The National Park Service is seeking public comments on a proposal to restore the fisher, a member of the weasel family, to the Mount Rainier and North Cascades national parks. A recently completed environmental assessment by park officials proposes the reintroduction of 80 fishers into the southwestern Cascades, including Mount Rainier National Park, over the course of two years. Similar efforts in the northwestern Cascades, including North Cascades National Park Complex, would follow a successful release to the south. The fisher is a medium-size carnivore that is native to the north and south Cascades of Washington. Considered absent from Washington by the mid-1990s due to over-trapping and loss of forested habitat, the state formally listed the fisher as endangered in 1998. Since the fisher is not expected to return to the Cascades on its own, Washington officials have determined that fisher reintroduction is necessary in both the southwestern and northwestern Cascades to restore this species to its historical range in the state. The fisher is about the size of a house cat, is low to the ground, and has a long, busy tail, short rounded ears and short legs. Fishers would likely be brought in from central British Columbia in Canada, and monitoring would follow each reintroduction effort for at least three years, according to the National Park Service (NPS). The agency is seeking public review and comment through Oct. 15 at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/RestoreFisher. Some hardcopies of the environmental assessment are also available at several public libraries, including ones in Eatonvllle and Puyallup, and by request via e-mail at noca_superintendent@nps.gov. During the comment period, written statements may be made through regular mail to Superintendent's Office, ATTN: Fisher EA, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284. Officials said the most useful comments would do any of the following: " Discuss a particular plan element or alternative. " Identify information that's considered incomplete or incorrect. " Offer reasons why a particular alternative or plan element would or would not work. " Offer a reasonable, new plan element or completely new alternative that could help accomplish the stated goals. " Point out discrepancies between legal mandates and proposals. " Highlight deficiencies in the analysis of environmental consequences. " Provide information on how a person uses the parks and how particular proposals in the planning document would affect that use.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment