed trees). Throughout their range, fishers are
obligate users of tree or snag cavities for denning, and they select
denning and resting sites with a high proportion of characteristics
associated with late-successional forests, such as snags, down wood,
and vertical and horizontal diversity. These 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 on the west coast of the continent have historically
occurred in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.
Fishers indigenous to the west coast in the contiguous United States
were historically well distributed in the habitats described above,
from the State of Washington south through Oregon, and into northern
California and the Sierra Nevada mountains. Subpopulations of these
indigenous fishers still occur in northern California/southwestern
Oregon and the Sierra Nevada; however, populations of indigenous
fishers were extirpated from Washington (Lewis and Hayes 2004, p. 1)
and northern Oregon (Aubry and Lewis 2003, pp. 81-82). Recent surveys
in the northern Oregon Cascades yielded no fishers (Moriarty et al.
2016, entire), suggesting they remain absent in this area, whereas
surveys in the southern Oregon Cascades suggest fishers in this locale
may be shifting to the south (Barry 2018, pp. 22-23) compared to their
distribution in the late 1990s (Service 2014 and 2016, entire, though
see current condition section for NCSO). Fishers in the southern Oregon
Cascades were translocated from British Columbia and Minnesota circa
1980. In addition, a translocation of fishers from northwestern
California to the northern Sierra Nevada (i.e., NSN) occurred in 2009.
Fishers now occurring and reproducing in Washington were
established using fishers translocated from outside this three-State
region. Fishers from British Columbia were reintroduced to the Olympic
Peninsula from 2008 to 2010 (Happe et al. 2017, p. viii; Happe et al.
2020, p. 345) and to the Washington Cascade Range south of Mt. Rainier
from 2015 to 2017 (Lewis et al. 2018, p. 5). Reproduction has been
documented in both areas. Beginning in 2018, fishers from Alberta were
released in the northern Washington Cascades in North Cascades National
Park; all animal translocations are expected to be completed in 2020
(Hayes and Lewis 2006, p. 35; Lewis et al. 2019, pp. 19-20).
Fishers were once well distributed throughout their historical
range in the habitats described above. In Oregon and California,
outside of the existing NCSO DPS and SSN DPS (see Figure 1, above),
fishers are considered likely extirpated, though occasional sightings,
verifiable and unverifiable, are reported. Additionally, in California,
recent survey efforts have not detected fishers south of the
reintroduced NSN subpopulation or north of the SSN DPS.
Additional information on the species' biology and distribution is
described in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 9-12, 25-53).
General Threat Information
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following
[[Page 29539]]
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. These factors represent broad categories of
natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect
on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on
individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that
may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, and then analyze the cumulative effect of all
of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and
conditions that will have positive effects on the species--such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species
now and in the foreseeable future. In our determination, we correlate
the threats acting on the species to the factors in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Potential threats currently acting upon both the NCSO DPS and SSN
DPS, or likely to affect them in the future, are evaluated and
addressed in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-162). The
term ``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' response to those threats are likely (50 CFR 424.11(d)). For
fisher, in determining the foreseeable future, the immediacy of each
threat was assessed independently based upon the nature of the threat
and time period that we can be reasonably certain the threat is acting
on fisher populations or their habitat. In general, we considered that
the trajectories of the threats acting on fisher subpopulations across
the DPS's range could be reasonably anticipated over the next 35-40
years. The reader is directed to the Species Report (Service 2016,
entire) for a more detailed discussion of the threats summarized in
this document (https://www.fws.gov/cno/fisher/). However, please note
that our most recent consideration of new data since 2016 (including
comments and information received during the two comment periods
associated with the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule) coupled with our
reevaluation of the entirety of the best available scientific and
commercial information is represented and summarized in the various
analyses below.
Our analyses below represent an evaluation of the biological status
of the two DPSs, based upon our assessment of the effects anticipated
for the identified threats, consideration of the cumulative impact of
all effects anticipated from the identified threats, and how that
cumulative impact may affect each DPS's continued existence currently
and in the future. We used the best available scientific and commercial
data, and the expert opinions of the analysis team members. The threats
identified as having the potential to act upon both DPSs include:
habitat-based threats, including high-severity wildfire, wildfire
suppression activities, and post-fire management actions; climate
change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect infestation;
vegetation management; and human development (Factor A). We also
evaluated potential threats related to direct mortality of fishers
including trapping and incidental capture (Factor B), research
activities (Factor B), disease or predation (Factor C), collision with
vehicles (Factor E), exposure to toxicants (Factor E), and potential
effects associated with small population size (Factor E). Finally, we
evaluated the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D).
As we conducted our threats analyses, we began under the premise
that those with the greatest potential to become significant drivers of
the future status of both DPSs were: Wildfire and wildfire suppression;
tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect infestation; the
potential for climate change to exacerbate wildfire and tree mortality;
threats related to vegetation management; and exposure to toxicants.
Upon determining that the previous singular West Coast DPS
configuration should instead be two separate DPSs, we then also
modified our premise regarding threats with the potential to become
significant drivers of status, and added to the above list of threats:
The potential for effects from small population size; disease or
predation; and collision with vehicles. While our assessment of the
status of each DPS was based on analysis of all identified threats
acting upon them, including the cumulative effects of those threats, we
are only presenting our detailed analyses on these specific,
potentially significant threat drivers common to both DPSs for the
purposes of this rulemaking. We refer the reader to the Species Report
(Service 2016, entire) for full detailed analyses of all the other
individual threats.
As these potentially significant threat drivers were relevant to
both DPSs, much of the fundamental information pertaining to the
threats was also applicable to both DPS analyses. Although the ultimate
conclusion about the significance of each threat varied between the
DPSs, below we present scientific information about these threats
common to both DPSs, followed by DPS-specific evaluations.
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
Our evaluation includes both the effects of wildfire on fisher
habitat as well as those activities associated with wildfire
suppression that may result in changes to fisher habitat (for example,
backburning, fuel breaks, and snag removal). Naturally occurring fire
regimes vary widely within the range of both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
(Service 2014, p. 58), and fisher habitat has been burned across a
spectrum from low- to high-severity.
Mixed-severity wildfire includes patches of low-severity wildfire
and patches of high-severity wildfire (Jain et al. 2012, p. 47). At the
landscape scale, mixed-severity wildfire effects to fisher habitat may
affect an area's ability to support fishers for only a short period of
time due to the patchy nature of burned and unburned areas.
Additionally, a beneficial aspect of mixed-severity wildfires (as
opposed to
[[Page 29540]]
just high-severity wildfires) is that these wildfires may contribute to
the regeneration of the hardwood component of mixed-conifer forest used
by fisher (Cocking et al. 2012, 2014, entire). Further these types of
fires can sustain patches of unburned refugia that are important for
maintaining patches of higher canopy cover, acting as a source for
future tree regeneration, and providing habitat for fisher (Blomdahl et
al. 2019, p. 1,049). Mixed-severity wildfire may reduce some elements
of fisher habitat temporarily, but also helps to contribute to the
ecological processes necessary to create tree cavities and other decay
and structural abnormalities essential for denning and resting fishers
(Weir et al. 2012, pp. 237-238). Low-severity wildfire is unlikely to
remove habitat, and post-wildfire areas that burned at low-severity are
likely still used by fishers (Naney et al. 2012, p. 6; Truex and
Zielinski 2013, p. 90).
The potential for large, high-severity wildfires to affect fisher
habitat and fisher populations is concentrated in northern California-
southwestern Oregon and the Sierra Nevada areas as compared to the
remainder of the fisher's historical range in the West Coast States
(Service 2014, pp. 62-63). In general, high-severity wildfire can alter
fisher habitat by removing forest canopy, large trees, and structurally
diverse understories, which can take from decades to a century or more
to regrow (Service 2014, pp. 59-60), but it may also provide foraging
opportunities for fishers since these post-fire areas are often
abundant with small mammals that fishers eat (Hanson 2013, p. 27;
Service 2016, p. 66). For example, there is evidence of fishers
associated with high-severity burned areas, or a mix of moderate- and
high-severity burns (Service 2016, p. 66), particularly if the area was
structurally complex prior to the fire (Hanson 2013, p. 28). However,
another study found fishers avoiding areas of high- and moderate-
severity fire (Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 15), so there is likely a
threshold in high-severity patch size that influences fisher use of
these areas (also see individual DPS sections).
Within shrub, grassland, and forested lands across the western
United States (including the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and
Coast ranges), the wildfire season length increased over each of the
last four decades, from 65 days in the 1970s to 140 days in the 2000s
(Westerling 2016, pp. 3, 8, 10). The lengthening of the wildfire season
is largely due to declining mountain snowpack and earlier spring
snowmelt, which contributes to a decrease in vegetation moisture; this
scenario causes wildfires to be more frequent and larger with an
overall increase in the total area burned (Westerling 2016, pp. 8-9).
Throughout the western United States there has been an increase in the
patch size and total area of fires in recent decades. The evidence for
an increasing area of high-severity fire is mixed given that studies
present different historical levels of high-severity fire (Mallek et
al. 2013, pp. 11-17; Stephens et al. 2015, pp. 12-16; Hanson and Odion
2016, pp. 12-17; Odion et al. 2016, entire; see Spies et al. 2018, p.
140 for summary of recent literature), but the scientific consensus
accepts that mixed conifer forests were characterized by areas burned
at low-, moderate-, and high-severity, with higher proportions of low-
severity than is currently observed (Safford and Stevens 2017, p. 50).
Given projected changes in climate, forests are expected to become more
vulnerable to wildfires over the coming century.
Recent publications on wildfire occurrence and severity within the
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS continue to support our conclusions that fire is
likely to have a negative impact on fisher populations but will depend
on fire size, burn severity, and proximity to occupied habitat (79 FR
60419, at 60429, October 7, 2014). Recent information on fishers'
behavioral and localized population response to wildfires is available
and discussed below in the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS specific discussions.
Climate Change
Overall, fisher habitat is likely to be affected by changing
climate conditions, but the severity will vary, potentially greatly,
among different regions, with effects to fishers ranging from negative,
neutral, or potentially beneficial. Climate throughout the West Coast
States is projected to become warmer over the next century, and in
particular, summers will be hotter and drier, with heat waves that are
more frequent (Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12,423; Tebaldi et al. 2006, pp.
191-200; Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, p. 41; Salath[eacute] et al.
2010, p. 69; Cayan et al. 2012, pp. 4, 10; Mote et al. 2013, p. 34;
Pierce et al. 2013, pp. 844, 848; Ackerly et al. 2018, pp. 6-8;
Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 23, 26, 30; Dettinger et al. 2018, p. 5;
Grantham 2018, p. 6).
In Oregon, Dalton et al. (2017, pp. 4, 8) evaluated greenhouse gas
emissions via global climate models with future emission pathways
called ``representative concentration pathways'' (RCPs). They
considered multiple greenhouse gas emission scenarios, including both
RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. Their analysis indicates that extreme heat events
are expected to increase in frequency, duration, and intensity by the
2050s due to warming temperatures (RCP 4.5 = mean annual temperature
increase predicted on average 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (2.0
degrees Celsius ([deg]C)); RCP 8.5 = mean annual temperature increase
predicted on average 5.0 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C). Summers are expected to
warm more than the annual average and will likely become drier. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase slightly, although with a high
degree of uncertainty. Extreme heat and precipitation events are
expected to increase in frequency, duration, and intensity.
In California, information from Pierce et al. (2013) and Safford et
al. (2012) used multiple general circulation models and downscaling
with regional climate models to develop probabilistic projections of
temperature and precipitation changes over California by the 2060s.
Predictions indicate an annual mean temperature increase of 4.3 [deg]F
(2.4 [deg]C) by 2060 (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 844). Similarly, and more
recently, Bedsworth et al. (2018, entire) summarizes 44 technical peer-
reviewed reports to provide a California-wide climate change
assessment. Under two modeled scenarios, average temperatures are
projected to increase by 2.5 to 2.7 [deg]F (1.4 to 1.5 [deg]C) in the
early century (2006 to 2039) and 4.4 to 5.8 [deg]F (2.4 to 3.2 [deg]C)
in the mid-century (2040 to 2069) (Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 23).
Precipitation models suggest that northern California may become
wetter, while most southern parts of California will become drier
(Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 25). The authors caution that ``due to large
annual variation, changes in annual mean or long-term precipitation are
not the best metrics to understand'' the effects to changes in
precipitation in California (Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 25).
Specifically, the models project less overall precipitation with more
extreme daily precipitation, inter-annual precipitation will be more
erratic, and the number of dry years will increase (Bedsworth et al.
2018, p. 25 citing others; Polade et al. 2017, p. 1).
Higher temperatures during spring and summer, coupled with early
snow melt, will reduce the moisture of both live fuels and dead surface
fuels by increasing evaporative demands during the dry season and
lengthening the fire season (Keeley and Syphard 2016, pp. 2-3; Restaino
and Safford 2018, p. 500). In addition, models project an increase in
lightning frequency that may be associated with an increase in
potential fire ignitions (Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 500).
[[Page 29541]]
Studies specific to predicting the effects of climate change on
suitable fisher habitat have produced a wide range of results. Ecotype
conversion from conifer forest to woodland, shrubland, or grassland
will 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, Figure 3; Lawler et al. 2012, p. 388; Dettinger et al. 2018,
pp. 31-34; Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 500). On the other hand,
shifts from conifer forest to hardwood-dominated mixed forest in the
southern Sierra Nevada or Klamath region could either increase or
decrease the habitat available to fishers (Lawler et al. 2012, pp. 384-
386; Loarie et al. 2008, p. 4 and Figure 4). Given the more significant
contribution of hardwood trees to fisher habitat in the drier parts of
both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS, a shift to increasing hardwoods in more
coastal or higher elevation forest types could improve habitat, but
shifts to hardwood-dominated stands may also reduce protective cover
from rain and snowfall (Suffice et al. 2019, pp. 10, 11, 13).
Nevertheless, trees are long-lived and mature forests can persist under
suboptimal conditions, and these factors can prevent better-suited
vegetation from becoming established until disturbance removes the
original forest (Sheehan et al. 2015, p. 27). Consequently, the
increase in the hardwood component of fisher habitat in predominantly
conifer areas may not occur until after fires have changed the
composition of the existing stand to allow hardwood establishment. All
of these circumstances add to the uncertainty associated with climate
change and how it relates to fisher.
Other studies suggest that climate change will adversely impact
forest habitat by intensifying large-scale, high-severity wildfire,
drought, and tree mortality (Kadir et al. 2013, pp. 132, 137;
Westerling 2016, pp. 1-2; Westerling 2018, pp. 21-23; Bedsworth et al.
2018, p. 64; Dettinger et al. 2018, pp. 28-29; Stephens et al. 2018a,
p. 77; Stephens et al. 2018b, p. 162; Restaino and Safford 2018, pp.
493-505). A wide range of assumptions and caveats typically accompanies
these types of predictions. For example, fire modeling shows a decline
in future (approximately 100 years) fire intensities after the existing
woody vegetation is burned (Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 499), but it
is uncertain if the resulting vegetation and composition will be
suitable for fisher.
Variables predicting fisher resting habitat as described by
Zielinski and Gray 2018 (p. 903) include stand characteristics such as
high canopy closure, large basal area of conifer and hardwood trees,
and diameter and age of dominant conifers. To date, climate change has
not significantly affected resting habitat for fishers, which,
according to Zielinski and Gray (2018, pp. 899, 903), has remained
stable over the past 20 years across the California-portion of the
range, although habitat suitability tends to be lower on private lands
than public lands. However, when considering resting habitat trends
over these 20 years to determine potential future resting habitat
conditions in light of climate change projections, data from the Sierra
National Forest (within a portion of the SSN DPS) indicates the
beginning of a negative trend in resting habitat suitability (Zielinski
and Gray 2018, p. 903), whereas resting habitat examined within the
NCSO DPS varied greatly (i.e., suitable resting habitat decreased in
the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, increased in the Six Rivers
National Forest, and remained unchanged over time for both the Klamath
and Mendocino National Forests).
In addition to the potential climate change effects to fisher
habitat discussed above, some researchers have suggested climate change
may cause direct effects to fishers, including increased mortality,
decreased reproductive rates, alterations in behavioral patterns, and
range shifts. Fishers may be especially 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.). As
a result, researchers (e.g., Burns et al. 2003, Zielinski et al. 2004,
Lawler et al. 2012, Olson et al. 2014) theorize that fishers likely
will either alter their use of microhabitats or shift their range
northward and upslope, in order to avoid the thermal stress associated
with increased summer temperatures. Preliminary research on fisher
occupancy and climate begins to support these theories. For example,
during a drought in central and southern California from 2012 to 2015,
fisher utilized higher elevation areas that were otherwise inaccessible
due to snowpack during other years (Tucker 2019, pers. comm.). Although
fisher occur across a wide range of precipitation levels and minimum
temperatures, and appear able to utilize higher elevations in years
with less snowpack, it is unknown how the interaction of vegetation,
fire regimes, and competition with other species will influence future
fisher occupancy patterns in a changing climate (Zielinski et al. 2017,
pp. 542-543).
The best available information indicates there is a link between
changing climate conditions and the resulting changes to overall
habitat suitability and availability for fishers throughout their
range. There is also a link between changing climate conditions and the
potential to increase fisher stress levels when habitat changes occur.
More specifically, these changes affect the amount and distribution of
habitat necessary for female fishers to be able to have places to den
and raise their young. We provide three examples below.
First, ongoing climate change in California is likely to result in
significant or amplified wildfire activity, with the area burned and
fire severity likely to increase (Hurteau et al. 2019, pp. 1, 3; Moritz
et al. 2018, p. 36). This in turn can result in reduced denning habitat
availability for fishers (e.g., Sheehan et al. 2015, pp. 20-22; Dalton
et al. 2017, p. 46).
Second, under modeled increases in drought conditions, tree
mortality and large-scale high-severity wildfire are likely to increase
in frequency, size, and severity, especially if fuel loads in forests
are not decreased (Young et al. 2017, p. 78; Westerling and Bryant
2008, pp. S244-S248; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016, pp. 11,770, 11,773;
Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 29-30; Larvie et al. 2019, p. 1; Westerling
2018, pp. 21-23). Some models suggest that fire severity may be
independent from fire intensity; thus, a lower-intensity fire could
kill more trees if they are also experiencing a severe drought
(Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 500). Although we can expect that
seasonal summer dryness may prolong future droughts, it is unknown
whether droughts in the future will be worse than our worst droughts in
the past (Keeley and Syphard 2016, p. 6; Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 26,
57). Regardless, it appears that climate change is intensifying the
effects of drought, given that changing climate conditions are
estimated to have contributed 5 to 18 percent to the severity of one of
the worst recent droughts in 20th-century California history (Williams
et al. 2015, p. 6,819; Keeley and Syphard 2016, p. 6). The combination
of drought and wildfire can result in loss of adequate forest-canopy
cover and individual trees that provide habitat suitable for denning
female fishers (e.g., CBI 2019a, p. 9).
Third, the observed increases in wildfire activity in Oregon and
California are partially due to climate change; increasing wildfire
activity is expected under future warming, which in turn can increase
tree mortality from disease and insects like mountain pine
[[Page 29542]]
beetles (Dalton et al. 2017, p. 46; Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 64).
Widespread tree mortality (climate related or not) is likely to result
in fishers experiencing reduced fitness (e.g., a positive relationship
between higher amounts of tree mortality and higher cortisol levels in
fishers; Kordosky 2019, pp. 14, 36) and an overall reduction in forest-
stand conditions suitable for denning (CBI 2019a, entire; Green et al.
2019a, pp. 3-4). Most forests will experience some form of climate
stress by the late 21st century and higher temperatures will result in
more droughts in California, revealing the interconnected nature of
climate, wildfire, and tree mortality that collectively can shift
forest composition and structure (Larvie et al. 2019, pp. 12-14;
Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 502) and further challenge the ability of
fishers to locate suitable habitat.
Tree Mortality From Drought, Disease, and Insect Infestation
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, this section was titled ``Forest
Insects and Tree Diseases''; we have changed the title to more
accurately describe the threat. Localized tree mortality from insect
outbreaks and tree diseases are natural processes, and they provide
structures used by fisher for rest and den sites as well as their prey.
However, widespread insect and disease outbreaks can alter the overall
distribution and abundance of fisher habitat. For example, severe
drought events in California since 2010, combined with insect outbreaks
and tree diseases, have led to more than 147 million dead trees in
California (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections (CAL
FIRE) and USFS 2019, no page number). Although both the NCSO DPS and
SSN DPS experienced tree mortality during the recent drought, the
magnitude of this effect on the landscape differed tremendously between
each DPS (CAL FIRE and USFS 2019, no page number). The highest levels
of tree mortality occur in the southern Sierra Nevada due to increased
susceptibility to forest insects and tree disease from the severe
drought while most of the NCSO DPS experienced background levels (0-5
dead trees per acre) of tree mortality (CAL FIRE and USFS 2019, no page
number; California Tree Mortality Task Force 2020, entire).
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 the western
United States as compared to the northeastern United States (Service
2014, pp. 54-56). At the time of the 2014 Proposed Rule, we stated that
vegetation management techniques have, and can, substantially modify
the overstory canopy, the numbers and distribution of structural
elements available for use by fisher, and the ecological processes that
create them. An increase in open areas, such as those resulting from
timber harvest, may increase the risk of predation on fishers by
bobcats and other predators that frequent these areas (see the
Predation and Disease section below). Overall, fisher home ranges
comprise mosaics of forest-stand types and seral (stand age) stages but
often with a high proportion of mid- to late-seral forests (Raley et
al. 2012, p. 231).
Fishers occupy managed landscapes and stands where timber harvest
and other vegetation management activities occur; the degree to which
fishers tend to be found in these areas often depends on a multitude of
factors, including the scale, intensity, and rate of activities; the
composition and configuration of suitable habitat; and the amount and
type of retained legacy structures (Service 2016, pp. 59-60; Thompson
and Clayton 2016, pp. 11-16, 22; Niblett et al. 2017, pp. 14-17; Marcot
et al. 2018, p. 400; Powell et al. 2019, entire; Parsons 2018, pp. 31,
53-55, 63; Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 60-61, 69-70). Fishers tolerate
some clearcuts in their home ranges, though the mean proportion tends
to be below 25 percent of their home-range area (Powell et al. 2019, p.
23). Fishers are also observed denning in areas where as much as 25
percent of the area near the den sites is in openings (Niblett et al.
2017, p. 17). Some level of open areas or younger stands may provide
suitable prey for fishers (Parsons 2018, pp. 26-29, 53-55). Yet even in
these situations, fishers are associated with forests that contain
structures associated with older forests, such as complex canopies,
down wood, hardwoods, and trees with microsites conducive to denning,
resting, or supporting prey (Niblett et al. 2017, pp. 16-17; Powell et
al. 2019, pp. 19-23). Therefore, for vegetation management it is
important to maintain decadent structures that serve as den and rest
trees and that likely required much time and site-specific conditions
to develop (Matthews et al. 2019, p. 1,313). Overall, it appears
fishers can tolerate management activities that promote forest
heterogeneity (variation) and that consider the natural range of
variation in forest structure, distribution, and composition when
identifying and protecting valuable habitat elements (Thompson et al.
2019b, pp. 13-14).
While historical loss of mature and older forests via timber
harvest through much of the 1900s resulted in a substantial loss of
fisher habitat in California and Oregon, 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 NCSO and SSN DPSs, habitat ingrowth (i.e., forest stands
becoming habitat as a result of forest succession) is also occurring,
offsetting some of those losses. We address this for each of the DPSs
below.
Exposure to Toxicants
Wildlife can encounter a wide range of chemicals in the
environment. Fertilizers and pesticides (e.g., herbicides,
insecticides, and rodenticides) are among the most common chemicals
wildlife are exposed to and impacted by, especially near urban and
agricultural areas. Of these chemicals, the rodenticides are the
longest lasting and therefore the easiest to test for, track, and
understand impacts to species. Both the draft and final Species Reports
detail the exposure of fishers to rodenticides in Oregon and California
(Service 2014, pp. 149-166; Service 2016, pp. 141-159).
The rodenticides impacting fishers include first- and second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides and neurotoxicant rodenticides.
First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are in a bait form that
rodents consume for several consecutive feedings (i.e., sublethal
doses) to deliver a lethal dose. Second-generation rodenticides are
significantly more potent than first-generation rodenticides, and a
lethal dose can be ingested in a single feeding. Additionally, second-
generation rodenticides are more likely than first-generation
rodenticides to poison predatory wildlife (e.g., fishers) that eat live
or dead poisoned prey because they are more persistent in the
environment. Neurotoxicant rodenticides are delivered in either single
or multiple doses and have highly variable potency (multiple hours or
days). Both first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides as
well as neurotoxicant rodenticides are used to kill small mammals that
are destroying crops. Rodenticides impair an animal's ability to
produce several key blood-clotting factors (anticoagulant rodenticides)
or affect brain and liver function
[[Page 29543]]
(neurotoxicant rodenticides). Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure causes
bleeding from the nose and gums, extensive bruises, anemia, fatigue,
difficulty breathing, and also damage to small blood vessels, resulting
in spontaneous and widespread hemorrhaging.
A sublethal dose of a rodenticide can produce significant clotting
abnormalities and hemorrhaging, leading to a range of symptoms, such as
difficulty moving and a decreased ability to recover from physical
injury. Ingestion of the neurotoxicant bromethalin, which has been
detected in DPS fisher carcasses, has fast-acting and physical effects
such as unsteadiness and weakness, and at higher dosage levels,
seizures. Both anticoagulant and neurotoxicant rodenticides can change
or impede normal fisher movement and foraging behaviors and therefore
may increase the probability of mortality from other sources such as
predation or vehicle collision. In addition, anticoagulants
bioaccumulate and become increasingly prevalent in predators; as they
continue to eat contaminated prey, they accumulate more and more
anticoagulant (Lopez-Perea and Mateo 2018, p. 165). Contaminated
rodents are 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).
Rodenticide use in agricultural or urban areas is common and
wildlife exposure rates can be high. For example, in California 70
percent of tested mammals were positive for at least one anticoagulant
rodenticide (Hosea 2000, p. 238). And across the world, 58 percent of
tested predators were positive for anti-coagulant rodenticides (Lopez-
Perea and Mateo 2018, p. 172). Not surprisingly, mammals are most
impacted by rodenticides, when compared to birds, reptiles, and
insects; and generalist species that eat a variety of prey species are
more likely to be contaminated relative to specialist species that feed
on one or a few species (Lopez-Perea and Mateo 2018, pp. 163, 173).
Predators that are (a) nocturnal, (b) opportunistic in feeding
habitats where rodents are an important part of their diet, and (c)
nonmigratory and live close to or within landscapes that are heavily
impacted by human activities are more likely to be exposed to
rodenticides and have relatively high liver-residue concentrations of
multiple rodenticide compounds (Hindmarch and Elliott 2018, p. 251).
Because fishers are territorial, nonmigratory mammals, and females
remain particularly tied to their territories (Arthur et al. 1993, p.
872), they are among the species that are more vulnerable to
rodenticide exposure. Additionally, fisher diets consist primarily of
small mammals (Golightly et al. 2006, entire), which are the target
species for rodenticides (Gabriel et al. 2015, entire; Thompson et al.
2014, pp. 97-98). Top predators within the range of fishers, including
northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) and barred owls (S.
varia), have also been exposed to rodenticides (Franklin et al. 2018,
p. 1; Gabriel et al. 2018, p. 1).
Data available since completion of the final Species Report in 2016
continue to document exposure and mortalities to fishers from
rodenticides in both the NCSO and SSN DPSs (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, entire; Powell et al. 2019, p. 16). Here we discuss
data specific to both the NCSO and SSN DPS; more DPS-specific
information is found in the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS discussions below.
Fisher carcasses have been collected and tested for their cause of
death and their exposure to rodenticides (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data). Data for 97 fisher carcasses collected in California
in the period 2007-2014 indicate 81 percent of fishers tested positive
for one or more rodenticides, and 48 fishers collected from 2015-2018
indicate 83 percent tested positive (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data). Using data from both the SSN and the NCSO DPS and
comparing the periods 2007-2011 and 2012-2014, mortalities due to
rodenticide toxicosis increased from 5.6 to 18.7 percent (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, p. 2). And, from 2015 to 2018,
additional fisher mortalities due to both anticoagulant and
neurotoxicant rodenticides have been documented, including the
toxicosis of neonatal kits in the womb (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, p. 4). The probability of fisher mortality increases
with the number of anticoagulant rodenticides a fisher has been exposed
to, and most fishers are exposed to more than one (Gabriel et al. 2015,
p. 15).
The primary source of rodenticide exposure to fishers is from
illegal marijuana grow sites on public, private, and tribal lands in
California and Oregon (Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 14-15; Thompson et al.
2014, pp. 97-98). In the mid- to late 1970s, 90 percent of the
marijuana consumed in the United States came from abroad (Brady 2013,
pp. 70-71). Marijuana cultivation in California really began in 1974 or
1975, and by 1979, 35 percent of the marijuana consumed in California
was from California (Brady 2013, pp. 70-71). By 2010, 79 percent of all
the marijuana consumed in the United States came from California (Brady
2013, pp. 70-71).
Information on the amount and types of rodenticides have been
collected at more than 300 illegal grow sites in California from 2012
through 2018 (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp. 5-7).
Through this time period the use of second-generation rodenticides
decreased. This is likely because of regulation changes in 2014 that
placed additional restrictions on the use of second-generation
rodenticides in California (California Department of Pesticide
Regulation 2014). The change in policy has led to a more intensive use
of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and the highest amount of
neurotoxicant rodenticide use since 2012 (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, pp. 5-7).
In order to evaluate the risk to fishers from illegal grow sites
and any differences between populations, we use a Maximum Entropy model
to identify high and moderate likelihood of illegal grow sites being
located within habitat selected by fisher in California and Oregon
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp. 7-10). This model
indicates that 44 percent of the habitat modeled (combined NCSO and SSN
DPSs) for fishers is within areas of high and moderate likelihood for
illegal grow sites--see also the individual DPS sections below.
However, the extent to which the use of toxicants occurs on marijuana
grow sites on private land, as well as other agricultural, commercial,
and public land sites within the range of the fisher (and habitats that
fishers select for), is unknown.
Illegal grow sites are regularly discovered in California (617 from
2012 through 2018, and 2,039 from 2004 through 2018) (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, p. 7). Law-enforcement specialists
estimate they locate and raid roughly 20 to 40 percent of sites each
year and only about 10 percent of those are remediated (Thompson et al.
2017, p. 45). If these estimates are accurate, it is reasonable to
conclude that thousands of illegal grow sites--known and unknown, and
with an undetermined amount of toxicants present--remain scattered
within both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS (Gabriel et al. 2015, entire;
Thompson et al. 2017, p. 45). Rodenticides persist in the landscape,
with first-generation rodenticides having a half-life of up to 16 days
and second-generation rodenticides having a half-life up to 307 days
(Shore and Coeurdassier 2018, p. 146).
[[Page 29544]]
As discussed, both the draft and final Species Reports detail the
exposure of fishers to rodenticides (Service 2014, pp. 149-166; Service
2016, pp. 141-159). Below we summarize new information:
(1) Rodent diversity--Illegal grow sites that were treated with
rodenticides contained only mice, as compared to untreated sites where
rodenticides were not used and where large-bodied rodents (e.g.,
woodrats, squirrels, chipmunks) were found. The absence of larger
rodents at treated sites suggests that larger-bodied rodents may be
impacted by rodenticides more than smaller bodied rodents. These large-
bodied rodents are the prey species fishers prefer (Gabriel et al.
2017, p. 10). Further, illegal grow sites may act as ``sinks'' for prey
moving in from neighboring areas meaning less prey is available for
fisher (Gabriel 2018, pers. comm.).
(2) Law Enforcement Activities--During the ``Operation Forest
Watch, Department of Justice'' campaign in California between October
2017 and September 2018, more than 20,000 pounds of fertilizer,
pesticides, and chemicals were removed from 160 illegal grow sites
(Department of Justice (DOJ) 2018, p. 2). Of these, 89 percent were
confirmed or strongly suspected to have carbofuran or methamidophos
(i.e., insecticides (non-rodenticides) that cause central nervous
system dysfunction), up from the previous year's total of 75 percent
(DOJ 2018, p. 2). Estimates vary of the number of illegal grow sites
that necessitate reclamation of toxicants, but as of 2018, 766 known
illegal grow sites are still in need of reclamation (DOJ 2018, p. 2).
(3) Effect of legalization--Since the 2014 Proposed Rule,
recreational marijuana cultivation and use became legal in Oregon
(2015) and California (2016). The data are mixed with respect to how
legalization is affecting illegal grows sites on public lands. Some
studies find that illegal grow sites on National Forests have decreased
in States where marijuana was legalized (Klassen and Anthony 2019, p.
39; Prestemon et al. 2019, p. 1). Conversely, many law-enforcement
officials have found no indication that illegal grow sites have
decreased with cannabis legalization, and may in fact be increasing, in
part due to legalization providing an effective means to launder
illegal marijuana (Hughes 2017, entire; Bureau of Cannabis Control
California 2018, pp. 28, 30; Sabet 2018, pp. 94-95; Fuller 2019, no
page number; Klassen and Anthony 2019, p. 45). Data from fisher
monitoring suggests that illegal grow sites are dropping in number but
are getting larger (impacting more fisher home ranges) (Gabriel 2018,
pers. comm.). And, law-enforcement actions have caused illegal grow
sites to disperse further, which makes them more difficult to locate
(Gabriel 2018, pers. comm.). Other uncertainties make it difficult to
reach conclusions about trends in the abundance and frequency of
illegal grow sites this soon after legalization, including legal
marijuana market forces, the clandestine nature of the black market,
Federal illegality and trends of legalization in other States, State
taxation of marijuana, local employment and economic conditions, and
regulatory and law enforcement responses (Hughes 2017, entire; Bureau
of Cannabis Control California 2018, pp. 28, 30; Sabet 2018, pp. 94-95;
Fuller 2019, no page number; Klassen and Anthony 2019, pp. 45-46;
Prestemon et al. 2019, pp. 9-11).
