[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26503-26535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09601]
[[Page 26503]]
Vol. 79
Thursday,
No. 89
May 8, 2014
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of
Woodland Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 26504]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; FXES11130900000C2-123-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AZ74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of
Woodland Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This
species is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that delisting the
species is not warranted, but rather, a revision to the current listed
entity to define a distinct population segment (DPS), consistent with
our 1996 distinct population segment policy, is appropriate. As such,
we propose to amend the current listing of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou by defining the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and we propose to
designate the status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as threatened
under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS will be listed as threatened under the Act. This
DPS includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou, a transboundary population that moves between
British Columbia, Canada, and northern Idaho and northeastern
Washington, United States. We have determined that the approximately
30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) designated as critical habitat on
November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou is applicable to the U.S. portion of the
proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and, as such, reaffirm the
existing critical habitat for the DPS should the proposed amendment to
the listed entity become final.
DATES: We will accept all comments received or postmarked on or before
July 7, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by June 23, 2014
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on the blue ``Comment Now!'' box. If
your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this
feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with
our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a
separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you
attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format
is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Carrier, State Supervisor,
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. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule.
For any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we are required under the Act to
promptly publish a finding in the Federal Register within 1 year.
Listing, removing, or changing the status of a species as an endangered
or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
Any proposed or final rule affecting the status of a
possible DPS as endangered or threatened under the Act should clearly
analyze the action using the following three elements: Discreteness of
the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to
which it belongs; the significance of the population segment to the
taxon to which it belongs; and the conservation status of the
population segment in relation to the Act's standards for listing.
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. Here we propose to reaffirm the designation of
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 Mountain Caribou DPS should the
proposed amendment to the listed entity become final.
This rule proposes to amend the current listing of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou as follows:
By defining the Southern Mountain Caribou distinct
population segment (DPS), which includes the currently listed southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou;
By designating the status of the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS as threatened under the Act; and
By reaffirming the designation of approximately 30,010 ac
(12,145 ha) as critical habitat for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
The basis for our action. The southern Selkirk Mountains woodland
caribou was listed under the Act on February 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390).
According to our ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS
policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), the appropriate application of
the policy to pre-1996 DPS listings shall be considered in our 5-year
reviews. We conducted a DPS analysis during our 2008 5-year review,
which concluded
[[Page 26505]]
that the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou met
both the discreteness and significance elements of the DPS policy.
However, we now recognize that this analysis did not consider the
significance of this population relative to the appropriate taxon. The
purpose of the DPS policy is to set forth standards for determining
which populations of vertebrate organisms that are subsets of species
or subspecies may qualify as entities that we may list as endangered or
threatened under the Act. In the 2008 5-year review, we assessed the
significance of the southern Selkirk Mountains population to the
``mountain ecotype'' of woodland caribou. The ``mountain ecotype'' is
not a species or subspecies. The appropriate DPS analysis for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou should have
been conducted relative to the subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou). Listing or reclassifying DPSs allows the Service to
protect and conserve species and the ecosystems upon which they depend
before large-scale decline occurs that would necessitate listing a
species or subspecies throughout its entire range.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information,
review our application of that science, and provide any additional
scientific information to improve this proposed rule. We will consider
all comments and information received during the comment period, and as
a result, our final determination may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The DPS' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical, current, and projected population levels and trends
of the local populations of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the DPS, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing or
delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this DPS and regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this DPS, including
the locations of any additional local populations of this DPS.
(5) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by the DPS
and possible impacts of these activities on this DPS.
(6) Information regarding the current status and population trends
of the local populations that comprise the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS. This information will be used to determine the status of the DPS
as either not warranted for listing, threatened, or endangered.
(7) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and its habitat.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. We
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hard copy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will
be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov. All
comments, materials, and supporting documentation are available by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Idaho Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Previous Federal Actions
In 1980, the Service received petitions to list the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou as endangered under
the 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, January 14, 1983). Following a review of the
petition and other readily available data, the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) in northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and southeastern
British Columbia 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). A final rule listing
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou) 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. This determination was based on the conclusion
that increased poaching could result from the publication of maps
showing areas used by the species. A Selkirk Mountain Caribou
Management Plan/Recovery Plan was approved by the Service in 1985
(USFWS 1985). A revised Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou in the
Selkirk
[[Page 26506]]
Mountains was approved by the Service in 1994 (USFWS 1994).
Notices of 90-day findings on two petitions to delist the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
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, Bonners Ferry, Idaho. We found that neither
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that delisting of the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou was warranted.
On April 11, 2006, a notice of initiation of 5-year reviews for 70
species in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Guam was published in
the Federal Register (71 FR 18345). This notice included the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The Southern Selkirk
Mountains Caribou Population 5-Year Review was completed December 5,
2008 (USFWS 2008; see http://www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf).
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 southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. On
February 10, 2003, we acknowledged receipt of the plaintiffs' petition,
and stated we were unable to address the petition at that time due to
budgetary constraints. On January 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (Defenders of Wildlife
et al., v. Salazar, CV-09-15-EFS) in Federal district court. This
complaint alleged 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). Following a
stipulated settlement agreement, we published a proposed rule to
designate critical habitat on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018), and a
final rule on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), designating
approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) as critical habitat. The
critical habitat is located in Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille
County, Washington. Although the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland
caribou local population is a transboundary species with Canada, in
accordance with our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h),
critical habitat was not designated outside of the jurisdiction of the
United States.
More recently, we received a petition on May 14, 2012, from the
Pacific Legal Foundation, representing Bonner County, Idaho, and the
Idaho State Snowmobile Association. The petition requested that the
Service ``delist the Selkirk caribou population (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) from the list of endangered species.'' On December 19, 2012,
we published a 90-day finding (77 FR 75091) in response to that
petition. Our finding stated that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that the current southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou may not be a listable entity under our
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722). We acknowledged that our analysis in the
2008 5-year review did not consider the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou relative to the appropriate taxon
allowable under our 1996 DPS policy, the subspecies woodland caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou). This proposed rule constitutes our review
of the population relative to the appropriate taxon.
Species Information
Taxonomy
All caribou and reindeer worldwide are considered to be the same
species (Rangifer tarandus). Although they are referred to by different
names, they are able to interbreed and produce offspring (Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2002, p. 9;
Hummel and Ray, 2008, p. 31). Caribou are in the Order Artiodactyla
(even-toed ungulates) and Family Cervidae (deer) (Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS) 2013, in litt.; Mountain Caribou Science Team
(MCST) 2005, p. 1; Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 2013,
in litt.; COSEWIC 2011, p. 11). In Europe, the common name for Rangifer
tarandus is reindeer. In North America, the common name for the species
is caribou; only the domesticated forms are called reindeer (Cichowski
et al. 2004, p. 224). For consistency, the term caribou will be used to
refer to the species Rangifer tarandus in this Federal Register
document. According to the American Society of Mammalogists' checklist
of mammal species of the world (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural
History 2013, in litt.) and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS \1\), 14 subspecies of caribou are currently recognized
worldwide, including the subspecies woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus
caribou, as defined by Banfield (1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ITIS is a database created through a partnership amongst
agencies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, along with other
organizations and taxonomic specialists (ITIS 2013, in litt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first widely accepted classification below the species level of
caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in North America was by Banfield in 1961
(Banfield 1961, entire; Shackleton 2010, p. 3; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 11-
12). In his revision, Banfield primarily used adult (4 years or older)
skull measurements (Banfield 1961, p. 11) to divide Rangifer tarandus
in North America into four extant and one extinct subspecies: Barren-
ground caribou--Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus, Grant's caribou--
Rangifer tarandus granti, Peary caribou--Rangifer tarandus pearyi,
woodland caribou--Rangifer tarandus caribou, and Dawson's caribou--
Rangifer tarandus dawsoni (extinct). Banfield also examined pelage
(coat/hide) color, and took measurement of hooves, tarsal glands, and
antlers as taxonomic indicators (Banfield 1961, p. 26). However,
Banfield noted that antlers were extremely variable among individuals
and populations (Banfield 1961, p. 24).
Since the 1960s, much has been learned about caribou ecology,
distribution, and genetics, revealing substantial diversity within
Banfield's subspecies classifications (Miller et al. 2007, p. 16).
There has been some debate over the caribou subspecies classification,
particularly for the woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) (Cronin et al. 2005, p. 495). Banfield appeared to use the
woodland caribou as a ``catch-all'' for all North American caribou not
included in the other subspecies despite variability in their behavior,
ecology, and morphology (Geist 2007, p. 25). Many have proposed
alternative classifications to account for variability within and among
the various subspecies of caribou. Population units were described with
terms such as ``ecotypes'' (Bergerud 1996, entire) based on migration
patterns and calving strategies, and adaptations to a certain set of
environmental conditions. This has caused confusion because there is no
universally accepted list of caribou ecotypes or criteria to
distinguish caribou ecotypes (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 12-13).
There is also confusion in terminology. For example, in
Qu[eacute]bec there are migratory and sedentary caribou ecotypes
(Boulet et al. 2007, p. 4224). Caribou of the sedentary ecotype are
generally characterized by relatively little movement between seasonal
ranges. They also generally exhibit a
[[Page 26507]]
dispersed calving strategy, with female caribou giving birth in
isolation to avoid predators. Caribou of the migratory ecotype
generally move large distances between seasonal ranges. These caribou
generally aggregate during calving (COSEWIC 2011, p. 13). In British
Columbia, woodland caribou ecotypes are distinguished based on
differences in the ecological and physical factors within their ranges.
These factors include relative depth of the snowpack, forage
availability, and terrain (COSEWIC 2011, p. 13). The term ``mountain
caribou'' is a common ecotype designation used throughout the
scientific literature to describe the mountain dwelling/arboreal-lichen
feeding woodland caribou local populations found in the mountainous
regions of southeastern British Columbia. The mountain caribou is
distinguished from other woodland caribou by behavioral and ecological
characteristics (MCST 2005, p. 1). The mountain caribou is closely
associated with high-elevation, late-successional, or old-growth
coniferous forests where their primary winter food, arboreal lichens,
occurs. Regardless of efforts to further refine caribou subspecies
designations, Banfield's caribou subspecies classifications, including
the woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer tarandus caribou), are still
recognized and used today. No alternative subspecies classifications
for caribou have been systematically described or broadly accepted
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 12).
Species Description
Rangewide, individual caribou (Rangifer tarandus) exhibit large
variations in their physical and behavioral characteristics (COSEWIC
2011, p. 10). Caribou can be highly variable in color. Their winter
pelage varies from nearly white in Arctic caribou such as the Peary
caribou, to dark brown in woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 10-11).
Both male and female caribou grow antlers, although antlers may be
absent in some females. All caribou are adapted to existence in cold
winter climates. They have a range of adaptations including thick fur,
strong sense of smell (for locating food under snow; Henttonen and
Tikhonov 2008, p. 3), large fat stores, a respiratory system that
minimizes heat loss during respiration, and an ability to lower
metabolism in the winter by decreasing energy expenditure (COSEWIC
2011, p. 11). Caribou are also variable in their diet. They feed on
lichens, mosses, grasses, ferns, and shoots and leaves of deciduous
shrubs and trees, depending on availability (Henttonen and Tikhonov
2008, p. 3). One of the most distinctive characteristics of all
subspecies of caribou is their large, rounded hooves. Their hooves
reduce sinking into snow and wetlands, and allow them to walk or stand
on hard snowpack to reach tree lichens, and they can use their hooves
as paddles while swimming (COSEWIC 2002, p. 18). All caribou have
prominent dew claws just above the hoof.
As previously discussed, Banfield (1961) described five caribou
subspecies in North America based on their physical characteristics.
Banfield primarily used skull measurements, as well as pelage, antler
shape, and hoof shape, to divide Rangifer tarandus into four extant and
one extinct North American subspecies. Woodland caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou), one of the five subspecies he identified, is the
southern-most subspecies in North America. Its range occurs in an east
to west band from eastern Newfoundland and northern Quebec all the way
into western British Columbia, and as far south as northern Idaho and
Washington in the United States. This subspecies classification is
still recognized and used by scientific authorities including the
American Society of Mammalogists and COSEWIC.
Individual caribou can display tremendous variability in appearance
and body form even within the same population (Hummel and Ray 2008, p.
34). Woodland caribou are generally described as dark brown with a
white mane and some white on their sides (COSEWIC 2002, p. 18) and have
a noticeable band of white hairs (called socks) along the upper edge of
each hoof (Shackleton 2010, p. 1). They are larger and darker than both
the Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the barren-ground
caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus), which occur in the Northwest
Territories and east in Nunavut (Canada 2013, in litt.). All caribou
can withstand severe cold because their thick winter coat contains
semi-hollow hair with strong insulative properties. However, woodland
caribou are susceptible to overheating in summer months as their dark
coat absorbs sunlight (COSEWIC 2002, p. 36). Similar to the Peary and
barren-ground caribou subspecies, the nose of the woodland caribou is
blunt and rather square shaped. In addition, their ears are short,
broad, and not pointed. Both sexes have antlers although up to half of
females may lack antlers or have one antler. The antlers of woodland
caribou are considered to be denser and flatter than those of barren-
ground caribou (Canada 2013, in litt.). Adult males of woodland caribou
are described as having a mane of longer hairs along the bottom of the
neck to the chest. During rut, the light color of the neck and mane
contrasts with the darker colored body (Shackleton 2010, p. 1). Height
of the woodland caribou at the shoulder is a little over 3 to 4 feet
(ft) (1.0 to 1.2 meters (m)). Females weigh about 240 to 330 pounds
(lbs) (110 to 150 kilograms (kg)) and males about 350 to 460 lbs (160
to 210 kg).
Biology
Reproduction. Woodland caribou are polygynous, with dominant bulls
breeding with multiple cows in the fall (Cichowski et al. 2004, p.
229). Pregnant females travel to isolated, often rugged areas where
predators and other prey animals are limited. Calves are born in late
spring into early summer (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 229-230; COSEWIC
2002, p. 34). A single young is born and is capable of following its
mother soon after birth (Shackleton 2010, p. 2). The productivity of
caribou is low compared to other cervids (e.g., deer and moose).
Caribou have only one calf per year and most females reproduce for the
first time around 3 years of age (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 230;
Shackleton 2010, p. 1). Caribou reach sexual maturity at approximately
16 to 28 months of age.
On average, mortality of woodland caribou calves is 50 to 70
percent within their first year. This mortality depends on the
abundance of predators or the availability of winter forage during
pregnancy, or both (COSEWIC 2002, p. 35). Predation is the most common
cause of calf mortality (Shackleton 2010, p. 2). Calf mortality is also
linked to the health of the calf at birth (COSEWIC 2002, p. 35). It has
been shown that, due to temporal variation in the accessibility of
lichens, female caribou may be nutritionally deficient in some years
during pregnancy and may be more likely to produce weak calves. Weak
calves are likely more susceptible to predation and diseases such as
pneumonia. As such, temporal variation in lichen availability may also
be driving calf mortality and low calf recruitment in some years
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 35).
Habitat Use. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are the most widespread
ungulate species in the world. The ecosystems they have evolved to
occupy are highly variable (COSEWIC 2011, p. 11), including the tundra
and taiga biomes on all northern continents--North America, Europe, and
Asia (Henttonen and Tikhonov 2008, p. 2). Occupied habitats vary from
flat and
[[Page 26508]]
open arctic and subarctic tundra to forested habitat, including high-
elevation and steep mountainous slopes (Henttonen and Tikhonov 2008, p.
3). Variability in habitat occupancy has driven the evolution of many
different ecosystem-specific behavioral and migratory traits within the
species. For example, caribou in many ecosystems migrate long distances
between their calving and wintering grounds. Meanwhile, caribou in
other ecosystems are relatively sedentary, making short movements
between these areas. Further, caribou in many ecosystems calve in large
groups, while others disperse and calve in solitude at high elevations
away from potential predators (Bergerud 1996, entire).
