[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71041-71082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28512]
[[Page 71041]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 229
November 28, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland
Caribou; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 229 / Wednesday, November 28, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 71042]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096: 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX38
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of
Woodland Caribou
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) under the Endangered Species Act.
In total, approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) is being
designated as critical habitat. The critical habitat is located in
Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, Washington. We are
finalizing this action in compliance with our obligation under the Act
and in compliance with a court-approved settlement agreement. The
effect of this regulation is to conserve the habitat essential to the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on December 28, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way,
Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-378-
5262.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the map for this
critical habitat designation was generated are included in the
administrative record and are available at http://www.fws.gov/idaho/SpeciesNews.htm, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2011-0096, and at the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
developed for this critical habitat designation is available at the
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and
may also be on http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Kelly, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to designate
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), currently listed as an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). Under the Act, any species that is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species requires critical
habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only
be completed through rulemaking. The critical habitat area we are
designating in this rule constitutes our current best assessment of the
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. Here we are
designating approximately 30,010 acres (ac) (12,145 hectares (ha)) in
one unit within Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County,
Washington, as critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou. This designation represents a reduction
of approximately 345,552 ac (139,840 ha) from the critical habitat
originally proposed for designation (76 FR 74018, November 30, 2011);
and reflects a 1,000 foot (ft) (about 300 meter (m)) change in
elevation from 4,000 ft (1,220 m) in the proposed rule, to an elevation
at or above 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in the final critical habitat
designation. Literature and information we have reviewed, and peer
review comments received, confirm that although caribou may use
elevations below 5,000 ft (1,520 m), habitats at this elevation and
above are essential to their conservation. This revision is more fully
explained in the ``Criteria Used to Define Critical Habitat'' section.
The primary factors that were considered and influenced this change
from the proposed rule included: (1) A revised determination of the
geographical area occupied by the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou at the time of listing, based on comments we
received, including peer reviewers, which caused us to reevaluate
surveys conducted by Scott and Servheen (1984, 1985); (2) census
monitoring documenting low numbers of individual caribou observed in
the United States during those annual surveys; (3) caribou observations
within the United States for several years have consistently been
limited to areas close to the United States-Canada border; (4)
information and literature reporting the overall decline of the
subspecies mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) across its
range, and in particular the decline of woodland caribou populations in
the southern extent of their range, including the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou; (5) information on areas
currently conserved and managed for the conservation of woodland
caribou in the Selkirk Mountains in British Columbia, Canada, including
the status of the Canadian recovery actions for mountain caribou; and
(6) the applicability as well as the status of the recovery objectives
identified in the 1994 Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1994).
All of the area being designated as critical habitat is federally
owned lands under management of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The
areas being designated were occupied at the time of listing under the
Act (49 FR 7390: February 29, 1984), and are essential to the
conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designation and related factors. We announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on May 31, 2012
(77 FR 32075), allowing the public to provide comments on our analysis.
We have incorporated the comments and have completed the final economic
analysis (FEA) concurrently with this final determination.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from four knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical
assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the best
available information. These peer reviewers provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final
rule. Information we received from peer review is incorporated in this
final critical habitat designation. We also considered all comments and
[[Page 71043]]
information received from the public during the comment periods.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the development and designation of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more information on
the biology and ecology of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on February 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390), and the 1985 final
recovery plan (USFWS 1985), which was revised in 1994 (USFWS 1994), and
is available from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section). For information on southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou proposed critical habitat, refer to the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018).
Information on the associated DEA for the proposed rule to designate
revised critical habitat was published in the Federal Register on May
31, 2012 (77 FR 32075).
Nomenclature
In 1984, we published a final rule listing the transboundary
population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) found in
Idaho, Washington, and southern British Columbia, `` * * * sometimes
known as the southern Selkirk Mountain herd'' (49 FR 7390; February 29,
1984). At that time woodland caribou, including the transboundary
population, were a recognized subspecies of caribou (R. tarandus).
Within the woodland caribou subspecies, caribou populations are often
further divided into three different ``ecotypes'': Boreal, northern,
and mountain, based on differences in habitat use, feeding behavior,
and migration patterns (Hatter 2000, p. 631; Mountain Caribou Science
Team 2005, p. 1).
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is
included within the mountain caribou ecotype (mountain caribou) that
currently occupies southeastern British Columbia (B.C.), northern
Idaho, and northeastern Washington near the international border to
northeast of Prince George (Wittmer et al. 2005, p. 408). The mountain
caribou ecotype is distinguished from other woodland caribou ecotypes
by behavioral and ecological characteristics, rather than genetic
characteristics that conclude all woodland caribou ecotypes are
genetically similar (Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005, p. 1). The
mountain caribou ecotype is closely associated with high-elevation,
late-successional, coniferous forests where their primary winter food,
arboreal lichens, occurs.
The term ``mountain caribou'' is a common designation used
throughout the scientific literature to describe the mountain/arboreal-
lichen feeding ecotype of woodland caribou populations found in the
mountainous regions of southeastern British Columbia, including the
transboundary southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
(Mountain Caribou Science Team 2005, p. 1). In this final rule, use of
the term mountain caribou refers to descriptions of the subspecies
woodland caribou in general, and we use the term southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou when referencing the listed
transboundary population.
Previous Federal Actions
In 1980, the Service received petitions to list the South Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) and Dean Carrier, a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) staff biologist
and former chairman of the International Mountain Caribou Technical
Committee (IMCTC). At that time, the population was believed to consist
of 13 to 20 animals (48 FR 1722). Following a review of the petition
and other data readily available, the southern Selkirk Mountains
woodland caribou population in northeastern Washington, northern Idaho,
and southeastern B.C. was listed as endangered under the Act's
emergency procedures on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1722). A second
emergency rule was published on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49245), and a
final rule listing the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou
population as endangered was published on February 29, 1984 (49 FR
7390). The designation of critical habitat was determined to be not
prudent at that time, since increased poaching could result from the
publication of maps showing areas used by the species. A Management
Plan/Recovery Plan for Selkirk Caribou was approved by the Service in
1985 (USFWS 1985), and revised in 1994 (USFWS 1994).
Notices of 90-day findings on two petitions to delist the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou were published in the
Federal Register on November 29, 1993 (58 FR 62623), and November 1,
2000 (65 FR 65287). Both petitions were submitted by Mr. Peter B.
Wilson, representing the Greater Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce, in
Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Our response to both petitions stated that the
petitions did not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that delisting of the woodland caribou may be
warranted.
On August 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in Federal district court
challenging two biological opinions issued by the Service, and USFS
management actions within southern Selkirk Mountains caribou habitat
and the recovery area. The plaintiffs included Defenders of Wildlife,
Conservation Northwest, the Lands Council, Selkirk Conservation
Alliance, Idaho Conservation League, and Center for Biological
Diversity. The lawsuit challenged, in part, no jeopardy biological
opinions on the USFS Land and Resource Management Plans for the Idaho
Panhandle (IPNF) and Colville (CNF) National Forests, and the USFS'
failure to comply with the incidental take statements in the biological
opinions.
In December 2005, the Court granted a preliminary injunction
prohibiting snowmobile trail grooming within the caribou recovery area
on the IPNF during the winter of 2005-2006. In November 2006, the Court
granted a modified injunction restricting snowmobiling and snowmobile
trail grooming on portions of the IPNF within the southern Selkirk
Mountains caribou recovery area. On February 14, 2007, the Court
ordered a modification of the current injunction to add a protected
caribou travel corridor connecting habitat in the United States portion
of the southern Selkirk Mountains with habitat in British Columbia.
This injunction is currently in effect, pending the completion of
section 7 consultation on the IPNF's proposed winter travel plan.
On April 11, 2006, a notice of initiation of 5-year reviews for 70
species in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, and Guam was
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 18345), including the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The Southern Selkirk
Mountains Caribou Population 5-Year Review was completed December 5,
2008 (USFWS, 2008a).
On December 6, 2002, the Defenders of Wildlife, Lands Council,
Selkirk Conservation Alliance, and Center for Biological Diversity
(plaintiffs) petitioned the Service to designate critical habitat for
the endangered southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou. On February 10, 2003, we acknowledged receipt of the
plaintiff's petition, and stated we were unable to address the petition
at that
[[Page 71044]]
time due to budgetary constraints. On January 15, 2009, a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief (Defenders of Wildlife et al., v.
Salazar, CV-09-15-EFS) was filed in Federal District Court, alleging
that the Service's failure to make a decision more than 6 years after
the petition was submitted violated the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706). In a stipulated settlement agreement, we
agreed to make a critical habitat prudency determination, and if
determined to be prudent, to submit a proposed critical habitat rule to
the Federal Register on or before November 20, 2011, which was
accomplished. We also agreed to deliver a final critical habitat rule
to the Federal Register by November 20, 2012.
A proposed rule (76 FR 74018) to designate approximately 375,562 ac
(151,985 ha) as critical habitat in Boundary and Bonner Counties in
Idaho, and Pend Oreille County in Washington was submitted to the
Federal Register on November 20, 2011, and published on November 30,
2011.
On May 9, 2012, we received a petition dated May 9, 2012, from
Bonner County, Idaho, and the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, which
calls into question whether the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou is a listable entity under the Act. We are
developing a response to that petition.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou during three comment periods. The first
comment period, associated with the publication of the proposed rule
(76 FR 74018), opened on November 30, 2011, and closed on January 30,
2012. We contacted Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies,
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them
to comment on the proposed rule. In response to a request we received
during the first public comment period from Idaho's Governor C.L.
``Butch'' Otter, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and Boundary County,
Idaho, to allow the public more time to submit comments and to hold an
informational session and public hearing, we opened a second comment
period on March 21, 2012 (77 FR 16512), for an additional 60 days. The
Service-hosted informational session and public hearing were held in
Bonner's Ferry, Idaho, on April 28, 2012. A third public comment
period, associated with the publication of the DEA of the proposed
designation and an amended required determinations section, opened on
May 31, 2012, and closed on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 32075). The Service
hosted an additional informational session and public hearing during
this comment period on June 16, 2012, in Coolin, Idaho.
In acknowledgement of our responsibility to work directly with
tribes, and to make information available regarding the proposed
critical habitat designation, the Service met with the Kootenai Tribe
of Idaho on January 9, 2012, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, and participated
on conference calls with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho on May 24, 2012.
The Service also discussed the proposal with the Kalispel Tribe of
Indians on several occasions, including February 23, March 12, and
April 26, 2012.
The Service also responded to several requests for public
information and coordination meetings, including: (1) the Kootenai
Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) on January 9, 2012, in Bonners Ferry,
Idaho; (2) the Bonner County Commissioners on January 24, February 28,
March 26, and June 4, 2012, in Bonner County, Idaho; and (3) the
Boundary County Commissioners on April 19, 2012, in Boundary County,
Idaho.
During the first 60-day comment period, we received 172 comment
letters addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second 60-day comment period, we received an additional 118
comments from individuals or organizations, with an additional 37
written or oral comments provided at the April 28, 2012, public hearing
in Bonner's Ferry, Idaho. During the third and final comment period, we
received 10 comments on the proposal and the DEA, and testimony from 11
individuals at the public hearing.
During the public comments periods, comments were received from
Federal, State, and local agencies, peer reviewers with scientific
expertise, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians,
the Canadian Government, private citizens, nongovernmental
organizations, private companies, business owners, elected officials,
recreational user groups, commercial and trade organizations, and
others. Approximately 60 unique individual comments received were
generally supportive of the proposed rule, while approximately 70
unique individual comments were in opposition to the proposed rule.
Through campaigns sponsored by nongovernmental organizations, we
received an additional 64,258 comments in support of the proposed
designation consisting entirely of template letters.
The Service received many comments outside the scope of this
rulemaking, including issues such as: (a) Threats to the species such
as recreation, fires, and road building, management and control of
predators and or prey species, previous actions taken by the Service to
introduce or protect other listed species such as gray wolves (Canis
lupus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), Canada lynx (Lynx
canadensis), and others (see further discussion below); (b) strengths
or weaknesses of the Endangered Species Act, and whether the Act should
be changed or eliminated; (c) the taxonomic description of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, its current listing
status as an endangered species, and whether the population is extinct;
(d) a recent petition received by the Service to delist the species;
(e) addressing Highway 3 in Canada as a migration barrier; (f) hunting
practices or regulations; and (g) that the proposed rule to designate
critical habitat is in response to an ``agenda'' put forth by
``environmental groups.''
We received numerous comments specific to the threat of predation
on the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, with
many stating that gray wolves and other species such as grizzly bear,
black bear (Ursus americanus), Canada lynx, and others are preying on
caribou and should be managed. The Service acknowledges that predation
is one of several important factors affecting this population of
woodland caribou. In fact, predation is discussed frequently in the
proposed rule, including under Physical or Biological Features (PBFs),
where we described the need for: (1) Caribou to disperse in low numbers
at high elevation; (2) large contiguous areas to avoid predators; and
(3) female caribou to be able to access high-elevation alpine areas for
calving, which are likely to be predator free. Predation is also
addressed in the 1994 Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994) as a factor
potentially affecting the status of the caribou population. Although
addressing the threat of predation is outside of the scope of this
rule, the Service agrees that successful caribou conservation and
recovery efforts will need to address predation on the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou, which will require effective
coordination with other Federal and State agencies, the Coleville and
Idaho Panhandle National Forests, tribes, and Canada.
[[Page 71045]]
Similarly, we received numerous comments regarding the
effectiveness of past augmentation efforts to supplement the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, which were conducted
by the Service, Canada, and State wildlife agencies. Efforts to augment
the existing woodland caribou population with 103 animals from source
herds in British Columbia between 1987 and 1990, and 1996 and 1998,
have not resulted in a long-term improvement in caribou distribution
throughout the southern Selkirk Mountains. A large number of the
transplanted caribou died within the first year of augmentation, and
there has been no long term increase in the population (USFWS 2008a).
The number of woodland caribou detected in the United States has
continued to dwindle, and annual census surveys continue to find the
bulk of the remaining population occupying habitats in British
Columbia. The most recent census information demonstrates a decline
from 46 caribou in 2009 to 27 animals in 2012, although the cause of
this decline has not been described (Degroot and Wakkinen 2012, p.2).
The 2011 survey documented zero caribou in the United States, and the
2012 survey documented 4 caribou on Little Snowy Top Mountain, Idaho.
No other tracks were observed in the United States (DeGroot and
Wakkinen 2012, p. 5).
Although important and integral to the population's recovery,
addressing threats such as predation, as well as efforts to stabilize
or increase the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou, are outside of the scope of this rulemaking. These issues will
be addressed, as appropriate, within the scope of recovery actions for
this species. For the purposes of this rulemaking, we are fully
considering and responding to comments related to the proposed critical
habitat designation and DEA. Although other comments are acknowledged
and appreciated, we have not specifically responded to those that are
outside of the scope of the proposed rule.
All substantive information provided during comment periods has
either been incorporated directly into this final determination or
addressed below. Comments received were grouped into 20 general issues
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from four knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all four
peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The peer
reviewers had differing assessments of our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule was
very thorough and accurate, but the reviewer did not submit any
additional comments. The three peer reviewers who did provide
substantive comments stated that the entire area we proposed for
designation as critical habitat was not likely occupied by the species
at the time of listing, and stated that the February 29, 1984, final
rule listing the species (49 FR 7390) did not define ``occupancy'', but
rather identified a ``total approximate area of normal utilization''
within the conterminous United States (U.S.). These peer reviewers
primarily point to aerial surveys and telemetry studies of radio-
collared caribou at the time of listing (Scott and Servheen 1984) as
the basis for their comment on occupancy. This study documented caribou
primarily utilizing habitat in British Columbia, (B.C.), Canada, and
those areas in the United States immediately adjacent to the
international boundary with Canada. This was a comment also made by the
State of Idaho, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and numerous other public
commenters.
Our Response: In developing our proposed critical habitat rule, we
reviewed the final listing rule (49 FR 7390) to identify the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time of listing. These
areas also contained the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of these caribou, which may require special management
considerations or protections, and therefore met the definition of
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Neither the January
14, 1983, emergency listing (48 FR 1722), nor the February 29, 1984,
final listing rule (49 FR 7390), defined ``occupancy'', but these rules
did refer to the ``approximate area of utilization'' (48 FR 1723), and
``area of normal utilization'' (49 FR 7390). We therefore equated
``occupancy at the time of listing'' with the ``approximate area of
utilization'' and ``area of normal utilization'' in the proposed rule.
However, comments submitted by the peer reviewers caused us to
reexamine the basis of our analysis pertaining to the geographical area
occupied by the species in 1983.
Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 16; 1985, p. 27), state the following
in the background section of their job progress reports on caribou
ecology: ``As the number of U.S. sightings declined since the early
1970's, concern has mounted that caribou may be abandoning the U.S.
portion of their range.'' Scott and Servheen (1984, 1985, entire),
conducted studies of radio-collared caribou to determine population
numbers and composition, and helicopter surveys over significant areas
of the Selkirk Mountains within the historic range of woodland caribou
in an effort to: (1) Estimate the population size and sex/age
composition; (2) determine mortality rates and causes; (3) determine
reproductive rates and calving areas; (4) determine seasonal use areas;
(5) identify seasonal and year-long habitat utilization patterns; (6)
estimate seasonal caribou food habitat preferences; and (7) attempt to
achieve a total count of the population. The helicopter surveys covered
extensive areas of potential woodland caribou habitat within the
Selkirk Mountains in Idaho and Washington (Scott and Servheen 1984, pp.
74-75). During their study, Scott and Servheen (1984, pp. 16-28)
documented extensive use by caribou of habitat in Canada, with two
bulls utilizing habitat near Little Snowy Top and Upper Hughes Ridge in
Idaho and Sullivan Creek in Washington (p. 19). They did not document
any caribou further south within Washington or Idaho during the course
of the helicopter surveys. We are relying on Scott and Servheen survey
results to determine occupancy at the time of listing, since the
surveys were conducted during the timeframe in which the population was
listed. Consequently, we have determined that the area generally
depicted in Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 27), adjusted for
[[Page 71046]]
elevation and habitat based on the seasonal habitat suitability model
developed by Kinley and Apps (2007, entire) for the southern Selkirk
Mountains ecosystem, represents the best available scientific
information regarding the geographical area occupied by the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time of
listing. Based on the best available information, we are designating
30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou in the United States. These
areas were known to be occupied at the time of listing in 1983 and
1984, they are essential to the conservation of the species, they
require special management, and they therefore meet the definition of
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the characterization
of six seasonal habitats (early winter, late winter, spring, calving,
summer, and fall) for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou in the proposed rule was inaccurate, as it is based on
older scientific information, and suggested more recent scientific
information describing caribou seasonal habitats based on distinct
shifts in caribou elevation use is a more proper characterization of
caribou seasonal habitats.
Our Response: We agree and have changed the seasonal definitions in
the final rule to reflect the five seasonal definitions identified by
Kinley and Apps (2007), which are: Early winter (October 17 to January
18), late winter (January 19 to April 19), spring (April 20 to July 7),
calving (June 1 to July 7), and summer (July 8 to October 16).
(3) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that the proposed rule
inaccurately identifies early winter as the season during which caribou
typically make the longest within-season (intra-seasonal) landscape
movements. One peer reviewer noted that the stated range from several
to 30 mi (48 km) of movement during the winter season in the proposed
rule was inaccurate as well. Both reviewers referenced research
conducted by Wakkinen and Slone (2010), which analyzed seasonal
movement patterns of radio-collared caribou from 1988 to 2006, and
found that caribou typically make the longest movements during spring
and summer seasons. One peer reviewer noted that Wakkinen and Slone's
(2010) analysis did not detect any difference in the median distance of
movement by caribou between seasons (interseasonal).
Our Response: The identification of winter seasonal movement
distances stated in the proposed rule was obtained from a USFS report
(USFS 2004, p. 22), which used a compilation of historic and more
recent anecdotal observations of caribou movements and radio-collared
caribou to provide a range for caribou movements. Wakkinen and Slone's
(2010) analysis, which is based on over 4,000 radio telemetry points
obtained from 66 individual caribou over an 18-year period from 1988 to
2006, provided median values for intra- and interseasonal movements. As
Wakkinen and Slone's (2010) report is more recent and is scientifically
robust, we have incorporated their findings into the language of this
final rule.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule's
characterization of early and late winter habitats as being the most
important habitats to caribou and the most limiting type of habitats on
the landscape, is not supported by the science, as there is a high
degree of overlap between the seasonal habitats. Given the high degree
of overlap and importance of all seasonal habitats on the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou recovery, it would be
difficult to prioritize early and late winter habitats as having
overriding importance to caribou or as being more limited on the
landscape than are other seasonal habitats.
