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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-08288

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** April 18, 2016
- **Citation:** 81 FR 22710

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA05
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

DATES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish this document.
Under the Endangered Species Act, a species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule. We issued a proposed rule to list a distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher in California, Oregon, and Washington (identified herein as the “proposed West Coast DPS of fisher,” “proposed DPS,” or “fishers in the west coast States”) in 2014. This document withdraws that proposed rule because we now determine that the threats identified in the proposed rule are not as significant as previously thought based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information available at this time. Our evaluation took into consideration an extensive amount of information and comments submitted during the two public comment periods regarding the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. At this time, we do not find any indication that fishers or their habitat in the west coast States are responding negatively to the stressors to which they are exposed to a significant degree at either the population or rangewide scales, nor are they likely to do so in the foreseeable future. The best available scientific and commercial data lead us to conclude that the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the proposed DPS meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act, and we are withdrawing the proposed rule.

The basis for our action.
Under the Endangered Species Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We now determine that although stressors to one or more populations of fishers in the west coast States exist, they are not causing significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales that would indicate that the magnitude, imminence, or severity of these threats are such that the proposed West Coast fisher DPS is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

Peer review and public comment.
We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our consideration of the status of the species is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal and our draft Species Report. We also considered all comments and information received during the comment periods. Public comments and peer reviewer comments are addressed at the end of this
Federal Register
document.

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document

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

Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

AR = anticoagulant rodenticides

BLM = Bureau of Land Management

CAL FIRE = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CCAA = Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances

CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game (see below)

CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act

CESA = California Endangered Species Act

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

DPS = Distinct Population Segment

EIS = Environmental Impact Statement

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESU = evolutionarily significant unit

FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FPA = Forest Practices Act

FPR = Forest Practice Rules

FR = Federal Register

GNN = gradient nearest neighbor data/maps

KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area

LRMP = Land Resource Management Plan

LSR = late-successional and old-growth forest reserve (under the NWFP)

MDL = Multi-District Litigation

MOU = Memorandum of Understanding

MTBS = Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (mapping data)

NCSO = northern California-southern Oregon native population of fishers

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA = National Forest Management Act

NSN = northern Sierra Nevada reintroduced population of fishers

NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan

OAR = Oregon Administrative Rules

ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OGSI-80 = old-growth structural index of 80 or more, per Davis
et al.
(20XX, entire)

ONP = Olympic Peninsula reintroduced population of fishers (Olympic National Park)

RCW = the Forest Practices Act, Revised Code of Washington

RMP = Resource Management Plan

Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SNFPA = Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

SOC = southern Oregon Cascades (Crater Lake) reintroduced population of fishers

SPI = Sierra Pacific Industries

SPR = Significant Portion of its [species] Range

SSN = southern Sierra Nevada native population of fishers

THP = timber harvest plan

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior

WDFW = Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR = Washington Department of Natural Resources

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the West Coast DPS (79 FR 60419; October 7, 2014) of fisher for a detailed description of the Federal actions concerning this proposed DPS that occurred prior to publication of the proposed listing rule. The proposed listing rule established a 90-day comment period, during which we held one public hearing and seven public information meetings. We received requests to extend this comment period on the proposed rule beyond the January 5, 2015, due date. In order to ensure that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule, we extended the comment period for an additional 30 days to February 4, 2015 (79 FR 76950; December 23, 2014).

On April 14, 2015, we reopened the comment period on our October 7, 2014, proposed rule to list the West Coast DPS of fisher for another 30 days (80 FR 19953). We also announced a 6-month extension of the final listing determination for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species to acquire new information and comments regarding toxicants and rodenticides and survey information in order to help assess distribution and population trends, due to disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data related to those issues. The comment period was reopened until May 14, 2015, and we announced that we would publish a listing determination on or before April 7, 2016.

Background

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

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

EP18AP16.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

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

America. This approach follows the scientific management principles and practices followed by the wildlife and land management agencies that have responsibility for management of both fishers and their habitat within the west coast States.

A detailed discussion of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's description, taxonomy, habitat, life-history characteristics (
e.g.,
reproduction), habitat description, habitat use (
e.g.,
dispersal and food habits), and distribution and abundance is available in the final Species Report (Service 2016, entire), prepared by a team of Service biologists. The team included biologists from the Service's Yreka, Sacramento, Arcata, and Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Offices within the Pacific Southwest Region, the Western Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Offices within the Pacific Region, staff from both the Pacific Southwest and Pacific Regions of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and staff from our national Headquarters Office. The final Species Report (Service 2016, entire) represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the biological status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, including present and potential future stressors to fishers in this DPS.

We consider a stressor to be any activity or process that may have some negative effect on fishers or their habitat—for example, timber harvest activities or wildfire that results in the removal of denning structures required by fishers for successful reproduction, or mortality of individuals from vehicle collisions, disease, or predation. Stressors are primarily related to human activities, but can be natural events and act on fishers at various scales and intensities throughout the analysis area. All species experience stressors; however, we consider a stressor to rise to the level of a threat to the species (or in this case the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers) if the magnitude of the stressor is such that it is resulting in significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales to fishers or their habitat. As described in our proposed rule (79 FR 60419, p. 60427), in considering what stressors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the DPS to the stressor to determine whether the DPS responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual negative impacts to the DPS. In our draft Species Report, we attempted to evaluate the magnitude of the effects of identified stressors to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and its habitat by quantifying the severity and scope of those stressors. That analysis required us to make assumptions or extrapolate impacts in an effort to quantify stressors in areas where stressor-specific information was not available. Our presentation of the scope and severity of stressors in quantitative terms may have created a false sense of precision with regard to the level of scientific accuracy underlying these estimates. To avoid this perception, in our final Species Report we use a qualitative approach to describe stressors (
i.e.,
stressors are categorized as low, moderate, or high, as defined in that Report). We use quantitative data wherever available, but if specific data are lacking, we rely on qualitative evidence to derive a qualitative descriptor of each stressor, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, rather than extrapolating. The quantitative measures from the draft Species Report are preserved and provided in Appendix C in the final Species Report. A key point for our determination regarding the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, however, is that our ultimate conclusion regarding the status of the DPS remains the same regardless of whether we consider the stressors to the DPS in quantitative or qualitative form: Fishers within the west coast States have been exposed to multiple stressors, in some cases over many decades, and per surveys over the past decade or more, the best available data do not indicate significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. In other words, stressors may be impacting some individual fishers or habitat in one or more populations, but the best available information does not show that the stressors are functioning as operative threats on the fisher's habitat, populations, or the proposed DPS as a whole to the degree we considered to be the case at the time of the proposed listing. Thus, we no longer find that the stressors are functioning as operative threats on the proposed DPS to the extent that listing is warranted (see
Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal,
below).

The final Species Report and other materials relating to this final agency action can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. [Note: In the draft Species Report and the proposed listing rule we identified “threats” to the proposed DPS. However, in this withdrawal and based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information available, as described above, we now refer to the threats identified in the proposed rule as “stressors,” because the best available data do not indicate significant impacts across the proposed DPS at either the population or rangewide scales, as described above].

Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal

At the time of our October 7, 2014, proposed rule, we had concluded that fishers are still absent from much of their historical range (the two original extant populations have not expanded), threats at the time of the 2004 finding are still in place, and some threats since the time of the 2004 Finding have increased or are new. We additionally concluded that it is too early to determine if the reintroduced populations will persist (79 FR 60419, p. 60436). Threats identified in the 2014 proposed rule included habitat loss from wildfire and vegetation management, toxicants, and the cumulative impact and synergistic effects of these and other stressors in small populations.

We have reviewed and considered the best scientific and commercial data available to us, including public comments, Federal and State agency comments, peer review comments, issues articulated at the public hearing and public meetings, and all new information brought to our attention during the public comment periods, relevant to the conservation status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. There was a significant amount of varied scientific, Service, other agency, and public opinion regarding the status of fisher both prior to, and following, the October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419), proposed listing of the West Coast DPS of fisher. The equivocal nature of the information regarding potential threats and status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher at the time of our proposed rule led us to ask the public for input on many questions we posed in the proposed listing rule to help us better understand the degree of threats faced by the proposed DPS and its status. By reconsidering the information available to us prior to the proposed listing as well as all new information received after the proposed rule was published, we have considered all best scientific and commercial information available at this time.

Upon careful consideration and evaluation of all of the information before us, we have arrived at a different conclusion regarding the status of the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers. In our proposed determination, we identified stressors that could impact the fishers in the west coast States negatively and identified some of those stressors (wildfire and fire suppression,

vegetation management, and small population size and isolation) as threats. We also identified exposure to toxicants (specifically ARs) and cumulative effects from multiple stressors as threats, although there were uncertainties at that time. We applied the standards we had laid out in our proposed rule: “This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of stressors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.” (October 7, 2014; 79 FR 60419, p. 60427).

We now conclude that the threats we identified are not of such imminence, intensity, or magnitude that they are manifesting in terms of significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. Further, we conclude that in the foreseeable future it is likely that fishers in the west coast States will continue to maintain their populations in the face of these stressors just as they have demonstrated the capacity to do so in recent times. We relied on an evaluation of the foreseeability of those stressors and the foreseeability of the effect of the stressors on the proposed DPS, extending this time period out only so far as we can rely on the data to formulate reliable predictions about the status of the proposed DPS, and not extending so far as to venture into the realm of speculation. In this case, many of the stressors fell into a foreseeable future timeframe within which we concluded the effects of stressors on the proposed DPS could be reliably projected out over a time period of approximately 40 years.

