18742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Humboldt Marten as an 

Endangered or Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the previously classified subspecies 

Humboldt marten (Martes americana 

humboldtensis), or the (now-recognized) 

subspecies of Humboldt marten (Martes 

caurina humboldtensis), or the 

Humboldt marten distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the Pacific marten (M. 

caurina) as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

petition and this finding also address 

populations of marten from coastal 

Oregon, which recent genetic analyses 

indicate are likely to be the same entity 

as the current classification of 

Humboldt marten. We recognize a 

coastal DPS of the Pacific marten (which 

includes coastal Oregon populations of 

marten and the current classification of 

Humboldt marten) and find that this 

DPS is not warranted for listing at this 

time. However, we ask the public to 

submit to us any new information that 

becomes available concerning the 

stressors that may be impacting the 

coastal DPS of Pacific marten or its 

habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on April 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2011–0105. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, 

Arcata, CA 95521. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bruce Bingham, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); 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: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in 

This Document 

We use many acronyms and 

abbreviations throughout this 12-month 

finding. To assist the reader, we provide 

a list of these here for easy reference: 

Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

AR = Anticoagulant Rodenticides 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management 

CBD = Center for Biological Diversity 

CDFG = California Department of Fish and 

Game (see below) 

CDFW = California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (formerly CDFG) 

CDPR = California Department of Parks and 

Recreation 

CESA = California Endangered Species Act 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality 

Act 

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations 

DPS = Distinct Population Segment 

EPIC = Environmental Protection Information 

Center 

Forest Service = U.S. Forest Service 

FR = Federal Register 

GIS = Geographic Information System 

HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan 

HMCG = Humboldt Marten Conservation 

Group 

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IUCN = International Union for Conservation 

of Nature 

LANDFIRE = Landscape Fire and Resource 

Management Planning Tools Project 

LRMP = Land and Resource Management 

Plan 

MDL = Multi-District Litigation 

MOU = Memorandum of Understanding 

MTBS = Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service 

NWFP = Northwest Forest Plan 

OAR = Oregon Administrative Rules 

ODF = Oregon Department of Forestry 

RMP = Resource Management Plan 

Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SPR = Significant Portion of [a Species’] 

Range 

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

suggesting that listing a species may be 

warranted, we make a finding within 12 

months of the date of receipt of the 

petition. In this finding, we will 

determine that the petitioned action is: 

(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are endangered or threatened, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants 

(‘‘warranted but precluded’’). Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

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 we consider for listing the (thenclassified) subspecies Humboldt marten 

(Martes americana humboldtensis), or 

the (now-recognized) subspecies 

Humboldt marten (M. caurina 

humboldtensis), or the Humboldt 

marten DPS of the Pacific marten (M. 

caurina). The petitioners further 

stipulated that, based on recent genetic 

analyses indicating that populations of 

marten from coastal Oregon (considered 

members of M. a. caurina) are more 

closely related to M. a. humboldtensis 

than to M. a. caurina in the Cascades of 

Oregon (citing Dawson 2008, Slauson et 

al. 2009a), the range of the subspecies or 

DPS of the Humboldt marten should be 

expanded to include coastal Oregon 

populations of martens. 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. 

On January 12, 2012, we published in 

the Federal Register a 90-day finding 

(77 FR 1900) that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted and that 

initiated a status review. For purposes 

of the 90-day finding, the common name 

Humboldt marten referred to the thenclassified American marten (M. 

americana) populations in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon. 

On June 23, 2014, we published a 

scoping notice in the Federal Register 

(79 FR 35509) that summarized the 

uncertainty regarding the taxonomic 

classification of the subspecies (based 

on current genetics information) and 

indicated our intent to conduct an 

evaluation (for the 12-month finding) of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18743 

a potential DPS of martens in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

relative to the full species classification 

level. 

According to section 3(16) of the Act, 

we may consider for listing any of three 

categories of vertebrate animals: A 

species, subspecies, or DPS (see the 

Service’s 1996 DPS Policy at 61 FR 

4722). We refer to each of these 

categories as a potential ‘‘listable 

entity.’’ We evaluated three possible 

listable entities for this 12-month 

finding based upon the best available 

published and unpublished information 

for martens in coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon (for 

further details, please see the Current 

Taxonomic Description and Listable 

Entity Evaluation and Distinct 

Population Segment Analysis sections, 

below): 

• Subspecies Humboldt marten 

(Martes americana humboldtensis): This 

entity was considered not reasonable for 

evaluation because its species-level 

name is no longer considered valid. 

Specifically, Dawson and Cook (2012, 

entire) split the then-classified 

American marten (M. americana) to 

recognize the Pacific marten (M. 

caurina) for all martens occurring west 

of the Rocky Mountain crest. 

• Subspecies Humboldt marten 

(Martes caurina humboldtensis): This 

entity was considered not reasonable for 

evaluation because its description is 

(currently) specifically linked with the 

extant population that resides in coastal 

northern California and does not 

include the coastal Oregon populations, 

which the best available genetics data 

indicate are likely the same entity. 

• DPS of the Pacific marten (Martes 

caurina): We considered it reasonable 

that a DPS of the Pacific marten 

constitute the listable entity for our 

status review based on our evaluations 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data currently available (including 

unpublished genetics information), and 

our consideration of the Service’s 

February 7, 1996, Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy; 61 

FR 4722). As such, we considered in the 

scoping notice (79 FR 35509; June 23, 

2014) that the DPS include the currently 

recognized M. caurina humboldtensis 

(i.e., Humboldt marten) and the coastal 

populations of M. caurina caurina in 

Oregon (i.e., Oregon Coast Range group). 

We solicited information regarding our 

consideration of the coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon 

populations of Pacific marten as a single 

listable entity. See Listable Entity 

Evaluation and Distinct Population 

Segment Analysis, below, for additional 

discussion related to our decision that a 

coastal DPS of the Pacific marten 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘coastal 

marten’’) constitutes the listable entity 

for this status review. 

This notice constitutes the 12-month 

finding on the September 28, 2010, 

petition to list the (then-classified) 

subspecies Humboldt marten (Martes 

americana humboldtensis), or the (nowrecognized) subspecies Humboldt 

marten (M. caurina humboldtensis), or 

the Humboldt marten DPS of the Pacific 

marten (M. caurina) as an endangered or 

threatened species. 

This finding is based upon the 

Species Report titled ‘‘Coastal Oregon 

and Northern Coastal California 

populations of the Pacific marten 

(Martes caurina)’’ (Service, 2015) 

(Species Report), a scientific analysis of 

available information prepared by a 

team of Service biologists from the 

Service’s Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 

Pacific Southwest Regional Office, 

Pacific Regional Office, and National 

Headquarters Office. The purpose of the 

Species Report is to provide the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information about the species so that we 

can evaluate whether or not the species 

warrants protection under the Act. In it, 

we compiled the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the coastal Oregon and 

northern coastal California populations 

of Pacific marten, including past, 

present, and future threats to these 

populations. As such, the Species 

Report, including the appendix, 

provides the scientific basis that informs 

our regulatory decision in this 

document, which involves the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its regulations and policies. The 

Species Report can be found on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0105. 

Current Taxonomic Description 

The American marten (Martes 

americana) was originally described as 

a single species by Turton (1806, entire), 

based on specimens from eastern North 

America. In 1890, Merriam (1890, 

entire) considered a new species, 

Mustela [=Martes] caurina, to be those 

martens found west of the Rocky 

Mountains. In 1926, the Humboldt 

[Pine] marten (M. c. humboldtensis) was 

described as a subspecies of Martes 

caurina (Grinnell and Dixon 1926, 

entire); historically, this subspecies was 

distributed throughout the coastal, foginfluenced coniferous forests of 

northern California from northwestern 

Sonoma County north to the Oregon 

border (Grinnell and Dixon 1926, 

entire). In 1953, Wright (1953, entire) 

described one species, the American 

marten (M. americana), which included 

as subspecies both the Humboldt [Pine] 

marten subspecies (M. a. 

humboldtensis), and the former western 

marten species (M. caurina), classified 

as M. a. caurina. 

As noted above, at the time of our 90- 

day finding (77 FR 1900; January 12, 

2012), the Humboldt marten was 

classified as Martes americana 

humboldtensis. Subsequently, Dawson 

and Cook (2012, entire) split the 

American marten, recognizing the 

Pacific marten (M. caurina) for all 

martens occurring west of the Rocky 

Mountain crest, based on genetic and 

morphological differences. Currently, 

the classification of the Humboldt 

marten in coastal northern California is 

M. c. humboldtensis, and the marten 

populations occurring in adjacent 

coastal Oregon are M. c. caurina. In 

addition, as currently recognized, 

populations of martens in the Oregon 

Cascades northward through the State of 

Washington and into British Columbia, 

Canada, are also M. c. caurina. 

Ongoing genetic research indicates 

uncertainty in the currently accepted 

Pacific marten subspecies delineations 

in California and Oregon. Specifically, 

the best available data indicate that the 

Martes caurina humboldtensis 

population in coastal northern 

California (Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Del 

Norte Counties) and the two known M. 

c. caurina populations in coastal Oregon 

(Curry, Coos, coastal portion of Douglas, 

coastal portion of Lane, Lincoln, and 

Tillamook Counties) are likely a single 

evolutionary unit (clade) (Slauson et al. 

2009a, p. 1,340; Schwartz and Slauson 

2015, pers. comm.) (as noted in the 

scoping notice that published in the 

Federal Register on June 23, 2014 (79 

FR 35509), and was made available for 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0023). 

Although questions regarding the 

taxonomy of marten subspecies in 

northern California and Oregon are not 

new (i.e., both the petition we received 

(CBD and EPIC 2010) and our 90-day 

finding (January 12, 2012; 77 FR 1900) 

identified ongoing genetic research and 

taxonomic uncertainty), the best 

available information indicate that the 

original designation of two separate 

marten subspecies occurring in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon 

is likely invalid (Schwartz and Slauson 

2015, pers. comm.). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Listable Entity Evaluation and Distinct 

Population Segment Analysis 

Based on the September 28, 2010, 

petition, and information received both 

prior and subsequent to our June 23, 

2014, scoping notice regarding the 

listable entity, we considered whether 

the potential coastal DPS of Pacific 

marten meets the definition of a DPS as 

described in the Service’s DPS Policy 

(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 

Section 3(16) of the Act defines the 

term ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘. . . any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ We 

have always understood the phrase 

‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ to mean that 

a DPS must consist of members of the 

same species or subspecies in the wild 

that would be biologically capable of 

interbreeding if given the opportunity, 

but all members need not actually 

interbreed with each other. A DPS is a 

subset of a species or subspecies, and 

cannot consist of members of a different 

species or subspecies. The ‘‘biological 

species concept’’ defines species 

according to a group of organisms, their 

actual or potential ability to interbreed, 

and their relative reproductive isolation 

from other organisms. This concept is a 

widely accepted approach to defining 

species. The Act’s use of the phrase 

‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ reflects this 

understanding. Use of this phrase with 

respect to a DPS is simply intended to 

mean that a DPS must be comprised of 

members of the same species or 

subspecies. As long as this requirement 

is met, a DPS may include multiple 

populations of vertebrate organisms 

even if they may not actually interbreed 

with each other. For example, a DPS 

may consist of multiple populations of 

a fish species separated into different 

drainages. While these populations may 

not actually interbreed with each other, 

their members are biologically capable 

of interbreeding. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and the Service published a 

joint Policy Regarding the Recognition 

of Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments Under the Endangered 

Species Act (DPS Policy on February 7, 

1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the 

DPS Policy, two elements must be 

satisfied in order for a population 

segment to qualify as a possible DPS: 

discreteness and significance. If the 

population segment qualifies as a DPS, 

the conservation status of that DPS is 

then evaluated to determine whether it 

is endangered or threatened. 

A population segment of a vertebrate 

species may be considered discrete if it 

satisfies either one of the following 

conditions: (1) It is markedly separated 

from other populations of the same 

taxon as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors; or (2) it is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

If a population is found to be discrete, 

then it is evaluated for significance 

under the DPS Policy on the basis of its 

importance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. This consideration may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following: (1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique to the taxon; 

(2) evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon; 

(3) evidence that the population 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside of its historical 

range; or (4) evidence that the 

population differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. 

If a population segment is both 

discrete and significant (i.e., it qualifies 

as a potential DPS), its evaluation for 

endangered or threatened status is based 

on the Act’s definitions of those terms 

and a review of the factors listed in 

section 4(a) of the Act. According to our 

DPS Policy, it may be appropriate to 

assign different listing classifications to 

different DPSs of the same vertebrate 

taxon. 

We were petitioned to list collectively 

two groups of the Pacific marten (two 

populations in Oregon and one in 

California) that are currently recognized 

as belonging to two separate subspecies 

(as described above). To ensure that we 

evaluated the most accurate listable 

entity based on the best scientific and 

commercial data currently available 

(including unpublished genetics 

information), we published a scoping 

notice in the Federal Register on June 

23, 2014 (79 FR 35509), notifying the 

public that we considered it reasonable 

that a coastal DPS of the Pacific marten 

constitute the listable entity for our 

status review. 

We received eight comment letters 

from six entities in response to our June 

23, 2014, scoping notice. Four entities 

agreed with our proposed DPS, one was 

silent, and one disagreed with our 

evaluation of a coastal DPS of the 

Pacific marten as the listable entity; two 

entities commented twice reiterating 

their same positions. The commenter 

who disagreed with the proposed 

coastal DPS of the Pacific marten as the 

listable entity believed more 

information, including genetics, would 

be required and that the entity we 

proposed would not be a valid DPS 

according to Service criteria. Following 

publication of the scoping notice in the 

Federal Register, we received more 

genetics information (Schwartz and 

Slauson 2015, pers. comm.) that 

supports our consideration of a coastal 

DPS of the Pacific marten. 

After taking into consideration the 

comments received and conducting 

further evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

(including additional genetics 

information), we confirm here that this 

DPS is a listable entity, including the 

currently recognized Martes caurina 

humboldtensis (i.e., Humboldt marten) 

and the coastal populations of M. 

caurina caurina in Oregon (i.e., Oregon 

Coast Range group). This entity is 

reasonable given: 

(1) The best available data (e.g., new 

genetics information, similar habitat 

usage) suggest that the coastal northern 

California marten population and the 

coastal Oregon marten populations 

represent a single evolutionary entity as 

opposed to two separate entities 

(Schwartz et al., In prep.). In particular, 

Schwartz et al. (In prep.) has provided 

substantive information (with both 

mitochondrial and nuclear DNA 

evaluations) that the marten populations 

occurring in coastal northern California 

and coastal Oregon are unique and more 

closely related to each other than to 

other groups/populations of Pacific 

martens, to the extent that they are 

diagnosably distinct from all other 

Pacific martens. 

(2) Existing genetics information 

(Slauson et al. 2009a, entire) suggests 

that subspecies-level taxonomy of M. c. 

humboldtensis, M. c. caurina, and 

possibly other subspecies of the Pacific 

marten as currently classified may be 

inaccurate. 

(3) The DPS Policy (February 7, 1996; 

61 FR 4722) states that the population 

segment under consideration must be 

evaluated for discreteness and 

significance in relation to the remainder 

of the taxon to which it belongs. 

Ordinarily, in the present case we 

would evaluate the marten populations 

relative to the subspecies to which they 

belong, but the populations in question 

currently represent two separate 

subspecies and there is uncertainty as to 

the legitimacy of those subspecies 

classifications, rendering such an 

evaluation invalid. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18745 

(4) Uncertainty in the subspecies-level 

taxonomy of Pacific marten logically 

necessitates that we elevate our 

evaluation of the DPS relative to the 

Pacific marten at the full species level. 

In other words, we apply the criteria for 

evaluating a coastal DPS of the Pacific 

marten relative to the full species 

Pacific marten (Martes caurina) as a 

whole. 

(5) The DPS Policy (February 7, 1996; 

61 FR 4722) states that ‘‘In all cases, the 

organisms in a population are members 

of a single species or lesser taxon.’’ 

Therefore, given (1) through (4) above, 

an evaluation at the species level is 

appropriate. Consequently, for purposes 

of this Finding, below we evaluate the 

Pacific marten populations that occur in 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California under our DPS Policy. 

For this 12-month finding and DPS 

analysis of the Pacific marten 

populations that occur in coastal Oregon 

and coastal northern California, we 

reviewed and evaluated all available 

published and unpublished 

information, including numerous 

publications, reports, and other data 

submitted by the public. Marten 

distribution in coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon is 

discussed in detail in the ‘‘Species 

Distribution’’ section of the Species 

Report titled ‘‘Coastal Oregon and 

Northern Coastal California populations 

of the Pacific marten (Martes caurina)’’ 

(Service 2015, pp. 28–32), which is 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– 

R8–ES–2011–0105. 

Discreteness 

Under the DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: 

(1) It is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. As the marten 

populations in question here do not 

transcend an international boundary, 

this criterion does not apply. 

As described below, the Pacific 

marten populations that occur in coastal 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

are markedly separated from other 

Pacific marten populations by 

geographical isolation (i.e., separated by 

areas of unsuitable habitat), and marked 

genetic differences between those 

coastal populations (coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California) and other 

populations of Pacific marten are 

evidence of this long-standing 

separation. The extant population in 

coastal northern California is separated 

from the Sierra marten subspecies 

(Martes caurina sierrae) by unsuitable 

habitat to the east in the Klamath River 

canyon. The coastal central Oregon 

extant population is separated from 

Pacific marten populations to the east 

(in the Oregon Cascade Mountains) 

primarily by unsuitable habitat within 

the Willamette Valley. Although some 

suitable habitat occurs between the 

coastal southern Oregon extant 

population area and the southern 

Cascades population of Pacific martens 

to the east, the distance to large blocks 

of suitable habitat in the southern 

Cascade Mountains far exceeds the 

mean maximum dispersal distance for 

martens (see discussion below). 

Additionally, martens that occur in 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California occur in areas without 

significant, persistent snowpack 

(Slauson 2003, p. 66; Slauson et al., In 

prep.). Mountain ranges to the east that 

have both unsuitable marten habitat and 

are covered by significant, persistent 

snowpack stand between the coastal 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

populations of Pacific martens and other 

Pacific marten populations (e.g., 

separation of Humboldt and Sierra 

Nevada populations), thereby effectively 

isolating the coastal marten populations 

from other Pacific martens. East-west 

movements that would potentially 

connect Pacific marten populations in 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California with inland Pacific marten 

populations are likely rare because: 

(1) Most juvenile marten dispersal 

distances (that are published in 

literature) in both logged and unlogged 

forests range from less than or equal to 

5 km (3.1 mi) (Broquet et al. 2006, p. 

1,694) to approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) 

(Phillips 1994, pp. 93–94; Pauli et al. 

2012, p. 393). The distance between the 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California populations of Pacific 

martens and other Pacific marten 

populations to the east exceeds the 

likely maximum dispersal distance. 

(2) Pacific martens within the three 

extant populations in coastal Oregon 

and coastal northern California likely 

only need to disperse short distances to 

establish a home range because there are 

typically sufficient amounts of 

unoccupied suitable habitat available 

within their natal area. 

(3) Large patches of unsuitable habitat 

on the eastern edge of the historical 

range in this region would likely deter 

juvenile martens from moving east. As 

described below in the section 

Summary of Species Information, the 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California populations of Pacific 

martens require a dense shrub 

understory comprised of shade-tolerant 

shrub species within the coniferdominated overstory that they occupy 

(Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 485; Slauson et 

al. 2007, p. 464), and in coastal Oregon 

and coastal northern California, this 

dense shrub layer generally does not 

occur outside of the coastal foginfluenced areas. Thus, martens in 

coastal northern California and coastal 

Oregon are functionally isolated from 

other marten populations by their 

dependence on the dense shrub layer 

found in the coastal coniferous forests of 

this region. 

The coastal Oregon and coastal 

northern California populations of 

Pacific martens are also markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

Pacific marten as evidenced by 

quantitative measures of genetic 

discontinuity. The Humboldt marten 

was historically distributed throughout 

the coastal coniferous forests of 

northern California from northwestern 

Sonoma County northward to the 

Oregon border (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. 

207–210). Recent phylogenetic analyses 

using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) 

support the distinctiveness of the 

Humboldt marten subspecies, based on 

the presence of distinct haplotypes 

shared by historical museum specimens 

and martens currently occupying 

portions of the historical range in 

northern coastal California (Slauson et 

al. 2009a, entire). Marten populations in 

coastal Oregon, which were historically 

described as M. c. caurina, also share 

these haplotypes, leading Slauson et al. 

(2009a, pp. 1338–1339) to suggest that 

martens in the Coast Range of Oregon 

may also be M. c. humboldtensis. 

Furthermore, preliminary results of a 

subspecific genetic evaluation of the 

Pacific marten by Schwartz et al. (In 

prep.)––using nuclear DNA (nDNA) and 

samples from substantially more 

martens than used by Slauson et al. 

(2009a)––demonstrate that the coastal 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

populations of Pacific martens are 

clearly distinguishable from other 

populations of Pacific marten on the 

basis of their genetic characteristics. 

Schwartz et al. (In prep.) indicate that 

coastal Oregon and northern coastal 

California marten populations represent 

a single evolutionary clade, calling into 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

question the separation of the original 

subspecies range boundaries (i.e., M. c. 

humboldtensis in northern coastal 

California and M. c. caurina in coastal 

Oregon) at the California-Oregon border. 

Although some low degree of 

introgression indicates occasional past 

movement of individuals between 

coastal and inland populations, the 

evidence suggests this was an infrequent 

occurrence (Schwartz et al., In prep.); 

thus, the coastal Oregon and coastal 

northern California populations of 

Pacific martens are effectively 

genetically discrete from other 

populations of Pacific marten. 

In summary, the best available 

information indicates that Pacific 

marten populations in coastal Oregon 

and coastal northern California are 

geographically isolated and genetically 

discrete from all other populations of 

the Pacific marten. Therefore, the 

marked separation condition for 

discreteness under our DPS Policy is 

met. 

Significance 

If a population segment is considered 

discrete under one or more of the 

conditions described in the Service’s 

DPS Policy, its biological and ecological 

significance will be considered in light 

of Congressional guidance that the 

authority to list DPSs be used 

‘‘sparingly’’ (see Senate Report 151, 96th 

Congress, 1st Session) while 

encouraging the conservation of genetic 

diversity. In making this determination, 

we consider available scientific 

evidence of the DPS’s importance to the 

taxon to which it belongs. 

