[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66987-67006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23949]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE49


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population 
Segment of Fisher

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 
revisions to the critical habitat we proposed on October 19, 2021, for 
the federally endangered Southern Sierra Nevada distinct population 
segment (DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti) under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). As a result of the critical habitat 
revisions, we now propose to designate a total of approximately 595,495 
acres (240,988 hectares) as critical habitat for the Southern Sierra 
Nevada DPS of fisher across six units (one unit of which is further 
subdivided into two subunits) in California. This amounts to an overall 
increase of 41,041 acres (16,609 hectares) in our proposed critical 
habitat designation for the DPS, which includes revisions to all six 
units. We invite interested parties to comment on the revisions 
described in this document. Comments previously submitted on the 
October 19, 2021, proposed rule need not be resubmitted, as they will 
be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: The comment period is reopened for the proposed rule published 
on October 19, 2021, at 86 FR 57773. So that we can fully consider your 
comments on the revisions described in this document in our final 
determination, submit your comments on or before December 22, 2022. 
Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 
the closing date.

ADDRESSES: 
    Document availability: You may obtain copies of the October 19, 
2021, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060.

[[Page 66988]]

    Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 
Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our October 19, 2021, proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of fisher 
(86 FR 57773), the revisions to the proposed critical habitat 
designation that are described in this document, and our revised draft 
economic assessment (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation. 
We will consider information and recommendations from all interested 
parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (1) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Southern Sierra 
Nevada DPS of fisher;
    (b) What areas that were occupied at the time of listing (85 FR 
29532, May 15, 2020) and that contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the DPS should be included in 
the designation and why;
    (c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the DPS in 
Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties in 
California that should be included in the designation (in particular, 
areas that occur outside of the new model described in this document) 
because they either were occupied at the time of listing and contain 
the physical or biological feature that is essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations, or were unoccupied at the time of listing and are 
essential for the conservation of the species;
    (d) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (2) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (3) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the DPS's proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding specific areas.
    (5) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely 
economic impacts.
    (6) Whether any specific areas, in particular those covered by a 
conservation program or plan, that we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and why. These areas may include Federal, 
Tribal, State, county, local, or private lands with permitted 
conservation plans (such as habitat conservation plans, safe harbor 
agreements, or conservation easements) covering the species or non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. 
Detailed information regarding these plans, agreements, easements, and 
partnerships is also requested, including:
    (a) The location and size of lands covered by the plan, agreement, 
easement, or partnership;
    (b) The duration of the plan, agreement, easement, or partnership;
    (c) Who holds or manages the land;
    (d) What management activities are conducted;
    (e) What land uses are allowable; and
    (f) If management activities are beneficial to the Southern Sierra 
Nevada DPS of fisher and its habitat.
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the October 19, 2021, 
proposed rule or the associated DEA during the comment period that was 
open from October 19, 2021, to December 20, 2021, please do not 
resubmit them. Any such comments are already part of the public record 
of this rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the 
preparation of our final determination. Our final determination will 
take into consideration all written comments and any additional 
information we receive during the initial comment period and this 
reopened comment period. The final decision may differ from this 
revised proposed rule, based on our review of all information we 
receive during this rulemaking proceeding.
    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods 
listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the 
methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the website. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060, or by appointment, during normal 
business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

[[Page 66989]]

CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-
0060, or by mail from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss in this document only those topics 
directly relevant to the revisions of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN) DPS of fisher. 
For more information on the species, its habitat, and previous Federal 
actions concerning the SSN DPS of fisher, refer to the proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2021 (86 FR 57773). 
Our proposed critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher consists of the 
October 19, 2021, proposed rule as modified by the revisions described 
in this document.
    On October 19, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR 
57773) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the SSN DPS of 
fisher in six units (one unit of which was further divided into three 
subunits) encompassing approximately 554,454 acres (ac) (224,379 
hectares (ha)) in California. In addition, we announced the 
availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation. We 
accepted comments on the proposed rule and DEA for 60 days, ending 
December 20, 2021. Based on information we received during the public 
comment period, we propose to revise the critical habitat designation 
and are, therefore, reopening the comment period to allow the public 
additional time to submit comments on the revisions outlined herein.
    Although the critical habitat designation for the fisher was 
proposed when the regulatory definition of habitat (85 FR 81411, 
December 16, 2020) and the 4(b)(2) exclusion regulations (85 FR 82376, 
December 18, 2020) were in place and in effect, those two regulations 
have been rescinded (87 FR 37757, June 24, 2022, and 87 FR 43433, July 
21, 2022) and no longer apply to any designations of critical habitat. 
Therefore, for the final rule designating critical habitat for the 
fisher, we will apply the regulations at 424.19 and the 2016 Joint 
Policy on 4(b)(2) exclusions (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).

New Information and Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat

    During the public comment period for the October 19, 2021, proposed 
rule, we received 63 comment letters on the proposed critical habitat 
designation. We received information regarding site-specific areas that 
two Federal landowners and a peer reviewer believe meet the definition 
of critical habitat but were not included in the October 19, 2021, 
proposed rule. We also received comments notifying us of a new Fisher 
Reproductive Habitat Suitability Model (2021 Reproductive Model). We 
also had conversations with species experts to identify additional 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat (see Habitat 
Analysis, below, for more details). We subsequently determined that the 
2021 Reproductive Model and comments received on site-specific habitat 
areas are now the best available information upon which to base 
critical habitat. Under our methodology, the use of this new 
information results in needed revisions to the critical habitat 
boundaries presented in our October 19, 2021, proposed rule; 
specifically, our new analysis of the best available information (i.e., 
the 2021 Reproductive Model and other site-specific information) has 
resulted in changes to all six units described in the October 19, 2021, 
proposed critical habitat designation. The revised proposed units are 
in the same counties in California as those in the October 19, 2021, 
proposed critical habitat designation. The revised proposed units are 
described in this document.
    We propose the following unit revisions, all of which are areas 
occupied by the SSN DPS of fisher at the time of listing. The revisions 
are summarized here, and the full descriptions and acreage changes 
follow in Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation, below:
    (1) We are revising the six existing proposed units of critical 
habitat based on the 2021 Reproductive Model that prompted our 
reanalysis of the best available information and on the comments we 
received during the October 19, 2021, proposed rule's initial comment 
period. Proposed Unit 3 no longer includes subunits, and proposed Unit 
4 now includes two subunits.
    (2) We are adding some area to Units 1, 3, 4, and 5 based on 
comments we received from Federal partners and one peer reviewer during 
the October 19, 2021, proposed rule's initial comment period regarding 
the accuracy of existing versions of habitat models and follow-up 
conversations with species experts to evaluate the new modeled 
reproductive habitat information (Craig 2021, in. litt., pp. 3-4, 13-
14; Sweitzer 2021, in litt., pp. 3-7; Muldoon 2021, in litt., p. 1; 
Tucker 2022, pers. comm.). According to Thompson et al. (2021a, pp. 8, 
10) and species expert opinion, the 2021 Reproductive Model's accuracy 
is decreased in certain areas due to a sampling bias in the data used 
to create the model (see Habitat Analysis, below, for more details). 
Therefore, this revised proposed rule includes areas that species 
experts suggest support the physical and biological feature despite 
being omitted by the 2021 Reproductive Model. The areas added include 
extending Unit 1 to the south to better reflect fisher habitat use on 
the Kern Plateau based on regional monitoring; extending Unit 3 towards 
the Hume Lake area where occupancy monitoring and recent detections of 
adult females indicate habitat quality was undervalued by the 2021 
Reproductive Model; adding an area east of Mammoth Pool Reservoir in 
Unit 4 that supports successful reproduction in atypical, high-
elevation habitat that was underrepresented by the 2021 Reproductive 
Model; extending Unit 5 around the Shuteye Pass area that supports 
multiple female home ranges and contains atypical, high-elevation 
habitat that was underrepresented by the 2021 Reproductive Model; and 
extending Unit 5 to include atypical, high-elevation habitat 
underrepresented by the 2021 Reproductive Model along Glacier Point 
Road in Yosemite National Park where fishers have been consistently 
detected.
    (3) We are editing the physical and biological feature to ensure 
its clarity and to better reflect the inclusivity of reproductive 
habitat, which consists of denning, foraging, and dispersal areas. This 
is consistent with the approach taken by experts for the development of 
the 2021 Reproductive Model.
    (4) We are revising the criteria used to identify critical habitat 
to use the best available science including the 2021 Reproductive 
Model, expert opinion on additional areas that contain the physical and 
biological feature that is essential to the conservation of the 
species, and research on fisher use of post-fire landscapes.
    (5) We are continuing to consider the exclusion of Southern 
California Edison Company (SCE) lands and the Tule River Indian 
Reservation as described in our October 19, 2021, proposed rule. 
However, the acreages of revised proposed critical habitat on SCE and 
Tule River Indian Tribe lands, and thus the acreages considered for 
exclusion, have changed based on the revised criteria. As described in 
our October 19, 2021, proposed rule, the considered exclusion of the 
Tule River Indian Reservation is based on our partnership with the 
Tribe, the Tribe's long history of managing and protecting forest 
resources, and fisher-specific conservation measures the Tribe 
implements when conducting activities (Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2021, 
pp. 16-

