52598 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR appointment, during normal business • By reaffirming the designation of hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) as Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Idaho Field Office, 11103 E. critical habitat for the southern Montgomery Drive, Spokane Valley, WA mountain caribou DPS. 50 CFR Part 17 99206; telephone 509–891–6839; The basis for our action. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0097; facsimile 509–891–6748. FXES11130900000C2–189–FF09E42000] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg implementing regulations (50 CFR part Hughes, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 424) set forth the procedures for RIN 1018–BC84 Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and determining whether a species meets Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The Act defines Endangered Species Status for Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; telephone 208–378–5243; facsimile 208–378–5262. an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species Southern Mountain Caribou Distinct that is ‘‘in danger of extinction Population Segment Persons who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal throughout all or a significant portion of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Relay Service at 800–877–8339 for TTY its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as Interior. (telephone typewriter or teletypewriter) a species that is ‘‘likely to become an endangered species within the ACTION: Final rule. assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. foreseeable future throughout all or a SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and significant portion of its range.’’ Under Wildlife Service (Service), determine SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Act, a species may be determined to endangered species status under the Executive Summary be an endangered species or threatened Endangered Species Act of 1973, as species because of any one or a Why we need to publish a rule. Under amended (Act), for the southern combination of the five factors the Act, a species may warrant mountain caribou distinct population described in section 4(a)(1): (A) The protection through listing if it is segment (DPS) of woodland caribou present or threatened destruction, endangered or threatened throughout all (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This modification, or curtailment of its or a significant portion of its range. determination amends the current habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Listing a species as an endangered or listing of the southern Selkirk commercial, recreational, scientific, or threatened species can only be Mountains population of woodland educational purposes; (C) disease or completed by rulemaking. Any caribou by defining the southern predation; (D) the inadequacy of proposed or final rule designating a DPS mountain caribou DPS. The southern existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) as endangered or threatened under the mountain caribou DPS of woodland other natural or manmade factors Act should clearly analyze the action caribou consists of 17 subpopulations affecting its continued existence. We using the following three elements: (15 extant and 2 extirpated). This DPS have determined that threats described discreteness of the population segment includes the currently listed southern under factors A, C, and E pose in relation to the remainder of the taxon Selkirk Mountains population of significant threats to the continued to which it belongs; the significance of woodland caribou, a transboundary existence of the southern mountain the population segment to the taxon to population that moves between British caribou DPS. which it belongs; and the conservation Columbia, Canada, and northern Idaho We listed the southern Selkirk status of the population segment in and northeastern Washington, United Mountains population of woodland relation to the Act’s standards for listing States. We have determined that the caribou as endangered under the Act on (DPS policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 February 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390). 1996). Under the Act, any species that hectares) designated as critical habitat According to our ‘‘Policy Regarding the is determined to be an endangered or Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate on November 28, 2012, for the southern threatened species requires critical Population Segments Under the Selkirk Mountains population of habitat to be designated, to the Endangered Species Act’’ (DPS policy; woodland caribou is applicable to the maximum extent prudent and 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), the U.S. portion of the endangered southern determinable. Designations and appropriate application of the policy to mountain caribou DPS and, as such, revisions of critical habitat can only be pre-1996 DPS listings shall be reaffirm the existing critical habitat for completed through rulemaking. Here we considered in our 5-year reviews of the the DPS. This rule amends the listing of reaffirm the designation of status of the species. We conducted a this DPS on the Federal List of approximately 30,010 acres (ac) (12,145 DPS analysis during our 2008 5-year Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. hectares (ha)) in one unit within review, which concluded that the DATES: This rule is effective November Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend southern Selkirk Mountains population 1, 2019. Oreille County, Washington, as critical of woodland caribou met both the ADDRESSES: This final rule is available at habitat for the southern mountain discreteness and significance elements http://www.regulations.gov under caribou DPS. of the DPS policy. However, we now Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0097, This rule amends the current listing of recognize that this analysis did not and at the Service’s Idaho Fish and the southern Selkirk Mountains consider the significance of this Wildlife Office at http://www.fws.gov/ population of woodland caribou as population relative to the appropriate idaho/. Comments and materials we follows: taxon. The purpose of the DPS policy is received, as well as supporting • By defining the southern mountain to set forth standards for determining documentation we used in preparing caribou DPS, which includes the which populations of vertebrate this rule, are available for public currently listed southern Selkirk organisms that are subsets of species or inspection at http:// Mountains population of woodland subspecies may qualify as entities that www.regulations.gov. All of the caribou; we may list as endangered or threatened comments, materials, and • By designating the status of the under the Act. In the 2008 5-year documentation that we considered in southern mountain caribou DPS as review, we assessed the significance of this rulemaking are available by endangered under the Act; and the southern Selkirk Mountains

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52599

population to the ‘‘mountain ecotype’’ on the number and names of regulations enacted by the British of woodland caribou. The ‘‘mountain subpopulations (both extant and Columbia provincial government that ecotype’’ is neither a species nor a recently extirpated) within the DPS, and can be utilized to protect southern subspecies. The appropriate DPS describe how subpopulation names and mountain caribou and their habitat, as analysis for the southern Selkirk groupings of subpopulations by Canada well as implementing programs and Mountains population of woodland have changed through time. We also projects for their conservation (see caribou should have been conducted clarify that the range of the DPS in ‘‘Canada’’ under Factor D analysis, relative to the subspecies woodland British Columbia, Canada, and the below). caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). United States has declined by 60 In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 Listing or reclassifying DPSs allows the percent since historical arrival of FR 26504), we stated that further Service to protect and conserve species Europeans in British Columbia, evaluation of existing regulatory and the ecosystems upon which they according to Spalding (2000, p. 40). In mechanisms (Factor D) was needed depend before large-scale decline occurs our May 8, 2014 proposed rule (79 FR before a final determination could be that would necessitate listing a species 26504), we stated the range of the DPS made as to the adequacy of existing or subspecies throughout its entire had declined by 40 percent, but this was regulatory mechanisms to address the range. specific to the British Columbia, threats affecting the status of the DPS. Peer review and public comment. We Canada, portion of the DPS’s range (i.e., Notwithstanding the additional sought comments from independent it did not include the portion of the information learned regarding existing specialists to ensure that our range in the United States). provincial laws and regulations of designation is based on scientifically We updated the status of the southern British Columbia, Canada, we conclude sound data, assumptions, and analyses. mountain caribou DPS to reflect the that, while the existing regulatory We invited these peer reviewers to most recent information contained in mechanisms in the United States and comment on our amended listing the COSEWIC report (2014, entire) Canada enable the United States and proposal. We also considered all pertaining to the number of individual Canada to ameliorate to some extent the comments and information we received caribou in each of the 15 extant identified threats to the southern during the comment period. subpopulations and the total estimated mountain caribou DPS, the existing number of individuals in the DPS. We mechanisms do not completely alleviate Summary of Changes From the corrected the trend status of the Hart the potential for the identified threats to Proposed Rule Ranges subpopulation to reflect that it is affect the status of southern mountain Based on information we received in now declining, and to reflect that the caribou and their habitat. comments regarding how we described overall trend of the DPS is declining and In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 the coat color of caribou during the rate of decline is accelerating. We FR 26504), we proposed to list the breeding and winter, we modified our also included additional information southern mountain caribou DPS as description to reflect that caribou coat pertaining to population viability threatened. However, we have now color and pattern is variable (Geist 2007) analyses conducted by Hatter (2006, determined that the status of, and and winter pelage varies from almost entire, in litt.) and Wittmer (2010, threats to, the southern mountain white to dark brown (see Species entire) assessing the extinction risk of caribou DPS warrant its listing as Information under Background, below). subpopulations within the DPS. endangered. This determination is based In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 We provided additional analysis on (1) the additional analysis referenced FR 26504), we noted that woodland pertaining to the isolation of above and contained in the Status of the caribou populations can be further subpopulations within the DPS as well Southern Mountain Caribou DPS broken down into subunits called ‘‘local as separation from other populations discussion below; and (2) the populations.’’ The Committee on the (i.e., Designatable Units) of woodland discussions of factors A (the present or Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada caribou in Canada. We explained how threatened destruction, modification, or (COSEWIC) (2014, entire) uses the term this isolation may affect the ability of curtailment of its habitat or range), C ‘‘subpopulation’’ to refer to the same the subpopulations within the DPS to (disease or predation), D (inadequacy of population subunits in Canada. In order function as a metapopulation, which regulatory mechanisms) and E (other to minimize confusion, we have could adversely affect the demographic natural or manmade factors affecting its conformed our terminology to that used and/or genetic stability or rescue of continued existence) in this final rule. by COSEWIC. Therefore, our proposed subpopulations within the DPS. We also The rationale for endangered status is rule uses ‘‘subpopulations,’’ instead of provided additional analyses on summarized within the Determination ‘‘local populations,’’ to describe caribou potential threats to the DPS related to section of this final rule. The May 8, subunits. renewable energy and industrial 2014, proposed rule also contained a Caribou subpopulations represent development, and effect of predation ‘‘Significant Portion of the Range’’ (SPR) groupings of individual woodland upon the current and future status of the analysis. That analysis was included in caribou that have overlapping ranges/ DPS. the proposed rule to conform to Service movement patterns and breed with one We included additional information policy for listing rules at that time. another more frequently than they breed pertaining to Canadian conservation However, subsequent to publishing the with caribou from other subpopulations. efforts for woodland caribou, which proposed rule, the Service revised its Subpopulations in southern British include augmenting animals into the policy on when it is necessary to Columbia are thought to be a relatively Purcells South subpopulation and wolf perform a SPR analysis (79 FR 37578, recent phenomena resulting from control efforts within several July 1, 2014). habitat fragmentation and loss within subpopulations within the DPS (under In this case, because we found that the population of woodland caribou; the Factor A analysis, below, see Efforts the southern mountain DPS of historically, movement of caribou in Canada under ‘‘Conservation Efforts woodland caribou is in danger of between subpopulations was likely. to Reduce Habitat Destruction, extinction throughout all of its range, Within the Status of the Southern Modification, or Curtailment of Its per the Service’s SPR Policy (79 FR Mountain Caribou DPS discussion in Range’’). We also included additional 37578, July 1, 2014), the protections of this final rule, we provide clarification information pertaining to existing the Act apply to each individual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52600 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

member of the DPS wherever found. proposed amended listing rule; we are If a population is found to be discrete, Consequently, an analysis of whether addressing those comments in this final then it is evaluated for significance there is any significant portion of its rule as well as new comments we under the DPS policy on the basis of its range where the species is in danger of received during the reopened public importance to the taxon to which it extinction or likely to become so in the comment period on the November 28, belongs. This consideration may foreseeable future was unnecessary and 2012, final critical habitat designation. include, but is not limited to, the was not conducted. following: (1) Persistence of the discrete Species Information population segment in an ecological Background Please refer to the proposed listing setting unusual or unique to the taxon; Previous Federal Actions rule for the southern mountain caribou (2) evidence that loss of the discrete Please refer to the proposed amended DPS (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014) for a population segment would result in a listing rule for the southern mountain summary of species information. Except significant gap in the range of the taxon; caribou DPS (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014) for the following correction, there are no (3) evidence that the population for a detailed description of previous changes to the species information represents the only surviving natural Federal actions concerning this species. provided in that proposed rule. The occurrence of the taxon that may be The May 8, 2014, proposed rule opened sentence reading, ‘‘Their winter pelage more abundant elsewhere as an a 60-day public comment period, ending varies from nearly white in Arctic introduced population outside of its July 7, 2014. On June 10, 2014, we caribou such as the Peary caribou, to historical range; or (4) evidence that the extended the public comment period on dark brown in woodland caribou population differs markedly from other the proposed amended listing rule until (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 10–11)’’ at 79 FR populations of the species in its genetic August 6, 2014, and announced two 26507 should instead read, ‘‘Breeding characteristics. public informational sessions and pelage is variable in color and If a population segment is both hearings (79 FR 33169). Public patterning (Geist 2007), and winter discrete and significant (i.e., it qualifies informational sessions and hearings pelage varies from almost white to dark as a potential DPS), its evaluation for were held in Sandpoint, Idaho, on June brown.’’ endangered or threatened status is based on the Act’s definitions of those terms 25, 2014, and in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, Evaluation of the Southern Mountain on June 26, 2014 (79 FR 33169). On and a review of the factors listed in Caribou as a Distinct Population section 4(a) of the Act. According to our March 24, 2015, we reopened the public Segment comment period on the proposed DPS policy, it may be appropriate to amended listing rule for an additional Introduction and Background assign different classifications to different DPSs of the same vertebrate 30 days, ending on April 23, 2015, to The National Marine Fisheries Service allow the public time to review new taxon. (NMFS) and the Service published a Section 3(16) of the Act defines the information: A report from COSEWIC 1 joint ‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition term ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any and associated literature, which we of Distinct Vertebrate Population subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, received after the previous public Segments Under the Endangered and any distinct population segment of comment period (80 FR 15545). Species Act’’ (DPS Policy) on February In our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the which interbreeds when mature.’’ We FR 26504), we proposed to reaffirm the DPS policy, any proposed or final rule November 28, 2012, final critical habitat have always understood the phrase designating a DPS as endangered or ‘‘interbreeds when mature’’ to mean that designation (77 FR 71042) for the threatened under the Act should clearly southern Selkirk Mountains population a DPS must consist of members of the analyze the action using the following same species or subspecies in the wild of woodland caribou as it applies to the three elements: Discreteness of the U.S. portion of the endangered southern that would be biologically capable of population segment in relation to the interbreeding if given the opportunity, mountain DPS of woodland caribou. remainder of the taxon to which it However, on March 23, 2015, the Idaho but all members need not actually belongs; the significance of the interbreed with each other. A DPS is a District Court (Center for Biological population segment to the taxon to Diversity v. Kelly, 93 F.Supp.3d 1193 (D. subset of a species or subspecies, and which it belongs; and the conservation cannot consist of members of a different Idaho, 2015)) ruled that we made a status of the population segment in procedural error in not providing public species or subspecies. A DPS may relation to the Act’s standards for review and comment regarding include multiple populations of listing. If the population segment considerations we made related to our vertebrate organisms that may not qualifies as a DPS, the conservation final critical habitat designation (77 FR necessarily interbreed with each other. status of that DPS is then evaluated to 71042). On April 19, 2016, in response For example, a DPS may consist of determine whether it is endangered or to the court’s order, we published a multiple populations of a fish species threatened. document in the Federal Register (81 separated into different drainages. A population segment of a vertebrate FR 22961) that reopened the public While these populations may not species may be considered discrete if it comment period on the November 28, actually interbreed with each other, satisfies either one of the following 2012, final designation of critical habitat their members are biologically capable conditions: (1) It is markedly separated (77 FR 71042), which we proposed to of interbreeding. from other populations of the same Distinctive, discrete, and significant reaffirm in the May 8, 2014, proposed taxon as a consequence of physical, populations of the woodland caribou rule (79 FR 26504) as the critical habitat physiological, ecological, or behavioral have been identified, described, and for the southern mountain caribou DPS. factors; or (2) it is delimited by assessed by the Committee on the Status We received numerous comments international governmental boundaries of Endangered Wildlife in Canada regarding critical habitat during the within which differences in control of (COSEWIC). COSEWIC is composed of initial public comment periods for the exploitation, management of habitat, qualified wildlife experts drawn from 1 A list of acronyms used in this document is conservation status, or regulatory Federal, provincial, and territorial available at http://www.regulations.gov under mechanisms exist that are significant in governments; wildlife management Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097. light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. boards; Aboriginal groups; universities;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52601