Because precise circumstances are 

likely to vary considerably from case to 

case, the DPS Policy does not describe 

all the classes of information that might 

be used in determining the biological 

and ecological importance of a discrete 

population. However, the DPS Policy 

describes four possible classes of 

information that provide evidence of a 

population segment’s biological and 

ecological importance (significance) to 

the taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration of the population 

segment’s significance may include, but 

is not limited to, the following: 

(1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique to the taxon; 

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon; 

(3) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historical range; or 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

To be considered significant, a 

population segment needs to satisfy 

only one of these conditions. Other 

classes of information that might bear 

on the biological and ecological 

importance of a discrete population 

segment may also be used as 

appropriate, to provide evidence for 

significance, as described in the DPS 

Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 

At least two of the significance criteria 

are met for the marten populations in 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California. First, we find that 

populations of Pacific martens in coastal 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

differ markedly from other populations 

of the Pacific marten species in their 

genetic characteristics. As described 

above under ‘‘Discreteness,’’ the coastal 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

populations of Pacific martens are 

genetically distinct from all other 

populations of Pacific martens 

(Schwartz et al., In prep.). As a result, 

loss of the marten populations from 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California would result in a reduction in 

Pacific marten genetic diversity. 

Second, we find that the loss of martens 

from coastal Oregon and coastal 

northern California would result in a 

significant gap in the range for the 

Pacific marten. The coastal populations 

of martens in California and Oregon 

represent the only coastal populations 

of Pacific martens in these States and 

inhabit a habitat association unique 

from other non-coastal marten 

populations—that is, areas consisting of 

occasional, non-persistent snowpack 

(below 914 meters (m) (3,000 feet (ft)) 

with a mesic, shade-tolerant shrub layer 

(understory) within coastal coniferous 

forest habitat (see ‘‘Life History’’ section 

of the Species Report). The requirement 

of this dense (greater than 70 percent 

cover), shrubby understory is 

particularly unusual for martens, and is 

a unique habitat association not 

described elsewhere in the distribution 

of either Pacific martens or American 

martens in North America (Slauson et 

al., In prep.(a)). The coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California populations 

of Pacific martens are also the only 

martens known to utilize coastal 

serpentine habitat and dune forest 

habitat distributed on coastal terraces. 

These genetic differences and the 

evidence that a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon would result from the 

loss of the discrete population segment 

both individually satisfy the 

significance criterion of the DPS Policy. 

Therefore, under the Service’s DPS 

Policy, we find that the populations of 

Pacific martens in coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California are 

significant to the taxon to which they 

belong. 

Conclusion of DPS Analysis Regarding 

Pacific Martens in Coastal Oregon and 

Coastal Northern California 

As stated above under Current 

Taxonomic Description, the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information suggests that the coastal 

Oregon populations of Pacific marten 

(Martes caurina caurina) are likely the 

same entity as the currently classified 

Humboldt marten (M. c. humboldtensis). 

We find that the coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California populations 

of Pacific martens collectively constitute 

a valid DPS under the Service’s DPS 

Policy because this population segment 

is both discrete and significant to the 

taxon to which it belongs. We therefore 

consider the coastal Oregon and coastal 

northern California populations of 

Pacific martens collectively as the 

‘‘coastal DPS of the Pacific marten,’’ 

which constitutes the listable entity for 

this status review. Throughout this 

document when we use the term 

‘‘coastal marten,’’ we are using this term 

as shorthand for the coastal DPS of the 

Pacific marten. 

Summary of Species Information 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, biophysical environment, 

habitat use, distributions, and 

population abundance/trends of the 

coastal DPS of Pacific marten is 

presented in the Species Report (Service 

2015, pp. 1–40) available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0105). A 

summary of this information is 

presented below. We used data specific 

to coastal marten populations when 

they were available; when such 

information was lacking, we relied on 

information regarding North American 

martens in general (American or Pacific 

martens), and have made these 

distinctions in the text that follows. 

Life History 

Two species of marten, divided into 

14 total subspecies, inhabit North 

America. Collectively, North American 

martens are characterized by the long 

and narrow body type typical of the 

mustelid family (Mustelidae; e.g., 

weasels, minks, otters and fishers), 

overall brown pelage (fur) with 

distinctive coloration on the throat and 

upper chest that varies from orange to 

yellow to cream, large and distinctly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18747 

triangular ears, and a bushy tail that is 

proportionally equivalent to about 75 

percent of the body length (Clark et al. 

1987, p. 2; Powell et al. 2003, p. 636). 

Marten activity patterns coincide with 

their prey species availability. 

Specifically, martens are active yearround and seasonally adjust their 

activity patterns to synchronize with 

those of their key prey species (Zielinski 

et al. 1983, pp. 387–388). Overall, the 

diet of North American marten species 

is dominated by mammals, but birds, 

insects, and fruits are seasonally 

important (Martin 1994, pp. 298–301). 

Diet analysis for the coastal marten is 

currently limited to scats collected from 

the coastal northern California 

population during summer and fall, and 

includes mammals, berries, birds, and 

reptiles (Slauson and Zielinski, In 

prep.). Sciurid (members of the squirrel 

family) and cricetid rodents (i.e., New 

World rats and mice) dominate the 

coastal marten’s diet, with the most 

frequent prey species being chipmunks 

(Tamias spp.) and red-backed voles 

(Myodes californicus), and, to a lesser 

extent, Douglas squirrels (Tamiasciurus 

douglasii) and flying squirrels 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) (Slauson and 

Zielinski, In prep.). 

Information on coastal marten 

reproduction and survivorship is 

lacking; therefore our analysis is based 

on knowledge of North American 

martens in general, which are 

polygamous mammals. Female martens 

mate no sooner than 15 months of age 

and first litters are produced no sooner 

than 24 months of age (Strickland et al. 

1982, p. 601). Mating occurs from late 

June to early August (Markley and 

Bassett 1942, pp. 606–607), and females 

give birth in March and April 

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

martens are capable of producing from 

one to five kits per litter, but the modal 

average is two to three (Strickland and 

Douglas 1987, p. 602; Mead 1994, p. 

410). Information is not available on the 

average number of young raised to 

weaning, the average number of young 

recruited into the population per 

female, or the effects of annual variation 

in environmental conditions and prey 

populations on kit survival. Regarding 

longevity, captive Pacific martens are 

known to reach 15 years of age (Clark 

et al. 1987, p. 3); however, data from 

American marten individuals in the 

wild in the Algonquin Region of 

Ontario, Canada, indicate that 10 

percent (of 2,076 females trapped) were 

more than 5 years old (Strickland and 

Douglas 1987, p. 535). Finally, age 

structure of coastal martens has not 

been studied, although the best 

available information from an 

untrapped population of Pacific martens 

in the Sierra Nevada mountains 

indicates relatively consistent 

proportions of yearling and adult age 

classes (Slauson et al., In prep.(a)). 

Juvenile dispersal of the American 

marten is generally thought to occur as 

early as August, although fall, winter, 

and spring (the year after birth) 

dispersal periods have been reported 

(Clark and Campbell 1976, p. 294; 

Slough 1989, p. 993). Juvenile dispersal 

in coastal northern California and Sierra 

Nevada martens has been observed to 

occur as early as August and continues 

at least until the following summer 

season (Slauson and Zielinski 2014, 

unpubl. data). Information is not 

available regarding the timing of 

juvenile dispersal for coastal martens in 

Oregon. Pauli et al. (2012, p. 393) found 

that Pacific and American martens 

exhibit similar dispersal distances, 

averaging 15.5 km (9 mi). Most studies 

find that the majority of juvenile 

martens disperse relatively short 

distances to establish home ranges, 

ranging from less than or equal to 5 km 

(3.1 mi) (Broquet et al. 2006, p. 1,694) 

to approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) 

(Phillips 1994, pp. 9394; Pauli et al. 

2012, p. 393). However, Broquet et al. 

(2006, p. 1695) also describe juvenile 

martens as capable of covering long 

distances during dispersal, up to 82 km 

(50 mi) in their study. Other researchers 

have reported instances of dispersal 

movements by martens ranging from 40 

to 80 km (25 to 50 mi) (Thompson and 

Colgan 1987, pp. 831–832; Fecske and 

Jenks 2002, p. 310), up to 149 km (93 

mi) or even 160 km (100 mi) in distance 

(Slough 1989, p. 993; Kyle and Strobeck 

2003, p. 61). Based on minimal genetic 

structuring of marten populations in a 

heavily harvested forest landscape, Kyle 

and Strobeck (2003, pp. 60–61) 

suggested that habitat fragmentation 

may not necessarily impede marten 

movement to the degree formerly 

understood. However, Kyle and 

Strobeck (2003, p. 65) also caution that 

smaller scale disturbances may still act 

as partial barriers to marten gene flow. 

Johnson (2008, pp. 33–36) found that 

juvenile martens traveled slower, 

shorter distances, and suffered twice the 

mortality risk in logged versus unlogged 

landscapes. Therefore, the best available 

information suggest that landscape 

condition (e.g., the spatial distribution 

of unlogged and logged stands) has 

important effects on dispersal dynamics, 

affecting both the distance dispersers 

can travel and the success rate they have 

in establishing home ranges and 

surviving to adulthood. 

Intraguild predation and interspecific 

competition occurs naturally within the 

range of the coastal DPS of Pacific 

marten. Intraguild predation refers to 

killing and eating of potential 

competitors that utilize the same prey 

resources. Interspecific competition is a 

form of competition in which 

individuals of a different species 

compete for the same resource in an 

ecosystem (as opposed to intraspecific 

competition that involves organisms of 

the same species). Martens are 

susceptible to predation by larger 

mammalian and avian predators, 

typically habitat-generalist species, 

including coyote (Canis latrans), red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Felis rufus), 

fishers (Pekania pennanti), and great 

horned owl (Bubo virginianus) 

(Thompson 1994, p. 276; Lindstrom et 

al. 1995, entire; Bull and Heater 2001, 

p. 4; McCann et al. 2010, p. 11). Marten 

predators may vary depending on the 

quality of the habitat. For example, 

American marten populations in highly 

altered forest landscapes show higher 

rates of predation by habitat generalist 

carnivores (and lower annual survival 

rates) than those in less-altered forest 

landscapes (Thompson 1994, p. 278)). 

Because marten populations are strongly 

influenced by adult and juvenile 

survivorship (Buskirk et al. 2012, p. 89), 

predation of martens can have a 

meaningful effect on abundance and 

population growth rates. Additional 

discussion on predation as a stressor on 

the coastal marten is provided below in 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors. 

Habitat Description 

The preferred habitat type for the 

coastal DPS of Pacific marten occurs in 

some of the most productive forests in 

the world. In unmanaged, late-seral 

stages, these forests are typically 

composed of long-lived, large trees, with 

multi-layered canopy structure, 

substantial large woody debris (standing 

and downed), and abundant ferns, 

herbs, and shrubs on the forest floor 

(Sawyer et al. 2000, entire; Chappell et 

al. 2001, entire; Sawyer 2007, entire; 

DellaSala et al. 2011, entire). The forests 

are largely coniferous and typically 

dominated by coast Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii menziesii), 

western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), 

and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) in 

Oregon, and redwood (Sequoia 

sempervirens) and coast Douglas-fir in 

California (Ricketts et al. 1999, entire; 

Sawyer 2007, entire). Higher elevation 

areas also include sub-dominant 

conifers such as western red cedar 

(Thuja plicata), Port Orford-cedar 

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), grand fir 

(Abies grandis), sugar pine (Pinus 

lambertiana), and white fir (Abies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

concolor) (Chappell et al. 2001, entire; 

Sawyer 2007, entire). Hardwooddominated stands are uncommon, 

although hardwood species such as 

tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), 

golden chinquapin (Chrysolepis 

chrysophylla), and Pacific madrone 

(Arbutus menziesii) are common canopy 

subdominants. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 

can occur as an early successional 

overstory dominant in the uplands in 

some near-coast locations or postlogging sites. Riparian forests are 

dominated by broadleaf species such as 

red alder, black cottonwood (Populus 

trichocarpa), bigleaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum), and mesic shrub 

species such as vine maple (A. 

circinatum). 

A dense understory of shrubs and 

herbaceous plants are a key habitat 

requirement for the coastal marten (see 

‘‘Habitat Use’’ section of the Species 

Report (Service 2015, pp. 18–27)). 

Species presence and dominance is 

shaped largely by the combination of 

soil nutrients and moisture, with 

herbaceous species such as sword fern 

(Polystichum munitum) dominating on 

nitrogen rich or very moist sites, and 

evergreen shrubs such as Pacific 

rhododendron (Rhododendron 

macrophyllum) and salal or wintergreen 

(Gaultheria sp.) dominating on nutrient 

poor or drier sites (Chappell and Kagan 

2001, entire). Other dominant or codominant understory shrub species 

include evergreen huckleberry 

(Vaccinium ovatum), salmonberry 

(Rubus spectabilis), red huckleberry 

(Vaccinium parvifolium), and in 

serpentine habitats (see description 

below) dwarf tanbark (Notholithocarpus 

densiflorus var. echinoides) and 

huckleberry oak (Quercus vaccinifolia) 

(Jimerson et al. 1996, pp. A13–A15; 

Sawyer et al. 2000, entire; Chappell et 

al. 2001, entire). Many of the dominant 

shrub species are adapted to fire by 

having lignotubers, which are basal 

swellings at the interface between the 

roots and shoots usually just below the 

soil surface, allowing these species to 

quickly sprout after fire kills the shoots 

and thus maintain site dominance (Agee 

1993, p. 133). 

Two additional, rare forest habitats 

are of particular relevance to coastal 

martens: Coastal serpentine and coastal 

dune forest. Forests in serpentine 

habitats are typically open and rocky 

with stunted trees that contrast sharply 

with the dense, rapidly-growing stands 

on more productive, non-serpentine 

soils that surround these sites (Jimerson 

et al. 1995, pp. A8–A31). Martens are 

not known to occupy these more open, 

drier, interior areas. However, on the 

extreme coastal edge of the serpentine 

habitats that occur in coastal northern 

California and coastal Oregon, increased 

moisture and summer fog supports 

dense, spatially-extensive shrub layers; 

coastal martens have been found in this 

wetter variant of coastal serpentine 

habitat in both Oregon and California. 

The serpentine communities used by 

coastal martens are composed of a 

variety of coniferous trees, such as 

Douglas-fir, sugar pine, lodgepole pine 

(Pinus contorta), western white pine 

(P. monticola), Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi), 

knobcone pine (P. attenuatta), and Port 

Orford-cedar, and are dominated by 

mast-producing shrubs such as dwarf 

tanbark, huckleberry oak, and red 

huckleberry (Jimerson et al. 1995, p. C1; 

Slauson 2003, pp. 5, 9, 13). The coastal 

dune forest communities where coastal 

martens have been found are 

predominantly in coastal Oregon and 

are typically dominated by shore pine 

(P. contorta contorta), the coastal form 

of lodgepole pine, and in some areas codominated by Sitka spruce occurring in 

stabilized dunes on marine terraces. 

Although martens have been found in 

these less-common habitat types, it is 

important to note that the more 

extensive dominant forest types (i.e., 

coastal coniferous forests) support the 

majority of the historical marten 

distribution in coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California. 

Coastal martens select habitat at four 

primary spatial scales: Micro-scale 

(resting and denning structures), standscale, home range, and landscape-scale 

(facilitating movement, occupancy, and 

population dynamics). 

(1) Micro-scale—Rest structures are 

used daily by martens between foraging 

bouts to provide thermoregulatory 

benefits and protection from predators 

(Taylor and Buskirk 1994, pp. 253–255). 

Reuse rates for individual rest structures 

are low and selection for structure type 

changes seasonally to meet 

thermoregulatory needs (e.g., Spencer 

1987), such that multiple resting 

structures meeting seasonal 

requirements are required across the 

home range. Large-diameter live trees, 

snags, and logs provide the main types 

of resting structures for martens 

(Spencer et al. 1983, pp. 1182–1185; 

Schumacher 1999, pp. 26–58; Slauson 

and Zielinski 2009, pp. 41–42). Denning 

structures used by female martens to 

give birth to kits are called natal dens, 

and the subsequent locations where 

they move their kits are referred to as 

maternal dens. Ruggiero et al. (1998, pp. 

665–669) found that both the 

characteristics of the den structures and 

the characteristics of the stands in 

which they were found influenced densite selection. This is likely due to the 

importance of high-quality foraging 

habitat in close proximity to den sites, 

allowing females to simultaneously 

maximize the energy they gain from 

foraging during lactation and minimize 

the time spent away from kits, 

especially when they are dependent on 

their mothers for thermoregulation. The 

most common den structures used by 

Pacific and American martens are largediameter, live and dead trees with 

cavities (Thompson et al. 2012, p. 223). 

(2) Stand-scale—Martens select forest 

stands that provide habitat structure 

supporting one or more life history 

needs that include foraging, resting, or 

denning. Coastal martens in California 

most strongly selected stands of oldgrowth, conifer-dominated forests with 

dense shrub layers (Slauson et al. 2007, 

pp. 464–465). Other than the latemature developmental stage, which was 

used in proportion to its availability, 

stands in earlier developmental stages 

were selected against (Slauson et al. 

2007, pp. 462–464). These old-growth 

and late-mature stands most often were 

dominated by Douglas-fir overstory, but 

also had mature hardwood understories 

composed of either tanoak or golden 

chinquapin. Shrub layers were dense 

(greater than 70 percent cover), spatially 

extensive, and dominated by evergreen 

huckleberry, salal, and rhododendron 

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

majority of detections of martens in 

coastal southern Oregon share these 

same stand characteristics (Zielinski et 

al. 2001, p. 485). 

(3) Home Range—Pacific and 

American martens exhibit strong habitat 

selection at the home range scale, 

suggesting that this scale of selection 

most directly influences an individual’s 

fitness (Thompson et al. 2012, p. 210). 

Martens establish home ranges to 

encompass their year-round resource 

needs and, during the breeding season, 

gain access to members of the opposite 

sex. Marten home ranges are often 

positioned to maximize high-quality 

habitat (typically greater than 70 percent 

high-quality, late-successional forest 

(reviewed in Thompson et al. 2012, 

p. 218)) and to minimize low-quality 

habitat (e.g., recent clear cuts, partial 

harvest) (Phillips 1994, pp. 59–60). 

Females, due to their solitary role 

raising young, have unique needs that 

require access to suitable den sites 

located near reliable and nearby prey 

resources to support the energetic 

demands of lactation and providing 

food for kits. In coastal northern 

California, Slauson and Zielinski (2014, 

unpubl. data) found 97 percent (38 of 

39) of the female within-home-range 

resting and active locations occurred in 

the core old-growth and late-mature 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18749 

riparian habitat patches. In comparison, 

77 percent (30 of 39) of the male withinhome-range resting and active locations 

occurred in the core old-growth and 

late-mature riparian habitat patches 

(Slauson and Zielinski 2014, unpubl. 

data). Also of note is that there is an 

inverse relationship between the 

amount of high-quality habitat and 

marten home range size (i.e., as the 

amount of high-quality habitat 

decreases, home range size increases) 

(Thompson 1994, p. 276; Potvin and 

Breton 1997, p. 462; Fuller and Harrison 

2005, pp. 715–719). 

(4) Landscape-scale—The pattern and 

composition of habitat at this scale 

affects: (a) The ability of martens to 

successfully disperse and find suitable 

home ranges; (b) survival and species 

occurrence over time and space; and (c) 

ultimately, population size and 

persistence. Successful dispersal 

requires the existence of functional 

habitat connectivity between patches of 

habitat suitable for reproduction to 

maintain or expand population size and 

distribution. Also, during dispersal, 

martens use a search strategy that is not 

random or linear, suggesting they are 

responding to habitat cues and that 

landscape pattern likely influences 

movement trajectories (Johnson 2008, 

pp. 27–29, 36–39). Compared to other 

species closely associated with latesuccessional forest, American and 

Pacific marten populations, including 

the coastal marten, are sensitive to the 

loss or fragmentation of high-quality 

habitat at the landscape scale. For 

example, martens exhibit a progression 

of responses to timber harvest as the 

proportion of habitat affected by 

intensive logging activities increases. 

Such activities include, but are not 

limited to, clear cutting (see review in 

Thompson et al. 2012), partial harvest 

(Potvin et al. 2000, pp. 851–854; Fuller 

and Harrison 2005, pp. 715–716; 

Godbout and Ouellet 2008, pp. 336– 

338), and shelterwood cutting (Ellis 

1998, p. 41–49). As a result, the 

combination of habitat loss and 

fragmentation of remnant suitable 

habitat effectively lowers the density of 

martens by reducing the number of 

home ranges that can be supported 

(Thompson 1994, p. 276). 

Historical and Current Distribution of 

Coastal Martens and Suitable Habitat 

At the time of European settlement, 

the coastal marten occurred in all 

coastal Oregon counties and the coastal 

northern counties of California within 

late-successional coniferous forests. The 

majority of historical (pre-1980) 

verifiable marten detections (i.e., 

occurrence records supported by direct 

physical evidence such as tracks, 

photographs, and carcasses) were within 

the fog-influenced coastal coniferous 

forest as opposed to interior forests 

(Grinnell and Dixon 1926, p. 413). 

Specifically, Slauson and Zielinski 

(2007, p. 241) reported 83 percent of the 

coastal northern California marten 

historical records occurring less than 25 

km (15 mi) from the coast and no 

records occurring greater than 35 km (22 

mi) from the coast, while our analysis 

(see Service 2015, pp. 6, 31) revealed 

greater than 90 percent of the coastal 

Oregon marten historical records 

occurring closer to the coast than to the 

interior portions of the coastal marten’s 

range. Historical abundance of coastal 

martens is unknown. However, as is 

typical of mammalian carnivores, 

coastal martens likely never occurred in 

high densities. 

Unregulated fur trapping occurred 

throughout the coastal marten’s 

historical range, and by the late 1920s, 

few marten were captured where they 

were once considered relatively 

abundant (Zielinski and Golightly 1996, 

entire). A marked decline in the number 

of coastal marten harvested in coastal 

northern California led to the closure of 

marten trapping in northwestern 

California in 1946. In Oregon, marten 

fur trapping remains legal Statewide. 