[[Page 66990]]

27). The Tribal acreage within Unit 2 considered for exclusion has 
decreased from 16,246 ac (6,574 ha) to 14,622 ac (5,917 ha) due to a 
reduction in the amount of predicted suitable habitat on the 
Reservation according to the 2021 Reproductive Model. The SCE acreage 
within Unit 4 and considered for exclusion has decreased from 10,254 ac 
(4,150 ha) to 8,322 (3,368 ha) mainly due to our consideration of the 
effects of the Creek Fire on fisher habitat.
    All of the lands in the above-described revised proposed units were 
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied, contain the 
physical or biological feature to support life-history functions 
essential to the conservation of the SSN DPS of fisher, and may require 
special management considerations or protection from threats as 
described in the October 19, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 57773). Revised 
proposed unit descriptions follow for all six units, and short textual 
descriptions of each proposed unit are also updated in the regulatory 
text of the critical habitat designation.
    The DEA for the proposed critical habitat designation (IEc 2021, 
entire) has been revised (IEc 2022, entire) and addresses additional 
information and considerations by the Service. Based on consultation 
history for the SSN DPS of fisher and with consideration of this 
revised proposed rule, the number of section 7 efforts is likely to be 
approximately 8 formal consultations, 52 informal consultations, and 4 
technical assistance per year on average, with the highest costs 
anticipated in Units 2 and 5 (IEc 2022, pp. 2, 14-15). The additional 
administrative (incremental) cost of addressing adverse modification in 
these consultations is likely to be less than $180,100 (2022 dollars) 
per year (IEc 2022, pp. 2, 17, 19). This represents an $800 increase in 
the annual administrative cost relative to the July 1, 2021, version of 
the DEA.

Revised Physical or Biological Feature Essential to the Conservation of 
the Species

    We derive the specific physical or biological feature essential for 
the SSN DPS of fisher from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, 
and life history, which are described more fully in the final listing 
rule (85 FR 29532, May 15, 2020) and the species report (Service 2016, 
entire) that was developed to supplement the proposed listing rule (79 
FR 60419, October 7, 2014) and revised proposed listing rule (84 FR 
60278, November 7, 2019).
    We have determined that there is one feature, which is considered 
both physical and biological, that is essential to the conservation of 
the SSN DPS of fisher. Additional information can be found in the final 
listing rule (85 FR 29532, May 15, 2020) and the species report 
(Service 2016, entire) that was developed in conjunction with the 
proposed listing rule. These background documents are available on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2021-0060.
    After reviewing the 2021 Reproductive Model and comments we 
received on our October 19, 2021, proposed rule, we are revising the 
physical and biological feature to better align with the best available 
science. While the 2015 Pre-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability 
Model and the 2020 Post-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability 
Model we used as the basis of our October 19, 2021, proposed rule 
focused entirely on known dens, the 2021 Reproductive Model took a 
broader approach at identifying the habitats that fishers require to 
successfully reproduce. In addition to habitat required for denning, 
the 2021 Reproductive Model also took into consideration rearing 
habitat (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 2). This includes foraging areas 
where females can capture prey to feed their young, and dispersal areas 
that mothers use to move their kits between dens and juveniles use to 
disperse from their natal home ranges to establish their own home 
ranges. Oftentimes, these denning and rearing habitats can overlap or 
even be the same (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 2). Collectively, these 
habitats each play an important role in a female fisher successfully 
raising her kits. Therefore, we revise our physical and biological 
feature to better capture this more inclusive ``reproductive habitat'' 
that is essential to the conservation of the species. We also revise 
the physical and biological feature to include additional forest types 
that fishers use to support reproduction (Muldoon 2021, in litt., p. 1; 
Thompson et al. 2020, p. 7).
    We have determined that the following feature, which is considered 
both physical and biological in character, is essential to the 
conservation of the SSN DPS of fisher: Suitable reproductive habitat 
that includes intermixed denning, foraging, and dispersal areas. Such 
habitat provides structural features for parturition, raising kits, 
protection from adverse weather conditions, facilitation of safe 
movement, sites to rest and thermoregulate, foraging opportunities, and 
cover to reduce predation risk for adults and young. The 
characteristics of this physical and biological feature include:
    (a) Forest types described as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 
eastside pine, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), montane hardwood-conifer, 
montane hardwood, montane riparian, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), 
Sierran mixed conifer, white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies 
magnifica), or lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) of California Wildlife 
Habitat Relationships size and density classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, or 6 
(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, entire; Thompson et al. 2020, p. 7).
    (b) Forest stands in or near drainages with clusters of large, 
mature trees and snags, high canopy cover (generally greater than or 
equal to 60 percent), complex horizontal and vertical forest structure 
(e.g., multilayered canopy, moderate shrub cover, downed wood, 
vegetation of varying age classes), a moderate intermix of California 
black oak (Quercus kelloggii), and fairly steep slopes (greater than or 
equal to 17 percent) (Zhao et al. 2012, p. 117; Spencer et al. 2015, 
pp. 33-35; Green et al. 2019, entire).
    (c) Multiple large diameter trees (live or dead), such as conifers 
greater than or equal to 35 inches (in) (89 centimeters (cm)) and 
hardwoods greater than or equal to 25 in (63 cm) in diameter (Spencer 
et al. 2015, p. 39), with cavities that provide secure natal and 
maternal den sites (Green et al. 2019, p. 136). Some of these large 
diameter trees or snags should also have branch platforms, broken top 
platforms, mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infections, and other 
deformities or structures that provide resting sites (Green et al. 
2019, p. 136).
    (d) Shrub and tree clumps, large downed logs, and other structures 
that provide continuous dense cover or patches of dense cover that are 
close together to provide protection from predators (Spencer et al. 
2015, p. 33; Green 2017, pp. 101-102).
    (e) Intermixed foraging areas that typically include a diversity of 
vegetation types and seral stages to support a variety of prey species 
(such as western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), Douglas squirrels 
(Tamiasciurus douglasii), California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus 
beecheyi), dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), and other small 
mammals) (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 30), and structures that provide 
fishers resting sites and protection from predators.
    (f) Intermixed dispersal areas that provide connectivity between 
patches of denning habitat to allow for movement of individuals within 
subpopulations. Dispersal areas must contain structures and habitat 
characteristics that facilitate

[[Page 66991]]

resting and safe movement (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 52). These habitat 
characteristics and structures include some overhead cover from trees 
or shrubs (i.e., greater than 30 percent for male dispersal and greater 
than 60 percent for female dispersal (Tucker et al. 2017, pp. 14-15; 
Spencer et al. 2016, p. 10)), snags, downed logs, or other components 
to protect fishers from predation and allow for sufficient resting 
opportunities.