Our Response: We acknowledge that, from a purely geographical
standpoint, Kinley and Apps (2007) habitat modeling demonstrated a high
degree of overlap between caribou seasonal habitats, and that all
seasonal habitats are important to caribou. From a physiological and
nutritional standpoint, early and late winter seasonal habitat foraging
opportunities can be restricted by snow conditions depending on the
variability of snowpack in any given year, and therefore are generally
less available than summer and spring habitats and foraging
opportunities. During summer and spring seasons, the physical ability
of caribou to move is much less restricted, and there is a wider
assortment and more availability of foraging plants available to
caribou. During early and late winter, snow conditions and depths
restrict caribou movement and foraging opportunities. In late winter,
caribou must subsist almost entirely upon arboreal lichens, which are
typically provided by mature subalpine fir stands with appropriate
moisture conditions. Additionally, winter conditions (cold
temperatures, deep snow) impose high energetic costs to caribou. Thus,
from a physiological and nutritional standpoint, early and late winter
habitats are very important to caribou and may be more limited to
caribou. However, notwithstanding the above discussion, we understand
the importance of high-quality spring and summer forage habitat at
contributing to the ability of female caribou to calve and support
their calves or to enter the breeding season in good physiological
condition to survive the harsh winter conditions.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that language in the
proposed rule implying that the ecotone between the subalpine fir/
Engelmann spruce and cedar/hemlock zone occurs at around 4,000 ft
(1,220 m) in elevation is inaccurate, and that the ecotone actually
occurs approximately between the elevational band of 4,900 and 5,000 ft
(1,490 and 1,520 m) (i.e., a 100-foot elevational band ecotone).
Our Response: We agree, and we have provided the following
clarification to that portion of the Primary Constituent Elements (PCE)
in this final designation. According to Art Zack (USFS, pers. comm.
2012): ``In the Selkirk ecosystem, the average boundary between cedar/
hemlock Vegetation Response Units (VRU) groups and subalpine fir VRU
groups (or habitat type groups) is approximately 5,100 ft (1,550 m)
elevation. However, this break will vary from place to place based on
aspect, topography, landform, cold air drainage patterns, and local
weather patterns. Based on a sample of 100 points on the break between
these 2 groups, the standard deviation of this variation in the
elevation break between these 2 categories was approximately 300 ft (90
m) in elevation. In very limited circumstances, lower elevation
drainage bottoms that are below a high ridge and that have restricted
cold air drainage out of the valley bottom, may have subalpine fir
habitat types over 1,000 ft (30 m) lower in elevation than the normal
boundary. However, these are very restricted geographically, and are
typically linear features confined to the very lower valley bottom.
Where two different VRU's or habitat type groups meet, it is often not
a distinct hard line between the two types, but rather an ecotone where
the two types gradually intergrade. On average, the estimated ecotone
width between the subalpine fir habitat types and the lower elevation
habitat type may be 200 ft (61 m) in elevation. However that ecotone
width varies depending upon local environmental characteristics.''
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that our definition of calving
habitat in the proposed rule as comprising high-elevation, old-growth
[[Page 71047]]
forest ridgetops was too narrow and should also include high elevation
alpine and non-forested areas in close proximity to forested mature and
old-growth ridge tops as well as high elevation basins. The peer
reviewer pointed to research demonstrating that caribou in the Selkirk
Mountains use alpine scree sites as well as exposed cliff faces (Warren
1990; Allen 1998), and noted that the broader definition of calving
habitat is supported by the analysis conducted by Kinley and Apps
(2007), who demonstrated that pregnant females showed a preference for
alpine at all scales and that, at the finest scale, caribou did not
avoid non-forested conditions.
Our Response: We agree, and we have provided clarification to that
portion of the PCE to identify that calving habitat includes more areas
such as high-elevation basins in this final critical habitat
designation.
(7) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that the proposed rule's
characterization of caribou movements during the spring and summer was
inaccurate. Language in the proposed rule stated that during the spring
and summer caribou move to lower elevations to forage on grasses,
flowering plants, horsetails, willow and dwarf birch leaves and tips,
sedges, and lichens in subalpine meadows (Paquet 1997, pp. 13, 16). The
peer reviewers noted that Paquet (1997) also stated, ``in summer,
mountain caribou move back to mid- and upper elevation spruce/alpine
fir forests.''
Our Response: We agree, and we have provided language clarifying
the discussion of summer and spring caribou movements in this final
critical habitat designation.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that caribou spring
habitat findings reported in Kinley and Apps (2007) conflicts with the
spring habitat discussion in the proposed rule, which is based on the
1994 Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994), and Scott and Servheen's (1985) and
Servheen and Lyon's (1989) research. The proposed rule stated that in
spring caribou move to areas with green vegetation, and that these
areas may overlap with early and late winter ranges at mid to lower
elevations. The peer reviewer stated that Kinley and App's (2007)
finding that caribou select for open-canopied stands of older subalpine
fir/spruce habitats with high solar insolation at all scales with use
of alpine and nonforested areas at broad scales only, conflicts with
Scott and Servheen's (1985) research as it is referenced in the
proposed rule.
Our Response: We do not interpret Kinley and App's (2007) findings
as being in disagreement with our statement in the proposed rule that
caribou will seek out areas with green vegetation in spring. We stated
previously that there is a high degree of overlap between seasonal
habitats, and caribou will seek out green vegetation in the spring
regardless of whether it occurs in sivilculturally treated (i.e.,
partial cut, clear-cut, seed/sapling) stands, natural openings within
the forest canopy, or open-canopied stands.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the proposed rule incorrectly
cited Stevenson et al. (2001) and Kinley and Apps (2007), as referring
to western hemlock/western red cedar forests providing summer range for
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. Another
peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule's description of summer
habitat should also identify the importance and use of permanent lakes,
bogs, and fens by caribou for feeding and bedding sites in the summer
and fall months, as documented through research conducted by Freddy
1974; Johnson et al. 1977 and 1980; Warren 1990; and Allen 1998. One
peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule's use of fall habitat to
characterize seasonal habitat for caribou is inconsistent with the
seasonal habitat definitions in Kinley and Apps (2007), which is
considered to provide the best available scientific information on
habitat and seasons of use by the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland
caribou.
Our Response: We have corrected and clarified this statement in
this final critical habitat designation to reflect that subalpine fir
and spruce forests provide summer range for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou. We have removed the reference
to hemlock/western red cedar forests as providing summer habitat. The
final designation reflects that subalpine fir and spruce fir forests
provide summer range for this species. Relative to the description of
summer and fall habitat, we have expanded this description in this
final designation. Regarding reference to fall habitats, as noted
previously in our response to Comment 2, we have revised the seasonal
habitat definitions in this final designation to be consistent with
Kinley and Apps (2007).
(10) Comment: Two peer reviewers acknowledge that the proposed rule
correctly identifies travel corridors as important habitat features
supporting connectivity of seasonal caribou habitats. Both reviewers,
however, suggested the travel corridor discussion in the proposed rule
could be refined through more comprehensive consideration and
interpretation of the available scientific information. One reviewer
noted that Freddy (1974) identified specific routes in British Columbia
that the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou used
repeatedly, which were natural passes along ridges, stream bottoms,
forested areas, and areas connecting feeding and resting areas. The
reviewer also noted that Freddy (1974) identified caribou movement from
Kootenay Pass, British Columbia southward to Snowy Top Mountain, and
from Monk Creek and Nun Creek, British Columbia to Continental Mountain
via the Upper Priest River/American Falls drainage. Both reviewers
noted that Wakkinen and Slone (2010) modeled travel corridors between
areas of high- quality caribou habitat utilizing habitat quality maps
developed by Kinley and Apps (2007).
Our Response: The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou is a transboundary species that travels between British
Columbia and the United States. We acknowledge the importance of
maintaining habitat connectivity between British Columbia and the
United States, and although we do not designate critical habitat in
foreign countries, we have included a travel corridor modeled by
Wakkinen and Slone (2010) that facilitates caribou movement between
patches of high-quality habitat in the Unites States including Little
Snowy Top Mountain in Idaho, and the Salmo Priest Wilderness in
Washington, and connects with the Stagleap Provincial Park in British
Columbia.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer provided several scientific
citations (Freddy 1974; Scott and Servheen 1985; Rominger and Oldemeyer
1989; Warren et al. 1996; and Allen 1998), and suggested the available
science on the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou indicates the appropriate elevation cutoff to identify critical
early-winter habitat for this population is 4,500 ft (1,372 m).
Our Response: We agree that these citations provide additional
scientific information in conjunction with other scientific literature,
as well as peer review and substantive public comments, to determine
the appropriate critical habitat elevation boundaries. However, there
is a lot of uncertainty in making a designation of an ``absolute''
elevational point with which to designate critical habitat for a
species such as the southern Selkirk Mountains population of caribou.
Literature and information we reviewed, (such as Scott and Servheen
1984, 1985; MCTAC 2002; McKinley and Apps 2007; Wakkinen
[[Page 71048]]
and Slone 2010), and additional peer reviewer comments, indicate that
although caribou have been known to use elevations below 5,000 ft
(1,520 m), only habitats at 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in elevation and above
are essential to caribou. The final critical habitat designation
includes areas at 5,000 ft (1,520 m) and higher in elevation, based on
the best available scientific information (see ``Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat'').
(12) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested the proposed rule lacked
a complete discussion on potential sources of disturbance to the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The reviewer
suggested that other forms of human-caused disturbance during nonwinter
months, in addition to snowmobiling impacts during winter, may be an
important consideration in the conservation of caribou. Specifically,
the reviewer stated ``* * * high elevation basins that include meadows
and riparian areas are preferred habitat by woodland caribou. Such
areas are often snow-free earlier in the season, provide good
visibility, and include an abundance of arboreal lichen, grasses, and
forbs. This makes them ideal habitat for caribou in general, and
especially cows with calves. These areas also provide some of the most
popular recreation destinations for backpacking, hiking and camping
from July through October, with significantly increasing human use
observed over the last two decades due to publicity from local
advertisement and guide books.'' The reviewer also noted that the
Service's 2001 Amended Biological Opinion for the continued
implementation of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) Land and
Resource Management Plan (LRMP) stated that increasing pressure during
both winter and summer was decreasing habitat effectiveness for caribou
(USFWS 2001, p. 17). The reviewer noted that several scientific
documents support this presumption: Allen (1998) and Warren (1990) made
field observations of transplanted caribou; Dumont (1993) concluded
that interactions between caribou and hikers on preferred summer range
likely increased caribou susceptibility to predation by pushing caribou
into areas of reduced visibility; and Wittmer (2005), Compton et al.
(1995), and Wakkinen and Johnson (2000) noted caribou are most
susceptible to mortality from predation during the summer months.
Our Response: We appreciate the additional information provided to
us by the peer reviewer. Although the intent of the proposed rule, as
well as the final rule, is not to describe the threats to the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou in a comprehensive
manner, we have expanded our discussion to include other recreational
forms of potential displacement and disturbance of caribou in the
Physical or Biological Feature discussion within ``Habitats That Are
Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of the Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of a Species'' portion of
this final critical habitat designation.
(13) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned the proposed rule's
statement that the ongoing loss and fragmentation of contiguous old-
growth forests and forest habitat on National Forest System (NFS) lands
within the caribou recovery zone is a result of a combination of timber
harvest, road development, and wildfires. The reviewer stated that, due
to a variety of policy and management decisions (e.g., grizzly bear
management guidelines, woodland caribou management guidelines), timber
harvest on NFS lands within the caribou recovery zone is virtually
nonexistent, and many roads have been decommissioned. Therefore,
fragmentation and loss of caribou habitat within the caribou recovery
zone on NFS lands due to timber harvesting and road construction has
been greatly reduced over historical conditions. The reviewer also
commented that the proposed rule failed to adequately consider the role
that natural wildfire plays within this ecosystem as an agent of change
and resetting natural succession on the landscape, because language in
the proposed rule advocates the development of management actions to
minimize the potential for wildfire, and the implementation of rapid
response measures when wildfire occurs. The reviewer noted that
wildfire is a natural disturbance agent within this ecosystem, which
facilitates the development and maintenance of habitat for other listed
species (e.g., grizzly bear and white bark pine (Pinus albicaulis)),
and that historical and recent fire suppression management actions and
policies have adversely affected these species. Additionally, the
reviewer commented that landscape analyses of changes in vegetation
over time demonstrate an increase and/or maintenance in the amount and
distribution of large-size classes of subalpine fir and moist, mixed-
conifer (cedar, hemlock, grand fir, and larch forest), indicating a
pattern ecosystem recovery from the large 1880 to 1890 and 1910 to 1946
wildfires that impacted caribou habitat.
Our Response: We acknowledge that implementation of southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou management standards
and guidelines, grizzly bear access management standards and
guidelines, as well as other management decisions, such as the 2008
Modified Idaho Roadless Rule and 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment,
have reduced loss and fragmentation of old-growth forests on NFS lands
within the area that was proposed for designation as critical habitat,
over historical conditions. Implementation of these management
decisions have and will continue to benefit caribou and caribou
habitat. However, these management decisions do not prevent road
construction or timber harvest (including old-growth forests) within
the areas being designated as critical habitat under all circumstances.
Thus, continued loss and fragmentation of caribou habitat (including
old-growth forests) in an ecosystem that has been significantly altered
from historical forest conditions continues to be a primary long-term
threat to caribou. We agree that many acres of spruce/fir and cedar/
hemlock forests that were set back to an early successional stage by
large, historical, stand-replacement fires are in various stages of
developing tree species and stand structure characteristics that are
representative of late-successional spruce/fir and cedar hemlock
forests through natural successional processes. Nonetheless, we
acknowledge that natural wildfire plays an important role in
maintaining a mosaic of forest successional stages that provides
habitat for a variety of species endemic to this ecosystem, and that
fire suppression can alter vegetative mosaics and species composition.
Therefore, in this critical habitat designation we have incorporated
language addressing the importance of developing and implementing a
wildland fire use plan to allow for the nonsuppression of naturally
ignited fires when appropriate, and the implementation of a prescribed
fire program.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.''
Comments received from the State of Idaho regarding the proposal to
designate critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou are addressed below.
(14) Comment: The State of Idaho questioned the appropriateness of
[[Page 71049]]
designating critical habitat based on a lower elevation of 4,000 ft
(1,219 m), stating that caribou seldom use areas as low as this
elevation. The State of Idaho referred to studies that report mean
elevation use for caribou in the south Selkirk Mountains to be
approximately 5,500 ft (1,675 m).
Our Response: We received numerous comments in addition to the
State of Idaho regarding the science we used and synthesized to develop
the proposed designation. We utilized all substantive input from these
commenters in refining the designation (including the appropriate
elevation boundary) of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou in this final rule. The
elevations that were identified in the proposed rule have been revised
in this final rule (see Primary Constituent Elements for the Southern
Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou, below). Literature
and information we have since reviewed, such as Scott and Servheen
1984, 1985; MCTAC 2002; McKinley and Apps 2007; and Wakkinen and Slone
2010, as well as additional peer review comments, indicate that
although caribou have been known to use elevations below 5,000 ft
(1,520 m), only habitats at 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in elevation and above
are essential to caribou. The final designation includes areas at 5,000
ft (1,520 m) and higher in elevation, based on the best available
scientific information.
(15) Comment: The State of Idaho noted that forest practices such
as partial cutting at higher elevations is common on Idaho managed
lands, in reference to a statement in the proposed rule (76 FR 74025)
that in the last decade, timber harvest has moved into high-elevation
mature and old-growth habitat types due to more roads and more powerful
machinery capable of traversing difficult terrains (Stevenson et al.
2001, p. 10). The State commented that during the two previous decades,
Idaho Department of Lands foresters have not noted trends toward more
powerful machinery capable of traversing difficult terrain, and that
State timber sale contracts generally impose size limits on equipment,
thereby eliminating the most powerful tractors and skidders from
operating on State timber sales. The State commented that a trend
toward more mechanized felling and harvesting equipment is evident;
however, ground capabilities have remained largely unchanged.
Our Response: There are no State of Idaho lands being designated as
critical habitat. We also acknowledge that, depending on the scale and
timing of implementation, and equipment limitations, certain timber
harvest treatments (partial cuts, thinning, etc.), may result in benign
or perhaps beneficial effects to caribou habitat. However, as
implemented historically, timber harvest practices (e.g., large clear
cuts) were not compatible with maintaining caribou habitat. To the
extent these same types of timber harvests would be implemented today,
such treatments would similarly be incompatible with the habitat
requirements of caribou.
(16) Comment: The State and many other commenters have pointed out
that recent annual surveys for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou have sighted zero to four caribou south
of the United States-Canada border.
Our Response: See our response to Comment 1, which discusses the
issue of occupancy at the time of listing. As noted previously, the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is a
transboundary population, which moves between B.C., Canada and the
United States. Although most of this population is known to inhabit
Canada, individual caribou freely move between Canada and the United
States. We are designating approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) in one
unit containing Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County,
Washington, as critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou. This designation represents a reduction
of approximately 345,552 ac (139,840 ha) from the critical habitat
originally proposed for designation (76 FR 74018, November 30, 2011);
and reflects a 1,000-ft (about 300-m) change in elevation from 4,000 ft
(1,220 m) in the proposed rule, to an elevation at or above 5,000 ft
(1,520 m) in the final critical habitat designation. Factors that were
considered and influenced this change from the proposed rule included:
(1) A revised determination of the geographical area occupied by the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time
of listing based on peer review comments, Scott and Servheen (1984,
1985), as well as census monitoring documenting low numbers of
individual caribou observed in the United States during those annual
surveys, and (2) information and literature reporting the overall
decline of the subspecies mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)
across its range, and in particular the decline of woodland caribou
populations in the southern extent of their range, including the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.
(17) Comment: The State of Idaho indicated that the Service failed
to take into account the best available science, and instead took a
broad-brushed approach that if implemented as written, would carry
significant economic consequences and ultimately hinder recovery
efforts for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou in the region. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho expressed a similar
concern. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) did not support
the proposed critical habitat designation being based on recovery zone
boundaries, stating that much of the recovery zone would not be
suitable caribou habitat for a century or more due to large stand-
replacing fires in the 1960s, and to some extent, timber harvest. The
Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) recommended that the approach and the
area proposed for critical habitat be reevaluated and reduced
significantly using data relevant to Idaho and with input from IDL and
other State agencies.
Our Response: We have reviewed and evaluated all comments and
information provided to the Service, including the State of Idaho's
comments on the proposed rule and DEA. We have used that information to
inform the final designation of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. Although not all of
the information received through public comment is specifically
identified or reflected in our response to comments in this final rule,
it is part of the administrative record for this rulemaking, and has
been given appropriate weight in the final designation. In accordance
with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we used the best scientific data
available to inform this critical habitat designation. We also complied
with the criteria, established procedures, and guidance based on the
Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act
(published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines.
In making this final designation of critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, we reviewed
information from many different sources, including articles in peer-
reviewed journals, scientific status surveys and studies, unpublished
materials, and experts' opinions or personal knowledge, to inform the
final critical habitat designation. We requested comments or
information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and other
[[Page 71050]]
interested parties concerning the proposed rule. Also, in accordance
with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we
solicited expert opinions from knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles. All of the comments and information we received were fully
considered in finalizing this critical habitat designation for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The Summary
of Changes From Proposed Rule section identifies the revisions being
made in this final designation, which include removing areas that were
similar to the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou recovery
zone boundaries, after considering recommendations from the State of
Idaho (including IDFG), the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and peer
reviewers. All the supporting materials used for the final rule,
including literature cited and comments from the public and peer
reviewers, are available for public inspection at the Web site: http://www.regulations.gov.
The State's comments with regard to economic impacts are addressed
in the ``Comments Related to the Economic Analysis'' section below.
(18) Comment: The State of Idaho disagrees that the entire area
proposed for critical habitat was occupied at the time of listing, when
census data collected by the IDFG at the time of listing indicates that
the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou were utilizing habitat
found in close proximity to the U.S. and Canadian border.
Our Response: Our final designation of critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou reflects our
analysis of the best available scientific information, and peer review
comments provided to us during public comment. See also our response to
Comment 1 and the Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule section for a
more robust discussion of occupancy at the time of listing and changes
between the proposed and final critical habitat rules.
(19) Comment: The State of Idaho stated that critical habitat
designation is not prudent at this time, because designation may lead
to increased animosity towards the species and adequate protections are
in place for the species and its habitat, including section 9 of the
Act, which makes it unlawful for anyone to ``take'' southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou animals given its endangered
status.
Our Response: We recognize and appreciate the conservation efforts
that have been implemented for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou, and look forward to continuing this
important work with our partners. However, to the maximum extent
prudent, the designation of critical habitat is required when a species
is listed as endangered or threatened under section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of
the Act. Critical habitat designation is a regulatory action that
defines specific areas that are essential to the conservation of the
species in accordance with the statutory definition. We find the
contiguous habitat proposed in this final rule provides the Primary
Constituent Elements (PCEs) essential for the conservation of caribou
(see Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat for more information),
and therefore we conclude that designation is beneficial to this
species. We have reviewed the best available information and have
determined that the designation of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou would not be expected
to increase the degree of threat by poaching, since increased education
and awareness have made illegal poaching less of a threat than at the
time of listing. Based on this information, we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent. The fact that take
prohibitions already exist under section 9 of the Act exist does not
negate our requirement to designate critical habitat under section
4(a)(3) of the Act. Please refer to the Prudency Determination section
in the proposed rule (76 FR 7401; November 30, 2011), for further
information on our critical habitat prudency determination.