Legalization has resulted in an increase in legal marijuana
cultivation. At this time, we have limited data about the prevalence of
rodenticide use on legal private grow sites and whether fishers are at
risk from rodenticide use on private land. In urban-wildland
interfaces, or where private lands abut public forestland or occur as
inholdings, legal grow sites are more likely within fisher home ranges
(e.g., Franklin et al. 2018, p. 3).
(4) Reclamation Efforts--Existing law enforcement cannot keep up
with illegal marijuana activities (Bureau of Cannabis Control
California 2018, p. 30; Wendt 2019, pp. 4-6). In addition, support from
States and local governments to Federal law enforcement on public lands
(e.g., U.S. Forest Service (USFS)) has dwindled as they redirect
resources to regulate the legalized marijuana industry (Bureau of
Cannabis Control California 2018, p. 30; Klassen and Anthony 2019, p.
45).
The California Comprehensive Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety
Act of 2016 specifies that, after control and regulation of the
program, 20 percent of the marijuana tax fund (established by this Act)
shall be given to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for
(1) cleanup, remediation, and restoration of environmental damage in
watersheds affected by marijuana cultivation (a portion of which may be
distributed through grants); and (2) the stewardship and operation of
State-owned wildlife habitat areas and State park units to prevent
illegal cultivation, and use (Comprehensive Medical Cannabis Regulation
and Safety Act 2016, pp. 43-44). This language is not included in the
2017 Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act
(MAUCRSA) that updates the 2016 Act (MAUCRSA 2017, entire).
In 2017, CDFW used their Regulation and Forest Restoration funds
for their newly formed Cannabis Restoration Grant Program (CDFW 2017a,
p. 3). The program funded the restoration of watersheds impacted by
marijuana cultivation, including removing trash and equipment,
diversion removal, riparian enhancements, and streambank stabilization
(CDFW 2017b, p. 1). Funds for projects in 2017 totaled $1,300,000 (CDFW
2017a, p. 1). Monies from this program went to fund four efforts for
watersheds within the range of the NCSO DPS (CDFW 2017a, p. 2). The
largest and widest-ranging of these efforts included the removal and
remediation of rodenticides at illegal grow sites. Monies were not made
available in 2018 or 2019, but it is our understanding there are plans
to add monies to this grant program in the future.
The CROP Project (Cannabis Removal on Public Lands) is a citizen-
based organization established in 2018 with the primary goals of: (1)
Securing and increasing State and Federal resources for illegal-grow-
site reclamation; (2) increasing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
USFS law enforcement and overall presence on National Forests; and (3)
implementing a Statewide public education campaign, focusing on the
human health risks associated with ingesting unregulated marijuana
(www.cropproject.org). Successful accomplishment of these goals could
substantially improve the discovery and reclamation of illegal grow
sites, but it is too early to determine the degree to which this
program reduces the threat of toxicants to fishers.
Please also see Existing Regulatory Mechanisms in both the NCSO and
the SSN DPS discussions below for more information on voluntary
conservation efforts that address illegal grow sites.
At this time, our evaluation of the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding toxicants and their effects on fishers
leads us to conclude that individual fishers within both DPSs have died
from toxicant exposure, fishers suffer a variety of sublethal effects
from exposure to rodenticides, and the potential for illegal grow sites
within fisher habitat is high. The exposure rate of more than 80
percent of fisher carcasses tested in California has not declined
between 2007 and 2018 (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp.
3-4), while poisoning has increased since 2007 (Gabriel et al. 2015, p.
7). We do not know the exposure rate of live fishers to
[[Page 29545]]
toxicants since this information is difficult to gather and has not
been collected. In addition, the minimum amount of anticoagulant and
neurotoxicant rodenticides required for sublethal or lethal poisoning
is unknown. Specific information on fishers and toxicants within the
NCSO DPS and the SSN DPS is described in the DPS-specific sections
below.
Potential for Effects Associated With Small Population Size
Small populations are vulnerable to a rapid decline in their
numbers and localized extinction due to the following: (1) Loss of
genetic variability (e.g., inbreeding depression, loss of evolutionary
flexibility), (2) fluctuations in demographic parameters (e.g., birth
and death rates, population growth rates, population density), and (3)
environmental stochasticity or random fluctuations in the biological
(e.g., predation, competition, disease) and physical environment (e.g.,
wildfire, drought events, flooding) (Primack 2014, pp. 252-268). We
note that forest carnivore populations, including fisher, are often
isolated and generally occur in low densities (Service 2016, p. 29).
While we do not have data across the entire fisher range on the West
Coast demonstrating that fishers are exhibiting specific effects
associated with small population size, consideration of these three
elements along with life-history traits can provide an extinction-
vulnerability profile for both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS. Fishers in
Oregon and California are currently restricted to two historically
extant indigenous populations (NCSO and SSN), one extant reintroduced
subpopulation (NSN, established with fishers from NCSO), and one
subpopulation established with fishers from outside this region (SOC).
We recognize the two geographic areas of fisher, SSN and NCSO (the
latter of which includes the SOC and NSN for this analysis), are
geographically isolated from one another with no evidence of and very
little opportunity for genetic interchange. 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; Knaus et al. 2011, p. 11).
Despite their isolation and the small size of the SSN DPS, the native
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS have persisted over a long period of time.
At this point in time, fishers in both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS are
reduced from their original/historical range within the West Coast
States. The best available information suggests these populations are
expected to remain isolated from one another (as has been apparent
since pre-European settlement). Estimates of fisher population growth
rates for the NCSO DPS and the portion of the SSN DPS surveyed do not
indicate any overall positive or negative trend (see Current Condition
section for the NCSO DPS below), with the exception of the recently
reintroduced subpopulation in the NSN, which has steadily grown since
its translocation beginning in 2009. The vulnerabilities related to
small population size for each DPS are further described below.
Disease and Predation
We evaluated information on disease and predation in our 2016
Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 128-132). In addition, we evaluated
the following new information available regarding disease or predation
since the time of our 2014 Proposed Rule (e.g., Gabriel et al. 2015,
pp. 5-8, 12-16; Sweitzer et al. 2016a, pp. 444-448; Integral Ecology
Research Center 2017, p. 2; Barry 2018, pp. 39-40; Green et al. 2018a,
p. 549; Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 39-40, 50-51, 53, 72; CDFW 2019,
entire). Although we did not identify this threat in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule as one that may have been a potentially significant
driver of future status, we are considering this new information in
this Final Rule in light of our DPS determination that has resulted in
two separate DPSs; the magnitude and scale of the effect disease or
predation may have on each DPS may differ as a result of the DPS-
specific demographics and distribution. Predation and disease are the
two greatest sources of mortality for fishers of identified mortality
sources studied in California (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 6; Sweitzer et
al. 2016a, p. 447). Of 183 California fishers where the mortality
source was identified, 67 percent died from predation and 13 percent
from a combination of disease, injury, or starvation (Sweitzer et al.
2016a, p. 447). Gabriel et al. (2015, p. 7) was able to separate
disease from other mortality sources and found that 15 percent of 136
necropsied fishers died of disease.
Several viral and bacterial diseases are known to affect mustelids,
including fishers. Known diseases that have caused fisher mortality in
the area of the NCSO and SSN DPSs include canine distemper virus,
Toxoplasma gondii (a protozoal infection), and several bacterial
infections (Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 7-8; see Service 2016, pp. 128-130
for diseases summary). Disease only has a minor impact where it has
been studied in the SSN DPS (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 66), and it
comprises a substantially smaller portion of fisher mortalities
compared to predation.
We do not know if current predation rates are similar to historical
rates in the area of the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS. Comparing predation
rates to populations outside of the West Coast is not informative
because most of those populations are trapped, skewing the mortality
source results (e.g., Lofroth et al. 2010, p. 62, Table 6.3). Recent
research in California suggests that landscape changes as a result of
disturbances over the past century may have altered the carnivore
community and affected predation rates on fishers by bobcats (Wengert
2013, pp. 59-66, 93, 97-100) where an increased proximity to open and
brushy areas (vegetation selected for by bobcats) increases the risk of
predation on fishers. Mountain lions and bobcats are major predators of
fishers. Of 90 fishers that died from predation or were killed by other
animals, 90 percent were killed by members of the cat family (Felidae)
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 5). Sublethal effects of toxicants may also
result in higher than normal mortality rates associated with disease
and predation, but we do not know what portion of identified
mortalities would not have occurred but for the presence of sublethal
levels of toxicants in the individual (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 16;
Sweitzer et al. 2016a, p. 448).
Disease and predation are naturally occurring sources of mortality,
although the associated mortality rates may be increased by human-
caused factors such as vegetation management or toxicants (Gabriel et
al. 2015, pp. 14, 16). Predation has been identified as the most
important factor limiting fisher populations in California (Sweitzer et
al. 2016a, p. 448). High levels of predation may explain why fisher
populations have not expanded into unoccupied suitable habitat
throughout much of the NCSO and SSN DPSs (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 16).
However, the reintroduced NSN subpopulation appears to be growing
despite mortalities due to predation, indicating that other factors
such as fisher dispersal distance through unsuitable habitat may also
limit fisher expansion (Powell and Zielinski 1994, pp. 60-61; Aubry and
Lewis 2003, p. 88) and that reintroductions can play an important role
in recovery for the species (Green et al. 2020, p. 13).
Vehicle Collisions
Fisher collisions with vehicles have been documented at multiple
locations
[[Page 29546]]
within the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS. We summarize this information in the
final fisher Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 137-138). Although we
did not analyze this threat in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, this
information warrants consideration in this Final Rule, particularly
because we expect this threat to act differently in each of the newly-
identified NCSO DPS and SSN DPS based on population size and proximity
to human development. In general, fisher collisions with vehicles
documented in California are relatively rare, representing less than 2
percent of documented mortalities (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 15). And,
vehicle-related mortalities may be a more local concern associated with
specific high-traffic areas (Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 7 and 15, Table
2).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Many Federal and State existing regulatory mechanisms provide a
benefit to fishers and their habitat. For example, trapping
restrictions have substantially reduced fisher mortality throughout the
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS of fisher. In some places, forest-management
practices are explicitly applied to benefit fishers or other species
with many similar habitat requirements, such as the northern spotted
owl. State and Federal regulatory mechanisms have abated the large-
scale loss of fishers to trapping and minimized the loss of fisher
habitat, especially on Federal land (Service 2014, pp. 117-141).
Additionally, rodenticides are regulated under Federal and State laws.
However, fishers are still exposed to rodenticides where they are used
(see NCSO and SSN DPS specific sections on Exposure to Toxicants and
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms).
Finally, voluntary conservation measures are in place that provide
a benefit to fishers and their habitat. These measures include Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), Candidate Conservation Agreements with
Assurances (CCAAs), Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs), Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs), and other conservation strategies, as described
for each DPS below (see NCSO and SSN DPS specific sections on Voluntary
Conservation Measures below).
Final Listing Determination for NCSO DPS of Fisher
Current Condition
The NCSO DPS comprises a mix of ownerships, with similar amounts of
private and Federal ownership (Table 1). The USFS is the predominant
Federal land manager within the DPS.
Table 1--Land Ownership or Management for the Northern California/Southern Oregon Distinct Population Segment of Fisher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California (CA) Oregon (OR) NCSO total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Percent (%)
Acres (ac) for CA ac % for OR ac %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management............................... 864,221 4.0 945,910 17.8 1,810,130 6.8
Forest Service.......................................... 8,433,567 39.5 2,332,813 43.8 10,766,380 40.4
Bureau of Indian Affairs................................ 211,998 1.0 72 0.0 212,070 0.8
National Park Service................................... 353,235 1.7 186,934 3.5 540,170 2.0
State and Local......................................... 473,997 2.2 20,637 0.4 494,635 1.9
Private................................................. 10,951,353 51.3 1,824,961 34.3 12,776,315 47.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Acres *....................................... 21,346,412 100.0 5,327,797 100.0 26,674,209 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Acres and % may not sum due to rounding and because some other owners with less land are not included.
Population condition and abundance information for the NCSO DPS is
presented for three different geographic portions of this DPS. First,
the SOC portion west and south of Crater Lake in the Southern Oregon
Cascade Range is predominantly represented by reintroduced individuals
from British Columbia and Minnesota. However, recent analyses have
documented that at least some of these reintroduced SOC individuals and
native NCSO individuals are overlapping in range, with confirmed
interbreeding (Pilgrim and Schwartz 2016, entire; Pilgrim and Schwartz
2017, entire). Second, the NSN portion is represented by native,
reintroduced fishers whose genetic stock is from fishers relocated from
the Klamath-Siskiyou and Shasta-Trinity subregions (in the historically
native NCSO DPS). These animals were relocated into the northern Sierra
Nevada. This geographic portion of the NCSO DPS occurs on land known as
the Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) Stirling Management Unit in Butte,
Plumas, and Tehama Counties, California (Powell et al. 2019, p. 2).
Third, the remainder of the native fishers in the NCSO DPS occupy the
Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains in southern Oregon and northern California,
the California Coast Range Mountains, the Shasta-Trinity subregions in
northern California, and the western portion of the southern Cascades
in northern California.
Fishers in the SOC portion of the NCSO DPS stem from a
translocation of 30 fishers from British Columbia and Minnesota to the
southeastern Cascade Range and west of Crater Lake between 1977 and
1981, after an earlier reintroduction in 1961 failed (Aubry and Lewis
2003, p. 84; Lofroth et al. 2010, pp. 43-44). 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 2014-2017,
entire; Moriarity et al. 2017, entire; Barry 2018, pp. 6, 22-24;
Moriarty et al. 2019, p. 23).
Prior to 2015, survey work in the Oregon Cascades north of the NCSO
DPS was limited to opportunistic or small-scale efforts. Verifiable
fisher detections did not exist, except for two single fishers: One
just north of the SOC subpopulation in 2014 (Wolfer 2014, pers. comm.)
and a single dispersing juvenile male detected in the same general area
in the 1990s (Aubry and Raley 2006, p. 5); this finding suggests
occasional individuals may disperse north through the central Oregon
Cascades. Over the winter of 2015-2016, systematic camera surveys
occurred in the northern Oregon Cascades (specifically, the southern
portion of the Mt. Hood National Forest and northern portion of the
Willamette National Forest). No fishers were detected (Moriarty et al.
2016, entire), suggesting fishers may not reach this far north in the
Oregon Cascades. Additionally,
[[Page 29547]]
surveys over the past 3 years have not detected fishers north of the
Rogue River in the central Oregon Cascades (Barry 2018, pp. 22-23) (see
below).
Information is not available on population size for the SOC portion
of the NCSO DPS. In the northern portion of the SOC area, fishers were
detected in the northern and eastern portions of Crater Lake National
Park between 2013 and 2015 (Mohren 2016, pers. comm.). Outside of the
Park, large-scale systematic surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2017
north and west of Crater Lake National Park and south to the Klamath
Falls Resource Area (south of the reintroduction area) of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Lakeview District (Barry 2018, entire). Few
fishers were detected in an area west of Crater Lake National Park
where fishers were captured and radio-collared in the early 1990s by
Aubry and Raley (2002, entire). Within the Klamath Plateau (generally
the Klamath Falls Resource Area described above, but including
surrounding non-Federal lands), Moriarty et al. (2019, pp. 5, 21)
identified 31 to 41 individuals from 2015 to 2018, concluding that
fishers in the SOC area do not appear to be expanding from where they
were initially reintroduced.
In comparing this range estimate with a coarse baseline range
estimate provided by the Service, Barry (2018, pp. 22-24) determined
that there was a 67 percent range reduction for the SOC subpopulation,
concluding that SOC fishers ``appear to have contracted, shifted south,
or the previous population extent was incorrectly estimated'' (Barry
2018, pp. 22-24). Given the lack of systematic range-wide fisher
monitoring in Oregon, the author, however, urged caution when comparing
his analysis with the baseline range estimate provided by the Service,
and we agree. Our baseline range estimate used by Barry (2018, p. 31,
Figure 3) was derived by encompassing verifiable fisher locations since
1993 in southwest Oregon. Our boundaries were based on modeled fisher
habitat and readily identifiable features such the Rogue River. These
range maps included scattered, disjunct detections with intervening
areas of few to no fisher detections (e.g., see Service 2016, p. 34,
Figure 7); consequently, our range map likely encompassed areas with
limited fisher occurrence. Hence, comparing our coarse range map with
Barry's fisher distribution, which was quantitatively modeled from
systematic detection surveys to delineate areas with a higher
probability of fisher occurrence, should indeed be interpreted with
caution. Our coarse range map certainly included areas with limited
numbers or lack of fishers; consequently, a 67 percent range reduction
using that map as a baseline comparison overestimates any change in
fisher distribution in the SOC subpopulation to some extent. We do
concur, however, that SOC fishers seem to have shifted their
distribution, and acknowledge that their distribution may be
contracting to some degree. Further, we acknowledge Barry's (2018, pp.
22-24) assertion that the SOC subpopulation has had ample time since
their reintroduction to colonize beyond the reintroduction area and has
failed to do so, suggesting that either our understanding of suitable
habitat may be incorrect, there may be unknown barriers limiting their
distribution, or other factors may limit this subpopulation.
Barry (2018, p. 23) also concluded that the SOC subpopulation
appears small and relatively isolated given the number and spacing of
detections. However, there is interbreeding with indigenous fishers
near the Klamath Plateau area, suggesting fishers in the southern part
of the SOC subpopulation are not isolated.
Fishers in the NSN portion of the NCSO DPS stem from a 2009 to 2011
translocation of 40 fishers (24 females, 16 males) from Humboldt,
Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties, California, to the SPI Stirling
Management Unit. Ongoing monitoring has confirmed that fishers born
onsite have established home ranges and have successfully reproduced.
Trapping efforts in the fall of 2017 as part of ongoing monitoring of
the reintroduced subpopulation indicate a minimum of 61 fishers (38
females, 23 males), which is 21 more than were originally introduced
(Powell et al. 2019, p. 2). Overall, 220 individual fishers were
identified between 2009 and 2017 with a young age structure, suggesting
healthy reproduction and recruitment (Powell et al. 2019, p. 2).
Although the subpopulation appears to be stable or growing, statistical
conclusions will be difficult to draw until year 10 in 2020 (Powell et
al. 2019, p. 2). The authors also concluded that the subpopulation is
unlikely to go extinct in the next 20 years, barring dramatic decreases
in survival and reproduction caused by stochastic events. We also
recently received a draft manuscript concluding that estimated
recruitment and survival probability of fishers in the NSN
subpopulation ``had stabilized and were quite high, indicating that
this new population of fishers may be self-sustaining'' (Green et al.
2020, p. 11).
Older estimates for the NCSO DPS (minus SOC and NSN) 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 DPS to the entire NCSO DPS (Self et al. 2008, pp. 3-5).
In 2017, a new estimate was developed for the NCSO DPS that includes
southern Oregon and coastal California but still excludes SOC and NSN
(Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 2-3). This study used detection/non-detection
survey data from across much of the NCSO DPS to calculate an average
density of 6.6 fishers per 39 mi\2\ (100 km\2\) across the area they
defined for the NCSO DPS (Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 12-15). Using this
estimate of fisher density, the NCSO DPS is estimated to be 3,196
individuals (2,507-4,184; 95 percent Confidence Interval (C.I.)) and
fishers were detected at 41 percent of 321 paired camera stations
(Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 10, 12). Density models indicate a core area
of predicted high density (greater than 10 fishers per 39 mi\2\ (100
km\2\) from between about 25 to 50 mi (40 to 80 km) inland from the
coast in the California Coast Range and southern Klamath Mountains in
California (Furnas et al. 2017, pp. 12-13). CDFW determined in their
status assessment for fishers in California that the assessment done by
Furnas, when applied to fishers in the California portion of NCSO,
suggests that fishers are common and widespread (estimated to occur at
60 percent of sample units in California) (CDFW 2015, p. 55).
The indigenous population of fishers in Oregon was estimated to
have a 26 percent range reduction compared to verifiable fisher records
collected since 1993 (Barry 2018, p. 22). However, the author notes
this comparison should be treated with caution, and we agree. This
estimate is subject to the same limitations as described earlier in
this section for the SOC fisher subpopulation. That is, the coarse
range map the author used for a baseline comparison included areas with
limited numbers or even lack of fishers, so a 26 percent range
reduction overestimates any change in the indigenous fisher population
in Oregon.
Trend information for fishers within the NCSO DPS is based on the
following two long-term study areas. As indicated above, we now
consider the NCSO DPS to include the areas previously represented as
the SOC and NSN reintroduced fisher subpopulations.
The Hoopa study area is approximately 145 mi\2\ (370 km\2\) on the
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation north
[[Page 29548]]
of California State Highway 299 and near State Route 96, which is
largely surrounded by the Six Rivers National Forest and other private
lands. The study area represents the more mesic portion (containing a
moderate amount of moisture) of the NCSO DPS. Fisher studies have been
ongoing since 1996. The population trend in the period 2005-2012
indicates declining populations with lambda 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.). The authors concluded that ``the population as a whole is
essentially stable'' (Higley et al. 2014, p. 31), but they raised
concerns about declines in survival of males over the last 3 years of
the study; they believed the decline was associated with toxicant
poisoning associated with illegal marijuana growing and that males were
at a higher risk because of their larger home ranges compared to
females (Higley et al. 2014, pp. 32, 38).
The Eastern Klamath Study Area (EKSA) is approximately 200 mi\2\
(510 km\2\) in size straddling the California/Oregon border. This study
area represents the more xeric portion (containing little moisture;
very dry) of the NCSO DPS. Monitoring has occurred since 2006 (Green et
al. 2018b, entire). Fishers in this study area were a source for
translocating fishers to the NSN reintroduction site elsewhere in the
DPS. The removal of nine fishers over a 2-year period in 2009 and 2010
(equivalent to 20 percent of the population) did not affect fisher
abundance or density in the study area (Green et al. 2017, p. 9).
After fires in this study area in 2014, the estimated number of
fishers declined by 40 percent from the year before the fire (Green et
al. 2019b, p. 8). Prior to the fire, this population varied in the
annual number of fishers and lambda trends (increasing and decreasing)
(Green et al. 2016, p. 15, Table 1) (Table 2), indicating ``the
population of fishers in the Klamath was relatively stable before the
fires occurred and for the three years immediately following the
removal of fishers for translocations'' (Green et al. 2016, p. 8).
Modeling results suggest the post-fire decline was because of the fire.
Although the fire notably affected fishers in this population in the 2
years immediately following, the fate of the fishers affected by the
fire is unknown; it is possible that some fishers may have emigrated
out of the burned areas (Green et al. 2017, pp. 9-10) or may reoccupy
areas that burned at lower severities in the future. Credible intervals
(a statistical measure of uncertainty) surrounding abundance estimates
of fishers both pre- and post-fire overlap; although the post-fire
estimate is at the lower range of the pre-fire estimate, the fisher
population estimate post-fire does not appear to be substantially
different from the lowest estimates in the pre-fire years (Green et al.
2019b, p. 18; Matthews and Green 2020, pers. comm.). Hence, even with
the immediate decline in the local fisher population after the fire,
the latest population estimate still appears to be within the
statistical range of variation of pre-fire estimates. Data since 2016
have not yet been analyzed to assess the EKSA population trend over the
past few years.
In the absence of limiting factors, populations tend to steadily
increase (lambda >1) until the population growth becomes restricted.
Within the NCSO DPS, this situation has been occurring in the NSN
reintroduced population as it expands to fill available habitat (Powell
et al. 2019, pp. 2, 4). Healthy populations will then naturally
fluctuate around their upper limit, or carrying capacity, increasing in
some years and decreasing in other years (Figure 2). This trend is
exhibited in the data from the EKSA, where annual estimates of
abundance for fishers have varied, yielding increasing and decreasing
growth rates from year to year prior to the 2014 fires (Table 2). This
occurrence is consistent with normal variation for populations that are
neither growing nor declining, but fluctuating near carrying capacity.
For both the Hoopa and the EKSA studies, the authors' use of the term
``stable'' (Higley et al. 2014, p. 31; Green et al. 2016, p. 8) implies
that the lambda rates are not swinging dramatically from year to year,
but rather annual abundance estimates are fluctuating around a steady
value consistent with normal population variation. There are still
uncertainties regarding the post-fire declines from the EKSA study area
(addressed below in Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression section) as well
as the reduced male survival rates in the Hoopa study area. However,
the best available data suggests that populations are exhibiting
variability that may be consistent with populations at or near carrying
capacity.
[[Page 29549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15MY20.001
Table 2--Derived Posterior Parameter Estimates of Annual Population Density, Abundance, and Population Growth of
Fishers in the Klamath. Parameters Are Presented as Median [95% Credible Interval] (Green et al. 2016, p. 15)
[These estimates have since been reparameterized (Matthews and Green 2020, pers. comm.), indicating a population
exhibiting typical fluctuations both increasing and decreasing around K for this time period]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density (fishers/100
Year km\2\) Abundance Lambda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006................................. 6.64 [4.94, 8.35]...... 39 [29, 49]............ .......................
2007................................. 6.64 [4.94, 8.18]...... 39 [29, 48]............ 1 [0.71, 1.35]
2008................................. 6.99 [5.62, 8.69]...... 41 [32, 50]............ 1.06 [0.78, 1.4]
2009................................. 6.47 [5.11, 8.18]...... 38 [29, 47]............ 0.92 [0.67, 1.2]
2010................................. 5.79 [4.43, 7.33]...... 34 [26, 43]............ 0.91 [0.64, 1.21]
2011................................. 6.47 [5.11, 8.18]...... 38 [28, 46]............ 1.09 [0.78, 1.45]
2012................................. 6.3 [4.94, 8.18]....... 37 [27, 46]............ 0.98 [0.72, 1.33]
2013................................. 6.99 [5.62, 8.69]...... 41 [32, 50]............ 1.11 [0.81, 1.49]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishers in the NCSO DPS have rebounded substantially from their low
in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 227)
suggested no more than 300 fishers occurred in all of California.
Fishers currently occupy much of their historical range in northwestern
California, including the redwood region, which may be an expansion
from their historical distribution (CDFW 2015, p. 23); fisher
detections have increased in northern coastal California since the
1990s, though it is not known as to whether this increase is due to a
range expansion, recolonization, increased survey effort, or whether
fishers remained undetected in earlier surveys (CDFW 2015, p. 50).
Recent monitoring information submitted during the public comment
period on the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule indicates fishers continue to
occur across much of northern coastal California; systematic camera
surveys on private timber lands found fishers at 65 of 93 (70 percent)
camera stations (Green Diamond Resource Company [GDRC] 2019, p. 8)
during the 2018-2019 winter, suggesting fishers are well-distributed
across the company's lands. In Oregon, fishers also appear to have
expanded from low numbers in the 1940s, when fishers were considered
extremely rare and perhaps close to extirpation (see Barry 2018, pp.
16-17 for summary), to being ``relatively common'' where the indigenous
population is found (Barry 2018, p. 22). Fishers also appear to be
widespread and common throughout much of the DPS (CDFW 2015, pp. 54-
55).
The major habitat-based threats experienced by the NCSO DPS are
loss of complex canopy forests and den/rest sites and fragmentation of
habitat from high-severity wildfire, wildfire suppression activities
(e.g., backburning, fuel breaks, and snag removal), and vegetation
management (e.g., fuels reduction treatments, salvage, hazard tree
removal). Major non-habitat related threats are exposure to toxicants
and, in some areas, predation. In
[[Page 29550]]
addition to these threats acting on the NCSO DPS, several conservation
efforts are also designed to benefit fishers. These efforts include
those being implemented within the portion of the range covered by the
Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) including the conservation and retention
of late seral habitats and a network of reserved land use allocations,
which provide fisher habitat. We summarize conservation measures and
regulation mechanisms that address some of these threats below in the
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section.
Threats
As described above in the General Threats Information section, we
determined our foreseeable future timeframe for evaluating the status
of the NCSO fisher based upon the period for which we can reasonably
determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to
those threats are likely. In general, we considered that the
trajectories of the threats acting on fisher subpopulations across the
DPS's range could be reliably predicted for 35-40 years into the
future.
We estimated this timeframe as a result of our evaluation of an
array of time periods used in modeling. For example, climate models for
areas with fisher habitat, HCPs, and timber harvest models generally
predict 50 to 100 years into the future, and forest planning documents
often predict over shorter timeframes (10 to 20 years). We considered
40 years at the time of the 2014 Proposed Rule, and given the 5-year
time period since, we are modifying the foreseeable future time period
to a range of 35-40 years. This is a timeframe that we can reasonably
determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to
those threats are likely. This time period extends only so far as the
predictions into the future are reliable, including a balance of the
timeframes of various models with the types of threats anticipated
during the 35- to 40-year time period.
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
Direct evidence of fisher population response to wildfire is
limited. In a monitored fisher population in the Klamath-Siskiyou area,
declines in the overall fisher population occurred after wildfires in
the study area in 2014 (Green et al. 2019b, entire). This population of
fishers has been monitored since 2006. As noted by Green et al. (2019b,
p. 4): ``Previous research indicates this population of fishers had
been relatively stable up to 2013, despite approximately 20% of the
population being translocated elsewhere between 2009 and 2011.'' Fisher
numbers in the study area declined 40 percent from 2013, the year prior
to the fires. This decrease became apparent the first full year
following the fires (2015) and persisted into the following year (Green
et al. 2019b, p. 8, Figure 2). While the fate of the fishers affected
by the fire is unknown, it is possible that some fishers may have
emigrated out of the burned areas (Green et al. 2017, pp. 9-10) or may
reoccupy areas that burned at lower severities in the future. The
reduced population estimate appears to be within the statistical range
of variation of pre-fire estimates, as evidenced by overlapping
credible intervals. The post-fire population decline of 40 percent is
based on a comparison with the population estimate from 2013, which was
the highest measured population estimate compared to all previous
years, with 39 animals estimated (Green et al. 2017, p. 19; 2019b, pp.
15-18). The post-fire population estimate was not evaluated in context
with the overall pre-fire population trend and its overall variation;
such a comparison would likely yield a less dramatic population change.
In addition, monitoring data since 2016 is not yet fully evaluated.
Both of these tasks are currently underway (Matthews and Green 2020,
pers. comm.). Fisher densities declined across all wildfire severity
types, but they declined the most in areas with more than a 50 percent
loss of tree basal area, consistent with other studies (Green et al.
2019b, pp. 6, 9). The authors note that their data represent only the
short-term effects of fires, and any negative effects may not persist.
We do not know the fate of individual fishers that left the population
after the fire and whether their fitness was ultimately compromised.
But this analysis does suggest that high-severity fires can have
immediate and substantial effects on local fisher numbers.
Within the Biscuit Fire area in southwest Oregon, which burned in
2002, surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 did not detect fishers within
the burn perimeter (Barry 2018, pp. 22-23), suggesting the fires have
extirpated fishers from the burn area. However, detection records do
not suggest fishers were ever abundant in the area prior to the fire
(Service 2016, pp. 24, 33, 34, and 35, Figures 4, 6, 7, and 8). We do
acknowledge, however, that a large part of this area, is within the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, where surveys were likely limited due to
restricted access. Therefore, fisher occupancy in some areas of the
Biscuit Fire remains unknown.
Given projected changes in climate, forests are expected to become
more vulnerable to wildfires over the coming century. For example, the
proportion of forests considered highly suitable for wildfire in the
Klamath Mountains is projected to increase from 18 percent to 48-51
percent by the end of the century, with most of that increase projected
to occur on Federal lands (Davis et al. 2017, p. 180). Fire return
intervals in low- to mid-elevation forests in Northwest California and
the Sierra Nevada Mountains have among the highest departure rates from
historical fire return intervals in the State (Safford and Van de Water
2014, pp. iii, 17, 22, 36-37). And, fire return intervals in the Coast
Range and Klamath Mountains in Oregon are expected to decrease by half,
which would result in a near tripling of the annual area burned in this
century compared to last (Sheehan et al. 2015, pp. 20-22; Dalton et al.
2017, p. 46). We note that the projected increases include fires of all
severity types, so the potential wildfire areas do not translate
directly to an amount of fisher habitat removed. In the case of low-
and moderate-severity fires, these may actually create elements used by
fishers.
An analysis of fire effects on fisher habitat was done centering on
the Klamath Basin and encompassing the NCSO (CBI 2019b and 2019c,
entire). The study looked at fisher habitat patches large enough to
support five or more breeding female home ranges (CBI 2019b, p. 16) and
labeled them as core habitat; the study also identified fisher linkage
areas, which were areas on the landscape identified as least-cost
pathways to connect the core habitats (CBI 2019b, pp. 3, 16). They
found that 24 percent of modeled fisher core areas and 24 percent of
modeled fisher linkage areas were considered at risk of at least
temporary loss due to severe fires (CBI 2019c, pp. 22, 25). It is
important to note that these percentages do not total to 48 percent of
the fisher habitat in the study area; core areas are larger patches of
fisher habitat, while linkage areas may or may not comprise suitable
habitat, but instead represent ``least cost'' paths between core areas.
To update our 2014 analysis of wildfire effects within the NCSO
DPS, we conducted an analysis similar to the one completed for the 2014
draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 62-64; Service 2019b,
unpublished data). Using the fisher habitat map developed for the 2014
Proposed Rule (Service 2016, Appendix B) and USFS data for burn
severity for 2008-2018 (USFS 2019), we estimated the effects of high-
[[Page 29551]]
severity wildfire to fisher habitat (high and intermediate categories)
over the past 11 years. We assumed wildfires that burned at high
severity (greater than 50 percent basal area loss) changed fisher
habitat to a condition that would not be selected by fishers for
denning and resting (although this result may not always be the case,
as described above in the General Species Information section). Use of
greater than 50 percent basal area loss is consistent with recent fire
effects analyses on fishers based on the recent results as reported in
Green et al. (2019b, p. 6). Overall, high- and intermediate-quality
fisher habitat in the NCSO DPS decreased by 526,424 ac (213,036 ha)
from 7,050,035 ac (2,853,047 ha) to 6,523,610 ac (2,640,011 ha), or
approximately 7.5 percent was lost as a result of wildfires since 2008;
this is an average loss of 6.8 percent per decade.
