Vol. 79 Thursday, No. 89 May 8, 2014

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR proposed amendment to the listed entity • For any petition to revise the become final. Federal Lists of Endangered and Fish and Wildlife Service DATES: We will accept all comments Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we are received or postmarked on or before July required under the Act to promptly 50 CFR Part 17 7, 2014. Comments submitted publish a finding in the Federal Register within 1 year. Listing, [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0097; electronically using the Federal FXES11130900000C2–123–FF09E32000] eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES removing, or changing the status of a section, below) must be received by species as an endangered or threatened RIN 1018–AZ74 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing species can only be completed by issuing a rule. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife date. We must receive requests for • public hearings, in writing, at the Any proposed or final rule affecting and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a the status of a possible DPS as address shown in the FOR FURTHER Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk endangered or threatened under the Act INFORMATION CONTACT section by June Mountains Population of Woodland should clearly analyze the action using 23, 2014 Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the following three elements: the Listing ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Discreteness of the population segment by one of the following methods: in relation to the remainder of the taxon AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal to which it belongs; the significance of Interior. eRulemaking Portal: http:// the population segment to the taxon to ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month www.regulations.gov. In the Search which it belongs; and the conservation petition finding. field, enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES– status of the population segment in 2012–0097, which is the docket number relation to the Act’s standards for SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search listing. Wildlife Service (Service), announce a panel on the left side of the screen, • Under the Act, any species that is 12-month finding on a petition to delist under the Document Type heading, determined to be an endangered or the southern Selkirk Mountains click on the Proposed Rules link to threatened species requires critical population of woodland caribou locate this document. You may submit habitat to be designated, to the (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This a comment by clicking on the blue maximum extent prudent and species is currently listed as endangered ‘‘Comment Now!’’ box. If your determinable. Designations and under the Endangered Species Act of comments will fit in the provided revisions of critical habitat can only be 1973, as amended (Act). After review of comment box, please use this feature of completed through rulemaking. Here we the best available scientific and http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most propose to reaffirm the designation of commercial information, we find that compatible with our comment review approximately 30,010 acres (ac) (12,145 delisting the species is not warranted, procedures. If you attach your hectares (ha)) in one unit within but rather, a revision to the current comments as a separate document, our Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend listed entity to define a distinct preferred file format is Microsoft Word. Oreille County, Washington, as critical population segment (DPS), consistent If you attach multiple comments (such habitat for the Southern Mountain with our 1996 distinct population as form letters), our preferred format is Caribou DPS should the proposed segment policy, is appropriate. As such, a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. amendment to the listed entity become we propose to amend the current listing (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail final. of the southern Selkirk Mountains or hand-delivery to: Public Comments This rule proposes to amend the population of woodland caribou by Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2012– current listing of the southern Selkirk defining the Southern Mountain 0097; Division of Policy and Directives Mountains population of woodland Caribou DPS, which includes the Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife caribou as follows: currently listed southern Selkirk Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS • By defining the Southern Mountain Mountains population of woodland 2042–PDM, Arlington, VA 22203. Caribou distinct population segment caribou, and we propose to designate We request that you send comments (DPS), which includes the currently the status of the Southern Mountain only by the methods described above. listed southern Selkirk Mountains Caribou DPS as threatened under the We will post all information received on population of woodland caribou; Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, • http://www.regulations.gov. This By designating the status of the the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS generally means that we will post any Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as will be listed as threatened under the personal information you provide us threatened under the Act; and Act. This DPS includes the currently • (see the Information Requested section By reaffirming the designation of listed southern Selkirk Mountains below for more details). approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) as population of woodland caribou, a critical habitat for the Southern transboundary population that moves FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mountain Caribou DPS. between British Columbia, Canada, and Michael Carrier, State Supervisor, U.S. The basis for our action. The southern northern Idaho and northeastern Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou Washington, United States. We have and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell was listed under the Act on February determined that the approximately Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390). According to our 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) telephone 208–378–5243; facsimile ‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of designated as critical habitat on 208–378–5262. Persons who use a Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), for telecommunications device for the deaf Under the Endangered Species Act’’ the southern Selkirk Mountains (TDD) may call the Federal Information (DPS policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, population of woodland caribou is Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 1996), the appropriate application of the applicable to the U.S. portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: policy to pre-1996 DPS listings shall be proposed Southern Mountain Caribou considered in our 5-year reviews. We Executive Summary DPS and, as such, reaffirm the existing conducted a DPS analysis during our critical habitat for the DPS should the Why we need to publish a rule. 2008 5-year review, which concluded

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26505

that the southern Selkirk Mountains populations of the Southern Mountain on the Web site. If your submission is population of woodland caribou met Caribou DPS; and made via a hard copy that includes both the discreteness and significance (e) Past and ongoing conservation personal identifying information, you elements of the DPS policy. However, measures for the DPS, its habitat, or may request at the top of your document we now recognize that this analysis did both. that we withhold this information from not consider the significance of this (2) The factors that are the basis for public review. However, we cannot population relative to the appropriate making a listing or delisting guarantee that we will be able to do so. taxon. The purpose of the DPS policy is determination for a species under We will post all hardcopy submissions to set forth standards for determining section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 on http://www.regulations.gov. Please which populations of vertebrate et seq.), which are: include sufficient information with your organisms that are subsets of species or (a) The present or threatened comments to allow us to verify any subspecies may qualify as entities that destruction, modification, or scientific or commercial information we may list as endangered or threatened curtailment of its habitat or range; you include. (b) Overutilization for commercial, under the Act. In the 2008 5-year Comments and materials we receive, review, we assessed the significance of recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; as well as some of the supporting the southern Selkirk Mountains documentation we used in preparing population to the ‘‘mountain ecotype’’ (c) Disease or predation; (d) The inadequacy of existing this proposed rule, will be available for of woodland caribou. The ‘‘mountain public inspection on http:// ecotype’’ is not a species or subspecies. regulatory mechanisms; or (e) Other natural or manmade factors www.regulations.gov. All comments, The appropriate DPS analysis for the materials, and supporting southern Selkirk Mountains population affecting its continued existence. (3) Biological, commercial trade, or documentation are available by of woodland caribou should have been other relevant data concerning any appointment, during normal business conducted relative to the subspecies threats (or lack thereof) to this DPS and hours, at the Service’s Idaho Fish and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus regulations that may be addressing those Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER caribou). Listing or reclassifying DPSs threats. INFORMATION CONTACT). allows the Service to protect and (4) Additional information concerning conserve species and the ecosystems Background the historical and current status, range, upon which they depend before large- distribution, and population size of this Previous Federal Actions scale decline occurs that would DPS, including the locations of any necessitate listing a species or additional local populations of this DPS. In 1980, the Service received petitions subspecies throughout its entire range. (5) Current or planned activities in the to list the southern Selkirk Mountains We will seek peer review. We are areas occupied by the DPS and possible population of woodland caribou as seeking comments from knowledgeable impacts of these activities on this DPS. endangered under the Act from the individuals with scientific expertise to (6) Information regarding the current Idaho Department of Fish and Game review our analysis of the best available status and population trends of the local (IDFG) and Dean Carrier, a U.S. Forest scientific and commercial information, populations that comprise the Southern Service (USFS) staff biologist and review our application of that science, Mountain Caribou DPS. This former chairman of the International and provide any additional scientific information will be used to determine Mountain Caribou Technical Committee information to improve this proposed the status of the DPS as either not (IMCTC). At that time, the population rule. We will consider all comments and warranted for listing, threatened, or was believed to consist of 13 to 20 information received during the endangered. animals (48 FR 1722, January 14, 1983). comment period, and as a result, our (7) Information on the projected and Following a review of the petition and final determination may differ from this reasonably likely impacts of climate other readily available data, the proposal. change on the Southern Mountain southern Selkirk Mountains population Information Requested Caribou DPS and its habitat. of the woodland caribou (Rangifer Please note that submissions merely tarandus caribou) in northeastern We intend that any final action stating support for or opposition to the Washington, northern Idaho, and resulting from this proposed rule will be action under consideration without southeastern British Columbia was based on the best scientific and providing supporting information, listed as endangered under the Act’s commercial data available, and be as although noted, will not be considered emergency procedures on January 14, accurate and as effective as possible. in making a determination. Section 1983 (48 FR 1722). A second emergency Therefore, we request comments or 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that rule was published on October 25, 1983 information from other concerned determinations as to whether any (48 FR 49245). A final rule listing the governmental agencies, Native species is an endangered or threatened southern Selkirk Mountains population American tribes, the scientific species must be made ‘‘solely on the of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus community, industry, or any other basis of the best scientific and caribou) as endangered was published interested parties concerning this commercial data available.’’ on February 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390). The proposed rule. We particularly seek You may submit your comments and designation of critical habitat was comments concerning: materials concerning this proposed rule determined to be not prudent at that (1) The DPS’ biology, range, and by one of the methods listed in the time. This determination was based on population trends, including: ADDRESSES section above. We request the conclusion that increased poaching (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, that you send comments only by the could result from the publication of breeding, and sheltering; methods described in the ADDRESSES maps showing areas used by the species. (b) Genetics and taxonomy; section. A Selkirk Mountain Caribou (c) Historical and current range, If you submit information via http:// Management Plan/Recovery Plan was including distribution patterns; www.regulations.gov, your entire approved by the Service in 1985 (d) Historical, current, and projected submission—including any personal (USFWS 1985). A revised Recovery Plan population levels and trends of the local identifying information—will be posted for Woodland Caribou in the Selkirk

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Mountains was approved by the Service habitat was not designated outside of 14 subspecies of caribou are currently in 1994 (USFWS 1994). the jurisdiction of the United States. recognized worldwide, including the Notices of 90-day findings on two More recently, we received a petition subspecies woodland caribou, Rangifer petitions to delist the southern Selkirk on May 14, 2012, from the Pacific Legal tarandus caribou, as defined by Mountains population of woodland Foundation, representing Bonner Banfield (1961). caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) County, Idaho, and the Idaho State The first widely accepted were published in the Federal Register Snowmobile Association. The petition classification below the species level of on November 29, 1993 (58 FR 62623), requested that the Service ‘‘delist the caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in North and November 1, 2000 (65 FR 65287). Selkirk caribou population (Rangifer America was by Banfield in 1961 Both petitions were submitted by Mr. tarandus caribou) from the list of (Banfield 1961, entire; Shackleton 2010, Peter B. Wilson, representing the endangered species.’’ On December 19, p. 3; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 11–12). In his Greater Bonners Ferry Chamber of 2012, we published a 90-day finding (77 revision, Banfield primarily used adult Commerce, Bonners Ferry, Idaho. We FR 75091) in response to that petition. (4 years or older) skull measurements found that neither petition presented Our finding stated that the petition (Banfield 1961, p. 11) to divide Rangifer substantial scientific or commercial presented substantial information tarandus in North America into four information indicating that delisting of indicating that the current southern extant and one extinct subspecies: the southern Selkirk Mountains Selkirk Mountains population of Barren-ground caribou—Rangifer population of woodland caribou was woodland caribou may not be a listable tarandus groenlandicus, Grant’s warranted. entity under our 1996 DPS policy (61 FR caribou—Rangifer tarandus granti, On April 11, 2006, a notice of 4722). We acknowledged that our Peary caribou—Rangifer tarandus initiation of 5-year reviews for 70 analysis in the 2008 5-year review did pearyi, woodland caribou—Rangifer species in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, not consider the southern Selkirk tarandus caribou, and Dawson’s Hawaii, and Guam was published in the Mountains population of woodland caribou—Rangifer tarandus dawsoni Federal Register (71 FR 18345). This caribou relative to the appropriate taxon (extinct). Banfield also examined pelage allowable under our 1996 DPS policy, notice included the southern Selkirk (coat/hide) color, and took measurement the subspecies woodland caribou of hooves, tarsal glands, and antlers as Mountains population of woodland (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This taxonomic indicators (Banfield 1961, p. caribou. The Southern Selkirk proposed rule constitutes our review of 26). However, Banfield noted that Mountains Caribou Population 5-Year the population relative to the antlers were extremely variable among Review was completed December 5, appropriate taxon. individuals and populations (Banfield 2008 (USFWS 2008; see http:// 1961, p. 24). www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/ Species Information Since the 1960s, much has been Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf). Taxonomy learned about caribou ecology, On December 6, 2002, the Defenders distribution, and genetics, revealing of Wildlife, Lands Council, Selkirk All caribou and reindeer worldwide are considered to be the same species substantial diversity within Banfield’s Conservation Alliance, and Center for subspecies classifications (Miller et al. Biological Diversity (plaintiffs) (Rangifer tarandus). Although they are referred to by different names, they are 2007, p. 16). There has been some petitioned the Service to designate debate over the caribou subspecies critical habitat for the southern Selkirk able to interbreed and produce offspring (Committee on the Status of Endangered classification, particularly for the Mountains population of woodland woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer caribou. On February 10, 2003, we Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2002, p. 9; Hummel and Ray, 2008, p. 31). tarandus caribou) (Cronin et al. 2005, p. acknowledged receipt of the plaintiffs’ 495). Banfield appeared to use the petition, and stated we were unable to Caribou are in the Order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) and Family woodland caribou as a ‘‘catch-all’’ for all address the petition at that time due to North American caribou not included in budgetary constraints. On January 15, Cervidae (deer) (Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 2013, in litt.; the other subspecies despite variability 2009, plaintiffs filed a complaint for in their behavior, ecology, and declaratory and injunctive relief Mountain Caribou Science Team (MCST) 2005, p. 1; Smithsonian morphology (Geist 2007, p. 25). Many (Defenders of Wildlife et al., v. Salazar, have proposed alternative classifications National Museum of Natural History CV–09–15–EFS) in Federal district to account for variability within and 2013, in litt.; COSEWIC 2011, p. 11). In court. This complaint alleged that the among the various subspecies of Europe, the common name for Rangifer Service’s failure to make a decision caribou. Population units were tarandus is reindeer. In North America, more than 6 years after the petition was described with terms such as the common name for the species is submitted violated the Administrative ‘‘ecotypes’’ (Bergerud 1996, entire) caribou; only the domesticated forms Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551–559, 701– based on migration patterns and calving are called reindeer (Cichowski et al. 706). Following a stipulated settlement strategies, and adaptations to a certain 2004, p. 224). For consistency, the term agreement, we published a proposed set of environmental conditions. This caribou will be used to refer to the rule to designate critical habitat on has caused confusion because there is November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018), and species Rangifer tarandus in this no universally accepted list of caribou a final rule on November 28, 2012 (77 Federal Register document. According ecotypes or criteria to distinguish FR 71042), designating approximately to the American Society of caribou ecotypes (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) as critical Mammalogists’ checklist of mammal 12–13). habitat. The critical habitat is located in species of the world (Smithsonian There is also confusion in Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend National Museum of Natural History terminology. For example, in Que´bec Oreille County, Washington. Although 2013, in litt.) and the Integrated there are migratory and sedentary 1 the southern Selkirk Mountains Taxonomic Information System (ITIS ), caribou ecotypes (Boulet et al. 2007, p. woodland caribou local population is a 4224). Caribou of the sedentary ecotype 1 ITIS is a database created through a partnership transboundary species with Canada, in amongst agencies in the United States, Canada, and are generally characterized by relatively accordance with our implementing Mexico, along with other organizations and little movement between seasonal regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h), critical taxonomic specialists (ITIS 2013, in litt.). ranges. They also generally exhibit a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26507

dispersed calving strategy, with female on availability (Henttonen and caribou (Canada 2013, in litt.). Adult caribou giving birth in isolation to avoid Tikhonov 2008, p. 3). One of the most males of woodland caribou are predators. Caribou of the migratory distinctive characteristics of all described as having a mane of longer ecotype generally move large distances subspecies of caribou is their large, hairs along the bottom of the neck to the between seasonal ranges. These caribou rounded hooves. Their hooves reduce chest. During rut, the light color of the generally aggregate during calving sinking into snow and wetlands, and neck and mane contrasts with the darker (COSEWIC 2011, p. 13). In British allow them to walk or stand on hard colored body (Shackleton 2010, p. 1). Columbia, woodland caribou ecotypes snowpack to reach tree lichens, and Height of the woodland caribou at the are distinguished based on differences they can use their hooves as paddles shoulder is a little over 3 to 4 feet (ft) in the ecological and physical factors while swimming (COSEWIC 2002, p. (1.0 to 1.2 meters (m)). Females weigh within their ranges. These factors 18). All caribou have prominent dew about 240 to 330 pounds (lbs) (110 to include relative depth of the snowpack, claws just above the hoof. 150 kilograms (kg)) and males about 350 forage availability, and terrain As previously discussed, Banfield to 460 lbs (160 to 210 kg). (COSEWIC 2011, p. 13). The term (1961) described five caribou subspecies Biology ‘‘mountain caribou’’ is a common in North America based on their ecotype designation used throughout physical characteristics. Banfield Reproduction. Woodland caribou are the scientific literature to describe the primarily used skull measurements, as polygynous, with dominant bulls mountain dwelling/arboreal-lichen well as pelage, antler shape, and hoof breeding with multiple cows in the fall feeding woodland caribou local shape, to divide Rangifer tarandus into (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 229). Pregnant populations found in the mountainous four extant and one extinct North females travel to isolated, often rugged regions of southeastern British American subspecies. Woodland areas where predators and other prey Columbia. The mountain caribou is caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), one animals are limited. Calves are born in distinguished from other woodland of the five subspecies he identified, is late spring into early summer caribou by behavioral and ecological the southern-most subspecies in North (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 229–230; characteristics (MCST 2005, p. 1). The America. Its range occurs in an east to COSEWIC 2002, p. 34). A single young mountain caribou is closely associated west band from eastern Newfoundland is born and is capable of following its with high-elevation, late-successional, and northern Quebec all the way into mother soon after birth (Shackleton or old-growth coniferous forests where western British Columbia, and as far 2010, p. 2). The productivity of caribou their primary winter food, arboreal south as northern Idaho and is low compared to other cervids (e.g., lichens, occurs. Regardless of efforts to Washington in the United States. This deer and moose). Caribou have only one further refine caribou subspecies subspecies classification is still calf per year and most females designations, Banfield’s caribou recognized and used by scientific reproduce for the first time around 3 subspecies classifications, including the authorities including the American years of age (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer Society of Mammalogists and 230; Shackleton 2010, p. 1). Caribou tarandus caribou), are still recognized COSEWIC. reach sexual maturity at approximately and used today. No alternative Individual caribou can display 16 to 28 months of age. subspecies classifications for caribou tremendous variability in appearance On average, mortality of woodland have been systematically described or and body form even within the same caribou calves is 50 to 70 percent within broadly accepted (COSEWIC 2011, p. population (Hummel and Ray 2008, p. their first year. This mortality depends 12). 34). Woodland caribou are generally on the abundance of predators or the described as dark brown with a white availability of winter forage during Species Description mane and some white on their sides pregnancy, or both (COSEWIC 2002, p. Rangewide, individual caribou (COSEWIC 2002, p. 18) and have a 35). Predation is the most common (Rangifer tarandus) exhibit large noticeable band of white hairs (called cause of calf mortality (Shackleton 2010, variations in their physical and socks) along the upper edge of each hoof p. 2). Calf mortality is also linked to the behavioral characteristics (COSEWIC (Shackleton 2010, p. 1). They are larger health of the calf at birth (COSEWIC 2011, p. 10). Caribou can be highly and darker than both the Peary caribou 2002, p. 35). It has been shown that, due variable in color. Their winter pelage (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and the to temporal variation in the accessibility varies from nearly white in Arctic barren-ground caribou (Rangifer of lichens, female caribou may be caribou such as the Peary caribou, to tarandus groenlandicus), which occur nutritionally deficient in some years dark brown in woodland caribou in the Northwest Territories and east in during pregnancy and may be more (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 10–11). Both male Nunavut (Canada 2013, in litt.). All likely to produce weak calves. Weak and female caribou grow antlers, caribou can withstand severe cold calves are likely more susceptible to although antlers may be absent in some because their thick winter coat contains predation and diseases such as females. All caribou are adapted to semi-hollow hair with strong insulative pneumonia. As such, temporal variation existence in cold winter climates. They properties. However, woodland caribou in lichen availability may also be have a range of adaptations including are susceptible to overheating in driving calf mortality and low calf thick fur, strong sense of smell (for summer months as their dark coat recruitment in some years (COSEWIC locating food under snow; Henttonen absorbs sunlight (COSEWIC 2002, p. 2002, p. 35). and Tikhonov 2008, p. 3), large fat 36). Similar to the Peary and barren- Habitat Use. Caribou (Rangifer stores, a respiratory system that ground caribou subspecies, the nose of tarandus) are the most widespread minimizes heat loss during respiration, the woodland caribou is blunt and ungulate species in the world. The and an ability to lower metabolism in rather square shaped. In addition, their ecosystems they have evolved to occupy the winter by decreasing energy ears are short, broad, and not pointed. are highly variable (COSEWIC 2011, p. expenditure (COSEWIC 2011, p. 11). Both sexes have antlers although up to 11), including the tundra and taiga Caribou are also variable in their diet. half of females may lack antlers or have biomes on all northern continents— They feed on lichens, mosses, grasses, one antler. The antlers of woodland North America, Europe, and Asia ferns, and shoots and leaves of caribou are considered to be denser and (Henttonen and Tikhonov 2008, p. 2). deciduous shrubs and trees, depending flatter than those of barren-ground Occupied habitats vary from flat and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