Distribution and Abundance
Historically, caribou (Rangifer tarandus) populations occurred in
nearly all northern latitudes. They have since been extirpated from
many areas in Europe and eastern North America (MCST 2005, p. 1). In
Banfield's revision (1961), he reported the southern boundary of
caribou in the early part of the 19th century to include central Maine
and extreme northern New Hampshire and Vermont (Banfield 1961, p. 73).
He also noted their occurrence around the Great Lakes in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan (Banfield 1961, pp. 74-75), and in the
northwestern United States in Washington, Idaho, and Montana (Banfield
1961, p. 76). Caribou were reported to be extirpated from Maine after
about 1908, from New Hampshire after about 1881, and from Vermont after
about 1840 (Banfield 1961, p. 76). The last caribou in Michigan was
observed off Isle Royale in 1905, and the last caribou in Wisconsin was
observed in about 1840 (Banfield 1961, p. 77). An extensive
investigation by Evans (1960, pp. 94-96) estimated that no more than
100 caribou still lived in the northwestern United States, primarily in
northern Idaho. Today, the entire southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou, the only local caribou population \2\ known to
have a home range that extends into the contiguous United States, is
estimated to consist of only 27 individuals (Ritchie 2013, in litt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Woodland caribou populations can be further broken down into
sub-units we are calling ``local populations'' (also referred to
elsewhere as ``herds'' or ``subpopulations''). These local caribou
populations represent groupings of individual woodland caribou that
have overlapping ranges/movement patterns and commonly breed with
one another more frequently than they breed outside of their local
population boundary. It is thought that local populations in
southern British Columbia are a relatively recent artifact within
the population of woodland caribou and that, historically, movement
of caribou between local populations was more common. In some cases,
local population boundaries have been delineated through telemetry
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, caribou are restricted to the more northern areas of
North America, Russia, and Scandinavia (MCST 2005, p. 1). In North
America, caribou occur primarily north of the 50th latitude. The
majority of caribou occur in boreal, montane, and arctic environments
in Alaska, most Canadian Provinces, and all Canadian Territories except
for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island (COSEWIC 2011,
p. 10). The subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)
occurs in Canada in the southern Yukon; southwestern Northwest
Territories; northern, west-central, and southeastern British Columbia;
west-central and northern Alberta; boreal portions of Saskatchewan and
Manitoba; the boreal and arctic portions of Ontario, Quebec, and
Newfoundland; and Labrador; and in the United States in extreme
northeastern Washington and northern Idaho (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp.
225-226; COSEWIC 2002, p. viii).
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) is the southernmost extant, local
population of woodland caribou in North America (Idaho Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG CWCS) IDFG 2005, p. 373; USFWS
2008, p. 12). This population occurs in British Columbia, Canada, and
northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, United States. Cichowski et
al. (2004, p. 226) reported the total population of the woodland
caribou subspecies to be over 1 million. The present distribution of
woodland caribou in Canada is greatly reduced from historical accounts.
Reports indicate that the extent of occurrence in British Columbia
populations has decreased by up to 40 percent in the last few centuries
(COSEWIC 2002, p. viii).
Evaluation of the Southern Mountain Caribou as a Distinct Population
Segment
Introduction and Background
Distinctive, discrete, and significant populations of the woodland
caribou have been identified, described, and assessed by the COSEWIC.
COSEWIC is composed of qualified wildlife experts drawn from the
Federal, provincial, and territorial governments; wildlife management
boards; Aboriginal groups; universities; museums; national
nongovernmental organizations; and others with expertise in the
conservation of wildlife species in Canada. The role of COSEWIC is to
assess and classify, using the best available information, the
conservation status of wildlife species, subspecies, and separate
populations suspected of being at risk. In addition, they make species
status recommendations to the Canadian government and the public. Once
COSEWIC makes this recommendation, it is the option of the Canadian
Federal government to decide whether a species will be listed under
Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA). For example, the Southern Mountain
Caribou, a population of the woodland caribou, is currently designated
as ``Threatened'' under SARA (COSEWIC 2011, Table 1, p. 74). This
designation was reached because the population of Southern Mountain
Caribou is mostly made up of small, increasingly isolated herds (most
of which are in decline) with an estimated range reduction of up to 40
percent from their historical range (COSEWIC 2002, p. 58; COSEWIC 2011,
Table 1, p. 74). The Southern Mountain Caribou includes the
transboundary southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou, which is currently listed as endangered under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (Act) and is the subject of this 12-month
finding.
Because we now know that the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou is a part of the larger Southern Mountain Caribou
population, as recognized by COSEWIC, we recognize that our evaluation
of the southern Selkirk Mountains population is more appropriately
conducted at the scale of the Southern Mountain Caribou population.
Therefore, below we evaluate whether, under our DPS policy, the
Southern Mountain Caribou population segment of woodland caribou
occurring in British Columbia, Canada, and northeastern Washington and
northern Idaho, United States, qualifies as a DPS under the Act.
We completed a 5-year review of the endangered southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in
2008 (see http://www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf). Because this population was listed prior to the Service's
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722), the 5-year review included analysis of
this population in relation to the DPS policy. In conducting this DPS
analysis, we considered the discreteness and significance of this
population in relation to the mountain caribou metapopulation (USFWS
2008, pp. 6-13). From this analysis we concluded that the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou met both the
discreteness and significance elements of the DPS policy and was a
[[Page 26509]]
distinct population segment of the mountain caribou metapopulation
(USFWS 2008, p. 13). We acknowledged in our December 19, 2012, 90-day
finding (77 FR 75091) that the DPS analysis in our 2008 5-year review
was not conducted relative to the appropriate taxon. Specifically, the
appropriate DPS analysis should have been conducted relative to the
subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou).
Section 3(16) of the Act defines the term ``species'' to include
``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' We have always understood the phrase
``interbreeds when mature'' to mean that a DPS must consist of members
of the same species or subspecies in the wild that would be
biologically capable of interbreeding if given the opportunity, but all
members need not actually interbreed with each other. A DPS is a subset
of a species or subspecies, and cannot consist of members of a
different species or subspecies. The ``biological species concept''
defines species according to a group of organisms, their actual or
potential ability to interbreed, and their relative reproductive
isolation from other organisms. This concept is a widely accepted
approach to defining species. We believe that the Act's use of the
phrase ``interbreeds when mature'' reflects this understanding. Use of
this phrase with respect to a DPS is simply intended to mean that a DPS
must be comprised of members of the same species or subspecies. As long
as this requirement is met, a DPS may include multiple populations of
vertebrate organisms that may not interbreed with each other. For
example, a DPS may consist of multiple populations of a fish species
separated into different drainages. While these populations may not
actually interbreed with each other, their members are biologically
capable of interbreeding.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service
published a joint ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS
Policy) on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the DPS policy,
two elements must be satisfied in order for a population segment to
qualify as a possible DPS: Discreteness and significance. If the
population segment qualifies as a DPS, the conservation status of that
DPS is then evaluated to determine whether it is endangered or
threatened.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If a population is found to be discrete, then it is evaluated for
significance under the DPS policy on the basis of its importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not
limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon; (2)
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of the
taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside of its historical range; or (4) evidence that the population
differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
If a population segment is both discrete and significant (i.e., it
qualifies as a potential DPS) its evaluation for endangered or
threatened status is based on the Act's definitions of those terms and
a review of the factors listed in section 4(a) of the Act. According to
our DPS policy, it may be appropriate to assign different
classifications to different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon. For
this 12-month finding and DPS analysis of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou to the subspecies woodland
caribou, we reviewed and evaluated information contained in numerous
publications and reports, including but not limited to: Banfield 1961,
Stevenson et al. 2001, COSEWIC 2002, Cichowski et al. 2004, Wittmer et
al. 2005b, Geist 2007, COSEWIC 2011, van Oort et al. 2011, and Serrouya
et al. 2012.
In 2002 and 2011, COSEWIC completed status assessments of caribou
subspecies and species populations in North America. The 2002 COSEWIC
Report evaluated woodland caribou ``nationally significant
populations'' (NSPs). The more recent COSEWIC (2011) Report described
``Designatable Units'' (DUs) as the appropriate ``discrete and
significant units'' useful to conserve and manage caribou populations
throughout Canada. Information used in COSEWIC's 2011 report is useful
to our DPS analysis. Canada's DUs are identified based on the criteria
that there are ``discrete and evolutionarily significant units of a
taxonomic species, where `significant' means that the unit is important
to the evolutionary legacy of the species as a whole and, if lost,
would likely not be replaced through natural dispersion'' (COSEWIC
2011, p. 14). They consider a population or group of populations to be
``discrete'' based on the following criteria: Evidence of genetic
distinctiveness, natural disjunction between substantial portions of
the species' geographic range, and/or occupancy of differing eco-
geographic regions that are relevant to the species and reflect
historical or genetic distinction (COSEWIC 2011, in litt.).
It should be noted that COSEWIC's DU designation does not
necessarily consider the conservation status or threats to the
persistence of caribou DUs. Consistent with their 2009 guidelines, the
COSEWIC used five lines of evidence to determine caribou DUs; these
include: (1) Phylogenetics; (2) genetic diversity and structure; (3)
morphology; (4) movements, behavior, and life-history strategies; and
(5) distribution (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15). As a general rule, a DU was
designated when several lines of evidence provided support for
discreteness and significance (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15-16). Twelve caribou
DUs were classified by COSEWIC in 2011, including the Southern Mountain
Caribou (DU9), which includes the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. 21). The information used to
describe the Southern Mountain DU is reviewed and evaluated in our DPS
analysis, as it includes numerous local woodland caribou populations
that all possess similar and unique foraging, migration, and habitat
use behaviors and are geographically separated from other caribou DUs.
Discreteness
As outlined in our 1996 DPS policy, a population segment of a
vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from
other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
[[Page 26510]]
Physical (Geographic) Discreteness
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is
one of 15 (COSEWIC 2011, p. 89) local woodland caribou populations that
share distinct foraging, migration, and habitat use behaviors. These
populations are all located in steep, mountainous terrain in central
and southeastern British Columbia, and extreme northeastern Washington
and northern Idaho, United States. Little to no dispersal has been
detected between these local populations and other local caribou
populations outside this geographic area (Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp.
408, 409; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van Oort et al. 2011, pp. 222-223). For
the purposes of this DPS analysis, this collection of local woodland
caribou populations, which, as noted above, includes the southern
Selkirk Mountains population, will hereafter be referred to as the
Southern Mountain Caribou.
Telemetry research by Wittmer et al. (2005b) and van Oort et al.
(2011) supports the physical (geographic) discreteness of Southern
Mountain Caribou. One exception is that there is some limited annual
range overlap between a few local caribou populations at the far north
of the Southern Mountain Caribou population. Although all caribou and
reindeer worldwide are considered to be the same species (Rangifer
tarandus) and are presumed able to interbreed and produce offspring
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 9), the distribution of the Southern Mountain Caribou
does not overlap with other populations during the rut or mating season
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Previous telemetry studies were completed by
Apps and McLellan (2006, pp. 84-85, 92) to determine occupancy across
differing landscapes. These studies confirmed that woodland caribou
within the geographic area that defines the Southern Mountain Caribou
population are strongly associated with the steep, mountainous terrain
characterizing the ``interior wet-belt'' of British Columbia (Stevenson
et al. 2001, p. 3), located west of the continental divide. This area
is influenced by Pacific air masses that produce the wettest climate in
the interior of British Columbia (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3). Forests
consist of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii or P. glauca x
engelmannii)/subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) at high elevation, and
western red cedar (Thuja plicata)/western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
at lower elevations. Snowpack typically averages 5 to 16 ft (2 to 5 m)
in depth (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 4; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Apps and
McLellan (2006, p. 92) noted that the steep, complex topography within
the interior wet-belt provides seasonally important habitats. Caribou
access this habitat by migrating in elevational shifts rather than
through the long horizontal migrations of other subspecies in northern
Canada. Woodland caribou that live within this interior wet-belt of
southern British Columbia, northeastern Washington, and northern Idaho
are strongly associated with old-growth forested landscapes (Apps et
al. 2001, pp. 65, 70). These landscapes are predominantly cedar/hemlock
and spruce/subalpine fir composition (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3-5;
Apps and McLellan 2006, pp. 84, 91; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224,
231; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that supports woodland caribou's late-winter
diet consisting almost entirely of arboreal hair lichens (Cichowski et
al. 2004, p. 229).
The Southern Mountain Caribou population is markedly separate from
other populations of woodland caribou as a result of physical
(geographic) factors. The distribution of this population is primarily
located within the interior wet-belt of southern British Columbia,
occurring west of the continental divide and generally south of
Reynolds Creek (which is about 90 miles (mi) (150 kilometers (km))
north of Prince George, British Columbia). Its geographic range is such
that it does not reproduce with other local populations of woodland
caribou.
Behavioral Discreteness
In addition to being physically (geographically) discrete,
individuals within the Southern Mountain Caribou population are
behaviorally distinguished from woodland caribou in other populations
(including the neighboring Northern Mountain and Central Mountain
populations). Southern Mountain Caribou uniquely use steep, high-
elevation, mountainous habitats with deep snowfall (about 5 to 16 ft; 2
to 5 m) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50), and, as described below, are the only
woodland caribou that depend on arboreal lichens for forage. This
habitat use contrasts with the behavior of other woodland caribou,
which occupy relatively drier habitats that receive less snowfall. With
less snowfall in these areas, these woodland caribou primarily forage
on terrestrial lichens, accessing them by ``cratering'' or digging
through the snow with their hooves (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC
2002, pp. 25, 27).
Extreme deep snow conditions have led to a foraging strategy by the
Southern Mountain Caribou that is unique among woodland caribou. They
rely exclusively on arboreal (tree) lichens for 3 or more months of the
year (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; Edmonds 1991, p. 91; Stevenson et
al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230-231; MCST 2005, p.
2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Arboreal lichens are a critical winter food
for the Southern Mountain Caribou from November to May (Servheen and
Lyon 1989, p. 235; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004,
p. 233). During this time, a Southern Mountain Caribou's diet can be
composed almost entirely of these lichens. Arboreal 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 arboreal lichens commonly eaten by
the Southern Mountain Caribou are Bryoria spp. and Alectoria
sarmentosa. Both are extremely slow-growing lichens most commonly found
in high-elevation, old-growth conifer forests that are greater than 250
years old (Paquet 1997, p. 14; Apps et al. 2001, pp. 65-66).
Another unique behavior of caribou within the Southern Mountain
Caribou population is their altitudinal migrations. They may undertake
as many as four of these migrations per year (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50).
After wintering at high elevations as described above, at the onset of
spring these caribou move to lower elevations where snow has melted to
forage on new green vegetation (Paquet 1997, p. 16; Mountain Caribou
Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) 2002, p. 11). Pregnant females
will move to these spring habitats for forage. During the calving
season, sometime from June into July, the need to avoid predators
influences habitat selection. Areas selected for calving are typically
high-elevation, alpine and non-forested areas in close proximity to
old-growth forest ridge tops, as well as high-elevation basins. These
high-elevation sites can be food limited, but are more likely to be
free of predators (USFWS 1994, p. 8; MCTAC 2002, p. 11; Cichowski et
al. 2004, p. 232, Kinley and Apps 2007, p. 16). During calving,
arboreal lichens become the primary food source for pregnant females at
these elevations. This is because green forage is largely unavailable
in these secluded, old-growth conifer habitats.
During summer months, Southern Mountain Caribou move back to upper
elevation spruce/alpine fir forests (Paquet 1997, p. 16). Summer diets
include selective foraging of grasses, flowering plants, horsetails,
willow and
[[Page 26511]]
dwarf birch leaves and tips, sedges, lichens (Paquet 1997, pp. 13, 16),
and huckleberry leaves (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2004, p. 18). The
fall and early winter diet consists largely of dried grasses, sedges,
willow and dwarf birch tips, and arboreal lichens.
The Southern Mountain Caribou are behaviorally adapted to the
steep, high-elevation, mountainous habitat with deep snowpack. They
feed almost exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or more months out of
the year. They are also reproductively isolated, due to their behavior
and separation from other caribou populations during the fall rut and
mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Based on these unique adaptations,
we consider the Southern Mountain Caribou population to have met the
behavioral ``discreteness'' standard in our DPS policy.