For comparison purposes, in our 2014 draft Species Report, we
estimated 4 percent of fisher habitat would be lost over the next 40
years due to high-severity wildfire, or 1 percent per decade (Service
2014, p. 64). Our 2014 area of analysis for the NCSO subpopulation was
based on 27 years of fire data from 1984 to 2011 and assessed
approximately 24,080,693 ac (9,745,111 ha), compared to the 10,459,612
ac (4,232,855 ha) assessed in our recent analysis above. The results of
our new analysis are based on fire data from the period 2008 to 2018,
an 11-year period of the most recent fire activity, which suggests our
earlier estimates of changes to fisher habitat from wildfire over the
next 40 years may have been an underestimate. However, while this
increase in area burned may be consistent with the projections for
wildfire increases in the DPS, the magnitude of increase in burned
fisher habitat (i.e., from 1 percent per decade in our 2014 analysis to
6.8 percent in our 2019 analysis) may not be a true reflection of the
rate of change between the two time periods because of the different
temporal (28 years v. 11 years) and geographic (the area analyzed in
2014 was twice as large as the area assessed in 2019) scales used in
the comparison. Nevertheless, we recognize the increase in fire
activity within the NCSO.
The geography of the Klamath ecoregion, which makes up much of the
NCSO where fishers occur, is steep and complex. The variation in
elevation and aspect shapes vegetation composition and distribution.
This environment influences fuels and ultimately fire behavior and
location (Taylor and Skinner 1998, p. 297; Taylor and Skinner 2003, p.
714; Skinner et al. 2018, pp. 179-180). Consequently, fires tend to be
more prevalent on drier sites, while less frequent on moister sites,
which tend to be areas more consistent with fisher habitat. While these
patterns may or may not continue with the effects of climate change, we
can use management such as the recent fuels reduction MOUs (see
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms below) to leverage existing topography
and vegetation condition to better manage for wildfires.
We acknowledge that large-scale wildfires affect fisher habitat,
particularly given the predicted increases in wildfire associated with
climate change by the end of the century. We also acknowledge that
fires, even large fires, are part of the natural fire regime within the
NCSO DPS, and fishers have sustained themselves and coexisted with
wildfire for centuries. Into the future, it will be important to have
areas that can maintain reproducing fishers while severely burned areas
can regenerate into fisher habitat again, whether that is foraging
habitat within a decade or two, or denning and roosting habitat several
decades beyond. Existing land allocations like late-successional
reserves from the NWFP on Federal lands throughout much of the NCSO
DPS, especially in the areas with the greatest fire severities, will be
necessary to manage these areas to return to forest habitat with
complex structure. This process will ensure suitable habitat lost to
fires will be managed to develop the overstory and structural features
conducive to fishers. In the interim, retaining important structural
features in burned areas, per reserve land allocation standards and
guidelines, will facilitate the use of these areas by prey and foraging
fishers within a few decades following high-severity fires.
Although fire risk is expected to increase with climate change, it
is not expected to be uniform across the DPS, as described above in
this section. The sporadic and episodic nature of fires will help
ameliorate some of the risk to fishers across the DPS as a whole. There
are effects to local fisher populations immediately after a high-
severity fire (e.g., Green et al. 2019b, entire). But fishers are well
distributed across the NCSO DPS, including coastal areas such as the
redwood region that may be less prone to wildfire risk. This
distribution provides redundancy to loss of fishers after a local fire
event. Plus, fishers appear to use high severity burned areas, at least
for dispersal and foraging (Service 2016, p. 66), suggesting that even
severely burned areas can continue to provide some benefits to fishers
within a decade or two after the fire. The redundancy exhibited by the
NCSO DPS, with multiple subpopulations distributed across a substantial
range of habitat (see Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation
section), will allow the NCSO DPS of fishers to absorb the impact of
fires, demonstrating the DPS's ability to withstand catastrophic
events.
Climate Change
The general climate change related effects discussed above (see
General Threats Information) apply to the NCSO DPS, in addition to the
following effects, which are more specific to the NCSO DPS. In
particular, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties in interior northern
California are projected to see the greatest temperature increases for
the North Coast Region (Grantham 2018, p. 17). In the Klamath
Mountains, models suggest precipitation is likely to fall increasingly
as rain rather than snow, becoming mainly rain-dominated by mid-century
(Dalton et al. 2017, p. 17). Significant or amplified wildfire
activity, with increased area burned and severity can result in reduced
denning habitat availability for fishers in the Coast Range and Klamath
Mountains. These two areas are projected to experience wildfire return
intervals decreased by half and thus result in a near tripling of the
annual area burned in this century compared to last (Sheehan et al.
2015, pp. 20-22; Dalton et al. 2017, p. 46). Fire return intervals in
low- to mid-elevation forests in Northwest California and the Sierra
Nevada Mountains have among the highest departure rates from historical
fire return intervals in the State (Safford and Van de Water 2014, pp.
iii, 17, 22, 36-37).
Overall, the best available scientific and commercial information
suggests that changing climate conditions (particularly warmer and
drier conditions) are influencing other threats to fishers and their
habitat within the NCSO DPS, in particular the potential for increased
wildfire frequency and intensity. However, this is not to say that the
DPS will experience widespread or a uniform distribution of climate-
driven wildfire events. Even under conditions for a potential increase
in wildfire frequency, wildfires will remain sporadic and episodic
across the range of the DPS, further moderated by the slope and aspect
of terrain throughout the range (e.g., influencing susceptibility to
wildfire, and creating a mosaic of fire severity). The DPS's wide
variety of topography, vegetation, and climate conditions in its array
of physiographic provinces (Service 2016, pp. 15-17, 28-29, 38-39)
results in
[[Page 29552]]
unpredictable variability in how these provinces will respond to
changing climate conditions. Please see additional discussion about
potential impacts to fishers or their habitat associated with wildfire
(Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression above).
Tree Mortality From Drought, Disease, and Insect Infestation
Specific to the NCSO DPS, sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum)
has caused some tree mortality in southwestern Oregon and northwestern
California, but it is not causing widespread losses of oaks (California
Oak Mortality Task Force 2019, p. 1; Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF) 2016, pp. 1-2). This finding suggests widespread loss of oaks
used by fisher or fisher prey is not occurring as a result of sudden
oak death. Overall, warmer and drier climate conditions are projected
for the NCSO DPS; however, the varied composition of the vegetation
(e.g., Lofroth et al. 2011, pp. 34-90) in the DPS suggests insect
outbreaks and disease due to drought-related stress on trees are more
likely to be localized should they occur; therefore, future widespread
tree mortality impacts to fisher habitat are not anticipated in the
NCSO DPS.
Vegetation Management
Although local analyses across the NCSO DPS have assessed fisher
habitat at several scales (see Lofroth et al. 2011, pp. 34-90 for study
summaries, and Raley et al. 2012, pp. 234-235 for list of additional
studies), there is no analysis available that explicitly tracks changes
in fisher habitat in recent decades across large portions of the DPS,
and which includes fisher habitat ingrowth as well as habitat loss to
specific disturbances. Therefore, we used other available information,
as described below, to analyze the potential effects of this threat on
fishers in the NCSO DPS. In addition to the draft Species Report
(Service 2014, pp. 85-96), we used several different sources of
information to depict forest vegetation changes caused by vegetation
management activities and offset by ingrowth within the range of the
NCSO DPS. With the exception of the non-Federal timber harvest database
in California (CAL FIRE) 2013), all of these sources are either new or
updated since 2014 (Davis et al. 2015, entire; USFS 2016, entire;
Spencer et al. 2016, entire; Spencer et al. 2017, entire; gradient
nearest neighbor (GNN) data/maps). With these available data, we did
not need to rely on northern spotted owl habitat data as a surrogate
for fisher habitat data in this evaluation. Our revised methodology is
described in detail for the historical, three-State range of the DPS in
the 2016 final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-111); we summarize
it below and describe how it applies to the NCSO DPS.
Within the portion of the NCSO DPS overlying the Northwest Forest
Plan region (generally most of the NCSO DPS except for the northern
Sierras), we used information from the draft late-successional and old-
growth forest monitoring report (Davis et al. 2015, entire) to assess
changes in structural habitat elements associated with fisher habitat
(i.e., large trees, down wood, snags) as a result of vegetation
management. This information included use of the ``old growth structure
index'' (OGSI), which is an index that consists of four structural
elements associated with older forests: (1) The density of large live
trees; (2) the density of large snags; (3) the amount of down wood
cover; and (4) the tree size diversity of the stand. Over a 20-year
period (1993-2012), Davis et al. (2015, pp. 5-6, 16-18) 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, the
condition does track forests that contain structural elements
consistently used by fishers in habitat studies across the DPS, even in
areas with substantially open areas and managed young stands (Lofroth
et al. 2010, pp. 81-121; Service 2016, pp. 15-21; Niblett et al. 2017,
pp. 16-17; Powell et al. 2019, pp. 21-23; Matthews et al. 2019, pp.
1,309, 1,313; Moriarty et al. 2019, pp. 29-30, 46-49). We acknowledge
there is some unknown level of overrepresentation of stands that may
not be occupied by fishers and underrepresentation of stands that
fishers may actually occupy (Service 2016, p. 102), and we do not
suggest that OGSI-80 is a surrogate for fisher habitat proper. Hence,
we do not consider it a model of fisher habitat.
However, OGSI-80 does cover a majority of the NCSO DPS and provides
a way to assess regional-scale trends in forests that contain the
structural elements consistently used by fishers (e.g., large snags,
down wood, and large live trees). This information was the only data
set available that identified the number of acres lost to timber
harvest or vegetation management (as well as disturbances from fire and
insects) and the number recruited by forest ingrowth. This OGSI-80 data
set allows us to track changes as a result of vegetation management and
forest recruitment. In using the OGSI-80 data, we do not expect there
to be substantial differences in relative trends for disturbances and
ingrowth effects on OGSI-80 stands compared to trends in their effects
on fisher habitat.
Details of our analysis of Davis et al. (2015, entire) are
explained in the 2016 final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 101-102).
We have since modified that analysis to include only data for the areas
(physiographic provinces) that cover the current range of fishers in
the NCSO DPS. The California portion of the NCSO DPS covers all of the
California physiographic provinces analyzed in Davis et al. (2015, pp.
10, 30-31). The Oregon portion of the NCSO DPS occurs mostly within the
Oregon Klamath province, but overlaps somewhat into small portions of
the western and eastern Cascades provinces (Davis et al. 2015, pp. 10,
30-31). We assessed the results of including and excluding the data
from these two Cascades provinces. Because no substantial differences
were revealed between the two data sets, we report here the results of
including only the Oregon Klamath province data along with data for all
of the California physiographic provinces that are covered by the NWFP.
Although loss of OGSI-80 forests due to timber harvest on non-
Federal lands (11.1 percent since 1993) was substantially greater than
on Federal lands (1.0 percent since 1993), in combining all ownerships,
the percent loss due to timber harvest from 1993 to 2012 was low (5.0
percent). This translates to a 2.5 percent loss per decade. However,
this may underestimate future harvest trends because timber harvest
volume within the NWFP area on Federal lands has been on a general
upward trend since 2000. During the first decade of NWFP
implementation, Federal agencies offered, on average annually, 54
percent of the timber harvest sale goals (probable sale quantity or
PSQ) identified in the Plan, whereas volume offered in 2012 was at
about 80 percent of the PSQ identified in the NWFP, as agencies became
more familiar with implementing the NWFP (BLM 2015, p. 340; Spies et
al. 2018, pp. 8-9). In addition, BLM has recently revised their
management plans in western Oregon and is no longer operating under the
NWFP. Consequently, that agency is predicting an increase in timber
volume above the NWFP sale quantity in the first decade of
implementation (through circa 2025) (BLM 2015, pp. 350-352). Recent
litigation may also increase timber harvest on BLM (see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms section). Hence,
[[Page 29553]]
overall harvest trends on Federal lands may be increasing and may be
closer to or more than rates observed in the last decade of NWFP
implementation (2003 to 2012).
The net loss of OGSI-80 conditions to timber harvest, however, is
somewhat less because 2.5 percent per decade does not include ingrowth
of OGSI-80 stands. Ingrowth represents those stands that did not meet
the OGSI-80 structural thresholds at the beginning of the 20-year
monitoring period but, through vegetation succession, reached those
thresholds at the end of the monitoring period. Stands that grow into
the OGSI-80 condition are assumed to offset the loss of other OGSI-80
to disturbance such as vegetation management. However, we acknowledge
that OGSI-80 stands exist on a continuum, and OGSI-80 stands lost to
timber harvest or some other disturbance are not necessarily equivalent
in structural quality to stands that recently cross a threshold of
being classified as OGSI-80. That is, the longer stands remain in the
OGSI-80 classification, the more likely they are to contain more old-
forest structural conditions that benefit fishers.
Ingrowth of OGSI-80 stands within the NWFP portion of the DPS
occurred at a rate of 8 percent over the 20-year period, or 4 percent
per decade (calculated from Davis et al. (2015, Tables 6 and 7, pp. 30-
31)). This ingrowth more than offsets the OGSI-80 stands lost to
vegetation management. However, there is still an overall net loss of
OGSI-80 stands in the DPS because all disturbances (i.e., wildfire and
forest insects and pathogens) need to be considered. When all
disturbances and ingrowth are factored in, there is a net loss of 1
percent per decade. However, vegetation management affects a small
portion of those habitat components used by fisher within the NWFP
area. Furthermore, ingrowth rates are expected to increase in the
foreseeable future on Federal lands within the NWFP area because
forests regenerating from the post-World War II harvest boom starting
in the 1940s are beginning to meet the OGSI-80 threshold (Davis et al.
2015, p. 7).
We note that we incorporated the loss of OGSI-80 stands to wildfire
into this analysis of vegetation management only to fully consider the
degree to which ingrowth can offset loss of OGSI-80 stands to
disturbance. We use a different metric to address the loss of fisher
habitat to wildfire (see the Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
section). For the wildfire analysis, we were able to obtain data from
past wildfires and overlay it on fisher habitat to better represent
fisher habitat loss to high-severity wildfires as well as to
incorporate the effects from more recent wildfires than those analyzed
by Davis et al. (2015, p. 29).
Outside of the NWFP portion of the DPS (primarily Sierra Nevada
region), 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 determine
net change in a particular vegetation type, but could not quantify the
amount 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 FACTS (Forest Service Activity Tracking System)
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 approximate conditions suitable for fisher
habitat, although we realize that net changes include other
disturbances and that vegetation management will be some unknown
portion of that change.
For the Sierra Nevada Range (note that this includes the entire
range, as we were not able to split out the SSN DPS from the NCSO DPS),
we approximated fisher habitat change using a vegetation trend analysis
to track changes in forests with large structural conditions thought to
be associated with fisher habitat (see Service 2016, p. 106 for a
description related to using GNN data). The vegetation category tracked
in this analysis is not equivalent to the OGSI-80 forests used by Davis
et al. (2015, entire). Instead, the available data limited us to using
predefined structure conditions describing forests with larger trees
(greater than 20 in (50 cm)). We realize this process may not include
all vegetation types used by fishers. This analysis showed that net
loss of forests with larger structural conditions in the Sierra Nevada
Range was 6.2 percent across all ownerships over the past 20 years,
which equates to a loss of 3.1 percent per decade. However, this amount
is loss associated with all disturbance types, including wildfire,
insects, and disease, that occurred from 1993 through 2012. Hence,
vegetation management is some unknown subset of this loss.
Vegetation management is not affecting large areas of the NCSO DPS,
though fragmentation could be restricting fisher movements in localized
areas or increasing predation risk. For example, fishers continue to
persist in actively managed landscapes (GDRC 2019, no page numbers),
and fishers reintroduced into the Sierra Nevada portion of the NCSO DPS
on SPI lands, which are managed for timber production, suggest that
fisher populations can become established and persist in a landscape
where substantial portions were historically and are currently managed
for timber production (Powell et al. 2019, entire; Green et al. 2020,
entire). Hence, we conclude that vegetation management is a low-level
threat because of the small proportion of area harvested in the NCSO
DPS and because of the widespread distribution of fishers and their
occurrence in actively managed landscapes.
Exposure to Toxicants
As described above in the General Threat Information section,
rodenticides analyzed as a threat to the NCSO DPS of fishers include
first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and
neurotoxicant rodenticides. Both the draft and final Species Reports
detail the exposure of the NCSO DPS of fishers to rodenticides in
northern California and southern Oregon (Service 2014, pp. 149-166;
Service 2016, pp. 141-159). Data available since the completion of the
final Species Report in 2016 continue to document exposure and
mortalities to fishers from rodenticides in the NCSO DPS (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, entire). Data for 48 fisher carcasses
collected in the range of the NCSO DPS in the period 2007-2018 indicate
36 fishers (75 percent) tested positive for one or more rodenticides
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data), while 13.5 percent of
fisher mortalities with a known cause in the NCSO DPS from 2007 through
2014 were attributable to rodenticides (7 of 52 mortalities) (Gabriel
et al. 2015, p. 6). Using data from both the SSN and the NCSO DPSs,
mortalities due to rodenticide toxicosis increased from 5.6 to 18.7
percent since the collection and testing of fisher mortalities using
data comparing the periods 2007-2011 to 2012-2014 (Gabriel and Wengert
2019, unpublished data, p. 2). From 2015 to 2018, additional NCSO DPS
fisher mortalities due to both anticoagulant and neurotoxicant
rodenticides have been documented (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, p. 4). At the Hoopa study site, population monitoring
found
[[Page 29554]]
``the population as a whole is essentially stable'' (Higley et al.
2014, p. 31), but there are concerns about declines in survival of
males over the last 3 years of the study. The authors speculate this
decline in male survival is attributed to toxicant poisoning associated
with illegal grow sites and that males were identified as being at a
higher risk for poisoning because of their larger home ranges compared
to females (Higley et al. 2014, pp. 32, 38).
To evaluate the risk to NCSO DPS fishers from illegal grow sites,
we use a Maximum Entropy model to identify high and moderate likelihood
of illegal grow sites being located within fisher habitat (Gabriel and
Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp. 7-10) in Oregon and California.
This model indicates that 54 percent of habitat modeled for NCSO DPS
fishers is within areas of high and moderate likelihood for marijuana
cultivation.
The majority of our illegal grow site data comes from California,
and data are limited for the amount of pesticides used in Oregon. The
USFS documented 63 trespass grows between 2006 and 2016, with toxicants
present at all these sites (Clayton 2019, pers. comm.). In a separate
effort, only one illegal grow site in southern Oregon has been sampled
using the same protocol as 300 illegal grow sites in California where
the amount and type of rodenticide at a site is tracked. This southern
Oregon location had 54 pounds (lb) (24.5 kilograms (kg)) of first-
generation anticoagulant rodenticide and 8 lb (3.6 kg) of neurotoxicant
rodenticide dispersed around the site (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, p. 7).
As of January 24, 2020, 2,138 legal marijuana cultivation permits
were active in counties within the NCSO and SSN DPSs in California
(California Department of Food and Agriculture 2020, entire), and 423
legal marijuana operations have been approved as of January 17, 2020,
in Oregon counties occupied by fishers (Oregon Liquor Control
Commission 2020, entire).
Toxicant use on the landscape, and especially anticoagulant
rodenticides, is a problem for fisher. However, the NSN subpopulation
has grown to the point of becoming self-sustaining (Green et al. 2020,
p. 11; Powell et al. 2019, p. 4) even with 11 of 12 fishers testing
positive for anticoagulant rodenticides (Powell et al. 2019, p. 17).
This finding suggests that toxicants may not be having a limiting
effect on growth in this subpopulation. And, at EKSA only small annual
variations were seen in the lambda value (Table 2) from 2006 to 2013
(Green et al. 2016, p. 15). This period is at the same time as toxicant
data were being collected (Gabriel et al. 2015, entire; Gabriel et al.
2017, entire; Gabriel and Wengert, unpublished data 2019, entire), and
presumably there were illegal grow sites distributed throughout the
landscape. Illegal marijuana cultivation has been occurring in
California since the mid-1970s. To some degree, the fisher's widespread
distribution and relative commonness in the NCSO DPS diffuses the
potential for a significant percentage of the subpopulation to be
exposed to these toxicants. The presence of illegal grow sites on the
landscape since the mid-1970s suggests that the fisher has been living
with this threat for some time.
We do not know what level of toxicant exposure is occurring in live
fishers in the wild. The best available mortality data are limited (19
individuals in California (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data,
p. 5), and of the 2 fishers found in Oregon that were tested for
rodenticide exposure, both tested positive (Clayton 2016, pers. comm.).
We also do not know how the legalization of marijuana will change grow-
site location and potentially affect exposure and mortality rates of
fishers due to rodenticides.
We view toxicants as a potentially significant threat to fishers in
the NCSO DPS because of the reported exposure rate of toxicants in the
NCSO DPS, the reported mortalities of fishers from toxicants in the
NCSO DPS, the variety of potential sublethal effects due to exposure to
rodenticides (including potential reduced ability to capture prey and
avoid predators), and the degree to which illegal cannabis cultivation
overlaps with the range and habitat of fisher in the NCSO DPS. The
exposure rate of 75 percent of fisher carcasses tested in the NCSO DPS
has not declined between 2007 and 2018 (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, pp. 3-4), while toxicosis has increased since 2007
(Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 7). As noted above, we do not know the
exposure rate of live fishers to toxicants because this data is
difficult to collect. In addition, the minimum amount of anticoagulant
and neurotoxicant rodenticides required for sublethal or lethal
poisoning of fishers is currently unknown. In spite of the widespread
nature of illegal grow sites and their known association with illegal
rodenticide use, as well as the prevalence of toxicants occurring in
tested fishers, the NCSO subpopulation may be demonstrating an ability
to withstand this threat with regard to population growth (see
discussions above in Current Condition section regarding observed
population growth and fluctuation information in NSN and at the EKSA
and Hoopa sites).
Illegally used toxicants like rodenticides remain a threat to
fishers within the NCSO DPS now and in the foreseeable future. Where
illegal marijuana grow sites occur on the landscape and overlap with
fisher ranges, illegally used pesticides have a high potential to harm
those exposed individual fishers. However, while the threat of people
developing illegal grow sites is widespread, we also note that such
sites are generally widely dispersed within remote landscapes across
the DPS range (i.e., illegal growers look to be as isolated and hidden
as possible). This situation would suggest that potential for
significant exposure to fishers is generally limited to where the grow
sites are located. However, while there is no certain discernible trend
regarding whether illegal grow sites may increase or decrease as a
result of marijuana legalization, it will still likely take many years
before the currently existing sites can be found and remediated.
Potential for Effects Associated With Small Population Size
The NCSO DPS, which encompasses both the SOC and NSN reintroduction
sites, covers a relatively large geographic area of approximately
15,444 mi\2\ (40,000 km\2\). Overall, the NCSO DPS has not expanded
beyond our previous estimates; however, the SOC subpopulation may have
contracted (Barry 2018, p. 22; Moriarty et al. 2019, p. 5) while the
NSN subpopulation continues to grow (Powell et al. 2019, p. 2). Please
see the Current Condition section above for detailed information on
subpopulation size estimates.
Generally, the ability of a species (or DPS) to withstand a
catastrophic event (i.e., bounce back from an event that may result in
the loss of a population or large proportion of individuals) is lower
with relatively few populations or a very limited distribution across
the landscape. Overall, the NCSO DPS has not appeared to grow or
expand, despite the availability of suitable habitat. However,
multiple, well-distributed subpopulations (i.e., NCSO, NSN, and SOC)
continue to exist across the DPS; this occurrence includes aggregates
of individuals in geographic areas within NCSO (i.e., EKSA fishers,
fishers in and around Redwood National Park, Hoopa fishers, or fishers
spread downslope of the Siskiyou Crest). At this time, the best
available information for monitored fishers within the DPS (e.g., Green
2017, Higley et al. 2014, Powell et al. 2014, entire; Sweitzer et al.
2015a, entire) does not indicate whether the NCSO DPS is
[[Page 29555]]
increasing, stable, or declining. Tucker et al. (2012, pp. 8, 11) found
low genetic diversity within the NCSO population (and SSN population),
but the NCSO population (and SSN population) had also exhibited low
genetic diversity from samples collected between 1880 and 1920,
suggesting that the currently low diversity occurred prior to when the
historical samples were taken, and thus prior to European settlement.
However, fishers have rebounded from substantial population reductions
that resulted from historical trapping and habitat loss, and they are
currently widespread and common across the DPS. Fishers are well
distributed across the NCSO DPS, without barriers for genetic exchange
between and among its subpopulations (e.g., genetically homogeneous
fishers occupy either side of the Klamath River adjacent to a two-lane,
paved highway (Service 2016, p. 113). Genetic diversity decreases
moving southward with the peripheral areas having the lowest genetic
diversity (Wisely et al. 2004, entire). Low genetic diversity can
result in inbreeding depression, and one way to assess the risk of
inbreeding depression is to determine the effective population size. An
effective population size is the number of individuals in an ideal
population that would result in the same level of inbreeding or genetic
drift as that of the population under study (Jamieson and Allendorf
2012, p. 578). It is usually substantially smaller than the actual
number of individuals in the population, often 10 to 20 percent of the
census (actual) population size (Frankham 1995, p. 100). An effective
population size estimate of 128 individuals for northwestern California
suggests inbreeding depression is not a problem (Tucker et al. 2012,
pp. 7-8, 10) when compared to thresholds of 50 or 100 individuals from
the established literature discussing effective population sizes
(Jamieson and Allendorf 2012, entire; Frankham et al. 2014, entire).
As we have described herein and previously, the NCSO DPS is
isolated from other fisher populations, and small relative to the taxon
as a whole. As such, the risks of small population size effects and of
extinction exist. However, the broad distribution of the DPS across its
range, in combination with the DPS occurring in multiple subpopulations
with no barriers to genetic exchange within and between those
subpopulations, and the low likelihood of a catastrophic event at a
scale that could hypothetically affect the entire DPS, indicates that
the risks of small population size effects and of extinction are very
low.
Disease and Predation
A general description of disease and predation on fishers is
provided above (see General Species Information and Summary of
Threats). Specific to the California portion of the NCSO DPS, of 42
fisher mortalities analyzed, 54 percent were a result of predation and
19 percent were caused by disease (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 7, Table 2).
It is not unexpected that predation is the greatest source of mortality
given the suite of larger, generalist predators that occupy the NCSO
DPS (e.g., coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions). As noted in the
General Species Information and Summary of Threats section, we do not
know whether observed predation rates are substantially different from
historical rates, or whether they are comparable with other populations
not subjected to trapping. We acknowledge that sublethal effects of
toxicants as well as a possible increase in exposure to generalist
predators as a result of habitat modification may result in higher
predation rates than what historically occurred (Gabriel et al. 2015,
p. 14). However, fishers continue to remain widely distributed across
the DPS, there is recent evidence of population growth from the NSN
subpopulation, and the EKSA exhibits seemingly normal variability in
spite of these stressors.
Vehicle Collisions
Vehicle-related mortalities make up a small portion of overall
fisher mortality across California (see General Species Information and
Summary of Threats above) and particularly in the NCSO DPS (Service
2016, p. 138). Although major paved highways with high-speed traffic
occur throughout the DPS, available records do not indicate localized
areas of concentrated mortalities that may substantially decrease local
fisher populations. Hence, we do not consider vehicle collisions to be
a substantial threat to fishers in the NCSO DPS.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Forest Service (USFS) 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 it 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.). The NFMA specifies that the USFS
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. Additionally, the fisher has
been identified as a sensitive species and a species of conservation
concern by the USFS, requiring Forest Plans to include Standards and
Guidelines designed to benefit fisher. Overall, per USFS guidelines
under the NFMA, planning rules must consider the maintenance of viable
populations of species of conservation concern.
BLM management is directed by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1704 et seq.). This
legislation provides direction for resource planning and establishes
that BLM lands shall be managed under the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield. This law directs development and implementation of
resource management plans, which guide management of BLM lands at the
local level. Fishers are also designated as a sensitive species on BLM
lands.
In addition, the NWFP was adopted by the USFS and BLM in 1994 to
guide the management of more than 24 million ac (9.7 million ha) of
Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl, which
overlaps with portions of the NCSO DPS of fisher in Oregon and
northwestern California (USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
1994, entire). The NWFP Record of Decision amended the management plans
of National Forests and BLM districts and provided the basis for
conservation of the northern spotted owl and other late-successional
and old-growth forest associated species on Federal lands. However, in
2016 the BLM revised their Resource Management Plan (RMP), replacing
NWFP direction for BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, totaling
approximately 2.5 million ac (1 million ha) (BLM 2016a, 2016b, entire).
This RMP affects BLM lands, which are mostly in the interior portion of
the NCSO DPS in Oregon and portions of the SOC subpopulation.
Compared with management under the NWFP, BLM's revised RMP results
in a decrease in land allocated for
[[Page 29556]]
timber harvest, from 28 percent of their planning area in the Matrix
allocation under NWFP to 20 percent under their revised RMP. However,
volume of timber harvest is expected to increase to 278 million board
feet per year through the first decade, up from the highest NWFP annual
amount of about 250 million board feet, and the average NWFP annual
amount of 167 (BLM 2015, pp. 350-352). Forest stand conditions assumed
to represent fisher habitat are expected to decline in the first two
decades under the revised RMP, similar to projections under the NWFP.
However, by decade three, habitat is projected to increase under the
revised plan compared to the NWFP because more fisher habitat is in
reserve allocations under the revised plan (75 percent of fisher
habitat on BLM land) than under the NWFP (49 percent) (BLM 2015, pp.
1,704-1,709). We acknowledge that a court recently found that the
revised RMP violated statutes regulating timber harvest by setting
aside timberland in reserves where the land is not managed for
permanent forest production and the timber is not sold, cut, and
removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield; the
decision has been appealed, and thus the ultimate outcome is as yet
unknown (American Forest Resources Council, et al., v. Hammond, et al.,
2019 WL 6311896 (D.D.C. November 22, 2019) (appeal pending, American
Forest Resources Council, et al. v. United States, et al., (D.C. Cir.,
appeal filed January 24, 2020)). Thus, while we recognize that timber
harvest on BLM lands could possibly increase in the future, at this
point we use the existing RMP in our analysis of regulatory mechanisms.
Federal lands are important for fishers because they have a network
of late-successional and old-growth forests that currently provide
habitat for fisher, and the amounts of fisher habitat are expected to
increase over time. Also, the National Forest and BLM units with
watersheds inhabited by anadromous fish provide buffers for riparian
reserves on either side of a stream, depending on the stream type and
size. With limited exceptions, timber harvesting is not permitted in
riparian reserves, and the additional protection guidelines provided by
National Forests and BLM for these areas may provide refugia and
connectivity between blocks of fisher habitat. Also, under the NWFP,
the USFS, 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 of the
1994 NWFP implementation (Davis et al. 2015, p. 7). Furthermore, BLM,
under its revised management plans, is also projecting an increase in
forest stand conditions that are assumed to represent fisher habitat
above current conditions beginning in the third decade of plan
implementation (BLM 2015, p. 875).
National Park Service
Statutory direction for the National Park Service (NPS) lands
within the NCSO DPS is provided by the provisions of the National Park
Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (54 U.S.C. 100101). Land
management plans for the National Parks within Oregon and California 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 where it is present.
Tribal Lands
Several tribes within the NCSO DPS 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,
but it is typically 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 under the Exposure to Toxicants section, above. In the 2016
final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 187-189), 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 2016 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 at
marijuana grow sites within fisher habitat. Both the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and California's Department of Pesticide
Regulation developed an effort to reduce the risk posed by the
availability of second-generation anticoagulants to end-users, through
the 2008 Risk Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides (EPA 2008,
entire). This effort issued new legal requirements for the labeling,
packaging, and sale of second-generation anticoagulants, and through a
rule effective in July 2014, restricted access to second-generation
anticoagulants (California Food and Agricultural Code Section 12978.7).
State Regulatory Mechanisms
Oregon
The fisher is a protected wildlife species in Oregon, meaning it is
illegal to kill or possess fishers (Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
635-044-0430). In addition, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife does
not allow trapping of fishers in Oregon. Although fishers can be
injured and/or killed by traps set for other species, known fisher
captures are infrequent (Service 2016, p. 126). State parks in Oregon
are managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and many
State parks in Oregon provide forested habitats suitable for fishers.
The Oregon Forest Practice Administrative Rules (OAR chapter 629,
division 600) and Forest Practices Act (Oregon Revised Statutes 527.610
to 527.770, 527.990(1) and 527.992) (ODF 2018, 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.
[[Page 29557]]
Management of State forest lands is guided by forest management
plans. Managing for the structural habitats as described in existing
plans should increase habitat for fishers on State forests. However, we
acknowledge that the Oregon Department of Forestry recently lost a
lawsuit on its State Forest Management Plans that could result in
increased timber harvest and reduced retention or development of forest
area suitable for fishers, but the ultimate remedy is still unknown.
Hence, we must use the existing plans in our analysis of regulatory
mechanisms.
California
On June 10, 2015, CDFW submitted its status review of the fisher to
the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), indicating that listing
of the fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU) as threatened was warranted, but that fishers in the
Northern California ESU (similar to the California portion of the NCSO
DPS) were not threatened (CDFW 2015, entire). CFGC made their final
determination to list the Southern Sierra Nevada ESU as threatened and
that listing the Northern California ESU was not warranted on April 20,
2016 (CFGC 2016, p. 10). The determination regarding the Northern
California ESU was made after concluding that the cumulative effects of
threats would not threaten the continued existence of fishers due to
the size and widespread distribution of the fisher population in the
ESU (CDFW 2015, p. 141; CFGC 2016, pp. 7-10). Accordingly, the Northern
California ESU is not listed under the California Endangered Species
Act (CESA), and take as defined under CESA of the Northern California
ESU is not prohibited. It remains illegal to intentionally trap fishers
in all of California (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, Sec. 460 2017). Data
on incidental captures of fishers in traps set for other furbearer
species is not available, but the requirement to use non-body-gripping
traps suggests that most trapped fishers could be released unharmed
(Service 2016, p. 126).