Therefore, we conclude that the stressors acting on the proposed West Coast DPS are not so great that fishers in the DPS are currently in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (threatened). We acknowledge that fishers no longer occur in areas of their historical range in Washington, Oregon, and California, and fishers in the west coast States are not actively expanding their occupied range. However, to meet the statutory standard for listing, we must determine that the proposed DPS is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Our evaluation of all of the best scientific and commercial data available does not allow us to draw this conclusion at this time. As we cannot conclude that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act, we must withdraw our proposed rule. Our complete rationale for withdrawing our proposal is outlined in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and Determination sections of this document.

Species Information

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the fishers in the west coast States is presented in the final Species Report (Service 2016, entire; Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041). The fisher is a medium-sized, light-brown to dark blackish-brown mammal, with the face, neck, and shoulders sometimes being slightly gray; the chest and underside often has irregular white patches. The fisher is classified in the order Carnivora, family Mustelidae, a family that also includes weasels, mink, martens, and otters (Service 2016, p. 8). The occurrence of fishers at regional scales is consistently associated with low- to mid-elevation coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood forests with characteristics of late-successional forests (large-diameter trees, coarse downed wood, and singular features of large snags, tree cavities, or deformed trees). Historically, fishers were well-distributed throughout the analysis area in the habitats described above. In Washington and Oregon, outside of the existing known reintroduced populations, fishers are considered likely extirpated (although on occasion individual fishers may be detected; specific to the Oregon Cascades, ODFW commented that the absence of fishers cannot be determined without dedicated surveys following a peer-reviewed protocol, and it is possible that fishers occur at low population levels). In California, recent survey efforts have not detected fishers in the northern Sierra Nevada, outside of the reintroduced population. Key fisher habitat includes forests with diverse successional stages containing a high proportion of mid- and late-successional characteristics. Throughout their range, fishers are obligate users of tree or snag cavities for denning, and they select resting sites with characteristics of late-successional forests. Late-successional forest characteristics are maintained and recruited in the forest through ecological processes such as fire, insect-related tree mortality, disease, and decay (
e.g.,
Service 2016, pp. 64, 123-124).

Fishers are found only in North America. Fishers on the west coast are found in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. The proposed West Coast DPS of fishers encompasses the area where fishers historically occurred throughout western Washington, western Oregon, and California to the Sierra Nevada (Service 2016, pp. 25-29). Currently, the fishers in the west coast States include two original native fisher populations (Northern California-Southwestern Oregon Population (NCSO) and the Southern Sierra Nevada Population (SSN)). There are three reintroduced populations—Olympic Peninsula Reintroduced Population (ONP) in Washington, Southern Oregon Cascades (SOC) Reintroduced Population in Oregon, and the Northern Sierra Nevada Reintroduced Population (NSN) in California. Based on survey data and genetic information submitted during the two public comment periods, the SOC and NSN reintroduced populations are now considered to be within the boundary of the NCSO population area (Service 2016, pp. 38-41). An additional reintroduction site in the South Washington Cascades was established in December 2015. Following are brief accounts of the populations and the new reintroduction site in the South Washington Cascades. Primary stressors and conservation activities are introduced in these summaries and described in more detail in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below, and fully evaluated and described in the “Review of Stressors” section of the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-162). Conservation efforts resulting from the plans and strategies being implemented within each of the population areas are described in detail in the final Species Report in either the “Conservation measures to reduce the stressors related to habitat or range of the species” section (Service 2016, pp. 115-122), or, when applicable, within specific stressor discussions of the final Species Report.

Here we describe (from north to south) the known native and reintroduced populations of fisher within the west coast States, as well as one recent reintroduction:

(1) Reintroduced Population—Olympic Peninsula (ONP)

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

Service lands on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington in January 2008 (Lewis and Happe 2008, p. 7). These reintroductions were complete at the end of 2010 with a total of 90 fishers (40 males and 50 females) relocated from British Columbia to Olympic National Park (Lewis
et al.
2011, p. 4). WDFW monitored translocated fishers for several years with radio-telemetry and were able to evaluate post-release survival, home-range establishment, reproduction, and resource selection of founding individuals. Initial findings indicate that survival was highly variable among release years (Lewis
et al.
2012, pp. 5-8), but project researchers confirmed reproduction seven times from 2009 to 2011 (Lewis
et al.
2012, pp. 9-10). A second monitoring phase consisting of noninvasive surveys of fisher distribution and relative abundance started during summer 2013, which was designed to determine whether a self-sustaining population of fishers has been established in the Olympic Peninsula. In 2013 and 2014 the monitoring team detected fishers in 14 of the 132 areas sampled, including 6 of the founding fishers and 7 new recruits to the population (Happe
et al.
2014; Happe
et al.
2015). Sixteen fishers were also detected with non-project cameras, trapping, and as carcasses (Happe
et al.
2014; Happe
et al.
2015). Monitoring of fishers on the Olympic Peninsula will continue for a number of years to determine both the extent of their distribution and success in establishing a population. Current indications (wide distribution and documentation of reproduction) are encouraging, but the success of this reintroduced Olympic Peninsula population will not be known for several years.

The Olympic Peninsula population is not physically or demographically connected to any other populations of fishers. Population size and trend information are not known at this time. The most significant stressors on this reintroduced population are predation and collisions with vehicles. Conservation efforts being implemented for this population are associated with the State of Washington Fisher Recovery Plan (Hayes and Lewis 2006), which is focused on reintroduction efforts, and NPS management in accordance with the Organic Act of 1916, as amended (54 U.S.C. 100100) and the National Park Service General Authorities Act of 1970 (54 U.S.C. 100101(b)) (see
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms,
below). In addition, in January 2016, the Service received an application for a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit from the WDFW to implement a draft Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for fisher. The Service announced the availability of the draft CCAA and EA, and a 30-day open comment period on February 29, 2016 (81 FR 10269). If the Enhancement of Survival Permit is issued, WDFW would hold the permit and be responsible for enrolling non-Federal Washington landowners in the CCAA and issuing certificates of inclusion; see the final Species Report for further details (Service 2016, p. 118).

(2) New Reintroduction Site—South Washington Cascades

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

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

Fishers in the SOC portion of the NCSO population stem from a translocation of 24 fishers from British Columbia and Minnesota to the area west of Crater Lake between 1977 and 1981 (Aubry and Lewis 2003, p. 84). Based on survey and research efforts starting in 1995 genetic evidence shows these fishers continue to persist (Drew
et al.
2003, p. 57; Aubry
et al.
2004, pp. 211-215; Wisely
et al.
2004, p. 646; Pilgrim and Schwartz 2014-2015, entire). Little survey work has occurred north of this population, although a radio-collared juvenile male dispersed 34 mi (55 km) northeast of this population to the Big Marsh area on the Deschutes National Forest (Aubry and Raley 2006, p. 5). West of Big Marsh, over the Cascade crest, the first verifiable contemporary detection of a fisher on the Willamette National Forest occurred in 2014 (Wolfer 2014, pers. comm.); however, genetic evidence was not obtained to determine whether or not this individual was from fishers reintroduced from British Columbia and Minnesota.

Information is not available on population size for the SOC portion of NCSO population. Recent detections of fisher in areas where they were not previously recorded (
e.g.,
north and eastern portions of Crater Lake National Park and portions of the Lakeview and Medford BLM study area) may or may not represent an expansion of this population. However, based on the current survey efforts along with multiple unsolicited sightings of fishers in the past few years on the Lakeview District BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area (KFRA) where fishers were previously not detected (based on protocol surveys conducted from 1998 to 2001), fishers are now being detected in the KFRA (Hayner 2016, pers. comm.).

Fishers in the NSN portion of the NCSO population stem from a 2009 to 2012 translocation of 40 fishers from Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties, California, to the SPI Stirling Management Unit in Butte, Plumas, and Tehama counties, California. Ongoing monitoring of fishers that were reintroduced have confirmed that fishers born onsite have established home ranges and have successfully reproduced. Trapping efforts in the fall

of 2015 as part of ongoing monitoring of the reintroduced population indicate a minimum of 49 fishers (34 females, 15 males), 9 more individuals than were originally introduced.

Population size estimates for the approximately 17,375 mi
2
(45,000 km
2
) NCSO population (excluding the SOC and NSN reintroduced populations) using various methodologies range from a low of 258-2,850 individuals, based on genetic data (Tucker
et al.
2012, pp. 7, 9-10), to a high of 4,018 individuals based on extrapolation of data from two small study areas within the NCSO population to the entire NCSO population (Self
et al.
2008, pp. 3-5). A recent 2015 estimate of 632-1,165 fishers was based on data collected by CDFW as part of a meso-carnivore monitoring program in northern California (Furnas
et al.
2015, pers. comm.). It is important to note that the sampling area for the CDFW study excluded southwest Oregon and the coastal redwood of California; thus, this estimate is not representative of the entire area within the NCSO population.

Population trend information for the NCSO population is based on two long-term studies. The NCSO population includes the area in both the SOC and NSN reintroduced fisher populations.

(1) The Hoopa study area is approximately 145 mi
2
(370 km
2
) in size and represents the more mesic portion of the NCSO population area. Fisher studies have been ongoing since 1996. The population trend from 2005-2012 indicates a lambda (population growth rate) of 0.992 (C.I. 0.883-1.100) with a higher lambda rate for females 1.038 (0.881-1.196) than males 0.912 (0.777-1.047) (Higley
et al.
2014, p. 102, Higley 2015, pers. comm.). Demographic parameters are showing a decrease in annual male fisher survival. A lambda of approximately 1.0 indicates a stable overall population trend.

(2) The Eastern Klamath Study Area (EKSA) is approximately 200 mi
2
(510 km
2
) in size and represents the more xeric portion of the NCSO population area. Monitoring has been conducted since 2006. Estimates for lambda from 2006-2013 are 1.06 (C.I. 0.97-1.15) (Powell
et al.
2014, p. 23). This lambda of approximately 1.0 indicates a current stable population within the study area.

The major stressors experienced by the NCSO population are wildfire and fire suppression activities, vegetation management, ARs, and, in some areas, predation. Within the Oregon portion of the NCSO population two fishers were tested for the presence of ARs; exposure to ARs were found in both. Conservation measures that benefit fishers include those being implemented within the portion of the range covered by the NWFP, including potential measures associated with section 7 consultations in overlapping northern spotted owl (
Strix occidentalis caurina
) designated critical habitat. The principal conservation efforts currently in progress in Oregon include the recently signed intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for fisher conservation, and, upon finalization, the western Oregon fisher CCAA (81 FR 15737). A strong desire to implement the western Oregon fisher CCAA is exhibited by us receiving, as of mid-March 2016, letters of intent from nine different landowners (private and ODF) covering nearly 2 million ac (809,371 ha); most of these letters also commit to financial or in-kind support of a coordinated program of work to increase our understanding of fisher populations and potentially reintroduce fishers in Oregon. In addition, ODFW has committed, via a separate letter of intent, to submit a budget request of $1,000,000 to the Oregon legislature to fund and administer the CCAA and other fisher conservation actions in Oregon. For the portion of the NCSO population in California, ongoing monitoring efforts for the SPI Stirling Management Area CCAA indicate the reintroduction efforts may result in establishment of an additional fisher population in the northern Sierra Nevada. The NEPA process will soon be initiated for the approximately 1.6 million-ac (647 thousand-ha) CCAA for fishers on SPI ownership in the Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada mountains. If completed and implemented, this proposed CCAA could secure habitat for the fishers for the 10-year time period of the permit and likely retain important fisher habitat components into the future.

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

The SSN native population of fisher is small and is geographically separated from the remainder of the fishers in the west coast States. The SSN population is found in Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern counties in California. While historically the population extended farther north, today the northern limit is the Merced River in Yosemite National Park in Mariposa County. The southern limit is the forested lands abutting the Kern River Canyon, while the eastern limit is the high-elevation, granite-dominated mountains, and the western limit is the low-elevation extent of mixed-conifer forest. Multiple lines of genetic evidence suggest that the isolation of the SSN population from other populations of fisher within the west coast States is longstanding and predates European settlement (Knaus
et al.
2011, entire; Tucker
et al.
2012, entire; Tucker 2015, pers. comm., pp. 1-2).

No census of the SSN fisher population has been conducted. Estimates for the SSN population range from a low of 100 to a high of 500 individuals (Lamberson
et al.
2000, entire). A recent estimate of 256 female fishers was based on available habitat (Spencer
et al.
2016, p. 44). Other population estimates are: (1) 125-250 adult fishers (Spencer
et al.
2011, p. 788); (2) fewer than 300 adult fishers (Spencer
et al.
2011, p. 801); and 276-359 fishers, including juveniles and subadults (Spencer
et al.
2011, p. 802). The latter estimate was based on extrapolation from portions of the population where fishers have been intensely studied to the range of the entire population.

An 8-year monitoring study that sampled 139.5 units (
i.e.,
sample sites)/year showed no declining trend in occupancy. However, this study had been designed to be run for 10 years while sampling 288 units/year and was intended to have an 80 percent probability of detecting a 20 percent decline over 10 years (Zielinski
et al.
2013, p. 11; Tucker 2013, p. 82). As a result of the smaller sample size and shorter duration, the results of this study must be considered inconclusive. Another study of radio-collared fishers monitored from 2007 through 2014 in the SSN population showed the survival rate (calculated using demographic parameters) of adult males, but not females, is lower than other populations in the west coast States, and estimates a lambda of 0.97 (C.I. 0.79-1.16) (Sweitzer
et al.
2015a, pp. 781-783; Sweitzer
et al.
2015b, p. 10). Population growth in the SSN population area is thus estimated to trend less than 1.0; the authors suggest the population is not in persistent decline, however, but is offset by periods of stability or growth (Sweitzer
et al.
2015a, p. 784). Although the authors express concern for the population and the need for continued monitoring, their research suggests a basically stable trend when considered together with information on population size and density (Sweitzer
et al.
2015b, p. 10).

The major stressors on this population are wildfire and fire suppression activities, vegetation management, high mortality rates from predation, and small population size. Potential conservation measures include the development of the Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Strategy (Spencer
et al.
2016, entire).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

A thorough analysis and discussion of the stressors that may impact the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is included in the final Species Report (Service 2016, entire) associated with this document (and available at
http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041). All potential threats of which we are aware that are acting upon fishers or their habitat within the proposed West Coast DPS currently or in the foreseeable future were evaluated and addressed in the final Species Report, and are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Many of the stressors on fisher populations and their habitat are present throughout the proposed DPS's range, although their effects vary across the range. For example, the population and habitat in the SSN population area likely will continue to be more susceptible to the various stressors than will the NCSO population area given SSN's smaller population size and more limited amount of unoccupied, suitable habitat available. Nevertheless, at this point in time, our review and consideration of the best available information does not indicate that loss of or declines in these populations, or a contraction of their ranges, is either ongoing or is likely to occur in the foreseeable future (see “Review of Stressors” section of the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-162) and Determination section of this document). As discussed in the stressor summaries and Determination sections, below, our evaluation of the best available information leads us to conclude that the native populations will persist into the future (which is also likely for the reintroduced populations, although more time is needed to confirm their persistence with certainty), and that as a whole the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Although our finding that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is not endangered or threatened does not depend on it, we anticipate that the fishers in the new reintroduction in the South Washington Cascades will likely survive and reproduce (Lewis 2013, pp. 4-5), based on our past experience with other fisher reintroductions. If successful, the South Washington Cascades fisher reintroduction will provide an additional population in the future that would provide even greater insurance against the fisher's risk of extinction in the west coast States caused by possible catastrophic events (see redundancy discussion under the
Small Population Size and Isolation,
below). Finally, the best available information indicates that these populations will continue to receive direct or indirect management that we reasonably can predict will contribute to the conservation of fishers in the west coast States as a whole, although these future conservation activities (and the anticipated future population in the South Washington Cascades), are not relied upon as part of the basis for this decision.

The stressors that are of highest current or future scope and magnitude within the range of the proposed DPS (
i.e.,
the most significant stressors overall across the range of the proposed DPS) include those that may result in current or future habitat destruction or modification and natural or human-induced stressors affecting fishers in the west coast States (
i.e.,
wildfire and fire suppression, and vegetation management) and exposure to toxicants (specifically ARs). These impacts, along with those that are currently considered less significant or minor (
i.e.,
rural or suburban development, forest insect and tree diseases, climate change, trapping and incidental capture, research activities, disease or predation, collisions with vehicles, and small population size), also have the potential to act cumulatively or synergistically to negatively affect the populations of fishers in the west coast States.

Forest insects and tree diseases were discussed as stressors in the draft Species Report with respect to their influence on habitat loss and fragmentation and the potential synergistic effects associated with climate change (Service 2014, pp. 72, 146, 170-172). However, this stressor was not summarized in the proposed listing rule. We have included a summary of forest insects and diseases in this document.

We recognize that multiple stressors have impacted individuals of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and their habitat, as well as populations in some cases, and that these stressors may be considered ongoing (and expected to continue into the future) in certain areas within the proposed DPS's range. Given these ongoing impacts, and the various recommendations or concerns expressed from partners, species experts, and the public, we intend to continue monitoring the biological status of the populations of fisher within California, Oregon, and Washington through active Service-directed science efforts and through the efforts of cooperating Federal, State, and private entities. If at any time in the future the stressors appear to be rising to the level such that listing may be warranted, we will initiate a status review as appropriate.

Following are summary evaluations of stressors assessed for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher: (1) Wildfire and fire suppression; (2) forest insects and tree diseases; (3) effects of climate change; (4) vegetation management; (5) development (including linear infrastructure); (6) trapping and incidental capture; (7) research activities; (8) disease or predation; (9) collision with vehicles; (10) exposure to toxicants; (11) small population size and isolation; and (12) cumulative or synergistic effects. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is also evaluated. We have evaluated these stressors consistent with the five statutory factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, although the factors are not set forth in this document.

The final Species Report (found at
http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041) presents the best available information currently known: We note that the final Species Report now describes the magnitude (scope and severity) of various stressors using the terms low, medium, and high. While we have also included as Appendix C the more quantitative evaluation we employed for the draft Species Report, that quantitative analysis implied a greater level of certainty or precision in assessing effects than is supported by the underlying information. The final Species Report includes: (1) A discussion of the stressors that may be impacting the proposed West Coast DPS of fishers, based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information available at the time of the withdrawal; (2) inclusion of corrections

or clarifications, where applicable, such as those identified by peer reviewers or other public commenters; (3) inclusion of significant new information since the proposed listing rule, where applicable; and (4) summary conclusions of our assessment of the best scientific and commercial information currently available.

The following sections provide a summary of the past, current, and potential future impacts to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher and its habitat. Please see the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 53-162) for a full evaluation of the stressors evaluated for the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher.

