1900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

we are proposing to approve SCAQMD’s 

alternative program as fulfilling the 

requirements of sections 182, 185 and 

172(e) of the Act. If finalized as 

proposed, this action would 

permanently terminate all CAA Section 

110(c) Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) implications associated with our 

January 5, 2010 Finding of Failure to 

Submit a SIP revision to satisfy section 

185 requirements for the SCAQMD (75 

FR 232). We will accept comments from 

the public on these proposals for the 

next 30 days. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 4, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–447 Filed 1–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0105; 

4500030113] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Humboldt Marten 

as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Humboldt marten (Martes americana 

humboldtensis) as endangered or 

threatened and designate critical habitat 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 

review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Humboldt marten may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

Humboldt marten to determine if listing 

is warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding the 

Humboldt marten. Based on the status 

review, we will issue a 12-month 

finding on the petition, which will 

address whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before March 

12, 2012. The deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on this date. After March 12, 2012, 

you must submit information directly to 

the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above requested 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 

Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2011–0105, which is the 

docket number for this action. Then 

click on the Search button. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send 

a Comment or Submission.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– 

0105; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information we 

receive on http://www.regulations.gov. 

This generally means that we will post 

any personal identifying information 

you provide us (see the Request for 

Information section below for more 

details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy J. Finley, Field Supervisor; by 

mail at Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 

1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; 

by telephone at (707) 822–7201; or by 

facsimile at (707) 822–8411. If you use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1901 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the Humboldt marten 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The Humboldt marten’s biology, 

range, and population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the Humboldt marten, its 

habitat, or both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Humboldt marten habitat 

or its range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the Humboldt 

marten is warranted, we will propose 

critical habitat (see definition in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the 

Act, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable at the time we 

propose to list the species. Therefore, 

we also request data and information 

on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the species; 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found; 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; 

(4) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species that are ‘‘essential for the 

conservation of the species;’’and 

(5) What, if any, critical habitat you 

think we should propose for designation 

if the species is proposed for listing, and 

why such habitat meets the 

requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered to provide the 

best information to support a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, above). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 

12-month finding. 

Petition History 

On September 28, 2010, we received 

a petition dated September 28, 2010, 

from the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) and the Environmental Protection 

Information Center (EPIC), requesting 

that the Humboldt marten (Martes 

americana humboldtensis), a subspecies 

of the American marten, be listed as 

endangered or threatened and that 

critical habitat be designated in 

accordance with the Act. The document 

received clearly identified itself as a 

petition and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(a). In a letter to the petitioners 

dated October 22, 2010, we responded 

that we reviewed the information 

presented in the petition and 

determined that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act 

was not warranted. This finding 

addresses the petition. 

Listable Entity Evaluation 

Under section 3(16) of the Act, we 

may consider for listing any species or 

subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, or 

any distinct population segment of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature. Such entities 

are considered eligible for listing under 

the Act (and are, therefore, referred to as 

‘‘listable entities’’) should they be 

determined to meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. The 

petition states that genetics research 

indicates that the currently recognized 

species American marten (Martes 

americana) should be divided into two 

species—M. americana and M. caurina 

(CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 6). The petition 

indicates that if marten taxonomy is 

changed in the near future, the currently 

recognized subspecies Humboldt marten 

(M. americana humboldtensis) would 

likely be designated a subspecies of the 

newly designated species, M. caurina, 

and thus would likely be renamed M. 

caurina humboldtensis. Therefore, the 

petition requested listing as endangered 

or threatened one of the following: (1) 

The currently recognized Humboldt 

marten subspecies, M. americana 

humboldtensis; or (2) the Humboldt 

marten subspecies that may be 

redesignated as M. caurina 

humboldtensis; or (3) the Humboldt 

marten as a distinct population segment 

(DPS) of M. caurina (CBD and EPIC 

2010, pp. 2, 6). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Historically, marten populations in 

coastal Oregon have not been included 

within the range of the Humboldt 

marten (see Taxonomy and Distribution 

section, below). The petition indicates, 

however, that because recent genetics 

research indicates that populations of 

American martens in coastal Oregon 

(currently Martes americana caurina) 

are more closely related to Martes 

americana humboldtensis in coastal 

northern California than to Martes 

americana caurina populations in the 

Cascade Range of Oregon (Slauson et al. 

2009a, pp. 1339–1340), the petitioned 

and listable entity should include all 

marten populations in coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon (CBD and 

EPIC 2010, pp. 7–10). 

The standard of review for a 90-day 

petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted.’’ We determine that the 

petition has met the threshold for 

review in its characterization of 

currently designated American marten 

(M. americana) populations in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

as a potential listable entity. In our 

status review, we will thoroughly 

review all information relevant to the 

taxonomic status of Humboldt martens. 

For the purposes of this 90-day finding, 

the common name Humboldt marten 

refers to currently described American 

marten (M. americana) populations in 

coastal northern California and coastal 

Oregon, based on the rationale provided 

in the petition (CBD and EPIC 2010, pp. 

2, 6–8, 10) and research by Slauson et 

al. (2009a, pp. 1339–1340). 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Distribution 

The Humboldt marten (Martes 

americana humboldtensis) is a 

subspecies of the American marten and 

was first described by Grinnell and 

Dixon (1926, p. 411). The Humboldt 

marten is classified in the mammalian 

order Carnivora, family Mustelidae 

(weasels, otters, badgers), and subfamily 

Mustelinae (martens, fisher, wolverine, 

weasels). Clarke et al. (1987, p. 1) 

recognized eight subspecies of the 

American marten; Wilson and Reeder 

(2005, p. 608) recognized 12 subspecies; 

and Hall and Kelson (1959, p. 900) and 

Hall (1981, pp. 981–985) recognized 14 

subspecies. Differences between the 

subspecies are based on morphological 

and pelage characteristics (Hall and 

Kelson 1959, p. 900; Hall 1981, pp. 983– 

984) or cranial characters and fossil 

history (Clarke et al. 1987, p. 1). The 

Humboldt marten is recognized as a 

distinct subspecies of the American 

marten by all of the aforementioned 

authors. 

