Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2019)

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52598-52661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20459]

[[Page 52597]]

Vol. 84

Wednesday,

No. 191

October 2, 2019

Part II

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Endangered Species Status for
Southern Mountain Caribou Distinct Population Segment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 52598]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; FXES11130900000C2-189-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BC84

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Endangered Species Status for
Southern Mountain Caribou Distinct Population Segment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), for the southern mountain caribou distinct population
segment (DPS) of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This
determination amends the current listing of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou by defining the southern
mountain caribou DPS. The southern mountain caribou DPS of woodland
caribou consists of 17 subpopulations (15 extant and 2 extirpated).
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, for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou is applicable to the U.S. portion of the endangered
southern mountain caribou DPS and, as such, reaffirm the existing
critical habitat for the DPS. This rule amends the listing of this DPS
on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective November 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, and at the Service's Idaho Fish
and Wildlife Office at http://www.fws.gov/idaho/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment,
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Northern Idaho Field Office, 11103 E. Montgomery Drive, Spokane Valley,
WA 99206; telephone 509-891-6839; facsimile 509-891-6748.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Hughes, 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 are hearing impaired or speech
impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY
(telephone typewriter or teletypewriter) assistance 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant
protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by rulemaking.
Any proposed or final rule designating a 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 (DPS policy; 61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). 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 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.
This rule amends the current listing of the southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou as follows:
By defining the southern mountain caribou DPS, which
includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou;
By designating the status of the southern mountain caribou
DPS as endangered 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. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered
species'' as a species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species''
as a species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Under the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered
species or threatened species because of any one or a combination of
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1): (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. We have determined that
threats described under factors A, C, and E pose significant threats to
the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou DPS.
We listed the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou as endangered 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 of the status of the species. We conducted a DPS analysis
during our 2008 5-year review, which concluded 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

[[Page 52599]]

population to the ``mountain ecotype'' of woodland caribou. The
``mountain ecotype'' is neither a species nor a 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.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers
to comment on our amended listing proposal. We also considered all
comments and information we received during the comment period.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

Based on information we received in comments regarding how we
described the coat color of caribou during breeding and winter, we
modified our description to reflect that caribou coat color and pattern
is variable (Geist 2007) and winter pelage varies from almost white to
dark brown (see Species Information under Background, below).
In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we noted that
woodland caribou populations can be further broken down into subunits
called ``local populations.'' The Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2014, entire) uses the term
``subpopulation'' to refer to the same population subunits in Canada.
In order to minimize confusion, we have conformed our terminology to
that used by COSEWIC. Therefore, our proposed rule uses
``subpopulations,'' instead of ``local populations,'' to describe
caribou subunits.
Caribou subpopulations represent groupings of individual woodland
caribou that have overlapping ranges/movement patterns and breed with
one another more frequently than they breed with caribou from other
subpopulations. Subpopulations in southern British Columbia are thought
to be a relatively recent phenomena resulting from habitat
fragmentation and loss within the population of woodland caribou;
historically, movement of caribou between subpopulations was likely.
Within the Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS discussion
in this final rule, we provide clarification on the number and names of
subpopulations (both extant and recently extirpated) within the DPS,
and describe how subpopulation names and groupings of subpopulations by
Canada have changed through time. We also clarify that the range of the
DPS in British Columbia, Canada, and the United States has declined by
60 percent since historical arrival of Europeans in British Columbia,
according to Spalding (2000, p. 40). In our May 8, 2014 proposed rule
(79 FR 26504), we stated the range of the DPS had declined by 40
percent, but this was specific to the British Columbia, Canada, portion
of the DPS's range (i.e., it did not include the portion of the range
in the United States).
We updated the status of the southern mountain caribou DPS to
reflect the most recent information contained in the COSEWIC report
(2014, entire) pertaining to the number of individual caribou in each
of the 15 extant subpopulations and the total estimated number of
individuals in the DPS. We corrected the trend status of the Hart
Ranges subpopulation to reflect that it is now declining, and to
reflect that the overall trend of the DPS is declining and the rate of
decline is accelerating. We also included additional information
pertaining to population viability analyses conducted by Hatter (2006,
entire, in litt.) and Wittmer (2010, entire) assessing the extinction
risk of subpopulations within the DPS.
We provided additional analysis pertaining to the isolation of
subpopulations within the DPS as well as separation from other
populations (i.e., Designatable Units) of woodland caribou in Canada.
We explained how this isolation may affect the ability of the
subpopulations within the DPS to function as a metapopulation, which
could adversely affect the demographic and/or genetic stability or
rescue of subpopulations within the DPS. We also provided additional
analyses on potential threats to the DPS related to renewable energy
and industrial development, and effect of predation upon the current
and future status of the DPS.
We included additional information pertaining to Canadian
conservation efforts for woodland caribou, which include augmenting
animals into the Purcells South subpopulation and wolf control efforts
within several subpopulations within the DPS (under the Factor A
analysis, below, see Efforts in Canada under ``Conservation Efforts to
Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range''). We also included additional information pertaining to
existing regulations enacted by the British Columbia provincial
government that can be utilized to protect southern mountain caribou
and their habitat, as well as implementing programs and projects for
their conservation (see ``Canada'' under Factor D analysis, below).
In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we stated that
further evaluation of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) was
needed before a final determination could be made as to the adequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to address the threats affecting the
status of the DPS. Notwithstanding the additional information learned
regarding existing provincial laws and regulations of British Columbia,
Canada, we conclude that, while the existing regulatory mechanisms in
the United States and Canada enable the United States and Canada to
ameliorate to some extent the identified threats to the southern
mountain caribou DPS, the existing mechanisms do not completely
alleviate the potential for the identified threats to affect the status
of southern mountain caribou and their habitat.
In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we proposed to
list the southern mountain caribou DPS as threatened. However, we have
now determined that the status of, and threats to, the southern
mountain caribou DPS warrant its listing as endangered. This
determination is based on (1) the additional analysis referenced above
and contained in the Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS
discussion below; and (2) the discussions of factors A (the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range), C (disease or predation), D (inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms) and E (other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence) in this final rule. The rationale for endangered
status is summarized within the Determination section of this final
rule. The May 8, 2014, proposed rule also contained a ``Significant
Portion of the Range'' (SPR) analysis. That analysis was included in
the proposed rule to conform to Service policy for listing rules at
that time. However, subsequent to publishing the proposed rule, the
Service revised its policy on when it is necessary to perform a SPR
analysis (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014).
In this case, because we found that the southern mountain DPS of
woodland caribou is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, per the Service's SPR Policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), the
protections of the Act apply to each individual

[[Page 52600]]

member of the DPS wherever found. Consequently, an analysis of whether
there is any significant portion of its range where the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
was unnecessary and was not conducted.

Background

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed amended listing rule for the southern
mountain caribou DPS (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014) for a detailed
description of previous Federal actions concerning this species. The
May 8, 2014, proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period,
ending July 7, 2014. On June 10, 2014, we extended the public comment
period on the proposed amended listing rule until August 6, 2014, and
announced two public informational sessions and hearings (79 FR 33169).
Public informational sessions and hearings were held in Sandpoint,
Idaho, on June 25, 2014, and in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, on June 26, 2014
(79 FR 33169). On March 24, 2015, we reopened the public comment period
on the proposed amended listing rule for an additional 30 days, ending
on April 23, 2015, to allow the public time to review new information:
A report from COSEWIC \1\ and associated literature, which we received
after the previous public comment period (80 FR 15545).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ A list of acronyms used in this document is available at
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we proposed to
reaffirm the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation (77
FR 71042) for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou as it applies to the U.S. portion of the endangered southern
mountain DPS of woodland caribou. However, on March 23, 2015, the Idaho
District Court (Center for Biological Diversity v. Kelly, 93 F.Supp.3d
1193 (D. Idaho, 2015)) ruled that we made a procedural error in not
providing public review and comment regarding considerations we made
related to our final critical habitat designation (77 FR 71042). On
April 19, 2016, in response to the court's order, we published a
document in the Federal Register (81 FR 22961) that reopened the public
comment period on the November 28, 2012, final designation of critical
habitat (77 FR 71042), which we proposed to reaffirm in the May 8,
2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504) as the critical habitat for the
southern mountain caribou DPS. We received numerous comments regarding
critical habitat during the initial public comment periods for the
proposed amended listing rule; we are addressing those comments in this
final rule as well as new comments we received during the reopened
public comment period on the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat
designation.

Species Information

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the southern mountain
caribou DPS (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014) for a summary of species
information. Except for the following correction, there are no changes
to the species information provided in that proposed rule. The sentence
reading, ``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)'' at 79 FR 26507 should instead read,
``Breeding pelage is variable in color and patterning (Geist 2007), and
winter pelage varies from almost white to dark brown.''

Evaluation of the Southern Mountain Caribou as a Distinct Population
Segment

Introduction and Background

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,
any proposed or final rule designating a 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. 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.
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. A DPS may include multiple populations
of vertebrate organisms that may not necessarily 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.
Distinctive, discrete, and significant populations of the woodland
caribou have been identified, described, and assessed by the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC is
composed of qualified wildlife experts drawn from Federal, provincial,
and territorial governments; wildlife management boards; Aboriginal
groups; universities;

[[Page 52601]]

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). The southern mountain
caribou population, which includes the transboundary southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou (and is the subject of this
final amended listing), is currently designated as ``threatened'' under
SARA (COSEWIC 2011, 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, p. 74).
In August 2014, COSEWIC, in accordance with SARA, submitted its
assessment to the Canadian Federal Environment Minister for
consideration of changing the legal status of the southern mountain
caribou in Canada under SARA to endangered (COSEWIC 2014, p. iv). The
recommended change in the legal status under SARA is pending review and
decision by the Federal Environment Minister.
Because we now consider the southern Selkirk Mountains population
of woodland caribou part of the larger southern mountain caribou
population, as recognized by COSEWIC (2011, entire), we recognize that
our evaluation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population is more
appropriately conducted at the scale of the larger southern mountain
caribou population. Therefore, below we evaluate whether, under our DPS
policy, the southern mountain caribou population segment (i.e., 15
extant and 2 extirpated subpopulations) 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 (USFWS 2008). Because this population was listed prior to the
Service's 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), the 5-year
review included an analysis of this population in relation to the DPS
policy. In conducting the DPS analysis, we considered the discreteness
and significance of this population in relation to the mountain caribou
metapopulation (USFWS 2008, pp. 6-13) (i.e., mountain caribou ecotype).
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 distinct population
segment of the mountain caribou metapopulation (USFWS 2008, p. 13).
However, we acknowledged in our December 19, 2012, 90-day finding (77
FR 75091) on a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou that the DPS analysis in our 2008 5-year
review was not conducted relative to the appropriate taxon.
Specifically, we should have conducted the DPS analysis of the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou relative to the
woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer tarandus caribou) instead of the
mountain caribou metapopulation.
For this final amended listing and DPS analysis of the southern
mountain 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, 2011, 2014; Cichowski et al. 2004;
Wittmer et al. 2005b, 2010; Hatter 2006, in litt.; Geist 2007; 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: distinctiveness in
genetic characteristics or inherited traits, habitat discontinuity, or
ecological isolation (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15).
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 its 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 population (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 that 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.

I. Physical (Geographic) Discreteness

The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is 1
of 17 woodland caribou subpopulations (15 extant, 2 extirpated)
(COSEWIC 2014, p. xix) that share distinct foraging, migration, and
habitat use behaviors. These subpopulations are all located in steep,
mountainous terrain in central and southeastern British Columbia,
Canada, and in extreme northeastern Washington and northern Idaho,
United States. Little to no dispersal has been detected between these
subpopulations and other caribou populations/subpopulations outside
this geographic area (Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 408, 409; COSEWIC 2011,
p. 49; van Oort et al.

[[Page 52602]]

2011, pp. 222-223), indicating that mountain caribou appear to lack the
inherent behavior to disperse long distances (van Oort, et al. 2011,
pp. 215, 221-222). For the purposes of this DPS analysis, this
collection of woodland caribou subpopulations, which, as noted above,
includes the southern Selkirk Mountains population, constitutes the
southern mountain population of caribou; we also refer to it herein as
``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 caribou 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
feet (ft) (2 to 5 meters (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 subpopulations of woodland
caribou.

II. 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 1994a, 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 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

[[Page 52603]]

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 meet the behavioral
``discreteness'' standard in our DPS policy.

III. Genetic Discreteness

Data from Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2,594) 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 subpopulations 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 historically, caribou moved between populations of
these DUs and interbred 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. 2,598). 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. 3,620). Historical gene flow between subpopulations of
southern mountain caribou and neighboring subpopulations 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 subpopulations is now the
norm, effecting some genetic differentiation of these subpopulations
through genetic drift (Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2,597).
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.

IV. Discreteness Conclusion

In summary, we determine that the best available information
indicates that the southern mountain caribou, comprised of 17 woodland
caribou subpopulations (15 extant and 2 extirpated) 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).

I. 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
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

[[Page 52604]]

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.

II. 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. 2,598). This genetic isolation has resulted in unique behaviors and
habitat use (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. 3,620). 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 subpopulations of southern mountain
caribou and neighboring subpopulations did occur in the past, isolation
of these subpopulations 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 differentiation between the southern
mountain caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou, and a
predicted continuation of genetic differentiation between
subpopulations 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.

III. Evidence That the Population Segment Represents the Only Surviving
Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That May Be More Abundant Elsewhere 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.

IV. 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). Additionally, Hatter (pers.
comm. as cited in Spalding 2000, p. 40) estimated that the range of
southern mountain caribou has declined by approximately 60 percent,
when considering both the Canadian and U.S. range of the population.
However, because there are no reliable historical estimates of the
number of southern mountain caribou and their distribution (Spalding
2000, p. 34), it is difficult to precisely estimate their historical
range for a comparison to their current range. Nevertheless, according
to COSEWIC (2014, p. 14), mountain caribou were much more widely
distributed than they are today, and thus the range of this population
is decreasing. Further evidence of this decline is supported by
population surveys. For example, Hatter et al. (2004, p. 7) reported
there were an estimated 2,554 individuals in the population in 1995,
but in 2014, COSEWIC (2014, p. xvii) estimated the number of caribou in
this population has declined to only 1,356 individuals.
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. The Service has not established a
threshold of degrees latitude loss or percent range reduction for
determining significance to a particular taxon. The importance of
specific degrees latitude loss and/or percent range reduction, and the
analysis of what such loss or reduction ultimately means to
conservation of individual species/subspecies necessarily will be
specific to the biology of the species/subspecies in question. However,
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. 2,242). Additionally, data tend to show that
peripheral populations are persistent when species' range collapse
occurs (Lomolino and Channell 1995, p. 342; Channell and Lomolino 2000,
pp. 84-86; Channell 2004, p. 1). Of 96 species whose last remnant
populations were found either in core or periphery of the historical
range (rather than some in both core and periphery), 91 (95 percent) of
the species were found to exist only in the periphery, and 5 (5
percent) existed solely in the center (Channell and Lomolino 2000, p.
85). Also, as described previously, caribou within the southern
mountain population occur at the southern edge of woodland caribou
range (i.e., they are a peripheral population), and have adapted to an
environment unique to woodland caribou. Peripheral populations adapted
to different environments may facilitate speciation (Mayr 1970 in
Channell 2004, p. 9). Thus, the available scientific literature data
support the importance of peripheral populations for conservation

[[Page 52605]]

(Fraser 2000, entire; Lesica and Allendorf, 1995, entire).
Additionally, loss of the southern mountain caribou population
would result in the loss of 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.
Finally, 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.

V. 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 meets significance criteria
under our DPS policy.

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 subpopulations
within the southern mountain caribou DPS.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 52606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.000

[[Page 52607]]

Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS

As described previously, because there are no reliable historical
estimates of the number of southern mountain caribou and their
distribution (Spalding 2000, p. 34), it is difficult to precisely
estimate their historical range for a comparison to their current
range. Nevertheless, according to COSEWIC (2014, p. 14), mountain
caribou were much more widely distributed than they are today, and thus
the range of this population is decreasing. Further evidence of this
decline is supported by population surveys. For example, surveys of the
southern mountain caribou population in 1995 estimated there were 2,554
individuals in the population (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 7), but in 2014,
COSEWIC estimated the number of caribou in this population has declined
to only 1,356 individuals (COSWEIC 2014, p. xvii). The status
(increasing, declining) of each subpopulation and current population
estimate is identified in Table 1.

[[Page 52608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.001

[[Page 52609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.002

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

[[Page 52610]]

Currently the southern mountain caribou DPS is composed of 17
subpopulations (15 extant, 2 extirpated) (Figure 1, above). However,
Canada has, over time, grouped its caribou populations in accordance
with various assessments (COSEWIC 2002, entire; COSEWIC 2011, entire),
which has resulted in shifting boundaries, and moving one or more
subpopulations between differing geographic groupings of populations.
In addition to altering boundaries between populations, some
subpopulation boundaries within the populations have changed as well
(e.g., some subpopulations have been combined). Thus, the number of
subpopulations within the populations has changed. For example, the
Allan Creek subpopulation listed in Hatter (2006, in litt.) was grouped
with the Wells Gray subpopulation in COSEWIC (2014), and the Kinbasket-
South subpopulation listed in Hatter (2006, in litt.) was renamed to
Central Rockies subpopulation in COSEWIC (2014) (Ray 2014, pers.
comm.). Additionally, the north and south Wells Gray subpopulations
referred to in COSEWIC (2002, p. 92) were combined into a single Wells
Gray subpopulation in COSEWIC's 2011 Designatable Unit Report (COSEWIC
2011, p. 89). However, the number (17) of subpopulations (which
includes 15 extant and 2 recently extirpated subpopulations) and their
names encompassed within the southern mountain caribou DPS conforms to
Canada's southern mountain (DU9) as identified pursuant to COSEWIC
(2011, entire).
All 15 extant subpopulations consist of fewer than 400 individuals
each, 13 of which have fewer than 250 individuals, and 9 of which have
fewer than 50 individuals (COSEWIC 2014, p. xviii). Fourteen of the 15
extant subpopulations within this DPS have declined since the last
assessment by COSEWIC in 2002 (COSEWIC 2014, p. vii). Based on COSEWIC
(2014, p. vii), which is new information received after we published
our proposed amended listing rule (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014), the
population has declined by at least 45 percent over the last 27 years
(3 generations), 40 percent over the last 18 years (2 generations), and
27 percent since the last assessment by COSEWIC in 2002 (roughly 1.4
generations) (COSEWIC 2014, p. vii). These subpopulations are
continuing to suffer declines in numbers and range and have become
increasingly isolated. Only one subpopulation has increased in numbers
(likely due to aggressive wolf control and management) but still
consists of fewer than 100 individuals; the most recent estimate was 78
individuals (COSEWIC 2014, p. 43). Given the data cited above, the rate
of population decline is accelerating. The accelerated rate of
population decline is supported by Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 265), who
studied rates and causes of southern mountain caribou population
declines from 1984 to 2002 and found an increasing rate of decline.
Because subpopulation names and boundaries have changed over time,
it is difficult to precisely compare subpopulation estimates for some
subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS over time.
However, according to Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 413), individual
subpopulations have decreased by up to 18 percent per year (Wittmer et
al. 2005b, p. 413). For example, the Purcells South subpopulation,
which is located above the Montana border, had an estimated 100
individuals in 1982, and only 20 in 2002. According to COSEWIC, this
subpopulation had increased to 22 individuals in 2014 (COSEWIC 2104, p.
xviii). Even though this subpopulation has slightly increased, it
remains depressed.
Additionally, our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504) stated
that the Wells Gray South subpopulation was considered stable at 325 to
350 caribou from 1995 to 2002 (see 79 FR 26514). These numbers were
obtained from Hatter et al. (2004, p. 7). However, according to
COSEWIC's 2002 status report the subpopulation was estimated at 315
individuals and considered to be in decline (COSEWIC 2002, p. 92).
Furthermore, as noted previously, COSEWIC has combined the north and
south Wells Gray subpopulations (COSEWIC 2011, p. 89). According to
COSEWIC, in 2002, the Wells Gray North subpopulation was estimated at
200 individuals and considered stable. Thus, the COSEWIC (2002)
estimate for the combined Wells Gray subpopulation (i.e., north and
south subpopulations) was 515 individuals (COSEWIC 2002, p. 92).
According to COSEWIC's latest assessment, the Wells Gray subpopulation
is estimated at 341 individuals and considered to be declining (COSEWIC
2014, p. 41). Also, in our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we
stated that subpopulations in the northern-most portion of the DPS's
range were stable (principally the Hart Ranges subpopulation with an
estimated 500 individuals in 2005) (see 79 FR 26515). However,
according to COSEWIC's latest status assessment, both the Hart Ranges
and North Caribou Mountains subpopulations, which are both located at
the northern end of this DPS's range, are declining, with population
estimates of 398 and 202 caribou, respectively (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41).
Surveys of the subpopulations in the southern mountain caribou DPS
estimated that, in 1995, the entire population was approximately 2,554
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 1,356 individuals
(COSEWIC 2014, p. xvii). Many subpopulations 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
Purcells South subpopulations. These subpopulations 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
subpopulations. Hatter et al. (2004, p. 9) predicted subpopulation
levels within this DPS under three different scenarios: ``optimistic,''
``most likely,'' and ``pessimistic.'' Under these scenarios population
levels were modeled to decline from the estimated population of 1,905
caribou in 2002 to 1,534 (optimistic), 1,169 (most likely), or 820
(pessimistic), by 2022. The most recent population estimate of 1,356
caribou (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41) is already well below Hatter et al.'s
(2004, p. 9) predicted population estimate of 1,534 caribou in 2022
projected under the optimistic scenario. In addition, all three
scenarios reported the extirpation of two (optimistic), three (most
likely), or five (pessimistic) subpopulations by 2022 (Hatter et al.
2004, p. 9). As of 2014, George Mountain and Purcells Central, two of
the subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS, are now
considered to be extirpated (COSEWIC 2014, p. 16).
According to Hatter et al. (2004, pp. 9, 11), no models predicted
extinction of the woodland caribou population within the 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.

[[Page 52611]]

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
subpopulations in the DPS within the next 100 years. More recent
population viability analyses (PVAs) have predicted quasi-extinction or
extinction of several of the subpopulations within the DPS. A PVA
conducted by Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) predicted that the
probability of quasi-extinction (a number below which extinction is
very likely due to genetic or demographic risks, considered to be fewer
than 20 animals in this case) in 20 years was 100 percent for 6 of the
15 subpopulations, greater than 50 percent for 11 of the 15
subpopulations, and greater than 20 percent for 12 of the 15
subpopulations within the DPS. Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) also
predicted quasi-extinction of another subpopulation (Wells Gray) in 87
years. Thus, a total of 13 of the 15 subpopulations could be quasi-
extinct within 90 years, leaving only 2 subpopulations (Hart Ranges and
North Caribou Mountains) remaining at the extreme northern portion of
the DPS's range. Both the Hart Ranges and North Caribou Mountains
subpopulations are declining (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41). These two
subpopulations are subjected to the same threats acting on the other
subpopulations in this DPS (COSEWIC 2014, p. 56), and are thus at a
greater risk of extirpation than what we understood at the time of our
May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504).
Wittmer et al. (2010, entire) conducted a PVA on 10 of the
subpopulations assessed by Hatter (2006, entire, in litt.). All 10
subpopulations were predicted to decline to extinction within 200 years
when models incorporated the declines in adult female survival known to
occur with increasing proportions of young forest and declining
population densities (Wittmer et al. 2010, p. 86). The results of PVA
modeling by Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 90) also suggested that 7 of the
10 populations have a greater than 90 percent cumulative probability of
extirpation within 100 years. Further, Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 91)
suggested that as subpopulation densities decline, predation (see
``Predation'' under the Factor C analysis, below) may have a
disproportionately greater effect, which is defined as depensatory
mortality. Thus, the length of time to extirpation may be less than the
timeframes suggested by PVA modeling that does not account for
depensatory mortality. Therefore, the 200 and 100 year time spans that
Wittmer et al. (2010, pp. 86, 90) predict for extirpation of all 10 and
7 of the 10 subpopulations, respectively, may be an overestimate (i.e.,
extirpation of these subpopulations may occur in less time).
Along with these documented and predicted population declines,
subpopulations of woodland caribou within the DPS are becoming
increasingly fragmented and isolated (Wittmer 2004, p. 28; van Oort et
al. 2011, p. 25; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2,598). Fragmentation and
isolation are particularly pronounced in the southern portion of the
southern mountain caribou DPS (Wittmer 2004, p. 28). In fact, neither
Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 409) nor van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221)
detected movement of individuals between subpopulations in the DPS.
Fragmentation and isolation are likely accelerating the extinction
process and reducing the probability of demographic rescue from natural
immigration or emigration because mountain caribou appear to lack the
inherent behavior to disperse long distances (Van Oort et al. 2011, pp.
215, 221-222). As stated previously, mountain caribou were more widely
distributed in mountainous areas of southeastern British Columbia
(Canada), northern Idaho, and northeastern Washington. Currently,
mountain caribou exist in several discrete subpopulations, which could
be considered a metapopulation structure. However, a functioning
metapopulation structure requires immigration and emigration between
the subpopulations within the metapopulation via dispersal of juveniles
(natal dispersal), adults (breeding dispersal), or both. Dispersal of
individuals (natal or breeding) can facilitate demographic rescue of
neighboring populations that are in decline or recolonization of ranges
from which populations have been extirpated (i.e., classic
metapopulation theory). Species whose historical distribution was more
widely and evenly distributed (such as mountain caribou) (van Oort et
al. 2011, p. 221) that have been fragmented into subpopulations via
habitat fragmentation and loss may appear to exist in a metapopulation
structure when in fact, because they may not have evolved the innate
behavior to disperse among subpopulations, their fragmented
distribution may actually represent a geographic pattern of extinction
(van Oort et al. 2011, p. 215). Also, as excerpted from COSEWIC (2014,
p. 43):

Rescue effect from natural dispersal is unlikely for the
southern mountain DU. The nearest subpopulation in the United States
is the South Selkirk subpopulation, which is shared between [British
Columbia], Idaho, and Washington, and currently consists of only 28
mature individuals. Even within the southern mountain DU,
subpopulations are effectively isolated from one another with almost
no evidence of movement between them except at the northern extent
of the DU (van Oort et al. 2011). The closest DU is the Central
Mountain and Northern Mountain DU, but these animals are not only
declining in most neighboring subpopulations but are adapted to
living in shallow snow environments and will likely encounter
difficulty adjusting to deep snow conditions. The same
characteristics that render all three mountain caribou DUs as
discrete and significant relative to neighboring caribou
subpopulations (see Designatable Units; COSEWIC 2011) make the
prospects for rescue highly unlikely.