open arctic and subarctic tundra to home range that extends into the Canada. The role of COSEWIC is to forested habitat, including high- contiguous United States, is estimated assess and classify, using the best elevation and steep mountainous slopes to consist of only 27 individuals available information, the conservation (Henttonen and Tikhonov 2008, p. 3). (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). status of wildlife species, subspecies, Variability in habitat occupancy has Currently, caribou are restricted to the and separate populations suspected of driven the evolution of many different more northern areas of North America, being at risk. In addition, they make ecosystem-specific behavioral and Russia, and Scandinavia (MCST 2005, p. species status recommendations to the migratory traits within the species. For 1). In North America, caribou occur Canadian government and the public. example, caribou in many ecosystems primarily north of the 50th latitude. The Once COSEWIC makes this migrate long distances between their majority of caribou occur in boreal, recommendation, it is the option of the calving and wintering grounds. montane, and arctic environments in Canadian Federal government to decide Meanwhile, caribou in other ecosystems Alaska, most Canadian Provinces, and whether a species will be listed under are relatively sedentary, making short all Canadian Territories except for New Canada’s Species At Risk Act (SARA). movements between these areas. Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince For example, the Southern Mountain Further, caribou in many ecosystems Edward Island (COSEWIC 2011, p. 10). Caribou, a population of the woodland calve in large groups, while others The subspecies woodland caribou caribou, is currently designated as disperse and calve in solitude at high (Rangifer tarandus caribou) occurs in ‘‘Threatened’’ under SARA (COSEWIC elevations away from potential Canada in the southern Yukon; 2011, Table 1, p. 74). This designation predators (Bergerud 1996, entire). southwestern Northwest Territories; was reached because the population of Southern Mountain Caribou is mostly Distribution and Abundance northern, west-central, and southeastern British Columbia; west-central and made up of small, increasingly isolated Historically, caribou (Rangifer northern Alberta; boreal portions of herds (most of which are in decline) tarandus) populations occurred in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; the boreal with an estimated range reduction of up nearly all northern latitudes. They have and arctic portions of Ontario, Quebec, to 40 percent from their historical range since been extirpated from many areas and Newfoundland; and Labrador; and (COSEWIC 2002, p. 58; COSEWIC 2011, in Europe and eastern North America in the United States in extreme Table 1, p. 74). The Southern Mountain (MCST 2005, p. 1). In Banfield’s northeastern Washington and northern Caribou includes the transboundary revision (1961), he reported the Idaho (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 225– southern Selkirk Mountains population southern boundary of caribou in the 226; COSEWIC 2002, p. viii). of woodland caribou, which is currently early part of the 19th century to include The southern Selkirk Mountains listed as endangered under the U.S. central Maine and extreme northern population of woodland caribou Endangered Species Act (Act) and is the New Hampshire and Vermont (Banfield (Rangifer tarandus caribou) is the subject of this 12-month finding. 1961, p. 73). He also noted their southernmost extant, local population of Because we now know that the occurrence around the Great Lakes in woodland caribou in North America southern Selkirk Mountains population Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife of woodland caribou is a part of the (Banfield 1961, pp. 74–75), and in the Conservation Strategy (IDFG CWCS) larger Southern Mountain Caribou northwestern United States in IDFG 2005, p. 373; USFWS 2008, p. 12). population, as recognized by COSEWIC, Washington, Idaho, and Montana This population occurs in British we recognize that our evaluation of the (Banfield 1961, p. 76). Caribou were Columbia, Canada, and northern Idaho southern Selkirk Mountains population reported to be extirpated from Maine and northeastern Washington, United is more appropriately conducted at the after about 1908, from New Hampshire States. Cichowski et al. (2004, p. 226) scale of the Southern Mountain Caribou after about 1881, and from Vermont reported the total population of the population. Therefore, below we after about 1840 (Banfield 1961, p. 76). woodland caribou subspecies to be over evaluate whether, under our DPS policy, The last caribou in Michigan was 1 million. The present distribution of the Southern Mountain Caribou observed off Isle Royale in 1905, and the woodland caribou in Canada is greatly population segment of woodland last caribou in Wisconsin was observed reduced from historical accounts. caribou occurring in British Columbia, in about 1840 (Banfield 1961, p. 77). An Reports indicate that the extent of Canada, and northeastern Washington extensive investigation by Evans (1960, occurrence in British Columbia and northern Idaho, United States, pp. 94–96) estimated that no more than populations has decreased by up to 40 qualifies as a DPS under the Act. 100 caribou still lived in the We completed a 5-year review of the percent in the last few centuries northwestern United States, primarily in endangered southern Selkirk Mountains (COSEWIC 2002, p. viii). northern Idaho. Today, the entire population of woodland caribou southern Selkirk Mountains population Evaluation of the Southern Mountain (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in 2008 (see of woodland caribou, the only local Caribou as a Distinct Population http://www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/ caribou population 2 known to have a Segment Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf). Because this population was listed prior Introduction and Background 2 Woodland caribou populations can be further to the Service’s 1996 DPS policy (61 FR broken down into sub-units we are calling ‘‘local Distinctive, discrete, and significant 4722), the 5-year review included populations’’ (also referred to elsewhere as ‘‘herds’’ populations of the woodland caribou or ‘‘subpopulations’’). These local caribou analysis of this population in relation to populations represent groupings of individual have been identified, described, and the DPS policy. In conducting this DPS woodland caribou that have overlapping ranges/ assessed by the COSEWIC. COSEWIC is analysis, we considered the discreteness movement patterns and commonly breed with one composed of qualified wildlife experts and significance of this population in another more frequently than they breed outside of their local population boundary. It is thought that drawn from the Federal, provincial, and relation to the mountain caribou local populations in southern British Columbia are territorial governments; wildlife metapopulation (USFWS 2008, pp. 6– a relatively recent artifact within the population of management boards; Aboriginal groups; 13). From this analysis we concluded woodland caribou and that, historically, movement universities; museums; national that the southern Selkirk Mountains of caribou between local populations was more common. In some cases, local population nongovernmental organizations; and population of woodland caribou met boundaries have been delineated through telemetry others with expertise in the both the discreteness and significance studies. conservation of wildlife species in elements of the DPS policy and was a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26509

distinct population segment of the satisfies either one of the following Canada’s DUs are identified based on mountain caribou metapopulation conditions: (1) It is markedly separated the criteria that there are ‘‘discrete and (USFWS 2008, p. 13). We acknowledged from other populations of the same evolutionarily significant units of a in our December 19, 2012, 90-day taxon as a consequence of physical, taxonomic species, where ‘significant’ finding (77 FR 75091) that the DPS physiological, ecological, or behavioral means that the unit is important to the analysis in our 2008 5-year review was factors; or (2) it is delimited by evolutionary legacy of the species as a not conducted relative to the international governmental boundaries whole and, if lost, would likely not be appropriate taxon. Specifically, the within which differences in control of replaced through natural dispersion’’ appropriate DPS analysis should have exploitation, management of habitat, (COSEWIC 2011, p. 14). They consider been conducted relative to the conservation status, or regulatory a population or group of populations to subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer mechanisms exist that are significant in be ‘‘discrete’’ based on the following tarandus caribou). light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. criteria: Evidence of genetic Section 3(16) of the Act defines the If a population is found to be discrete, distinctiveness, natural disjunction term ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any then it is evaluated for significance between substantial portions of the subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, under the DPS policy on the basis of its species’ geographic range, and/or and any distinct population segment of importance to the taxon to which it occupancy of differing eco-geographic any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife belongs. This consideration may regions that are relevant to the species which interbreeds when mature.’’ We include, but is not limited to, the and reflect historical or genetic have always understood the phrase following: (1) Persistence of the discrete distinction (COSEWIC 2011, in litt.). ‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ to mean that population segment in an ecological a DPS must consist of members of the setting unusual or unique to the taxon; It should be noted that COSEWIC’s same species or subspecies in the wild (2) evidence that loss of the discrete DU designation does not necessarily that would be biologically capable of population segment would result in a consider the conservation status or interbreeding if given the opportunity, significant gap in the range of the taxon; threats to the persistence of caribou but all members need not actually (3) evidence that the population DUs. Consistent with their 2009 interbreed with each other. A DPS is a represents the only surviving natural guidelines, the COSEWIC used five lines subset of a species or subspecies, and occurrence of the taxon that may be of evidence to determine caribou DUs; cannot consist of members of a different more abundant elsewhere as an these include: (1) Phylogenetics; (2) species or subspecies. The ‘‘biological introduced population outside of its genetic diversity and structure; (3) species concept’’ defines species historical range; or (4) evidence that the morphology; (4) movements, behavior, according to a group of organisms, their population differs markedly from other and life-history strategies; and (5) actual or potential ability to interbreed, populations of the species in its genetic distribution (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15). As and their relative reproductive isolation characteristics. a general rule, a DU was designated from other organisms. This concept is a If a population segment is both when several lines of evidence provided widely accepted approach to defining discrete and significant (i.e., it qualifies support for discreteness and species. We believe that the Act’s use of as a potential DPS) its evaluation for significance (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15– the phrase ‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ endangered or threatened status is based 16). Twelve caribou DUs were classified reflects this understanding. Use of this on the Act’s definitions of those terms by COSEWIC in 2011, including the phrase with respect to a DPS is simply and a review of the factors listed in Southern Mountain Caribou (DU9), intended to mean that a DPS must be section 4(a) of the Act. According to our which includes the southern Selkirk comprised of members of the same DPS policy, it may be appropriate to Mountains population of woodland species or subspecies. As long as this assign different classifications to caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. 21). The requirement is met, a DPS may include different DPSs of the same vertebrate information used to describe the multiple populations of vertebrate taxon. For this 12-month finding and Southern Mountain DU is reviewed and organisms that may not interbreed with DPS analysis of the southern Selkirk evaluated in our DPS analysis, as it each other. For example, a DPS may Mountains population of woodland includes numerous local woodland consist of multiple populations of a fish caribou to the subspecies woodland caribou populations that all possess species separated into different caribou, we reviewed and evaluated similar and unique foraging, migration, drainages. While these populations may information contained in numerous and habitat use behaviors and are not actually interbreed with each other, publications and reports, including but geographically separated from other their members are biologically capable not limited to: Banfield 1961, Stevenson caribou DUs. of interbreeding. et al. 2001, COSEWIC 2002, Cichowski The National Marine Fisheries Service et al. 2004, Wittmer et al. 2005b, Geist Discreteness (NMFS) and the Service published a 2007, COSEWIC 2011, van Oort et al. joint ‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition 2011, and Serrouya et al. 2012. As outlined in our 1996 DPS policy, of Distinct Vertebrate Population In 2002 and 2011, COSEWIC a population segment of a vertebrate Segments Under the Endangered completed status assessments of caribou species may be considered discrete if it Species Act’’ (DPS Policy) on February subspecies and species populations in satisfies either one of the following 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the North America. The 2002 COSEWIC conditions: (1) It is markedly separated DPS policy, two elements must be Report evaluated woodland caribou from other populations of the same satisfied in order for a population ‘‘nationally significant populations’’ taxon as a consequence of physical, segment to qualify as a possible DPS: (NSPs). The more recent COSEWIC physiological, ecological, or behavioral Discreteness and significance. If the (2011) Report described ‘‘Designatable factors; or (2) it is delimited by population segment qualifies as a DPS, Units’’ (DUs) as the appropriate international governmental boundaries the conservation status of that DPS is ‘‘discrete and significant units’’ useful within which differences in control of then evaluated to determine whether it to conserve and manage caribou exploitation, management of habitat, is endangered or threatened. populations throughout Canada. conservation status, or regulatory A population segment of a vertebrate Information used in COSEWIC’s 2011 mechanisms exist that are significant in species may be considered discrete if it report is useful to our DPS analysis. light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Physical (Geographic) Discreteness 2011, p. 50). Apps and McLellan (2006, Southern Mountain Caribou that is The southern Selkirk Mountains p. 92) noted that the steep, complex unique among woodland caribou. They population of woodland caribou is one topography within the interior wet-belt rely exclusively on arboreal (tree) of 15 (COSEWIC 2011, p. 89) local provides seasonally important habitats. lichens for 3 or more months of the year woodland caribou populations that Caribou access this habitat by migrating (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; share distinct foraging, migration, and in elevational shifts rather than through Edmonds 1991, p. 91; Stevenson et al. habitat use behaviors. These the long horizontal migrations of other 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. populations are all located in steep, subspecies in northern Canada. 224, 230–231; MCST 2005, p. 2; mountainous terrain in central and Woodland caribou that live within this COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Arboreal lichens southeastern British Columbia, and interior wet-belt of southern British are a critical winter food for the extreme northeastern Washington and Columbia, northeastern Washington, Southern Mountain Caribou from northern Idaho, United States. Little to and northern Idaho are strongly November to May (Servheen and Lyon no dispersal has been detected between associated with old-growth forested 1989, p. 235; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. these local populations and other local landscapes (Apps et al. 2001, pp. 65, 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 233). During caribou populations outside this 70). These landscapes are this time, a Southern Mountain geographic area (Wittmer et al. 2005b, predominantly cedar/hemlock and Caribou’s diet can be composed almost pp. 408, 409; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van spruce/subalpine fir composition entirely of these lichens. Arboreal (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3–5; Apps lichens are pulled from the branches of Oort et al. 2011, pp. 222–223). For the and McLellan 2006, pp. 84, 91; conifers, picked from the surface of the purposes of this DPS analysis, this Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 231; snow after being blown out of trees by collection of local woodland caribou COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that supports wind, or are grazed from wind-thrown populations, which, as noted above, woodland caribou’s late-winter diet branches and trees. The two kinds of includes the southern Selkirk consisting almost entirely of arboreal arboreal lichens commonly eaten by the Mountains population, will hereafter be hair lichens (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. Southern Mountain Caribou are Bryoria referred to as the Southern Mountain 229). spp. and Alectoria sarmentosa. Both are Caribou. The Southern Mountain Caribou extremely slow-growing lichens most Telemetry research by Wittmer et al. population is markedly separate from commonly found in high-elevation, old- (2005b) and van Oort et al. (2011) other populations of woodland caribou growth conifer forests that are greater supports the physical (geographic) as a result of physical (geographic) than 250 years old (Paquet 1997, p. 14; discreteness of Southern Mountain factors. The distribution of this Apps et al. 2001, pp. 65–66). Caribou. One exception is that there is population is primarily located within Another unique behavior of caribou some limited annual range overlap the interior wet-belt of southern British within the Southern Mountain Caribou between a few local caribou populations Columbia, occurring west of the population is their altitudinal at the far north of the Southern continental divide and generally south migrations. They may undertake as Mountain Caribou population. Although of Reynolds Creek (which is about 90 many as four of these migrations per all caribou and reindeer worldwide are miles (mi) (150 kilometers (km)) north year (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). After considered to be the same species of Prince George, British Columbia). Its wintering at high elevations as (Rangifer tarandus) and are presumed geographic range is such that it does not described above, at the onset of spring able to interbreed and produce offspring reproduce with other local populations these caribou move to lower elevations (COSEWIC 2002, p. 9), the distribution of woodland caribou. where snow has melted to forage on of the Southern Mountain Caribou does new green vegetation (Paquet 1997, p. Behavioral Discreteness not overlap with other populations 16; Mountain Caribou Technical during the rut or mating season In addition to being physically Advisory Committee (MCTAC) 2002, p. (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Previous (geographically) discrete, individuals 11). Pregnant females will move to these telemetry studies were completed by within the Southern Mountain Caribou spring habitats for forage. During the Apps and McLellan (2006, pp. 84–85, population are behaviorally calving season, sometime from June into 92) to determine occupancy across distinguished from woodland caribou in July, the need to avoid predators differing landscapes. These studies other populations (including the influences habitat selection. Areas confirmed that woodland caribou neighboring Northern Mountain and selected for calving are typically high- within the geographic area that defines Central Mountain populations). elevation, alpine and non-forested areas the Southern Mountain Caribou Southern Mountain Caribou uniquely in close proximity to old-growth forest population are strongly associated with use steep, high-elevation, mountainous ridge tops, as well as high-elevation the steep, mountainous terrain habitats with deep snowfall (about 5 to basins. These high-elevation sites can be characterizing the ‘‘interior wet-belt’’ of 16 ft; 2 to 5 m) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50), food limited, but are more likely to be British Columbia (Stevenson et al. 2001, and, as described below, are the only free of predators (USFWS 1994, p. 8; p. 3), located west of the continental woodland caribou that depend on MCTAC 2002, p. 11; Cichowski et al. divide. This area is influenced by arboreal lichens for forage. This habitat 2004, p. 232, Kinley and Apps 2007, p. Pacific air masses that produce the use contrasts with the behavior of other 16). During calving, arboreal lichens wettest climate in the interior of British woodland caribou, which occupy become the primary food source for Columbia (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3). relatively drier habitats that receive less pregnant females at these elevations. Forests consist of Engelmann spruce snowfall. With less snowfall in these This is because green forage is largely (Picea engelmannii or P. glauca x areas, these woodland caribou primarily unavailable in these secluded, old- engelmannii)/subalpine fir (Abies forage on terrestrial lichens, accessing growth conifer habitats. lasiocarpa) at high elevation, and them by ‘‘cratering’’ or digging through During summer months, Southern western red cedar (Thuja plicata)/ the snow with their hooves (Thomas et Mountain Caribou move back to upper western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2002, pp. 25, elevation spruce/alpine fir forests at lower elevations. Snowpack typically 27). (Paquet 1997, p. 16). Summer diets averages 5 to 16 ft (2 to 5 m) in depth Extreme deep snow conditions have include selective foraging of grasses, (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 4; COSEWIC led to a foraging strategy by the flowering plants, horsetails, willow and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26511