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 NCSO 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. The FPRs do not contain rules specific to fishers, but
they may provide some protection of fisher habitat as a result of
timber harvest restrictions.
Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
An intergovernmental memorandum of understanding (MOU) for fisher
conservation was signed in 2016 by Federal and State agencies in Oregon
(DOI et al. 2016, entire) to facilitate and coordinate fisher
conservation activities among the parties, with an expiration date of
April 2021. While we are not aware of how the MOU might influence
specific projects (affect actual work on the ground), we consider the
facilitation and coordination of fisher conservation activities and the
projects that follow a benefit. Multiple interagency MOUs are also in
place in California with the intention to coordinate and collaborate on
actions that may reduce wildfire risk across multiple ownerships;
actions that reduce wildfire may also reduce risk to habitat loss for
multiple species including the fisher. Since the publication of the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule, an interagency MOU (titled ``Forest Fuels
Reduction and Species Conservation in California'') was signed on
February 7, 2020, and amended on February 12, 2020, by the USFS, the
State, small timber companies, industrial timber companies, and the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to facilitate coordinated actions
that may contribute to fuels reduction efforts and species conservation
across the various land ownerships between now and December 2024 (USFS
et al. 2020, entire). An addendum was signed on February 12, 2020,
adding additional industrial timber companies and small timber
companies. This MOU supersedes multiple previous MOUs from 2017 and
2019 for NSO and CSO (USFS 2020, pp. 1, 13-14). Fisher-specific
conservation measures are included in this MOU, in addition to
conservation measures for the California and northern spotted owls. The
measures promote fisher occupancy and habitat through increased
resilience and resistance of habitat from multiple disturbances,
including uncharacteristic wildfire. More specifically, participants
will implement activities consistent with the conservation needs of the
fisher including retention of known natal dens, retention or
recruitment of hardwoods and structurally diverse forests, retention of
shrubs and smaller trees in areas with sparse overstory cover, and
avoid poisoning potential prey species. While the MOU is not specific
to what fuels reduction measures will take place on the ground, the MOU
will increase the effectiveness of fuels management by considering data
and information and coordinating efforts for entire landscapes across
multiple ownerships (USFS et al. 2020, p. 3).
There are additional MOUs in California within the range of the
NCSO DPS for wildfire and fuels management, that have no specific
conservation measures for fisher, but that include other species that
use habitat similar to those used by fisher (i.e., northern and
California spotted owls). An MOU was signed in 2015 by multiple
conservation groups, CAL FIRE, two Federal agencies, and two prescribed
fire councils (USFS et al. 2015). The MOU is titled ``Cooperating for
the purpose of increasing the use of fire to meet ecological and other
management objectives,'' and expires on October 7, 2020. The purpose of
this MOU is to document the cooperation between the parties to increase
the use of fire to meet ecological and other management objectives.
Peripheral to the 2017 MOU for California spotted owl (that has been
superseded by the 2020 MOU discussed above), a challenge cost-share
agreement was signed in 2017 by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, and the USFS, Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Office
(USFS 2017); the cost share agreement expires June 29, 2022. The
agreement is titled ``Pacific Southwest Fuels Management Strategic
Investment Partnership.'' The purpose of this agreement is to document
the cooperation between the parties to implement a hazardous fuels
management program that reduces the risk of severe wildfire, protects
ecological values, and reduces the chance of damage to public and
private improvements.
Finally, an MOU was signed in 2019 by small timber companies,
industrial timber companies, CAL FIRE, the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, and the USFS, Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Office
(USFS 2019). The MOU is titled ``Forest Fuels reduction and species
conservation in California'' with a focus on the California spotted owl
and expires on December 31, 2020. The MOU approximately covers the area
occupied by the NSN subpopulation of fishers in the NCSO. The purpose
of the MOU, similar to others mentioned, is to coordinate and share
information on fuels reductions actions across larger landscapes to
provide species
[[Page 29558]]
conservation. We cannot find language indicating that this MOU was
superseded by the 2020 MOU (discussed above) but many of the same
landowners are part of both MOUs and much of the intent is the same.
All of these MOUs and the cost-share agreement provide
collaboration between Federal partners and non-governmental
organizations to coordinate and fund fuel reduction projects within the
NCSO DPS, which when implemented could reduce the impact of large-scale
high-severity fire. So far, we are aware of two fuel reduction projects
that have been funded as part of the MOUs within the NCSO DPS, one on
the Lassen National Forest and one on the Six Rivers National Forest.
Finally, many of the MOUs expire in the near term; however, we
anticipate, based on past track records to renew and update the MOUs,
continuing collaboration, and because many of the same partners occur
on multiple MOUs, partnerships resulting in conservation of fisher
habitat will continue.
A template CCAA for fishers in western Oregon (81 FR 15737, March
24, 2016) has been published, and we have negotiated site plans and
issued permits to five private timber entities (with three more site
plans under review), as well as Oregon Department of Forestry (84 FR
4851, February 19, 2019; 84 FR 31903, July 3, 2019). Conservation
actions in the CCAA include protection of occupied den sites as well as
landowner participation and collaboration with fisher surveys and
research as part of a defined program of work. To date, permittees have
committed $200,000 in cash or in-kind support towards this program of
work as part of meeting conservation measures within the CCAA.
In 2009, a programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) was completed
for northern spotted owls in Oregon (74 FR 35883, July 21, 2009). The
agreement authorizes the ODF to extend incidental take coverage with
assurances through issuance of Certificates of Inclusion to eligible,
non-Federal landowners who are willing to carry out habitat management
measures benefitting the northern spotted owl. The purpose of the
agreement is to encourage non-Federal landowners to create, maintain,
and enhance spotted owl habitat through forest management, which would
also benefit fishers given the two species' use of similar habitat
components.
For the portion of the NCSO DPS in California, reintroduction
efforts have resulted in establishment of a fisher subpopulation in the
SPI Stirling Management Unit (NSN) with the potential to connect with
fishers in the remainder of the NCSO DPS to the north. In 2016, an
approximately 1.6 million-ac (647 thousand-ha) CCAA for fishers on
lands in SPI ownership in the Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada
mountains was completed (SPI and Service 2016, entire). This CCAA
encompasses approximately 5 percent of potentially suitable fisher
habitat in the California portion of the NCSO DPS, 2.7 percent of which
is currently occupied. Implementation and monitoring have been underway
since that time. The objectives of this CCAA are to secure general
forested habitat conditions for fishers for a 10-year time period (2016
to 2026) and the retention of important fisher habitat components
(large trees, hardwoods, and snags) suitable for denning and resting
into the future. Although this CCAA expires in 6 years, SPI has a track
record of partnering with the Service and has demonstrated a commitment
to fisher conservation through the development of this CCAA. We
anticipate at the end of the CCAA, SPI will continue to conserve
fisher. This conservation could be embodied in a new or renewed CCAA,
or fisher conservation could be added to an HCP that is currently in
development for northern and California spotted owls.
In 2019, the Service finalized for the Green Diamond Forest
Resource Company HCP (GDRC 2018, entire) an incidental take permit that
is anticipated to provide a conservation benefit for fishers and their
habitat in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties, California (portions of
forests on the west slope of the coastal and Klamath Mountains).
Conservation benefits anticipated by GDRC include (but are not limited
to): Identifying and retaining fisher denning and resting trees,
including maintaining a 0.25-mi (0.4-km) radius no-harvest buffer
around active fisher dens; fisher-proofing water tanks and pipes;
implementing measures that detect, discourage, and remove unauthorized
marijuana cultivation and associated pesticide use; and cooperating
with any Federal or State-approved fisher capture and relocation/
reintroduction recovery programs (Service 2019a, p. 2).
In 1999, the Service finalized for the Pacific Lumber Company (now
Humboldt Redwood Company) HCP (Pacific Lumber Company et al. 1999,
entire) an incidental take permit that provides a conservation benefit
for fishers and their habitat in Humboldt County, California.
Conservation benefits include, but are not limited to: (1) Retention of
late-seral habitats that provide denning and resting habitat for
fishers, (2) creation of ``channel migration zones'' and ``riparian
management zones'' to provide connectivity across the landscape, and
(3) retention and recruitment of suitable habitat structural elements
that provide late-seral habitat features for fishers when cut stands
reach mid-succession.
Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation
In this section, we use the conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to evaluate how the threats,
regulatory mechanisms, and conservation measures identified above
relate to the current and future condition of the NCSO DPS.
Resiliency is defined as the ability of populations to withstand
stochastic events (events arising from random factors). Measured by the
size and growth rate of populations, resiliency gauges the probability
that the populations comprising a species (or DPS) are able to
withstand or bounce back from environmental or demographic stochastic
events.
Redundancy is defined as the ability of a species (or DPS) to
withstand catastrophic events, and may be characterized by the degree
of distribution of the species, either as individuals of a single
population or as multiple populations, within the species' ecological
settings and across the species' range. The greater redundancy a
species exhibits, the greater the chance that the loss of a single
population (or a portion of a single population) will have little or no
lasting effect on the structure and functioning of the species as a
whole. While such a loss would temporarily ``lower'' the species'
redundancy relative to any future catastrophic events (i.e., a second
catastrophic event causing the loss of another population or portion
before the species was able to bounce back from the first loss), the
higher a species' initial redundancy, the greater the likelihood its
structure and functioning as a whole will be restored before any
subsequent catastrophic events.
Representation is defined as the ability of a species (or DPS) to
adapt to changing environmental conditions. Measured by the breadth of
genetic or environmental diversity within and among populations,
representation gauges the probability that a species is capable of
adapting to environmental changes.
As noted above, the resiliency of species' population(s), and hence
an assessment of the species' overall resiliency, can be evaluated by
[[Page 29559]]
population size and growth rate. While data on these parameters are
often not readily available, inferences about resiliency may be drawn
from other demographic measures. In the case of the NCSO DPS, the
population size component of resiliency for the overall DPS may be
lower than historical levels to some degree, based simply on historical
losses. However, we also know that fishers in the DPS have rebounded
from the lows of the early-and mid-1900s, and continue to remain widely
distributed and common across the DPS. Furthermore, forest carnivores
generally occur at low densities (Ruggiero et al. 1994, p. 146), and
fisher density estimates are widely variable for many reasons,
including changes in prey populations, seasonal changes caused by
pulses in births or mortalities, and sampling error (Powell and
Zielinski 1994, p. 43). Effective population size estimates for the
California portion of the DPS do not indicate that inbreeding
depression is occurring (see Effects Associated with Small Population
Size). This combination of qualitative demographic measures (i.e.,
population rebound from historic lows, and effective population size
estimates showing no indication of inbreeding depression), combined
with the widespread distribution of fishers in the DPS, leads us to
conclude that existing populations have a high level of resiliency.
Threats that cause losses of individuals from a population have the
potential to affect the overall resiliency of that population, and when
losses occur at a scale large enough that the overall population size
and growth rate are negatively impacted, this could reduce the
population's ability to withstand stochastic events. Although we
identify threats acting upon the NCSO DPS that likely cause losses of
individuals, evaluation of all the available information relevant to
the demographic condition of the DPS supports our conclusion of
resiliency. In addition to the analysis outlined above in this
document, we note that in our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, several of
the threats we evaluated under the previously singular West Coast DPS
were mostly pertinent in the range of the SSN DPS. The threats related
to habitat loss from tree mortality, mortality factors related to
disease, predation, and vehicle collisions, and the inherent
vulnerability associated with the small population size, are
predominant in the range of the SSN DPS, but were determined to not be
potentially significant drivers of future status in the range of the
NCSO DPS. As such, these threats have limited, or no impact on the
resiliency of the populations comprising the NCSO DPS. Further, we
point to the evidence of population resilience exhibited by aggregates
of individuals in specific geographic areas in the NCSO DPS in response
to known disturbances or threats. Namely, fishers in the EKSA were
resilient to removal of 20 percent of the population within the study
area, with no changes in abundance or density. In addition, the fisher
population at NSN has grown at a near steady rate since reintroduction
in spite of exposure to toxicants in 11 of 12 tested fishers in the
study area (Powell et al. 2019, p. 16). Overall, the best available
information indicates that, although the threats acting upon the DPS
result in losses of individual fishers, the various subpopulations
comprising the NCSO DPS, and hence the NCSO DPS as a whole, are
resilient and able to withstand stochastic events.
With regard to redundancy, multiple, interacting populations across
a broad geographic area or a single wide-ranging population
(redundancy) provide insurance against the risk of extinction caused by
catastrophic events. As was recognized in the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule, the NCSO DPS exhibits redundancy by being well distributed and
common across a broad geographic range and comprising multiple smaller
subpopulations (i.e., NCSO, NSN, and SOC) and aggregates of individuals
in geographic areas (i.e., EKSA fishers, fishers in and around Redwood
National Park, Hoopa fishers, or fishers spread downslope of the
Siskiyou Crest) (see 84 FR at 60299). Consequently, should catastrophic
events such as wildfire affect a portion of the DPS, substantial
numbers of fishers will still occur elsewhere in the DPS. While the
loss of a population within the NCSO DPS, or a substantial portion
thereof, would have the effect of temporarily lowering the redundancy
of the entire DPS, its current existing redundancy would be sufficient
to allow its structure and functioning as a whole to be restored.
Remaining fishers would continue to serve as a source for recolonizing
disturbed areas as they return to fisher habitat, contributing to the
likelihood that fishers in the DPS will persist into the future and
contribute to the long-term genetic and demographic viability across
the range.
As noted in our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, fishers in the three
west coast states, including the NCSO DPS, occur in smaller numbers and
a smaller distribution than historically. This size and range reduction
due to historical losses results in a consequent reduction in
representation, relative to that historical condition. As such, fishers
in the west coast states have a relatively reduced ability to adapt to
changing environmental conditions. However, similarly to our discussion
above regarding resiliency, the predominant impact of the historical
reduction in representation for west coast fishers is seen in the SSN
DPS. The NCSO DPS, even with a reduced range relative to historical
conditions, still exhibits a wide breadth of genetic or environmental
diversity, and thus has sufficient capacity to withstand future
environmental changes. Fishers in the DPS display a high degree of
representation, exhibited by the ecological variability across the DPS.
Fishers are found across multiple physiographic provinces (a geographic
region with a specific geomorphology) in the NCSO DPS that represent a
wide variety of forest types and ecological conditions, from the
Coastal California province that is wetter with lower elevations and
redwood forests, to the Klamath province with greater forest diversity
and abundant hardwoods, including several endemic tree and other plant
species, to the Sierra and Cascade provinces with higher elevations and
forests that have adapted to colder and drier conditions. Within the
NCSO DPS, fishers have a capacity to occupy these different provinces
and environments, reflecting an ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions, further contributing to long-term viability
across their range. Although genetic diversity among fishers sampled in
northwest California is low and has been low since pre-European
settlement (Tucker et al. 2012, p. 8), fishers have rebounded from
substantial population reductions that resulted from historical
trapping and habitat loss, and although reduced in population and range
size relative to historical conditions, they are currently widespread
and common across the DPS.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a
[[Page 29560]]
species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species'' because of any of the following 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
Our regulations direct us to determine if a species is endangered
or threatened due to any one or a combination of these five threat
factors identified in the Act (50 CFR 424.11(c)). Our 2016 final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire) is the most recent detailed
compilation of fisher ecology and life history, and has a significant
amount of analysis related to the potential impacts of threats within
the NCSO DPS's range. In addition, we collected and evaluated new
information available since 2016, including new information made
available to us during the recent comment periods in 2019, to ensure a
thorough analysis, as discussed above.
Across the DPS, the actions or conditions we identified that were
known to or were reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of
the DPS included:
Habitat-based threats such as high-severity wildfire,
wildfire suppression activities, and post-fire management actions
(Factor A); climate change (Factor E); tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation (Factor A); vegetation management
(Factor A); and human development (Factor A).
Direct mortality-based threats including trapping and
incidental capture (Factor B); research activities (Factor B); disease
or predation (factor C); collision with vehicles (Factor E); exposure
to toxicants (Factor E); and the potential for effects associated with
small population size (Factor E).
With the exception of trapping for fishers, which is no longer a
lawful activity in the range of the NCSO DPS, all of these identified
threats have the potential to negatively affect fishers, either through
direct impacts to individual animals or to the resources they need.
Regarding incidental capture resulting from legal trapping for other
species, it is either very rare (Service 2016, p. 126) or has a low
chance of causing injury (through use of live traps). Regarding the
remainder of threats, we note that the extent and magnitude of them
vary, relative to the distribution of the DPS across its range (i.e.,
not all threats affect every fisher).
In conducting our status assessment of the DPS, we evaluate all
identified threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, and attempt to
assess how the cumulative impact of all threats acts on the viability
of the DPS as a whole. That is, all the anticipated effects from both
habitat-based and direct mortality-based threats are examined in total
and then evaluated in the context of what those combined negative
effects will mean to the future condition of the DPS. However, for the
vast majority of potential threats, the effect on the DPS (e.g., total
losses of individual fishers or their habitat) cannot be quantified
with available information. Instead, we use the best available
information to gauge the magnitude of each individual threat on the
DPS, and then assess how those effects combined (and as may be
ameliorated by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts) will impact the DPS's future viability.
Based on our understanding of the available information indicating
the potential magnitude and scale of how all identified threats may
affect the DPS, we began under the premise that those with the greatest
potential to become significant drivers of the future status of the
NCSO DPS were: Wildfire and wildfire suppression; tree mortality from
drought, disease, and insect infestation; the potential for climate
change to exacerbate both wildfire and tree mortality; threats related
to vegetation management; and exposure to toxicants. The available
information about the remaining threats from the list identified above
indicated a lower potential for becoming significant drivers.
After conducting our analyses on all these threats, we found that
the NCSO DPS as a whole will experience:
Changing climate conditions, likely in the manner of
becoming generally warmer and drier, with subsequent potential to
affect habitat conditions for fisher, as well as the potential for
increased stress levels in individual fishers. However, these potential
reactions to changing climate conditions will likely vary across the
DPS, due to the DPS's wide variety of topography and vegetation in its
physiographic provinces, and unpredictable variability in how these
provinces will respond to the changing climate conditions.
Increased potential for wildfire frequency and intensity,
influenced by changing climate conditions. Wildfire, while having the
potential to cause significant losses of fishers and their habitat
resources where fires occur, is sporadic and episodic across the DPS,
and moderated by the slope and aspect of terrain (e.g., influencing
susceptibility to wildfire, and creating a mosaic of fire severity)
throughout the range.
Low likelihood of widespread tree mortality resulting from
climate-influenced susceptibility to diseases or insect infestations,
similarly moderated by the slope and aspect of terrain.
Limited exposure to potential effects from vegetation
management actions. Although fishers may experience localized
fragmentation of habitat conditions or an increased risk of predation
where vegetation management actions will occur, the available
information indicates only a small proportion of the suitable habitat
in the DPS's range is likely to undergo these actions.
Some continued level of exposure to toxicants from illegal
marijuana grow sites. Such sites are generally widely dispersed within
remote landscapes across the NCSO DPS range, suggesting potential
significant exposure to fishers is limited to where the grow sites are
located. However, where they do occur within fisher ranges, illegally
used toxicants have the potential to harm those exposed individual
fishers. While there is no certain discernible trend regarding whether
illegal grow sites may increase or decrease as a result of marijuana
legalization, it will still likely take many years before the currently
existing sites can be found and remediated.
Some continued level of risk regarding both the effects
associated with small population size (e.g., inbreeding depression) and
the general risk of extinction. As we have described herein and
previously, the NCSO DPS is isolated from other fisher populations, and
small relative to the taxon as a whole. As such, the risks of small-
population-size effects and of extinction exist. However, the broad
distribution of the DPS across its range, in combination with the DPS
occurring in multiple subpopulations with no barriers to genetic
exchange within and between those subpopulations, and the low
likelihood of a catastrophic event at a scale that could hypothetically
affect the entire DPS, indicates that the risks of small-population-
size effects and of extinction are very low.
Potentially increased incidences of predation in localized
settings (e.g., vegetation management action sites), and continued low
incidences of collisions with vehicles. Both of these threats are
likely to continue, but likely accounting for losses of only small
numbers of individuals.
[[Page 29561]]
No change in normal incidence of disease across the range.
In summary, the NCSO DPS will experience mortality and sublethal
effects to individual fishers across the range from the combined
threats of changing climate conditions, wildfire and wildfire
suppression activities, exposure to toxicants, predation, and
collisions with vehicles. Localized effects to fisher habitat resources
may also occur as a result of future tree mortality events or
vegetation management actions, although these will have a low
likelihood of causing individual fisher losses. All these effects will
be in addition to any mortalities or sublethal effects the DPS would
typically experience from things such as age or disease.
At the same time as we conduct our evaluation of threats to the
DPS, we also assessed how any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts are likely to eliminate or ameliorate the effects
of those threats on the DPS. We provided our analyses of existing
regulatory conservation measures and voluntary conservations efforts
above in this document. In that discussion, we identified a number of
measures that are likely to provide benefits to the DPS, either
directly or indirectly, in the manner of maintaining or improving
habitat conditions. Federal and State agency management plans involving
forest management, while designed, in part, for the harvesting of
timber, also include provisions for the long-term maintenance of those
forests, providing for the retention of forest habitat and structural
elements beneficial to fishers. We also describe regulatory mechanisms
at both the State and Federal level designed to minimize the potential
for nontarget poisoning by pesticides, as well as State and voluntary
efforts to remediate illegal marijuana sites contaminated by
rodenticides. In addition, implementation of existing conservation
measures in the form of a recently signed MOU will improve
communication and coordination surrounding the implementation of fuels
reduction projects, which in turn may help to ameliorate the loss of
habitat due to wildfire. While the MOU is not specific to what fuels
reduction projects will take place on the ground or where, the MOU will
increase the effectiveness of fuels management by considering data and
information for entire landscapes across multiple ownerships. This
process will contribute to the vegetation management threat in the form
of removing fisher habitat in the short or long term, depending on the
treatment. However, by retaining structural elements important to
fishers and their prey, the treatments are expected to reduce the risk
of fisher habitat loss to severe wildfires over an area much larger
than the treatment footprint.
As noted earlier, no information is available that would allow us
to quantify either the cumulative effect of the identified threats on
the DPS, or the cumulative effect of existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts to ameliorate the effects of those threats.
However, in evaluating the anticipated impact of both in total, we find
that the sum of effects to the DPS are such that: The resiliency of the
various subpopulations, and hence the DPS as a whole, will not be
significantly negatively affected; its representation, i.e., its
breadth of genetic and environmental diversity, will not be reduced;
and its redundancy will remain as it currently is, with multiple
subpopulations distributed across a substantial range of habitat.
Upon careful consideration and evaluation of all of the information
before us, we have analyzed the status of fishers within the NCSO DPS.
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we evaluated the status of the West
Coast DPS, the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS combined, and concluded that both
the NCSO and SSN were reduced in size from historical conditions, and
that threats were acting on fishers across the range of both. However,
we also noted that the distribution of threats and their effects, both
singly and cumulatively, were likely unequal in magnitude and scale
across the full landscape. While multiple threats such as wildfire and
wildfire suppression activities, climate change, exposure to toxicants,
predation, and vehicle collisions will continue to occur within the
range of the NCSO DPS, we conclude that the cumulative effect of
threats acting on the DPS now, at their current scale and magnitude,
does not cause the DPS to be in danger of extinction throughout its
range, especially given the DPS's overall resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. In addition, we conclude that the identified threats
will not increase in scale or magnitude in the foreseeable future such
that the DPS will become in danger of extinction throughout its range.
Thus, after assessing the best available scientific and commercial
information, we determine that the NCSO DPS of fishers is not in danger
of extinction throughout its range, nor likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the NCSO DPS of fisher is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in a significant portion of its range. The range of a species or DPS
can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of
ways, so we first screen the potential portions of the range to
determine if there are any portions that warrant further consideration.
To do the ``screening'' analysis, we ask whether there are portions of
the DPS's range for which there is substantial information indicating
that: (1) The portion may be significant; and (2) the species may be,
in that portion, either in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future. For a particular portion, if we cannot
answer both questions in the affirmative, then that portion does not
warrant further consideration and the species does not warrant listing
because of its status in that portion of its range. Conversely, we
emphasize that answering both of these questions in the affirmative is
not a determination that the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout a significant
portion of its range--rather, it is a threshold step to determine
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
meet both of the ``significant portion of its range'' prongs: (1) The
portion is significant and (2) the species is, in that portion, either
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. Confirmation that a portion does indeed meet one of these
prongs does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species is an endangered species or
threatened species. Rather, we must then undertake a more detailed
analysis of the other prong to make that determination. Only if the
portion does indeed meet both prongs would the species warrant listing
because of its status in a significant portion of its range.
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to
[[Page 29562]]
identify any that warrant further consideration, and the stage of
undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions that do warrant
further consideration--it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. Our
selection of which question to address first for a particular portion
depends on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it
faces. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we
do not need to evaluate the second question for that portion of the
species' range.
For the NCSO DPS, we chose to address the status question (i.e.,
identifying portions where the DPS may be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first. To conduct this
screening, we considered whether any of the threats acting on the DPS
are geographically concentrated in any portion of the range at a
biologically meaningful scale (e.g., there are novel threats not seen
elsewhere in the DPS; there is a greater concentration or intensity of
threats, relative to the same threats seen elsewhere in the range; or
there is a disproportionate response to the threats by the individuals
in a portion of the range, relative to individuals in the remainder of
the range).
In our assessment of the NCSO DPS's overall status, we evaluated
throughout its range all of the threats identified in our Species
Report, including those with the potential to become significant
drivers of the DPS's future status: High-severity wildfire, wildfire
suppression activities, and post-fire management actions (Factor A);
climate change (Factor A); tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation (Factor A); vegetation management (Factor A);
exposure to toxicants (Factor E); and potential effects associated with
small population size (Factor E). As we conducted our threats analysis,
we determined that the most significant drivers of the NCSO DPS's
future status were: Wildfire and wildfire suppression, and the
potential for climate change to exacerbate this threat, as well as the
threats related to vegetation management and exposure to toxicants.
However, for the purposes of our SPR analysis, we examined the entirety
of the DPS to evaluate whether there may be a geographic concentration
of any of the identified threats in any portion of the range at a
biologically meaningful scale.
We found no concentration of any of these threats in any portion of
the NCSO DPS's range at a biologically meaningful scale. While high-
severity wildfires, and associated suppression activities and post-fire
management, act in a site-specific manner, the occurrence of them in
the DPS's range is random (i.e., not geographically concentrated in any
portion), and we cannot predict the portions within the range of the
NCSO DPS where these may occur. Similarly, climate change, and its
associated influence on the potential threat of wildfires, will largely
act throughout the NCSO DPS range. All other potential threats either
present a risk of manifesting randomly in small, localized places
across the range (e.g., toxicant exposure, disease or predation, and
vehicle collisions), or manifesting in a focused manner, but still
having only localized, site-specific effects (e.g., vegetation
management). Regarding small population size, the potential for
negative effects can arise in portions of a species' range in instances
where there are small, isolated aggregations of individuals. However,
there is no evidence to suggest that there are any areas within the
NCSO DPS that are experiencing the deleterious effects associated with
a small population size.
If both (1) a species is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and (2)
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its
range, then the species cannot be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any biologically meaningful
portion of the DPS. For the NCSO DPS, we found both: The DPS is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout its range, and there is no geographical concentration of
threats within the DPS at a biologically meaningful scale, so the
threats to the DPS are essentially uniform throughout its range.
Therefore, we determine, based on this screening analysis, that no
portions warrant further consideration through a more detailed
analysis, and the DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its
range. Our approach to analyzing significant portions of the DPS's
range in this determination is consistent with the court's holding in
Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS,
2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018); Center for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017); and
Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan.
28, 2020).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the NCSO DPS of fisher does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(19) of the Act. Therefore, we find
that listing the NCSO DPS of fisher is not warranted at this time.
Final Listing Determination for SSN
Current Condition
The SSN DPS of fisher is small and is geographically separated from
the remainder of the species as described above in the DPS section.
While this DPS has persisted in isolation since prior to European
settlement (Knaus et al. 2011, entire), the DPS has recently
experienced substantial loss of habitat and increase in habitat
fragmentation following the 2012-2015 drought (Thompson et al. 2019a,
pp. 8-9). This period of drought and associated insect infestation,
fire, and tree mortality has resulted in a 39 percent decline in fisher
foraging and denning habitat in the SSN DPS in a period of 5 years
(Thompson et al. 2019a, pp. 8-9). The remaining habitat is much more
fragmented (74 habitat patches prior to the drought compared with 558
following the drought), and the average patch size of remaining habitat
for the SSN DPS is 92 percent smaller than prior to the 2012-2015
drought (Thompson et al. 2019a, pp. 8-9).
The SSN DPS is found in Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern
Counties in California. Historically, the SSN DPS likely extended
farther north, but may have contracted due to unregulated trapping,
predator-control efforts, habitat loss and fragmentation, or climatic
changes. Today the approximate northern boundary is the Tuolumne River
in Yosemite National Park (Mariposa County) and 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 DPS from other populations of native fishers to the north in
California is longstanding and predates European settlement (Knaus et
al. 2011, entire; Tucker et al. 2012, entire; Tucker 2015, pers. comm.,
pp. 1-2). Ownership within the SSN DPS is shown in Table 3 below.
[[Page 29563]]
Table 3--Land Ownership or Management for the Southern Sierra Nevada
Distinct Population Segment of Fisher
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Agency Acres total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management............... 916,152 9.8
Forest Service.......................... 3,637,488 39.0
Bureau of Indian Affairs................ 56,003 0.6
National Park Service................... 1,337,482 14.4
State and Local......................... 42,123 0.5
Private................................. 3,099,276 33.3
-------------------------------
Total Acres *....................... 9,318,596 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Acres and % may not sum due to rounding and because some other owners
with less land are not included.
Estimates for the SSN DPS prior to the 2012-2015 drought 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 habitat
availability at the time (Spencer et al. 2016, p. 44). Other population
estimates are: (1) 125-250 adult fishers based on fisher carrying
capacity in currently occupied areas (Spencer et al. 2011, p. 788); and
(2) fewer than 300 adult fishers or 276-359 fishers that include
juveniles and subadults based on extrapolation from portions of the DPS
where fishers have been intensely studied to the range of the entire
population (Spencer et al. 2011, pp. 801-802). These population
estimates pre-date the 2012-2015 drought and subsequent habitat loss
and fragmentation; these drought-related effects may have caused
population declines since the population estimates of the early 2000's.
An 8-year monitoring study throughout the SSN DPS sampled an
average of 139.5 units (range 90-189) comprising six baited track plate
stations per year during the period 2002-2009 throughout the SSN DPS
showed no declining trend in occupancy (Zielinski et al. 2013, pp. 3-4,
10-14; Tucker 2013, pp. 82, 86-91). Recent analyses conducted over a
14-year period (2002-2015) showed that occupancy rates in 2015 were not
statistically different from 2002, although rates dipped slightly from
2005-2011 (Tucker 2019 pers. comm.). Although occupancy patterns show
no declining trends, these analyses do not provide details on
demographic rates, such as survival and recruitment that provide more
detailed information on population growth rates, size, or status. As
with the population estimates described above, these patterns in
occupancy were calculated prior to the 2012-2015 drought and subsequent
39 percent reduction in foraging and denning habitat and associated
habitat fragmentation. It is unknown how occupancy and survival across
the range of the SSN DPS of fisher have changed in response to these
changes in their habitat.
Another study (the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP
Fisher Project)) of radio-collared fishers monitored from 2007 through
2014 in the northern portion of the SSN DPS on 49 mi\2\ (128 km\2\) of
the Sierra National Forest showed the survival rate (calculated using
demographic parameters) of adult males, but not females, is lower than
sites in the NCSO DPS. Specifically, Sweitzer et al. stated that their
analysis ``suggested slightly negative growth ([lambda] = 0.966) for
the period of the research. The upper range for [lambda] (1.155) was
well above 1.0, however, suggesting stability or growth in some years.
The estimated range for [lambda] was consistent with the estimated
population densities, which did not indicate a persistent decline
during 4 years from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012'' (Sweitzer et al. 2015a pp.
781-783; Sweitzer et al. 2015b, p. 10). Additionally, the SNAMP Fisher
Project (later called Sugar Pine) was extended through 2017. They
reanalyzed the data for radio-collared fishers monitored from 2007
through 2017 (totaling 139 collared fishers) and concluded the
population was stable with an estimated lambda of 0.99 (C.I. 0.826 to
1.104) based on female fisher survival rates (Purcell et al. 2018, pp.
5-6, 17). These population estimates for the SSN DPS do not take into
consideration the extensive tree mortality, habitat loss, and
fragmentation that has impacted habitat from 2015 to present. Research
is currently being conducted to determine any potential effects that
tree mortality may have on fisher in the SSN DPS, but results are not
yet available (Green et al. 2019a, entire).
Extensive areas of suitable habitat within the SSN DPS remain
unoccupied by fishers, suggesting that habitat may not be the only
limiting factor for this DPS (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 9). In the SSN
DPS, the northern portion of the Stanislaus National Forest is largely
unoccupied, with at least one confirmed detection north of the Merced
River in Yosemite National Park and the Stanislaus National Forest
(Stock 2020, pers. comm.). The interaction of all the threats within
the SSN DPS are likely limiting northward expansion into what is
considered suitable habitat for fisher. Fisher habitat is lacking
landscape-scale forest heterogeneity in the SSN DPS compared to
historical conditions, with wildfire and severe drought disturbances
creating large patches of homogeneous habitat, a situation exacerbated
by past logging practices and wildfire suppression (Thompson et al.