Wildfire and Fire Suppression

Our evaluation of the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat included those activities associated with fire suppression that may result in removal of fisher habitat (for example, backburning, fuel breaks, and snag removal). In our proposed listing rule, we stated that the naturally occurring fire regimes vary widely across the analysis area, and, therefore, the effects of wildfire are also likely to vary geographically (Service 2014, p. 58, 62, Figure 13). In general, high-severity fire has the potential to permanently remove suitable fisher habitat, and is very likely to remove habitat for a period of many decades while the forest regrows. Moderate-severity fire may also remove habitat, but likely in smaller patches and for a shorter length of time. Low-severity fire may reduce some elements of fisher habitat temporarily, but in general is unlikely to remove habitat.

Fishers' behavioral and population responses to fires are unknown within the West Coast range. Based on fisher information outside of the West Coast range and other related species, it is possible that large fires, particularly those of higher severity and larger scale, could cause shifts in home ranges and movement patterns of fishers in the west coast States, lower the fitness of fishers remaining in the burned area (due to increased predation, for example), or create barriers to dispersal. Fire suppression actions and post-fire management have the potential to exacerbate the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat. We indicated previously that the scope and severity for this stressor were the highest for the Sierra Nevada and northern California-southwestern Oregon areas; these are the two areas where the two remaining original native populations of fishers are found. We also stated that because there is evidence of increasing fire severity in yellow pine-mixed-conifer forests, which include the majority of fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada, the estimate of the severity of stressors related to wildfire is likely to be an underestimate. A number of other conclusions were drawn from our analysis, as described in the “Wildfire and Fire Suppression” section of the proposed listing rule and draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 58-71). Overall, we determined that the scope and severity for this stressor were lower throughout most of Oregon and Washington than the Sierra Nevada and northern California-southwestern Oregon areas; however, high-severity fires that remove fisher habitat have the potential to further disrupt habitat connectivity and availability (Service 2014, pp. 57-71).

We concluded in the proposed listing rule that wildfire and fire suppression were a threat to fisher habitat, including in the future, based on known or perceived effects to fishers outside of the West Coast range and other related species and because the frequency and size of wildfires is increasing and will continue to increase in the future. We predicted that large fires (particularly those of higher severity and larger scale) would cause shifts in home ranges and movement patterns, lower the fitness of fishers remaining in the burned area, and create barriers to dispersal. We also:

(1) Considered fire and fire suppression to be particularly problematic in the SSN because of the narrow band of habitat that comprises SSN and the small population size;

(2) Stated that the degree to which fire-related effects impact NCSO was lower than SSN because the NCSO does not exist in a narrow band of habitat and covers a larger area;

(3) Indicated that fire and fire suppression will likely have some negative effect on NCSO because fire will further decrease connectivity in the fragmented habitat of NCSO (noting that it was difficult to fully determine the impact at NCSO because the locations and severities of future fires relative to important habitat components were not known at [that] time; and

(4) Indicated that scope and severity of fire are lower in Washington and Oregon given that much of this area is considered to be unoccupied but that fire could have a negative impact on existing fisher populations if fires occur within or in proximity to occupied areas (again, similar to NCSO, noting that the locations and severities of future fires relative to important habitat components were not known at [that] time).

In conducting our updated analysis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we reviewed information provided by commenters and peer reviewers, and made corrections and clarifications of wildfire information in the final Species Report as necessary, and have clarified the discussion of the effects of wildfire on ecosystems. This approach contributed to our goal of describing as accurately as possible whether the best available information indicates if this stressor is causing impacts to fishers or their habitat in the west coast States, and if so, whether those impacts are resulting in significant impacts to individuals, populations, or the proposed DPS rangewide. For example, in the final Species Report:

(1) We clarified the fire severity categories, particularly as they relate to “mixed-severity” fires (Halofsky
et al.
2011, entire).

(2) We included and described the significant beneficial aspects of wildfire on the landscape, such as creation or maintenance of some structural elements used by fishers, or how some areas of high-severity fire may contribute to the regeneration of the hardwood component of mixed-conifer forest used by fisher (Cocking
et al.
2012, 2014, entire, for example).

(3) We noted how low-severity fires can be critical in the creation or maintenance of reproductive habitat for fishers by creating fire scars that enhance the formation of cavities that serve as denning sites (Weir
et al.
2012, pp. 237-238).

(4) We described how fishers in areas that experience mixed-severity fires could benefit from associated increases in mammalian prey species, including how fishers may use burned forests for foraging (
e.g.,
Hanson 2013, p. 27).

(5) We noted how fragmentation due to fire can increase risk of predation due to the lack of cover and higher abundance of predators in fragmented landscapes (Naney
et al.
2012, pp. 7-8).

(6) We included discussion of studies (Shatford
et al.
2007, pp. 144-145; Donato
et al.
2009, p. 142; Halofsky
et al.
2011, p. 14, Baker 2014, p. 26; Cocking
et al.
2014, pp. 94, 102-104) that suggest that systems characterized by highly variable natural disturbances, such as mixed-severity fire regimes, are relatively resilient to recurrent severe fire, and that severe, short-interval fires do not result in loss of species richness, including hardwood and conifer species (suggesting that such fires promote vigorous regeneration of mixed-conifer forest).

In sum, these corrections, clarifications, and revised discussions in the final Species Report provide a clearer picture of the degree to which fisher may be able to use burned

landscapes and potential effects of wildfire to fisher habitat across the landscape.

When considering all scientific and commercial information available regarding wildfire and fire suppression activities (including new information since the time of the proposed listing rule), we maintain that wildfire is a natural ecological process that occurs throughout the range of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. As stated above, there are some indications that wildfire may be increasing in terms of frequency, severity, and magnitude, although these projected increases are greater in California and southern Oregon than areas further north. Whether fires may be increasing in severity is subject to continuing debate; thus, it is necessary for us to use our best professional judgment based on the best fire effects information available. Studies on the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat, although limited, demonstrate a variety of both positive and negative consequences, depending on the specific circumstances (see “Effects of fire on fisher habitat elements” in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 63-65)). If the severity and extent of the fire is such that substantial areas of canopy and large trees are lost, it may take decades for the area to support fisher reproduction. If the fire severity is low or mixed, important habitat elements to fisher can be both created and removed within a home range, such that the burned habitat may continue to support both fisher foraging and reproduction. The degree to which fire may affect fisher populations is unknown, but all indications are that the population response would be specific to the forest type, landscape location, size, and intensity of the fire.

Another factor to consider regarding wildfires is the potential for overlay of future fires with fisher-occupied habitat, and the subsequent potential likelihood of wildfire-displaced fishers moving successfully into nearby suitable unoccupied habitat. Although fishers are not abundant throughout their known current range, their distribution where found covers very large geographic areas of habitat. Because of this broad distribution, even in the event that wildlife frequency and severity increases rather than decreases, it is extremely unlikely that any wildfires would be of such magnitude that they would cover an entire fisher population area. Therefore, while future wildfires may affect individual fishers, with the potential of displacement rather than injury or death, there will likely also be unaffected fishers outside the wildfire zones.

Coupled with this likelihood is the fact that throughout the analysis area, there are numerous areas of suitable but currently unoccupied habitat. While some of these areas may be inaccessible to extant fisher populations, due to being far removed from the known current fisher distribution or to existing landscape patterns that are not conducive to dispersal, there are other areas of suitable unoccupied habitat that are adjacent to occupied habitats or connected to them via dispersal-conducive landscapes. This combination of available and accessible suitable habitat with the likelihood that any future wildfires would be extremely unlikely to affect entire fisher population areas, suggests as it relates to wildfires that habitat is not limiting for fishers across the west coast States. We also note that there are active hazardous fuels reduction plans and projects being actively implemented throughout the analysis area (such as those on Federal lands described in the National Fire Plan, or on private lands in California via California Fire Safe Council or CAL FIRE wildfire prevention grants (see “Conservation measures that may reduce impacts of fire effects” in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 76-77)), which should help reduce the future frequency, size, and severity of wildfires.

Our updated analysis of the best information now available leads us to change our previous conclusion that wildfire and fire suppression rise to the level of a threat, particularly given that the best available data do not indicate habitat impacts are significant at either the population or rangewide scales. In other words, following wildfire events and subsequent salvage operations, no surveys or other information have shown this stressor to be functioning as an operative threat on the fisher's habitat to the degree we considered to be the case at the time of the proposed listing. We have reached this conclusion given:

(1) Our evaluation of past and continued predicted impacts of wildfire in the future across the landscape within the range of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher;

(2) The beneficial as well as negative aspects of wildfire to fisher habitat;

(3) The beneficial aspects of current and continued management activities into the future to help reduce wildfire impacts (
e.g.,
fuels reduction projects that reduce the risk of high-severity wildfires while retaining appropriate habitat structures, composition, and configuration for fishers); and

(4) The presence of suitable but unoccupied habitat available to the fisher throughout the west coast States (although to a greater extent in the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range.), coupled with the extremely low likelihood that future wildfires would impact entire fisher population areas, and the lack of data to demonstrate that this stressor is manifesting itself to a significant degree across the proposed DPS such that the fisher populations in the west coast States are in decline across its range due to significant wildfire impacts to their habitat.

We acknowledge that individual fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS (or potentially portions of one or more populations) likely are impacted as a result of the level of impact this stressor is having on fisher habitat, particularly to a greater extent in the California portions of the proposed DPS's range, and that these impacts to fisher habitat could increase in magnitude in the future within portions of the proposed DPS's range. However, the best available information does not suggest that fisher habitat will experience significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales in the future as a result of wildlife fire and suppression activities given: (1) Future wildfires are expected to continue at a similar rate and severity across the landscape as has been occurring in the recent past, (2) wildfires are not expected to be high severity in all cases such that they destroy habitat for entire populations, (3) forest ingrowth is expected to continue to provide suitable habitat across the proposed DPS's range to help offset some future wildfire impacts, and (4) future low- or mixed-severity wildfires are expected to continue to provide some benefits to fisher habitat to help offset some future wildfire impacts.