dwarf birch leaves and tips, sedges, However, study results from Serrouya et outside its historical range; and (4) lichens (Paquet 1997, pp. 13, 16), and al. (2012), combined with telemetry data evidence that loss of the discrete huckleberry leaves (U.S. Forest Service from Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and population segment would result in a (USFS) 2004, p. 18). The fall and early van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest significant gap in the range of the taxon. winter diet consists largely of dried that isolation of local populations is The following discussion addresses grasses, sedges, willow and dwarf birch now the norm, affecting genetics of considerations regarding the tips, and arboreal lichens. these local populations differently significance of the Southern Mountain The Southern Mountain Caribou are through genetic drift (Serrouya et al. Caribou population to the subspecies behaviorally adapted to the steep, high- 2012, p. 2597). woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus elevation, mountainous habitat with A certain level of genetic caribou). deep snowpack. They feed almost differentiation does exist between the exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or Southern Mountain Caribou population (1) Persistence of the Discrete more months out of the year. They are and neighboring woodland caribou. Population Segment in an Ecological also reproductively isolated, due to their However, we do not presently consider Setting Unusual or Unique for the behavior and separation from other there to be sufficient evidence to Taxon caribou populations during the fall rut determine that the Southern Mountain As previously discussed, woodland and mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. Caribou are genetically isolated from caribou within the Southern Mountain 50). Based on these unique adaptations, other populations of caribou, Caribou population are distinguished we consider the Southern Mountain particularly the Central Mountain from woodland caribou in other areas. Caribou population to have met the population. Therefore, at this time, we Southern Mountain Caribou live in, and behavioral ‘‘discreteness’’ standard in do not find that this population meets are behaviorally adapted to, a unique our DPS policy. the genetic ‘‘discreteness’’ standard in ecological setting characterized by high- our DPS policy. elevation, high-precipitation, and steep Genetic Discreteness old-growth conifer forests that support Data from Serrouya et al. (2012, p. Discreteness Conclusion abundant arboreal lichens (COSEWIC 2594) show that genetic population In summary, we determine the best 2011, p. 50). In addition, all woodland structure (i.e., patterning or clustering of available information indicates that the caribou in the Southern Mountain the genetic make-up of individuals Southern Mountain Caribou, comprised Caribou population exhibit a distinct within a population) does exist within of 15 local woodland caribou behavior. Specifically, they spend the woodland caribou. Specifically, populations that occur in southern winter months in high-elevation, steep, Serrouya revealed a genetic cluster that British Columbia, northeastern mountainous habitats where individuals is unique to Southern Mountain Caribou Washington, and northern Idaho, is stand on the deep, hard-crusted and different from genetic clusters markedly separated from all other snowpack and feed exclusively on found in surrounding local populations populations of woodland caribou. The arboreal lichens on standing or fallen of woodland caribou designated as part Southern Mountain Caribou population old-growth conifer trees (Cichowski et of other Canada caribou DUs (i.e., is physically (geographically), al. 2004, pp. 224, 230–231; MCST 2005, Central Mountain DU, Northern behaviorally, and reproductively p. 2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). This Mountain DU, and Boreal DU). isolated from other woodland caribou. behavior is unlike that of woodland However, Serrouya also revealed genetic Therefore, we consider the Southern caribou in neighboring areas that clusters that occur in both the Southern Mountain Caribou population to be occupy less steep, drier terrain and do Mountain Caribou and neighboring DUs discrete per our DPS policy. not feed on arboreal lichens during the that suggest some historical gene flow winter (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; Significance did occur in the past, meaning that COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). caribou did historically move between Under our DPS policy, once we have In addition to persisting in a specific populations of these DUs and interbreed determined that a population segment is environment characterized by steep, when mature. discrete, we consider its biological and high-elevation, old-growth forests and This cluster overlap of DU boundaries ecological significance to the larger being reliant on arboreal lichens as is not surprising, as genetic structure is taxon to which it belongs. Significance primary winter forage, caribou of the reflective of long-term historical is not determined by a quantitative Southern Mountain population make population dynamics and does not analysis, but is instead a qualitative relatively short-distance altitudinal necessarily depict current gene flow. finding. It will vary from species to migrations up to four times per year. Indeed, it does appear that recent species and cannot be reduced to a These caribou occupy valley bottoms impediments to gene flow may be simple formula or flat percentage. Our and lower slopes in the early winter, genetically isolating woodland caribou DPS policy provides several potential and ridge tops and upper slopes in later in the southwest portion of their range considerations that may demonstrate the winter after the snowpack deepens and (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort significance of a population segment to hardens. In the spring, they move to et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012, the species to which it belongs. These lower elevations again to access green p. 2598). These impediments include considerations include, but are not vegetation. Females make solitary anthropogenic habitat fragmentation limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete movements back to high elevations to and widespread caribou population population segment in an ecological calve. This habitat and behavior are declines. Therefore, genetic setting unusual or unique for the taxon; unique to the Southern Mountain specialization related to unique (2) evidence that the discrete population Caribou population. All other behaviors and habitat use may represent segment differs markedly from other populations within the woodland a relatively recent life-history population segments in its genetic caribou subspecies occupy winter characteristic (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. characteristics; (3) evidence that the habitat characterized by gentler 3620). Historical gene flow between population segment represents the only topography, lower elevation, and less local populations of Southern Mountain surviving natural occurrence of the winter snowpack (COSEWIC 2011, pp. Caribou and neighboring local taxon that may be more abundant 43, 46) where their primary winter populations did occur in the past. elsewhere as an introduced population forage, terrestrial (ground) lichens, is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

most accessible (Thomas et al. 1996, p. likely continue and will provide further estimated only 1,657 individuals 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46). Unlike insight into gene flow between these (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Loss of the woodland caribou of the Southern populations. Southern Mountain Caribou population Mountain population, some populations Despite some level of genetic would result in the loss of the southern- in eastern Canada (Eastern Migratory structure between the Southern most extent of the range of woodland DU (DU4; COSEWIC 2011, p. 34)) will Mountain Caribou population and caribou by about 2.5 degrees of latitude. migrate relatively long distances across neighboring woodland caribou, and a This includes the only remaining the landscape between wintering and predicted continuation of genetic population of the woodland caribou in calving habitat, where they will calve in structuring between local populations the coterminous United States. An large aggregated groups (COSEWIC within Southern Mountain Caribou, we additional consequence of the loss of 2011, pp., 33, 37; Abraham et al. 2012, do not presently consider Southern the Southern Mountain Caribou p. 274). Mountain Caribou ‘‘genetically unique.’’ population would be the elimination of We conclude that the Southern Therefore, at this time we do not find the only North American caribou Mountain Caribou meets the definition this population meets the genetic population with the distinct behavior of of significant in accordance with our ‘‘significance’’ standard in our DPS feeding exclusively on arboreal lichens DPS policy, as this population currently policy. for 3 or more months of the year. This persists in an ecological setting unusual (3) Evidence That the Population feeding behavior is related to their or unique for the subspecies of Segment Represents the Only Surviving spending winter months in high- woodland caribou. Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That elevation, steep, mountainous habitats (2) Evidence That the Discrete May Be More Abundant Esewhere as an with deep snowpack. Population Segment Differs Markedly Introduced Population Outside Its The extirpation of peripheral From Other Population Segments in Its Historic Range populations, such as the Southern Genetic Characteristics All caribou in the world are one Mountain Caribou population, is Research by Serrouya et al. (2012, p. species (Rangifer tarandus). In a global concerning because of the potential 2594) indicates that there is some review of taxonomy of the genus conservation value that peripheral genetic population structure between Rangifer, Banfield (1961) documented populations can provide to a species or woodland caribou populations in the occurrence of five subspecies in subspecies. Specifically, peripheral western North America. This research North America. Woodland caribou populations can possess slight genetic identified two main genetic clusters (Rangifer tarandus caribou), one of the or phenotypic divergences from core within the Southern Mountain Caribou, five recognized subspecies of caribou, populations (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, separated from each other by the North are the southern-most subspecies in p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50). The Thompson Valley in British Columbia. North America. The range of woodland genotypic and phenotypic One of these clusters is unique, with caribou extends in an east/west band characteristics peripheral populations few exceptions, to the Southern from eastern Newfoundland and may provide to the core population of Mountain Caribou (structure analysis; northern Quebec, all the way into the species may be central to the Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2594). The other western British Columbia. Southern species’ survival in the face of cluster, northwest of the North Mountain Caribou represent a discrete environmental change (Lesica and Thompson Valley, is shared with the subset of this subspecies. Because Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Bunnell et al. adjacent Central Mountain population. Southern Mountain Caribou are not the 2004, p. 2242). As such, there is limited genetic only surviving natural occurrence of the The extirpation of Southern Mountain evidence in this study that Southern woodland caribou subspecies, this Caribou would represent a significant Mountain Caribou populations north of element is not applicable. gap in the range of the woodland the North Thompson Valley are caribou subspecies. Extirpation of this genetically unique relative to caribou of (4) Evidence That Loss of the Discrete population segment would result in the the Central Mountain population. Population Segment Would Result in a loss of a peripheral population segment As previously discussed, the best Significant Gap in the Range of the of woodland caribou that live in, and available information indicates that Taxon are behaviorally adapted to, a unique recent impediments to gene flow such Historically, woodland caribou were ecological setting characterized by high- as habitat fragmentation and widespread widely distributed throughout portions elevation, high-precipitation (including caribou population declines may be of the northern tier of the coterminous deep snowpack), and steep old-growth genetically isolating woodland caribou United States from Washington to conifer forests that support abundant in the southwestern portion of their Maine, as well as throughout most of arboreal lichens. range (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414; van southern Canada (COSEWIC 2002, p. Significance Conclusion Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 19). However, as a result of habitat loss 2012, p. 2598). This genetic isolation and fragmentation, overhunting, and the We conclude that the Southern has resulted in unique behaviors and effects of predation, the population of Mountain Caribou persists in an habitat use (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. woodland caribou within the British ecological setting unusual or unique for 3620). Study results from Serrouya et al. Columbia portion of their range has the subspecies of woodland caribou, (2012), combined with telemetry data declined dramatically with an estimated and that loss of the Southern Mountain from Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and 40 percent range reduction (COSEWIC Caribou would result in a significant van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest 2002, p. 20). Further evidence of this gap in the range of the woodland that while historical gene flow between decline was observed within the caribou subspecies. Therefore, the local populations of Southern Mountain Southern Mountain Caribou population, discrete Southern Mountain Caribou Caribou and neighboring local where there were an estimated 2,554 population of woodland caribou that populations did occur in the past, individuals as recently as 1995 (Hatter occur in southern British Columbia, and isolation of these local populations is et al. 2004, p. 7). The most recent in northeastern Washington and now the norm. Research into the estimate of individuals in this northern Idaho meet the significance genetics of the woodland caribou will population was conducted in 2012, and criteria under our DPS policy.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26513

Listable Entity Determination of this population would leave a a subspecies, but only of a full species. In conclusion, the Service finds that significant gap in the range of the The Service has long interpreted the Act the Southern Mountain Caribou woodland caribou subspecies. For to authorize designation of a DPS of a population meets both the discreteness consistency, we will refer to the subspecies, and the courts have upheld and significance elements of our DPS Southern Mountain DU, described by the Service’s interpretation. See, for policy. It qualifies as discrete because of COSEWIC, as the Southern Mountain example, Center for Biological Diversity its marked physical (geographic) and Caribou DPS. See Figure 1 for a map of v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 274 behavioral separation from other the known distribution of local Fed. Appx. 542 (9th Cir. 2008). populations of the woodland caribou populations within the Southern Consequently, we deny the petition to subspecies. It qualifies as significant Mountain Caribou DPS. the extent that it relies on this argument. because of its existence in a unique The petition asserted that the Act BILLING CODE 4310–55–P ecological setting, and because the loss does not permit designation of a DPS of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has population was estimated at 275 Status of the Southern Mountain declined by approximately 8 percent per individuals in 1982, but had increased Caribou DPS year across its range. Individual and was considered stable at 325 to 350 populations have decreased by up to 18 caribou from 1995 to 2002. As of 2011, Declines in caribou populations percent per year (Wittmer et al. 2005b, this local population was estimated to within British Columbia began in the p. 413). For example, the South Purcells be at 204 caribou (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). mid-1960s (Harding 2008, p. 1). Recent local population, which is located above Surveys of the local populations in survey efforts confirm these declines the Montana border, had an estimated the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS continue today. Over the past decade, 100 individuals in 1982, and only 20 in estimated that, in 1995, the entire the abundance of individuals in the 2002. The larger Wells Gray South local population was approximately 2,554

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP08MY14.000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26515

individuals (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 7). By Along with these documented and from habitat destruction, modification, 2002, this number had decreased to predicted population declines, local and curtailment are described below. approximately 1,900 individuals (Hatter populations of woodland caribou within Historically, the caribou populations et al. 2004, p. 7). Currently, the the proposed DPS are becoming that make up the Southern Mountain population is estimated to be 1,657 increasingly fragmented and isolated Caribou DPS were distributed individuals (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Many (Wittmer 2004, p. 28; van Oort et al. throughout the western Rocky local populations within the Southern 2011, p. 25; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. Mountains of British Columbia, Mountain Caribou DPS are reported to 2598). Fragmentation and isolation are northern Idaho, and northeastern have experienced declines of 50 percent particularly pronounced in the southern Washington (Apps and McLellan 2006, or greater between 1995 and 2002 portion of the Southern Mountain p. 84). As previously discussed, caribou (MCST 2005, p. 1). Some of the most Caribou DPS (Wittmer 2004, p. 28). This within the Southern Mountain Caribou extreme decreases were observed in the fragmentation and isolation are likely DPS are strongly associated with high- Central Selkirk and South Purcells local accelerating the extinction process and elevation, high-precipitation, old- populations. These populations reducing the probability of demographic growth forested landscapes (Stevenson experienced 61 and 78 percent rescue from natural immigration or et al. 2001, pp. 3–5; Apps and McLellan reductions in their populations, emigration. Van Oort et al. (2011, p. 2006, pp. 84, 91; Cichowski et al. 2004, respectively, during this time (Harding 215), observed that population pp. 224, 231; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that 2008, p. 3). fragmentation and isolation in a support their uniquely exclusive winter Population models indicate declines population with little or no ability to diet of arboreal lichens (Cichowski et al. will continue into the future for the disperse between local populations may 2004, p. 229). entire Southern Mountain Caribou DPS represent a geographic pattern of the It is estimated that about 98 percent of the caribou in the Southern Mountain and for many local populations. Hatter extinction process. Caribou DPS rely on arboreal lichens as et al. (2004, p. 9) predicted local Despite these predictions, some local their primary winter food. They have population levels within this DPS under populations of woodland caribou within adapted to the high-elevation, deep- three different scenarios: ‘‘optimistic,’’ the proposed DPS appear to be stable. snow habitat that occurs within this ‘‘most likely,’’ and ‘‘pessimistic.’’ Under For example, the North Mountain region area of British Columbia, northern these scenarios population levels were (northern-most populations principally Idaho, and northeastern Washington modeled to decline from the current in the Hart Range) was estimated at 500 animals in 2005 and is considered stable (Apps and McLellan 2006, p. 84). The level of 1,657 individuals to 1,534 (MCST 2005, p. 4; Ritchie 2013, pers. present distribution of woodland (optimistic), 1,169 (most likely), or 820 comm.). caribou in Canada is much reduced (pessimistic), by 2022. In addition, all from historical accounts, with reports three scenarios reported the extirpation Summary of Factors Affecting the indicating that the extent of occurrence of two (optimistic), three (most likely), Species in British Columbia and Ontario or five (pessimistic) local populations Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), populations has decreased by up to 40 by 2022 (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 9). As of and its implementing regulations at 50 percent in the last few centuries 2013, George Mountain, one of the local CFR part 424, set forth the procedures (COSEWIC 2002, pp. viii, 30). The populations within the Southern for adding species to the Federal Lists greatest reduction has occurred in local Mountain Caribou DPS recently of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife populations comprising the Southern considered to be at risk by Hatter et al. and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Mountain Caribou DPS (COSEWIC 2002, (2004), is now considered to be Act, we may list a species based on any p. 30; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49). Hunting extirpated (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). of the following five factors: (A) The was historically considered the main According to Hatter et al. (2004, pp. present or threatened destruction, cause of range retraction in the central 9 and 11), no models predicted modification, or curtailment of its and southern portions of British extinction of the woodland caribou habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Columbia. However, predation, habitat population within the proposed DPS in commercial, recreational, scientific, or fragmentation from forestry operations, the next 100 years (Hatter et al. 2004, p. educational purposes; (C) disease or and human development are now 11). However, reductions in the size of predation; (D) the inadequacy of considered the main concerns the entire population were predicted. existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30). Using the same scenarios from Hatter et other natural or manmade factors Forest Harvest al. (2004) as described above affecting its continued existence. Listing (‘‘optimistic,’’ ‘‘most likely,’’ and actions may be warranted based on any Forestry has been the dominant land ‘‘pessimistic’’), the average time until of the above threat factors, singly or in use within the range of the Southern the population of woodland caribou combination. We discuss each of these Mountain Caribou DPS in British within the Southern Mountain Caribou factors for the Southern Mountain Columbia throughout the 20th century. DPS is fewer than 1,000 individuals was Caribou DPS below. The majority of timber harvesting has projected to be 100, 84, and 26 years, occurred since the late 1960s (Stevenson respectively (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 11). A. The Present or Threatened et al. 2001, pp. 9–10). Prior to 1966 and These estimates do not account for the Destruction, Modification, or before pulp mills were built in the relationship between density and adult Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range interior of British Columbia, a variety of female survival, and may be a Threats to caribou habitat within the forest harvesting systems were utilized, conservative estimate of time to Southern Mountain DPS include forest targeting primarily spruce and Douglas extinction (in other words, may harvest, forest fires, human fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) sawlogs, and underestimate the timeframes). Wittmer development, recreation, and climate pole-sized western red cedar. It was not (2004, p. 88) attempted to account for change. In addition to causing direct until after 1966, when market density-dependent adult female survival impacts, these threats often catalyze conditions changed to meet the demand and predicted extinction of all local indirect impacts to caribou, which are for pulp and other timber products, that populations in the proposed DPS within also important in this analysis. Both the majority of timber harvesting the next 100 years (Wittmer 2004, p. 88). direct and indirect impacts to caribou occurred through clear-cutting large