Finally, COSEWIC recommended that the southern mountain DU be
listed as endangered under SARA (COSEWIC 2014, pp. iv, xix). Endangered
is defined by SARA as a wildlife species that is facing imminent
extirpation or extinction. COSEWIC cited similar reasons as the threats
we identified in this final rule including, but not limited to: Small,
declining, and isolated subpopulations; recent extirpation of two
subpopulations; recent PVA modeling predicting further declines and
extirpation of subpopulations; and continuing and escalating threats
(COSEWIC 2014, pp. iv, vii). The International Union for the
Conservation of Nature-Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN-CMP)
threat assessment for the southern mountain DU concluded that the
threat impact is the maximum (Very High) based on the unified threats
classification system (Master et al. 2009, entire), which indicates
continued serious declines are anticipated (COSEWIC 2014, pp. 109-113).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

[[Page 52612]]

other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Listing actions may be warranted because of 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, human development, recreation, and effects due to
climate change (such as an increase in fires and a significant decrease
in alpine habitats, which is loosely correlated with the distribution
of the arboreal lichens on which these caribou depend). In addition to
causing direct impacts, these threats often catalyze indirect impacts
to caribou, including, but not limited to, predation, increased
physiological stress, and displacement from important habitats. Both
direct and indirect impacts to caribou from habitat destruction,
modification, and curtailment are described below.
Historically, the caribou subpopulations 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; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp.
224, 231; Apps and McLellan 2006, pp. 84, 91; 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). According to Spalding (2000, p. 40) the entire range of southern
mountain caribou has decreased by 60 percent when including both the
United States and Canadian portion of the population's historical
range. The greatest reduction has occurred in subpopulations comprising
the southern mountain caribou DPS (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30; COSEWIC 2011,
p. 49). Hunting was historically considered the main cause of range
contraction 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 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 because 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.
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 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

[[Page 52613]]

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 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, and 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 caribou 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 can 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 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 the effects
of climate change (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14) (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 tree wind-throw or
forest fires in the United States (Evans 1960, p. 124; USFWS 1985, p.
21).
More recently, mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae)
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).
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 affected forests 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 project more
frequent mountain pine beetle 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

[[Page 52614]]

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 subpopulations (MCST 2005, p. 5; Wittmer et al.
2005b, p. 414) and reduced chance of rescue (the movement of
individuals, often juveniles, to other subpopulations, 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. 2,598). 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.
Despite signs posted with caribou depictions warning motorists,
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
of its construction (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 subpopulations. 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 under ``Biology'' in the Species Information section of
the May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26507).
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). Additionally, other type of transportation
corridors associated with industrial developments, including roads,
snowmobile trails, hydropower transmission lines, and pipeline rights-
of-way, can allow more efficient travel by wolves, leading to greater
predation rate on caribou (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 426) (see
also C. Disease or Predation, below).
As discussed above, industrial development can directly affect
caribou through habitat alteration that fragments caribou habitat and
displaces caribou to areas of lower quality or degraded habitat, and
indirectly through increased predation rates resulting from changes in
predator-prey dynamics due to habitat alterations. In accordance with
SARA, Canada has developed a recovery strategy for southern mountain
caribou that assessed threats related to industrial developments
(Environment Canada 2014, entire). In the recovery strategy, Canada
identified the following threats: Oil and gas drilling related to shale
gas development in the Kootenays present a moderate threat (defined as
possible in the short term [less than 10 years or 3 generations]);
mining and quarrying development primarily in the Barkerville,
Kootenay, and Kamloops areas present a high threat (defined as
continuing); renewable energy related to hydropower projects in the
Columbia South and North ranges, and wind farms, present moderate
threats; roads and railroad (e.g., Highway 3, Mica Dam Road, and
potential twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway) present a high threat;
and utility and service lines related to hydro-power project, potential
twinning of the Kinder-Morgan oil pipeline, proposed oil and gas
pipelines in the Hart Ranges, etc., present a high threat (Environment
Canada 2014, pp. 21-22). All of the above-identified threats are or
would be located in Canada. Currently, there are no similar existing or
proposed industrial developments that would potentially impact caribou
habitat within the DPS's range in the United States.
Mining activities, although they may not be focused in valleys, may
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 current extent of direct and indirect impacts
to caribou from existing mining activities within the southern mountain
caribou DPS is 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. Literature suggests that trail compaction
resulting from high levels 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 due to 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, and are also preferred by snowmobilers (Seip et
al. 2007, p. 1,539), 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. 1,543). 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
force 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. 1,543).
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. 1,539),

[[Page 52615]]

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).
Given our understanding of the impacts to caribou from human
disturbance (Simpson 1987, pp. 8-10), and information on other ungulate
species relative to helicopter disturbance (Cote 1996, p. 683; Webster
1997, p. 7; Frid 2003, p. 393), the presence of humans and machines
(helicopters or snow-cats) in caribou habitat from heli- or cat-skiing
may be 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. Elevated GC levels in caribou has been documented within
heli-ski areas. 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 understand the degree of impact 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, pp. 313-314) found that the
presence of humans on snowshoes and skis impacted 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), an international body established in 1988 to
assess the science related to climate change and provide policymakers
with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its
impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
``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; IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). 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; IPCC
2014, p. 120). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative (Thomas et al. 2011, pp. 126, 131, 136-137) and they may
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
([deg]F) (1 degree Celsius ([deg]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).
On a global scale, climate change models under a range of emission
scenarios consistently project future increases in temperature and
increased precipitation at higher latitudes (Melillo et al. 2014, p.
33). At regional scales there is more variability, particularly when
projecting future changes in precipitation. Average temperature has
increased in the Northwest 1.3 [deg]F between 1895 and 2011 (Dalton et
al. 2013, p. xxi; Melillo et al. 2014, p. 489), while precipitation has
fluctuated, but without a significant trend, during the same time
period (Dalton et al. 2013, p. xxi; Melillo et al. 2014, p. 489).
Temperature and precipitation extremes are projected to increase in the
Northwest (Dalton et al. 2013, p. xxiii). For every season, some models
project decreases and some project increases in future precipitation,
but in a scenario of continued growth in heat-trapping gas emissions,
summer precipitation is

[[Page 52616]]

projected to decrease by as much as 30 percent by the end of the
century (2099) across many climate models. However, the projected
changes in precipitation are relatively small compared to projected
changes in temperature, and are likely to be masked by natural
variability for much of the century (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 489).
Increasing temperatures are likely to result in reduced snowpack
accumulation in the winter and accelerated loss of snowpack in the
spring (Mote et al. 2005, p. 48; Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4558). The
earlier snowmelt that would result from projected temperature increases
in the Northwest would reduce the amount of available water in the
summer (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 11), expand the frost-free season
(Melillo et al. 2014, p. 31), and increase the annual maximum number of
consecutive dry days (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 33). Virtually all future
climate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest project increases in
wildfire in western North America, especially east of the Cascades.
This projected 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). Westerling et al. (2006,
pp. 942-943) compiled information on large wildfires in the western
United States from 1970 to 2004, and found that large wildfire activity
has increased significantly from the mid-1980s with large-wildfire
frequency, longer wildfire duration, and longer wildfire seasons. The
greatest increases occurred in high-elevation forest types including
lodgepole pine and spruce fir in the northern Rockies. They also found
that fire exclusion had little impact on natural fire regimes. Rather,
climate appeared to be the primary driver of increasing wildfire risk.
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. 6,074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1,015).
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. More recent analysis by
Utzig (2012, pp. 11-15) suggests that while western red cedar will
maintain a significant presence throughout the southern portion of the
DPS, spruce fir forests and alpine parkland will approach near
elimination by the 2080s. Similarly, Rogers et al. (2011, pp. 5-6)
analysis 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. The loss of subalpine and alpine parkland would be detrimental
to the southern mountain caribou DPS given the population's reliance on
these habitat types for forage of arboreal lichens during the late
winter and for summer habitat (Utzig 2005, p. 2). Thus, 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 subpopulations 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). 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). 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). Consistently
lower snowpacks (similar to what is projected with climate change) at
higher elevations may alter the height of lichen growth on trees which
may affect seasonal caribou movement patterns. Thus, caribou may remain
at higher elevations throughout winter under various climate change
scenarios. Additionally, climate change may increase predation pressure
on caribou through altered distribution and abundance of other ungulate
species populations.
Projections 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
project 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 in temperatures more favorable
to mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae), outbreaks of
mountain pine beetles 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 (Dendroctonus rufipennis) 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 through
alteration of forest patch size and fragmentation that may facilitate
increased predation pressure on caribou, and stand structure that may

[[Page 52617]]

reduce forage availability (e.g., arboreal lichens) for caribou (Utzig
2005, p. 8).
The information currently available regarding the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not allow precise
estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. However, we do
expect changes in climate such as increasing temperatures will result
in the following: A shorter snow season with shallower snowpacks,
increased forest disturbance, and vegetation growing in far from
optimal climatic 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 (pp. 10-11), such as the impossibility of reliably
projecting specific ecosystem changes and potential impacts. Utzig (p.
11) acknowledged that caribou survived 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 the
changes occurring today.
Given the above information, we anticipate that changes in climate
could directly impact the southern mountain caribou DPS by: (1)
Reducing the abundance, distribution, and quality of caribou habitat;
(2) limiting the ability of caribou to move between seasonal habitats;
and (3) limiting 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 availability 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 significantly impact 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 negatively
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.
U.S. Forest Service 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, November 28, 2012, see p. 71071). The
Idaho Panhandle National Forests (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 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 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
2015, 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 under the Act.
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
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 (1994 recovery
plan), outlining interim objectives necessary to support a self-
sustaining caribou population in the Selkirk Mountains (USFWS 1994a,
entire). 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

[[Page 52618]]

recovery actions are needed as the 2015 population estimate for this
subpopulation has dropped to 14 individuals, which continues a steady
decline from 46 caribou in 2009 (Degroot 2015, in litt.). In addition,
the 1994 recovery plan only applies to 1 subpopulation (southern
Selkirk Mountain population of woodland caribou) of the 15 extant
subpopulations 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.).
As stated above, one of the tools of the 2007 MCRIP for achieving
recovery of mountain caribou is augmentation of small subpopulations
with caribou translocated from other areas. Pursuant to the 2007 MCRIP,
an augmentation plan for the Purcells South Mountain Caribou Population
was finalized in 2010, and included a goal of achieving a population
target of 100 caribou through augmenting 40 caribou into the Purcell
South subpopulation over 2 years (Cichowski et al. 2014 in litt., p.
ii). Twenty caribou were captured in March 2012 (first phase) from the
Level-Kawdy subpopulation in northwestern British Columbia (located
outside of the southern mountain caribou DU/DPS), fitted with radio
collars, and 19 of the caribou (1 caribou died prior to release) were
augmented into the Purcell South subpopulation located in south-eastern
British Columbia, within the southern mountain caribou DU/DPS. As of
the 2013 annual report, 17 of the 19 caribou have died (6 due to cougar
predation; 2 due to wolf predation; 3 due to accidents; 3 from unknown
but confirmed non-predation causes; 2 from unknown causes, predation
not ruled out; and 1 from malnutrition due to ticks) (Gordon 2013 in
litt., p. 1). The satellite collars on the two remaining caribou
failed. However, the remaining cow was sighted approximately 112 mi
(180 km) north of the Purcells South range, and when the collar on the
remaining bull failed, he was utilizing high-elevation habitat with
resident caribou and is presumed to still be with the resident group
(Cichowski et al. 2014 in litt., p. 2). Implementation of the second
phase has not been initiated.
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 two Canadian national parks, Glacier and Mount Revelstoke.
Both of these national parks comprise 333,345 ac (134,900 ha) and are
within the range of several subpopulations 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, 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 Stagleapare, are regularly or occasionally occupied by
subpopulations or individuals of mountain caribou and these areas
provide some level of protection.
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 (GAR) 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 were designed
to reduce the impact from timber harvest and road construction on
caribou habitat. They identified 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 about 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).
Under SARA, Federal, provincial, and territorial government
signatories agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs
that provide effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada
(Environment Canada 2014, p.

[[Page 52619]]

i). SARA requires Federal competent ministers to prepare recovery
strategies for species listed under SARA (Environment Canada 2014, p.
i). The Minister of the Environment and the Minister responsible for
the Parks Canada Agency are the competent ministers under SARA for
southern mountain caribou (Environment Canada 2014, p. i). In 2014, in
accordance with SARA, the BCMOE published the Recovery Strategy for the
Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) in Canada (2014 Canadian Recovery Strategy) that set forth a
recovery goal of achieving a self-sustaining population of 2,500
caribou in the southern mountain caribou DU (Environment Canada 2014,
p. 29). The 2014 Canadian Recovery Strategy will be followed by
development of action plans identifying recovery measures to be taken
by the Environment Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, and the Province of
British Columbia (Environment Canada 2014, p. i). The 2014 Canadian
Recovery Strategy identified several actions that are already completed
or are underway including, but not limited to:
Consideration of southern mountain caribou habitat
requirements when planning and implementing forest harvesting and other
industrial activities, including prohibition of forest harvesting and
road building activities in 2.2 million ha (5.4 million ac) (e.g.,
Ungulate Winter Ranges, protected areas) to protect high suitability
habitat for southern mountain caribou in the Southern Group (also
defined as the southern mountain caribou (DU 9)) in British Columbia;
Consideration of southern mountain caribou habitat when
planning and implementing prescribed fires in national parks and on
other lands, including conducting prescribed fires in areas away from
caribou habitat to maintain a safe distance between caribou and
predators;
Closure to snowmobiling of 1 million ha (2.5 million ac)
of high-elevation habitat within ranges of southern mountain caribou in
the Southern Group in British Columbia;
Development and implementation of operating procedures for
helicopter and snowcat skiing in southern mountain caribou in the
Southern Group in British Columbia;
Development and implementation of operating guidelines for
industrial development within southern mountain caribou ranges;
Land-use planning to identify areas within southern
mountain caribou ranges where southern mountain caribou conservation is
prioritized;
Reduced speed zones on highways in important caribou
habitat;
Predator and alternate prey management projects in some
ranges where subpopulations of southern mountain caribou are declining;
and
Population augmentation through translocations and
reduction of early calf mortality through maternal penning.
In addition, implementation of voluntary stewardship management
agreements in British Columbia may contribute to conservation of the
southern mountain caribou DPS. 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 abide by
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). Finally, a maternal penning trial is being implemented near
Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada, and a memorandum of understanding
has been signed between Parks Canada and the Calgary Zoo to develop
captive breeding capacity for mountain caribou (MCRIPPB 2014, p. 5).
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 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 effects of 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 effects due to climate change may 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 further limits
caribou dispersal and movements among subpopulations within the
southern mountain caribou DPS by making it more difficult and more
dangerous for caribou to disperse. Additionally, 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. Projections of changes in climate indicate that the changes
will exacerbate impacts by catalyzing forest composition changes;
increasing forest insect outbreaks; and increasing the likelihood of
wildfires through changes in phenology, precipitation (both timing and
quantity), and temperature.
Another threat, human disturbance from wintertime recreation,
particularly from snowmobile activity, increases physiological stress
and 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

[[Page 52620]]

occurring today, despite conservation measures, and are likely to occur
in the future. These impacts will likely contribute to the decline of
subpopulations 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 the activities identified
under this factor pose significant threats 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). In
support of 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. While hunting of mountain caribou is allowed within
certain areas of British Columbia (British Columbia Hunting and
Trapping Regulations/Synopsis 2014-2016), according to Chris Ritchie
(2015, pers. comm.), there is no legal harvest of mountain caribou
allowed within the range of the southern mountain caribou DU/DPS in
Canada. Further, hunting is prohibited in all national parks and
ecological reserves in British Columbia, but may be allowed in some
specific British Columbia parks. Consequently, 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 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), we do not have data that
suggest illegal killing is affecting caribou numbers in any of the
subpopulations 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 ceased, certain populations began to recover 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 activities identified under this factor do not pose
threats to the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou
DPS.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
Caribou mortality due to disease and parasitism has been documented
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
insects with the potential to affect caribou populations include 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 one was confirmed to have died of

[[Page 52621]]

severe parasitism (Sarcocystis sp.) and emaciation (Compton et al.
1995, p. 493). Additionally, in 2012, 19 caribou were translocated from
the Level-Kawdy subpopulation in northwestern British Columbia into the
Purcell Mountains subpopulation in southeastern British Columbia,
Canada. Of the 19 translocated caribou, one died from malnutrition due
to ticks (Gordon 2013, in litt.). 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. 1,500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005,
p. 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415). McLellan et al. (2012,
entire) investigated whether interactions with forage (bottom-up) or
predators (top-down) were the principal mechanisms regulating southern
mountain caribou populations. They concluded that apparent competition
(i.e., predation) is the proximate mechanism driving the population
decline of mountain caribou (McLellan et al. 2012, p. 859). Apparent
competition occurs indirectly between prey populations that share a
common food-limited predator, whereby the predator asymmetrically
impacts the prey populations (Holt 1977, pp. 201-202), even without
resource competition between the prey species. For example, in this
case, the numerical response of predators (e.g., wolves and cougars) to
the primary prey (i.e., deer, elk, moose) can depress the population of
the secondary prey (i.e., caribou), resembling competition between the
prey species. Predation on the secondary prey can be incidental, can
increase proportionately as the numbers of secondary prey decline
(Sinclair et al. 1998 in Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 259), and can lead to
extinction of the secondary prey (DeCesare et al. 2010, pp. 353, 355).
McLellan et al. (2012, p. 859) also concluded that food limitation
(neither quality nor quantity) is likely not driving the continued
population decline of mountain caribou.
As cited previously the decline of this population is accelerating
(COSEWIC 2014, p. vii). Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 264) found that
predation was the primary cause of mortality driving the accelerated
rate of population decline of mountain caribou. The accelerated rate of
decline of the overall population composed of small, fragmented, and
isolated subpopulations is consistent with the Allee effect \2\
(Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186), which predicts population growth rates
to decline as populations become smaller. Increased predation pressure
on small populations is one example of an Allee effect, but genetic
drift can also result in an Allee effect (Stephens et al. 1999, p.
185).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Allee effect is a phenomenon in biology characterized by
a correlation between population size or density and the mean
individual fitness (often measured as per capita population growth
rate) of a population or species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetic drift can result from rapid changes in gene frequencies
caused by environmental and demographic stochasticity independent of
mutation and natural selection, and smaller populations are more
susceptible to genetic drift. For example, when alleles \3\ occur at a
low frequency in a small population, these alleles have a significant
probability of being lost in each generation. The gradual loss of rare
alleles from a population changes the overall genotype of the
population, and ultimately results in a loss of genetic variability.
Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2,597) demonstrated that below a population
size of approximately 150 caribou, the magnitude and variation of
genetic differentiation greatly increased between pairs of adjacent
subpopulations (i.e., genetic drift). In summary, genetic drift reduces
genetic variation in populations, potentially reducing a population's
ability to evolve in response to new selective pressure, and genetic
drift acts faster and has more drastic results in small populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ One member of a pair of genes occupying a specific spot on a
chromosome that controls the same trait.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 effects
due to 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 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). Additionally, many studies
conducted across the range of mountain caribou (Northern, Central, and
Southern DUs) as well as the Boreal DU in Canada suggest these
populations of caribou are at risk of extirpation where habitat
altering industrial activities affect predator-prey dynamics (Festa-
Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 427).
Habitat alteration and fragmentation has resulted in increased
numbers and distribution of other ungulate prey species (i.e., deer,
moose, and elk) that

[[Page 52622]]

has supported, and continues to support, higher densities of predators
which then prey opportunistically on caribou (i.e., apparent
competition). It will likely require greater than 150 years (greater
than 16 generations of caribou) of habitat protections for early
successional and fragmented forests to develop the old-growth habitat
characteristics (vegetative structure and composition) (Stevenson et
al. 2001, p. 1) necessary to restore the natural predator-prey balance
of these high-elevation, old-growth forests, and thus reduce predation
pressure on caribou. As discussed above under Status of the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS, Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) predicted quasi-
extinction of 13 of the 15 subpopulations within the DPS within 20 to
90 years, and Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 86) predicted extinction of 10
of the 15 subpopulations within 200 years (notably, they did not assess
5 of the subpopulations). Thus, the subpopulations within the DPS are
not likely sustainable given ongoing declines and the length of time
needed to improve habitat conditions that may ameliorate the threat of
predation.
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. 1,500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005, p. 4, Wittmer
et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415). Strategies on managing predation may
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 that both approaches be taken within the Canadian portion of
the southern mountain caribou DPS (MCRIPPB 2010, pp. 1, 12, 13).
Direct management of predator populations within the southern
mountain caribou DPS to date has included investigations of 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, BCMOE has
authorized removal of wolves from within the southern mountain caribou
DPS 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 subpopulations 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 Purcells South subpopulation 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. The Board's 2010 annual report 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 subpopulations 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 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 (Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (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 (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012). Forty-four black
bears and 1 mountain lion were harvested in GMU 113 in 2011 (WDFW
2013a, in litt.; WDFW 2013b, in litt.).

[[Page 52623]]

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 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 remain 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 subpopulations 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 predation 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 ameliorate 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. 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 1994a, p. 21).
Land and resource management plans (LRMPs) for the IPNF and the CNF
have been revised to incorporate management objectives and standards
for caribou. Standards for caribou habitat management have been
incorporated into the IPNF's 2015 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 2015, pp.
29-33; USFS 1988, pp. 4-10-17, 4-38, 4-42, 4-73-76, Appendix I).
We acknowledge that LRMPs can be amended or revised. However, LRMPS
are typically in place for 15 years or longer, and the Service, other
Federal and State agencies, and the public would have opportunities to
comment on any proposed amendments or revisions to the IPNF and/or CNF
LRMPs through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) process. Therefore, we expect that both the IPNF and CNF
will continue managing for caribou and their habitat into the future.
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, November 28, 2012, see 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 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. To date, the IPNF has not completed a
winter recreation strategy. For additional information, under the
Factor A analysis, above, see Efforts in the United States under
``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range.''
State
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG): The woodland caribou
within Idaho are considered a Species of Greatest Conservation Need by
IDFG under Idaho State's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
that provides a framework enabling development of partnerships to
jointly develop and implement long-term conservation plans for species
of greatest conservation need (https://idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/comprehensive-wildlife-strategy; accessed on November 3, 2016). There
are historical reports of

[[Page 52624]]

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 subpopulations within the southern
mountain caribou DPS, and we do not consider this to be a threat to the
species.
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 that 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, lands will remain open to winter
motorized use unless there is a confirmed caribou sighting (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). 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 subpopulations 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 (which is equivalent to Canada's
southern mountain DU), is protected as threatened under Canada's
Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Statues of Canada (S.C.) chapter 29).\4\
However, as noted previously, COSEWIC has recommended that the southern
mountain DU be listed as endangered under SARA (COSEWIC 2014, pp. iv,
xix) pending review and decision by the Federal Environment Minister.
``Endangered'' is defined by SARA as a wildlife species that is facing
imminent extirpation or extinction. 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 an endangered or 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
directly protect the population's habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The southern mountain population of woodland caribou is a
broader outdated grouping of caribou that was based on Canada's
``National Ecological Areas'' (NEAs) established by COSEWIC in 1994
(COSEWIC 2002, pp. 7, 18-19). Please see our response to Comment
(2), below, for a more completed description of historical woodland
caribou groupings in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). However, British Columbia has enacted two separate
pieces of legislation that can provide protections for imperiled
species, the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and the Wildlife Act
(WA).
The FRPA enables the BCMOE to regulate road building, logging,
reforestation, and grazing through passage of Government Act
Regulations (GARs) to protect ungulate winter range and wildlife
habitat areas. As described previously through passage of GARs, BCMOE
has protected over 5 million ac (over 2 million ha) of high-quality
ungulate winter range from road building and logging, which equates to
protecting greater than 95 percent of high-quality caribou habitat in
British Columbia (Ritchie 2015, pers. comm.). The WA enables BCMOE to
establish wildlife management areas and issue regulations pertaining to
the management of such areas. In accordance with the WA, BCMOE has
prohibited recreational snow machine use on almost 2.5 million ac (over
1 million ha) of mountain caribou habitat. Additionally, the WA
contains provisions allowing BCMOE to develop and implement predator
management plans. The British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations prepared the Management Plan for the Gray
Wolf in British Columbia as advice to the responsible jurisdiction and
organizations that may be involved in managing gray wolves in British
Columbia. Recommendations in the plan are used by provincial agencies
to guide the development of new, or modification of existing,
provincial policies and procedures. Consistent with that plan and in
accordance with the WA, BMCOE has implemented projects to reduce wolf
predation on mountain caribou.
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, under the Factor
A analysis, above, see Efforts in Canada under ``Conservation Efforts
to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its

[[Page 52625]]

Range'' and under the Factor C analysis, above, see ``Conservation
Efforts to Reduce Disease or 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 and habitat restoration, have seen less progress made.
Additional work and time are still needed to implement all goals
identified in the MCRIP to adequately reduce threats to the southern
mountain population of caribou in Canada.
Local Ordinances
The Service sought but was unable to find 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 protection on private lands within the
United States.
Summary for Factor D
The vast majority of caribou habitat in the Selkirk Mountains of
the United States is located on USFS land, specifically the CNF and
IPNF. Both the CNF and IPNF have incorporated caribou habitat
management standards into their LRMPs. Therefore, we expect both the
CNF and IPNF to continue managing for caribou and their habitat into
the future.
While the IDL also manages a substantial portion of caribou habitat
within the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation, they are not
required to manage their land for caribou. The 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 within the Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation.
Hunting regulations at the national and State levels provide
adequate protections regarding the legal take of caribou in the United
States. We do not have data that suggest illegal killing is affecting
caribou numbers in any of the subpopulations within the southern
mountain caribou DPS, and we do not consider this a threat to the
species.
In Canada, the southern mountain caribou DPS is protected as
threatened at the national level under SARA, while British Columbia
considers them to be critically imperiled. British Columbia, Canada,
has also enacted legislation (i.e., Forest and Range Practices Act,
Wildlife Act) that enables the BCMOE to implement regulations for the
protection of wildlife, which it has done for caribou. 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 subpopulations continue to decline within the southern
mountain DPS despite regulatory mechanisms being in place in the United
States and Canada. However, 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 current
status of caribou habitat is largely an artifact of historical (and in
some cases current) silvicultural practices and wildfires that reset
the successional forest stage and structure favoring early successional
ungulate species (e.g., deer, elk, moose) that in turn support higher
densities and distribution of predators that prey opportunistically on
caribou. The reality is that it will require several decades of
appropriate forest management to reduce habitat fragmentation and
achieve the old-growth forest structure that will begin to restore the
natural predator-prey ecology of this ecosystem and, thus, reduce the
predation pressure on caribou. Remedies to address threats such as
control of predators are not logistically easy to implement, may be
expensive to address, and may meet social resistance.
We have determined that, while existing regulatory mechanisms in
the United States and Canada enable both the United States and Canada
to ameliorate to some extent the identified threats to the southern
mountain caribou DPS, the existing mechanisms do not completely
alleviate the potential for the identified threats to adversely affect
the status of southern mountain caribou and their habitat.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Avalanches and Stochastic Events
As explained previously, predation and genetic drift are two
examples of demographic stochasticity that can negatively impact the
status of these small, fragmented mountain caribou subpopulations.
Mountain caribou, because they live in high-elevation, steep habitats
that receive deep winter snowfall, are also susceptible to
environmental stochastic factors such as avalanches. According to Seip
and Cichowski (1996, p. 76), avalanches are a natural source of
mortality to caribou. 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 subpopulations 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 April of 2009, from a single avalanche
event (Hebblewhite et al. 2010, p. 342).
As discussed in ``Biology'' under Species Information in our
proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 26507), caribou also
have low reproductive rates compared to other cervids, with females
typically reproducing for the first time at 3 years of age and
producing only a single calf per year (Cicchowski et al. 2004, p. 230;
Shackleton 2010, p. 1). This low reproductive rate can affect the
resiliency \5\ of the subpopulation to withstand demographic and
environmental stochastic impacts. Calf

[[Page 52626]]

mortality averages 50 to 70 percent within their first year (COSEWIC
2002, p. 35). Low reproductive rates and high calf mortality reduce the
resiliency of the subpopulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Resiliency describes the ability of a species to withstand
stochastic disturbance. Resiliency is positively related to
population size and growth rate, and may be influenced by
connectivity among populations. Generally speaking, populations need
abundant individuals within habitat patches of adequate area and
quality to maintain survival and reproduction in spite of
disturbance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the two subpopulations predicted not to be extirpated
within 90 years are located at the far north of the DPS's range; in
fact, they are the two most northern subpopulations within the DPS.
Thus, after 90 years, it is predicted that the DPS will have been
extirpated from over 65 percent of its current range, including most of
the southern portion, which would severely reduce representation \6\ of
the southern mountain caribou DPS within its range. Based on observed
declines in abundance, the subpopulations that may remain are already
exhibiting reduced resiliency. Therefore, the decreased redundancy \7\
and reduced resiliency of the southern mountain caribou DPS places it
at greater risk of extinction sooner than 100 years as predicted by
Wittmer (2004, p. 88), due to existing demographic and environmental
stochastic factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt
to changing environmental conditions overtime. It is characterized
by the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and
among populations.
\7\ Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events. It is about spreading risk among multiple
populations to minimize the potential loss of the species from
catastrophic events. Redundancy is characterized by having multiple,
resilient populations distributed within the species' ecological
settings and across the species' range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 subpopulation sizes and isolation of these subpopulations.
Subpopulations 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 these other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence pose threats to the continued existence of the
southern mountain caribou DPS.