museums; national nongovernmental 1996), the 5-year review included an discontinuity, or ecological isolation organizations; and others with expertise analysis of this population in relation to (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15). in the conservation of wildlife species the DPS policy. In conducting the DPS It should be noted that COSEWIC’s in Canada. The role of COSEWIC is to analysis, we considered the discreteness DU designation does not necessarily assess and classify, using the best and significance of this population in consider the conservation status or available information, the conservation relation to the mountain caribou threats to the persistence of caribou status of wildlife species, subspecies, metapopulation (USFWS 2008, pp. 6– DUs. Consistent with its 2009 and separate populations suspected of 13) (i.e., mountain caribou ecotype). guidelines, the COSEWIC used five lines being at risk. In addition, they make From this analysis, we concluded that of evidence to determine caribou DUs; species status recommendations to the the southern Selkirk Mountains these include: (1) Phylogenetics; (2) Canadian government and the public. population of woodland caribou met genetic diversity and structure; (3) Once COSEWIC makes this both the discreteness and significance morphology; (4) movements, behavior, recommendation, it is the option of the elements of the DPS policy and was a and life-history strategies; and (5) Canadian Federal government to decide distinct population segment of the distribution (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15). As whether a species will be listed under mountain caribou metapopulation a general rule, a DU was designated Canada’s Species At Risk Act (SARA). (USFWS 2008, p. 13). However, we when several lines of evidence provided The southern mountain caribou acknowledged in our December 19, support for discreteness and population, which includes the 2012, 90-day finding (77 FR 75091) on significance (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15– transboundary southern Selkirk a petition to delist the southern Selkirk 16). Twelve caribou DUs were classified Mountains population of woodland Mountains population of woodland by COSEWIC in 2011, including the caribou (and is the subject of this final caribou that the DPS analysis in our southern mountain caribou population amended listing), is currently 2008 5-year review was not conducted (DU9), which includes the southern designated as ‘‘threatened’’ under SARA relative to the appropriate taxon. Selkirk Mountains population of (COSEWIC 2011, p. 74). This Specifically, we should have conducted woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. designation was reached because the the DPS analysis of the southern Selkirk 21). The information used to describe population of southern mountain Mountains population of woodland the southern mountain DU is reviewed caribou is mostly made up of small, caribou relative to the woodland caribou and evaluated in our DPS analysis, as it increasingly isolated herds (most of subspecies (Rangifer tarandus caribou) includes numerous local woodland which are in decline) with an estimated instead of the mountain caribou caribou populations that all possess range reduction of up to 40 percent from metapopulation. similar and unique foraging, migration, their historical range (COSEWIC 2002, For this final amended listing and and habitat use behaviors, and that are p. 58; COSEWIC 2011, p. 74). DPS analysis of the southern mountain geographically separated from other In August 2014, COSEWIC, in population of woodland caribou to the caribou DUs. accordance with SARA, submitted its subspecies woodland caribou, we Discreteness assessment to the Canadian Federal reviewed and evaluated information Environment Minister for consideration contained in numerous publications and As outlined in our 1996 DPS policy, of changing the legal status of the reports, including, but not limited to: a population segment of a vertebrate southern mountain caribou in Canada Banfield 1961; Stevenson et al. 2001; species may be considered discrete if it under SARA to endangered (COSEWIC COSEWIC 2002, 2011, 2014; Cichowski satisfies either one of the following 2014, p. iv). The recommended change et al. 2004; Wittmer et al. 2005b, 2010; conditions: (1) It is markedly separated in the legal status under SARA is Hatter 2006, in litt.; Geist 2007; van Oort from other populations of the same pending review and decision by the et al. 2011; and Serrouya et al. 2012. taxon as a consequence of physical, Federal Environment Minister. In 2002 and 2011, COSEWIC physiological, ecological, or behavioral Because we now consider the completed status assessments of caribou factors; or (2) it is delimited by southern Selkirk Mountains population subspecies and species populations in international governmental boundaries of woodland caribou part of the larger North America. The 2002 COSEWIC within which differences in control of southern mountain caribou population, Report evaluated woodland caribou exploitation, management of habitat, as recognized by COSEWIC (2011, ‘‘nationally significant populations’’ conservation status, or regulatory entire), we recognize that our evaluation (NSPs). The more recent COSEWIC mechanisms exist that are significant in of the southern Selkirk Mountains (2011) Report described ‘‘Designatable light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. population is more appropriately Units’’ (DUs) as the appropriate I. Physical (Geographic) Discreteness conducted at the scale of the larger ‘‘discrete and significant units’’ useful southern mountain caribou population. to conserve and manage caribou The southern Selkirk Mountains Therefore, below we evaluate whether, populations throughout Canada. population of woodland caribou is 1 of under our DPS policy, the southern Information used in COSEWIC’s 2011 17 woodland caribou subpopulations mountain caribou population segment report is useful to our DPS analysis. (15 extant, 2 extirpated) (COSEWIC (i.e., 15 extant and 2 extirpated Canada’s DUs are identified based on 2014, p. xix) that share distinct foraging, subpopulations) of woodland caribou the criteria that there are ‘‘discrete and migration, and habitat use behaviors. occurring in British Columbia, Canada, evolutionarily significant units of a These subpopulations are all located in and northeastern Washington and taxonomic species, where ‘significant’ steep, mountainous terrain in central northern Idaho, United States, qualifies means that the unit is important to the and southeastern British Columbia, as a DPS under the Act. evolutionary legacy of the species as a Canada, and in extreme northeastern We completed a 5-year review of the whole and if lost, would likely not be Washington and northern Idaho, United endangered southern Selkirk Mountains replaced through natural dispersion’’ States. Little to no dispersal has been population of woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. 14). They consider detected between these subpopulations (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in 2008 a population or group of populations to and other caribou populations/ (USFWS 2008). Because this population be ‘‘discrete’’ based on the following subpopulations outside this geographic was listed prior to the Service’s 1996 criteria: distinctiveness in genetic area (Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 408, 409; DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, characteristics or inherited traits, habitat COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van Oort et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52602 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

2011, pp. 222–223), indicating that forested landscapes (Apps et al. 2001, et al. 2004, p. 233). During this time, a mountain caribou appear to lack the pp. 65, 70). These landscapes are southern mountain caribou’s diet can be inherent behavior to disperse long predominantly cedar/hemlock and composed almost entirely of these distances (van Oort, et al. 2011, pp. 215, spruce/subalpine fir composition lichens. Arboreal lichens are pulled 221–222). For the purposes of this DPS (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3–5; Apps from the branches of conifers, picked analysis, this collection of woodland and McLellan 2006, pp. 84, 91; from the surface of the snow after being caribou subpopulations, which, as noted Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 231; blown out of trees by wind, or are above, includes the southern Selkirk COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that supports grazed from wind-thrown branches and Mountains population, constitutes the woodland caribou’s late-winter diet trees. The two kinds of arboreal lichens southern mountain population of consisting almost entirely of arboreal commonly eaten by the southern caribou; we also refer to it herein as hair lichens (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. mountain caribou are Bryoria spp. and ‘‘southern mountain caribou.’’ 229). Alectoria sarmentosa. Both are Telemetry research by Wittmer et al. The southern mountain caribou extremely slow-growing lichens most (2005b) and van Oort et al. (2011) population is markedly separate from commonly found in high-elevation, old- supports the physical (geographic) other populations of woodland caribou growth conifer forests that are greater discreteness of southern mountain as a result of physical (geographic) than 250 years old (Paquet 1997, p. 14; caribou. One exception is that there is factors. The distribution of this Apps et al. 2001, pp. 65–66). some limited annual range overlap population is primarily located within Another unique behavior of caribou 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 subpopulations of these caribou move to lower elevations (COSEWIC 2002, p. 9), the distribution woodland caribou. where snow has melted to forage on of the southern mountain caribou does new green vegetation (Paquet 1997, p. II. Behavioral Discreteness not overlap with other caribou 16; Mountain Caribou Technical populations during the rut or mating In addition to being physically Advisory Committee (MCTAC) 2002, p. season (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 1994a, 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 feet (ft) (2 to 5 meters Extreme, deep snow conditions have include selective foraging of grasses, (m)) in depth (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. led to a foraging strategy by the southern flowering plants, horsetails, willow and 4; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Apps and mountain caribou that is unique among dwarf birch leaves and tips, sedges, McLellan (2006, p. 92) noted that the woodland caribou. They rely lichens (Paquet 1997, pp. 13, 16), and steep, complex topography within the exclusively on arboreal (tree) lichens for huckleberry leaves (U.S. Forest Service interior wet-belt provides seasonally 3 or more months of the year (Servheen (USFS) 2004, p. 18). The fall and early important habitats. Caribou access this and Lyon 1989, p. 235; Edmonds 1991, winter diet consists largely of dried habitat by migrating in elevational shifts p. 91; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; grasses, sedges, willow and dwarf birch rather than through the long horizontal Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230–231; tips, and arboreal lichens. migrations of other subspecies in MCST 2005, p. 2; COSEWIC 2011, p. The southern mountain caribou are northern Canada. Woodland caribou 50). Arboreal lichens are a critical behaviorally adapted to the steep, high- that live within this interior wet-belt of winter food for the southern mountain elevation, mountainous habitat with southern British Columbia, northeastern caribou from November to May deep snowpack. They feed almost Washington, and northern Idaho are (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or strongly associated with old-growth Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski more months out of the year. They are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52603

also reproductively isolated, due to their there to be sufficient evidence to I. Persistence of the Discrete Population behavior and separation from other determine that the southern mountain Segment in an Ecological Setting caribou populations during the fall rut caribou are genetically isolated from Unusual or Unique for the Taxon and mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. other populations of caribou, 50). Based on these unique adaptations, particularly the Central Mountain As previously discussed, woodland we consider the southern mountain population. Therefore, at this time, we caribou within the southern mountain caribou population to meet the do not find that this population meets caribou population are distinguished from woodland caribou in other areas. behavioral ‘‘discreteness’’ standard in the genetic ‘‘discreteness’’ standard in Southern mountain caribou live in, and our DPS policy. our DPS policy. are behaviorally adapted to, a unique III. Genetic Discreteness IV. Discreteness Conclusion ecological setting characterized by high- Data from Serrouya et al. (2012, p. elevation, high-precipitation, and steep 2,594) show that genetic population In summary, we determine that the old-growth conifer forests that support structure (i.e., patterning or clustering of best available information indicates that abundant arboreal lichens (COSEWIC the genetic make-up of individuals the southern mountain caribou, 2011, p. 50). In addition, all woodland within a population) does exist within comprised of 17 woodland caribou caribou in the southern mountain woodland caribou. Specifically, subpopulations (15 extant and 2 caribou population exhibit a distinct Serrouya revealed a genetic cluster that extirpated) that occur in southern behavior. Specifically, they spend the is unique to southern mountain caribou British Columbia, northeastern winter months in high-elevation, steep, and different from genetic clusters Washington, and northern Idaho, is mountainous habitats where individuals found in surrounding subpopulations of markedly separated from all other stand on the deep, hard-crusted woodland caribou designated as part of populations of woodland caribou. The snowpack and feed exclusively on other Canada caribou DUs (i.e., Central southern mountain caribou population arboreal lichens on standing or fallen Mountain DU, Northern Mountain DU, is physically (geographically), old-growth conifer trees (Cichowski et and Boreal DU). However, Serrouya also behaviorally, and reproductively al. 2004, pp. 224, 230–231; MCST 2005, revealed genetic clusters that occur in isolated from other woodland caribou. p. 2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). This both the southern mountain caribou and Therefore, we consider the southern behavior is unlike that of woodland neighboring DUs that suggest some mountain caribou population to be caribou in neighboring areas that historical gene flow did occur in the discrete per our DPS policy. occupy less steep, drier terrain and do past, meaning that historically, caribou not feed on arboreal lichens during the moved between populations of these Significance winter (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; DUs and interbred when mature. COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). This cluster overlap of DU boundaries Under our DPS policy, once we have is not surprising, as genetic structure is determined that a population segment is In addition to persisting in a specific reflective of long-term historical discrete, we consider its biological and environment characterized by steep, population dynamics and does not ecological significance to the larger high-elevation, old-growth forests and necessarily depict current gene flow. taxon to which it belongs. Significance being reliant on arboreal lichens as Indeed, it does appear that recent is not determined by a quantitative primary winter forage, caribou of the impediments to gene flow may be analysis, but is instead a qualitative southern mountain population make genetically isolating woodland caribou finding. It will vary from species to relatively short-distance altitudinal in the southwest portion of their range species and cannot be reduced to a migrations up to four times per year. (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort simple formula or flat percentage. Our These caribou occupy valley bottoms et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012, DPS policy provides several potential and lower slopes in the early winter, and ridge tops and upper slopes in later p. 2,598). These impediments include considerations that may demonstrate the winter after the snowpack deepens and anthropogenic habitat fragmentation significance of a population segment to hardens. In the spring, they move to and widespread caribou population the species to which it belongs. These lower elevations again to access green declines. Therefore, genetic considerations include, but are not specialization related to unique vegetation. Females make solitary limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete behaviors and habitat use may represent movements back to high elevations to population segment in an ecological a relatively recent life-history calve. This habitat and behavior are setting unusual or unique for the taxon; characteristic (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. unique to the southern mountain 3,620). Historical gene flow between (2) evidence that the discrete population caribou population. All other subpopulations of southern mountain segment differs markedly from other populations within the woodland caribou and neighboring subpopulations population segments in its genetic caribou subspecies occupy winter did occur in the past. However, study characteristics; (3) evidence that the habitat characterized by gentler results from Serrouya et al. (2012), population segment represents the only topography, lower elevation, and less combined with telemetry data from surviving natural occurrence of the winter snowpack (COSEWIC 2011, pp. Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and van taxon that may be more abundant 43, 46) where their primary winter Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that elsewhere as an introduced population forage, terrestrial (ground) lichens, is isolation of subpopulations is now the outside its historical range; and (4) most accessible (Thomas et al. 1996, p. norm, effecting some genetic evidence that loss of the discrete 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46). Unlike differentiation of these subpopulations population segment would result in a woodland caribou of the southern through genetic drift (Serrouya et al. significant gap in the range of the taxon. mountain population, some populations 2012, p. 2,597). The following discussion addresses in eastern Canada (Eastern Migratory A certain level of genetic considerations regarding the DU (DU4; COSEWIC 2011, p. 34)) will differentiation does exist between the significance of the southern mountain migrate relatively long distances across southern mountain caribou population caribou population to the subspecies the landscape between wintering and and neighboring woodland caribou. woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus calving habitat, where they will calve in However, we do not presently consider caribou). large aggregated groups (COSEWIC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52604 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