The American marten occurs 

throughout northern North America, 

reaching its southjrnmost extent in the 

Sierra Nevada of California and the 

southern Rocky Mountains of New 

Mexico (Gibilisco 1994, p. 66). The 

historical range of the Humboldt marten 

is based on the catch of licensed 

trappers in California for the 5-year 

period 1919–1924 (Grinnell and Dixon 

1926, p. 415), and includes coastal 

northern California, throughout the 

coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 

zone from the Oregon border south to 

Sonoma County (Grinnell and Dixon 

1926, p. 415; Grinnell 1933, p. 100; 

Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 209). 

Historically, M. a. caurina has been 

recognized to occur north of the coast 

redwood zone in western Oregon, 

Washington, and British Columbia 

(Bailey 1936, p. 296; Hall 1981, p. 983; 

Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 479). 

In northwestern California, the 

Klamath River separates the historical 

range of the Humboldt marten from the 

range of the Sierra Nevada marten (M. 

a. sierrae), which occurs from the 

Salmon-Trinity Mountains in interior 

northwestern California, east to the 

Cascades, and south throughout the 

Sierra Nevada (Hall 1981, p. 983; 

Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 479). Slauson 

and Zielinski (2004, p. 62) suggest that 

the xeric forest types in the river’s 

canyon may act as a physical barrier 

between these two subspecies. 

In 2009, Slauson et al. (2009a, p. 

1338) compared mitochondrial DNA 

sequence diversity of martens from 

extant marten populations within the 

described ranges of M. a. 

humboldtensis, M. a. caurina, and M. a. 

sierrae, with a 1927 museum specimen 

of M. a. humboldtensis. Martens from 

coastal northern California share a 

haplotype with the 1927 museum 

specimen, supporting the hypothesis 

that the existing population in coastal 

northern California represents 

descendants of the historical population 

of Humboldt martens described by 

Grinnell and Dixon in 1926 (Slauson et 

al. 2009a, p. 1337). However, this same 

haplotype also occurs in coastal Oregon 

populations of M. a. caurina, but is 

absent from the Oregon Cascades 

population of M. a. caurina and from M. 

a. sierrae, indicating that martens of 

coastal Oregon are genetically more 

similar to martens from coastal northern 

California than they are to martens in 

the Oregon Cascades (Slauson et al. 

2009a, p. 1340). The results further 

suggest that the historically defined 

range boundary between M. a. 

humboldtensis and M. a. caurina at the 

Oregon-California border may not be 

valid, and that coastal Oregon martens 

are part of the same taxonomic group as 

Humboldt martens in coastal northern 

California (Slauson et al. 2009a, 

p. 1340). Slauson et al. (2009a, p. 1340) 

concluded that, even though the coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

marten populations share a common 

haplotype, due to small sample sizes, 

additional genetic analyses are 

necessary to confirm the genetic 

relationship. Slauson et al. (2009a, 

p. 1337) noted that there are no known 

contemporary or historical 

biogeographic barriers to prevent northsouth movement of martens between 

coastal northern California and coastal 

Oregon. Therefore, a genetic 

relationship between coastal marten 

populations in northern California and 

Oregon would not be unexpected. As 

described above in Listable Entity 

Evaluation, for the purposes of this 

90-day finding, we conclude that 

substantial information was provided in 

the petition indicating that M. 

americana populations in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

may constitute a valid listable entity. 

We will evaluate all relevant 

information on genetics and taxonomy 

in our status review. 

Population Status 

Zielinski and Golightly (1996) 

reviewed all published and unpublished 

historical information on the Humboldt 

marten, and the results of contemporary 

(1989–1995) field surveys conducted 

within its historical range, to determine 

the status of the subspecies in the 

redwood zone of California (redwoods 

also occur in adjacent Curry County, 

Oregon). They concluded that the 

marten population in the northern Coast 

Ranges of California significantly 

declined during the 20th century and 

that the last verifiable record was 50 

years old, suggesting the subspecies was 

very rare, if not extinct. However, in 

1996 and 1997, martens were detected 

at two survey stations in northwestern 

California on the Six Rivers National 

Forest (Zielinski et al. 1998, p. 1). These 

1996–1997 presence-absence marten 

surveys were conducted within 

presumed suitable habitat, throughout 

the historical range of the Humboldt 

marten in northwestern California as 

well as in extreme southern coastal 

Oregon. Besides the marten detections 

in northwestern California, martens 

were also detected at survey stations 

within 3 of the 19 sample units placed 

in southern coastal Oregon (Zielinski et 

al. 1998, p. 2). The southern-most 

Oregon detection is over 50 miles (mi) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1903 

(80 kilometers (km)) from the nearest 

California detection. Much of the habitat 

in this intervening area is suitable for 

martens, but presumably unoccupied as 

of the late 1990s. 

The coastal northern California 

marten population rediscovered in 1996 

and 1997 is located in the north-central 

portion of the described range for M. a. 

humboldtensis (Grinnell and Dixon 

1926, p. 413; Slauson et al. 2009a, 

p. 1338). Based on results of a 2000– 

2001 grid-based survey of the single 

marten population rediscovered in 

coastal northern California in 1996, 

Slauson et al. (2009b, p. 13) concluded 

that the entire Humboldt marten 

population in California likely consists 

of fewer than 100 individuals. The 

Humboldt marten appears to have been 

extirpated from greater than 95 percent 

of the range it occupied in California in 

the early 1900s (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 

209), with the single known extant 

population occupying an estimated area 

of only 170,000 acres (ac) (68,797 

hectares (ha)) (Service 2010, p. 34). 