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

blocks of forest (Stevenson et al. 2001, avoid (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 79; logging in new areas and upper- p. 10). However, in the 1970s, some MCTAC 2002, pp. 20–21). These old- elevation drainages (Evans 1960, pp. areas in the southern Selkirk Mountains growth forests have evolved with few 123–124). In both Canada and the and the North Thompson area (north of and small-scale natural disturbances United States, these roads have also Revelstoke, British Columbia) were only such as wildfires, insects, or diseases. generated more human activity and partially cut in an effort to maintain When these disturbances did occur, human disturbance in habitat that was habitat for caribou (Stevenson et al. they created only small and natural gaps previously less accessible to humans 2001, p. 10). In the 1990s, there was an in the forest canopy that allowed trees (MCST 2005, p. 5). See E. Other Natural increase in both experimental and to regenerate and grow (Seip 1998, pp. or Manmade Factors Affecting Its operational partial cutting in caribou 204–205). Forest harvesting through Continued Existence for additional habitat. Partial cuts continue to remain large-scale clear-cutting creates discussion. a small proportion of total area additional and larger openings in old- The harvest of late-successional (old- harvested each year within caribou growth forest habitat. These openings growth) forests directly affects habitat in British Columbia (Stevenson allow for additional growth of early availability of arboreal lichens, the et al. 2001, p. 10). seral habitat. primary winter food item for caribou Historically, within the U.S. portion Research of woodland caribou has within the Southern Mountain Caribous of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, shown that caribou alter their DPS. Caribou within this area rely on habitat impacts have been primarily due movement patterns to avoid areas of arboreal lichens for winter forage for 3 to logging and fire (Evans 1960, p. 109). disturbance where forest harvest has or more months of the year (Apps et al. In the early 19th century, intensive occurred (Smith et al. 2000, p. 1435; 2001, p. 65; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; logging occurred from approximately Courtois et al. 2007, p. 496). With less MCST 2005, p. 2). In recent decades, 1907 through 1922, when the foothills contiguous old-growth habitat, caribou however, local caribou populations in and lowlands were logged upwards in are also limited to increasingly fewer the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS elevation to the present U.S. National places on the landscape. Further, have declined faster than mature forests Forest boundaries (Evans 1960, p. 110). woodland caribou that do remain in have been harvested. This suggests that Partly as a result of this logging, harvested areas have been documented arboreal lichens are not the limiting farmlands replaced moister valleys that to have decreased survival due to factor for woodland caribou in this area once resembled the rain forests of the predation vulnerability (Courtois et al. (MCST 2005, p. 4; Wittmer et al. 2005a, Pacific coast (Evans 1960, p. 111). From 2007, p. 496). This is because the early p. 265; Wittmer et al. 2007, p. 576). the 1920s through 1960, logging seral habitat, which establishes itself in Forest Fires continued into caribou habitat on the recently harvested or disturbed areas, Kanisku National Forest in Idaho (now also attracts other ungulate species such Forest fires have the same effect on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest) as deer, elk, and moose to areas that mountain caribou habitat in the (Evans 1960, pp. 118–120). In addition, were previously unsuitable for these Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as insect and disease outbreaks affected species (MCST 2005, pp. 4–5; Bowman forest harvesting. Fires cause direct loss large areas of white pine (Pinus strobus) et al. 2010, p. 464). With the increase in of important old-growth habitat and stands in caribou habitat, and the distribution and abundance of prey increase openings that allow for the Engelmann spruce habitat was heavily species in or near habitats located where growth of early seral habitat, which is affected by windstorms, insect caribou occur, comes an increase in conducive to use by other ungulates, outbreaks, and subsequent salvage predators and therefore an increase in such as deer and moose, but not by logging (Evans 1960, pp. 123–124). As a predation on caribou. Predation has mountain caribou, which require old result, spruce became the center of been reported as one of the most growth, mature forests. Historically, importance in the lumber industry of important direct causes of population natural fires occurred at very low this region. This led to further harvest decline for caribou in the Southern frequency and extent throughout the of spruce habitat in adjacent, higher Mountain Caribou DPS (see also C. range of the Southern Mountain Caribou elevation drainages previously Disease or Predation, below; MCST DPS. This was due to the very wet unaffected by insect outbreaks (Evans 2005, p. 4; Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 257; conditions of the interior wet-belt 1960, pp. 124–131). It is not known how Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 417; Wittmer et (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3). When fires much forest within the range of the al. 2007, p. 576). did occur, most were relatively small in Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has Roads created to support forest size (Seip 1998, p. 204). Fires can been historically harvested; however, harvest activities have also fragmented remove suitable habitat for 25 to 100 forest harvest likely had and continues habitat. Roads create linear features that years or longer depending on fire to have direct and indirect impacts on also provide easy travel corridors for intensity, geography, and type of forage caribou and their habitat, contributing predators into and through difficult normally consumed by caribou to the curtailment and modification of habitats where caribou seek refuge from (COSEWIC 2002, p. 45). As previously the habitat of the Southern Mountain predators (MCST 2005, p. 5; Wittmer et discussed, changes in habitat conditions Caribou DPS. al. 2007, p. 576). It has been estimated have led to altered predator-prey The harvesting of forests has both that forest roads throughout British dynamics, resulting in more predation direct and indirect effects on caribou Columbia (which includes the Southern on caribou in the Southern Mountain habitat within the Southern Mountain Mountain Caribou DPS) expanded by Caribou DPS. One of the first notable Caribou DPS. A direct effect of forest 4,100 percent (from 528 to 21,748 mi declines of caribou was reported in harvest is the direct loss of large (850 to 35,000 km)) between 1950 and Wells Gray Park, British Columbia expanses of contiguous old-growth 1990. Most of these roads were (within the Southern Mountain Caribou forest habitats. Caribou in the Southern associated with forest harvesting DPS), and was attributed to fires in the Mountain Caribou DPS rely upon these (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10). In the 1930s that burned approximately 70 habitats as an important means of United States, roads associated with percent of forests below 4,000 ft (1,219 limiting the effect of predation. Their logging and forest administration m) within the park (Edwards 1954, strategy is to spread over large areas at developed continuously from 1900 entire). These fires changed forest high elevation that other prey species through 1960. These roads allowed composition, leading to increased

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26517

populations of other ungulates, such as and disturbance (Evans 1960, p. 131; The 1963 opening of the Creston-Salmo mule deer and moose (Edwards 1954, p. USFWS 1985, p. 21). Interestingly, section of Highway 3 in British 523), which altered the predator-prey because of the spruce bark beetle Columbia has led to increased vehicle dynamics. The 1967 Sundance, Kanisku outbreaks and a sudden increase in collisions with mountain caribou. Seven Mountain, and Trapper Peak fires in the spruce harvest, the logging industry, in caribou were struck and killed on this Selkirk Mountains destroyed almost an attempt to sell the wood that was section of Highway 3 within the first 9 80,000 ac (32,375 ha) of caribou habitat being salvaged from the mid-century years (Johnson 1985, entire). More (Layser 1974, p. 51). In 2006, the Kutetl spruce bark beetle outbreaks, recently, in 2009, a pregnant caribou fire in West Arm Park (British aggressively promoted and developed a cow and calf were killed by a vehicle Columbia) destroyed nearly 19,768 ac market for spruce wood. The associated travelling on Highway 3 near Kootenay (8,000 ha) of caribou habitat (Wildeman demand they created for spruce wood Pass in British Columbia (CBC News et al. 2010, pp. 1, 14, 33, 36, 61). Forest continued after the salvaged wood was 2009, in litt.). Deaths of individual fires are a natural phenomenon and exhausted, probably leading to caribou from car collisions can have historically occurred at low frequency continued logging of spruce forests at notable adverse effects on local and extent throughout the range of the high elevations. This continued logging populations. This is because of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS prior of spruce continued the elimination of small population sizes of the southern- to human settlement. However, fires are habitat and prolonged disturbance to most populations within the Southern predicted to increase in frequency and caribou beyond the direct impacts from Mountain Caribou DPS and the low magnitude due to ongoing climate the beetle infestations (Evans 1960, p. productivity and calf survival rates as change (see ‘‘Climate Change’’ below), 131). discussed in the Background section. thereby continuing to impact caribou Management of beetle outbreaks for Highways and their associated vehicle habitat in the Southern Mountain caribou has involved attempting to traffic can also fragment caribou habitat Caribou DPS into the future. preserve alternate habitat until forests and act as impediments to animal that have been affected have time to movement (Forman and Alexander Insect Outbreaks regenerate and once again become 1998, p. 215; Dyer et al. 2002, p. 839; Engelmann spruce beetles suitable for caribou (Hummel and Ray Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009, entire). (Dendroctonus engelmannii) have been 2008, p. 252). It is not clear to what Species like the Southern Mountain known to kill large amounts of old- extent insect infestations will continue Caribou DPS, which have relatively growth forest and caribou habitat in into the future; however, climate change large ranges, low reproductive rates, and western Canada and the northwestern models predict more frequent mountain low natural densities, are more likely to United States. Spruce bark beetle pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) be negatively affected by roads (Fahrig (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks outbreaks at higher elevations in the and Rytwinski 2009, entire). It has been and resulting tree mortality within the future (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). postulated that the Trans-Canada Southern Mountain Caribou DPS Highway may also be acting as an Human Development occurred in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, impediment to caribou movements in and 1980s. Some of these outbreaks Human development fragments certain areas of the Southern Mountain followed wind-throw events of trees or habitat within and between local Caribou DPS (Apps and McLellan 2006, forest fires in the United States (Evans caribou populations in the Southern p. 93). 1960, p. 124; USFWS 1985, p. 21). Mountain Caribou DPS and creates Mining activities, although they may More recently, mountain pine beetle potential impediments to unrestricted not be focused in valleys, can also outbreaks and mass tree mortality in caribou movements (MCST 2005, p. 5). fragment caribou habitat and limit their western Canada have occurred in the Impediments in valley bottoms, such as dispersal and movement. Additionally, 1990s and 2000s. Caribou habitat human settlements, highways, railways, these activities may play a role in the affected by mountain pine beetle and reservoirs, have led to an isolation alteration of the distribution and outbreaks may remain viable for of local populations (MCST 2005, p. 5; abundance of other ungulate species. caribou, or may even provide better Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414) and These activities may also provide travel forage for a period of time, perhaps as reduced chance of rescue (the corridors for predators (MCST 2005, p. long as a decade. This is because dead movement of individuals, often 5), as well as increase human and dying trees may remain standing juveniles, to other local populations accessibility to habitat that was and continue to provide arboreal lichens which can provide genetic flow and previously difficult to access. The extent to foraging caribou. However, eventually recruitment to populations with very of direct and indirect impacts to caribou these trees fall and arboreal lichens low numbers) from natural immigration from mining activities within the become scarcer, forcing caribou to seek or emigration (van Oort et al. 2011, pp. Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is, at alternate habitat (Hummel and Ray 220–223; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2598). this time, not well known. 2008, p. 252). Similar to forest harvest and fires, These beetle outbreaks have impacted human development and its associated Human Recreation caribou within the Southern Mountain infrastructure also impact caribou in the Human-related activities are known to Caribou DPS by directly removing following ways: It eliminates caribou impact caribou. Specifically, as habitat and associated arboreal lichens habitat, alters the distribution and described below, wintertime from the landscape (Evans 1960, p. 132). abundance of other ungulate species, recreational activities such as In addition to eliminating caribou provides travel corridors for predators snowmobiling, heli- or cat-skiing, and habitat, these beetle outbreaks have (MCST 2005, p. 5), and increases human back-country skiing are likely to impact brought increased logging operations to access to habitat that was previously short-term behavior, long-term habitat high-elevation forests. This logging was difficult to access. use (MCST 2005, p. 5), and physiology done in an attempt to salvage the Caribou have also been killed by (Freeman 2008, p. 44) of caribou. It is valuable wood resource in these forest vehicles on highways within the range uncertain if these activities are affecting stands. However, this activity also of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS all populations within the Southern brought human presence and an (Johnson 1985, entire; Wittmer et al. Mountain Caribou DPS. There is also increase in the potential for poaching 2005b, p. 412; CBC News 2009, in litt.). some literature that suggests compacted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

trails resulting from high amounts of suggests that snowmobile activity in study also suggested that caribou may wintertime recreational activities such certain areas of the Southern Mountain habituate to this level of human as snowmobiling and snowshoeing may Caribou DPS is causing some level of disturbance (Duchesne et al. 2000, p. act as travel corridors for predators such physiological stress to caribou and may 314). Given the possibility of as wolves. These trails allow easier be impacting caribou in some way. habituation, the relatively slow pace of access into winter caribou habitat that However, elevated GC levels may be activity participants, and the non- was previously more difficult for caused by many different environmental motorized nature of backcountry skiing predators to navigate (Simpson and factors and may not always translate to or snowshoeing, it is suspected that this Terry 2000, p. 2; Cichowski et al. 2004, impacts (Romero 2004, p. 250; Freeman recreation activity at its current level p. 241). 2008, p. 48). The extent of impacts from poses a relatively small threat to caribou Snowmobile activity represents the chronically elevated GC levels in within certain areas of the Southern greatest threat to caribou within the caribou appears to need further study Mountain Caribou DPS (Simpson and Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Freeman 2008, p. 46). Research Terry 2000, p. 3; USFS 2004, p. 24). relative to other winter recreation suggests that impacts from However, since the magnitude of activities. Concern centers on the snowmobiling are observed in other impacts may be correlated with the overlap between preferred snowmobile populations of caribou outside of the number of activity participants in an habitat and preferred caribou habitat Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as well area (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 3), (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 1). Deep (Mahoney et al. 2001, pp. 39–42; this activity may be a larger threat to snow, open forest, and scenic vistas are Reimers et al. 2003, p. 751). caribou within the Southern Mountain characteristics found in caribou winter Given what we do understand about Caribou DPS in the future as some areas habitat. These same characteristics are the impacts to caribou from human become more accessible from an also preferred by snowmobilers (Seip et disturbance (Simpson 1987, pp. 8–10), expanded network of roads and al. 2007, p. 1539), and snowmobilers and what has been studied in other increasing populations. can easily access these areas (Simpson ungulate species relative to helicopter Each of these activities— and Terry 2000, p. 1). New forest roads disturbance (Cote 1996, p. 683; Webster snowmobiling, heli- or cat-skiing, and may even be providing increased access 1997, p. 7; Frid 2003, p. 393), it is also backcountry skiing—has the potential to to these areas (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1539). probable that the presence of humans disturb caribou. The extent to which Within the Southern Mountain and machines (helicopters or snow-cats) caribou are impacted is likely correlated Caribou DPS, caribou have been shown in caribou habitat from heli- or cat- with the intensity of activity (Simpson to alter their behavior by fleeing from skiing is a potential source of 1987, p. 9; Duchesne et al. 2000, p. 315; (Simpson 1987, pp. 8–10), and disturbance to caribou in certain Reimers et al. 2003, p. 753). Nature- dispersing from, high-quality winter portions of the Southern Mountain based recreation and tourism are on the habitat because of snowmobile activity Caribou DPS. This disturbance is likely rise in rural British Columbia, with (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1543). Altered negatively impacting caribou by altering projected growth of approximately 15 behavior in response to winter their behavior and habitat use patterns. percent per year (Mitchell and Hamilton recreation in the form of fleeing can Indeed, it has also been documented 2007, p. 3). New forest roads may be have energetic costs to caribou (Reimers that caribou within heli-ski areas exhibit providing increased access to caribou et al. 2003, pp. 751–753). Perhaps more elevated GC levels. This suggests that habitat as well (Seip et al. 2007, p. significantly, however, altered long-term heli-skiing activity in certain areas of 1539). As such, the threat of human habitat occupancy due to snowmobiling the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is disturbance may be a contributing factor may be forcing caribou within the causing some level of physiological in caribou population declines within Southern Mountain Caribou DPS into stress to caribou (Freeman 2008, p. 44). the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in inferior habitat where there may be Additionally, since heli- and cat-skiing the future. energetic costs as well as elevated risks often require tree cutting for run and/or Climate Change of predation or mortality from road maintenance, habitat alteration avalanches (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1543). may be another threat posed from this Our analyses under the Act include Anecdotal reports of caribou being activity (Hamilton and Pasztor 2009, consideration of the effects of ongoing notably absent in areas where they had entire). Further study may be necessary and projected changes in climate. The been historically present, but where to completely understand the impacts to terms ‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ snowmobile activity had begun or caribou from heli- and cat-skiing. are defined by the Intergovernmental increased (Kinley 2003, p. 20; USFS Disturbance impacts to caribou from Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2004, p. 12; Seip et al. 2007, p. 1539), backcountry skiing also are relatively ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and support this concept. Further, Freeman unstudied. Our current knowledge of variability of different types of weather (2008, p. 44) showed that caribou caribou responses to human disturbance conditions over time. Thirty years is a exhibit signs of physiological stress suggests that backcountry skiing may be typical period for such measurements, within and as far away as 6 mi (10 km) a potential source of disturbance to although shorter or longer periods also from snowmobile activity. Physiological caribou, negatively impacting them by may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The stress in this study was estimated using altering their behavior. These impacts term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a fecal glucocorticoids (GC). are likely similar to behavioral change in the mean or variability of one Glucocorticoids, when chronically alterations from heli- or cat-skiing or more measures of climate (e.g., elevated, can reduce fitness of an (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 3; USFS temperature or precipitation) that individual by impacting feeding 2004, p. 24). Duchesne et al. (2000, p. persists for an extended period, behavior, growth, body condition, 313–314) found that the presence of typically decades or longer, whether the resistance to disease, reproduction, and humans on snowshoes and skis did change is due to natural variability, survival (Freeman 2008, p. 33). Caribou impact caribou behavior by altering human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. within 6 mi (10 km) of open foraging and vigilance, albeit this study 78). Various types of changes in climate snowmobile areas within the Southern was conducted outside the Southern can have direct or indirect effects on Mountain Caribou DPS showed Mountain Caribou DPS where caribou species. These effects may be positive, chronically elevated GC levels. This foraging behavior is different. This neutral, or negative and they may

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26519

change over time. This change depends McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook entire) found that during low snow on the species and other relevant et al. 2004, p. 1015). years, mountain caribou in deep- considerations, such as the effects of Review of climate change modeling snowfall regions made more extensive interactions of climate with other presented in Utzig (2005, p. 5) use of low-elevation sites (sometimes variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) demonstrated projected shifts in associated with the use of stands of (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our habitats within the present range of the lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and analyses, we used our expert judgment Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in western hemlock) during late winter. to weigh relevant information, including Canada. Projections for 2055 indicate a When snowpack differences were slight uncertainty, in our consideration of significant decrease in alpine habitats, between years in these regions, various aspects of climate change. which is loosely correlated with the mountain caribou did not shift Between the 1600s and the mid- distribution of the arboreal lichens on downslope as they did during low snow 1800s, Europe and North America were which these caribou depend. The years (Kinley et al. 2007, p. 93). This in a period called the ‘‘Little Ice Age.’’ projected biogeoclimatic zone may indicate that mountain caribou During this period, Europe and North distributions indicate a significant escape reduced snowpacks (similar to America experienced relatively colder increase in the distribution of western what is projected with climate change) temperatures (IPCC 2001, p. 135). The red cedar in the mid-term with a shift by moving to lower elevations during cooling during this time is considered to upward in elevation and northward over low snow years. However, other factors be modest, with average temperature the longer term. Projected subalpine fir associated with climate change may decreases of less than 1.8 degrees distribution is similar, with a predicted negatively impact those lower elevation Fahrenheit (F) (1 degree Celsius (C)) shift upward in elevation and long-term forests, such as increased episodes of relative to 20th century levels. Cooling decreasing presence in the south and on wildfire and insect outbreaks, or large- may have been more pronounced in the drier plateau portions of the present scale changes in forest composition certain regions and during certain range of the Southern Mountain Caribou (Littell et al. 2010, entire). In addition, periods, such as in North America DPS. Recent analysis by Rogers et al. moving to lower elevations during late during the 1800s (IPCC 2001, p. 135). (2011, pp. 5–6) of three climate winter may also make mountain caribou projection models indicate that more susceptible to predation due to In the Pacific Northwest, regionally subalpine forests (which contain increased presence of other ungulate averaged temperatures have risen 1.5 subalpine fir) may be almost completely species such as moose and deer at these degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.8 degrees lost in the Pacific Northwest elevations, which in turn attracts greater Celsius (C)) over the last century (as (Washington and Oregon) by the end of numbers of predators (see C. Disease or much as 4 degrees F (2 degrees C) in the 21st century. This loss would be Predation). some areas). Temperatures are projected detrimental to the Southern Mountain Predictions for 2085 indicate an to increase by another 3 to 10 degrees Caribou DPS given their reliance on this increase in drier vegetation types at F (1.5 to 5.5 degrees C) by 2080 (Mote habitat type for forage of arboreal lower elevations. This could potentially and Salathe´ 2009, pp. 21, 33). Warmer lichens during the late winter and for cause an increase in other ungulate winter temperatures are reducing snow summer habitat (Utzig 2005, p. 2). species such as deer, moose, and elk pack in western North American However, both western red cedar and within the range of the Southern mountains. This is occurring because a subalpine fir are projected to maintain Mountain Caribou DPS (Utzig 2005, p. higher proportion of precipitation is a significant presence in the Southern 4). This may result in increased predator falling as rain and because there are Mountain Caribou DPS, with increased numbers in response to increased prey higher rates of snowmelt during winter densities projected northward. This availability, and increased predation on (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999, p. 1609; indicates the potential for range caribou (Utzig 2005, p. 4). For example, Brown 2000, p. 2347; Mote 2003, pp. 3– expansion of caribou in those northern in northern Alberta, changes in summer 1; Christensen et al. 2004, p. 347; areas (Utzig 2005, p. 5). Unfortunately, and winter climate are driving range Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4548–4549). habitat in the southern extent of the expansion of white-tailed deer, with This trend is expected to continue with Southern Mountain Caribou DPS may further changes expected with future warming (Hamlet and become unsuitable, thereby restricting continuing climate change (Dawe 2011, Lettenmaier 1999, p. 1611; Christensen the southern range of this Southern p. 153). This increase in white-tailed et al. 2004, p. 347; Mote et al. 2005, p. Mountain Caribou DPS (Rogers et al. deer is expected to alter predator-prey 48). In British Columbia, the last 50 2011, pp. 5–6). dynamics, leading to greater predation years have seen changes in precipitation The movements of local populations on woodland caribou by wolves distribution. Specifically, there has been within the Southern Mountain Caribou (Latham et al. 2011, p. 204). This a decreasing trend in winter DPS are closely tied to changes in snow potential increase in predation pressure precipitation and an increasing trend in depth and consolidation of the snow on the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS spring and summer precipitation pack, allowing access to arboreal lichens is in addition to the risk of increased (Columbia Mountains Institute of in winter (Kinley et al. 2007, entire). In predation due to forest harvesting and Applied Ecology 2006, p. 45). Virtually general, climate change projections fires that reduces and fragments suitable all future climate scenarios for the suggest reduced snowpacks and shorter habitat (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1), as Pacific Northwest predict increases in winters, particularly at lower elevations described above. wildfire in western North America, (Utzig 2005, p. 7; Littell et al. 2009, p. Virtually all future climate scenarios especially east of the Cascades. This 1). Snowpack depth is significant in for the Pacific Northwest predict predicted increase is due to higher determining the height at which increases in wildfire in western North summer temperatures, earlier spring arboreal lichens occur on trees, and the America, especially east of the snowmelt, and lower summer flows height at which caribou are able to Cascades. This is due to higher summer which can lead to drought stress in trees access lichens in the winter. These temperatures, earlier spring snowmelt, (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). Lastly, climate arboreal lichens are also dependent and lower summer flows, which can change may lead to increased frequency upon factors influenced by climate, lead to drought stress in trees (Littell et and duration of severe storms and including humidity and stand density al. 2009, p. 14). In addition, due to droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; (Utzig 2005, p. 7). Kinley et al. (2007, climatic stress to trees and an increase