Historical fur trapping is thought to 

have resulted in a significant 

contraction of coastal marten 

distribution and the extirpation of 

coastal marten from large portions of its 

historical range. Although we can make 

conclusions about the general historical 

distribution of coastal martens, 

information on historical population 

size is not available, thus precluding an 

accurate assessment of the impact of 

unregulated trapping on coastal marten 

population abundance. 

Due to the lack of surveys for coastal 

martens, little information is available 

regarding their current distribution; this 

is particularly true for coastal Oregon. 

We do know, however, that there are at 

least three extant populations of coastal 

martens, one in coastal northern 

California, one in coastal southern 

Oregon, and one in coastal central 

Oregon, as described in detail below, 

and we have information regarding the 

extent of suitable habitat that is 

currently available to coastal martens 

throughout their range. It is therefore 

possible that coastal martens may occur 

in any of these areas of suitable habitat 

that have not been surveyed, or have 

been surveyed only sporadically. Here 

we briefly describe the areas of suitable 

habitat available to coastal martens. 

Slauson et al. (In prep.(b)) developed 

a landscape habitat suitability model 

that we used to assess how much 

suitable habitat is currently available to 

coastal martens. The model was 

developed by identifying the 

combination of environmental, 

topographic, disturbance history, and 

vegetation variables that best described 

the distribution of marten detection/

non-detection survey data. Specifics 

regarding model development and 

variables can be found in the ‘‘Current 

Landscape Habitat Suitability’’ section 

of the Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 

26–27). The model categorizes the 

landscape into low, medium, and high 

suitability classes representing the 

relative probability of marten occupancy 

of habitat at the landscape scale. 

Model results indicate that 

approximately 41 percent of the coastal 

marten’s historical range contain 

suitable habitat (described as low, 

medium, and high suitability habitat) 

for coastal martens (see ‘‘Current 

Landscape Habitat Suitability’’ section 

of the Species Report). The model 

identified approximately 59 percent of 

the remaining lands within the 

historical range of the coastal marten to 

be unsuitable, which includes (but is 

not limited to) forested habitat that is 

not utilized by martens (e.g., heavily 

managed timber lands), urban and 

suburban developments, and 

agricultural lands. However, it is 

important to note that, for the purposes 

of this analysis, we considered ‘‘low 

suitability habitat’’ as defined in this 

model to be ‘‘unsuitable’’ when 

examining the current and long-term 

stressors to the coastal marten and its 

habitat into the future. In other words, 

in evaluating stressors to the coastal 

marten and its habitat, we considered 

only areas that provide moderate- to 

high-suitability habitat as identified by 

the model. We came to this conclusion 

based on feedback from the species 

experts (Slauson et al., In prep.(a)) who 

indicate that these ‘‘low suitability 

habitat’’ areas currently have a low 

probability of coastal marten 

occurrence. Including these areas as 

suitable habitat for the purposes of this 

analysis would bias the amount of 

actual suitable habitat present both 

currently and in the future. 

Much of the coastal marten’s 

historical habitat has been lost. 

Extensive logging of old-growth 

redwood habitat in coastal northern 

California began in the late 1800s, and 

coincided with unregulated fur 

trapping. Late-successional coniferous 

forests in coastal Oregon were also 

extensively harvested in the early 1900s. 

Currently, less than 5 percent of the 

redwood forests existing at the time of 

European settlement remain within the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

historical range of the coastal marten in 

coastal northern California (Save the 

Redwoods League 2015, no page 

number). Based on the best available 

information, much of the coastal 

coniferous forest habitat in both States, 

especially within a few miles of the 

coast, appears to be currently owned (in 

general) by either private industrial 

timber companies or smaller land 

owners, and managed for timber 

production. 

Within the coastal marten’s historical 

range, the majority of remaining latesuccessional coniferous forests suitable 

for the coastal marten is within national 

forests, and national and State parks. 

Where martens are known to occur, 

relatively high amounts of moderate- to 

high-suitability habitat are still found, 

and much of this habitat occurs in areas 

that are managed for the maintenance or 

enhancement of late-successional forest 

conditions that are beneficial to coastal 

martens. For example, approximately 

71, 79, and 90 percent of the total 

available suitable habitat on Federal 

lands in the coastal central Oregon, 

coastal southern Oregon, and coastal 

northern California population areas, 

respectively, occur within the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Federal 

reserve lands, which are designed to 

retain and accelerate the development of 

late seral characteristics. Currently, the 

largest contiguous blocks of suitable 

coastal marten habitat occur within the 

Six Rivers National Forest in the 

extreme northern portion of the 

historical range in California, and in the 

adjacent Siskiyou portion of the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest in the 

southern portion of the historical range 

in Oregon. Large blocks of suitable 

habitat also occur in coastal central 

Oregon on the Siuslaw National Forest. 

Little suitable habitat is currently found 

in the southern half of the historical 

range in California. In the coastal 

northern portion of the historical range 

in Oregon, suitable habitat is limited to 

a narrow band along the coast. Finally, 

in the area between the Siskiyou and 

Siuslaw National Forests in the 

historical range in Oregon, there is some 

limited amount of suitable habitat on 

BLM ownership. Habitat conditions 

specific to each of the known extant 

population areas of coastal martens are 

discussed below. 

Distribution and Abundance of Current 

Known Extant Populations 

There are three known extant 

populations of coastal martens in 

coastal central Oregon, coastal southern 

Oregon, and coastal northern California, 

according to the best available scientific 

and commercial data (Figure 1; see 

section 8.1.2 (Delineation of Extant 

Population Areas) of the Species Report 

(Service 2015, p. 32)). These 

populations have been described as 

disjunct (e.g., Slauson and Zielinski 

2009, pp. 35–36). Survey effort has been 

limited in some portions of the coastal 

marten’s range, however. Therefore, it is 

unknown whether additional coastal 

martens may be found in areas that have 

not yet been surveyed. In addition, a 

few coastal marten verifiable detections 

occur outside these three population 

areas, but these martens are currently 

not considered part of any known viable 

population (Slauson et al., In prep.(a)). 

Surveys for martens have occurred in 

much of the California portion of the 

historical range and suitable interior 

habitat in southwestern Oregon, 

although minimal survey effort has 

occurred in coastal central Oregon and 

no surveys have occurred in coastal 

northern Oregon (see Figure 8.2 in the 

Species Report). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18751 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

Coastal Central Oregon Extant 

Population Area 

This 4,150-km2 (1,602-mi2) 

population area includes all coastaldraining watersheds from the Umpqua 

River north to the Yaquina River in 

Lincoln, Benton, western Lane, western 

Douglas, and northwestern Coos 

Counties. Lands within this extant 

population area are owned/managed by 

Siuslaw National Forest (41 percent), 

private landowners (40 percent), Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM; 10 percent), 

and Oregon Department of Forestry 

(ODF) and Oregon State Parks (9 

percent). A total of approximately 2,348 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07AP15.011</GPH>

0 

0 

Extant Population 

Area (EPA) 

Historical Range 

Coastal Central 

Oregon EPA 

N 

A 

25 50 Miles 

40 80 Kilometers 

Figure 1- Analysis area showing historical range and extant population areas for coastal 

Oregon and northern coastal California populations of the Pacific marten (Martes caurina) 
18752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

km2 (907 square miles (mi2); 56 percent) 

of the extant population area contains 

moderate- and high-suitability habitat 

(Service 2015, p. 33) for coastal martens. 

Of the currently available moderate- and 

high-suitability habitat, 23 percent is in 

private ownership and 71 percent is in 

Federal ownership, and 71 percent of 

the Federal lands are in Reserves, which 

are managed for late-seral characteristics 

(Service 2015, p. 76). The best available 

information suggests that most of the 

private forest land is owned by private, 

industrial timber companies (Lettman 

2011, p. 33). 

This population area comprises 

approximately 20 percent coastal 

marten habitat of high suitability, 36 

percent of moderate suitability, 22 

percent of low suitability (which has 

low probability of coastal marten 

occurrence currently and into the 

future), and 21 percent unsuitable 

(Slauson et al., In prep.(b)). In total, 

suitable marten habitat composes 78 

percent of the population area. 

However, we note that the model 

(which used data from northwest 

California and southwest Oregon) 

generated suitable habitat values for this 

population area that did not include 

coastal dune habitat, which is 

considered suitable for coastal martens 

based on visual observations and the 

presence of several verifiable marten 

detections (Slauson et al., In prep.(a)). 

Thus the amount of potentially suitable 

habitat for coastal martens identified by 

the habitat model is an underestimate 

for this population area. 

Population abundance information is 

not available for the coastal central 

Oregon population of coastal martens. 

Although only a single station had been 

surveyed in this population area since 

the late 1980s, presence/absence 

surveys began in this area in the 

summer of 2014. One marten was 

detected in 2014 (Slauson et al. 2014, 

unpubl. data), and six more were 

detected in January and February 2015; 

as of the time of this publication, 

surveys in this area are ongoing 

(Moriarty 2015, pers. comm.). The area 

surveyed represents only about 4 

percent of the currently delineated 

coastal central Oregon population area 

described herein, and 2014 was the first 

year of survey effort in this area. Based 

on the results to date and the 

availability of suitable habitat in this 

area, it is likely that more martens will 

be detected in this area as surveys 

continue. 

Abundance or trend information is 

not available for any populations of 

coastal martens in Oregon. Although 

researchers note that martens in this 

area have likely declined relative to 

their historical condition, they cite to 

insufficient historical or contemporary 

data to allow evaluation of the status of 

martens in the coastal mountain ranges 

of central and northern Oregon 

(Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 486). There are 

no data available for estimating current 

population abundance or trend for the 

coastal central Oregon population, and 

although survey efforts recently began 

in this area, data from these surveys will 

only be informative in terms of 

establishing presence or absence of 

coastal martens. Zielinski et al. (2001, 

pp. 486–487) could only suggest that 

marten numbers may be relatively low 

on the northern Oregon coast, based on 

the absence of reported road kills along 

coastal Highway 101 in this area, in 

contrast to several road-killed martens 

reported from the same highway in 

central Oregon. In sum, although coastal 

martens have likely declined relative to 

their historical abundance due to the 

past effects of overtrapping and timber 

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

there are no empirical data on which to 

base an estimate of either current 

population abundance or trend of 

martens on the central Oregon coast. 

Coastal Southern Oregon Extant 

Population Area 

This 4,696-km2 (1,813-mi2) 

population area includes Chetco River, 

Pistol River, south Fork Rough and 

Ready Creek, and the North Fork Smith 

River watersheds in Curry, western 

Josephine, and southern Coos Counties. 

Lands within this population area are 

owned/managed by Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest (78 percent), 

private landowners (13 percent), BLM (8 

percent), and ODF (less than 1 percent). 

A total of approximately 3,641 km2

(1,406 mi2; 78 percent) of the extant 

population area contains moderate- and 

high-suitability habitat (Service 2015, p. 

35). As stated above for the coastal 

central Oregon population area, present 

moderate- and high-suitability habitat 

on private lands is expected to be 

harvested or not likely to retain lateseral characteristics into the future. Of 

the currently available moderate- and 

high-suitability habitat in the coastal 

southern Oregon population area, 10 

percent is private ownership and 90 

percent is Federal ownership, and 79 

percent of the federally managed lands 

are Federal Reserves, which are 

managed for late-seral characteristics 

(Service 2015, p. 76). The best available 

information suggests that most of the 

private forest land is owned by private, 

industrial timber companies (Lettman et 

al. 2011, p. 33). 

This population area comprises 

approximately 52 percent coastal 

marten habitat of high suitability, 26 

percent of moderate suitability, 17 

percent of low suitability, and 5 percent 

unsuitable (Slauson et al., In prep.(b)). 

In total, suitable marten habitat 

composes 95 percent of the population 

area. 

Similar to the situation for the coastal 

central Oregon population, described 

above, population abundance 

information is not available for the 

coastal southern Oregon population of 

coastal martens. Although extensive 

grid-based surveys (which are used to 

estimate marten abundance or presence/ 

absence) have not been conducted for 

this population, grid-based surveys 

began in this area in the summer of 

2014. No coastal martens were detected 

in 2014 (Slauson et al. 2015, unpubl. 

data), but surveys just beginning at the 

time of this publication have yielded a 

single marten detection (Moriarty 2015, 

pers. comm.). The area surveyed 

represents only a small portion of the 

currently delineated coastal southern 

Oregon population area described 

herein, and 2014 represented the first 

year of survey effort in this area. At this 

time, similar to the coastal central 

Oregon population area, there are no 

empirical data on which to base an 

estimate of either current population 

abundance or trend of martens on the 

southern Oregon coast. 

Coastal Northern California Extant 

Population Area 

This 812-km2 (313-mi2) population 

area includes the south Fork of the 

Smith River, Blue Creek, Bluff Creek, 

Camp Creek, Cappell Creek, Pecwan 

Creek, Slate Creek, and Rock Creek 

(Siskiyou County, north of Orleans, 

California) watersheds in Del Norte, 

northern Humboldt, and western 

Siskiyou Counties. Lands within this 

population area are owned/managed by 

the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) 

(Klamath National Forest and Six Rivers 

National Forest; 65 percent); the Yurok 

Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, 

California (Yurok Tribe; 23 percent); 

private landowners, primarily Green 

Diamond Resource Company (11 

percent); and Redwood National and 

State Parks (1 percent). A total of 

approximately 656 km2 (253 mi2; 81 

percent) of the extant population area 

contains moderate- and high-suitability 

habitat (Service 2015, p. 75). Currently 

present moderate- and high-suitability 

habitat on private lands is expected to 

be harvested or not likely to retain lateseral characteristics into the future. Of 

the currently available moderate- and 

high-suitability habitat in the coastal 

northern California population area, 11 

percent is private ownership and 77 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18753 

percent is Federal ownership, and 90 

percent of the federally managed lands 

are Federal Reserves, which are 

managed for late-seral characteristics 

(Service 2015, p. 75). The best available 

information suggests that most of the 

private land is owned by private, 

industrial timber companies (Service 

2014, unpubl. data). 

This population area comprises 

approximately 67 percent coastal 

marten habitat of high suitability, 14 

percent of moderate suitability, 7 

percent of low suitability, and 12 

percent unsuitable (Slauson et al., In 

prep.(b)). In total, suitable marten 

habitat composes 88 percent of the 

population area. 

As reported in 1996 by Zielinski and 

Golightly (1996, entire), this coastal 

northern California population has 

apparently recovered from numbers that 

were once so low (in the 50 years prior 

to 1995) that it was considered to be 

extremely rare or extinct. Martens in 

coastal northern California were first 

surveyed to estimate abundance in 

2000–2001, and again in 2008 (Slauson 

et al. 2009b, p.11) and 2012 (Slauson et 

al. 2014, unpubl. data). A total of 31.5 

martens (95 percent confidence interval 

= 24–40) were estimated for 2000–2001, 

and 20.2 martens (95 percent confidence 

interval = 11–30) were estimated for 

2008, which represents a 42 percent 

decline in occupancy between those two 

time periods (Slauson et al. 2009b, pp. 

10, 11). In 2012, all locations sampled 

in 2008 were resampled (Slauson et al., 

In prep.(a)). Preliminary occupancy 

estimates for the 2012 sampling were 

similar to results from 2008 (Slauson et 

al., In prep.(a)), suggesting no further 

changes in marten population 

abundance in northern coastal 

California between 2008 and 2012. 

Slauson et al. (2009b, p. 13) advised that 

these population estimates should be 

considered minimum estimates because 

the sampling area did not fully cover all 

potentially occupied habitats; therefore, 

they suggested more realistic population 

estimates should be doubled (i.e., 60 

coastal martens in 2000–2001, and 40 in 

2008). Based on these samples, Slauson 

et al. (2009b, p. 13) concluded that as 

of 2008, it was likely that the entire 

coastal northern California population 

of martens contained fewer than 100 

individuals. As noted above, subsequent 

survey efforts in 2012 indicated no 

further changes in estimated population 

size since that time; therefore, the best 

available data (preliminary estimates 

from surveys in 2012) suggest that the 

current population estimate for the 

coastal northern California population is 

similar to the estimate for 2008 (i.e., 

fewer than 100 individuals). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species based on any of the 

following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this finding, information 

pertaining to the coastal DPS of the 

Pacific marten in relation to the five 

factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act is discussed below. In considering 

what factors might constitute threats to 

a species, we must look beyond the 

mere exposure of the species to a 

particular factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to that 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 if that factor rises to the level 

of a threat, meaning that it may drive or 

contribute to the risk of extinction of the 

species such that the species warrants 

listing as an endangered or threatened 

species as those terms are defined in the 

Act. However, the identification of 

factors that could impact a species 

negatively is not sufficient to compel a 

finding that the species warrants listing. 

The information must include evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

are operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species 

meets the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Potential stressors that may impact 

coastal martens in coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California include 

actions that may affect marten 

individuals or populations (i.e., 

trapping (for fur and research purposes), 

predation, disease, collision with 

vehicles, and exposure to toxicants) and 

actions that may lead to the loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation of suitable 

marten habitat (i.e., wildfire, climate 

change, vegetation management, and 

development). To provide a temporal 

component to our evaluation of 

potential stressors (i.e., impacts into the 

future), we first determined whether we 

had data available that would allow us 

to reasonably predict the likely future 

impact of each specific stressor over 

time. Where such data were available, 

we made predictions of future 

conditions over a period of time specific 

to that stressor (i.e., wildfire, climate 

change, as described below). If we did 

not have such stressor-specific data 

available, we used IUCN’s standard 

3-generation timeframe to assess risk 

(International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) 2014, pp. 14–21). Using 

a calculated marten generation time of 

5 years (see the Species Report for more 

information on calculating marten 

generation time), this translated to a 

timeframe of 15 years, which we used 

in analyzing the foreseeable future for 

the majority of the stressors discussed 

below. This time period allows for 

analysis of multiple generations of 

coastal martens over a reasonable time 

period, as opposed to examining further 

into the future where assumptions or 

extensive uncertainty would not allow 

meaningful projections of potential 

future impacts. 

To assess the stressor of wildfire, we 

used a longer future period consisting of 

30 years based on more extensive data 

available regarding wildfires from the 

past approximate 30 years. This 

information was used to predict the 

future equivalent level of expected fire 

frequency, size, and severity. Using a 

longer foreseeable future timeframe for 

wildfire better incorporates the range of 

fire-related activity that may occur 

within the coastal Oregon and coastal 

northern California population areas. To 

assess the stressor of climate change, we 

used a longer foreseeable future period 

of 40–50 years, which coincides with 

the model projection timeframes 

available for climate change (e.g., 

changes in temperature and 

precipitation) in coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California. Climate 

projections beyond this approximate 

time period diverge with increasing 

uncertainty (see, e.g., Lenihan et al. 

2008, pp. 16–17), including 

uncertainties in the magnitude and 

timing, as well as regional details, of 

predicted climate change, especially at 

smaller scales (IPCC 2015, no page 

number), which is why we cannot 

reliably project future climate change 

effects beyond this timeframe. 

A thorough review of each of the 

potential stressors is presented in the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 41– 

78), which is available on the Internet 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0105. A 

summary of this information is 

presented below. 

Each potential stressor was evaluated 

to determine the likely impact to coastal 

martens or their habitat. 

• A low-level impact indicates: (1) 

Individual martens in one or more 

populations may be impacted, but not at 

the population level; or (2) minimal 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

suitable habitat. 

• A medium-level impact indicates: 

(1) Individual martens in one or more 

populations are being impacted, likely 

resulting in a population-level impact; 

or (2) moderate loss, degradation, or 

fragmentation of suitable habitat. 

• A high-level impact indicates: (1) 

Individual martens in one or more 

populations are being impacted, likely 

resulting in a significant populationlevel impact; or (2) significant loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation of suitable 

habitat. 

Factor A—The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Wildfire 

Wildfire can impact individual 

coastal martens directly through 

mortality (Factor E); however, fires 

generally kill or injure a relatively small 

proportion of animal populations, 

particularly if they are mobile (Lyon et 

al. 2000, pp. 17–20), and the best 

available data do not indicate that 

wildfire is causing loss of individual 

martens. If direct mortality of individual 

martens occurs, we expect the impact to 

be discountable because martens are 

capable of rapid evacuation from an 

approaching fire, and adequate suitable 

habitat likely exists within their extant 

population areas to establish a new 

home range (provided the majority of 

the suitable habitat within the extant 

population area is not subjected to an 

overly large, high-severity wildfire). 

Wildfire is a major disturbance force 

of habitat within the range of the coastal 

marten in all but the wettest coastal 

forests and thus has been analyzed in 

terms of its effect on coastal marten 

habitat. Wildfire can affect the 

composition and structural 

characteristics of the forest communities 

at multiple spatial and temporal scales. 

Fire severity is often expressed in 

categories of high, medium, or low 

severity, as well as mixed severity. 

High-severity fire, also called standreplacing fire, kills all or nearly all 

vegetation within a stand and may 

extend across a landscape (Jain et al. 

2012, p. 47). Medium-severity fire refers 

to fire that is intermediate in its effects 

between high-severity and low-severity 

fire; for example, a fire may kill 

scattered clumps of overstory trees 

within a stand. Low-severity fire burns 

at ground-level and does not kill most 

overstory trees, although it may 

consume understory vegetation and 

downed woody debris (Jain et al. 2012, 

p. 47). Finally, mixed-severity fire 

includes patches of low-severity fire and 

patches of high-severity fire (Jain et al. 

2012, p. 47). 

Regional moisture gradients result in 

wildfires occurring more frequently 

with increasing distance from the coast 

and farther south in the coastal marten’s 

range. The effect of fire on coastal 

marten habitat varies from high-severity 

fires that consume much or all of the 

structural features (e.g., large trees, 

snags, logs) that are important elements 

of suitable coastal marten habitat, 

requiring centuries to regrow, to lowseverity fires that burn only the dense, 

shade-tolerant shrub layer preferred by 

the coastal marten (Slauson et al. 2009b, 

p. 11). The shrub layer likely takes 1 to 

2 decades to regrow to suitable size and 

density, depending on its fire resistance 

and adaptive response to disturbances 

(Slauson 2014, pers. comm.). However, 

some low-severity fires may burn 

ground cover without burning the 

dense, shade-tolerant shrub layer 

preferred by the coastal marten. 