Cumulative Effects

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 vegetation 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 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.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26504), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by July 7, 2014. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Lewiston Morning Tribune, Idaho Statesman, Coeur d'Alene Press,
Spokesman Review, Bonners Ferry Herald, Bonner County Daily Bee, Priest
River Times, and The Miner. Subsequently, on June 10, 2014, we extended
the public comment period until August 6, 2014 (79 FR 33169). We
received requests for public hearings. Public informational sessions
and hearings were held on June 25, 2014, in Sandpoint, Idaho, and on
June 26, 2014, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho (79 FR 33169). On March 24,
2015, we reopened the public comment period for an additional 30 days,
ending on April 23, 2014, to allow the public time to review new
scientific information received after the previous public comment
period (80 FR 15545). We also reopened the public comment period on
April 19, 2016, for an additional 30 days, ending on May 19, 2016,
addressing a U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho remand of
the final critical habitat rule to correct a procedural error (81 FR
22961).
Including all public comment periods for the proposed rule, we
received over 400 individual comments. Additionally, we received a form
letter representing comments from almost 2,000 different individuals.
During the June 25, 2014, public hearing in Sandpoint, Idaho, six
individuals or organizations made comments, and during the June 26,
2014, public hearing in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, five individuals or
organizations provided comments on the proposed rule. All substantive
information provided during comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the southern mountain caribou DPS and its habitat, biological needs,
and threats. We received responses from all four of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the
southern mountain caribou DPS. The reviewers provided comments and
clarifications pertaining to the taxonomy of mountain caribou, status
of the DPS, type and degree of threats affecting the status of the DPS,
and our proposal to list the DPS as threatened. Peer reviewer comments
are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final
rule as appropriate.

[[Page 52627]]

(1) Comment: All peer reviewers disagreed with our proposal to list
southern mountain caribou DPS as threatened; they all suggested it
should be listed as endangered due to: (1) Declining population size;
(2) small and isolated subpopulations resulting from habitat loss and
fragmentation; and (3) other threats, including predation and
recreation. All noted that COSEWIC has recommended that the southern
mountain DU (which is analogous to the southern mountain caribou DPS)
be listed as endangered under Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA)
(COSEWIC 2014).
Our Response: Subsequent to our proposed rule, in May 2014, COSEWIC
published its ``Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou (Rangifer
tarandus) Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population,
and southern mountain population in Canada'' (COSEWIC 2014). As noted
previously, COSEWIC, which 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, recommended that the
southern mountain DU be listed as endangered under SARA (COSWEIC 2014,
pp. iv, xix) pending review by the Federal Environment Minister. Upon
further analysis of this new information, in conjunction with
considering the comments received from the peer reviewers, as well as
comments from the general public, Canadian government, states of
Washington and Idaho, and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Kalispel
Tribe of Indians (hereafter collectively referred to as Tribes), we
agree that the southern mountain caribou DPS should be listed as
endangered under the Act. We have provided additional analysis
supporting our endangered determination within Status of the Southern
Mountain Caribou DPS, and the Factor C analysis in this final rule. See
also the Determination, below.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the significance
discussion in our DPS analysis could be bolstered by adding that the
loss of the southern mountain caribou DPS (i.e., continued northerly
contraction of the range of woodland caribou) would represent a loss of
approximately 13 percent of the range of southern mountain caribou as
defined by SARA.
Our Response: The southern mountain caribou, as defined by SARA, is
an outdated grouping of ``Nationally Significant Populations'' (NSPs)
of caribou that was based on Canada's ``National Ecological Areas''
(NEAs) established by COSEWIC in 1994 (COSEWIC 2002, pp. 7, 18-19) and
should not be confused with the southern mountain caribou DPS addressed
in this document. Canada's NSPs were delineated based on separate
geographic populations of caribou occurring within different ecological
areas, and did not necessarily consider differences in genetics or
morphology between or behavioral adaptations exhibited by different
caribou populations within the NEAs. Thus, to account for
morphological, genetic, and/or behavioral differences between
geographically discrete and evolutionarily significant populations of
caribou, COSEWIC reorganized the population structure of caribou into
``Designatable Units'' (DU) (COSEWIC 2011, entire). The NSP of southern
mountain caribou, as defined by SARA, was thus replaced by COSEWIC's DU
7 (Northern Mountain), DU 8 (Central Mountain), and DU 9 (southern
mountain). Our DPS analysis of the southern mountain caribou DPS
closely conforms to COSEWIC's DU 9 analysis contained in their 2011 DU
report. Additionally, for the same reason as explained in our proposed
rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 79 FR 26509), using the former
NSP southern mountain caribou grouping, as defined by SARA, for
comparing the significance in the loss of range should the southern
mountain caribou DPS be extirpated is inappropriate because the
southern mountain caribou, as defined by SARA, is not a species or
subspecies. Rather, in accordance with our 1996 DPS policy, the
appropriate comparison for significance is to assess the southern
mountain caribou DPS (DU 9) relative to the woodland caribou
subspecies.
(3) Comment: Three of the four peer reviews noted that Banfield's
(1961) taxonomical classification for Rangifer tarandus is outdated and
is the subject of much debate; thus, the classification of caribou as
it pertains to the grouping of ``woodland'' caribou within Rangifer
tarandus needs revision. Two of the reviewers suggested using the
grouping of caribou, at least for North America, as outlined in COSEWIC
(2014). One peer reviewer, noting the debate surrounding caribou
taxonomy in North America, suggested that the proposed rule does not
need to rest on the veracity of the subspecies classification scheme to
work, and that our DPS analysis should be relative to the species
Rangifer tarandus as opposed to Rangifer tarandus caribou.
Our Response: As noted in our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR
26504), while caribou taxonomy continues to be subject to debate,
Banfield's (1961) taxonomic grouping of woodland caribou is still
currently widely accepted. Thus, until a scientifically accepted and
peer reviewed revision to the taxonomic classification of the
subspecies of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) is completed, Banfield (1961)
represents the best available science on the taxonomic classification
for the subspecies of caribou in North America. However, regardless of
whether Banfield's (1961) taxonomic classification for the subspecies
of caribou in North America is used or COSEWIC's grouping of caribou in
North America is used as the barometer for assessing the discreteness
and significance of the southern mountain caribou DPS relative to
caribou in North America, the southern mountain caribou meets the
discreteness and significance criteria for identifying it as a DPS
under our DPS policy.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that the boundary of
subpopulations (herds) within the southern mountain caribou DPS should
be clarified. One peer reviewer identified that the proposed rule
appears to refer to subpopulations (herds) outside of the southern
mountain caribou DPS (e.g., Banff and Jasper National Parks, and
Ontario populations). Two peer reviewers commented that the proposed
rule omitted referencing two recently extirpated subpopulations (George
Mountain and Purcells Central), and recommended they be included in the
list of identified subpopulations within the DPS boundary. One peer
reviewer noted that there are discrepancies in the literature regarding
the number of extant subpopulations in this DPS. Two peer reviewers
commented that the proposed rule identified the status of the Hart
Range herd as stable; however, according to COSEWIC (2014), the herd
has declined to less than 500 individuals and is no longer considered
stable.
Our Response: The proposed rule should have clearly identified the
subpopulations, and we have included in this rule: (1) Figure 1, which
contains the subpopulation names and current distribution of each
subpopulation including the two extirpated subpopulations (George
Mountain and Purcells Central); and (2) Table 1, which includes the
status (increasing, declining) of each subpopulation and current
population estimates. We refer to the subpopulations and the regions
where they currently occur instead of delineating a boundary for the
entire DPS.

[[Page 52628]]

We have removed the reference to the Banff and Jasper
subpopulations (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 79 FR 26521). However,
the Ontario reference was used in discussions pertaining to the
historical distribution of woodland caribou, and as an example of a
potential disease vector that could migrate west and affect woodland
caribou in the southern mountain caribou DPS (see C. Disease or
Predation). We have also corrected the reference to the status of the
Hart Ranges subpopulation to reflect that the subpopulation is now
declining with an estimated size of 398 individuals (COSEWIC 2014, p.
xviii) (see Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS).
Regarding the apparent discrepancies in the literature surrounding
the number and names of extant subpopulations that are encompassed
within the boundary of this DPS, further explanation would be helpful.
Over time, Canada has grouped its caribou populations in accordance
with various assessments (COSEWIC 2002, entire; COSEWIC 2011, entire),
which has resulted in shifting boundaries, and moving one or more
subpopulations between differing geographic groupings of populations.
Additionally, not only have the boundaries of the subpopulations, and,
thus, the number of subpopulations within them changed, but some
subpopulations within the boundaries have been combined. For example,
the Allan Creek subpopulation listed in Hatter (2006, in litt.) was
grouped with the Wells Gray subpopulation in COSEWIC (2014), and the
Kinbasket-South subpopulation listed in Hatter (2006, in litt.) was
renamed to Central Rockies subpopulation in COSEWIC (2014) (Ray 2014,
pers. comm.). However, the number (17) of subpopulations (which
includes 15 extant, and 2 recently extirpated subpopulations) and their
names encompassed within the southern mountain caribou DPS boundary
conforms to Canada's southern mountain (DU9) as identified pursuant to
COSEWIC (2011, entire); this is currently the best available
information regarding population groupings.
(5) Comment: Three peer reviewers suggested that we incorporate
population viability analyses from Hatter (2006, in litt.) and Wittmer
et al. (2010) into the final decision. One peer reviewer indicated that
the declining population trend and rate of extinction predicted by
Hatter (2006, in litt.) and Wittmer et al. (2010) may be accelerated
due to small population sizes.
Our Response: We have incorporated the findings of Hatter (2006, in
litt.) and Wittmer et al. (2010) into our status assessment. Wittmer et
al. (2010, entire) used stochastic projection models on 10
subpopulations of the southern mountain DPS based on vital rates. All
10 subpopulations were predicted to decline to extinction within less
than 200 years when models incorporated the declines in adult female
survival known to occur with increasing proportions of young forest and
declining population densities (Wittmer et al. 2010, p. 86).
Hatter (2006, entire, in litt.) conducted population viability
analyses (PVAs) for all extant 15 subpopulations in this DPS based on
population estimates from surveys. Time to quasi-extinction (a number
below which extinction is very likely due to genetic or demographic
risks, considered fewer than 20 animals in this case) was less than 50
years for 10 of 15 subpopulations (Hatter 2006, p. 7, in litt.). The
probability of quasi-extinction in 20 years was 100 percent for 6
subpopulations, greater than 75 percent for 9 of the 15 subpopulations,
greater than 50 percent for 11 of 15 subpopulations, and greater than
20 percent for 12 of 15 subpopulations. Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.)
also predicted quasi-extinction of another subpopulation (Wells Gray)
in 87 years.
Regarding the comment that the extinction rate of the southern
mountain caribou DPS may be accelerating due to small subpopulation
sizes, there appears to be some merit to this argument. The number of
animals in the DPS has declined by at least 45 percent over the last 27
years (3 generations), 40 percent over the last 18 years (2
generations), and 27 percent since the last assessment by COSEWIC in
2002 (roughly 1.4 generations). Given this data, the rate of population
decline appears to be accelerating, which is supported by Wittmer et
al. (2005, p. 265) who studied rates and causes of southern mountain
caribou population declines from 1984 to 2002, and found an
accelerating population decline. Wittmer et al. (2005, p. 264) also
found that predation was the primary cause of mortality driving the
decline of mountain caribou. The decline of the overall population
composed of small, fragmented, and isolated subpopulations is
consistent with the Allee effect (Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186;
McLellan et al. 2010, p. 286) which predicts population growth rates to
decline as populations become smaller.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that human activity
(including snowmobile use) in caribou habitat and predation are the
most critical factors directly affecting caribou. The commenter
suggested that human activity within areas occupied by caribou should
be minimized, especially during winter, and that snowmobiles should be
restricted from these areas.
Our Response: Human activity in caribou habitat can affect caribou
through a variety of mechanisms, including habitat loss and
fragmentation, disturbance, and increased predation of caribou
facilitated by habitat-mediated apparent competition (habitat changes
that support increased numbers and distribution of other ungulate prey
species (i.e., deer, moose, and elk) that support higher densities of
predators which then prey opportunistically on caribou) supported by
altered forest composition and structure, etc. We will continue working
with our partners (both within the United States and Canada) who manage
landscapes within caribou habitat to identify and implement appropriate
management strategies to reduce, if not eliminate, impacts that are
detrimental to caribou conservation and recovery.
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that there is currently no
evidence that climate change is negatively affecting caribou genetic
diversity and cited Yannic et al. (2013).
Our Response: Yannic et al. (2013, p. 3) noted higher genetic
differentiation of caribou herds located at the extreme northern and
southern latitudes of the species' range, and suggested that for
southern herds (which would include the southern mountain caribou DPS)
this may be due to the population's/subpopulation's occupancy of
isolated mountain ranges and having smaller population sizes with high
site fidelity. We also note that Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2,597)
demonstrated that below a population size of approximately 150 caribou,
the magnitude and variation of genetic differentiation greatly
increased between pairs of adjacent subpopulations (i.e., genetic
drift). Genetic drift can result from rapid changes in gene frequencies
caused by environmental and demographic stochasticity independent of
mutation and natural selection, and smaller populations are more
susceptible to genetic drift. The gradual loss of rare alleles from a
population changes the overall genotype of the population, ultimately
resulting in a loss of genetic variability, which can negatively affect
a population's ability to evolve in response to new selective pressure.
Finally, regarding climate change, 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 possible at this time. However, climate change
modeling has projected changes (e.g.,

[[Page 52629]]

decreases in spruce fir forests and alpine parkland) in mountain
caribou habitats (Utzig 2005, p. 5; Utzig 2012, pp. 11-15), declines in
snow occurrence (Columbia Basin Trust 2017, pp. 24-25), and increased
prevalence of wildfires in western North America (Westerling et al.
2006, pp. 942-943). All these potential outcomes of climate change can
serve to further isolate the southern mountain caribou DPS from other
woodland caribou populations and further isolate caribou subpopulations
within the southern mountain caribou DPS from one another. Further
isolation of this DPS and subpopulations within it may exacerbate and
accelerate the genetic differentiation noted by Yannic et al. (2013, p.
3) affecting caribou populations at the periphery of the species'
current range.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that habitat alteration is
a long-term and highly important issue, and suggested that wildfire
suppression and silvicultural treatments (e.g., timber harvest and
thinning) can either be beneficial or detrimental to maintenance of
caribou habitat. For example, the commenter suggested that thinning may
be used to facilitate and enhance the development of arboreal lichens.
Our Response: Habitat alteration within caribou habitat is a long-
term issue as it can take greater than 150 years for forests to develop
the microsite characteristics (e.g., structure and moisture) that
support abundant arboreal lichen growth. We acknowledge that natural
wildfire plays an important role in maintaining a mosaic of forest
successional stages that provides habitat for a variety of species
native to this ecosystem, and that fire suppression can alter
vegetative mosaics and species composition. We also acknowledge that
there are various silvicultural tools that can be employed to manage
forest vegetation development and succession, which may include
differing forms of thinning (either commercial or non-commercial). We
will continue working with our partners who manage landscapes within
caribou habitat to identify and implement a variety of tools and
silvicultural treatment methodologies that facilitate the retention,
development, and/or enhancement of vegetative characteristics that
provide caribou habitat.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the COSEWIC
assessment process, which followed the methodology based on the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature-Conservation
Measures Partnership (IUCN-CMP) unified threats classification system,
determined that the overall calculated threat impact for this
population was the maximum (Very High) indicating that continued
serious declines are anticipated. The commenter suggested it would be
desirable to include some details of that threat assessment in the
final rule.
Our Response: We have included a summary of the COSEWIC threat
assessment under Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
(10) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned the assessment of our
``Significant Portion of the Range'' (SPR) analysis pertaining to the
isolation and fragmentation of the subpopulations, which led us to
conclude that loss of some smaller isolated subpopulations would have
no bearing on the status of remaining larger subpopulations. The
reviewers noted that the isolation of the caribou subpopulations is a
result of habitat loss and fragmentation, and has largely contributed
and continues to contribute to the declining status of this population.
Our Response: We acknowledge the peer reviewers' concerns with the
SPR analysis conducted in the May 8, 2014, proposed rule. Since then,
we reevaluated the risk to the status of the DPS resulting from ongoing
population fragmentation and potential loss of subpopulations within
the DPS in this final rule under Status of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS and the Factor C analysis. On July 1, 2014, we published a
final policy interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its
range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578). In our policy, 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 a species in its entirety; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: A species may be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; or a
species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout a significant portion of its range. If a species is in
danger of extinction throughout an SPR, the species, is an ``endangered
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' The SPR
policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for
the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification
determinations. As described in our SPR Policy, once the Service
determines that a ``species''--which can include a species, subspecies,
or DPS--meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species,'' the species must be listed in its entirety and the Act's
protections are applied consistently to all individuals of the species
wherever found (subject to modification of protections through special
rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). Because in this final
rule we found that this DPS is endangered throughout all of its range,
an SPR analysis is not required and is not included in this final rule.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we should include a
cross-walk to the Canadian Species at Risk Act designation of the
Southern Group of the Southern Mountain Population of the Woodland
Caribou (Environment Canada 2014, p. 4).
Our Response: Prior to the revision of the caribou population
structure in Canada, pursuant to COSEWIC (2011, entire), which
established the ``Designatable Unit'' structure, the population of
caribou in Canada has been grouped into various population structures
through time, some of which were based on Canada's ``NEAs'' (also, see
response to Comment (2)). Currently, the population of caribou referred
to in Environment Canada (2014, p. 4) as the Southern Group of the
Southern Mountain Population is now recognized as the southern mountain
caribou (DU 9), in accordance with COSEWIC (2011, entire), and the
southern mountain caribou (DU 9) is the same as our southern mountain
caribou DPS. Thus, while the different ``groupings'' are informative
from a historical perspective, including a ``cross-walk'' of Canada's
various caribou population structures/groupings to the southern
mountain caribou DPS is not useful, and may confound the understanding
of our DPS analysis and final decision.
(12) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the analysis of
threats section is lacking and should include discussion on disease,
energy development (particularly pipeline infrastructure), and mining.
The commenter also noted a lack of discussion on threats within the
U.S. portion of the DPS.
Our Response: We have added additional discussion pertaining to
disease, human developments including energy development (e.g.,
pipeline construction), and mining to the Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species section of this rule. For additional energy and mining
discussion, see ``Human Development'' under the Factor A discussion,
above. For additional disease discussion, see Factor C, above. Relative
to the U.S. portion of the DPS, the threats stemming from disease,
predation, recreation, and forest management are similar to the

[[Page 52630]]

Canadian portion of the DPS. However, relative to human development and
mining in the U.S. portion of the DPS, we are not aware of any such
existing or proposed activities. We clarified this under the Factor A
discussion, above.
(13) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that augmenting the
southern mountain caribou DPS with individual caribou obtained from
other populations (i.e., DU 8 and/or DU 9) may be necessary for
recovery of the southern mountain caribou DPS. One peer reviewer
suggested that conservation of this subpopulation will require
coordinated predator management between Canada and the United States.
Our Response: Although recovery planning is beyond the scope of
this listing decision, we are committed to achieving the conservation
and recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. Population
augmentation, as well as other management techniques, including, but
not limited to, maternal penning, predator management, and habitat
protection may be utilized to achieve recovery of this DPS. The
efficient and effective implementation of management strategies
(including predator management) designed to facilitate recovery of this
subpopulation will require coordination between the United States and
Canada. In 2013, we began coordinating with British Columbia's Ministry
of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations on wolf and caribou
radio-collaring activities in an effort to better understand the
habitat overlap and use between these species and the potential
predation risk of wolves to caribou, and to implement effective and
timely predator management strategies to reduce the predation risk to
caribou.
(14) Comment: One peer reviewer noted an inaccuracy regarding our
morphological description of the woodland caribou subspecies contained
in our proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 79 FR 26507)
which stated, ``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).'' The peer reviewer noted the actual text
from COSEWIC (2011, pp. 10-11) is, ``Breeding pelage is variable in
colour and patterning (Geist 2007) and winter pelage varies from almost
white to dark brown.'' The reviewer commented that the insertion of
subspecies is misleading relative to the definitiveness of Banfield's
(1961) woodland caribou description.
Our Response: We have corrected the inaccuracy under Species
Information in this final rule.
(15) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the designation of
30,010 acres (ac) (12,145 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat is
insufficient relative to the size of the recovery area for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population that was listed under the Act in 1983.
Our Response: As stated previously under Previous Federal Actions
in the Background section of this final rule, on March 23, 2015, the
Idaho District Court ruled that we made a procedural error in not
providing public review and comment regarding considerations we made
related to our November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation
(77 FR 71042). In response to the court order we reopened the public
comment period on the November 28, 2012, final designation of critical
habitat (77 FR 71042), which we proposed to reaffirm in the May 8,
2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504) as the critical habitat for the
southern mountain caribou DPS. On November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), we
published a final rule designating approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha)
of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou. In the final rule, the Service based our final
designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou on the best available scientific
information. In that final rule, we determined that the majority of
habitat essential to the conservation of this subpopulation 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 the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed in
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are
found the physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species, and which may require special management considerations
or protection. The Act also allows us to designate as critical habitat
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of
the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. In this case, no
unoccupied habitat was determined to be essential. Please see that
final rule for a full discussion and analysis of the rationale and
reasons for the area and acreage of the final critical habitat
designation. However, critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not
contribute to the recovery of the species. The entire recovery area
(i.e., recovery zone) identified in the 1994 recovery plan comprises
approximately 2,200 square miles (5,698 kilometers) in northern Idaho,
northeastern Washington, and southern British Columbia (USFWS 1994a, p.
4). Approximately 53 percent of the recovery zone lies in the United
States (USFWS 1994a, p. 4), and much of this area is administered by
either the IPNF or CNF. Both the IPNF and CNF have LRMPs that
incorporate management objectives and standards for caribou. Thus,
pursuant to their respective LRMPs, both the IPNF and CNF have
implemented extensive measures to protect caribou and caribou habitat
on their ownership, both within the area designated as critical habitat
as well as within the existing recovery zone. Further, section 7(a)(2)
of the Act requires that Federal agencies insure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, pursuant to section
7(a)(2), Federal agencies (primarily IPNF and CNF) have been consulting
with the Service on the potential effects of proposed actions on the
southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou since this
subpopulation was emergency listed in 1983. Additionally, within all
areas occupied by caribou, section 7 consultation on effects to caribou
will continue to be required on all USFS lands, other Federally owned
lands, and other non-Federally owned lands where actions create a
project-related Federal nexus (e.g., a Federal permit is required,
Federal funds are used, etc.) regardless of whether or not the lands
are designated as critical habitat. Within areas occupied by caribou
that are not designated as critical habitat, Federal agencies and
actions with a Federal nexus are not allowed to jeopardize caribou, and
within areas designated as critical habitat Federal agencies and
actions with a Federal nexus are not allowed to jeopardize the species
nor adversely modify their designated critical habitat. Finally,
section 7(a)(1) of the Act is an affirmative action mandate requiring
Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for
the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Thus, areas
(i.e., within the recovery

[[Page 52631]]

zone) 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. These protections and conservation tools
will continue to contribute to recovery of this species.

Comments From States

(16) Comment: The State of Idaho questioned the Service's
justification that the southern mountain population is discrete and
significant, and asserted that our DPS determination is conclusory and
unsupported by current available information.
Our Response: We appreciate the State of Idaho's comments. Since
issuing the May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), as described
earlier in this rule, we have determined that, in accordance with our
DPS policy, the best available scientific information supports our
conclusion that the southern mountain caribou population is
geographically, reproductively, and behaviorally discrete from other
caribou populations.
Under our DPS policy, assessing the significance of a discrete
population to the taxon may consider several lines of evidence or
analysis. Under the DPS policy only one line of evidence is needed to
demonstrate that the southern mountain caribou population is
significant relative to the woodland caribou subspecies. We have
identified two: (1) Persistence in a unique ecological setting, and (2)
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon. In summary, the best
available science supports our determination that this population
exists in an ecological setting unique to the taxon, and its loss would
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and, therefore,
it is a DPS pursuant to our DPS policy.
(17) Comment: The State of Idaho's Office of Species Conservation
(OSC) commented that we have relied primarily on the fact that caribou
in the southern mountain caribou DPS occupy ``high elevation,
mountainous habitats with deep snowfall'' that forces them to rely on
arboreal lichens as the single measure supporting our determination
that individual caribou in this population are physically and
behaviorally separated from individual caribou in other populations.
According to the State's comments, this population's unique adaptation
to subsisting on arboreal lichens, whereas other caribou do not, is not
a behavior that is ``markedly separate'' from other woodland caribou
populations. The State used the polar bear as an example where we
determined that polar bear populations are not markedly separate
because their differences ``do not outweigh the similarities that are
most relevant to the polar bear's conservation status--in particular,
the species' universal reliance on sea ice for critical life
functions.''
Our Response: As we described in our response to Comment (16),
several lines of evidence support our conclusion that caribou in the
southern mountain caribou DPS are geographically (Wittmer et al. 2005b,
pp. 408-409; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van Oort et al. 2011, pp. 222-223),
behaviorally (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), and reproductively (van Oort et
al. 2011, pp. 221-222) isolated and discrete from other woodland
caribou populations. Thus, we did not rely on a single measure to
assess discreteness.
Additionally, unlike the polar bear example, where the species
exhibits universal reliance on sea ice for its survival, caribou in the
southern mountain caribou DPS occupy different habitats in a very
different ecological setting from other woodland caribou populations,
and have evolved a very unique foraging strategy to secure their life-
history needs. Other neighboring caribou populations occupy less steep,
drier terrain with less winter snow pack, and do not feed on arboreal
lichens during the winter (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2011,
pp. 50). Caribou in the southern mountain caribou DPS occur in high-
elevation, mountainous habitats in the wet and very wet subzones of the
Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone, the wet and very
wet subzones of the Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, and the very wet
subzones of the Sub-Boreal Spruce zone that typically receive between 2
to 5 meters (6 to 16 ft) of snow during the winter (van Oort et al.
2011, p. 216). Caribou in this population have adopted a foraging
strategy that is unique among other woodland caribou populations
wherein they rely almost entirely on arboreal lichens during the winter
months. Thus, caribou in the southern mountain population have evolved
unique life-history strategies, enabling their persistence in an
ecological setting unique among woodland caribou. This ``unique
behavior and ecological setting'' is markedly different from other
woodland caribou populations.
(18) Comment: The State of Idaho's OSC commented that the southern
mountain caribou does not occupy an ecological setting unique to
woodland caribou, and cite gray squirrels and the boreal population of
woodland caribou in Canada to refute the Service's assessment. Relative
to gray squirrels, the State commented that the Service determined that
certain populations of gray squirrels' reliance on pine tree seeds was
not unique because, across their range, gray squirrels consume a
variety of tree seeds. The State commented that, because the boreal
population of woodland caribou also utilizes arboreal lichens, the
Service cannot use the southern mountain caribou's reliance on arboreal
lichens as a rationale for supporting their occupancy of a unique
ecological setting.
Our Response: As discussed in our response to Comment (17), the
uniqueness of the ecological setting occupied by southern mountain
caribou hinges on the fact that they are the only woodland caribou
population that occurs in high-elevation, mountainous habitats in the
wet and very wet subzones of the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir
biogeoclimatic zone, the wet and very wet subzones of the Interior
Cedar Hemlock zone, and the very wet subzones of the Sub-Boreal Spruce
zone that typically receive between 2 to 5 meters of snow during the
winter (van Oort 2010, p 216). The occupancy of this type of ecological
setting is unique among woodland caribou; other woodland caribou
populations occupy less steep, drier terrain with less winter snow
pack, and do not feed almost exclusively on arboreal lichens during the
winter (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 50). Adaptation
to this unique ecological setting has resulted in the southern mountain
caribou's almost complete reliance on arboreal lichens during winter to
support their nutritional requirements (as previously discussed), as
well as their very unique migration behavior. Caribou within this
population undertake as many as four altitudinal migrations per year
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) between seasonal habitats, which is unique among
caribou. While the boreal population of woodland caribou may consume
arboreal lichens, they do not