Climate Change

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

be hotter and drier, with more frequent heat waves. In the northern portion of the analysis area, winters will likely become wetter, but even these areas will likely experience increased water deficits during the growing season. Climate modeling projections are done at a large scale, and effects to species can be complex, unpredictable, and highly influenced by local-level biotic and abiotic factors. Although many climate models generally agree about the changes in temperature and precipitation, the consequent effects on vegetation are more uncertain. Therefore, it is not clear how changes in forest type, species composition, or growth rate will affect the availability of fisher habitat and its ability to support fisher populations (Service 2014, pp. 71-84). Consequently, we concluded that climate change was not viewed as a threat to fisher habitat at that time or in the foreseeable future.

Based on our evaluation of the best available information known at this time, we reaffirm our previous conclusion that climate change does not rise to the level of a threat now nor do we anticipate it as a threat in the foreseeable future. Most predictions of future conditions are relatively general in nature, and provide little specificity with regard to timeframes or geographic region of occurrence that would be informative in terms of our consideration of future habitat conditions for fishers within the analysis area. This same viewpoint applies even after taking into consideration new information available since the time of the proposed listing rule. Overall, we place relatively greater weight on studies or models that are more narrowly focused on fisher habitat needs, specifically, or are downscaled to our geographic region of interest. Studies specific to predicting the effects of climate change on suitable fisher habitat have produced a wide range of results. Ecotype conversion to woodland, shrubland, or grassland would result in the loss of suitable fisher habitat. This type of shift is predicted, for example, in the southern Sierra Nevada (Gonzalez
et al.
2010, Fig. 3; Lawler
et al.
2012, p. 388). On the other hand, shifts from conifer forest to hardwood-dominated mixed forest in the southern Sierra Nevada or Klamath region are unlikely to have negative effects on fishers, and the species' response may be relatively neutral to such a change (Lawler
et al.
2012, pp. 385-386; Loarie
et al.
2008, p. 4 and Fig. 4). Some studies have suggested that fishers may experience an overall net gain of suitable habitat in response to climate change, for example due to reduced snowpack, or that areas inhabited by fishers will remain in climate refugia (Burns
et al.
2003, p. 11476; Olson
et al.
2014, pp. 93, 94, 97). Others predict that fisher distribution will remain largely stable (Spencer
et al.
2015, p. 143 and Table 9.6, Figures 9.3-9.5). All of these predictions are accompanied by a wide range of assumptions and caveats. In sum, predictions regarding future habitat suitability for fishers in response to climate change are not consistent, and the likely specific response of the species to these predicted changes remains highly uncertain. Moreover, we find that the best available information does not indicate that this stressor is causing or contributing to significant habitat loss or range contraction at either the population or rangewide scales, nor do we anticipate that it will do so in the future. Finally, there is also suitable but unoccupied habitat available for fishers throughout the analysis area where fisher populations occur, although to a greater extent in the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range. These areas likely would help offset any potential foreseeable future impacts to fisher habitat from climate change (
i.e.,
we do not have information to suggest that fishers are habitat limited currently or expected to become so in the future).

With regard to direct impacts to fishers in the west coast States, fishers may be sensitive, physiologically, to warming summer temperatures (Zielinski
et al.
2004, p. 488; Slauson
et al.
2009, p. 27; Facka 2013, pers. comm.; Powell 2013, pers. comm.). If so, fishers likely will either alter their use of microhabitats or shift their range northward and upslope, in order to avoid thermal stress associated with increased summer temperatures, as demonstrated by fishers in California that choose rest sites in areas of cooler microclimate (Zielinski
et al.
2004, p. 488), and based on studies that have made projections for future range shifts specifically for fishers (Lawler
et al.
2012, entire; Burns
et al.
2003, entire; Olson
et al.
2014). However, there is no information to suggest that such changes will result in significant, negative impacts to fishers or their habitat at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, the best scientific and commercial information currently available does not indicate that significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales as a result of direct effects of climate change are occurring, nor is there any indication that these scales of impacts are likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

Vegetation Management

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

contribute to probable sale quantity (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 1994b, pp. A-4, C-12, C-13, C-39).

At the time of the proposed rule, we concluded that data limitations in most sub-regions across the analysis area prevented us from quantifying what proportion of the treatments in the data sets we used may be outside the scope of habitat loss or downgrade (
e.g.
, areas subject to vegetation management activities that may still function as fisher habitat post-treatment). Thus, at that time, the severity scores presented in the draft Species Report and summarized in the proposed listing rule represented our best estimate and constituted a relatively broad range to incorporate this uncertainty. Our previous quantitative analysis of stressors resulting in habitat loss also did not account for ingrowth of fisher habitat over our 40-year analysis timeframe and, therefore, provided no values for net habitat loss (or gain); although we acknowledged that ingrowth occurs, primarily on Federal lands, we lacked the data at that time to quantitatively estimate that ingrowth (Service 2014, pp. 84-92). Although we recognized data limitations in most subregions across the analysis area and we did not account for ingrowth, we found that vegetation management was a threat because activities that remove or substantially degrade fisher habitat through the removal of large structures and overstory canopy are projected to take place within the analysis area over the next 40 years.

Based on information and comments received from peer reviewers and the public, we reevaluated our analysis (as stated previously) and changed our approach to rely on qualitative evidence to derive a qualitative descriptor of each stressor, rather than extrapolating. Several sources of data currently available provide information on past changes in vegetation in different areas of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's range. Because of the large area encompassed by the fisher, these different sources are not directly comparable and do not easily combine to paint a complete picture of the vegetation trends within the west coast States. The limitations of this information were acknowledged in our proposed rule, and we explicitly requested information from the public to better inform our analysis of this stressor and to help us make a final determination. Specifically, we requested information related to the scope and severity of vegetation management on Federal land within the range of the fisher, and scientific or commercial information on the type, scope, and severity of vegetation management (timber harvest, restoration thinning, fuels reduction, etc.) on non-Federal land in Oregon and Washington. We also requested scientific evaluation of our use of the northern spotted owl habitat data as a surrogate for fisher habitat data, and its use in our draft Species Report as the best available data to determine the scope and severity of vegetation management effects on Federal lands.

Currently, there is no analysis that explicitly tracks changes in fisher habitat in recent decades where loss specifically attributable to vegetation management specifically can be determined. Therefore, we used other available information, as described below, and our best professional judgment to analyze the potential effects of this stressor on the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. After considering the best available data, including comments received from peer reviewers and the public regarding the vegetation management stressor analysis presented in the draft Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 85-96) and summarized in the proposed listing rule, we updated and reconsidered our analysis. Our updated analysis included the use of several different sources of information to depict net forest vegetation changes caused by vegetation management activities within the west coast States. With the exception of the non-Federal timber harvest database in California (CAL FIRE THP 2013), all of these sources are either new or updated since the time of the proposed listing rule (Davis
et al.
20XX, entire; USDA Forest Service 2016, entire; Spencer
et al.
2016, entire; gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) data/maps). Because we were able to utilize these sources of data, we did not need to rely on northern spotted owl habitat data as a surrogate for fisher habitat data in our final evaluation. Our analysis is described in detail in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-111) and summarized as follows.

While historical loss of older forests via timber harvest through much of the 1900s resulted in a substantial loss of fisher habitat in the west coast States, harvest volume has sharply declined throughout this area since 1990, primarily on Federal lands, but also on non-Federal lands. Although timber harvest is still ongoing throughout the west coast States, habitat ingrowth is also occurring, offsetting some of those losses. For example, modeling in the southern Sierra Nevada region indicates that ingrowth of fisher habitat has even replaced habitat lost by all disturbances in the southern Sierra Nevada region since 1990, resulting in a net gain of habitat since that time in that area (see below in this section).

Within the NWFP region, we used information from the draft late-successional and old-growth forest monitoring report (Davis
et al.
20XX, entire) to assess changes in fisher habitat as a result of vegetation management. Over a 20-year period (1993-2012), Davis
et al.
(20XX, pp. 5-6, 13-16) tracked changes in forests classed as OGSI-80, which represents forests that begin to show stand structures associated with older forests (
e.g.,
large live trees, snags, down wood, and diverse tree sizes). Though OGSI-80 forests are not a comprehensive representation of fisher habitat, we considered this report the best available scientific and commercial information to assess changes in fisher habitat within the NWFP area. This information was the only data set available that identified the amount of acres lost to specific disturbance types (
e.g.,
timber harvest or vegetation management, fire) and calculated specific acres of forest ingrowth, allowing us to explicitly track loss of a specific forest type (OGSI-80) to a specific disturbance category (vegetation management). All remaining data sets provided a net change in vegetation type but did not categorize or quantify the disturbance types (
e.g.,
acres and type of loss, acres of ingrowth). In these areas, where available, we had to look separately at timber harvest data to assess loss to vegetation management.