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

in temperatures more favorable to their ability to avoid predation. Impacts CNF’s LRMP in Washington has been mountain pine beetles, outbreaks are from climate change may also affect revised to incorporate special projected to increase in frequency and caribou and their habitat by affecting management objectives and standards to cause increased tree mortality (Littell et external factors such as increased address potential threats to woodland al. 2009, p. 14). These outbreaks will disease and insect outbreaks, increased caribou on the Forest. The CNF also reach higher elevations due to a shift to fire occurrence, and changes in snow manages winter recreation in areas of favorable temperature conditions as depth. The impacts from these effects potential conflict between snowmobile these regions warm (Littell et al. 2009, could lead to increased habitat use and caribou, specifically in its p. 14). Other species of insects, such as fragmentation and changes in forest Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District spruce beetle and western spruce composition, changes in forage ability (77 FR 71042, p. 71071). The Idaho budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis), and abundance, and changes in Panhandle National Forest (IPNF), may also emerge in forests where predation, which are each important to beginning in 1993, implemented site- temperatures are favorable (Littell et al. caribou survival. Because of the close specific closures to protect caribou on 2009, p. 15). These projected impacts to ties between caribou movement and IPNF. However, more comprehensive forested ecosystems have the potential seasonal snow conditions, seasonal standards addressing how, when, and to further impact habitat for the shifts in snow conditions will likely be where, to impose such restrictions Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Utzig significant to the caribou in the across IPNF were limited (USFS 1987, 2005, p. 8). Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Utzig entire). In December 2005, a United The information currently available 2005, pp. 4, 8). A trend towards hotter on the effects of global climate change States district court granted a and drier summers, increasing fire preliminary injunction prohibiting and increasing temperatures does not events, and unpredictable snow make precise estimates of the location snowmobile trail grooming within the conditions has the potential to reduce caribou recovery area on the IPNF and magnitude of the effects. However, both recruitment and survival of the we do expect climate change to cause during the winter of 2005 to 2006. The Southern Mountain Caribou DPS of injunction was granted because the the following: A shorter snow season mountain caribou (Festa-Bianchet et al. IPNF had not developed a winter with shallower snowpacks, increased 2011, p. 427). A warming climate will recreation strategy addressing the effects forest disturbance, and vegetation affect all aspects of caribou ecology and of snowmobiling on caribou. In growing in far from optimal climactic exacerbate the impact of other threats November 2006, the Court granted a conditions (Columbia Mountains (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 424). Institute of Applied Ecology 2006, p. modified injunction restricting 49). Utzig (2005, entire) provided the Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat snowmobiling and snowmobile trail most applicable summary of the Destruction, Modification, or grooming on portions of the IPNF potential effects of climate change to the Curtailment of Its Range within the recovery area of the southern Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. In his Efforts in the United States Selkirk Mountains caribou. On February paper, he noted that there are general 14, 2007, the Court ordered a indications that the present range of Efforts to protect the Southern modification of the current injunction to mountain caribou may be reduced in Mountain Caribou DPS and its habitat in add a protected caribou travel corridor some areas and increased in others (p. the United States include: (1) Retaining connecting habitat in the U.S. portion of 10), as the ecosystem upon which they mature to old-growth cedar/hemlock the southern Selkirk Mountains with rely undergoes drastic future changes and subalpine spruce/fir stands; (2) habitat in British Columbia. This due to changes in the form and timing analyzing forest management actions on injunction is currently in effect and of precipitation events (snow versus a site-specific basis to consider potential restricts snowmobiling on 239,588 ac rain), and vegetative responses to impacts to caribou habitat; (3) avoiding (96,957 ha), involving 71 percent of the climatic conditions (e.g., drier road construction through mature old- existing woodland caribou recovery conditions will mean increased growth forest stands unless no other area. In its revised LRMP (USFS 2013, occurrence of fire and disease in mature reasonable access is available; (4) entire), the IPNF considered the court- trees that support arboreal lichens (p. placing emphasis on road closures and ordered snowmobile closure to be the 8)). These climatic conditions may also habitat mitigation based on caribou standard until a winter travel plan is increase other ungulate species (deer, seasonal habitat needs and approved. The Service will work closely moose) and lead to higher levels of requirements; (5) controlling wildfires with the IPNF on the future within southern Selkirk Mountains predator prey interactions (p. 4). He also development of their winter recreation woodland caribou management areas to identified several uncertainties (Utzig strategy, which will be subject to section prevent loss of coniferous tree species in 2005, pp. 10–11), such as the 7 consultation with the Service. impossibility of reliably predicting all size classes; and (6) managing winter specific ecosystem changes and recreation in the Colville National Within the range of the southern potential impacts. Utzig acknowledged Forest (CNF) in Washington, with Selkirk Mountains population of that caribou did survive the last glacial specific attention to snowmobile use woodland caribou is the 43,348-ac period, as well as intervening climate within the Newport/Sullivan Lake (17,542-ha) Salmo-Priest Wilderness change over the last 10,000 years, Ranger District. area (U.S. Department of Agriculture although those changes likely occurred Relative to human access within (USDA) 2013, in litt.). The USFS over a longer period of time than are caribou habitat, motorized winter manages these lands under the those changes occurring today. recreation, specifically snowmobiling, Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– We anticipate that climate change represents one threat to caribou within 1136), which restricts activities in the could directly impact the Southern the southern Selkirk Mountains following manner: (1) New or temporary Mountain Caribou DPS in the following woodland caribou recovery area. USFS roads cannot be built; (2) there can be ways: By negatively affecting the 1987 land resource management plans no use of motor vehicles, motorized abundance, distribution, and quality of (LRMPs) included some standards equipment, or motorboats; (3) there can caribou habitat; the ability of caribou to calling for motorized use restrictions be no landing of aircraft; (4) there can move between seasonal habitats; and when needed to protect caribou. The be no other form of mechanical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26521

transport; and (5) no structure or a system of national parks, to encourage identify areas where no or modified installation may be built. public understanding, appreciation and timber harvesting can take place, along A recovery plan for the endangered enjoyment of this natural heritage so as with certain motor vehicle prohibition southern Selkirk Mountains population to leave it unimpaired for future regulations (BCMOE 2009b, in litt.; of woodland caribou was finalized in generations’’ (Parks Canada NPSP 2009, BCMOE 2009c, in litt.). This effort 1994 (USFWS 1994, entire), outlining p. 2). The Southern Mountain Caribou included the creation of two important interim objectives necessary to support DPS in British Columbia encompasses guidance documents that provide a self-sustaining caribou population in all or portions of four Canadian National recommendations for the establishment the Selkirk Mountains. Among these Parks: Glacier, Mount Revelstoke, of mineral exploration activity and objectives was a goal to secure and Jasper, and Banff (Parks Canada 2008, in commercial backcountry recreation (i.e., enhance at least 443,000 ac (179,000 ha) litt.). Two of these National Parks, heli-skiing and cat-skiing). Both of these of caribou habitat in the Selkirk Glacier and Mount Revelstoke, comprise documents call for their respective Mountains. However, the recovery 333,345 ac (134,900 ha) and are within activities to maximize use of existing criteria in this recovery plan were the range of several local populations of roads and clearings, and specify other determined to be inadequate in the caribou in the Southern Mountain activity-specific restrictions on habitat Service’s 5-year review (USFWS 2008, Caribou DPS (Parks Canada NPSP 2009, alteration (Hamilton and Pasztor 2009, p. 15). Additional recovery actions are pp. 18–19). Ninety-four percent of the pp. 7–8; BCMOE 2009c, in litt.). needed as the 2012 population estimate land in British Columbia is considered In February 2009, the BCMOE closed for this local population has dropped to Provincial Crown lands, of which approximately 2,471,050 ac (1,000,000 27 individuals (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). In 33,881,167 ac (13,711,222 ha) are ha) of caribou habitat within the addition, the 1994 recovery plan only designated as various park and Canadian portion of the Southern applies to 1 local population (southern protected areas managed by British Mountain Caribou DPS to snowmobile Selkirk Mountain population of Columbia (B.C.) Parks (B.C. Parks 2013a, use (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10). However, woodland caribou) of the 15 that in litt.). The mission of B.C. Parks is to compliance with closures in these areas comprise the Southern Mountain ‘‘protect representative and special is not well known, and is likely not 100 Caribou DPS. natural places within the province’s percent (MCRIPPB 2012, p. 9). Efforts and progress are being made to replace Efforts in Canada Protected Areas System for world-class conservation, outdoor recreation, stolen or vandalized signs, to improve In 2007, the British Columbia education and scientific study’’ (B.C. monitoring and enforcement of government endorsed the Mountain Parks 2013b, in litt.). Many Canadian compliance, and to inform and educate Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan National parks, provincial parks, and the users of the closed areas. (MCRIP), which encompasses the Specifically, several tickets have been Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in ecological reserves are regularly or occasionally occupied by local issued in British Columbia for Canada (British Columbia Ministry of noncompliance, and informational Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) 2007, populations or individuals of mountain caribou and provide some level of pamphlets have been made and in litt.). The plan’s goal is to restore the distributed (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10; Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in protection including: Arctic Pacific Lakes, Evanoff, Sugarbowl-Grizzly Den, MCRIPPB 2012, p. 9). British Columbia to the pre-1995 level In addition, conservation has been Ptarmigan Creek, West Twin, Close to of 2,500 individuals (BCMAL 2007, in accomplished through the voluntary the Edge, Upper Rausch, Mount litt.). Actions identified in the MCRIP signing of stewardship management Tinsdale, Bowron Lake, Cariboo include, but are not limited, to: agreements in British Columbia. These Protecting approximately 5,436,320 ac Mountains, Wells Gray, Upper Adams, agreements are between the BCMOE and (2,200,000 ha) of range from logging and Foster Arm, Cummins Lakes, snowmobiling groups, and promote the road building, which would capture 95 Goosegrass, Glacier, Mount Revelstoke, minimization of disturbance and percent of high-suitability winter Monashee, Goat Range, Purcell displacement of caribou from habitat; managing human recreation Wilderness, Kianuko, Lockhart Creek, snowmobile activities in their habitat. activities; managing predator West Arm, and Stagleap. Through these agreements, snowmobile populations of wolf and cougar where In February 2009, British Columbia’s groups agree to: A code of conduct they are preventing recovery of Ministry of Environment (BCMOE) while riding in designated areas, populations; managing the primary prey protected 5,568,200 ac (2,253,355 ha) of volunteer to educate riders about base of caribou predators; and currently available and eventually impacts to caribou and preventative augmenting threatened herds with available high-suitability winter caribou measures to avoid impacts, volunteer to animals transplanted from elsewhere habitat. This was accomplished through monitor designated areas for (BCMAL 2007, in litt.). The Province of the issuance of 10 Government Actions compliance, and submit reports to the British Columbia pledged to provide Regulation orders on Provincial Crown BCMOE detailing caribou sightings and $1,000,000 per year, over 3 years, to lands within the Southern Mountain snowmobile use of an area. To date, 13 support adaptive management plans Caribou DPS (BCMOE 2009a, in litt.; of these agreements have been signed associated with the MCRIP (BCMAL BCMOE 2009b, in litt.; Mountain between the BCMOE and snowmobile 2007, in litt.). Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan organizations (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10). All National Parks in Canada are Progress Board (MCRIPPB) 2010, pp. 7, managed by Parks Canada, and are 9). This protection was accomplished, Private Efforts strictly protected areas where in part, through the official designation Approximately 135,908 ac (55,000 ha) commercial resource extraction and of high-suitability habitats as either of private land within the British sport hunting are not permitted (Parks wildlife habitat areas or ungulate winter Columbia portion of the southern Canada National Park System Plan ranges, and associated general wildlife Selkirk Mountains caribou recovery area (NPSP) 2009, p. 3). Parks Canada’s measures (BCMOE 2009b, in litt.). These were purchased by the Nature objective for their National Parks is, ‘‘To measures are designed to reduce the Conservancy Canada (NCC). This protect for all time representative impact from timber harvest and road purchase was made with the support of natural areas of Canadian significance in construction on caribou habitat. They the Government of Canada, in what has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

been described as the largest single avalanche. Human disturbance is likely caribou. He also cited several regions of private conservation land acquisition in to continue to increasingly impact British Columbia where, after hunting Canadian history (USFWS 2008, p. 17). caribou within the Southern Mountain closures were implemented, caribou This private land was previously owned Caribou DPS, because nature-based numbers began to rebound, although by a timber company known as the recreation and tourism are on the rise in this was not the case in all populations Pluto Darkwoods Forestry Corporation, rural British Columbia. Projected growth (Spalding 2000, p. 37). These hunting which managed a sustainable harvesting of these activities is estimated at pressures and associated population program prior to selling the land. The approximately 15 percent per year declines subsided with the hunting NCC’s goal for the Darkwoods property (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007, p. 3). In season closures, and some regions of is sustainable ecosystem management, addition, the establishment of new British Columbia even saw population including the conservation of woodland forest roads may be providing increased increases and stabilization after the caribou (USFWS 2008, p. 17). human access to caribou habitat, further 1940s (Spalding 2000, pp. 37, 39). amplifying the threat of human Hunting of caribou is currently not Summary for Factor A disturbance and caribou population allowed in any of the lower 48 United Destruction, modification, or declines within the Southern Mountain States. Further, hunting is prohibited in curtailment of caribou habitat has been Caribou DPS in the future. Impacts to all National Parks and Ecological and is today a significant threat to caribou from human disturbance are Reserves in British Columbia; but may caribou throughout the Southern occurring today, despite conservation be allowed in some specific British Mountain Caribou DPS. Specific threats measures, and are likely to occur in the Columbia parks. Hunting regulations directly impacting caribou habitat future. These impacts will likely put out by the British Columbia’s within the Southern Mountain Caribou contribute to the decline of local Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural DPS include forest harvest, forest fires, populations within the Southern Resource Operations for 2012–2014, insect outbreaks, human development, Mountain Caribou DPS and further currently allows hunting of large, 5- recreation, and climate change. Each of impact the continued existence of the point adult bull caribou within a few these threats, through varying Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. areas within the range of the Southern mechanisms, directly removes and We have evaluated the best available Mountain Caribou local populations fragments existing habitat and/or scientific and commercial data on the (British Columbia Hunting & Trapping impacts caribou behavior such that it present or threatened destruction, Regulations/Synopsis (BCHT) 2012– alters the distribution of caribou within modification, or curtailment of the 2014). Hunting of adult bull caribous are their natural habitat. habitat or range of the Southern allowed in British Columbia to hunters Forest harvest, forest fires, insect Mountain Caribou DPS. Through this who have a license and have drawn the outbreaks, human development, and evaluation, we have determined that appropriate Limited Entry Hunting climate change catalyze other, indirect this factor poses a significant threat to season authorization (BCHT 2012–2014, threats to caribou within the Southern the continued existence of the Southern p. 19). The range of Mountain Caribou Mountain Caribou DPS. These impacts Mountain Caribou DPS, especially when is reported in the BCHT regulations (p. may be particularly prevalent in the considered in concert with the other 19) to occur within specific sections of southern extent of this DPS. factors impacting the Southern four Management Units (MU’s; MUs 3, Specifically, direct habitat loss and Mountain Caribou DPS. 4, 5, 7). Caribou that have been fragmentation limits caribou dispersal harvested are required to be submitted B. Overutilization for Commercial, and movements among local for a Compulsory Inspection with the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational populations within the Southern animal’s front incisor tooth, antlers, and Purposes Mountain Caribou DPS by making it piece of hide with proof of sex within more difficult and more dangerous for Caribou have been an important game 30 days of harvest (BCHT 2012–2014, p. caribou to disperse. Further, habitat loss species since they have shared the 21). Hunters are limited to 1, 5-point and fragmentation have and will landscape with humans. Native bull during the specified season. We do continue to alter the predator-prey Americans have hunted caribou for not know the number of licenses that ecology of the Southern Mountain thousands of years in British Columbia, are available to hunters in a given year, Caribou DPS by creating more suitable although the numbers of animals taken or the number of adult bull mountain habitat and travel corridors for other were probably modest given the caribou that are harvested. Also within ungulates and their predators. Finally, relatively limited hunting pressure and the BCHT, there is a section titled, habitat loss and fragmentation increases hunting implements at the time Mountain Caribou Update (p. 23), the likelihood of disturbance of caribou (Spalding 2000, p. 38). The introduction describing the current status of the in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS of firearms combined with a later mountain type of woodland caribou and from human recreation or other increase in human populations in ongoing recovery strategies. One of the activities by increasing the accessibility British Columbia led to an increase in strategies discussed in the BCHT of these areas to humans. Climate caribou harvested by the late 1800s and regulations describes obtaining change is forecasted to exacerbate these into the 1900s (Spalding 2000, p. 38). information on the predator impacts by catalyzing forest It is thought that an increase in management/predator-prey dynamics composition changes, increasing forest hunting pressure, although it did not and mountain caribou. As part of this insect outbreaks, and increasing the cause extinction, upset the already study, the Ministry of Forests, Lands likelihood of wildfires. delicate balance between predators and and Natural Resource Operations office Another threat, human disturbance caribou and catalyzed a general decline are requesting hunters to submit from wintertime recreation, particularly in caribou populations (Seip and information on the harvest of wolves from snowmobile activity, increases Cichowski 1996, p. 73; Spalding 2000, within the range of the caribou. physiological stress, energy p. 39). As justification for this Given our current knowledge of expenditure, and alters habitat hypothesis, Spalding (2000, p. 39) cited caribou dispersal, it is unlikely that occupancy of caribou. This disturbance old field reports that hunters, both many caribou from the Southern forces caribou to use inferior habitat Native American and non-Native Mountain Caribou DPS will be with greater risk of depredation or American, were killing too many harvested in these areas. Consequently,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26523