(20) Comment: The State of Idaho (IDFG) requested information on
what additional, if any, management actions would be imposed in areas
where critical habitat is designated, and how they would benefit the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.
Our Response: We do not foresee or anticipate substantive changes
in the existing management of the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou or its habitat, because Federal agencies that
manage land within the critical habitat area already take extensive
measures to protect caribou in these areas. We anticipate that these
actions are likely to continue, and will continue to be subject to
section 7 consultation as appropriate, regardless of critical habitat
designation. See our response to Comment 21 for an additional
discussion on the relationship between critical habitat and land use.
(21) Comment: The State of Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
(IDPR) is concerned that critical habitat management restrictions will
have an effect on recreational activities, particularly snowmobiling,
and motorized vehicle restrictions on roads and trails. The State
commented that the Selkirk Mountains provide the only open terrain for
snowmobiling in north Idaho. The State provided statistics showing a
continual decline in motorized recreation opportunities in the Idaho
Panhandle National Forest (IPNF), primarily restrictions associated
with the grizzly bear recovery zone. Numerous public comments were
received identifying similar concerns as the State.
Our Response: We have no information that would indicate that a
possible outcome of a section 7 consultation with a Federal agency from
designation of critical habitat would result in closures of public
access, or result in restrictions to currently permissible activities
such as recreation on Federal, State, county, or private lands. This is
because designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership,
or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the
designated areas. Critical habitat designation also does not establish
specific land management standards or prescriptions, although Federal
agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing
actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The
Service acknowledges that some seasonal limitations on motorized
vehicle access to public lands have occurred to minimize disturbance to
caribou, including a 1994 closure for a large area of the Selkirk Crest
on the IPNF. This closure was put in place to protect caribou from
impacts related to snowmobiling, in coordination with the IDFG.
Additionally, we understand that a court-ordered injunction in 2006,
which was modified in 2007, has restricted much of the area used by
caribou within the Selkirk Crest from snowmobiling, until the IPNF
develops a winter recreation strategy addressing the effects of
snowmobiling upon the species. However, the critical habitat
designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou has no bearing on either the 1994 closure or the 2006/2007
court-ordered injunction. The Service will work closely with the IPNF
on the development of their winter recreation strategy, which will be
subject to section 7 consultation with the Service.
[[Page 71051]]
Comments From Native American Tribes
(22) Comment: The Kalispel Tribe of Indians stated that the
recovery of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou is of critical importance to the tribe. The tribe views this
population as nearly extinct, and supports the development and
execution of an ambitious plan in order to further recovery, including
implementation of all tools available under the Act.
Our Response: We appreciate the significant interest and active
involvement of the Kalispel Tribe of Indians in the recovery of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The
designation of critical habitat is one tool the Service uses to recover
species, and we look forward to continued work with the tribe toward
that objective.
(23) Comment: The Kalispel Tribe of Indians stated that through
critical habitat designation or an update of the recovery plan, the
following issues must be addressed: (1) A full habitat analysis of the
375,562-acre recovery area must be performed in order to develop an
adequate management plan; (2) based on current and predicted use areas,
an active predator control plan must be implemented; and (3) a winter
use plan for the recovery area must be developed, adopted, and strictly
enforced. The tribe also stated that while they understand the
importance of both balancing predator-prey relationships and the desire
for accessing remote areas for recreation, neither disturbance is
acceptable until caribou populations rebound. They stated that once the
above three conditions are met, the herd should be augmented with new
animals from Canada to bolster the vitality of the existing herd.
Our Response: We appreciate the tribe's comments on the proposed
rule for the designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou. We have reevaluated the best
available data and the information provided in the 1994 Recovery Plan
for the Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou, in light of the results of
population surveys that have been conducted since the time of listing
under the Act. As a result, we are designating 30,011 ac (12,145 ha) at
an elevation of 5,000 ft (1,520 m) and above, on Federal lands in
Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, Washington, as
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou in the United States. This area represents our best
assessment of the area occupied by the species at the time of listing
in 1983, and that provides the PBFs essential to the conservation of
the species in the United States. This area, when combined with areas
secured and protected for the conservation of the species in British
Columbia, (see ``Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule'') meets the
recovery area requirements recommended in the 1994 recovery plan. The
Service supports and agrees that effectively addressing the threats to
the species, including predation and disturbance from recreational
activities, will be essential to recover this species.
(24) Comment: In a letter to the Service on January 10, 2012, the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that the proposed critical habitat area
is in Kootenai Aboriginal Territory and holds special significance to
the tribe. The Kootenai Tribe stated that they are pleased to be able
to work with the Service on a government-to-government level in order
to ensure protection and enhancement of the tribe's treaty resources,
and look forward to consultation during and after the public comment
period. The tribe urged the Service to consider community concerns
about the proposed critical habitat designation and to extend the
public comment period.
Our Response: We appreciate knowing the proposed critical habitat
area holds special significance to the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. We
coordinated with the Kootenai Tribe throughout the critical habitat
designation process, and look forward to continuing this cooperative
relationship beyond the confines of this rulemaking. As noted earlier,
the Service extended the public comment on several occasions to ensure
our determination was based on the best available information and had
the benefit of input from stakeholders on all sides of the issue. We
also held numerous public meetings and conducted two public hearings to
increase communication and address concerns.
(25) Comment: In a letter to the Service on May 15, 2012, the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that the proposed critical habitat rule
``ignores the Federal government's commitments to consult meaningfully
with the federally recognized tribes by attempting to limit such
consultation to issues affecting Tribal lands.'' The tribe stated that
the Service failed to acknowledge its responsibilities to protect and
enhance the Kootenai Tribe's Treaty-reserved rights to fish at usual
and accustomed areas, and hunt and gather on open and unclaimed lands,
and protect cultural resources and access to traditional cultural
properties and spiritual sites.
Our Response: The Service values its government-to-government
relationship with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and greatly appreciated
the formal and informal exchange of information on the proposed
critical habitat designation, on January 9, 2012, in Bonners Ferry,
Idaho, and during a conference call on May 24, 2012, to clarify the
concerns expressed in the tribe's letter. In accordance with the
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951),
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2,
we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully
with recognized Federal tribes on a government-to-government basis.
This government-to-government relationship, as outlined in Secretarial
Order 3206, dated June 5, 1997, establishes several important
principles, including: (1) Working directly with tribes to promote
healthy ecosystems; (2) recognizing that Indian lands are not subject
to the same control as Federal public lands; (3) assisting tribes in
developing and expanding tribal programs to promote healthy ecosystems;
(4) supporting tribal measures that preclude the need for conservation
restrictions; (5) being sensitive to Indian culture, religion, and
spirituality; (6) exchanging information regarding tribal trust
resources; and (7) striving to protect sensitive tribal information
from disclosure.
(26) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho questioned the prudency
determination made by the Service because they believe the Service has
not done the following: (1) Increased education and awareness regarding
caribou among communities in north Idaho; (2) provided evidence that
the threat of poaching may be reduced; or (3) addressed the second
prudency criteria in order to demonstrate a benefit in designating
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou. The Service also received questions regarding the
prudency of the proposed critical habitat designation from the State of
Idaho, private industry, and public commenters.
Our Response: See also our response to the State of Idaho in
Comments 1 and 19. There is no requirement under the Act to demonstrate
an increase in public education and awareness with respect to a
prudency determination. However, we welcome all opportunities to
further
[[Page 71052]]
public education and awareness, since engaging local communities in a
collaborative way is critical to recovering imperiled species. The 5-
year status review for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou states that, historically, over-hunting contributed to
the decline of some caribou populations. However, there is no legal
hunting season on the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou in British Columbia or the United States, although poaching by
``mistaken identity'' shootings may occur. Based on the best available
information, we do not expect poaching to significantly affect the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (USFWS 2008a,
p 23).
(27) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho commented that the
recovery planning effort must be restarted and include all appropriate
Tribal representatives, including Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
representatives. In so doing, the sovereign governments responsible for
caribou recovery can better understand the limiting factors impeding
woodland caribou recovery and develop approaches for addressing those
limiting factors in a holistic and ecosystem-based manner. They stated
that the recovery effort must be transparent, and that communities
affected, Kootenai and non-Kootenai, are entitled to know why the
government is taking these actions, how such actions lead to achievable
goals, and what it means for their livelihoods and ways of life.
Numerous commenters stated that efforts to recover caribou have not
been successful and questioned the need to continue recovery efforts.
Others recommended that the Service consider revising the recovery
plan, including the need to create additional populations to achieve
recovery of the species.
Our Response: Although the status of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou recovery plan is beyond the scope of
this rule, section 4(f)(4) of the Act states that the Secretary shall,
prior to final approval of a new or revised recovery plan, provide
public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment on such
plan, and shall consider all information presented during the public
comment period. Any successful recovery planning effort will require
input and participation by appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, local,
and private stakeholders, to identify measures needed to conserve any
species listed under the Act.
(28) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho recommended that: (1) The
analysis of the IPNF suitable habitat should focus on critical caribou
habitat essential to the conservation of the species; (2) reducing
constraints on forest management and over-the-snow recreation should be
factors considered; and (3) reduced constraints on forest management
would assist not only in increasing community support for caribou
recovery, but also allow for forest management to improve caribou
habitat in areas not currently occupied by caribou, but which may
support caribou populations in the future.
Our Response: We appreciate the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho's concerns
and desire to achieve conservation and recovery of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou. With regard to recommendation
(1), the proposed critical habitat rule was focused on caribou habitat
essential to the conservation of the species, as required under section
3(5)(A) of the Act. With regard to recommendation (2), the designation
of critical habitat does not establish specific land management
standards or prescriptions, and does not automatically close areas to
public access or currently permissible activities, such as recreation,
or restrict all uses of land. However, as a result of critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies are required under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act to consult with the Service on Federal actions that may affect
critical habitat. Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. During the consultation process, if we conclude that
a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat, we are required to provide the
Federal agency with a biological opinion describing reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. Such alternatives must be
economically, as well as technologically, feasible (50 CFR 402.02).
However, regardless of critical habitat designation, Federal
agencies already consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act
because the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
is a listed species under the Act. Federal agencies, such as the USFS,
will continue to consult with us regardless of the designation of
critical habitat, in order to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of caribou. In addition, Federal
agencies that manage land within the proposed critical habitat already
have ongoing management activities that consider the caribou, and
various conservation efforts are in place to benefit the caribou. These
plans have existed and will exist in the future with or without the
designation of critical habitat, and the Service does not anticipate
any additional ``constraints'' on management activities within National
Forest lands. The Service acknowledges that some seasonal limitations
on motorized vehicle access to public lands have occurred to minimize
disturbance to caribou, including a 1994 closure for a large area of
the Selkirk Crest in the IPNF. However, in the Service's analysis of
the proposal, we stated that we do not foresee or anticipate that areas
not currently closed due to the listing of caribou will be closed with
the designation of critical habitat. This is because Federal agencies
that manage land within the proposed critical habitat area already take
extensive measures to protect the caribou within, and these actions
have and will continue to be carried out and consulted on regardless of
critical habitat designation. With regard to concern (3), the Service
will work with Federal agencies through the section 7 consultation
process, as well as other Federal, State, tribal, and private partners
through the recovery planning process, to incorporate the best
available science when developing appropriate management and recovery
actions for caribou.
Comments From Environment Canada
(29) Comment: Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service
provided comments in support of the proposed critical habitat
designation and advised us that they recently initiated the preparation
of a draft recovery strategy for Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain
population. The draft recovery strategy covers many populations,
including the transboundary southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou. The Canadian Wildlife Service stated that they
recognize the detailed implementation planning and actions initiated by
government agencies including the Service and that this information,
along with additional information, will be considered in preparation of
the Canadian recovery strategy. The Canadian Wildlife Service welcomes
any contribution to the recovery strategy that the Service wishes to
make.
Our Response: We appreciate the support provided by the Canadian
Wildlife Service during this critical habitat designation process and
during past caribou transplant and augmentation efforts. We also
acknowledge the recent and ongoing
[[Page 71053]]
conservation actions undertaken by Canada, such as protecting Crown
Lands from timber harvest within the Selkirk Mountains. We look forward
to participating in the development of the draft recovery strategy as
it pertains to the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou.
Public Comments
(30) Comment: Several commenters requested that the Service hold
public meetings within the communities affected by the proposed
critical habitat designation and notify the media of these meetings.
One commenter suggested that a public hearing be held in Bonners Ferry,
ID. One organization suggested the Service should have held public
meetings in additional locations close to the Selkirk Mountains, such
as Sandpoint, ID, and Spokane, WA. One commenter requested that we
engage with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and any other tribal/indigenous
groups in the area affected by the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: During the rulemaking process, the Service conducted
numerous outreach efforts to be responsive to public requests for
additional information, including the following:
January 9, 2012: We met with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.
May 24, 2012: We held a follow-up conference call with
members of the tribe to discuss the proposed critical habitat rule.
January 9, 2012: We presented information on the proposed
critical habitat designation at a meeting of the Kootenai Valley
Resource Initiative (KVRI) in Bonners Ferry, Boundary County, Idaho.
January 24, 2012; February 28, 2012; March 26, 2012; June
24, 2012: We participated in public information and coordination
meetings in Bonner County, Idaho, at the request of Bonner County
Commissioners.
April 19, 2012: We participated in a public information
and coordination meeting in Boundary County, Idaho, at the request of
Boundary County Commissioners.
April 28, 2012: We held an informational session (an open
house format for personal dialogue and question-and-answer period about
the proposed rule) and a public hearing on April 28, 2012, in Bonners
Ferry, Idaho, at the request of the Governor of Idaho and the
Commissioners of Boundary County, Idaho. The public informational
session and public hearing were announced in a press release and in the
notice of availability published in the Federal Register on March 21,
2012 (77 FR 16512).
June 16, 2012: We held an informational session and a
public hearing in Coolin, Idaho, which was announced in a press release
and in the notice of availability published in the Federal Register on
May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32075).
The Service also notified the public about opportunities for input
on the proposed rule through press releases and legal announcements in
local newspapers. Information specific to informational sessions and
public hearings in Boundary and Bonner Counties was published in the
Federal Register and the following newspapers within 10 days of the
meetings and public hearings: Newport Miner (WA); Spokesman Review
(WA); Coeur d'Alene Press (ID); Idaho Statesman (ID); Lewiston Morning
Tribune (ID); Bonner County Daily Bee (ID); Bonners Ferry Herald (ID);
and Priest River Times (ID). Comment periods, instructions for comment
submission, and proposed rule information occurred through press
release notifications that reached Idaho and Washington media,
citizens, elected officials, tribes, nongovernmental organizations,
special interest groups, industry and business, academic institutions,
Federal/State/local agencies and other interested parties. All formal
public comment was recorded by a court reporter and is incorporated
into the public record.
(31) Comment: Over the course of the rulemaking process and the
three public comment periods, one commenter wrote to request that the
public comment period be extended for an additional 6 months. One
commenter requested an extension of the public comment period in order
to allow time for the Service to educate the community on the proposed
critical habitat rule and to allow Federal and State agencies and
tribes time to review the proposed critical habitat rule.
Our Response: We requested written comments from the public on the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou during three comment periods,
which were open for a total of 150 days. The first 60-day comment
period, associated with the publication of the proposed critical
habitat rule (76 FR 74018), opened on November 30, 2011, and closed on
January 30, 2012. We reopened the comment period for 60 days on March
12, 2012 (77 FR 16512). During the second comment period, we held a
public hearing in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, on April 28, 2012.
We also requested comments on the proposed critical habitat
designation and associated DEA during a third comment period that
opened May 31, 2012, and closed on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 32075). During
this comment period, we also held a public hearing on June 16, 2012, in
Coolin, Idaho. We believe we have provided adequate time for the public
to comment on the proposed rule and associated DEA, to ensure our final
determination is based on the best available information.
(32) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the public, State
governments, and local communities be consulted early in the rulemaking
process, as they are key stakeholders in the process. One commenter
noted that it is important for proposed critical habitat rules to have
public support in order to build trust between the Federal Government
and the public. Another commenter expressed concern that the Service
had not coordinated with, nor shared the proposed critical habitat rule
with, the State of Idaho and Department of Fish and Game prior to
publication in the Federal Register.
Our Response: The Service is committed to meaningful coordination
with all of our partners when it comes to our activities. We also take
seriously our responsibility to coordinate with other local, State, and
tribal governments and the general public. In regard to this
commitment, the Service follows specific policies and procedures to
inform the public and all governmental entities when we are considering
actions such as listing endangered or threatened species, designating
critical habitat, or developing recovery plans. These procedures
frequently include opportunities for open meetings or hearings beyond
the general notices and letters we send out. While developing the
proposed rule, the Service reached out to several Federal and State
agency experts and scientists to obtain the most current and best
available information for inclusion in the proposed rule. Where
agencies were able to respond to these efforts in a timely manner, the
information was evaluated, and relevant information was included in the
proposed rule.
(33) Comment: Commenters stated that the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou represents a very small percentage of
the overall North American caribou population, that caribou are at home
on open tundra in Canada, Alaska, and Greenland (not in Idaho), and
questioned the need for the proposed critical habitat in Idaho.
Commenters also stated that tens of thousands of
[[Page 71054]]
caribou roam Canada and Alaska, which represent the caribou's preferred
habitat. One commenter requested clarification regarding the difference
between the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
and the caribou of the Brooks Range in Alaska.
Our Response: All caribou in the world are a single species
(Rangifer tarandus); however, there are seven subspecies of caribou.
The subspecies found in Alaska, including within the Brooks Mountain
range, is the barren-ground subspecies (Rangifer tarandus granti),
which resides in open tundra and mountainous areas. The southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou belongs to the
subspecies Rangifer tarandus caribou. For additional information on
woodland caribou, please see the Background section of the 2008 5-Year
Review, and for additional information on the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou, please see the Background
section of the proposed rule published November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018).
Both of these references are available on http://www.regulations.gov,
or by request from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
(34) Comment: Bonner County, Idaho, questioned the need for
designating critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou, which they believe is ``a direct result
of the 1984 listing rule which has been shown to be incorrect.'' The
County recommended that if the Service does move forward with a
critical habitat rule, the designation should be reevaluated and
reduced significantly, using data relevant to north Idaho, in
consultation and coordination with the IDL, IDFG, and Bonner County
Commissioners.
Our Response: The meaning behind the County's reference to the 1984
listing rule being incorrect is not entirely clear; however, the
designation of critical habitat is required when a species is listed as
endangered or threatened under section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, to the
maximum extent it is prudent and determinable. See our response to
comment 19 for additional information regarding our prudency
determination. This final critical habitat designation fully considers
all comments received, which includes scientific information from peer
reviewers and the IDFG. Revisions from the proposed critical habitat
designation are described in the Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule
section.
(35) Comment: The Boundary County Commissioners commented that the
proposed critical habitat did not contain the PBFs essential to the
conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou. The Commissioners also commented that the Service should focus
its critical habitat designation on the area of Little Snowy Top
Mountain, where all sightings of nontransplanted southern Selkirk
Mountains woodland caribou have occurred.
Our Response: The Service based our final designation of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou on the best available scientific information, including
comments and information received from peer reviewers, Federal and
State agencies, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and public comments
received during the three public comment periods. Based on this
information, we are designating 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou in the United States that was known to be occupied at the time
of listing in 1983 and 1984. All of the areas designated in this final
rule contain the PBFs and habitat characteristics essential to conserve
the species, for the reasons explained in the ``Physical or Biological
Features'' section below.
(36) Comment: Bonner County, Idaho stated that ``the proposed
listing also raises significant concerns about possible Federal nexus
situations whereby the County will likely be prohibited from winter
snowmobile trail grooming. At present, Bonner County must obtain
permission from both the USFS and IDL. Federal nexus situations may
also include future requirements to obtain permits for other as yet
unknown nexus situations created by further Federal mandates.'' The
County also believes ``the proposed listing would significantly impact
Bonner County's ability to manage over 400 miles of groomed snowmobile
trails used by visitors and residents alike.''
Our Response: Although the County's comment appears to be focused
on the ``proposed listing,'' we are assuming they were referring to the
proposed critical habitat designation instead. However, there are no
Bonner County lands being designated as critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou in this final
rule.
(37) Comment: We received extensive public comments suggesting that
designation of critical habitat will result in either a complete
closure of the designated area or extensive restrictions to human
access within the designated area for recreational purposes (including,
but not limited to, snowmobiling, hiking, picnicking, and camping). We
received many comment letters both in support of and in opposition to
the critical habitat designation based on the assumption that this
designation will require land closures and access restrictions. Many
supporters noted that there are many opportunities to recreate outside
of southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou habitat,
with particular emphasis on snowmobiles. Of the commenters in
opposition, some expressed concern that restrictions and closures would
have a significant impact on the economy. Other commenters expressed
opposition to the proposal because they believe there are few, if any,
caribou in the United States, and implementing closures or restrictions
on uses is not justified. Finally, a few commenters stated that
snowmobiles do not present a real threat to caribou, and therefore
areas proposed for designation of critical habitat should not be
closed, or have restrictions placed on access.
Our Response: We have no information that would indicate this
designation of critical habitat will result in the closure of areas to
public access or result in restrictions to currently permissible
activities such as recreation on Federal, State, county, or private
lands, as is more fully discussed in our response to comment 21. There
is also no information that would indicate the designation would result
in significant economic impacts, as is discussed in the Comments
Related to Economics and the Draft Economic Analysis section.
(38) Comment: Several commenters objected to the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou herd being identified as
approximately 36 animals in the proposed rule, stating that few animals
have been documented in the United States in recent years. One
commenter expressed confusion between the population number provided by
the Service (36 animals), and population numbers provided in various
media outlets (40 to 60 animals). Several commenters stated they spent
considerable time in the areas proposed as critical habitat and have
never seen a caribou. One commenter stated that since the Service did
not present recent population numbers of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou in the United States in the proposed
critical habitat rule, there is no scientific support for a designation
of critical habitat.
Our Response: The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou is a transboundary population, which moves between British
Columbia, Canada and the United States. Although most of this
population is known to
[[Page 71055]]
inhabit Canada, individual caribou freely move between Canada and the
United States. For example, in the last 3 years, the winter census
results for southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
have gone from 43 total caribou with 2 individuals observed in the
United States in 2010, to 36 total caribou with none observed in the
United States in 2011. Twenty seven caribou were counted in the 2012
winter survey, with 4 of those individuals observed in the United
States (Woodland Caribou Census Report 2012, p. 5).
(39) Comment: Some commenters opposed critical habitat designation
for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, as
they believe the population is not viable. Other commenters suggested
that the viability of this population is fragile and that, as a result,
the entire proposed area should be designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: The purpose of the Act, in part, is to provide a
means to conserve listed species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. Once a species is listed under the Act, we are required to
implement conservation actions toward its recovery. The designation of
critical habitat is a statutory conservation requirement under the Act,
unless designation would not be beneficial to the species. For the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat would be
beneficial, as has been previously discussed. We have determined that
much of the area proposed as critical habitat is not occupied or
essential to the conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou. This is more fully discussed in the
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule section.
(40) Comment: Several commenters opposed critical habitat
designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of caribou,
as the individuals of this herd in the United States are transplanted
individuals, and not native U.S. caribou. Additional comments stated
that the transplanted animals did not want to remain in the United
States and migrated back to Canada. One commenter indicated the Service
should not use telemetry data from transplanted caribou in determining
the caribou recovery areas, as these animals did not represent true
members of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou.
Our Response: Under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, a critical habitat
designation may include the geographical areas occupied by the species
at the time of listing on which are found the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection, as well as
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing that are determined to be essential for the conservation of
the species. This final critical habitat designation: (1) Is based on
the best available scientific information (see our response to Comment
1); (2) is within the geographical area occupied by the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time of
listing; (3) identifies those areas that are essential to the
conservation of the species; and (4) will advance important
conservation efforts with our partners toward recovering this species.
(41) Comment: One commenter recommended that the Service not
exclude any areas from critical habitat in the final rule. One
organization noted that it accepted the Service's decision not to
include the Schweitzer Mountain Resort along the southern boundary on
social grounds, given the difficulty of managing there.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary
shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of
the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. The Service did not propose to exclude any areas in the
proposed rule, and the Secretary is not exercising his discretion to
exclude any areas from critical habitat in the final rule. The
Schweitzer Mountain Resort was not proposed for designation as critical
habitat (which is not the same as excluding from designation under
section 4(b)(2) provisions of the Act), because it is a highly
developed recreational destination and does not contain any of the
identified PBFs essential to supporting the conservation of this
species.
(42) Comment: One commenter urged the Service to exclude any areas
from critical habitat below 4,000 ft (1,219 m) in elevation due to
economic impacts. The commenter also stated, ``an exclusion of this
nature would provide clear guidance to Federal agencies when road
access agreements are being considered below 4,000 ft (1,219 m) in
elevation and when accessing private lands that do not contain critical
habitat at higher elevations.''
Our Response: No areas were excluded from critical habitat based on
economic impacts; however, the final designation includes areas at
5,000 ft (1,520 m) and higher in elevation. The 5,000 ft (1,520 m)
elevation will be the elevation baseline considered by the Federal
agencies for purposes of section 7 consultation when evaluating road
access agreements. Maps identifying the specific location of these
areas are available on the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Service Web page,
http://www.fws.gov/idaho, or from that office (see ADDRESSES).
(43) Comment: Many comments suggested that the Service should
increase the proposed designated critical habitat to include: (1) The
entire recovery area identified in the 1994 Recovery Plan (443,000 ac)
(179,276 ha); (2) areas currently unoccupied, as they may become more
important as the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou recovers; (3) large areas required to maintain connectivity
between essential habitats, especially in light of the impacts of
climate change; or (4) areas of historical occupation, such as
additional areas in Washington and Idaho, as well as in Montana. Some
commenters indicated concern that the critical habitat area as proposed
would not support a fully recovered population of southern Selkirk
Mountains woodland caribou. One commenter urged the Service to consider
including the Priority Areas 1, 2, and 3 as outlined in Kinley and Apps
(2007) in the critical habitat designation.
Our Response: See Section ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat'' below for a discussion of our rationale for constructing the
critical habitat unit, including the biological needs of the species,
seasonal habitat requirements, and the relationship of the essential
PBFs and primary constituent elements to the conservation needs of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The Service
used the best available scientific information on the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou seasonal use of habitat and
movement between habitats to quantify the areas we are designating as
critical habitat, including the Priority 1, 2, and 3 areas identified
in the Kinley and Apps (2007) model. If additional data become
available in the future, the Secretary can revise the designation under
the
[[Page 71056]]
authority of section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, as appropriate.
(44) Comment: Many comments suggested that the proposed critical
habitat designation was too large, and that either specific areas
should be removed from the final designation, or the Service should not
designate any critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou because: (1) Fires have eliminated old-
growth forests in the historical range of the caribou in the United
States, and no suitable habitat exists; (2) the proposed critical
habitat areas do not contain the physical or biological features
necessary for the survival of the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou; or (3) recent studies indicate the majority of the
range and movements of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou occurs at or above 5,500 ft (1,676 m).
Our Response: We have used the best scientific data available to
inform our final determination of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, as is required under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All areas designated as critical habitat
contain one or more of the PCEs essential to the conservation of the
species. See our response to comment 43 for additional information.
(45) Comment: Several commenters indicated that the United States
comprises only the southernmost portion of the range of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and this habitat is
unsuitable to support the caribou population. Therefore, they believe
critical habitat should not be designated in the United States. One
commenter stated that protecting species that have their full range
within the United States should be the focus of the Service's efforts.
Our Response: The critical habitat being designated in this final
rule represents the geographical areas essential to the conservation of
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, within
the area known to be occupied at the time of listing. The biological
basis for this determination is more fully explained in the Critical
Habitat section, below.
(46) Comment: One commenter indicated that the Service cannot rely
on a map showing individual caribou observations, as a map showing
observed locations is not relevant when individual animal tracking is
not utilized (one animal can create many or most of the location marks
over a period of many years). Another commenter stated that data points
used to identify caribou locations should only be from the native
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, not
transplanted animals.
Our Response: We used the best available information, including
reports, peer-reviewed literature, and other data, to make our final
determination on the area to be designated for critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. We have
provided a thorough description of our analysis in the Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat section in the final rule. Telemetry data
from transplanted animals was not used as a basis for establishing the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing in the final rule.
See our response to Comment 1 for additional information regarding
occupancy data used to establish the geographic area occupied by the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time
of listing.
(47) Comment: Several commenters noted that the draft land
management plan for the IPNF proposes area designations, such as
wilderness, primitive, and backcountry, which have allowable activities
within these designations that are likely not compatible with caribou
recovery and caribou critical habitat goals. For example, backcountry
and primitive designations may allow motorized winter recreation. The
potential increase in wilderness designation within the draft land
management plans may have an impact on the potential losses of critical
habitat due to wildfire. Suppression of wildfires within wilderness is
generally a low priority nationally. Potential wilderness designations
within caribou recovery and critical habitat should include measures
for aggressive fire suppression to prevent losses of caribou habitat
within wilderness.
Our Response: The approval and implementation of land management
plans on National Forest Service lands are Federal actions subject to
section 7 consultation under the Act by the land management agency. The
Service is not a land management agency in any of the areas being
designated as critical habitat. The Act prohibits Federal agencies from
carrying out actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. With regard to the above activities, it is the responsibility
of the Federal land management agency to consider the effects of its
actions on designated critical habitat. For purposes of critical
habitat, section 7 consultation is only triggered when the Federal
agency determines that its action may affect critical habitat. Actions
that (1) may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, or (2)
result in wholly beneficial effects to critical habitat, are evaluated
through informal consultation with the Service. It is the
responsibility of Federal agencies to request formal section 7
consultation for actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely
affect critical habitat. During the consultation process, if we
conclude that a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat, we are required to provide
the Federal agency with a biological opinion describing reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. Such alternatives must be
economically, as well as technologically, feasible (50 CFR 402.02). See
the Effects of Critical Habitat Designation section for additional
information on section 7 requirements as they relate to this final
designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou.
(48) Comment: Several commenters indicated that the designation of
critical habitat would prevent certain land uses and land use
management, specifically timber harvesting and wildfire suppression.
One commenter expressed concern that curtailing timber management
within the critical habitat area would result in greater fuel loads and
increased risk of catastrophic fires, which in turn could threaten the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The
commenter stated that there are silvicultural practices that could
benefit the caribou and its habitat over the long term.
Our Response: Please refer to our response to comment 13 regarding
fire and timber management. We acknowledge that natural wildfire plays
an important role in maintaining a mosaic of forest successional stages
that provides habitat for a variety of species endemic to this
ecosystem, and that fire suppression can alter vegetative mosaics and
species composition. Therefore, in this final rule we have incorporated
language addressing the importance of developing and implementing a
wildland fire use plan to allow for the appropriate non-suppression of
naturally ignited fires, and the implementation of a prescribed fire
program.
(49) Comment: At least one commenter alleged, ``Federal land and
resource agencies routinely act without prior consultation with the
U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), and without regard to National Security
implications.''
[[Page 71057]]
Our Response: We disagree with the comment with respect to the
Service. As we developed this final rule, we coordinated with the USBP
through formal and informal notices, stakeholder calls, public
meetings, presentations at Spokane Sector Border Management Task Force
meetings, and interagency meetings. The purposes of this interaction
were to share and clarify information regarding the proposed rule and
to seek feedback on any concerns. Although we did not receive any
written comments from the USBP in response to the proposed rule, we
have fully considered all information provided by the agency during our
various interactions in this final rule. See our response to comment 51
with regard to USBP activities for additional information.
(50) Comment: A few commenters were concerned that critical habitat
designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou would affect USBP operations.
Our Response: Throughout the critical habitat designation process,
there was an erroneous public perception that designating critical
habitat equated to a closure of the designated area. The Service does
not manage any of the lands being designated as critical habitat.
Further, the designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership, or establish any closures, refuges, wilderness areas,
reserves, preserves, or restrictions on use or access to the designated
areas. The designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou would not restrict, regulate,
or determine the ability of the USBP to operate in close proximity to
the border. Within caribou habitat, the USBP operates, for the most
part, on National Forest System lands and its existing roads and
trails. The March 31, 2006, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Homeland Security, and
Secretary of Agriculture Regarding Cooperative National Security and
Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands Along the U.S. Borders
commits the agencies to preventing illegal entry into the United
States, protecting Federal lands and natural and cultural resources,
and where possible, preventing adverse impacts associated with illegal
entry by cross-border-violators (CBVs). The intent of the MOU is to
provide consistent goals, principles, and guidance related to border
security, such as law enforcement operations; tactical infrastructure
installation; utilization of roads; minimization and/or prevention of
significant impact on or impairment of natural and cultural resources;
implementation of the Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, and other
related environmental laws, regulation, and policies across land
management agencies; and provide for coordination and sharing
information on threat assessments and other risks, plans for
infrastructure and technology improvements on Federal lands, and
operational and law enforcement staffing changes. Through this 2006
MOU, and local groups such as the Spokane Sector Borderlands Management
Task Force, the three departments are cooperating to understand,
respect, and accomplish their respective missions. The MOU includes
provisions for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicle motor
operations on existing public and administrative roads and/or trails
and in areas previously designated by the land management agency for
off-road vehicle use at any time, provided that such use is consistent
with presently authorized public or administrative use. It also
includes provisions for CBP requests for access to additional Federal
lands (e.g., areas not previously designated by the land management
agency for off-road use) for such purposes as routine patrols,
nonemergency operational access, and establishment of temporary camps
or other operational activities. The MOU states: ``Nothing in this MOU
is intended to prevent CBP-BP agents from exercising existing exigent/
emergency authorities to access lands, including authority to conduct
motorized off-road pursuit of suspected CBVs at any time, including in
areas designated or recommended as wilderness, or in wilderness study
areas when, in their professional judgment based on articulated facts,
there is a specific exigency/emergency involving human life, health,
safety of persons within the area, or posing a threat to national
security, and they conclude that such motorized off-road pursuit is
reasonably expected to result in the apprehension of the suspected
CBVs.'' Accordingly, there is no verifiable information that would
suggest the designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou would affect CBP operations.
(51) Comment: A commenter stated that the Service does not
understand that a Federal nexus exists on virtually every timber
harvest on all land ownerships, be they Federal, State, or private.
They believe that there are many places where the Federal Government
has rules and regulations affecting timber harvest on all forested
lands, and that any timber sale could be stopped within the area
designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: In the 29 years since the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou was emergency listed in 1983 (48 FR
1722), the States of Washington and Idaho have not been required to
consult with the Service, as there has not been an activity with a
Federal nexus (e.g., a Federal permit such as a Corp of Engineers (COE)
404 permit, or the use of Federal funds). However, even if there was a
Federal nexus, the timber harvest would not necessarily be prohibited.
Federal action agencies must evaluate the potential effects of each
action on its own merits, carrying out actions that would destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal action (e.g., winter
recreation, energy transmission, mining, or road construction) that is
not likely to cause destruction or adverse modification of caribou
habitat may not be materially affected by a critical habitat
designation. If a Federal action would result in destruction or adverse
modification of caribou habitat, the Service would suggest reasonable
and prudent alternatives to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. As stated earlier, during the section
7 consultation process, if we conclude that a proposed action is likely
to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we are required to provide the Federal agency with a
biological opinion describing reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the action that would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Such alternatives must be economically, as well as
technologically, feasible (50 CFR 402.02).
(52) Comment: A commenter stated the proposed rule fails to include
a discussion of the types of ``special management considerations or
protections'' potentially needed that differ from current and recent
uses. Therefore, the threats to habitat cannot be adequately addressed
in the context of section 7 consultation or other measures. This is a
reason for a more inclusive extent of critical habitat than what is
proposed.
Our Response: The proposed rule identifies the types of Federal
actions that may affect critical habitat, and should result in section
7 consultation (see Application of the ``Adverse Modification''
Standard), (76 FR 74030; November 30, 2011). For these types of
actions, any management actions necessary for a particular Federal
action would be case-specific and depend on
[[Page 71058]]
the outcome of the section 7 consultation process. Within the area
designated as critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou, the Service's 1994 Recovery Plan, and
the CNF and IPNF LRMPs contain standards and guidelines pertaining to
the management of the species and its habitat. See the Special
Management Considerations or Protections section below for additional
information.
(53) Comment: Several commenters fear that, given the critical
habitat designation is in response to a court-ordered settlement
agreement in a case initiated by environmental organizations, the true
intent of these environmental organizations is to close more public
lands to access, and the designation of critical habitat is one way of
accomplishing this.
Our Response: The Service has no control over the future actions of
environmental groups, recreational organizations, development or timber
interests, governmental organizations, or others, with regard to their
future responses to the final critical habitat designation. As stated
earlier, throughout the critical habitat designation process, there was
an erroneous public perception that designating critical habitat
equated to a closure of the areas being designated. However, the
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or
establish any closures, refuges, wilderness areas, reserves, preserves,
or restrictions on use or access to the designated areas. It does
require that Federal agencies consult with us under section 7 of the
Act if their actions may affect critical habitat. See our response to
Comment 51 which discusses our section 7 consultation history since the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou was listed
under the Act.
(54) Comment: One commenter asserted that since designation of
critical habitat can potentially have significant impacts upon the
environment, economy, and quality of life of people within the affected
region, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
warranted.
Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule (76 FR 74033), outside
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we
do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with designating critical
habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons in
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). The U.S. Court
of Appeals upheld this position for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (Ninth Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042
(1966)).
(55) Comment: Two commenters, including the City of Bonners Ferry,
commented that part of the watersheds for the City of Bonners Ferry's
primary source of drinking water (Myrtle Creek and Snow Creek
drainages) are within the proposed caribou critical habitat
designation. These commenters oppose any further regulations or
restrictions placed on the USFS, or any other entity, that would
adversely affect the management of those watersheds for providing the
City of Bonners Ferry's drinking water. One commenter recommended that
consideration be given for removal of the Myrtle and Snow Creek
watersheds from critical habitat designation, including areas beyond
the watersheds, to control pollution, infestation, or wildfires.
Our Response: Although the watershed for the City of Bonners Ferry
is not included in the final critical habitat designation for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, the Service
appreciates and is sensitive to the City of Bonners Ferry's desire to
protect the Myrtle and Snow Creek drainages, which are the primary
sources of drinking water for the city. Federal agencies have been
coordinating with the Service on the management of caribou and its
habitat since this population was emergency listed in 1983. We
recognize that uncontrolled wildfires can have devastating effects on
the water quality of watersheds. Hence, the Service participated in the
development of the Myrtle Creek Healthy Forest Restoration Project,
which was designed in 2007 to reduce the wildfire risk in the Myrtle
Creek watershed through management of hazardous fuels. Finally, we are
committed to working with the USFS to develop a strategy that provides
direction to the USFS for the use of natural and unplanned fires, and
have incorporated language into the final rule addressing this issue.
(56) Comment: Many commenters suggested that the Service should
increase the proposed critical habitat designation due to climate
change, while others commented that the proposed critical habitat
designation should be decreased or not designated due to climate change
predictions.
Our Response: We acknowledge that climate change could change the
suitability of southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou habitat in the future. However, we are required to designate
critical habitat based upon the best available scientific data at the
time that we finalize the designation. At this point in time, reliable
projections of future climate change in caribou habitat are not
available. We acknowledge that higher elevation habitat is likely to
become increasingly important in the face of potential climate changes.
In this regard, designated critical habitat includes high elevation
habitat and migratory corridors between suitable habitat areas in the
United States and Canada. We also find the best scientific information
available suggests that the range of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou has largely shifted northward, and the
vast majority of the areas that provide the essential PBFs for this
population of woodland caribou now occur within Canada. See Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat below for a discussion of our
rationale for constructing the critical habitat unit. Critical habitat
can be revised under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act as appropriate,
as additional scientific data on climate change or other significant
information becomes available.
(57) Comment: Some commenters suggested that, in the face of
climate change, the threat from predation would increase and that,
because of this increased threat, there was no need to designate
critical habitat.
Our Response: We acknowledge that climate change may have presently
unknown effects on predation and other threats in the future. Utzig
(2005 p. 10) states that it is impossible to predict specific changes
to the ecosystems that contribute to caribou mortality (i.e., predation
and other causes) due to climate change. However, the Service has a
statutory obligation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to designate
critical habitat, in part, based on the best available scientific data
available. Since there is no scientific information that would inform a
reliable projection regarding the interaction between climate change
and predation, we are unable to factor the concern raised into the
final critical habitat designation.
(58) Comment: During a public hearing, one commenter suggested that
suitable habitat did not exist in the Selkirk Mountains due to changes
in vegetation reflected in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Plant Hardiness Zone Maps. The commenter stated the Selkirk Mountains
should not be designated as critical habitat, based on this
information.
Our Response: The USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Maps are based on
average annual winter temperatures, and reflect standards by which
[[Page 71059]]
gardeners and growers can determine which plants are most likely to
thrive in a given location. However, information provided by a Forest
Ecologist/Forest Silviculturist with the IPNF (Zack 2012, pers. comm.),
suggests that native vegetation species generally have adaptive
tolerance to a range of climatic conditions, and that in the last few
decades, the IPNF has not observed any shifts in boundaries for habitat
type groups (e.g., subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce, and western hemlock/
western red cedar climax forests). Habitat types are land
classifications based on potential natural vegetation defined as ``all
those land areas potentially capable of supporting similar plant
communities at climax.'' (Cooper, Neiman, Roberts. 1991. Forest Habitat
Types of Northern Idaho: A second Approximation) (Zack 2012, pers.
comm.). Similar to the IPNF, we do not anticipate any shifts of
vegetation boundaries have occurred on the CNF with respect to habitat
type groups (e.g., subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce, and western hemlock/
western red cedar climax forests) due to the fact that the CNF is
within the same mountain range as the IPNF and containing similar
elevations, soils, geology, precipitation patterns, etc., as the IPNF.