Revised Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    Based on the release of the 2021 Reproductive Model and after 
reviewing peer and public comments on our October 19, 2021, proposed 
rule, we revised the criteria used to identify critical habitat. This 
new information represents the best available science that forms the 
basis of our proposed designation. In summary, we made the following 
revisions to the criteria for identifying critical habitat:
    (1) Replace the 2015 Pre-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability 
Model and the 2020 Post-Drought Fisher Denning Habitat Suitability 
Model with the 2021 Reproductive Model;
    (2) Include additional areas that species experts suggest were 
underrepresented or undervalued by the 2021 Reproductive Model but 
support the physical and biological feature and are essential to the 
conservation of the species (see Habitat Analysis, below, for more 
details);
    (3) Use wildfire burn severity data to identify areas that no 
longer support the physical and biological feature due to impacts of 
recent wildfires; and
    (4) Exclude buildings and the defensible space around buildings 
solely via text instead of using Cal Fire's housing density data to 
spatially remove these areas on the associated critical habitat maps.
    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat. We determined that occupied areas 
are sufficient for contributing to the conservation of the SSN DPS of 
fisher, following our evaluation of all suitable habitat across the 
DPS's range that has documented use by fishers.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the 
time of listing, we employed the following basic steps to delineate 
critical habitat (which are described in detail in the text following 
this list):
    (1) We compiled fisher detection data and determined the geographic 
area that was occupied by the species at the time of listing (see 
Occupancy Analysis, below).
    (2) Using the best available science, including habitat models, 
expert opinion, and reasonable inferences regarding female home range 
size and the effect of high severity wildfire, we conducted a habitat 
analysis to identify the spatial extent of the physical and biological 
feature (see Habitat Analysis, below).
    (3) Based on the results of these analyses, we delineated six 
discrete critical habitat units (including one unit--Unit 4--that is 
subdivided into two subunits) separated by evidence of genetic 
discontinuity and gaps in contiguous reproductive habitat typically 
associated with major river canyons (see Mapping Critical Habitat 
Units, below).

Data Sources

    For our occupancy analysis, habitat analysis, and subsequent unit 
delineations, we used a variety of data sources that provide 
information regarding the occupied range of the fisher, the spatial 
extent of suitable fisher habitat, and habitat condition, including:
    (1) Fisher observation data from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 
Natural Resource Information System, University of California (UC) 
Berkeley Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project, USFS Sierra Nevada 
Carnivore Monitoring Program, and National Park Service (NPS) 
databases;
    (2) Models developed by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI), 
including the 2021 Reproductive Model and the 2020 Post-Drought Fisher 
Landscape-Scale Habitat Suitability Model (2020 Landscape-Scale Model);
    (3) Wildfire data from the joint U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-USFS 
Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) project; and
    (4) Lake, reservoir, and pond dataset from California Department of 
Fish and Wildlife.

Occupancy Analysis

    We used recent fisher observation data to identify the geographic 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. We reviewed USFS, 
NPS, and UC Berkeley fisher detection data including visual 
observations, remote camera detections, scat and hair samples, tracks, 
and radio telemetry locations from 1990-2020. This timeframe overlaps 
with the beginning of extensive surveying and monitoring efforts in the 
Sierra Nevada that continue today (Zielinski et al. 1995, entire) and 
recent northward population expansion of fishers that has occurred over 
the last few decades (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131). Fisher occupancy has 
remained relatively stable throughout the southern Sierra Nevada from 
2002 through 2015 (Zielinski et al. 2013, pp. 8-10; Tucker 2019, pers. 
comm.), indicating that, in general, sites that were previously 
occupied continued to be occupied into the mid-2010s. Analyses on 
occupancy during recent years (2016-2021) are ongoing (Craig 2021, in 
litt., p. 3).
    Based on these data, we determined that the northern extent of the 
geographic area occupied at the time of listing was the Tuolumne River 
in Yosemite National Park (Mariposa County) and the southern limit was 
the Greenhorn Mountains in Sequoia National Forest (Kern County). The 
eastern limit of the current species' range is the high-elevation, 
granite-dominated mountains and the western limit is the low-elevation 
extent of mixed-conifer forest.

Habitat Analysis

    We used two habitat models developed by CBI to better understand 
the broad-scale spatial extent of reproductive habitat in the southern 
Sierra Nevada. Our analysis was largely focused on reproductive habitat 
because this habitat type is essential for successful denning, rearing 
of kits, and juvenile recruitment. Reproductive habitat also supports 
other life-history activities necessary for female and male survival, 
such as foraging, resting, and dispersal. Therefore, sustaining and 
enhancing the broad-scale spatial extent of reproductive habitat, 
composed of fine-scale denning, foraging, and dispersal areas, is vital 
to conservation and recovery of the species (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 
9).
    We used the 2021 Reproductive Model (Thompson et al. 2021a, entire) 
to identify the broad-scale spatial extent of reproductive habitat. 
This 2021 Reproductive Model used a combination of fisher observations 
indicative of

[[Page 66992]]

habitat used by female fishers for raising their young, including known 
den locations, detections of family groups, and detections of adult 
females during the denning period (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 3). The 
2021 Reproductive Model also includes 12 biotic and abiotic predictors 
including climate, hydrology, and forest structure variables (Thompson 
et al. 2021a, pp. 4, 6). By using a combination of fisher observation 
data paired with a variety of environmental variables, the 2021 
Reproductive Model's results are representative of habitat that is most 
likely to support fisher reproduction (i.e., habitat that supports 
potential dens plus foraging areas that females use to capture prey and 
dispersal areas that connect multiple dens within a home range and 
allows juveniles to disperse from their natal ranges to establish their 
own home ranges). There are known instances where female fishers have 
denned and successfully reproduced outside of the modeled extent of 
predicted reproductive habitat (see more details regarding 
underrepresentation and undervaluation of habitat quality below). Model 
results are not intended to conclude complete absence of dens or 
fishers outside of the predicted areas. It is important to note that 
the 2021 Reproductive Model merely predicts the areas that are most 
likely to support fisher reproduction, rather than representing the 
absolute area where fishers will successfully reproduce (Thompson et 
al. 2021a, p. 9).
    The 2021 Reproductive Model's output is presented as two classes: 
high-quality and moderate-quality reproductive habitat. However, the 
suitability thresholds are somewhat subjective, and the modelers 
cautioned that the boundaries between the two classes should not be 
treated as absolutes (Thompson et al. 2021a, p. 10). For the purposes 
of identifying the spatial extent of the physical and biological 
feature, we considered both high-quality and moderate-quality modeled 
reproductive habitat to represent suitable habitat most likely to 
support successful reproduction.
    The Kern Plateau, where females have repeatedly been detected 
during regional monitoring surveys (Craig 2021, in litt., p. 3), has 
unique environmental conditions due to differences in climate, geology, 
and vegetation compared to the west slope of the Sierra Nevada (Spencer 
et al. 2015, p. 44). These unique conditions result in true differences 
in habitat value on the Kern Plateau compared to the rest of the 
fisher's range (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 35). For this reason, the Kern 
Plateau is excluded from the 2021 Reproductive Model (Thompson et al. 
2021a, p. 4). To ensure that essential areas of suitable habitat on the 
Kern Plateau are considered for inclusion in critical habitat, we used 
CBI's 2020 Landscape-Scale Model, which predicts the probability of 
fisher occurrence (also interpreted as a measure of habitat quality) 
(Spencer et al. 2015, pp. A-1-A-4). Areas that are strongly selected 
for by fishers have a predicted probability of fisher occupancy (i.e., 
habitat suitability) of 0.41 and higher (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 42). 
For the purposes of our analysis, we consider habitat above this 
threshold to be ``high-quality habitat.'' Using the 2020 Landscape-
Scale Model, we identified all high-quality habitat on the Kern 
Plateau. We compared this high-quality habitat with fisher detection 
data and determined that this output is an appropriate surrogate for 
reproductive habitat on the Kern Plateau.
    To determine if a patch of reproductive habitat, or high-quality 
habitat in the case of the Kern Plateau, is essential to the 
conservation of the DPS, we considered the size of the patch in 
relation to fisher ecology. We compared patch size with female 
territory size to determine the minimum size patch necessary to aid in 
the conservation of the species. Based on an analysis of female home 
ranges, species experts identified an average female breeding territory 
size of 2,471 acres as the appropriate scale to assess fisher habitat 
(Spencer et al. 2016, p. 27). This average territory size takes into 
account overlap between neighboring female home ranges and variation in 
habitat quality. This territory size is also similar to the average 
size of a female fisher's core use area, which is the portion of the 
home range where an animal spends a majority of its time (Spencer et 
al. 2015, pp. 17-18). For the purposes of our analysis, we rounded this 
territory size up and consider a female home range size to be 2,500 
acres. We determined patches of reproductive habitat that are of an 
appropriate size to support a subpopulation (i.e., at least five female 
fishers based on analyses conducted by Spencer et al. (2015, pp. 41-
42)) as essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, 
patches of reproductive habitat 12,500 ac (5,059 ha) or larger are 
included in the revised proposed critical habitat designation. We also 
included one additional patch that plays an important role for the DPS 
despite being slightly smaller than our minimum size threshold. This 
patch is approximately 12,049 ac (4,876 ha) and is located within the 
average juvenile female dispersal distance (3.04 mi (4.9 km) (Spencer 
et al. 2015, p. 20)) of two subpopulations with high occupancy rates. 
In addition to providing a moderately large patch of reproductive 
habitat, this patch also provides important connectivity between the 
two robust subpopulations (Coleman 2022, pers. comm.). Further, this 
patch is of heightened importance to the DPS when considering the 
impacts that recent fires have had on surrounding habitats (Coleman 
2022, pers. comm.).
    The models used for our analysis resulted in outputs with several 
``holes'' where modeled reproductive habitat quality dropped below a 
threshold set by the modelers based on their understanding of 
reproductive habitat selection by fishers. Based on our review of 
aerial imagery, canopy cover, and other data, the habitat within these 
holes is still expected to support fisher foraging or dispersal, 
especially for males. Due to their proximity to denning habitat and 
their utility to support other life-history needs of the fisher, we 
determined that the habitat within these holes can play an essential 
role in an established home range or for a dispersing female or male 
fisher. Therefore, we determined that these areas contain the physical 
and biological feature essential to the conservation of the SSN DPS of 
fisher and we include them in the proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    The modelers note that sampling bias in the 2021 Reproductive 
Model's training data (i.e., data used to build the model) may result 
in limited accuracy of the model's results in certain areas (Thompson 
et al. 2021a, pp. 8, 10). In some circumstances, this sampling bias 
resulted in the 2021 Reproductive Model predicting certain areas to be 
of low quality even though the area supports fisher and fisher habitat. 
This undervaluing of habitat quality is most likely to occur at higher 
elevations where training data were lacking or in areas with slightly 
different habitat composition than represented by the training data 
(Thompson et al. 2021a, pp. 8, 10). Thus, Thompson et al. (2021a, p. 
10) recommends using the 2021 Reproductive Model in concert with 
additional information, such as species expert opinion on habitat 
quality and availability in local areas. To ensure our methodology does 
not inadvertently omit areas that support the physical and biological 
feature and are essential to the conservation of the species, we 
solicited expert opinion to identify areas where the 2021 Reproductive 
Model or the 2020 Landscape-Scale Model may have underrepresented 
habitat availability and quality. Using these identified areas