2019a, p. 13).
Recent habitat changes from drought, wildfire, and associated tree
mortality are affecting many of the key components of fisher habitat
such as complex forest canopy structure and connected closed-canopy
forest conditions. Only preliminary analyses have been completed with
updated vegetation information from 2016, revealing that almost 40
percent (reduction of 2.3 million acres to 1.4 million acres) of
potential fisher foraging habitat has been lost to drought, insects and
tree diseases, and wildfire between 2014 and 2016 (Thompson et al.
2019a, pp. 7-8). The spatial configuration of fisher foraging habitat
also changed, with patch number increasing from 74 to 558 and patch
size declining from 31,500 ac (12,748 ha) to 2,600 ac (1,052 ha),
indicating a significantly more fragmented landscape (Thompson et al.
2019a, p. 8). Within the same affected area (i.e., not an additive
loss), denning habitat availability also declined by almost 40 percent
and overall patch size declined from 3,169 ac (1,283 ha) to 2,868 ac
(1,161 ha) (Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 9). Current efforts are underway
to incorporate the most recent and precise vegetation data into a full
revision of the SSN Fisher Conservation
[[Page 29564]]
Strategy in 2020 (Thompson 2020, pers. comm.).
The major threats for the SSN DPS are loss and fragmentation of
habitat resulting from climate change, high-severity wildfire and
wildfire-suppression activities, vegetation management, and forest
insects and tree diseases, as well as direct impacts that include high
mortality rates from predation, exposure to toxicants, and potential
effects associated with small population size. Potential conservation
measures are discussed in more detail in Voluntary Conservation
Mechanisms below, and include the development of the Southern Sierra
Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy (Spencer et al. 2016, entire) and
the associated interim guidelines that consider the recent tree
mortality (Thompson et al. 2019a, entire).
Threats
Potential threats currently acting upon the SSN DPS of fisher or
likely to affect the species in the future are evaluated and addressed
in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-162). Our most recent
consideration of new data since 2016 coupled with our reevaluation of
the entirety of the best available scientific and commercial
information (including comments and information received during the two
comment periods associated with the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule) is
represented and summarized here.
As we conducted our threats analysis, we determined that the most
significant drivers of the species' future status were: Wildfire and
wildfire suppression, tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect
infestation, and the potential for climate change to exacerbate both of
these threats, as well as the threats related to vegetation management,
exposure to toxicants, disease or predation, collisions with vehicles,
and the potential for effects from small population size. While our
assessment of the species' status was based on the cumulative impact of
all identified threats, as explained above, we are only presenting our
analyses on these specific primary threat drivers for the purposes of
this final rule. For detailed analyses of all the other individual
threats, we refer the reader to the Species Report (Service 2016,
entire).
Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
Wildfire is a natural ecological process in the range of the SSN
DPS; however, the mean proportion of high-severity fire and patch size
has shifted compared to historical conditions (Safford and Stevens
2017, p. viii.) with increases in the frequency of large wildfires
greater than 24,700 acres (9,996 (ha) (Westerling 2016, pp. 6-7).
Changes in future climate continue to predict large increases in the
area burned by wildfire (Dettinger et al. 2018, p. 72). We expect these
predicted changes to the fire regime to further reduce the habitat
available for fisher in the SSN DPS (see Climate Change section for
further detail on future conditions). We recognize there are mixed
findings as to whether current conditions are outside of the natural
range of variation and wildfire severity is increasing (Mallek et al.
2013, pp. 11-17; Stephens et al. 2015, pp. 12-16; Hanson and Odion
2016, pp. 12-17; Odion et al. 2016, entire; Spies et al. 2018, p. 140),
but the scientific consensus accepts that mixed conifer forests were
characterized by areas burned at low, moderate, and high severity, with
higher proportions of low severity prior to European settlement than is
currently being observed on the landscape (Safford and Stevens 2017,
pp. 48-50).
Recent analyses show habitat loss from high-severity fire
throughout the SSN DPS (Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 10). For this new
analysis of effects of wildfire on fisher habitat in the southern
Sierra Nevada, high-severity-fire data was analyzed from 2003 to 2017
(CBI 2019a, pp. 26-28) and showed a loss of fisher denning (8.5
percent), resting (9.3 percent), and foraging (7.6 percent) habitat of
approximately 25 percent, with most of the loss occurring between 2013
and 2017 (approximately 22 percent) (CBI 2019a, p. 28). However, some
areas of denning, resting, and foraging habitat overlap each other, so
the total amount of habitat lost to high-severity fire is likely less
than 25 percent. In addition, the wildfires occurring on the Sierra and
Sequoia National Forests bisected and disrupted connectivity between--
or reduced the overall size of--key core areas as identified in the SSN
fisher conservation strategy, likely inhibiting northward population
expansion (Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10; CBI 2019a, pp. 26-28). It is
uncertain how fishers are using this changed landscape.
Prior to these substantial habitat changes as a result of recent
fire, fishers persisted in burned landscapes characterized by lower
fire severities that maintained habitat elements important to fisher.
For example, the northern portion of the SSN DPS had lower fisher
occupancy in units burned by either prescribed burning or wildfire but
less than 1 percent of the study area burned; however, there was no
consistent negative effect of fire on fisher's use of habitat (Sweitzer
et al. 2016b, pp. 208, 214, and 221-222). Results of modeling the
variables of forest structure important to fishers for denning habitat
on the Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park suggest that
suitable denning habitat is maintained in burned forests, though
primarily those with low-severity wildfire conditions, as less than 5
percent of areas burned at high severity were associated with a high
probability of fisher den presence (Blomdahl 2018, entire). Thus,
forests that burn at lower fire intensities can create important
habitat elements for fisher (e.g., den trees) within a home range such
that the burned habitat may continue to support both fisher foraging
and reproduction.
Fisher avoided areas affected by high- and moderate-severity
wildfires in the French (2014) and Aspen Fires (2013), and there was a
higher probability of finding fishers in ravines or canyon bottoms in
combination with unburned or lightly burned patches (Thompson et al.
2019a, pp. 13-14). In our final Species Report we reported fisher use
of areas affected by high-severity fire (Hanson 2015, p. 500; Service
2016, p. 66), so results from these studies may differ due to the type
of analysis used, the values chosen to identify wildfire severity
classes, or the 2-4 year v. 10-year post-wildfire sampling period
(Thompson et al. 2019a, pp. 15-18). Without demographic data on age
class, survival, or reproduction, it is difficult to say with certainty
whether fisher use of post-wildfire landscapes is for dispersal or
whether such areas act as population sinks (Thompson et al. 2019a, pp.
17-18).
As stated above, wildfire has already resulted in habitat loss and
is increasing in terms of frequency, severity, and magnitude in the
Sierra Nevada. We conclude that if the severity and extent of wildfires
are such that substantial areas of canopy and large trees are lost,
multiple decades of forest growth and structural development are
necessary for those burned areas to support fisher reproduction.
Therefore, based on the research and data currently available (as
described above and in Service 2014, p. 64; Sequoia Forest Keeper 2019,
pers. comm.; Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10), large high-severity fires
that kill trees and significantly reduce canopy cover in fisher habitat
(of high and intermediate quality) are likely to negatively affect
fisher occupancy and reproduction. The degree to which wildfire affects
fisher populations depends on the forest type, landscape location,
patch configuration, size, and intensity of the wildfire.
[[Page 29565]]
Climate Change
In the Sierra Nevada region, mean annual temperatures have
generally increased by around 1 to 2.5 degrees [deg]F (0.5 to 1.4
[deg]C) over the past 75-100 years (Safford et al. 2012, p. 25). By the
end of the 21st century, temperatures are projected to warm within the
SSN DPS by 6 to 9 [deg]F (3.3 to 5 [deg]C) on average, enough to raise
the transition from snow to rain during a storm by about 1,500 to 3,000
ft (457 to 914 m) (Dettinger et al. 2018, p. 5). In addition,
California recently experienced extreme drought conditions due to lack
of precipitation in the periods 2007-2009 and 2012-2014 (Williams et
al. 2015, pp. 6,823-6,824). Climate change likely contributed to the
2012-2014 drought anomaly and increases the overall likelihood of drier
conditions, including extreme droughts, within the SSN DPS into the
future (Williams et al. 2015, pp. 6,819, 6,826; Bedsworth et al. 2018,
p. 25).
The observed increases in wildfire activity and tree mortality in
the SSN DPS are partially due to climate change. The red fir forests in
the SSN DPS, currently found at the upper edge of fisher elevation
range, are expected to have more frequent fire with species composition
shifting to more fire-prone species, but it is unclear whether these
forests will become more central to the range of fisher with warming
climate conditions or if it will remain on the elevation edge of the
SSN DPS (Restaino and Safford 2018, p. 497; Service 2016, pp. 87, 138-
139). Climate change will likely continue to increase tree-mortality
events into the future because drought conditions will increase, which
will continue to weaken trees and make them susceptible to bark beetles
and disease (Millar and Stephenson 2015, pp. 823-826; Young et al.
2017, pp. 78, 85).
Overall, at this time, the best available scientific and commercial
information suggests that changing climate conditions (particularly
increasing air temperatures coupled with prolonged and more frequent
drought conditions) are exacerbating other threats to the fishers and
their habitat within the SSN DPS, including high-severity wildfires,
and tree mortality. Please see additional discussion about potential
impacts to fishers or their habitat associated with wildfire (Wildfire
and Wildfire Suppression section, above) and tree mortality (Tree
Mortality from Drought, Disease, and Insect Infestation section,
below).
Tree Mortality From Drought, Disease, and Insect Infestation
The recent drought and subsequent beetle outbreak in the Southern
Sierra Nevada from 2012 to 2015 is one of the most severe and largest
beetle outbreaks in recent decades (Fettig et al. 2019, p. 176). Over
half of the potential fisher habitat in the SSN DPS has been
significantly impacted by canopy loss from tree mortality, which is
disproportionately affecting the largest conifer trees and which are
most likely to serve as den or rest trees for fisher (CBI 2019a, pp. 3-
9, 29; Fettig et al. 2019, pp. 167-168). Although fisher often use
hardwoods for denning and resting, conifers appear to be more important
for denning and resting in the SSN DPS than other fisher populations,
and overall den-tree size is much larger than other portions of the
fisher range, so the loss of large trees has the potential to
disproportionately alter den availability in the landscape (Green et
al. 2019c, p. 139). Drought effects on more than 6 million hectares of
forest in California occurred over a multiyear period from 2011 through
2015, and more than 500 million large trees have been affected,
primarily from canopy water content loss, with some of the largest
impacts to forested areas within the range of the SSN DPS (Asner et al.
2016, p. E252). These trees, spread over millions of hectares of
forest, are more vulnerable in future droughts, likely resulting in
death and altering future forest structure, composition, and function
(Asner et al. 2016, p. E253; Fettig et al. 2019, p. 176).
Limited information is available on the direct impacts to fisher
from tree mortality; however, the combination of drought, forest
insects, disease, and fire has led to a 39 percent decrease in
available foraging and denning habitat along with a substantial
increase in habitat fragmentation and 92 percent reduction in average
habitat patch size. Both of these effects occurred over a period of
approximately 5 years (Thompson et al. 2019b, pp. 8-9). The habitat
changes associated with drought, forest insects, disease, and fire may
result in increased use of areas by large predators that in turn could
increase predation rates on fisher (Thompson et al. 2019b, p. 15; also
see Predation and Disease, above in the General Species Information and
Summary of Threats section, above). The usual patterns of localized
outbreaks and low density of tree-consuming insects and tree diseases
are beneficial and can create snags, providing structures conducive to
rest and den site use by fishers or their prey. The large-scale beetle
kill is concerning because USFS personnel are already reporting snag
failures, indicating these snags may fall at a faster rate than other
methods of snag creation (e.g., wind, fire, age; Larvie et al. 2019, p.
11). Further, large, area-wide epidemics of forest disease and insect
outbreaks may displace fishers if canopy cover is lost and salvage and
thinning prescriptions in response to outbreaks degrade the habitat
(Naney et al. 2012, p. 36; Tucker 2019, pers. comm.).
Preliminary information in the SSN DPS indicates fishers are
avoiding areas with tree mortality and are more likely to be found in
areas close to streams, drainages, and ravines where tree mortality
effects were dampened (Green et al. 2019a, entire). In addition,
increased tree mortality on the landscape may be associated with
reduced female fisher survival within the SSN population due to
increased stress hormones (cortisol) (Kordosky 2019, pp. 31-34, 36-40,
54-61, 65-68, 94); however, reduced fisher survival is also likely
influenced by other factors. Although other studies indicate fishers
tolerate certain levels of canopy loss in small-scale projects, fisher
response to tree mortality may have been influenced by the large scale
of the tree-mortality event (Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 16).
Loss of canopy cover and large trees from tree mortality caused by
insects and tree diseases likely reduces habitat suitability for
fishers, but it is unknown if the level of habitat loss will
significantly impact the SSN DPS throughout its range. Although fishers
are using riparian areas with intact forest canopy, it is uncertain how
patches with sufficient canopy cover are connected in this changing
landscape. It is likely that tree mortality will continue to be a
threat into the future due to predicted increases in drought conditions
that will likely continue to weaken trees and make them susceptible to
bark beetles and disease (Millar and Stephenson 2015, pp. 823-826;
Young et al. 2017, pp. 78, 85); therefore, we expect continued loss and
fragmentation of remaining habitat across the range of the SSN DPS of
fisher.
Vegetation Management
In the SSN DPS, we approximated fisher habitat change using a
vegetation trend analysis to track changes in forests with large
structural conditions thought to be associated with fisher habitat
(Service 2016, pp. 98-101). Available data limited us to using
predefined structure conditions describing forests with larger trees
(greater than 20 in (50 cm)), although we realize this sample may not
include all vegetation types
[[Page 29566]]
used by fishers. This analysis showed that net loss of forests with
larger structural conditions in the SSN DPS from 1993 to 2012 was 6.2
percent across all ownerships, which equates to a loss of 3.1 percent
per decade.
In the single analysis where fisher habitat was actually modeled
and tracked through time for the SSN DPS, ingrowth of fisher habitat
replaced habitat lost by all disturbances between 1990 and 2012,
showing a net increase in fisher habitat at the female-home-range
scale, albeit this net increase is less than 8 percent over 30 years
(Spencer et al. 2016, pp. 44, A-21, A-26). However, the authors of this
report have since cautioned that these conclusions may no longer be
accurate based on the ``dramatic changes [that] have occurred in Sierra
Nevada mixed conifer forests due to drought and extraordinary tree
mortality'' from the 2012-2015 drought (Spencer et al. 2017, p. 1).
Consequently, they recommended delaying application of habitat-
conservation targets until vegetation data can be updated and fisher
habitat condition reassessed (Spencer et al. 2017, pp. 1-2). Hence,
although our earlier analysis concluded that fisher habitat in the SSN
DPS may be increasing, we can no longer support that conclusion based
on recent tree mortality.
Vegetation management that maintains structural complexity and
canopy cover that reflect pretreatment conditions may only have a minor
impact on fisher use of these habitats (Purcell et al. 2018, p. 60).
Overall, vegetation management may result in short-term avoidance of
fuels reduction treatments, with no longer term shift in fisher
behavior, but likely depends on the amount treated each year (Purcell
et al. 2018, p. 69).
On all ownerships combined, loss of forest with old-forest
structures in the past two decades (1993-2012) was 3.1 percent per
decade as a result of all disturbance types within the SSN DPS.
Additionally, fisher habitat appeared to be increasing until recent
(2012-2015) tree mortality due to fires and drought. However, it is
difficult to conclude the degree to which vegetation management
threatens fishers in the SSN DPS. Given the large home range of fishers
and the geographic extent of forest-management activities throughout
the range of the SSN DPS, some fisher individuals are likely affected
as a result of habitat impacts (e.g., Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 60-61).
In addition, still other factors unrelated to habitat may be limiting
fisher distribution. Consequently, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that vegetation
management effects to fisher will depend on the spatial distribution of
the activities and whether structural elements important to fishers are
maintained. Although vegetation management may threaten fisher now and
in the foreseeable future, many of the effects are likely exacerbated
by other forms of habitat loss such as tree mortality from drought and
severe wildfires.
Exposure to Toxicants
As described above in the general threats section, rodenticides
analyzed as a threat to the SSN DPS of fishers include first- and
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and neurotoxicant
rodenticides. Both the draft and final Species Reports detail the
exposure of the SSN DPS of fishers to rodenticides in the Sierra Nevada
(Service 2014, pp. 149-166; Service 2016, pp. 141-159). Data available
since the completion of the final Species Report in 2016 continue to
document exposure and mortalities to fishers from rodenticides in the
SSN DPS (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, entire). Data for
97 fisher carcasses collected in the range of SSN DPS in the period
2007-2018 indicate 83 fishers (86 percent) tested positive for one or
more rodenticides (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data), while
5.2 percent of known-cause SSN DPS fisher deaths from 2007 through 2014
were attributable to rodenticide toxicosis (6 of 115 total known-cause
mortalities) (Gabriel et al 2015, p. 6). The probability of fisher
mortality increases with the number of anticoagulant rodenticides to
which a fisher has been exposed (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 15). Using
data from both the SSN DPS and the NCSO DPS comparing the periods 2007-
2011 and 2012-2014, mortalities due to rodenticide toxicosis increased
from 5.6 to 18.7 percent (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data,
p. 2). From 2015 to 2018, additional SSN DPS fisher mortalities due to
both anticoagulant and neurotoxicant rodenticides have been documented
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, p. 4).
In order to evaluate the risk to SSN DPS fishers from illegal grow
sites, we use a Maximum Entropy model that was developed to identify
high and moderate likelihood of illegal grow sites within habitat
selected for by fisher (Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, pp.
7-10). This model indicates that 22 percent of habitat modeled for SSN
DPS fishers is within areas of high and moderate likelihood for
marijuana cultivation. The extent to which the use of toxicants occurs
on legal private land grow sites within the SSN DPS, as well as other
agricultural, commercial, and public land sites within the range of the
SSN DPS of fisher (and habitats that fishers select for) is unknown.
At this time, our evaluation of the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding toxicants and their effects on fishers
leads us to conclude that individual fishers within the SSN DPS have
died from toxicant exposure. Data indicate a total of 19 mortalities
specifically within the monitored fisher populations (in both NCSO and
SSN DPSs in California) have been directly caused by toxicant exposure
(Gabriel and Wengert 2019, unpublished data, p. 5). We view toxicants
as a potentially significant threat given the small population size of
the SSN DPS fishers because of the reported exposure rate of toxicants
in the SSN DPS, reported mortalities of SSN DPS fishers from toxicants,
the variety of potential sublethal effects due to exposure to
rodenticides (including potential reduced ability to capture prey and
avoid predators), and the degree to which illegal grow sites overlap
with the range and habitat of the SSN DPS of fisher.
The effect of these impacts to the SSN DPS is of particular concern
because of the small number of individuals in the SSN DPS. The exposure
rate of more than 80 percent of fisher carcasses tested in the SSN DPS
has not declined between 2007 and 2018 (Gabriel and Wengert 2019,
unpublished data, pp. 3-4), while toxicosis has increased since 2007
(Gabriel et al. 2015, pp. 6-7). We do not know the exposure rate of
live fishers to toxicants because this data is difficult to collect.
The minimum amount of anticoagulant and neurotoxicant rodenticides
required for sublethal or lethal poisoning of fishers is currently
unknown; however, we have evidence of fisher mortality and sublethal
effects as a result of rodenticides. Although uncertainty exists in the
effect of toxicants on a small population such as the SSN DPS of
fisher, the lethal and sublethal effects of toxicants on individuals
have the potential to have population-level effects and reduce the
resiliency of the DPS as a whole. Overall, rodenticides are a threat to
fisher within the SSN DPS now and in the foreseeable future.
Potential for Effects Associated With Small Population Size
The SSN DPS exhibits the following attributes related to small
population size, to varying degrees, which may affect its distribution
and population growth:
(1) Loss of large contiguous areas of historical habitat, including
a 39 percent
[[Page 29567]]
loss of foraging and denning habitat over the past 5 years (Thompson et
al. 2019b, p. 9), in combination with restriction of the species to
forested habitats that have been lost or modified due to timber-harvest
practices; large, high-severity wildfires whose frequency and intensity
are in turn influenced by the effects of climate change; and increasing
forest fuel density from fire suppression and a lack of low-severity
fire over the recent long term.
(2) Dependence on specific elements of forest structure that may be
limited on the landscape, including microsites for denning and resting.
(3) Susceptibility to injury or mortality due to predation from co-
occurring larger predators.
Each of these vulnerabilities may separately, or together,
influence the magnitude of other threats described in this analysis for
the SSN DPS of fisher.
Some information is available that demonstrates fisher's
vulnerability to small-population effects in the SSN DPS, including
overall low genetic diversity (mitochondrial DNA haplotype and nuclear
DNA allelic richness) for the entire SSN DPS, limited gene flow, and
existing barriers to dispersal (Wisely et al. 2004, pp. 642-643; Knaus
et al. 2011, p. 7; see also additional discussion in Service 2016, pp.
134-137; Tucker et al. 2014, pp. 131-134), albeit some of these
barriers allow some gene flow (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131). However,
the recent tree mortality and several recent large-scale fires acting
on the narrow, linear range of the SSN DPS have resulted in substantial
habitat fragmentation and reduction in habitat patch size (Thompson et
al. 2019b, pp. 8-9) and are likely to increase barriers to dispersal,
potentially limiting movement among habitat patches and preventing
northward expansion, particularly for females, given female dispersal
and associated genetic connectivity is facilitated by dense forest
habitat (Tucker et al. 2017, p. 10).
At this point in time, the SSN DPS is considered relatively small,
especially when taking into account the original/historical range of
the species within the West Coast States, and the population growth
rates do not indicate that the SSN DPS is increasing. The recent post-
drought declines in foraging and denning habitat and associated habitat
fragmentation further isolate the SSN DPS from other fishers and limit
the opportunities for movement among remaining patches within the range
of the SSN DPS. The best available information suggests the SSN DPS is
expected to remain isolated from other fishers (as has been apparent
since pre-European settlement). The SSN DPS is likely to remain small
or be reduced even further into the future, primarily given the other
stressors that have the potential to exacerbate the impacts from
threats on small populations. In addition, average litter size for the
SSN DPS is the lowest reported for the species, potentially due to diet
limitations, smaller body size, and lower genetic diversity compared to
other populations (Green et al. 2018a, pp. 545, 547). Estimates of
fisher population growth rates for the SSN DPS do not indicate any
overall positive or negative trend.
Population estimates for the SSN DPS of fisher prior to recent
fires, drought and tree mortality and subsequent 39 percent loss of
foraging and denning habitat range anywhere in size from 100 to 500
individuals (Service 2016, pp. 48-50). Population-growth-rate analyses
have been estimated as 0.97 (C.I. 0.79-1.16) from 2007 through 2014
throughout the SSN DPS (Sweitzer et al. 2015a, p. 784), and more
recently 0.99 (C.I. 0.826 to 1.104) from 2007 through 2017 in a small
portion of the SSN DPS at Sugar Pine (Purcell et al. 2018, pp. 5-6,
17). Available population estimates and trend information for the SSN
DPS do not take into consideration extensive tree mortality that has
impacted the habitat from 2015 to present. Research is currently being
conducted to determine any potential effects that tree mortality may be
having on the SSN DPS, but results are not yet available (Green et al.
2019a, entire). At this point in time, we do not have sufficient
information to predict whether population trends of the SSN DPS will be
positive or negative into the foreseeable future; however, we
anticipate continued loss and fragmentation of fisher habitat.
Overall, a species (or DPS) with relatively few individuals may be
of concern when there are significant threats to the species. The SSN
DPS is considered relatively small and has not appeared to grow or
expand, despite the availability of unoccupied suitable habitat. The
SSN DPS has been found to have relatively low genetic diversity, but
there is currently no evidence of inbreeding depression. The small
population may make the SSN DPS more vulnerable to threats, but there
is no evidence at this time that small populations are causing impacts
such as loss of genetic variability or large fluctuations in
demographic parameters of the SSN DPS.
Disease and Predation
A general description of disease and predation on fishers overall
was provided earlier (see General Species Information and Summary of
Threats, above). Specific to the SSN DPS, of 94 fisher mortalities
analyzed, 71 percent were a result of predation and 14 percent were
caused by disease (Gabriel et al. 2015, p. 7, Table 2). Further,
predation may be one of the limiting factors in overall population
growth for fishers in the SSN DPS. For example, research on effects of
mortalities on population growth of fishers in the SSN DPS found that
reducing predation by 25 or 50 percent would increase lambda from 0.96
to 1.03 or 1.11, respectively; conversely, removing all mortality
sources but predation would only increase lambda to 0.97 (Sweitzer et
al 2016a, p. 438). While we did not consider this threat as a
potentially significant driver of future status in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, the information we received during a public comment
period providing updated information on mortalities associated with
these factors (i.e., Sweitzer et al 2016a, p. 438), indicated that
predation may be, in fact, be a potentially significant driver of
future status for the SSN DPS.
Vehicle Collisions
In the SSN DPS, vehicle collisions contributed to 8 percent of
documented causes of mortality for fishers (Sweitzer et al. 2016a, p.
438). At the northernmost boundary of the SSN DPS, 10 fisher roadkill
mortalities have been documented in Yosemite National Park over the
past two decades (Service 2016, p. 137). Although many factors affect
dispersal and northward population expansion, it is likely that roads
and associated traffic in Yosemite National Park combined with other
stressors may inhibit northward expansion of the SSN DPS (Spencer et
al. 2015, p. 21).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
The USFS is the landowner for approximately 39 percent of the SSN
DPS. 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 it requires full evaluation and disclosure of
the effects of Federal actions on the environment. Other Federal
regulations
[[Page 29568]]
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.).
The NFMA specifies that the USFS 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.
Additionally, the fisher in the SSN DPS has been identified as a
species of conservation concern by the USFS; thus, all Forest Plans
within the DPS include standards and guidelines designed to benefit
fisher. Overall, per USFS guidelines under the NFMA, planning rules
must consider the maintenance of viable populations of species of
conservation concern.
In 2004 the USFS amended the Forest Plans in the SSN DPS with the
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire). The Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment included measures to increase late-
successional forest, retain important wildlife structures such as
large-diameter snags and coarse downed wood, and manage about 40
percent of the plan area as old-forest emphasis areas. The Sierra
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment also established a 602,100-ha (1,487,800-
ac) Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area with additional
requirements intended to maintain and expand the fisher population of
the southern Sierra Nevada. Conservation measures for the Southern
Sierra Fisher Conservation Area include maintaining a minimum of 50
percent of each watershed in mid-to-late- successional forest (28-cm
[11-in] diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater) with forest-canopy
closure of 60 percent or more. The plan also includes seasonal
protections for known fisher natal and maternal den sites. The USFS is
currently updating the National Forest Management Plans (NFMPs) within
the SSN DPS according to the Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR
part 219). A conservation strategy is in progress (described below in
SSN Voluntary Conservation Measures) that will provide fisher specific
guidance for the updated NFMPs.
National Park Service
The NPS is the land manager for approximately 14 percent of the SSN
DPS. Statutory direction for the NPS lands within the SSN DPS is
provided by provisions of the National Park Service Organic Act of
1916, as amended (54 U.S.C. 100101). Land management plans for the
National Parks within California 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 where it is
present.
Rodenticide Regulatory Mechanisms
The threats posed to fishers from the use of rodenticides are
described under Exposure to Toxicants, above. In the 2016 final Species
Report (Service 2016, pp. 187-189), 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 2016 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. Both the EPA and California's Department
of Pesticide Regulation developed an effort to reduce the risk posed by
the availability of second-generation anticoagulants to end-users,
through the 2008 Risk Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides (EPA
2008, entire). This effort issued new legal requirements for the
labeling, packaging, and sale of second-generation anticoagulants, and
through a rule effective in July 2014, restricted access to second-
generation anticoagulants (California Food and Agricultural Code
Section 12978.7).
State Regulatory Mechanisms
California
At the time of the 2014 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, CDFW
submitted its status review of the fisher to the CFGC, indicating that
listing of the fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened was warranted (CDFW 2015, entire).
CDFW made their final determination to list the Southern Sierra Nevada
ESU as threatened on April 20, 2016 (CFGC 2016, p. 10); thus, take as
defined under CESA continues to be prohibited. It remains illegal to
intentionally trap fishers in all of California (Cal. Code Regs. title
14, Sec. 460 (2017).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) can provide
protections for a species that meets one of several criteria for rarity
(CEQA 15380). Fishers in the SSN DPS 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 FPRs 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. The FPRs do not contain rules
specific to fishers, but they may provide some protection of fisher
habitat as a result of timber harvest restrictions.
Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
There are currently two MOU agreements in California within the
range of the SSN DPS for wildfire and fuels management. The first MOU
was signed in 2015 by Sierra Forest Legacy, California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, State of California Sierra Nevada
Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, The Nature Conservancy, The Sierra
Club, Center for Biological Diversity, DOI-NPS-Pacific Region, Northern
California Prescribed Fire Council, Southern Sierra Prescribed Fire
Council, and the USDA-USFS-Pacific Southwest Region. The MOU is titled
``Cooperating for the purpose of increasing the use of fire to meet
ecological and other management objectives.'' The purpose of this MOU
is to document the cooperation between the parties to increase the use
of fire to meet ecological and other management objectives. A second
MOU was signed in 2017 by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and
the USFS-Pacific Southwest Region-Regional Office. The MOU is titled
``Pacific Southwest Fuels Management Strategic Investment
Partnership.'' The purpose of this agreement is to document the
cooperation between the parties to implement a hazardous-fuels-
management program that reduces the risk of severe wildfire, protects
ecological values, and reduces the chance of damage to public and
private improvements. While neither MOU contains specific fisher
conservation activities, projects that reduce the likelihood of
catastrophic wildfire
[[Page 29569]]
provide benefit to fisher by reducing habitat loss. Both of these fuel-
reduction MOUs provide collaboration between Federal partners and non-
governmental partners to organize and fund fuel-reduction projects
within the SSN DPS, which could reduce the impact of large-scale high-
severity fire. So far, no projects have been funded within the SSN DPS.
The Sierra Nevada Fisher Working Group, which includes CBI, Sierra
Nevada Conservancy, USDA-USFS, NPS, the Service, and CDFW, completed a
conservation strategy in 2016 (Spencer et al. 2016, entire). The
authors of the conservation strategy later released a changed-
circumstances letter due to new tree-mortality information (Spencer et
al. 2017, entire). The changed-circumstances letter provides details on
the conservation measures that may no longer be applicable and an
interim process for designing and evaluating vegetation-management
projects. Current benefits that still exist for fisher from the
conservation strategy and the changed-circumstances letter include
long-term desired conditions representing a range of characteristics to
strive for in various areas to inform fine-scale assessment of key
fisher habitat elements, including their connectivity within potential
home ranges and across the landscape (Spencer et al. 2017, pp. 2-6). A
revised/final conservation strategy that addresses the new tree-
mortality information is still in progress by the CBI. However,
preliminary Draft Interim Recommendations from December 2019 recognize
the importance of stabilizing key habitat, restoring landscape
permeability, and promoting landscape heterogeneity while offering a
suite of suggestions to mitigate potential negative effects of
management actions (Thompson et al. 2019b, pp. 17-33).
Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation
In this section, we use the conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to evaluate how the threats,
regulatory mechanisms, and conservation measures identified above
relate to the current and future condition of the SSN DPS.
As noted above, the resiliency of species' population(s), and hence
an assessment of the species' overall resiliency, can be evaluated by
population size and growth rate. While data on these parameters is
often not readily available, inferences about resiliency may be drawn
from other demographic measures. In the case of the SSN DPS, the
population size component of resiliency is lower than historical levels
because the total population size is small and fragmented and has been
reduced in distribution relative to historical levels. While there is
some evidence that the SSN DPS of fishers may have persisted for some
time at relatively low numbers, the DPS has recently experienced a 39
percent loss of foraging and denning habitat, a substantial increase in
habitat fragmentation, and a 92 percent reduction in habitat patch size
following the 2012-2015 drought (Thompson et al. 2019a pp. 8-9). These
negative effects on fisher habitat have likely had additional cascading
effects on numbers of individuals through reduction in habitat,
potential increases in predator abundance, and decreases in
connectivity across the range of the DPS.
Threats acting on a species or DPS that cause losses of individuals
from a population have the potential to affect the overall resiliency
of that population, and losses occurring at a scale large enough that
the overall population size and growth rate are negatively impacted
could reduce the population's ability to withstand stochastic events.
The SSN DPS exists in low numbers across its range and faces a variety
of ongoing threats that will result in losses of individual fishers or
impede population growth, including continued loss and fragmentation of
habitat (i.e., from high-severity wildfire and wildfire-suppression
actions, climate change, tree mortality from drought, disease, and
insect infestation, vegetation management, and development) and
potential direct impacts to individuals (e.g., increased mortality,
decreased reproductive rates, increased stress/hormone levels,
alterations in behavioral patterns) from wildfire, increased
temperatures, increased tree mortality, disease and predation, exposure
to toxicants, vehicle collisions, and potential effects associated with
small population size. These present and ongoing threats cumulatively
play a large role in both the current and future resiliency of the DPS.
Of greatest importance at this time are:
(1) The long-term suitability of habitat conditions throughout the
range of the SSN DPS given the continued presence/extent of high-
severity and wide-ranging wildfires and prolonged drought conditions
that exacerbate tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect
infestation. These conditions: (a) Reduce the availability of the
natural resources (e.g., appropriate canopy cover, old-growth forest
structure with large trees and snags, patch size) that the species
relies on to complete its essential life-history functions; (b)
contribute to increased stress hormones (cortisol) and reduced female
fisher survival (as noted in one study in a portion of the SSN DPS);
and (c) increase habitat fragmentation within and between populations.