Federal Agency Comments
(59) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Pacific Northwest
Region commented that: (1) The proposed critical habitat rule cautions
about management activities that reduce and fragment areas in a manner
that creates a patchwork of different age classes or prevents young
forests from achieving old-growth habitat characteristics; (2) part of
the concern is that this patchwork draws other ungulates within
proximity of caribou; and (3) this consequently brings in predators
such as mountain lions and wolves. They also commented that within the
cedar/hemlock and subalpine fir/spruce zones, there are instances of
inclusions of lodgepole pine or other seral tree cover types, and that
removing these seral trees through timber harvest or fire, and managing
for shade-tolerant understory, could hasten the conversion of these
sites to suitable caribou habitat. They requested that the Service
characterize the degree to which created openings may be considered as
management tools to maintain or promote suitable caribou habitat in
such cases.
Our Response: We are unable to identify a characteristic opening
size within caribou habitat that would always be compatible with, or
promote the development of, suitable caribou habitat. As the USFS
suggests, created openings may facilitate the retention or development
of old-growth characteristics suitable for use by caribou. However, the
effective sizes of these openings would best be determined on a site-
specific basis, taking into consideration the existing forested
ecological conditions and the natural disturbance history of the area.
We will continue to work with the USFS to gain more information
regarding these management options and their scientific applicability
within caribou critical habitat areas.
(60) Comment: The USFS commented that the proposed rule notes the
IPNF and the CNF have vegetation management direction in existing
Forest Plans, which contribute to the protection of the essential PBFs
by analyzing timber management actions on a site-specific basis to
consider impacts to caribou habitat. They commented that Forest Plan
direction allows the USFS to treat areas to help trend capable habitat
into suitable habitat for caribou, but the Application of the Adverse
Modification Standard section in the proposed rule indicates that many
silvicultural activities used to help trend capable habitat toward
suitable habitat (e.g., thinning, prescribed fire, timber harvest)
would adversely modify critical habitat. The USFS suggested adding a
statement to the Application of the Adverse Modification Standard
section clarifying that stands that are not currently suitable (i.e.,
have a preponderance of less desirable cover types such as lodgepole
pine), and are not likely to attain suitability absent a stand-
replacing disturbance event, may need treatment to facilitate movement
towards preferred cover types (such as subalpine fir).
Our Response: We acknowledge that timber harvest in some situations
may be used to achieve or promote a more rapid attainment of tree
species composition or certain structural characteristics (e.g., old
growth), and that the effects of silvicultural practices (e.g.,
commercial harvests, thinning, etc.) to critical habitat are scale-
dependent. We do not anticipate that either the IPNF or CNF would
propose a timber harvest at the scale that would result in the adverse
modification of critical habitat. For a proposed Federal action to
result in adverse modification (i.e., substantially reduce the
conservation value of the critical habitat area to an extent that would
affect its ability to serve its intended recovery role), it would
likely have to significantly alter large areas of high-elevation mature
to old-growth western hemlock/western red cedar climax forest, or
subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce climax forest, or significantly restrict
caribou movement through such areas. The scale of such a project would
be such that it would essentially affect the landscape, versus a forest
stand or multiple forest stands. As stated previously, Federal agencies
have been consulting with the Service on caribou, within the area
designated as critical habitat, since the species was emergency listed
in 1983. Many of these consultations involved timber harvest, and none
of the consultations involving timber harvest resulted in jeopardy
determinations. Therefore, in light of our history of consultations
with Federal land management agencies, we find that it is unlikely that
a Federal agency would propose a timber harvest project at a scale that
would potentially represent jeopardy to the species and/or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Nonetheless, should this
occur, to avoid adverse modification we would most likely recommend
reducing the scale of impacts to mature and old growth stands within
western hemlock/western red cedar and subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce
forests. If impacts are temporary or seasonal in nature and avoidance
is not possible, the Service would most likely recommend temporary,
seasonal timing constraints be employed to avoid disruption of caribou
movement and/or seasonal habitat use.
(61) Comment: The IPNF stated that blanket direction to always take
rapid response measures whenever wildfire occurs in the area may be
detrimental to other species (e.g., grizzly bear, lynx, and whitebark
pine), and is not ecologically sustainable. They suggested a better
course of action would be to rapidly analyze the appropriate actions to
take (or perhaps not take), which considers the needs of all resources
and species.
Our Response: We agree that natural wildfire plays an important
role in maintaining a mosaic of forest successional stages that
provides habitat for a variety of species endemic to this ecosystem,
and that fire suppression can alter vegetative mosaics and species
composition. Therefore, in this final rule we have incorporated
language addressing the importance of developing and implementing a
wildland fire use plan to allow for the appropriate nonsuppression of
naturally ignited fires, and the implementation of a prescribed fire
program. Such a program would be prudent to implement across all IPNF
ownership, including within the area designated as critical habitat for
caribou.
[[Page 71060]]
(62) Comment: The IPNF commented that language in the proposed rule
pertaining to ``little to no disturbance'' within designated caribou
critical habitat should be clarified. The IPNF is concerned over how
this language may affect recreational activities such as snowmobiling
and hiking, as well as U.S. Customs and Border activities.
Our Response: One of the survival strategies of caribou is to
spread out over large areas at high elevations, thereby reducing their
density and, thus, susceptibility to predation (Seip and Cichowski
1996, p. 79; MCTAC 2002, pp. 20-21; Kinley and Woods 2006, all).
Fragmentation and loss of caribou habitat make it difficult for the
species to spread out over large areas, and these have been identified
as threats to caribou conservation (USFWS 2008, pgs. 16-17). Caribou
are also sensitive to winter recreational activities, and may be
displaced from habitat by recreational activities, especially
snowmobiling (Kinley 2003, pg. 25; Seip et al. 2007, pg. 1543; Mahoney
et al. 2001, pg. 42; Reimers et al. 2003, pg. 751; Tyler 1991, pgs.
183-188). Additionally, one peer reviewer stated that interactions
between caribou and hikers on preferred summer range may increase
susceptibility of caribou to predation (Allen 2012, pers. comm.). Thus,
recreational activities can exacerbate the effects of forest
fragmentation and loss to caribou by further condensing caribou habitat
use into smaller areas. Forcing caribou into smaller areas (i.e.,
increasing their density) may increase their susceptibility to
predation. Predation, while not necessarily within the scope of this
rule to address, is nonetheless a factor that has been identified as a
long-term threat to caribou persistence. Therefore, the proposed rule
suggests that human activities in designated caribou critical habitat
should be minimized to reduce some of the ongoing effects of caribou
habitat fragmentation upon the species. However, we acknowledge that
the IPNF has implemented extensive measures to protect caribou and
caribou habitat on its ownership, both within the area proposed for
designation as critical habitat as well as the existing Selkirk
Mountain Caribou Recovery Zone. Therefore, we do not foresee or
anticipate substantive changes in the existing management of caribou or
its habitat within the area designated as critical habitat on IPNF
ownership.
Regarding the final rule's effect upon USBP activities, the
designation of critical habitat for southern Selkirk Mountains woodland
caribou would not restrict, regulate, or determine the ability of the
USBP to operate in close proximity to the border, as has previously
been discussed in more detail in our response to comment 50.
(63) Comment: The IPNF commented that much of the area listed as
occupied by the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou at the time of emergency listing was not actually occupied in
1983, and suggested the Service designate a defined habitat (i.e.,
mature old growth subalpine fir--cedar hemlock) as occupied and
unoccupied based on the recovery plan and other information on
occupancy in 1983.
Our Response: We have determined that the area generally depicted
in Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 27), adjusted for elevation and habitat
based on the seasonal habitat suitability model developed by Kinley and
Apps (2007, entire) for the southern Selkirk Mountains ecosystem,
represents the best available scientific information regarding the
geographic area occupied by caribou at the time of listing. For further
explanation, see comment 1.
(64) Comment: The IPNF commented that the findings of Kinley and
Apps (2007) should be used in conjunction with other stand-based data
from land management agencies (i.e., the USFS and the IDL) to inform
our final critical habitat designation.
Our Response: The area we proposed for designation as southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou critical habitat was
based on a synthesis of the best available scientific information that
included Kinley and Apps (2007), as well as other relevant scientific
documents and records pertaining to the historical and current
distribution and habitat use of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou. We received numerous comments from
various commenters including peer reviewers, Federal agencies, the
State of Idaho, the Kalispel and Kootenai Tribes, and members of the
public regarding the science we used and synthesized to develop the
proposed designation. We utilized all substantive input from these
commenters in refining the designation of critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou in this final
rule. Based on this input, the final designation differs from the
proposed designation in several ways, which are identified in the
Summary of Changes section of this rule.
Comments Related to Economics and the Draft Economic Analysis
(65) Comment: The Bonner County Commissioners commented that
economic impacts of recreational access restrictions will be
significant, stating that local resorts reported losses of up to 70
percent of their winter revenue following the first caribou closure.
They expressed concern that Federal nexus situations could result in
the County being prohibited from winter snowmobile trail grooming, and
that additional businesses may close if further restrictions cut deeper
into winter revenues of resorts, eating and drinking establishments,
grocery stores, and other businesses that benefit from snowmobile
revenues. This concern was also expressed by the State of Idaho. The
County expressed concern that the loss of additional full-time
employment could threaten the viability of the elementary school, which
has only 45 students, and stated that Priest Lake's winter economy is
fragile, based on recreational tourism, and sensitive to changes in
recreational activities. Another commenter expressed concern about
losing winter income due to trail closures, and requested an ``on the
ground'' study to determine the economic impact on small entities. They
stated that most of the communities around the proposed critical
habitat are small and relied on timber products and logging as a
primary income base for years, later adapting to a recreation-based
economy.
Response: The final designation of critical habitat has been
reduced from 375,562 ac (151,985 ha) in the proposed critical habitat
rule to 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) in this final rule (see response to
Comment 1). There are no Bonner County lands included in the final
designation. As a result, the only incremental economic impacts that
would occur are the additional administrative costs to the Federal
agencies associated with section 7 consultation in areas within the
CNF, Idaho Panhandle (Kaniksu) National Forest, and Salmo-Priest
Wilderness areas. We do not anticipate any economic costs to
recreational interests beyond existing requirements under USFS
management plans or other policies.
(66) Comment: The Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA)
submitted an economic study completed by Forest Econ Inc. (FEI) on
impacts that have occurred since 2005, looking primarily at recreation
and timber harvesting (FEA, p. ES-6). The results of the study are
based on assumptions that all forest owners would require Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permits for point source outfalls (i.e., logging roads),
starting in 2010, and a subset of those
[[Page 71061]]
forest owners would have restrictions placed on timber harvesting due
to southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
conservation efforts. The study expands its assumptions by projecting
indirect effects to mills and other economic activities that depend on
timber harvesting. As a result, the FEI study estimates $4.6 million in
lost annual earnings to the timber industry in northern Idaho, $37,000
in lost annual earnings in the Priest Lake area due to other forestry
effects, and up to 76 recreational jobs lost in the Priest Lake area.
Response: Forest Econ Inc. uses input-output modeling to analyze
regional economic impacts (i.e., output and employment) on two spatial
scales: impacts to the Priest Lake area and impacts to the broader
Northern Idaho region. The main activities analyzed in the report are
recreation and timber harvesting, which collectively make up the
majority of the local winter economy in the Priest Lake area (46
percent tourism and 16 percent wood products), according to the report.
To analyze snowmobiling impacts, FEI began documenting economic impacts
in 2005--the year in which Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation
Northwest, the Lands Council, Selkirk Conservation Alliance, Idaho
Conservation League, and Center for Biological Diversity challenged two
biological opinions, which resulted in the injunction that restricted
winter recreation through trail closures. The authors used two
approaches to determine local effects of these events in the Priest
Lake area: (1) a statistical analysis of changes in snowmobile trips
using registration and groomer permits over the period of the analysis,
and (2) detailed surveys of the economic impacts to local businesses.
The table below summarizes these impacts, as predicted by FEI. This
estimate to impacts to the local economies was based on the area
originally proposed for designation, and not on the geographic area
delineated within the final designation, which has been reduced by
345,552 ac (139,840 ha) from the proposed rule. The analysis performed
by Forest Econ, Inc., therefore, does not address the potential impacts
of a much smaller critical habitat designation, which is now solely on
USFS lands.
Table 1--Local Economic Impacts Reported by Forest Econ, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost annual
Impacts Location Jobs lost earnings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation.............................. Priest Lake Area.......... 26 (approach 1), 76 N/A
(approach 2).
Timber.................................. Northern Idaho............ 126....................... $4,600,000
Other Forestry Effects.................. Priest Lake Area.......... -12....................... 37,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(67) Comment: One commenter noted that it is important for the
economic analysis to compare the local economy to other counties in
Idaho without caribou restrictions, and to the national and
international economies. The commenter also suggested that changes in
snow precipitation over time should also be a factor considered within
the immediate area and the broader regional economy. They stated that
this approach would help distinguish the recovery area impacts from
those that we have no immediate control over, but that we should be
taking into consideration when undertaking any future planning.
Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires, in part, that we
take into consideration the economic impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The economic analysis prepared for
this final rule addresses that requirement by considering the
incremental costs associated with the designation, which are above and
beyond costs attributable to the listing of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou (i.e., the baseline costs).
Accordingly, preparing an economic analysis that compares the local
economy with other Idaho counties and the national and international
economies would be beyond the scope of the proposed rule. Although the
rationale behind the commenter's suggestion that we include snow levels
as a factor evaluated in the economic analysis is not entirely clear,
the suggested approach would not be relevant or informative to the
final designation of critical habitat for this species.
(68) Comment: The State of Idaho notes that there could be actions
with a Federal nexus on IDL-managed lands that could trigger section 7
consultation regarding caribou critical habitat and that are not
recognized in the DEA. IDL expressed concern that the Service ignored
costs of the designation under the presumption that there is no Federal
nexus to initiate a section 7 consultation. The IDL questioned the
rationale behind using the lack of a formal consultation history with
the COE for section 404 permits on IDL lands as a prediction for future
consultation requirements. The IDL also commented that the COE would
have to initiate formal consultation due to prior case law surrounding
the ``but for test'', and that since a majority of IDL stream crossing
installations and upgrades are directly tied to timber sales due to the
funding component, any timber sale management activity associated with
the permitted installation could be subject to consultation.
Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The Federal
agency is responsible for contacting the Service for a list of
endangered or threatened species and their critical habitats or
technical assistance, and making the effects determination. The outcome
of the Federal agency's effects determinations can include (1) no
effect; (2) may affect, but not likely to adversely affect; or (3) may
affect, and likely to adversely affect. With regard to critical
habitat, formal consultation is only triggered for actions that are
likely to adversely affect listed species. A Federal agency does not
need to initiate formal consultation if, as a result of the preparation
of a biological assessment under 50 CFR 402.12, or as a result of
informal consultation with the Service under 50 CFR 402.13, the Federal
agency determines (with the written concurrence of the Director), that
the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any listed
species or critical habitat. Accordingly, formal section 7 consultation
is not an unconditional requirement. Since there are no IDL lands being
designated as critical habitat by this final rule, no additional
requirements would be imposed on the State as a result of the critical
habitat designation. However, Federal requirements could still be
applicable on State lands for other activities (e.g., Clean Water Act
permits or compliance with best management
[[Page 71062]]
practices associated with silvicultural exemptions for activities such
as road construction, stream crossings, fill discharged into waters of
the United States to support staging areas, rock quarries, landings,
etc.).
(69) Comment: IDL notes that on page 2-2, paragraph 35 of the DEA,
there is direction in 2001 to measure coextensive impacts.
Response: In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
instructed the Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the
economic impacts of proposed critical habitat, regardless of whether
those impacts are attributable coextensively to other causes. Since
that decision, however, courts in other cases have held that an
incremental analysis of impacts stemming solely from the critical
habitat designation is proper (FEA p. 2-2), (Arizona Cattle Growers'
Assoc. v. Salazar, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 29107 (9th Cir. June 4, 2010)),
Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. DOI, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52233 (D.D.C. May
27, 2010)). Additionally, on October 3, 2008, the Department of
Interior's Office of the Solicitor issued a Memorandum Opinion (M-
37016) that summarizes recent case law on this issue and corroborates
that the incremental analysis of economic impacts is appropriate.
(70) Comment: IDL stated that they completed a detailed analysis of
the very real economic impact this proposed designation would cause,
which was ignored by the Service. The IDL analysis projects the
designation would significantly impact IDL's ability to manage over
65,000 ac (26,260 ha) of forestlands, significantly reduce revenues to
K-12 public education, and increase fire protection costs. The
calculated value of timber revenue loss over the next 30 years was
estimated to be $23,030,810, with an average annual loss of $713,470.
The IDL analysis projected losses of 109,800 mbf of timber volume,
1,976 jobs, $67,417,200 in foregone income, and $285,480,000 in
foregone goods and services over a 30-year period. They also projected
combined costs related to fire suppression to exceed $3,495,310 over a
30-year period.
Response: The basis for IDL's economic analysis is an assumption
that IDL would be required to adopt Federal harvest restrictions and
meet onerous and costly Federal requirements based on the presence of a
Federal nexus for their activities, which we are unable to
substantiate. Additionally, the presence of a Federal nexus does not
necessarily equate to additional conservation measures being required
for a particular activity, since there are several possible outcomes to
section 7 consultation. Nevertheless, there are no IDL lands being
designated as critical habitat in this final rule.
(71) Comment: IDL stated concerns that any harvesting of stands
with old-growth characteristics is considered habitat degradation, and
may therefore be restricted if critical habitat is designated.
Response: Based on a revision of the critical habitat boundaries,
IDL lands are no longer included in the designation. As stated earlier,
we do not expect changes in forest management on any lands solely due
to the critical habitat designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou, since a jeopardy analysis under section
7, which is triggered by the listing of a species under the Act, also
considers harm to habitat. If a section 7 consultation were to be
required on any timber lands that had old growth characteristics, it is
unlikely that any project modifications in that area would be
attributable solely to the critical habitat designation, since any
conservation measures required to avoid jeopardy would likely be
identical to measures needed to avoid adverse modification of critical
habitat.
(72) Comment: The U.S Forest Service noted two concerns about the
economic analysis that relate to management of lands within IPNF: (1)
the analysis does not consider the effects on summer recreation and the
business that supports those activities, and (2) the analysis only
considers activities with a Federal nexus, therefore missing effects on
businesses that support recreation.
Response: Recreation in IPNF varies by season. In the spring,
summer, and fall, activities include use of recreational vehicles
(ATVs, motorcycles), sight-seeing, wildlife viewing, hiking, mountain
biking, horseback riding, camping, geo-caching, hunting, fishing,
photography, and berry picking, while in the winter, activities include
snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and trapping.
Currently, recreational activities do not have much effect on caribou
habitat, but can affect the use of the habitat by caribou through
disturbance. The IPNF already consults with the Service on the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, so the incremental
effect of the designation will involve including consideration of the
potential for adverse modification of caribou habitat as part of each
consultation. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), as amended, and following recent court decisions, Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly affected
entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat
protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to
adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this
designation.
(73) Comment: The State of Idaho commented that: (1) Critical
habitat designation prohibits adverse modification of critical habitat,
a standard that is largely unmeasurable and unquantifiable; (2) all
activities occurring on Federal, State, and private land designated as
critical habitat that have a Federal nexus will have to go through
additional and costly consultation with the Service to ensure that
those activities are not impacting critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou; (3) significant and
costly changes associated with how land-use activities are authorized
and carried out is anticipated with designation of critical habitat;
and (4) they were concerned about future requirements to obtain a
point-source NPDES permit for forest roads, or other as yet unknown
Federal nexus situations created by further mandates.
Our Response: The following responses correspond to the comment
numbers: (1) Caribou are habitat specialists, relying on boreal forest
habitats for their survival. Therefore, due to the caribou's precarious
population status and because the project-related impacts will most
likely affect the persistence, development, and recycling of caribou
habitat, we anticipate that the measures required to avoid adverse
modification and those required to avoid jeopardy will, in most
instances, be identical. Federal agencies have been consulting with the
Service on the potential effects of proposed actions on the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou since this population
was emergency listed in 1983. Consultation, under the jeopardy
standard, has been completed on these activities with nonjeopardy
findings. Proposed projects have ranged from timber harvests and fuels
management to recreational
[[Page 71063]]
development. We expect that, for a proposed action to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification (in other words substantially reduce
the conservation value of caribou habitat to such an extent that would
affect its ability to serve its intended recovery role), it would
likely have to significantly alter large areas of high-elevation mature
to old-growth western hemlock/western red cedar climax forest or
subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce climax forest, or restrict caribou
movement through such areas. Therefore, similar to consultations
completed under the jeopardy standard, we do not anticipate the
proposal of any project at a scale that would adversely modify critical
habitat. (2) As stated above, Federal agencies have been consulting
with the Service on the potential effects of proposed actions on the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou since this
population was emergency listed in 1983. We do not anticipate the need
to complete additional consultations for new projects proposed in areas
designated as critical habitat that would not otherwise be subject to
section 7 consultations. We acknowledge that there may be a few ongoing
projects, for which consultation under the jeopardy standard has been
completed, that consultation may need to be reinitiated to address
critical habitat. However, we do not anticipate that the economic costs
required to reinitiate consultation for ongoing projects will be
significant. (3) For the above stated reasons, and because Federal
agencies that manage land within the critical habitat area already take
extensive measures to protect the caribou, we do not foresee or
anticipate substantive changes in the existing management of caribou or
its habitat. (4) We acknowledge that there exists some uncertainty as
to how the recent court decision regarding the EPA administration of
NPDES permits related to point-source discharges stemming from use of
forest roads; however, we cannot project when, or if, changes to
permitting for roads or other yet unknown situations may occur that
would require additional section 7 consultation with Federal agencies
such as the EPA, for activities on State lands. However, should this
ruling stand, consultation on the species in occupied areas will be
required under the regulations, regardless of the critical habitat
designation.