[[Page 66993]]

of additional habitat availability, we include the following areas that 
support the physical and biological feature and are essential to the 
conservation of the species despite being outside of the modeled area:
    (1) We added unmodeled habitat to the southern extent of Unit 1 on 
the Kern Plateau. This model correction better reflects fisher habitat 
use based on regional monitoring (Craig 2021, in litt., pp. 3, 13). 
This added area is also important considering the impacts of wildfires 
that have altered habitat in surrounding areas (Craig 2021, in litt., 
p. 3).
    (2) We added unmodeled habitat to the northern extent of Unit 3 in 
the Hume Lake area where consistent occupancy throughout the duration 
of USFS's monitoring program and recent detections of adult females 
confirm the use of habitat in this area and thus suggest the 2021 
Reproductive Model undervalues habitat quality here (Tucker 2022, pers. 
comm.).
    (3) We added a patch of unmodeled habitat east of Mammoth Pool 
Reservoir that contains the physical and biological feature, has been 
consistently occupied throughout the duration of USFS's monitoring 
program's history, and supports successful reproduction as indicated by 
detections of adult females and kits (Craig 2021, in litt., pp. 4, 14; 
Tucker 2022, pers. comm.). In addition to supporting reproduction, this 
area also provides important connectivity between occupied areas to the 
south and west. This area contains atypical, high-elevation habitat 
that the 2021 Reproductive Model undervalued in quality (Tucker 2022, 
pers. comm.).
    (4) We added unmodeled habitat to the southeastern extent of Unit 4 
to include an area around Shuteye Peak, Little Shuteye Peak, and 
Shuteye Pass. This area, which consists of atypical habitat at higher 
elevations that the 2021 Reproductive Model undervalues in quality, 
supports several adult females' home ranges that were monitored for the 
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project Fisher Study (Sweitzer 2021, 
in litt., pp. 3-7; Sweitzer et al. 2015, entire). In addition to 
supporting known reproduction, this area was also identified as an 
important habitat corridor for fishers making both long- and short-
distance dispersal movements (Sweitzer 2021, in litt., pp. 4, 6-7; 
Sweitzer et al. 2015, p. D109).
    (5) We added unmodeled habitat to the northeastern extent of Unit 5 
to include occupied habitat along Glacier Point Road in Yosemite 
National Park based on consistent detections of males and females by 
the NPS (Muldoon 2021, in litt., p. 1). This area consists of atypical 
habitat types at high elevations that were underrepresented in the 2021 
Reproductive Model despite the importance for the persistence of the 
species.
    Within the areas modeled as reproductive habitat and the additional 
essential areas that support reproduction according to species experts, 
we identified and removed certain areas that do not contain the 
physical and biological feature or are not essential to the 
conservation of the species. First, we removed all lakes, reservoirs, 
and ponds from the proposed designation because these features do not 
support the fisher's life-history activities.
    Next, we considered the impact of recent wildfires on fisher 
habitat. The fisher's use of post-fire landscapes is not well 
understood because few studies on the topic exist, but high-severity 
fire is believed to have significant negative effects on the fisher and 
its habitat (Craig 2021, in litt., p. 2). One recent study in the 
southern Sierra Nevada found that fishers avoid areas dominated by 
high- and moderate-severity fire and the fisher's use of post-fire 
habitat may center on larger, more contiguous patches of low-severity 
burns or unburned islands and on fine-scale topographic features 
associated with landscape concavity (e.g., ravines) (Thompson et al. 
2021b, p. 235). A study conducted on the Northern California-Southern 
Oregon DPS of fisher concluded that fisher abundance decreased 
significantly in areas of low-, moderate-, and high-severity wildfire 
(Green et al. 2022, p. 12). The fisher's use of a burned area appears 
to gradually increase as time since the fire passes. Both Thompson et 
al. (2021b, pp. 235-236) and Green et al. (2022, p. 14) found that 
fishers began to explore the burned landscape after 2 or more years 
post-fire as vegetative cover, such as shrubs, begin to recover. In a 
study on the Kern Plateau, fishers were detected deeper into burned 
patches when surveyed 10+ years post-fire, mirroring Thompson et al.'s 
(2021b, p. 236) conclusion that fishers' willingness to venture farther 
into burned habitat increases over time (Hanson 2013, pp. 26-27; Hanson 
2015, pp. 499-500).
    While high-severity fire may not completely remove all suitable 
fisher habitat, it likely precludes successful reproduction, at least 
until the habitat structure required for raising kits recovers. Hanson 
(2015, p. 500) concluded that the fisher's use of high-severity burn 
areas revolves around foraging, rather than denning. Green et al. 
(2022, p. 14) posited that the two fishers detected within the studied 
burned areas were likely dispersing individuals that were attempting to 
establish home ranges, although one of the individuals (a female) was 
not detected in follow-up surveys, indicating she did not successfully 
establish a home range in the area. Similarly, Thompson et al. (2021b, 
p. 238) concluded that dispersing fishers may be drawn to burned 
landscapes with increased prey availability and reduced conflict with 
territorial adults, but post-burn habitat is unlikely to support 
reproduction due to lack of resting and denning structures, at least in 
the short term.
    Based on the best available science, we determined that the 
physical and biological feature does not occur in areas that recently 
burned in large, contiguous patches at high severity, especially along 
the periphery of modeled reproductive habitat patches. The 2021 
Reproductive Model used vegetation data from 2016, and, therefore, does 
not account for impacts of recent wildfires. We used MTBS Differenced 
Normalized Burn Ratio data from all wildfires that overlapped modeled 
fisher habitat from 2016 through 2020 to identify vegetation burn 
severity classes of individual fires. Using these data, we excluded 
from the critical habitat designation the burned areas that no longer 
support the physical and biological feature. Although MTBS data for 
2021 wildfires are not currently available for analysis in this revised 
proposed designation, we will consider the appropriateness of using 
2021 data following our methodology described here if the data become 
available while we are preparing the final rule. Incorporating these 
data in our final rule could potentially reduce the area designated as 
critical habitat if burn severity data suggest the physical and 
biological feature was removed in certain areas due to the 2021 fires.
    Finally, we considered areas with high human activity (i.e., areas 
immediately surrounding houses and buildings) that, although they may 
support fishers and their habitat, are not essential to the 
conservation of the DPS. Fishers are less likely to den in areas with 
high levels of human activity, such as immediately adjacent to human 
structures (Spencer et al. 2017, p. 4). Further, areas surrounding 
homes and buildings generally have been and will be treated heavily to 
reduce the risk of fire to human life and property. These intense fuels 
treatments (such as removing all ground vegetation within the 
defensible space surrounding a building) typically result in reduced 
habitat quality for fishers. We did not

[[Page 66994]]

geospatially remove houses and buildings and the defensible space 
around them from the maps under Proposed Regulation Promulgation, 
below, because accurate geospatial data were not available to us. 
However, buildings and the 100 feet (30.5 meters) of defensible space 
around buildings have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and 
are not proposed for designation as critical habitat because they do 
not contain the physical and biological feature. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these textually excluded lands, even if within the boundaries of 
critical habitat as shown by the maps of the rule, would not trigger 
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical and biological feature in the adjacent critical 
habitat.

Mapping Critical Habitat Units

    Consistent with previous analyses conducted for the Southern Sierra 
Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment (Spencer et al. 2015, pp. 41-52, 
A-4-A-5), six discrete units (including one unit--Unit 4--that is 
subdivided into two subunits) were delineated based on evidence of 
genetic discontinuity and gaps between patches of modeled habitat, 
typically associated with major river canyons. Unit 1 (Kern Plateau) 
and Unit 2 (South Sequoia) were separated based on a break in modeled 
habitat continuity along the Kern River Canyon. Unit 2 abuts Unit 3 
(North Sequoia), but the units were delineated based on evidence of 
genetic discontinuity (Tucker et al. 2014, pp. 129-132; Spencer et al. 
2015, pp. 10, 46). Consistent with Spencer et al. (2015, pp. 41, 46), 
we used Bear Creek in Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest to 
separate Units 2 and 3. Unit 3 and Unit 4 (South Sierra; Subunit 4A--
Blue Canyon) are separated by a gap in suitable habitat and evidence of 
genetic subdivision associated with the Kings River Canyon (Tucker et 
al. 2014, pp. 129-132). A break in modeled reproductive habitat 
separates Subunit 4A from Subunit 4B (Mammoth Pool East). Unit 4 
(Subunit 4B) and Unit 5 (North Sierra) are separated by the San Joaquin 
River and the associated discontinuity of suitable fisher habitat. 
Tucker et al. (2014, pp. 131-132) found slight genetic separation 
between the areas mapped as Unit 4 and Unit 5. Finally, Unit 5 and Unit 
6 (Stanislaus) are separated by the break in modeled habitat in the 
vicinity of the Merced River.
    Under this revised proposal, six units (including one unit--Unit 
4--that is subdivided into two subunits) are proposed for designation 
based on the physical and biological feature being present to support 
the fisher's life-history processes. All of the units contain the 
identified physical and biological feature (and all characteristics of 
the physical and biological feature) and support multiple life-history 
processes.
    The revised proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2021-0060.

Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    In total, we now propose to designate approximately 595,495 ac 
(240,988 ha) in six units (one unit of which is subdivided into two 
subunits). The six areas we propose as critical habitat (from south to 
north) are: (1) Kern Plateau; (2) South Sequoia; (3) North Sequoia; (4) 
South Sierra, including two subunits; (5) North Sierra; and (6) 
Stanislaus. The revised proposed critical habitat areas described below 
constitute our best assessment, at this time, of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat, and all units were occupied at the time 
of listing and are considered currently occupied by the species. The 
table below shows the proposed unit names, land ownership, and 
approximate acreage.
    This document also presents brief descriptions of the revised 
units, including the reasons why they meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher. All units contain the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection. This 
revised proposed critical habitat designation includes overlap of two 
units with portions of designated critical habitat for the federally 
threatened Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus) (see 50 CFR 17.95(d) and 81 
FR 59046, August 26, 2016). This revised proposed rule also includes 
overlap of one unit each with portions of designated critical habitat 
for the federally threatened Little Kern golden trout (Oncorhynchus 
aguabonita whitei) (see 50 CFR 17.95(e) and 43 FR 15427, April 13, 
1978) and the federally endangered California condor (Gymnogyps 
californianus) (see 50 CFR 17.95(b) and 41 FR 41914, September 24, 
1976). Overlap of proposed critical habitat for the SSN DPS of fisher 
includes 6,568 ac (2,657 ha) of Yosemite toad designated critical 
habitat, 7,847 ac (3,176 ha) of Little Kern golden trout designated 
critical habitat, and 118 ac (48 ha) of California condor designated 
critical habitat. Acreages of overlap are noted in the applicable unit 
descriptions, below.

                   Table of Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the SSN DPS of Fisher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Proposed
                                Land ownership                      Approx.        changes in     Previous unit
    Critical habitat unit          by type       Approx. acres     hectares          acres          numbering
                                                                                   (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1--Kern Plateau.........  Federal........          77,397          31,322  +13,266 (5,369)  No Change.
                               State..........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Tribal.........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Unclassified/               781             316  +127 (51)......
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Unit Total..          78,178          31,637  +13,393 (5,419)
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--South Sequoia........  Federal........         125,568          50,815  +32,462          No Change.
                                                                                 (13,136).
                               State..........           3,461           1,401  +1,314 (532)...
                               Tribal \1\.....          14,622           5,917  -1,624 (657)...
                               Unclassified/             6,310           2,554  +2,172 (880)...
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66995]]