Further, the Humboldt marten 

population in California is estimated to 

have undergone a 42 percent decline in 

occupancy between grid-based surveys 

conducted in 2000–2001 and 2008 

(Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 10). 

Martens in coastal Oregon are 

currently known from only two disjunct 

populations—one in central coastal 

Oregon and one in southern coastal 

Oregon—both of which are believed to 

be in decline based mainly on a 

reduction in the number of martens 

trapped and anecdotal observations over 

time (Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 478; 

Slauson and Zielinski 2009, p. 36). No 

systematic grid-based surveys have been 

conducted on, nor population estimates 

made for, the two populations of 

martens in coastal Oregon. Concerns 

about the viability of the two known 

marten populations in coastal Oregon 

have been expressed (Slauson et al. 

2009a, p. 1340). 

Published literature on the Humboldt 

marten largely deals with distribution, 

habitat selection, home range, diet, and 

genetics. Little is known about 

Humboldt marten reproductive biology, 

demographics, disease, or predation. 

Where data specific to the Humboldt 

marten are lacking, we present 

published information for other 

American marten subspecies, with the 

supposition that all subspecies of the 

American marten share certain 

characteristics and behaviors. 

Biology 

The American marten has a long, 

slender body with relatively large 

rounded ears, short limbs, and bushy 

tail (Clark et al. 1987, p. 1). American 

martens have triangular faces with 

muzzles less pointed than those of 

foxes. The tail constitutes about onethird of the total body length (Powell et 

al. 2003, p. 636). Each well-furred paw 

includes five toes (Powell et al. 2003, p. 

636). Total length of American martens 

is between 19.7 and 26.8 inches (in) (50 

and 68 centimeters (cm)) and adults 

weigh 1.1 to 3.1 pounds (lb) (0.5 to 1.4 

kilograms (kg)), depending on sex and 

subspecies (Buskirk and McDonald 

1989, p. 999); males are 20 to 40 percent 

larger than females (Buskirk and 

Zielinski 1997, p. 17). The color of the 

long, silky, dense fur ranges from pale 

yellowish buff to tawny brown to almost 

black (Clark et al. 1987, p. 1). The color 

of the head is usually lighter than the 

body, and the legs and tail are darker 

(Clark et al. 1987, p. 1). 

Compared to the Sierra Nevada 

marten, the other subspecies of 

American marten that occurs in 

California, the Humboldt marten is 

reported to be darker, with a richer 

golden tone, and to have less orange and 

yellow in the throat patch, a smaller 

skull (Grinnell and Dixon 1926, p. 411), 

and smaller and less crowded premolars 

and molars (Buskirk and Zielinski 1997, 

p. 17). Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 207) 

added that the Humboldt marten had 

‘‘* * * far less orange-yellow color on 

the throat and chest, and the usual area 

of this color is much broken up by 

coarse spots and marblings of body 

brown.’’ Hagmeier (1961, p. 124) 

describes the Humboldt marten as a 

very small marten, perhaps the smallest 

subspecies of American marten. 

Sexual maturity for American martens 

occurs by 1 year of age, but effective 

breeding may not occur before 2 years 

of age (Powell et al. 2003, p. 638). 

Mating occurs in July or August and the 

gestation period varies from 220 to 276 

days (Strickland et al. 1982, p. 602). 

Birth occurs in late March or April, due 

to delayed implantation in which the 

embryos remain in a state of arrested 

development (Strickland et al. 1982, p. 

602). Kits are completely dependent at 

birth and weaned at about 42 days 

(Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, p. 17). The 

male apparently takes no part in rearing 

the young, which disperse in late 

summer or autumn (Strickland et al. 

1982, p. 603). American martens 

produce an average of slightly less than 

three young per female with one litter 

per year (Strickland et al. 1982, p. 602). 

For a mammal of their size, American 

martens have relatively low 

reproductive rates, but are long-lived 

(up to 15 years in captivity and 14.5 

years in the wild) (Strickland and 

Douglas 1987, p. 535), suggesting a 

relatively slow potential recovery rate 

from population-level impacts (Buskirk 

and Ruggiero 1994, p. 16). 

Slauson and Zielinski (2007a, p. 55) 

characterized the diet of Humboldt 

martens by scat analysis and found that 

mammals (in 93 percent of scats) and 

berries (in 85 percent of scats) were the 

most frequently occurring items, 

followed by birds (in 21 percent of 

scats), insects (in 20 percent of scats), 

and reptiles (in 7 percent of scats). 

Sciurid rodents (especially Tamias 

species (spp.)) and Murid voles 

(Clethrionomys californicus and 

Arborimus spp.) were the most common 

mammal species found in Humboldt 

marten scats (Slauson and Zielinski 

2007a, p. 55). The frequency of berries 

in the diet of the Humboldt marten was 

the highest reported in diet studies of 

the American marten; the frequency of 

birds was also among the highest 

reported (Slauson and Zielinski 2007a, 

p. 55). 

Strickland et al. (1982, p. 607) 

summarized reports of American 

martens being preyed upon by coyotes 

(Canis latrans), fishers (Martes 

pennanti), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 

cougars (Puma concolor), eagles (Aquila 

chrysaetos and Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), and great horned owls 

(Bubo virginianus). Bull and Heater 

(2001, p. 3), in their northeastern 

Oregon study area, documented 18 

American martens killed by predators: 8 

by bobcats (Lynx rufus), 4 by raptors, 4 

by other American martens, and 2 by 

coyotes. 