(74) Comment: Bonner County commented that the level of economic
impact on Bonner County and the Priest Lake Area was out of balance
with the low probability that the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou will inhabit the proposed critical habitat area in
the future.
Our Response: There are no Bonner County or Priest Lake area lands
being designated as critical habitat in the final designation.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
As discussed previously in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section, comments submitted by the peer reviewers,
State of Idaho, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and others caused us to
reexamine our analysis used to determine critical habitat in the
proposed rule. As a result, we are designating critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou on 30,010 ac
(12,145 ha) of Federal land in Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille
County, Washington. The final designation represents a reduction of
approximately 345,552 ac (139,840 ha) from the critical habitat
originally proposed for designation (76 FR 74018, November 30, 2011);
and reflects a 1,000-ft (about 300-m) change in elevation from 4,000 ft
(1,220 m) in the proposed rule, to an elevation at or above 5,000 ft
(1,520 m), based on the results of population surveys since the time of
listing and a seasonal habitat suitability model developed by Kinley
and Apps (2007, entire) as discussed below. This reduction is primarily
a function of: (1) Census monitoring documenting low numbers of
individual caribou in the United States during annual surveys; (2) the
proximity of the animals that have been observed in the United States
to the U.S.-Canadian border; (3) the lack of long-term success of
several herd augmentation efforts involving over 100 caribou from herds
in British Columbia to recover the population in the United States; (4)
information indicating that the recovery objectives identified in the
1994 recovery plan are outdated and need to be revised to reflect the
current needs of this population; and (5) ongoing efforts in Canada to
secure and manage habitat to conserve Selkirk Mountain caribou
populations in British Columbia, each of which is discussed in more
detail below.
There are four primary factors we considered in developing our
final designation that resulted in this change from the proposed rule:
(1) A revised determination of the geographical area occupied by the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time
of listing based on comments we received, including those from peer
reviewers, which caused us to reevaluate surveys conducted by Scott and
Servheen (1984, 1985), as well as census monitoring documenting low
numbers of individual caribou observed in the United States during
annual surveys, (2) information and literature reporting the overall
decline of the subspecies mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)
across its range, and in particular the decline of woodland caribou
populations in the southern extent of their range, including the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou; (3)
information on areas currently conserved and managed for the
conservation of woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains in British
Columbia, Canada, including the status of the Canadian recovery actions
for mountain caribou; and (4) the applicability as well as the status
of the recovery objectives identified in the 1994 Selkirk Mountains
Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994).
In developing our November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018), proposed rule
for critical habitat, our first step was to identify areas that
provided for the conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou within the geographical region described
as the approximate area of normal utilization in the listing rule (49
FR 7390; February 29, 1984). This area of normal utilization included
portions of the CNF in Washington and the IPNF in Idaho, and some
Priest Lake Endowment Lands managed by the state of IDL. Critical
habitat boundaries were identified at or above 4,000 ft (about 1,220 m)
in elevation, which corresponds to the elevation above which the
woodland caribou are generally known to occur within the southern
Selkirk Mountains ecosystem in Idaho and Washington (Layser 1974, p.
25-26; USFWS 1994, p. 6; USFWS 2008a, p. 2). We then overlaid seasonal
telemetry radiolocations collected from caribou that were translocated
into the southern Selkirk Mountain ecosystems (British Columbia, Idaho,
and Washington), from 1987 through 2004 by the IDFG, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Fish and Wildlife Compensation
Program (Columbia Basin) in British Columbia. To further refine the
proposed critical habitat boundaries, we overlaid currently defined
recovery area boundaries, caribou movement corridors mapped by the IPNF
(USFS 2004, pp. 22-23), and results of the seasonal habitat suitability
model developed by Kinley and Apps (2007, entire) for the southern
Selkirk Mountains ecosystem. Isolated patches and some larger areas
were removed
[[Page 71064]]
because they either lacked PCEs, were adjacent to Schweitzer ski
resort, or had relatively low historical utilization based on telemetry
data. We included certain areas below 4,000 ft (about 1,220 m) in
elevation where seasonal connectivity between habitats was required.
After considering the peer reviewers' comments, we now consider
studies conducted by Scott and Servheen (1984, 1985) to be the most
definitive with regard to determining occupancy at the time the caribou
was listed in 1983 (48 FR 1722). During their study in 1983-1984, which
was conducted in the Selkirk Mountains in southeastern British
Columbia, northern Idaho, and northeastern Washington, Scott and
Servheen (1984, pp. 16-28) documented extensive use by caribou of
habitat in British Columbia in drainages just north and adjacent to
B.C. Highway 3. In contrast, they documented use of habitat in the
United States by only two bull caribou located near Little Snowy Top
and Upper Hughes Ridge in Idaho, and Sullivan Creek in Washington (p.
19). Caribou were not documented any further south within Washington or
Idaho during the course of helicopter and ground tracking surveys.
Consequently, we have determined that the area generally depicted in
Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 27), adjusted for elevation and habitat
based on the seasonal habitat suitability model developed by Kinley and
Apps (2007, entire) for the southern Selkirk Mountains ecosystem,
represents the best available scientific information regarding the
geographical area occupied by the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou at the time of listing. This is further supported
by annual census surveys conducted by IDFG and Canada (DeGroot and
Wakkinen, 2012), which have documented zero to four individual caribou
observed only near the border within the United States from 2001
through 2012 (DeGroot and Wakkinen 2012, Table 2). This new analysis of
which areas were occupied at the time of listing, which areas are
documented to be occupied based on recent annual surveys, and which
areas are essential to the conservation of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou greatly reduced the amount of
area included in our final designation from our proposed rule.
We evaluated the area we now consider to have been occupied by the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time
of listing, the results of population surveys, and the 1994 Selkirk
Mountains Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan. We have determined that the
recovery plan is outdated and no longer represents the best available
science with regard to the essential conservation needs of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, as was recognized in
the 2008 5-year review of this population. Our 5-year review
acknowledged that the recovery criteria no longer reflect the best
available and most up-to-date information on the biology of the species
and its habitat, and that since 1994, a great deal of information has
been collected regarding the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou and their habitat (USFWS 2008a, p. 15). When the
population was listed, it consisted of 25-30 individuals, whose
distribution centered primarily in British Columbia (Scott and Servheen
1985, p. 12). Between 1987 and 1990, the population was augmented with
60 animals from source herds in British Columbia, which were placed in
Idaho. The 1994 recovery plan objectives center on maintaining an
increasing population, securing and managing habitat, and establishing
a third herd in Washington State using donor animals from British
Columbia. Between 1996 and 1998, the population was augmented with 43
additional animals, some of which were placed in Washington, and some
of which were placed north of the border. Although 103 caribou were
translocated to the United States, none of the above augmentation
efforts resulted in a long-term improvement in caribou distribution
within the recovery area identified in the 1994 recovery plan. Rather,
for reasons not fully understood, this population of caribou appears to
be primarily dependent upon the availability of habitat in British
Columbia, based on the results of annual population monitoring surveys
(see Table 2).
Table 2--Caribou Census Information, 1991 Through 2012
[From USFS 2004, p. 7 and DeGroot and Wakkinen 2012, p. 12]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US--BC
Year Area observations Caribou total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991......................................... US 26 47
BC 21
1992......................................... US 24 47
BC 23
1993......................................... US 23 51
BC 28
1994......................................... US 13 45
BC 32
1995......................................... US 13(a) 52
BC 39
1996......................................... US 12 39
BC 27
1997(b)...................................... US 9 39
BC 30
1998(c)...................................... US 31 45
BC 14
1999(d)...................................... US 6 48
BC 42
2000......................................... US 3 34
BC 31
2001......................................... No census due to low snowpack
[[Page 71065]]
2002......................................... US 2 34
BC 32
2003......................................... US 1 41(e)
BC 40
2004......................................... US 3 33
BC 30
2005......................................... US 2 35(f)
BC 33
2006......................................... US 1 29-38
BC 33
2007......................................... US 2 43-44
BC 42 or 43
2008(g)...................................... US 3 46
BC 43
2009(g)...................................... US 2 46
BC 41
2010(g)...................................... US 2 43
BC 41
2011(g)...................................... US 0 36
BC 36
2012(g)...................................... US 4 27
BC 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a--Known incomplete count (tracks of a small group [2-4] detected but animals not observed during helicopter
flight.
b--Includes 19 animals released in 1996.
c--Includes 13 animals released in 1997.
d--Includes 11 animals released in 1998.
e--Likely some double counting and therefore not a reliable count.
f--Not a complete census. Must be considered a minimum count.
g--Combination fixed wing/helicopter survey.
This table reflects a significant decline in the number of caribou
documented in the United States, other than in the years immediately
following several augmentation efforts. Based on the best available
information, the Service does not consider the extensive areas
identified in the 1994 recovery plan to be essential to the
conservation of the species.
In addition, the future availability of caribou from British
Columbia herds for augmentation within the United States is
questionable, given the significant declines in the British Columbia
populations and overall lack of success of prior augmentation efforts
(US GAO 1999, Appendix 4). Future recovery planning efforts will need
to take into consideration the best available information, including
that gained as a result of this final critical habitat designation. In
accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the recovery plan will
describe site-specific management actions needed for the conservation
and survival of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou; identify objective and measureable recovery criteria; and
estimate the time and costs required to carry out the measures
identified in the recovery plan. Prior to the development of a revised
recovery plan, the Service will request scientific information, as well
as input from the public, tribes, Federal, State, and local agencies.
There will also be an opportunity for public review and comment on a
draft recovery plan prior to its final approval.
We reviewed the most recent literature describing the overall
decline of the mountain ecotype of woodland caribou, of which the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is considered
to be aligned based on their movement and feeding behavior (Cichowski
et al., 2004, pp. 235-236; Wittmer 2005, entire; USFWS 2008a, entire).
Historically, woodland caribou were distributed throughout much of
Canada and portions of the northern United States, where they were
widespread and numerous when the first Europeans arrived in British
Columbia (Spalding 2000, p. 40). Since that time, the overall
geographical range for woodland caribou has been reduced, with most of
the reduction occurring in the southern extent of its historical range
(Spalding 2000, p. 40). By the 1990s, woodland caribou were considered
one of the most critically endangered mammals in the world (U.S. GAO
1999, p. 5). It has been estimated that nearly 60 percent of the
woodland caribou's historical range has been lost in western North
America (Hatter pers. comm. in Spalding 2000, p. 40).
British Columbia contains three ecotypes of woodland caribou: the
boreal caribou, the northern caribou, and the mountain caribou, of
which the southern Selkirk Mountains population is part. For the
mountain caribou ecotype, there has been a long-term population decline
and range reduction in British Columbia (Siep and Cichowski 1996, p.
74), with one estimate that mountain caribou have been eliminated from
as much as 43 percent of their historical range in British Columbia
(MCTAC 2002, pp. v, 5). Most mountain caribou ecotype populations
contain fewer than 100 individuals, and the majority of populations are
declining (MCTAC 2002, p. 6; Wittmer et al. 2005, Table 2). Trends in
populations are varied, but southern populations appear to be
decreasing more rapidly than northern ones (Wittmer et al. 2005, p.
411). In one extreme example, the population estimate in the Purcell
Mountains in southern British Columbia declined from over 60
individuals in 1995, to only 14 in 2009 (Kinley 2010, Figure 4).
In the United States, the sole remaining population of caribou is
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (US GAO
1999, p. 4; Cichowski 2010, Figure 1; Poole and
[[Page 71066]]
Mowat 2001, p. 2001). When the population was listed in 1983, it
consisted of 25 to 30 animals, whose distribution centered primarily
around Stagleap Provincial Park in British Columbia. As stated earlier,
between 1987 and 1990, the population was augmented with 60 animals
from source herds in British Columbia that were placed in the Idaho
portion of the Selkirk ecosystem, and between 1996 and 1998, the
population was augmented with 43 animals, some of which were placed in
Washington, and some of which were placed just north of the border in
British Columbia (USFWS 2008a, p. 15). As noted above in our occupancy
discussion, surveys from 2001 through 2010, have indicated that most
individuals of this population were observed in British Columbia
(DeGroot and Wakkinen 2012, Table 2). This information also comports
with the earlier Scott and Servheen reports on caribou ecology (1984,
1985), which state, ``as the number of U.S. sightings declined since
the early 1970s, concern has mounted that caribou may be abandoning the
U.S. portion of their range.''
Our reassessment of the best available information at this point in
time leads us to conclude that the majority of habitat essential to the
conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou occurs in British Columbia, Canada, and that although the U.S.
portion of the habitat used by the caribou makes an essential
contribution to the conservation of the species, habitat on the U.S.
side of the border is not independently capable of conserving the
species to the extent anticipated at the time the 1994 recovery plan
was developed. The geographical area that provides the PBFs essential
to the conservation of the species, therefore, spans the border, and
most of it lies in Canada. Since we can only designate critical habitat
within the United States (50 CFR 424.12(h)), we are designating those
areas within the United States that we consider to have been occupied
at the time of listing, as described above, and that provide the PBFs
essential to the conservation of the species.
The 1994 Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan (USFWS
1994) recommended that an area of approximately 443,000 ac (179,000 ha)
would be needed to support a recovered population of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou in the Selkirks (p.
31). It further states that the conservation of these habitats is an
important element of caribou recovery, and that research will better
define these habitats (p. 31). Prior to the 1987 translocation effort,
a study on the population characteristics of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou was initiated that provided
background stating, ``Concern has mounted in recent years that caribou
many be abandoning the United States portion of their range * * * ''
(Scott and Servheen 1984, p. 16). Other than the geographical areas
Scott and Servheen (1984) identified in their study that were occupied
at the time of listing, the recovery areas identified in the 1994
recovery plan are not being utilized by caribou. Many of those areas
listed in the recovery plan were, and continue to be, USFS lands
managed for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of caribou, and
contain one or more of the PBFs identified in this rule. However, for
reasons not fully understood, this population of woodland caribou
continues to make greater use of habitat in Canada than would be
predicted, based on the availability of habitat in the United States as
identified in the Kinley and Apps (2007) modeling study. Consequently,
we no longer find the extensive areas initially identified for the
recovery of the woodland caribou population within the United States to
be essential to the conservation of the species.
We have determined that an area of approximately 30,010 ac (12,145
ha) within the United States was occupied by the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time of listing and
provides the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species, and
which may require special management considerations or protection. This
area therefore meets the definition of critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. We also
assessed the total area of lands likely needed by the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of the woodland caribou, without regard to
international boundaries. We determined that the 30,010 ac (12,145 ha)
at an elevation of 5,000 ft (1,520 m) and above designated as critical
habitat within the Selkirk Mountains in the United States, combined
with the amount of habitat protected and managed for woodland caribou
within Canada, meets the amount of habitat recommended to be secured
and enhanced in the 1994 Recovery Plan (443,000 ac, 179,000 ha) to
support a recovered population (USFWS 1994, pp. 28, 30-31). Currently,
Canada has protected 282,515 ac (114,330 ha) of Crown Lands from
further timber harvest within the Selkirk Mountains to support woodland
caribou conservation (DeGroot, pers. comm. 2012). The Nature
Conservancy of Canada also recently purchased approximately 135,908 ac
(55,000 ha) of the former Darkwoods property located within the Selkirk
Mountains in British Columbia, and halted all logging activities in
woodland caribou habitat (The Nature Conservancy of Canada 2011, p. 4;
DeGroot pers. comm. 2012). These Nature Conservancy lands are
essentially surrounded by the protected Crown Lands described above.
Thus, adding the designation of 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of critical
habitat in the United States to the habitats currently protected and
conserved for woodland caribou in Canada provides approximately 448,443
ac (181,478 ha) of habitat protected within the Selkirk Mountains for
woodland caribou conservation. Additionally, areas in the United States
designated as critical habitat for the species are immediately adjacent
with, and contiguous to, the Crown Lands protected in Canada for
woodland caribou conservation. The protection of these connected
habitats in the United States and British Columbia will facilitate
continued woodland caribou movement and seasonal habitat use and other
behaviors that this population currently and historically exhibited.
Therefore, on the basis of this reevaluation of the best available
data and the information provided in the 1994 Recovery Plan for the
Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou, we are designating 30,011 ac
(12,145 ha) at an elevation of 5,000 ft (1,520 m) and above, on Federal
lands in Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, Washington,
as critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou in the United States. This area represents our best
assessment of the area occupied by the species at the time of listing
in 1983 that provides the PBFs essential to the conservation of the
species. This area, when combined with areas secured and protected for
the conservation of the species in British Columbia, meets the area
requirements recommended in the original recovery plan for the species.
Although the recovery plan, as written, envisioned that more of the
recovery area for the species would fall within the United States, the
best scientific information available indicates that the range of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou has largely
shifted northward, and that the vast majority of the areas that provide
the essential habitats for this population of woodland caribou now
occurs within
[[Page 71067]]
Canada. As stated earlier, multiple efforts to augment the existing
woodland caribou population with more than 100 animals from source
herds in British Columbia between 1987 and 1990, and 1996 and 1998,
have not resulted in any long-term improvement in caribou distribution
throughout the southern Selkirk Mountains. The number of woodland
caribou detected in the United States has continued to dwindle and
annual census surveys continue to find the majority of the remaining
population occupying habitats in British Columbia. Due to what appears
to be an ongoing range contraction of the woodland caribou population
from the southern extent of its former range, and the overall decline
of the mountain ecotype of woodland caribou in British Columbia, in
particular the more southern populations, we have determined that there
are no areas within the United States outside the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation
of the species.
An additional change from our proposed rule was the refinement in
our description of PCE 1 to more accurately reflect the seasonal
habitats utilized by the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou. This refinement did not affect the amount of acreage
designated for critical habitat. In addition, we broadened our
description of essential habitats for PCE 2 to include high-elevation
basins, as well as ridgetops that are at or above 6,000 ft (1,830 m)--
regardless of snowpack level, since pregnant females from the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou were reported to
prefer alpine habitats at all scales irrespective of forested
conditions. These changes are discussed in the Primary Constituent
Elements (PCEs) below, and in the Physical or Biological Features
section. The PCEs presented in the proposed rule (76 FR 74081) were
revised based on peer review and public comments, and information
received in response to the proposed critical habitat designation. A
more detailed discussion of the factors we used to identify critical
habitat for this final rule can be found in the ``Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat.''
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain those physical and biological features (PBFs) (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or protection. For these areas,
critical habitat designations are defined by, to the extent known using
the best scientific and commercial data available, those PBFs that are
essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical and
biological features, we focus on the principal biological or physical
constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites,
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type)
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary
constituent elements are the elements of PBFs that provide for a
species' specific life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Further,
our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act
(published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554;
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate
critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is
[[Page 71068]]
generally the information developed during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan
for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p.4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in
the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense
precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et
al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p.
6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181).
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe
storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are
we currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou that would indicate what areas might become important to the
species in the future. Therefore, as explained in the proposed rule (76
FR 74028), we are unable to determine what additional areas, if any,
may be appropriate to include in the final critical habitat for this
species to address the effects of climate change.
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
The protections of the Act, and the need to consult on Federal
activities (or projects where there is a Federal nexus) apply when a
proposed Federal action may directly or indirectly affect a listed
species and/or designated critical habitat. For the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou, the area occupied by the
species at the time of emergency listing in 1983, which serves as the
basis for this determination of critical habitat, is not the same as
the area that may currently be occupied by the species (50 CFR 424.02).
For example, we have anecdotal, but unconfirmed, reports of live and
dead caribou, tracks, and shed antlers within the United States portion
of the recovery area described in the 1994 recovery plan, from 2000
through 2008 (USFWS 2008b, pp. 86-87), which have been reported during
all seasons and in both Washington and Idaho. Our standard under
section 4(b)(2) is to apply the best available scientific data
available when identifying areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat (e.g., areas that are essential to the conservation of the
species). We do not find anecdotal reports of caribou sightings
satisfies this standard, and they have not been considered for purposes
of this final critical habitat designation.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the PBFs that are essential
to the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PBFs essential for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou from studies of this species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat
section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018), and in the
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on February 26,
1984 (49 FR 7390) and the 1994 Revised Recovery Plan for the Selkirk
Mountains Woodland Caribou, and the Southern Selkirk Mountains Caribou
Population 5-Year Review completed by the Service on December 2, 2008
(USFWS 2008a). We have determined that the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou requires the following physical or
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
requires large contiguous areas of high-elevation coniferous forest
summer and winter habitat, with little or no vehicle access and
disturbance, so the caribou can spread out at low densities (i.e., 30-
50 caribou/250,000 ac (100,000 ha)) and avoid predators (Seip and
Cichowski 1996, p. 79; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1). Mountain caribou
strongly prefer old-growth forests to young forests in all seasons
(Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1).