Genetic Discreteness
Data from Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2594) show that genetic
population structure (i.e., patterning or clustering of the genetic
make-up of individuals within a population) does exist within woodland
caribou. Specifically, Serrouya revealed a genetic cluster that is
unique to Southern Mountain Caribou and different from genetic clusters
found in surrounding local populations of woodland caribou designated
as part of other Canada caribou DUs (i.e., Central Mountain DU,
Northern Mountain DU, and Boreal DU). However, Serrouya also revealed
genetic clusters that occur in both the Southern Mountain Caribou and
neighboring DUs that suggest some historical gene flow did occur in the
past, meaning that caribou did historically move between populations of
these DUs and interbreed when mature.
This cluster overlap of DU boundaries is not surprising, as genetic
structure is reflective of long-term historical population dynamics and
does not necessarily depict current gene flow. Indeed, it does appear
that recent impediments to gene flow may be genetically isolating
woodland caribou in the southwest portion of their range (Wittmer et
al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012,
p. 2598). These impediments include anthropogenic habitat fragmentation
and widespread caribou population declines. Therefore, genetic
specialization related to unique behaviors and habitat use may
represent a relatively recent life-history characteristic (Weckworth et
al. 2012, p. 3620). Historical gene flow between local populations of
Southern Mountain Caribou and neighboring local populations did occur
in the past. However, study results from Serrouya et al. (2012),
combined with telemetry data from Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and
van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that isolation of local
populations is now the norm, affecting genetics of these local
populations differently through genetic drift (Serrouya et al. 2012, p.
2597).
A certain level of genetic differentiation does exist between the
Southern Mountain Caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou.
However, we do not presently consider there to be sufficient evidence
to determine that the Southern Mountain Caribou are genetically
isolated from other populations of caribou, particularly the Central
Mountain population. Therefore, at this time, we do not find that this
population meets the genetic ``discreteness'' standard in our DPS
policy.
Discreteness Conclusion
In summary, we determine the best available information indicates
that the Southern Mountain Caribou, comprised of 15 local woodland
caribou populations that occur in southern British Columbia,
northeastern Washington, and northern Idaho, is markedly separated from
all other populations of woodland caribou. The Southern Mountain
Caribou population is physically (geographically), behaviorally, and
reproductively isolated from other woodland caribou. Therefore, we
consider the Southern Mountain Caribou population to be discrete per
our DPS policy.
Significance
Under our DPS policy, once we have determined that a population
segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological
significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs. Significance is
not determined by a quantitative analysis, but is instead a qualitative
finding. It will vary from species to species and cannot be reduced to
a simple formula or flat percentage. Our DPS policy provides several
potential considerations that may demonstrate the significance of a
population segment to the species to which it belongs. These
considerations include, but are not limited to: (1) Persistence of the
discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique
for the taxon; (2) evidence that the discrete population segment
differs markedly from other population segments in its genetic
characteristics; (3) evidence that the population segment represents
the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical
range; and (4) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. The
following discussion addresses considerations regarding the
significance of the Southern Mountain Caribou population to the
subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou).
(1) Persistence of the Discrete Population Segment in an Ecological
Setting Unusual or Unique for the Taxon
As previously discussed, woodland caribou within the Southern
Mountain Caribou population are distinguished from woodland caribou in
other areas. Southern Mountain Caribou live in, and are behaviorally
adapted to, a unique ecological setting characterized by high-
elevation, high-precipitation, and steep old-growth conifer forests
that support abundant arboreal lichens (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). In
addition, all woodland caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou
population exhibit a distinct behavior. Specifically, they spend the
winter months in high-elevation, steep, mountainous habitats where
individuals stand on the deep, hard-crusted snowpack and feed
exclusively on arboreal lichens on standing or fallen old-growth
conifer trees (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230-231; MCST 2005, p.
2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). This behavior is unlike that of woodland
caribou in neighboring areas that occupy less steep, drier terrain and
do not feed on arboreal lichens during the winter (Thomas et al. 1996,
p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50).
In addition to persisting in a specific environment characterized
by steep, high-elevation, old-growth forests and being reliant on
arboreal lichens as primary winter forage, caribou of the Southern
Mountain population make relatively short-distance altitudinal
migrations up to four times per year. These caribou occupy valley
bottoms and lower slopes in the early winter, and ridge tops and upper
slopes in later winter after the snowpack deepens and hardens. In the
spring, they move to lower elevations again to access green vegetation.
Females make solitary movements back to high elevations to calve. This
habitat and behavior are unique to the Southern Mountain Caribou
population. All other populations within the woodland caribou
subspecies occupy winter habitat characterized by gentler topography,
lower elevation, and less winter snowpack (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46)
where their primary winter forage, terrestrial (ground) lichens, is
[[Page 26512]]
most accessible (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46).
Unlike woodland caribou of the Southern Mountain population, some
populations in eastern Canada (Eastern Migratory DU (DU4; COSEWIC 2011,
p. 34)) will migrate relatively long distances across the landscape
between wintering and calving habitat, where they will calve in large
aggregated groups (COSEWIC 2011, pp., 33, 37; Abraham et al. 2012, p.
274).
We conclude that the Southern Mountain Caribou meets the definition
of significant in accordance with our DPS policy, as this population
currently persists in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the
subspecies of woodland caribou.
(2) Evidence That the Discrete Population Segment Differs Markedly From
Other Population Segments in Its Genetic Characteristics
Research by Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2594) indicates that there is
some genetic population structure between woodland caribou populations
in western North America. This research identified two main genetic
clusters within the Southern Mountain Caribou, separated from each
other by the North Thompson Valley in British Columbia. One of these
clusters is unique, with few exceptions, to the Southern Mountain
Caribou (structure analysis; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2594). The other
cluster, northwest of the North Thompson Valley, is shared with the
adjacent Central Mountain population. As such, there is limited genetic
evidence in this study that Southern Mountain Caribou populations north
of the North Thompson Valley are genetically unique relative to caribou
of the Central Mountain population.
As previously discussed, the best available information indicates
that recent impediments to gene flow such as habitat fragmentation and
widespread caribou population declines may be genetically isolating
woodland caribou in the southwestern portion of their range (Wittmer et
al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012,
p. 2598). This genetic isolation has resulted in unique behaviors and
habitat use (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. 3620). Study results from
Serrouya et al. (2012), combined with telemetry data from Wittmer et
al. (2005b, p. 414) and van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that
while historical gene flow between local populations of Southern
Mountain Caribou and neighboring local populations did occur in the
past, isolation of these local populations is now the norm. Research
into the genetics of the woodland caribou will likely continue and will
provide further insight into gene flow between these populations.
Despite some level of genetic structure between the Southern
Mountain Caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou, and a
predicted continuation of genetic structuring between local populations
within Southern Mountain Caribou, we do not presently consider Southern
Mountain Caribou ``genetically unique.'' Therefore, at this time we do
not find this population meets the genetic ``significance'' standard in
our DPS policy.
(3) Evidence That the Population Segment Represents the Only Surviving
Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That May Be More Abundant Esewhere as an
Introduced Population Outside Its Historic Range
All caribou in the world are one species (Rangifer tarandus). In a
global review of taxonomy of the genus Rangifer, Banfield (1961)
documented the occurrence of five subspecies in North America. Woodland
caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), one of the five recognized
subspecies of caribou, are the southern-most subspecies in North
America. The range of woodland caribou extends in an east/west band
from eastern Newfoundland and northern Quebec, all the way into western
British Columbia. Southern Mountain Caribou represent a discrete subset
of this subspecies. Because Southern Mountain Caribou are not the only
surviving natural occurrence of the woodland caribou subspecies, this
element is not applicable.
(4) Evidence That Loss of the Discrete Population Segment Would Result
in a Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
Historically, woodland caribou were widely distributed throughout
portions of the northern tier of the coterminous United States from
Washington to Maine, as well as throughout most of southern Canada
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 19). However, as a result of habitat loss and
fragmentation, overhunting, and the effects of predation, the
population of woodland caribou within the British Columbia portion of
their range has declined dramatically with an estimated 40 percent
range reduction (COSEWIC 2002, p. 20). Further evidence of this decline
was observed within the Southern Mountain Caribou population, where
there were an estimated 2,554 individuals as recently as 1995 (Hatter
et al. 2004, p. 7). The most recent estimate of individuals in this
population was conducted in 2012, and estimated only 1,657 individuals
(Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Loss of the Southern Mountain Caribou
population would result in the loss of the southern-most extent of the
range of woodland caribou by about 2.5 degrees of latitude. This
includes the only remaining population of the woodland caribou in the
coterminous United States. An additional consequence of the loss of the
Southern Mountain Caribou population would be the elimination of the
only North American caribou population with the distinct behavior of
feeding exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or more months of the
year. This feeding behavior is related to their spending winter months
in high-elevation, steep, mountainous habitats with deep snowpack.
The extirpation of peripheral populations, such as the Southern
Mountain Caribou population, is concerning because of the potential
conservation value that peripheral populations can provide to a species
or subspecies. Specifically, peripheral populations can possess slight
genetic or phenotypic divergences from core populations (Lesica and
Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50). The genotypic and
phenotypic characteristics peripheral populations may provide to the
core population of the species may be central to the species' survival
in the face of environmental change (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756;
Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242).
The extirpation of Southern Mountain Caribou would represent a
significant gap in the range of the woodland caribou subspecies.
Extirpation of this population segment would result in the loss of a
peripheral population segment of woodland caribou that live in, and are
behaviorally adapted to, a unique ecological setting characterized by
high-elevation, high-precipitation (including deep snowpack), and steep
old-growth conifer forests that support abundant arboreal lichens.
Significance Conclusion
We conclude that the Southern Mountain Caribou persists in an
ecological setting unusual or unique for the subspecies of woodland
caribou, and that loss of the Southern Mountain Caribou would result in
a significant gap in the range of the woodland caribou subspecies.
Therefore, the discrete Southern Mountain Caribou population of
woodland caribou that occur in southern British Columbia, and in
northeastern Washington and northern Idaho meet the significance
criteria under our DPS policy.
[[Page 26513]]
Listable Entity Determination
In conclusion, the Service finds that the Southern Mountain Caribou
population meets both the discreteness and significance elements of our
DPS policy. It qualifies as discrete because of its marked physical
(geographic) and behavioral separation from other populations of the
woodland caribou subspecies. It qualifies as significant because of its
existence in a unique ecological setting, and because the loss of this
population would leave a significant gap in the range of the woodland
caribou subspecies. For consistency, we will refer to the Southern
Mountain DU, described by COSEWIC, as the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS. See Figure 1 for a map of the known distribution of local
populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
The petition asserted that the Act does not permit designation of a
DPS of a subspecies, but only of a full species. The Service has long
interpreted the Act to authorize designation of a DPS of a subspecies,
and the courts have upheld the Service's interpretation. See, for
example, Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 274 Fed. Appx. 542 (9th Cir. 2008). Consequently, we deny the
petition to the extent that it relies on this argument.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 26514]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY14.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS
Declines in caribou populations within British Columbia began in
the mid-1960s (Harding 2008, p. 1). Recent survey efforts confirm these
declines continue today. Over the past decade, the abundance of
individuals in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has declined by
approximately 8 percent per year across its range. Individual
populations have decreased by up to 18 percent per year (Wittmer et al.
2005b, p. 413). For example, the South Purcells local population, which
is located above the Montana border, had an estimated 100 individuals
in 1982, and only 20 in 2002. The larger Wells Gray South local
population was estimated at 275 individuals in 1982, but had increased
and was considered stable at 325 to 350 caribou from 1995 to 2002. As
of 2011, this local population was estimated to be at 204 caribou
(Ritchie 2013, in litt.).
Surveys of the local populations in the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS estimated that, in 1995, the entire population was approximately
2,554
[[Page 26515]]
individuals (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 7). By 2002, this number had
decreased to approximately 1,900 individuals (Hatter et al. 2004, p.
7). Currently, the population is estimated to be 1,657 individuals
(Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Many local populations within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS are reported to have experienced declines of 50
percent or greater between 1995 and 2002 (MCST 2005, p. 1). Some of the
most extreme decreases were observed in the Central Selkirk and South
Purcells local populations. These populations experienced 61 and 78
percent reductions in their populations, respectively, during this time
(Harding 2008, p. 3).
Population models indicate declines will continue into the future
for the entire Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and for many local
populations. Hatter et al. (2004, p. 9) predicted local population
levels within this DPS under three different scenarios: ``optimistic,''
``most likely,'' and ``pessimistic.'' Under these scenarios population
levels were modeled to decline from the current level of 1,657
individuals to 1,534 (optimistic), 1,169 (most likely), or 820
(pessimistic), by 2022. In addition, all three scenarios reported the
extirpation of two (optimistic), three (most likely), or five
(pessimistic) local populations by 2022 (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 9). As
of 2013, George Mountain, one of the local populations within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS recently considered to be at risk by
Hatter et al. (2004), is now considered to be extirpated (Ritchie 2013,
in litt.).
According to Hatter et al. (2004, pp. 9 and 11), no models
predicted extinction of the woodland caribou population within the
proposed DPS in the next 100 years (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 11).
However, reductions in the size of the entire population were
predicted. Using the same scenarios from Hatter et al. (2004) as
described above (``optimistic,'' ``most likely,'' and ``pessimistic''),
the average time until the population of woodland caribou within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is fewer than 1,000 individuals was
projected to be 100, 84, and 26 years, respectively (Hatter et al.
2004, p. 11). These estimates do not account for the relationship
between density and adult female survival, and may be a conservative
estimate of time to extinction (in other words, may underestimate the
timeframes). Wittmer (2004, p. 88) attempted to account for density-
dependent adult female survival and predicted extinction of all local
populations in the proposed DPS within the next 100 years (Wittmer
2004, p. 88).
Along with these documented and predicted population declines,
local populations of woodland caribou within the proposed DPS are
becoming increasingly fragmented and isolated (Wittmer 2004, p. 28; van
Oort et al. 2011, p. 25; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2598). Fragmentation
and isolation are particularly pronounced in the southern portion of
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Wittmer 2004, p. 28). This
fragmentation and isolation are likely accelerating the extinction
process and reducing the probability of demographic rescue from natural
immigration or emigration. Van Oort et al. (2011, p. 215), observed
that population fragmentation and isolation in a population with little
or no ability to disperse between local populations may represent a
geographic pattern of the extinction process.
Despite these predictions, some local populations of woodland
caribou within the proposed DPS appear to be stable. For example, the
North Mountain region (northern-most populations principally in the
Hart Range) was estimated at 500 animals in 2005 and is considered
stable (MCST 2005, p. 4; Ritchie 2013, pers. comm.).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. We discuss each of these factors for the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Threats to caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain DPS include
forest harvest, forest fires, human development, recreation, and
climate change. In addition to causing direct impacts, these threats
often catalyze indirect impacts to caribou, which are also important in
this analysis. Both direct and indirect impacts to caribou from habitat
destruction, modification, and curtailment are described below.
Historically, the caribou populations that make up the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS were distributed throughout the western Rocky
Mountains of British Columbia, northern Idaho, and northeastern
Washington (Apps and McLellan 2006, p. 84). As previously discussed,
caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS are strongly
associated with high-elevation, high-precipitation, old-growth forested
landscapes (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3-5; Apps and McLellan 2006, pp.
84, 91; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 231; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that
support their uniquely exclusive winter diet of arboreal lichens
(Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 229).
It is estimated that about 98 percent of the caribou in the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS rely on arboreal lichens as their primary
winter food. They have adapted to the high-elevation, deep-snow habitat
that occurs within this area of British Columbia, northern Idaho, and
northeastern Washington (Apps and McLellan 2006, p. 84). The present
distribution of woodland caribou in Canada is much reduced from
historical accounts, with reports indicating that the extent of
occurrence in British Columbia and Ontario populations has decreased by
up to 40 percent in the last few centuries (COSEWIC 2002, pp. viii,
30). The greatest reduction has occurred in local populations
comprising the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30;
COSEWIC 2011, p. 49). Hunting was historically considered the main
cause of range retraction in the central and southern portions of
British Columbia. However, predation, habitat fragmentation from
forestry operations, and human development are now considered the main
concerns (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30).