Slauson and Zielinski (2006, p. 65) 

estimated seasonal (summer–fall) home 

range size for Humboldt martens in 

California using the 100 percent 

minimum convex polygon method (a 

polygon created by drawing a line 

connecting the outer locations). Adult 

male home ranges averaged 1,322 ac 

(535 ha); the home range for a single 

adult female with one kit was 315 ac 

(127 ha). Juvenile female home ranges 

averaged 1,491 ac (603 ha); the single 

juvenile male home range was 453 ac 

(183 ha). 

Habitat 

Historical records of the distribution 

of Humboldt martens in California 

suggest that the subspecies was closely 

tied to coastal old-growth redwood 

forests (Slauson et al. 2003, p. 3). 

However, the one known remnant 

Humboldt marten population in 

California occurs in the north-central 

portion of the described range in an area 

dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga 

menzesii) and tanoak (Lithocarpus 

densiflora) forest associations (Slauson 

et al. 2007, p. 459). This population uses 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

two structurally distinct, fog-influenced 

forest types, one on serpentine (a 

mineral or rock consisting of a hydrous 

magnesium silicate and usually having 

a dull green color and often a mottled 

appearance) soils and one on more 

productive non-serpentine soils 

(Slauson 2003, p. 59; Slauson et al. 

2009b, p. 3). The non-serpentine 

habitats contain old-growth Douglas-fir 

forests, and the serpentine types contain 

mixed conifer forests that include 

Douglas-fir, sugar pine (Pinus 

lambertiana), western white pine (P. 

monticola), and lodgepole pine (P. 

contorta) (Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 3). 

At the home range scale, Humboldt 

martens in California select the largest 

available patch sizes of old-growth, oldgrowth and late-mature (i.e., latesuccessional), and serpentine habitat 

(Slauson et al. 2007, p. 466). Slauson et 

al. (2009b, p. 12) found that the biggest 

difference between sites in California 

with stable Humboldt marten 

occupancy versus unstable occupancy is 

patch size of old-growth forest, with 

sites with more stable Humboldt marten 

occupancy associated with larger 

patches of old-growth forest. The 

probability that a Humboldt marten is 

detected increases as the following 

home range characteristics increase in 

size: largest contiguous patch of latesuccessional forest; total amount of latesuccessional forest; and total area of 

serpentine habitat (Slauson 2003, p. 67). 

In non-serpentine habitats, coniferdominated, late-successional stands 

with dense shrub cover in patches 

greater than or equal to 445 ac (180 ha) 

are estimated to be a minimum criterion 

to identify potential Humboldt marten 

home range areas (Slauson 2003, p. 70). 

Compared to martens in the Sierra 

Nevada and Cascade mountains, 

Humboldt martens occupy lowelevation areas with little or no snowfall 

and select forest habitats with some 

distinctly different features, such as 

dense, extensive shrub cover (Slauson et 

al. 2009b, p. 3). Serpentine habitats 

occupied by Humboldt martens have 

open tree canopies, dense shrub cover, 

and an abundance of boulder piles, 

while non-serpentine sites have closed, 

multi-layered tree canopies, dense shrub 

cover, and older age-class stands 

(Slauson 2003, p. 59). Serpentine sites 

sometimes lack trees, suggesting that 

dense shrub layers may provide the 

necessary overhead cover (Slauson 

2003, pp. 60–61). In addition, prey 

species, such as chipmunks (Tamias 

spp.) and golden-mantled ground 

squirrels (Spermophilus lateralis), may 

use boulder-sized surface rocks for 

escape cover in serpentine sites where 

trees are sparse (Slauson 2003, p. 61). 

Recent Humboldt marten population 

monitoring suggests that serpentine 

areas may represent lower quality 

habitat than late-successional Douglasfir forest (Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 12). 

In non-serpentine habitats, Humboldt 

martens use old-growth stands much 

more than expected based on 

availability, use late-mature stands 

commensurate with availability, and 

make little or no use of all other seral 

stages (Slauson et al. 2007, p. 462). All 

earlier seral stages are selected against, 

probably because of the lack of one or 

more key structural features (Slauson 

2003, p. 62). Dense shrub cover is the 

most consistent habitat feature at sites 

selected by Humboldt martens in both 

serpentine and non-serpentine habitats 

(Slauson et al. 2007, p. 465). Humboldt 

martens show the strongest selection for 

conifer stands with greater than 80 

percent shrub cover and select against 

stands with less than 60 percent shrub 

cover (Slauson and Zielinski 2007b, p. 

242). Plant species dominating the 

shrub layers are shade-tolerant, longlived, mast- and berry-producing 

species, including salal (Gaultheria 

shallon), evergreen huckleberry 

(Vaccinium ovatum), Pacific 

rhododendron (Rhododendron 

macrophyllum), and shrub oaks 

(huckleberry oak (Quercus vaccinifolia) 

and bush tanoak (Lithocarpus 

densiflorus var. echinoides)) (Slauson 

and Zielinski 2009, p. 42). In contrast, 

Humboldt martens do not use 

disturbance-associated species of 

shrubs, such as Ceanothus spp. (Slauson 

and Zielinski 2009, p. 42). Dense stands 

of mature shrubs provide refuge from 

predators, cover for prey species, and 

mast (berries and acorns) for prey 

species and Humboldt martens, and 

such stands may also deter largerbodied competitors, such as fisher and 

gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), by 

limiting their foraging abilities (Slauson 

and Zielinski 2009, p. 42). Shrubs also 

contribute to the formation of some 

resting locations and resting structures 

(Slauson and Zielinski 2009, p. 42). 