2011, pp., 33, 37; Abraham et al. 2012, mountain caribou ‘‘genetically unique.’’ population surveys. For example, Hatter p. 274). Therefore, at this time we do not find et al. (2004, p. 7) reported there were an We conclude that the southern this population meets the genetic estimated 2,554 individuals in the mountain caribou meets the definition ‘‘significance’’ standard in our DPS population in 1995, but in 2014, of significant in accordance with our policy. COSEWIC (2014, p. xvii) estimated the DPS policy, as this population currently number of caribou in this population persists in an ecological setting unusual III. Evidence That the Population Segment Represents the Only Surviving has declined to only 1,356 individuals. or unique for the subspecies of Loss of the southern mountain woodland caribou. Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That May Be More Abundant Elsewhere as an caribou population would result in the II. Evidence That the Discrete Introduced Population Outside Its loss of the southern-most extent of the Population Segment Differs Markedly Historic Range range of woodland caribou by about 2.5 degrees of latitude. The Service has not From Other Population Segments in Its All caribou in the world are one established a threshold of degrees Genetic Characteristics species (Rangifer tarandus). In a global latitude loss or percent range reduction Research by Serrouya et al. (2012, p. review of taxonomy of the genus for determining significance to a 2594) indicates that there is some Rangifer, Banfield (1961) documented particular taxon. The importance of genetic population structure between the occurrence of five subspecies in specific degrees latitude loss and/or woodland caribou populations in North America. Woodland caribou percent range reduction, and the western North America. This research (Rangifer tarandus caribou), one of the identified two main genetic clusters five recognized subspecies of caribou, analysis of what such loss or reduction within the southern mountain caribou, are the southern-most subspecies in ultimately means to conservation of separated from each other by the North North America. The range of woodland individual species/subspecies Thompson Valley in British Columbia. caribou extends in an east/west band necessarily will be specific to the One of these clusters is unique, with from eastern Newfoundland and biology of the species/subspecies in few exceptions, to the southern northern Quebec, all the way into question. However, the extirpation of mountain caribou (structure analysis; western British Columbia. Southern peripheral populations, such as the Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2594). The other mountain caribou represent a discrete southern mountain caribou population, cluster, northwest of the North subset of this subspecies. Because is concerning because of the potential Thompson Valley, is shared with the southern mountain caribou are not the conservation value that peripheral adjacent Central Mountain population. only surviving natural occurrence of the populations can provide to a species or As such, there is limited genetic woodland caribou subspecies, this subspecies. Specifically, peripheral evidence in this study that southern element is not applicable. populations can possess slight genetic mountain caribou populations north of or phenotypic divergences from core the North Thompson Valley are IV. Evidence That Loss of the Discrete populations (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, genetically unique relative to caribou of Population Segment Would Result in a p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50). The the Central Mountain population. Significant Gap in the Range of the genotypic and phenotypic As previously discussed, the best Taxon characteristics peripheral populations available information indicates that Historically, woodland caribou were may provide to the core population of recent impediments to gene flow such widely distributed throughout portions the species may be central to the as habitat fragmentation and widespread of the northern tier of the coterminous species’ survival in the face of caribou population declines may be United States from Washington to environmental change (Lesica and genetically isolating woodland caribou Maine, as well as throughout most of Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Bunnell et al. in the southwestern portion of their southern Canada (COSEWIC 2002, p. 2004, p. 2,242). Additionally, data tend range (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414; van 19). However, as a result of habitat loss to show that peripheral populations are Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. and fragmentation, overhunting, and the persistent when species’ range collapse 2012, p. 2,598). This genetic isolation effects of predation, the population of occurs (Lomolino and Channell 1995, p. has resulted in unique behaviors and woodland caribou within the British 342; Channell and Lomolino 2000, pp. habitat use (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. Columbia portion of their range has 84–86; Channell 2004, p. 1). Of 96 3,620). Study results from Serrouya et declined dramatically with an estimated species whose last remnant populations al. (2012), combined with telemetry data 40 percent range reduction (COSEWIC were found either in core or periphery from Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and 2002, p. 20). Additionally, Hatter (pers. of the historical range (rather than some van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest comm. as cited in Spalding 2000, p. 40) in both core and periphery), 91 (95 that while historical gene flow between estimated that the range of southern percent) of the species were found to subpopulations of southern mountain mountain caribou has declined by exist only in the periphery, and 5 (5 caribou and neighboring subpopulations approximately 60 percent, when percent) existed solely in the center did occur in the past, isolation of these considering both the Canadian and U.S. (Channell and Lomolino 2000, p. 85). subpopulations is now the norm. range of the population. However, Also, as described previously, caribou Research into the genetics of the because there are no reliable historical within the southern mountain woodland caribou will likely continue estimates of the number of southern population occur at the southern edge of and will provide further insight into mountain caribou and their distribution woodland caribou range (i.e., they are a gene flow between these populations. (Spalding 2000, p. 34), it is difficult to peripheral population), and have Despite some level of genetic precisely estimate their historical range adapted to an environment unique to differentiation between the southern for a comparison to their current range. woodland caribou. Peripheral mountain caribou population and Nevertheless, according to COSEWIC populations adapted to different neighboring woodland caribou, and a (2014, p. 14), mountain caribou were environments may facilitate speciation predicted continuation of genetic much more widely distributed than they (Mayr 1970 in Channell 2004, p. 9). differentiation between subpopulations are today, and thus the range of this Thus, the available scientific literature within southern mountain caribou, we population is decreasing. Further data support the importance of do not presently consider southern evidence of this decline is supported by peripheral populations for conservation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52605

(Fraser 2000, entire; Lesica and ecological setting characterized by high- Listable Entity Determination Allendorf, 1995, entire). elevation, high-precipitation (including In conclusion, the Service finds that Additionally, loss of the southern deep snowpack), and steep old-growth the southern mountain caribou mountain caribou population would conifer forests that support abundant population meets both the discreteness result in the loss of the only remaining arboreal lichens. and significance elements of our DPS population of the woodland caribou in V. Significance Conclusion policy. It qualifies as discrete because of the coterminous United States. An its marked physical (geographic) and additional consequence of the loss of We conclude that the southern behavioral separation from other the southern mountain caribou mountain caribou persists in an populations of the woodland caribou population would be the elimination of ecological setting unusual or unique for subspecies. It qualifies as significant the only North American caribou the subspecies of woodland caribou, because of its existence in a unique population with the distinct behavior of and that loss of the southern mountain ecological setting, and because the loss feeding exclusively on arboreal lichens caribou would result in a significant gap of this population would leave a for 3 or more months of the year. This in the range of the woodland caribou significant gap in the range of the feeding behavior is related to their subspecies. Therefore, the discrete woodland caribou subspecies. For spending winter months in high- southern mountain caribou population consistency, we will refer to the elevation, steep, mountainous habitats southern mountain DU, described by with deep snowpack. of woodland caribou that occur in southern British Columbia and in COSEWIC, as the southern mountain Finally, extirpation of this population northeastern Washington and northern caribou DPS. See Figure 1 for a map of segment would result in the loss of a the known distribution of Idaho meets significance criteria under peripheral population segment of subpopulations within the southern our DPS policy. woodland caribou that live in, and are mountain caribou DPS. behaviorally adapted to, a unique BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52606 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER02OC19.000 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52607

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52608 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER02OC19.001 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52609

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER02OC19.002 52610 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Currently the southern mountain fewer than 100 individuals; the most at the northern end of this DPS’s range, caribou DPS is composed of 17 recent estimate was 78 individuals are declining, with population estimates subpopulations (15 extant, 2 extirpated) (COSEWIC 2014, p. 43). Given the data of 398 and 202 caribou, respectively (Figure 1, above). However, Canada has, cited above, the rate of population (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41). over time, grouped its caribou decline is accelerating. The accelerated Surveys of the subpopulations in the populations in accordance with various rate of population decline is supported southern mountain caribou DPS assessments (COSEWIC 2002, entire; by Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 265), who estimated that, in 1995, the entire COSEWIC 2011, entire), which has studied rates and causes of southern population was approximately 2,554 resulted in shifting boundaries, and mountain caribou population declines individuals (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 7). By moving one or more subpopulations from 1984 to 2002 and found an 2002, this number had decreased to between differing geographic groupings increasing rate of decline. approximately 1,900 individuals (Hatter of populations. In addition to altering Because subpopulation names and et al. 2004, p. 7). Currently, the boundaries between populations, some boundaries have changed over time, it is population is estimated to be 1,356 subpopulation boundaries within the difficult to precisely compare individuals (COSEWIC 2014, p. xvii). populations have changed as well (e.g., subpopulation estimates for some Many subpopulations within the some subpopulations have been subpopulations within the southern southern mountain caribou DPS are combined). Thus, the number of mountain caribou DPS over time. reported to have experienced declines of subpopulations within the populations However, according to Wittmer et al. 50 percent or greater between 1995 and has changed. For example, the Allan (2005b, p. 413), individual 2002 (MCST 2005, p. 1). Some of the Creek subpopulation listed in Hatter subpopulations have decreased by up to most extreme decreases were observed (2006, in litt.) was grouped with the 18 percent per year (Wittmer et al. in the Central Selkirk and Purcells Wells Gray subpopulation in COSEWIC 2005b, p. 413). For example, the South subpopulations. These (2014), and the Kinbasket-South Purcells South subpopulation, which is subpopulations experienced 61 and 78 subpopulation listed in Hatter (2006, in located above the Montana border, had percent reductions in their populations, litt.) was renamed to Central Rockies an estimated 100 individuals in 1982, respectively, during this time (Harding subpopulation in COSEWIC (2014) (Ray and only 20 in 2002. According to 2008, p. 3). 2014, pers. comm.). Additionally, the COSEWIC, this subpopulation had Population models indicate declines north and south Wells Gray increased to 22 individuals in 2014 will continue into the future for the subpopulations referred to in COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2104, p. xviii). Even though entire southern mountain caribou DPS (2002, p. 92) were combined into a this subpopulation has slightly and for many subpopulations. Hatter et single Wells Gray subpopulation in increased, it remains depressed. al. (2004, p. 9) predicted subpopulation Additionally, our May 8, 2014, levels within this DPS under three COSEWIC’s 2011 Designatable Unit proposed rule (79 FR 26504) stated that different scenarios: ‘‘optimistic,’’ ‘‘most Report (COSEWIC 2011, p. 89). the Wells Gray South subpopulation likely,’’ and ‘‘pessimistic.’’ Under these However, the number (17) of was considered stable at 325 to 350 scenarios population levels were subpopulations (which includes 15 caribou from 1995 to 2002 (see 79 FR modeled to decline from the estimated extant and 2 recently extirpated 26514). These numbers were obtained population of 1,905 caribou in 2002 to subpopulations) and their names from Hatter et al. (2004, p. 7). However, 1,534 (optimistic), 1,169 (most likely), encompassed within the southern according to COSEWIC’s 2002 status or 820 (pessimistic), by 2022. The most mountain caribou DPS conforms to report the subpopulation was estimated recent population estimate of 1,356 Canada’s southern mountain (DU9) as at 315 individuals and considered to be caribou (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41) is identified pursuant to COSEWIC (2011, in decline (COSEWIC 2002, p. 92). already well below Hatter et al.’s (2004, entire). Furthermore, as noted previously, p. 9) predicted population estimate of All 15 extant subpopulations consist COSEWIC has combined the north and 1,534 caribou in 2022 projected under of fewer than 400 individuals each, 13 south Wells Gray subpopulations the optimistic scenario. In addition, all of which have fewer than 250 (COSEWIC 2011, p. 89). According to three scenarios reported the extirpation individuals, and 9 of which have fewer COSEWIC, in 2002, the Wells Gray of two (optimistic), three (most likely), than 50 individuals (COSEWIC 2014, p. North subpopulation was estimated at or five (pessimistic) subpopulations by xviii). Fourteen of the 15 extant 200 individuals and considered stable. 2022 (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 9). As of subpopulations within this DPS have Thus, the COSEWIC (2002) estimate for 2014, George Mountain and Purcells declined since the last assessment by the combined Wells Gray subpopulation Central, two of the subpopulations COSEWIC in 2002 (COSEWIC 2014, p. (i.e., north and south subpopulations) within the southern mountain caribou vii). Based on COSEWIC (2014, p. vii), was 515 individuals (COSEWIC 2002, p. DPS, are now considered to be which is new information received after 92). According to COSEWIC’s latest extirpated (COSEWIC 2014, p. 16). we published our proposed amended assessment, the Wells Gray According to Hatter et al. (2004, pp. listing rule (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014), subpopulation is estimated at 341 9, 11), no models predicted extinction of the population has declined by at least individuals and considered to be the woodland caribou population 45 percent over the last 27 years (3 declining (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41). Also, within the DPS in the next 100 years generations), 40 percent over the last 18 in our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 11). However, years (2 generations), and 27 percent FR 26504), we stated that reductions in the size of the entire since the last assessment by COSEWIC subpopulations in the northern-most population were predicted. Using the in 2002 (roughly 1.4 generations) portion of the DPS’s range were stable same scenarios from Hatter et al. (2004) (COSEWIC 2014, p. vii). These (principally the Hart Ranges as described above (‘‘optimistic,’’ ‘‘most subpopulations are continuing to suffer subpopulation with an estimated 500 likely,’’ and ‘‘pessimistic’’), the average declines in numbers and range and have individuals in 2005) (see 79 FR 26515). time until the population of woodland become increasingly isolated. Only one However, according to COSEWIC’s caribou within the southern mountain subpopulation has increased in numbers latest status assessment, both the Hart caribou DPS is fewer than 1,000 (likely due to aggressive wolf control Ranges and North Caribou Mountains individuals was projected to be 100, 84, and management) but still consists of subpopulations, which are both located and 26 years, respectively (Hatter et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52611

2004, p. 11). These estimates do not suggested by PVA modeling that does Rescue effect from natural dispersal is account for the relationship between not account for depensatory mortality. unlikely for the southern mountain DU. The density and adult female survival, and Therefore, the 200 and 100 year time nearest subpopulation in the United States is the South Selkirk subpopulation, which is may be a conservative estimate of time spans that Wittmer et al. (2010, pp. 86, shared between [British Columbia], Idaho, to extinction (in other words, may 90) predict for extirpation of all 10 and and Washington, and currently consists of underestimate the timeframes). Wittmer 7 of the 10 subpopulations, respectively, only 28 mature individuals. Even within the (2004, p. 88) attempted to account for may be an overestimate (i.e., extirpation southern mountain DU, subpopulations are density-dependent adult female survival of these subpopulations may occur in effectively isolated from one another with and predicted extinction of all less time). almost no evidence of movement between them except at the northern extent of the DU subpopulations in the DPS within the Along with these documented and next 100 years. More recent population (van Oort et al. 2011). The closest DU is the predicted population declines, Central Mountain and Northern Mountain viability analyses (PVAs) have predicted subpopulations of woodland caribou DU, but these animals are not only declining quasi-extinction or extinction of several within the DPS are becoming in most neighboring subpopulations but are of the subpopulations within the DPS. A increasingly fragmented and isolated adapted to living in shallow snow PVA conducted by Hatter (2006, p. 7, in (Wittmer 2004, p. 28; van Oort et al. environments and will likely encounter litt.) predicted that the probability of difficulty adjusting to deep snow conditions. 2011, p. 25; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. quasi-extinction (a number below which The same characteristics that render all three 2,598). Fragmentation and isolation are extinction is very likely due to genetic mountain caribou DUs as discrete and particularly pronounced in the southern significant relative to neighboring caribou or demographic risks, considered to be portion of the southern mountain subpopulations (see Designatable Units; fewer than 20 animals in this case) in 20 caribou DPS (Wittmer 2004, p. 28). In COSEWIC 2011) make the prospects for years was 100 percent for 6 of the 15 fact, neither Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. rescue highly unlikely. subpopulations, greater than 50 percent 409) nor van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221) Finally, COSEWIC recommended that for 11 of the 15 subpopulations, and detected movement of individuals the southern mountain DU be listed as greater than 20 percent for 12 of the 15 between subpopulations in the DPS. endangered under SARA (COSEWIC subpopulations within the DPS. Hatter 2014, pp. iv, xix). Endangered is defined (2006, p. 7, in litt.) also predicted quasi- Fragmentation and isolation are likely accelerating the extinction process and by SARA as a wildlife species that is extinction of another subpopulation facing imminent extirpation or reducing the probability of demographic (Wells Gray) in 87 years. Thus, a total extinction. COSEWIC cited similar rescue from natural immigration or of 13 of the 15 subpopulations could be reasons as the threats we identified in emigration because mountain caribou quasi-extinct within 90 years, leaving this final rule including, but not limited appear to lack the inherent behavior to only 2 subpopulations (Hart Ranges and to: Small, declining, and isolated disperse long distances (Van Oort et al. North Caribou Mountains) remaining at subpopulations; recent extirpation of 2011, pp. 215, 221–222). As stated the extreme northern portion of the two subpopulations; recent PVA previously, mountain caribou were DPS’s range. Both the Hart Ranges and modeling predicting further declines more widely distributed in mountainous North Caribou Mountains and extirpation of subpopulations; and areas of southeastern British Columbia subpopulations are declining (COSEWIC continuing and escalating threats 2014, p. 41). These two subpopulations (Canada), northern Idaho, and (COSEWIC 2014, pp. iv, vii). The are subjected to the same threats acting northeastern Washington. Currently, International Union for the on the other subpopulations in this DPS mountain caribou exist in several Conservation of Nature-Conservation (COSEWIC 2014, p. 56), and are thus at discrete subpopulations, which could be Measures Partnership (IUCN–CMP) a greater risk of extirpation than what considered a metapopulation structure. threat assessment for the southern we understood at the time of our May However, a functioning metapopulation mountain DU concluded that the threat 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504). structure requires immigration and impact is the maximum (Very High) Wittmer et al. (2010, entire) emigration between the subpopulations based on the unified threats conducted a PVA on 10 of the within the metapopulation via dispersal classification system (Master et al. 2009, subpopulations assessed by Hatter of juveniles (natal dispersal), adults entire), which indicates continued (2006, entire, in litt.). All 10 (breeding dispersal), or both. Dispersal serious declines are anticipated subpopulations were predicted to of individuals (natal or breeding) can (COSEWIC 2014, pp. 109–113). decline to extinction within 200 years facilitate demographic rescue of when models incorporated the declines neighboring populations that are in Summary of Factors Affecting the in adult female survival known to occur decline or recolonization of ranges from Species with increasing proportions of young which populations have been extirpated Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), forest and declining population (i.e., classic metapopulation theory). and its implementing regulations at 50 densities (Wittmer et al. 2010, p. 86). Species whose historical distribution CFR part 424, set forth the procedures The results of PVA modeling by was more widely and evenly distributed for adding species to the Federal Lists Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 90) also (such as mountain caribou) (van Oort et of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife suggested that 7 of the 10 populations al. 2011, p. 221) that have been and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the have a greater than 90 percent fragmented into subpopulations via Act, we determine whether a species is cumulative probability of extirpation habitat fragmentation and loss may an endangered species or threatened within 100 years. Further, Wittmer et al. appear to exist in a metapopulation species because of any one or a (2010, p. 91) suggested that as structure when in fact, because they combination of the following: (A) The subpopulation densities decline, may not have evolved the innate present or threatened destruction, predation (see ‘‘Predation’’ under the behavior to disperse among modification, or curtailment of its Factor C analysis, below) may have a subpopulations, their fragmented habitat or range; (B) overutilization for disproportionately greater effect, which distribution may actually represent a commercial, recreational, scientific, or is defined as depensatory mortality. geographic pattern of extinction (van educational purposes; (C) disease or Thus, the length of time to extirpation Oort et al. 2011, p. 215). Also, as predation; (D) the inadequacy of may be less than the timeframes excerpted from COSEWIC (2014, p. 43): existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52612 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