[[Page 52632]]

rely on arboreal lichens (almost exclusively) as the only source of
forage for 3 to 4 months of the year as southern mountain caribou do.
In addition, boreal caribou occur in lower elevation habitats
characterized by mature to old-growth coniferous forest composed of
jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and black spruce (Picea mariana) with
abundant lichens, or muskegs and peat lands intermixed with upland or
hilly areas (Environment Canada 2012, p. 9).
(19) Comment: The State of Idaho's OSC commented that we analyzed
inappropriately the significance of the loss of the southern mountain
caribou relative to the British Columbia population of woodland caribou
instead of the entire woodland caribou subspecies. The State also
questioned the significance of a loss of 2.5 degrees in the range of
the woodland caribou subspecies.
Our Response: Our ``gap in the range'' analysis discussed the
decline of woodland caribou within British Columbia that has resulted
from habitat loss and fragmentation, overhunting, and the effects of
predation. We also discussed the fact that the woodland caribou
population in British Columbia has declined by about 40 percent.
However, our significance finding rested on analyzing what the loss of
the southern mountain caribou population would represent to the entire
woodland caribou subspecies. In this case, we determined that the
southern mountain caribou population represents approximately 2.5
degrees in the range of the entire woodland caribou subspecies, and its
loss would represent a significant gap in the range of the woodland
caribou subspecies. Regarding the significance of 2.5 degrees latitude
loss of woodland caribou range, the Service has not established a
threshold of degrees latitude loss or percent range reduction for
determining significance to a particular taxon. The importance of
specific degrees latitude loss and/or percent range reduction, and the
analysis of what such loss or reduction ultimately means to
conservation of individual species/subspecies necessarily will be
specific to the biology of the species/subspecies in question. However,
as we explained in our proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p.
79 FR 26512), 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. 2,242). Additionally, data tend to show that
peripheral populations are persistent when species' range collapse
occurs (Lomolino and Channell 1995, p. 342; Channell and Lomolino 2000,
pp. 84-86; Channell 2004, p. 1). Of 96 species whose last remnant
populations were found either in core or periphery of the historical
range (rather than some in both core and periphery), 91 (95 percent) of
the species were found to exist only in the periphery, and 5 (5
percent) existed solely in the center (Channell and Lomolino 2000, p.
85). Also, as described previously, caribou within the southern
mountain caribou DPS occur at the southern edge of woodland caribou
range (i.e., they are a peripheral population), and have adapted to an
environment unique to woodland caribou. Peripheral populations adapted
to different environments may facilitate speciation (Mayr 1970 in
Channell 2004, p. 9). Thus, the available scientific literature data
support the importance of peripheral populations for conservation
(Fraser 1999, entire; Lesica and Allendorf, 1995, entire).
(20) Comment: The State of Idaho's OSC commented that we did not
support our finding in the proposed rule that the southern mountain
caribou DPS is threatened.
Our Response: Upon receiving numerous comments along this line
(i.e., the DPS should or should not be listed, should or should not be
listed as either threatened or endangered), we re-assessed our analysis
pertaining to the status of the DPS. Consequently, based on our re-
assessment, we determined that the DPS is endangered, and have provided
additional analysis in this final rule supporting our determination
under Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and C: Disease or
Predation, above. Also see Determination, below.
(21) Comment: The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) questioned the
use of Evans (1960) as best available science in describing the
historical composition of forests and the effects of fires, insect and
disease outbreaks, and logging on caribou habitat in the United States,
as much of Evans' information was obtained from a personal interview
with the Forest Supervisor of the Kanisku National Forest. The IDL
questioned Evans' (1960) assertion, based on the interview, that
harvest (both salvage and non-salvage) of spruce trees was a
significant component of timber volume obtained from forests during the
early 1950s as a result of insects, disease, and blow-down. IDL calls
into questions this assertion by noting that the spruce component of
the total net volume of merchantable trees obtained from IDL ownership
comprised only 5.4 percent in 1968, and 7.3 percent in 1980. As such,
IDL recommended removing Evans (1960) as a scientific source of
information used in the analysis.
Our Response: We assume the Forest Supervisor of the Kanisku
National Forest at that time was knowledgeable about the conditions on
the forest under his supervision. Therefore, we have no reason to
question the accuracy of his statements as reflected in Evans (1960).
Additionally, the time frame IDL uses (i.e., 1968 to 1980) to refute
the spruce timber harvest volume is much later than the 1950s time span
upon which Evans (1960, pp. 123-124) bases his assessment. Thus, we
take Evans (1960) at face value and consider it to represent the best
available science, providing an accurate record of historical timber
harvest composition on the forest in the 1950s.
(22) Comment: The IDL stated that the Service portrayed timber
harvest management of caribou habitat on IDL lands incorrectly. The IDL
maintains that caribou are considered in timber management planning on
IDL-owned lands in the Priest Lake area through adjustments borne out
of discussions with the IDFG.
Our Response: Currently, the Service is not aware of any specific
management standards the IDL has developed and implemented to maintain
or enhance caribou habitat. However, the Service recognizes that IDL
considers the potential effect to caribou during discussions with IDFG
when planning timber harvest within caribou habitat. The Service also
recognizes that the Act affords caribou protection through section 9
prohibitions. Section 9 of the Act prohibits taking a listed species.
The definition of take includes harm, and harm is defined at 50 CFR
17.3 as ``an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may
include significant habitat modification or degradation where it
actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.''
Incidental take of a listed species cannot be exempted where such
incidental take would lead to the jeopardy of the species or prevent
its recovery and/or conservation. However, Section 10 of the Act allows
for certain exceptions such as permits; one avenue is through
development of habitat conservation plans (section 10(a)(1)(B)).
(23) Comment: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
stated its support of the

[[Page 52633]]

amendment to the listed entity and considers it an appropriate
interpretation of the DPS policy that should be applied consistently.
The WDFW would like the Service's continued support and partnership
working with other State and Tribal partners to conserve and recover
the species.
Our Response: We look forward to working with WDFW, IDFG, and
Tribes in a coordinated effort to achieve recovery of this species.
(24) Comment: The State of Idaho's OSC supported the Service's
commitment to transparency during the listing process. The OSC also
commented that the Service should not rely on COSEWIC's assessment and
recommendation to list the southern mountain caribou DU as endangered
under SARA as supporting a listing determination of either endangered
or threatened under the Act, primarily because the protections afforded
species listed under SARA differ from those listed under the Act, but
also because COSEWIC's recommended listing determination to SARA is
advisory.
Our Response: The Act requires that the Service base its listing
decisions on the best available scientific and commercial data.
Therefore, we utilized the COSEWIC 2014 status assessment, as well as
other scientific data and information, in our final listing decision.
However, we are not relying on the ultimate decision that Canada may
make with regard to COSEWIC's listing recommendation under SARA to
support our final listing decision pursuant to the Act. We did,
however, consider the significant and comprehensive analysis COSEWIC
completed, specific to the southern mountain caribou, in their 2014
status assessment on the Northern Mountain, Central Mountain, and
southern mountain caribou populations in Canada (COSEWIC 2014, entire)
as substantively informing our analysis on the status of the southern
mountain caribou DPS in accordance with the Act and other laws,
policies, and regulations governing review of species considered for
listing under the Act. Additionally, while it is important for the
Service to understand COSEWIC's rationale for its listing
recommendations to the Canadian government, the Service must base its
listing decisions in accordance with our laws, regulations, and policy,
the legal underpinnings of which may not be the same as Canada's
Federal laws. Thus, based on differences in statutory language between
the Canadian and U.S. laws, listing decisions may differ between Canada
and the United States.
(25) Comment: The State of Idaho's OSC stated that it has been a
committed partner in the conservation of caribou and will continue to
support efforts to conserve this population, and is currently working
with the Service and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to develop an updated
recovery plan for caribou.
Our Response: We appreciate the State's significant interest and
active involvement in the conservation of the caribou and its habitat,
and look forward to continued work with the State of Idaho, as well as
the State of Washington, Tribes, USFS, and Canadian partners in a
coordinated effort to achieve recovery of this species.
(26) Comment: The State of Idaho's OSC stated that it supports the
Service's final rule designating 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of critical
habitat in the United States. The State believes the final rule, which
is a reduction from the proposed 375,562 ac (151,985 ha) of critical
habitat, represents the best available scientific information,
appropriately recognizes the area occupied by the species at the time
of listing, and adequately analyzes the area providing the physical and
biological features essential to ``conserve'' (emphasis in original)
the Selkirk population of woodland caribou.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the State's support.

Comments From Native American Tribes

(27) Comment: In a letter to the Service on August 6, 2014, the
Kalispel Tribe of Indians recommended that the Service list the
southern mountain caribou DPS as endangered. The Tribe was specifically
concerned about declines in the Selkirk Mountain herd over the past 4
years, citing a decline from 46 animals to 18 animals. The Tribe also
mentioned that the Canadian portion of the DPS is currently in the
process of being listed as endangered by the Canadian Ministry of
Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations.
Our Response: We appreciate the Kalispel Tribe of Indians concern
over the decline of the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation. With
regard to the Tribe's comment that the southern mountain caribou DPS
should be listed as endangered, pursuant to our analysis of new
information pertaining to the status of subpopulations within this DPS,
we find that the southern mountain caribou DPS should be listed as
endangered under the Act. We have provided our analysis for the
endangered classification of this DPS in this final listing
determination, which is based upon the best available scientific
information, as well as comments from peer reviewers, Tribes, British
Columbia, Canada, the states of Washington and Idaho, and the general
public. We also acknowledge that we are aware that COSEWIC has
recommended to the Canadian Federal Environment Minister that the legal
status of southern mountain caribou DU (which is equivalent to our DPS)
be changed from threatened to endangered under SARA.
(28) Comment: The Kalispel Tribe of Indians recommended that a
transboundary recovery strategy be developed to neutralize the threats
responsible for the decline.
Our Response: Although recovery planning is beyond the scope of
this listing decision, we are committed to achieving the conservation
and recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To that end, the
Service has recently renewed recovery planning efforts that includes
coordination with our partners within the United States (e.g., WDFW,
IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our Canadian partners (e.g.,
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource
Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others), with the ultimate goal of
developing an updated recovery plan for this transboundary DPS.
(29) Comment: In a letter to the Service on August 6, 2014, the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho commended the Service's analysis and
proficiency in collecting the best available scientific and commercial
information to support the proposed rule. The Tribe commented that it
is proud of the close working relationship the Tribe has with the
Service in working cooperatively to address impacts to Kootenai
Territory and the Kootenai Tribe. The Tribe also acknowledged that the
Service has worked government-to-government with the Tribe on issues
affecting caribou. The Tribe requested the continuation of government-
to-government relations to further address caribou conservation. The
Tribe agreed with the Service's determination that the southern
mountain caribou population meets the DPS criteria and that the
southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation alone does not meet the DPS
criteria.
Our Response: The Service values its government-to-government
relationship with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and greatly appreciated
the formal discussion on May 22, 2014, regarding the Service's proposed
rule, as well as conservation of caribou in general. In accordance with
the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government
Relations With Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951),
Executive

[[Page 52634]]

Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of the Interior's Manual at 512 DM 2,
we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully
with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to- government basis.
This government-to-government relationship, as outlined in Secretarial
Order 3206, dated June 5, 1997, establishes several important
principles, including: (1) Working directly with Tribes to promote
healthy ecosystems; (2) recognizing that Indian lands are not subject
to the same control as Federal public lands; (3) assisting Tribes in
developing and expanding tribal programs to promote healthy ecosystems;
(4) supporting Tribal measures that preclude the need for conservation
restrictions; (5) being sensitive to Indian culture, religion, and
spirituality; (6) exchanging information regarding Tribal trust
resources; and (7) striving to protect sensitive Tribal information
from disclosure. Therefore, pursuant to Executive Order 13175, and more
importantly, in consideration of continuing our close working
relationship with the Tribe, we look forward to continued government-
to-government, as well as biological and technical staff, discussions
with the Tribe on caribou recovery and other matters important to the
Tribe.
(30) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that it believes
the status of the southern mountain caribou DPS should be endangered
and not threatened. The Tribe stated that, based on a review of the
population trend data (2002 to 2014) and several population modeling
publications (Wittmer et al. 2005b; Hatter 2006, in litt.; Environment
Canada 2014), it believes the southern mountain caribou DPS is in
danger of becoming extinct over all or a significant portion of its
range. The Tribe also referred to Canada's proposal to reclassify the
southern mountain population of woodland caribou from threatened to
endangered (COSEWIC 2014). Therefore, the Kootenai Tribe disagrees with
amending the listing status from endangered to threatened and
recommends that the Service maintain the current status as endangered.
Our Response: With regard to the Tribe's comment that the southern
mountain caribou DPS should be listed as endangered, please see our
response to Comment (27).
(31) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that it believes
the proposed rule inaccurately states that the range of the southern
mountain caribou DPS has declined by 40 percent from the historical
range. The Tribe commented that this estimate only applies to the
British Columbia portion of the historical range and does not include
the U.S. portion. When estimated internationally, the range reduction
of the southern mountain caribou DPS is approximately 60 percent
(Spalding 2000).
Our Response: We correctly attributed the 40 percent reduction to
the range of woodland caribou within British Columbia, Canada, in the
proposed rule. However, to better characterize the decline in the range
of this transboundary southern mountain caribou DPS, we agree the 60
percent range contraction provided in Spalding (2000, p. 40) provides a
better measure of assessing the reduction in range of the southern
mountain caribou DPS. We have included this reference and discussion
within this final rule.
(32) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho also commented that the
proposed rule did not include two recently extirpated subpopulations
(COSEWIC 2011; Environment Canada 2014) and recommended these
subpopulations be incorporated into the final DPS description. The
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho requested that the Service further define the
DPS to include all extant and recently extirpated subpopulations to
assure consistency with the listed entity under Canada's Species at
Risk Act (southern group, southern mountain caribou) and the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada designatable units (DU9)
(COSEWIC 2011, Environment Canada 2014).
Our Response: The May 8, 2014, proposed rule stated that the George
Mountain local population was recently considered to be extirpated (see
79 FR 26515). However, the proposed rule could have been more
descriptive regarding the total number of subpopulations (including
extant and recently extirpated) identified within the southern mountain
caribou DPS. We have incorporated information regarding the two
recently extirpated subpopulations (George Mountain and Purcell Central
herds) into this final rule. See our response to Comment (4) for more
information.
(33) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho also recommended further
discussion of Canada's augmentation efforts and the measures Canada has
put into place (MCRIPPB 2013). The Tribe believes that this information
should be included in the final rule, as it will bolster the Service's
analysis related to past and ongoing conservation measures for the DPS.
Our Response: We have added information on Canada's efforts to
manage and conserve caribou; specifically, we have added additional
discussion pertaining to Canada's recent publication of their
``Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, southern mountain
population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada'' (Canadian Mountain
Caribou Recovery Plan) (Environment Canada 2014).
(34) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that, although the
proposed rule adequately details many of the threats to the species,
the threats should be assessed together in an ecosystem approach.
Our Response: As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we
assessed the threats affecting the status of a species under 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. Immediately following our analysis of these
factors, we provide a summary of the cumulative effects of the threats
from Factors A through E that we believe provides the Tribe's suggested
synthesis of the threats affecting this ecosystem. For example, we
discuss how habitat alteration (Factor A) has affected the predator/
prey balance (Factor C) within the ecosystem and how those threats have
collectively affected the status of caribou within the DPS.
Additionally, we described how human development (e.g., roads) within
caribou habitat has affected the predator/prey balance and forest
ecology, and how climate change (Factor A) and human development
(Factor A) acting in concert have altered caribou habitat within this
DPS. Finally, we state that 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.
(35) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that certain
regulatory mechanisms on national forest system lands could be enhanced
and/or modified on these lands. The Tribe recommended that the Service
reassess the Factor D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms) analysis in the proposed rule, and separate out and provide
guidance on what regulatory mechanisms are possible, in comparison to
current and past accomplishments.
Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies
(including USFS) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize

[[Page 52635]]

the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Additionally, pursuant to
section 7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies have an affirmative
mandate to utilize their authorities in the assistance in the
conservation of endangered and threatened species, as appropriate. It
is not within the Service's purview to alter (i.e., enhance or modify)
exiting regulatory mechanisms. Both the Idaho Panhandle National
Forests (IPNF) and Colville National Forest (CNF) (the primary U.S.
Federal landowners within the Selkirk Ecosystem) have amended their
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) to address management of
caribou. The CNF's LRMP was amended in 1988 (the CNF is currently in
the process of revising their existing plan), and the IPNF developed
and implemented a new LRMP in 2015. However, should future new
scientific information indicate the need to change forest management
for caribou, both the CNF and IPNF could amend their respective LRMPs
to incorporate such new science. Future LRMP amendments affecting
caribou would be coordinated with the Service pursuant to the Act's
section 7(a)(2) requirements.
(36) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that the potential
for vehicle collisions, especially on Highway 3 in British Columbia,
should be added to the Factor E (other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence) analysis in the proposed rule. The
Tribe stated that, based on the current locations of collared caribou
in the South Selkirks, nearly 30 crossings of Highway 3 have been
documented from March to August 2014, and the Tribe indicated that this
may pose a significant risk to many small herds throughout the DPS.
Our Response: We discuss the potential for and impact of caribou
mortality related to vehicle collisions on highways, specifically on
Highway 3 in British Columbia, within the ``Human Development''
discussion under our Factor A threat analysis in the proposed rule and
this final rule.
(37) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that the Service
adequately analyzed and correctly concluded in the proposed rule that
the threats and regulations discussed in relation to ``biological,
commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or
lack thereof) to this DPS'' do not pose a threat to the continued
existence of the southern mountain caribou DPS. The Tribe did not
recommend any associated changes to the proposed rule.
Our Response: We appreciate the Tribe's comments.
(38) Comment: Regarding current or planned activities in the areas
occupied by the DPS and their potential effects to the DPS, the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated it is working with the USFS and the
Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) on several projects that are
anticipated to aid in protection of caribou habitat. For example, the
Trout/Ball Project plans to increase the resiliency of the forest in
the lower elevations and provide fuel breaks below caribou habitat.
These actions, while aimed at improving forest conditions outside
caribou habitat, may benefit caribou by reducing the potential for fire
to alter existing habitat.
Our Response: We appreciate the significant interest and active
involvement of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho in the conservation of the
southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou and its
habitat.
(39) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho stated that the proposed
rule adequately discussed and analyzed the potential effects of climate
change on caribou habitat. However, the Tribe indicated that the
effects of climate change extend beyond caribou habitat, and managing
forests toward resiliency to fire and insect outbreaks could further
protect caribou habitat in the face of climate change. The Tribe
recommended that the Service enhance its analysis to include effects of
climate change throughout the ecosystem.
Our Response: The effects of climate change will likely extend
beyond caribou habitat, and most likely will affect all ecosystems and
forests in North America and their associated flora and fauna to
greater or lesser degrees depending on the rapidity and severity of the
climate change. Increasing the resiliency of forests to fire and insect
outbreaks would benefit caribou. Toward that end, our final rule
designating critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
population of woodland caribou, recommended the development and
implementation of comprehensive wildland fire use plans (plans that
describe the treatment of all fires on USFS lands) (77 FR 71042,
November 28, 2012, see p. 77 FR 71059). Regarding ecosystem-specific
climate change analysis, current climate change modeling does not allow
more precise discussion or projections of the future of climate change
at local scales (i.e., specific ecosystems) beyond that provided in the
proposed and this final rule. Given the uncertainty in the current
state of climate modeling, it is impossible to project specific fine-
scale changes to the ecosystems to which caribou have adapted (Utzig
2005, p. 10). However, we expect to continue working with our Federal,
State, and Tribal partners to incorporate changes to caribou habitat
management as needed to address ecosystem specific responses resulting
from climate change as they become more regionally certain and/or as
the state of climate modeling facilitates increased precision and
reliability of predictions.
(40) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho recommended that the
Service consider additional literature sources in its analysis,
including Canada's Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, southern
mountain population in Canada (Environment Canada 2014) and additional
references pertaining to unsustainable predation rates (McLellan et al.
2012) and augmentation information, where it appears that resident
animals are beneficial to successful augmentations by ``teaching'' new
animals (i.e., northern caribou) how to use the available niche and/or
provide a stabilizing effect to transplanted animals (Warren et al.
1996, p. 552).
Our Response: McLellan et al. (2012, entire) investigated whether
interactions with forage (bottom-up) or predators (top-down) were the
principal mechanisms regulating southern mountain caribou populations.
Their conclusion supports the conclusions of other cited scientific
publications that determined apparent competition (i.e., predation) is
the proximate mechanism driving the population decline of mountain
caribou (McLellan et al. 2012, p. 859). They also concluded that food
limitation (neither quality nor quantity) is likely not driving the
continued population decline of mountain caribou (McLellan et al. 2012,
p. 859). We have incorporated this citation into our literature review.
The conclusions of Warren et al. (1996, p. 552) will be informative
during analysis of various management techniques that will be assessed
during recovery planning and implementation for this DPS. As stated
previously, recovery planning is beyond the scope of this process.
(41) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho incorporated by reference
its comments submitted on May 5, 2012, pursuant to the public comment
periods on the November 30, 2011, proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland
caribou (76 FR 74018). The Tribe also indicated support for the final
caribou critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register
on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042).
Our Response: We acknowledge the Tribe's comments and stated
support for

[[Page 52636]]

the designation and management of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou.
(42) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho commented that caribou
recovery is more important than critical habitat designation or a
proposed rule to amend the listing, and ideally, habitat conservation,
population viability, and recovery efforts would work together to
provide a holistic approach to caribou recovery. The Kootenai Tribe
indicated that it looks forward to working government-to-government
with the Service and with all our co-sovereigns in the United States
and Canada toward caribou recovery and protecting and enhancing the
Kootenai Tribe's Treaty-reserved rights.
Our Response: Although recovery planning for the southern mountain
caribou DPS is beyond the scope of this rule, section 4(f)(4) of the
Act states that the Secretary shall, prior to final approval of a new
or revised recovery plan, provide public notice and an opportunity for
public review and comment on such plan, and shall consider all
information presented during the public comment period. Any successful
recovery planning effort will require input and participation by
appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private stakeholders to
identify measures needed to conserve any species listed under the Act.
The Service looks forward to working with the Tribe as well as other
partners and stakeholders within the United States and Canada
interested in recovery of this population.

Public Comments

Poaching
(43) Comment: One commenter questioned the Service's inclusion of
poaching as a serious threat to the Selkirk Mountain caribou
population, without citing poaching data in both the proposed rule and
in the 1994 recovery plan (p. 24). The commenter stated that the use of
anecdotal poaching information from 1980 to 1990 should not be included
in the proposed rule if it cannot be confirmed by citable facts.
Our Response: In the May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we
determined that there is no information indicating that, currently,
illegal killing of caribou is a threat (see 79 FR 26523). The commenter
may be referring to the following two instances we referenced poaching
in the proposed rule. The proposed rule's first reference to poaching
(see 79 FR 26505) was related to the Service's February 29, 1984,
listing determination (49 FR 7390). In that document, we determined the
designation of critical habitat was not prudent at that time. That
determination was based on the conclusion that increased poaching could
result from the publication of maps showing areas used by the species.
The 1984 listing rule identified that poaching regularly occurred and
that a radio-collared caribou was shot in 1983 (49 FR 7390), and cited
poaching of at least one animal from the southern Selkirk caribou herd
in 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983 (49 FR 7392). The proposed rule's other
reference to poaching (see 79 FR 26517) is a reference to Evans (1960,
p. 131) who, based on his studies of caribou in the northwestern United
States, believed that, at that time, poaching may have been impacting
the status of caribou in the area he studied. Additionally, according
to the Service's 1994 recovery plan (p. 22), poaching was known to be a
significant cause of caribou mortality in the Selkirk Mountains. For
example, a mortality of a transplanted caribou in Washington in 1988
was being investigated, one case in Idaho in 1990 was successfully
prosecuted, and two more caribou mortalities in Idaho in 1992 were
being investigated. Furthermore, in 1984, British Columbia closed all
big game hunting within a portion of caribou range in southern British
Columbia in an effort to reduce illegal shooting of caribou (Service
1994a, p. 23). Finally, Johnson (1985, entire), who analyzed caribou
mortality in the Selkirk and Purcell Mountains in British Columbia,
Canada, from 1967 through 1983, determined that illegal hunting
accounted for 75 percent of caribou mortality within these populations
over this time frame.
In accordance with section 4(b)(1) of the Act, the Service is
required to use the ``best available scientific and commercial data''
in its listing determinations. Our Policy on Information Standards
under the Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
(http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/) provide criteria and guidance,
and establish procedures to ensure that our decisions are based on the
best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for recommendations to list species.
Primary or original information sources are those that are closest
to the subject being studied, as opposed to those that cite, comment
on, or build upon primary sources. The Act and our regulations do not
require us to use only peer-reviewed literature, but instead they
require us to use the ``best scientific and commercial data available''
in a listing determination. We use information from many different
sources, including articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific
status surveys, and studies completed by qualified individuals;
Master's thesis research that has been reviewed but not published in a
journal; other unpublished governmental and nongovernmental reports;
reports prepared by industry; personal communication about management
or other relevant topics; conservation plans developed by States and
counties; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; experts'
opinions or personal knowledge; and other sources.
Threats
(44) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service did not fully
assess new threats, such as new human development, particularly
increased infrastructure for energy extraction, pipelines, power lines,
and mines, to the DPS in its analysis.
Our Response: We have added additional discussion on these threats
to the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final
rule (see ``Human Development'' under the Factor A analysis).
(45) Comment: We received a few comments pertaining to
silvicultural management within caribou habitat. One commenter
suggested that logging operations should be restricted in caribou
habitat. One commenter suggested that logging of old growth forest has
nothing to do with decreases in the caribou population. Another
commenter stated that proper harvesting and management of the forest in
the area of the proposed caribou habitat would go far toward creating a
habitat that is conducive to the return of caribou to the area, and
that the Idaho Department of Lands has amply demonstrated that they
have incorporated excellent management procedures that would facilitate
such a return.
Our Response: Loss and fragmentation of caribou habitat (including
old-growth forests) in an ecosystem that has been significantly altered
from historical forest conditions due to a combination of timber
harvest, wildfires, and road

[[Page 52637]]

construction continues to be a primary long-term threat to caribou.
Historical implementation of timber management practices (e.g., large
clear cuts) was not compatible with maintaining caribou habitat. To the
extent that these same types of timber harvests would be implemented
today, such treatments would similarly be incompatible with the habitat
requirements of caribou. Certain timber harvest treatments may result
in benign or even beneficial effects to caribou habitat, and that, in
some situations timber harvest may be used to achieve or promote
quicker attainment of tree species composition or certain structural
characteristics (e.g., old-growth).
Within the United States, a majority of the habitat occupied by the
southern Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation of southern
mountain caribou DPS is administered by national forests, specifically
the IPNF and CNF. Federal agencies, pursuant to section 7 of the Act,
are required to coordinate with the Service on any actions the agencies
undertake, fund, or permit that have the potential to affect listed
species (in this case, the caribou). Therefore, pursuant to section 7
consultation under the Act, the Service will coordinate with the
Federal agencies (e.g., CNF and IPNF) during the course of developing
timber harvest activities within caribou habitat to appropriately
minimize the effects of such activities upon caribou conservation and
recovery. Additionally, we acknowledge that both the IPNF and CNF have
implemented extensive measures to protect caribou and caribou habitat
on their land ownerships, within the existing Selkirk Mountain Caribou
Recovery Zone.
We also understand that all other woodland caribou subpopulations
(including the transboundary southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation)
and their habitat occur in British Columbia, Canada. Canada has
implemented several measures to manage and protect caribou habitat from
further fragmentation and loss, including, but not limited to: (1) In
2007, Canada endorsed the Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan (MCRIP)
that protects 5,436,320 ac (2,200,000 ha) from logging and road
building; and (2) all national parks (NPs) in Canada are strictly
protected from commercial resource extraction, which includes Glacier
NP and Mount Revelstoke NP that together comprise approximately 333,345
ac (134,900 ha). For more information, under the Factor A analysis,
above, see Efforts in the United States under ``Conservation Efforts to
Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range.'' Additionally, we are committed to achieving the conservation
and recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To that end, the
Service will actively coordinate and participate with our partners
within the United States (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) and
Canada (e.g., British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and
Natural Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others) on the
development of management objectives to maintain and enhance woodland
caribou habitat.
Based on an analysis conducted by Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 91),
increasing proportions of early seral forest (e.g., fragmentation)
within caribou habitat results in increasing rates of extinction of
caribou populations. Increased proportion of young forest supports
higher densities and distribution of other ungulate species that in
turn supports higher predator numbers that prey opportunistically on
caribou. Additionally, higher predator numbers can further accelerate
the rate of population decline through depensatory \8\ mortality
effects (Wittmer et al. 2010, p. 91). It will likely require greater
than 150 years (greater than 16 generations of caribou) of habitat
protections for early successional and fragmented forests to develop
the old-growth habitat characteristics (vegetative structure and
composition) (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1) that would begin to restore
the natural predator to prey balance of high-elevation, old-growth
forests, and thus reduce predation pressure on caribou.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ In population dynamics, depensation is the effect on a
population whereby, due to certain causes, a decrease in the
breeding population (mature individuals) leads to reduced production
and survival of eggs or offspring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(46) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must consider
documented snowmobiling violations within the area of Selkirk Mountain
Caribou Recovery Zone closed to snowmobiling by court order until the
IPNF develops and implements a winter travel plan when determining what
habitat protections are necessary for recovery of the southern Selkirk
Mountains caribou subpopulation. The commenter suggested that these
violations may have affected the functionality of the area to benefit
caribou, potentially impairing caribou distribution within the
ecosystem as well as increasing their susceptibility to predation.
Our Response: We acknowledge that snowmobiling violations of the
area closed by court ordered injunction on the IPNF have occurred.
Human activity in caribou habitat can affect caribou through a variety
of mechanisms, including habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance,
and increased predation. Additionally, we appreciate that effective
enforcement of caribou habitat protection measures can be challenging.
We will continue working with our partners (both within the United
States and Canada) who manage landscapes within caribou habitat to
identify and implement appropriate management strategies to reduce, if
not eliminate, impacts detrimental to caribou conservation and
recovery.
(47) Comment: One commenter referenced language in the final
critical habitat rule (77 FR 71042; November 28, 2012) recommending the
development of a wildland fire use plan by the IPNF to deal with
management of fire (both natural and human-caused) within the
ecosystem. The commenter suggested that all fires within caribou
habitat should be suppressed because of the fire's potential to create
habitat for other predators or competitors of caribou. For example, the
commenter referenced research conducted by Robinson et al. (2012) that
showed wolves select for burns and areas adjacent to burns whereas
caribou avoid burns, and that fires increased the probability of wolf-
caribou overlap.
Our Response: The Selkirk Ecosystem, in addition to providing
habitat for caribou, also supports habitat for other species native to
the ecosystem, including Canada lynx, grizzly bear, other forest
carnivores, and avian species including the black-backed woodpecker
(Picoides arcticus). The Canada lynx and black-backed woodpecker, for
example, rely on fires to facilitate the development and or maintenance
of habitat they utilize to provide some of their life-history needs.
Thus, natural wildfire plays an important role in maintaining a mosaic
of forest successional stages that provides habitat for a variety of
species native to this ecosystem. However, we also appreciate the
research findings of Robinson et al. (2012, entire) relative to the
effects of fire upon caribou habitat and wolf/caribou habitat overlap
and interactions. Thus, in the November 28, 2012, final rule
designating critical habitat (77 FR 71042), we recommended the
development of a wildland fire use plan that will facilitate assessment
of the appropriate use of fire or fire suppression within the Selkirk
Ecosystem to maintain the variety of habitats and structural stages
supporting the species native to this ecosystem.
Predator Control
(48) Comment: Several commenters suggested southern mountain
caribou

[[Page 52638]]

select their winter habitat as a response to avoid predation rather
than for food or winter habitat preference. Because predation by wolves
and mountain lions is listed as ``one of the most significant
contributors to Southern Mountain Caribou DPS declines in recent
decades'' (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 79 FR 26523), several
commenters questioned why the Service, and the States of Idaho and
Washington do not try to actively protect caribou from predators. One
commenter suggested that reducing the wolf population would result in
increased numbers of caribou. Another commenter stated that until the
predator-to-prey ratio is brought into proper balance, no activity or
effort by humans will change the outcome for the caribou. Additionally,
one commenter suggested that the Service does not properly address the
effects of the introduction of the ``Canadian'' gray wolf on all cervid
populations, including caribou, and that the Service is misleading the
public by stating, ``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'' (79 FR
26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 79 FR 26523). This commenter suggested that
the recolonization of the Selkirks by wolves as a result of the 1995
wolf reintroduction in Idaho may be jeopardizing the remnant caribou
populations in Idaho and Washington rather than a change in the
predator-prey ecology stemming from habitat alteration and
fragmentation.
Our Response: Mountain caribou's use of high-elevation habitats
during the winter is an adaptive strategy to avoid predation by
predators that are otherwise typically excluded from accessing these
areas during winter due to high snow depths. However, the ability of
mountain caribou to exploit these high-elevation habitats during winter
is dependent on their ability to utilize, almost exclusively, arboreal
lichens to provide their nutritional and energetic needs during this
time.
Regarding management of wolves, on May 5, 2011, in accordance with
Public Law 112-10, the Service issued a final rule (76 FR 25590)
reinstating the April 2, 2009, delisting rule (74 FR 15123) whereby
wolves in eastern Washington and Idaho (as well as other States) were
removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Accordingly, management of wolves in eastern Washington and Idaho are
the responsibility of the respective States in which they reside.
Wolves may be exerting disproportionate predation pressure on caribou
as a result of altered forest structure that may be facilitating higher
prey densities and increased distribution and thus higher wolf
densities and distribution than would naturally occur in the Selkirk
Mountains. To address this issue, we will coordinate with our State
wildlife partners (e.g., WDFW and IDFG), Tribes, and Canadian partners
on the development of appropriate wolf (as well as other predators)
monitoring and management plans. Additionally, British Columbia's
Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations,
recognizing the impact of predation on the status of the subpopulations
within the DPS, is undertaking aggressive measures to control predator
populations (e.g., targeted wolf removal operations within the South
Peace region in northern British Columbia and the South Selkirk
Mountains).
Recovery of this DPS will require implementation of a comprehensive
recovery strategy, including predator management. As stated above, we
will coordinate with our State wildlife partners (e.g., WDFW and IDFG),
Tribes, and Canadian partners on the development of appropriate
predator monitoring and management plans.
Relative to predation by wolves on other cervids, the Service is
certainly aware that this occurs. However, within the context of this
listing decision, we are required to address the threats to this DPS of
woodland caribou, and predation is identified as a threat to this DPS.
Regarding the statement that the Service is misleading the public over
whether habitat alteration/fragmentation or wolf reintroduction is the
primary catalyst driving the predator-prey ecology within the Selkirk
ecosystem, we acknowledge the commenter's opinion. Wolves were
reintroduced into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1994,
as nonessential experimental populations in accordance with the
Service's final environmental impact statement (FEIS; USFWS 1994b,
entire). The Service's FEIS stated that, over a timeframe of 15 years
prior to 1994, wolves had naturally recolonized northwest Montana as a
result of natural dispersal from Canada (USFWS 1994b, p. vi). Thus, it
is likely that recolonization of the Selkirk Mountains by wolves is a
result of dispersal of wolves from farther north in Canada and/or
northwest Montana. Gray wolves, upon arriving in the Selkirk Ecosystem,
have also very likely benefited from the increased abundance and
distribution of prey species (deer, moose, elk) whose population growth
and expansion in the Selkirk Mountains have likely benefited from the
alteration and fragmentation of the older successional boreal forest
through fires (both natural and manmade) and historical silvicultural
practices to younger successional forests that these species require.
Increased abundance and distribution of these other cervid species
(i.e., deer, moose, elk) likely support higher numbers of wolves (and
other predators endemic to this ecosystem) than would otherwise be
naturally supported by the older successional boreal forests. Higher
numbers of wolves translates to increased predation pressure on caribou
due to the overlap of these other cervid species with caribou during
summer, primarily, when wolves opportunistically encounter caribou in
the course of searching for these other cervid prey species. Thus, we
believe that alteration and fragmentation of the boreal forest
landscape is the primary driver that is currently supporting higher
populations of alternate prey species that support a higher number of
wolves that in turn have disproportionate predation impacts on caribou,
rather than wolf reintroduction being primarily responsible for the
existing predator/prey imbalance of this ecosystem.
Wolf Sterilization
(49) Comment: One commenter stated that wolf sterilization and
reducing moose populations are ineffective measures that do not solve
caribou predation problems. The commenter stated that wolf control
through trapping and hunting is the only cost effective solution
because it reduces wolf populations and generates revenue for the both
the State and Federal Government in the form of license and tag sales
and ammunition and gun sale taxes.
Our Response: The management of wolves and moose is the
responsibility of the States in which these species reside. We are
coordinating with the States of Idaho and Montana, as well as British
Columbia, Canada, to better understand: (1) The predation impacts of
wolves upon caribou; (2) the role these other cervid populations play
in supporting higher numbers and or increased distribution of wolves
within the ecosystem; (3) the interactions between other cervid
species, wolves, and caribou; and (4) the potential management
implications of such interactions. Improved understanding of the
relationship between wolves, caribou, other prey species, and their
habitats will facilitate the development of comprehensive conservation
frameworks addressing management of

[[Page 52639]]

all species (inclusive of both predator and prey) native to this
ecosystem.
DPS/Genetic Discreteness/Uniqueness
(50) Comment: Several commenters agreed with our DPS analysis,
while several others disagreed. Several commenters suggested that the
Service's statement that the southern mountain caribou population is
markedly separate from other populations of woodland caribou as a
result of physical (geographic) factors is not well supported and there
is no evidence of a physical barrier preventing movement. One commenter
disagreed with our DPS analysis indicating that the southern Selkirk
Mountain caribou subpopulation is part of the larger southern mountain
caribou DPS. One commenter stated that there is no new information
proving that the southern mountain caribou are discrete or significant,
and implied we relied on a single characteristic in our significance
conclusion. One commenter challenged the perception that significant
numbers of caribou occurred in the United States prior to or since
listing, even with the augmentation efforts. One commenter stated that
evidence of historical gene flow between the local southern mountain
subpopulations and other neighboring populations undermines our
discreteness analysis, and is contrary to the Service's statement that
the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation is isolated or incapable of
migrating from their current habitats within the southern Selkirk
Mountains.
Our Response: Regarding discreteness, under 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.
Thus, the policy does not require there to be a physical barrier
preventing movement of individual animals between populations to
satisfy the discreteness criteria. The best available science indicates
the southern mountain caribou DPS is both geographically (Wittmer et
al. 2005b, pp. 408-409; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van Oort et al. 2011, pp.
222-223) and behaviorally (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) discrete from other
woodland caribou populations. While there is limited overlap between
the annual ranges of some subpopulations at the far north of the
southern mountain caribou DPS and other subpopulations of the Central
Mountain (DU 8) caribou population, this overlap does not occur during
the rut or mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Furthermore, according
to van Oort et al. (2011, pp. 221-222), it is highly likely that
caribou subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS (also
known as southern mountain (DU 9)) are reproductively isolated from one
another, let alone between neighboring caribou populations (i.e.,
Central Mountain (DU 8), Northern Mountain (DU 7)). Thus, during the
mating season, when genetic interchange would occur, individual caribou
in the southern mountain caribou DPS are reproductively isolated
through geographic separation from other woodland caribou occurring in
the neighboring Central Mountain (DU 8) population. Additionally,
caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS occur in high-
elevation, steep, mountainous terrain supporting deep snowfall (about 5
to 16 ft; 2 to 5 m) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that has resulted in a
foraging strategy unique among woodland caribou; caribou within this
DPS subsist almost entirely upon arboreal lichens during winter months
(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). Finally, caribou within this DPS undertake
altitudinal migrations as many as four times per year, which is also
unique among woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Therefore, in
accordance with our DPS policy, the best available scientific
information supports our conclusion that the southern mountain caribou
population is geographically, reproductively, and behaviorally discrete
from other caribou populations.
Regarding the statement that we relied on a single characteristic
to establish the significance of this DPS relative to the woodland
caribou taxon, please see our responses to Comments (16) and (17).
Regarding significant numbers of caribou in the United States, we are
unclear if the comment pertained to the significance analysis we
conducted under our DPS policy. The commenter also did not define what
would be considered a significant number of animals. However, a
definition of significant number of animals is highly variable and
necessarily specific to the biology of the species in question. For
example, a certain number of animals within a population might be
considered significant for a given species that naturally has low
density, distribution, and reproductive capacity, while for another
species that naturally occurs at higher densities, larger distribution,
and possesses higher reproductive capacity, that same number of animals
might be considered insignificant. Furthermore, under our DPS policy,
the number of individual animals in a population is not the basis, per
se, of the significance analysis. Rather, the significance test under
the DPS policy assesses the significance of a population (that
theoretically could be comprised of many or few individuals) to the
taxon (i.e., species or subspecies) to which it belongs, and may
include, but is not limited: (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.
Relative to connectivity of the southern mountain caribou DPS to
other neighboring mountain caribou populations (i.e., Northern and
Central), evidence of historical gene flow between these populations
does not contradict evidence suggesting that these populations are now
isolated from one another. While the conclusions of Serrouya et al.
(2012, p. 2,594) indicate that historical gene flow (i.e., movement of
individuals between populations) did occur in the past between these
populations, studies investigating recent caribou movement patterns
indicate this is no longer the case. A radio-telemetry study conducted
by van Oort et al. (2011, entire) on all subpopulations of caribou
within this DPS from 1984 through 1987 did not detect any dispersal of
juvenile caribou between subpopulations, and very little adult
dispersal between subpopulations (van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221).
Similarly, Wittmer et al. (2005b, entire) investigated caribou movement
patterns within the same population from 1984 through 2004, and found
limited interaction between the subpopulations (Wittmer et al. 2005b,
p. 414). We presume a similar lack of dispersal (i.e.,

[[Page 52640]]

connectivity) is currently the case between the southern mountain
caribou DPS and the other neighboring Northern Mountain and Central
Mountain caribou populations. This presumption is supported by COSEWIC
(2011, pp. 49-50), which concludes that the southern mountain caribou
population is likely isolated from the Northern Mountain and Central
Mountain caribou populations. We believe that the apparent lack of
dispersal between neighboring caribou populations, as well as the
observed lack of dispersal between subpopulations within the southern
mountain caribou DPS, is an artifact of recent anthropogenic habitat
fragmentation, which is supported by the conclusions of Serrouya et al.
(2012, p. 2,597) and van Oort et al. (2011, p. 222).
Additionally, we are unclear as to the reference to the isolation
of the southern Selkirk Mountain caribou subpopulation. The analysis
under Discreteness in the May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504, see
p. 26509) assessed the discreteness of the southern mountain caribou
population relative to the neighboring Northern and Central Mountain
Caribou populations. This analysis did not assess the relative
connectivity of the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation to other
subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS. Nonetheless,
as just described, the best available science indicates that the
subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS (including the
southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation) are now largely isolated from
one another. The physical and reproductive isolation of these
subpopulations may have significant implications for the conservation
of the southern mountain caribou DPS as mountain caribou appear to lack
the inherent behavior to disperse long distances (van Oort et al. 2011,
pp. 215, 221-222). Dispersal of individuals (natal or breeding) can
facilitate demographic rescue of neighboring populations that are in
decline or recolonization of ranges from which populations have been
extirpated (i.e., classic metapopulation theory). However, species
whose historical distribution was more widely and evenly distributed
(such as mountain caribou) (van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221) that have
been fragmented into subpopulations via habitat fragmentation and loss
may appear to exist in a metapopulation structure when, in fact,
because they may not have evolved the innate behavior to disperse among
subpopulations, their fragmented distribution may actually represent a
geographic pattern trending toward extinction (van Oort et al. 2011, p.
215).
(51) Comment: We received three comments pertaining to the
provision of our DPS policy allowing use of international borders to
identify discrete vertebrate populations. One commenter suggested that
differences in management of southern Selkirk Mountain caribou and
their habitat between the United States and Canada is sufficient enough
to warrant use of the international border provision of the DPS policy
to delineate the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation as a DPS and
retain its endangered status. Another commenter suggested a similar use
of the international border provision for similar reasons, but
suggested it should apply to the southern mountain caribou population
and likewise be used to list it as endangered. Specifically, the
commenter alleges that Canadian management of the southern mountain
caribou population has failed to prevent or reverse the decline of the
population. Another commenter suggested that, because caribou do not
adhere to the 49th parallel (i.e., essentially the border between the
United States and Canada) the caribou population in the United States
should not be considered a separate population.
Our Response: Our DPS policy allows the use of international
borders to identify a discrete vertebrate population when 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. However, in this
case, use of the international border to identify a DPS of the southern
Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation is inappropriate for
the following reasons. First, there would need to be differences in the
management of caribou between the United States and Canada that would
differentially affect the conservation status of the population. In
this case, there are not. For example, similar to habitat protections
that have been implemented within the United States for caribou,
British Columbia, Canada, has endorsed the Mountain Caribou Recovery
Implementation Plan whose goal is to protect 2,200,000 ha (5,436,320
ac) of caribou habitat from logging and road building. There is no
difference in the exploitation of mountain caribou within the southern
mountain caribou DU/DPS between the United States and Canada; currently
legal hunting of mountain caribou is not allowed within the southern
mountain caribou DU/DPS in British Columbia, Canada, or the United
States. Further, hunting is prohibited in all national parks and
ecological preserves in British Columbia. Thus, according to Seip and
Cichowski (1996, p. 73), hunting has not been a major limiting factor
to caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS since the mid-
1970s. Additionally, British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and
Natural Resource Operations, recognizing the impact of predation on the
status of the subpopulations within the DPS, is undertaking aggressive
measures to control predator populations (e.g., targeted wolf removal
operations within the South Peace region in northern British Columbia
and the South Selkirk Mountains).
(52) Comment: Two commenters questioned the Service's evaluation of
uniqueness based on the use of steep, mountainous habitats and/or
feeding on arboreal lichens. One of the commenters stated that other
North American species of cervids (i.e., elk, mule deer, American
bison) all contain subpopulations that historically and currently
occupy a diverse range of habitats and food preferences yet are all
genetically the same species. This commenter stated that the Service's
uniqueness determination is not sufficiently supported by science. The
other commenter suggested that mountain caribou's reliance on arboreal
lichens is not unique because mountain caribou located south of the
international border with Canada will utilize whatever feed is
available to them, and, therefore, use of arboreal lichens in and of
itself is not evidence that this DPS occurs in a unique ecological
setting.
Our Response: The southern mountain caribou DPS is the only
woodland caribou population that occurs in high-elevation, mountainous
habitats in the wet and very wet subzones of the Englemann Spruce-
Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone, the wet and very wet subzones of the
Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, and the very wet subzones of the Sub-
Boreal Spruce zone that typically receive between 2 to 5 m (6 to 16 ft)
of snow during the winter (van Oort 2011, p. 216). The occupancy of
this type of ecological setting is unique among woodland caribou; other
woodland caribou populations occupy less steep, drier terrain with less
winter snow pack, and do not feed almost exclusively on arboreal
lichens during the winter (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, p.
50). Adaptation to this unique ecological setting has resulted in the
southern mountain caribou's almost

[[Page 52641]]

complete reliance on arboreal lichens during winter to support their
nutritional requirements, as well as adopting a unique migration
behavior. Caribou in this population undertake as many as four
altitudinal migrations per year (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) between seasonal
habitats, which is unique among caribou. Additionally, while other
populations of woodland caribou may consume arboreal lichens to some
extent, they do not rely on arboreal lichens (almost exclusively) as
the only source of forage for 3 to 4 months of the year as do southern
mountain caribou.
(53) Comment: One commenter suggested that the DPS policy should
not be used to simultaneously designate and list.
Our Response: The DPS policy is not used to make decisions as to
whether or not to list under the Act. The DPS policy is used to
identify discrete and significant populations of vertebrate species or
subspecies. The decision to list species, subspecies, or DPSs of
species or subspecies is made pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. In
order to list a DPS under the Act, it would first have to be defined in
accordance with our DPS policy. Once defined (i.e., designated), the
DPS could then be considered for listing under the Act, provided it met
the criteria for listing (i.e., the status of the DPS is either
endangered or threatened). The Act does not prohibit publishing DPS
analyses and delineations simultaneously with listing analyses within
the same proposed or final rulemaking documents.
(54) Comment: One commenter agreed with our determination that the
southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation (to which the commenter
referred to as the South Selkirks caribou herd) is a DPS.
Our Response: Contrary to the comment, pursuant to our proposed
rule, we determined that the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation of
woodland caribou did not meet the criteria established under our 1996
DPS Policy for designating as a DPS (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see pp.
79 FR 26504-26505 and 26508-26509). However, in the proposed rule, we
also stated that delisting the species was not warranted, and that the
southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation is part of the larger southern
mountain caribou population, which does meet our 1996 DPS policy
criteria for designation as a DPS. Hence, we proposed to amend the
listing from the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation to the
southern mountain caribou DPS.
(55) Comment: One commenter stated a concern that lumping the
southern Selkirk Mountain caribou subpopulation into the larger
southern mountain caribou DPS would result in the southern Selkirk
Mountain caribou subpopulation potentially being dismissed as a
biologically and ecologically minor or inconsequential part of the DPS.
Our Response: The best available scientific information was brought
to bear in our status assessment, and in accordance with our DPS
policy, that information indicates that the southern Selkirk Mountain
caribou subpopulation is biologically and ecologically part of the
larger southern mountain caribou DPS. Once a DPS is identified,
designated, and listed, the Act requires the Service to strive to
recover the DPS to the point at which the protections of the Act are no
longer needed to ensure its long-term persistence. Although recovery
planning is beyond the scope of this listing decision, we are committed
to achieving the conservation and recovery of the DPS, as is required
by the Act.
COSEWIC 2014/Proposed Rule Is Contrary to Best Available Science
(56) Comment: We received numerous comments regarding our proposal
to list the southern mountain caribou DPS as threatened. Many commented
that the DPS should be listed as endangered and not threatened. Others
agreed with listing the DPS as threatened. A few stated the DPS should
not be listed at all. Those who commented that the DPS should be listed
as endangered cited reasons including: (1) The DPS includes the last
surviving caribou subpopulation in the coterminous United States; (2)
small population size; (3) continuing population decline; (4)
increasing and escalating threats related to recreation (including
snowmobiling and heli-skiing), timber harvest, disease, and climate
change; (5) altered predator/prey dynamics related to habitat changes
resulting from timber harvest; (6) isolation of this DPS from other
woodland caribou populations in Canada; (7) changing the status from
endangered to threatened is contrary to the considerable body of
science generated over the past 3 decades; (8) the Service should be
consistent with COSEWIC's 2014 status assessment; and (9) more
scientific study, data collection, and tracking data are necessary
before removing endangered status. Those who support listing the DPS as
threatened commented that there are other woodland caribou populations
in Canada and this DPS is part of the larger, more numerous woodland
caribou subspecies. Those who support delisting caribou (i.e., removing
caribou from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
which would remove the protections of the Act) believe that Canada
supports healthy populations of caribou with sufficient numbers of
individuals such that the southern mountain caribou DPS should not be
listed. One commenter noted that the Service partially supported the
proposed listing of the DPS as threatened due to the statement that
northern subpopulations in the Hart Range were considered stable, which
is contrary to newer science indicating some of those subpopulations
are now declining. One commenter stated that we should not rely on the
study by Hatter et al. (2004) as a basis for listing as threatened
because their analysis, which used population modeling to predict the
probability of extinction of the southern mountain caribou DPS, is more
than 10 years old.
Our Response: Upon further analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial data pertaining to the status of this DPS,
including review of the recently released 2014 report on the status of
mountain caribou by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2014, entire), and population
viability analyses conducted by Hatter (2006, entire, in litt.) and
Wittmer et al. (2010, entire), we have determined that the status of
and threats to the southern mountain caribou DPS warrant listing it as
endangered (see Determination, below). Additionally, we have updated
the status of all subpopulations in accordance with the latest
population assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2014), which includes that
fact that some populations, once considered as stable, are now
declining. Accordingly, this final rule lists the southern mountain
caribou DPS as endangered.
Regarding the use of Hatter et al. (2004), there are more recent
population viability analyses that should be included in our
assessment. Therefore, in addition to Hatter et al. (2004), we have
incorporated the findings of Hatter (2006, in litt.) and Wittmer et al.
(2010) into our status assessment under Status of the Southern Mountain
Caribou DPS in this final rule.
(57) Comment: One commenter stated that the original listing of
caribou under the Act was flawed because it relied on a single Master's
degree thesis that was not scientifically peer-reviewed, and that any
listing of a species under the Act must be based on sound scientific
data and justification.
Our Response: The Service is not relying on Evans 1960 (the
Master's thesis to which the commenter refers) to inform our
understanding of the current status of and threats to the southern
mountain caribou DPS. Evans (1960) is

[[Page 52642]]

informative from a historical standpoint, and was, therefore, used to
provide insight into the historical ecology and distribution of
woodland caribou in the northwestern United States. The Act requires
that we use the best available scientific and commercial data in making
listing determinations, see our response to Comment (43) for an
explanation of what information we may consider. In our May 8, 2014,
proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we determined that the original listing of
the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation of woodland caribou was
incorrect, and we proposed to amend the original listing from the
southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation of woodland caribou to the
southern mountain caribou DPS. The final listing of the southern
mountain caribou DPS is based on an extensive review of all currently
available and relevant scientific information, including peer-reviewed
science, on the status of the DPS, which includes, but is not limited
to: COSEWIC 2011, 2014; Hatter et al. 2004; Hatter 2006; Wittmer et al.
2005a, 2005b, 2007, 2010; McLellan et al. 2012; Seip 1992, 2008; and
Kinley and Apps 2001.
(58) Comment: Two commenters stated that the recently released and
published information from agency biologists in Canada, and
subsequently the Canadian government, is of utmost importance to the
caribou listing decision of the Service.
Our Response: The Act requires that the Service base its listing
decisions on the best available scientific and commercial data.
Therefore, we have utilized COSEWIC's 2014 status assessment, to which
the commenter referred, in our final listing decision. However, while
it is important for the Service to understand COSEWIC's rationale for
its listing recommendations to the Canadian government, the Service
must make its listing decisions in accordance with applicable United
States laws, regulations, and Service policies. Consequently, listing
decisions may differ between Canada and the United States.
Significant Portion of the Range
(59) Comment: One commenter questioned the validity of our
``significant portion of the range'' (SPR) analysis. Specifically, the
commenter questioned our assessment pertaining to the isolation and
fragmentation of the subpopulations within the southern mountain
caribou DPS, which led us to conclude that loss of the smaller,
isolated southern subpopulations (that each individually would meet the
definition of endangered under the Act) would have no bearing on the
status of remaining larger northern subpopulations. Therefore, the loss
of the smaller, isolated southern subpopulations would not lead to the
extirpation of larger northern subpopulations such that the DPS would
be in danger of extinction. Thus, the smaller, isolated southern
subpopulations did not constitute a significant portion of the range of
the southern mountain caribou DPS.
Our Response: We acknowledge the commenter's concerns with the SPR
analysis conducted in the proposed rule. Please see our response to
comment no. 10.
Threatened Status Would Weaken Protections
(60) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that there is
inadequate enforcement of habitat restrictions for caribou under the
current endangered status and concern that a change in status to
threatened would weaken protective restrictions under the rules
governing threatened status. Several commenters stated that enforcement
of the court injunctions against snowmobiling in critical habitat is
lacking and is difficult, especially now that new snow machines are
faster and can travel farther into remote areas. One commenter
expressed concern that threatened status would make enforcement even
less effective and would reduce protections for the Selkirk herd by
opening up more of their range to snowmobiles and logging of old growth
forests.
Our Response: The comments pertaining to a threatened designation
are moot, as pursuant to peer review, public comments, and our
additional analysis of all the science pertaining to this DPS, we
determined that the status of and threats to this DPS warrant listing
it as endangered. Additionally, we appreciate that effective
enforcement of caribou habitat protection measures can be challenging
for Federal and State land management agencies within the United
States, and British Columbia provincial authorities in Canada. We have
assessed the effects and governance of such activities under our Factor
A and D analyses, respectively.
(61) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the effects
that snowmobiling and other recreational activities can have on caribou
and their habitat, including disturbance, and fragmentation of habitat
leading to smaller habitat patches caribou have to support breeding
activities, etc. One commenter suggested that the access provided to
predators through the compaction of snow by snowmobiles may have
increased predation on caribou calves, potentially further decreasing
an already low calf survival rate, and potentially contributing to a
declining caribou population. On the other hand, one commenter stated
that snowmobiles, other over-the-snow vehicles, or other recreational
users do not pose a threat to caribou, and that such perceived threats
are based on conjecture or speculation, and are contrary to experiences
of snowmobilers and other forest users. Others expressed concern that
listing the DPS would continue to restrict or result in increased
restrictions on recreational access to areas occupied by caribou. One
commenter stated that listing of this population under the Act has led
to a court-ordered injunction of snowmobiling and snowmobile trail
grooming in the IPNF, inhibiting winter recreation in the region and
depriving many of the income and public lands access that are dependent
on the enjoined activities.
Our Response: Winter is a particularly stressful time for caribou
as their mobility is restricted by deep snow, and their nutritional
intake is exceptionally limited due to their dependency on arboreal
lichen to survive during this period. During winter, mountain caribou
are primarily located in high-elevation subalpine forest and subalpine
parkland habitat in areas of deep snow and gentle or moderate terrain
(Apps et al. 2001, p. 70; Terry et al. 2000, p. 594). These areas are
also attractive to snowmobilers. The best available science indicates
that increasing levels of winter recreation activities (e.g.,
snowmobiling, heli-skiing, snow-cat skiing, etc.) within the caribou's
winter range represent a significant threat to woodland caribou (USFWS
2008, p. 28). Current best available scientific information indicates
that snowmobile activity can displace caribou from suitable habitat
(Simpson 1987, pp. 8-10; Tyler 1991, pp. 183-188; Kinley 2003, p. 25;
Seip et al. 2007, p. 1,543), cause caribou to experience elevated
energetic costs (Reimers et al. 2003, pp. 751-753) and physiological
stress (Freeman 2008, p. 44), and possibly force caribou into using
lower quality habitat with increased risks of predation or mortality
from avalanches (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1,543). Additionally, snowmobile
trails may facilitate access of predators to caribou habitat, thereby
increasing predation risk to caribou (Whittington et al. 2011, p.
1540). Furthermore, there is emerging concern regarding the potential
effects that other types of recreational use within caribou habitat
outside of the winter season may