During the late summer and fall, 

Humboldt martens in California used 

cavities, den chambers, and broken tops 

of standing dead trees for 87 percent of 

their resting locations, and branch 

platforms, ground sites, and basal 

hollows for the remainder of their 

resting locations (Slauson and Zielinski 

2009, p. 39). Large snags were the most 

frequently used resting structure with 

mean diameter-at-breast-height (dbh) for 

conifers of 36.6 in (93 cm) (Slauson and 

Zielinski 2009, p. 40). Conifer logs used 

as resting structures had a mean 

diameter of 29.5 in (75 cm) (Slauson and 

Zielinski 2009, p. 40). Forty-two percent 

of the resting structures used in 

serpentine habitats were located in rock 

and shrub clumps (Slauson and 

Zielinski 2009, p. 40). All resting sites 

in serpentine and non-serpentine 

habitats had dense shrub cover (Slauson 

and Zielinski 2009, p. 42). 

Availability of denning habitat is 

essential to successful recruitment and 

persistence of American marten 

populations (Ruggiero et al. 1998, p. 

663). American marten natal dens, used 

by mothers and neonatal young, are 

typically located in cavities in very large 

logs, snags, or live trees, while maternal 

dens, used by mothers and older but 

still dependent young, tend to be in less 

specialized structures similar to resting 

sites (Ruggiero et al. 1998, p. 663). 

Slauson and Zielinski (2009, p. 40) 

observed one adult female Humboldt 

marten with a single kit at three 

maternal den structures: (1) A 26-in (66- 

cm) dbh live chinquapin (Chrysolepis 

chrysophylla), (2) the broken top of a 

44.5-in (113-cm) dbh live Douglas-fir, 

and (3) in a 45.3-in (115-cm) dbh 

Douglas-fir snag. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1905 

such that the species may warrant 

listing as endangered or threatened as 

those terms are defined by the Act. This 

does not necessarily require empirical 

proof of a threat. The combination of 

exposure and some corroborating 

evidence of how the species is likely 

impacted could suffice. The mere 

identification of factors that could 

impact a species negatively may not be 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing may be warranted. The 

information must contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the Humboldt 

marten, as presented in the petition and 

in other information available in our 

files, is substantial, thereby indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Our evaluation of this 

information is presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Habitat or Range 

The petition states that the primary 

cause of population decline and 

extirpation of martens in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

is loss of old-growth coniferous forest 

habitat due to logging (CBD and EPIC 

2010, p. 20). According to the petition, 

logging threatens Humboldt marten 

populations because martens require 

large areas of unfragmented, old-growth 

forest to survive and because logging 

reduces the amount of available habitat 

and key Humboldt marten habitat 

structural elements, such as large 

standing and dead conifers, down 

woody debris, and a dense understory of 

shade-tolerant shrubs (CBD and EPIC 

2010, pp. 20–23). 

Zielinski et al. (2001, p. 487) 

postulated that timber harvest in the 

redwood region was the most plausible 

reason for the continued absence of 

Humboldt martens from most of the 

coastal range of northwestern California. 

Zielinski et al. (2001, p. 487) concluded 

that because martens typically are 

associated with old forests with a 

diversity of large structural features, it is 

likely that the intensity of timber 

harvest, especially on private lands, has 

reduced the habitat value over much of 

the coastal northern California region. 

Large areas of the Humboldt marten’s 

range in California and Oregon are 

located on private commercial 

timberlands (Zielinski et al. 2001, pp. 

478, 484; CBD and EPIC 2010, pp. 23, 

32). Most of the areas within the 

Humboldt marten’s range in California 

and Oregon not located on private lands 

are located on U.S. Forest Service 

(Forest Service) lands, but timber 

harvesting occurs on most of these 

Forest Service lands (CBD and EPIC 

2010, pp. 23, 29–32). 

The petition also states that over the 

long-term, wildfire plays a role in 

developing the habitat components on 

which martens depend, but because the 

Humboldt marten’s habitat has been so 

severely reduced by logging, wildfires 

are now a threat to the subspecies (CBD 

and EPIC 2010, p. 24). Slauson and 

Zielinski (2004, p. 63) reported that, due 

to the subspecies’ critically low 

population size and restricted range in 

northwestern California, fire threatens 

the Humboldt marten with short-term 

loss and fragmentation of suitable 

habitat. Fires in 1998 and 2008 burned 

approximately 28 percent of the range 

currently occupied by Humboldt marten 

in northwestern California (Service 

2010, p. 19). The Biscuit Fire, one of 

Oregon’s largest fires in recorded 

history, burned a total area of 

approximately 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) 

(Forest Service 2009), part of which 

overlapped the range of the 

southernmost population of Humboldt 

marten in coastal Oregon. Fifty percent 

of the total burn area burned very hot, 

with more than 75 percent of the 

vegetation killed (Forest Service 2009). 

Post-fire site visits to some of the areas 

burned in northwestern California in 

2008 showed that the dense shrub 

understory was removed, likely 

reducing the suitability and increasing 

fragmentation of these areas for the 

Humboldt marten over the short term 

(Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 11). In the cool, 

moist coastal forests of northern 

California, fires pose a relatively low 

risk to the Humboldt marten and its 

habitat. However, the habitat of the 

current Humboldt marten population in 

northwestern California occurs 

primarily in the relatively warm and dry 

Douglas-fir-tanoak communities farther 

inland and at higher elevations and, 

thus, is more vulnerable to lightningignited fires. Further, even low-intensity 

fires can remove the dense shrub 

understory that is important to 

Humboldt martens, reducing habitat 

quality and increasing fragmentation of 

suitable habitat. 

The petition states that recreational 

activities, including off-highway 

vehicles, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, and 

camping could degrade marten habitat, 

interfere with marten behavior, and 

cause martens to shift to less suitable 

habitat (CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 24). The 

petition recognizes that threats posed to 

Humboldt marten populations by 

recreation are unknown, and that due to 

the remoteness of Humboldt marten 

habitat and dense shrub cover preferred 

by the subspecies, the threat posed by 

recreation is likely low (CBD and EPIC 

2010, p. 25). While certain recreational 

activities may have localized impacts on 

marten habitat, information in the 

petition and in our files does not 

indicate that recreational activities are 

having population-level impacts that 

threaten the Humboldt marten. 