Although loss of older-forest habitat due to timber harvest on non-Federal lands (21.8 percent since 1993) was substantially greater than on Federal lands (1.2 percent since 1993), in combining all ownerships, the percent loss due to timber harvest over the past 20 years was low (8.2) (Service 2016, Table 6). This translates to a 4.1 percent loss per decade (see Table 6 in the final Species Report). The net loss of habitat, however, is somewhat less because 4.1 percent per decade does not include ingrowth of OGSI-80 stands, which were recruited at a rate of 6 percent over the 20-year period, or 3 percent per decade (Service 2016, Table 6). However, it is not an entirely accurate representation to subtract total ingrowth from total loss to vegetation management without also considering all other disturbances that may be offset by ingrowth. We evaluate net vegetation changes as a result of all disturbance types separately below. The projection of vegetation loss may also be an overestimate given that projections in the NWFP showed older forest recruitment on Federal lands would replace losses to the degree that within

50 to 100 years, older forests would be within the range of amounts occurring prior to logging and extensive fire suppression (Davis
et al.
20XX, p. 6). Thus, older forest recruitment rates on Federal lands would result in a future increase in ingrowth, offsetting losses more than what is currently projected based on ingrowth rates over the first 20 years of the NWFP.

Elsewhere in the west coast States, while we could track vegetation changes over time, the available data did not indicate the amount or types of disturbances affecting the specific vegetation types; that is, we could only determine net vegetation change of a particular vegetation type, not the specific amount of that type that was lost to a specific disturbance type, unlike in the NWFP area. Timber harvest records were available for the Sierra Nevada region, but idiosyncrasies in the Forest Service FACTS database (see Spencer
et al.
(2016, p. A-30)) and the fact that the available private lands database (CAL FIRE timber harvest plans) did not indicate types of treatment or what portion of the plans may have actually been implemented, led to concerns in translating acres of “treatment” as depicted in these databases into on-the-ground changes in forest vegetation types that could represent fisher habitat. Instead, we relied on net vegetation change data to display actual changes in forests that represent fisher habitat, realizing that net changes include other disturbances and that vegetation management will be some unknown portion of that change.

In the Sierra Nevada region, we approximated fisher habitat change using a GNN vegetation trend analysis to track changes in forests with large structural conditions thought to be associated with fisher habitat. Note that the vegetation category tracked in this analysis is not equivalent to the OGSI-80 forests used by Davis
et al.
(20XX, entire), where the net change in OGSI-80 stands was 5.9 percent over a 20-year period, or almost 3 percent per decade. Instead, we used predefined GNN structure conditions describing forests with larger trees (greater than 20 in (50 cm)), realizing this may not include all vegetation types used by fishers. This analysis showed that net loss of forests with larger structural conditions was 6.2 percent across all ownerships over the past 20 years, which equates to a loss of 3.1 percent per decade. Outside of the NWFP area, in the eastern Washington Cascades and eastern Oregon Cascades regions, net losses were 3.2 and 9.5 percent, respectively, translating to 1.6 and 4.8 percent per decade. These losses, while incorporating ingrowth, included all disturbances (
e.g.,
fire) across all ownerships, so the loss due to timber harvest is actually less. In the single analysis where fisher habitat was actually modeled and tracked through time (southern Sierra Nevada region), ingrowth of fisher habitat actually replaced habitat lost by all disturbances between 1990 and 2012, equivalent to an increase of 151 mi
2
(390 km
2
) of fisher habitat at the female home range scale, or a 7.8 percent increase in suitable cells during the 22-year analysis window (Spencer
et al.
2016, p. A-21). The authors note that their analysis window did not include the large fires of 2013 and 2014, but that even with those losses, a net increase in fisher habitat still results (Spencer
et al.
2016, p. 44).

Vegetation Management Summary

In the southern Sierra Nevada, fisher habitat appears to be increasing despite losses to vegetation management and recent large wildfires. Within the NWFP area, where we were able to explicitly track loss of older forest structural condition due to vegetation management activities, the scale of loss was at a low level (4.1 percent per decade) and was partly compensated by ingrowth. We incorporated ingrowth by looking at net forest change over time, although we could not quantify amounts lost to specific disturbance types throughout the west coast States; outside of the NWFP area, net loss of forests with larger structural conditions ranged from 1.6 to 4.8 percent per decade, depending on the region, for all disturbance types. Although the habitat types tracked in the GNN analysis for the non-NWFP area is not the same as the OGSI-80 vegetation type tracked in the NWFP area, the net change in the OGSI-80 type (almost 3 percent per decade) is relatively similar to that observed in forests with larger structural condition outside the NWFP area.

Based on our analysis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that forest losses were less than 5 percent per decade, either when looking at just total vegetation management loss within the NWFP area, or looking at net loss (
i.e.,
incorporating ingrowth) that included all disturbances, knowing vegetation management comprises some proportion of that loss. Given the large home range of fishers and the geographic extent of forest management activities throughout the analysis area, some fisher individuals are likely affected as a result of habitat impacts. While these individual fishers are affected to some degree as a result of loss of cover and structural features associated with various vegetation management activities, we have not found evidence of a population-level response directly from vegetation management activities to fisher habitat. Fishers occur in landscapes and stands where timber harvest has occurred (
e.g.,
Slauson
et al.
2003, pp. 7-9; Self and Callas 2006, entire; Hamm
et al.
2012, pp. 421-422; Clayton 2013, pp.7-19; Niblett
et al.
2015, entire), but there is no information on how different vegetation management activities affect fisher populations and their persistence within the west coast States. Analysis is further confounded because the category of vegetation management contains activities ranging from those that result in substantial loss of habitat attributes valuable to fishers (
e.g.,
large clearcut harvests that remove almost all tree canopy and structural features) to activities that modify habitat at small-scale levels yet retain functionality (
e.g.,
minor reductions in canopy cover and retention of structural features suitable for rest sites, den sites, or prey production).

We have found no empirical evidence that vegetation management is manifesting itself to a significant degree across the proposed West Coast DPS in a way that is causing habitat-related impacts that are causing fisher to decline across its range currently, or that suggests an expected decline across its range in the future. Furthermore, there are large areas of suitable but unoccupied habitat available throughout the west coast States where fisher populations occur, although to a greater extent in the northern portion of the proposed DPS's range. Overall across the proposed DPS's range, this suggests that habitat may not currently be a limiting factor for fisher populations in these States, and that these areas likely would help offset any potential future impacts to fisher habitat from potential future vegetation management activities. Overall, the best available scientific and commercial information summarized above and presented in detail in the final Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 98-111) leads us to conclude that impacts from vegetation management do not rise to the level of a threat given the lack of information indicating that these activities are significantly affecting habitat currently at either the population or rangewide scales. We also find that these activities are not likely to significantly affect habitat at either the population or rangewide scales in the foreseeable future because our analysis of loss/alteration of habitat shows the trend to be slightly declining (with actual increases in habitat in the

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

Development (Including Linear Infrastructure)

We stated in the proposed listing rule and draft Species Report, and we reaffirm here, that human population density within the analysis area varies considerably, but density in all areas appear to be increasing. Human population growth within the analysis area may increase needs for housing, services, transportation, and other infrastructure, likely placing ever-greater demands on land, water, and other natural resources. Specifically, human infrastructure growth includes recreational opportunities such as ski area developments, vacation cabins, trails, and campgrounds. Besides permanently removing potential fisher habitat, human developments in rural areas are changing land use from forest to other land cover types, which has the potential to fragment previously continuous habitat or hamper fisher movements. Overall, human developments associated with population growth (including linear and other infrastructure) will likely have an increasing impact on fisher habitat into the future, but the severity varies depending on the type and location of development.

We stated in the proposed listing rule that the scope of the human development stressor (which implied inclusion of linear and other infrastructure) is relatively low throughout the analysis area, with the majority of impacts most likely occurring within the Sierra Nevada, Coastal Washington, and Western Washington Cascades portions of the proposed DPS's range. The best available scientific and commercial information indicates that, although an insignificant amount of suitable habitat is undergoing development such that individual fishers may be impacted, significant impacts to fisher habitat do not appear to be occurring at either the population or rangewide scales, nor is there any indication that these scales of impacts to suitable habitat are likely to occur in the future. Thus, we reaffirm our previous conclusion that development is not a threat to fisher habitat within the proposed West Coast DPS now and in the foreseeable future.

Forest Insects and Tree Diseases

Potential impacts associated with forest insects and tree diseases were described in the “Anthropogenic Influences” section of the draft Species Report (Service 2014, p. 72) and mentioned in the proposed listing rule within the context of potential “anthropogenic mortality stressors” that could be synergistically impacting fisher along with other stressors. Confusion in the draft Species Report resulted in conflation of anthropogenic stressors and stressors related to forest insects and diseases, because they were combined in a single section wherein only insects and diseases were discussed and not anthropogenic factors (Service 2014, p. 72). We revised the final Species Report to separate those stressor discussions and we have provided clarification in the final Species Report regarding these potential anthropogenic stressors (Service 2016, pp. 77-78), including correcting the title of the potential stressor to “Forest Insects and Tree Diseases,” and we provide a stand-alone summary of our analysis of this stressor below.

In the proposed rule, we found that the usual pattern of localized outbreaks and low density of tree-damaging forest insects and tree diseases are beneficial, providing structures conducive to rest and den sites used by fishers or their prey (Service 2014, p. 72). However, we noted that it is possible that large, area-wide epidemics of forest disease and insect outbreaks could potentially displace fishers if canopy cover is lost, and if salvage and thinning prescriptions in response to outbreaks degrade the habitat (Naney
et al.
2012, p. 36). Examples of potential forest insect or tree diseases that have been present within the west coast States but to our knowledge have not resulted in impacts to fisher habitat include:

(1) Mountain pine beetle, which is currently known in British Columbia (Weir and Corbould 2008, entire; 2010, entire)); and

(2) Sudden oak death (
Phytophthora ramorum
), which is currently known to impact forests in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California.