[[Page 52643]]

have upon caribou. Dumont (1993, pp. 31-33), in a study of the impact
of hikers on caribou in the Gaspesie Conservation Park, Quebec, Canada,
concluded that hikers caused woodland caribou to move from preferred
alpine areas into adjacent forested habitat. Displacement of caribou
into forested areas may increase their susceptibility to predation by
moving caribou into areas of reduced visibility (Dumont 1993, p. 11).
Regarding the management of recreational snowmobile access,
management of these lands is not under the Service's purview. In the
United States, management of lands occupied by the southern Selkirk
Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation is within the purview of the
Federal (i.e., CNF, IPNF, Bureau of Land Management) and State (i.e.,
Idaho Department of Lands) land managers and private landowners. The
Service will coordinate with the Federal agencies managing the effects
of recreational activities (including snowmobiling) upon caribou and
their habitat through the development of land and resource management
plans. Development of land and resource management plans are Federal
actions subject to section 7 consultation under the Act for which
Federal agencies must consult with the Service.
The Service acknowledges that some seasonal limitations on
motorized (primarily pertaining to snowmobiles) vehicle access to
public lands have occurred since listing of the southern Selkirk
Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou under the Act. These
seasonal closures were put in place to minimize disturbance to caribou,
and include a 1994 closure for a large area of the Selkirk Crest on the
IPNF. The 1994 closure was put in place to protect caribou from impacts
related to snowmobiling, in coordination with the IDFG. Additionally,
we understand that a court-ordered injunction in 2006, which was
modified in 2007, has restricted much of the area used by caribou
within the Selkirk Crest from snowmobiling, until the IPNF develops a
winter recreation strategy addressing the effects of snowmobiling upon
the species. The Service will work closely with the IPNF on the
development of their winter recreation strategy.
Additionally, except for the transboundary southern Selkirk
Mountain subpopulation, all other subpopulations of this DPS occur in
Canada. Canada recognizes the potential effect of snowmobile recreation
on caribou and their habitat. For example, in 2009, the British
Columbia's Ministry of Environment 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).
The Service is committed to achieving the conservation and recovery of
the DPS, as is required by the Act. To that end, we will actively
coordinate with our partners in the United States (e.g, WDFW, IDFG,
Tribes, and others) and Canada (e.g., British Columbia's Ministry of
Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and
others) on the development of management objectives allowing for
snowmobile use and other recreational activities to occur within the
range of the DPS without resulting in excessive disturbance to caribou
or fragmentation of their habitat to the extent that conservation of
the DPS would be undermined.
Recovery
(62) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should
work more closely with Canada on a recovery plan, and that the Service
should contribute more resources to the recovery effort.
Our Response: We have recently (within the past year) initiated a
process to revise the 1994 recovery plan. To date, this process has
included participation and coordination with British Columbia, Canada,
including British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural
Resource Operations, and Ktunaxa Nation (First Nations Canada), as well
as U.S. entities including USFS, WDFW, IDFG, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho,
Kalispel Tribe of Indians, and local and environmental stakeholders.
Recovery/Role of Service
(63) Comment: Several commenters referred to recovery success
stories of the Act (i.e., the eastern red wolf, Pacific salmon now
jumping fish ladders, the reintroduction of the California condor,
revival of the whooping crane, and even the comeback of the bison,
which was almost exterminated). One commenter stated that the Service
would be derelict in its duty by not providing caribou with the same
protection afforded to other animals, such as the wolf and the grizzly
bear in Idaho. Several commenters expressed concern that the Service is
not enforcing the Act properly and questioned the Service's commitment
to protecting threatened and endangered species.
Our Response: We hope to achieve success with the conservation of
the southern mountain caribou DPS. Listing this DPS as endangered under
the Act requires that we strive to provide for the southern mountain
caribou's conservation to the point at which the protections of the Act
are no longer required, and the DPS can then be delisted. As stated
previously in the response to Comment (62), the Service has initiated a
process to update the 1994 recovery plan. Recovery plans are intended
to identify and establish management and conservation needs of the
species (in this specific case, the DPS) so that when they are
achieved, the species (DPS) can be delisted as the protections of the
Act will no longer be required to ensure its conservation.
Cultural Importance
(64) Comment: Several commenters stated woodland caribou should be
conserved because they are an important part of the ecosystem and
environmental heritage of northeastern Washington and northwestern
Idaho, and because they are also culturally and spiritually important
to Tribes.
Our Response: Although recovery planning is beyond the scope of
this listing decision, we are committed to achieving the conservation
and recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To that end, the
Service will actively coordinate and participate in the development of
a recovery plan with our partners within the United States (e.g., WDFW,
IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our Canadian partners (e.g.,
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource
Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others).
Request Access to More Information
(65) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service and State
agency websites provide information (or provide links to the British
Columbia's websites) about the status of mountain caribou and recovery
efforts in British Columbia to provide a better overall picture of the
caribou situation.
Our Response: The Service will consider adding links to Canada's
COSEWIC web page on our web page for woodland caribou. However, until
such a link is established, information on Canada's efforts to recover
woodland caribou can be found at http://www.cosewic.gc.ca. State's web
pages are managed by the appropriate State agency.
Taxonomy
(66) Comment: We received many comments pertaining to the taxonomy
of caribou. Several agreed with the subspecies designation of woodland
caribou, while several others stated that there is a need for a
contemporary review and revision of caribou

[[Page 52644]]

taxonomy (Geist 2007; COSEWIC 2011, p. 10), and that the Banfield
definition is outdated and should no longer be used. Other commenters
suggested that the COSEWIC (2011, p. 49) definition is the best
available definition at the present time, and one commenter implicitly
questioned our DPS analysis by asserting there is no such thing as a
``mountain caribou'' and that there is no differentiation among caribou
(i.e., all caribou are alike).
Our Response: As noted in our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR
26504), while caribou taxonomy continues to be subject to debate,
Banfield's (1961) taxonomic grouping of woodland caribou is still
currently widely accepted. Thus, until a scientifically accepted and
peer-reviewed revision to the taxonomic classification of the
subspecies of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) is completed, it is
appropriate to rely on Banfield 1961. We believe that until such a
review is completed, Banfield (1961) represents the currently best
available science on the taxonomic classification for the subspecies of
caribou in North America. Additionally, COSEWIC's 2011 report that
established 12 ``Designatable Units'' of caribou in Canada is not
analogous to and should not be construed with a taxonomic analysis at
the species or subspecies level. Canada's criteria for establishing
Designatable Units (DU) allows consideration of separate and discrete
populations of species where the individually discrete population is
evolutionarily significant to the overall taxon (species). Thus, under
COSEWIC, a DU is not dissimilar to our DPS policy, except that, whereas
our DPS analysis considers threats when establishing a DPS, COSEWIC,
when establishing a DU, does not. However, regardless of whether
Banfield's (1961) taxonomic classification for the subspecies of
caribou in North America is used or COSEWIC's grouping of caribou in
North America is used as the gauge for assessing the discreteness and
significance of the southern mountain caribou DPS relative to caribou
in North America, the southern mountain caribou meets the discreteness
and significance criteria for identifying it as a DPS under our DPS
policy. For a discussion on the relevance of the biological grouping of
the southern mountain caribou as a DPS and its conformance to our DPS
policy, please refer to the DPS analysis contained in this final rule.
(67) Comment: We received a few comments regarding listing DPSs
under the Act. One commenter stated that the Service's decision on the
Bonner County and Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA) petition to
delist the Selkirk caribou subpopulation (Rangifer tarandus caribou)
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (discussed below)
is insufficient and inconsistent with the Act. Some commenters stated
that the Act only allows listing DPSs of species, and not subspecies,
while other commenters stated that the Act allows designating DPSs of
both species and subspecies.
Our Response: On May 14, 2012, we received a petition from the
Pacific Legal Foundation, representing Bonner County, Idaho, and ISSA
requesting that the Service delist the Selkirk caribou subpopulation
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. 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 southern
Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou may not be a
listable entity under our 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996). We acknowledged that our analysis in the 2008 5-year review did
not consider the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland
caribou relative to the appropriate taxon allowable under our 1996 DPS
policy, the subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou).
Thus, the Service initiated a review of the status of the woodland
caribou subspecies to determine if delisting the southern Selkirk
Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou is warranted. Pursuant to
that review, on May 8, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79
FR 26504) a 12-month finding on the petition to delist the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou). In that 12-month finding, we stated that, upon review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we found that
delisting the species was not warranted, but rather, a revision to the
then current listed entity to define a DPS, consistent with our 1996
DPS policy, was appropriate. The Service acknowledges the commenter's
disagreement with the Service's determination in that matter.
Consistent with our determination, we proposed to amend the current
listing of the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland
caribou by defining the southern mountain caribou DPS, which includes
the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou, and
we proposed to designate the status of the southern mountain caribou
DPS as threatened under the Act.
The Service disagrees with the comment that only species, as
opposed to subspecies, can be listed as DPSs under the Act. The Act
defines a ``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'' (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). The Service has long interpreted the Act to authorize
designation of a DPS of both species and subspecies. The 1996 DPS
Policy explains the following: ``Restricting listings to full taxonomic
species would render the Act's definition of species, which explicitly
includes subspecies and DPS's of vertebrates, superfluous. Clearly, the
Act is intended to authorize listing of some entities that are not
accorded the taxonomic rank of species, and the Services are obliged to
interpret this authority in a clear and reasonable manner'' (61 FR
4722-4723; February 7, 1996). Consequently, the Service believes ``that
the authority to address DPS's extends to species in which subspecies
are recognized, since anything included in the taxon of lower rank is
also included in the higher ranking taxon'' (61 FR 4724; February 7,
1996). Courts have specifically found that listing a DPS of a
subspecies is a permissible construction of the Act (e.g., Center for
Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 274 Fed. Appx.
542, 545 *2 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (``FWS has interpreted
the ambiguous language of 16 U.S.C. 1532(16) to allow . . . listing [of
a DPS of a subspecies]. Because that is a permissible construction of
the statute, we must accord it deference.''); Defenders of Wildlife v.
Jewell, 176 F. Supp. 3d 975, 1110-11 (D. Mont. 2016) (The Service may
list a subspecies of a species as a DPS because ``[e]very species
necessarily subsumes its own subspecies, meaning that a DPS of a
subspecies is also a DPS of the larger species. Moreover, the Act
defines `species' to include subspecies, making mere reference to a
subspecies statutorily equivalent to referencing a species.''), appeal
dismissed (9th Cir. 16-35466) (Oct. 7, 2016)).
(68) Comment: One commenter stated that because various closure
orders and restrictions have not increased the presence of caribou in
the continental United States, caribou in the continental United States
should be declared extirpated and delisted. The commenter also stated
that a population of woodland caribou did not exist in the United
States at the time of listing in 1983, nor since listing, and that,
while several caribou were released in

[[Page 52645]]

northeastern Washington and northern Idaho in the 1980s and 1990s, all
released caribou either moved north into Canada due to lack of suitable
habitat or died from predation.
Our Response: We acknowledge that, to date, recovery of the Selkirk
Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation has not been achieved, and that
although 103 caribou were augmented into the subpopulation in the 1980s
and 1990s, this subpopulation is currently in decline. However, until
recently, this population was relatively stable and was experiencing
slight population growth. The augmentation efforts resulted in a fairly
stable population (Wakkinen et al. 2010, p. 2) that was slowly
increasing at a rate of approximately 7 percent (USFWS 2008, p. 18) in
the early 2000s, reaching an estimated population size of 46
individuals in 2008 and 2009. It began declining in 2010 (DeGroot 2014,
p. 5), likely due primarily to predation. We also acknowledge that,
based on the winter survey efforts, woodland caribou occurrence, and
use and distribution within the United States, appears limited. Based
on the winter census surveys, from zero to four caribou have been
observed in the United States since the surveys were initiated in 2001.
However, while it appears few caribou currently utilize habitat within
the United States, and that use appears close to the Canadian border,
the surveys are only designed and intended to facilitate population
trend monitoring. The winter surveys are not intended to, and do not,
indicate how extensively (both numbers of individuals and/or
distribution of those individuals) or when (i.e., during other times of
the season [e.g., summer]) caribou may use habitat within the United
States. Additionally, as individuals of this transboundary
subpopulation still exist, we are unable to consider this subpopulation
as extirpated. Furthermore, as this final rule concludes, the Selkirk
Mountain subpopulation of woodland caribou is part of the larger
southern mountain caribou DPS comprised of 15 extant subpopulations.
Thus, the entire southern mountain caribou DPS (i.e., all extant 15
subpopulations) would have to cease to exist before the Service could
consider the DPS as extinct/extirpated. However, the purposes of the
Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
and threatened species depend may be conserved. Although recovery
planning is beyond the scope of this listing decision, we are committed
to achieving the conservation and recovery of the DPS, as is required
by the Act.
At the time of listing, Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 27) documented
two woodland caribou bulls utilizing habitat near Little Snowy Top and
Upper Hughes Ridge in Idaho and Sullivan Creek in Washington. These two
bulls were part of the transboundary subpopulation occupying habitat in
the Selkirk Mountains of northeastern Washington, northwestern Idaho,
and southern British Columbia, Canada. Furthermore, 60 woodland caribou
were translocated into Ball Creek drainage, Boundary County, Idaho,
from 1987 to 1990 (Compton et al. 1995, p. 492), and 32 were
translocated into northeast Washington from 1996 to 1997 (Katnik 2002,
p. 5). As explained above, these caribou were part of the transboundary
Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation that continues to
persist today, and currently utilizes habitat within the United States
on a seasonal basis. We expect that successful conservation and
recovery of this subpopulation will result in substantially increased
frequency, distribution, and use of habitat by caribou within the
United States.
Regarding habitat suitability in the U.S. portion of the Selkirk
Mountains, results of habitat suitability modeling conducted by Kinley
and Apps (2007, pp. 24-25) indicate that there is sufficient high-
quality caribou habitat within the U.S. portion of the Selkirk
Mountains to support caribou foraging and reproduction. Thus, the
availability of high-quality caribou habitat is not currently limiting
the growth of this subpopulation. Rather, currently, we believe
predation is the overriding proximate factor driving the decline of
this population. Predator populations (primarily gray wolves and
mountain lions) have very likely benefited from the increased abundance
and distribution of prey species (deer, moose, elk) whose population
growth and expansion in the Selkirk Mountains have likely benefited
from the alteration and fragmentation of the older successional boreal
forest through fires (both natural and manmade) and historical
silvicultural practices to younger successional forests that these
species require. Increased abundance and distribution of these other
ungulate prey species (i.e., deer, moose, elk) likely support higher
numbers of predators endemic to this ecosystem (MCST 2005, pp. 4-5;
Bowman et al. 2010, p. 464; McLellan et al. 2012, p. 859; Wittmer et
al. 2005b, pp. 414-415) than would otherwise be naturally supported by
the older successional boreal forests. Higher numbers of predators
translates to increased predation pressure on caribou due to the
overlap of these other prey species habitats with caribou when the
predators opportunistically encounter caribou in the course of
searching for these other prey species. Thus, we believe that
alteration and fragmentation of the boreal forest landscape is the
primary driver that is currently supporting higher populations of
alternate prey species that support higher number of predators that in
turn have disproportionate predation impacts on caribou. It will likely
require greater than 150 years (greater than 16 generations of caribou)
of habitat protections for these early successional and fragmented
forests to develop the old-growth habitat characteristics (vegetative
structure and composition) (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1) that would
begin to restore the natural predator- prey balance of these high-
elevation, old-growth forests, and thus reduce predation pressure on
caribou.
(69) Comment: One commenter stated that there is scientific
evidence that refutes the connection of the Selkirk herd to the
Canadian population of caribou, so delisting the southern Selkirk
Mountains woodland caribou is not justified. The commenter stated,
``every agency charged with tracking and maintaining caribou in the
United States and Canada agrees that there is absolutely no interaction
between the Southern Selkirk population and any others.''
Our Response: The best currently available science indicates that
the southern Selkirk Mountain transboundary subpopulation of woodland
caribou is largely isolated (geographically) from other woodland
caribou subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS (van
Oort et al. 2011, pp. 221-222; Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414) due to
human-caused habitat fragmentation and loss. Additionally, while we
determined that the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation is not a
listable entity under the Act in accordance with the Service's DPS
policy, we determined that the subpopulation is part of the larger
southern mountain caribou DPS, which is listable under the Act in
accordance with our DPS policy (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014). Upon review
of the status of and threats to the southern mountain caribou DPS,
which includes the southern Selkirk Mountain caribou subpopulation, we
determined that the DPS warrants listing under the Act as endangered.
(70) Comment: One commenter stated that maintaining secure caribou
habitat in Canada and connectivity between the

[[Page 52646]]

United States and Canada is essential to the survival of the southern
Selkirk Mountain subpopulation.
Our Response: Acknowledging the importance of maintaining secure
and effective habitat connectivity for caribou in the Selkirk Mountains
between the United States and Canada, the Service designated
approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of critical habitat for caribou
adjacent to the Canadian border in northeastern Washington and
northwestern Idaho on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042). Additionally,
Canada has protected 282,515 ac (114,330 ha) of Crown Lands from
further timber harvest within the Selkirk Mountains to support woodland
caribou conservation (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012, see p. 77 FR
71066), and the Nature Conservancy of Canada has also purchased
approximately 135,908 ac (55,000 ha) of the former Darkwoods property
located within the Selkirk Mountains in British Columbia and halted all
logging activities in woodland caribou habitat (77 FR 71042, November
28, 2012, see p. 77 FR 71066). The Nature Conservancy lands are
essentially surrounded by the protected Crown Lands described above.
Thus, the critical habitat designated in the United States adjacent to
the border with Canada, together with the protected land adjacent to
the border in Canada, comprises approximately 448,443 ac (181,478 ha)
of secured and connected habitat that will be managed to support
current and future caribou habitat use and movement between the United
States and Canada, facilitating the conservation and recovery of the
species.
Transplant/Recovery
(71) Comment: We received many comments pertaining to caribou
recovery efforts both within the United States and Canada. Several
commenters referred to successes and failures of Canada's past,
current, and future recovery methods ranging from transplants, maternal
penning, wolf sterilization, etc. A couple of commenters suggested that
the recovery plan should be improved. One commenter referred to a
recent statement from Environment Canada that ``Recovery of all
southern mountain caribou local population units is technically and
biologically feasible.'' The commenter stated the Service should not
scale back recovery efforts or send the message that mountain caribou
have no chance of survival in the United States. One commenter
suggested that recovery planning should consider identifying and
setting aside ``lowland matrix habitat'' for caribou. One commenter
suggested that both the United States and Canada's recovery planning
efforts are inadequate as evidenced by the continued declines of
woodland caribou populations. The commenter suggested that additional
habitat protections are needed, including banning all old-growth
logging, increased restrictions on snowmobile access, and
identification of matrix habitat. One commenter suggested that
industrial land uses should be curtailed within the recovery area. One
commenter expressed concern that the Service has never implemented a
recovery plan. Another commenter stated that if we do not take recovery
actions now, the last herd of caribou in the contiguous United States
will be extirpated. Another commenter stated it is too late to recover
caribou. Finally, one commenter requested that the counties potentially
affected by recovery planning for caribou (i.e., Boundary and Bonner
Counties) be allowed to participate in the recovery planning.
Our Response: Recovery of the southern mountain caribou DPS is
biologically feasible. Population augmentation, maternal penning,
predator management, and habitat protection are, without limitation,
examples of methods that can be utilized to achieve recovery of this
DPS. Recovery is likely to require the implementation of a combination
of methods. Although recovery planning is beyond the scope of this
listing decision, we are committed to achieving the conservation and
recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To that end, the
Service will actively coordinate and participate in the development of
a recovery plan with our partners within the United States (e.g., WDFW,
IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our Canadian partners (e.g.,
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource
Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others). The recovery plan will
identify management needs and population goals for achieving recovery.
The Service will apprise the public regarding the development of a
recovery plan, as well as specific opportunities to review and provide
comment on a draft recovery plan prior to its finalization.
Regarding the comment that we have never implemented a recovery
plan, we assume the comment pertains to woodland caribou. We first
developed a recovery plan for the previously listed southern Selkirk
Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou in 1985 (USFWS 1985) and
updated the recovery plan in 1994 (USFWS 1994a). Several of the 1994
recovery plan's recommended actions were implemented. For example, one
of the plan's objectives was to manage for an increasing population. To
accomplish that objective, two separate augmentation efforts
transplanted 103 caribou into the southern Selkirk Mountains in the
1980s and 1990s from source populations farther north in British
Columbia, Canada. These augmentation efforts resulted in a fairly
stable population (Wakkinen et al. 2010, p. 2) that was slowly
increasing at a rate of approximately 7 percent (USFWS 2008, p. 18) in
the early 2000s, reaching an estimated population size of 46
individuals in 2008 and 2009. It began declining in 2010 (DeGroot 2014,
p. 5), likely due primarily to predation.
(72) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should employ
more stringent conservation measures, including restricting recreation
use in the southern Selkirk Mountain recovery area.
Our Response: Management of lands within the recovery area is not
under the purview of the Service. However, as is required by the Act,
the Service is committed to the conservation and recovery of this DPS.
To that end, we will work with our Federal, State, Tribal, and Canadian
land management partners to develop and implement appropriate
conservation plans, including recreational management plans, to
facilitate the conservation and recovery of this DPS.
(73) Comment: One commenter, referencing several studies
documenting separate caribou populations altering movements within
their home range and/or temporarily abandoning portions of their home
range during population increases and declines over many decades,
suggested that full occupation of the southern Selkirk Mountain caribou
subpopulation recovery area may similarly take many years as the
subpopulation slowly expands (number of caribou in the subpopulation
increases). Thus, the commenter suggested that planning must be
initiated now to ensure successful recovery and full occupation of the
U.S. Selkirk ecosystem occurs.
Our Response: Some of the available scientific information
indicates there is some annual variation in caribou home range use and
that portions of caribou home ranges may go unused for many years
(Freddy 1974, p. 15; Kelsall (1968) and Skoog (1968) in Freddy 1974, p.
15). Although recovery planning is beyond the scope of this listing
decision, we are committed to achieving the conservation and recovery
of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To that end, the Service will
actively coordinate and participate in the development of a

[[Page 52647]]

recovery plan with our partners within the United States (e.g., WDFW,
IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our Canadian partners (e.g.,
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource
Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others). The recovery plan will
identify management needs and population goals for achieving recovery
of this transboundary DPS.
(74) Comment: One commenter stated that even though caribou have
been transported and reintroduced into the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho
and Washington, nothing has changed; the transplanted caribou died
naturally, were eaten by predators, or migrated back to Canada. The
commenter stated that the caribou were reintroduced around the same
time that grizzly bears were introduced into the area and that wolf
packs are increasing in the area after being reintroduced, implying
that predation by these species has hampered recovery efforts.
Our Response: We acknowledge that, to date, recovery of the Selkirk
Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation has not been achieved, and that
although 103 caribou were augmented into the subpopulation in the 1980s
and 1990s, this subpopulation is currently in decline. However, until
recently, this subpopulation was relatively stable and was experiencing
slight population growth. The augmentation efforts resulted in a fairly
stable population (Wakkinen et al. 2010, p. 2) that was slowly
increasing at a rate of approximately 7 percent (USFWS 2008, p. 18) in
the early 2000s, reaching an estimated population size of 46
individuals in 2008 and 2009. It began declining in 2010 (DeGroot 2014,
p. 5), likely due primarily to predation.
Grizzly bears have not been reintroduced or augmented into the
Selkirk Mountains in Idaho or Washington. The Selkirk Ecosystem
currently supports a low density grizzly bear population, but the
species has always occurred in this area. Likewise, gray wolves have
not been reintroduced into the Selkirk Mountains in Idaho or
Washington. Wolves were reintroduced into central Idaho and Yellowstone
National Park in 1994, as nonessential experimental populations in
accordance with the Service's final environmental impact statement
(FEIS; USFWS 1994b, entire). The Service's FEIS identified that, over a
timeframe of 15 years prior to 1994, wolves had naturally recolonized
northwest Montana as a result of natural dispersal from Canada (USFWS
1994b, p. vi). Thus, it is likely that recolonization of the Selkirk
Mountains by wolves is a result of dispersal of wolves from farther
north in Canada and/or northwest Montana. However, we acknowledge that
currently predation by primarily wolves, but to a lesser extent grizzly
bears and mountain lions, is likely affecting the status of caribou in
the Selkirk Mountains. While recovery planning is beyond the scope of
this listing decision, the Service will work with our partners within
the United States (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our
Canadian partners (e.g., British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands,
and Natural Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others) to develop
appropriate conservation measures addressing predation, among other
threats, that potentially affect the continued existence of this DPS.
(75) Comment: One commenter questioned the use of Kinley and Apps
(2007) to establish habitat management standards for caribou recovery
because the document has not been subject to independent review. The
commenter also suggested that fragmentation of the ecosystem by major
transportation corridors and industrial-scale land uses must be
considered when undertaking recovery planning.
Our Response: The Act requires the Service to make a decision based
solely on the best scientific and commercial data information
available. We consider Kinley and Apps (2007) to be the best available
data. Please see our response to Comment (43) for an explanation of
what information we may consider. Additionally, the analysis under
Factor A in this rule identifies that major highways (e.g., Trans-
Canada Highway 3) and industrial-scale land uses (e.g., mining) are
threats to the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou
DPS. Although recovery planning is beyond the scope of this listing
decision, the Service will work with our partners within the United
States (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our Canadian
partners (e.g., British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and
Natural Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others) to develop
appropriate conservation measures addressing these threats, among other
threats, that potentially affect the continued existence of this DPS
(see our response to Comment (74)).
(76) Comment: One commenter questioned the Service's reliance on a
private entity's (The Nature Conservancy) ownership of land towards
contributing to the recovery of caribou in southern British Columbia,
as there are no legal regulations requiring the private entity to
manage the land for caribou.
Our Response: The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) is Canada's
leading national land conservation organization that acquires natural
areas for the protection of their intrinsic value and for the benefit
of mankind. The NCC has a long-documented and proven history (dating
back to the 1960s) of acquiring, protecting, and managing natural
areas, and has helped conserve more than 1.1 million ha (2.8 million
ac) of ecologically significant land in Canada (NCC 2011, p. 20). The
NCC has developed, has published, and is implementing the Darkwoods
Conservation Area, Property Management Plan that contains these goals,
among others, for woodland caribou (NCC 2011, p. 5): (1) Restore and
maintain mountain caribou habitat and movement; (2) restrict human
access to core mountain caribou and grizzly bear habitat; and (3)
restore and maintain old-forest attributes in old-growth and young
cedar-hemlock forests. The Service believes that it is appropriate to
take NCC's conservation efforts towards caribou population restoration
into account, along with the efforts of others, as appropriate.
Take
(77) Comment: One commenter stated that the legislative history
explains that it was Congress's express intent to only regulate purely
private behavior for those species facing an immediate risk of
extinction and, thus, only apply the take prohibition to endangered
species as a whole, and selectively for threatened species on an
individual basis, provided that the Service determined it necessary and
advisable. The commenter also stated that by proposing to list the
southern mountain caribou DPS as threatened under the Act, the Service
did not identify that section 9 take prohibitions would be extended to
the DPS.
Our Response: In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we
identified that the regulatory protections of section 9 of the Act
(including take prohibitions) are largely the same for species listed
as endangered or threatened (see p. 79 FR 26533). This is true for the
following reason. In accordance with section 4(d) of the Act, by
regulation, the Service may extend the protections afforded endangered
species to species listed as threatened. Regulations codified at 50 CFR
17.31(a) extended the section 9 take prohibitions for endangered
species to species listed as threatened, except where the Service
develops and implements a 4(d) rule in accordance with regulations
codified at 50 CFR 17.31(c), in which case the 4(d)