Summary for Factor A 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

Humboldt marten’s habitat or range 

from timber harvesting and fire. We will 

review the possible effects of these 

threats to Humboldt marten more 

thoroughly in our status review. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition states that historical 

trapping was the primary contributor to 

the decline of martens in California, 

including the portions of Humboldt, Del 

Norte, and Siskiyou Counties where the 

small extant population of the 

Humboldt marten occurs (CBD and EPIC 

2010, p. 25). In 1946, the California Fish 

and Game Commission closed the 

marten trapping season in all or parts of 

Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and 

Trinity Counties due to declining 

harvests (Twining and Hensley 1947, 

p. 136). However, Humboldt marten 

populations in coastal northern 

California have not recovered, despite 

decades of protection from trapping 

(Slauson and Zielinski 2004, p. 61). 

While trapping of martens as 

furbearers in California is no longer 

legal, the petition states that the threat 

posed to Humboldt martens by 

accidental capture and poaching in 

California is magnified by other threats 

such as small population size, 

population isolation, and habitat 

fragmentation from logging and fire 

(CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 25). In 

California, it is legal to trap other 

mammals that may occur in Humboldt 

marten habitat, including bobcats and 

gray fox (California Code of Regulations, 

Title 14, Sections 461 and 478), and 

Humboldt martens may be captured 

incidentally in traps set for these 

species. Body-gripping traps (such as 

steel-jawed leghold, padded leghold, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

conibear, and snares) were banned in 

California in 1998 (California Fish and 

Game Code Section 3003.1). Only nonbody-gripping traps, such as cage and 

box live traps, are legal in California. No 

information was provided in the 

petition, nor is any information 

available in our files, to determine the 

extent of incidental trapping-related 

injury or mortality from non-bodygripping traps. However, the use of box 

or cage live traps suggests that, if 

trapped, Humboldt martens are more 

likely to be released alive and unharmed 

than if body-gripping or other lethal trap 

types were allowed. Due to the remote 

location of habitat occupied by the 

Humboldt marten and the above 

restrictions, current mortalities and 

injuries from incidental capture of 

Humboldt martens in northwestern 

California are likely rare. 

Additionally, current scientific survey 

techniques use nonlethal methods, such 

as track-plates, camera stations, and live 

traps, and are thus not likely to result 

in population-level impacts to the 

Humboldt marten. While injury from 

accidental capture and poaching may 

affect individual Humboldt martens in 

California, neither information in the 

petition nor information in our files 

indicates that accidental capture and 

poaching in California are likely to have 

a population-level effect or threaten the 

Humboldt marten. 

Martens are still legally trapped as 

furbearers in Oregon, and the petition 

states that trapping remains a threat to 

martens in coastal Oregon (CBD and 

EPIC 2010, p. 25). The petition states 

that the threat posed to Humboldt 

martens by legal trapping in Oregon is 

magnified by other threats such as small 

population size, population isolation, 

and habitat fragmentation from logging 

and fire (CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 25). 

Information in the petition indicates 

that martens can be trapped throughout 

Oregon between November 1 and 

January 31 with the purchase of a 

furtakers’ license (CBD and EPIC 2010, 

p. 25). Although trapping mortality of 

martens is a potential concern because 

marten populations in coastal Oregon 

are considered small and isolated (see 

Population Status section), most 

martens trapped in Oregon are taken 

from the Cascade Range and Blue 

Mountains, and trapping harvest of 

martens in the Oregon Coast Range is 

rare (Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 2010). We therefore conclude 

that information presented in the 

petition and available in our files does 

not indicate that furbearer trapping in 

Oregon is a threat to Humboldt marten. 

Summary for Factor B 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to overutilization. However, we will 

review the possible effects of furbearer 

trapping in Oregon on Humboldt marten 

more thoroughly in our status review. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

The petition recognizes that disease in 

the Humboldt marten has not been 

studied, but states that the Humboldt 

marten is potentially threatened by 

disease given the subspecies’ extremely 

small population size (CBD and EPIC 

2010, p. 26). Numerous pathogens are 

known to cause severe disease in 

mustelids (Brown et al. 2008, pp. 5–6), 

but disease exposure in the Humboldt 

marten has not been studied. Strickland 

et al. (1982, p. 607) noted that American 

martens in their study area in central 

Ontario, Canada, tested positive for 

toxoplasmosis, Aleutian disease (a 

carnivore parvovirus), and leptospirosis; 

however, none of these was known to be 

a significant mortality factor. Brown et 

al. (2008) determined rates of pathogen 

exposure for the congeneric (member of 

the same genus, Martes) fisher in 

northwestern California on the Hoopa 

Valley Indian Reservation—located less 

than 6.2 mi (10 km) south of the nearest 

Humboldt marten verified detection— 

and demonstrated that fishers were 

exposed to several serious pathogens 

including canine distemper virus, 

canine parvovirus, and West Nile virus. 

Of the 15 radio-collared fishers found 

dead on the Hoopa Valley Indian 

Reservation during the pathogen study, 

2 had been exposed to canine distemper 

virus and 6 to canine parvovirus (Brown 

et al. 2008, p. 3). Evidence of canine 

distemper virus infection has been 

reported in all families of terrestrial 

carnivores, including the family 

Mustelidae that includes martens and 

fishers (Deem et al. 2000, p. 441). In 

fact, mustelids are among the species 

most susceptible to canine distemper 

disease (Deem et al. 2000, p. 443). For 

example, black-footed ferrets (Mustela 

nigripes) are highly susceptible to 

natural canine distemper infection and 

have a fatality rate close to 100 percent 

(Bernard et al. 1984). Because canine 

distemper is highly contagious, and 

viral shedding may follow infection for 

60–90 days (Greene and Appel 1990), it 

is reasonable to assume that infected 

fishers on the Hoopa Valley Indian 

Reservation, especially dispersing 

juveniles, could infect the nearby 

Humboldt marten population. Even at 

low exposure rates, canine distemper 

has the potential to be a threat to one 

or more of the small extant Humboldt 

marten populations. 