At this time, the best available information does not indicate that any forest insects or tree diseases are significantly affecting the proposed DPS currently. Moreover, although some diseases have been present within the west coast States for many years, the best available data do not indicate that they would result in significant impacts to fisher habitat at either the population or rangewide scales in the foreseeable future. Based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information currently available, we find that fishers at the individual, population, and rangewide levels are beneficially affected by forest insects and tree diseases through their creation of structures used by fishers for denning and resting, as well as structures used by fisher prey. Localized outbreaks that result in canopy loss substantial enough to reduce the stand's suitability for fisher habitat may affect individuals, but there is no evidence to indicate any impacts to fishers currently or in the foreseeable future. Thus, forest insects and tree diseases do not constitute a threat to the proposed DPS either currently or in the foreseeable future.

Trapping and Incidental Capture

Historical, unregulated fur trapping (prior to the 1930s) appears to have been the primary initial cause of the marked contraction in fisher distribution across the Pacific States. The effects of current trapping, which are limited to incidental capture and an unknown amount of poaching, are significantly reduced compared to the previous effects of widespread unregulated legal trapping of fishers. In our proposed listing rule, we stated that the severity of the potential stressor of trapping and incidental capture is extremely low throughout the analysis area (Service 2014, pp. 106-108), and, therefore, we did not consider trapping to be a threat to the fisher, including in the future. Since that time, minimal new information has become available regarding trapping activities, none of which results in any significant changes or differences in our understanding of this stressor.

Based on our evaluation of the best available information currently known, we reaffirm our previous conclusion that the severity of trapping (and incidental capture) throughout the analysis area is extremely low, and is not expected to increase in the foreseeable future. Our current analysis reveals that where impacts occur as a result of trapping, those impacts are affecting few individuals (
i.e.,
a total of eight individuals since 1975, including three in Washington (Happe 2015, pers. comm.) and five in Oregon (Robart 1982, pp. 3, 8; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1998, entire; ODFW 2007, p. 1)) to a minor degree as opposed to significant impacts to entire populations or significant impacts rangewide. Given that widespread, unregulated legal trapping of fishers is not expected to occur in the future, potential future impacts from trapping and incidental capture are expected to remain extremely low. Thus, we

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

Research

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

Disease or Predation

Several viral and bacterial diseases are known to affect mustelids, including fishers, but it is unclear how these diseases affect wild populations of fishers. Potential predators of fishers include mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, and large raptors. Disease and predation are stressors that can cause direct mortality of fishers, and both are documented to occur throughout the analysis area. Minimal new information is available regarding disease or predation since the time of our proposed listing rule, none of which results in any significant changes or differences in our understanding of these stressors.

Based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information currently available, neither disease nor predation are considered threats to fisher. Our analysis reveals that, for both disease and predation, impacts are affecting individuals to a minor degree within the various populations as opposed to significant impacts to entire populations or the proposed DPS rangewide. Additionally, the best available information does not indicate that disease or predation would increase in the future to a significant degree such that fishers in the west coast states are likely to experience significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. Thus, we reaffirm our conclusion that the scope and magnitude of impacts resulting from disease or predation do not rise to the level that are considered threats to the proposed DPS, now or in the foreseeable future.

Collision With Vehicles

In the proposed listing rule, we stated that roads are sources of vehicle-collision mortality of fishers and disrupt habitat continuity, particularly in high-use, high-speed areas. Collision with vehicles is a stressor that causes direct mortality of fishers, and thus, we found that collision with vehicles has the potential to be a stressor to extant fisher populations. We stated in the proposed rule that vehicle collisions have the potential to occur throughout all occupied areas, but we concluded that vehicle collisions are not a threat to fisher based on known impacts at the individual level. No new information has been discovered or provided since the time of the proposed listing rule to indicate that fisher collisions with vehicles are increasing or decreasing.

Based on our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information currently available, we reaffirm our previous conclusion that vehicle collisions are not a threat to fisher, both currently and in the future (Service 2016, pp. 137-138). We found that individual fishers may be killed by vehicles in multiple populations, with a greater risk occurring in portions of the fisher populations that also harbor paved, major roads where vehicles travel at fast speeds and possibly at a higher volume of traffic compared to many dirt roads. The best available data indicate that vehicle collisions are a substantial source of anthropogenic mortality for fisher populations, but we have no information to indicate that the frequency of collisions with vehicles is going to increase in the future, or that this source of mortality is having or will have significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales. Based on the scope and magnitude of this stressor, we reaffirm our conclusion that fisher collisions with vehicles are not a threat to the fisher in the proposed DPS, now or in the foreseeable future.

Exposure to Toxicants

Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs), which are intended to kill small pest mammals, impair an animal's ability to produce several key blood clotting factors. Anticoagulant exposure is manifested by such conditions as bleeding nose and gums, extensive bruises, anemia, fatigue, and difficulty breathing. Anticoagulants also damage the small blood vessels, resulting in spontaneous and widespread hemorrhaging. A sublethal dose of an AR can produce significant clotting abnormalities and hemorrhaging, leading to a range of symptoms, such as difficulty moving and the decreased ability to recover from physical injury, which may increase the probability of mortality from other sources.

The final Species Report details the exposure of toxicants to fishers in the west coast States (Service 2016, pp. 141-159), which is summarized herein. Relatively recent research documenting exposure to toxicants in a number of fishers, and mortalities of individual fishers directly caused by ARs, has raised concerns regarding potential individual- and population-level impacts of toxicants. Exposure to ARs, resulting in death in some cases, has been documented in fishers in the two native populations (NCSO and SSN), and the reintroduced ONP population. However, sources of AR exposure in fishers have not been conclusively determined.

The number of fishers determined to have had exposure to toxicants varies across the proposed DPS's range, with the majority of records known from California. Large quantities of ARs have been found at illegal marijuana cultivation sites within occupied fisher habitat on public, private, and tribal lands in California (Gabriel
et al.
2012a, p. 12; Thompson
et al.
2014, pp. 97-98). In Oregon, AR residues were found in both fisher carcasses tested (Gabriel 2015, pers. comm.). Marijuana cultivation sites are not common in Washington and only three fishers can confidently be documented as having been exposed to rodenticides in Washington (Happe
et al.
2015, pp. 38-39). Six other carcasses of fishers reintroduced in Washington have tested positive for AR, but those individuals may have been exposed in British Columbia before translocation (Happe
in litt.
2015). Of the three fishers that were exposed in Washington, it appears that exposure occurred as a result of legal applications in residential areas given they were found near human habitation where ARs can be legally applied (Happe
in litt.
2015).

We stated in the proposed listing rule that the scope of toxicants as a stressor varied across the landscape and that our determination regarding the scope was

influenced by the availability of data for different parts of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher's range. In those areas where data were available, we stated that the severity of the stressor was comparable to that of disease, noting that the data used to estimate the severity of toxicants were based solely on mortality (
i.e.,
four mortalities from California). We concluded at that time that ARs are likely a threat to fisher populations, but that we did not have specific information about the population-level effects.

Our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information available regarding toxicants and their effects on fishers at this time leads us to conclude that individual fishers within three populations (
i.e.,
NCSO, SSN, and ONP) have been found dead from other causes and also were found to be exposed to ARs at sublethal levels with an unknown degree of impact to those individuals. In addition, 15 mortalities directly caused by AR exposure have been documented in the NCSO and SSN populations in California (Gabriel
et al.
2015, p. 5; Wengert 2016, pers. comm.). The best available information reveals little regarding the extent of AR exposure in Washington and Oregon, and no rangewide studies have occurred to evaluate the population-level impacts across the proposed DPS's range. However, the broad use of ARs at illegal marijuana cultivation sites in California, which has been documented to occur within or adjacent to portions of the proposed DPS's range, could be impacting portions of the California populations. The extent to which the legal use of ARs occurs at agricultural and commercial sites within the range of the fisher is unknown.

Our analysis of this stressor also includes a further evaluation of a variety of toxicant information (in response to comments by peer reviewers). New information included (but is not limited to):

(1) Concentrations of active ingredients in bait (Erickson and Urban 2004) and a description of how exposure to ARs is confirmed (Vandenbrouke
et al.
2008; Rattner
et al.
2014). Erickson and Urban (2004, p. 94) specifically noted that no consistent trends associate residue concentrations with levels at which adverse effects occur. Thus, at what level of toxicant exposure fishers may be experiencing adverse impacts remains unknown.

(2) Clarification or corrections related to ARs found in the dead fishers tested from the ONP population. Happe (2015, pers. comm.) noted that the first released individuals found dead were all captured near residential areas/private lands in British Columbia prior to their release into the Olympic Peninsula. Exposure from legal use of brodifacoum in British Columbia cannot be ruled out because their deaths occurred well within the half-lives reported for brodifacoum persistence in mammalian tissue. Two subsequent mortalities among the translocated individuals on the Olympic Peninsula tested positive for bromadiolone too long after their relocation from British Columbia to have been exposed there. These individuals were found near rural areas where rodenticides could have been used legally. The most recent fisher mortality that tested positive for an AR was born to a translocated female, and was found on the border of the Port Angeles city limits, surrounded by a low-density housing area and commercial development. Thus, AR impacts for the Olympic Peninsula reintroduction area could be from legally applied sources.

(3) Rodent diversity at marijuana cultivation sites. Wengert (2015, pers. comm.) reports that rodent diversity is reduced to only mice at marijuana cultivation sites that are treated with rodenticides, as compared to nearby untreated sites where large-bodied rodents (
e.g.,
woodrats, squirrels, chipmunks), which are the prey species that the fisher prefers, are found. This finding provides support for the possibility that fishers could experience indirect effects such as prey shifting outside of current home ranges, or prey depletion due to impaired reproduction, starvation, or physiologic (hematologic, biochemical and endocrine) changes.

(4) Estimating the extent of fisher exposure to ARs and determining the source(s) is difficult because the delay in toxicity caused by ARs and their persistence within food webs can result in contaminated rodents being found within and adjacent to treated areas weeks or months after bait application (Geduhn
et al.
2014, pp. 8-9; Tosh
et al.
2012, pp. 5-6; Sage
et al.
2008, p. 215).

The only new regulatory measure of which we are aware of specific to ARs (in addition to those existing regulatory mechanisms identified in the proposed listing rule) is related to the State of California's new 2014 prohibition on the sale of second generation ARs (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and difenacoum) to the general public. While the State of California has prohibited these sales to the general public, they are still widely available and can be purchased by anyone with a State-issued pesticide applicator's license. No records are kept on the sale and use of rodenticides that can be used to determine whether this new measure will reduce the illegal and legal uses of the second-generation ARs (see
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms,
below, for additional discussion). Overall, our evaluation of new information, including the one new regulatory measure, provides clarity and corrections to some information presented in the draft Species Report.

Marijuana cultivation sites are present within or near both native fisher populations in the proposed West Coast DPS, and potentially other areas within the west coast States. There are other possible sources of ARs from legal applications in agriculture and around buildings in rural areas. Furthermore, the recent legalization of marijuana in the State of Oregon adds an additional element of uncertainty to evaluation of this stressor, as it is unknown whether or how this policy change may potentially affect exposure rates (for example, whether there may be a trend toward indoor-grow operations, which would potentially reduce exposure of wildlife to ARs). The incidence of fisher exposure to toxicants from all uses across its range is unknown and the best available data are very limited (including known mortalities of only 15 individuals in California). However, the best available information does not suggest that any of the fisher populations where exposure has been documented are in decline, nor does it suggest that significant AR impacts would occur as operative threats on the fisher populations in the west coast States as a whole to the degree that there would likely be significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales in the future. The best available information at this time does not demonstrate there are significant deleterious sublethal effects in fishers at the population and rangewide scales. In addition, we are not aware of any information that indicates use of ARs will increase within the range of the proposed DPS in the future. Therefore, the best available information does not indicate that exposure to toxicants rises to the level of a threat, and this conclusion is supported by our finding that the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher is not experiencing significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales, currently or in the foreseeable future.

Small Population Size and Isolation

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

population size that increase the species' vulnerability to extinction from stochastic events and other threats on the landscape. Extremely small populations of low-density carnivores, like fishers, are more susceptible to small increases in mortality factors due to their relatively low fecundity and low natural population densities. Fishers may also be prone to instability in population sizes in response to fluctuations in prey availability. Low reproductive rates retard the recovery of populations from declines, further increasing their vulnerability. These factors together imply that fishers are highly prone to localized extirpation, their colonizing ability is somewhat limited, and their populations are slow to recover from deleterious impacts.

A scarcity of verifiable sightings in the Western and Eastern Cascades in Washington and Oregon, coastal Oregon, and the north and central sections of the Sierra Nevada indicates that populations of fishers in southwestern Oregon and California are isolated from fishers elsewhere in North America. Fishers in the west coast States are currently restricted to two extant native populations and three reintroduced populations, the latter of which are known to be relatively small in size.

We concluded at the time of the proposed rule that the isolation of small populations and associated increased risk of extinction from stochastic events constituted a threat to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher. However, as described above, that conclusion was based largely on the application of general theoretical principles regarding the implications of small population size and isolation for the persistence of some generic species. We continue to recognize that fisher populations in the west coast States are, for the most part, relatively small and geographically isolated from one another (with the likely exception of the NCSO population, which now overlaps the NSN and SOC reintroduced populations), with little opportunity for genetic interchange. However, we note that populations of forest carnivores are often isolated and generally occur in low densities; because we lack specific information about genetic processes in small, isolated forest carnivore populations, it is unknown whether generalities about persistence based on untested theoretical models may apply to fisher (Ruggiero
et al.
1994, p. 146). In the specific case of fishers in the west coast States, our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the separation of the SSN and NCSO populations occurred a very long time ago, possibly on the order of more than a thousand years, pre-European settlement (Tucker
et al.
2012, pp. 1, 7). Despite their size and isolation, the native NCSO and SSN populations have persisted over a long period of time, and interchange between the native NCSO population and the reintroduced NSN and SOC populations may be beginning to occur (see Service 2016, pp. 38-41, 48).

Estimates of fisher population growth for the NCSO population and the portion of the SSN population surveyed do not indicate any overall positive or negative trend as a result of the various stressors acting upon those populations (Service 2016, pp. 42-50). At this point in time, we do not have information to indicate that these portions of the proposed DPS are expected to change to a negative trend in the foreseeable future given the projected current and future level of impacts from the various stressors, and, in some instances, offsetting beneficial effects from some stressors (
e.g.,
wildfire, forest insects, and tree diseases that can create habitat components needed by fishers). The NCSO population, which encompasses the NSN reintroduced site, covers a relatively large geographic area of approximately 15,444 mi
2
(40,000 km
2
). Although the areas monitored for population trend are limited, for the Hoopa study, the population trend from 2005-2012 indicates a lambda (population growth rate) of 0.992 (C.I. 0.883-1.100) with a higher lambda rate for females 1.038 (0.881-1.196) than males 0.912 (0.777-1.047) (Higley
et al.
2014, p. 102, Higley 2015, pers. comm.) and 1.06 (C.I. 0.97-1.15, years 2006-2013) for the EKSA (Powell
et al.
2014, p. 23) (a population growth rate of 1.0 indicates a stable population; confidence intervals that bound 1.0 indicate the growth rate is not statistically different from 1.0). For the SSN population, which is smaller and estimated to range anywhere in size from 100 to 500 individuals (Service 2016, pp. 48-50), the population growth rate is estimated as 0.97 (C.I. 0.79-1.16, years 2007-2014) (Sweitzer
et al.
2015a, p. 784). The population growth rate for the SSN population is slightly less than 1.0, but nonetheless because the confidence intervals include 1, this indicates a statistically stable trend. The reintroduced SOC population has now persisted for more than 30 years, despite a very small founding population (Service 2016, pp. 48-50). The ONP and NSN populations were reintroduced too recently to determine likelihood of long-term persistence, but initial results indicating that these populations are breeding and expanding are encouraging.

Overall, although fisher populations are relatively small and geographically isolated, our evaluation of the best scientific and commercial information leads us to conclude that the separation of the two native populations is longstanding. The best available information does not suggest any negative consequences in terms of population abundance or other indicators across the west coast States, or that small population size or isolation are likely to cause significant impacts at either the population or rangewide scales in the future. In addition, recent and ongoing reintroductions to establish additional populations of fishers within the west coast States reduce the likelihood of loss to random stochastic events. Based on all of these considerations, we now conclude that small population size and isolation are not threats to the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, currently or in the foreseeable future.

Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation

In this section, we synthesize the information above to evaluate resiliency, redundancy, and representation as they relate to fishers in the proposed West Coast DPS.
Resiliency
refers to the capacity of an ecosystem, population, or organism to recover quickly from disturbance by tolerating or adapting to changes or effects caused by a disturbance or a combination of disturbances.
Redundancy,
in this context, refers to the ability of a species to compensate for fluctuations in or loss of populations across the species' range such that the loss of a single population has little or no lasting effect on the structure and functioning of the species as a whole.
Representation
refers to the conservation of the diversity of a species, including genetic makeup.

The degree of resiliency of a species (or DPS) is influenced by both the degree of genetic diversity across its range and the number of individuals. Resiliency increases with increasing genetic diversity or a higher number of individuals; it decreases when the species has less genetic diversity or fewer individuals. In the case of the proposed West Coast DPS of fisher, resiliency may be slightly lower to some degree because the total population size is considered by some as small, although forest carnivores generally occur at low densities (Ruggiero
et al.
1994, p. 146).

From a genetics standpoint, fisher from the ONP population (as well as for

the new southern Washington Cascades reintroduction site) were sourced from British Columbia, and fisher from the SOC population were sourced from both British Columbia and Minnesota. Fisher from the NSN population area were sourced from native fishers in northwestern California. Fisher within this proposed DPS (NCSO, NSN, and SSN populations) contain unique genetic haplotypes not found elsewhere within the range of the fisher in North America (Knaus
et al.
2011, p. 7). Wisely
et al.
(2004, pp. 642-643) demonstrated a gradient of genetic diversity in fisher populations along the Pacific Coast, with allelic richness highest in native populations in British Columbia and the reintroduced SOC population, and lowest in the southern Sierra Nevada.

Multiple, interacting populations across a broad geographic area (redundancy) provide insurance against the risk of extinction caused by catastrophic events. As was known at the time of the proposed listing rule, population redundancy continues to exist across the west coast States as a result of the presence of two native populations across southern Oregon (northern California and the Sierra Nevada (NCSO and SSN populations, noting that the SOC and NSN reintroduced populations now have overlapping boundaries with the native NCSO population)), as well as two reintroduction locations, including the ONP population and the new South Washington Cascades reintroduction site. There is also an additional reintroduction site (new as of December 2015 (see
Species Information,
above)) in the South Washington Cascades that is expected to start reproducing in the near future. The existence of the five broadly distributed populations (and the new reintroduction site) increases the probability that fisher populations in the west coast States will persist into the future and contribute to long-term genetic and demographic viability across the fisher's West Coast range; however, more time is needed to determine with accuracy the viability of the reintroduced populat

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-08288. Public record. Not legal advice.