other natural or manmade factors population’s historical range. The caribou habitat, and Engelmann spruce affecting its continued existence. Listing greatest reduction has occurred in habitat was heavily affected by actions may be warranted because of subpopulations comprising the southern windstorms, insect outbreaks, and any of the above threat factors, singly or mountain caribou DPS (COSEWIC 2002, subsequent salvage logging (Evans 1960, in combination. We discuss each of p. 30; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49). Hunting pp. 123–124). As a result, spruce these factors for the southern mountain was historically considered the main became the center of importance in the caribou DPS below. cause of range contraction in the central lumber industry of this region. This led and southern portions of British to further harvest of spruce habitat in A. The Present or Threatened Columbia. However, predation, habitat adjacent, higher elevation drainages Destruction, Modification, or fragmentation from forestry operations, previously unaffected by insect Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range and human development are now outbreaks (Evans 1960, pp. 124–131). It Threats to caribou habitat within the considered the main concerns is not known how much forest within southern mountain DPS include forest (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30). the range of the southern mountain harvest, human development, caribou DPS has been historically Forest Harvest recreation, and effects due to climate harvested; however, forest harvest likely change (such as an increase in fires and Forestry has been the dominant land had and continues to have direct and a significant decrease in alpine habitats, use within the range of the southern indirect impacts on caribou and their which is loosely correlated with the mountain caribou DPS in British habitat, contributing to the curtailment distribution of the arboreal lichens on Columbia throughout the 20th century. and modification of the habitat of the which these caribou depend). In The majority of timber harvesting has southern mountain caribou DPS. addition to causing direct impacts, these occurred since the late 1960s (Stevenson Harvesting of forests has both direct threats often catalyze indirect impacts to et al. 2001, pp. 9–10). Prior to 1966 and and indirect effects on caribou habitat caribou, including, but not limited to, before pulp mills were built in the within the southern mountain caribou predation, increased physiological interior of British Columbia, a variety of DPS. A direct effect of forest harvest is stress, and displacement from important forest harvesting systems were utilized, loss of large expanses of contiguous old- habitats. Both direct and indirect targeting primarily spruce and Douglas growth forest habitats. Caribou in the impacts to caribou from habitat fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) sawlogs, and southern mountain caribou DPS rely destruction, modification, and pole-sized western red cedar. It was not upon these habitats as an important curtailment are described below. until after 1966, when market means of limiting the effect of Historically, the caribou conditions changed to meet the demand predation. Their strategy is to spread subpopulations that make up the for pulp and other timber products, that over large areas at high elevation that southern mountain caribou DPS were the majority of timber harvesting other prey species avoid (Seip and distributed throughout the western occurred through clear-cutting large Cichowski 1996, p. 79; MCTAC 2002, Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, blocks of forest (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 20–21). These old-growth forests northern Idaho, and northeastern p. 10). However, in the 1970s, some have evolved with few and small-scale Washington (Apps and McLellan 2006, areas in the southern Selkirk Mountains natural disturbances such as wildfires, p. 84). As previously discussed, caribou and the North Thompson area (north of insects, or diseases. When these within the southern mountain caribou Revelstoke, British Columbia) were only disturbances did occur, they created DPS are strongly associated with high- partially cut in an effort to maintain only small and natural gaps in the forest elevation, high-precipitation, old- habitat for caribou (Stevenson et al. canopy that allowed trees to regenerate growth forested landscapes (Stevenson 2001, p. 10). In the 1990s, there was an and grow (Seip 1998, pp. 204–205). et al. 2001, pp. 3–5; Cichowski et al. increase in both experimental and Forest harvesting through large-scale 2004, pp. 224, 231; Apps and McLellan operational partial cutting in caribou clear-cutting creates additional and 2006, pp. 84, 91; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) habitat. Partial cuts continue to remain larger openings in old-growth forest that support their uniquely exclusive a small proportion of total area habitat. These openings allow for winter diet of arboreal lichens harvested each year within caribou additional growth of early seral habitat. (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 229). habitat in British Columbia (Stevenson Research of woodland caribou has It is estimated that about 98 percent et al. 2001, p. 10). shown that caribou alter their of the caribou in the southern mountain Historically, within the U.S. portion movement patterns to avoid areas of caribou DPS rely on arboreal lichens as of the southern mountain caribou DPS, disturbance where forest harvest has their primary winter food. They have habitat impacts have been primarily due occurred (Smith et al. 2000, p. 1435; adapted to the high-elevation, deep- to logging and fire (Evans 1960, p. 109). Courtois et al. 2007, p. 496). With less snow habitat that occurs within this In the early 19th century, intensive contiguous old-growth habitat, caribou area of British Columbia, northern logging occurred from approximately are also limited to increasingly fewer Idaho, and northeastern Washington 1907 through 1922, when the foothills places on the landscape. Further, (Apps and McLellan 2006, p. 84). The and lowlands were logged upwards in woodland caribou that do remain in present distribution of woodland elevation to the present U.S. national harvested areas have been documented caribou in Canada is much reduced forest boundaries (Evans 1960, p. 110). to have decreased survival due to from historical accounts, with reports Partly because of this logging, farmlands predation vulnerability (Courtois et al. indicating that the extent of occurrence replaced moister valleys that once 2007, p. 496). This is because the early in British Columbia and Ontario resembled the rain forests of the Pacific seral habitat, which establishes itself in populations has decreased by up to 40 coast (Evans 1960, p. 111). From the recently harvested or disturbed areas, percent in the last few centuries 1920s through 1960, logging continued also attracts other ungulate species such (COSEWIC 2002, pp. viii, 30). into caribou habitat on the Kanisku as deer, elk, and moose to areas that According to Spalding (2000, p. 40) the National Forest in Idaho (now the Idaho were previously unsuitable for these entire range of southern mountain Panhandle National Forest) (Evans 1960, species (MCST 2005, pp. 4–5; Bowman caribou has decreased by 60 percent pp. 118–120). In addition, insect and et al. 2010, p. 464). With the increase in when including both the United States disease outbreaks affected large areas of the distribution and abundance of prey and Canadian portion of the white pine (Pinus strobus) stands in species in or near habitats located where

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52613

caribou occur comes an increase in conducive to use by other ungulates, in the United States (Evans 1960, p. 124; predators and therefore an increase in such as deer and moose, but not by USFWS 1985, p. 21). predation on caribou. Predation has mountain caribou, which require old More recently, mountain pine beetle been reported as one of the most growth, mature forests. Historically, (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks important direct causes of population natural fires occurred at very low and mass tree mortality in western decline for caribou in the southern frequency and extent throughout the Canada have occurred in the 1990s and mountain caribou DPS (see also C. range of the southern mountain caribou 2000s. Caribou habitat affected by Disease or Predation, below; MCST DPS. This was due to the very wet mountain pine beetle outbreaks may 2005, p. 4; Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 257; conditions of the interior wet-belt remain viable for caribou, or may even Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 417; Wittmer et (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3). When fires provide better forage for a period of al. 2007, p. 576). did occur, most were relatively small in time, perhaps as long as a decade. This Roads created to support forest size (Seip 1998, p. 204). Fires can is because dead and dying trees may harvest activities have also fragmented remove suitable habitat for 25 to 100 remain standing and continue to habitat. Roads create linear features that years or longer depending on fire provide arboreal lichens to foraging provide easy travel corridors for intensity, geography, and type of forage caribou. However, eventually these trees predators into and through difficult normally consumed by caribou fall and arboreal lichens become scarcer, habitats where caribou seek refuge from (COSEWIC 2002, p. 45). As previously forcing caribou to seek alternate habitat predators (MCST 2005, p. 5; Wittmer et discussed, changes in habitat conditions (Hummel and Ray 2008, p. 252). al. 2007, p. 576). It has been estimated have led to altered predator-prey Beetle outbreaks have impacted that forest roads throughout British dynamics, resulting in more predation caribou within the southern mountain Columbia (which includes the southern on caribou in the southern mountain caribou DPS by directly removing mountain caribou DPS) expanded by caribou DPS. One of the first notable habitat and associated arboreal lichens 4,100 percent (from 528 to 21,748 mi declines of caribou was reported in from the landscape (Evans 1960, p. 132). (850 to 35,000 km)) between 1950 and Wells Gray Park, British Columbia In addition to eliminating caribou 1990, and most of these roads were (within the southern mountain caribou habitat, these beetle outbreaks have associated with forest harvesting DPS), and was attributed to fires in the brought increased logging operations to (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10). In the 1930s that burned approximately 70 high-elevation forests. This logging was United States, roads associated with percent of forests below 4,000 ft (1,219 done in an attempt to salvage the logging and forest administration m) within the park (Edwards 1954, valuable wood resource in these forest developed continuously from 1900 entire). These fires changed forest stands. However, this activity also through 1960. These roads allowed composition, leading to increased brought human presence and an logging in new areas and upper- populations of other ungulates, such as increase in the potential for poaching elevation drainages (Evans 1960, pp. mule deer and moose (Edwards 1954, p. and disturbance (Evans 1960, p. 131; 123–124). In both Canada and the 523), which altered the predator-prey USFWS 1985, p. 21). Interestingly, United States, these roads have also dynamics. The 1967 Sundance, Kanisku because of the spruce bark beetle generated more human activity and Mountain, and Trapper Peak fires in the outbreaks and a sudden increase in human disturbance in habitat that was Selkirk Mountains destroyed almost spruce harvest, the logging industry, in previously less accessible to humans 80,000 ac (32,375 ha) of caribou habitat an attempt to sell the wood that was (MCST 2005, p. 5). See E. Other Natural (Layser 1974, p. 51). In 2006, the Kutetl being salvaged from the mid-century or Manmade Factors Affecting Its fire in West Arm Park (British spruce bark beetle outbreaks, Continued Existence for additional Columbia) destroyed nearly 19,768 ac aggressively promoted and developed a discussion. (8,000 ha) of caribou habitat (Wildeman market for spruce wood. The associated The harvest of late-successional (old- et al. 2010, pp. 1, 14, 33, 36, 61). Forest demand they created for spruce wood growth) forests directly affects fires are a natural phenomenon and continued after the salvaged wood was availability of arboreal lichens, the historically occurred at low frequency exhausted, probably leading to primary winter food item for caribou and extent throughout the range of the continued logging of spruce forests at within the southern mountain caribou southern mountain caribou DPS prior to high elevations. This continued logging DPS. Caribou within this area rely on human settlement. However, fires are of spruce continued the elimination of arboreal lichens for winter forage for 3 predicted to increase in frequency and habitat and prolonged disturbance to or more months of the year (Apps et al. magnitude due to the effects of climate caribou beyond the direct impacts from 2001, p. 65; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; change (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14) (see the beetle infestations (Evans 1960, p. MCST 2005, p. 2). In recent decades, ‘‘Climate Change,’’ below), thereby 131). however, local caribou populations in continuing to impact caribou habitat in Management of beetle outbreaks for the southern mountain caribou DPS the southern mountain caribou DPS into caribou has involved attempting to have declined faster than mature forests the future. preserve alternate habitat until affected have been harvested. This suggests that forests have time to regenerate and once Insect Outbreaks arboreal lichens are not the limiting again become suitable for caribou factor for woodland caribou in this area Engelmann spruce beetles (Hummel and Ray 2008, p. 252). It is not (MCST 2005, p. 4; Wittmer et al. 2005a, (Dendroctonus engelmannii) have been clear to what extent insect infestations p. 265; Wittmer et al. 2007, p. 576). known to kill large amounts of old- will continue into the future; however, growth forest and caribou habitat in climate change models project more Forest Fires western Canada and the northwestern frequent mountain pine beetle outbreaks Forest fires can have the same effect United States. Spruce bark beetle at higher elevations in the future (Littell on mountain caribou habitat in the (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks et al. 2009, p. 14). southern mountain caribou DPS as and resulting tree mortality within the forest harvesting. Fires cause direct loss southern mountain caribou DPS Human Development of important old-growth habitat and occurred in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, Human development fragments increase openings that allow for the and 1980s. Some of these outbreaks habitat within and between local growth of early seral habitat, which is followed tree wind-throw or forest fires caribou populations in the southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52614 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