Research cited in the petition and 

information in our files indicates that 

fishers located in close proximity to 

Humboldt marten occurrences in 

northwestern California have been 

exposed to canine distemper, a disease 

that can be transmitted between 

different species of carnivores and that 

can cause high levels of mortality in 

carnivores, including species within the 

Mustelidae family. Estimated size of the 

northwestern California Humboldt 

marten population is small, so an 

outbreak of canine distemper or other 

lethal carnivore disease could have a 

population-level impact and pose a 

threat to this population. 

Predation 

The petition states that predation is a 

significant threat to the Humboldt 

marten, especially because the 

subspecies is highly vulnerable to 

mortality events and further population 

decline due to its small population size 

(CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 25). Timber 

harvesting practices that result in 

reduced shrub layers may result in 

increased vulnerability of Humboldt 

martens to predation by larger 

carnivores, such as fishers and gray 

foxes. Fishers and gray foxes typically 

occupy forest types where shrub 

densities are naturally lower and are 

rarely detected in coastal forest with 

extensive shrub cover (Slauson and 

Zielinski 2007b, p. 242). Dense, 

spatially extensive shrub layers may 

provide smaller-bodied Humboldt 

martens an advantage over other largerbodied carnivores (Slauson et al. 2007, 

p. 466), so that the removal of these 

layers may put the Humboldt marten at 

risk of increased predation. Although 

there may be associations between 

shrub cover and risk of predation in 

forests where Humboldt martens occur, 

we did not find information in the 

petition or in our files indicating that 

elevated predation rates may be a threat 

to the continued existence of Humboldt 

martens. 

The petition states that recreational 

activities, including off-highway 

vehicles, dirt bikes, hiking, and 

camping, could affect Humboldt marten 

behavior, possibly exposing the 

Humboldt marten to increased 

predation. The petition acknowledges 

that the level of the threat from these 

recreational activities is unknown, but 

likely low due to the remoteness of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1907 

currently occupied range of the 

Humboldt marten. We conclude that 

information in the petition and 

information in our files does not 

support the assertion in the petition that 

predation is a threat to Humboldt 

marten. 

Summary of Factor C 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to disease as a result of the threat posed 

by canine distemper or other lethal 

carnivore diseases on Humboldt marten. 

We will review the possible effects of 

these threats to Humboldt marten more 

thoroughly in our status review. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition states that existing 

regulatory mechanisms do not 

adequately protect the Humboldt marten 

on Federal, State, tribal, or private lands 

(CBD and EPIC 2010, pp. 28–33). The 

petition further states that martens are 

still legally trapped in coastal Oregon 

and that existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to protect habitat for the 

martens in coastal northern California 

and coastal Oregon (CBD and EPIC 

2010, p. 28). 

The petition states that large areas of 

the Humboldt marten’s historical range 

and current range occur on privately 

owned commercial timberlands where 

existing regulatory mechanisms do not 

protect Humboldt martens from habitat 

loss and degradation due to timber 

harvesting (CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 29). 

As mentioned in the Factor A section 

above, large areas of the Humboldt 

marten’s current range in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

occur on private commercial 

timberland. Information in our files 

supports the assertion that forest 

management practices on these private 

commercial timberlands may not be 

compatible with habitat management for 

martens (see Factor A; Zielinski et al. 

2001, pp. 483–488). 

The petition also states that existing 

regulatory mechanisms on Federal 

Forest Service lands are not adequate to 

protect Humboldt martens from habitat 

loss and degradation due to timber 

harvesting (CBD and EPIC 2010, pp. 28– 

29). The petition acknowledges that the 

American marten is recognized as a 

Forest Service sensitive species in 

California, but not in Oregon (CBD and 

EPIC 2010, p. 29); however, the petition 

goes on to state that the sensitive 

species status in California does not 

provide nondiscretionary protections 

and thus is not considered an adequate 

regulatory mechanism (CBD and EPIC 

2010, p. 29). The petition also states that 

large areas of the Humboldt marten’s 

current range on Forest Service lands 

are designated as matrix lands under the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), and that 

timber harvesting that may be 

incompatible with Humboldt marten 

habitat management is allowed on 

matrix lands (CBD and EPIC 2010, pp. 

29–30). The NWFP was adopted in 1994 

to guide the management of 37,500 sq 

mi (97,125 sq km) of Federal lands in 

portions of western Washington and 

Oregon, and northwestern California. 

Implementation of the NWFP was 

intended to provide, over time, a 

network of large blocks of latesuccessional forest habitat connected by 

riparian reserves. However, even with 

NWFP implementation, timber harvest, 

fuels reduction projects, and road 

construction may continue to result in 

the loss and fragmentation of occupied 

and suitable but unoccupied Humboldt 

marten habitat throughout a substantial 

portion of its range in coastal Oregon 

and northwestern California. Protections 

for late-successional forest habitats 

provided for species such as the 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) and marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), which 

are listed as threatened under the Act, 

provide certain protections for marten 

habitat but may not provide sufficient 

protections for certain habitat elements 

known to be important for Humboldt 

martens, such as shade-tolerant shrub 

cover. 