 
                                  Unit Total..         149,962          60,687  +34,325
                                                                                 (13,890).
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Unit 3--North Sequoia \2\....  Federal........         108,015          43,712  +177 (72)......  Formerly
                               State..........           1,889             765  +188 (77)......   Subunits 3A,
                                                                                                  3B, and 3C.
                               Tribal.........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Unclassified/             5,048           2,043  +1,911 (774)...
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Unit Total..         114,952          46,519  +2,276 (922)...
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Unit 4--South Sierra \3\.....  Federal........          60,462          24,467  +14,339 (5,802)  Unit subdivided
                               State..........               0               0  0 (0)..........   into two
                                                                                                  subunits
                                                                                                  (below).
                               Tribal.........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Unclassified/            15,638           6,328  +738 (298).....
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Unit Total..          76,100          30,796  +15,077 (6,101)
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4A: Blue Canyon......  Federal........          46,499          18,817  No subunit in    New Subunit.
                               State..........               0               0   previous
                                                                                 proposed rule
                                                                                 \4\.
                               Tribal.........               0               0
                               Unclassified/            15,638           6,328
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Subunit               62,137          25,146
                                   Total.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4B: Mammoth Pool East  Federal........          13,963           5,650  No subunit in    New Subunit.
                               State..........               0               0   previous
                                                                                 proposed rule
                                                                                 \4\.
                               Tribal.........               0               0
                               Unclassified/                 0               0
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Subunit               13,963           5,650
                                   Total.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Unit 5--North Sierra.........  Federal........         135,918          55,004  -1,512 (612)...  No Change.
                               State..........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Tribal.........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Unclassified/             9,865           3,992  +65 (26).......
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Unit Total..         145,783          58,996  -1,447 (586)...
                                               -------------------------------------------------
Unit 6--Stanislaus...........  Federal........          29,920          12,108  -22,384 (9,059)  No Change.
                               State..........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Tribal.........               0               0  0 (0)..........
                               Unclassified/               601             243  -197 (80)......
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Unit Total..          30,521          12,352  -22,581 (9,138)
                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  Federal........         537,279         217,429  +36,346
                                                                                 (14,708).
                               State..........           5,350           2,165  +1,502 (608)...
                               Tribal.........          14,622           5,917  -1,624 (657)...
                               Unclassified/            38,243          15,476  +4,817 (1,949).
                                Private.
                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                  Total.......         595,495         240,988  +41,041
                                                                                 (16,609).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ These lands are held in Federal trust status by the United States for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the
  Tule River Reservation, California.
\2\ In the October 19, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 57773), Unit 3 consisted of three subunits. Under this revised
  proposed rule, we determined that subdividing this unit into subunits was not appropriate because there is no
  genetic differentiation or significant breaks of contiguous habitat within the unit.
\3\ In this revised proposed rule, we propose that Unit 4 consists of two subunits, whereas there were no
  subunits within Unit 4 in the October 19, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 57773). For this revised proposed rule, a
  significant break in contiguous habitat within Unit 4 indicates that the unit should be managed as two
  subunits.
\4\ Previous proposed rule refers to the October 19, 2021, proposed rule published at 86 FR 57773.

    The revised proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the 
map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented 
at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. The 
rule portion of this document depicts all the proposed critical habitat 
units as revised by this proposal. We include more detailed information 
on the boundaries of the revised proposed critical habitat designation 
in the discussion of revised proposed individual units, below.

Unit 1: Kern Plateau

    Unit 1 consists of 78,178 ac (31,637 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Tulare County, California. Unit 1 is situated on 
the Kern Plateau, east of the Kern River, west of South Fork Kern 
River, north of Cannell Peak, and south of Templeton Mountain. Lands 
within this unit include approximately 77,397 ac (31,322 ha; 99 
percent) in Federal ownership (Inyo National Forest and Sequoia 
National Forest, USFS) and 781 ac (316 ha; 1

[[Page 66996]]

percent) in private ownership. General land use within this unit 
includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction, 
hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed fire), grazing, 
and recreation.
    Unit 1 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
unit is the only unit not on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada; is 
located on the Kern Plateau, which supports unique environmental 
conditions compared to the rest of the fisher's range due to 
differences in climate, geology, and vegetation; and has a complex 
mosaic of mixed-age forest stands intermixed with open areas and 
shrublands (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 44). Additionally, fishers in this 
unit occupy higher elevations than in other units, likely due to the 
lesser accumulation of snow on the Kern Plateau (Spencer et al. 2015, 
p. 44). The unique environmental conditions of this unit provide 
important redundancy and representation for the DPS.
    Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire 
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and 
insect infestation; vegetation management; and exposure to toxicants. 
Special management considerations or protection measures to reduce or 
alleviate the threats may include: (1) Implementing forest management 
practices, especially the use of prescribed fire, that reduce the risk 
of catastrophic wildfire and improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent 
to fisher habitat; (2) minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, 
and destruction (at the stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape 
scale) from vegetation management activities through the use of 
conservation measures; and (3) preventing, locating, and remediating 
trespass marijuana grow sites and other sources of toxicants. Federal 
lands in this unit are managed under the Land Management Plan for the 
Inyo National Forest (USFS 2019, entire) and the Sierra Nevada Forest 
Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire).

Unit 2: South Sequoia

    Unit 2 consists of 149,962 ac (60,687 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Kern and Tulare Counties, California. This unit 
extends northward from approximately Woodward Peak in the Greenhorn 
Mountains until it abuts Unit 3 to the north, where there is evidence 
of genetic discontinuity between the two subpopulations in the area of 
Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (Mountain Home) (Tucker et al. 
2014, pp. 129-131). The northern boundary of Unit 2 roughly follows 
Bear Creek in the Tule River Watershed until its headwaters, then 
continues in a linear northeasterly path to the eastern edge of the 
unit. The unit lies west of Isabella Lake, the Kern River, and 
Sagebrush Gulch. Unit 2 is east of Springville and California Hot 
Springs. Lands within this unit include approximately 124,750 ac 
(50,484 ha; 83 percent) managed by USFS (Sequoia National Forest, Giant 
Sequoia National Monument) and 818 ac (331 ha; 1 percent) managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Also, there are 3,461 ac (1,401 
ha; 2 percent) in State ownership (Cal Fire), 14,622 ac (5,917 ha; 10 
percent) that are Tribal lands (i.e., the Tule River Indian Tribe of 
the Tule River Reservation, California), and 6,310 ac (2,554 ha; 4 
percent) in private ownership. We are considering excluding 14,622 ac 
(5,917 ha) of the Tule River Reservation based on the Tribe's long 
history of managing natural resources on the Reservation. General land 
use within this unit includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, 
fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed 
fire), grazing, recreation, residential development, and management for 
protection of natural resources.
    Unit 2 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
unit is important for the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of 
the DPS because it supports the highest recorded fisher occupancy rates 
(Tucker 2020, pers. comm.), the highest predicted average habitat 
quality (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46), and the highest genetic diversity 
(Tucker et al. 2014, entire) in the DPS. This unit supports habitat 
features and conditions that are optimal for successful reproduction, 
such as scattered giant sequoia groves and relatively abundant old-
growth mixed-conifer forest with large sugar pines, high basal areas, 
high diversity of tree diameter classes, and dense canopy cover 
(greater than 70 percent) (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46). Approximately 
7,847 ac (3,176 ha) of the unit overlap with designated critical 
habitat for the federally threatened Little Kern golden trout (see 50 
CFR 17.95(e) and 43 FR 15427, April 13, 1978).
    Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire 
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and 
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants; and 
vehicle collisions. Special management considerations or protection 
measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include: (1) 
Implementing forest management practices, especially the use of 
prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to fisher habitat; (2) 
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the 
stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation 
management activities through the use of conservation measures; (3) 
preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and 
other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing 
road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on 
major roadways. Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Sierra 
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire), the Giant Sequoia 
National Monument Management Plan (USFS 2012, entire), and the Approved 
Resource Management Plan for the Bakersfield Field Office (BLM 2014, 
entire).

Unit 3: North Sequoia

    Unit 3 consists of 114,952 ac (46,519 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Tulare and Fresno Counties, California. This unit 
runs mostly in a north-south linear pattern from the Kings River to the 
north until it abuts Unit 2 at Bear Creek to the south (see the 
boundary description for Unit 2, above). The unit is located west of 
the Great Western Divide and east of Blue Ridge and the communities of 
Miramonte and Three Rivers. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 31,313 ac (12,672 ha; 27 percent) managed by USFS (Sierra 
National Forest and Sequoia National Forest, including Giant Sequoia 
National Monument), 72,185 ac (29,212 ha; 63 percent) managed by NPS 
(Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks), and 4,517 ac (1,828 ha; 4 
percent) managed by BLM. Also, there are 1,889 ac (765 ha; 2 percent) 
in State ownership (Cal Fire and State Lands Commission) and 5,048 ac 
(2,043 ha; 4 percent) in private ownership. General land use within 
this unit includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels 
reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed 
fire), grazing, recreation, and management for protection of natural 
resources.
    Unit 3 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
unit supports high fisher occupancy rates (Tucker 2020, pers. comm.), 
suggesting it supports relatively high population densities (Spencer et 
al. 2015, p. 46) compared to

[[Page 66997]]

other areas within its range, which provides resiliency for the DPS. 
This unit has high predicted habitat value due to mature forest 
conditions and numerous giant sequoia groves and other mixed-coniferous 
forests with high basal area, dense canopies, and abundant black oaks 
that support denning features (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 46). 
Approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of the unit overlap with designated 
critical habitat for the federally endangered California condor (see 50 
CFR 17.95(b); 41 FR 41914, September 24, 1976; 42 FR 47840, September 
22, 1977).
    Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire 
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and 
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants; and 
vehicle collisions. Special management considerations or protection 
measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include: (1) 
Implementing forest management practices, especially the use of 
prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to fisher habitat; (2) 
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the 
stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation 
management activities through the use of conservation measures; (3) 
preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and 
other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing 
road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on 
major roadways. Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Sierra 
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire), the Giant Sequoia 
National Monument Management Plan (USFS 2012, entire), the Sequoia and 
Kings Canyon National Parks General Management Plan (NPS 2012, entire), 
and the Approved Resource Management Plan for the Bakersfield Field 
Office (BLM 2014, entire).