The recent 2012-2015 drought and associated tree mortality and wildfire
demonstrated that this suite of threats can act rapidly to reduce and
fragment fisher habitat across the range of the DPS.
(2) The sustained presence of toxicants from marijuana grow sites
across a likely significant proportion of the landscape that contribute
to continued fisher mortalities and sublethal effects. Fisher
mortalities continue to occur either by direct consumption or sublethal
exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, the latter of which may
increase fisher death rates from other impacts such as predation,
disease, or intraspecific conflict. In a small population, such as the
SSN DPS of fisher, the lethal and sublethal effects of toxicants on
individuals have greater potential to reduce the resiliency of the
population.
(3) Continued fragmentation of habitat in conjunction with the
isolation and potential inbreeding of the SSN DPS, especially when
taking into account the threats of toxicant exposure and habitat
losses. These ongoing threats increase this DPS's vulnerability to
extinction from stochastic events particularly as fragmentation
continues to reduce habitat patch size and limit connectivity across
the landscape. Regardless of this DPS's potential for growth into the
small amount of available but unoccupied suitable habitat present, we
do anticipate this DPS will be small into the long-term future and is
at risk of future reductions in population size due to continued
habitat loss from drought, wildfire, and tree mortality into the future
(see also Service 2016, pp. 133-137). Comments received on the 2014
Proposed Rule and 2019 Revised Proposed Rule generally agree that the
SSN DPS is small.
The SSN DPS of fisher has maintained its presence across its
current range despite the degree of habitat loss and fragmentation from
prolonged drought conditions and wildfire impacts, coupled with
mortalities from toxicants (both anticoagulant and neurotoxicant
rodenticides), and at least some reduced female survival associated
with increased stress hormones and reduced habitat suitability
documented in a portion of the SSN DPS (see Tree Mortality from
Drought, Disease, and Insect Infestation, above). However, the long-
term demographic effects of the large-scale loss of habitat and
increase
[[Page 29570]]
in habitat fragmentation following the 2012-2015 drought are not yet
understood. Historical reductions in range in combination with recent
range-wide habitat loss and fragmentation along with other ongoing
threats such as exposure to toxicants indicate that the current
resiliency of the SSN DPS of fishers may be quite low. The best
available science and information at this time indicate that the
current resiliency of the SSN DPS of fisher is low and it is likely
that resiliency of this DPS will decrease further in the near-term
future. This conclusion is based on the 39 percent loss of foraging and
denning habitat along with 92 percent decrease in habitat patch size
that has occurred across the range of the SSN DPS of fisher in the past
5 years and likelihood that the threats that caused these declines will
continue to operate across the range of the SSN DPS. The current and
ongoing cumulative impacts to the SSN DPS associated with current
climate-change-model predictions for continued periodic but prolonged
drought conditions, predictions of continued and increased intensity of
wildfires and subsequent habitat loss and fragmentation in the southern
Sierra Nevada, the high likelihood of continued presence and spread of
forest insect and tree diseases, and the low likelihood that a
significant proportion of existing toxicants on the landscape would be
removed in the near-term future indicate that the range of SSN DPS is
likely to decrease in available habitat and habitat patch size along
with continued exposure to threats to individual survival resulting in
continued declines in resiliency.
With regard to redundancy, multiple, interacting populations across
a broad geographic area or a single wide-ranging population
(redundancy) provide insurance against the risk of extinction caused by
catastrophic events. Prior to the 2012-2015 drought, redundancy was
limited across the range of the SSN DPS as a result of the DPS being a
single fragmented population distributed over a relatively confined
(for a carnivorous mammal) geographic area. Redundancy was further
limited by the range-wide loss of foraging and denning habitat along
with the associate increase in habitat fragmentation and decrease in
habitat patch size, which make the species as a whole more susceptible
to catastrophic events by further limiting their distribution. The
limited redundancy of the SSN DPS decreases the DPS's chance of
survival in the face of potential environmental, demographic, and
genetic stochastic factors and catastrophic events (extreme drought,
wildfire, Allee effects, etc.).
Lastly, we consider the current representation across the SSN DPS
of fisher to be limited, considering the DPS's existence as only a
single fragmented population with low genetic diversity. The SSN DPS
exists in a limited range of environmental conditions and has narrow
representation in the environments that it occupies. An additional
concern for current and future representation in the SSN DPS of fisher
is that fragmented populations can be more susceptible to local
declines, contributing further to loss of genetic diversity. As future
droughts, wildfire, and tree mortality continue to fragment remaining
fisher habitat, the opportunity for loss of genetic diversity may
increase because of limited connectivity among habitat patches.
Overall, SSN DPS fishers are represented across a small, fragmented
range and occur in small numbers.
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because
of any of the following 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
In our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule we proposed that the Western DPS
of fisher met the definition of a threatened species. Recognizing the
SSN as a separate DPS, we now conduct an analysis of the SSN DPS to
determine its status considering the current condition of the DPS and
current and ongoing threats. We evaluated threats to the SSN DPS of
fishers and assessed the cumulative effect of the threats under the
section 4(a)(1) factors. Our 2016 final Species Report (Service 2016,
entire) is the most recent detailed compilation of fisher ecology and
life history, and it has a significant amount of analysis related to
the potential impacts of threats within the SSN DPS's range. In
addition, we collected and evaluated new information available since
2016, including new information made available to us during the recent
comment periods in 2019, to ensure a thorough analysis, as discussed
above. Our analysis as reflected in this rule included our reassessment
of the previous information and comments received on the 2014 Proposed
Rule regarding the potential impacts to the SSN DPS of fisher, as well
as our consideration of new information regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the DPS, and the comments and information
received during the two comment periods associated with the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule.
We find that the SSN DPS is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range due to the existing threats that have
resulted in a small population size, reduced geographic distribution,
and reduced habitat quality resulting in habitat fragmentation. Because
it is limited to a single, fragmented population with few individuals
and has experienced recent and rapid loss of habitat, and given the
threats acting upon it, the current condition of the SSN DPS across the
southern Sierra Nevada does not demonstrate resiliency, redundancy, and
representation such that persistence into the future is likely.
At this time, the best available information suggests that future
resiliency for the SSN DPS of fisher is low. As discussed above in the
``Risk Factors for the SSN DPS of Fisher'' section (along with some
detail in the 2014 draft and 2016 final Species Reports (Service 2014
and 2016, entire)), the SSN DPS faces a variety of threats including:
loss and fragmentation of habitat resulting from high-severity wildfire
and wildfire suppression, climate change, tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestations, vegetation management, and
development; and potential direct impacts to individuals (e.g.,
increased mortality, decreased reproductive rates, increased stress/
hormone levels, alterations in behavioral patterns) from wildfire,
increased temperatures, increased tree mortality, disease and
predation, exposure to toxicants, vehicle collisions, and potential
effects associated with small population size.
Currently, fishers in the SSN DPS exist in one small population.
Estimates of population size and trend prior to the severe 2012-2015
drought suggested the
[[Page 29571]]
SSN DPS consisted of approximately 300 individuals (range = low of 100
to a high of 500 individuals), while there is no statistically
detectable trend in population size or growth. No estimates are
available for population size or trend following the 39 percent loss of
foraging and denning habitat and 92 percent reduction in average
habitat patch size. Overall, the SSN DPS of fisher exists as a single
small population that has persisted but does not appear to be expanding
and has experienced recent substantial habitat loss, fragmentation, and
reduction in habitat patch size.
We took into consideration all of the threats operating within the
range of SSN DPS. This DPS is reduced in size due to historical
trapping and past loss of late-successional habitat and, therefore, is
more vulnerable to extinction from random events and increases in
mortality. Some examples of multiple threats on the SSN DPS of fisher
include:
Destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat,
which may increase fisher's vulnerability to predation and loss of
genetic diversity (Factors A, C, and E);
Impacts associated with climate change, such as increased
risk of wildfire and tree mortality (tree insects and disease) (Factors
A, C, and E).
Depending on the scope and degree of each of the threats and how
they combine cumulatively, these threats can be of particular concern
where populations are small and isolated. The cumulative effect (all
threats combined) is currently causing rapid loss of habitat and
habitat patch size across the range of the SSN DPS and exposing SSN DPS
fishers to increased threats from direct mortality, resulting in low
resiliency and reducing viability for the SSN DPS as a whole. The SSN
DPS is particularly vulnerable in areas not managed for retention and
recruitment of fisher habitat attributes, areas sensitive to climate
change, areas susceptible to large high-severity fires and tree
mortality, and areas where direct mortality of fishers reduces their
ability to maintain or expand their populations (Service 2014, pp. 166-
169). Additionally, although there is currently a wide array of
regulatory mechanisms and voluntary conservation measures in place to
provide some benefits to the species and its habitat (see ``Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms'' and ``Voluntary Conservation Measures,''
above), these measures have not ameliorated the threats to such a
degree that the DPS is not currently in danger of extinction. In
particular, threats acting on this small population related to illegal
rodenticide use, increasing high-severity wildfires, and prolonged
droughts that exacerbate the effects from wildfire, forest insects, and
tree disease are operating at a scale much larger than the current
scope of the beneficial actions. Further, the two MOU agreements in
California within the range of the SSN DPS for wildfire and fuels
management have no specific conservation measures for fisher.
The best available information suggests that identified threats are
of concern across the range of the SSN DPS because of the narrow band
of habitat that comprises this DPS and its vulnerability to negative
impacts associated with small population size. As noted in our
analysis, preliminary habitat-based population models suggest that the
configuration of habitat affects population numbers in this region, and
that some areas with high-quality habitat may remain unoccupied even at
equilibrium population sizes, probably due to restricted connectivity
between these locations and the main body of the population (Service
2016, p. 44; Rustigian-Romsos 2013, pers. comm.). Therefore, the
cumulative impacts related to the habitat-based threats are likely to
have a negative effect on the SSN DPS because connectivity would likely
decrease further (Service 2016, p. 69).
For the mortality-related threats, we reaffirm our quantitative
assessment from 2014 regarding potential cumulative impacts in those
portions of the range of the SSN DPS where data were available to do
so. Modeling completed for the SSN DPS demonstrates that a 10 to 20
percent increase in mortality rates could prevent fisher populations
from the opportunity to expand in the future (Spencer et al. 2011, pp.
10-12). Coupled with an increasing trend in habitat-related threats,
the best available information suggests that cumulative effects to the
SSN DPS of fisher are reducing its resiliency to such a degree that the
DPS is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data
available, we have determined the SSN DPS of fisher meets the
definition of an endangered species under the Act. Per our 2014 draft
and 2016 final Species Reports, as well as our most recent analysis
summarized herein and based on the comments and information received on
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we find the cumulative impact of all
identified threats on the SSN DPS, especially habitat loss and
fragmentation due to high-severity wildfire (Factor A) and vegetation
management (Factor A) (noting that tree mortality from drought,
disease, and insect infestation is exacerbated by changing climate
conditions and thus also plays a role under Factor A), and exposure to
toxicants (Factor E), are acting upon the SSN DPS to such a degree that
it is currently in danger of extinction. The existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) are not addressing these threats to the level
that the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that the SSN DPS of fisher is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. In reaching this conclusion, we have
considered all information received from species experts, partners, the
public, and other interested parties, including the variety of
available conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms that
may ameliorate the threats.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the SSN DPS is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range, and accordingly, did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
we have determined that the SSN DPS warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent with the
decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289
(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of the
2014 Significant Portion of its Range Policy that provided the Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service do not undertake an analysis
of significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants
listing as threatened throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the SSN DPS of fisher meets the definition
of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the SSN DPS of
fisher as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices.
[[Page 29572]]
Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery-planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review when a species may be ready for
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our website (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (for example, restoration of native vegetation), research,
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and tribal lands.
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for
recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including
Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations.
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of California
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of the SSN DPS of fisher.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities as well as toxicant use on Federal lands administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS, BLM, and NPS; issuance of section
404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; and
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing.
Based on the best available information, the following actions may
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is
not
[[Page 29573]]
comprehensive: (1) Unauthorized modification of the forest landscape
within the range of the SSN DPS; and (2) unauthorized use of first- and
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and neurotoxicant
rodenticides within the range of the SSN DPS.
Based on the best available information, the following actions are
unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities are
carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit
requirements; this list is not comprehensive: (1) Any actions that may
affect the SSN DPS of fisher that are authorized, funded, or carried
out by a Federal agency, when the action is conducted in accordance
with the consultation requirements for listed species pursuant to
section 7 of the Act; (2) any action taken for scientific research
carried out under a recovery permit issued by us pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; (3) land actions or management carried out
under a habitat conservation plan approved by us pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act; and (4) recreation activities that comply with
local rules and that do not result in take of listed species, including
hiking and backpacking.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. In the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule (84 FR 60278,
November 7, 2019), we determined that designation of critical habitat
was prudent but not determinable because specific information needed to
analyze the impacts of designation was lacking. We are still in the
process of assessing this information. We plan to publish a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher in the
near future.
Summary of Comments and Responses
In the 2014 Proposed Rule published on October 7, 2014 (79 FR
60419; Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041), we requested that all
interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by January
5, 2015. We electively held one public hearing and seven public
information meetings between November 13 and December 4, 2014. The
comment period for this rule was extended (79 FR 76950, December 23,
2014) and reopened (80 FR 19953, April 14, 2015) for additional
comments. Following our withdrawal of this proposed rule (81 FR 22710,
April 18, 2016) and subsequent litigation (see Previous Federal
Actions, above), the District Court for the Northern District of
California reinstated the 2014 Proposed Rule on September 21, 2018.
Given the time that had elapsed and the availability of new
information, we reopened the comment period on the 2014 Proposed Rule
on January 31, 2019 (84 FR 645), requesting that all interested parties
submit new information or comments by March 4, 2019. We published the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule on November 7, 2019 (84 FR 60278), again
requesting that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by December 9, 2019, and noting that all previously submitted
comments would be fully considered in the preparation of our final
determination. Finally, we reopened the comment period on the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule for additional comments and information to be
submitted by January 3, 2020 (84 FR 69712, December 19, 2019),
reiterating that our final determination would take into consideration
all comments and any additional information we have received during the
comment periods described herein.
Notices were published in a variety of newspapers during the
comment periods inviting general public comment on the various
announcements between 2014 and 2019 outlined above. Newspaper notices
covered the range of the DPS and included one or more of the following:
Bellingham World, Chico Enterprise Record, Eureka Times-Standard,
Fresno Bee, Klamath Falls Herald and News, Olympian, Oregonian,
Peninsula Daily News, Redding Record Searchlight, Sacramento Bee,
Wenatchee World, and Yakima Herald Republic. We also contacted
appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on both the 2014 draft Species Report and the 2014 Proposed Rule.
Information received from these parties was used to update the 2016
Species Report and the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule. We also used
information received from Federal and State agencies, Tribes,
organizations, and other partners throughout the process. All
substantive information provided during the comment periods outlined
above has either been incorporated directly into this final
determination or addressed below.
In connection with development of this final rule, we reviewed
comments received from the public and peer reviewers on the 2014
Proposed Rule and the Draft Species Report, and from the public on the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule. As outlined in the April 2016 Withdrawal
(81 FR 22710, April 18, 2016), which provided our full response to all
comments received to the initial documents, we added new information,
made clarifications, and made necessary corrections to our final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire) to reflect the peer and public
comments received to that time. As necessary, these prior comments have
been reevaluated to inform the development of this final rule. For
those comments where we determined a further response was required,
they are addressed in our response to comments section below or are
incorporated in our analysis in the specific section of the final rule
as appropriate.
4(d) Rule
(1) Comment: Multiple commenters raised concerns, provided
suggestions, and asked for clarification on the 4(d) rule in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule.
Our Response: Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the
Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as he deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a species
listed as threatened, and can by regulation prohibit with respect to
such species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) for threatened
wildlife species. In this final rule, we determine that the NCSO DPS
does not warrant listing under the Act and that the SSN DPS meets the
definition of an endangered species under the Act; therefore, since
neither DPS will be listed as threatened, the section 4(d) provisions
do not apply and the proposed 4(d) rule has been removed from this
final rule.
Climate Change
(2) Comment: One commenter asserted that voluntary conservation
efforts on non-Federal lands mitigate and decrease the threats of
climate change to fisher.
Our Response: We considered both regulatory and voluntary
conservation measures that are currently being implemented to reduce
the impacts of the stressors to the species in the final Species Report
(Service 2016, pp. 162-189) and updated in this document (see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms and Voluntary Conservation Measures, above),
including important voluntary conservation contributions on non-Federal
lands.
We found that listing of the NCSO DPS was not warranted. We have
found that the SSN DPS meets the definition
[[Page 29574]]
of an endangered species. At this time, we continue to assert that
fisher habitat is likely to be affected by changing climate conditions,
but the severity will vary, potentially greatly, between the NCSO DPS
and the SSN DPS, with effects to fishers ranging from negative,
neutral, or potentially beneficial. We cannot at this time conclude
that conservation efforts on non-Federal lands are mitigating or
decreasing the threats of climate change to fisher within the NCSO DPS
or the SSN DPS. That said, voluntary actions on non-Federal lands
(e.g., CCAA, SHAs, HCPs, and MOUs), particularly within the NCSO DPS,
provide a conservation benefit to the species (e.g., actions that
retain key elements of fisher habitat and/or improve collaboration to
reduce significant spread of high-severity wildfires) and may
contribute to reducing the overall cumulative impacts to the NCSO DPS
and its habitat. Overall, anything that reduces impacts to the species
in the future would help increase its resilience to climate change.
(3) Comment: One commenter claimed that the best available science
on climate change should be added to our analysis, including recent
modeling and analysis information related to warming climate, wildfire
severity, and droughts. This comment also was raised in comments
received on the 2014 Proposed Rule stating that there are conflicting
perspectives on the potential impacts associated with changing climate
conditions, and the Service needs to evaluate the best available
information.
Our Response: We have evaluated new information on climate change
that has become available since the 2014 Proposed Rule, including
literature received and suggested citations during the comment periods
on the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule. All information received has been
reviewed and analyzed as part of our determination; the information is
included in the decision record for this determination, but not
necessarily cited in this rule. Significant new information or updates
are included in the Climate Change sections above.
Completeness and Accuracy
(4) Comment: Several commenters stated that the 30-day comment
period for the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule did not provide the public
enough time to evaluate the changes made to the proposed rule, which
had significant differences from our previous determinations.
Our Response: In response to multiple requests seeking more time to
fully evaluate the information in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we
added an additional 15-day comment period (ending on January 3, 2020)
to the original 30-day comment period for the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the DPS above, we
provided the public with notice of two alternative DPS configurations
in our 2014 Proposed Rule, which included DPS boundaries that are very
similar to the DPS configurations that were analyzed in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule and this final determination.
(5) Comment: One commenter mentioned that significant new
information has been developed since the completion of the 2016 final
Species Report, and that the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule mentioned some
of the new data. However, the commenter stated that the Service did not
clarify how much weight was given to the new information in the
decision to propose listing the fisher.
Our Response: New information became available between completion
of the 2016 final Species Report and the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule to
list the fisher as a threatened species, and new information became
available since the publication of our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule. We
are obligated under the Act to carefully consider whether or not any
new information would affect our decision to list a species (i.e.,
meeting the definition of an endangered or a threatened species
according to section 3 of the Act). All new information provided since
the 2016 final Species Report was carefully analyzed. Our 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule indicated that our conclusion in the final determination
may change based on the new information we received in response to the
2019 Revised Proposed rule (84 FR at 60279). And in fact, we found that
the new information and information submitted during public comment
provided substantial evidence that threats to the fisher have been
reduced or eliminated to the extent that listing of the fisher is not
warranted in the NCSO DPS but is warranted for listing as an endangered
species in the SSN DPS.
Critical Habitat
(6) Comment: Many commenters articulated the need for designated
critical habitat for the West Coast DPS of fisher. Two of these
commenters asserted that critical habitat should have been proposed
concurrent with the proposed listing rule.
Our Response: We stated in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule that we
were in the process of working with the States and other partners in
acquiring the complex information needed to perform an economic
analysis. As stated in II. Critical Habitat, above, we are still
assessing information and we anticipate publishing a proposed rule to
designate critical habitat in the near future.
Current Conservation Agreements
(7) Comment: One commenter asked if landowners will be able to
enroll in CCAAs after a final rule is published.
Our Response: Landowners within the area of the NCSO DPS can enroll
in CCAAs because we found that listing of the NCSO DPS was not
warranted. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered under
the Act, landowners are not able to enroll in CCAAs for that species;
this applies to the SSN DPS. However, other conservation tools such as
Safe Harbor Agreements (SHA) can provide assurances for landowners. A
SHA is a voluntary agreement between the Service and private or other
non-Federal property owners whose actions contribute to the recovery of
federally listed species. Landowners who fulfill the conditions of the
SHA will not be subject to any additional or different management
activities without their consent.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated that the completion of a marten/
fisher conservation strategy would complement work being done by the
Forest Service. A second commenter provided a summary of a draft
conservation strategy for fisher in the SSN subpopulation, claiming
that the strategy will update fisher and fisher habitat status,
summarize new science, provide recommendations for identifying and
maintaining key habitat elements, provide recommendations for
increasing resilience of fisher habitat, identify potential mitigation
for necessary management (e.g., hazard tree removal), and identify
potential management options for forest conditions that support fisher
conservation.
Our Response: The Service supports a conservation strategy for the
benefit of marten and fisher to complement work being done by the
Forest Service. The new draft conservation strategy for fisher in the
SSN DPS was reviewed and discussed above under Final Listing
Determination for SSN under ``Current Condition'' and ``Voluntary
Conservation Measures.''
(9) Comment: One commenter stated the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule
was unclear as to whether or not conservation measures currently being
implemented for fisher were evaluated. Therefore, the commenter advised
that the Service cannot rely on those measures to support conclusions
for
[[Page 29575]]
unregulated take of individuals on Federal land.
Our Response: The Service evaluates voluntary conservation measures
when considering the status of a species under section 4 of the Act. As
such, voluntary conservation measures were considered in this final
rule for fisher. See the Voluntary Conservation Measures section,
above.
(10) Comment: One commenter stated that sustainable forestry
practices on private land support fisher conservation by providing
healthy forests, forest products, and wildlife enhancements. The
commenter claimed that unnecessary regulations and restrictions of
sustainable forestry practices will negatively affect fisher
populations and the ability of private landowners to maintain working
forests on their lands.
Our Response: We appreciate the efforts on private lands to support
healthy forests and provide wildlife enhancements that benefit fisher,
and we will continue to work with landowners. We assume the commenter
is concerned that sustainable forestry practices would be regulated as
a result of listing the fisher under the Act. We found that listing of
the NCSO DPS was not warranted. We determined that the SSN DPS meets
the definition of endangered; thus, we are required by the Act to list
it. The Service will work with partners to continue forest practices
that retain key elements of fisher habitat that will continue to
contribute to the overall conservation of the species.
(11) Comment: Multiple commenters stated that voluntary
conservation measures and multi-entity partnerships are in place,
should receive Federal support or funding assistance, and should be the
focus of the evaluation of the status of the fisher. Specifically, the
commenters claimed that Federal and non-Federal land managers are
engaging in collaborative efforts (e.g., CCAAs, HCPs, MOUs) to maintain
fisher habitat and minimize wildfire risk, and the Service failed to
acknowledge these efforts and their contribution to fisher
conservation. Some of these commenters also stated that the Service
provided little justification to the determination that conservation
agreements are not acting at a scale and magnitude sufficient to
ameliorate threats, and that the extent of the agreements was not
considered. An additional commenter is similarly concerned that listing
the fisher would mandate section 7 consultation under the Act for
actions implemented under MOUs, which would hinder implementation and
increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Finally, another commenter
suggested that CCAAs, which cover several million acres, are being
implemented or are sufficiently certain to be implemented, which should
compel the Service to withdraw the proposed listing rule.
Our Response: The Service supports conservation efforts for the
benefit of fisher in both the NCSO DPS and the SSN DPS. We incorporated
additional information that was received during the comment period into
our analysis including CCAAs, HCPs, and MOUs that benefit the NCSO DPS
and/or the SSN DPS of fisher. We found that listing of the NCSO DPS was
not warranted. We have found that the SSN DPS meets the definition of
endangered; therefore, it is necessary to carefully assess actions that
may impact the DPS to avoid extinction. The Service will work with
partners to continue forest practices that retain key elements of
fisher habitat that will continue to contribute to the overall
conservation of the species. See also the response to Comment 10 above.
(12) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not apply
the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) and asserted that application of this policy will
result in a determination that listing fisher as a threatened species
is not necessary.
Our Response: In this final rule, the NCSO DPS is not warranted for
listing, so a PECE analysis is not appropriate. The SSN DPS is
warranted for listing as an endangered species, and we conclude that
the existing conservation efforts are not to the level that prevents
the SSN DPS from meeting the Act's definition of an endangered species.
(13) Comment: One commenter is concerned that timber management at
a landscape scale is likely to be unaffected by listing fisher.
Specifically, the commenter asserted that agreements with timber
companies that exempt timber management activities will not provide
landscape-scale contiguous tracts of habitat or sufficient trees with
cavities.
Our Response: We assume the agreements the commenter refers to are
HCPs, CCAAs, and SHAs. Each HCP, CCAA, and SHA contains measures to
protect habitats for listed species. While these may not individually
operate at a landscape scale, the combined efforts across the range of
the species contribute to the ability of fishers to move across larger
landscapes and to find trees for denning and resting.
Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
(14) Comment: Several commenters believed there should be more than
one DPS (with separate listing decisions) in the area described in the
2019 Revised Proposed Rule as the West Coast DPS of fisher. Some
commenters stated that the NCSO and SSN subpopulations are two
separate/isolated geographic areas with no genetic interchange, and
therefore they should be two separate DPSs, especially given the
apparent differences in landscape-level threats and information that
they believe qualifies the SSN as distinct and significant according to
our DPS Policy. Some of these commenters further articulated that the
DPSs should be consistent with the ESUs designated in 2015 by the CDFW,
including that we should consider their decision that listing the
Northern California ESU was not warranted. Two commenters asserted that
the SSN subpopulation should be a DPS that is listed as endangered and
the NCSO subpopulation should be a DPS that is listed as threatened
given the differences in existing conditions and threats into the
future. Finally, another commenter asserted that the NCSO, SSN, NSN,
and SOC subpopulations should all be individual DPSs.
Our Response: We received multiple comments on our DPS approach in
both the 2014 Proposed Rule and 2019 Revised Proposed Rule. As
explained in further detail in this document's Summary of Changes from
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule section, we carefully considered all
these comments, and as a result reevaluated our DPS approach. We
determined that what we had proposed as the West Coast DPS in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule should instead be two separate DPSs, one for the
SSN subpopulation, and one for the several subpopulations comprising
the NCSO geographic area. We determined our analysis would focus on the
conservation of extant subpopulations historically indigenous to the
California and southern Oregon region with unique genetic
characteristics (as outlined in the 2014 Proposed Rule), while also
allowing for separate management of the two DPSs if either or both were
warranted for listing. For a complete discussion of the logical
outgrowth that led to this outcome, please refer to the Summary of
Changes section mentioned above, as well as the detailed Distinct
Population Segment analyses presented herein.
(15) Comment: One commenter agreed that the DPS configuration
should not include the State of Washington, and two commenters
disagreed, requesting that we reconsider and include this area to
address the connectivity needs of the species and consideration of
habitat needed for dispersal. One of the two commenters that disagreed
also
[[Page 29576]]
suggested that population monitoring of recent fisher reintroductions
in Washington would be more readily supported if this area was included
in the DPS configuration. Relatedly, we also received multiple comments
on the 2014 Proposed Rule suggesting that the Service needs to consider
connectivity between subpopulations and dispersal habitat within the
DPS configuration, including habitat in Washington and Oregon that is
north of the current distribution.
Our Response: As explained in further detail in both the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule, and in this document's Distinct Population
Segment analyses, the determination of a DPS is based on where a
population segment actually occurs on the landscape. A DPS does not set
a geographic boundary, nor ``set aside'' connectivity or dispersal
habitat for conservation purposes, but rather identifies the segment of
a population that is discrete from, and significant to the taxon as a
whole, and that may or may not require protection under the Act. Our
DPS approach focused on the extant subpopulations historically
indigenous to the California and southern Oregon region with unique
genetic characteristics, and such subpopulations do not occur in
Washington, nor in Oregon north of the current distribution.
(16) Comment: One commenter asserted that it is inappropriate to
consider fishers reintroduced in the State of Washington as nonnative,
as this term typically describes a taxon occurring outside of its
historical range. The commenter stated that reintroduced fishers in
Washington are from source populations in British Columbia and Alberta,
which were likely contiguous and interbreeding with fishers that
historically occurred in Washington.
Our Response: In both the 2014 Proposed Rule and 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule, we explained that our use of the term ``nonnative'' was
intended to articulate the difference between the extant fisher
subpopulations that have been indigenous to the three West Coast States
since before the time of the original petition (``native''), and those
current fisher subpopulations that were established with fishers from
outside the three West Coast States (``nonnative''). We recognize that
the fisher populations currently established in Washington are
genetically similar to historically indigenous Washington fishers prior
to their extirpation, and our only purpose in the use of the term
``nonnative'' was to distinguish the reintroduced Washington fishers
from those fishers in California and northern Oregon that are
historically extant.
(17) Comment: One commenter stated that the revised DPS
delineation/description limits opportunities to implement future
conservation measures throughout the historical range of the species.
They also stated that excluding historically occupied fisher habitat in
Washington and Oregon limits opportunities for recovery.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 15. Conservation
measures are not limited throughout the range of the species by this
listing determination.
(18) Comment: Several commenters requested that we clearly define
the boundary of the DPS. For example, one commenter stated that there
are only dispersing fishers in one area within the delineated boundary
as described in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, and there does not
appear to be a breeding population there. Two commenters suggested that
specific extant subpopulations are delineated that include a predicted
movement distance, such as the approach used for the Humboldt marten
(Martes caurina humboldtensis). Two other commenters stated that the
proposed boundary does not represent the extant subpopulations or the
specific predicted habitat areas, noting their belief that the basis
for the current depiction is unclear.
Our Response: Please see our responses to Comment 14 and Comment 15
regarding the final determination of DPSs. Additionally, there is no
requirement that all areas of a DPS be used for breeding. And, when we
identify a DPS, we are simultaneously evaluating the current range of
the animals comprising the DPS. This process is identical to our
process for any listed species. Any maps accompanying these
determinations are intended to illustrate that range, based on the best
available scientific and commercial information regarding the species'
(or DPS's) ecology and the availability of its resource needs on the
landscape, but do not represent a determination by the Service that all
areas within a generalized range are occupied by the species. The maps
presented herein depict our understanding of the current ranges of both
DPSs, with the further understanding that these ranges are not
necessarily static, and individuals from either DPS have the potential
to expand or contract from what are the current range limits.
(19) Comment: One Federal partner stated their support of listing
native fisher populations wherever they occur, but suggested the area
east of Highway 97 in Oregon be excluded.
Our Response: As presented herein, our final analysis determines
that the NCSO DPS, which includes fishers in Oregon, does not meet the
definition of either a threatened or endangered species. As a result,
fishers east of Highway 97 would not be considered listed under the
Act.
(20) Comment: One commenter asserted that fishers residing in the
SOC subpopulation (reintroduced from British Columbia and Minnesota)
experience significantly different threats and existing conditions
(e.g., small population size, surrounding habitat for expansion) than
the NCSO subpopulation; therefore, these factors should lead to not
including this subpopulation area in any DPS.
Our Response: As presented herein, our final analysis includes the
SOC subpopulation within the NCSO DPS. Although the SOC subpopulation
was established with fishers from British Columbia and Minnesota, the
area where the SOC occurs lies within the historical range of the NCSO
DPS, and more importantly, includes documentation of SOC fishers
interbreeding with fishers of the NCSO subpopulation (Pilgrim and
Schwartz 2016, entire; Pilgrim and Schwartz 2017, entire). Given this
interbreeding activity and the use of suitable habitat between these
two population areas, it was a sound and logical conclusion to include
all fishers across these areas as part of the NCSO subpopulation.
However, we found that listing of the NCSO DPS was not warranted.
Distribution
(21) Comment: One commenter provided new fisher detection locations
from systematic camera surveys conducted from October 2018 to February
2019 and from October 2019 through December 2019 within their private
timberlands in coastal northern California. The commenter asserts that
the new information indicates that fishers remain well distributed
across their coastal California timberlands and that fishers may have
expanded into portions of northern coastal California where they were
not detected during earlier survey efforts.
Our Response: We thank the commenter for the new fisher detection
information, which augments our knowledge of the distribution and
relative abundance of the fisher within the NCSO. We have included this
information in the NCSO Current Condition above. We agree that the
submitted information demonstrates that fishers are well distributed
across
[[Page 29577]]
portions of the commenter's California timberlands where surveys were
conducted.
(22) Comment: One commenter disagreed with information we presented
in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule regarding the historical and current
distribution of fishers in the SSN subpopulation. The commenter
suggested that our statement that historically the SSN subpopulation
likely extended farther north than our current DPS boundary in the
Sierra Nevada was conjecture and that historical museum specimens are
limited to south of the Tuolumne River, which is currently the northern
boundary of what was identified in the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule as
the Sierra Nevada portion of the DPS. Further, the commenter mentioned
that our statement that multiple lines of genetic evidence suggests
that the NCSO and SSN subpopulations have been isolated since before
European settlement contradicts the previous assertion that fishers
historically occupied the area between the NCSO and SSN portions of the
DPS. The commenter also disagreed with our statement that the current
northern boundary of the SSN subpopulation is the Tuolumne River in
Yosemite National Park, asserting that the northern extent of the
current occupied distribution of the SSN subpopulation is actually the
Merced River, varying from about 10 to 20 miles south of the Tuolumne
River. They stated that only a single male fisher was recently detected
north of the Merced River and that there is no fisher population
between the Merced and Tuolumne Rivers.
Our Response: Although not confirmed, there are numerous historical
sightings of fishers, many of them from reported trapping locations
from 1919 through 1924, in the areas between the SSN and NCSO DPSs
(summarized in CDFW 2015, pp. 17-19). Thus, we conclude that, at some
point, fishers occupied portions of the northern Sierra Nevada at least
temporarily. Whether the northern Sierra Nevada contained a viable
population or only served as a movement corridor between the current
NCSO and SSN DPSs is unknown. That said, genetic information supports
that the NCSO and SSN DPSs have been largely separated for thousands of
years (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 3), so we determined that separating the
NCSO DPS and SSN DPS was appropriate.
We included the area between the Tuolumne and Merced Rivers in the
SSN DPS because the area contains suitable habitat, and fishers found
in this area would be a part of the SSN DPS. In addition, the recent
detection of at least one fisher north of the Merced River indicates
that the SSN DPS has the capability to expand into the area between the
Tuolumne River and the Merced River (Stock 2020, pers. comm.).
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
(23) Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule
fails to adequately consider existing conservation efforts that benefit
the fisher and other actions that benefit other forest species. These
efforts include such things as CCAAs, MOUs, HCPs, ongoing enforcement
agreements implemented by State and Federal parties, and conservation
agreements for other species such as spotted owls, which can benefit
fisher. Although many of these efforts are mentioned in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule, the commenters believed that there is no
evaluation, both individually and cumulatively. Other commenters stated
that these efforts must be considered in combination with the extensive
regulatory framework that already exists (e.g., the Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan Amendment for the Forest Service; the California Forest
Practice Rules and the California Environmental Quality Act and their
roles in the timber harvest planning process in the State).
Our Response: As noted by the commenter, our 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule mentions existing conservation efforts that provide benefits to
fisher and other forest species. In that proposed rule, we provided an
in-depth discussion about how existing regulatory mechanisms and other
voluntary conservation efforts benefit fishers. Each of these
regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts were evaluated
individually for how they may provide benefits, and cumulatively to
assess how in combination they may ameliorate threats. A similar in-
depth analysis is provided in this current rule, albeit with analyses
specific to both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS. Further discussion of how
all of the regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts were
considered in the context of the existing regulatory frameworks and our
status evaluations can be found in the Determination sections for each
DPS in this final rule document.
(24) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not
consider the widespread participation in sustainable forest management
certification programs such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and
the Forest Stewardship Council that promote forest health and
resilience in opposition to climate change with sequestration of carbon
in wood products and renewable reforestation and harvest cycles.
Our Response: While sustainable forest management certification
programs require actions by participants that are ecologically
beneficial, the certification standards are too general to evaluate the
effects of participation on fisher conservation. As an example, one of
the certification programs lists the following standards: (1) A program
to protect threatened and endangered species; (2) a program to locate
and protect known sites of flora and fauna associated with viable
occurrences of critically imperiled and imperiled species and
communities also known as Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value;
and (3) support of and participation in plans or programs for the
conservation of old-growth forests in the region of ownership or forest
tenure'' (SFI 2015, p. 6). We believe these sustainable forest
management certification programs can and do promote and lead to fisher
conservation. We are not implying that these standards are faulty.
However, as written these general standards are too vague to consider
their benefit to fishers and how they may reduce existing threats. The
Service requires specific information from the participants of the
sustainable forest management certification program and how they meet
these standards in order to be able to assess the degree to which they
affect fisher conservation and address the threats to the species.
(25) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service cannot
rationally assume that BLM lands in the DPS will be managed in a way to
promote viability or recovery of fisher because of recent court rulings
regarding the Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) lands under BLM
management. If these rulings stand, BLM will no longer be able to place
O&C timberlands in reserves. The final rule must address how the
Service intends to achieve recovery in light of these rulings.
Our Response: We have acknowledged the recent court ruling
regarding BLM O&C lands in this rule and that this decision has been
appealed. However, we must base our decision on the regulatory
mechanisms currently in place, which are the 2016 revisions to BLM's
western Oregon resource management plans. We cannot speculate how the
court's ruling will ultimately effect BLM management going forward. For
example, the ruling may stand, it may be overturned by a higher court,
or a settlement may be reached to implement yet a different
[[Page 29578]]
management action. Opportunities to assess any such changes in BLM
management, once final, will occur through a new listing petition.
Consequently, we base our conclusion on the plans in place at the time
of our decision, which are the 2016 western Oregon resource management
plans.
(26) Comment: One commenter said that assuming the NEPA process
will do good things for fisher is incorrect. Federal agencies document
their actions under NEPA and whether they comply with the Endangered
Species Act, but the process itself does not provide a conservation
benefit.
Our Response: We have not assumed that NEPA will benefit fishers.
We explicitly stated in our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule (84 FR at 60296,
November 7, 2019), ``NEPA does not regulate or protect fishers, but
requires full evaluation and disclosure of the effects of Federal
actions on the environment.'' We continue to affirm that statement in
this document.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated that the regulatory mechanisms
embodied in law enforcement agencies have failed to control illegal
cultivation of marijuana on public lands, leading directly to the
issues described under the toxicants section of the proposed rule. The
proposed rule should acknowledge this fact, recognizing and calling
attention to the limitations imposed on the funding and priorities
under which these agencies operate.
Our Response: We have acknowledged the difficulties experienced by
law enforcement to address illegal cultivation of cannabis on public
lands in this rule (see Exposure to Toxicants section).
(28) Comment: One commenter observed that the proposed rule does
not acknowledge existing efforts to address illegal cannabis
cultivation on public lands (e.g., increasing California State agency
staff; CROP Project (Cannabis Removal on Public Lands), whose goal is
to increase funding for trespass grow reclamation, increase USFS Law
Enforcement presence, and implement statewide education on health risks
of unregulated cannabis). Evaluation of toxicant threat is incomplete
without considering the regulatory mechanisms related to cannabis
cultivation.
Our Response: We recognize and commend efforts to clean up illegal
grow sites and remove toxicants from the landscape. We acknowledge the
CROP Project and their efforts to reduce and reclaim illegal cannabis
cultivation on public lands (see Exposure to Toxicants section). We
also acknowledge that CDFW provided money in 2017 through their
Cannabis Restoration Grant Program to clean up illegal grow sites, and
that they may continue to do so in the future. And we recognize efforts
by private timber companies (e.g., GDRC HCP) to restrict access and
patrol their lands. Conversely, we note that Forest Service law
enforcement personnel have observed that State and local resources for
combatting illegal cultivation on Federal lands has diminished since
State cannabis legalization, as resources have been redirected to State
and local regulatory compliance (Klassen and Anthony 2019, p. 45).
There are still both many unremediated and undiscovered illegal
marijuana sites across the landscape where further clean-up efforts are
needed. We commend on-going efforts and encourage all future funding
and clean-up efforts. We also recognize the magnitude and scope of the
problem that makes the threat of exposure to toxicants difficult to
manage across the landscape. Please see the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS
discussions above in their respective Exposure to Toxicants sections
for our assessment of this threat.
(29) Comment: One commenter stated that if the fisher is listed,
then positive relationships with landowners will be impossible and harm
proactive, collaborative, voluntary conservation.
Our Response: We are committed to creating positive relationships
with landowners. As an example, by working with commercial timber
landowners in Oregon on fisher CCAAs, we have built collaborative
relationships that have spilled over into work on proactive
conservation for other species considered for listing under the Act,
such as the Pacific marten (Martes caurina) and red tree vole
(Arborimus longicaudus). There are many tools available to incentivize
collaborative, voluntary conservation for the fisher. Potential
voluntary conservation opportunities include: CCAAs (such as the
existing agreement with SPI); HCPs (such as the existing plan with GDRC
for the northern spotted owl); and SHAs (such as the existing agreement
in Oregon). These agreements and plans allow landowners to manage their
lands while conserving species, and at the same time provide landowners
regulatory assurance and incidental take coverage under the Act for
agreed upon activities. Also, our Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program works with and funds landowners to implement on-the-ground
conservation efforts on their lands. Though not all landowners
participate in these various voluntary conservation opportunities, many
continue to work with us to conserve species.
(30) Comment: One commenter stated that listing the fisher would
also increase wildfire risk within the fisher's range and blunt the
effectiveness of wildfire prevention measures that are already in
place. Private landowners are currently implementing an MOU that is
designed to lessen wildfire risks within the fisher's range. If the
fisher were listed as threatened or endangered, these wildfire
reduction measures would be slowed down and would become less
effective. Listing the fisher would also have the consequence of
requiring Federal agencies to consult under section 7 of the ESA before
taking actions that could affect fisher habitat, including the fuels
reduction efforts contemplated under the MOU.
Our Response: The MOU referenced by the commenter pertains to the
NCSO DPS area, which is found not warranted for listing in this
determination. There is no similar agreement applicable to the SSN DPS.
Consequently, we believe the concerns expressed are not applicable to
this listing determination. We do not believe that listing the fisher
would increase wildfire risk in the SSN DPS because the Service is
working with Federal agencies to develop a programmatic consultation
process to streamline wildfire reduction activities that provide for
the conservation of fisher.
Fisher Biology
(31) Comment: Two commenters pointed out new studies showing that
fishers use managed landscapes. They both noted that fishers have been
documented using slash piles for denning. One of them also added that
fishers use areas near timber harvest units, possibly due to the
availability of prey.
Our Response: Fishers use managed landscapes on private industrial
timberlands, and this determination reflects this use. Rather than
specifically mentioning fisher use of slash piles in our analysis, we
considered fisher use of managed landscapes more broadly in vegetation
management.
Fuels Treatment
(32) Comment: Some commenters expressed that protecting fishers
from extreme wildfire is important, stating that wildfires are
prevalent in the DPS and are predicted to increase in frequency. They
indicated that high-severity burns take decades if not centuries to
replace habitat structures necessary to support fishers and their prey;
therefore, thinning projects and
[[Page 29579]]
prescribed burns are necessary to prevent stand-replacing wildfires.
Our Response: High-severity fires can remove or substantially
reduce fisher habitat; thus, we assessed the conservation measures in
place to conduct fuel reduction projects (see Voluntary Conservation
Mechanisms). The Service is working with Federal agencies within the
SSN DPS to develop a programmatic consultation process to streamline
wildfire reduction activities that provide for the conservation of
fisher.
Habitat
(33) Comment: Once commenter states that the use of OGSI-80 as a
surrogate for fisher habitat underrepresents substantial areas of
occupied fisher habitat in the NCSO and NSN areas and presented their
analysis of citations (Zielinski et al. 2012; Niblett et al. 2017;
Powell et al. 2019) to support this interpretation. Specifically, they
referenced application of the Zielinski et al. (2004) fisher habitat
model on managed landscapes. They claim that the model is similar to
OGSI-80 in that it is derived from observed fisher use of large, old
trees in old forests, primarily on public lands. Applying the model on
managed landscapes resulted in lands classified as ``poor'' by the
model actually being occupied by fishers (Niblett et al. 2017; Powell
et al. 2019). Thus, the commenter opined that projections of trends
based on the OGSI-80 surrogate cannot be relied upon to represent
amounts of trends in fisher habitat. The commenter further recommended
the Service address the proportion of occupied habitat actually
represented by OGSI-80, stating that the OGSI-80 definition excludes
substantial amounts of occupied private and Federal land.
Our Response: In addressing the last portion of the comment, our
intended use of OGSI-80 is not as a surrogate for fisher habitat, nor
to delineate areas on the landscape where fishers may or may not be
found. That would not be an appropriate use because the data sources
for OGSI-80 (gradient nearest neighbor or GNN) limit the application of
the index to the landscape or regional scale and not the site-specific
or local scale (Ohman and Gregory 2002, p. 738).
We are not sure why the commenter concluded that the Zielinski et
al. (2004) model, derived from observed fisher use of very large old
trees and logs in old forests primarily on public lands, is similar to
OGSI-80. First, OGSI-80 is not based on fisher use of stands. Second,
OGSI-80 does not indicate a forest age, but rather structures that are
characteristic with where forests are on a general forest succession
continuum, regardless of their age. Hence, a stand meeting the OGS-I80
condition may be younger than 80 years old, and stands substantially
older than 80 may not meet the OGSI80 condition. Third, OGSI-80 was
derived from a network of plot data systematically placed across all
ownerships, not just Federal lands (Davis et al. 2015, pp. 13-15). We
compared OGSI-80 trends between Federal and non-Federal lands in our
analysis.
The commenter's conclusion as to why the Zielinski model did not
perform as well on private lands assessed by Niblett et al. (2017) does
not comport with the conclusion Niblett et al. (2017, pp. 14-15) made.
They note that Zielinski compiled a resting habitat suitability score
that was a composite of multiple features of fisher resting habitat,
such as live tree basal area, large down wood abundance, hardwood basal
area, canopy cover, and mean tree age. Such an overall composite may be
less meaningful in characterizing fisher habitat on landscapes assessed
by Niblett et al. (2017, entire) than just assessing the structural
attributes that fishers use, especially because forest cover is so low
for such a large part of their study area. In that light, OGSI-80 is
similar in that it is characterizing a single component of fisher
habitat, the structural habitat components that fishers are associated
with, so long as forest canopy cover meets a minimum of 10 percent. We
note that Niblett et al. (2017, p. 15) still found that, even in their
heavily managed landscape with large areas absent of forest cover,
fishers still denned in the largest available trees on the landscape.
Depending on the vegetation zone that encompasses the Niblett et al.
(2017, entire) study area, the OGSI-80 minimum structural element
thresholds (Davis et al. 2015, pp. 16-18) may or may not exceed the den
tree and snags used by fishers in Niblett et al. (2017, p. 15).
Nevertheless, OGSI-80 is not meant to map where fishers may occur on
the landscape, or to quantify fisher habitat characteristics, but to
characterize trends in those structural elements that fishers use.
(34) Comment: One commenter stated that in areas occupied by
breeding female fishers on the Stirling Management Unit, some habitat
suitability models based on fisher use of forests with large trees
performed very poorly in predicting fisher home ranges (Powell et al.
2019, Figure 28 and others). Consequently, OGSI-80, being based on
large trees, will not represent areas used by fishers on these
landscapes.
Our Response: As stated in earlier comments, OGSI-80 is not meant
to map where fishers may occur on the landscape, or to quantify fisher
habitat characteristics, but to characterize trends in those structural
elements that fishers use. We also want to clarify the results of the
analysis that the commenter is describing (Powell et al. 2019, Figure
28 and others). There are certainly areas of habitat classed by the
different models assessed as either moderate fisher habitat or even
relatively high-quality fisher habitat (e.g., Powell et al. 2019,
Appendix 2, pp. 64-65) that fishers avoided. The authors suspect lack
of other vital habitat components in these stands, such as hardwoods,
may be the reason, though this needs further study (Powell et al. 2019,
Appendix 2, pp. 69-70). Nevertheless, for most of the models assessed
in Powell et al. (2019, Appendix 2), fishers still selected habitats on
the landscape that generally encompassed largest tree category and
greatest canopy cover.
(35) Comment: One commenter believed our statement that substantial
amounts of unoccupied fisher habitat could suggest that habitat is not
limiting for fisher and, therefore, habitat loss is not a threat was
misleading. They note that there is not a lot of unoccupied habitat in
the SSN south of the Merced River, and, indeed, habitat may very likely
be a limiting factor, especially for females in the currently occupied
area. Unoccupied habitat north of the Merced may not be accessible due
to dispersal barriers (Merced River, high-severity fire areas, and
heavily used roads in Yosemite National Park) and, therefore, is not de
facto evidence that habitat is not a limiting factor.
Our Response: We recognize in the final rule that the interaction
of all the threats within the SSN DPS are likely limiting northward
expansion into what is considered suitable habitat for fisher. In
general, fisher habitat is lacking landscape-scale forest heterogeneity
in the SSN DPS compared to historic conditions, with wildfire and
severe drought disturbances creating large patches of homogeneous
habitat, which are exacerbated by past logging practices and wildfire
suppression (Thompson et al. 2019a, p. 13).
(36) Comment: The proposed rule's estimation of habitat trend is
inconclusive and does not indicate substantial decline. If the
definition of habitat is corrected to include the known fisher
distribution, fisher habitat has in fact dramatically expanded. This
expanded range is demonstrated by a 24 percent increase in the occupied
range since the CDFW estimate in 2010.
[[Page 29580]]
Our Response: We do not agree with the conclusion that habitat
usable by fisher has dramatically expanded. A range expansion for
fisher or any other species does not automatically mean that habitat
has increased. Many factors serve to limit species distribution (e.g.,
connectivity and fragmentation, prey and predators, population
demographics), and these factors may or may not be affected by habitat.
Although not perfect, our analyses for vegetation management and
wildfire show losses of either fisher habitat or structural elements
used by fishers (as represented by OGSI-80). Further, the OGSI-80
analysis, which incorporates ingrowth and is only for the NWFP portion
of the NCSO DPS, indicates a net loss of this structural condition
type. In the SSN, areas within the previously known fisher distribution
experienced a reduction of nearly 40 percent due to fire, drought, and
associated tree mortality. Although we expect ingrowth to occur, we are
uncertain how soon the landscape will be considered fisher habitat,
particularly because large trees that often act as a seed source for
future regeneration were disproportionately affected.
The number of fishers in the NSN subpopulation is increasing and
with this increase, fishers are expanding and using new habitats. We
are encouraged by this expansion and commend SPI, CDFW, and other
partners for their efforts. However, we conclude that this expansion is
due to reintroduction efforts, not because of an increase or expansion
of new habitat. Prior to the reintroduction, the habitat existed and
was available, but it was unoccupied.
The commenter suggests that fisher's range has expanded by 24
percent since a CDFW estimate in 2010. Based on the maps provided and
the comment, we assume this refers to a 24 percent increase in the
occupied range for NCSO. Judging expansions or contractions in fisher
populations from ranges drawn by humans on a map can be problematic
because the polygons created might not capture areas that have not been
surveyed, they likely do not consider variable survey efforts (i.e.,
opportunistic versus systematic camera surveys), or a line may closely
or loosely follow a boundary (which can greatly skew comparisons). In
this case, the CDFW polygon does not include the NSN subpopulation, nor
does it include all the known fisher sightings in the area at the time,
nor does it consider areas that may have been under-surveyed.
Furthermore, since CDFW's 2010 estimate is from a California-specific
analysis, it does not include areas in Oregon that are occupied by
fisher.
In the most recent review of fisher, CDFW concludes that fishers
currently occupy much of their historical range in northwestern
California and may have expanded in the redwood region (CDFW 2015, p.
23); fisher detections have increased in northern coastal California
since the 1990s, though it is not known as to whether this increase is
due to a range expansion, recolonization, increased survey effort, or
whether fishers remained undetected in earlier surveys (CDFW 2015, p.
50).
In our draft and final Species Report, we reviewed fisher data
(1994-2013) for accuracy and minimized repetitive individual sightings.
When we use the data from our species report and overlay it with (1)
newer locations from the California Natural Diversity Database
(reviewed for accuracy), (2) newer SPI locations, (3) newer locations
from Collins Pine Company, (4) multiple newer efforts in southern
Oregon (captured for NCSO in Current Condition, above), and (5) also
consider historical locations before 1994, the majority of new
locations are infill within the bounds of our 1994-2013 data (Service
2020, map). There are a few areas where we see new fisher sightings,
particularly along the eastern edge of the species' range. In Oregon,
we expect these new locations are largely a product of increased survey
effort or research activity rather than an actual increase in the
range, because there are numerous historical sightings in these areas.
In California, some of this expansion is because of reintroduction
efforts at NSN, but some may also be because of an increase in range,
or increased survey efforts. We are also aware of a few areas where
contractions have been reported in Southern Oregon near the Biscuit
Fire and the SOC subpopulation. We conclude that there has been a
recent range expansion because of the reintroduction effort in the NSN
subpopulation. There have also been some small contractions. And, there
have been some small expansions, but we are unclear if these are actual
expansions or the result of increased survey effort.
Habitat Recruitment
(37) Comment: A couple of commenters stated that OGSI-80 is a poor
surrogate for fisher habitat and demonstrably under-represents
substantial areas of occupied fisher habitat in the NCSO and NSN areas
and is not the best scientific information. There is little evidence
that OGSI-80 represents or correlates with fisher habitat. It may be
appropriate for predicting northern spotted owl habitat, but there is
little evidence that predicted habitat for northern spotted owl is
similar to fisher habitat (cites Zielinski et al. 2006). Trends in
OGSI-80 should only be used to represent habitat in areas where that
habitat type occurs and should not be relied upon to represent fisher
habitat trends elsewhere.
Our Response: We have revised our vegetation management section to
clarify our use of the OGSI-80 forest condition. We have explored
several avenues to assess trends in fisher habitat in the absence of an
available DPS-wide model that displays changes in fisher habitat over
time. For our 2014 Proposed Rule, we used northern spotted owl habitat
as a surrogate for fisher habitat because that allowed us to estimate
losses through timber harvest. However, comments from peer reviewers
and the public criticized our use of spotted owl habitat and that it
may not properly represent fisher habitat. They also wanted us to
consider ingrowth of fisher habitat and its role in replacing habitat
lost to disturbances such as vegetation management and fire. Hence, we
have used OGSI-80 because it is a forest stand condition that is mapped
throughout most of the NCSO portion of the DPS. We do not consider it
as a model for fisher habitat and realize that it may include areas
that are not considered suitable for fishers, as well as not capturing
all suitable fisher habitat. It does, however, allow us to assess
regional-scale trends in the forests that contain the structural
elements consistently used by fishers (large snags, down wood, and
large live trees). Although several commenters believe this is not the
best available data, they have provided no alternatives to assess
trends in this structural condition (both loss and recruitment) at a
regional scale across the DPS.
Regarding the comment that OGSI-80 should be used to represent
habitat only in areas where the habitat type occurs, we do not consider
OGSI-80 a habitat type. It represents a structural condition used by
fishers. The OGSI-80 condition has the potential to be found anywhere
the forest vegetation zones upon which it was built occur (Davis et al.
2015, pp. 9-10, Figure 4), which is all forested zones within the NWFP
portion of the DPS. Hence, we are not applying it in areas outside of
its intended use.
(38) Comment: Regarding our use of OGSI-80 to document trends in
vegetation important to fishers, one commenter believed it is unlikely
that 80-year-old conditions would represent fisher habitat unless those
stands contained much older features. Another
[[Page 29581]]
commenter noted that in using OGSI to measure ingrowth of fisher
habitat, the Service has no idea if the stands with ingrowth have
structures needed by fisher. Hence, the Service should not assume that
recently developed OGSI-80 stands are of a quality 80 years post-
harvest to support fisher denning.
Our Response: See our responses above regarding our intent in our
use of OGSI-80. OGSI-80 stands are meant to represent mature forest
stands with old-forest remnants. The OGSI-80 threshold represents the
general point in the forest succession time scale when forests in the
NWFP area begin to develop stand structure associated with older forest
(Davis et al. 2015, p. 18, Figure 2) and includes older forest stands
on that succession time scale as well. For stands to meet the OGSI-80
threshold, they had to have greater than 10 percent canopy cover and
meet minimum tree and log size criteria, depending on the vegetation
zone (Service 2016, p. 102). For the Douglas-fir and white fir/grand
fir forest vegetation zones, which comprise much of the NCSO, OGSI-80
stands had to have at least one large live tree greater than 75 cm
(29.5 in) dbh or an average stand diameter greater 37.5 cm (14.25 in)
dbh. In addition, stands had a minimum snag size of 50 cm (19.7 in) dbh
and minimum log diameter of 25 cm (9.8 in) (Davis et al. 2015, pp. 17-
18, Table 5). Although average size of trees and snags used by fishers
are often substantially larger than the minimum tree and snag diameters
used to define OGSI stands, structures of this size have been used by
resting and denning fishers in study areas in the DPS (e.g., Lofroth et
al. 2011, pp. 38, 52, 57, 78). As we acknowledged in the vegetation
management section, OGSI-80 does not represent all fisher habitat, and
it may define areas that are not used by fishers, but it fairly
represents trends through time of forest structures used by fishers.
(39) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule seems to
significantly overstate the threats to the NCSO population and the
cited data seems contradictory. Specifically, the rule states that fire
is removing 8 percent of habitat/decade, yet the OGSI-80 analysis shows
only a 1 percent loss/decade, if that, because of ingrowth (which is
ignored when describing removal by wildfire). The rule further states
that ingrowth is expected to increase in the coming decade, which would
seemingly more than compensate for any loss from any of the
disturbances evaluated.
Our Response: We have revised our discussion of wildfire threats to
clarify the distinction between the Davis et al. (2015, entire)
analysis of loss of OGSI-80 forest to wildfire in the NWFP portion of
the DPS (which covers the NCSO portion of the DPS) and the analysis
done by the Service to more directly assess fisher habitat loss to
wildfire. We assume that the commenter's statement that fire is
removing 8 percent/decade of fisher habitat is referring to our
projection that 4 to 8 percent of fisher habitat would be lost to
wildfire over the next 40 years in the NCSO portion of the DPS, based
on our analysis done in the draft species report (Service 2014, p. 64).
That analysis was done by overlaying mapped fisher habitat (as
determined through modeling) with severity data from fires that had
occurred from 1984 to 2011. We updated that analysis to include more
recent fires in the NCSO area (data from 2008 to 2018) and found that 7
percent of fisher habitat was lost to high-severity wildfires during
that time period. Davis et al. (2015, pp. 30-31, Tables 6 and 7) looked
at loss of OGSI-80 stands to wildfire from 1993 through 2012, and their
results differ from ours likely for several reasons, with the primary
one being that they looked at a different time period than we did and
did not capture more recent fires. In addition, their analysis did not
include portions of the NCSO DPS that are outside of the NWFP area.
While forest ingrowth is expected to increase in the coming
decades, so is loss of habitat to wildfire. Hence, we cannot conclude
whether or not ingrowth will fully compensate for projections of loss
of fisher habitat. Upon reconsideration of the threats and the current
condition of the NCSO DPS, we have determined that the NCSO DPS of
fisher is not in danger of extinction throughout its range, nor likely
to become so in the foreseeable future.
(40) Comment: One commenter stated that habitat trend analysis
based on OGSI-80 is inadequate to fully describe fisher habitat
ingrowth. Growth is occurring on all lands excluded from OGSI-80
definition, yet growth is recognized on Federal lands only for the
OGSI-80 type. Growth on remaining occupied Federal lands and private
lands is acknowledged, but its importance is not considered. The
Service should consider the implications of estimated future habitat
ingrowth and fisher population response (see Powell et al. 2019 final
report, p. 25).
Our Response: We are not using OGSI-80 to quantify the amount of
fisher habitat ingrowth. It is a means to assess the trends of those
old-forest structural components used by fishers throughout the DPS
(see our responses above). Our analysis accounted for ingrowth on non-
Federal lands, in including the data from Davis et al. (2015, pp. 30-
31), which addressed ingrowth from both Federal and non-Federal lands.
Ingrowth was over three times greater on non-Federal lands than on
Federal lands (13.5 percent on non-Federal lands and 4.2 percent on
Federal lands, for a total ingrowth of 8 percent on the combined
ownerships over the 20-year analysis period) within the combined
provinces of the Oregon Klamath, California Klamath, California Coast
Range, and California Cascades within the NWFP area of the DPS.
Regarding the reference to Powell et al. (2019, p. 25), we have
incorporated their assessment of the status of the NSN reintroduced
population into our analysis.
(41) Comment: One commenter stated that habitat trends in the HCP/
CCAA covered lands within the NCSO will be stable to increasing over
the foreseeable future. Combined, these habitat trends do not support a
habitat-related likelihood of endangered status in the foreseeable
future.
Our Response: Upon further analysis and consideration of comments,
we have determined that the NCSO DPS is not in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future.
Implementation of Specific Conservation and Recovery Actions
(42) Comment: One commenter requested implementation of specific
conservation or recovery actions for fishers throughout the West Coast
States, including research and management activities that would improve
the overall landscape for fishers. The actions (e.g., cessation of
logging and trapping) were recommended to the Service because the
commenter believed they would ensure the long-term conservation of the
fisher.
Our Response: We appreciate the recommendations provided to
conserve fishers and their habitat. Although no comprehensive strategy
for fishers in the West Coast States exists, we acknowledge
conservation measures, strategies, and actions that may benefit fisher
conservation in this rule. We also recognize that specific management
activities can increase forest resiliency, and although there may be
short-term negative effects to fishers, certain actions are likely to
have an overarching, net beneficial impact for the conservation of
fishers in this DPS.
Other Stressors
(43) Comment: One commenter took issue with the following statement
from the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule: ``Now,
[[Page 29582]]
these small populations of Pacific Fisher are threatened by the use of
toxic rodenticides by marijuana growers, and increasing fire severity
exacerbated by climate change, along with loss of habitat due to
logging.'' The commenter states that increasing fire severity
exacerbated by climate change and loss of habitat due to logging are
theory only, and that only rodenticide is the real threat. The
commenter asserts that no significant climate change has taken place in
the western Cascades since 1650 and that there has been little to no
logging taking place that affects the habitat in question. Protection
of fisher from the threat of poisoning due to toxic rodenticides can,
and should be, done by local ordinance, not by putting our lands at
risk from further mismanagement by restricting activity and efforts to
reduce current catastrophic fuel loads. The commenter then went on to
state that the true danger to fisher is, and will continue to be,
catastrophic wildfire, and management efforts for that purpose must
continue unimpeded.
Our Response: Our threats analysis considered the best available
science and considered them holistically when making our final decision
(see Threats sections, above, for specific information about each
threat). In addition, we recognize the importance of fuels reduction
treatments that promote forest heterogeneity while retaining structural
elements important to fishers (for example, see Voluntary Conservation
Measures section, above).
Policy
(44) Comment: One commenter asserted that we should more closely
evaluate the five listing factors to ensure that we are acting on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, rather than
speculation or supposition.
Our Response: Our Policy on Information Standards under the Act
(published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
(www.fws.gov/informationquality/), provide criteria and guidance, and
establish procedures to ensure that our decisions are based on the best
scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to list a species (or DPS) as an endangered
or threatened species. We use information from many different sources,
including articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific status surveys
and studies completed by qualified individuals, Master's thesis
research that has been reviewed but not published in a journal, other
unpublished governmental and nongovernmental reports, reports prepared
by industry, personal communication about management or other relevant
topics, conservation plans developed by States and counties, biological
assessments, other unpublished materials, experts' opinions or personal
knowledge, and other sources. We have relied on published articles,
unpublished research, habitat modeling reports, digital data publicly
available on the internet, and the expert opinion of subject biologists
to aid in the determination that the SSN DPS of fisher meets the
definition of an endangered species.
Also, in accordance with our peer review policy published on July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited peer review of the 2014 Species
Report (Service 2014, entire) from knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles; their feedback was incorporated into the 2016 final Species
Report (Service 2016, entire), which remains the foundation of our
research along with our additional analysis presented in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule and this final rule. Additionally, we requested
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties over multiple comment periods for both the
2014 Proposed Rule and the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule (see Previous
Federal Actions, above). Comments and information we received helped
inform this final rule. Also, we revisited our threats analysis and
determined that the NCSO DPS is not warranted for listing.
(45) Comment: Three commenters stated that our discussion of the
PECE Policy in the proposed rule was insufficient, and asserted that we
should conduct a PECE analysis. Two of these commenters stated that
conducting this analysis would result in a decision that the species is
not warranted for listing. The third commenter also claimed that we
failed to consider numerous existing conservation efforts (e.g., MOUs
or HCPs that address wildfire risk and enforcement programs) that were
developed to benefit fishers and other species that inhabit forested
lands. The third commenter also claimed that the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule did not explain why the variety of existing regulatory mechanisms
and voluntary conservation measures are not at a scale or magnitude
sufficient to ameliorate the primary significant threats. Generally,
these commenters stated or implied that we could not reach a conclusion
to list the species as endangered or threatened when no analysis under
the PECE Policy or a cumulative effects analysis is conducted.
Our Response: Upon determining that our status assessments would be
conducted individually on the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS, we then evaluated
threats and any potentially ameliorating measures specific to each. For
the NCSO DPS, as discussed above in its specific Determination section,
our analysis found that the cumulative effect of threats acting on the
DPS at their current scale and magnitude did not cause the DPS to be in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, now or in the foreseeable future, especially given the DPS's
overall resiliency, redundancy, and representation. While we
acknowledged and evaluated various regulatory mechanisms and
conservation efforts, and the potential benefits they may provide to
the DPS, we did not rely on them for our conclusion that the NCSO DPS
did not meet the definition of either an endangered or threatened
species. As such, no PECE analysis was necessary.
For the SSN DPS, our analysis found that the cumulative effect of
threats acting on the DPS at their current scale and magnitude do cause
the DPS to be in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, in
light of the anticipated effect of the identified threats on the DPS's
overall resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Our analysis
included consideration of any potential benefits provided to the SSN
DPS by existing regulatory mechanisms, as well as potential benefits
that may result collaterally from existing voluntary conservation
efforts that were not developed for fisher conservation. In addition,
we considered the benefits resulting from an existing voluntary
conservation strategy, while noting that changed circumstances arising
from tree mortality events in the range of the SSN DPS will require
revisions to some of the strategy's conservation measures. While all of
the conservation efforts identified are being implemented and are
effective in some measure, and therefore do not require a PECE
analysis, we found that they are not
[[Page 29583]]
ameliorating the threats such that the SSN DPS did not meet the
definition of an endangered species.
(46) Comment: One commenter claimed that we did not explain what
new scientific and commercial information was developed between the
2016 withdrawal (81 FR 22710, April 18, 2016) and the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. The commenter stated that we changed our position
regarding the efficacy and desirability of establishing conservation
agreements even though developing and adopting these types of
agreements has expanded over time.