mountain caribou DPS and creates Highway may also be acting as an current extent of direct and indirect potential impediments to unrestricted impediment to caribou movements in impacts to caribou from existing mining caribou movements (MCST 2005, p. 5). certain areas of the southern mountain activities within the southern mountain Impediments in valley bottoms, such as caribou DPS (Apps and McLellan 2006, caribou DPS is not well known. human settlements, highways, railways, p. 93). Additionally, other type of Human Recreation and reservoirs, have led to an isolation transportation corridors associated with of subpopulations (MCST 2005, p. 5; industrial developments, including Human-related activities are known to Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414) and roads, snowmobile trails, hydropower impact caribou. Specifically, as reduced chance of rescue (the transmission lines, and pipeline rights- described below, wintertime movement of individuals, often of-way, can allow more efficient travel recreational activities such as juveniles, to other subpopulations, by wolves, leading to greater predation snowmobiling, heli- or cat-skiing, and which can provide genetic flow and rate on caribou (Festa-Bianchet et al. back-country skiing are likely to impact recruitment to populations with very 2011, p. 426) (see also C. Disease or short-term behavior, long-term habitat low numbers) from natural immigration Predation, below). use (MCST 2005, p. 5), and physiology or emigration (van Oort et al. 2011, pp. As discussed above, industrial (Freeman 2008, p. 44) of caribou. It is 220–223; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2,598). development can directly affect caribou uncertain if these activities are affecting Similar to forest harvest and fires, through habitat alteration that fragments all populations within the southern human development and its associated caribou habitat and displaces caribou to mountain caribou DPS. Literature infrastructure also impact caribou in the areas of lower quality or degraded suggests that trail compaction resulting following ways: It eliminates caribou habitat, and indirectly through from high levels of wintertime habitat, alters the distribution and increased predation rates resulting from recreational activities such as abundance of other ungulate species, changes in predator-prey dynamics due snowmobiling and snowshoeing may act provides travel corridors for predators to habitat alterations. In accordance as travel corridors for predators such as (MCST 2005, p. 5), and increases human with SARA, Canada has developed a wolves. These trails allow easier access access to habitat that was previously recovery strategy for southern mountain into winter caribou habitat that was difficult to access. caribou that assessed threats related to previously more difficult for predators Despite signs posted with caribou industrial developments (Environment to navigate (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. depictions warning motorists, caribou Canada 2014, entire). In the recovery 2; Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 241). have also been killed by vehicles on strategy, Canada identified the following Snowmobile activity represents the highways within the range of the threats: Oil and gas drilling related to greatest threat to caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS shale gas development in the Kootenays southern mountain caribou DPS relative (Johnson 1985, entire; Wittmer et al. present a moderate threat (defined as to other winter recreation activities due 2005b, p. 412; CBC News 2009, in litt.). possible in the short term [less than 10 to the overlap between preferred The 1963 opening of the Creston-Salmo years or 3 generations]); mining and snowmobile habitat and preferred section of Highway 3 in British quarrying development primarily in the caribou habitat (Simpson and Terry Columbia has led to increased vehicle Barkerville, Kootenay, and Kamloops 2000, p. 1). Deep snow, open forest, and collisions with mountain caribou. Seven areas present a high threat (defined as scenic vistas are characteristics found in caribou were struck and killed on this continuing); renewable energy related to caribou winter habitat, and are also section of Highway 3 within the first 9 hydropower projects in the Columbia preferred by snowmobilers (Seip et al. years of its construction (Johnson 1985, South and North ranges, and wind 2007, p. 1,539), and snowmobilers can entire). More recently, in 2009, a farms, present moderate threats; roads easily access these areas (Simpson and pregnant caribou cow and calf were and railroad (e.g., Highway 3, Mica Dam Terry 2000, p. 1). New forest roads may killed by a vehicle travelling on Road, and potential twinning of the even be providing increased access to Highway 3 near Kootenay Pass in Trans-Canada Highway) present a high these areas (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1539). British Columbia (CBC News 2009, in threat; and utility and service lines Within the southern mountain litt.). Deaths of individual caribou from related to hydro-power project, potential caribou DPS, caribou have been shown car collisions can have notable adverse twinning of the Kinder-Morgan oil to alter their behavior by fleeing from effects on subpopulations. This is pipeline, proposed oil and gas pipelines (Simpson 1987, pp. 8–10), and because of the small population sizes of in the Hart Ranges, etc., present a high dispersing from, high-quality winter the southern-most populations within threat (Environment Canada 2014, pp. habitat because of snowmobile activity the southern mountain caribou DPS and 21–22). All of the above-identified (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1,543). Altered the low productivity and calf survival threats are or would be located in behavior in response to winter rates as discussed under ‘‘Biology’’ in Canada. Currently, there are no similar recreation in the form of fleeing can the Species Information section of the existing or proposed industrial have energetic costs to caribou (Reimers May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR developments that would potentially et al. 2003, pp. 751–753). Perhaps more 26507). impact caribou habitat within the DPS’s significantly, however, altered long-term Highways and their associated vehicle range in the United States. habitat occupancy due to snowmobiling traffic can also fragment caribou habitat Mining activities, although they may may force caribou within the southern and act as impediments to animal not be focused in valleys, may also mountain caribou DPS into inferior movement (Forman and Alexander fragment caribou habitat and limit their habitat where there may be energetic 1998, p. 215; Dyer et al. 2002, p. 839; dispersal and movement. Additionally, costs as well as elevated risks of Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009, entire). these activities may play a role in the predation or mortality from avalanches Species like the southern mountain alteration of the distribution and (Seip et al. 2007, p. 1,543). Anecdotal caribou DPS, which have relatively large abundance of other ungulate species. reports of caribou being notably absent ranges, low reproductive rates, and low These activities may also provide travel in areas where they had been natural densities, are more likely to be corridors for predators (MCST 2005, p. historically present, but where negatively affected by roads (Fahrig and 5), as well as increase human snowmobile activity had begun or Rytwinski 2009, entire). It has been accessibility to habitat that was increased (Kinley 2003, p. 20; USFS postulated that the Trans-Canada previously difficult to access. The 2004, p. 12; Seip et al. 2007, p. 1,539),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52615

support this concept. Further, Freeman are likely similar to behavioral mean and variability of different types (2008, p. 44) showed that caribou alterations from heli- or cat-skiing of weather conditions over time. Thirty exhibit signs of physiological stress (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 3; USFS years is a typical period for such within and as far away as 6 mi (10 km) 2004, p. 24). Duchesne et al. (2000, pp. measurements, although shorter or from snowmobile activity. Physiological 313–314) found that the presence of longer periods also may be used (IPCC stress in this study was estimated using humans on snowshoes and skis 2007, p. 78; IPCC 2014, pp. 119–120). fecal glucocorticoids (GC). impacted caribou behavior by altering The term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers Glucocorticoids, when chronically foraging and vigilance, albeit this study to a change in the mean or variability of elevated, can reduce fitness of an was conducted outside the southern one or more measures of climate (e.g., individual by impacting feeding mountain caribou DPS where caribou temperature or precipitation) that behavior, growth, body condition, foraging behavior is different. This persists for an extended period, resistance to disease, reproduction, and study also suggested that caribou may typically decades or longer, whether the survival (Freeman 2008, p. 33). Caribou habituate to this level of human change is due to natural variability, within 6 mi (10 km) of open disturbance (Duchesne et al. 2000, p. human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. snowmobile areas within the southern 314). Given the possibility of 78; IPCC 2014, p. 120). Various types of mountain caribou DPS showed habituation, the relatively slow pace of changes in climate can have direct or chronically elevated GC levels. This activity participants, and the non- indirect effects on species. These effects suggests that snowmobile activity in motorized nature of backcountry skiing may be positive, neutral, or negative certain areas of the southern mountain or snowshoeing, it is suspected that this (Thomas et al. 2011, pp. 126, 131, 136– caribou DPS is causing some level of recreation activity at its current level 137) and they may change over time. physiological stress to caribou and may poses a relatively small threat to caribou This change depends on the species and be impacting caribou in some way. within certain areas of the southern other relevant considerations, such as However, elevated GC levels may be mountain caribou DPS (Simpson and the effects of interactions of climate caused by many different environmental Terry 2000, p. 3; USFS 2004, p. 24). with other variables (e.g., habitat factors and may not always translate to However, since the magnitude of fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, impacts (Romero 2004, p. 250; Freeman impacts may be correlated with the 18–19). In our analyses, we used our 2008, p. 48). The extent of impacts from number of activity participants in an expert judgment to weigh relevant chronically elevated GC levels in area (Simpson and Terry 2000, p. 3), information, including uncertainty, in caribou appears to need further study this activity may be a larger threat to our consideration of various aspects of (Freeman 2008, p. 46). caribou within the southern mountain climate change. Given our understanding of the caribou DPS in the future as some areas Between the 1600s and the mid- impacts to caribou from human become more accessible from an 1800s, Europe and North America were disturbance (Simpson 1987, pp. 8–10), expanded network of roads and in a period called the ‘‘Little Ice Age.’’ and information on other ungulate increasing populations. During this period, Europe and North species relative to helicopter Each of these activities— America experienced relatively colder disturbance (Cote 1996, p. 683; Webster snowmobiling, heli- or cat-skiing, and temperatures (IPCC 2001, p. 135). The 1997, p. 7; Frid 2003, p. 393), the backcountry skiing—has the potential to cooling during this time is considered to presence of humans and machines disturb caribou. The extent to which be modest, with average temperature (helicopters or snow-cats) in caribou caribou are impacted is likely correlated decreases of less than 1.8 degrees habitat from heli- or cat-skiing may be with the intensity of activity (Simpson Fahrenheit (°F) (1 degree Celsius (°C)) a potential source of disturbance to 1987, p. 9; Duchesne et al. 2000, p. 315; relative to 20th century levels. Cooling caribou in certain portions of the Reimers et al. 2003, p. 753). Nature- may have been more pronounced in southern mountain caribou DPS. This based recreation and tourism are on the certain regions and during certain disturbance is likely negatively rise in rural British Columbia, with periods, such as in North America impacting caribou by altering their projected growth of approximately 15 during the 1800s (IPCC 2001, p. 135). behavior and habitat use patterns. percent per year (Mitchell and Hamilton On a global scale, climate change Elevated GC levels in caribou has been 2007, p. 3). New forest roads may be models under a range of emission documented within heli-ski areas. This providing increased access to caribou scenarios consistently project future suggests that heli-skiing activity in habitat as well (Seip et al. 2007, p. increases in temperature and increased certain areas of the southern mountain 1539). As such, the threat of human precipitation at higher latitudes (Melillo caribou DPS is causing some level of disturbance may be a contributing factor et al. 2014, p. 33). At regional scales physiological stress to caribou (Freeman in caribou population declines within there is more variability, particularly 2008, p. 44). Additionally, since heli- the southern mountain caribou DPS in when projecting future changes in and cat-skiing often require tree cutting the future. precipitation. Average temperature has for run and/or road maintenance, increased in the Northwest 1.3 °F Climate Change habitat alteration may be another threat between 1895 and 2011 (Dalton et al. posed from this activity (Hamilton and Our analyses under the Act include 2013, p. xxi; Melillo et al. 2014, p. 489), Pasztor 2009, entire). Further study may consideration of the effects of ongoing while precipitation has fluctuated, but be necessary to understand the degree of and projected changes in climate. The without a significant trend, during the impact to caribou from heli- and cat- terms ‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ same time period (Dalton et al. 2013, p. skiing. are defined by the Intergovernmental xxi; Melillo et al. 2014, p. 489). Disturbance impacts to caribou from Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an Temperature and precipitation extremes backcountry skiing also are relatively international body established in 1988 are projected to increase in the unstudied. Our current knowledge of to assess the science related to climate Northwest (Dalton et al. 2013, p. xxiii). caribou responses to human disturbance change and provide policymakers with For every season, some models project suggests that backcountry skiing may be regular assessments of the scientific decreases and some project increases in a potential source of disturbance to basis of climate change, its impacts and future precipitation, but in a scenario of caribou, negatively impacting them by future risks, and options for adaptation continued growth in heat-trapping gas altering their behavior. These impacts and mitigation. ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the emissions, summer precipitation is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52616 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

projected to decrease by as much as 30 shift upward in elevation and long-term remain at higher elevations throughout percent by the end of the century (2099) decreasing presence in the south and on winter under various climate change across many climate models. However, the drier plateau portions of the present scenarios. Additionally, climate change the projected changes in precipitation range of the southern mountain caribou may increase predation pressure on are relatively small compared to DPS. More recent analysis by Utzig caribou through altered distribution and projected changes in temperature, and (2012, pp. 11–15) suggests that while abundance of other ungulate species are likely to be masked by natural western red cedar will maintain a populations. variability for much of the century significant presence throughout the Projections for 2085 indicate an (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 489). Increasing southern portion of the DPS, spruce fir increase in drier vegetation types at temperatures are likely to result in forests and alpine parkland will lower elevations. This could potentially reduced snowpack accumulation in the approach near elimination by the 2080s. cause an increase in other ungulate winter and accelerated loss of snowpack Similarly, Rogers et al. (2011, pp. 5–6) species such as deer, moose, and elk in the spring (Mote et al. 2005, p. 48; analysis of three climate projection within the range of the southern Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4558). The models indicate that subalpine forests mountain caribou DPS (Utzig 2005, p. earlier snowmelt that would result from (which contain subalpine fir) may be 4). This may result in increased predator projected temperature increases in the almost completely lost in the Pacific numbers in response to increased prey Northwest would reduce the amount of Northwest (Washington and Oregon) by availability, and increased predation on available water in the summer (Melillo the end of the 21st century. The loss of caribou (Utzig 2005, p. 4). For example, et al. 2014, p. 11), expand the frost-free subalpine and alpine parkland would be in northern Alberta, changes in summer season (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 31), and detrimental to the southern mountain and winter climate are driving range increase the annual maximum number caribou DPS given the population’s expansion of white-tailed deer, with of consecutive dry days (Melillo et al. reliance on these habitat types for forage further changes expected with 2014, p. 33). Virtually all future climate of arboreal lichens during the late continuing climate change (Dawe 2011, scenarios for the Pacific Northwest winter and for summer habitat (Utzig p. 153). This increase in white-tailed project increases in wildfire in western 2005, p. 2). Thus, habitat in the deer is expected to alter predator-prey North America, especially east of the southern extent of the southern dynamics, leading to greater predation Cascades. This projected increase is due mountain caribou DPS may become on woodland caribou by wolves to higher summer temperatures, earlier unsuitable, thereby restricting the (Latham et al. 2011, p. 204). This spring snowmelt, and lower summer southern range of this southern potential increase in predation pressure flows, which can lead to drought stress mountain caribou DPS (Rogers et al. on the southern mountain caribou DPS in trees (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). 2011, pp. 5–6). is in addition to the risk of increased Westerling et al. (2006, pp. 942–943) The movements of subpopulations predation due to forest harvesting and compiled information on large wildfires within the southern mountain caribou fires that reduces and fragments suitable in the western United States from 1970 DPS are closely tied to changes in snow habitat (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1), as to 2004, and found that large wildfire depth and consolidation of the snow described above. activity has increased significantly from pack, allowing access to arboreal lichens Virtually all future climate scenarios the mid-1980s with large-wildfire in winter (Kinley et al. 2007, entire). for the Pacific Northwest project frequency, longer wildfire duration, and Snowpack depth is significant in increases in wildfire in western North longer wildfire seasons. The greatest determining the height at which America, especially east of the increases occurred in high-elevation arboreal lichens occur on trees, and the Cascades. This is due to higher summer forest types including lodgepole pine height at which caribou are able to temperatures, earlier spring snowmelt, and spruce fir in the northern Rockies. access lichens in the winter. These and lower summer flows, which can They also found that fire exclusion had arboreal lichens are also dependent lead to drought stress in trees (Littell et little impact on natural fire regimes. upon factors influenced by climate, al. 2009, p. 14). In addition, due to Rather, climate appeared to be the including humidity and stand density climatic stress to trees and an increase primary driver of increasing wildfire (Utzig 2005, p. 7). Kinley et al. (2007, in temperatures more favorable to risk. Lastly, climate change may lead to entire) found that during low snow mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus increased frequency and duration of years, mountain caribou in deep- ponderosae), outbreaks of mountain severe storms and droughts (Golladay et snowfall regions made more extensive pine beetles are projected to increase in al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, use of low-elevation sites (sometimes frequency and cause increased tree p. 6,074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1,015). associated with the use of stands of mortality (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). Review of climate change modeling lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and These outbreaks will reach higher presented in Utzig (2005, p. 5) western hemlock) during late winter. elevations due to a shift to favorable demonstrated projected shifts in When snowpack differences were slight temperature conditions as these regions habitats within the present range of the between years in these regions, warm (Littell et al. 2009, p. 14). Other southern mountain caribou DPS in mountain caribou did not shift species of insects, such as spruce beetle Canada. Projections for 2055 indicate a downslope as they did during low snow (Dendroctonus rufipennis) and western significant decrease in alpine habitats, years (Kinley et al. 2007, p. 93). In spruce budworm (Choristoneura which is loosely correlated with the general, climate change projections occidentalis), may also emerge in forests distribution of the arboreal lichens on suggest reduced snowpacks and shorter where temperatures are favorable (Littell which these caribou depend. The winters, particularly at lower elevations et al. 2009, p. 15). These projected projected biogeoclimatic zone (Utzig 2005, p. 7; Littell et al. 2009, p. impacts to forested ecosystems have the distributions indicate a significant 1). Consistently lower snowpacks potential to further impact habitat for increase in the distribution of western (similar to what is projected with the southern mountain caribou DPS red cedar in the mid-term with a shift climate change) at higher elevations through alteration of forest patch size upward in elevation and northward over may alter the height of lichen growth on and fragmentation that may facilitate the longer term. Projected subalpine fir trees which may affect seasonal caribou increased predation pressure on distribution is similar, with a predicted movement patterns. Thus, caribou may caribou, and stand structure that may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52617