Unit 4: South Sierra

    Unit 4 consists of 76,100 ac (30,796 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. Unit 4 is composed of 
two subunits.
Subunit 4A: Blue Canyon
    Subunit 4A consists of 62,137 ac (25,146 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. Patterson Mountain marks 
the approximate southeastern tip of subunit 4A, which then continues to 
the northwest approximately to the communities of Shaver Lake and 
Pineridge. Subunit 4A is situated east of Cats Head Mountain and 
Burrough Mountain and west of Exchequer Meadow and Bald Mountain. Lands 
within this subunit include approximately 46,499 ac (18,817 ha; 75 
percent) in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest; USFS) and 15,638 
ac (6,328 ha; 25 percent) in private ownership. Of the private lands 
within this subunit, we are considering excluding approximately 8,322 
ac (3,368 ha) owned by Southern California Edison Company based on of 
their forest management practices that are compatible with fisher 
conservation by providing suitable habitat and reducing threats to the 
DPS. General land use within this subunit includes forest management 
(e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest 
restoration, prescribed fire), grazing, recreation, and residential 
development.
    Subunit 4A is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
subunit is located between areas with high occupancy rates to the south 
and the recently re-colonized areas to the north, indicating this 
subunit is essential for continued population and range expansion. 
Approximately 2,598 ac (1,051 ha) of the subunit overlap with 
designated critical habitat for the federally threatened Yosemite toad 
(see 50 CFR 17.95(d) and 81 FR 59046, August 26, 2016).
    Threats identified within this subunit include wildfire and 
wildfire suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, 
disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to 
toxicants; and vehicle collisions. Special management considerations or 
protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include: (1) 
Implementing forest management practices, especially the use of 
prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to fisher habitat; (2) 
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the 
stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation 
management activities through the use of conservation measures; (3) 
preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and 
other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing 
road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on 
major roadways. Federal lands in this subunit are managed under the 
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire).
Subunit 4B: Mammoth Pool East
    Subunit 4B consists of 13,963 ac (5,650 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Fresno County, California. This subunit is located 
east of Mammoth Pool Reservoir and the San Joaquin River, north of 
Kaiser Wilderness, south of the South Fork San Joaquin River, and west 
of Tule and Sample Meadows. The entirety of lands within this subunit 
are in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest; USFS). General land 
use within this subunit includes forest management (e.g., timber 
harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration, 
prescribed fire), grazing, and recreation.
    Subunit 4B is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
subunit supports unique habitat and is at higher elevations than many 
other areas within the occupied range of the DPS. In addition to 
supporting successful reproduction, this subunit is also important in 
providing connectivity for fisher dispersing to and from Unit 5.
    Threats identified within this subunit include wildfire and 
wildfire suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, 
disease, and insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to 
toxicants; and vehicle collisions. Special management considerations or 
protection measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include: (1) 
Implementing forest management practices, especially the use of 
prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to fisher habitat; (2) 
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the 
stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation 
management activities through the use of conservation measures; (3) 
preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and 
other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing 
road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on 
major roadways. Federal lands in this subunit are managed under the 
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire).

Unit 5: North Sierra

    Unit 5 consists of 145,783 ac (58,996 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Madera and Mariposa Counties, California. Unit 5 
lies north and west of the San Joaquin River, east of Bass Lake, 
California State Route 49, and the community of El Portal, and

[[Page 66998]]

south of the Big Oak Flat Road. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 95,378 ac (38,598 ha; 65 percent) managed by USFS (Sierra 
National Forest and Stanislaus National Forest), 40,296 ac (16,307 ha; 
28 percent) managed by NPS (Yosemite National Park), 51 ac (21 ha; less 
than 1 percent) managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (a public 
domain allotment held in trust status; not affiliated with a recognized 
Tribe), and 193 ac (78 ha; less than 1 percent) managed by BLM. Also, 
there are 9,865 ac (3,992 ha; 7 percent) in private ownership. General 
land use within this unit includes forest management (e.g., timber 
harvest, fuels reduction, hazard tree management, forest restoration, 
prescribed fire), grazing, recreation, and residential development.
    Unit 5 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
unit supports relatively high predicted habitat quality with a high 
proportion of shade-tolerant incense cedar and white fir that fishers 
use for denning and resting (Spencer et al. 2015, p. 49). This unit was 
recently re-colonized in the 1990s (Tucker et al. 2014, p. 131), and 
its habitat is essential to support the species' continued northern 
expansion. Approximately 3,970 ac (1,606 ha) of the unit overlap with 
designated critical habitat for the federally threatened Yosemite toad 
(see 50 CFR 17.95(d) and 81 FR 59046, August 26, 2016).
    Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire 
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and 
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants; and 
vehicle collisions. Special management considerations or protection 
measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include: (1) 
Implementing forest management practices, especially the use of 
prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to fisher habitat; (2) 
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the 
stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation 
management activities through the use of conservation measures; (3) 
preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and 
other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing 
road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on 
major roadways. Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Sierra 
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire), Yosemite National 
Park General Management Plan (NPS 1980, entire), and Approved Resource 
Management Plan for the Bakersfield Field Office (BLM 2014, entire).

Unit 6: Stanislaus

    Unit 6 consists of 30,521 ac (12,352 ha) of lands in the Sierra 
Nevada mountains in Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California. Unit 6 
is situated north of the Merced River and the community of El Portal, 
south of Sawmill Mountain, east of Scott Ridge, west of Tamarack Flat, 
and southwest of Ackerson Meadow. The unit forms a ``U'' to the east, 
north, and west around Anderson Flat. Lands within this unit include 
approximately 22,078 ac (8,935 ha; 72 percent) managed by USFS 
(Stanislaus National Forest) and 7,842 ac (3,174 ha; 26 percent) 
managed by NPS (Yosemite National Park). Also, there are 601 ac (243 
ha; 2 percent) in private ownership. General land use within this unit 
includes forest management (e.g., timber harvest, fuels reduction, 
hazard tree management, forest restoration, prescribed fire), grazing, 
recreation, and residential development.
    Unit 6 is occupied by the fisher and contains the physical and 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. This 
unit represents the northernmost extent of the species' current range 
and was recently re-colonized over the previous decade, with possible 
evidence of reproduction documented for the first time in 2020 (Stock 
2021, pers. comm.). This northward expansion and establishment of a 
subpopulation north of the Merced River improves the redundancy of the 
DPS.
    Threats identified within this unit include wildfire and wildfire 
suppression; climate change; tree mortality from drought, disease, and 
insect infestation; vegetation management; exposure to toxicants; and 
vehicle collisions. Special management considerations or protection 
measures to reduce or alleviate the threats may include: (1) 
Implementing forest management practices, especially the use of 
prescribed fire, that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and 
improve habitat resiliency in and adjacent to fisher habitat; (2) 
minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction (at the 
stand scale, home-range scale, and landscape scale) from vegetation 
management activities through the use of conservation measures; (3) 
preventing, locating, and remediating trespass marijuana grow sites and 
other sources of toxicants; and (4) improving the efficacy of existing 
road-crossing structures and installing new wildlife road crossings on 
major roadways. Federal lands in this unit are managed under the Sierra 
Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2004, entire) and the Yosemite 
National Park General Management Plan (NPS 1980, entire).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this document is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and Sacramento 
Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be 
amended at 86 FR 57773 (October 19, 2021) as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Further amend Sec.  17.95(a), as proposed to be amended at 86 FR 
57773, in the entry for ``Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra 
Nevada Distinct Population Segment (DPS)'', by revising paragraphs (2) 
through (11) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS)
* * * * *
    (2) Within these areas, the physical and biological feature 
essential to the conservation of the Southern Sierra Nevada DPS of 
fisher is suitable reproductive habitat that includes intermixed 
denning, foraging, and dispersal areas. Such habitat provides 
structural features for parturition,

[[Page 66999]]

raising kits, protection from adverse weather conditions, facilitation 
of safe movement, sites to rest and thermoregulate, foraging 
opportunities, and cover to reduce predation risk for adults and young. 
The characteristics of this physical and biological feature include:
    (i) Forest types described as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 
eastside pine, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), montane hardwood-conifer, 
montane hardwood, montane riparian, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), 
Sierran mixed conifer, white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies 
magnifica), or lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) of California Wildlife 
Habitat Relationships size and density classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, or 6.
    (ii) Forest stands in or near drainages with clusters of large, 
mature trees and snags, high canopy cover (generally greater than or 
equal to 60 percent), complex horizontal and vertical forest structure 
(e.g., multilayered canopy, moderate shrub cover, downed wood, 
vegetation of varying age classes), a moderate intermix of California 
black oak (Quercus kelloggii), and fairly steep slopes (greater than or 
equal to 17 percent).
    (iii) Multiple large diameter trees (live or dead), such as 
conifers greater than or equal to 35 inches (in) (89 centimeters (cm)) 
and hardwoods greater than or equal to 25 in (63 cm) in diameter, with 
cavities that provide secure natal and maternal den sites. Some of 
these large diameter trees or snags should also have branch platforms, 
broken top platforms, mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infections, and 
other deformities or structures that provide resting sites.
    (iv) Shrub and tree clumps, large downed logs, and other structures 
that provide continuous dense cover or patches of dense cover that are 
close together to provide protection from predators.
    (v) Intermixed foraging areas that typically include a diversity of 
vegetation types and seral stages to support a variety of prey species 
(such as western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), Douglas squirrels 
(Tamiasciurus douglasii), California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus 
beecheyi), dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), and other small 
mammals), and structures that provide fishers resting sites and 
protection from predators.
    (vi) Intermixed dispersal areas that provide connectivity between 
patches of denning habitat to allow for movement of individuals within 
subpopulations. Dispersal areas must contain structures and habitat 
characteristics that facilitate resting and safe movement. These 
habitat characteristics and structures include some overhead cover from 
trees or shrubs (i.e., greater than 30 percent for male dispersal and 
greater than 60 percent for female dispersal), snags, downed logs, or 
other components to protect fishers from predation and allow for 
sufficient resting opportunities.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas), the 
defensible space around buildings (defined as the area of land 
surrounding a building that is 100 feet (30.5 meters) or less from the 
building's walls), and the land on which they are located existing 
within the legal boundaries on the effective date of the rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using fisher 
habitat suitability models developed by the Conservation Biology 
Institute, wildfire burn severity data from the U.S. Geological Survey 
and U.S. Forest Service, and species expert opinion. Critical habitat 
units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11N 
coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map 
is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2021-0060 and at the field office responsible for 
this designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Figure 1 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (5)

[[Page 67000]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.048

    (6) Unit 1: Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 78,178 acres (ac) (31,637 hectares (ha)) of 
occupied habitat on the Kern Plateau, east of the Kern River, west of 
South Fork Kern River and Kennedy Meadows, north of Cannell Peak, and 
south of Templeton Mountain. Lands within this unit include 77,397 ac 
(31,322) ac in Federal ownership (Inyo National Forest and Sequoia 
National Forest) and approximately 781 ac (316 ha) in private 
ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 67001]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.049

    (7) Unit 2: South Sequoia, Kern and Tulare Counties, California.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 149,962 ac (60,687 ha) of 
occupied habitat in the Sierra Nevada mountains, extending northward 
from approximately Woodward Peak in the Greenhorn Mountains until it 
abuts Unit 3 to the north. The northern boundary of Unit 2 roughly 
follows Bear Creek in the Tule River Watershed until its headwaters, 
then continues in a linear path to the eastern edge of the unit. The 
unit lies west of the Kern River from Isabella Lake to its confluence 
with the Little Kern River and west of the Little Kern River until the 
vicinity between Moses Mountain and Maggie Mountain. Unit 2 is east of 
Springville and California Hot Springs. Lands within this unit include 
125,568 ac (50,815 ha) in Federal ownership (Sequoia National Forest, 
Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Bureau of Land Management), 3,461 
ac (1,401 ha) in State ownership (California Department of Forestry and 
Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and State Lands Commission), 14,622 ac 
(5,917 ha) of lands that are held in trust by the United States through 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the 
Tule River Reservation, and 6,310 ac (2,554 ha) in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:


[[Page 67002]]


Figure 3 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (7)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.050

    (8) Unit 3: North Sequoia, Tulare and Fresno Counties, California.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of 114,952 ac (46,519 ha) of occupied habitat 
in the Sierra Nevada mountains. This unit runs mostly in a north-south 
liner pattern from the Kings River to the north until it abuts Unit 2 
to the south. The unit is located west of the Great Western Divide and 
east of Blue Ridge and the communities of Miramonte and Three Rivers. 
Lands within this unit include approximately 108,015 ac (43,712 ha) in 
Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, 
Giant Sequoia National Monument, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 
Parks, and Bureau of Land Management), 1,889 ac (765 ha) in State 
ownership (Cal Fire and State Lands Commission) and 5,048 ac (2,043 ha) 
in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:


[[Page 67003]]


Figure 4 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (8)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.051

    (9) Unit 4: South Sierra, Fresno County, California.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of two subunits comprising 76,100 ac (30,796 
ha) of occupied habitat in the Sierra Nevada mountains.
    (A) Subunit 4A (Blue Canyon) consists of 62,137 ac (25,146 ha) of 
lands in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Patterson Mountain marks the 
approximate southeastern tip of Subunit 4A, which then continues to the 
northwest approximately to the communities of Shaver Lake and 
Pineridge. Lands within this subunit include approximately 46,499 ac 
(18,817 ha) in Federal ownership (Sierra National Forest) and 15,638 ac 
(6,328 ha) in private ownership.
    (B) Subunit 4B (Mammoth Pool East) consists of 13,963 ac (5,650 ha) 
of lands in the Sierra Nevada mountains. This subunit is located west 
of Mammoth

[[Page 67004]]

Pool Reservoir and the San Joaquin River, north of Kaiser Wilderness, 
south of Ansel Adams Wilderness, and east of Tule, Half Corral, and 
Sample Meadows. The entirety of lands within subunit are in Federal 
ownership (Sierra National Forest).
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (9)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.052

    (10) Unit 5: North Sierra, Madera and Mariposa Counties, 
California.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of 145,783 ac (58,996 ha) of occupied habitat 
in the Sierra Nevada mountains north and west of the San Joaquin River; 
east of Bass Lake, California State Route 49, and the unincorporated 
community of El Portal; and south of Big Oak Flat Road. Lands within 
this unit include 135,918 ac (55,004 ha) in Federal ownership (Sierra 
National Forest, Stanislaus National Forest, Yosemite National Park, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management) and 9,865 ac 
(3,992 ha) in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:


[[Page 67005]]


Figure 6 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (10)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.053

    (11) Unit 6: Stanislaus, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, 
California.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of 30,521 ac (12,352 ha) of occupied habitat 
situated north of the Merced River and the community of El Portal and 
southwest of Ackerson Meadow. The unit forms a ``U'' to the east, 
north, and west around Anderson Flat and Grizzly Flat. Lands within 
this unit include 29,920 ac (12,108 ha) in Federal ownership 
(Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park) and 601 ac (243 
ha) in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Fisher (Pekania pennanti), Southern Sierra Nevada DPS 
paragraph (11)(ii)

[[Page 67006]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO22.054

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-23949 Filed 11-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C