legal harvest has not been a major C. Disease or Predation As is the case with most wildlife, limiting factor to caribou within the caribou are susceptible to disease and Disease Southern Mountain Caribou DPS since parasitism. These sources of mortality the mid-1970s (Seip and Cichowski Caribou have been occasionally are likely causing some level of impact 1996, p. 73). Therefore, although it may documented to succumb to disease and to individual caribou within the have had a historical impact on caribou parasitism throughout their range and Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. populations, hunting/harvesting of within the Southern Mountain Caribou However, because no severe outbreaks caribou is not presently impacting DPS (Spalding 2000, p. 40; Compton et have been documented and because caribou within the Southern Mountain al. 1995, p. 493; Dauphine 1975 in relatively few caribou within the Caribou DPS. COSEWIC 2002, pp. 20, 54–55). The Southern Mountain Caribou DPS have been known to succumb to disease or Although there are historic reports of effects of many types of biting and parasitism, these sources of mortality the illegal harvest of caribou within the stinging insects on caribou include parasite and disease transmission, are unlikely to have significantly Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Scott impacted caribou within the Southern and Servheen 1985, p. 15; Seip and harassment, and immune system reactions (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Mountain Caribou DPS, currently or Cichowski 1996, p. 76), we do not have historically. data that suggest illegal killing is Several are considered important affecting caribou numbers in any of the including: Warble flies (Oedemagena Predation spp.), nose bot flies (Cephenemyia local populations within the Southern Natural predators of caribou in the Mountain Caribou DPS. trompe), mosquitoes (Aedes spp.), black flies (Simulium spp.), horseflies Southern Mountain Caribou DPS include cougars (Felis concolor), wolves Conservation Efforts To Reduce (Tabanus spp.), and deer flies (Chrysops (Canis lupus), grizzly bears (Ursus Overutilization for Commercial, spp.) (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Mature arctos), and black bears (Ursus Recreational, Scientific, or Educational and old woodland caribou are likely to americanus) (Seip 2008, p. 1). Increased Purposes have a relatively high incidence and predation from these natural predators, prevalence of hydatid cysts particularly wolves and cougars, is Aside from State and Provincial (Echinococcus granulosus) in their thought to be the most, or one of the regulations that limit hunting of lungs, which can make them more most significant contributors to caribou, we are unaware of other susceptible to predation (COSEWIC Southern Mountain Caribou DPS conservation efforts to reduce 2002, p. 54). Eggs and larvae of the declines in recent decades (Seip 1992, overutilization for commercial, protostrongylid nematode p. 1500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; recreational, scientific, or educational (Parelaphostrongylus andersoni) can MCST 2005, p. 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, purposes; however, we do not have develop in woodland caribou lungs and pp. 414–415). Elevated levels of information suggesting that can contribute to pneumonia (COSEWIC overutilization is an ongoing threat to predation on caribou in the Southern 2002, pp. 54–55). Finally, a related Mountain Caribou DPS have likely been caribou within the Southern Mountain meningeal nematode (P. tenuis) causes Caribou DPS. caused, in part, by an alteration of the neurologic disease in caribou. Although natural predator-prey ecology within Summary for Factor B this nematode is benign in white-tailed their range (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 417; deer, it may be a limiting factor to Seip 2008, p. 3). Threats from overutilization such as caribou in southern Ontario and west to This change in the predator-prey hunting appear to be ameliorated, now Saskatchewan. Samuel et al. (1992, p. ecology within the Southern Mountain and in the future, by responsible 629) suggested that this meningeal Caribou DPS is thought to be catalyzed, management. Historically, caribou nematode may anthropogenically spread at least in part, by human-caused habitat within the Southern Mountain Caribou in western Canada due to game alteration and fragmentation (Seip 2008, DPS were hunted throughout their ranching; however, we have no new p. 3). Habitat alteration and range. They were likely overharvested information to determine if this spread fragmentation within the Southern when human populations increased in has or has not occurred. Mountain Caribou DPS is caused by British Columbia and with the advent of Within the Southern Mountain many things including, but not limited modern weapons. The hunting of Caribou DPS, evidence of disease or to, forest harvest, fire, human caribou has been made illegal within the parasitism is limited. We know that development, and climate change (see Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, in several caribou that were shot or found Factor A discussion, above). Alteration both the United States and Canada. dead in a forest near Rooney, British and fragmentation from these and other After hunting was stopped, certain Columbia, in 1918 were thought to have activities disturb land and create edge populations began to recover and grow, a type of pneumonia (Spalding 2000, p. habitats. These new edges and but others did not. Even though there 40). We also know that, of 34 caribou disturbances allow for the introduction have been known occurrences of that died within 2 years of translocation of early seral habitat that is preferred by humans illegally killing caribou within to the southern Selkirk Mountains, only deer, elk, and moose, thereby increasing the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in 1 was confirmed to have died of severe habitat suitability for these alternate the past, we do not have information parasitism (Sarcocystis sp.) and ungulate prey species within the indicating this is an ongoing threat. We emaciation (Compton et al. 1995, p. Southern Mountain Caribou DPS have evaluated the best available 493). Although evidence within the (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; Seip scientific and commercial data on the Southern Mountain DPS is limited, we 2008, p. 3). The increase in habitat overutilization for commercial, are aware that a reintroduction effort of suitability for deer, elk, and moose have recreational, scientific, or educational 51 caribou outside of the Southern allowed these alternate prey species to purposes of the Southern Mountain Mountain Caribou DPS in the late 1960s subsist in areas that, under natural Caribou DPS and determined that this failed, presumably because of meningeal disturbance regimes, would have been factor does not pose a threat to the worms (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) dominated by contiguous old-growth continued existence of the Southern (Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, p. forest and of limited value to them Mountain Caribou DPS. 20). (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162). The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

result is an altered distribution and populations. The 2007 Mountain limited in scope and have failed to meet increased numbers of these alternative Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan the expectations of the Board (MCRIPPB ungulate prey species, particularly (MCRIP), produced by the BCMOE, 2010, p. 4). The Board’s annual reports within summer habitat of caribou proposed both approaches be taken since 2010 have been slightly more within the Southern Mountain Caribou within the Canadian portion of the favorable in their assessment of the DPS (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; Southern Mountain Caribou DPS BCMOE’s efforts for predator and Wittmer et al. 2005a, pp. 263–264). (MCRIPPB 2010, pp. 1, 12, and 13). alternate ungulate prey management. Many studies suggest that increases in Direct management of predator However, it is still apparent that much alternative ungulate prey within caribou populations within the Southern research and progress still needs to be summer habitat have stimulated an Mountain Caribou DPS to date has completed. For example, it is associated increase of natural predators, included investigations to determine the noteworthy that most of the particularly cougars and wolves, in degree of overlap between wolves and conservation measures listed above these same areas, consequently caribou home ranges. This research will target the wolf-moose predator-prey disrupting the predator-prey ecology assist BCMOE with decisions about relationship that is the primary driver of within the Southern Mountain Caribou location and intensity of wolf predator-prey dynamics in the northern DPS and resulting in increased management or removal (MCRIPPB portion of the Southern Mountain predation on caribou (Kinley and Apps 2010, p. 12). Currently, removal of Caribou DPS. We were able to find only 2001, p. 162; Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. wolves from within the Southern one record or report of conservation 414–415). Mountain Caribou DPS has been measures that had been implemented to The specific changes to predator/prey authorized by BCMOE through hunting address predation of caribou by cougars, ecology are different across the and trapping. To date, this program has which may be the most salient issue for Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. In the been implemented only on a limited the small and struggling local northern portion of the DPS, wolf and basis. Initial results suggest this populations in the southern portion of moose populations have increased. In management effort has been successful the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS the southern portion of the DPS, cougar, at reducing wolf densities, but the (Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414–415). elk, and deer populations have response by mountain caribou will take Given the controversial nature of increased. Because alternate ungulate several more years to determine predator and alternate ungulate prey prey are driving predator abundance in (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). Finally, a wolf control for caribou conservation caribou habitat (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. sterilization project is underway in a (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 4; MCRIPPB 2012, p. 414), predators may remain abundant in portion of the Southern Mountain 11), these conservation measures have caribou habitat while caribou numbers Caribou DPS. This project is a pilot been and may continue to be slow to remain few. This renders one of the project designed to determine the develop and difficult to implement. feasibility and effectiveness of wolf caribou’s main predator defenses— Efforts at reducing predation in the predator avoidance—relatively sterilization (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). Initial results of this work suggest that United States are more limited and are ineffective during certain parts of the not specifically targeted at reducing year. some local populations are showing a positive response to these sterilization effects to caribou. In Idaho, caribou are Alterations in the predator-prey found within game management unit ecology of the Southern Mountain efforts. However, this conclusion is based on a correlation between the two (GMU) 1, which provides recreational Caribou DPS may also have been variables and cause-effect has not been hunting opportunities for black bear, catalyzed, in part, by successful game demonstrated (Ritchie et al. 2012, p. 4). mountain lion, and wolves, and also animal management in the Southern One ongoing study, in the South provides a limited trapping season for Mountain Caribou DPS (Wittmer et al. Purcells local population, is wolves (IDFG 2012, entire). Within this 2005b, p. 415). This too could have investigating wolf and cougar overlap GMU, between July 1, 2010 and June 30, helped to increase deer, elk, and moose with caribou home ranges (MCRIPPB 2011, 109 mountain lions (IDFG 2011a, populations within the Southern 2012, p. 12). p. 6) and 179 black bears (IDFG 2011b, Mountain Caribou DPS and led to an Direct management of alternate p. 4) were harvested. More recently, increase in ungulate predators, thus ungulate prey populations within the from September 1, 2011, through March impacting caribou. Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, to 31, 2012, 28 wolves were harvested Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease date, has been limited. The BCMOE has (IDFG 2013, in litt.). Washington State or Predation reported two pilot moose-reduction provides a limited hunting season for programs within the Southern Mountain both black bear and mountain lion Disease Caribou DPS to determine effectiveness within GMU 113 (the GMU found in We are not aware of any conservation of reducing wolf densities through the Washington State, Washington measures currently being implemented management of moose densities in Department of Fish and Wildlife to reduce impacts to caribou from caribou habitat (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 13). (WDFW) 2012, pp. 60–63), and within disease. These pilot efforts have indicated that the critical habitat designated for the reducing moose densities may reduce southern Selkirk Mountains population Predation wolf numbers (MCRIPPB 2011, p. 4). of woodland caribou (November 28, Increased predation is thought to be The BCMOE established a Mountain 2012, 77 FR 71042), and 44 black bears the current primary threat affecting Caribou Recovery Implementation and 1 mountain lion were harvested in caribou within the Southern Mountain Progress Board (Board) with the GMU 113 in 2011 (WDFW 2013a, in litt.; Caribou DPS (Seip 1992, p. 1500; Kinley publication of the 2007 MCRIP. The WDFW 2013b, in litt.). However, wolf and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005, p. Board was charged with oversight of the hunting or trapping is not allowed in 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414–415). implementation of the MCRIP and Washington State. As mentioned above, Leading thoughts on managing monitoring its effectiveness. In the the objectives for these predator hunting predation include the management of Board’s 2010 annual report, they and trapping seasons are not to benefit predator populations directly, or the declared that the conservation measures the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in management of alternate ungulate prey listed above have all been relatively the United States, and any response in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26525

the caribou population is not monitored. those laws and regulations. An example fund that may affect caribou or their As such, any potential effects on caribou would be State governmental actions habitat on their lands. Thus, woodland survival and population stability from enforced under a State statute or caribou are afforded protections under hunting seasons on predators in Idaho constitution, or Federal action under the Act from the potential effects of and Washington remains unknown. statute. Federal agency activities. Land and Summary for Factor C Many different regulatory resource management plans (LRMPs) for mechanisms and government the IPNF and the CNF have been revised Predation, particularly from wolves conservation actions have been to incorporate management objectives and cougars, is thought to be the most, implemented in both the United States and standards to address the threats or one of the most, significant and British Columbia in an attempt to identified in the 1984 final listing rule contributors to caribou population alleviate threats to caribou within the (49 FR 7390). These LRMP revisions are declines within the Southern Mountain Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. a result of section 7 consultation Caribou DPS in recent decades. Below, we list these existing regulatory between the Service and USFS (USFWS Increased predation of caribou within mechanisms and consider whether they 2001a, b, entire). Standards for caribou this DPS has likely been caused, in part, are inadequate to address the identified habitat management have been by an alteration of the natural predator- threats to the Southern Mountain incorporated into the IPNF’s 1987 and prey ecology of the area. This new Caribou DPS. CNF’s 1988 LRMP, respectively. These predator-prey dynamic has been standards are meant to avoid the Federal catalyzed by increases in populations of likelihood of jeopardizing the continued alternative ungulate prey species such U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service existence of the species, contribute to as elk, deer, and moose within caribou caribou conservation, and ensure habitat. Ecosystems that favor these The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (which consideration of the biological needs of alternate ungulate prey species also the species during forest management favor predators such as wolves and we now consider a local population within the Southern Mountain Caribou planning and implementation actions cougars. These changes have likely been (USFS 1987, pp. II–6, II–27, Appendix catalyzed, in part, by human-caused DPS) was listed as endangered under the Act on February 29, 1984 (49 FR N; USFS 1988, pp. 4–10–17, 4–38, 4–42, habitat loss and fragmentation, which 4–73–76, Appendix I). increases habitat favorable to alternative 7390). Listing the southern Selkirk ungulate prey species, and consequently Mountains local population of The CNF’s LRMP in Washington has attracts increased numbers of predators. woodland caribou provided a variety of been revised to incorporate special Although some conservation measures protections, including the prohibition management objectives and standards to have been implemented to reduce against take and the conservation address potential threats to woodland impacts to local populations of caribou mandates of section 7 for all Federal caribou on the CNF. The CNF also from predation, more efficient, agencies. Since this listing action, manages winter recreation in areas of intensive, and frequent action is still Federal agencies have been required to potential conflict between snowmobile needed within the Southern Mountain ensure that any action they authorize, use and caribou, specifically in its Caribou DPS. We have evaluated the fund, or carry out will not jeopardize Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District best available scientific and commercial the continued existence of the southern (77 FR 71042, p. 71071). The IPNF, data on disease or predation of the Selkirk Mountains population of beginning in 1993, implemented site- Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and woodland caribou. On November 28, specific closures to protect caribou on have determined that this factor poses a 2012, the Service designated critical the IPNF. However, more widespread and serious threat to the habitat for this population of caribou in comprehensive standards addressing continued existence of the Southern northeastern Washington and Idaho (77 how, when, and where, to impose such Mountain Caribou DPS. FR 71042). This designation restrictions across the IPNF were encompasses a total of 30,010 ac (12,145 limited (USFS 1987, entire). In D. The Inadequacy of Existing ha), protecting this area by requiring December 2005, a U.S. district court Regulatory Mechanisms Federal agencies to ensure that any granted a preliminary injunction Under this factor, we examine action they authorize, fund, or carry out prohibiting snowmobile trail grooming whether existing regulatory mechanisms in this area is not likely to result in within the caribou recovery area on the are inadequate to address the threats to destruction or adverse modification of IPNF during the winter of 2005 to 2006. the species discussed under the other the designated habitat (77 FR 71042). By The injunction was granted because the factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act law, the Service has the authority to IPNF had not developed a winter requires that the Service take into designate critical habitat only within the recreation strategy addressing the effects account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being jurisdiction of the United States. of snowmobiling on caribou. In made by any State or foreign nation, or November 2006, the Court granted a any political subdivision of a State or U.S. Forest Service modified injunction restricting foreign nation, to protect such species Much of the caribou habitat within snowmobiling and snowmobile trail . . .’’ In relation to Factor D under the the United States is managed by the grooming on portions of the IPNF Act, we interpret this language to USFS (289,000 ac (116,954 ha)), within the southern Selkirk Mountains require the Service to consider relevant although a significant amount of State caribou recovery area. On February 14, Federal, State, and Tribal laws, and private lands (approximately 79,000 2007, the Court ordered a modification regulations, and other such mechanisms ac (31,970 ha)) occur within caribou of the current injunction to add a that may minimize any of the threats we range as well (USFWS 1994, p. 21). protected caribou travel corridor describe in threat analyses under the Because of the endangered status of connecting habitat in the U.S. portion of other four factors or otherwise enhance these caribou and the critical habitat the southern Selkirk Mountains with conservation of the species. We give designation, the USFS, the primary habitat in British Columbia. This strongest weight to statutes and their caribou habitat land manager in the injunction is currently in effect and implementing regulations and to United States, is required to consult on restricts snowmobiling on 239,588 ac management direction that stems from actions they carry out, authorize, or (96,957 ha), involving 71 percent of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