Wildfires within the range of the coastal 

marten often burn at mixed severities 

(Landscape Fire and Resource 

Management Planning Tools Project 

(LANDFIRE) 2008a; LANDFIRE 2008b; 

LANDFIRE undated(a)), with some areas 

within the fire perimeter burning at a 

high severity, resulting in stand 

replacement, and other portions burning 

at low severity, resulting in the loss of 

only ground vegetation. Fire effects are 

complex; therefore, potential impacts of 

future wildfires on coastal marten 

suitable habitat are difficult to predict. 

Historical fire records indicate that, 

compared to the coastal central Oregon 

population area, the coastal northern 

California and coastal southern Oregon 

population areas (including adjacent or 

intervening areas) have experienced 

larger and more severe wildfires 

(Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

(MTBS; 2013, entire), both also 

experiencing many small (less than 0.4 

hectares (ha) (1 acre (ac)) fires. The 

potential for severe, stand-replacing 

wildfire has increased in some areas 

where fire suppression and regeneration 

timber harvest (i.e., the intent to 

develop a new stand/forest) have played 

a role in raising fuel load to levels that 

place late-successional forest at 

increased risk (Forest Service and BLM 

1994b, pp. 3, 4–49). Although fire 

suppression is known to contribute to 

the severity of wildfire in some areas, 

within at least parts of coastal northern 

California and coastal southern Oregon, 

fire suppression has had little effect on 

altering the structure and composition 

of the dominant forest types and has not 

caused an increase in high-severity fire 

compared to the historical patterns 

(Odion et al. 2004, pp. 933–935; Miller 

et al. 2012, p. 200). In other words, the 

period of fire suppression may not be 

long enough to manifest such effects in 

coastal forest types where the return 

intervals for high-severity, standreplacing fires are on the order of 

centuries (e.g., Veirs 1982, pp. 132–133; 

Oneal et al. 2006, pp. 82–87). 

The best available historical fire 

information and the more xeric nature 

(i.e., environment containing little 

moisture) of the interior within the 

Klamath Ecoregion indicate that future 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

moderate- and high-suitability coastal 

marten habitat from wildfires will likely 

result in a greater impact in the coastal 

southern Oregon and coastal northern 

California populations as compared to 

the coastal central Oregon population. 

However, the more coastal climate 

where most martens occur may have an 

ameliorating effect (e.g., increased 

humidity, reduced temperatures) on 

fires, reducing the size of fires in the 

coastal area compared to those more 

characteristic of the rest of the Klamath 

Ecoregion. Historical data between 1984 

and 2012 indicate that wildfires burned 

approximately 17 percent and 42 

percent of the combined moderate- and 

high-suitability coastal marten habitat 

within the coastal northern California 

and coastal southern Oregon population 

areas, respectively, with a few large fires 

responsible for the majority of burned 

suitable habitat (MTBS 2013, entire). We 

note that these wildfires burned at 

varying levels of severity; in other 

words, although some suitable habitat 

was lost as a result of the wildfires, 

varying levels of suitable habitat remain 

throughout the population areas, with 

moderate- and high-suitability habitat 

remaining within the wildfire 

perimeters after the fires were 

extinguished (Service 2014, unpubl. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

analysis). 

It is possible that fire frequency, size, 

and severity may increase in the future 

within coastal Oregon (both central and 

southern) and coastal northern 

California, based on projected increases 

in temperature and decreased 

precipitation (see ‘‘Climate Change,’’ 

below), with potentially greater 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18755 

increases within coastal southern 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

based on the history of wildfire within 

these portions of the coastal marten’s 

range. In contrast, little moderate- and 

high-suitability coastal marten habitat 

has burned (historically, between 1984 

and 2012) within and adjacent to the 

coastal central Oregon population area 

(MTBS 2013, entire). Large, standreplacing fires occur infrequently (at 

intervals greater than 200 to 250 years) 

within coastal central Oregon (Impara 

1997, p. 92; Long et al. 1998, p. 786; 

Long and Whitlock 2002, p. 223l; 

LANDFIRE 2008a). In general, most fires 

that have recently occurred within the 

range of coastal marten have burned at 

mixed severity (e.g., LANDFIRE 2008a; 

LANDFIRE 2008b; LANDFIRE 

undated(a)), resulting in some areas 

burning at a lower intensity with loss of 

only ground or shrub understory 

vegetation, and retaining of a portion of 

the moderate- and high-quality habitat 

within the fire perimeters. 

In our initial development of the 

Species Report, we identified an overall 

low-level impact across the northern 

portion of the coastal marten’s range, 

and a medium-level impact across the 

southern portion of the coastal marten’s 

range (see section 9.2.3.1 in the Species 

Report). These overall impact levels 

were based on the probability of 

occurrence of a wildfire over a 15-year 

time period. When considering 

historical fire data over a 30-year time 

period to predict the future equivalent 

level of expected fire frequency, size, 

and severity (see Appendix A in the 

Species Report), the overall level of 

impact (i.e., probability of occurrence of 

a wildfire) is potentially the same. 

However, this impact level estimate 

does not take into account the historical 

fire data (e.g., LANDFIRE 2008a; 

LANDFIRE 2008b; LANDFIRE 

undated(a)) that show most wildfires 

burned at low severity and retained 

moderate- and high-quality habitat postfire. 

Based on the analysis contained 

within the Species Report and 

summarized above, we expect that 

within the range of the coastal marten, 

the incidence of wildfire in the future 

will be similar to that recorded for 1984 

to 2012. We note, however, that highseverity fires have been infrequent in 

the past and are considered to remain 

infrequent, overall, into the future. Our 

expectation is that fire frequency, size, 

and severity in the future will be fairly 

similar (or slightly higher in some areas 

based on climate change predictions). 

Based on these 30 years (i.e., 1984– 

2012) of data, we can reasonably 

estimate these effects will continue with 

the same approximate level of impact 

into the next 30 years as has occurred 

over the previous 30 years (i.e., mixed 

severity wildfires will likely occur 

although most will be low severity and 

retain some moderate- and high-quality 

habitat post-fire); thus, we predict that, 

overall, these impacts do not rise to the 

level of a threat. We base this 

conclusion on: 

(1) The persistence of moderate- and 

high-quality habitat that has remained 

following recent large wildfires (i.e., 

wildfires that have burned at mixed 

severities (LANDFIRE 2008a; 

LANDFIRE 2008b; LANDFIRE 

undated(a)), which have not resulted in 

extensive stand-replacement within the 

coastal marten’s range. 

(2) The overall continued presence of 

relatively moist habitat conditions for 

coastal marten habitat, primarily along 

the western coast, including overall 

cooler, moist summer conditions that 

moderate the dry conditions that 

promote fire ignition and spread. 

(3) Information indicating that parts of 

coastal northern California and coastal 

southern Oregon have experienced fire 

suppression with little effect on altering 

the structure and composition of the 

dominant forest types, and no increase 

in high-severity fire compared to the 

historical patterns (Odion et al. 2004, 

pp. 933–935; Miller et al. 2012, p. 200). 

Climate Change 

‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and 

variability of weather conditions over 

time, with 30 years being a typical 

period for such measurements, although 

shorter or longer periods also may be 

used (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change [IPCC] 2013, p. 1,450). 

The term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers 

to a change in the mean or variability of 

one or more measures of climate (e.g., 

temperature or precipitation) that 

persists for an extended period, 

typically decades or longer, whether the 

change is due to natural variability, 

human activity, or both (IPCC 2013, p. 

1,450). A recent synthesis report of 

climate change and its effects is 

available from the IPCC (IPCC 2014, 

entire). 

Changes in climate may have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative, 

and they may change over time, 

depending on the species and other 

relevant considerations, such as 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation, 

fire frequency) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 

18–19). Typically, expert judgment and 

appropriate analytical approaches are 

used to weigh relevant information, 

including uncertainty, in various 

aspects of climate change. 

Global climate projections are 

informative, and in some cases, the only 

scientific information available. 

However, projected changes in climate 

and related impacts can vary 

substantially across and within different 

regions of the world (e.g., IPCC 2007, 

pp. 8–12). Therefore, we use 

‘‘downscaled’’ projections (see Glick et 

al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of 

downscaling) when they are available 

and have been developed through 

appropriate scientific procedures, 

because such projections provide higher 

resolution information that is more 

relevant to spatial scales used for 

analyses of a given taxon. For this 

analysis across the range of the coastal 

marten, downscaled projections are 

used in addition to some regional 

climate models that provide higher 

resolution projections using a modeling 

approach that differs from downscaling. 

The geographic region of the projections 

is the southern terminus of temperate 

rainforests of the North American 

continent, which encompasses the range 

of the coastal marten. 

Climate throughout the range of the 

coastal marten is projected over the next 

approximately 40 to 50 years to become 

warmer, and in particular summers will 

be hotter and drier, with more frequent 

heat waves (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 848; 

Cayan et al. 2012, p. 10; Salathe ́ et al. 

2010, p. 69; Tebaldi et al. 2006, pp. 191– 

200; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12423). 

However, the northern portion of the 

coastal marten’s range will likely 

experience winters that may become 

wetter, although warmer temperatures 

may result in an overall water deficit 

(Pierce et al. 2013, p. 848; Cayan et al. 

2012, p. 10; Salathe ́ et al. 2010, p. 69; 

Tebaldi et al. 2006, pp. 191–200; 

Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12423). The 

coastal marten’s currently suitable 

habitat may be affected by climate 

change to some extent. At this time, 

nearly all models for the coastal 

northern California and coastal southern 

Oregon population areas predict shifts 

in vegetation type over time from 

conifer forest to mixed-conifer 

hardwood forest, as well as shifts 

toward woodland and chaparral, with 

some shifts predicted to be observable 

by 2030, but most by the end of the 

century (roughly 2070 through 2099) 

(Whitlock et al. 2003, p. 16; Rehfeldt et 

al. 2006, p. 1143; Lenihan et al. 2008, 

p. 20; Doppelt et al. 2009, p. 7; Littell 

et al. 2011, pp. 11–12; Shafer et al. 2010, 

pp. 180–181; Littell et al. 2013, pp. 113– 

115). The predicted extent and nature of 

these shifts and the potential rate of 

change vary greatly, depending on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

potential emissions scenarios, 

assumptions (for example, in how 

various plant species are likely to 

respond to changes in temperature, 

precipitation, and carbon dioxide 

concentration), and variables 

incorporated into the models. Despite 

these differences, most models produce 

qualitatively similar forecasts of the 

impacts of potential future climates on 

ecosystem distribution, function, and 

disturbances (Shafer et al. 2010, p. 179). 

Although climate models have become 

increasingly sophisticated, the 

simulated future response of ecosystems 

remains subject to great uncertainty due 

to a number of factors, especially over 

longer timeframes (see, e.g., Lenihan et 

al. 2008, pp. 16–17). In sum, although 

there is general agreement in the 

direction and nature of changes 

anticipated, models continue to have 

limitations which lead to uncertainties 

in the magnitude and timing, as well as 

regional details, of predicted climate 

change, especially at smaller scales 

(IPCC 2015, no page number) Thus, 

although we anticipate the coastal 

marten’s currently suitable habitat may 

be affected by climate change to some 

extent, there is a high level of 

uncertainty regarding the nature of any 

such effects and the likelihood and 

timing of their occurrence. 

In coastal central and northern 

Oregon, models also project shifts by the 

end of this century in vegetation type 

from maritime conifer forest toward 

mixed conifer-hardwood and deciduous 

forests, although models differ in the 

extent of this change (Whitlock et al. 

2003, p. 16; Rehfeldt et al. 2006, p. 

1143; Lenihan et al. 2008, p. 20; Doppelt 

et al. 2009, p. 7; Littell et al. 2011, pp. 

11–12; Shafer et al. 2010, pp. 180–181; 

Littell et al. 2013, pp. 113–115). These 

shifts in future vegetation type may lead 

to range shifts for the coastal marten, 

although information is not available to 

indicate how rapidly this may occur. It 

is important to note that studies of 

climate change present a range of effects 

including some that indicate conditions 

could remain suitable for coastal 

martens. For example, in areas with 

stable or increasing total precipitation, 

overall warmer temperatures are 

expected to result in a decreased 

snowpack ((Cayan et al. 2012, pp. 20– 

21; Littell et al. 2011, p. 60; Salathe ́ et 

al. 2010, pp. 66–68; Hayhoe et al. 2004, 

p. 12423), which would result in 

increased availability of habitat for 

coastal martens at higher elevations, as 

well as increased availability of prey 

during the winter months (Service 2015, 

p. 7). Overall, it is not clear how finerscale abiotic factors may shape local 

climates and influence local vegetation 

trends either to the benefit or detriment 

of coastal martens, nor is the timeframe 

clear over which these influences may 

be realized. 

We note that redwood forest habitat 

within coastal national and State parks 

to the west of the coastal northern 

California population area may remain 

suitable for coastal martens even with 

projected changes in climate (based on 

a moderate emissions scenario within 

50 years; DellaSala 2013, entire). 

However, to reach this coastal redwood 

habitat, martens would need to traverse 

many kilometers of unsuitable habitat 

(i.e., industrial timberlands). Martens 

actively select against these areas that 

do not have protective overstory cover; 

however, limited movement across 

unsuitable habitat areas may occur. In 

contrast, coastal martens currently 

occurring within the drier, interior 

portions of the coastal southern Oregon 

population area could migrate into other 

suitable habitat to the west as climate 

change alters the more interior habitat; 

a natural, westward migration is 

possible due to a lack of significant 

physical barriers to east-west 

movements within that region. 

Overall, studies of climate change 

present a range of effects on vegetation, 

including some that indicate conditions 

could remain suitable for coastal 

martens in portions of the coastal range; 

furthermore, the severity of potential 

impacts to coastal marten habitat will 

likely vary across the range, with effects 

to coastal martens potentially ranging 

from negative, neutral, or beneficial. 

Thus, the Species Report described an 

estimated range of low- to mediumimpact for this stressor for coastal 

southern Oregon and coastal northern 

California (Service 205, pp. 67–72). 

Modeling projections are done at a large 

scale, and effects to species’ habitat can 

be complex, unpredictable, and highly 

influenced by local-level biotic and 

abiotic factors. Although many climate 

models generally agree about the 

changes in temperature and 

precipitation, the consequent effects on 

vegetation are more uncertain, as is the 

rate at which any such changes might be 

realized. Therefore, it is not clear how 

or when changes in forest type and 

plant species composition will affect the 

distribution of coastal marten habitat. 

How any such changes may in turn 

affect coastal marten populations is 

even more uncertain. Thus, uncertainty 

exists when determining the level of 

impact climate change may have on 

coastal marten habitat. Consequently, at 

this time and based on the analysis 

contained within the Species Report 

and summarized above, we have 

determined that we do not have reliable 

information to indicate that climate 

change is a threat to coastal marten 

habitat now or in the future, although 

we will continue to seek additional 

information concerning how climate 

change may affect coastal marten 

habitat. 

Vegetation Management 

Vegetation management includes 

activities such as timber harvest, 

thinning, fuels reduction, and habitat 

restoration, which can result in the 

temporary or permanent loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation of suitable 

coastal marten habitat. Once lost, 

structural elements found in suitable 

coastal marten habitat that are required 

for denning and resting (such as large 

diameter live trees, snags, and logs) 

require more than a century to develop 

(Slauson and Zielinski 2009, p. 43). 

Slauson (2014, pers. comm.) anticipates 

that loss of the dense, shade-tolerant 

shrub layer required by the coastal 

marten would take 1 to 2 decades to 

regrow. 

Historically, vegetation management 

activities (particularly large-scale 

harvest of late-successional coniferous 

forest habitat) reduced the amount and 

distribution of suitable coastal marten 

habitat. At the present time, although 

the reduction and fragmentation of some 

suitable coastal marten habitat is 

expected to continue, the majority of 

suitable habitat for coastal martens is 

currently secure and expected to 

increase in the future. Habitat loss and 

degradation is expected to be realized 

primarily on private lands, which 

constitute a relatively small proportion 

of the suitable habitat available to 

martens in the three extant population 

areas (23 percent in coastal central 

Oregon, 10 percent in coastal southern 

Oregon, and 11 percent in coastal 

northern California). In contrast, most 

suitable marten habitat is in Federal 

ownership (71 percent in the coastal 

central Oregon population area, 90 

percent in the coastal southern Oregon 

population area, and 77 percent in the 

coastal northern California population 

area), and the majority of those lands are 

in reserve allocations under the NWFP, 

which are managed for the maintenance 

or development of late-successional 

forest characteristics (71 percent of 

Federal lands in reserves in coastal 

central Oregon, 79 percent of Federal 

lands in reserves in coastal southern 

Oregon, and 90 percent of Federal lands 

in reserves in coastal northern 

California). We therefore expect not 

only the maintenance but further 

recruitment of suitable coastal marten 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18757 

habitat on Federal reserve lands over 

time. 

Some vegetation management 

activities (such as thinning, fuels 

reduction projects, and habitat 

restoration) have the potential to 

improve habitat suitability for the 

coastal marten in the long term by 

minimizing loss of late-successional 

stands due to wildfires and accelerating 

the development of late-seral 

characteristics (Zielinski 2013, pp. 419– 

422). This has been suggested for a 

similar mustelid, the fisher, where such 

activities may be consistent with 

maintaining landscapes that support 

fishers in the long term and sometimes 

even the short term, providing 

treatments retain appropriate habitat 

structures, composition, and 

configuration (Spencer et al. 2008, 

entire; Scheller et al. 2011, entire; 

Thompson et al. 2011, entire; Truex and 

Zielinski 2013, entire; Zielinski 2013, 

pp. 17–20). Thus, it is reasonable to 

assume that these types of projects 

could increase the long-term, overall 

amount, distribution, and patch size of 

suitable coastal marten habitat, although 

some short-term degradation, loss, or 

fragmentation of suitable coastal marten 

habitat may occur in the interim. 

On lands managed for industrial 

timber harvest, the past and current 

practice of managing coastal coniferous 

forests on a short-rotation system (40–60 

years) to maximize wood production 

has reduced the complexity of the shrub 

and herb layers, which are important 

components of suitable marten habitat. 

These management practices have also 

precluded development of latesuccessional forest characteristics that 

are important to the coastal marten 

(such as large diameter logs, snags, and 

trees). Short-rotation forestry is 

prevalent on private lands, whereas 

only a small fraction of forested Federal 

lands (i.e., ‘‘matrix’’ lands as defined 

under the NWFP) may be used for 

timber harvest. 

Due to current and expected future 

intensive timber-harvesting activities, 

we do not anticipate that private lands 

would support viable marten 

populations or maintain important 

habitat elements in the future. Instead, 

the coastal marten relies on (and our 

analysis considers) the maintenance of 

suitable coastal marten habitat on 

Federal and State lands as the key 

element to support the long-term 

viability of coastal marten populations. 

Of the coastal marten suitable habitat 

within the three extant population 

areas, from 71 to 90 percent is on 

Federal lands and in reserve status 

under the NWFP, much of which is 

managed specifically for the 

development of late-successional 

characteristics that will be beneficial for 

coastal martens. Specifically, and at 

present: 

(1) In the coastal central Oregon 

extant population area, 79 percent of the 

habitat is considered suitable for coastal 

martens (56 percent moderate to high 

suitability). Approximately 71 percent 

of the moderate- to high-suitability 

habitat occurs within Federal 

ownership, and 71 percent of that is 

Federal Reserve land. 

(2) In the coastal southern Oregon 

extant population area, 95 percent of the 

habitat is considered suitable for coastal 

martens (78 percent moderate to high 

suitability). Approximately 90 percent 

of the moderate- to high-suitability 

habitat is in Federal ownership, and 79 

percent of that is Federal Reserve land. 

(3) In the coastal northern California 

extant population area, 87 percent of the 

habitat is considered suitable habitat for 

coastal martens (81 percent moderate to 

high suitability). Approximately 77 

percent of that is in Federal ownership, 

and 90 percent of that is Federal Reserve 

land. 

A small proportion of the moderateand high-suitability habitat occurs on 

Federal matrix lands (i.e., lands as 

defined under the NWFP that are used 

for timber harvest). The rate of loss of 

late-successional and old-growth forest 

on Federal lands due to timber harvest 

has declined substantially since the 

implementation of the NWFP (Mouer et 

al. 2011, entire). Although the NWFP 

does not recognize marten habitat as a 

forest class or condition, latesuccessional old growth forest likely 

includes a subset of coastal marten 

habitat (if the necessary dense shrub 

layer is present). 

Based on the analysis contained 

within the Species Report and 

summarized above, including the 

proportion of moderate- and highsuitability coastal marten habitat 

available and the favorably managed 

forested lands (primarily Federal 

Reserves) within each extant population 

area, we consider ongoing vegetation 

management to have a low impact on 

the loss, degradation, or fragmentation 

of suitable coastal marten habitat across 

the range of the DPS both currently and 

into the future. We note that loss of 

suitable habitat (primarily low-quality 

suitable habitat) is expected to continue 

to occur into the future on private lands 

within all three population areas, 

potentially to a greater extent in the 

coastal central Oregon population area 

due to a larger percentage of privatelyowned timber lands within that 

population area. For the entire range, we 

considered vegetation management as a 

low-level impact on moderate and high 

suitability marten habitat for Federal 

lands, which constitute a majority of the 

extant population areas, have longer 

harvest rotations, and retain more 

structural features on the subset of that 

area in matrix, or where habitat will be 

retained on lands in Federal Reserves. 

In addition, because of the extent of 

Federal reserve land allocations that are 

designed to maintain and develop latesuccessional conditions, an 

unquantifiable amount of suitable 

habitat for coastal martens is expected 

to develop in the future. Overall, 

potential impacts from vegetation 

management do not rise to the level of 

a threat given the extensive beneficial 

land management practices expected to 

continue into the future (15 years) on 

public lands. 

Development 

Some impacts to suitable habitat are 

expected to occur within the range of 

the coastal marten as a result of 

development activities such as road 

building, dam construction and creation 

of new reservoirs, conversion of forest 

habitat for agricultural use, 

development and expansion of 

recreational areas (e.g., golf courses, 

campgrounds, and trails), urban 

expansion, and rural development. 

Should these types of disturbances 

occur, they would likely result in the 

further loss, degradation, or 

fragmentation of suitable habitat. 

However, if these activities occur into 

the future, only a small amount of 

habitat may be impacted rangewide 

based on our evaluation of the best 

available data at this time because most 

of the potential development is 

expected on private lands that afford the 

coastal marten little suitable habitat to 

begin with. In addition, many of the 

areas that provide suitable habitat for 

coastal martens are areas of challenging 

topography that are not conducive to 

intensive or large-scale development. 