Our Response: The Summary of Changes section of the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule noted new information since completion of the 2016 final
Species Report (Service 2016, entire) that we evaluated in that
proposal. Our analysis of all new information since the 2016 final
Species Report was summarized and cited where applicable in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule and this final rule, including new information
received during the public comment periods on the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule.
With regard to conservation agreements, we heavily rely on
voluntary conservation efforts to provide for the conservation and aid
in recovery of listed species. As stated above, we have previously and
continue to believe that our relationship with private, State, tribal,
and Federal landowners is imperative for the conservation of fishers.
We intend to continue to work cooperatively with partners and assist
where possible.
(47) Comment: One commenter claimed that the Revised Proposed Rule
failed to provide a rational explanation for changing a conclusion (in
the 2016 withdrawal) that none of the threats were resulting in
species-level impacts. Additionally, the commenter asserted that we
eliminated discussion of species-wide threats and instead argued that
individual-level threats cumulatively rise to the level that listing is
required without showing how each of the potential threats actually
affects the species.
Our Response: In this final rule, the Service has examined again
the threats and impacts to the fisher populations, and that analysis
has led to the conclusions and rationale supporting this final
determination. Addressing the commenter's concern, our rationale in the
Threats sections in this final rule explains how the various threats
impact the species.
(48) Comment: One commenter argued that we should have analyzed
whether the West Coast DPS of fisher is endangered in a significant
portion of its range.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 14 regarding the
DPSs analyzed for this effort. As presented herein, our analysis of the
NCSO DPS indicated that it was not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range, nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Upon reaching that conclusion, we conducted an analysis to see if there
were any portions of the NCSO DPS that warranted further consideration
as being in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. We did not
find any such portion, and concluded that the NCSO DPS is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range. Regarding the SSN DPS, our analysis
indicated it was in danger of extinction throughout all of its range,
and therefore did not conduct an SPR analysis.
Population Estimates
(49) Comment: The proposed rule incorrectly states that the Hoopa
population was declining during 2005-2012 (84 FR, at 60285, column 2,
November 7, 2019). This conclusion is not valid because reported lambda
confidence intervals overlapped 1.0. The relevance of these data 7
years later is not evaluated. Also, as noted in comments on the 2014
listing proposal, this decline only brought the Hoopa population from
an atypical high density to a density similar to other populations in
the surrounding region, a fact not noted in the rule.
Our Response: While there is uncertainty in concluding whether the
population is increasing or decreasing given that the lambda confidence
intervals overlap 1, the lambda value of 0.992 for the Hoopa study is a
statistic that indicates a declining population during the time period
measured. We do not have additional population data from that study
area to indicate the population trend since 2012. Regarding the decline
from an ``atypical high density'' to a level similar to other fisher
populations in the area, the commenter is referring to Matthews et al.
(2011, p. 72) where fishers declined from a density estimate of 52 (per
100 km\2\ (38.6\2\)) to 14 between 1998 and 2005. This decline preceded
the 2005 to 2012 analysis. We do not know whether the slight population
decline observed between 2005 and 2012 is a continuation of the overall
decline from 1993, a reflection of a population that is currently
fluctuating around carrying capacity, or some other phenomenon.
(50) Comment: One commenter stated that Green et al. (2019b) (as
yet unpublished) acknowledged that their results only describe a short-
term situation and confined speculation about implications to their
discussion section. The 2019 Revised Proposed Rule did not acknowledge
that some of the fishers displaced by fire may have survived to
emigrate and may not have been lost to the larger regional population.
The commenter also stated that the proposed rule did not acknowledge or
evaluate the overlap in credible interval values from the post-fire and
pre-fire population estimates, nor that the upper credible value post-
fire estimates approached the mean pre-fire estimates (see Green et al.
2019b, Table 2 and Figure 2). The commenter asserted that the proposed
rule uncritically applies this estimate of post-fire loss to the
analysis that concluded there has been a 7 percent loss in habitat
since 2008. The commenter claimed that these oversights create
unacknowledged uncertainty as to the validity and application of this
estimate, compounded by issues with the 2014 modeling that was
addressed in comments at that time, but not acknowledged in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule.
Our Response: We elaborate more on Green et al. (2019b, entire) in
this rule, noting the observation that the post-fire population
estimates have confidence intervals that overlap with pre-fire
estimates, as well as the uncertainties in the ultimate fate of fishers
in response to wildfire.
Regarding our evaluation of fisher habitat loss to wildfires and
the commenter's assertion that we ``uncritically'' applied the estimate
of post-fire habitat loss in Green et al. (2019b, p. 6) to that
analysis, we are referring to the authors' definition of high-severity
fire, which is a basal area mortality of greater than or equal to 50
percent. We acknowledge that fishers may begin moving about these
stands within a decade or two after fires once stand growth is
initiated. However, our use of the Green et al. (2019b, p. 6)
definition of high-severity fire for the purposes of quantifying the
acres of fisher habitat that may be unavailable to fishers in the short
term is a reasonable approach and is not inconsistent with observations
of fisher avoidance of areas with less than or equal to 30 percent
canopy cover (Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10, footnote 7).
The use of the fisher habitat model continues to remain the best
available science regarding a large-scale map of fisher habitat across
the fisher range.
[[Page 29584]]
The comments and responses regarding the fisher habitat model in the
2016 Withdrawal do not lead us to conclude that our assessment of
habitat loss was flawed, particularly because it was done at the DPS-
wide scale. We cannot know whether the estimate of 7 percent of fisher
habitat lost based on modeling is precise, but it is a reasonable
estimate given the landscape-scale application of the fisher habitat
model.
(51) Comment: One commenter pointed out that the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule concedes that it is unknown whether fisher populations
are stable or declining. The commenter asserted that the proposed rule
should evaluate the implications of the lack of conclusive information
that fishers in the DPS are declining. Additionally, they stated that
the lack of conclusive evidence of decline should increase the burden
of proof that the other threats are indeed demonstrable, conclusive,
and serious. According to the commenter, given the substantial
expansion of the range, the Service must also consider whether the
population size within the NCSO and SSN subpopulations is likely to be
expanding, and if there is no evidence of population decline, evidence
of effects of threats must be conclusive.
Our Response: To clarify the statement relied upon by the
commenter, we stated in our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule that, based on
the information available regarding population growth data, we could
not conclude that populations were stable, increasing, or declining.
All three scenarios are plausible, given the available data. However,
we also note that the lack of conclusive evidence of a decline is also
not conclusive evidence that there is no decline. The commenter further
suggests that, in the face of inconclusive evidence for a population
decline, we must then provide conclusive evidence that threats acting
on a species must be demonstrable and serious. In response, we
reiterate that we did not conduct our analyses using an assumption that
populations are declining. We merely presented the available
information regarding population growth, while at the same time
presenting our analyses of how both threats and conservation measures
are likely to affect the viability of each DPS.
(52) Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule considers
Higley et al. (2014) and Green et al. (2019b), but does not evaluate
other material in our possession, specifically Powell et al. 2019,
which stated, ``Our best estimates of survival and reproduction are
consistent with a stable or growing population on Stirling.'' Although
this study differs from the Higley and Green studies in that it was
initiated in an area newly occupied by fishers, it was of similar
duration to both of them and the population size was similar to Higley
et al. (2019) and larger than that of Green et al. (2019b). The
conclusions from Powell et al. (2019) are worthy of qualified
evaluation in an objective assessment of fisher population trend in
NCSO.
Our Response: We incorporated information from Powell et al. (2019,
entire) regarding the growth trend of the Stirling (NSN) reintroduced
population into our analysis for this rule.
(53) Comment: One commenter stated that available scientific
information indicates that fisher population trends are not declining
and, in Northern California, they likely are stable or increasing. The
commenter asserted that these trends have probably contributed to the
substantial expansion of the species' range within the last 9 years.
The commenter concluded that there is no evidence of declines at the
population scale.
Our Response: In the Current Condition section for the NCSO DPS in
this final rule, we elaborate on population variability in general and
how that may affect any interpretation of the available data on NCSO
populations. We are not aware of any substantial expansion beyond the
NSN translocation and the subsequent growth of that subpopulation.
(54) Comment: One commenter stated that the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule describes significant uncertainty regarding fisher population
status and trend using prior data, despite the availability of
scientific studies that were developed with robust sample design and
effort. This commenter cited multiple references for inclusion such as
Furnas et al. 2017 and Powell et al. 2019.
Our Response: We incorporated the population estimate of Furnas et
al. (2017, p. 12) and the conclusions regarding the NSN subpopulation
into our analysis of the NCSO DPS (see the Current Condition section of
the NCSO DPS analysis). We incorporated a discussion of the fluctuating
nature of populations over time and acknowledge the fisher's ability to
sustain populations within the DPS in the presence of ongoing
stressors.
(55) Comment: One commenter claimed that the Service changed its
interpretation of confidence intervals with no rationale for the
change. They request that the Service explain how to interpret a
confidence interval so the public and reviewing courts will understand
the technical basis for the Service's conclusions.
Our Response: For population monitoring studies, we have moved away
from discussing confidence intervals around lambda, preferring instead
in this final determination to discuss the fluctuations in lambda we
see and how they likely represent normal fluctuations of a population
at or near carrying capacity (see NCSO Current Condition, above).
(56) Comment: One commenter noted that even though one catastrophic
wildfire damaged habitat for several individual fishers, it would be
improper for the Service to use one event as justification for listing
a species. Instead, the Service should be reviewing the entire
administrative record, and affording one event the weight it deserves
in terms of predicting overall population trends for the species.
Our Response: We have based our determinations for the NCSO DPS and
the SSN DPS on the best scientific and commercial data available. We
evaluated threats to the species and assessed the cumulative effect of
the threats under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For the NCSO DPS, we
determined that, in part, because of the population's widespread
distribution combined with resiliency and redundancy, it did not
warrant listing. For the SSN DPS, we concluded that, in part, the small
population size, combined with substantial habitat loss as a result of
recent tree mortality among other factors, warranted listing as
endangered. In conclusion, we have based our decisions on a multitude
of factors, not on a single event.
Rodenticides
(57) Comment: Several commenters asserted that rodenticides
(anticoagulants or neurotoxicants) are a significant threat to the DPS,
and that we underestimated the risks to the species in the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. Some of these commenters provided information on this
threat, such as illegal grow site activity in Oregon. Another commenter
expressed concerns related to staffing constraints on Federal lands
that have delayed and likely will continue to delay cleanup activities.
Another commenter was concerned that emotional reaction stimulated by
the proposed rule's description of the potential effects of
anticoagulant rodenticides and the potential extent of this threat may
influence the perception of the actual magnitude of the effect to
fishers. Additionally, the commenter claimed that the Service did not
address an important gap in present knowledge
[[Page 29585]]
about anticoagulant rodenticides within the species' range, i.e., the
degree to which exposure influences mortality of fishers within the
DPS, which the commenter asserts should have substantial bearing on any
conclusion about the magnitude of this threat.
Our Response: Toxicants, especially rodenticides, are a threat to
fisher in both the NCSO and the SSN DPSs. And, we agree that finding
and cleaning up after illegal grow sites is problematic from an
ecological, funding, and staffing perspective. We also agree that the
description of toxicant poisoning elicits an emotional response. At
this time, our evaluation of the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding toxicants and their effects on fishers
leads us to conclude that individual fishers within both DPSs have died
from toxicant exposure, fishers suffer a variety of sublethal effects
from exposure to rodenticides, and the potential for illegal grow sites
within fisher habitat is high. But it is difficult for us to accurately
estimate the effects these rodenticides are having to fisher as a whole
because we do not understand what proportion of the population is being
negatively affected (i.e., mortality or sublethal effects).
For the NCSO DPS, in spite of the ongoing impacts from toxicants,
the NCSO population seems to be withstanding this threat. For example,
the NSN subpopulation has grown to the point where the population is
self-sustaining, despite the fact that rodenticide exposure rates are
similar to other areas in California (Gabriel et al. 2015, entire;
Powell et al. 2019, p. 16). And, fisher at EKSA in the Klamath
Mountains in California near the Oregon border do not show a long-term
decline (Powell et al. 2014, p. 18), despite the fact that illegal grow
sites are in the area. For the SSN DPS, because this DPS is much
smaller, the lethal and sublethal effects of toxicants to individuals
have the potential to have population-level effects and reduce the
resiliency of the DPS as a whole.
(58) Comment: Two commenters stated that rodenticides are subject
to increased regulation in Oregon and California; although a timeframe
for this comment was not included, we assume the commenters were
referring to the time since recreational marijuana use became legalized
in Oregon (2015) and California (2016). Further, one commenter argued
that legalized and increased regulation will reduce trespass and
improve environmental cleanup and restoration of public lands damaged
by illegal marijuana cultivation (although no data was provided by the
commenter).
Our Response: As discussed in the general Exposure to Toxicants
section above, the data are mixed with respect to how legalization is
affecting illegal grow sites on public lands. For example, some
information shows that illegal grow sites on National Forests have
decreased in States where marijuana was legalized (Klassen and Anthony
2019, p. 39; Prestemon et al. 2019, p. 1). On the other hand, many law
enforcement officials have found no indication that illegal grow sites
have decreased with cannabis legalization, and it may in fact be
increasing, in part due to legalization providing an effective means to
launder illegal marijuana (Hughes 2017, entire; Bureau of Cannabis
Control California 2018, pp. 28, 30; Sabet 2018, pp. 94-95; Fuller
2019, no page number; Klassen and Anthony 2019, p. 45). Illegal grow
sites appear to be dropping in number but are getting larger (impacting
more fisher home ranges) (Gabriel 2018, pers. comm.). And, law
enforcement actions have caused illegal grow sites to disperse further
which makes them more difficult to locate (Gabriel 2018, pers. comm.).
At this time, it is difficult to reach conclusions about trends in the
abundance and frequency of illegal grow sites this soon after
legalization.
(59) Comment: One commenter claimed that it is valid to extrapolate
known levels of anticoagulant exposure to areas where little exposure
research has occurred (e.g., Stanislaus National Forest), given the
high rate of fisher's exposure in the Southern Sierras. The commenter
also claimed that the risk to small population(s) from rodenticides
undercuts any chance of population recovery.
Our Response: Illegal grow sites are distributed as discrete
patches throughout much of the NCSO and SSN DPSs. In the absence of
data, it is reasonable to assume the opportunity for fisher to be
exposed to toxicants is similar across much of the NCSO and SSN DPSs
(except at higher elevations where the growing season is shorter and it
is harder to grow marijuana). We also agree for the SSN DPS, because
this DPS is much smaller, the lethal and sublethal effects of toxicants
to individuals have the potential to have population-level effects and
reduce the resiliency of the DPS as a whole. As to the comment stating
the risk to small population(s) from rodenticides undercuts any chance
of population recovery, no further evidence was provided to support
this claim. It is the intent of the ESA that species will eventually be
recovered.
(60) Comment: One commenter asserted that voluntary conservation
efforts on non-Federal lands (CCAAs and HCPs) mitigate and decrease the
threats to fishers from toxicants, further articulating that these
conservation measures aggressively prevent illegal drug growing that
use anticoagulant rodenticides.
Our Response: We do not have information that allows us to compare
and assess the distribution of illegal grow sites on private versus
public lands. Nor do we have information on how many acres may benefit
from limiting access to private lands or information on how many
patrols are being added across what area and at what frequency.
Similarly, we do not have information that allows us to address how the
voluntary conservation measures may or may not be affecting illegal
grow sites. Further, not all voluntary conservation efforts include
measures that address illegal grow sites (e.g., the Oregon CCAAs). The
job of preventing illegal grow sites across large areas is extremely
difficult and comes with large staffing and resource needs. Although we
cannot quantify the effectiveness of these voluntary conservation
measures at lessening the threat from toxicant exposure at illegal grow
sites, we do expect limiting access will make it more difficult to
establish illegal grow sites. And increased patrols (depending on the
number of patrols and the scale of the landscape they are visiting)
will act as a deterrent. We support voluntary conservation efforts to
limit the impact of toxicant exposure from illegal grow sites to
fisher.
Range Expansion
(61) Comment: Several commenters claimed that the range of the
fisher in the NCSO subpopulation expanded. Some of these commenters
provided maps delineating occupied fisher range (as determined by CDFW
in 2010 and 2015), fisher location data from 1980 to 2019, and the
Service's West Coast Fisher DPS boundary in support of their
conclusion. Further, they questioned the magnitude of impact of
purported threats in light of this expansion.
Our Response: The maps provided by the commenters were developed
using data sets from different time periods and are not directly
comparable. Further, we did not receive data during the 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule comment periods to suggest that the range of the fisher
had expanded. The data we did receive confirmed what we understood
about the distribution of fisher and presented in our 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule. We find that the fisher NCSO DPS is widespread and
common to the point where listing is not warranted at this time.
[[Page 29586]]
Cumulative Effects
(62) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service's analysis of
cumulative effects was missing from the proposed rule. Further, the
commenter claimed that the threats analysis did not support the
Service's determination that the existing regulatory mechanisms are not
sufficient to address the cumulative impacts of the primary threats,
specifically referring to exposure to toxicants and habitat loss and
fragmentation due to wildfire and vegetation management. Additionally,
and in contrast, we note our receipt of a peer review comment on the
2014 Proposed Rule indicating that synergistic (cumulative) effects,
primarily climate change and its secondary effects from wildfire, pose
the most serious long-term threat to fisher populations, especially in
California.
Our Response: In evaluating the status of a species or DPS, we
identify both the threats acting upon it and any conservation efforts
or mechanisms that may ameliorate those threats. In identifying
threats, we describe them in the context of the five listing factors,
and evaluate the scale and magnitude of their effect on the species in
light of their impacts on the resilience, redundancy, and
representation of the species. A species' overall status with regard to
whether it warrants listing is based on our assessment of the
cumulative effect of all threats and ameliorating measures combined.
This cumulative analysis is found in the Determination section of both
our 2019 Revised Proposed Rule and this current document.
(63) Comment: One commenter claimed that little, if any, actionable
measures exist that could address the individual-level threats
identified by the Service in order to recover the species. The
commenter asserted that those who wish to help the species recover have
no clear direction forward, because the threats described in the 2019
Revised Proposed Rule are not assigned any values and often are
inconsistent with one another. The commenter claimed that many of these
identified threats are competing in nature. For example, the commenter
stated that severe wildfire can often be prevented by proper vegetation
management. Similarly, the commenter stated that vegetation management
can help prevent losses due to forest insects and tree diseases by
preventing widespread loss of forest vegetation.
Our Response: Threats acting on the fisher are complex and interact
with each other such that some threats can influence how other threats
act on the fisher. These influences can be either positive (e.g.,
appropriate vegetation management that may reduce forest vulnerability
to large-scale tree diseases or insect outbreaks) or negative (e.g.,
climate change influencing the potential for high-severity wildfires).
In this context of competing threat influences, the commenter further
suggests the need to provide a direction forward for those attempting
to recover listed species, as threats are not assigned any ``values.''
While we do not assign values to threats when conducting a status
assessment for a species, we identify those threats that may have the
most significant impacts to the species' viability. However, we also
note that efforts to recover a species, once determined it warrants
listing, are subsequently developed in light of all the identified
threats, where they occur within the species' range, and how they
interact with each other and the species and its environment. Recovery
actions may therefore be location- or habitat-specific, and address the
competing nature noted by the commenter.
Threatened v. Endangered
(64) Comment: Several commenters urged the Service to list the
proposed West Coast DPS of fisher as either endangered or threatened,
or urged listing without specifying which status is most appropriate.
In contrast, several other commenters urged the Service not to list the
taxon. Some comments urging the Service not to list the DPS are either
focused on not listing specifically in the State of Oregon or not
listing the NCSO subpopulation. All of these comments with varied
opinions are similar in content and rationales to those received on the
2014 Proposed Rule.
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.
There is significant information available on fishers and their habitat
in the West Coast States; we note there could always be more data for
most analyses to help lessen uncertainties.
The determination for the NCSO DPS is that listing is not
warranted. Regarding the SSN DPS, at this time the best available
scientific and commercial information suggests that the cumulative
impact of the stressors adversely affecting the SSN DPS of fisher is
such that listing the SSN DPS of fisher as an endangered species is
appropriate. Of greatest concern at this time are stressors related to
illegal rodenticide use, increasing high-severity wildfires, and
prolonged droughts that exacerbate the effects from wildfire, forest
insects, and tree disease. For all of these reasons and as detailed in
the Determination section of this document, we conclude that the SSN
DPS of fisher meets the definition of an endangered species under the
Act.
(65) Comment: Two commenters urged the Service to list the NCSO
subpopulation as a threatened species and SSN subpopulation as an
endangered species, the latter because they believe protections for
this small, isolated subpopulation are insufficient to prevent its
extinction and threats are more immediate (e.g., high-severity
wildfires and drought within its narrow range have increased in recent
years).
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 14 and Comment 64,
and the analysis for each DPS contained in this document.
(66) Comment: One commenter stated that the Rogue-River and
Siskiyou area, where the Ashland fisher population resides, is
recognized as a rich environment of floristic biodiversity. The
commenter stated that habitat characteristics deemed important for
fishers are equally critical for smaller mammals and birds that rely on
similar, if not exact, habitat requirements, and that species of
special concern that also cohabit this region, such as the northern
spotted owl, the Humboldt marten, and the northern flying squirrel,
would certainly benefit from the overarching protection of fisher
resources that this listing could provide. Further, the commenter
claimed that protection of habitat characteristics for both predator
and prey species would retain an ecological balance important to the
functionality of forest health and successional stages (e.g., insect
population control and seed dispersal roles by mammalian and avian
species).
Our Response: We cannot base our listing decision on the benefits
of habitat protection to other plants and animals. Section 4(a)(1) of
the Act directs us to ``determine whether any species is an endangered
species or a
[[Page 29587]]
threatened species because of any of the following 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 recognize the
ecological value of the Rogue River and Siskiyou area, as well as its
contribution to fishers and other plants and animals. However, this
information did not contribute to our overall determinations on the
status of the fisher.
Tree Mortality
(67) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that canopy cover
loss from tree mortality will increase fragmentation and reduce female
fisher gene flow. The commenter claimed that tree mortality is
resulting in extensive management along road corridors, which may
further impede connectivity.
Our Response: We discussed the best available science regarding
tree mortality in both the NCSO DPS and SSN DPS of this final rule.
Vegetation Management
(68) Comment: One commenter stated that the Revised Proposed Rule
fails to justify wildfire suppression and vegetation management
activities as threats. The commenter asserted that the Service should
evaluate the benefits associated with these activities, including the
decreased risk of severe wildfire when vegetation is managed
appropriately.
Our Response: Fishers use managed landscapes, particularly when key
elements such as den and rest trees are retained and when forest
heterogeneity is promoted (see Vegetation Management). There can be
benefits associated with vegetation management including decreased risk
of wildfire; however, there are potential trade-offs to these
activities (e.g., loss of fisher habitat to reduce wildfire risk in
fisher habitat), which should be weighed carefully when implementing
such actions.
(69) Comment: One commenter claimed that wildfire mitigation
activities, which can include vegetation management, can be effective
in long-term preservation of fisher habitat. Meanwhile, the commenter
pointed out that other Federal agencies, such as the Forest Service,
have recognized that active forest management is necessary to address
threats from widespread tree mortality. Overall, the commenter asserted
that the Service failed to acknowledge the beneficial effects on fisher
habitat associated with forest and fuels management.
Our Response: We acknowledge the benefit of carefully applied fuels
reduction strategies in reducing wildfire risk while also retaining
fisher habitat structural elements in the final Species Report (Service
2016, pp. 60, 68-69). We further acknowledge in this rule conservation
measures designed to reduce fire risk while also retaining fisher
habitat structural elements.
(70) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service provides no
analysis or supporting citations for its conclusory statements that
removal of ``snags and other large habitat structures'' for safety
reasons is a threat to the DPS.
Our Response: For clarification purposes, we use the term
``threat'' to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known
to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a
species, including alteration of habitat or required resources. Because
the fisher uses snags and large trees for resting and denning, their
removal would have a negative effect on the species and is, by this
definition, a threat. However, the mere identification of a threat does
not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of
an endangered or threatened species. For both DPSs, we weighed the
cumulative effects of the threats, along with existing conservation
measures, to make our determination.
(71) Comment: One commenter stated that over the last 5 years, a
variety of logging projects within the fisher's range have degraded
habitat. The commenter claimed that if current trajectories continue,
we can expect to see more habitat loss through logging.
Our Response: We recognize that timber harvest is and will continue
to be an ongoing activity within the fisher DPSs. However, it affects a
small portion of conditions used by fishers (as represented by the
OGSI-80 condition in the NCSO DPS). For the NCSO DPS, we concluded that
timber harvest (vegetation management), combined with other analyzed
threats and the existing population condition, are not acting on the
DPS to the degree that it meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act. Conversely, for the SSN DPS we concluded that
timber harvest (vegetation management), combined with other analyzed
threats and the existing population condition, are such that the DPS
meets the definition of endangered under the Act.
(72) Comment: One commenter observed that the proposed rule
discusses the effects of fire on fisher habitat and the extended time
to recover habitat features. The commenter stated that timber harvest
on Federal lands under existing management plans allows the removal of
live and dead woody features that are important components of denning
habitat. Furthermore, the commenter asserted that timber harvest does
not provide the same ecological effects of fire, also noting that
timber harvest, as currently practiced by the Forest Service and BLM,
can remove and downgrade fisher habitat.
Our Response: In this rule and in the final Species Report (Service
2016, pp. 60-77, 98-111), we acknowledge the wide variety of effects on
fisher habitat as a result of wildfire and vegetation management, as
well as the different ecological effects of fire vs. vegetation
management. We also recognize that timber harvest on Federal lands has
removed, and will continue to remove, fisher habitat and have factored
that information into our decision, concluding that such harvest
results in removal of a small portion of fisher habitat.
(73) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service is inconsistent
with our handling of vegetation management as a tool to reduce the risk
of large-scale, high-severity wildfire. The commenter noted that we
conclude it is a threat to fisher in the proposed rule, yet in the
recent finding for the California spotted owl, the Service concluded
that vegetation management was necessary to reduce the overall
potential for wildfires to be detrimental to California spotted owl
habitat and ultimately concluded that the owl did not warrant listing.
Our Response: The Service relied on conservation efforts to reduce
large-scale high-severity fires within the range of California spotted
owl that included specific measures to identify the greatest risks to
the owl's known occupied activity centers and prioritize fuels
reduction work that helps to protect the greatest number of activity
centers on Federal and private lands, while not reducing the quality of
the highest quality owl habitat in treated areas. While these
California spotted owl conservation measures benefit fisher, they do
not explicitly describe how implementation will benefit fisher. Since
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, we received new MOUs designed to reduce
high-severity wildfire that include specific conservation measures to
protect fisher habitat within the NCSO DPS. We have incorporated this
new information into our analysis.
(74) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service acknowledges in
the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule that it has
[[Page 29588]]
no basis to conclude that fuels reduction, restoration thinning, or
indeed any other management activity is a threat to the DPS; there is
no information on how different vegetation management activities affect
fisher subpopulations and their persistence within the DPS's range. The
commenter also claimed that the Service proceeds to conclude that some
forms of vegetative management, without specifying which kinds, ``may
threaten fisher.'' The commenter asserted that, based on this ``slim
reed,'' the Service then identified vegetative management as a threat
to the species, specifically including fuels reduction and restoration
thinning.
Our Response: As noted in our analyses, a wide range of activities
fall under the broad term, ``vegetation management.'' Thus, fisher
response to vegetation management activities can vary, depending on the
type of activity and its duration and magnitude (Service 2016, p. 110;
see Vegetation Management section). Our analysis of the effects of
vegetation management (changes in OGSI-80 stands or in GNN analyses;
actual loss of fisher habitat within the SSN) is somewhat driven by the
features measured in the data sets we used. That is, in the case of
OGSI-80 stands, activities that reduce canopy cover to below 10 percent
or remove large structural elements would be recorded as a reduction in
that stand condition. Such activities may include clearcuts and some
fuels reduction activities, but likely not thinning activities. Hence,
our analysis focuses on those vegetation management activities that
likely have the greatest effect on fishers in terms of removing canopy
cover or structural elements. These types of vegetation management
activities seem to have the greatest effect on fishers, although the
portion of the DPS affected by vegetation management is small.
Wildfire
(75) Comment: One commenter stated that the duration of impact from
high-severity wildfire is not adequately addressed. In particular, the
commenter claimed that the Service assumes that habitat lost to high-
severity wildfire is permanent, and therefore does not consider effects
into the foreseeable future. The commenter specifically stated that we
failed to consider fisher re-occupancy of the 1992 Fountain Fire, which
was salvage-logged with little retention of structures used by fisher.
Our Response: The Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression section of this
rule and the 2016 final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 62-66, 77)
include discussions of short- and long-term effects of wildfire on
fisher habitat. Further, the 2016 final Species Report includes a
discussion of fisher re-occupancy of the 1992 Fountain Fire area
(Service 2016, p. 66). Neither the 2019 Revised Proposed Rule, this
final rule, nor the 2016 final Species Report assumes that habitat loss
as a result of high-severity fire is permanent. The 2019 Revised
Proposed Rule and this final rule also consider vegetation ingrowth
(see Vegetation Management, above) and its ability to represent trends
in forest structural conditions used by fishers. Therefore, we have
already determined that habitat affected by fire is not permanent and
that fishers may re-occupy burned areas in the foreseeable future.
(76) Comment: One commenter stated that the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule does not make a conclusive statement regarding the degree to which
wildfire threatens fisher. The commenter cites Powell et al. (2019, pp.
23-27) and examples of fisher reoccupying burned areas (e.g., Fountain
Fire) as a reason to reconsider the threat of extinction from wildfire
within the foreseeable future. Specific to Powell et al. (2019), the
commenter claimed that extinction risk for fisher did not exceed 0.25
unless more than 40 percent of the simulated area burned, with a
decrease in risk when SPI management was included. Thus, the commenter
asserted there is a low risk of extinction when modeled at a high rate
of short-term, high-intensity habitat loss. Lacking any analysis, the
commenter believed the conclusion should be that the reported rate of
loss of habitat (7 percent over 10 years; citing 84 FR 60278, p. 60288,
November 7, 2019) is not likely to lead to endangered status in the
foreseeable future.
Our Response: Contrary to the comment, the 2019 Revised Proposed
Rule and this final rule include statements regarding the degree of
impacts of wildfire on fisher, at the species level and for both
subpopulations (see Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression). As we explain,
the impacts are highly variable and depend on forest type, landscape
location, size, and intensity of the wildfire. The conclusions reached
by the commenter regarding data in Powell et al. (2019, pp. 23-27)
appear to be extrapolations of data presented in figure 16 (Powell et
al. 2019, p. 26). We acknowledge the point the commenter brings
forward, but also note the model used by Powell et al. 2019 and the
data used to determine the loss of habitat at 7 percent per year are
different. As we describe in Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression above,
our analysis addressed potential habitat loss from wildfires. The
analysis completed by Powell et al. 2019 (entire) more generally
addresses area burned rather than the potential fisher habitat loss
within that area. Therefore, these two methods are not directly
comparable.
(77) Comment: Multiple commenters indicated that we did not analyze
the impact of fuel breaks and fuel reduction projects occurring under
MOUs for the northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl across
Federal, State, and private ownerships.
Our Response: The final rule includes an updated discussion of the
MOUs (see Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and Voluntary Conservation
Measures) suggested by the commenter. In summary, the MOUs have not
been in place very long; therefore, it is difficult to understand their
effectiveness and subsequently their actual benefits to fishers and
their habitat. However, we view these MOUs as important collaboration
tools that can achieve the conservation needs of the fisher across
large landscapes. We will continue to monitor these efforts into the
future.
(78) Comment: One commenter is concerned that entire populations
and subpopulations of fisher could be eliminated by stochastic wildfire
events unless steps are taken to increase protections. Two other
commenters are similarly concerned that climate-related factors are
predicted to increase wildfire activity; thus, the commenters stated
that forest management is a necessary tool to minimize the impacts and
spread of wildfire.
Our Response: We agree that the impacts of wildfire are a
significant concern for fisher (see Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression
section of this rule). We are optimistic that actions implemented under
voluntary conservation measures (e.g., MOUs, CCAAs, HCPs; see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms and Voluntary Conservation Measures section of
this rule), including forest management will provide protection of
fisher habitat in the near and long term.
(79) Comment: One commenter stated that the analysis of wildfire
was not thoroughly evaluated. Specifically, the commenter raised
concerns about the Service's use of OGSI-80 to determine a less than 1
percent loss of habitat per decade from wildfire and an analysis
conducted by the Service that showed a 7 percent of high and
intermediate fisher habitat loss to wildfire since 2008.
Our Response: We have revised our discussion of wildfire threats to
clarify the distinction between the Davis et al. (2015, entire)
analysis of loss of OGSI-
[[Page 29589]]
80 forest to wildfire and the analysis done by us to more directly
assess fisher habitat loss to wildfire. Please see our response to
comments above and the Wildfire and Wildfire Suppression section of
this rule.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. In development of the 2014 Species
Report, we sent letters noting our intent to conduct a status review
and requested information from all tribal entities within the
historical range of the West Coast DPS of fisher, and we provided the
draft Species Report to those tribes for review. We also notified the
tribes via email to ensure they were aware of the January 31, 2019,
document in the Federal Register to reopen the comment period on the
October 7, 2014, proposed rule to list the DPS as a threatened species.
As we move forward in this listing process, we will continue to consult
on a government-to-government basis with tribes as necessary.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the
Unified Interior's California-Great Basin Regional Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend part 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Fisher (Southern Sierra
Nevada DPS)'' in alphabetical order under Mammals to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fisher (Southern Sierra Nevada Pekania pennanti.. U.S.A. (Southern E 85 FR [INSERT Federal
DPS). Sierra Nevada, Register PAGE WHERE
CA). THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
5/15/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09153 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