existing woodland caribou recovery motorized use restrictions were Most lands occupied by the Woodland area. In its revised LRMP (USFS 2013, loosened on some IDL endowment land Caribou Southern Mountain population entire), the IPNF considered the court- in the Abandon Creek area north of are not Federal; hence SARA does little ordered snowmobile closure to be the Priest Lake. Under a revised winter to protect the population’s habitat. standard until a winter travel plan is access plan, these previously closed The Woodland Caribou Southern approved. The Service will work closely lands will remain open to winter Mountain population was assigned the with the IPNF on the future motorized use unless there is a status S1 in 2003, by the Province of development of their winter recreation confirmed caribou sighting along the British Columbia, meaning it is strategy, which will be subject to section Selkirk Crest within 2.7 mi (4.3 km) of considered critically imperiled there 7 consultation with the Service. For the previous closing (Seymour 2012, in (BCMOE 2013, in litt.). The Province of additional information see litt.). Because their timber harvest plans British Columbia does not have ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat currently do not incorporate endangered species legislation. This Destruction, Modification, or considerations for caribou and because lack of legislation can limit the ability Curtailment of Its Range’’ under ‘‘Efforts of the recent removal of snowmobile to enact meaningful measures for the in the United States.’’ We will further restrictions, management of IDL’s lands protection of status species such as evaluate existing USFS regulatory is likely not alleviating or addressing caribou, especially as it relates to their mechanisms in our final determination the threat of habitat loss, habitat habitat (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. for this action. fragmentation, or disturbance from 423). The British Columbia’s Ministry of winter recreation to caribou. States Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Washington Department of Fish and Operations currently does not allow Idaho Department of Fish and Game Wildlife hunting of caribou within the area (IDFG) where the Southern Mountain The southern Selkirk Mountains population of caribou occurs. The The woodland caribou within Idaho population of woodland caribou was Woodland Caribou Southern Mountain are considered a Species of Greatest listed as endangered in the State of population and its habitat are also Conservation Need by IDFG (IDFG 2005, Washington in 1982 (WDFW 2011, p. protected by the National Parks Act in pp. 373–375). There are historical 38). In addition, this population within numerous National Parks in Canada reports of the illegal harvest of caribou Washington is considered a Species of (Canada 2013, in litt.). Because of its within the Southern Mountain Caribou Greatest Conservation Need by WDFW DPS (Scott and Servheen 1985, p. 15; (WDFW 2005, p. 620). In addition to threatened status, the British Columbian Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). Federal penalties associated with government has endorsed the MCRIP, However, we do not have data that convictions of illegally taking a caribou, which encompasses the Southern suggest illegal killing is affecting a $12,000 criminal wildlife penalty is Mountain Caribou DPS in Canada caribou numbers in any of the local assessed by WDFW for illegally killing (British Columbia Ministry of populations within the Southern or possessing a caribou in Washington Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) 2007, Mountain Caribou DPS, and we do not State (WDFW 2012, p. 73). We do not in litt.). For further information on consider this to be a threat to the species have data that suggest illegal killing is caribou conservation efforts in Canada, that needs to be addressed by a affecting caribou numbers in any of the see the sections ‘‘Conservation Efforts to regulatory mechanism. local populations within the Southern Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Idaho Department of Lands Mountain Caribou DPS, and we do not consider this to be a threat to the species Range’’ under ‘‘Efforts in Canada’’ and The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) that needs to be addressed by a ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Disease manages approximately 51,000 ac regulatory mechanism. or Predation’’ under ‘‘Predation.’’ (20,639 ha) of Southern Mountain Substantial progress has been made Caribou DPS habitat in the United Canada for certain MCRIP goals, such as States. These lands are managed The Woodland Caribou Southern protecting habitat through government primarily for timber harvest, an activity Mountain population, which includes actions regulation (GAR) orders in which has, currently and historically, the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, is British Columbia. However, other goals the potential to significantly impact protected as threatened under Canada’s such as reducing the effects from caribou and their habitat. The IDL Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Statues of predation have seen less progress made. contracted for a habitat assessment of Canada (S.C.) ch 29). SARA defines a Additional work and time is still needed their lands within the South Selkirk ‘‘threatened’’ species as ‘‘a wildlife to implement all goals identified in the ecosystem (Kinley and Apps 2007, species that is likely to become an MCRIP to adequately reduce threats to entire). The results of this assessment endangered species if nothing is done to the Southern Mountain population of indicated that one of the largest blocks reverse the factors leading to its caribou in Canada. We will evaluate this of high-priority caribou habitat in the extirpation or extinction’’ (S.C. chapter further in our final determination for United States is centered on IDL 29, section 2). It is illegal to kill, harm, this action. property and adjacent USFS lands. The harass, capture, or take an individual of Local Ordinances report stated that IDL property a wildlife species that is listed as a contributes significantly to caribou threatened species (S.C. chapter 29, Currently, we are unaware of any habitat within the South Selkirk section 32). SARA also prohibits any local regulatory mechanisms addressing ecosystem. The IDL, with financial person from damaging or destroying the caribou habitat management or assistance from the Service, began residence of a listed species, or from protection within the United States or working on a habitat conservation plan destroying any part of its critical habitat Canada. (HCP) several years ago to protect (S.C. chapter 29, sections 33, 58). For Private caribou and other listed species on their species that are not aquatic species or lands. However, development of this migratory birds, however, SARA’s Currently, we are unaware of any HCP has not moved forward beyond the prohibition on destruction of the regulatory mechanisms addressing initial stages. Recently, winter residence applies only on Federal lands. caribou habitat management or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26527

protection on private lands within the the local populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. For United States. Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, and example, a small population of fewer we do not consider this as a threat to the than 10 individuals in Banff National Summary for Factor D species. Park (just outside the Southern In the United States, the southern In Canada, the Southern Mountain Mountain Caribou DPS) was extirpated Selkirk Mountains local population of Caribou DPS is protected at the national in the spring of 2009 from a single woodland caribou of the Southern level under SARA, while British avalanche event (Parks Canada 2013, in Mountain Caribou DPS has been listed Columbia considers them to be critically litt.). as endangered since 1984, and critical imperiled. A recovery plan, the MCRIP, Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other habitat was designated in 2012. Listing has been endorsed by British Columbia. the southern Selkirk Mountains local Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting While efforts have been made towards Its Continued Existence population of woodland caribou meeting the goals identified in that provided a variety of protections, recovery plan, additional work and time We are not aware of any conservation including the prohibition against take are needed to meet all the goals. measures currently being implemented and the conservation mandates of Presently, there is not a hunting season to reduce impacts to caribou from section 7 for all Federal agencies. in Canada for caribou within the avalanches or other stochastic events. Because of the endangered status of Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Summary for Factor E these caribou and the critical habitat Caribou local populations continue to designation, the USFS, the primary decline within the Southern Mountain Caribou are susceptible to stochastic caribou habitat land manager in the DPS despite regulatory mechanisms events such as avalanches due to small United States, is required to consult on being in place in the United States and local population sizes and isolation of these local populations. Local actions they carry out, authorize, or Canada. Although U.S. Federal and populations are increasingly at risk from fund that may affect caribou or their State, and Canadian national and impacts of stochastic events as they habitat on their lands. Thus, woodland provincial, regulations are providing become more isolated and their caribou are afforded protections under some protection for the caribou within population numbers decline. The threat the Act from the potential effects of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, from avalanches is amplified further Federal agency activities. Because the the suite of regulations is unable to when caribou are displaced from their Service has regulations that prohibit address and ameliorate threats to preferred habitat into steeper, more take of all threatened wildlife species caribou such as predation and loss of dangerous habitat as a consequence of (50 CFR 17.31(a)), unless modified by a habitat. Remedies to address threats human recreation. Therefore we have special rule issued under section 4(d) of such as control of predators are not determined other natural or manmade the Act (50 CFR 17.31(c)), the regulatory logistically easy to implement and may factors affecting its continued existence protections of the Act are largely the be expensive to address. Currently, the pose a threat to the continued existence same for wildlife species listed as regulatory mechanisms in the United of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. endangered and as threatened; thus, the States and Canada are not addressing protections provided by the Act would the identified threats to the Southern Cumulative Effects From Factors A remain in place if the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We will further Through E Mountain Caribou DPS is reclassified as evaluate the existing regulatory As alluded to in the discussions a threatened species. mechanisms and their impact on While the IDL also manages a above, many of the causes of caribou ameliorating threats to caribou in our substantial portion of caribou habitat, population declines are linked, often by final determination for this action. they are not required to manage their the threat of habitat alteration. For land for caribou. Many of IDL’s land E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors example, predation is one of the most management plans, particularly timber Affecting Its Continued Existence significant threats to caribou within the harvest plans, do not currently consider Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. caribou and do not address the Avalanches and Stochastic Events Predation is directly linked, in part, to identified threats to woodland caribou. One natural source of mortality for habitat alteration and the associated IDL does consider caribou in their caribou is avalanches (Seip and introduction of early seral habitat and winter access plan and has, in the past, Cichowski 1996, p. 76). This has been the creation of roads within caribou closed snowmobile trails to prevent a notable threat to caribou within the habitat in the Southern Mountain winter disturbance; however, some of Revelstoke area of Canada, within the Caribou DPS. Specifically, the these trail closures have been recently Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, where introduction of early seral habitat and relaxed and will remain open to winter the terrain is particularly steep and new forest roads has altered the motorized use unless there is a rugged with very high snowfall (Seip predator/prey ecology of the Southern confirmed caribou sighting. Because and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). Although Mountain Caribou DPS by creating IDL’s land management plans, including avalanches are generally a natural suitable habitat for alternate ungulate timber harvest and winter access, do not phenomenon, the threat of avalanches to prey and accessibility for their consider woodland caribou, we caribou may be increasing because predators, respectively, into caribou conclude that management of IDL’s caribou may be displaced into steeper, habitat. Human disturbance, another of lands is likely not alleviating or more avalanche-prone terrain during the the threats to caribou within the addressing the threat of habitat loss, winter from snowmobile and other Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, is also habitat fragmentation, or disturbance winter recreational activities (Simpson linked to habitat alteration because of from winter recreation to caribou. 1987, p. 1; Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. the increased accessibility of caribou Hunting regulations at the National 79). habitat that new forest roads have and State levels provide adequate Threats of all stochastic events such provided. Habitat alteration, in turn, is protections regarding the legal take of as avalanches become more serious as directly tied to and caused by another, caribou in the United States, and we do local populations become isolated and and possibly two other, threats listed not have data that suggest illegal killing population numbers decrease. This is above—human development and is affecting caribou numbers in any of the case in the southern extent of the climate change. Specifically, human

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

development and the resources it population segment [DPS] of any northern populations to persist, at least requires, probably in concert with species of vertebrate fish or wildlife for the foreseeable future. As discussed climate change, have altered caribou which interbreeds when mature.’’ below, we have determined that caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain Although the Service employs the within the ‘‘endangered’’ southern local Caribou DPS. This alteration has concept of being on the brink of populations do not constitute a occurred through forest harvest and the extinction in the wild as its general significant portion of the species’ range, creation of new infrastructure. It is understanding of ‘‘in danger of according to the Service’s current reasonable to expect that human extinction’’ (USFWS 2010, in litt.), it policy. In other words, we have development and the resources it does not do so in a narrow or inflexible determined that the loss of the demands will continue to alter and way. As implemented by the Service, to ‘‘endangered’’ local populations would fragment caribou habitat in the future. be currently on the brink of extinction not substantially increase the This, in turn, will continue to promote in the wild does not necessarily mean vulnerability of the ‘‘threatened’’ local altered predator/prey ecology and that extinction is certain or inevitable. populations, such that the entire DPS associated increases in caribou Ultimately, whether a species is would be in danger of extinction (i.e., predation, and human disturbance in currently on the brink of extinction in would become endangered). Therefore, caribou habitat within the Southern the wild (including the timing of the on the basis of the best scientific and Mountain Caribou DPS. The suite of all extinction event itself) depends on the commercial data available and per our these related threats, combined with life history and ecology of the species, policy, we propose to amend the current each other, have posed and continue to the nature of the threats, and the listing of the woodland caribou pose a significant threat to caribou species’ response to those threats (southern Selkirk Mountains within the Southern Mountain Caribou (USFWS 2010, in litt.). population) as an endangered species, DPS. We have carefully evaluated the best as identified at 50 CFR 17.11(h), to scientific and commercial data available reflect the Southern Mountain Caribou Proposed Determination regarding the past, present, and future DPS as a threatened species in The range of the Southern Mountain threats to the Southern Mountain accordance with sections 3(20) and Caribou DPS has been reduced by Caribou DPS. As described above, the 4(a)(1) of the Act. approximately 40 percent over the last Southern Mountain Caribou DPS still century. The current status and has a relatively widespread distribution Significant Portion of the Range distribution of caribou within the DPS that has suffered ongoing major Under the Act and our implementing is limited to an estimated 1,657 reductions of its numbers, range, or regulations, a species may warrant individuals in 15 local populations. both, as a result of factors that have not listing if it is an endangered or This represents a reduction in total been abated. This decline has resulted threatened species throughout all or a population size of 33 percent since in the shrinking in size and isolation of significant portion of its range. The Act 1995, with some individual local local populations that make up this defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any populations experiencing reductions of DPS. species which is ‘‘in danger of more than 50 percent. As previously A species with a relatively extinction throughout all or a significant discussed in the Summary of Factors widespread distribution that has portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened Affecting the Species, significant threats experienced, and continues to undergo, species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely to the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS major reductions in its numbers, range, to become an endangered species within include: increased levels of predation or both as a result of factors that have the foreseeable future throughout all or due to changes in the predator/prey not been abated can be listed as either a significant portion of its range.’’ The dynamics, increased accessibility of endangered or threatened. For the definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant caribou habitat by humans, disturbance reasons outlined below, we have to this discussion. The Act defines of caribou from use of roads and from determined that the Southern Mountain ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term recreational vehicles, and climate Caribou DPS meets the definition of ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish change. All these threats are linked with threatened throughout its entire range, or wildlife or plants, and any distinct past and ongoing habitat alteration and and acknowledge that many of the population segment [DPS] of any are occurring throughout the entire smaller local populations may species of vertebrate fish or wildlife range of the DPS. These threats are individually fit the definition of which interbreeds when mature.’’ The expected to continue in the foreseeable endangered. Specifically, we conclude phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ future. that the Southern Mountain Caribou (SPR) is not defined by the statute. Under the Act and our implementing DPS meets the definition of threatened Additionally, we have never addressed regulations, a species may warrant because, although all local populations in our regulations: (1) The consequences listing if it is endangered or threatened within this DPS have suffered declines of a determination that a species is throughout all or a significant portion of in numbers, range, or both, and have either endangered or likely to become so its range. The Act defines ‘‘endangered become increasingly isolated, throughout a significant portion of its species’’ as any species that is ‘‘in populations in the northern portion of range, but not throughout all of its danger of extinction throughout all or a the DPS have suffered these declines to range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of significant portion of its range,’’ and a lesser extent than those in the a range as ‘‘significant.’’ ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species southern part of the range. Because of Two recent district court decisions which is ‘‘likely to become an their relatively higher population have addressed whether the SPR endangered species within the numbers, these northern local language allows the Service to list or foreseeable future throughout all or a populations have more resiliency to protect less than all members of a significant portion of its range.’’ The threats than local populations in the defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant southern extent of the DPS. For this v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. to this discussion. The Act defines reason, when assessed across its range, Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term we conclude that the Southern delisting of the Northern Rocky ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish Mountain Caribou DPS as a whole is not Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April or wildlife or plants, and any distinct endangered, because we expect the 2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26529

Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 with the judicial opinions that have under any one or more of these (D. Ariz. September 30, 2010), most closely examined this issue. concepts. concerning the Service’s 2008 finding Having concluded that the phrase For the purposes of this finding, we on a petition to list the Gunnison’s ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ determine if the biological contribution prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, provides an independent basis for of a portion of a species’ range qualifies 2008). The Service had asserted in both listing and protecting the entire species, that portion as ‘‘significant’’ by asking of these determinations that it had we next turn to the meaning of whether without that portion, the authority, in effect, to protect only some ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold representation, redundancy, or members of a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by for when such an independent basis for resiliency of the species would be so the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or listing exists. impaired that the species would have an DPS), under the Act. Both courts ruled Although there are potentially many increased vulnerability to threats to the that the determinations were arbitrary ways to determine whether a portion of point that the overall species would be and capricious on the grounds that this a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we in danger of extinction (i.e., would be approach violated the plain and conclude, for the purposes of this ‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would unambiguous language of the Act. The finding, that the significance of the not consider the portion of the range at courts concluded that reading the SPR portion of the range should be issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is language to allow protecting only a determined based on its biological sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and portion of a species’ range is contribution to the conservation of the representation elsewhere in the species’ inconsistent with the Act’s definition of species. For this reason, we describe the range that the species would not be in ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of danger of extinction throughout its once a determination is made that a an increase in the risk of extinction for range if the population in that portion species (i.e., species, subspecies, or the species. We conclude that a of the range in question became DPS) meets the definition of biologically based definition of extirpated (extinct locally). ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the We recognize that this definition of species,’’ it must be placed on the list purposes of the Act, is consistent with ‘‘significant’’ (a portion of the range of in its entirety and the Act’s protections judicial interpretations, and best a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its applied consistently to all members of ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for contribution to the viability of the that species (subject to modification of the purposes of this finding, and as species is so important that without that protections through special rules under explained further below, a portion of the portion, the species would be in danger sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its Consistent with that interpretation, of extinction) establishes a threshold contribution to the viability of the and for the purposes of this finding, we that is relatively high. On the one hand, species is so important that without that interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion given that the consequences of finding portion, the species would be in danger of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of a species to be endangered or threatened of extinction. ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened in a significant portion of its range species’’ to provide an independent We evaluate biological significance would be listing the species throughout basis for listing; thus there are two based on the principles of conservation its entire range, it is important to use a situations (or factual bases) under which biology using the concepts of threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is a species would qualify for listing: a redundancy, resiliency, and robust. It would not be meaningful or species may be endangered or representation. Resiliency describes the appropriate to establish a very low threatened throughout all of its range; or characteristics of a species and its threshold whereby a portion of the a species may be endangered or habitat that allow it to recover from range can be considered ‘‘significant’’ threatened in only a significant portion periodic disturbance. Redundancy even if only a negligible increase in of its range. If a species is in danger of (having multiple populations extinction risk would result from its extinction throughout a significant distributed across the landscape) may be loss. Because nearly any portion of a portion of its range, the species is an needed to provide a margin of safety for species’ range can be said to contribute ‘‘endangered species.’’ The same the species to withstand catastrophic some increment to a species’ viability, analysis applies to ‘‘threatened species.’’ events. Representation (the range of use of such a low threshold would Based on this interpretation and variation found in a species) ensures require us to impose restrictions and supported by existing case law, the that the species’ adaptive capabilities expend conservation resources consequence of finding that a species is are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, disproportionately to conservation endangered or threatened in only a and representation are not independent benefit: listing would be rangewide, significant portion of its range is that the of each other, and some characteristic of even if only a portion of the range of entire species shall be listed as a species or area may contribute to all minor conservation importance to the endangered or threatened, respectively, three. For example, distribution across a species is imperiled. On the other hand, and the Act’s protections shall be wide variety of habitat types is an it would be inappropriate to establish a applied across the species’ entire range. indicator of representation, but it may threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too We conclude, for the purposes of this also indicate a broad geographic high. This would be the case if the finding, that interpreting the significant distribution contributing to redundancy standard were, for example, that a portion of its range phrase as providing (decreasing the chance that any one portion of the range can be considered an independent basis for listing is the event affects the entire species), and the ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that best interpretation of the Act. It is likelihood that some habitat types are portion result in the entire species’ consistent with the purposes and the less susceptible to certain threats, being currently endangered or plain meaning of the key definitions of contributing to resiliency (the ability of threatened. Such a high bar would not the Act; it does not conflict with the species to recover from disturbance). give the significant portion of its range established past agency practice (i.e., None of these concepts is intended to be phrase independent meaning, as the prior to the 2007 Solicitor’s Opinion), as mutually exclusive, and a portion of a Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of no consistent, long-term agency practice species’ range may be determined to be Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th has been established; and it is consistent ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions Cir. 2001).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in become so within the foreseeable future. We have determined that many local this finding carefully balances these Depending on the biology of the species, populations within the Southern concerns. By setting a relatively high its range, and the threats it faces, it Mountain Caribou DPS are at risk of threshold, we minimize the degree to might be more efficient for us to address extirpation and that these individual which restrictions will be imposed or the significance question first or the local populations meet the definition of resources expended that do not status question first. Thus, if we endangered under the Act. Given this, contribute substantially to species determine that a portion of the range is we must determine if those conservation. But we have not set the not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to ‘‘endangered’’ local populations threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a determine whether the species is collectively make up a significant significant portion of its range’’ loses endangered or threatened there; if we portion of the range of the species. To independent meaning. Specifically, we determine that the species is not determine this we asked the question: In have not set the threshold as high as it endangered or threatened in a portion of the absence of the ‘‘endangered’’ was under the interpretation presented its range, we do not need to determine populations, is the representation, by the Service in the Defenders if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In redundancy, or resilience of the litigation. Under that interpretation, the practice, a key part of the determination remaining local populations impaired to portion of a species’ range would have that a species is in danger of extinction the extent that the remainder of the DPS to be so important to the species that the in a significant portion of its range is would be endangered? Because the local current threats to that portion of the whether the threats are geographically populations of the Southern Mountain range are such that the entire species concentrated in some way. If the threats Caribou DPS are largely geographically would be currently threatened or to the species are essentially uniform and behaviorally isolated from each endangered everywhere. (We recognize throughout its range, no portion is likely other, it follows that the impacts to one that if the species is threatened or to warrant further consideration. local population should not greatly endangered in a portion that rises to that Moreover, if any concentration of influence the impacts to another. level of biological significance, then we threats to the species occurs only in Therefore, the future extirpation of the should conclude that the species is in portions of the species’ range that ‘‘endangered’’ local populations would fact endangered or threatened clearly would not meet the biologically not be anticipated to change the status throughout all of its range, and that we based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such of the remaining local populations would not need to rely on the portions will not warrant further within the DPS. Six of the local significant portion of its range language consideration. populations have current population estimates of 100 individuals or more, for such a listing.) Under the definition Having determined that the Southern and 3 of those have greater than 200 of ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, Mountain Caribou DPS is threatened individuals (Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Even however, to be considered significant, a throughout its range, we must next if several of the small local populations portion of the range need not rise to consider whether there are any within the Southern Mountain Caribou such an exceptionally high level of significant portions of the range where DPS were to be extirpated within the biological significance. Rather, under the species is in danger of extinction this interpretation we ask whether the foreseeable future, we have no (i.e., are endangered). We therefore information to suggest that this loss, species would be endangered evaluated the current range of the everywhere without that portion (i.e., if while by no means a desirable Southern Mountain Caribou DPS to conservation outcome, would result in that portion were to be completely determine if there is any apparent extirpated). In other words, for any the endangerment of the remaining local geographic concentration of potential populations comprising the DPS. In portion of the range to be considered threats for this species. We considered significant by our proposed policy, the other words, the loss of some of the the potential direct and indirect threats smaller, relatively isolated local complete extirpation (in a hypothetical due to habitat alteration, including future) of the species in that portion of populations within the DPS would not forest harvest, forest fires, insect be anticipated to lead to the impending the range would need to cause the outbreaks, human development, human extinction of the larger local species in the remainder of the range to recreation, and climate change, as well populations in the northern portion of be endangered. If the hypothetical as predation. We found the severity of the DPS. Considering the above, we extirpation of the species in that portion threats to the DPS to be relatively determine that some local populations of the range would not cause the species consistent across its entire range, of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the remainder of the range to meet although habitat alteration has been are in danger of extirpation over a the definition of endangered, that more pronounced to date in the portion of its range; however, this portion is not considered significant. southern extent of the DPS. Further, portion does not meet the standards to The range of a species can although there are several small, local be considered a significant portion of theoretically be divided into portions in populations that occur on the periphery the range. Therefore, our determination an infinite number of ways. However, in the northern extent of the DPS (e.g., is that the Southern Mountain Caribou there is no purpose to analyzing Narrow Lake and Barkerville), local DPS is not endangered in a significant portions of the range that have no populations are generally smaller in portion of its range, and should be listed reasonable potential to be significant or numbers and further separated by as threatened throughout its range. to analyzing portions of the range in distance in the southern portion of the which there is no reasonable potential DPS. In his paper assessing the status of Available Conservation Measures for the species to be endangered or the Mountain Caribou Ecotype, Hatter et Conservation measures provided to threatened. To identify only those al. (2004, p. 10) predicted a loss of some species listed as endangered or portions that warrant further of these smaller populations (ranging threatened under the Act include consideration, we determine whether from four to seven populations recognition, recovery actions, there is substantial information depending on the modeling scenario requirements for Federal protection, and indicating that: (1) The portions may be used) in 20 years. Therefore, these prohibitions against certain practices. ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be smaller local populations may lack Recognition through the listing results in danger of extinction there or likely to resiliency and redundancy to threats. in public awareness and conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26531