In Oregon, the greatest rates of change 

from resource land use to more 

developed use occurred prior to 1984, 

before implementation of county landuse plans and land-use planning laws 

(Oregon Administrative Rule 660–015– 

00) that limit the conversion of 

designated resource lands, including 

forest lands, to other uses (Lettman et al. 

2011, p. 16). These laws encourage 

intensified development in areas 

already urbanizing, while limiting 

development in more rural areas 

(Lettman et al. 2009, p. 4; Lettman et al. 

2011, p. 9). Consequently, conversion of 

non-Federal forest land has been limited 

in Oregon, with 98 percent of all nonFederal forest, agricultural, and range 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

lands in the State in 1974 remaining in 

those uses in 2009 (Lettman et al. 2011, 

p. 11). Virtually all land-use change 

during this time occurred on private 

land (Lettman et al. 2011, p. 11). 

However, development of private land 

within 1.6 km (1 mi) of Federal forest 

land is increasing, which can affect 

management along the periphery of 

adjacent Federal lands, such as 

increasing the need for fuel treatments 

on public lands to protect structures on 

adjacent private lands (Lettman et al. 

2009, pp. 33–34; Azuma et al. 2013, pp. 

1–2). Development of Federal forest 

lands in California and Oregon, 

however, is expected to be limited given 

past history (e.g. Lettman et al. 2011, p. 

11 for Oregon) and the management 

mandates of the land management 

agencies. 

Based on the analysis contained 

within the Species Report and 

summarized above, and similar to the 

vegetation management discussion 

above, we estimate that development 

has a low impact on the loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation of suitable 

coastal marten habitat across the range 

of the DPS both currently and into the 

future, and thus does not rise to the 

level of a threat. If development occurs, 

the frequency and amount of habitat 

impacted may be greater in the coastal 

central Oregon population area as 

opposed to the other two population 

areas due to a larger percentage of 

privately-owned timber lands within the 

coastal central Oregon population area. 

However, as exhibited over the past 30 

years, any loss is expected to be small. 

Factor B—Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Trapping 

Trapping for Fur 

Historical unregulated fur trapping 

(prior to the 1930s) of coastal martens is 

considered by researchers as the likely 

cause of the marked contraction in 

coastal marten distribution. Legal 

marten fur trapping in coastal northern 

California ended in 1946. However, fur 

trapping remains legal and has 

continued in Oregon, and the number of 

martens harvested in coastal Oregon 

counties has declined since the 1940s 

(Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 482), although 

it is not known whether trapping effort 

remained unchanged over this time 

period. By the 1970s, martens were 

considered rare along the Oregon coast 

(Zielinski et al. 2001, p. 483; Mace 1970, 

pp. 13–14; Maser et al. 1981, pp. 293– 

294). A total of 36 martens were 

harvested within coastal Oregon 

counties between 1969 and 1995 (Verts 

and Carraway 1998, p. 409). This 

harvest level excludes Lane and Douglas 

Counties because a substantial area of 

these counties is outside the DPS and 

fur trapping is only reported at the 

county level. The most recent data 

indicate that three coastal martens were 

trapped within coastal Oregon during 

the 2013 fur trapping season (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

unpublished data). Overall, based on 

these data, the number of martens 

trapped in coastal Oregon has averaged 

fewer than two animals a year in recent 

decades. The fur trapping effort for 

martens in Oregon is relatively minimal; 

the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife reports that few trappers, 

generally from 4 to 8, trap for marten 

anywhere in the State in any given year. 

Most recent harvests of martens are from 

the Cascades and Blue Mountain 

Ranges; harvest of martens in the Coast 

Range is extremely rare (Hiller 2011, p. 

17). Any potential population impacts 

of removing individual coastal martens 

as a result of fur trapping are difficult 

to estimate due to a lack of population 

size estimates in both Oregon 

population areas. The best available 

data indicate, however, that relatively 

few martens are removed from coastal 

populations as a result of fur trapping in 

Oregon, and we have no evidence to 

suggest that these populations may be in 

decline as a consequence of fur 

trapping. 

Based on the analysis contained 

within the Species Report and 

summarized above, we consider the 

legal fur trapping of coastal martens as 

having no overall impact to the 

population in coastal northern 

California, as there is no legal fur 

trapping for martens in that State. Fur 

trapping effort for martens in Oregon is 

relatively minimal, and most martens 

harvested are not trapped in the coast 

ranges. We estimate a low- to mediumlevel of impact to the two extant 

populations in coastal Oregon, reflecting 

the uncertainty regarding the size of 

those populations. We estimate that the 

impacts of fur trapping on coastal 

martens in Oregon will continue at a 

similar level, both currently and into the 

future, because the best available data 

do not suggest that either fur trapping 

effort or impacts are likely to change. 

Additionally, of note for California, we 

expect that nearly all coastal martens 

that are accidentally captured in box 

traps (body-gripping traps are illegal in 

California) set for other furbearer 

species, or that are live-trapped for 

research purposes, will be released 

unharmed. As a result of this best 

available information for Oregon and 

California, we have determined that fur 

trapping, overall, does not have a 

significant population-level impact 

across the DPS’s range and does not rise 

to the level of a threat. 

Trapping for Research Purposes 

Based on the analysis contained 

within the Species Report, we consider 

the potential impacts of live-trapping 

and handling for research purposes on 

coastal marten populations as 

discountable. We came to this 

conclusion based on the limited 

distribution of marten research projects 

in the three extant population areas 

(currently only a single project in the 

western half of the coastal northern 

California population area where no 

martens were injured or killed during 

live-trapping), and based on the strict 

trapping and handling protocols that 

must be adhered to by coastal marten 

researchers to ensure the safety of study 

animals. Available information does not 

suggest that there would be any change 

to the level of anticipated impacts of 

live-trapping and handling for research 

purposes into the future, and, therefore, 

we find that the potential impacts to the 

coastal marten from trapping for 

research purposes do not rise to the 

level of a threat. 

Factor C—Disease or Predation 

Disease 

Numerous pathogens (e.g., canine 

distemper, canine parvovirus, 

toxoplasmosis) are known to cause 

severe disease in mustelids. Infected 

domestic dogs that are allowed to roam 

within an extant marten population area 

could expose martens to lethal 

pathogens. Fur trappers could capture 

an infected carnivore (e.g., marten, 

fisher, gray fox, bobcat) and 

inadvertently spread the disease to 

martens through contaminated traps. 

Marten researchers could also transfer 

lethal pathogens within and between 

extant population areas if traps and 

track-plate boxes are not disinfected 

after exposure to any carnivore species, 

including coastal martens. 

An outbreak of a lethal pathogen 

within any of the three extant coastal 

marten populations could occur. Several 

serious pathogens have been detected in 

the related fisher less than 9 km (5.6 mi) 

from the nearest verifiable marten 

detection within the coastal northern 

California population (Brown et al. 

2008, entire), suggesting that martens 

could be exposed by infected juvenile 

fishers that disperse from their natal 

area into the coastal marten population 

area. However, despite possible 

exposure to pathogens, no outbreaks of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18759 

diseases have been detected in coastal 

martens, and we have no evidence to 

suggest that disease is currently present 

in any of the coastal marten 

populations. 

The best available data do not 

indicate that disease has impacted 

coastal martens at any point in time in 

the past or currently. The prevalence of 

past exposure to lethal pathogens within 

the coastal northern California 

population and the coastal Oregon 

populations has not been demonstrated 

through a serosurvey (i.e., a screening 

test of the serum of a marten to 

determine susceptibility to a particular 

disease). Additionally, if the known 

extant populations are disjunct from one 

another, as suggested by Slauson and 

Zielinski (2009, pp. 35–36), this would 

be beneficial in terms of reducing the 

ease of transmission of disease between 

the populations, should an outbreak 

occur. Thus, at this time, the best 

available data do not indicate that a 

disease outbreak has had, or is likely to 

have, a significant population-level 

effect on coastal martens. 

In sum, there are currently no 

indications of disease in coastal marten 

populations. If an outbreak of a serious 

disease should occur, it could have a 

significant impact on the affected 

population. However, based upon the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data as presented in the Species Report 

and summarized here, there is a low 

probability that a disease outbreak may 

occur. We anticipate that if there should 

be an outbreak, it will likely have a low 

effect on all three coastal marten 

populations combined, as the distance 

between them makes it unlikely that the 

effects of such an outbreak would 

spread. Thus, we have determined that 

disease has a low-level population 

impact across the coastal marten’s range 

and, therefore, does not rise to the level 

of a threat currently or into the future. 

Predation 

Predation is a natural ongoing source 

of mortality for the coastal marten and 

would not be expected to negatively 

impact the viability of marten 

populations in coastal Oregon and 

coastal northern California unless 

annual predation rates, combined with 

all other mortality sources, exceed 

annual juvenile coastal marten 

recruitment rates (estimated at 50 

percent for the coastal marten; Slauson 

et al., In prep.(a)). At this time, the only 

documented coastal marten predators 

are bobcats (Slauson et al. 2014, unpubl. 

data). However, additional predator 

species have been documented for other 

marten species and populations: 

(1) Strickland et al. (1982, p. 607) 

summarized reports of American 

martens being preyed upon by coyotes, 

fishers, red foxes, cougars, golden and 

bald eagles (Aquila chrysaetos, 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and great 

horned owls (Bubo virginianus). 

(2) Bull and Heater (2001a, p. 3) 

conducted a study in northeastern 

Oregon and documented 18 martens 

(i.e., Martes caurina vulpina) killed by 

predators: 44 percent by bobcats, 22 

percent by raptors, 22 percent by other 

martens, and 11 percent by coyotes. 

Historical coastal marten predation 

rates are unknown, although the 

historical assemblage of predator 

species was likely similar to the current 

assemblage. It is possible that humancaused changes in vegetation 

composition, vegetation distribution, 

and extensive road building over time 

have increased predator densities and 

distribution within the range of the 

coastal marten. These changes in 

vegetation and infrastructure provide 

more access and avenues in which 

predators can exploit their prey base, 

especially in forested areas that were 

once undisturbed with extensive shrub 

cover for prey, such as martens, to 

escape or find shelter. For example, in 

coastal northern California, fisher and 

gray fox have both maintained their 

interior distributions but appear to have 

expanded their distributions in coastal 

redwood forest habitat concurrently 

with the dramatic decline in the 

distribution of coastal martens (Slauson 

and Zielinski 2007, p. 242). Another 

recent study within coastal northern 

California suggests that bobcats and gray 

foxes frequent roads in forests 

dominated by redwoods (Slauson and 

Zielinski 2010, pp. 77–78); the same is 

likely true for other forest types 

throughout the DPS’s historical range in 

coastal Oregon and coastal northern 

California, but has not been confirmed. 

Slauson and Zielinski (2010, pp. 77–78) 

indicate that roads may be facilitating 

the presence and abundance of these 

predator species in dense-shrub 

landscapes and increasing the risk of 

intraguild predation on coastal martens. 

Therefore, past logging practices that 

reduced the complexity of the herb and 

shrub layers, in combination with 

existing roads, may have facilitated an 

increase in the distribution of predators 

within the range of coastal marten, thus 

potentially increasing the likelihood 

that coastal martens could encounter a 

predator. 

Predation of coastal martens has been 

studied recently. Since the fall of 2012, 

researchers have radio-tracked up to 23 

coastal martens within the western 

portion of the coastal northern 

California extant population area to 

determine survival rates and cause of 

death. Data indicate a total of nine 

coastal marten mortalities, all killed by 

bobcats (Slauson et al. 2014, unpubl. 

data). Although these data would appear 

to indicate a 39 percent annual 

mortality rate, the annual mortality rate 

was estimated to be 33 percent due to 

several martens tracked for more than a 

year that were later found dead (Slauson 

et al. 2014, unpubl. data). The 

mortalities have also occurred within 

areas where bobcats are considered 

more abundant and fishers have been 

documented, particularly where 

extensive logging and road building 

within suitable coastal marten habitat 

have occurred (Slauson 2014, pers. 

comm.). No other records of coastal 

marten predation have been 

documented nor conducted, including 

within coastal Oregon. 

Predation is identified as a natural 

stressor (i.e., part of the natural 

condition in which the coastal marten 

has evolved). Human activities (such as 

vegetation management and road 

building) may increase the abundance 

and distribution of predators within 

coastal marten home ranges. The 

preliminary home ranges of all nine 

dead coastal martens mentioned above 

contained relatively large amounts of 

recently logged forest, compared with 

the home ranges of radio-collared 

coastal martens that are still alive 

(Slauson 2014, pers. comm.), suggesting 

that disturbed areas may result in 

greater predation rates or that 

undisturbed areas, which harbor 

suitable habitat features for escape from 

predators, are likely preferred. In 

addition, all nine dead coastal martens 

were found within 100 m (328 ft) of a 

road. As described in the ‘‘Population 

Biology and Dynamics’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, p. 12), 

Slauson et al. (In prep.(a)) estimated 

annual juvenile coastal marten survival 

at 50 percent, which suggests that the 

observed 33 percent annual mortality 

rate of coastal martens from predation 

may be sustainable. 

The population-level impact of 

predation within the three coastal 

marten extant population areas is 

currently unknown. Data are available 

only for the coastal northern California 

population where a sample of 23 

individuals were radio-tracked and 9 of 

those were found predated upon by 

bobcats, indicating a 33 percent 

predation rate (Slauson et al. 2014, 

unpubl. data). Similar information does 

not exist for the Oregon populations. 

However, the best available scientific 

and commercial data indicate that 

predation is occurring to an unknown 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

degree as an ongoing natural process 

across the range of the DPS. 

As noted above, a 33 percent annual 

predation rate is expected to be 

sustainable when compared with an 

annual juvenile coastal marten survival 

rate of 50 percent; thus, predation 

would not likely result in a populationlevel impact. Therefore, based on the 

best available data, we find that 

predation has a low-level population 

impact for all three extant coastal 

marten populations. The best available 

data indicate that predation is a natural 

process and the level of predation is not 

expected to increase in the future. Based 

on the analysis contained within the 

Species Report and summarized above, 

we have determined that predation does 

not rise to the level of a threat, given 

that it is a natural phenomenon and 

appears to be occurring at a sustainable 

level. 

Factor D—The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Existing regulatory mechanisms that 

affect coastal martens include laws and 

regulations promulgated by the Federal 

and individual State governments. 

Federal and State agencies manage 

approximately 31 and 5 percent, 

respectively, of the lands within the 

coastal marten’s range, including a total 

of approximately 57 percent (13,388 

km2 (5,169 mi2)) of the currently 

available suitable habitat (high, 

medium, and low quality) throughout 

the range of the coastal marten (see 

Table 8.2 in the Species Report (Service 

2015, p. 37)). Tribal governments, as 

sovereign entities, have their own 

system of laws and regulations on tribal 

lands. Principal stressors acting on 

coastal martens for which governments 

may have regulatory control include 

injury or mortality due to fur trapping, 

habitat modification or loss, and legal 

uses of pesticides, including 

anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs). These 

regulations differ among government 

entities, are explained in detail in the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 78– 

96), and are summarized below. 

Federal 

All Forest Service and BLM lands 

within the range of the coastal marten 

are managed under the NWFP, which 

was adopted in 1994, to guide the 

management of 97,124 km2 (37,500 mi2) 

of Federal lands in portions of western 

Washington, Oregon, and northwestern 

California. The NWFP amends the 

management plans of National Forests 

and BLM Districts within the range of 

the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina), representing a 

100-year strategy intended to provide 

the basis for conservation of the 

northern spotted owl and other latesuccessional and old-growth forestassociated species (Forest Service and 

BLM 1994a, 1994b). This regional plan 

provides for retention and recruitment 

of older forests, and provides for spatial 

distribution of this type of habitat that 

will benefit late-successional forestdependent species, including the coastal 

marten. The amount of late-successional 

coniferous habitat on Federal lands 

removed since implementation of the 

plan is substantially lower than preimplementation levels (Kennedy et al. 

2012, p. 128). Activities such as timber 

harvest and thinning, fuels reduction 

treatments, and road construction (see 

‘‘Vegetation Management’’ and 

‘‘Development’’ under Factor A, above) 

may occur in certain areas known as 

matrix lands (i.e., limited areas 

delineated specifically to allow for 

programmed future timber harvest), 

which may result in some reduction of 

habitat and habitat connectivity for the 

coastal marten. However, the future 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

suitable coastal marten habitat on 

Federal lands from these activities is 

expected to be low given the limited 

amount of matrix land allocation. 

Future increases in the amount and 

distribution of forest habitat suitable for 

coastal martens is expected to occur 

either through ingrowth in Federal 

Reserves, or through forest management 

activities designed to accelerate the 

development of late-seral characteristics 

within the coastal marten’s range. 

The coastal marten is currently 

treated differently on Federal lands in 

Oregon as compared to California. In 

Oregon, the coastal marten is not 

considered a sensitive species on Forest 

Service and BLM lands. However, the 

Forest Service (Region 6) has added the 

marten to its draft sensitive species list 

that is expected to be finalized in 2015 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service 2014, p. 5), and BLM (Medford 

and Roseburg Districts) is also working 

to add the marten to its sensitive species 

lists (Hughes 2015, pers. comm.). In 

California, the coastal marten is a 

sensitive species on Forest Service 

lands, but not on BLM lands. Federal 

protections afforded the coastal marten 

as a sensitive species on Forest Service 

lands in California largely depend on 

best management practices and 

conservation efforts outlined in their 

Land and Resource Management Plans 

(LRMPs), and on-site-specific project 

analyses and implementation. 

Potential exposure of coastal martens 

to ARs has not yet been studied, but to 

date we have incidental evidence of 

sublethal exposure in at least one 

individual (see ‘‘Exposure to Toxicants’’ 

under Factor E, below). The use of 

rodenticides is regulated under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act of 1947 (7 U.S.C. 136 

et seq.), via the registration of labels by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Each label describes the 

permitted use for an individual 

rodenticide product and must be 

supported by rigorously collected and 

analyzed efficacy and environmental 

safety data. However, it is not clear how 

well those regulations prevent wildlife 

(including coastal martens) exposure to 

legal uses of these rodenticides. Coastal 

martens may also be exposed to 

rodenticides used illegally in the form 

of rodenticide applications on illegal 

marijuana grow sites. Law enforcement 

efforts occur in both Oregon and 

California in an attempt to eradicate 

suspected illegal marijuana grow sites, 

but it is unknown how effective such 

measures are at reducing the exposure 

of martens to rodenticides. At this time, 

as described below, the best available 

data do not indicate population- or 

rangewide-level impacts to coastal 

martens from legal or illegal use of 

rodenticides. 

The Forest Service has extensive 

policy on the use of rodenticides (Forest 

Service Manual 2670.32), and the Forest 

Service Manual (Forest Service 2005, 

Chapter 2600) contains legal authorities, 

objectives, policies, responsibilities, 

instructions, and guidance needed on a 

continuing basis by Forest Service line 

officers and primary staff to plan and 

execute assigned programs and 

activities. In addition, BLM policy (BLM 

Manual 9011-Chemical Pest Control) 

regulates the use of rodenticides and 

other pesticides on their ownership. 

Queries to the BLM and Forest Service 

in Oregon confirm they do not use 

anticoagulant rodenticides on their 

ownership, although some use of 

strychnine for rodent control is 

employed on Forest Service land 

(Standley 2013, pers. comm.; Bautista 

2013, pers. comm.). 

States of Oregon and California 

Forest practice rules vary greatly 

between Oregon and California, with no 

explicitly stated coastal marten 

protections specified in either State. 

However, retention of some number of 

snags and green trees in harvest units is 

a ubiquitous requirement in managed 

forests throughout the range of the 

coastal marten (State, Federal, and 

private lands) (e.g., Oregon forest 

practice rules (Oregon Administrative 

Rules (OAR) Chapter 629, Division 600); 

CAL FIRE forest practice rules (Title 14, 

California Code of Regulations, Chapters 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18761 

4, 4.5, and 10; Forest Service and BLM 

1994a, 1994b)). The coastal marten is 

not listed under the California 

Endangered Species Act (CESA) or as a 

State ‘‘fully protected’’ species and thus 

does not receive protections available 

under those statutory provisions. In 

terms of effects to coastal marten habitat 

or incidental harm to coastal martens 

from timber harvesting or other types of 

land-disturbing projects, the State of 

California has existing regulations that 

act in combination to disclose, avoid, or 

mitigate environmental degradation, the 

latter two situations of which could 

potentially result in benefits to coastal 

marten habitat. Cumulative effects 

analyses for listed and non-listed 

species, such as coastal marten, are 

required in both the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 

the California forest practice rules. 

Structures that are retained (e.g., some 

level of snags and green trees) under 

existing forest practice rules typically 

do not meet the minimum size used by 

coastal martens (Schmidt 2014, pers. 

obs.; Slauson 2014, pers. obs.). Where 

these features are large enough, they 

may provide future denning and resting 

sites provided they have the appropriate 

structural attributes (such as cavities 

and large limbs) and the surrounding 

forest is allowed to develop the 

necessary canopy cover, dense shrub 

understory, and prey base to support 

coastal martens in the long term. Short 

rotations of industrial forest 

management rarely allow this to 

happen, as compared to areas where 

management is for longer rotations or 

designed to develop older stands (e.g., 

old-forest structure management on 

Oregon State Forests) that retain these 

legacy features that may facilitate 

coastal marten habitat development. 

Protection measures for riparian areas 

are also a widespread standard on 

managed forests throughout the range of 

the coastal marten, with larger buffers 

and more stringent timber retention 

requirements typically provided on 

Federal and State lands as compared to 

private lands. Retention areas to meet 

other management goals are also found 

across ownerships (e.g., anchor habitats 

on Oregon State Forests, occupied site 

buffers on multiple ownerships, 

Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones 

on private land in California). Although 

many of these retained areas are not 

large enough to support a coastal marten 

home range, they do provide patches of 

structural features that may allow 

coastal marten movement across the 

landscape and facilitate dispersal 

between larger blocks of coastal marten 

habitat. This may be particularly 

valuable where State lands lie between 

large blocks of Federal lands managed 

as late-seral habitat. Additionally, the 

Oregon Department of Forestry calls for 

managing 30 to 50 percent of their State 

Forests in northwest Oregon for layered 

and old-forest structural conditions 

such as larger trees, multiple canopy 

layers, diverse understories and shrub 

layering, and diverse structural features 

such as downed wood and snags (ODF 

2010, pp. 4–48, C–1 to C–24). These 

lands represent a small proportion of 

currently occupied habitat and are 

mostly located outside of existing 

coastal marten population areas; 

however, these areas may benefit coastal 

martens in the future as they are 

allowed to develop into a structural 

condition more suitable to martens. 