Forest Harvest
Forestry has been the dominant land use within the range of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in British Columbia throughout the 20th
century. The majority of timber harvesting has occurred since the late
1960s (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 9-10). Prior to 1966 and before pulp
mills were built in the interior of British Columbia, a variety of
forest harvesting systems were utilized, targeting primarily spruce and
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) sawlogs, and pole-sized western red
cedar. It was not until after 1966, when market conditions changed to
meet the demand for pulp and other timber products, that the majority
of timber harvesting occurred through clear-cutting large
[[Page 26516]]
blocks of forest (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10). However, in the 1970s,
some areas in the southern Selkirk Mountains and the North Thompson
area (north of Revelstoke, British Columbia) were only partially cut in
an effort to maintain habitat for caribou (Stevenson et al. 2001, p.
10). In the 1990s, there was an increase in both experimental and
operational partial cutting in caribou habitat. Partial cuts continue
to remain a small proportion of total area harvested each year within
caribou habitat in British Columbia (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10).
Historically, within the U.S. portion of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS, habitat impacts have been primarily due to logging and
fire (Evans 1960, p. 109). In the early 19th century, intensive logging
occurred from approximately 1907 through 1922, when the foothills and
lowlands were logged upwards in elevation to the present U.S. National
Forest boundaries (Evans 1960, p. 110). Partly as a result of this
logging, farmlands replaced moister valleys that once resembled the
rain forests of the Pacific coast (Evans 1960, p. 111). From the 1920s
through 1960, logging continued into caribou habitat on the Kanisku
National Forest in Idaho (now the Idaho Panhandle National Forest)
(Evans 1960, pp. 118-120). In addition, insect and disease outbreaks
affected large areas of white pine (Pinus strobus) stands in caribou
habitat, and Engelmann spruce habitat was heavily affected by
windstorms, insect outbreaks, and subsequent salvage logging (Evans
1960, pp. 123-124). As a result, spruce became the center of importance
in the lumber industry of this region. This led to further harvest of
spruce habitat in adjacent, higher elevation drainages previously
unaffected by insect outbreaks (Evans 1960, pp. 124-131). It is not
known how much forest within the range of the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS has been historically harvested; however, forest harvest likely had
and continues to have direct and indirect impacts on caribou and their
habitat, contributing to the curtailment and modification of the
habitat of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
The harvesting of forests has both direct and indirect effects on
caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. A direct
effect of forest harvest is the direct loss of large expanses of
contiguous old-growth forest habitats. Caribou in the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS rely upon these habitats as an important means of limiting
the effect of predation. Their strategy is to spread over large areas
at high elevation that other prey species avoid (Seip and Cichowski
1996, p. 79; MCTAC 2002, pp. 20-21). These old-growth forests have
evolved with few and small-scale natural disturbances such as
wildfires, insects, or diseases. When these disturbances did occur,
they created only small and natural gaps in the forest canopy that
allowed trees to regenerate and grow (Seip 1998, pp. 204-205). Forest
harvesting through large-scale clear-cutting creates additional and
larger openings in old-growth forest habitat. These openings allow for
additional growth of early seral habitat.
Research of woodland caribou has shown that caribou alter their
movement patterns to avoid areas of disturbance where forest harvest
has occurred (Smith et al. 2000, p. 1435; Courtois et al. 2007, p.
496). With less contiguous old-growth habitat, caribou are also limited
to increasingly fewer places on the landscape. Further, woodland
caribou that do remain in harvested areas have been documented to have
decreased survival due to predation vulnerability (Courtois et al.
2007, p. 496). This is because the early seral habitat, which
establishes itself in recently harvested or disturbed areas, also
attracts other ungulate species such as deer, elk, and moose to areas
that were previously unsuitable for these species (MCST 2005, pp. 4-5;
Bowman et al. 2010, p. 464). With the increase in the distribution and
abundance of prey species in or near habitats located where caribou
occur, comes an increase in predators and therefore an increase in
predation on caribou. Predation has been reported as one of the most
important direct causes of population decline for caribou in the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (see also C. Disease or Predation, below;
MCST 2005, p. 4; Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 257; Wittmer et al. 2005b, p.
417; Wittmer et al. 2007, p. 576).
Roads created to support forest harvest activities have also
fragmented habitat. Roads create linear features that also provide easy
travel corridors for predators into and through difficult habitats
where caribou seek refuge from predators (MCST 2005, p. 5; Wittmer et
al. 2007, p. 576). It has been estimated that forest roads throughout
British Columbia (which includes the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS)
expanded by 4,100 percent (from 528 to 21,748 mi (850 to 35,000 km))
between 1950 and 1990. Most of these roads were associated with forest
harvesting (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10). In the United States, roads
associated with logging and forest administration developed
continuously from 1900 through 1960. These roads allowed logging in new
areas and upper-elevation drainages (Evans 1960, pp. 123-124). In both
Canada and the United States, these roads have also generated more
human activity and human disturbance in habitat that was previously
less accessible to humans (MCST 2005, p. 5). See E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence for additional
discussion.
The harvest of late-successional (old-growth) forests directly
affects availability of arboreal lichens, the primary winter food item
for caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribous DPS. Caribou within
this area rely on arboreal lichens for winter forage for 3 or more
months of the year (Apps et al. 2001, p. 65; Stevenson et al. 2001, p.
1; MCST 2005, p. 2). In recent decades, however, local caribou
populations in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS have declined faster
than mature forests have been harvested. This suggests that arboreal
lichens are not the limiting factor for woodland caribou in this area
(MCST 2005, p. 4; Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 265; Wittmer et al. 2007, p.
576).
Forest Fires
Forest fires have the same effect on mountain caribou habitat in
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as forest harvesting. Fires cause
direct loss of important old-growth habitat and increase openings that
allow for the growth of early seral habitat, which is conducive to use
by other ungulates, such as deer and moose, but not by mountain
caribou, which require old growth, mature forests. Historically,
natural fires occurred at very low frequency and extent throughout the
range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. This was due to the very
wet conditions of the interior wet-belt (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3).
When fires did occur, most were relatively small in size (Seip 1998, p.
204). Fires can remove suitable habitat for 25 to 100 years or longer
depending on fire intensity, geography, and type of forage normally
consumed by caribou (COSEWIC 2002, p. 45). As previously discussed,
changes in habitat conditions have led to altered predator-prey
dynamics, resulting in more predation on caribou in the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS. One of the first notable declines of caribou was
reported in Wells Gray Park, British Columbia (within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS), and was attributed to fires in the 1930s that
burned approximately 70 percent of forests below 4,000 ft (1,219 m)
within the park (Edwards 1954, entire). These fires changed forest
composition, leading to increased
[[Page 26517]]
populations of other ungulates, such as mule deer and moose (Edwards
1954, p. 523), which altered the predator-prey dynamics. The 1967
Sundance, Kanisku Mountain, and Trapper Peak fires in the Selkirk
Mountains destroyed almost 80,000 ac (32,375 ha) of caribou habitat
(Layser 1974, p. 51). In 2006, the Kutetl fire in West Arm Park
(British Columbia) destroyed nearly 19,768 ac (8,000 ha) of caribou
habitat (Wildeman et al. 2010, pp. 1, 14, 33, 36, 61). Forest fires are
a natural phenomenon and historically occurred at low frequency and
extent throughout the range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS prior
to human settlement. However, fires are predicted to increase in
frequency and magnitude due to ongoing climate change (see ``Climate
Change'' below), thereby continuing to impact caribou habitat in the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS into the future.
Insect Outbreaks
Engelmann spruce beetles (Dendroctonus engelmannii) have been known
to kill large amounts of old-growth forest and caribou habitat in
western Canada and the northwestern United States. Spruce bark beetle
(Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks and resulting tree mortality within
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS occurred in the late 1940s, 1950s,
1960s, and 1980s. Some of these outbreaks followed wind-throw events of
trees or forest fires in the United States (Evans 1960, p. 124; USFWS
1985, p. 21).
More recently, mountain pine beetle outbreaks and mass tree
mortality in western Canada have occurred in the 1990s and 2000s.
Caribou habitat affected by mountain pine beetle outbreaks may remain
viable for caribou, or may even provide better forage for a period of
time, perhaps as long as a decade. This is because dead and dying trees
may remain standing and continue to provide arboreal lichens to
foraging caribou. However, eventually these trees fall and arboreal
lichens become scarcer, forcing caribou to seek alternate habitat
(Hummel and Ray 2008, p. 252).
These beetle outbreaks have impacted caribou within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS by directly removing habitat and associated
arboreal lichens from the landscape (Evans 1960, p. 132). In addition
to eliminating caribou habitat, these beetle outbreaks have brought
increased logging operations to high-elevation forests. This logging
was done in an attempt to salvage the valuable wood resource in these
forest stands. However, this activity also brought human presence and
an increase in the potential for poaching and disturbance (Evans 1960,
p. 131; USFWS 1985, p. 21). Interestingly, because of the spruce bark
beetle outbreaks and a sudden increase in spruce harvest, the logging
industry, in an attempt to sell the wood that was being salvaged from
the mid-century spruce bark beetle outbreaks, aggressively promoted and
developed a market for spruce wood. The associated demand they created
for spruce wood continued after the salvaged wood was exhausted,
probably leading to continued logging of spruce forests at high
elevations. This continued logging of spruce continued the elimination
of habitat and prolonged disturbance to caribou beyond the direct
impacts from the beetle infestations (Evans 1960, p. 131).
Management of beetle outbreaks for caribou has involved attempting
to preserve alternate habitat until forests that have been affected
have time to regenerate and once again become suitable for caribou
(Hummel and Ray 2008, p. 252). It is not clear to what extent insect
infestations will continue into the future; however, climate change
models predict more frequent mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus
ponderosae) outbreaks at higher elevations in the future (Littell et
al. 2009, p. 14).
Human Development
Human development fragments habitat within and between local
caribou populations in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and creates
potential impediments to unrestricted caribou movements (MCST 2005, p.
5). Impediments in valley bottoms, such as human settlements, highways,
railways, and reservoirs, have led to an isolation of local populations
(MCST 2005, p. 5; Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414) and reduced chance of
rescue (the movement of individuals, often juveniles, to other local
populations which can provide genetic flow and recruitment to
populations with very low numbers) from natural immigration or
emigration (van Oort et al. 2011, pp. 220-223; Serrouya et al. 2012, p.
2598). Similar to forest harvest and fires, human development and its
associated infrastructure also impact caribou in the following ways: It
eliminates caribou habitat, alters the distribution and abundance of
other ungulate species, provides travel corridors for predators (MCST
2005, p. 5), and increases human access to habitat that was previously
difficult to access.
Caribou have also been killed by vehicles on highways within the
range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Johnson 1985, entire;
Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 412; CBC News 2009, in litt.). The 1963
opening of the Creston-Salmo section of Highway 3 in British Columbia
has led to increased vehicle collisions with mountain caribou. Seven
caribou were struck and killed on this section of Highway 3 within the
first 9 years (Johnson 1985, entire). More recently, in 2009, a
pregnant caribou cow and calf were killed by a vehicle travelling on
Highway 3 near Kootenay Pass in British Columbia (CBC News 2009, in
litt.). Deaths of individual caribou from car collisions can have
notable adverse effects on local populations. This is because of the
small population sizes of the southern-most populations within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and the low productivity and calf
survival rates as discussed in the Background section.
Highways and their associated vehicle traffic can also fragment
caribou habitat and act as impediments to animal movement (Forman and
Alexander 1998, p. 215; Dyer et al. 2002, p. 839; Fahrig and Rytwinski
2009, entire). Species like the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, which
have relatively large ranges, low reproductive rates, and low natural
densities, are more likely to be negatively affected by roads (Fahrig
and Rytwinski 2009, entire). It has been postulated that the Trans-
Canada Highway may also be acting as an impediment to caribou movements
in certain areas of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Apps and
McLellan 2006, p. 93).
Mining activities, although they may not be focused in valleys, can
also fragment caribou habitat and limit their dispersal and movement.
Additionally, these activities may play a role in the alteration of the
distribution and abundance of other ungulate species. These activities
may also provide travel corridors for predators (MCST 2005, p. 5), as
well as increase human accessibility to habitat that was previously
difficult to access. The extent of direct and indirect impacts to
caribou from mining activities within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS
is, at this time, not well known.
Human Recreation
Human-related activities are known to impact caribou. Specifically,
as described below, wintertime recreational activities such as
snowmobiling, heli- or cat-skiing, and back-country skiing are likely
to impact short-term behavior, long-term habitat use (MCST 2005, p. 5),
and physiology (Freeman 2008, p. 44) of caribou. It is uncertain if
these activities are affecting all populations within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS. There is also some literature that suggests
compacted
[[Page 26518]]
trails resulting from high amounts of wintertime recreational
activities such as snowmobiling and snowshoeing may act as travel
corridors for predators such as wolves. These trails allow easier
access into winter caribou habitat that was previously more difficult
for predators to navigate (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 2; Cichowski et
al. 2004, p. 241).
Snowmobile activity represents the greatest threat to caribou
within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS relative to other winter
recreation activities. Concern centers on the overlap between preferred
snowmobile habitat and preferred caribou habitat (Simpson and Terry
2000, p. 1). Deep snow, open forest, and scenic vistas are
characteristics found in caribou winter habitat. These same
characteristics are also preferred by snowmobilers (Seip et al. 2007,
p. 1539), and snowmobilers can easily access these areas (Simpson and
Terry 2000, p. 1). New forest roads may even be providing increased
access to these areas (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1539).
Within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, caribou have been shown
to alter their behavior by fleeing from (Simpson 1987, pp. 8-10), and
dispersing from, high-quality winter habitat because of snowmobile
activity (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1543). Altered behavior in response to
winter recreation in the form of fleeing can have energetic costs to
caribou (Reimers et al. 2003, pp. 751-753). Perhaps more significantly,
however, altered long-term habitat occupancy due to snowmobiling may be
forcing caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS into inferior
habitat where there may be energetic costs as well as elevated risks of
predation or mortality from avalanches (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1543).
Anecdotal reports of caribou being notably absent in areas where they
had been historically present, but where snowmobile activity had begun
or increased (Kinley 2003, p. 20; USFS 2004, p. 12; Seip et al. 2007,
p. 1539), support this concept. Further, Freeman (2008, p. 44) showed
that caribou exhibit signs of physiological stress within and as far
away as 6 mi (10 km) from snowmobile activity. Physiological stress in
this study was estimated using fecal glucocorticoids (GC).
Glucocorticoids, when chronically elevated, can reduce fitness of an
individual by impacting feeding behavior, growth, body condition,
resistance to disease, reproduction, and survival (Freeman 2008, p.
33). Caribou within 6 mi (10 km) of open snowmobile areas within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS showed chronically elevated GC levels.
This suggests that snowmobile activity in certain areas of the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS is causing some level of physiological stress to
caribou and may be impacting caribou in some way. However, elevated GC
levels may be caused by many different environmental factors and may
not always translate to impacts (Romero 2004, p. 250; Freeman 2008, p.
48). The extent of impacts from chronically elevated GC levels in
caribou appears to need further study (Freeman 2008, p. 46). Research
suggests that impacts from snowmobiling are observed in other
populations of caribou outside of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as
well (Mahoney et al. 2001, pp. 39-42; Reimers et al. 2003, p. 751).
Given what we do understand about the impacts to caribou from human
disturbance (Simpson 1987, pp. 8-10), and what has been studied in
other ungulate species relative to helicopter disturbance (Cote 1996,
p. 683; Webster 1997, p. 7; Frid 2003, p. 393), it is also probable
that the presence of humans and machines (helicopters or snow-cats) in
caribou habitat from heli- or cat-skiing is a potential source of
disturbance to caribou in certain portions of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS. This disturbance is likely negatively impacting caribou by
altering their behavior and habitat use patterns. Indeed, it has also
been documented that caribou within heli-ski areas exhibit elevated GC
levels. This suggests that heli-skiing activity in certain areas of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is causing some level of physiological
stress to caribou (Freeman 2008, p. 44). Additionally, since heli- and
cat-skiing often require tree cutting for run and/or road maintenance,
habitat alteration may be another threat posed from this activity
(Hamilton and Pasztor 2009, entire). Further study may be necessary to
completely understand the impacts to caribou from heli- and cat-skiing.