by Federal, State, Tribal, and local implementing recovery tasks. A the species or destroy or adversely agencies; private organizations; and recovery team comprised of species modify its critical habitat. If a Federal individuals. The Act encourages experts from Canada, Tribes, and the action may affect a listed species or its cooperation with the States and requires United States would be assembled to critical habitat, the responsible Federal that recovery actions be carried out for revise or develop a recovery plan for the agency must enter into formal all listed species. The protection Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. When consultation with the Service. required by Federal agencies and the completed, the draft recovery plan and Federal agency actions within the prohibitions against certain activities the final recovery plan will be available species habitat that may require are discussed, in part, below. on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ conference or consultation or both as The primary purpose of the Act is the endangered), or from our Idaho Fish and described in the preceding paragraph conservation of endangered and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER include but may not be limited to: threatened species and the ecosystems INFORMATION CONTACT). Management and any other landscape- upon which they depend. The ultimate Implementation of recovery actions altering activities on Federal lands goal of such conservation efforts is the generally requires the participation of a administered by the USFS and Bureau recovery of these listed species, so that broad range of partners, including other of Land Management, issuance of they no longer need the protective Federal agencies, States, Tribes, section 404 Clean Water Act permits by measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of nongovernmental organizations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Act requires the Service to develop businesses, and private landowners. construction and management of gas and implement recovery plans for the Examples of recovery actions may pipeline and power line rights-of-way conservation of endangered and include habitat restoration (e.g., by the Federal Energy Regulatory threatened species. The recovery restoration of native vegetation), Commission, and construction and planning process involves the research, captive propagation and maintenance of roads or highways by identification of actions that are reintroduction, and outreach and the Federal Highway Administration. necessary to halt or reverse the species’ education. The recovery of many listed The Act and its implementing decline by addressing the threats to its species cannot be accomplished solely regulations set forth a series of general survival and recovery. The goal of this on Federal lands because their range prohibitions and exceptions that apply process is to restore listed species to a may occur primarily or solely on non- to all endangered wildlife. The point where they are secure, self- Federal lands. To achieve recovery of prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, sustaining, and functioning components these species requires cooperative codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered of their ecosystems. conservation efforts on private, State, wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any A Selkirk Mountain Caribou and Tribal lands. person subject to the jurisdiction of the Management Plan/Recovery Plan was If this proposed rule becomes final, United States to take (including harass, approved by the Service in 1985 funding for recovery actions will be harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, (USFWS 1985), and a revised Recovery available from a variety of sources, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt Plan for Woodland Caribou in the including Federal budgets, State any of these), import, export, ship in Selkirk Mountains was approved by the programs, and cost share grants for non- interstate commerce in the course of Service in 1994 (USFWS 1994). An Federal landowners, the academic commercial activity, or sell or offer for update regarding the status of this community, and nongovernmental sale in interstate or foreign commerce recovery plan can be found in the latest organizations. In addition, pursuant to any listed species. Under the Lacey Act 5-year status review for the species (see section 6 of the Act, the States of Idaho (18 U.S.C 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), USFWS 2008, entire; see http:// and Washington would be eligible for it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/ Federal funds to implement carry, transport, or ship any such Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf). management actions that promote the wildlife that has been taken illegally. While actions have been carried out in protection or recovery of the Southern Certain exceptions apply to agents of the an attempt to recover this local Mountain Caribou DPS. Information on Service and State conservation agencies. population, the recovery criteria in the our grant programs that are available to We may issue permits to carry out 1994 recovery plan were determined to aid species recovery can be found at: otherwise prohibited activities be inadequate (USFWS 2008, p. 15). In http://www.fws.gov/grants. involving endangered and threatened addition, this recovery plan only applies Section 7(a) of the Act requires wildlife species under certain to this one local population, and does Federal agencies to evaluate their circumstances. Regulations governing not extend to the entire proposed actions with respect to any species that permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. If we is proposed or listed as an endangered endangered species, and at 17.32 for finalize this proposal as currently or threatened species and with respect threatened species. With regard to written, revisions to the plan, in to its critical habitat, if any is endangered wildlife, a permit must be coordination with British Columbia, designated. Regulations implementing issued for the following purposes: for Canada, will be required to address the this interagency cooperation provision scientific purposes, to enhance the entire DPS and the continuing or new of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part propagation or survival of the species, threats to the subspecies. A new 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires and for incidental take in connection recovery plan for this DPS would Federal agencies to confer with the with otherwise lawful activities. identify site-specific management Service on any action that is likely to It is our policy, as published in the actions that set a trigger for review of jeopardize the continued existence of a Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR the five factors that determine whether species proposed for listing or result in 34272), to identify to the maximum the listed entity remains endangered or destruction or adverse modification of extent practicable at the time a species threatened or may be downlisted or proposed critical habitat. If a species is is listed, those activities that would or delisted, and methods for monitoring listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of would not constitute a violation of recovery progress. Recovery plans also the Act requires Federal agencies to section 9 of the Act. The intent of this establish a framework for agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, policy is to increase public awareness of coordinate their recovery efforts and fund, or carry out are not likely to the effect of a proposed listing on provide estimates of the cost of jeopardize the continued existence of proposed and ongoing activities within

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the range of species proposed for listing. populations comprising the Southern 71042). As a result, we have determined The following activities could Mountain Caribou DPS, the southern that the specific area identified in the potentially result in a violation of Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou previous final critical habitat (77 FR section 9 of the Act; this list is not population is the only population that 71042) meets the definition of critical comprehensive: moves freely between the coterminous habitat for this DPS, and we have (1) Introduction of nonnative species United States and Canada. determined that there are no additional that compete with or prey upon The Act defines critical habitat as the areas that meet the definition of critical individuals of the Southern Mountain specific areas occupied by the species at habitat and should be included. Caribou DPS; and the time it is listed, on which are found Therefore, we propose to reaffirm the (2) Unauthorized modification of the those physical or biological features designation of approximately 30,010 ac old-growth, coniferous forest landscape essential to the conservation of the (12,145 ha) in one unit within Boundary within the Southern Mountain Caribou species, which may require special County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille DPS. management considerations or County, Washington, as critical habitat Questions regarding whether specific protection. On November 28, 2012 (77 for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, activities would constitute a violation of FR 71042), we published a final rule should the proposed amendment to the section 9 of the Act should be directed designating critical habitat for the listed entity become final. to the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office southern Selkirk Mountains population In addition, we propose to change the (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). of woodland caribou, the only local heading and text of the critical habitat Requests for copies of the regulations population of the Southern Mountain entry, as well as the title of the critical concerning listed animals and general Caribou DPS that moves southward habitat map, published in the Code of inquiries regarding prohibitions and across the border into the United States. Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR permits may be addressed to the U.S. In that final rule, we determined that 17.95(a) to reflect the correct entity, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered the majority of habitat essential to the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (see Species Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, conservation of this population the Proposed Regulation Promulgation Portland, OR 97232–4181 (telephone occurred in British Columbia, Canada, section of this document). For further 503–231–6131; facsimile 503–231– although the U.S. portion of the habitat information on the essential physical or 6243). used by the caribou makes an essential biological features for the caribou and Critical Habitat contribution to the conservation of the our criteria used to develop critical species. We designated as critical habitat, refer to our November 28, 2012 Under the Act, any species that is habitat approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 (77 FR 71042) final rule designating determined to be an endangered or ha) within Boundary County, Idaho, and critical habitat for the southern Selkirk threatened species requires critical Pend Oreille County, Washington, that Mountains population of woodland habitat to be designated, to the we considered to be occupied at the caribou. maximum extent prudent and time of listing and that provided the We recognize that critical habitat determinable. Designations and physical or biological features essential designated at a particular point in time revisions of critical habitat can only be to the conservation of the species, may not include all of the habitat areas completed through rulemaking. Because which may require special management that we may later determine are we have determined that the considerations or protection. necessary for the recovery of the designation of critical habitat will not The proposed amendment of the species. For these reasons, a critical likely increase the degree of threat to the currently listed population of the habitat designation does not signal that subspecies and may provide some woodland caribou expands the habitat outside the designated area is measure of benefit, we find that geographical area occupied by the unimportant or may not be needed for designation of critical habitat is prudent caribou northward across the recovery of the species. Areas that are for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. international border; therefore, all of the important to the conservation of the We reviewed the available information new area lies in Canada. Since we can species, both inside and outside the pertaining to the biological and habitat only designate critical habitat within the critical habitat designation, will needs of the Southern Mountain United States, we must identify those continue to be subject to: (1) Caribou DPS. This and other specific areas within the United States Conservation actions implemented information represent the best scientific that we consider to have been occupied under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) data available and led us to conclude at the time of listing, and that provide regulatory protections afforded by the that the designation of critical habitat is the physical or biological features requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act determinable for the Southern Mountain essential to the conservation of the for Federal agencies to insure their Caribou DPS. Based on our evaluation of Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. actions are not likely to jeopardize the the best available data, and analysis of However, as the physical or biological continued existence of any endangered the conservation needs of the species, features essential to the conservation of or threatened species, and (3) the we have determined that critical habitat the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS are prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if is prudent and determinable for the no different than those essential to the actions occurring in these areas may proposed Southern Mountain Caribou conservation of the currently listed affect the species. Federally funded or DPS. southern Selkirk Mountains population permitted projects affecting listed However, our regulations at 50 CFR of woodland caribou, and the species outside their designated critical 424.12(h) state that critical habitat shall geographical area in the United States habitat areas may still result in jeopardy not be designated within foreign occupied by this transboundary findings in some cases. These countries or in other areas outside of population of woodland caribou at the protections and conservation tools will United States jurisdiction; therefore, any time of listing remains unchanged, the continue to contribute to recovery of designation of critical habitat for the resulting area corresponds exactly to the this species. Similarly, critical habitat Southern Mountain Caribou DPS must critical habitat identified for the designations made on the basis of the be limited to that portion of the DPS southern Selkirk Mountains population best available information at the time of that occurs within the boundaries of the of woodland caribou in our final rule designation will not control the United States. Of the 15 local published on November 28, 2012 (77 FR direction and substance of future

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26533

recovery plans, habitat conservation Caribou DPS is not in imminent danger Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 plans (HCPs), or other species of extinction throughout all or a U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) conservation planning efforts if new significant portion of its range. This rule does not contain any new information available at the time of However, this proposed designation of collections of information that require these planning efforts calls for a threatened status for the newly defined approval by the Office of Management different outcome. DPS would not significantly change the and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Peer Review protection afforded the currently listed Reduction Act. This rule will not local population of the southern Selkirk In accordance with our joint policy impose recordkeeping or reporting Mountains population of woodland requirements on State or local published in the Federal Register on caribou under the Act. The regulatory July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek governments, individuals, businesses, or protections of section 9 and section 7 of organizations. An agency may not the expert opinions of at least three the Act are largely the same for species appropriate and independent specialists conduct or sponsor, and a person is not listed as endangered or threatened. required to respond to, a collection of regarding this proposed rule. The Anyone taking, attempting to take, or purpose of peer review is to ensure that information unless it displays a otherwise possessing a Southern currently valid OMB control number. our listing determination for this species Mountain Caribou or parts thereof, in is based on scientifically sound data, violation of section 9 of the Act, is still National Environmental Policy Act (42 assumptions, and analyses. We will subject to a penalty under section 11 of U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) invite these peer reviewers to comment the Act, unless their action is covered during the public comment period. We have determined that under a special rule under section 4(d) environmental assessments and We will consider all comments and of the Act. At this time, we are not information received during the environmental impact statements, as proposing a special rule under section defined under the authority of the comment period on this proposed rule 4(d) of the Act for the Southern during preparation of a final rule. National Environmental Policy Act of Mountain Caribou DPS. Under section 7 1969, need not be prepared in Accordingly, the final decision may of the Act, Federal agencies must ensure differ from this proposal. connection with listing a species as an that any actions they authorize, fund, or endangered or threatened species under Public Hearings carry out are not likely to jeopardize the the Endangered Species Act. We continued existence of the Southern The Act provides for one or more published a notice outlining our reasons Mountain Caribou DPS. public hearing on this proposal, if for this determination in the Federal requested. Requests must be received This proposal, if made final, would Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR within 45 days after the date of also revise 50 CFR 17.95(a) by 49244). reaffirming the designation of publication of this proposal in the References Cited Federal Register. Such requests must be approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) as sent to the address shown in the FOR critical habitat for the southern Selkirk A complete list of all references cited FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Mountains population of woodland in this rule is available on the Internet We will schedule public hearings on caribou as applicable to the U.S. portion at http://www.regulations.gov or upon this proposal, if any are requested, and of the proposed Southern Mountain request from the State Supervisor, Idaho announce the dates, times, and places of Caribou DPS. Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR those hearings, as well as how to obtain Required Determinations FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). reasonable accommodations, in the Authors Federal Register and local newspapers Clarity of This Rule at least 15 days before the hearing. We are required by Executive Orders The primary authors of this proposed Persons needing reasonable 12866 and 12988 and by the rule are the staff members of the Idaho accommodations to attend and Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR participate in a public hearing should 1998, to write all rules in plain FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). contact the Idaho Fish and Wildlife language. This means that each rule we List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Office at 208–378–5243, as soon as publish must: Endangered and threatened species, possible. To allow sufficient time to (a) Be logically organized; process requests, please call no later Exports, Imports, Reporting and (b) Use the active voice to address recordkeeping requirements, than 1 week before the hearing date. readers directly; Information regarding this proposed Transportation. (c) Use common, everyday words and rule is available in alternative formats clear language rather than jargon; Proposed Regulation Promulgation upon request. (d) Be divided into short sections and Accordingly, we propose to amend Effects of This Rule sentences; and part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title This proposal, if made final, would (e) Use lists and tables wherever 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to amend the possible. as set forth below: current listing of the transboundary If you feel that we have not met these southern Selkirk Mountains population requirements, send us comments by one PART 17—[AMENDED] of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES of woodland caribou by defining the ■ Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, which section, above. To better help us revise 1. The authority citation for part 17 includes the currently listed endangered the rule, your comments should be as continues to read as follows: southern Selkirk Mountains population specific as possible. For example, you Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– of woodland caribou, and designate the should tell us the numbers of the 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. status of the Southern Mountain sections or paragraphs that you find ■ 2. In § 17.11(h), remove the entry for Caribou DPS as threatened under the unclear, which sections or sentences are ‘‘Caribou, woodland’’ and add an entry Act. This rule formally recognizes that too long, the sections where you feel for ‘‘Caribou, Southern Mountain’’ in the proposed Southern Mountain lists or tables would be useful, etc. alphabetical order under MAMMALS in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 26534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the List of Endangered and Threatened § 17.11 Endangered and threatened (h) * * * Wildlife to read as follows: wildlife. * * * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Spe- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical cial Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Caribou, Southern Rangifer tarandus U.S.A...... U.S.A. (wherever T 128E, 136, 17.95(a) NA Mountain. caribou. (AK, ID, ME, MI, occurring), Can- 143 MN, MT, NH, VT, ada (southeastern WA, WI), Can- British Columbia). ada..

*******

■ 3. In § 17.95(a), amend the entry for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus subalpine meadows with succulent ‘‘Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Southern Mountain Caribou forbs and grasses, flowering plants, caribou) Southern Selkirk Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) horsetails, willow, huckleberry, dwarf Population’’ as follows: * * * * * birch, sedges, and lichens. The Southern ■ a. By revising the heading; (2) Within this area, the primary Mountain Caribou DPS, including ■ b. By revising the introductory text of constituent elements of the physical and pregnant females, uses these areas for paragraph (a)(2); biological features essential to the feeding during the spring and summer ■ c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv); and conservation of the Southern Mountain seasons. ■ d. By revising paragraph (a)(5). Caribou DPS consist of five components: * * * * * These revisions read as follows: *** (5) Unit 1: Boundary County, Idaho, * * * * * and Pend Oreille County, Washington. § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. (iv) High-elevation benches and The map of the critical habitat unit (a) Mammals. shallow slopes, secondary stream follows: * * * * * bottoms, riparian areas, seeps, and BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26535

* * * * * Dated: April 7, 2014. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2014–09601 Filed 5–7–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:28 May 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08MYP2.SGM 08MYP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP08MY14.001