Summary of Factor D 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms that address habitat threats 

associated with timber harvesting and 

forest management. We will review the 

possible effects of these threats on 

Humboldt marten more thoroughly in 

our status review. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The petition states that several other 

factors threaten the continued existence 

of the Humboldt marten, including 

small population size effects; mortality 

from vehicle strikes, poisoning, and 

starvation; and global climate change 

(CBD and EPIC 2010, pp. 27–28). 

The petition states that widespread 

timber harvesting has resulted in 

drastically reduced suitable habitat for 

Humboldt marten, and that existing 

populations in California and coastal 

Oregon are small and isolated (CBD and 

EPIC 2010, p. 27). The smaller a 

population becomes, the more 

susceptible it is to stochastic (random) 

demographic and environmental 

variation and to genetic factors that tend 

to reduce population size even more 

and that may push the population to 

extinction (Primack 1993, p. 274). 

Primack (1993, p. 335) found that 

population size was the best predictor of 

extinction probability. Slauson et al. 

(2009b, p. 5) used multi-season 

occupancy modeling to estimate the 

probability of extinction and 

colonization (probability that Humboldt 

martens in northwestern California 

would reoccupy currently unoccupied 

suitable habitat) and found that the 

probability of extinction was higher 

than the probability of colonization 

(Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 10). As 

mentioned in the Species Information 

section, for a mammal of its size, 

American martens—and presumably 

Humboldt martens—have a relatively 

low reproductive rate, suggesting a slow 

recovery from population-level impacts. 

Species with low rates of population 

increase are often unable to rebuild their 

populations fast enough to avoid 

extinction following habitat loss 

(Primack 1993, p. 102). As mentioned in 

the Population Status section, it is 

estimated that the extant Humboldt 

marten population in coastal northern 

California contains fewer than 100 

individuals and is believed to be 

declining, and the two coastal Oregon 

populations are also considered to be 

small and in decline. Information in our 

files supports the assertion in the 

petition that current Humboldt marten 

populations in coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon are 

vulnerable to extinction processes due 

to small and isolated populations 

(Slauson et al. 2007, p. 458; Slauson et 

al. 2009b, p. 13). 

The petition states that the Humboldt 

marten is threatened by several sources 

of mortality including vehicle strikes, 

poisoning, and starvation (CBD and 

EPIC 2010, p. 28). Zielinski et al. (2001, 

p. 484) noted that 10 marten road kills 

had been reported from coastal central 

Oregon between 1980 and 1998, while 

no marten road kills had been reported 

in coastal California. We acknowledge 

that Humboldt martens are occasionally 

killed by vehicles along highways, but 

we do not consider the numbers 

reported by Zielinski et al. (2001, p. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

484) to be sufficiently great to threaten 

the continued existence of the 

Humboldt marten, nor do we have 

information in our files indicating that 

mortality from vehicle collisions 

threatens martens in coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon. The 

petition also states that martens are 

vulnerable to mortality from starvation 

and poisoning, although the petition 

acknowledges that the extent of the 

threat of these factors to the Humboldt 

marten has not been quantified (CBD 

and EPIC 2010, p. 28). We conclude that 

information in the petition and in our 

files does not indicate that mortality 

from poisoning or starvation threatens 

the continued existence of martens in 

coastal northern California and coastal 

Oregon. However, we will evaluate 

these potential threats more thoroughly 

in our 12-month finding. 

The petition further states that global 

climate change threatens the Humboldt 

marten (CBD and EPIC 2010, p. 28). 

According to the petition, vegetation 

changes resulting from climate change 

could cause changes in the type and 

availability of prey for martens and 

could affect availability of resting and 

denning sites, shrub cover, and canopy 

cover. The petition also states that 

climate change could lead to tree 

mortality from insect infestation, 

disease, and drought. While we 

acknowledge that climate change will 

result in a variety of environmental 

changes including changes in vegetation 

composition and structure, information 

presented in the petition is too general 

and speculative to determine whether 

climate change effects may threaten the 

continued existence of the Humboldt 

marten, and we do not have specific 

information available in our files 

indicating that climate change threatens 

the continued existence of the 

Humboldt marten. 

Summary of Factor E 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence, 

specifically small population effects. We 

will review threats posed by small 

population effects more thoroughly 

during our status review. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

determine that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Humboldt marten throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range may be 

warranted. This finding is based on 

substantial information provided in the 

petition and in our files for Factor A, 

Factor C, Factor D, and Factor E. We 

determine that the information provided 

under Factor B is not substantial. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Humboldt marten may be warranted, we 

are initiating a status review to 

determine whether listing the Humboldt 

marten under the Act is warranted. 

Because ongoing genetics research may 

result in changes to American marten 

taxonomy, we will examine whether the 

purported subspecific designation of 

Humboldt marten is appropriate during 

our status review. If the Humboldt 

marten does not maintain its status as a 

subspecies, we will examine during our 

status review whether the Humboldt 

marten meets criteria for designation as 

a distinct population segment under our 

February 7, 1996, DPS policy (61 FR 

4722). 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Arcata Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: December 30, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–479 Filed 1–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–AY74 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery Off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 20A 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (Council) has submitted 

Amendment 20A to the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (Amendment 20A) for 

review, approval, and implementation 

by NMFS. Amendment 20A proposes 

actions for the wreckfish individual 

transferable quota (ITQ) program, 

including actions to define and revert 

inactive wreckfish quota shares, 

redistribute reverted quota shares to 

remaining shareholders, establish a cap 

on the number of wreckfish quota shares 

a single entity may own, and establish 

an appeals process for redistribution of 

reverted wreckfish quota shares. The 

actions contained in Amendment 20A 

are intended to help achieve the 

optimum yield (OY) from the wreckfish 

commercial sector in accordance with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the amendment identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2011–0277’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit 

electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Nikhil Mehta, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS