Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules species; these threats are fully described in the final listing rule 85 FR 29532;
May 15, 2020, pp. 85 FR 2956429569.
We determined that the ongoing threats that result in losses of individual fishers or impede population growth of the SSN
DPS include: 1 Loss and fragmentation of habitat from high severity wildfire;
wildfire suppression i.e., long-term/
historical absence of beneficial, low severity forest fires typically resulting in reduced fuels and healthy forest stands that subsequently have a greater likelihood of withstanding catastrophic, high severity wildfires; climate change;
tree mortality from drought, disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; and development; and 2
potential direct impacts to individuals e.g., increased mortality, decreased reproductive rates, increased stress/
hormone levels, alterations in behavioral patterns from wildfire, increased temperatures, increased tree mortality, disease and predation, exposure to toxicants, vehicle collisions, and potential effects associated with small population size.
Special management considerations or protection are required within critical habitat areas to address these threats.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: 1 Implementing beneficial forest management practices, especially the use of prescribed fire that reduces fuel load and improves overall forest health, which reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire and improves habitat resiliency; 2 minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction from vegetation management and other habitat-altering activities through the use of best management at multiple scales e.g., stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale; 3 maintaining and promoting dense canopy cover, large trees, and other habitat components that fishers require for reproduction or protection from predation; 4
maintaining and enhancing habitat connectivity; 5 preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and other sources of toxicants; and 6 improving the efficacy of existing road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on major roadways. These management activities would protect the physical and biological feature for the SSN DPS
of fisher by reducing the threats acting on the species and maintaining the forest structure and characteristics that are necessary for fishers to fulfill their life-history needs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:18 Oct 18, 2021

Jkt 256001

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat As required by section 4b2 of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12b, we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. We determined that occupied areas are sufficient for contributing to the conservation of the SSN DPS of fisher, following our evaluation of all suitable habitat across the DPSs range that has documented use by fishers.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we employed the following basic steps to delineate critical habitat which are described in detail in the text following this list:
1 We compiled fisher detection data and determined the geographic area that was occupied by the species at the time of listing see Occupancy Analysis, below.
2 Using the best available science, including habitat models and reasonable inferences regarding female home range size, we conducted a habitat analysis to identify essential patches of fisher habitat see Habitat Analysis, below.
3 Based on the results of these analyses, we delineated six discrete critical habitat units including one unitUnit 3that is subdivided into three subunits separated by evidence of genetic discontinuity and gaps in contiguous denning habitat associated with major river canyons see Mapping Critical Habitat Units, below.
Data Sources For our occupancy analysis, habitat analysis, and subsequent unit delineations, we used a variety of data sources that provide information regarding the occupied range of the fisher, the spatial extent of suitable fisher habitat, and habitat condition, including:
1 Fisher observation data from the U.S. Forest Service USFS Natural Resource Information System, Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project Sugar Pine Fisher Project, USFS Sierra
PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

57779

Nevada Carnivore Monitoring Program, and National Park Service NPS
databases;
2 Models developed by the Conservation Biology Institute CBI, including the Pre-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability Model, PostDrought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability Model, and Post-Drought Fisher Landscape-Scale Habitat Suitability Model;
3 Housing density data part of the Wildlife Urban Interface dataset from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections Cal Fire Fire and Resource Assessment Program; and 4 Lake, reservoir, and pond dataset from California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Occupancy Analysis We used recent fisher observation data to identify the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We reviewed USFS and NPS
fisher detection data including visual observations, remote camera detections, scat and hair samples, tracks, and radio telemetry locations from 19902020.
This timeframe overlaps with the beginning of extensive surveying and monitoring efforts in the Sierra Nevada that continue today Zielinski et al.
1995, entire and recent northward population expansion of fishers that has occurred over the last few decades Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131. Fisher occupancy has remained relatively stable throughout the southern Sierra Nevada from 2002 through 2019
Zielinski et al. 2013, pp. 810; Tucker 2019, pers. comm., indicating that, in general, sites that were previously occupied remain occupied today.
Based on these data, we determined that the northern extent of the geographic area occupied at the time of listing was the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park Mariposa County and the southern limit was the Greenhorn Mountains in Sequoia National Forest Kern County. The eastern limit of the current species range is the high-elevation, granitedominated mountains and the western limit is the low-elevation extent of mixed-conifer forest.
We are not proposing to designate any areas outside of the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing because we did not find any unoccupied areas to be essential for the conservation of the species. We determined that a critical habitat designation limited to the geographic areas occupied by the species is adequate to ensure the conservation of the species. The occupied areas identified for designation are those areas
E:FRFM19OCP1.SGM

19OCP1