Disturbance impacts to caribou from backcountry skiing also are
relatively unstudied. Our current knowledge of caribou responses to
human disturbance suggests that backcountry skiing may be a potential
source of disturbance to caribou, negatively impacting them by altering
their behavior. These impacts are likely similar to behavioral
alterations from heli- or cat-skiing (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 3;
USFS 2004, p. 24). Duchesne et al. (2000, p. 313-314) found that the
presence of humans on snowshoes and skis did impact caribou behavior by
altering foraging and vigilance, albeit this study was conducted
outside the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS where caribou foraging
behavior is different. This study also suggested that caribou may
habituate to this level of human disturbance (Duchesne et al. 2000, p.
314). Given the possibility of habituation, the relatively slow pace of
activity participants, and the non-motorized nature of backcountry
skiing or snowshoeing, it is suspected that this recreation activity at
its current level poses a relatively small threat to caribou within
certain areas of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Simpson and Terry
2000, p. 3; USFS 2004, p. 24). However, since the magnitude of impacts
may be correlated with the number of activity participants in an area
(Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 3), this activity may be a larger threat to
caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the future as some
areas become more accessible from an expanded network of roads and
increasing populations.
Each of these activities--snowmobiling, heli- or cat-skiing, and
backcountry skiing--has the potential to disturb caribou. The extent to
which caribou are impacted is likely correlated with the intensity of
activity (Simpson 1987, p. 9; Duchesne et al. 2000, p. 315; Reimers et
al. 2003, p. 753). Nature-based recreation and tourism are on the rise
in rural British Columbia, with projected growth of approximately 15
percent per year (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007, p. 3). New forest roads
may be providing increased access to caribou habitat as well (Seip et
al. 2007, p. 1539). As such, the threat of human disturbance may be a
contributing factor in caribou population declines within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS in the future.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of the effects of
ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability
of different types of weather conditions over time. Thirty years is a
typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative and they may
[[Page 26519]]
change over time. This change depends on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we used our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
Between the 1600s and the mid-1800s, Europe and North America were
in a period called the ``Little Ice Age.'' During this period, Europe
and North America experienced relatively colder temperatures (IPCC
2001, p. 135). The cooling during this time is considered to be modest,
with average temperature decreases of less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit
(F) (1 degree Celsius (C)) relative to 20th century levels. Cooling may
have been more pronounced in certain regions and during certain
periods, such as in North America during the 1800s (IPCC 2001, p. 135).
In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged temperatures have
risen 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.8 degrees Celsius (C)) over the
last century (as much as 4 degrees F (2 degrees C) in some areas).
Temperatures are projected to increase by another 3 to 10 degrees F
(1.5 to 5.5 degrees C) by 2080 (Mote and Salath[eacute] 2009, pp. 21,
33). Warmer winter temperatures are reducing snow pack in western North
American mountains. This is occurring because a higher proportion of
precipitation is falling as rain and because there are higher rates of
snowmelt during winter (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999, p. 1609; Brown
2000, p. 2347; Mote 2003, pp. 3-1; Christensen et al. 2004, p. 347;
Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4548-4549). This trend is expected to continue
with future warming (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999, p. 1611; Christensen
et al. 2004, p. 347; Mote et al. 2005, p. 48). In British Columbia, the
last 50 years have seen changes in precipitation distribution.
Specifically, there has been a decreasing trend in winter precipitation
and an increasing trend in spring and summer precipitation (Columbia
Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology 2006, p. 45). Virtually all
future climate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest predict increases in
wildfire in western North America, especially east of the Cascades.
This predicted increase is due to higher summer temperatures, earlier
spring snowmelt, and lower summer flows which can lead to drought
stress in trees (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). Lastly, 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).
Review of climate change modeling presented in Utzig (2005, p. 5)
demonstrated projected shifts in habitats within the present range of
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in Canada. Projections for 2055
indicate a significant decrease in alpine habitats, which is loosely
correlated with the distribution of the arboreal lichens on which these
caribou depend. The projected biogeoclimatic zone distributions
indicate a significant increase in the distribution of western red
cedar in the mid-term with a shift upward in elevation and northward
over the longer term. Projected subalpine fir distribution is similar,
with a predicted shift upward in elevation and long-term decreasing
presence in the south and on the drier plateau portions of the present
range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Recent analysis by Rogers
et al. (2011, pp. 5-6) of three climate projection models indicate that
subalpine forests (which contain subalpine fir) may be almost
completely lost in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon) by the
end of the 21st century. This loss would be detrimental to the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS given their reliance on this habitat type for
forage of arboreal lichens during the late winter and for summer
habitat (Utzig 2005, p. 2). However, both western red cedar and
subalpine fir are projected to maintain a significant presence in the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, with increased densities projected
northward. This indicates the potential for range expansion of caribou
in those northern areas (Utzig 2005, p. 5). Unfortunately, habitat in
the southern extent of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS may become
unsuitable, thereby restricting the southern range of this Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS (Rogers et al. 2011, pp. 5-6).
The movements of local populations within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS are closely tied to changes in snow depth and consolidation
of the snow pack, allowing access to arboreal lichens in winter (Kinley
et al. 2007, entire). In general, climate change projections suggest
reduced snowpacks and shorter winters, particularly at lower elevations
(Utzig 2005, p. 7; Littell et al. 2009, p. 1). Snowpack depth is
significant in determining the height at which arboreal lichens occur
on trees, and the height at which caribou are able to access lichens in
the winter. These arboreal lichens are also dependent upon factors
influenced by climate, including humidity and stand density (Utzig
2005, p. 7). Kinley et al. (2007, entire) found that during low snow
years, mountain caribou in deep-snowfall regions made more extensive
use of low-elevation sites (sometimes associated with the use of stands
of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and western hemlock) during late
winter. When snowpack differences were slight between years in these
regions, mountain caribou did not shift downslope as they did during
low snow years (Kinley et al. 2007, p. 93). This may indicate that
mountain caribou escape reduced snowpacks (similar to what is projected
with climate change) by moving to lower elevations during low snow
years. However, other factors associated with climate change may
negatively impact those lower elevation forests, such as increased
episodes of wildfire and insect outbreaks, or large-scale changes in
forest composition (Littell et al. 2010, entire). In addition, moving
to lower elevations during late winter may also make mountain caribou
more susceptible to predation due to increased presence of other
ungulate species such as moose and deer at these elevations, which in
turn attracts greater numbers of predators (see C. Disease or
Predation).
Predictions for 2085 indicate an increase in drier vegetation types
at lower elevations. This could potentially cause an increase in other
ungulate species such as deer, moose, and elk within the range of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Utzig 2005, p. 4). This may result in
increased predator numbers in response to increased prey availability,
and increased predation on caribou (Utzig 2005, p. 4). For example, in
northern Alberta, changes in summer and winter climate are driving
range expansion of white-tailed deer, with further changes expected
with continuing climate change (Dawe 2011, p. 153). This increase in
white-tailed deer is expected to alter predator-prey dynamics, leading
to greater predation on woodland caribou by wolves (Latham et al. 2011,
p. 204). This potential increase in predation pressure on the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS is in addition to the risk of increased predation
due to forest harvesting and fires that reduces and fragments suitable
habitat (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1), as described above.
Virtually all future climate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest
predict increases in wildfire in western North America, especially east
of the Cascades. This is due to higher summer temperatures, earlier
spring snowmelt, and lower summer flows, which can lead to drought
stress in trees (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). In addition, due to
climatic stress to trees and an increase
[[Page 26520]]
in temperatures more favorable to mountain pine beetles, outbreaks are
projected to increase in frequency and cause increased tree mortality
(Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). These outbreaks will reach higher
elevations due to a shift to favorable temperature conditions as these
regions warm (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). Other species of insects,
such as spruce beetle and western spruce budworm (Choristoneura
occidentalis), may also emerge in forests where temperatures are
favorable (Littell et al. 2009, p. 15). These projected impacts to
forested ecosystems have the potential to further impact habitat for
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Utzig 2005, p. 8).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make precise
estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. However, we do
expect climate change to cause the following: A shorter snow season
with shallower snowpacks, increased forest disturbance, and vegetation
growing in far from optimal climactic conditions (Columbia Mountains
Institute of Applied Ecology 2006, p. 49). Utzig (2005, entire)
provided the most applicable summary of the potential effects of
climate change to the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. In his paper, he
noted that there are general indications that the present range of
mountain caribou may be reduced in some areas and increased in others
(p. 10), as the ecosystem upon which they rely undergoes drastic future
changes due to changes in the form and timing of precipitation events
(snow versus rain), and vegetative responses to climatic conditions
(e.g., drier conditions will mean increased occurrence of fire and
disease in mature trees that support arboreal lichens (p. 8)). These
climatic conditions may also increase other ungulate species (deer,
moose) and lead to higher levels of predator prey interactions (p. 4).
He also identified several uncertainties (Utzig 2005, pp. 10-11), such
as the impossibility of reliably predicting specific ecosystem changes
and potential impacts. Utzig acknowledged that caribou did survive the
last glacial period, as well as intervening climate change over the
last 10,000 years, although those changes likely occurred over a longer
period of time than are those changes occurring today.
We anticipate that climate change could directly impact the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the following ways: By negatively
affecting the abundance, distribution, and quality of caribou habitat;
the ability of caribou to move between seasonal habitats; and their
ability to avoid predation. Impacts from climate change may also affect
caribou and their habitat by affecting external factors such as
increased disease and insect outbreaks, increased fire occurrence, and
changes in snow depth. The impacts from these effects could lead to
increased habitat fragmentation and changes in forest composition,
changes in forage ability and abundance, and changes in predation,
which are each important to caribou survival. Because of the close ties
between caribou movement and seasonal snow conditions, seasonal shifts
in snow conditions will likely be significant to the caribou in the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Utzig 2005, pp. 4, 8). A trend towards
hotter and drier summers, increasing fire events, and unpredictable
snow conditions has the potential to reduce both recruitment and
survival of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS of mountain caribou
(Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 427). A warming climate will affect all
aspects of caribou ecology and exacerbate the impact of other threats
(Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 424).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
Efforts in the United States
Efforts to protect the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and its
habitat in the United States include: (1) Retaining mature to old-
growth cedar/hemlock and subalpine spruce/fir stands; (2) analyzing
forest 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 woodland
caribou management areas to prevent loss of coniferous tree species in
all size classes; and (6) managing winter recreation in the Colville
National Forest (CNF) in Washington, with specific attention to
snowmobile use within the Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District.
Relative to human access within caribou habitat, motorized winter
recreation, specifically snowmobiling, represents one threat to caribou
within the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou recovery area.
USFS 1987 land resource management plans (LRMPs) included some
standards calling for motorized use restrictions when needed to protect
caribou. The CNF's LRMP in Washington has been revised to incorporate
special management objectives and standards to address potential
threats to woodland caribou on the Forest. The CNF also manages winter
recreation in areas of potential conflict between snowmobile use and
caribou, specifically in its Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District (77
FR 71042, p. 71071). The Idaho Panhandle National Forest (IPNF),
beginning in 1993, implemented site-specific closures to protect
caribou on IPNF. However, more comprehensive standards addressing how,
when, and where, to impose such restrictions across IPNF were limited
(USFS 1987, entire). In December 2005, a United States district court
granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting snowmobile trail grooming
within the caribou recovery area on the IPNF during the winter of 2005
to 2006. The injunction was granted because the IPNF had not developed
a winter recreation strategy addressing the effects of snowmobiling on
caribou. In November 2006, the Court granted a modified injunction
restricting snowmobiling and snowmobile trail grooming on portions of
the IPNF within the recovery area of the southern Selkirk Mountains
caribou. On February 14, 2007, the Court ordered a modification of the
current injunction to add a protected caribou travel corridor
connecting habitat in the U.S. portion of the southern Selkirk
Mountains with habitat in British Columbia. This injunction is
currently in effect and restricts snowmobiling on 239,588 ac (96,957
ha), involving 71 percent of the existing woodland caribou recovery
area. In its revised LRMP (USFS 2013, entire), the IPNF considered the
court-ordered snowmobile closure to be the standard until a winter
travel plan is approved. The Service will work closely with the IPNF on
the future development of their winter recreation strategy, which will
be subject to section 7 consultation with the Service.
Within the range of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou is the 43,348-ac (17,542-ha) Salmo-Priest Wilderness
area (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2013, in litt.). The USFS
manages these lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-
1136), which restricts activities in the following manner: (1) New or
temporary roads cannot be built; (2) there can be no use of motor
vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats; (3) there can be no
landing of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form of mechanical
[[Page 26521]]
transport; and (5) no structure or installation may be built.
A recovery plan for the endangered southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou was finalized in 1994 (USFWS 1994,
entire), outlining interim objectives necessary to support a self-
sustaining caribou population in the Selkirk Mountains. Among these
objectives was a goal to secure and enhance at least 443,000 ac
(179,000 ha) of caribou habitat in the Selkirk Mountains. However, the
recovery criteria in this recovery plan were determined to be
inadequate in the Service's 5-year review (USFWS 2008, p. 15).
Additional recovery actions are needed as the 2012 population estimate
for this local population has dropped to 27 individuals (Ritchie 2013,
in litt.). In addition, the 1994 recovery plan only applies to 1 local
population (southern Selkirk Mountain population of woodland caribou)
of the 15 that comprise the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Efforts in Canada
In 2007, the British Columbia government endorsed the Mountain
Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan (MCRIP), which encompasses the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in Canada (British Columbia Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) 2007, in litt.). The plan's goal is to
restore the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in British Columbia to the
pre-1995 level of 2,500 individuals (BCMAL 2007, in litt.). Actions
identified in the MCRIP include, but are not limited, to: Protecting
approximately 5,436,320 ac (2,200,000 ha) of range from logging and
road building, which would capture 95 percent of high-suitability
winter habitat; managing human recreation activities; managing predator
populations of wolf and cougar where they are preventing recovery of
populations; managing the primary prey base of caribou predators; and
augmenting threatened herds with animals transplanted from elsewhere
(BCMAL 2007, in litt.). The Province of British Columbia pledged to
provide $1,000,000 per year, over 3 years, to support adaptive
management plans associated with the MCRIP (BCMAL 2007, in litt.).
All National Parks in Canada are managed by Parks Canada, and are
strictly protected areas where commercial resource extraction and sport
hunting are not permitted (Parks Canada National Park System Plan
(NPSP) 2009, p. 3). Parks Canada's objective for their National Parks
is, ``To protect for all time representative natural areas of Canadian
significance in a system of national parks, to encourage public
understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so
as to leave it unimpaired for future generations'' (Parks Canada NPSP
2009, p. 2). The Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in British Columbia
encompasses all or portions of four Canadian National Parks: Glacier,
Mount Revelstoke, Jasper, and Banff (Parks Canada 2008, in litt.). Two
of these National Parks, Glacier and Mount Revelstoke, comprise 333,345
ac (134,900 ha) and are within the range of several local populations
of caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Parks Canada NPSP
2009, pp. 18-19). Ninety-four percent of the land in British Columbia
is considered Provincial Crown lands, of which 33,881,167 ac
(13,711,222 ha) are designated as various park and protected areas
managed by British Columbia (B.C.) Parks (B.C. Parks 2013a, in litt.).
The mission of B.C. Parks is to ``protect representative and special
natural places within the province's Protected Areas System for world-
class conservation, outdoor recreation, education and scientific
study'' (B.C. Parks 2013b, in litt.). Many Canadian National parks,
provincial parks, and ecological reserves are regularly or occasionally
occupied by local populations or individuals of mountain caribou and
provide some level of protection including: Arctic Pacific Lakes,
Evanoff, Sugarbowl-Grizzly Den, Ptarmigan Creek, West Twin, Close to
the Edge, Upper Rausch, Mount Tinsdale, Bowron Lake, Cariboo Mountains,
Wells Gray, Upper Adams, Foster Arm, Cummins Lakes, Goosegrass,
Glacier, Mount Revelstoke, Monashee, Goat Range, Purcell Wilderness,
Kianuko, Lockhart Creek, West Arm, and Stagleap.
In February 2009, British Columbia's Ministry of Environment
(BCMOE) protected 5,568,200 ac (2,253,355 ha) of currently available
and eventually available high-suitability winter caribou habitat. This
was accomplished through the issuance of 10 Government Actions
Regulation orders on Provincial Crown lands within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS (BCMOE 2009a, in litt.; BCMOE 2009b, in litt.;
Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan Progress Board (MCRIPPB)
2010, pp. 7, 9). This protection was accomplished, in part, through the
official designation of high-suitability habitats as either wildlife
habitat areas or ungulate winter ranges, and associated general
wildlife measures (BCMOE 2009b, in litt.). These measures are designed
to reduce the impact from timber harvest and road construction on
caribou habitat. They identify areas where no or modified timber
harvesting can take place, along with certain motor vehicle prohibition
regulations (BCMOE 2009b, in litt.; BCMOE 2009c, in litt.). This effort
included the creation of two important guidance documents that provide
recommendations for the establishment of mineral exploration activity
and commercial backcountry recreation (i.e., heli-skiing and cat-
skiing). Both of these documents call for their respective activities
to maximize use of existing roads and clearings, and specify other
activity-specific restrictions on habitat alteration (Hamilton and
Pasztor 2009, pp. 7-8; BCMOE 2009c, in litt.).
In February 2009, the BCMOE closed approximately 2,471,050 ac
(1,000,000 ha) of caribou habitat within the Canadian portion of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS to snowmobile use (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10).
However, compliance with closures in these areas is not well known, and
is likely not 100 percent (MCRIPPB 2012, p. 9). Efforts and progress
are being made to replace stolen or vandalized signs, to improve
monitoring and enforcement of compliance, and to inform and educate the
users of the closed areas. Specifically, several tickets have been
issued in British Columbia for noncompliance, and informational
pamphlets have been made and distributed (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10; MCRIPPB
2012, p. 9).
In addition, conservation has been accomplished through the
voluntary signing of stewardship management agreements in British
Columbia. These agreements are between the BCMOE and snowmobiling
groups, and promote the minimization of disturbance and displacement of
caribou from snowmobile activities in their habitat. Through these
agreements, snowmobile groups agree to: A code of conduct while riding
in designated areas, volunteer to educate riders about impacts to
caribou and preventative measures to avoid impacts, volunteer to
monitor designated areas for compliance, and submit reports to the
BCMOE detailing caribou sightings and snowmobile use of an area. To
date, 13 of these agreements have been signed between the BCMOE and
snowmobile organizations (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10).
Private Efforts
Approximately 135,908 ac (55,000 ha) of private land within the
British Columbia portion of the southern Selkirk Mountains caribou
recovery area were purchased by the Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC).
This purchase was made with the support of the Government of Canada, in
what has
[[Page 26522]]
been described as the largest single private conservation land
acquisition in Canadian history (USFWS 2008, p. 17). This private land
was previously owned by a timber company known as the Pluto Darkwoods
Forestry Corporation, which managed a sustainable harvesting program
prior to selling the land. The NCC's goal for the Darkwoods property is
sustainable ecosystem management, including the conservation of
woodland caribou (USFWS 2008, p. 17).
Summary for Factor A
Destruction, modification, or curtailment of caribou habitat has
been and is today a significant threat to caribou throughout the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Specific threats directly impacting
caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS include forest
harvest, forest fires, insect outbreaks, human development, recreation,
and climate change. Each of these threats, through varying mechanisms,
directly removes and fragments existing habitat and/or impacts caribou
behavior such that it alters the distribution of caribou within their
natural habitat.
Forest harvest, forest fires, insect outbreaks, human development,
and climate change catalyze other, indirect threats to caribou within
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. These impacts may be particularly
prevalent in the southern extent of this DPS. Specifically, direct
habitat loss and fragmentation limits caribou dispersal and movements
among local populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS by
making it more difficult and more dangerous for caribou to disperse.
Further, habitat loss and fragmentation have and will continue to alter
the predator-prey ecology of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS by
creating more suitable habitat and travel corridors for other ungulates
and their predators. Finally, habitat loss and fragmentation increases
the likelihood of disturbance of caribou in the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS from human recreation or other activities by increasing the
accessibility of these areas to humans. Climate change is forecasted to
exacerbate these impacts by catalyzing forest composition changes,
increasing forest insect outbreaks, and increasing the likelihood of
wildfires.
Another threat, human disturbance from wintertime recreation,
particularly from snowmobile activity, increases physiological stress,
energy expenditure, and alters habitat occupancy of caribou. This
disturbance forces caribou to use inferior habitat with greater risk of
depredation or avalanche. Human disturbance is likely to continue to
increasingly impact caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS,
because nature-based recreation and tourism are on the rise in rural
British Columbia. Projected growth of these activities is estimated at
approximately 15 percent per year (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007, p. 3).
In addition, the establishment of new forest roads may be providing
increased human access to caribou habitat, further amplifying the
threat of human disturbance and caribou population declines within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the future. Impacts to caribou from
human disturbance are occurring today, despite conservation measures,
and are likely to occur in the future. These impacts will likely
contribute to the decline of local populations within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS and further impact the continued existence of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
We have evaluated the best available scientific and commercial data
on the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of the habitat or range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Through
this evaluation, we have determined that this factor poses a
significant threat to the continued existence of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS, especially when considered in concert with the other
factors impacting the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Caribou have been an important game species since they have shared
the landscape with humans. Native Americans have hunted caribou for
thousands of years in British Columbia, although the numbers of animals
taken were probably modest given the relatively limited hunting
pressure and hunting implements at the time (Spalding 2000, p. 38). The
introduction of firearms combined with a later increase in human
populations in British Columbia led to an increase in caribou harvested
by the late 1800s and into the 1900s (Spalding 2000, p. 38).
It is thought that an increase in hunting pressure, although it did
not cause extinction, upset the already delicate balance between
predators and caribou and catalyzed a general decline in caribou
populations (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 73; Spalding 2000, p. 39). As
justification for this hypothesis, Spalding (2000, p. 39) cited old
field reports that hunters, both Native American and non-Native
American, were killing too many caribou. He also cited several regions
of British Columbia where, after hunting closures were implemented,
caribou numbers began to rebound, although this was not the case in all
populations (Spalding 2000, p. 37). These hunting pressures and
associated population declines subsided with the hunting season
closures, and some regions of British Columbia even saw population
increases and stabilization after the 1940s (Spalding 2000, pp. 37,
39).
Hunting of caribou is currently not allowed in any of the lower 48
United States. Further, hunting is prohibited in all National Parks and
Ecological Reserves in British Columbia; but may be allowed in some
specific British Columbia parks. Hunting regulations put out by the
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations for 2012-2014, currently allows hunting of large, 5-point
adult bull caribou within a few areas within the range of the Southern
Mountain Caribou local populations (British Columbia Hunting & Trapping
Regulations/Synopsis (BCHT) 2012-2014). Hunting of adult bull caribous
are allowed in British Columbia to hunters who have a license and have
drawn the appropriate Limited Entry Hunting season authorization (BCHT
2012-2014, p. 19). The range of Mountain Caribou is reported in the
BCHT regulations (p. 19) to occur within specific sections of four
Management Units (MU's; MUs 3, 4, 5, 7). Caribou that have been
harvested are required to be submitted for a Compulsory Inspection with
the animal's front incisor tooth, antlers, and piece of hide with proof
of sex within 30 days of harvest (BCHT 2012-2014, p. 21). Hunters are
limited to 1, 5-point bull during the specified season. We do not know
the number of licenses that are available to hunters in a given year,
or the number of adult bull mountain caribou that are harvested. Also
within the BCHT, there is a section titled, Mountain Caribou Update (p.
23), describing the current status of the mountain type of woodland
caribou and ongoing recovery strategies. One of the strategies
discussed in the BCHT regulations describes obtaining information on
the predator management/predator-prey dynamics and mountain caribou. As
part of this study, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations office are requesting hunters to submit information on the
harvest of wolves within the range of the caribou.
Given our current knowledge of caribou dispersal, it is unlikely
that many caribou from the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS will be
harvested in these areas. Consequently,
[[Page 26523]]
legal harvest has not been a major limiting factor to caribou within
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS since the mid-1970s (Seip and
Cichowski 1996, p. 73). Therefore, although it may have had a
historical impact on caribou populations, hunting/harvesting of caribou
is not presently impacting caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS.
Although there are historic reports of the illegal harvest of
caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Scott and Servheen
1985, p. 15; Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76), we do not have data that
suggest illegal killing is affecting caribou numbers in any of the
local populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
Aside from State and Provincial regulations that limit hunting of
caribou, we are unaware of other conservation efforts to reduce
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; however, we do not have information suggesting
that overutilization is an ongoing threat to caribou within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Summary for Factor B
Threats from overutilization such as hunting appear to be
ameliorated, now and in the future, by responsible management.
Historically, caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS were
hunted throughout their range. They were likely overharvested when
human populations increased in British Columbia and with the advent of
modern weapons. The hunting of caribou has been made illegal within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, in both the United States and Canada.
After hunting was stopped, certain populations began to recover and
grow, but others did not. Even though there have been known occurrences
of humans illegally killing caribou within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS in the past, we do not have information indicating this is
an ongoing threat. We have evaluated the best available scientific and
commercial data on the overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes of the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS and determined that this factor does not pose a threat to the
continued existence of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Caribou have been occasionally documented to succumb to disease and
parasitism throughout their range and within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS (Spalding 2000, p. 40; Compton et al. 1995, p. 493;
Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, pp. 20, 54-55). The effects of many
types of biting and stinging insects on caribou include parasite and
disease transmission, harassment, and immune system reactions (COSEWIC
2002, p. 54). Several are considered important including: Warble flies
(Oedemagena spp.), nose bot flies (Cephenemyia trompe), mosquitoes
(Aedes spp.), black flies (Simulium spp.), horseflies (Tabanus spp.),
and deer flies (Chrysops spp.) (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Mature and old
woodland caribou are likely to have a relatively high incidence and
prevalence of hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) in their lungs,
which can make them more susceptible to predation (COSEWIC 2002, p.
54). Eggs and larvae of the protostrongylid nematode
(Parelaphostrongylus andersoni) can develop in woodland caribou lungs
and can contribute to pneumonia (COSEWIC 2002, pp. 54-55). Finally, a
related meningeal nematode (P. tenuis) causes neurologic disease in
caribou. Although this nematode is benign in white-tailed deer, it may
be a limiting factor to caribou in southern Ontario and west to
Saskatchewan. Samuel et al. (1992, p. 629) suggested that this
meningeal nematode may anthropogenically spread in western Canada due
to game ranching; however, we have no new information to determine if
this spread has or has not occurred.
Within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, evidence of disease or
parasitism is limited. We know that several caribou that were shot or
found dead in a forest near Rooney, British Columbia, in 1918 were
thought to have a type of pneumonia (Spalding 2000, p. 40). We also
know that, of 34 caribou that died within 2 years of translocation to
the southern Selkirk Mountains, only 1 was confirmed to have died of
severe parasitism (Sarcocystis sp.) and emaciation (Compton et al.
1995, p. 493). Although evidence within the Southern Mountain DPS is
limited, we are aware that a reintroduction effort of 51 caribou
outside of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the late 1960s failed,
presumably because of meningeal worms (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis)
(Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, p. 20).
As is the case with most wildlife, caribou are susceptible to
disease and parasitism. These sources of mortality are likely causing
some level of impact to individual caribou within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS. However, because no severe outbreaks have been documented
and because relatively few caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS have been known to succumb to disease or parasitism, these sources
of mortality are unlikely to have significantly impacted caribou within
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, currently or historically.
Predation
Natural predators of caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS
include cougars (Felis concolor), wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears
(Ursus arctos), and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Seip 2008, p. 1).
Increased predation from these natural predators, particularly wolves
and cougars, is thought to be the most, or one of the most significant
contributors to Southern Mountain Caribou DPS declines in recent
decades (Seip 1992, p. 1500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005,
p. 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415). Elevated levels of predation
on caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS have likely been
caused, in part, by an alteration of the natural predator-prey ecology
within their range (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 417; Seip 2008, p. 3).
This change in the predator-prey ecology within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS is thought to be catalyzed, at least in part, by
human-caused habitat alteration and fragmentation (Seip 2008, p. 3).
Habitat alteration and fragmentation within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS is caused by many things including, but not limited to,
forest harvest, fire, human development, and climate change (see Factor
A discussion, above). Alteration and fragmentation from these and other
activities disturb land and create edge habitats. These new edges and
disturbances allow for the introduction of early seral habitat that is
preferred by deer, elk, and moose, thereby increasing habitat
suitability for these alternate ungulate prey species within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; Seip 2008,
p. 3). The increase in habitat suitability for deer, elk, and moose
have allowed these alternate prey species to subsist in areas that,
under natural disturbance regimes, would have been dominated by
contiguous old-growth forest and of limited value to them (Kinley and
Apps 2001, p. 162). The
[[Page 26524]]
result is an altered distribution and increased numbers of these
alternative ungulate prey species, particularly within summer habitat
of caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Kinley and Apps
2001, p. 162; Wittmer et al. 2005a, pp. 263-264). Many studies suggest
that increases in alternative ungulate prey within caribou summer
habitat have stimulated an associated increase of natural predators,
particularly cougars and wolves, in these same areas, consequently
disrupting the predator-prey ecology within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS and resulting in increased predation on caribou (Kinley and
Apps 2001, p. 162; Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415).
The specific changes to predator/prey ecology are different across
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. In the northern portion of the DPS,
wolf and moose populations have increased. In the southern portion of
the DPS, cougar, elk, and deer populations have increased. Because
alternate ungulate prey are driving predator abundance in caribou
habitat (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414), predators may remain abundant
in caribou habitat while caribou numbers remain few. This renders one
of the caribou's main predator defenses--predator avoidance--relatively
ineffective during certain parts of the year.
Alterations in the predator-prey ecology of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS may also have been catalyzed, in part, by successful game
animal management in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Wittmer et al.
2005b, p. 415). This too could have helped to increase deer, elk, and
moose populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and led to
an increase in ungulate predators, thus impacting caribou.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
Disease
We are not aware of any conservation measures currently being
implemented to reduce impacts to caribou from disease.
Predation
Increased predation is thought to be the current primary threat
affecting caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Seip 1992,
p. 1500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005, p. 4, Wittmer et al.
2005b, pp. 414-415). Leading thoughts on managing predation include the
management of predator populations directly, or the management of
alternate ungulate prey populations. The 2007 Mountain Caribou Recovery
Implementation Plan (MCRIP), produced by the BCMOE, proposed both
approaches be taken within the Canadian portion of the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS (MCRIPPB 2010, pp. 1, 12, and 13).
Direct management of predator populations within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS to date has included investigations to determine
the degree of overlap between wolves and caribou home ranges. This
research will assist BCMOE with decisions about location and intensity
of wolf management or removal (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). Currently, removal
of wolves from within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has been
authorized by BCMOE through hunting and trapping. To date, this program
has been implemented only on a limited basis. Initial results suggest
this management effort has been successful at reducing wolf densities,
but the response by mountain caribou will take several more years to
determine (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). Finally, a wolf sterilization project
is underway in a portion of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. This
project is a pilot project designed to determine the feasibility and
effectiveness of wolf sterilization (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). Initial
results of this work suggest that some local populations are showing a
positive response to these sterilization efforts. However, this
conclusion is based on a correlation between the two variables and
cause-effect has not been demonstrated (Ritchie et al. 2012, p. 4). One
ongoing study, in the South Purcells local population, is investigating
wolf and cougar overlap with caribou home ranges (MCRIPPB 2012, p. 12).
Direct management of alternate ungulate prey populations within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, to date, has been limited. The BCMOE has
reported two pilot moose-reduction programs within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS to determine effectiveness of reducing wolf
densities through the management of moose densities in caribou habitat
(MCRIPPB 2010, p. 13). These pilot efforts have indicated that reducing
moose densities may reduce wolf numbers (MCRIPPB 2011, p. 4).
The BCMOE established a Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation
Progress Board (Board) with the publication of the 2007 MCRIP. The
Board was charged with oversight of the implementation of the MCRIP and
monitoring its effectiveness. In the Board's 2010 annual report, they
declared that the conservation measures listed above have all been
relatively limited in scope and have failed to meet the expectations of
the Board (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 4). The Board's annual reports since 2010
have been slightly more favorable in their assessment of the BCMOE's
efforts for predator and alternate ungulate prey management. However,
it is still apparent that much research and progress still needs to be
completed. For example, it is noteworthy that most of the conservation
measures listed above target the wolf-moose predator-prey relationship
that is the primary driver of predator-prey dynamics in the northern
portion of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We were able to find only
one record or report of conservation measures that had been implemented
to address predation of caribou by cougars, which may be the most
salient issue for the small and struggling local populations in the
southern portion of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Wittmer et al.
2005b, pp. 414-415). Given the controversial nature of predator and
alternate ungulate prey control for caribou conservation (MCRIPPB 2010,
p. 4; MCRIPPB 2012, p. 11), these conservation measures have been and
may continue to be slow to develop and difficult to implement.
Efforts at reducing predation in the United States are more limited
and are not specifically targeted at reducing effects to caribou. In
Idaho, caribou are found within game management unit (GMU) 1, which
provides recreational hunting opportunities for black bear, mountain
lion, and wolves, and also provides a limited trapping season for
wolves (IDFG 2012, entire). Within this GMU, between July 1, 2010 and
June 30, 2011, 109 mountain lions (IDFG 2011a, p. 6) and 179 black
bears (IDFG 2011b, p. 4) were harvested. More recently, from September
1, 2011, through March 31, 2012, 28 wolves were harvested (IDFG 2013,
in litt.). Washington State provides a limited hunting season for both
black bear and mountain lion within GMU 113 (the GMU found in
Washington State, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
2012, pp. 60-63), and within the critical habitat designated for the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (November 28,
2012, 77 FR 71042), and 44 black bears and 1 mountain lion were
harvested in GMU 113 in 2011 (WDFW 2013a, in litt.; WDFW 2013b, in
litt.). However, wolf hunting or trapping is not allowed in Washington
State. As mentioned above, the objectives for these predator hunting
and trapping seasons are not to benefit the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS in the United States, and any response in
[[Page 26525]]
the caribou population is not monitored. As such, any potential effects
on caribou survival and population stability from hunting seasons on
predators in Idaho and Washington remains unknown.
Summary for Factor C
Predation, particularly from wolves and cougars, is thought to be
the most, or one of the most, significant contributors to caribou
population declines within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in recent
decades. Increased predation of caribou within this DPS has likely been
caused, in part, by an alteration of the natural predator-prey ecology
of the area. This new predator-prey dynamic has been catalyzed by
increases in populations of alternative ungulate prey species such as
elk, deer, and moose within caribou habitat. Ecosystems that favor
these alternate ungulate prey species also favor predators such as
wolves and cougars. These changes have likely been catalyzed, in part,
by human-caused habitat loss and fragmentation, which increases habitat
favorable to alternative ungulate prey species, and consequently
attracts increased numbers of predators. Although some conservation
measures have been implemented to reduce impacts to local populations
of caribou from predation, more efficient, intensive, and frequent
action is still needed within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We
have evaluated the best available scientific and commercial data on
disease or predation of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and have
determined that this factor poses a widespread and serious threat to
the continued existence of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires that the Service take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species . . .'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors
or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest
weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management
direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would
be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or
constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Many different regulatory mechanisms and government conservation
actions have been implemented in both the United States and British
Columbia in an attempt to alleviate threats to caribou within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Below, we list these existing regulatory
mechanisms and consider whether they are inadequate to address the
identified threats to the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Federal
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou
(which we now consider a local population within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS) was listed as endangered under the Act on February 29,
1984 (49 FR 7390). Listing the southern Selkirk Mountains local
population of woodland caribou provided a variety of protections,
including the prohibition against take and the conservation mandates of
section 7 for all Federal agencies. Since this listing action, Federal
agencies have been required to ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. On November
28, 2012, the Service designated critical habitat for this population
of caribou in northeastern Washington and Idaho (77 FR 71042). This
designation encompasses a total of 30,010 ac (12,145 ha), protecting
this area by requiring Federal agencies to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out in this area is not likely to result in
destruction or adverse modification of the designated habitat (77 FR
71042). By law, the Service has the authority to designate critical
habitat only within the jurisdiction of the United States.
U.S. Forest Service
Much of the caribou habitat within the United States is managed by
the USFS (289,000 ac (116,954 ha)), although a significant amount of
State and private lands (approximately 79,000 ac (31,970 ha)) occur
within caribou range as well (USFWS 1994, p. 21). Because of the
endangered status of these caribou and the critical habitat
designation, the USFS, the primary caribou habitat land manager in the
United States, is required to consult on actions they carry out,
authorize, or fund that may affect caribou or their habitat on their
lands. Thus, woodland caribou are afforded protections under the Act
from the potential effects of Federal agency activities. Land and
resource management plans (LRMPs) for the IPNF and the CNF have been
revised to incorporate management objectives and standards to address
the threats identified in the 1984 final listing rule (49 FR 7390).
These LRMP revisions are a result of section 7 consultation between the
Service and USFS (USFWS 2001a, b, entire). Standards for caribou
habitat management have been incorporated into the IPNF's 1987 and
CNF's 1988 LRMP, respectively. These standards are meant 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).
The CNF's LRMP in Washington has been revised to incorporate
special management objectives and standards to address potential
threats to woodland caribou on the CNF. The CNF also manages winter
recreation in areas of potential conflict between snowmobile use and
caribou, specifically in its Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District (77
FR 71042, p. 71071). The IPNF, beginning in 1993, implemented site-
specific closures to protect caribou on the IPNF. However, more
comprehensive standards addressing how, when, and where, to impose such
restrictions across the IPNF were limited (USFS 1987, entire). In
December 2005, a U.S. district court granted a preliminary injunction
prohibiting snowmobile trail grooming within the caribou recovery area
on the IPNF during the winter of 2005 to 2006. The injunction was
granted because the IPNF had not developed a winter recreation strategy
addressing the effects of snowmobiling on caribou. 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 U.S.
portion of the southern Selkirk Mountains with habitat in British
Columbia. This injunction is currently in effect and restricts
snowmobiling on 239,588 ac (96,957 ha), involving 71 percent of the
[[Page 26526]]
existing woodland caribou recovery area. In its revised LRMP (USFS
2013, entire), the IPNF considered the court-ordered snowmobile closure
to be the standard until a winter travel plan is approved. The Service
will work closely with the IPNF on the future development of their
winter recreation strategy, which will be subject to section 7
consultation with the Service. For additional information see
``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range'' under ``Efforts in the United States.'' We
will further evaluate existing USFS regulatory mechanisms in our final
determination for this action.
States
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
The woodland caribou within Idaho are considered a Species of
Greatest Conservation Need by IDFG (IDFG 2005, pp. 373-375). There are
historical reports of the illegal harvest of caribou within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Scott and Servheen 1985, p. 15; Seip and
Cichowski 1996, p. 76). However, we do not have data that suggest
illegal killing is affecting caribou numbers in any of the local
populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, and we do not
consider this to be a threat to the species that needs to be addressed
by a regulatory mechanism.
Idaho Department of Lands
The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) manages approximately 51,000 ac
(20,639 ha) of Southern Mountain Caribou DPS habitat in the United
States. These lands are managed primarily for timber harvest, an
activity which has, currently and historically, the potential to
significantly impact caribou and their habitat. The IDL contracted for
a habitat assessment of their lands within the South Selkirk ecosystem
(Kinley and Apps 2007, entire). The results of this assessment
indicated that one of the largest blocks of high-priority caribou
habitat in the United States is centered on IDL property and adjacent
USFS lands. The report stated that IDL property contributes
significantly to caribou habitat within the South Selkirk ecosystem.
The IDL, with financial assistance from the Service, began working on a
habitat conservation plan (HCP) several years ago to protect caribou
and other listed species on their lands. However, development of this
HCP has not moved forward beyond the initial stages. Recently, winter
motorized use restrictions were loosened on some IDL endowment land in
the Abandon Creek area north of Priest Lake. Under a revised winter
access plan, these previously closed lands will remain open to winter
motorized use unless there is a confirmed caribou sighting along the
Selkirk Crest within 2.7 mi (4.3 km) of the previous closing (Seymour
2012, in litt.). Because their timber harvest plans currently do not
incorporate considerations for caribou and because of the recent
removal of snowmobile restrictions, management of IDL's lands is likely
not alleviating or addressing the threat of habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation, or disturbance from winter recreation to caribou.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou was
listed as endangered in the State of Washington in 1982 (WDFW 2011, p.
38). In addition, this population within Washington is considered a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need by WDFW (WDFW 2005, p. 620). In
addition to Federal penalties associated with convictions of illegally
taking a caribou, a $12,000 criminal wildlife penalty is assessed by
WDFW for illegally killing or possessing a caribou in Washington State
(WDFW 2012, p. 73). We do not have data that suggest illegal killing is
affecting caribou numbers in any of the local populations within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, and we do not consider this to be a
threat to the species that needs to be addressed by a regulatory
mechanism.
Canada
The Woodland Caribou Southern Mountain population, which includes
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, is protected as threatened under
Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Statues of Canada (S.C.) ch 29).
SARA defines a ``threatened'' species as ``a wildlife species that is
likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse
the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction'' (S.C. chapter
29, section 2). It is illegal to kill, harm, harass, capture, or take
an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as a threatened
species (S.C. chapter 29, section 32). SARA also prohibits any person
from damaging or destroying the residence of a listed species, or from
destroying any part of its critical habitat (S.C. chapter 29, sections
33, 58). For species that are not aquatic species or migratory birds,
however, SARA's prohibition on destruction of the residence applies
only on Federal lands. Most lands occupied by the Woodland Caribou
Southern Mountain population are not Federal; hence SARA does little to
protect the population's habitat.
The Woodland Caribou Southern Mountain population was assigned the
status S1 in 2003, by the Province of British Columbia, meaning it is
considered critically imperiled there (BCMOE 2013, in litt.). The
Province of British Columbia does not have endangered species
legislation. This lack of legislation can limit the ability to enact
meaningful measures for the protection of status species such as
caribou, especially as it relates to their habitat (Festa-Bianchet et
al. 2011, p. 423). The British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations currently does not allow hunting of
caribou within the area where the Southern Mountain population of
caribou occurs. The Woodland Caribou Southern Mountain population and
its habitat are also protected by the National Parks Act in numerous
National Parks in Canada (Canada 2013, in litt.). Because of its
threatened status, the British Columbian government has endorsed the
MCRIP, which encompasses the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in Canada
(British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) 2007, in
litt.). For further information on caribou conservation efforts in
Canada, see the sections ``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Range'' under
``Efforts in Canada'' and ``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Disease or
Predation'' under ``Predation.''
Substantial progress has been made for certain MCRIP goals, such as
protecting habitat through government actions regulation (GAR) orders
in British Columbia. However, other goals such as reducing the effects
from predation have seen less progress made. Additional work and time
is still needed to implement all goals identified in the MCRIP to
adequately reduce threats to the Southern Mountain population of
caribou in Canada. We will evaluate this further in our final
determination for this action.
Local Ordinances
Currently, we are unaware of any local regulatory mechanisms
addressing caribou habitat management or protection within the United
States or Canada.
Private
Currently, we are unaware of any regulatory mechanisms addressing
caribou habitat management or
[[Page 26527]]
protection on private lands within the United States.
Summary for Factor D
In the United States, the southern Selkirk Mountains local
population of woodland caribou of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has
been listed as endangered since 1984, and critical habitat was
designated in 2012. Listing the southern Selkirk Mountains local
population of woodland caribou provided a variety of protections,
including the prohibition against take and the conservation mandates of
section 7 for all Federal agencies. Because of the endangered status of
these caribou and the critical habitat designation, the USFS, the
primary caribou habitat land manager in the United States, is required
to consult on actions they carry out, authorize, or fund that may
affect caribou or their habitat on their lands. Thus, woodland caribou
are afforded protections under the Act from the potential effects of
Federal agency activities. Because the Service has regulations that
prohibit take of all threatened wildlife species (50 CFR 17.31(a)),
unless modified by a special rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act
(50 CFR 17.31(c)), the regulatory protections of the Act are largely
the same for wildlife species listed as endangered and as threatened;
thus, the protections provided by the Act would remain in place if the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is reclassified as a threatened species.
While the IDL also manages a substantial portion of caribou
habitat, they are not required to manage their land for caribou. Many
of IDL's land management plans, particularly timber harvest plans, do
not currently consider caribou and do not address the identified
threats to woodland caribou. IDL does consider caribou in their winter
access plan and has, in the past, closed snowmobile trails to prevent
winter disturbance; however, some of these trail closures have been
recently relaxed and will remain open to winter motorized use unless
there is a confirmed caribou sighting. Because IDL's land management
plans, including timber harvest and winter access, do not consider
woodland caribou, we conclude that management of IDL's lands is likely
not alleviating or addressing the threat of habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation, or disturbance from winter recreation to caribou.
Hunting regulations at the National and State levels provide
adequate protections regarding the legal take of caribou in the United
States, and we do not have data that suggest illegal killing is
affecting caribou numbers in any of the local populations within the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, and we do not consider this as a threat
to the species.
In Canada, the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is protected at the
national level under SARA, while British Columbia considers them to be
critically imperiled. A recovery plan, the MCRIP, has been endorsed by
British Columbia. While efforts have been made towards meeting the
goals identified in that recovery plan, additional work and time are
needed to meet all the goals. Presently, there is not a hunting season
in Canada for caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Caribou local populations continue to decline within the Southern
Mountain DPS despite regulatory mechanisms being in place in the United
States and Canada. Although U.S. Federal and State, and Canadian
national and provincial, regulations are providing some protection for
the caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, the suite of
regulations is unable to address and ameliorate threats to caribou such
as predation and loss of habitat. Remedies to address threats such as
control of predators are not logistically easy to implement and may be
expensive to address. Currently, the regulatory mechanisms in the
United States and Canada are not addressing the identified threats to
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We will further evaluate the
existing regulatory mechanisms and their impact on ameliorating threats
to caribou in our final determination for this action.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Avalanches and Stochastic Events
One natural source of mortality for caribou is avalanches (Seip and
Cichowski 1996, p. 76). This has been a notable threat to caribou
within the Revelstoke area of Canada, within the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS, where the terrain is particularly steep and rugged with
very high snowfall (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). Although
avalanches are generally a natural phenomenon, the threat of avalanches
to caribou may be increasing because caribou may be displaced into
steeper, more avalanche-prone terrain during the winter from snowmobile
and other winter recreational activities (Simpson 1987, p. 1; Seip and
Cichowski 1996, p. 79).
Threats of all stochastic events such as avalanches become more
serious as local populations become isolated and population numbers
decrease. This is the case in the southern extent of the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS. For example, a small population of fewer than 10
individuals in Banff National Park (just outside the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS) was extirpated in the spring of 2009 from a single
avalanche event (Parks Canada 2013, in litt.).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
We are not aware of any conservation measures currently being
implemented to reduce impacts to caribou from avalanches or other
stochastic events.
Summary for Factor E
Caribou are susceptible to stochastic events such as avalanches due
to small local population sizes and isolation of these local
populations. Local populations are increasingly at risk from impacts of
stochastic events as they become more isolated and their population
numbers decline. The threat from avalanches is amplified further when
caribou are displaced from their preferred habitat into steeper, more
dangerous habitat as a consequence of human recreation. Therefore we
have determined other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence pose a threat to the continued existence of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E
As alluded to in the discussions above, many of the causes of
caribou population declines are linked, often by the threat of habitat
alteration. For example, predation is one of the most significant
threats to caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Predation
is directly linked, in part, to habitat alteration and the associated
introduction of early seral habitat and the creation of roads within
caribou habitat in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Specifically, the
introduction of early seral habitat and new forest roads has altered
the predator/prey ecology of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS by
creating suitable habitat for alternate ungulate prey and accessibility
for their predators, respectively, into caribou habitat. Human
disturbance, another of the threats to caribou within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS, is also linked to habitat alteration because of
the increased accessibility of caribou habitat that new forest roads
have provided. Habitat alteration, in turn, is directly tied to and
caused by another, and possibly two other, threats listed above--human
development and climate change. Specifically, human
[[Page 26528]]
development and the resources it requires, probably in concert with
climate change, have altered caribou habitat within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS. This alteration has occurred through forest
harvest and the creation of new infrastructure. It is reasonable to
expect that human development and the resources it demands will
continue to alter and fragment caribou habitat in the future. This, in
turn, will continue to promote altered predator/prey ecology and
associated increases in caribou predation, and human disturbance in
caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. The suite of
all these related threats, combined with each other, have posed and
continue to pose a significant threat to caribou within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS.
Proposed Determination
The range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has been reduced by
approximately 40 percent over the last century. The current status and
distribution of caribou within the DPS is limited to an estimated 1,657
individuals in 15 local populations. This represents a reduction in
total population size of 33 percent since 1995, with some individual
local populations experiencing reductions of more than 50 percent. As
previously discussed in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
significant threats to the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS include:
increased levels of predation due to changes in the predator/prey
dynamics, increased accessibility of caribou habitat by humans,
disturbance of caribou from use of roads and from recreational
vehicles, and climate change. All these threats are linked with past
and ongoing habitat alteration and are occurring throughout the entire
range of the DPS. These threats are expected to continue in the
foreseeable future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered
species'' as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species''
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this
discussion. The Act defines ``species'' as follows: ``The term
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' Although the Service
employs the concept of being on the brink of extinction in the wild as
its general understanding of ``in danger of extinction'' (USFWS 2010,
in litt.), it does not do so in a narrow or inflexible way. As
implemented by the Service, to be currently on the brink of extinction
in the wild does not necessarily mean that extinction is certain or
inevitable. Ultimately, whether a species is currently on the brink of
extinction in the wild (including the timing of the extinction event
itself) depends on the life history and ecology of the species, the
nature of the threats, and the species' response to those threats
(USFWS 2010, in litt.).
We have carefully evaluated the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. As described above, the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS still has a relatively widespread distribution
that has suffered ongoing major reductions of its numbers, range, or
both, as a result of factors that have not been abated. This decline
has resulted in the shrinking in size and isolation of local
populations that make up this DPS.
A species with a relatively widespread distribution that has
experienced, and continues to undergo, major reductions in its numbers,
range, or both as a result of factors that have not been abated can be
listed as either endangered or threatened. For the reasons outlined
below, we have determined that the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS meets
the definition of threatened throughout its entire range, and
acknowledge that many of the smaller local populations may individually
fit the definition of endangered. Specifically, we conclude that the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS meets the definition of threatened
because, although all local populations within this DPS have suffered
declines in numbers, range, or both, and have become increasingly
isolated, populations in the northern portion of the DPS have suffered
these declines to a lesser extent than those in the southern part of
the range. Because of their relatively higher population numbers, these
northern local populations have more resiliency to threats than local
populations in the southern extent of the DPS. For this reason, when
assessed across its range, we conclude that the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS as a whole is not endangered, because we expect the
northern populations to persist, at least for the foreseeable future.
As discussed below, we have determined that caribou within the
``endangered'' southern local populations do not constitute a
significant portion of the species' range, according to the Service's
current policy. In other words, we have determined that the loss of the
``endangered'' local populations would not substantially increase the
vulnerability of the ``threatened'' local populations, such that the
entire DPS would be in danger of extinction (i.e., would become
endangered). Therefore, on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available and per our policy, we propose to amend the
current listing of the woodland caribou (southern Selkirk Mountains
population) as an endangered species, as identified at 50 CFR 17.11(h),
to reflect the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered
species'' as any species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species''
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this
discussion. The Act defines ``species'' as follows: ``The term
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute.
Additionally, we have never addressed in our regulations: (1) The
consequences of a determination that a species is either endangered or
likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range, but
not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a
range as ``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp.
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and
WildEarth Guardians v.
[[Page 26529]]
Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. September 30, 2010),
concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to list the
Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, 2008). The Service had
asserted in both of these determinations that it had authority, in
effect, to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as defined by
the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both courts
ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the
grounds that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous language
of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the SPR language to allow
protecting only a portion of a species' range is inconsistent with the
Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts concluded that once a
determination is made that a species (i.e., species, subspecies, or
DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species,'' it must be placed on the list in its entirety and the Act's
protections applied consistently to all members of that species
(subject to modification of protections through special rules under
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, the species
is an ``endangered species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened
species.'' Based on this interpretation and supported by existing case
law, the consequence of finding that a species is endangered or
threatened in only a significant portion of its range is that the
entire species shall be listed as endangered or threatened,
respectively, and the Act's protections shall be applied across the
species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the significant portion of its range phrase as providing an independent
basis for listing is the best interpretation of the Act. It is
consistent with the purposes and the plain meaning of the key
definitions of the Act; it does not conflict with established past
agency practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 Solicitor's Opinion), as no
consistent, long-term agency practice has been established; and it is
consistent with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined
this issue. Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of
its range'' provides an independent basis for listing and protecting
the entire species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to
determine the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing
exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below,
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under
any one or more of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if the biological
contribution of a portion of a species' range qualifies that portion as
``significant'' by asking whether without that portion, the
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the
viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in a significant
portion of its range would be listing the species throughout its entire
range, it is important to use a threshold for ``significant'' that is
robust. It would not be meaningful or appropriate to establish a very
low threshold whereby a portion of the range can be considered
``significant'' even if only a negligible increase in extinction risk
would result from its loss. Because nearly any portion of a species'
range can be said to contribute some increment to a species' viability,
use of such a low threshold would require us to impose restrictions and
expend conservation resources disproportionately to conservation
benefit: listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the
range of minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On
the other hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a
high bar would not give the significant portion of its range phrase
independent meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife
v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001).
[[Page 26530]]
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of a species' range would have
to be so important to the species that the current threats to that
portion of the range are such that the entire species would be
currently threatened or endangered everywhere. (We recognize that if
the species is threatened or endangered in a portion that rises to that
level of biological significance, then we should conclude that the
species is in fact endangered or threatened throughout all of its
range, and that we would not need to rely on the significant portion of
its range language for such a listing.) Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, however, to be considered
significant, a portion of the range need not rise to such an
exceptionally high level of biological significance. Rather, under this
interpretation we ask whether the species would be endangered
everywhere without that portion (i.e., if that portion were to be
completely extirpated). In other words, for any portion of the range to
be considered significant by our proposed policy, the complete
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion
of the range would need to cause the species in the remainder of the
range to be endangered. If the hypothetical extirpation of the species
in that portion of the range would not cause the species in the
remainder of the range to meet the definition of endangered, that
portion is not considered significant.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1)
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
Having determined that the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is
threatened throughout its range, we must next consider whether there
are any significant portions of the range where the species is in
danger of extinction (i.e., are endangered). We therefore evaluated the
current range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS to determine if
there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for
this species. We considered the potential direct and indirect threats
due to habitat alteration, including forest harvest, forest fires,
insect outbreaks, human development, human recreation, and climate
change, as well as predation. We found the severity of threats to the
DPS to be relatively consistent across its entire range, although
habitat alteration has been more pronounced to date in the southern
extent of the DPS. Further, although there are several small, local
populations that occur on the periphery in the northern extent of the
DPS (e.g., Narrow Lake and Barkerville), local populations are
generally smaller in numbers and further separated by distance in the
southern portion of the DPS. In his paper assessing the status of the
Mountain Caribou Ecotype, Hatter et al. (2004, p. 10) predicted a loss
of some of these smaller populations (ranging from four to seven
populations depending on the modeling scenario used) in 20 years.
Therefore, these smaller local populations may lack resiliency and
redundancy to threats.
We have determined that many local populations within the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS are at risk of extirpation and that these
individual local populations meet the definition of endangered under
the Act. Given this, we must determine if those ``endangered'' local
populations collectively make up a significant portion of the range of
the species. To determine this we asked the question: In the absence of
the ``endangered'' populations, is the representation, redundancy, or
resilience of the remaining local populations impaired to the extent
that the remainder of the DPS would be endangered? Because the local
populations of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS are largely
geographically and behaviorally isolated from each other, it follows
that the impacts to one local population should not greatly influence
the impacts to another. Therefore, the future extirpation of the
``endangered'' local populations would not be anticipated to change the
status of the remaining local populations within the DPS. Six of the
local populations have current population estimates of 100 individuals
or more, and 3 of those have greater than 200 individuals (Ritchie
2013, in litt.). Even if several of the small local populations within
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS were to be extirpated within the
foreseeable future, we have no information to suggest that this loss,
while by no means a desirable conservation outcome, would result in the
endangerment of the remaining local populations comprising the DPS. In
other words, the loss of some of the smaller, relatively isolated local
populations within the DPS would not be anticipated to lead to the
impending extinction of the larger local populations in the northern
portion of the DPS. Considering the above, we determine that some local
populations of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS are in danger of
extirpation over a portion of its range; however, this portion does not
meet the standards to be considered a significant portion of the range.
Therefore, our determination is that the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS
is not endangered in a significant portion of its range, and should be
listed as threatened throughout its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through the listing results in public awareness
and conservation
[[Page 26531]]
by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations;
and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and
requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species.
The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
A Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plan/Recovery Plan was
approved by the Service in 1985 (USFWS 1985), and a revised Recovery
Plan for Woodland Caribou in the Selkirk Mountains was approved by the
Service in 1994 (USFWS 1994). An update regarding the status of this
recovery plan can be found in the latest 5-year status review for the
species (see USFWS 2008, entire; see http://www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf). While actions have been carried out
in an attempt to recover this local population, the recovery criteria
in the 1994 recovery plan were determined to be inadequate (USFWS 2008,
p. 15). In addition, this recovery plan only applies to this one local
population, and does not extend to the entire proposed Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS. If we finalize this proposal as currently
written, revisions to the plan, in coordination with British Columbia,
Canada, will be required to address the entire DPS and the continuing
or new threats to the subspecies. A new recovery plan for this DPS
would identify site-specific management actions that set a trigger for
review of the five factors that determine whether the listed entity
remains endangered or threatened or may be downlisted or delisted, and
methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and
provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. A
recovery team comprised of species experts from Canada, Tribes, and the
United States would be assembled to revise or develop a recovery plan
for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. When completed, the draft
recovery plan and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web
site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions may include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research,
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this proposed rule becomes final, funding for recovery actions
will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets,
State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Idaho and Washington
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS. Information on our grant programs that are available to
aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
Part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include but may not be limited to: Management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the USFS
and Bureau of Land Management, issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, construction and
management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and construction and maintenance of roads
or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within
[[Page 26532]]
the range of species proposed for listing. The following activities
could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon individuals of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS; and
(2) Unauthorized modification of the old-growth, coniferous forest
landscape within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Idaho Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for
copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and general
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile 503-
231-6243).
Critical Habitat
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. Because
we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not
likely increase the degree of threat to the subspecies and may provide
some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat
is prudent for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We reviewed the
available information pertaining to the biological and habitat needs of
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. This and other information represent
the best scientific data available and led us to conclude that the
designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS. Based on our evaluation of the best available
data, and analysis of the conservation needs of the species, we have
determined that critical habitat is prudent and determinable for the
proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
However, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) state that critical
habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other
areas outside of United States jurisdiction; therefore, any designation
of critical habitat for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS must be
limited to that portion of the DPS that occurs within the boundaries of
the United States. Of the 15 local populations comprising the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS, the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou
population is the only population that moves freely between the
coterminous United States and Canada.
The Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas occupied by
the species at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,
which may require special management considerations or protection. On
November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), we published a final rule designating
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou, the only local population of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS that moves southward across the border into the United
States. In that final rule, we determined that the majority of habitat
essential to the conservation of this population occurred in British
Columbia, Canada, although the U.S. portion of the habitat used by the
caribou makes an essential contribution to the conservation of the
species. We designated as critical habitat approximately 30,010 ac
(12,145 ha) within Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County,
Washington, that we considered to be occupied at the time of listing
and that provided the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, which may require special management
considerations or protection.
The proposed amendment of the currently listed population of the
woodland caribou expands the geographical area occupied by the caribou
northward across the international border; therefore, all of the new
area lies in Canada. Since we can only designate critical habitat
within the United States, we must identify those specific areas within
the United States that we consider to have been occupied at the time of
listing, and that provide the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. However, as
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS are no different than those essential
to the conservation of the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou, and the geographical area in the United
States occupied by this transboundary population of woodland caribou at
the time of listing remains unchanged, the resulting area corresponds
exactly to the critical habitat identified for the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou in our final rule published on
November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042). As a result, we have determined that
the specific area identified in the previous final critical habitat (77
FR 71042) meets the definition of critical habitat for this DPS, and we
have determined that there are no additional areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat and should be included. Therefore, we
propose to reaffirm the designation of approximately 30,010 ac (12,145
ha) in one unit within Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County,
Washington, as critical habitat for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS,
should the proposed amendment to the listed entity become final.
In addition, we propose to change the heading and text of the
critical habitat entry, as well as the title of the critical habitat
map, published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR
17.95(a) to reflect the correct entity, the Southern Mountain Caribou
DPS (see the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of this
document). For further information on the essential physical or
biological features for the caribou and our criteria used to develop
critical habitat, refer to our November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042) final
rule designating critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou.
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
[[Page 26533]]
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.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination for this species is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite
these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rule. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearing on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests
must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate
in a public hearing should contact the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office
at 208-378-5243, as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to
process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the hearing
date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in
alternative formats upon request.
Effects of This Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to amend
the current listing of the transboundary southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou by defining the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed endangered southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and designate the
status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as threatened under the
Act. This rule formally recognizes that the proposed Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS is not in imminent danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. However, this proposed designation of
threatened status for the newly defined DPS would not significantly
change the protection afforded the currently listed local population of
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou under the
Act. The regulatory protections of section 9 and section 7 of the Act
are largely the same for species listed as endangered or threatened.
Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing a Southern
Mountain Caribou or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 of the
Act, is still subject to a penalty under section 11 of the Act, unless
their action is covered under a special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act. At this time, we are not proposing a special rule under section
4(d) of the Act for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Under section 7
of the Act, Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
This proposal, if made final, would also revise 50 CFR 17.95(a) by
reaffirming the designation of approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) as
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou as applicable to the U.S. portion of the proposed
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Required Determinations
Clarity of This Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section, above.
To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific
as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or
sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables
would be useful, etc.
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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. 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.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to 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; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), remove the entry for ``Caribou, woodland'' and
add an entry for ``Caribou, Southern Mountain'' in alphabetical order
under MAMMALS in
[[Page 26534]]
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, Southern Mountain...... Rangifer tarandus U.S.A.............. U.S.A. (wherever T 128E, 136, 143 17.95(a) NA
caribou. (AK, ID, ME, MI, occurring), Canada
MN, MT, NH, VT, (southeastern
WA, WI), Canada.. British Columbia).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95(a), amend the entry for ``Woodland caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou) Southern Selkirk Mountain Population'' as follows:
0
a. By revising the heading;
0
b. By revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv); and
0
d. By revising paragraph (a)(5).
These revisions read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Southern Mountain
Caribou Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
* * * * *
(2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS consist of five components: * * *
* * * * *
(iv) High-elevation benches and shallow slopes, secondary stream
bottoms, riparian areas, seeps, and subalpine meadows with succulent
forbs and grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, willow, huckleberry,
dwarf birch, sedges, and lichens. The Southern Mountain Caribou DPS,
including pregnant females, uses these areas for feeding during the
spring and summer seasons.
* * * * *
(5) Unit 1: Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County,
Washington. The map of the critical habitat unit follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 26535]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY14.001
* * * * *
Dated: April 7, 2014.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-09601 Filed 5-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C