The primary long-term threat to the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou is the ongoing loss and fragmentation of
contiguous old-growth forests and forest habitats due to a combination
of timber harvest, wildfires, and road development. The
[[Page 71069]]
effects associated with habitat loss and fragmentation are: (1)
Reduction of the amount of space available for caribou, limiting the
ecological carrying capacity; (2) reduction of the arboreal lichen
supply, affecting the caribou's key winter food source; (3) potential
impacts to caribou movement patterns; (4) potential effects to the
caribou's use of remaining fragmented habitat because suitable habitat
parcels will be smaller and discontinuous; and (5) increased
susceptibility of caribou to predation as available habitat is
compressed and fragmented (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10; MCTAC 2002,
pp. 20-22; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 242; Apps and McLellan 2006, pp.
92-93; Wittmer et al. 2007, pp. 576-577).
Forest management practices have been one of the greatest concerns
for caribou habitat management since the mid-1970s (Stevenson et al.
2001, p. 1; MCTAC 2002, p. 17; British Columbia 2004, p. 242). Improved
road access, developments in log processing that resulted in better
utilization of smaller trees, suitable sites for conducting summer
logging, and other forest product demands have increased interest in
some areas of caribou winter ranges for timber harvesting (Cichowski et
al. 2004, p. 242). Timber harvest has moved into high-elevation mature
and old growth forest habitat types due to more roads and more powerful
machinery capable of traversing difficult terrains (Stevenson et al.
2001, p. 10). Timber harvesting can reduce and fragment areas creating
a patchwork of different age classes of forest stands of the caribou's
preferred old-growth lichen-bearing forests. While this multi-aged
class forest patchwork may contain sufficient lichens to support a
caribou herd, it also likely increases caribou predation in the
southern Selkirk ecosystem (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1). Patchwork
forest habitats provide suitable habitat for other ungulates such as
moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), and deer (Odocoileus spp.)
into close proximity with caribou, and consequently support increased
number of predators, including mountain lions (Felis concolor), wolves
(Canis lupus), coyotes (Canis latrans), wolverines (Gulo gulo luscus),
black bears (Ursus americanus), and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) (Seip
and Cichowski 1996, p. 79; Wittmer et al. 2005, pp. 414-417).
The southern mountain ecotype of woodland caribou, of which the
southern Selkirk Mountains population belongs, prefers high-elevation
(over 5,000 ft (1,520 m)) mature to old-growth coniferous forests to
limit the effects of predation by spreading out over these large,
contiguous areas at high elevations that other ungulate species avoid
(Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 79; MCTAC 2002, pp. 20-21; Cichowski et
al. 2004, p. 230-231; Kinley and Woods 2006, entire). Residing on large
contiguous forest areas, caribou are unprofitable prey (i.e., it is not
worth a predator's energy investment to seek out prey when there are so
few animals in a large area, which is often in deep snow). To
adequately provide for their habitat needs throughout the four seasons
of a year, large contiguous areas of mature to old-growth western
hemlock/western red cedar forests and subalpine fir and Engelmann
spruce forests, and the connecting habitat in-between, are required. In
order for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
to be able to use these areas, the habitats need to be connected,
particularly during winter when the energy costs of moving through deep
snow can be high (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 15).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Arboreal hair lichens are a critical winter food for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou diet, which is
composed almost entirely of lichens from November to May (Servheen and
Lyon 1989, p. 235; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; USFS 2004, p. 18), when
lichens represent the only primary food source available (Paquet 1997,
p. 13). Lichens are pulled from the branches of conifers, picked from
the surface of the snow after being blown out of trees by wind, or are
grazed from wind-thrown branches and trees. The two kinds of lichens
commonly eaten by the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou are Bryoria spp. and Alectoria sarmentosa; both are most
commonly found in high-elevation climax forests on old trees (Paquet
1997, p. 14). These lichens are extremely slow growing, and are
typically abundant only in mature or old growth forests (Paquet 1997,
p. 2). Relative humidity, wetting and drying cycles, and amount of
light are ultimately the controlling factors of lichen growth.
During the spring (MCTAC 2002, p. 11), the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou moves to lower elevations
where snow has melted, to forage on new green vegetation (Paquet 1997,
p. 16). In summer months, the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou moves back to mid- and upper- elevation spruce/alpine
fir forests (Paquet 1997, p. 16). Summer diets include selective
foraging of grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, willow and dwarf
birch leaves and tips, sedges, lichens (Paquet 1997, pp. 13, 16), and
huckleberry leaves (USFS 2004, p. 18). The fall and early winter diet
consists largely of dried grasses, sedges, willow and dwarf birch tips,
and arboreal lichens.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
In spring (April 20-July 7), the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou moves to areas with green vegetation,
which becomes the primary food source. These areas often overlap with
early and late winter ranges at elevations where new, green vegetation
is appearing (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; MCTAC 2002, p. 11), which
allows the animals to recover from the effects of winter (USFWS 1994,
p. 7). Pregnant females will move to these spring habitats for forage,
but during the calving season from June 1 to July 7, the need to avoid
predators influences habitat selection. Areas selected for calving are
typically high-elevation, alpine and nonforested areas in close
proximity to old-growth forest ridgetops, as well as high-elevation
basins that can be food limited, but are more likely to be predator
free (USFWS 1994, p. 8; MCTAC 2002, p. 11; Cichowski et al. 2004, p.
232, Kinley and Apps 2007, p. 16). Arboreal lichen becomes the primary
food source for pregnant females and females with calves, since green
forage is unavailable in these secluded and high-elevation habitats.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of
the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of a Species
In general, seasonal habitats of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou consist of: (1) Five seasons (early
winter, late winter, spring, calving, and summer) (Kinley and Apps
2007, p. 7); and (2) habitats primarily within two vegetation zones
(i.e., western hemlock/western red cedar and subalpine fir/Engelmann
spruce forests) (USFS 2004, p. 18; USFWS 2008a, p. 20). Early winter is
a period of rapid snow accumulation and generally extends from October
17 to January 18 (Kinley and Apps, p. 7). Kinley and Apps (2007, p. 15)
reported that during this time caribou in the southern Selkirk
Mountains ecosystem are often associated with landscapes dominated by
spruce and subalpine fir stands with a forest canopy closure of at
least 26-50 percent; and preferred habitats were strongly related to
old forests. At a fine scale analysis, a study
[[Page 71070]]
by Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 30) that involved ground-tracking six
radio-collared caribou from the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou reported that habitat selection during early winter
seemed to be stand conditions that minimized snow depth with dense
canopies of 76-100 percent in old-growth western hemlock/cedar forests
with large, lichen-bearing branches. Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 36)
reported that the primary selection factor was for habitat types
providing snow-free-foraging areas around trees with dense canopy
covers at elevations approximately 4,950 feet (1,509 m) and below.
Caribou seek out these more closed-canopy timber stands where they
feed on a combination of lichen on wind-thrown trees, and lichens that
have fallen from standing trees (litterfall) (MCTAC 2002, p. 10). If
available, shrubs and other forbs that remain accessible in snow wells
under large trees are also consumed. A conifer canopy that intercepts
snow and allows access to feeding sites is important (MCTAC 2002, p.
10) until the snowpack consolidates and the caribou can move to higher
elevations (USFS 2004, p. 18). However, these elevational shifts can be
quite variable within and between years, depending on snow levels (Apps
et al. 2001, p. 67; Kinley et al. 2007; p. 94). All mountain caribou
experience the poorest mobility and food availability of any season
during early winter because of the typically deep, soft snow (MCTAC
2002, p. 10).
Late winter generally starts around January 19 and extends to about
April 19 (Kinley and Apps, 2007 p. 7). During this time, the snowpack
is deep (up to 16 ft (5 m) on ridgetops), and firm enough to support
the animal's weight, which allows easier movement. These upper slopes
and ridge tops are: (1) Generally higher in elevation; (2) support
mature to old stands of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce; (3) have
canopies similar to early winter habitat (generally 26 to 50 percent
cover) (Kinley and Apps, 2007, p. 15); and (4) have high levels of
arboreal lichen (USFWS 1994, p. 6; MCTAC 2002, p. 10; USFS 2004, p. 18;
USFWS 2008a, p. 20).
Increasing levels of winter recreational activities (e.g.,
snowmobiling) within the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou recovery area, which includes the CNF in Washington
and IPNF in Idaho, is an emerging threat to the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou. The numbers and distribution
of recreational snowmobilers has increased over the last 10-15 years,
due in part to improved snowmobile technology and the increasing
popularity of the sport. Snowmobiling activities have the potential to
displace caribou from suitable habitat, resulting in additional energy
expenditure by caribou when they vacate an area to avoid disturbance
(Tyler 1991, p. 191; Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 241). This results in an
effective loss of habitat availability temporarily, and potentially for
the long term if caribou abandon areas characterized by chronic
disturbance.
Spring is usually from around April 20 to July 7 (Kinley and Apps
2007, p. 7), when caribou move to areas that have green vegetation to
recover from the effects of winter (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235;
USFWS 1994, p. 7). July to around October 16 is considered the summer
habitat season for caribou. During both seasons, Kinley and Apps (2007,
p. 15) report the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou is associated with spruce and subalpine fir that also provides
thermal cover, although summer habitat is in higher elevations with a
preference for valleys (Kinley and Apps 2007, p. 15), and habitat with
high forage availability (USFWS 1994, p. 8). In the Selkirk Mountains,
the shallow slopes used in late summer are characteristically high-
elevation benches, secondary stream bottoms and riparian areas, and
seeps where forage is lush and abundant (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p.
236).
In the fall (generally October 17 into November (Kinley and Apps
2007, p. 7)), the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou may gradually move to western hemlock dominated forests as the
availability of forage vegetation such as vascular plants disappears.
It is during this time of year when the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou is making the transition from green
forage to arboreal lichens (Servheen and Lyon, 1989, p. 236). As winter
nears, the annual cycle of habitat use by the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou repeats.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Southern Selkirk Mountains
Population of Woodland Caribou
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements. Primary constituent elements
are those specific elements of the PBFs that provide for a species'
specific life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat
characteristics required to sustain the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou's life-history processes, we determine
that the primary constituent elements specific to the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou are:
i. Mature to old-growth western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)/
western red cedar (Thuja plicata) climax forest, and subalpine fir
(Abies lasiocarpa)/Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni) climax forest at
least 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in elevation; these habitats typically have
26-50 percent or greater canopy closure.
ii. Ridge tops and high-elevation basins that are generally 6,000
ft (1,830 m) in elevation or higher, associated with mature to old
stands of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa)/Engelmann spruce (Picea
engelmanni) climax forest, with relatively open (approximately 50
percent) canopy.
iii. Presence of arboreal hair lichens.
iv. High-elevation benches and shallow slopes, secondary stream
bottoms, riparian areas, and seeps, and subalpine meadows with
succulent forbs and grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, willow,
huckleberry, dwarf birch, sedges and lichens. The southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou, including pregnant females,
use these areas for feeding during the spring and summer seasons.
v. Corridors/Transition zones that connect the habitats described
above. If human activities occur, they are such that they do not impair
the ability of caribou to use these areas.
The PBFs for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou are, therefore, the arrangement of the above habitat types and
their components and transition zones on the landscape in a manner that
supports seasonal movement, feeding, breeding, and sheltering needs.
Each of the seasonal use areas creates space on the landscape that
allows caribou to spread out and avoid predators. These areas also have
little or no disturbance from forest practices, roads, or recreational
activities.
With this designation of critical habitat, we define the PBFs
essential to the conservation of the species, through the
identification of the features' primary constituent elements sufficient
to support the life-history processes of the species.
[[Page 71071]]
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
A comprehensive discussion of the threats affecting the species is
included in the southern Selkirk Mountains Caribou Population 5-Year
Review (USFWS 2008a), the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (2005), and the Revised Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994). The features essential to the conservation
of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou,
described above, may require special management considerations or
protections to reduce the following threats: Habitat fragmentation of
contiguous old-growth forests due to forest management practices and
activities, wildfire, disturbances such as roads and recreation, and
altered predator/prey dynamics.
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities
that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to,
conservation measures and actions to minimize the effects of forest
management practices on the PBFs, actions to minimize the potential for
wildfire and the implementation of rapid-response measures, as
appropriate, when wildfire occurs, road and recreational area closures
as appropriate to avoid or minimize the potential for disturbance-
related impacts, and reducing opportunities for predator-caribou
interactions.
The United States-Canada border in the Selkirk Mountains is remote,
rugged, and permeable to the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou. Illegal border-related activities and resultant law
enforcement response (such as increased human presence, and vehicles
including trucks, motorcycles, and all-terrain-vehicles), has the
potential to cause adverse effects in these remote areas. While current
levels of law enforcement activity do not pose a threat, a substantial
increase in activity levels could be of concern. We note that some
level of law enforcement activity can be beneficial, as it decreases
illegal traffic. Significant increases in illegal cross-border
activities in the designated critical habitat areas could pose a threat
to the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and
therefore, to a degree, border security actions provide a beneficial
decrease in cross-border violations and their impacts. There are no
known plans to construct security fences in the designated critical
habitat. We do not anticipate impermeable fencing being built in areas
with rugged terrain. Technological solutions and other tactics for
Homeland Security purposes would be more likely to be applied in these
areas.
Existing Conservation Measures
Land and resource management plans (LRMPs) for the IPNF and CNF
have been revised to incorporate management objectives and standards to
address the above threats, as a result of section 7 consultation
between the USFWS and USFS (USFWS 2001a, b). Standards for caribou
habitat management have been incorporated into the IPNF's 1987 and
CNF's 1988 LRMP, respectively, to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing
the continued existence of the species, contribute to caribou
conservation, and ensure consideration of the biological needs of the
species during forest management planning and implementation actions
(USFS 1987, pp. II-6, II-27, Appendix N; USFS 1988, pp. 4-10-17, 4-38,
4-42, 4-73-76, Appendix I).
These efforts contribute to the protection of the essential PBFs
by: (1) Retaining mature to old-growth cedar/hemlock and subalpine
spruce/fir stands; (2) analyzing timber management actions on a site-
specific basis to consider potential impacts to caribou habitat; (3)
avoiding road construction through mature old-growth forest stands
unless no other reasonable access is available; (4) placing emphasis on
road closures and habitat mitigation based on caribou seasonal habitat
needs and requirements; (5) controlling wildfires within southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou management areas to
prevent loss of coniferous species in all size classes; and (6)
managing winter recreation in the CNF in Washington, with specific
attention to snowmobile use within the Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger
District.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of this species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of emergency listing in 1983 (48 FR 1722; January 14, 1983).
Information we used to inform this designation includes:
(1) The emergency listing rule (48 FR 1722; January 14, 1983);
(2) The final listing rule (49 FR 7390; February 29, 1984);
(3) The 1985 Management/Recovery Plan for Selkirk Caribou (USFWS
1985) and appendices;
(4) The Revised Recovery Plan for the Selkirk Mountains Woodland
Caribou (USFWS 1994);
(5) The Southern Selkirk Mountains Caribou Population 5-Year Review
(USFWS 2008a);
(6) The Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion for the Modified
Idaho Roadless Rule for USDA Forest Service Regions 1 and 4 (USFWS
2008b);
(7) Biological opinions for the continued implementation of both
the Colville National Forest and Idaho Panhandle National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plans (USFWS 2001a, b);
(8) Site-specific reports including seasonal habitat models and
movement corridor for the southern Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou
(Kinley and Apps 2007, entire; Wakkinen and Slone 2010, entire);
(9) The Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005);
(10) Research published in peer-reviewed articles, academic theses,
agency reports, and mapping information from U.S. and Canadian sources;
(11) Peer review and public comments in response to the proposed
critical habitat designation; and
(12) The telemetry database compiled by Kinley for the Idaho
Department of Lands Critical Habitat Modeling for the South Selkirk
Ecosystem (Kinley and Apps 2007) Habitat Suitability Model (HSM)
analysis (referred to hereafter as ``telemetry'').
This database incorporated 17 years (1987-2004) of telemetry
location coordinates from 117 animals of the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou. Telemetry data was collected by the
IDFG, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Fish and
Wildlife Compensation Program (Columbia Basin) in British Columbia, and
was used to assess
[[Page 71072]]
utilization of the habitats considered for the final critical habitat
designation. We also used regional Geographic Information System (GIS)
data (such as species occurrence data, land use, elevation, topography,
aerial imagery, and land ownership maps) for area calculations and
mapping.
In the proposed critical habitat rule (76 FR 74028; November 30,
2011), we identified areas that provide for the conservation of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou based on the
geographical area described as the approximate area of normal
utilization in the emergency listing rule (48 FR 1722; January 14,
1983) and final listing rule (49 FR 7390; February 29, 1984). The
approximate area of normal utilization encompassed approximately
2,396,500 ac (969,829 ha) in both Canada and the United States;
1,405,000 ac (568,583 ha) of which was located within the United
States, and included northeast Washington and northern Idaho. Lands
managed by the CNF in Washington, the IPNF in Idaho, and some Priest
Lake Endowment Lands managed by IDL were included within the boundary
of the approximate area of normal utilization described in the above
listing rules. In the proposed critical habitat rule, critical habitat
boundaries were identified at or above 4,000 ft (about 1,220 m) in
elevation, which corresponded to the elevation of the recovery area
established in the State of Washington, but is below the 4,500 ft
(1,370 m) recovery area established for the State of Idaho. We then
overlaid seasonal telemetry radiolocations collected from caribou that
were translocated into the southern Selkirk Mountain ecosystems
(British Columbia, Idaho, and Washington), from 1987 through 2004 by
the IDFG, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Fish and
Wildlife Compensation Program (Columbia Basin) in British Columbia. To
further refine the proposed critical habitat boundaries, we overlaid
caribou movement corridors mapped by the IPNF (USFS 2004, pp. 22-23),
and results of the seasonal habitat suitability model developed by
Kinley and Apps (2007, entire) for the southern Selkirk Mountains
ecosystem. Isolated patches and some larger areas were removed because
they either lacked PCEs, were adjacent to Schweitzer ski resort, or had
relatively low historical utilization based on telemetry data. We
included certain areas below the 4,000 ft (about 1,220 m) in elevation
where seasonal connectivity between habitats was required. The
resulting area encompassed 345,552 ac (139,840 ha), as depicted in the
proposed critical habitat rule published on November 30, 2011 (76 FR
74028).
Comments by the Kootenai Tribe, State of Idaho, peer reviewers and
other parties suggested methods to refine the proposed critical habitat
boundary, including a Habitat Suitability Model (HSM) by Kinley and
Apps (2007), and a Migratory Corridor Study (MCS) by Wakkinen and Slone
(2010). The HSM was developed to determine the relative quality of an
area in terms of the five seasonal habitats that caribou could utilize
(early winter, late winter, spring, calving, summer), and is a scale-
dependent habitat model for the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou. This model is based upon peer-reviewed methodology
and has been utilized for 16 other subpopulations of mountain woodland
caribou in Canada (Kinley and Apps 2007, p. 23 and Apps et al. 2001,
entire). Areas were scored from 0 to 1 for each season, based on the
probability that the area provided good caribou habitat (Kinley and
Apps 2007, p.16). Service GIS staff aggregated the five seasonal GIS
layers into one layer keeping the highest score at every location. This
output was then filtered to only show areas with a score greater than
or equal to 0.5, as HSM scores greater than or equal to 0.5 gave the
best prediction of suitable habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou (Kinley and Apps 2007, p16). This
filtered layer was used in all of our analysis incorporating HSM.
We assessed various scenarios using the aggregate HSM to show
habitat quality captured, and the telemetry points from Kinley and Apps
(2007) to infer utilization by caribou. Only HSM areas with a score
greater than or equal to 0.5 were considered when assessing scenarios.
Acreage and percentage differences between scenarios were made in GIS
using the proposed critical habitat (76 FR 74018) as the baseline. For
reference purposes, the total HSM greater than or equal to 0.5 within
the United States in the final critical habitat rule is 22,178 ac
(8,975 ha), and was 151,825 ac (61,441 ha) in the proposed critical
habitat rule.
The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho recommended using areas with an HSM
score greater than or equal to 0.5 with a minimum patch size of 40 ac
(16 ha), combined with the MCS corridors for connectivity. The tribe
suggested that areas outside the proposed critical habitat boundary
should be included, and that the IPNF's caribou suitable habitat layer
(PNF-SH) should be used for assessing suitable habitat. The tribe
incorporated an analysis of efficiency of habitat designation based on
the percentage of telemetry points or habitat within the proposed
critical habitat and their suggested habitat's area. By definition,
this scenario captures a very high proportion of high-ranking habitat
(99 percent of the HSM greater than or equal to 0.5, and 93 percent of
telemetry points). We reviewed this scenario and observed that it did
not provide for inter-patch movement. The MCS corridors provided
regional connectivity, but 40 patches of habitat remained that were not
connected. We also concluded that the HSM was a better measure of
habitat quality than PNF-SH. This was because there was limited
information available on the PNF-SH model, and the utilization of the
HSM for identifying critical habitat was cited by other peer reviewers
and commenters, unlike the PNF-SH model.
The State of Idaho and Idaho Department of Fish and Game suggested
utilizing the Priority 1 subset of the HSM developed by Kinley and Apps
(2007), connected by the MCS corridors with a score greater than or
equal to 35, to identify critical habitat. We determined that the HSM
Priority 1 areas were inadequate since combined with the suggested
corridors, they included only the 63 percent of telemetry points and 39
percent of HSM greater than or equal to 0.5. Also, as Kinley and Apps
state (p. 24) the ``locations important for caribou conservation may
not be entirely circumscribed by Priority 1, 2 and 3 areas''.
Peer reviewers made a number of suggestions regarding the use of
elevation in the delineation of critical habitat. Two peer reviewers
suggested elevations above 5,000 ft (1,520 m) should be included, and
one identified 4,500 ft (1,370 m) as being important for early winter
habitat. The HSM scores, Wakkinen and Slone's corridors, and work by
Freddy (1974, 1979) were also forwarded for consideration, with a
suggestion that more recent data be incorporated into a new modeling
effort. The Kinley and Apps (2007) analysis of telemetry data for
defining seasonal cut-dates indicated a mean elevation of approximately
5,500 ft (1,675 m) for the early-winter seasonal-habitat period, which
represent the time of year when the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou are typically found at the lowest
elevation (Kinley and Apps 2007, pp. 7-8). The telemetry database
utilized in their analysis indicates that approximately 88 percent of
early-winter telemetry data occurred above 5,000 ft (1,520 m), with
approximately 71 percent of points occurring above 5,500 ft (1,680 m)
[[Page 71073]]
(Wakkinen peer review 2012, p. 3; State of Idaho comment letter 2012,
p. 8; Kootenai Tribe comment letter 2012, p. 8). Approximately 94
percent of all the telemetry data (for all seasonal habitat periods)
occurred above 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in elevation.
Based on the Kinley and Apps (2007, entire) telemetry database
analysis, and after considering all peer review and public comments and
information received in response to the proposed critical habitat
designation, we revised the critical habitat elevation boundaries from
4,000 ft (1,120 m) in the proposed critical habitat rule to habitats at
and above 5,000 ft (1,520 m) elevation in the final rule. We
acknowledge one peer reviewer's comment recommending that the
designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou be at 4,500 ft (1,370 m) elevation.
However, the information we evaluated as well as comments received
indicate that only habitats at 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in elevation and
above are essential to caribou. Our revised designation of areas at and
above 5,000 ft (1,520 m) also captures the ecotone described by Art
Zack, USFS (pers comm. 2012; see Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section), where the cedar/hemlock and subalpine fir
habitat types meet or intergrade on the IPNF at approximately 5,100 ft
(1,550 m); although where the ecotone break occurs is based on aspect,
topography, landform, cold air drainage patterns, and local weather
patterns. Similarly, the designation in our final rule includes the
average elevational shifts in habitat use by caribou, by season, for
the south Selkirk ecosystem (Kinley and Apps 2007, p.3). This
elevational range of 5,496 ft (1,675 m) in November (early winter) to
about 6,300 ft (1,920 m) in late January (late winter) was based on
telemetry data collected from 1987-2004. Scott and Servheen (1984, p.
30) also reported that in early winter the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou sought out habitat types providing snow-
free foraging areas at elevations approximately 4,950 ft (1,509 m).
After considering the best scientific data available, as required under
section 4(B)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the areas described
by the primary constituent elements and therefore the essential
physical and biological features specific to the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou above are essential to the
conservation of the species.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
PBFs for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification, unless the specific action
would affect the PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map presented at
the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot
points or both on which the map is based available to the public on
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096, on our
Internet site http://www.fws.gov/idaho/SpeciesNews.htm, and at the
field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above).
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient
PBFs to support life-history processes essential for the conservation
of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.
According to Freddy (1974, p. 43), current and historical
observations suggest seasonal movement of caribou into the United
States most likely during October and November, with return movement
into British Columbia from March through June. He also stated that from
September 1971 through May 1972, there were several observations of
caribou or tracks in the United States, especially in the east spur of
the Selkirk Mountains (Freddy 1974, pp. 45-46). An early May 1983
census of probable caribou habitat in British Columbia, Idaho, and
Washington revealed a population of 26 animals, including 4 mature
bulls, 3 immature bulls, 3 calves, 11 cows, and 5 animals that were
either young bulls or cows (IDFG 1983, pers. comm.). A 1983-1984
seasonal distribution study based on telemetry data from six collared
caribou concluded that most activity occurred in drainages north of
British Columbia Highway 3 (Scott and Servheen 1984, pp. 16-22). In
that study, three adult cows, two mature bulls, and one immature bull,
were tracked. Of these six caribou, the two mature bulls were collared
with radio transmitters during October 1983 (i.e., data from the spring
season was not available), the immature bull was illegally killed in
the fall of 1983, and a radio collar on one of the adult cows stopped
transmitting in the spring of 1984.
Although this study does provide information on occupancy of
caribou at the time of listing it does not provide an in-depth
understanding of seasonal habitat use within this area at the time of
listing. The telemetry data of this study are incomplete, as two of the
six caribou collared were no longer transmitting location information,
and there are no telemetry data from the majority of the population
(i.e., the caribou that were not radio collared). Other than the
location information obtained during the augmentation of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou during the 1980s and
1990s, caribou census surveys conducted annually since the early 1990s
have been limited to the winter season, when caribou and their tracks
are most visible. As stated earlier, Freddy (1974, pp. 43, 45-46),
suggested that current and historical use of habitat within the United
States occurred throughout most of the year. Although we do not have
conclusive data regarding current seasonal use patterns in the area
being designated as critical habitat (because year-round surveys are
not being conducted), the areas have at minimum been used during winter
and other seasons historically, and are essential to the conservation
of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou for
these purposes.
One unit was designated based on sufficient elements of PBFs being
present to support the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou life processes. Some areas within the unit contain all
of the identified elements of the PBFs and support multiple life
processes. Some areas within the unit contain only some elements of the
PBFs necessary to support the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou's particular use of that habitat.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating one unit as critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The critical habitat
area described below constitutes our best assessment of areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population
[[Page 71074]]
of woodland caribou. The Selkirk Mountains Critical Habitat Unit is
located in Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, Washington.
The approximate size and ownership of the Selkirk Mountains Critical
Habitat Unit is identified in Table 1. This Unit was occupied at the
time of emergency listing in 1983, and at the time of final listing in
1984, and is essential to the conservation of the species.
Table 3--Designated Critical Habitat for the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries, values are rounded to the nearest
whole numbers.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership by type and acres (hectares)
Critical habitat by county ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Private State Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELKIRK MOUNTAINS CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT
Southern Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary County, Idaho.............. 6,029 (2,440) 0 0 6,029 (2,440)
Pend Oreille County, Washington..... 23,980 (9,705) 0 0 23,980 (9,705)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total...................... 30,010 (12,145) 0 0 30,010 (12,145)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
We present a brief description of the Selkirk Mountains Critical
Habitat Unit, and reasons why this Unit meets the definition of
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou.
Selkirk Mountains Critical Habitat Unit
The Selkirk Mountains Critical Habitat Unit consists of 30,010 ac
(12,145 ha) in Boundary County, Idaho and Pend Oreille County,
Washington. Lands within this unit are at 5,000 ft (1,520 m) and higher
in elevation. These lands are under Federal ownership, within the
Colville and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The Selkirk Mountains
Critical Habitat Unit was occupied at the time of both the emergency
listing on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1722), and the final listing in 1984
(49 FR 7390; February 29, 1984), and is essential to the conservation
of the species. This area also contains the PBFs essential to the
conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The primary land uses are forest management activities and
recreational activities, which occur throughout the year. Recreational
activities include, but are not limited to, snowmobiling, off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use, backcountry skiing, and hunting. Special management
considerations or protection needed within the unit are required to
address habitat fragmentation of contiguous old growth forests due to
forest practices and activities, wildfire, and disturbances such as
roads and recreation.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
[[Page 71075]]
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the PBFs to an
extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of the critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support
life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of
the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
We have identified no specific projects that would be of such scope
and magnitude as to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
However, activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou, and thus comply with the Act. These activities include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would reduce or remove mature old-growth
vegetation (greater than 100-125 years old) within the cedar/hemlock
zone and subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce zone at higher elevations
stands (at or greater than 5,000 ft (1,520 m)), including the ecotone
between these two forest habitats. Such activities could include, but
are not limited to, forest stand thinning, timber harvest, and fuels
treatment of forest stands. These activities could significantly reduce
the abundance of arboreal lichen habitat, such that the landscape's
ability to produce adequate densities of arboreal lichen to support
persistent mountain caribou populations is at least temporarily
diminished.
(2) Actions that would cause permanent loss or conversion of old-
growth coniferous forest on a scale proportionate to the large
landscape used by the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
recreational area developments, certain types of mining activities
(e.g. open-pit mining), and road construction. Such activities could
eliminate and fragment mountain caribou and arboreal lichen habitat.
(3) Actions that would increase traffic volume and speed on roads
within southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
critical habitat areas. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, transportation projects to upgrade roads or development, or
development of a new tourist destination. These activities could reduce
connectivity within the old-growth coniferous forest landscape for
mountain caribou.
(4) Actions that would increase recreation in southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou critical habitat. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, recreational
developments that facilitate winter access into mountain caribou
habitat units, or management activities that increase recreational
activities within designated critical habitat throughout the year, such
as snowmobiling, OHV use, and backcountry skiing. These activities have
the potential to displace the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou from suitable habitat or increase their susceptibility
to predation. Displacement of caribou may result in: (1) Additional
energy expenditure when they vacate an area to avoid disturbance, at a
time when their energy reserves are already low; (2) an effective
temporary loss of available habitat; and (3) potential long-term
habitat loss if they abandon areas affected by chronic disturbance.
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
strongly prefers old-growth forests to young forests in all seasons. In
designated critical habitat, management actions that alter vegetation
structure or condition in young forests over limited areas may not
represent an adverse effect to caribou critical habitat. However, an
adverse effect could result if these types of management activities
reduce and fragment areas in a manner that creates a patchwork of
different age classes or prevents young forests from achieving old-
growth habitat characteristics. For example, a commercial thinning or
fuels reduction project in a young forest that may affect, but would
not be likely to adversely affect critical habitat would not require
formal consultation. However, a commercial thinning or fuels reduction
project conducted within an old-growth forest that may affect, and
would be likely to adversely affect, critical habitat would require
formal consultation. As discussed in response to Comment 60, Federal
agencies should examine the scale of their activities to determine
whether direct or indirect alteration of habitat would occur to an
extent that the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the
mountain caribou would be appreciably diminished.
Actions with no effect on the PCEs and physical and biological
features of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou do not require section 7 consultation,
although such actions may still have adverse or beneficial effects on
the species itself that require consultation. Examples of these actions
may include: routine trail and road maintenance (using native
aggregate, blading of forest road surfaces, dust abatement), resource
surveys such as timber stand exams, limited recreation on established
trails and dispersed sites, and routine border security and
surveillance. Although each of these activities would not be likely to
result in adverse effects or adverse modifications to critical habitat
for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, they
may require section 7 consultation to insure they are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
[[Page 71076]]
Section 9(a)(1) of the Act identifies prohibited activities with
regard to endangered wildlife species listed pursuant to section 4 of
the Act, which includes unlawful ``take.'' Section 3(19) of the Act
defines ``take'' to mean to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct. Harm in the definition of ``take'' in the Act means an act
which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may
include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually
kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating,
feeding, or sheltering (46 FR 54750; November 4, 1981). Therefore, the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is protected
by the Act both within and outside of designated critical habitat
areas. Outside of designated critical habitat, the Service will
continue to work with our Federal partners to conserve the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou pursuant to sections
7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within the proposed critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not
exempting lands from this final designation of critical habitat for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou pursuant to
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. The statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history, is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how
much weight to give to any factor in making that determination.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area
from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a DEA of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors (Industrial Economics, 2012).
The draft economic analysis, dated May 2, 2012, was made available for
public review from May 31 through July 2, 2012 (77 FR 32075). Following
the close of the comment period, a final economic analysis (FEA), of
the potential economic effects of the designation was developed, taking
into consideration the public comments and new information.
The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all
potential conservation efforts for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou; some of these costs will likely be
incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat
(baseline). The economic impact of the final critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under
the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations).
The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to
occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs;
these are the costs we consider in the final designation of critical
habitat. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts
incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and
incremental impacts likely to occur with the designation of critical
habitat.
The proposed rule that was published on November 30, 2011 (76 FR
74018) identified approximately 375,562 acres (151,985 hectares) as
critical habitat in Boundary and Bonner Counties in Idaho, and Pend
Orielle County in
[[Page 71077]]
Washington. The proposed designation included 222,971 ac (90,233 ha) of
Federal land, 65,218 ac (26,393 ha) of State land, and 15,379 ac (6,223
ha) of private land in Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho, and 71,976
ac (29,128 ha) of Federal land in Pend Orielle County, Washington. The
final rule removes approximately 345,552 ac (139,603 ha) that do not
meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the
Act. The final rule designates approximately 30,010 acres (12,145
hectares) of critical habitat on Federal lands within the Colville
National Forest and Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area in Pend Oreille
County, Washington, and the Idaho Panhandle (Kaniksu) National Forest
in Boundary County, Idaho. The areas being designated are within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, are
essential to the conservation of the species, and are managed by the
U.S. Forest Service.
Incremental impacts resulting from the designation of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou are limited to the additional effort required to address
adverse modification in consultations undertaken by USFS in the IPNF
and CNF. The FEA forecasts about one formal and informal section 7
consultation annually over the next 20 years. The 20-year timeframe
applied in the economic analysis is chosen as the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) indicates that a standard time period of analysis is
10 to 20 years, and rarely exceeds 50 years. This analysis does not
forecast additional project modifications associated with this
designation. The reasonably foreseeable incremental impacts quantified
in this analysis and attributable to the critical habitat designation
are limited to the administrative costs of considering adverse
modification during section 7 consultation with the Service. The
potential incremental administrative costs resulting from the critical
habitat designation are as follows:
(1) Idaho Panhandle National Forest: $135,000 from 2012 to 2031, or
$11,900 annually, discounted at seven percent.
(2) Colville National Forest and Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area:
$105,000 from 2012 to 2031, or $9,230 annually, discounted at seven
percent.
(3) Other Federal agencies: $6,400 from 2012 to 2031, or $564
annually, discounted at seven percent (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection).
(4) Project Modifications: Due to extensive baseline protections of
the caribou, no incremental project modifications are anticipated.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency primarily
associated with timber harvests; fire, fire suppression, forest
management practices; and recreational activities and development.
Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects
of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic
sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at costs that have been
incurred since 1984 (the year of the final listing rule) (49 FR 7390;
February 29, 1984), and considers costs that may occur in the 20 years
following the designation of critical habitat, which was determined to
be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information was available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
In summary, the incremental effects of the designated critical
habitat for caribou are limited by the relatively large overlap the
designation has with the existing habitat-based consultation framework
for actions having already undergone section 7 consultations for the
effects to the species under the jeopardy standard. The FEA did not
identify any disproportionate incremental costs that are likely to
result from the designation. Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou based on economic impacts.
A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by
contacting the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov (search for
docket number FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096).
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we
have determined that the lands within the designation of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) is tasked with maintaining National
Security interests along the nation's international borders. As such,
CBP activities may qualify for exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. CBP has not identified specific areas within the designated
critical habitat that should be considered for exclusion at this time.
Since neither DOD nor CBP have identified areas within the designated
critical habitat for exclusion, the Secretary is not exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on
impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other non-federal management plans for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. Although the
final designation does not include any tribal lands, it includes fish,
wildlife, and other natural and cultural resources of the tribes,
including rights reserved under treaty and other laws, policies, and
orders. Similarly, the designation of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou does not establish any
closures, or restrictions on use or access to areas designated as
critical habitat, including those areas reserved by the tribes. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this
critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this final
designation based on other relevant impacts.
[[Page 71078]]
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The OIRA has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based on the best available science
and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and
an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical
habitat designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains
our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts on
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., timber,
recreation, and other activities). We apply the ``substantial number''
test individually to each industry to determine if certification is
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou. Federal agencies also must consult with us if their activities
may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat,
therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on small
entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing
Federal activities (see Application of the ``Adverse Modification
Standard'' section).
In our FEA of the critical habitat designation, we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from
conservation actions related to the listing of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou and the designation of
critical habitat. The analysis evaluates the potential for economic
impacts related to: (1) Timber harvests; (2) Fire, fire suppression,
and forest management practices; and (3) Recreational activities and
development.
However, as stated earlier, the final rule removes approximately
345,552 ac (139,603 ha) that do not meet the definition of critical
habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act (i.e., the areas removed are
not essential to the conservation of the species). The final rule
designates approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) of critical
habitat on Federal lands within the Colville National Forest and Salmo-
Priest Wilderness Area in Pend Oreille County, Washington, and the
Idaho Panhandle (Kaniksu) National Forest in Boundary County, Idaho.
The areas being designated are within the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing, are essential to the conservation
of the species, and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. As Federal
agencies, the USFS, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are not
considered small entities. These Federal entities are expected to bear
all of the incremental administrative costs of section 7 consultation
and therefore, we do not anticipate small entities to be either
directly regulated or significantly affected by this designation.
In summary, we considered whether this designation would result in
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on the above reasoning and currently available
information, we concluded that this rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat
for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou will
not have a significant economic impact on a
[[Page 71079]]
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration.
The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the FEA
(Industrial Economics 2012, ES-8, Appendix A), energy-related impacts
associated with the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou conservation activities within critical habitat are not
expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou occurs primarily on Federal
land, and imposes no obligations on State or local governments.
Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat designation
would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As
such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou in a takings implications assessment. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Idaho. We received comments
from the Idaho Office of Species Conservation that included comments
from IDFG, IDL, and IDPR and have addressed them in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations section of the rule. The designation of
critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas that contain the PBFs essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of
the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are
specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what
federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of
[[Page 71080]]
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou. The designated areas of
critical habitat are presented on a map, and the rule provides several
options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location
information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal--Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species
Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We determined that there are no tribal
lands occupied by the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou at the time of listing that contain the features essential for
conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou that are
essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Idaho
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Caribou, woodland'' under
``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------ population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS.........................
* * * * * * *
Caribou, woodland............... Rangifer tarandus Canada, U.S. (AK, Canada E 128E, 136, 17.95(a) NA
caribou. ID, ME, MI, MN, (southeastern 143
MT, NH, VT, WA, British Columbia
WI). bounded by the
Canada-U.S.
border, Columbia
River, Kootenay
River, Kootenay
Lake, and Kootenai
River), U.S. (ID,
WA).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71081]]
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for
``Woodland caribou, (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Southern Selkirk
Mountains Population'' in the same alphabetical order that the species
appears in the table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Southern Selkirk Mountains
Population
(1) A critical habitat unit is depicted for Boundary County, Idaho,
and Pend Oreille County, Washington, on the map below.
(2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou consist of
five components:
(i) Mature to old-growth western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)/
western red cedar (Thuja plicata) climax forest, and subalpine fir
(Abies lasiocarpa)/Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni) climax forest at
least 5,000 ft (1,520 m) in elevation; these habitats typically have
26-50 percent or greater canopy closure.
(ii) Ridge tops and high elevation basins that are generally 6,000
ft (1,830 m) in elevation or higher, associated with mature to old
stands of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa)/Engelmann spruce (Picea
engelmanni) climax forest, with relatively open canopy.
(iii) Presence of arboreal hair lichens.
(iv) High-elevation benches and shallow slopes, secondary stream
bottoms, riparian areas, and seeps, and subalpine meadows with
succulent forbs and grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, willow,
huckleberry, dwarf birch, sedges and lichens. The southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou, including pregnant females,
uses these areas for feeding during the spring and summer seasons.
(v) Corridors/Transition zones that connect the habitats described
above. If human activities occur, they are such that they do not impair
the ability of caribou to use these areas.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are
located existing within the legal boundaries on December 28, 2012.
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit
were created using a 5,000-ft (1,520-m) elevation layer derived from
30m USGS DEM plus migration-corridor polygons, and units were then
mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 11N coordinates.
The map in this entry establishes the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
the map is based are available to the public at the field office
Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/idaho), at http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096, and at the Service's Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Unit 1: Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County,
Washington. The map of the critical habitat unit follows:
[[Page 71082]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28NO12.000
* * * * *
Dated: November 14, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-28512 Filed 11-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P