[[Page 52648]]

rule will contain all the prohibitions and exceptions applicable to the
listed threatened species. In this case, for our proposed amended
listing of the southern mountain caribou DPS as threatened, we did not
propose to implement a 4(d) rule. Thus, all protections applicable to
an endangered species (including take) were intended to be extended to
the proposed amended listing of the southern mountain caribou DPS as
threatened. However, this is a moot point, as pursuant to peer review,
public comments, and our additional analysis of all the science
pertaining to this DPS, we determined that the status of and threats to
this DPS warrant listing it as endangered.
Critical Habitat
(78) Comment: We received numerous comments regarding critical
habitat. Some commenters suggested that we were proposing to decrease
the critical habitat designation from 375,562 acres (151,985 ha) to
30,010 ac (12,145 ha) in the May 8, 2014, proposed amended listing
rule. Some commenters indicated agreement with our proposal to reaffirm
the final critical habitat designation, while others disagreed with
this proposal. Many commenters believe the critical habitat designation
of 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) is inadequate and suggested the original
proposal of 375,562 ac (151,985 ha) would be more appropriate. Several
commenters believe the data used to delineate the 30,010 ac (12,145 ha)
was not reliable due to lack of scientific observation and records, and
the historical range of caribou in Idaho and Washington extended much
farther than the current designation of critical habitat. One commenter
implied that the reduction from the proposed acreage of 375,562
(151,985 ha) to the final acreage of 30,010 (12,145 ha) occurred
because the Service determined that the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation did not qualify as a DPS unto itself but was part of the
larger southern mountain caribou DPS composed of several
subpopulations. Another commenter stated that the Service reduced the
protection status of the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation (i.e.,
changed from endangered to threatened) to facilitate reducing the
recovery area by 90 percent, leaving most of the critical habitat in
Washington State. Another commenter stated that in reducing the
critical habitat recovery area by 90 percent, the Service essentially
abandoned the goal of caribou recovery.
Our Response: On November 30, 2011, we published a proposed rule
(76 FR 74018) to designate approximately 375,562 ac (151,985 ha) as
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of the
woodland caribou. On November 28, 2012, we published a final rule (77
FR 71042) designating approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 ha) of
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of
woodland caribou. Here we are simply reaffirming that decision for the
southern mountain caribou DPS; we are not altering (i.e., increasing or
decreasing) the acreage of critical habitat designated for the southern
Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou subpopulation in the November 28,
2012, final rule. Please see that final rule for a full discussion and
analysis of the rationale and reasons for the area and acreage of the
final critical habitat designation.
In the November 28, 2012, final rule, we based our final
designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou on the best available scientific
information. In that final rule, we determined that the majority of
habitat essential to the conservation of this subpopulation occurs 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. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) state that critical
habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other
areas outside of U.S. 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. We designated as critical habitat approximately 30,010
ac (12,145 ha) of land within Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille
County, Washington, that meet the definition of critical habitat (see
our response to Comment (15) for the definition of critical habitat).
Additionally, the Act does not require designation of critical
habitat throughout a listed species' historical range. The Act does
require that we propose and finalize critical habitat designations
concurrent with issuing proposed and final listing rules, respectively,
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designation of critical
habitat for listed species may include areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, as well as areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing. Areas occupied by the species at the time of listing and
designated as critical habitat must contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protections. The Service
may designate specific areas not occupied by the species at the time of
listing, but only to the extent that such areas are determined
essential for the conservation of the species.
Regarding occupancy at the time of emergency listing in 1983 (48 FR
1722, January 14, 1983) and final listing in 1984 (49 FR 7390, February
29, 1984), neither of these rules defined ``occupancy.'' The original
area of occupancy (375,562 ac (151,985 ha)) identified in the November
30, 2011, proposed critical habitat rule (76 FR 74018) was based on the
1983 emergency listing and 1984 final listing rule descriptions of
``approximate area of utilization'' (48 FR 1722) and ``area of normal
utilization'' (49 FR 7390), which we equated to mean ``occupancy at the
time of listing.'' However, peer review comments submitted on the
proposed critical habitat rule caused us to reexamine the basis of our
analysis pertaining to the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing in 1983 and 1984. Based on the reexamination, we
considered the studies conducted by Scott and Servheen (1984 and 1985)
to be the most definitive with regard to establishing the area occupied
by the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation of woodland caribou at
the time of listing in 1983 and 1984. Scott and Servheen, who conducted
their studies on this subpopulation of woodland caribou from 1983 to
1984, documented extensive use by caribou of habitat in British
Columbia in drainages just north and adjacent to B.C. Highway 3. In
contrast, they documented use of habitat in the United States by only
two bull caribou located near Little Snowy Top and Upper Hughes Ridge
in Idaho, and Sullivan Creek in Washington (Scott and Servheen 1984, p.
19). Caribou were not documented any farther south within Washington or
Idaho during the course of helicopter and ground tracking surveys.
Consequently, we determined that the area generally depicted in Scott
and Servheen (1984, p. 27) as the area that was occupied by this
subpopulation of caribou at the time they were listed in 1983 and 1984.
The area actually designated as critical habitat for this subpopulation
(30,010 ac (12,145 ha)) was adjusted for elevation and habitat use
based on seasonal habitat suitability modeling (see 77 FR 71063-71064,
November 28, 2012). The Service determined that areas within the United
States not occupied by this subpopulation at the time of listing were
not essential for the conservation of the

[[Page 52649]]

species (see 77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012, for a complete discussion
on this topic).
Furthermore, designation of critical habitat for the southern
Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou occurred well
before we undertook the DPS analysis for this species. Thus, our
determination that the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou
subpopulation was not a DPS had no bearing on the final critical
habitat designation. However, because the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation is part of the southern mountain caribou DPS, and is the
only subpopulation within this DPS that occurs within the United States
and where we have the authority to designate critical habitat, we
reaffirm our November 28, 2012, final designation of critical habitat
for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (77
FR 71042, November 28, 2012) as critical habitat for the southern
mountain caribou DPS.
Finally, the final critical habitat designation of 30,010 ac
(12,145 ha) did not affect or reduce the size of the existing recovery
area (also known as the recovery zone) boundary, and did not signal
that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not
contribute to the recovery of the species. As stated previously, the
purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved, to
provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and
threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to
achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in
section 2(a) of the Act. Although recovery planning is beyond the scope
of this listing decision, we are committed to achieving the
conservation and recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. Please
see our response to Comment (15) for more information on this topic.
(79) Comment: One commenter questioned why critical habitat was not
designated in other States in the lower 48 States where caribou
historically occurred (i.e., Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). The commenter suggested the Service
has not studied all historical caribou ranges and critical habitat
should have been designated in these other States.
Our Response: See our analysis under Evaluation of the Southern
Mountain Caribou as a Distinct Population Segment and our response to
Comment (78). Additionally, the range of the southern Selkirk Mountain
subpopulation of woodland caribou only encompasses the States of
Washington and Idaho within the United States. While individuals of the
woodland caribou subspecies historically occurred in other States
within the United States, these individuals were most likely part of
other subpopulations of woodland caribou, separate from the southern
Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou subpopulation.
(80) Comment: One commenter asserted that, if the Service maintains
the listing, it must analyze the impacts that the listing has on
communities, residents, and businesses before regulating take or
critical habitat.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 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, the Secretary
may determine whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. The Act does not provide any language allowing the
consideration of economic impacts when making listing decisions for
species; listing decisions must be made solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A))
pertaining to the biological status of and threats to the persistence
of the species in question. The Act does require, however, the
consideration of economic impacts when making decisions to designate
critical habitat for listed species.
Relative to this DPS, we completed an economic analysis on the
designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou in accordance with section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. We announced availability of the draft economic analysis for
review, and reopened a 30-day public comment period to take comment on
the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical
habitat, on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32075). We published the final economic
analysis, which incorporated comments received on the draft economic
analysis during the public comment period, concurrently with the final
rule designating critical habitat for southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042).
The May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504) to amend the listing of
the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou to the
southern mountain caribou DPS stated that we are ``reaffirming'' our
November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation. As such, the
final economic analysis completed for the designation of critical
habitat in 2012 (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012) is incorporated by
reference into this final determination for the southern mountain
caribou DPS. Please see the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat
rule (77 FR 71042) for an analysis of the economic impacts associated
with the designation of critical habitat that is applicable to this DPS
listing. Subsequent to that final critical habitat rule, and the
reopening of the comment period on April 19, 2016 (81 FR 22961), for
the final critical habitat rule in response to the March 23, 2015,
court order to address a procedural error, the Service has not received
any additional or new economic information or data. Additionally,
because we are simply ``reaffirming'' a critical habitat designation
for which an economic analysis was completed, it is not necessary to
complete a new economic analysis.
(81) Comment: One commenter suggested that because the take
prohibition does not apply to threatened species, it is inappropriate
to conduct an incremental effects analysis for assessing economic
impacts stemming from critical habitat designations for species listed
as, or proposed to be listed as, threatened. Several commenters stated
that an economic impact analysis for the 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of
critical habitat in Boundary and Pend Oreille Counties was not included
in the proposed rule. One commenter stated that because critical
habitat designations must be made ``on the basis of the best scientific
data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact,
the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat'' (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(2)), the Service should include an economic impact analysis in
the final rule. Several commenters referenced the economic analysis
commissioned by Bonner County and Idaho State Snowmobile Association
(ISSA), stating that the analysis demonstrates the detrimental effect

[[Page 52650]]

continued regulation will have on the local economy, in contrast to the
Service's economic analysis.
Our Response: Regarding the take prohibition for threatened
species, refer to our response to Comment (77) that discusses the
applicability of take prohibitions to endangered and threatened
species. Regarding the economic analysis, see our response to Comment
(80). Furthermore, we disagree that it is inappropriate to conduct
incremental effects analyses when designating critical habitat for
threatened species. The Act does not require or stipulate that critical
habitat analyses should be conducted differently for endangered species
versus threatened species. The Act simply requires that economic
impacts be considered when making critical habitat designations for
endangered or threatened species, but does not define or describe how
such analyses should be conducted or what should be considered within
the context of the analysis.
Regarding the economic analysis commissioned by Bonner County and
ISSA, the analysis was based on the impacts to the economies within the
area proposed for designation as critical habitat (approximately
375,562 acres (151,985 ha)) and not on the area actually designated as
critical habitat (approximately 30, 010 acres (12,145 ha)), a reduction
of 345,552 ac (139,839 ha). Additionally, the area designated as
critical habitat is comprised entirely of National Forest lands (CNF,
IPNF, and the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area); there are no non-Federal
(i.e., State or private) lands contained within the area designated as
critical habitat. Within the area designated as critical habitat, the
CNF and IPNF have routinely conducted section 7 consultations with the
Service on the effects of their actions upon woodland caribou
(including their habitat) since the species was listed under the Act in
1984 (emergency listing in 1983, final listing in 1984). Consequently,
the only economic impacts that would accrue due solely to the critical
habitat designation are minor and incremental to Federal agencies
(i.e., CNF, IPNF) resulting from additional administrative costs
associated with section 7 consultation to consider the effects of
Federal actions upon critical habitat.
(82) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should exclude
any areas from critical habitat designation where the burden associated
with the designation would exceed the benefits. The commenter suggested
the economic analysis commissioned by Bonner County and ISSA
demonstrated the significant costs to local communities that the
Service should consider when determining whether certain areas should
be excluded from critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to
exclude an area from designation as critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure
to designate such area as critical habitat would result in the
extinction of the species concerned. As stated previously, in the May
8, 2014, proposed amended listing rule (79 FR 26504), we are
``reaffirming'' our November 28, 2012, final critical habitat
designation (77 FR 71042) wherein the Secretary did not exclude any
areas from designation as critical habitat. Thus, in this final listing
determination for the southern mountain caribou DPS, no areas were
excluded from designation as critical habitat. Regarding the economic
analysis commissioned by Bonner County and ISSA, see our response to
Comment (81), and for a more complete discussion on exclusions, refer
to the Exclusions section of our final critical habitat designation (77
FR 71042, November 28, 2012, see p. 77 FR 71076).
(83) Comment: One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to
``reaffirm'' critical habitat that was designated for the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (i.e., previously
listed entity) to the southern mountain caribou DPS, as the newly
listed DPS is not the same listed entity upon which the critical
habitat designation was based. Another commenter stated the Service
cannot accurately determine or establish critical habitat for the
southern mountain caribou DPS without listing them as endangered, or
before the International Recovery Plan, contracted out to the Tribe by
the Service, is completed.
Our Response: The southern mountain caribou DPS is composed of 15
extant subpopulations, including the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation. All subpopulations, except the southern Selkirk
Mountains subpopulation, occur entirely within British Columbia,
Canada; the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation is a transboundary
population that occurs in both the United States (in northeastern
Washington and northwestern Idaho) and in British Columbia, Canada.
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) state that critical habitat shall not
be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of
U.S. 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. Thus,
the only critical habitat designation that can be considered for the
southern mountain caribou DPS is the same area that met the definition
of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation.
On November 28, 2012, we published a final rule (77 FR 71042)
designating critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou that we found to meet the definition
of critical habitat as described in our response to Comment (15). 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, and that may require special
management considerations or protection. 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 formerly listed southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou, and the geographical area in the
United States occupied by this transboundary subpopulation of woodland
caribou at the time of listing remains unchanged, the resulting area in
the United States that meets the definition of critical habitat for the
southern mountain caribou DPS 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 November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation
(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 that should be included. Therefore, we
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.
Relative to designating critical habitat for endangered versus
threatened species, section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat for both endangered and

[[Page 52651]]

threatened species. Also, the Service need not wait for completion of a
recovery plan before making a critical habitat determination. To the
contrary, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires designation of critical
habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, concurrently
with making a listing determination. Section 4(f) of the Act requires
the Service to develop recovery plans for listed species, unless the
plans will not promote the conservation of the species; the Act does
not specify a time constraint for development of recovery plans.
(84) Comment: One commenter suggested that comments from the State
of Idaho objecting to the designation of State endowment lands, managed
by the Idaho Department of Lands, as critical habitat, as was
originally proposed, must be viewed in light of the State's fiduciary
responsibility to maximize the return from the management of said lands
to the trust beneficiaries.
Our Response: The area designated as critical habitat was based on
the area occupied by caribou at the time of listing as depicted by
Scott and Servheen (1984, p. 27), and does not contain any State
endowment lands. Furthermore, the decision not to designate any other
areas not occupied by caribou at the time of listing (i.e., the State
endowment lands contained within the recovery zone boundary) was based
on our determination that such lands were not essential to the
conservation of the species. Because we determined that the area
administered as State endowment lands was not essential to the
conservation of the species, the State's comments pertaining to the
economic importance of the area to the State or economic impacts
stemming from critical habitat designation of said area had no bearing
on our final decision. See the final critical habitat determination (77
FR 71042, November 28, 2012) for a full discussion and analysis of the
rationale and reasons for the area and acreage of the final critical
habitat designation.
(85) Comment: One commenter stated that designating 30,010 ac
(12,145 ha) as critical habitat will preclude other uses, including
recreation and resource conservation activities, with no real benefit
to caribou.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a wilderness area, preserve or wildlife
refuge, nor does it open or restrict an area to human access or use. In
this case, the area designated as critical habitat for the southern
mountain caribou DPS is entirely composed of Federal land, the majority
of which is situated with the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area in
Washington State, and the remainder is either administered by the CNF
or the IPNF. Both the CNF and IPNF have LRMPS that contain standards
and guidelines addressing control and management of recreational and
resource conservation activities within caribou habitat, both within
the area designated as critical habitat as well as the existing Selkirk
Mountain Caribou Recovery Zone, in which the designated critical
habitat is contained. Thus, through implementation of their LRMPs, both
the CNF and INPF currently implement extensive measures to protect
caribou and their habitat. We have no information that would indicate
this designation of critical habitat will result in the closure of
areas to public access or result in restrictions to currently
permissible activities, including recreation and resource conservation
activities.
(86) Comment: One commenter stated that closing ``these areas''
will prevent timber and wildfire management, and adversely affect the
ability of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) to do its job along the
Canadian border.
Our Response: We assume the commenter is referring to the
designation of critical habitat in the Selkirk Mountains for the
southern mountain caribou DPS when referencing ``these areas.'' See our
response to Comment (85).
Regarding USBP activities, the designation of critical habitat in
the Selkirk Mountains for the southern mountain caribou DPS would not
restrict, regulate, or determine the ability of the USBP to operate in
close proximity to the U.S. border. Within caribou habitat, the USBP
operates, for the most part, on National Forest System lands and its
existing roads and trails. The March 31, 2006, Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of
Homeland Security, and Secretary of Agriculture Regarding Cooperative
National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands Along
the U.S. Borders commits the agencies to preventing illegal entry into
the United States, protecting Federal lands and natural and cultural
resources, and where possible, preventing adverse impacts associated
with illegal entry by cross-border-violators (CBVs). The intent of the
MOU is to provide consistent goals, principles, and guidance related to
border security such as law enforcement operations; tactical
infrastructure installation; utilization of roads; minimization and/or
prevention of significant impact on or impairment of natural and
cultural resources; and implementation of the Wilderness Act,
Endangered Species Act, and other related environmental laws,
regulations, and policies across land management agencies. The MOU is
also intended to facilitate coordination and sharing information on
threat assessments and other risks, plans for infrastructure and
technology improvements on Federal lands, and operational and law
enforcement staffing changes. Through this 2006 MOU, and local groups
such as the Spokane Sector Borderlands Management Task Force, the three
departments are cooperating to understand, respect, and accomplish
their respective missions. The MOU includes provisions for Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) vehicle motor operations on existing public and
administrative roads and/or trails and in areas previously designated
by the land management agency for off-road vehicle use at any time,
provided that such use is consistent with presently authorized public
or administrative use. It also includes provisions for CBP requests for
access to additional Federal lands (e.g., areas not previously
designated by the land management agency for off-road use) for such
purposes as routine patrols, nonemergency operational access, and
establishment of temporary camps or other operational activities. The
MOU states, ``Nothing in this MOU is intended to prevent CBP-BP agents
from exercising existing exigent/emergency authorities to access lands,
including authority to conduct motorized off-road pursuit of suspected
CBVs at any time, including in areas designated or recommended as
wilderness, or in wilderness study areas when, in their professional
judgment based on articulated facts, there is a specific exigency/
emergency involving human life, health, safety of persons within the
area, or posing a threat to national security, and they conclude that
such motorized off-road pursuit is reasonably expected to result in the
apprehension of the suspected CBVs.'' Accordingly, there is no
verifiable information that would suggest the designation of critical
habitat in the Selkirk Mountains for the southern mountain caribou DPS
would affect CBP operations.
(87) Comment: One commenter stated that because the vast majority
of habitat for this DPS is found in Canada, the commenter agreed with
our use of existing management and protection of caribou habitat in
Canada in our critical habitat determination for this DPS relative to
the United States.
Our Response: We acknowledge this comment.

[[Page 52652]]

(88) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service consider the
needs of long-time local residents of Boundary, Bonner, and Pend
Oreille Counties to log, hunt, and forage for their subsistence when
deciding what land is needed to preserve the woodland caribou as a
species.
Our Response: In the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat
determination (77 FR 71042), we based our final designation of critical
habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland
caribou on the best available scientific information, including
comments and information received from peer reviewers, Federal and
State agencies, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe of
Indians, and the general public, and after taking into consideration,
as required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of the
critical habitat designation. All of the areas designated as critical
habitat in the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat determination
(77 FR 71042), as reaffirmed in this final rule, contain the physical
or biological features (PBFs) and habitat characteristics essential to
conserve the species. Again, the designation of critical habitat does
not affect land ownership or establish a wilderness area, preserve or
wildlife refuge, nor does it open or restrict an area to human access
or use. Refer to the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section
in the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat determination (77 FR
71042, see pp. 77 FR 71071-71073) for more information.
(89) Comment: One commenter asserted that the final critical
habitat rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the Act because
the Service failed to demonstrate how protecting the area that supports
the existing small population of caribou in the southern Selkirk
Mountains will allow the population to expand in size and geographic
distribution, which the Service has repeatedly stated, is necessary for
recovery. Another commenter stated that there is no support in the
record to show that management of Canadian lands plus the small amount
of critical habitat in the United States is sufficient to recover the
southern Selkirk Mountains caribou subpopulation.
Our Response: Our critical habitat designation is consistent with
the purposes of the Act. The Service can only designate critical
habitat within the United States (50 CFR 424.12(g)) that we consider to
have been occupied at the time of listing, and that provides the PBFs
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protections; the Service may also
designate areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing provided that such areas are determined
essential for the conservation of the species (see our response to
Comment (15)).
In the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat determination (77
FR 71042), which the Service proposed to reaffirm in our May 8, 2014,
proposal to amend the listing of the southern mountain caribou DPS (79
FR 26504), the Service based our final designation of critical habitat
for the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou on
the best available scientific information. As we stated in our final
critical habitat rule (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012, see p. 77 FR
71064), our analysis of that information led us to conclude that, for
reasons not fully understood, this subpopulation of caribou appears to
be primarily dependent upon the availability of habitat in British
Columbia. We concluded that the majority of habitat essential to the
conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of
woodland caribou occurs in British Columbia, Canada, and the U.S.
portion of the habitat used by the caribou makes an essential
contribution to the conservation of the species. We determined that the
30,010 ac (12,145 ha) designated as critical habitat within the Selkirk
Mountains in the United States, combined with the amount of habitat
protected and managed for woodland caribou within Canada, meets the
amount of habitat recommended to be secured and enhanced in the 1994
recovery plan (443,000 ac, (179,000 ha)) to support a recovered
population (USFWS 1994, pp. 28, 30-31). As we noted in the final
critical habitat rule (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012, see p. 77 FR
71066), Canada has protected 282,515 ac (114,330 ha) of Crown Lands
from further timber harvest within the Selkirk Mountains to support
woodland caribou conservation (DeGroot 2012, pers. comm.), and the NCC
has purchased and is managing approximately 135,908 ac (55,000 ha) of
the former Darkwoods property located within the Selkirk Mountains in
British Columbia for caribou (The NCC 2011, p. 4; DeGroot 2012, pers.
comm.). These acres in Canada, when added together with the U.S. acres
of designated critical habitat, provides approximately 448,443 ac
(181,478 ha) of habitat protected within the Selkirk Mountains for
woodland caribou conservation. Additionally, areas in the United States
designated as critical habitat for the species are immediately adjacent
to, and contiguous with, the Crown Lands protected in Canada for
woodland caribou conservation. The protection of these connected
habitats in the United States and British Columbia is intended to
facilitate the expansion of this subpopulation (both geographic
distribution and number of individuals) as well as continued woodland
caribou movement and seasonal habitat use and other behaviors that this
population currently and historically exhibited.
Finally, while recovery planning is outside the scope of this
listing decision, we are committed to achieving the conservation and
recovery of the DPS, as is required by the Act. The Service also
acknowledges that the existing 1994 recovery plan that is specific to
the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of this DPS is outdated.
The Service will actively coordinate and participate in the development
of a recovery plan with our partners within the United States (e.g.,
WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our Canadian partners (e.g.,
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource
Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others) to address recovery of this
DPS. The Service will apprise the public regarding the development of a
recovery plan, as well as specific opportunities to review and provide
comment on a draft recovery plan prior to its finalization.
(90) Comment: One commenter referred to a 2009 U.S. District of
Arizona court case involving critical habitat for the jaguar (Panthera
onca) where the court remanded a decision by the Service not to
designate critical habitat in the United States for the jaguar (Center
for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 607 F.Supp.2d 1078 (D. Ariz
2009); CV 07-372 TUC JMR; CV 08-335-TUC JMR), and suggested a similar
reasoning found by the court to remand the decision to the Service is
applicable to our final critical habitat determination for caribou. The
commenter also referred to another court case (Center for Biological
Diversity v. Army Corps of Engineers, CV 03-29-M-DWM (D. Mont. May 25,
2005)) wherein the Plaintiff prevailed in its challenge to the
Service's decision not to designate unoccupied habitat as critical
habitat for the Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus;
sturgeon).''
Our Response: The underlying facts of the final critical habitat
determination for caribou are dissimilar from the referenced court
cases. In the jaguar case, the Service did not designate

[[Page 52653]]

critical habitat in the United States that was occupied by the species
when it was listed under the Act. Essentially, in the jaguar case, the
Service determined that even though a few jaguars were likely utilizing
habitat in the United States on, at least, an intermittent basis,
designation of critical habitat was not prudent because the small
amount of habitat (constituting potentially less than 1 percent of the
jaguar's current range) potentially used by the species in the United
States did not contribute significantly to their survival or recovery;
the Service determined there were no areas in the United States,
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that were essential to
the conservation of the species. The court found these reasons to be
not compelling and remanded the decision to the Service. In contrast,
in the final caribou critical habitat determination (77 FR 71042,
November 28, 2012), the Service designated critical habitat in the
United States for the species in the area that was occupied by the
species at the time it was listed.
In the sturgeon case, plaintiffs argued that the area designated as
critical habitat did not contain the primary constituent elements (now
referred to as the physical and biological features (PBFs)) identified
in the final critical habitat rule and suggested that the Service
should designate as critical habitat areas that were currently not
known to be occupied by sturgeon but that contained the PBFs; the
lacking PBFs pertained to spawning substrate. The judge agreed and
remanded the case to the Service for reconsideration. It should be
noted that when the area was originally designated as critical habitat
the Service believed the area did, in fact, provide the spawning
substrate PBF. However, through new science generated subsequent to the
final critical habitat determination, the Service learned that the
designated critical habitat did not provide spawning substrate.
Consequently, the Service re-evaluated the critical habitat
determination, and designated the area unoccupied by sturgeon, but
available to them as critical habitat (73 FR 39506, July 9, 2008). In
contrast to facts the surgeon case, the area designated as critical
habitat for caribou provides the identified PBFs for caribou. Please
refer to the final critical habitat determination for a description of
the PBFs (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012, see p. 77 FR 71070).
In our final critical habitat rule (77 FR 71042, November 28,
2012), we determined that the 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of occupied,
designated critical habitat in the United States made an essential
contribution to the species conservation when added to the
approximately 418,423 ac (169,329 ha) of caribou habitat protected in
Canada. Furthermore, the caribou habitat designated as critical habitat
in the United States is adjacent to and contiguous with habitat in
Canada, such that movement and habitat use by individuals of this
population between the United States and Canada will be facilitated. We
also determined that currently unoccupied habitat in the United States,
which was historically part of the species' range, was not essential
for the species' conservation because, as we stated in that final rule,
the best available scientific information indicates that the range of
this population appears to have shifted northward. For reasons not
fully understood, the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland
caribou continues to utilize habitat in Canada to a greater extent than
would otherwise be expected based on habitat suitability modeling.
(91) Comment: One commenter challenged the Service's statement that
the 1994 recovery plan is outdated and no longer represents the best
available science regarding the essential conservation needs of the
southern Selkirk Mountains population of caribou relative to
identifying the essential conservation needs of the Southern Selkirk
Mountain population, which the Service made during the process of
identifying critical habitat for the population. The commenter asserted
that the Service's statement is contradicted by the Service's 2008 5-
year review that stated, ``the contracting range of the South Selkirk
population, the small number of animals in the population, and the
limited genetic exchange between the South Selkirk population and
adjacent populations threaten population viability'' and a Service-
issued 2008 biological opinion stating that the primary conservation
needs for this caribou population still include expanding the size and
distribution of the existing population; expanding both size and
distribution of southern Selkirk Mountain caribou population is stated
as objectives in the 1994 recovery plan.
Our Response: We acknowledge that the existing southern Selkirk
Mountain caribou subpopulation is small, occupies a limited geographic
area, and is currently declining. We also acknowledge that increasing
the size and distribution of this subpopulation are objectives of the
1994 recovery plan. However, the 1994 recovery plan identifies these as
``interim'' objectives, and states that development of specific long-
term recovery goals at that time were not appropriate due to the
inadequacy of existing ecological data (Service 1994a, p. 27). Since
development of the 1994 recovery plan, much new scientific information
has been learned about this subpopulation, including, but not limited
to, caribou habitat use and movement patterns and predation threats.
Therefore, the 1994 recovery plan, which is specific to the southern
Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of this DPS, is outdated. Additionally,
because the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation has now been
correctly identified as composing part of the larger southern mountain
caribou DPS, the Service, as is required by the Act, will actively
coordinate and participate in the development of a recovery plan with
our partners within the United States (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and
others) as well as our Canadian partners (e.g., British Columbia's
Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations; Ktunaxa
Nation; and others) to address recovery of the southern mountain
caribou DPS.
(92) Comment: One commenter stated that in the final critical
habitat determination, the Service arbitrarily disavowed every recovery
plan objective except the objective of securing 443,000 ac (179,274
ha), which the commenter alleged amounts to the Service's ``cherry-
picking'' a single objective. Another commenter stated that because the
Service does not know where the 443,000-acre figure stems from, the
Service's reliance on it as the single objective to achieve recovery of
the subpopulation is arbitrary and capricious.
Our Response: We did not disavow any specific individual objective
of the 1994 recovery plan in our final critical habitat determination
(77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012). We did state, however, that the
objectives are outdated and need revising to reflect the current needs
of the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation, specifically with
regard to its biology and habitat. The 1994 recovery plan (which is
specific to the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation) acknowledges
that this subpopulation is limited in size and distribution. Our final
critical habitat determination addresses several of the 1994 recovery
plan objectives: Securing and managing at least 443,000 ac (179,274 ha)
of habitat for caribou to facilitate an increase in the abundance of
individuals within the subpopulation, and allowing for the expansion of
the subpopulation's distribution. The best available scientific
information indicates that this

[[Page 52654]]

expansion is most likely to occur in Canada because, as we stated in
the final determination, for reasons not fully understood, the range of
this subpopulation appears to have shifted northward, and, thus, the
majority of habitat essential to the conservation of this subpopulation
now occurs in British Columbia, Canada. Again, the 1994 recovery plan
is specific to the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation of the
southern mountain caribou DPS. Although recovery planning is beyond the
scope of this listing decision, the Service will actively coordinate
and participate in the development of a recovery plan with our partners
within the United States (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well
as our Canadian partners (e.g., British Columbia's Ministry of Forests,
Lands, and Natural Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and others) to
address recovery of the southern mountain caribou DPS.
(93) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service has noted that
the Kinley and Apps (2007) habitat model showed that one of the largest
blocks of high-priority caribou habitat in the Selkirk Ecosystem is
centered on IDL property and is considered to contribute significantly
to caribou habitat within the Selkirk Ecosystem. This same commenter
stated that simply because a species has declined and is no longer
using former habitat does not support the conclusion that the area is
not essential for recovery.
Our Response: Although Kinley and Apps (2007, pp. 24-26) identified
highly suitable caribou habitat throughout the Selkirk Ecosystem within
the existing recovery zone within the United States, for reasons not
fully understood, the individuals of the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou continue to utilize habitat in Canada
to a greater extent than would otherwise be expected. However, not
designating critical habitat in certain areas does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not
contribute to the recovery of the species. Please see our response to
Comment (15).
(94) Comment: One commenter stated that just weeks prior to
reducing the critical habitat designation, a draft of the Service's
final rule indicated that even if some areas proposed for designation
as critical habitat were not occupied by the species at the time of
listing, ``the determination that the areas being designated in this
final rule are essential to the conservation of the species would still
apply.'' The commenter also stated that peer reviewers likewise agreed
that the proposed critical habitat designation was sufficient for
conservation of the species, and just suggested using the Kinley and
Apps (2007) and Wakkinen and Slone (2010) habitat and corridor analyses
to refine the designation.
Our Response: A draft final rule is not the final agency decision
and simply reflects debate and deliberation within the Service in the
course of determining what, if any areas, not occupied by the species
at the time of listing were essential to the conservation of the
species. Ultimately, the Service determined, as explained in the final
critical habitat rule (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012), that these
areas not occupied by the species at the time of listing were not
essential for the conservation of the species (see pp. 77 FR 71063-
71067).
Regarding the peer reviewers' comments that the areas proposed for
designation were sufficient, they suggested that we refine our proposal
using Kinley and Apps (2007) and Wakkinen and Slone (2010) to better
reflect newer science pertaining to caribou habitat use and movement
patterns. However, the peer reviewers did not indicate that the area
proposed for designation was essential to the conservation of the
species; they simply indicated it was sufficient, i.e., it was big
enough. Stating that a certain size area is sufficient does not inform
whether or not the size of the area itself is essential. In order for
an area that was unoccupied by the species at the time of listing to be
designated as critical habitat, it must be considered essential for the
conservation of the species, not simply sufficient for their
conservation. See the final critical habitat rule at pages (77 FR
71063-71067) for an in-depth analysis of why the unoccupied area was
determined to be not essential for the conservation of the species.
(95) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service used the status
of caribou habitat management and protection in Canada to justify its
decision to reduce critical habitat in the United States, after-the-
fact, demonstrating post hoc rationalization.
Our Response: The final critical habitat determination was based on
the area in the United States that was occupied at the time of their
listing under the Act in 1983, and on the fact that we determined that
no other unoccupied areas in the United States were essential for
caribou conservation for the reasons stated in the final rule. Refer to
the final rule for a thorough discussion of this topic (see 77 FR
71063-71067, November 28, 2012). Through our longstanding coordination
with Canada on efforts to recover the southern Selkirk Mountain
subpopulation, we had a general understanding that Canada was actively
engaged in securing and developing management plans for caribou habitat
in Canada. However, in order to conduct a thorough review during the
critical habitat analysis, the Service necessarily had to clarify the
nature and the status of caribou habitat protection and management
within Canada, which required the Service to obtain information as
detailed as possible on the status of caribou habitat management within
Canada within the time constraints of the critical habitat rulemaking
process. Through this improved understanding of caribou habitat
management and protection in Canada, we realized that the acreage
designated as critical habitat in the United States, when added to the
acreage protected and managed for caribou in Canada, essentially
equaled the amount of habitat recommended to be secured and enhanced in
the 1994 recovery plan to support a recovered population.
(96) Comment: One commenter stated that the 1994 recovery plan
clearly did not intend for 95 percent of the 443,000 ac (179,274 ha) of
habitat protected and managed for caribou to be in Canada, noting that
approximately 53 percent of the caribou recovery zone lies in the
United States, and approximately 75 percent of the caribou habitat
identified at that time (331,150 ac (134,011 ha) of the 443,000 ac
(179,274 ha)) was within the United States.
Our Response: Although the 1994 recovery plan envisioned that more
of the recovery of this subpopulation would occur within the United
States, for reasons not fully understood, the range of southern Selkirk
Mountain subpopulation appears to have shifted northward and caribou
within this subpopulation continue to utilize habitat in Canada to a
greater extent than was anticipated. As we noted in our final critical
habitat determination (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012), there was
speculation in the 1980s that caribou may be abandoning the U.S.
portion of their range because caribou sightings in the United States
had declined since the 1970s (Scott and Servheen 1984, p. 16; 1985, p.
27). Although much of the area identified by the 1994 recovery plan as
occurring in the United States is federally managed by the USFS for
this subpopulation of caribou and contains one or more of the PBFs of
critical habitat, individuals of this subpopulation continue to make
greater use of habitat in Canada than would be predicted (based on
available habitat in the United States as identified

[[Page 52655]]

in the Kinley and Apps (2007) modeling study). Thus, as we stated in
our final critical habitat determination, we no longer find the
extensive areas initially identified for the recovery of this
subpopulation within the United States to be essential to the
conservation of the species. Rather, the best scientific information
available indicates that vast majority of essential habitat for this
subpopulation now occurs in Canada. This information will be used to
inform the recovery planning process with our partners for the southern
mountain caribou DPS, which is outside the scope of this listing
process.
(97) Comment: One commenter stated that habitat protections for
caribou in Canada do not negate the need for critical habitat
designation in the United States, because habitat protections in Canada
are not the functional equivalent of critical habitat designation in
the United States.
Our Response: After review of the best available science, we
determined that 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of habitat in the United States
meet the definition of critical habitat for caribou, and that these
designated acres of critical habitat in the United States will
contribute to the conservation of the species. See our November 28,
2012, final rule designating critical habitat (77 FR 71042) for more
information.
(98) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not
indicate in the final critical habitat rule how much, if any, of the
Crown Lands (282,515 ac (114,330 ha)) or Nature Conservancy lands
(135,908 ac (55,000 ha)) protected in Canada contain the primary
constituent elements essential for recovery, and did not assess threats
related to roads, human access, or predation within those lands. The
commenter stated that, because the Canadian lands are not subject to
the Act's section 7 requirements and are not the functional equivalent
of critical habitat, the Service cannot rely on the Canadian lands for
conservation of caribou. The commenter also stated that Canadian
biologists indicate that status quo management will lead to a
continuing decline of mountain caribou, and that successful recovery of
southern caribou populations may require greater efforts. The commenter
also offered the following direct quote from the Service's 5-year
review: ``as the southernmost mountain caribou population and the last
remaining population within the [United States], the South Selkirk
population takes on added significance in maintaining the shrinking
range of mountain caribou, which has already decreased 60 percent from
the historical range. Further range contraction, combined with
decreasing population numbers, could have serious implications to the
conservation of mountain caribou.'' The commenter asserted that the
above-referenced Canadian biologists' concerns, when coupled with the
quoted statement from the Service's 5-year review, undermine the
Service's reliance on the management of lands in Canada as contributing
towards the successful recovery of caribou.
Our Response: Because our ability to designate critical habitat is
restricted to lands within the jurisdiction of the United States, our
final designation constitutes all lands within the United States that
meet the statutory definition of critical habitat for the southern
mountain caribou DPS (see our response to Comment (15)). While we did
not complete an in-depth, quantitative analysis (e.g., species
composition, age structure, etc.) of the Crown or Nature Conservancy
lands protected and managed for caribou in Canada, we generally
understood that almost all of the protected lands were identified as
priority 1, 2, and 3 caribou habitats through the habitat suitability
modeling completed by Kinley and Apps (2007, p. 25) that entailed
assessing the area's ecological attributes including lichen
availability, forest structure and composition, topography,
connectivity between habitat patches, etc. In fact, most of the
priority 1 habitats identified by Kinley and Apps (2007, p. 25) are
located in Canada on the protected Crown and Nature Conservancy lands.
Thus, as these lands were identified as priority 1, 2, and 3 habitats
for caribou, we concluded they provided the functional equivalents to
the PBFs of caribou critical habitat we identified as essential to the
conservation of the species. Additionally, as we have previously
stated, the range of the southern Selkirk Mountain subpopulation
appears to have shifted northward, and the vast majority of essential
habitat for this subpopulation now occurs in Canada. Therefore, it is
entirely appropriate for the Service to consider these lands protected
and managed in Canada for caribou as contributing significantly to
caribou conservation. Further, the management of these lands in Canada,
together with management of caribou habitat in the United States
(including those acres designated as critical habitat in the United
States), will inform the development of a recovery plan for this DPS,
which is outside the scope of this listing decision.
(99) Comment: One commenter stated that there is no support in the
record to show that management of Canadian lands plus the small amount
of designated critical habitat in the United States is sufficient to
recover the southern Selkirk Mountains caribou subpopulation, and
because the Service does not know where the 443,000-ac figure stems
from, the Service's reliance on it as the single objective to achieve
recovery of the subpopulation is arbitrary and capricious.
Our Response: While recovery planning is beyond the scope of the
critical habitat rulemaking process, the Service is not relying on
designation of critical habitat as the single means to achieve recovery
of the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation. We reiterate that
addressing threats of predation, habitat fragmentation and loss, and
human recreation are necessary to achieve conservation and recovery of
this subpopulation. Objectives addressing these threats, among others,
will be developed with our partners during recovery planning for the
southern mountain caribou DPS.
(100) Comment: One commenter stated that the amount of designated
critical habitat should be increased to compensate for the potential
effects of climate change that could result in increased intensity of
future fires that may result in loss of habitat.
Our Response: We acknowledge that climate change could change the
suitability of habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation
of woodland caribou in the future. However, we are required to
designate critical habitat based upon the best available scientific
data at the time that we finalize the designation. The information
currently available on the effects of global climate change does not
provide precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the
potential effects. We are also not currently aware of any climate
change information that would help identify specific areas that might
become important to the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of
woodland caribou in the future. Therefore, as explained in the proposed
rule to designate critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains
subpopulation of woodland caribou (76 FR 74018, November 30, 2011, see
p. 76 FR 74024), we are unable to determine what additional areas, if
any, may be appropriate to include in the final critical habitat for
this species to address the effects of climate change. We also find
that the best scientific information available suggests that the range
of the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou has
largely shifted northward, and the vast majority of essential habitat
for this population of woodland caribou now

[[Page 52656]]

occurs within Canada. Critical habitat can be revised under section
4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act as appropriate, as additional scientific data
on climate change or other significant information becomes available.
(101) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service must seek
additional peer review of the final designation of 30,010 ac (12,145
ha) of critical habitat because the final designation is a drastic
departure from the Service's proposal to designate 375,562 ac (151,985
ha), upon which the Service solicited peer review.
Our Response: The Service solicited expert opinions on the proposed
critical habitat rule from four individuals with scientific expertise
on the woodland caribou; we received responses from all four peer
reviewers. One of the peer reviewers commented that the proposed rule
was very thorough and accurate, but the reviewer did not submit any
additional comments. The other three peer reviewers who provided
substantive comments indicated that the area proposed for designation
as critical habitat in the proposed rule was far greater than the area
actually used by caribou. The peer reviewers stated that ``the major
flaw'' in the proposed rule was designating far too many of these
unused acres as meeting the definition of critical habitat. The final
designation of critical habitat (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012)
reflects the concerns expressed by the peer reviewers and is a logical
outgrowth of their comments. Therefore, the Service is not required to
seek additional peer review of the final critical habitat designation.
(102) Comment: One commenter stated the final critical habitat
designation is unlawful because it is not a logical outgrowth of the
best available science and because the designation failed to include
unoccupied habitats that are essential to the recovery of this
dwindling population.
Our Response: In the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat
determination (77 FR 71042), which the Service proposed to reaffirm in
our May 8, 2014, proposal to amend the listing of the southern mountain
caribou DPS (79 FR 26504), the Service based our final designation of
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of
woodland caribou on the best available scientific information. See our
response to Comment (101). Additionally, several other comments
received from State agencies, Tribes, and others agreed with peer
reviewers that the proposed rule was overly expansive. The final
designation of critical habitat, therefore, was informed by and is a
logical outgrowth of the comments provided by the peer reviewers,
Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and other organizations and
individuals. Finally, see our responses to Comments (78) and (89) for a
discussion of the rationale on which we based the final critical
habitat determination.
(103) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat
designation must be revised to correspond with the entirety of the
existing caribou recovery zone within the United States.
Our Response: See our response to Comment (15).

Determination

Introduction

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 determine whether a
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of any
one or a combination of the following: (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. Listing actions may be warranted
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
These five factors apply whether we are analyzing the species' status
throughout all of its range or throughout 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'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) 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'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). The definition of ``species'' is also
relevant to this discussion. On July 1, 2014, we published a final
policy interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
(SPR) (79 FR 37578). In our policy, 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 a species in its entirety; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: A species may be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; or a
species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout a significant portion of its range. If a species is in
danger of extinction throughout an SPR, the species, is an ``endangered
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' The SPR
policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for
the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification
determinations.

Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range

We proposed to list the southern mountain caribou DPS as threatened
in our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504). However, based on new
information received since the proposed rule and as described
previously in this rule, we now conclude that the status of and threats
to this DPS warrant listing it as an endangered species.
The current abundance and number of caribou subpopulations within
the DPS are limited to an estimated 1,356 individuals in 15 extant
subpopulations (COSEWIC 2014, p. xviii). The population is declining,
and based on population estimates over generations, it appears that the
population rate of decline is accelerating (see below). Additionally,
while it is difficult to establish a precise historical distribution of
woodland caribou (including the distribution of the southern mountain
subpopulation of woodland caribou), according to COSEWIC (2014, p. 14),
mountain caribou were much more widely distributed than they are today,
and based on this information, the range of this DPS is decreasing.
As previously discussed under 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 (factor C); increased human access into caribou habitat,
resulting in disturbance of caribou from use of roads and off-road
vehicles (factor B); and climate change (factor A). All of these
threats are linked with continuing habitat alteration (factor A) and
occur throughout the entire range of the DPS. These threats are not
adequately ameliorated by existing regulatory mechanisms (factor D).
Through this evaluation, we have determined that these factors pose
significant threats to the continued existence of the southern mountain
caribou DPS. These threats are expected to continue in the foreseeable
future.

[[Page 52657]]

As described above, under the Act and our implementing regulations,
a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or
throughout a significant portion of its range. 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'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 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 in this rule, the
southern mountain caribou DPS has a limited distribution that has
suffered ongoing major reductions of its numbers and range as a result
of threats that have not been abated. These declines have resulted in
further isolation of subpopulations that make up this DPS.
For the reasons outlined above in the final rule and as briefly
summarized here, we have determined that the southern mountain caribou
DPS meets the definition of an endangered species because it is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
1. The species' response to ongoing threats has resulted in further
declines in subpopulation abundance. All 15 extant subpopulations
consist of fewer than 400 individuals each, 13 of which have fewer than
250, and 9 of which have fewer than 50 (COSEWIC 2014, p. xviii).
Fourteen of the 15 extant subpopulations within this DPS have declined
since the last assessment by COSEWIC in 2002 (COSEWIC 2014, p. vii).
Based on COSEWIC's 2014 report (p. vii), which is new information
received after we published our proposed amended listing rule (79 FR
26504, May 8, 2014), the rate of the population decline is
accelerating. The accelerated rate of population decline is supported
by Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 265), who studied rates and causes of
southern mountain caribou population declines from 1984 to 2002, and
found an increasing rate of decline. Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 264)
also found that predation was the primary cause of mortality driving
the accelerated rate of population decline of mountain caribou.
2. A PVA conducted by Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) predicted a
high likelihood of quasi-extinction for 12 of the 15 subpopulations and
a lower likelihood of quasi-extinction for one additional subpopulation
within this DPS within 20 to 90 years. Thus, a total of 13 of the 15
subpopulations could be quasi-extinct within 90 years. Wittmer et al.
(2010, p. 86) also conducted a PVA on 10 of the same subpopulations
assessed by Hatter (2006, entire, in litt.), and predicted extinction
of all 10 subpopulations within 200 years.
3. Given the likelihood of extirpation of 13 of 15 subpopulations
within 20 to 90 years, the entire DPS is at risk of extinction due to
lack of redundancy (ability of the species to withstand catastrophic
events) and resiliency (ability of the populations to withstand
stochastic events) of the remaining 2 subpopulations whose status' are
likely to be negatively affected by existing demographic and/or
environmental stochastic threats. Mountain caribou are susceptible to
avalanches, have low reproductive rates, and have high calf mortality.
Low reproductive rates and high calf mortality reduce the resiliency of
the subpopulation. Therefore, the decreased redundancy and reduced
resiliency of the southern mountain caribou DPS places it at greater
risk of extinction sooner than 200 years (as predicted by Wittmer 2010,
entire) due to existing demographic and environmental stochastic
threats.
4. Further exacerbating the decline and potential extirpation of
mountain caribou subpopulations is that mountain caribou appear to lack
the inherent behavior to disperse long distances (van Oort et al. 2011,
pp. 215, 221-222). Species whose historical distribution was more
widely and evenly distributed (such as mountain caribou) (van Oort et
al. 2011, p. 221) that have been fragmented into subpopulations via
habitat fragmentation and loss may appear to exist in a metapopulation
structure when in fact, because they may not have evolved the innate
behavior to disperse among subpopulations, their fragmented
distribution may actually represent a geographic pattern of extinction
(van Oort et al. 2011, p. 215).
5. The three largest subpopulations are declining, contain fewer
than 400 individuals each (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41), are isolated from
other subpopulations (van Oort et al. 2011, pp. 221-222; Wittmer et al.
2005b, p. 414), and are becoming increasingly more so due to habitat
fragmentation and human activities (Serrouya et al. 2013, p. 2,597; van
Oort et al. 2011, p. 222). They are also subject to the same type and
level of threats acting on the DPS as a whole that have not been
abated, and which have resulted in the recent extirpation of two
subpopulations.
6. As explained previously, habitat alterations (increased
distribution and quantity of early successional habitats) have
increased predation of southern mountain caribou, particularly by
wolves and mountain lions. Predation is thought to be the principal and
proximate factor driving their recent decline. It will likely require
greater than 150 years (greater than 16 generations of caribou) of
habitat protections for these early successional and fragmented forests
to develop the old-growth habitat characteristics (vegetative structure
and composition) (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1) that would begin to
restore the natural predator-prey balance of these high-elevation, old-
growth forests, and thus reduce predation pressure on caribou. As
discussed above, Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) predicted quasi-
extinction of 13 of the 15 subpopulations within the DPS within 20 to
90 years, and Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 86) predicted extinction of 10
of the 15 populations within 200 years (notably, they did not assess 5
of the populations). Thus, the subpopulations within the DPS are not
likely sustainable given ongoing declines and the length of time needed
to improve habitat conditions that may ameliorate the threat of
predation.
In summary, all 15 extant subpopulations consist of fewer than 400
individuals each: 2 subpopulations have greater than 300 individuals; 4
subpopulations have between 50 and 210 individuals each; and 9
subpopulations each have fewer than 50 individuals. Based on updated
trend data (COSEWIC 2014, p. xviii), the rate of population decline of
each subpopulation appears to be accelerating. A recent PVA indicates
that there is a likelihood of 13 of 15 subpopulations becoming quasi-
extinct in 20 to 90 years, which is likely to lead rapidly to their
extirpation. The extirpation of these subpopulations would leave only
two subpopulations (Hart Ranges and North Caribou Mountains) located
adjacent to one another at the extreme northern edge of the DPS's
range, an over 65 percent reduction of current range. Both of these
subpopulations are declining, and the rate of decline appears to be
accelerating. The high likelihood of only two adjacent subpopulations
remaining at the extreme northern edge of the

[[Page 52658]]

DPS's range leaves the DPS without sufficient redundancy to withstand
existing demographic and/or environmental stochastic threats and
severely reduces representation of the population within its range.
Additionally, declining and small subpopulation sizes, low reproductive
rates, and high calf mortality reduces the resiliency of this DPS to
withstand these same threats. Severely reduced redundancy, resiliency,
and representation greatly increase the risk of extinction of the
entire DPS. In conclusion, we have determined that the southern
mountain caribou DPS meets the definition of an endangered species
because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Because we found that the species is an endangered species because
of its status throughout all of its range, we do not need to conduct an
analysis of its status in any portions of its range. This is consistent
with the Act because the species is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range due to high-magnitude threats across its
range, or threats that are so high in particular areas that they
severely affect the species across its range. Therefore, the species is
in danger of extinction throughout every portion of its range, and an
analysis of whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so throughout any significant portion of its range would be
redundant and unnecessary. See the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014).

Determination of Status

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the southern mountain caribou DPS. Because the species is in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range, the species meets the
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available and per our DPS policy,
we amend the current listing of the endangered southern Selkirk
Mountains population of woodland caribou, as identified at 50 CFR
17.11(h), to reflect the southern mountain caribou DPS as an endangered
species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

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 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 1994a). An update regarding the status of this
recovery plan can be found in the latest 5-year status review for the
species (USFWS 2008, entire). While actions have been carried out in an
attempt to recover this subpopulation, 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
subpopulation, and does not extend to the entire southern mountain
caribou DPS. Consistent with this final rule, revisions to the existing
plan, in coordination with British Columbia, Canada, will be required
to address the entire DPS and the continuing or new threats to the DPS.
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. Development of a recovery plan
for the southern mountain caribou DPS will be coordinated with species
experts from Canada, Tribes, and the United States. When completed, the
draft recovery plan and the final recovery plan will be available on
our website (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.
Following publication of this final listing rule, 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 will 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

[[Page 52659]]

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
consultation 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 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) 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)(1) 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 50 CFR 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 listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. 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.
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that
would not be considered to result in a violation of section 9 of the
Act due to the variety and nature of activities that may occur within
caribou habitat across the range of the DPS. Depending on the
implementation timing, intensity, and duration of such activities, it
is likely that site-specific conservation measures may be needed for
specific activities that may directly or indirectly affect the species.
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).

Required Determinations

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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need
not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered
or threatened species under the section 4(a) of the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
We address the comments we received from Tribes on our May 8, 2014,
proposed amended listing rule (79 FR 26504) under Comments from Native
American Tribes, above. We had several informal technical discussions
and meetings with both the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and the Kootenai
Tribe of Idaho during 2014-2017. We had one formal government-to-
government meeting with the Kootenai Tribe on May 22, 2014, as well as
two recent meetings with the Tribe on January 12 and March 22, 2017, to
discuss recovery planning, which included some discussion of the
listing.

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 final 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.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Caribou, woodland
[Southern Selkirk Mountains DPS]'' under MAMMALS in the List of
Endangered

[[Page 52660]]

and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals

* * * * * * *
Caribou, woodland [Southern Rangifer tarandus U.S.A. (wherever E 48 FR 1722, 1/14/1983;
Mountain DPS]. caribou. found), Canada 48 FR 49245, 10/25/
(southeastern 1983; 49 FR 7390, 2/
British Columbia). 29/1984; 83 FR
[Insert Federal
Register page where
the document begins],
[Insert date of
publication in the
Federal Register]; 50
CFR 17.95(a).\CH\

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec. 17.95(a), amend the entry for ``Woodland Caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou) Southern Selkirk Mountains Population'' by:
0
a. Revising the heading;
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(5).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Southern Mountain
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 4333-15-P

[[Page 52661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.003

* * * * *

Dated: September 17, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-20459 Filed 10-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C