Coastal martens can be legally 

harvested/trapped for fur in Oregon but 

not in California (see ‘‘Trapping’’ under 

Factor B, above). Within Oregon, coastal 

martens are listed (by the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife) as a 

sensitive species in the vulnerable 

category and as a species of 

conservation concern, but neither of 

these designations has associated 

regulatory mechanisms. Rather, these 

designations are used to encourage 

voluntary actions to improve a taxon’s 

status or prevent population declines. 

Within California, coastal martens may 

not be intentionally harvested or 

trapped for fur or otherwise killed in 

California; although injury or mortality 

may occur when coastal martens are 

incidentally captured in traps set for 

other species, we expect incidental 

captures to be released unharmed. The 

use of body-gripping traps is prohibited 

and enforced in California, but injury or 

mortality of coastal martens is likely to 

occur during illegal fur trapping using 

the banned body-gripping traps. The 

extent of illegal fur trapping and 

mortality of coastal martens in Oregon 

and California is unknown. In general, 

legal trapping (such as that for research) 

is unlikely to result in injury or 

mortality to coastal martens because of 

the mandatory use of live traps and 

strict trapping and handling procedures. 

Summary of Factor D 

Overall, existing Federal and State 

land-use plans include some general 

conservation measures for northern 

spotted owl habitat that are not specific 

to coastal martens but nonetheless 

provide a benefit to the coastal marten, 

for example through the maintenance 

and recruitment of late-successional 

forest and old-growth habitat. Most 

management plans address structural 

habitat features (e.g., snags or downed 

wood retention) or land allocations (e.g., 

Oregon Department of Forestry’s no-cut 

riparian buffer; NWFP’s protections of a 

network of late-successional forest 

habitat connected by riparian reserves) 

that contribute to the coastal marten’s 

habitat. These land-use plans are 

typically general in nature and afford 

relatively broad latitude to land 

managers, but with explicit sideboards 

for directing management activities. 

Federal regulatory mechanisms have 

abated the large-scale loss of late-seral 

coniferous forest habitat. Much of the 

land in Federal ownership across the 

range of the coastal marten is managed 

for interconnected blocks of latesuccessional forests that are likely to 

benefit martens. Timber harvest has 

been substantially reduced on Forest 

Service and BLM lands within the 

NWFP area, and existing management is 

designed to maintain or increase the 

amount and quality of late-successional 

or old-growth forest that provides 

marten habitat and aids in connecting 

populations. Management of State lands 

for scattered parcels of older forest or 

habitat retention for other latesuccessional species may also facilitate 

coastal marten movements across the 

landscape or provide future habitat as 

some areas are allowed to develop into 

older stands. Outside of public (State 

and Federal) ownership, forest practice 

rules provide no explicit protection for 

martens and limited protections for 

habitat of value to martens. While some 

structural retention and limited buffers 

may retain structural features desirable 

for martens on private lands, the short 

harvest-rotation periods reduce the 

likelihood that the surrounding stand 

will develop to a condition that makes 

these features suitable for long-term use 

by martens. 

Based on the analyses contained 

within the Species Report (Service 2015, 

pp. 81–94) and summarized above on 

the existing regulatory mechanisms for 

the coastal marten, we conclude that the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information does not indicate that the 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to address impacts to coastal 

martens from the identified stressors. 

Factor E—Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Continued 

Existence of the Species 

Collision With Vehicles 

Collision with vehicles is a known 

source of mortality for coastal martens 

currently and is expected to continue 

into the future, given the presence of 

roads within the range of the DPS. A 

low density of roads with heavy traffic 

traveling at high speeds (greater than 45 

miles per hour) and infrequent reports 

of road-killed martens within all three 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18762 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

extant population areas suggest that few 

martens die from vehicle collisions each 

year. 

No coastal marten road kill mortalities 

have been reported recently (since 1980) 

from within the coastal southern Oregon 

and coastal northern California 

population areas, both of which are 

areas that do not contain long segments 

of heavily used highway (although it is 

possible that road kill on any light-use 

roads in remote areas may not be 

discovered by humans before being 

consumed as carrion). A total of 14 

coastal marten mortalities have been 

documented from vehicle collision 

since 1980 (over a 34-year period) 

within or near the coastal central 

Oregon population area, suggesting a 

low annual mortality rate from vehicle 

collisions. Collisions with vehicles were 

and continue to be expected within the 

coastal central Oregon population 

because of the presence of U.S. Highway 

101 within this population. 

We expect that in the future a small 

number of coastal martens will be struck 

by vehicles, especially dispersing 

juvenile coastal martens that must reach 

unoccupied suitable habitat for 

establishment of a home range. 

However, the best available information 

does not suggest any significant 

increases in vehicular traffic or new 

highways (consistent with the 

information available on potential 

development-related impacts (see 

‘‘Development’’ under Factor A, above)) 

to be built in areas where martens occur. 

Therefore, we conclude the impact of 

vehicle collisions on coastal martens to 

continue at similar levels into the 

future. Any potential population 

impacts from individual coastal marten 

mortalities as a result of collisions with 

vehicles are difficult to estimate; we 

have no evidence of mortalities due to 

collisions with vehicles in the coastal 

northern California or coastal southern 

Oregon populations, and lack any 

population size estimate for the coastal 

central Oregon population area where 

some mortalities have been documented 

over an extended period of time. The 

best available data indicate, however, 

that across the DPS relatively few 

coastal martens are killed as the result 

of collisions with vehicles. Based on the 

information presented above and in the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 52– 

53), we find that collision with vehicles 

presents a low-level impact on all three 

coastal marten populations (i.e., impacts 

to individual coastal martens as 

opposed to populations); therefore, this 

stressor does not rise to the level of a 

threat. 

Exposure to Toxicants 

An emerging stressor to coastal 

martens is the widespread use of 

anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) and 

other pesticides (e.g., organophosphates, 

carbamates, or organochlorines) at both 

legal and illegal marijuana grow sites, 

and the potential individual- and 

population-level impacts to species, 

including coastal martens, that are 

exposed to toxicants at these sites. We 

note that recent efforts to determine the 

prevalence of ARs in carnivore 

populations have focused on fisher 

populations in California due to the 

conservation status of that species and 

because marijuana grow sites are 

common in California. As information 

specific to coastal martens is largely 

lacking, for the purposes of the analysis 

in our Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 

54–61), we examined this fisher 

information to help evaluate the 

potential impacts ARs might have on 

coastal marten populations in coastal 

northern California and coastal Oregon. 

Anticoagulant rodenticides were 

created to kill small mammals 

considered pests, including commensal 

rodents such as house mice (Mus 

musculus), Norway rats (Rattus 

norvegicus), and black rats (R. rattus) in 

and around residences, agricultural 

buildings, and industrial facilities, and 

agricultural pests such as prairie dogs 

(Cynomys sp.) and ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus sp.) in rangeland and 

near crops. Anticoagulant rodenticides 

bind to enzymes responsible for 

recycling vitamin K, thus impairing the 

animal’s ability to produce several key 

blood clotting factors (Berny 2007, p. 97; 

Roberts and Reigart 2013, pp. 173–174). 

Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure is 

manifested by such conditions as 

bleeding nose and gums, extensive 

bruises, anemia, fatigue, and difficulty 

breathing. Anticoagulants also damage 

the small blood vessels, resulting in 

spontaneous and widespread 

hemorrhaging. There is often a lag time 

of several days between ingestion and 

death, if lethal doses are ingested (Berny 

2007, pp. 97–98; Roberts and Reigart 

2013, pp. 174–175). Evidence from 

laboratory and field studies for several 

mammalian and avian species suggests 

that various pesticide (including 

rodenticide) exposures: 

(1) Reduce immune system function 

(Repetto and Baliga 1996, pp. 17–37; Li 

and Kawada 2006, entire; Zabrodskii et 

al. 2012, p. 1); 

(2) Are associated with a higher 

prevalence of infectious disease (Riley 

et al. 2007, pp. 1878, 1882; Vidal et al. 

2009, p. 270); 

(3) Cause transient hypothermia 

(Ahdaya et al. 1976, entire; Gordon 

1984, p. 432; Grue et al. 1991, pp. 158– 

159), which may contribute to an 

increase in mortality rates (Martin and 

Solomon 1991, pp. 122,126); or 

(4) Possibly impair an animal’s ability 

to recover from physical injury 

(Erickson and Urban 2004, pp. 90, 100, 

184, 188, 190–191). 

Exposure to ARs, resulting in death in 

some cases, is documented in many 

mammalian predators (e.g., Alterio 

1996, entire; Shore et al. 1999, entire; 

Riley et al. 2007, entire; Gabriel et al. 

2012, entire; Quinn et al. 2012, entire), 

but such information is unavailable for 

coastal martens. However, there is wide 

variability in lethal and sublethal levels 

of ARs exhibited among and within 

taxonomic groups (Gabriel et al. 2012, p. 

11), and it is unknown if stressors or 

injuries could predispose all species to 

elevated mortality rates (e.g., Gabriel et 

al. 2012, p. 10 for fishers). In one 

California study of two fisher 

populations, the majority (84 percent) of 

fishers (closely related to martens) 

tested positive for the presence of ARs, 

but at sublethal levels (Thompson et al. 

2013, p. 6; Gabriel et al. 2012, p. 5). 

Additionally, several fishers have 

recently been confirmed to have died 

from acute poisoning from ARs on the 

Hoopa Reservation (Gabriel et al. 2012), 

which is located less than 9 km (5.6 mi) 

south of the coastal marten’s extant 

population area in coastal northern 

California. However, Gabriel et al. 

(2012, p. 6) determined that AR 

exposure was the direct cause of death 

for only a small proportion (4 of 58 

individuals found dead within 2 

isolated California populations) of those 

fishers examined. 

Little information exists specific to 

coastal marten exposure or response to 

ARs. Coastal martens within the 

California population and likely the 

coastal Oregon populations may be 

exposed to ARs currently or in the 

future in those areas where marijuana 

grow sites are located (which currently 

is known to be a fraction of the coastal 

marten’s range) based on: (1) The 

proximity of the closely related fisher 

with confirmed exposure to ARs, 

including in areas as close as 9 km (5.6 

mi) from the coastal northern California 

population; (2) the broad use of ARs at 

illegal marijuana cultivation sites, 

which have been documented to occur 

within or adjacent to portions of both 

the marten’s coastal northern California 

and coastal southern Oregon population 

areas; and (3) the potential continued 

use of ARs at legal grow sites and other 

areas within the range of the coastal 

marten where agricultural pesticide use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18763 

occurs. Although the presence or use of 

ARs is documented in many areas 

throughout coastal northern California 

and into portions of Oregon (Higley et 

al. 2013, p. 2; Oregon High Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Area 2013, entire), to 

date, only one record of a positive 

exposure exists within the range of 

coastal martens that demonstrates 

exposure to ARs. This information was 

obtained from non-related, coincidental 

research occurring in the coastal 

northern California extant population 

area in 2014; of six coastal martens 

assessed, one tested positive for AR 

exposure with a sublethal concentration 

(Slauson 2014, unpubl. data). The 

individual that tested positive was 

confirmed killed by a bobcat. It is 

unknown whether the sublethal dose of 

ARs may have predisposed that coastal 

marten to predation. This information 

about potential exposure of coastal 

martens to ARs was collected on private 

lands and involved a small sample size 

(six coastal marten individuals) in one 

portion of the coastal northern 

California extant population area; thus, 

it is not necessarily representative of the 

levels of exposure throughout other land 

ownership areas within the remainder 

of the DPS. The sublethal AR exposure 

of this single coastal marten is the only 

data available to us regarding potential 

exposure of coastal martens to ARs; the 

best available information does not 

indicate any population- or rangewidelevel impacts of AR exposure on coastal 

martens. 

Overall, illegal and legal marijuana 

cultivation sites (and use of ARs and 

other pesticides) are present within or 

near all three coastal marten 

populations, although the probability of 

exposure varies between them. At this 

time we estimate that the prevalence of 

illegal marijuana cultivation sites (based 

on data associated with eradicated 

cultivation sites) occurs within 

approximately 5 percent of the coastal 

central Oregon population area, 25 

percent of the coastal southern Oregon 

population area, and 40 percent of the 

coastal northern California population 

area (Service 2014, unpubl. data). 

However, the incidence of toxicant 

exposure that may result for coastal 

martens and the potential populationlevel effects are largely unknown given 

testing for exposure to ARs began only 

recently. We note significant 

uncertainty as to the severity of impact 

that this stressor may have at the 

population- and rangewide levels on 

coastal marten given that the best 

available data are minimal regarding 

potential exposure to this stressor and 

any consequent effects on coastal 

martens at this time, including the lack 

of information regarding potential 

sublethal effects. There are few samples 

to fully determine coastal marten 

exposure rates to ARs, and no tests on 

martens to determine sublethal 

exposure rates and effects. The recent 

legalization of marijuana in the State of 

Oregon adds an additional element of 

uncertainty to evaluation of this 

stressor, as it is unknown whether or 

how this may potentially affect 

exposure rates (for example, whether 

there may be a trend toward indoor 

grow operations, which would 

potentially reduce exposure of wildlife 

to ARs). Based on the analysis contained 

within the Species Report and 

summarized above, we find the 

population-level impact from exposure 

to toxicants to be low both currently and 

into the future, although a higher 

(medium-level) impact may occur for 

the coastal northern California 

population as a result of higher 

prevalence of illegal marijuana 

cultivation sites. The best available 

information does not suggest that these 

impacts rise to the level of a threat, 

primarily based on the available 

information on levels of known marten 

exposure to ARs and lack of evidence 

that ARs are having a population-level 

effect. 

Small and Isolated Population Effects 

Small, isolated populations are more 

susceptible to impacts overall, and 

relatively more vulnerable to extinction 

due to genetic problems, demographic 

and environmental fluctuations, and 

natural catastrophes (Primack 1993, p. 

255). That is, the smaller a population 

becomes, the more likely it is that one 

or more stressors could impact a 

population, potentially reducing its size 

such that it is at increased risk of 

extinction. We therefore evaluated 

information suggesting that the 

currently known populations of coastal 

martens may be small or isolated from 

one another to the degree that such 

negative effects may be realized in the 

DPS. 

The best available data suggest coastal 

marten distribution has contracted 

markedly in California and southern 

Oregon since the early 20th century. At 

present there are three known extant 

populations of coastal martens in 

California and Oregon; however, much 

of coastal Oregon has not been 

systematically surveyed. Of these 

known populations, the coastal northern 

California population is the only 

population for which size estimates are 

available. Based on multi-state 

occupancy modeling, Slauson et al. 

(2009b, p. 13) estimated that the 

abundance of coastal martens in the 

coastal northern California population 

area is low (i.e., fewer than 100 

individuals in 2008). Comparing areas 

sampled in 2008 to those sampled in 

2000 to 2001, sample unit occupancy 

had declined by an estimated 42 percent 

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

this change may have been part of a 

natural population fluctuation or was 

related to human-caused factors is 

unknown (Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 14). 

Although small in size, preliminary 

occupancy estimates for 2012 (which 

are unchanged from 2008) suggest no 

further changes in marten population 

abundance (Slauson et al. 2014, unpubl. 

data). 

The abundance and trend of coastal 

marten populations in coastal Oregon is 

unknown; standardized survey efforts 

for martens in central and southern 

Oregon began in 2014. In the coastal 

central Oregon population area, at least 

one marten was detected in 2014, and 

six martens have been detected in 2015 

in the first weeks of surveys (Moriarty 

2015, pers. comm.). In addition, surveys 

just beginning in southern coastal 

Oregon have yielded a marten detection 

(Moriarty 2015, pers. comm.). Surveys 

are continuing at the time of publication 

of this document. 

Slauson and Zielinski (2009, p. 36) 

describe the three known extant coastal 

marten populations as disjunct. Verified 

marten detections have clustered into 

the three extant population areas 

recognized in this document, which are 

geographically separated. The degree of 

functional connectivity between the 

known populations is not well 

understood due to insufficient survey 

effort in many areas, particularly in 

coastal Oregon (Service 2015, p. 29). 

There are some detections of martens 

occurring between the coastal northern 

California and coastal southern Oregon 

populations (Service 2015, p. 31, Figure 

8.2(B)). Habitat modeling suggests 

connectivity of suitable habitat between 

these populations (Service 2015, pp. 25– 

26), and there are no known barriers to 

dispersal between them. Suitable habitat 

is more limited and of lower quality 

between the coastal southern Oregon 

and coastal central Oregon populations, 

but not entirely discontinuous (Service 

2015, pp. 25–26). Survey efforts have 

also been more limited in this area to 

date (Service 2015, p. 29). Marten 

surveys are largely lacking from coastal 

central and coastal northern Oregon, 

although habitat modeling suggests 

conditions suitable for additional 

martens that could support the existing 

known populations (Service 2015, p. 

29–30, 34). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18764 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Surveys designed to determine 

potential occupancy by coastal martens 

(for example, targeting areas of suitable 

habitat large enough to support multiple 

home ranges) may not necessarily detect 

animals moving between populations. 

Although not equivalent in function to 

large areas of contiguous habitat, 

fragmented patches of forest sufficient 

to provide corridors for dispersal of 

individuals can play an important role 

in maintaining assemblages of oldgrowth forest mammals (Perault and 

Lomolino 2000, pp. 418–419). The 

potential habitat connectivity between 

known populations of coastal martens 

and their capacity to travel long 

distances at least on occasion suggests 

that the geographically disjunct nature 

of coastal marten populations is not 

necessarily a barrier resulting in 

isolation. As described earlier, the 

majority of juvenile martens disperse 

relatively short distances from their 

natal areas, generally less than 15 km 

(9.3 mi) (Phillips 1994, pp. 93–94). The 

distance between known extant coastal 

marten populations exceeds the mean 

maximum juvenile dispersal distance 

for martens in general (15 km (9.3 mi); 

Phillips 1994, pp. 93–94). The distance 

between known extant populations 

exceeds this distance, but is within the 

maximum observed dispersal capability 

of martens, ranging from 40 to 80 km (25 

to 50 mi) (Thompson and Colgan 1987, 

pp. 831–832; Broquet et al. (2006, pp. 

1690, 1695), up to 149 km (92 mi) or 

greater (Slough 1989, p. 993; Kyle and 

Strobeck 2003, p. 61). The relatively 

continuous extent of some limited area 

of marten habitat, though much of it is 

low in quality, and dispersal 

capabilities of martens indicates that 

movement between coastal marten 

populations is possible, acknowledging 

that individuals seeking to traverse 

areas of regenerating forest face reduced 

probability of survivorship (Johnson et 

al. 2009, p. 3366). For this reason, areas 

that may provide for safe corridors of 

movement, such as riparian areas 

retained under State forest practice rules 

(see Factor D, above), may play an 

important role in facilitating connection 

between larger areas of suitable habitat 

for coastal martens. 

In most cases, genetic interchange 

need occur only occasionally between 

populations (a minimum of 1 migrant 

per generation, possibly up to 10) to 

offset the potential negative impacts of 

inbreeding (e.g., Mills and Allendorf 

1996, entire; Wang 2004, entire). In 

addition, depending on population sizes 

and the distance between them, the 

ability of even a few individuals to 

move between population areas can 

preserve the potential for recolonization 

or augmentation (Brown and KodricBrown 1977, entire). Genetic evidence 

from studies of martens in fragmented 

landscapes suggests that despite 

separation of populations by large 

distances, up to several hundred 

kilometers, little genetic differentiation 

is observed (Broquet et al. 2006, p. 1690, 

citing Kyle and Strobeck 2003, pp. 60– 

61). Broquet et al. (2006, p. 1690) 

suggest this weak genetic structure is 

indicative of great dispersal capacity in 

martens, and their results suggest that a 

few successful long-distance dispersers 

create enough gene flow in marten 

populations to significantly reduce 

genetic differentiation that might 

otherwise result from isolation by 

distance (Broquet et al. 2006, p. 1695). 

Based on all of these consideration, 

despite the relatively geographically 

disjunct nature of the known extant 

marten populations, we do not have 

evidence to suggest that the populations 

are likely entirely isolated from one 

another to the degree that we would 

expect the manifestation of significant 

negative effects that could potentially 

arise in small, isolated populations, 

such as inbreeding depression. We 

recognize that habitat quality and 

contiguity could be improved between 

the extant population areas, and 

indications are that habitat recruitment 

through management of Federal lands 

under the NWFP should contribute to 

improved connectivity. Despite room for 

improvement, at this point in time, the 

best available information suggests that 

the extant population areas are within 

the dispersal capabilities of martens and 

the habitat suitability model indicates 

some connectivity between populations, 

at least sufficient to provide for 

occasional genetic interchange. We note 

that more detailed information is 

needed regarding the size and 

demographics of coastal marten 

populations, as well as the capability of 

intervening areas of habitat to support 

dispersing individuals, in order to fully 

understand whether the known 

populations are faced with any 

challenges as a result of the present 

degree of connectivity between them. 

Although coastal martens are likely 

reduced in abundance or distribution 

relative to their historical numbers and 

range, there is no empirical evidence 

that any current populations of coastal 

marten are in decline. Based upon the 

analysis contained within the Species 

Report and summarized above, the best 

available information indicates that the 

coastal northern California population 

totals fewer than 100 individuals 

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

small in size, the estimated number of 

individuals that comprise the coastal 

northern California population of 

martens appears to have remained the 

same in recent years based on survey 

data collected since 2008. 

Abundance and trend estimates are 

not available for the two coastal Oregon 

populations, so it is unknown whether 

these populations might be considered 

small. Coastal martens have likely been 

reduced in abundance relative to their 

historical numbers, although Zielinski 

et al. (2001, p. 487) suggest that out of 

the three west coast States, coastal 

martens are likely most common in 

Oregon. These researchers note, 

however, an inability to evaluate the 

status of martens in the coastal 

mountain ranges of central and northern 

Oregon due to insufficient historical or 

contemporary data (Zielinski et al. 2001, 

p. 486). Data from systematic surveys 

continue to be limited or nonexistent in 

coastal northern and coastal central 

Oregon, leading to an inability to 

determine population size, trend, or 

distribution in these areas at this time. 

However, as noted above, recently 

initiated surveys in coastal central and 

coastal southern Oregon did result in 

seven total detections of coastal martens 

in the first weeks of effort in 2015 

(Moriarty 2015, pers. comm.), and 

surveys are continuing at the time of 

this publication (Moriarty 2015, pers. 

comm.). 

The three known extant populations 

of coastal martens are disjunct. While 

this characteristic does have some 

potential negative effects (e.g., potential 

impacts from other stressors may be 

exacerbated), overall it places the DPS at 

a diminished risk of extinction due to 

small population size effects (known 

small population for coastal northern 

California and unknown for coastal 

Oregon populations) because it is 

unlikely that any stressor will 

simultaneously affect all three 

populations. In addition, although the 

populations may be discontinuous, we 

do not have evidence to suggest that 

populations are entirely isolated beyond 

the potential dispersal range known for 

martens such that negative small 

population effects are likely to be 

realized. Therefore, based on the best 

available data, we have determined that 

small or isolated population size effects 

do not rise to the level of a threat either 

currently or in the future. 

Cumulative Effects 

We estimate the potential impact of 

each stressor described above acting 

alone on coastal marten individuals, 

populations, and suitable habitat. 

However, coastal marten populations 

and suitable habitat can also be affected 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18765 

by all stressors acting together or some 

of the identified stressors acting together 

(particularly medium-level impacts, as 

described in detail in the Species Report 

and summarized above). The combined 

effects of those stressors could impact 

populations or suitable habitat in an 

additive or synergistic manner. Any 

given stressor could impact individuals, 

a portion of a population, or available 

suitable habitat to varying degrees or 

magnitude, and alone, a stressor may 

not significantly impact coastal martens 

or their habitat. 

Based on our analysis of all stressors 

that may be impacting coastal martens 

or their habitat, including, to be 

conservative, taking into account effects 

associated with potential small or 

isolated populations (noting that the 

coastal northern California population is 

known to be small and information is 

not available to indicate if the coastal 

Oregon populations may be small), it is 

likely that if any cumulative impacts 

occur, they would do so under the 

following three scenarios: 

(1) A projected increase in the 

frequency and size of wildfires within 

the coastal southern Oregon and coastal 

northern California portions of the 

DPS’s range due to climate change 

model projections of a warmer, drier 

climate in the future, which could also 

change vegetation structure. 

(2) A potential increase in coastal 

marten mortality rates from predation, 

disease, fur trapping in Oregon, and 

collision with vehicles due to reduced 

marten fitness after sublethal exposure 

to toxicants found at marijuana grow 

sites, although levels of exposure 

remain unknown. 

(3) Increased coastal marten predation 

rates due to an increased abundance of 

intraguild predators (e.g., bobcats, 

fishers) resulting from vegetation 

management activities that improve 

habitat suitability for these marten 

predators by decreasing shrub densities. 

Here we consider the impacts of each 

of these potential cumulative effect 

scenarios: 

Models of climate change predict 

potential increases in wildfire frequency 

and size within the coastal southern 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

portions of the DPS. As described in our 

analysis in ‘‘Wildfire’’ under Factor A, 

above, we expect that wildfire impacts 

are likely to occur throughout the range 

of the coastal marten at a level similar 

to the historical impacts that have 

occurred within each extant population 

area between 1984–2012 (roughly 30 

years), and we expect that fire 

frequency, size, and severity in the 

future will be fairly similar or slightly 

higher in some areas based on climate 

change projections. Based on these 30 

years of data, we can reasonably 

estimate that these effects will continue 

with the same approximate level of 

impact throughout the DPS into the next 

30 years, although they may be slightly 

higher in the coastal southern Oregon 

and coastal northern California 

population areas. Additionally, we do 

not have information that climate 

change will result in vegetation changes 

that will make significant portions of 

currently occupied coastal marten 

habitat unsuitable. Therefore, the best 

available data at this time do not suggest 

that the cumulative effects of wildfire 

and climate change rise to the level of 

a threat to the DPS overall for the 

following reasons: 

(1) Although climate change models 

generally predict warmer, drier 

conditions in the future, the coastal 

marten primarily inhabits forests that 

are relatively less vulnerable to such 

changes. The overall continued 

presence of relatively moist habitat 

conditions for coastal marten habitat, 

primarily along the western coast, 

including overall cooler, moist summer 

conditions, moderate the dry conditions 

that promote fire ignition and spread. 

(2) Moderate- and high-quality habitat 

for coastal martens has remained 

following recent large wildfires (i.e., 

wildfires that have burned at mixed 

severities (LANDFIRE 2008a; 

LANDFIRE 2008b; LANDFIRE 

undated(a))); these fires have not 

resulted in extensive stand-replacement 

within the coastal marten’s range. 

(3) Neither adverse changes to coastal 

marten habitat through potential 

vegetation changes nor the loss of 

habitat from future wildfires is expected 

to be significant, nor is the combined 

effect of these two potential stressors. 

Sublethal effects of anticoagulant 

rodenticides have been demonstrated 

for many species (see discussion in the 

Species Report (Service 2015, p. 57)), 

and can include reduced blood clotting 

abilities and excessive bleeding. 

Sublethal exposure to ARs has been 

shown to make individuals of nonmustelid mammals more susceptible to 

environmental stressors such as adverse 

weather, food shortages, and predation 

(Erickson and Urban 2004, p. 99; Jaques 

1959, p. 851; Cox and Smith 1992, p. 

169; Brakes and Smith 2005, p. 121; 

LaVoie 1990, p. 29), potentially 

predisposing individuals to death from 

other causes. However, there is wide 

variability in lethal and sublethal levels 

of ARs exhibited among and within 

taxonomic groups (Gabriel et al. 2012, p. 

11), and it is unknown if stressors or 

injuries could predispose all species to 

elevated mortality rates (e.g., Gabriel et 

al. 2012, p. 10 for fishers). While it is 

possible that these effects could occur 

for coastal martens, the best available 

data at this time do not support a 

conclusion that the cumulative effects of 

rodenticides (which may occur at 

relatively few sites within the extant 

population areas and thus reduce 

likelihood of exposure) combined with 

other environmental stressors rise to the 

level of a threat to the DPS overall. 

Relatively few marijuana grow sites 

have been found within the extant 

population areas (which reduce 

likelihood of exposure), there are too 

few samples to determine coastal 

marten exposure rates to ARs, and no 

tests have been conducted on martens to 

determine sublethal exposure rates and 

effects. Furthermore, none of the data 

available (related to exposure and 

potential lethal or sublethal effects) 

demonstrate an effect leading to current 

or future population declines. 

Vegetation management activities that 

reduce the shrub layer that coastal 

martens rely on could also provide 

increased suitable habitat for marten 

predators, such as bobcats, resulting in 

potential increased levels of predation 

on coastal martens. In general, however, 

we expect such vegetation management 

activities would be restricted primarily 

to private lands. As discussed above 

(see Summary of Species Information, 

above), the majority of the area known 

to be occupied by coastal martens is 

composed of Federal lands, and most of 

these Federal lands are in reserves 

managed under the standards and 

guidelines of the NWFP. As these areas 

are under management for the 

protection or enhancement of latesuccessional forest characteristics, we 

do not expect extensive management 

activities on these lands to reduce shrub 

densities and thus potentially result in 

increased abundance of intraguild 

predators. Reduced shrub densities as a 

result of vegetation management on 

private lands may pose an increased risk 

of predation to individual coastal 

martens seeking to disperse through 

such areas, which poses some 

challenges in terms of maintaining or 

developing connectivity between 

populations. Although a potential 

reduction in the complexity of herb and 

shrub layers on these private lands is 

likely to continue and thus potentially 

result in increased suitable habitat for 

marten predators, these vegetation 

changes are expected to be offset by the 

continued maintenance and 

enhancement of significant portions of 

suitable habitat on forested reserves 

throughout the range of the coastal 

marten. Thus, at this time, cumulative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18766 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

effects of potential vegetation 

management activities and predation do 

not rise to the level of a threat to the 

DPS overall. 

In summary, the best available 

scientific and commercial data at this 

time do not show that combined 

impacts of the most likely cumulative 

impact scenarios are resulting in 

significant individual- or populationlevel effects to the coastal marten, 

including when taking into 

consideration small population size, 

where known. Although all or some of 

the stressors could potentially act in 

concert as a cumulative threat to the 

coastal marten, there is ambiguity in 

either the likelihood or level of impacts 

for the various stressors at the 

population or rangewide level, or the 

data indicate only individual-level 

impacts. There is little doubt that 

coastal marten populations today are 

smaller and their range has been 

reduced compared to historical 

conditions, which potentially increases 

the vulnerability of the coastal marten to 

potential cumulative low- or mediumlevel impacts. However, the best 

available information does not provide 

reliable evidence to suggest that current 

coastal marten populations are 

experiencing population declines or 

further reductions in distribution, 

which would be indicative of such 

impacts. Thus, the best available 

scientific and commercial data do not 

indicate that these stressors (including 

consideration of effects associated with 

potentially small or isolated 

populations, to be conservative) are 

cumulatively causing now or will cause 

in the future a substantial decline of the 

total extant populations of the coastal 

marten across its range. Therefore, we 

have determined that the cumulative 

impacts of these potential stressors do 

not rise to the level of a threat. 

Conservation Efforts 

The Humboldt Marten Conservation 

Group (HMCG) was formed in 2011, 

with the primary goal of developing a 

conservation assessment and strategy for 

the [then described] Humboldt marten 

subspecies (Martes americana 

humboldtensis) in coastal northern 

California. A memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) was signed on 

September 26, 2012, between the 

Service, Six Rivers National Forest, the 

U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Redwood National 

and State Parks, California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; formerly 

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG)), California Department of Parks 

and Recreation (CDPR), the Yurok Tribe, 

and the Green Diamond Resource 

Company (Service 2012, entire). Each 

signatory party designated two or more 

members to provide input to the 

conservation assessment and strategy, 

and to guide future implementation of 

priority conservation actions, 

irrespective of land ownership. In 

January 2014, an Oregon stakeholder 

group was formed to work with the 

HMCG to extend conservation efforts for 

the coastal marten into Oregon. This 

informal group includes participation 

from Federal, State, timber, and tribal 

interests. 

The HMCG is cooperatively 

developing a conservation strategy to 

address coastal marten population and 

habitat needs across its range, including 

the goal of increasing the abundance 

and distribution of coastal martens 

through habitat retention, habitat 

restoration, and establishment of 

additional populations within their 

historical range. The strategy uses 

strategic habitat conservation and 

adaptive management principles, and 

will identify necessary permits and 

compliance needs well in advance of 

the need for such authorization. Each 

party seeks input and support from 

scientific and technical support staff 

within their agencies or organizations 

for the entire HMCG to consider for 

integration in overall planning, 

implementation, analysis, and 

monitoring efforts collectively found to 

be necessary for the conservation of 

coastal marten and its habitat. It is not 

the intent of the conservation strategy to 

supplant any ongoing and planned 

conservation efforts by the individual 

parties; instead, the conservation 

strategy intends to identify 

opportunities to enhance those 

conservation efforts. The HMCG holds 

quarterly meetings to facilitate 

completion and implementation of the 

conservation strategy. The California 

component of the conservation strategy 

is estimated to be completed in the 

spring of 2015, followed by the Oregon 

component in late 2015 or early 2016. 

A final conservation strategy for both 

states (as a single coastal marten 

conservation strategy) is estimated to be 

completed in 2016. 

Tribes that own or manage lands 

within the historical range of the coastal 

marten (and may or may not have 

currently suitable coastal marten habitat 

on their lands) include: Coquille Indian 

Tribe; Confederated Tribes of Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon; 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 

Oregon (Siletz Indians); Hoopa Valley 

Tribe, California; Yurok Tribe of the 

Yurok Reservation, California (Yurok 

Tribe); Wiyot Tribe, California; Karuk 

Tribe; Elk Valley Rancheria, California; 

Smith River Rancheria, California; 

Resighini Rancheria, California; Big 

Lagoon Rancheria, California; Cher-Ae 

Heights Indian Community of the 

Trinidad Rancheria, California; Blue 

Lake Rancheria, California; Bear River 

Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, 

California; Cahto Tribe of the 

Laytonville Rancheria; Sherwood Valley 

Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; 

and Manchester Band of Pomo Indians 

of the Manchester Rancheria, California. 

Although suitable habitat for coastal 

martens may occur on tribal lands, our 

records indicate that none of the tribes 

in coastal Oregon or in coastal northern 

California specifically manage for 

coastal marten populations or habitat on 

their lands. However, the Siletz Indians 

manage 1,700 ha (4,300 ac) of forest 

land for the benefit of marbled murrelets 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in 

Oregon, which coincidentally may also 

provide suitable habitat for coastal 

martens, and the Yurok Tribe is a 

member of the HMCG and currently 

owns approximately 23 percent of the 

total area of the coastal northern 

California population area, most of 

which is occupied by coastal martens. 

The best available information does not 

identify what the Yurok Tribe’s 

vegetation management activities or 

potential impacts may be to coastal 

martens and their habitat. However, we 

will continue to work with the Yurok 

Tribe, including through the HMCG, 

and explore potential coastal marten 

conservation actions on their lands. We 

also anticipate coordinating with other 

tribes that may harbor suitable coastal 

marten habitat within the range of the 

coastal marten. 

In addition to conservation actions 

either planned or already being 

implemented related to the HMCG and 

tribal efforts, the Green Diamond 

Resource Company’s (formerly Simpson 

Timber Company) 1992 Northern 

Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) (Simpson Timber Company 1992, 

entire) covers lands that contain suitable 

habitat for coastal marten. This HCP 

describes how Green Diamond Resource 

Company identifies (during planning for 

timber harvest) ways to retain resource 

attributes that provide core habitat for 

future northern spotted owl habitat, 

including retention of: (1) Hardwood 

and conifer patches, (2) habitat structure 

along watercourses, (3) hard and soft 

snags, (4) standing live culls (i.e., trees 

of marketable size that are useless for all 

but firewood or pulpwood because of 

crookedness, rot, injuries, or damage 

from disease or insects), and (5) small 

areas of undisturbed brush (Simpson 

Timber Company 1992, entire). These 

HCP goals coincidentally will provide a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18767 

benefit to coastal martens that may 

occur on those lands. However, we note 

that the level and extent of resource 

retention are not defined, and the 

current description to retain ‘‘small 

areas of undisturbed brush’’ is helpful, 

but not necessarily adequate for the 

needs of the coastal marten (i.e., 

management relies primarily on clear 

cut management of timberlands). The 

Green Diamond Resource Company is in 

the initial stages of developing a new 

HCP for their lands, although currently 

the coastal marten is not a covered 

species. Because 11 percent of the 

coastal northern California extant 

population area is on Green Diamond 

Resource Company timberlands, we are 

currently working with them to 

incorporate conservation actions into 

the HCP that would benefit the coastal 

marten and its habitat, particularly in 

those areas that lie between large 

suitable tracks of public lands. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

coastal marten is an endangered or 

threatened species throughout all of its 

range. We examined the best scientific 

and commercial data available regarding 

the past, present, and future stressors 

faced by the coastal marten. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

recognized marten and habitat experts, 

and other Federal, State, and tribal 

agencies. Listing is warranted if, based 

on our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data, we find 

that the stressors to the coastal DPS of 

the Pacific marten are so severe or broad 

in scope as to indicate that the coastal 

marten is in danger of extinction 

(endangered), or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future (threatened), throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

For the purposes of this evaluation, 

we are required to consider potential 

impacts to coastal martens into the 

foreseeable future. Based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information and to provide the 

necessary temporal context for assessing 

stressors to coastal martens, we 

determined 15 years (i.e., 3 marten 

generations) to be the foreseeable future 

for consideration of most of the stressors 

to coastal marten, as this period allows 

for analysis of multiple generations of 

coastal martens over a reasonable time 

period, as opposed to examining further 

into the future where assumptions or 

extensive uncertainty would not allow 

meaningful predictions of potential 

future impacts. For two stressors, we 

have defined different periods: 30 years 

constitutes the foreseeable future over 

which we assessed the stressor of 

wildfire (based on the expected future 

equivalent level of fire frequency, size, 

and severity as compared to the past 30 

years), and 40–50 years constitutes the 

foreseeable future over which we 

assessed the stressor of climate change 

(based on model projections of climate 

changes for coastal Oregon and coastal 

northern California). 

We evaluated each of the potential 

stressors in the Species Report (Service 

2015, entire) for the coastal DPS of 

Pacific marten, and we determined that 

wildfire (Factor A), habitat impacts due 

to the effects of climate change (Factor 

A), vegetation management (Factor A), 

development (Factor A), trapping (for 

fur and research purposes) (Factor B), 

disease (Factor C), predation (Factor C), 

collision with vehicles (Factor E), 

exposure to toxicants (Factor E), and 

small and isolated population size 

effects (Factor E) are factors that have 

either minimally impacted individuals 

in one or more of the populations or that 

may potentially have impacts on 

individuals or populations in the future. 

Our analysis resulted in the following 

conclusions for each of the stressors: 

• Wildfire impacts are likely to occur 

throughout the range of the coastal 

marten similar to the historical impacts 

that have occurred based on the impact 

level estimates of the prevalence of 

wildfires within each extant population 

area between 1984–2012 (roughly 30 

years). Overall, these impacts do not rise 

to the level of a threat based on the 

continued persistence of moderate- and 

high-quality habitat following past fires, 

the continued presence of relatively 

moist habitat conditions (overall) that 

moderate the dry conditions that 

promote fire ignition and spread, and 

little effect of altered structure or 

composition of the dominant forest 

types in areas that have experienced fire 

suppression. Thus, we do not anticipate 

a significant reduction in suitable 

habitat for coastal martens as the result 

of wildfire. 

• Climate change modeling predicts a 

range of potential effects on vegetation, 

including some that indicate conditions 

could remain suitable for coastal 

martens in portions of the coastal range. 

The severity of potential impacts to 

coastal marten habitat will likely vary 

across the range, with effects to coastal 

martens potentially ranging from 

negative to neutral or potentially 

beneficial. Although many climate 

models generally agree about the 

changes in temperature and 

precipitation, the consequent effects on 

vegetation are more uncertain, as is the 

rate at which any such changes might be 

realized. Therefore, it is not clear how 

or when changes in forest type and 

plant species composition will affect the 

distribution of coastal marten habitat. 

There is additional uncertainty as to 

fine-scale features of suitable marten 

habitat that may be affected by climate 

change, whether any changes will occur 

at a scale relevant to the taxon, and how 

these changes will be expressed in the 

coastal marten populations. Overall, we 

lack sufficient information to predict 

with any certainty the future direct 

impacts of climate change on coastal 

marten habitat or populations. 

Consequently, we have determined that 

we do not have reliable information to 

suggest that climate change is a threat to 

coastal marten habitat now or in the 

future, although we will continue to 

seek additional information concerning 

how climate change may affect coastal 

marten habitat. 

• Vegetation management is likely to 

have an overall low impact on the loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation of suitable 

coastal marten habitat across the range 

of the DPS both currently and into the 

future. Some loss of suitable habitat 

(primarily low-quality suitable habitat) 

is expected to continue to occur into the 

future on private lands within all three 

population areas. However, private 

lands support a relatively small 

proportion of the suitable habitat 

available for coastal martens within 

extant population areas. Federal lands 

constitute a majority of the extant 

population areas, have longer timberharvest rotations, and retain more 

structural features on the subset of that 

area in matrix lands. In addition, most 

of the Federal lands that provide 

suitable habitat are in Federal Reserves, 

which are managed for the maintenance 

and recruitment of late-successional 

habitat characteristics beneficial for 

coastal martens; suitable habitat is thus 

expected to increase in Federal 

Reserves. Therefore, overall potential 

impacts from vegetation management do 

not rise to the level of a threat. 

• Development has an overall low 

impact on the loss, degradation, or 

fragmentation of suitable coastal marten 

habitat across the range of the DPS both 

currently and into the future, and thus 

does not rise to the level of a threat. If 

development does occur, loss of suitable 

habitat is expected to be minimal, as has 

been the trend over the past 30 years. 

• Fur trapping of coastal martens has 

no impact to the population in coastal 

northern California because trapping for 

martens is illegal in California. Possible 

illegal fur trapping in California, as well 

as rangewide potential impacts 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18768 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

associated with livetrapping for research 

purposes or incidental trapping of 

martens (when intentionally trapping 

for other furbearer species) is not 

expected to result in population-level 

impacts. Some martens could be 

trapped in Oregon where fur trapping 

for martens is legal, although we 

estimate that potential impacts will not 

be significant at the population- or 

rangewide level based on the best 

available trapping data for Oregon. 

Additionally, potential impacts from 

live-trapping and handling for research 

purposes on coastal marten populations 

is discountable. Thus, impacts from fur 

trapping and trapping for research 

purposes across the coastal marten’s 

range do not rise to the level of a threat. 

• Disease has not been documented 

in the past within coastal marten 

populations. The prevalence of possible 

past exposure to lethal pathogens within 

the coastal northern California 

population and the coastal Oregon 

populations has not been determined, 

and we have no information to suggest 

that disease is currently present in any 

of the populations. At this point in time, 

there is a low probability that a disease 

outbreak may occur. We anticipate that 

if there should be an outbreak, it would 

likely have a low impact on all three 

coastal marten populations combined 

since the distance between the extant 

populations makes it unlikely that an 

outbreak would spread to all three 

populations. Thus, disease does not rise 

to the level of a threat. 

• Predation is a natural process and is 

generally only considered a threat if it 

is occurring at unnaturally high levels 

that are not sustainable. The populationlevel impact of predation within the 

three coastal marten extant population 

areas is currently unknown, although 

the best available data from one 

evaluation of predation indicate a 33 

percent annual predation rate for the 

coastal northern California population 

(Slauson et al. 2014, unpubl. data). This 

level of predation is expected to be 

sustainable when compared with the 

observed annual juvenile coastal marten 

survival rate of 50 percent, and thus 

predation alone would not likely result 

in a population-level impact. Therefore, 

based on the best available data at this 

time, we have determined that 

predation does not rise to the level of a 

threat given that it is a natural 

phenomenon that appears to be 

occurring at a sustainable level. 

• Collisions with vehicles are rare, 

but they can be expected into the future. 

Known rates of mortality due to 

collisions with vehicles have been low 

for coastal martens, and the best 

available information does not suggest 

any significant increases in vehicular 

traffic or new highways to be built in 

areas where martens occur. Therefore, it 

is reasonable to expect the impact of 

collisions with vehicles on coastal 

martens to continue at similar levels 

into the future and not rise to the level 

of a threat. 

• Illegal and legal marijuana 

cultivation sites (and use of ARs and 

other pesticides) are present within or 

near all three coastal marten 

populations, although the probability of 

exposure varies between them. The 

degree of exposure and the effect of 

such exposure on coastal martens, 

should it occur, is unknown and thus 

far unstudied. There is significant 

uncertainty as to the severity of impact 

that this stressor may have on coastal 

martens at the population- and 

rangewide levels given that the best 

available data are minimal regarding 

this stressor and coastal martens at this 

time, and given the lack of information 

regarding potential sublethal effects. 

Furthermore, it is unclear how the 

recent legalization of marijuana in 

Oregon will affect the amount or spread 

of illegal marijuana grow sites. The best 

available information does not suggest 

that these potential impacts rise to the 

level of a threat, primarily based on the 

available information on levels of 

known marten exposure to ARs and lack 

of evidence that ARs are having a 

population-level effect. 

• Small, isolated populations are 

more susceptible to impacts, and 

therefore, we evaluated whether coastal 

marten populations are small and 

isolated such that these negative effects 

are likely to be realized. At this time, 

evidence suggests that coastal marten 

distribution has contracted markedly in 

California and southern Oregon since 

the early 20th century. Although the 

coastal northern California population 

abundance declined in the recent past 

(based on survey data between 2000 and 

2008 (Slauson et al. 2009b, p. 10)), the 

population abundance since that time 

appears to have remained unchanged as 

indicated by the most recent 

preliminary abundance estimates 

available from 2012. The abundance and 

trend of coastal marten populations in 

coastal Oregon is unknown, although 

recent surveys in some areas of coastal 

Oregon (which are not yet complete) are 

documenting the presence of martens as 

anticipated. Although the known 

populations are disjunct, the dispersal 

capabilities of martens and habitat 

modeling suggest the potential for 

interchange of individuals between the 

populations. In addition, martens may 

occur between or adjacent to the known 

populations in areas where surveys have 

been limited or absent. The best 

available data at this time indicate that 

although coastal martens are likely 

reduced in abundance or distribution 

relative to their historical numbers and 

range, there is no empirical evidence 

that any current populations of coastal 

marten are in decline. Thus, small or 

isolated population size effects do not 

rise to the level of a threat either 

currently or in the foreseeable future. 

• Potential cumulative impacts to the 

coastal marten from all stressors 

combined or some of the stressors are 

possible; however, the most likely 

scenarios for cumulative impacts are 

likely to only occur from the following 

three scenarios: Increased frequency or 

size of wildfires associated with 

potential climate changes; increased 

coastal marten mortality rates from 

predation, disease, or other factors 

following a sublethal exposure to 

toxicants; or possible increased coastal 

marten predation rates due to decreased 

shrub densities resulting from 

vegetation management activities. Based 

on the best available data at this time 

and as described above, none of these 

possible cumulative impacts are likely 

to occur currently or into the foreseeable 

future to such a degree that the effects 

are expected to lead to population- or 

rangewide-level declines. Therefore, the 

cumulative impact of these potential 

stressors does not rise to the level of a 

threat. 

We also evaluated existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) and did not 

determine an inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms for coastal 

marten. Specifically, we found that 

multiple Federal land use plans (e.g., 

LRMPs, NWFP) or State regulations 

(e.g., Oregon forest practice rules) are 

being implemented, often providing 

broad latitude for land managers, but 

with explicit sideboards for directing 

management activities. We also note 

that significant Federal efforts have been 

developed and are being implemented 

(e.g., NWFP) to abate the large-scale loss 

of forested habitat-types deemed 

essential for coastal martens. Additional 

efforts are also underway within the 

reserve areas that constitute a majority 

of the Federal lands in areas occupied 

by coastal martens to promote further 

recruitment of such habitat. 

None of these impacts, as summarized 

above, was found to individually or 

cumulatively impact the coastal DPS of 

Pacific marten to a degree such that 

listing is warranted at this time. Based 

on the analysis contained within the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 41– 

95), we conclude that the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that these stressors are not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18769 

singly or cumulatively causing a decline 

of the DPS or its habitat currently, nor 

are the stressors likely to be significant 

in the foreseeable future to the degree 

that they would result in declines of one 

or more populations such that the DPS 

would be in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. 

We base our decision on the 

following: 

(1) Although habitat-based impacts 

may be occurring currently or in the 

future primarily as a result of wildfire 

and vegetation management (and, to an 

unknown degree, the effects of climate 

change), much of the coastal marten’s 

habitat is not in especially fire-prone 

forest types, and vegetation management 

has significant impacts only on the 

relatively small area in private 

ownership within its range. Significant 

amounts of moderate- and highsuitability habitat are currently available 

on Federal and State lands within all 

three population areas, including 

approximately 44 percent of the coastal 

central Oregon population area, 70 

percent of the coastal southern Oregon 

population area, and 63 percent of the 

coastal northern California population. 

Moderate- and high-suitability habitat in 

the coastal central Oregon population 

area is a currently undetermined value 

greater than 44 percent because the 

habitat suitability model did not 

account for occupied coastal dune 

habitat that exists as a narrow coastal 

strip along the western boundary of that 

population area. Overall, the existing 

moderate- and high-suitability habitat 

includes some areas that appear to be 

either (or both): (a) Resilient to many 

high-severity fires due to pronounced 

levels of precipitation and cool, moist 

summer conditions that exist along the 

coast currently and into the future; and 

(b) protected from significantly 

damaging treatments of vegetation 

management (i.e., State and Federal 

lands such as those being managed 

under the NWFP, National Park Service 

lands, and lands managed by the Oregon 

and California Department of Parks and 

Recreation), including 77 percent of the 

moderate- and high-suitability habitat in 

the coastal central Oregon population 

area, 90 percent of the moderate- and 

high-suitability habitat in the coastal 

southern Oregon population area, and 

78 percent of the moderate- and highsuitability habitat in the coastal 

northern California population area. 

(2) Coastal marten populations 

throughout their range have likely 

experienced declines or significant 

impacts in the past (i.e., harvesting and 

trapping for fur), which undoubtedly 

influenced the current distribution of 

these populations. The population size 

of coastal martens in the coastal 

northern California population area is 

estimated to be fewer than 100, but is 

no longer in decline as shown by survey 

data available from 2000, 2008, and 

preliminary abundance estimates from 

2012. The abundance and distribution 

of coastal martens in coastal Oregon is 

unknown, coastal northern Oregon is 

unsurveyed, and there are no data 

available on which to estimate any trend 

in known populations in coastal central 

and coastal southern Oregon. We 

presume that coastal marten 

populations may not be especially large 

or expansive, given the historical 

impacts of overtrapping and timber 

harvest. However, these past threats 

have been largely ameliorated, and we 

have no evidence to suggest that current 

stressors are resulting in any population 

declines, such that we would consider 

the DPS of coastal marten to be on a 

trajectory toward extinction. We 

thoroughly evaluated impacts to the 

DPS and its habitat with regard to the 

five listing factors. Similar to the 

stressors described in (1) above for 

potential impacts to habitat, we found 

minimal evidence of population-level 

impacts. 

We recognize a need to continue to 

monitor the coastal marten because the 

populations are disjunct, which in 

general makes them more susceptible to 

stressors than species with larger, more 

well-connected populations. There has 

been relatively little survey effort 

throughout much of the range of the 

DPS, however. In general, the 

interchange of only a few individuals is 

needed to maintain genetic connectivity 

between populations over time. As 

described in this document and the 

Species Report (Service 2015, entire), 

there are stressors that we find may be 

having some effect on coastal marten 

populations, albeit not to the degree that 

they currently rise to the level that 

listing is warranted. We will continue to 

monitor the status of the DPS and 

evaluate any other information we 

receive. Additional information will 

continue to be accepted on all aspects 

of the DPS. If at any time data indicate 

that protective status under the Act 

should be provided or if there are new 

threats or increasing stressors that rise 

to the level of a threat, we can initiate 

listing procedures, including, if 

appropriate, emergency listing pursuant 

to section 4(b)(7) of the Act. 

In conclusion, we acknowledge that 

the coastal marten population in 

California may be reduced in size 

relative to its historical abundance, and 

that coastal martens may be reduced in 

distribution as compared to their 

historical range. A listing determination, 

however, must be based on our 

assessment of the current status of the 

species—in this case, the coastal DPS of 

the Pacific marten—in relation to the 

five listing factors under the Act. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

make such a determination based solely 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available. To this end, we must rely 

on reasonable conclusions as supported 

by the best available science to assess 

the current and future status to 

determine whether the coastal marten 

meets the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. Based 

on our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

pertaining to the five factors, we find 

that the stressors acting upon the coastal 

DPS of the Pacific marten are not of 

sufficient imminence, intensity, or 

magnitude to indicate that the coastal 

marten is in danger of extinction now 

(endangered), or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future (threatened), throughout all of its 

range. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is an endangered or a 

threatened species throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any 

species which is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment 

[DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature.’’ We published a final policy 

interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 

37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy 

states that (1) if a species is found to be 

an endangered or a threatened species 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, the entire species is listed as an 

endangered or a threatened species, 

respectively, and the Act’s protections 

apply to all individuals of the species 

wherever found; (2) a portion of the 

range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the 

species is not currently an endangered 

or a threatened species throughout all of 

its range, but the portion’s contribution 

to the viability of the species is so 

important that, without the members in 

that portion, the species would be in 

danger of extinction, or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future, throughout 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

all of its range; (3) the range of a species 

is considered to be the general 

geographical area within which that 

species can be found at the time the 

Service or NMFS makes any particular 

status determination; and (4) if a 

vertebrate species is an endangered or a 

threatened species throughout an SPR, 

and the population in that significant 

portion is a valid DPS, we will list the 

DPS rather than the entire taxonomic 

species or subspecies. 

The SPR Policy is applied to all status 

determinations, including analyses for 

the purposes of making listing, 

delisting, and reclassification 

determinations. The procedure for 

analyzing whether any portion is an 

SPR is similar, regardless of the type of 

status determination we are making. 

The first step in our analysis of the 

status of a species (‘‘species’’ under the 

Act refers to any listable entity, 

including species, subspecies, or DPS) is 

to determine its status throughout all of 

its range. If we determine that the 

species is in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, throughout all of its range, we 

list the species as an endangered (or 

threatened) species and no SPR analysis 

is required. If the species is neither an 

endangered nor a threatened species 

throughout all of its range, we 

determine whether the species is an 

endangered or a threatened species 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. If it is, we list the species as an 

endangered or a threatened species, 

respectively; if it is not, we conclude 

that listing the species is not warranted. 

When we conduct an SPR analysis, 

we first identify any portions of the 

species’ range that warrant further 

consideration. The range of a species 

can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways. 

However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and either endangered or threatened. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that (1) the portions may be 

significant, and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction in those portions 

or likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. We emphasize that 

answering these questions in the 

affirmative is not a determination that 

the species is an endangered or a 

threatened species throughout a 

significant portion of its range—rather, 

it is a step in determining whether a 

more detailed analysis of the issue is 

required. In practice, a key part of this 

analysis is whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in some 

way. If the threats to the species are 

affecting it uniformly throughout its 

range, no portion is likely to warrant 

further consideration. Moreover, if any 

concentration of threats apply only to 

portions of the range that clearly do not 

meet the biologically based definition of 

‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that 

portion clearly would not be expected to 

increase the vulnerability to extinction 

of the entire species), those portions 

will not warrant further consideration. 

If we identify any portions that may 

be both (1) significant and (2) 

endangered or threatened, we engage in 

a more detailed analysis to determine 

whether these standards are indeed met. 

The identification of an SPR does not 

create a presumption, prejudgment, or 

other determination as to whether the 

species in that identified SPR is an 

endangered or a threatened species. We 

must go through a separate analysis to 

determine whether the species is an 

endangered or a threatened species in 

the SPR. To determine whether a 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species throughout an SPR, we will use 

the same standards and methodology 

that we use to determine if a species is 

an endangered or a threatened species 

throughout its range. 

Depending on the biology of the 

species, its range, and the threats it 

faces, it may be more efficient to address 

the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the 

status question first. Thus, if we 

determine that a portion of the range is 

not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to 

determine whether the species is an 

endangered or a threatened species 

there; if we determine that the species 

is not an endangered or a threatened 

species in a portion of its range, we do 

not need to determine if that portion is 

‘‘significant.’’ 

We consider the historical range of 

the coastal marten to include coastal 

Oregon from the Columbia River 

(Clatsop and Columbia counties) south 

into northern Sonoma County, 

California, including suitable habitat 

from the coast eastward to an elevation 

of 1,524 m (5,000 ft). This range 

encompasses the coastal central Oregon 

extant population area, the coastal 

southern Oregon extant population area, 

the coastal northern California extant 

population area, and the intervening 

habitat. Based on the best available 

information at this time, these 

populations account for the current 

distribution of the DPS. 

In considering any significant portion 

of the coastal marten’s range, we 

considered whether the stressors facing 

the coastal marten might be different at 

three locations where the coastal 

martens have been found and, thus, 

geographically concentrated in some 

portion of the range of the DPS. In the 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors analysis above, we 

identified the most likely potential 

differences associated with fur trapping 

in Oregon, wildfire, climate change, 

development and vegetation 

management (timber harvesting), and 

toxicant exposure. 

(1) Fur trapping is legal in Oregon, 

and thus the two Oregon populations 

may be affected by this activity. 

Population-level impacts of legal coastal 

marten fur trapping within the two 

Oregon extant population areas have not 

been studied, as the impact of trapping 

on a marten population requires an 

estimate of population abundance, 

which is currently unavailable for both 

extant population areas in coastal 

Oregon. Based on the very few 

individuals removed from this 

population over time (36 individuals 

harvested from trapping over a 26-year 

period, between 1969 and 1995—on 

average fewer than 2 per year), the best 

available data indicate that fur trapping 

is unlikely to result in population-level 

impacts. 

Fur trapping of martens is illegal in 

California but legal for other furbearer 

species. We expect that nearly all 

coastal martens that are accidentally 

captured in box traps set for other 

furbearer species (or that are livetrapped for research purposes) are 

released unharmed. Although illegal fur 

trapping specifically for martens is also 

a possibility in California, the best 

available data at this time do not 

indicate that illegal fur trapping or 

incidental legal live-trapping for coastal 

martens for research purposes is 

resulting in population-level impacts. 

Overall, we do not find that the 

potential impacts from fur trapping 

(illegal or legal) and live-trapping for 

research purposes are geographically 

concentrated in any one portion of the 

range of the DPS. 

(2) The potential impacts from 

wildfire are slightly greater within the 

coastal southern Oregon and coastal 

northern California populations as 

compared to the coastal central Oregon 

population when considering historical 

(between 1984 and 2012) wildfire 

incidents and the likelihood that into 

the foreseeable future (approximately 30 

years), the frequency, intensity, and 

severity of wildfires are expected to be 

similar to the recent past. However, 

these wildfires in coastal southern 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

have burned at varying levels of severity 

and have thus only partially impacted 

(i.e., not completely removed) suitable 

habitat and the adjacent, intervening 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18771 

suitable habitat that the coastal marten 

would need to rely on during post-fire 

habitat recovery periods. Surveys of 

these areas (including the drier, inland, 

xeric areas) post-burn indicate that 

low-, moderate-, and high-suitability 

habitat remain within and adjacent to 

these past wildfire perimeters. 

Therefore, although future wildfires are 

expected to occur similarly to those 

documented in the past 30 years 

throughout the coastal marten’s range 

(i.e., among all three extant population 

areas), and given the potential for 

increased temperatures and decreased 

precipitation over the next 50 years (see 

‘‘Climate Change’’ under Factor A, 

above) throughout its entire range, we 

do not anticipate a concentration of 

threats in any one portion of the DPS’ 

range due to: 

(a) The coastal marten’s range 

continuing to occur within a (generally) 

fog-influenced coastal zone, and thus 

the continued widespread presence of 

persistent, moist conditions year-round 

(including Pacific storms in the winter 

and cloud cover or coastal fog in the 

summer) that likely result in lower 

severity wildfires than what would 

occur in areas without the a moist, 

coastal influence; and 

(b) The anticipated widespread 

presence of varying levels of suitable 

habitat post-fire throughout the coastal 

marten’s range, as demonstrated by 

post-burn surveys. 

(3) The potential impacts from climate 

change are slightly greater within the 

coastal southern Oregon and coastal 

northern California populations, which 

models indicate could result in a 

warmer and drier climate into the 

foreseeable future (40 to 50 years) as 

compared to the coastal central Oregon 

population. Nearly all models that 

encompass the landscape containing 

these two population areas show shifts 

in vegetation type to habitat that may be 

considered less favorable for coastal 

martens. However, most models project 

these shifts in vegetation type over time 

by the end of the century, and the 

models predict these same potential 

vegetation shifts in coastal central and 

northern Oregon. Additionally, even if 

vegetation shifts occur, suitable habitat 

for coastal martens is expected to 

remain in portions of the coastal 

southern Oregon and coastal northern 

California population areas, to which 

coastal martens could migrate (see 

Climate Change, above). Overall, we do 

not anticipate a geographic 

concentration of threats in any one 

portion of the DPS’ range given the 

variety of potential effects from climate 

change, the high level of uncertainty 

regarding the nature and timing of any 

such effects, and the likelihood that 

suitable habitat for coastal martens will 

remain available into the foreseeable 

future throughout the entire range of the 

DPS despite potential climate change 

impacts. 

(4) Both development (e.g., road 

building, dam construction and creation 

of new reservoirs, conversion of forest 

habitat for agricultural use, 

development and expansion of 

recreational areas) and vegetation 

management (e.g., timber harvest, 

thinning, fuels reduction) are expected 

to continue on some private lands 

throughout the range of the coastal 

marten. These activities potentially may 

occur to a greater extent in the coastal 

central Oregon population area as 

compared to the coastal southern 

Oregon and coastal northern California 

population areas due to the greater 

percentage of moderate- and highsuitability marten habitat in private 

ownership in the coastal central Oregon 

population area (i.e., 23 percent as 

opposed to 10 percent and 11 percent, 

respectively). However, the best 

available data do not indicate that either 

potential development activities or 

vegetation management in one or more 

of these population areas will occur at 

a level greater than any other (i.e., the 

potential impacts are uniformly 

distributed throughout the DPS’s range). 

Additionally, the best available data do 

not indicate that any new development 

or vegetation management activities 

(i.e., those that would remove currently 

suitable habitat) would occur into the 

foreseeable future to such a degree that 

population-level impacts are likely. We 

have made this conclusion primarily 

based on the extensive amount of 

Federal lands both within and adjacent 

to all three populations where overall 

beneficial vegetation management (such 

as that outlined in the NWFP) would 

occur, thus providing an overall 

conservation benefit to coastal marten 

rangewide. 

Some vegetation management 

activities may also occur throughout the 

coastal marten’s range that may result in 

short-term impacts to coastal marten 

(such as thinning, fuels reduction 

projects, and habitat restoration), but 

eventually result in long-term benefits 

to coastal martens and their habitat. In 

these cases, the long-term benefits likely 

outweigh the potential short-term, 

localized impacts by improving habitat 

suitability for the coastal marten in the 

long-term through: (a) Minimizing loss 

of late-successional stands due to 

wildfires, and (b) accelerating the 

development of late-seral 

characteristics. Although short-term 

degradation of suitable habitat could 

occur, these types of projects are 

designed to ultimately increase the 

overall amount, distribution, and patch 

size of suitable coastal marten habitat. 

(5) Potential exposure of coastal 

martens to toxicants as a result of illegal 

marijuana cultivation sites is likely to 

continue on some lands within the 

coastal marten’s range. This type of 

activity could potentially occur in those 

areas where marijuana grow sites are 

located (which currently is known to be 

a fraction of the coastal marten’s range). 

Based on the presence of suitable 

climate conditions for marijuana 

cultivation and data that indicate a 

greater concentration of recently 

eradicated cultivation sites within or 

near the coastal northern California 

population area, these activities may 

possibly occur to a greater extent in the 

coastal northern California population 

area as compared to the coastal Oregon 

population areas. Of note is that 

incidence of toxicant exposure and the 

potential population-level effects to 

coastal marten are largely unknown, and 

there is significant uncertainty as to the 

severity of impact (both lethal and 

sublethal) that this stressor may have at 

the population- and rangewide levels on 

coastal marten, especially given the 

recent legalization of marijuana in 

Oregon (note that marijuana is not legal 

in California). The best available data 

indicate broad use of ARs at illegal 

marijuana cultivation sites, as well as 

continued use of ARs at legal grow sites, 

both of which are found within the 

range of the DPS, but the degree of 

exposure that may result for coastal 

martens is unknown. To date, only one 

record of a positive exposure exists 

within the range of the coastal marten 

that demonstrates exposure to ARs. 

Therefore, at this time, the best available 

data do not indicate that the coastal 

marten’s exposure to ARs will occur at 

a level greater than any other in any one 

portion of the range of the DPS. 

In summary, our evaluation of the 

best available information indicates that 

the overall level of stressors is not 

geographically concentrated in one 

portion of the coastal marten’s range, 

and that the stressors that have the 

potential to impact coastal martens are 

relatively consistent across its range 

(Service 2015, entire). Therefore, it is 

our conclusion, based on our evaluation 

of the current potential threats to the 

coastal marten (see Summary of 

Information Pertaining to the Five 

Factors section of this finding and the 

‘‘Stressors on Coastal Marten 

Populations and Habitat’’ section of the 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 41– 

95)), that no portion of the range of the 

coastal DPS of Pacific marten warrants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

18772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

further consideration of possible 

endangered or threatened status under 

the Act. 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the coastal marten is not 

in danger of extinction (endangered) nor 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Therefore, we find that listing 

the coastal DPS of the Pacific marten as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act is not warranted at this 

time. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the coastal marten to our 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes 

available. New information will help us 

monitor coastal martens and encourage 

their conservation. If an emergency 

situation develops for the coastal 

marten, we will act to provide 

immediate protection. 

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 ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Robert Dreher, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07766 Filed 4–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3