reduce forage availability (e.g., arboreal conditions will likely significantly how, when, and where to impose such lichens) for caribou (Utzig 2005, p. 8). impact the southern mountain caribou restrictions across IPNF were limited The information currently available DPS (Utzig 2005, pp. 4, 8). A trend (USFS 1987, entire). In December 2005, regarding the effects of global climate towards hotter and drier summers, a U.S. District Court granted a change and increasing temperatures increasing fire events, and preliminary injunction prohibiting does not allow precise estimates of the unpredictable snow conditions has the snowmobile trail grooming within the location and magnitude of the effects. potential to reduce both recruitment and caribou recovery area on the IPNF However, we do expect changes in survival of the southern mountain during the winter of 2005 to 2006. The climate such as increasing temperatures caribou DPS of mountain caribou (Festa- injunction was granted because the will result in the following: A shorter Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 427). A warming IPNF had not developed a winter snow season with shallower snowpacks, climate will negatively affect all aspects recreation strategy addressing the effects increased forest disturbance, and of caribou ecology and exacerbate the of snowmobiling on caribou. In vegetation growing in far from optimal impact of other threats (Festa-Bianchet November 2006, the court granted a climatic conditions (Columbia et al. 2011, p. 424). modified injunction restricting Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology snowmobiling and snowmobile trail Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat 2006, p. 49). Utzig (2005, entire) grooming on portions of the IPNF Destruction, Modification, or provided the most applicable summary within the recovery area of the southern Curtailment of Its Range of the potential effects of climate change Selkirk Mountains caribou. On February to the southern mountain caribou DPS. Efforts in the United States: Efforts to 14, 2007, the court ordered a In his paper, he noted that there are protect the southern mountain caribou modification of the current injunction to general indications that the present DPS and its habitat in the United States add a protected caribou travel corridor, range of mountain caribou may be include: (1) Retaining mature to old- connecting habitat in the U.S. portion of reduced in some areas and increased in growth cedar/hemlock and subalpine the southern Selkirk Mountains with others (p. 10), as the ecosystem upon spruce/fir stands; (2) analyzing forest habitat in British Columbia. This which they rely undergoes drastic future management actions on a site-specific injunction is currently in effect and changes due to changes in the form and basis to consider potential impacts to restricts snowmobiling on 239,588 ac timing of precipitation events (snow caribou habitat; (3) avoiding road (96,957 ha), involving 71 percent of the versus rain), and vegetative responses to construction through mature old-growth existing woodland caribou recovery climatic conditions (e.g., drier forest stands unless no other reasonable area. In its revised LRMP (USFS 2015, conditions will mean increased access is available; (4) placing emphasis entire), the IPNF considered the court- occurrence of fire and disease in mature on road closures and habitat mitigation ordered snowmobile closure to be the trees that support arboreal lichens (p. based on caribou seasonal habitat needs standard until a winter travel plan is 8)). These climatic conditions may also and requirements; (5) controlling approved. The Service will work closely increase other ungulate species (deer, wildfires within southern Selkirk with the IPNF on the future moose) and lead to higher levels of Mountains woodland caribou development of their winter recreation predator prey interactions (p. 4). He also management areas to prevent loss of strategy, which will be subject to section identified several uncertainties (pp. 10– coniferous tree species in all size 7 consultation under the Act. 11), such as the impossibility of reliably classes; and (6) managing winter Within the range of the southern projecting specific ecosystem changes recreation in the Colville National Selkirk Mountains population of and potential impacts. Utzig (p. 11) Forest (CNF) in Washington, with woodland caribou is the 43,348-ac acknowledged that caribou survived the specific attention to snowmobile use (17,542-ha) Salmo-Priest Wilderness last glacial period, as well as within the Newport/Sullivan Lake area (U.S. Department of Agriculture intervening climate change over the last Ranger District. (USDA) 2013, in litt.). The USFS 10,000 years, although those changes Relative to human access within manages these lands under the likely occurred over a longer period of caribou habitat, motorized winter Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– time than the changes occurring today. recreation, specifically snowmobiling, 1136), which restricts activities in the Given the above information, we represents one threat to caribou within following manner: (1) New or temporary anticipate that changes in climate could the southern Selkirk Mountains roads cannot be built; (2) there can be directly impact the southern mountain woodland caribou recovery area. U.S. no use of motor vehicles, motorized caribou DPS by: (1) Reducing the Forest Service 1987 land resource equipment, or motorboats; (3) there can abundance, distribution, and quality of management plans (LRMPs) included be no landing of aircraft; (4) there can caribou habitat; (2) limiting the ability some standards calling for motorized be no other form of mechanical of caribou to move between seasonal use restrictions when needed to protect transport; and (5) no structure or habitats; and (3) limiting their ability to caribou. The CNF’s LRMP in installation may be built. avoid predation. Impacts from climate Washington has been revised to A recovery plan for the endangered change may also affect caribou and their incorporate special management southern Selkirk Mountains population habitat by affecting external factors such objectives and standards to address of woodland caribou was finalized in as increased disease and insect potential threats to woodland caribou 1994 (1994 recovery plan), outlining outbreaks, increased fire occurrence, on the forest. The CNF also manages interim objectives necessary to support and changes in snow depth. The winter recreation in areas of potential a self-sustaining caribou population in impacts from these effects could lead to conflict between snowmobile use and the Selkirk Mountains (USFWS 1994a, increased habitat fragmentation and caribou, specifically in its Newport/ entire). Among these objectives was a changes in forest composition, changes Sullivan Lake Ranger District (77 FR goal to secure and enhance at least in forage availability and abundance, 71042, November 28, 2012, see p. 443,000 ac (179,000 ha) of caribou and changes in predation, which are 71071). The Idaho Panhandle National habitat in the Selkirk Mountains. each important to caribou survival. Forests (IPNF), beginning in 1993, However, the recovery criteria in this Because of the close ties between implemented site-specific closures to recovery plan were determined to be caribou movement and seasonal snow protect caribou on IPNF. However, more inadequate in the Service’s 5-year conditions, seasonal shifts in snow comprehensive standards addressing review (USFWS 2008, p. 15). Additional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52618 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

recovery actions are needed as the 2015 have died (6 due to cougar predation; 2 regularly or occasionally occupied by population estimate for this due to wolf predation; 3 due to subpopulations or individuals of subpopulation has dropped to 14 accidents; 3 from unknown but mountain caribou and these areas individuals, which continues a steady confirmed non-predation causes; 2 from provide some level of protection. decline from 46 caribou in 2009 unknown causes, predation not ruled In February 2009, British Columbia’s (Degroot 2015, in litt.). In addition, the out; and 1 from malnutrition due to Ministry of Environment (BCMOE) 1994 recovery plan only applies to 1 ticks) (Gordon 2013 in litt., p. 1). The protected 5,568,200 ac (2,253,355 ha) of subpopulation (southern Selkirk satellite collars on the two remaining currently available and eventually Mountain population of woodland caribou failed. However, the remaining available high-suitability winter caribou caribou) of the 15 extant subpopulations cow was sighted approximately 112 mi habitat. This was accomplished through that comprise the southern mountain (180 km) north of the Purcells South the issuance of 10 Government Actions caribou DPS. range, and when the collar on the Regulation (GAR) orders on Provincial Efforts in Canada: In 2007, the British remaining bull failed, he was utilizing Crown lands within the southern Columbia government endorsed the high-elevation habitat with resident mountain caribou DPS (BCMOE 2009a, Mountain Caribou Recovery caribou and is presumed to still be with in litt.; BCMOE 2009b, in litt.; Mountain Implementation Plan (MCRIP), which the resident group (Cichowski et al. Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan encompasses the southern mountain 2014 in litt., p. 2). Implementation of the Progress Board (MCRIPPB) 2010, pp. 7, caribou DPS in Canada (British second phase has not been initiated. 9). This protection was accomplished, in part, through the official designation Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and All national parks in Canada are Lands (BCMAL) 2007, in litt.). The of high-suitability habitats as either managed by Parks Canada, and are plan’s goal is to restore the southern wildlife habitat areas or ungulate winter strictly protected areas where mountain caribou DPS in British ranges, and associated general wildlife commercial resource extraction and Columbia to the pre-1995 level of 2,500 measures (BCMOE 2009b, in litt.). These sport hunting are not permitted (Parks individuals (BCMAL 2007, in litt.). measures were designed to reduce the Canada National Park System Plan Actions identified in the MCRIP impact from timber harvest and road (NPSP) 2009, p. 3). Parks Canada’s include, but are not limited to: construction on caribou habitat. They objective for their national parks is, ‘‘To Protecting approximately 5,436,320 ac identified areas where no or modified protect for all time representative (2,200,000 ha) of range from logging and timber harvesting can take place, along natural areas of Canadian significance in road building, which would capture 95 with certain motor vehicle prohibition percent of high-suitability winter a system of national parks, to encourage regulations (BCMOE 2009b, in litt.; habitat; managing human recreation public understanding, appreciation, and BCMOE 2009c, in litt.). This effort activities; managing predator enjoyment of this natural heritage so as included the creation of two important populations of wolf and cougar where to leave it unimpaired for future guidance documents that provide they are preventing recovery of generations’’ (Parks Canada NPSP 2009, recommendations for the establishment populations; managing the primary prey p. 2). The southern mountain caribou of mineral exploration activity and base of caribou predators; and DPS in British Columbia encompasses commercial backcountry recreation (i.e., augmenting threatened herds with two Canadian national parks, Glacier heli-skiing and cat-skiing). Both of these animals transplanted from elsewhere and Mount Revelstoke. Both of these documents call for their respective (BCMAL 2007, in litt.). The Province of national parks comprise 333,345 ac activities to maximize use of existing British Columbia pledged to provide (134,900 ha) and are within the range of roads and clearings, and specify other $1,000,000 per year, over 3 years, to several subpopulations of caribou in the activity-specific restrictions on habitat support adaptive management plans southern mountain caribou DPS (Parks alteration (Hamilton and Pasztor 2009, associated with the MCRIP (BCMAL Canada NPSP 2009, pp. 18–19). Ninety- pp. 7–8; BCMOE 2009c, in litt.). 2007, in litt.). four percent of the land in British In February 2009, the BCMOE closed As stated above, one of the tools of the Columbia is considered Provincial approximately 2,471,050 ac (1,000,000 2007 MCRIP for achieving recovery of Crown lands, of which 33,881,167 ac ha) of caribou habitat within the mountain caribou is augmentation of (13,711,222 ha) are designated as Canadian portion of the southern small subpopulations with caribou various park and protected areas mountain caribou DPS to snowmobile translocated from other areas. Pursuant managed by British Columbia (B.C.) use (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10). However, to the 2007 MCRIP, an augmentation Parks (B.C. Parks 2013a, in litt.). The compliance with closures in these areas plan for the Purcells South Mountain mission of B.C. Parks is to ‘‘protect is not well known, and is likely not 100 Caribou Population was finalized in representative and special natural percent (MCRIPPB 2012, p. 9). Efforts 2010, and included a goal of achieving places within the province’s Protected and progress are being made to replace a population target of 100 caribou Areas System for world-class stolen or vandalized signs, to improve through augmenting 40 caribou into the conservation, outdoor recreation, monitoring and enforcement of Purcell South subpopulation over 2 education and scientific study’’ (B.C. compliance, and to inform and educate years (Cichowski et al. 2014 in litt., p. Parks 2013b, in litt.). Many Canadian the users about the closed areas. ii). Twenty caribou were captured in national parks, provincial parks, and Specifically, several tickets have been March 2012 (first phase) from the Level- ecological reserves, including Arctic issued in British Columbia for Kawdy subpopulation in northwestern Pacific Lakes, Evanoff, Sugarbowl- noncompliance, and informational British Columbia (located outside of the Grizzly Den, Ptarmigan Creek, West pamphlets have been made and southern mountain caribou DU/DPS), Twin, Close to the Edge, Upper Rausch, distributed (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10; fitted with radio collars, and 19 of the Mount Tinsdale, Bowron Lake, Cariboo MCRIPPB 2012, p. 9). caribou (1 caribou died prior to release) Mountains, Wells Gray, Upper Adams, Under SARA, Federal, provincial, and were augmented into the Purcell South Foster Arm, Cummins Lakes, territorial government signatories agreed subpopulation located in south-eastern Goosegrass, Glacier, Mount Revelstoke, to establish complementary legislation British Columbia, within the southern Monashee, Goat Range, Purcell and programs that provide effective mountain caribou DU/DPS. As of the Wilderness, Kianuko, Lockhart Creek, protection of species at risk throughout 2013 annual report, 17 of the 19 caribou West Arm, and Stagleapare, are Canada (Environment Canada 2014, p.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52619

i). SARA requires Federal competent • Reduced speed zones on highways within the southern mountain caribou ministers to prepare recovery strategies in important caribou habitat; DPS include forest harvest, forest fires, for species listed under SARA • Predator and alternate prey insect outbreaks, human development, (Environment Canada 2014, p. i). The management projects in some ranges recreation, and effects of climate Minister of the Environment and the where subpopulations of southern change. Each of these threats, through Minister responsible for the Parks mountain caribou are declining; and varying mechanisms, directly removes Canada Agency are the competent • Population augmentation through and fragments existing habitat and/or ministers under SARA for southern translocations and reduction of early impacts caribou behavior such that it mountain caribou (Environment Canada calf mortality through maternal alters the distribution of caribou within 2014, p. i). In 2014, in accordance with penning. their natural habitat. SARA, the BCMOE published the In addition, implementation of Forest harvest, forest fires, insect Recovery Strategy for the Woodland voluntary stewardship management outbreaks, human development, and Caribou, Southern Mountain population agreements in British Columbia may effects due to climate change may (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada contribute to conservation of the catalyze other indirect threats to caribou (2014 Canadian Recovery Strategy) that southern mountain caribou DPS. These within the southern mountain caribou set forth a recovery goal of achieving a agreements are between the BCMOE and DPS. These impacts may be particularly self-sustaining population of 2,500 snowmobiling groups, and promote the prevalent in the southern extent of this caribou in the southern mountain minimization of disturbance and DPS. Specifically, direct habitat loss and caribou DU (Environment Canada 2014, displacement of caribou from fragmentation further limits caribou p. 29). The 2014 Canadian Recovery snowmobile activities in their habitat. dispersal and movements among Strategy will be followed by Through these agreements, snowmobile subpopulations within the southern development of action plans identifying groups agree to abide by a code of mountain caribou DPS by making it recovery measures to be taken by the conduct while riding in designated more difficult and more dangerous for Environment Canada, the Parks Canada areas, volunteer to educate riders about caribou to disperse. Additionally, Agency, and the Province of British impacts to caribou and preventative habitat loss and fragmentation have and Columbia (Environment Canada 2014, p. measures to avoid impacts, volunteer to will continue to alter the predator-prey i). The 2014 Canadian Recovery Strategy monitor designated areas for ecology of the southern mountain identified several actions that are compliance, and submit reports to the caribou DPS by creating more suitable already completed or are underway BCMOE detailing caribou sightings and habitat and travel corridors for other including, but not limited to: snowmobile use of an area. To date, 13 ungulates and their predators. Finally, • Consideration of southern mountain of these agreements have been signed habitat loss and fragmentation increases caribou habitat requirements when between the BCMOE and snowmobile the likelihood of disturbance of caribou planning and implementing forest organizations (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10). in the southern mountain caribou DPS harvesting and other industrial Finally, a maternal penning trial is from human recreation or other activities, including prohibition of forest being implemented near Revelstoke, activities by increasing the accessibility harvesting and road building activities British Columbia, Canada, and a of these areas to humans. Projections of in 2.2 million ha (5.4 million ac) (e.g., memorandum of understanding has changes in climate indicate that the Ungulate Winter Ranges, protected been signed between Parks Canada and changes will exacerbate impacts by areas) to protect high suitability habitat the Calgary Zoo to develop captive catalyzing forest composition changes; for southern mountain caribou in the breeding capacity for mountain caribou increasing forest insect outbreaks; and Southern Group (also defined as the (MCRIPPB 2014, p. 5). increasing the likelihood of wildfires southern mountain caribou (DU 9)) in Private Efforts: Approximately through changes in phenology, British Columbia; 135,908 ac (55,000 ha) of private land precipitation (both timing and quantity), • Consideration of southern mountain within the British Columbia portion of and temperature. caribou habitat when planning and the southern Selkirk Mountains caribou Another threat, human disturbance implementing prescribed fires in recovery area were purchased by the from wintertime recreation, particularly national parks and on other lands, Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC). This from snowmobile activity, increases including conducting prescribed fires in purchase was made with the support of physiological stress and energy areas away from caribou habitat to the Government of Canada in what has expenditure, and alters habitat maintain a safe distance between been described as the largest single occupancy of caribou. This disturbance caribou and predators; private conservation land acquisition in forces caribou to use inferior habitat • Closure to snowmobiling of 1 Canadian history (USFWS 2008, p. 17). with greater risk of depredation or million ha (2.5 million ac) of high- This private land was previously owned avalanche. Human disturbance is likely elevation habitat within ranges of by a timber company known as the to continue to increasingly impact southern mountain caribou in the Pluto Darkwoods Forestry Corporation, caribou within the southern mountain Southern Group in British Columbia; which managed a sustainable harvesting caribou DPS because nature-based • Development and implementation program prior to selling the land. The recreation and tourism are on the rise in of operating procedures for helicopter NCC’s goal for the Darkwoods property rural British Columbia. Projected growth and snowcat skiing in southern is sustainable ecosystem management, of these activities is estimated at mountain caribou in the Southern including the conservation of woodland approximately 15 percent per year Group in British Columbia; caribou (USFWS 2008, p. 17). (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007, p. 3). In • Development and implementation addition, the establishment of new of operating guidelines for industrial Summary for Factor A forest roads may be providing increased development within southern mountain Destruction, modification, or human access to caribou habitat, further caribou ranges; curtailment of caribou habitat has been amplifying the threat of human • Land-use planning to identify areas and is today a significant threat to disturbance and caribou population within southern mountain caribou caribou throughout the southern declines within the southern mountain ranges where southern mountain mountain caribou DPS. Specific threats caribou DPS in the future. Impacts to caribou conservation is prioritized; directly impacting caribou habitat caribou from human disturbance are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52620 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

occurring today, despite conservation of British Columbia (British Columbia ongoing threat. We have evaluated the measures, and are likely to occur in the Hunting and Trapping Regulations/ best available scientific and commercial future. These impacts will likely Synopsis 2014–2016), according to data on the overutilization for contribute to the decline of Chris Ritchie (2015, pers. comm.), there commercial, recreational, scientific, or subpopulations within the southern is no legal harvest of mountain caribou educational purposes of the southern mountain caribou DPS and further allowed within the range of the mountain caribou DPS and determined impact the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou DU/DPS in that activities identified under this southern mountain caribou DPS. Canada. Further, hunting is prohibited factor do not pose threats to the We have evaluated the best available in all national parks and ecological continued existence of the southern scientific and commercial data on the reserves in British Columbia, but may be mountain caribou DPS. present or threatened destruction, allowed in some specific British modification, or curtailment of the Columbia parks. Consequently, legal C. Disease or Predation habitat or range of the southern harvest has not been a major limiting Disease mountain caribou DPS. Through this factor to caribou within the southern Caribou mortality due to disease and evaluation, we have determined that the mountain caribou DPS since the mid- parasitism has been documented activities identified under this factor 1970s (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 73). throughout their range and within the pose significant threats to the continued Therefore, although it may have had a southern mountain caribou DPS existence of the southern mountain historical impact on caribou (Spalding 2000, p. 40; Compton et al. caribou DPS, especially when populations, hunting/harvesting of 1995, p. 493; Dauphine 1975 in considered in concert with the other caribou is not presently impacting COSEWIC 2002, pp. 20, 54–55). The factors impacting the southern caribou within the southern mountain effects of many types of biting and mountain caribou DPS. caribou DPS. Although there are historical reports stinging insects on caribou include B. Overutilization for Commercial, of the illegal harvest of caribou within parasite and disease transmission, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational the southern mountain caribou DPS harassment, and immune system Purposes (Scott and Servheen 1985, p. 15; Seip reactions (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Caribou have been an important game and Cichowski 1996, p. 76), we do not Several insects with the potential to species since they have shared the have data that suggest illegal killing is affect caribou populations include landscape with humans. Native affecting caribou numbers in any of the warble flies (Oedemagena spp.), nose Americans have hunted caribou for subpopulations within the southern bot flies (Cephenemyia trompe), thousands of years in British Columbia, mountain caribou DPS. mosquitoes (Aedes spp.), black flies although the numbers of animals taken (Simulium spp.), horseflies (Tabanus were probably modest given the Conservation Efforts To Reduce spp.), and deer flies (Chrysops spp.) relatively limited hunting pressure and Overutilization for Commercial, (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Mature and old hunting implements at the time Recreational, Scientific, or Educational woodland caribou are likely to have a (Spalding 2000, p. 38). The introduction Purposes relatively high incidence and of firearms combined with a later Aside from State and Provincial prevalence of hydatid cysts increase in human populations in regulations that limit hunting of (Echinococcus granulosus) in their British Columbia led to an increase in caribou, we are unaware of other lungs, which can make them more caribou harvested by the late 1800s and conservation efforts to reduce susceptible to predation (COSEWIC into the 1900s (Spalding 2000, p. 38). overutilization for commercial, 2002, p. 54). Eggs and larvae of the It is thought that an increase in recreational, scientific, or educational protostrongylid nematode hunting pressure, although it did not purposes; however, we do not have (Parelaphostrongylus andersoni) can cause extinction, upset the already information suggesting that develop in woodland caribou lungs and delicate balance between predators and overutilization is an ongoing threat to can contribute to pneumonia (COSEWIC caribou and catalyzed a general decline caribou within the southern mountain 2002, pp. 54–55). Finally, a related in caribou populations (Seip and caribou DPS. meningeal nematode (P. tenuis) causes Cichowski 1996, p. 73; Spalding 2000, neurologic disease in caribou. Although p. 39). In support of this hypothesis, Summary for Factor B this nematode is benign in white-tailed Spalding (2000, p. 39) cited old field Threats from overutilization such as deer, it may be a limiting factor to reports that hunters, both Native hunting appear to be ameliorated, now caribou in southern Ontario and west to American and non-Native American, and in the future, by responsible Saskatchewan. Samuel et al. (1992, p. were killing too many caribou. He also management. Historically, caribou 629) suggested that this meningeal cited several regions of British Columbia within the southern mountain caribou nematode may anthropogenically spread where, after hunting closures were DPS were hunted throughout their in western Canada due to game implemented, caribou numbers began to range. They were likely overharvested ranching; however, we have no new rebound, although this was not the case when human populations increased in information to determine if this spread in all populations (Spalding 2000, p. British Columbia and with the advent of has or has not occurred. 37). These hunting pressures and modern weapons. The hunting of Within the southern mountain associated population declines subsided caribou has been made illegal within the caribou DPS, evidence of disease or with the hunting season closures, and southern mountain caribou DPS, in both parasitism is limited. We know that some regions of British Columbia even the United States and Canada. After several caribou that were shot or found saw population increases and hunting ceased, certain populations dead in a forest near Rooney, British stabilization after the 1940s (Spalding began to recover but others did not. Columbia, in 1918 were thought to have 2000, pp. 37, 39). Even though there have been known a type of pneumonia (Spalding 2000, p. Hunting of caribou is currently not occurrences of humans illegally killing 40). We also know that, of 34 caribou allowed in any of the lower 48 United caribou within the southern mountain that died within 2 years of translocation States. While hunting of mountain caribou DPS in the past, we do not have to the southern Selkirk Mountains, only caribou is allowed within certain areas information indicating this is an one was confirmed to have died of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52621

severe parasitism (Sarcocystis sp.) and predators (e.g., wolves and cougars) to more drastic results in small emaciation (Compton et al. 1995, p. the primary prey (i.e., deer, elk, moose) populations. 493). Additionally, in 2012, 19 caribou can depress the population of the Elevated levels of predation on were translocated from the Level-Kawdy secondary prey (i.e., caribou), caribou in the southern mountain subpopulation in northwestern British resembling competition between the caribou DPS have likely been caused, in Columbia into the Purcell Mountains prey species. Predation on the part, by an alteration of the natural subpopulation in southeastern British secondary prey can be incidental, can predator-prey ecology within their range Columbia, Canada. Of the 19 increase proportionately as the numbers (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 417; Seip 2008, translocated caribou, one died from of secondary prey decline (Sinclair et al. p. 3). This change in the predator-prey malnutrition due to ticks (Gordon 2013, 1998 in Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 259), ecology within the southern mountain in litt.). Although evidence within the and can lead to extinction of the caribou DPS is thought to be catalyzed, southern mountain DPS is limited, we secondary prey (DeCesare et al. 2010, at least in part, by human-caused habitat are aware that a reintroduction effort of pp. 353, 355). McLellan et al. (2012, p. alteration and fragmentation (Seip 2008, 51 caribou outside of the southern 859) also concluded that food limitation p. 3). Habitat alteration and mountain caribou DPS in the late 1960s (neither quality nor quantity) is likely fragmentation within the southern failed, presumably because of meningeal not driving the continued population mountain caribou DPS is caused by worms (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) decline of mountain caribou. many things, including, but not limited (Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, p. As cited previously the decline of this to, forest harvest, fire, human 20). population is accelerating (COSEWIC development, and effects due to climate As is the case with most wildlife, 2014, p. vii). Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. change (see Factor A discussion, above). caribou are susceptible to disease and 264) found that predation was the Alteration and fragmentation from these parasitism. These sources of mortality primary cause of mortality driving the and other activities disturb land and are likely causing some level of impact accelerated rate of population decline of create edge habitats. These new edges to individual caribou within the mountain caribou. The accelerated rate and disturbances allow for the southern mountain caribou DPS. of decline of the overall population introduction of early seral habitat that is However, because no severe outbreaks composed of small, fragmented, and preferred by deer, elk, and moose, have been documented and because isolated subpopulations is consistent thereby increasing habitat suitability for relatively few caribou within the with the Allee effect 2 (Stephens et al. these alternate ungulate prey species southern mountain caribou DPS have 1999, p. 186), which predicts within the southern mountain caribou been known to succumb to disease or population growth rates to decline as DPS (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; parasitism, these sources of mortality populations become smaller. Increased Seip 2008, p. 3). The increase in habitat are unlikely to have significantly predation pressure on small populations suitability for deer, elk, and moose have impacted caribou within the southern is one example of an Allee effect, but allowed these alternate prey species to mountain caribou DPS, currently or genetic drift can also result in an Allee subsist in areas that, under natural historically. effect (Stephens et al. 1999, p. 185). disturbance regimes, would have been Genetic drift can result from rapid dominated by contiguous old-growth Predation changes in gene frequencies caused by forest and of limited value to them Natural predators of caribou in the environmental and demographic (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162). The southern mountain caribou DPS include stochasticity independent of mutation result is an altered distribution and cougars (Felis concolor), wolves (Canis and natural selection, and smaller increased numbers of these alternative lupus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), and populations are more susceptible to ungulate prey species, particularly black bears (Ursus americanus) (Seip genetic drift. For example, when within summer habitat of caribou 2008, p. 1). Increased predation from alleles 3 occur at a low frequency in a within the southern mountain caribou these natural predators, particularly small population, these alleles have a DPS (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; wolves and cougars, is thought to be the significant probability of being lost in Wittmer et al. 2005a, pp. 263–264). most, or one of the most, significant each generation. The gradual loss of rare Many studies suggest that increases in contributors to southern mountain alleles from a population changes the alternative ungulate prey within caribou caribou DPS declines in recent decades overall genotype of the population, and summer habitat have stimulated an (Seip 1992, p. 1,500; Kinley and Apps ultimately results in a loss of genetic associated increase of natural predators, 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005, p. 4, Wittmer variability. Serrouya et al. (2012, p. particularly cougars and wolves, in et al. 2005b, pp. 414–415). McLellan et 2,597) demonstrated that below a these same areas, consequently al. (2012, entire) investigated whether population size of approximately 150 disrupting the predator-prey ecology interactions with forage (bottom-up) or caribou, the magnitude and variation of within the southern mountain caribou predators (top-down) were the principal genetic differentiation greatly increased DPS and resulting in increased mechanisms regulating southern between pairs of adjacent predation on caribou (Kinley and Apps mountain caribou populations. They subpopulations (i.e., genetic drift). In 2001, p. 162; Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. concluded that apparent competition summary, genetic drift reduces genetic 414–415). Additionally, many studies (i.e., predation) is the proximate variation in populations, potentially conducted across the range of mountain mechanism driving the population reducing a population’s ability to evolve caribou (Northern, Central, and decline of mountain caribou (McLellan in response to new selective pressure, Southern DUs) as well as the Boreal DU et al. 2012, p. 859). Apparent and genetic drift acts faster and has in Canada suggest these populations of competition occurs indirectly between caribou are at risk of extirpation where prey populations that share a common 2 The Allee effect is a phenomenon in biology habitat altering industrial activities food-limited predator, whereby the characterized by a correlation between population affect predator-prey dynamics (Festa- predator asymmetrically impacts the size or density and the mean individual fitness Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 427). prey populations (Holt 1977, pp. 201– (often measured as per capita population growth Habitat alteration and fragmentation rate) of a population or species. 202), even without resource competition 3 One member of a pair of genes occupying a has resulted in increased numbers and between the prey species. For example, specific spot on a chromosome that controls the distribution of other ungulate prey in this case, the numerical response of same trait. species (i.e., deer, moose, and elk) that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52622 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

has supported, and continues to mountain caribou DPS (Seip 1992, p. implementation of the MCRIP and support, higher densities of predators 1,500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; monitoring its effectiveness. The which then prey opportunistically on MCST 2005, p. 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, Board’s 2010 annual report declared caribou (i.e., apparent competition). It pp. 414–415). Strategies on managing that the conservation measures listed will likely require greater than 150 years predation may include the management above have all been relatively limited in (greater than 16 generations of caribou) of predator populations directly, or the scope and have failed to meet the of habitat protections for early management of alternate ungulate prey expectations of the Board (MCRIPPB successional and fragmented forests to populations. The 2007 Mountain 2010, p. 4). The Board’s annual reports develop the old-growth habitat Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan since 2010 have been slightly more characteristics (vegetative structure and (MCRIP), produced by the BCMOE, favorable in their assessment of the composition) (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. proposed that both approaches be taken BCMOE’s efforts for predator and 1) necessary to restore the natural within the Canadian portion of the alternate ungulate prey management. predator-prey balance of these high- southern mountain caribou DPS However, it is still apparent that much elevation, old-growth forests, and thus (MCRIPPB 2010, pp. 1, 12, 13). research and progress still needs to be reduce predation pressure on caribou. Direct management of predator completed. For example, it is As discussed above under Status of the populations within the southern noteworthy that most of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, Hatter mountain caribou DPS to date has conservation measures listed above (2006, p. 7, in litt.) predicted quasi- included investigations of the degree of target the wolf-moose predator-prey extinction of 13 of the 15 overlap between wolves and caribou relationship that is the primary driver of subpopulations within the DPS within home ranges. This research will assist predator-prey dynamics in the northern 20 to 90 years, and Wittmer et al. (2010, BCMOE with decisions about location portion of the southern mountain p. 86) predicted extinction of 10 of the and intensity of wolf management or caribou DPS. We were able to find only 15 subpopulations within 200 years removal (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). one record or report of conservation (notably, they did not assess 5 of the Currently, BCMOE has authorized measures that had been implemented to subpopulations). Thus, the removal of wolves from within the address predation of caribou by cougars, subpopulations within the DPS are not southern mountain caribou DPS through which may be the most salient issue for likely sustainable given ongoing hunting and trapping. To date, this the small and struggling subpopulations declines and the length of time needed program has been implemented only on in the southern portion of the southern to improve habitat conditions that may a limited basis. Initial results suggest mountain caribou DPS (Wittmer et al. ameliorate the threat of predation. this management effort has been 2005b, pp. 414–415). Given the The specific changes to predator/prey successful at reducing wolf densities, controversial nature of predator and ecology are different across the southern but the response by mountain caribou alternate ungulate prey control for mountain caribou DPS. In the northern will take several more years to caribou conservation (MCRIPPB 2010, p. portion of the DPS, wolf and moose determine (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). 4; MCRIPPB 2012, p. 11), these populations have increased. In the Finally, a wolf sterilization project is conservation measures have been and southern portion of the DPS, cougar, elk, underway in a portion of the southern may continue to be slow to develop and and deer populations have increased. mountain caribou DPS. This project is a difficult to implement. Because alternate ungulate prey are pilot project designed to determine the driving predator abundance in caribou feasibility and effectiveness of wolf Efforts at reducing predation in the habitat (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414), sterilization (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 12). United States are more limited and not predators may remain abundant in Initial results of this work suggest that specifically targeted at reducing effects caribou habitat while caribou numbers some subpopulations are showing a to caribou. In Idaho, caribou are found remain few. This renders one of the positive response to these sterilization within game management unit (GMU) 1, caribou’s main predator defenses— efforts. However, this conclusion is which provides recreational hunting predator avoidance—relatively based on a correlation between the two opportunities for black bear, mountain ineffective during certain parts of the variables and cause-effect has not been lion, and wolves, and also provides a year. demonstrated (Ritchie et al. 2012, p. 4). limited trapping season for wolves Alterations in the predator-prey One ongoing study in the Purcells South (Idaho Department of Fish and Game ecology of the southern mountain subpopulation is investigating wolf and (IDFG) 2012, entire). Within this GMU, caribou DPS may also have been cougar overlap with caribou home between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, catalyzed, in part, by successful game ranges (MCRIPPB 2012, p. 12). 109 mountain lions (IDFG 2011a, p. 6) animal management in the southern Direct management of alternate and 179 black bears (IDFG 2011b, p. 4) mountain caribou DPS (Wittmer et al. ungulate prey populations within the were harvested. More recently, from 2005b, p. 415). This too could have southern mountain caribou DPS, to date, September 1, 2011, through March 31, helped to increase deer, elk, and moose has been limited. The BCMOE has 2012, 28 wolves were harvested (IDFG populations within the southern reported two pilot moose-reduction 2013, in litt.). Washington State mountain caribou DPS and led to an programs within the southern mountain provides a limited hunting season for increase in ungulate predators, thus caribou DPS to determine effectiveness both black bear and mountain lion impacting caribou. of reducing wolf densities through the within GMU 113 (the GMU found in management of moose densities in Washington State, Washington Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease caribou habitat (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 13). Department of Fish and Wildlife or Predation These pilot efforts have indicated that (WDFW) 2012, pp. 60–63), and within Disease: We are not aware of any reducing moose densities may reduce the critical habitat designated for the conservation measures currently being wolf numbers (MCRIPPB 2011, p. 4). southern Selkirk Mountains population implemented to reduce impacts to The BCMOE established a Mountain of woodland caribou (77 FR 71042, caribou from disease. Caribou Recovery Implementation November 28, 2012). Forty-four black Predation: Increased predation is Progress Board (Board) with the bears and 1 mountain lion were thought to be the current primary threat publication of the 2007 MCRIP. The harvested in GMU 113 in 2011 (WDFW affecting caribou within the southern Board was charged with oversight of the 2013a, in litt.; WDFW 2013b, in litt.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52623

However, wolf hunting or trapping is that may minimize any of the threats we caribou on the CNF. The CNF also not allowed in Washington State. As describe in threat analyses under the manages winter recreation in areas of mentioned above, the objectives for other four factors or otherwise enhance potential conflict between snowmobile these predator hunting and trapping conservation of the species. We give use and caribou, specifically in its seasons are not to benefit the southern strongest weight to statutes and their Newport/Sullivan Lake Ranger District mountain caribou DPS in the United implementing regulations and to (77 FR 71042, November 28, 2012, see States, and any response in the caribou management direction that stems from p. 71071). The IPNF, beginning in 1993, population is not monitored. As such, those laws and regulations. An example implemented site-specific closures to any potential effects on caribou survival would be State governmental actions protect caribou on the IPNF. However, and population stability from hunting enforced under a State statute or more comprehensive standards seasons on predators in Idaho and constitution, or Federal action under addressing how, when, and where to Washington remain unknown. statute. impose such restrictions across the IPNF Many different regulatory were limited (USFS 1987, entire). In Summary for Factor C mechanisms and government December 2005, a U.S. district court Predation, particularly from wolves conservation actions have been granted a preliminary injunction and cougars, is thought to be the most, implemented in both the United States prohibiting snowmobile trail grooming or one of the most, significant and British Columbia in an attempt to within the caribou recovery area on the contributors to caribou population alleviate threats to caribou within the IPNF during the winter of 2005 to 2006. declines within the southern mountain southern mountain caribou DPS. Below, The injunction was granted because the caribou DPS in recent decades. we list these existing regulatory IPNF had not developed a winter Increased predation of caribou within mechanisms and consider whether they recreation strategy addressing the effects this DPS has likely been caused, in part, are inadequate to address the identified of snowmobiling on caribou. In by an alteration of the natural predator- threats to the southern mountain November 2006, the court granted a prey ecology of the area. This new caribou DPS. modified injunction restricting predator-prey dynamic has been Federal snowmobiling and snowmobile trail catalyzed by increases in populations of grooming on portions of the IPNF alternative ungulate prey species such U.S. Forest Service: Much of the within the southern Selkirk Mountains as elk, deer, and moose within caribou caribou habitat within the United States caribou recovery area. On February 14, habitat. Ecosystems that favor these is managed by the USFS (289,000 ac 2007, the court ordered a modification alternate ungulate prey species also (116,954 ha)), although a significant of the current injunction to add a favor predators such as wolves and amount of State and private lands protected caribou travel corridor cougars. These changes have likely been (approximately 79,000 ac (31,970 ha)) connecting habitat in the U.S. portion of catalyzed, in part, by human-caused occur within caribou range as well the southern Selkirk Mountains with habitat loss and fragmentation, which (USFWS 1994a, p. 21). Land and habitat in British Columbia. This increases habitat favorable to alternative resource management plans (LRMPs) for injunction is currently in effect and ungulate prey species, and consequently the IPNF and the CNF have been revised restricts snowmobiling on 239,588 ac attracts increased numbers of predators. to incorporate management objectives (96,957 ha), involving 71 percent of the Although some conservation measures and standards for caribou. Standards for existing woodland caribou recovery have been implemented to reduce caribou habitat management have been area. In its revised LRMP (USFS 2013, impacts to subpopulations of caribou incorporated into the IPNF’s 2015 and entire), the IPNF considered the court- from predation, more efficient, CNF’s 1988 LRMP, respectively. These ordered snowmobile closure to be the intensive, and frequent action is still standards are meant to avoid the standard until a winter travel plan is needed within the southern mountain likelihood of jeopardizing the continued approved. The Service will work closely caribou DPS. We have evaluated the existence of the species, contribute to with the IPNF on the future best available scientific and commercial caribou conservation, and ensure development of their winter recreation data on disease or predation of the consideration of the biological needs of strategy. To date, the IPNF has not southern mountain caribou DPS and the species during forest management completed a winter recreation strategy. have determined that predation poses a planning and implementation actions For additional information, under the widespread and serious threat to the (USFS 2015, pp. 29–33; USFS 1988, pp. Factor A analysis, above, see Efforts in continued existence of the southern 4–10–17, 4–38, 4–42, 4–73–76, the United States under ‘‘Conservation mountain caribou DPS. Appendix I). Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, We acknowledge that LRMPs can be D. The Inadequacy of Existing Modification, or Curtailment of Its amended or revised. However, LRMPS Range.’’ Regulatory Mechanisms are typically in place for 15 years or Under this factor, we examine longer, and the Service, other Federal State whether existing regulatory mechanisms and State agencies, and the public Idaho Department of Fish and Game are inadequate to ameliorate the threats would have opportunities to comment (IDFG): The woodland caribou within to the species discussed under the other on any proposed amendments or Idaho are considered a Species of factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act revisions to the IPNF and/or CNF Greatest Conservation Need by IDFG requires that the Service take into LRMPs through the National under Idaho State’s Comprehensive account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 Wildlife Conservation Strategy that made by any State or foreign nation, or U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process. Therefore, provides a framework enabling any political subdivision of a State or we expect that both the IPNF and CNF development of partnerships to jointly foreign nation, to protect such species. will continue managing for caribou and develop and implement long-term . . .’’ In relation to Factor D under the their habitat into the future. conservation plans for species of Act, we interpret this language to The CNF’s LRMP in Washington has greatest conservation need (https:// require the Service to consider relevant been revised to incorporate special idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/comprehensive- Federal, State, and Tribal laws, management objectives and standards to wildlife-strategy; accessed on November regulations, and other such mechanisms address potential threats to woodland 3, 2016). There are historical reports of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52624 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

the illegal harvest of caribou within the subpopulations within the southern enacted two separate pieces of southern mountain caribou DPS (Scott mountain caribou DPS, and we do not legislation that can provide protections and Servheen 1985, p. 15; Seip and consider this to be a threat to the species for imperiled species, the Forest and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). However, we do that needs to be addressed by a Range Practices Act (FRPA) and the not have data that suggest illegal killing regulatory mechanism. Wildlife Act (WA). is affecting caribou numbers in any of The FRPA enables the BCMOE to Canada the subpopulations within the southern regulate road building, logging, mountain caribou DPS, and we do not The woodland caribou southern reforestation, and grazing through consider this to be a threat to the mountain population, which includes passage of Government Act Regulations species. the southern mountain caribou DPS (GARs) to protect ungulate winter range Idaho Department of Lands: The (which is equivalent to Canada’s and wildlife habitat areas. As described Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) southern mountain DU), is protected as previously through passage of GARs, manages approximately 51,000 ac threatened under Canada’s Species at BCMOE has protected over 5 million ac (20,639 ha) of southern mountain Risk Act (SARA) (Statues of Canada (over 2 million ha) of high-quality caribou DPS habitat in the United (S.C.) chapter 29).4 However, as noted ungulate winter range from road States. These lands are managed previously, COSEWIC has building and logging, which equates to primarily for timber harvest, an activity recommended that the southern protecting greater than 95 percent of that has, currently and historically, the mountain DU be listed as endangered high-quality caribou habitat in British potential to significantly impact caribou under SARA (COSEWIC 2014, pp. iv, Columbia (Ritchie 2015, pers. comm.). and their habitat. The IDL contracted for xix) pending review and decision by the The WA enables BCMOE to establish a habitat assessment of their lands Federal Environment Minister. wildlife management areas and issue within the South Selkirk ecosystem ‘‘Endangered’’ is defined by SARA as a regulations pertaining to the (Kinley and Apps 2007, entire). The wildlife species that is facing imminent management of such areas. In results of this assessment indicated that extirpation or extinction. SARA defines accordance with the WA, BCMOE has one of the largest blocks of high-priority a ‘‘threatened’’ species as ‘‘a wildlife prohibited recreational snow machine caribou habitat in the United States is species that is likely to become an use on almost 2.5 million ac (over 1 centered on IDL property and adjacent endangered species if nothing is done to million ha) of mountain caribou habitat. USFS lands. The report stated that IDL reverse the factors leading to its Additionally, the WA contains property contributes significantly to extirpation or extinction’’ (S.C. chapter provisions allowing BCMOE to develop caribou habitat within the South Selkirk 29, section 2). It is illegal to kill, harm, and implement predator management ecosystem. The IDL, with financial harass, capture, or take an individual of plans. The British Columbia’s Ministry assistance from the Service, began a wildlife species that is listed as an of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource working on a habitat conservation plan endangered or a threatened species (S.C. Operations prepared the Management (HCP) several years ago to protect chapter 29, section 32). SARA also Plan for the Gray Wolf in British caribou and other listed species on their prohibits any person from damaging or Columbia as advice to the responsible lands. However, development of this destroying the residence of a listed jurisdiction and organizations that may HCP has not moved forward beyond the species, or from destroying any part of be involved in managing gray wolves in initial stages. Recently, winter its critical habitat (S.C. chapter 29, British Columbia. Recommendations in motorized use restrictions were sections 33, 58). For species that are not the plan are used by provincial agencies loosened on some IDL endowment land aquatic species or migratory birds, to guide the development of new, or in the Abandon Creek area north of however, SARA’s prohibition on modification of existing, provincial Priest Lake. Under a revised winter destruction of the residence applies policies and procedures. Consistent access plan, lands will remain open to only on Federal lands. Most lands with that plan and in accordance with winter motorized use unless there is a occupied by the woodland caribou the WA, BMCOE has implemented confirmed caribou sighting (Seymour southern mountain population are not projects to reduce wolf predation on 2012, in litt.). Because their timber Federal; hence, SARA does little to mountain caribou. harvest plans currently do not directly protect the population’s habitat. The British Columbia’s Ministry of incorporate considerations for caribou The woodland caribou southern Forests, Lands and Natural Resource and because of the recent removal of mountain population was assigned the Operations currently does not allow snowmobile restrictions, management of status S1 in 2003, by the Province of hunting of caribou within the area IDL’s lands is likely not alleviating or British Columbia, meaning it is where the southern mountain addressing the threat of habitat loss, considered critically imperiled there population of caribou occurs. The habitat fragmentation, or disturbance (BCMOE 2013, in litt.). The Province of woodland caribou southern mountain from winter recreation to caribou. British Columbia does not have population and its habitat are also Washington Department of Fish and endangered species legislation. This protected by the National Parks Act in Wildlife: The southern Selkirk lack of legislation can limit the ability numerous national parks in Canada Mountains population of woodland to enact meaningful measures for the (Canada 2013, in litt.). Because of its caribou was listed as endangered in the protection of status species such as threatened status, the British Columbian State of Washington in 1982 (WDFW caribou, especially as it relates to their government has endorsed the MCRIP, 2011, p. 38). In addition, this population habitat (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2011, p. which encompasses the southern within Washington is considered a 423). However, British Columbia has mountain caribou DPS in Canada Species of Greatest Conservation Need (British Columbia Ministry of by WDFW (WDFW 2005, p. 620). A 4 The southern mountain population of woodland Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) 2007, $12,000 criminal wildlife penalty is caribou is a broader outdated grouping of caribou in litt.). For further information on assessed by WDFW for illegally killing that was based on Canada’s ‘‘National Ecological caribou conservation efforts in Canada, or possessing a caribou in Washington Areas’’ (NEAs) established by COSEWIC in 1994 under the Factor A analysis, above, see (COSEWIC 2002, pp. 7, 18–19). Please see our State (WDFW 2012, p. 73). We do not response to Comment (2), below, for a more Efforts in Canada under ‘‘Conservation have data that suggest illegal killing is completed description of historical woodland Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, affecting caribou numbers in any of the caribou groupings in Canada. Modification, or Curtailment of Its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52625

Range’’ and under the Factor C analysis, Hunting regulations at the national affect the status of southern mountain above, see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to and State levels provide adequate caribou and their habitat. Reduce Disease or Predation.’’ protections regarding the legal take of E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors caribou in the United States. We do not Substantial progress has been made Affecting Its Continued Existence for certain MCRIP goals, such as have data that suggest illegal killing is protecting habitat through government affecting caribou numbers in any of the Avalanches and Stochastic Events actions regulation (GAR) orders in subpopulations within the southern As explained previously, predation British Columbia. However, other goals, mountain caribou DPS, and we do not and genetic drift are two examples of such as reducing the effects from consider this a threat to the species. demographic stochasticity that can predation and habitat restoration, have In Canada, the southern mountain negatively impact the status of these seen less progress made. Additional caribou DPS is protected as threatened small, fragmented mountain caribou work and time are still needed to at the national level under SARA, while subpopulations. Mountain caribou, implement all goals identified in the British Columbia considers them to be because they live in high-elevation, MCRIP to adequately reduce threats to critically imperiled. British Columbia, steep habitats that receive deep winter the southern mountain population of Canada, has also enacted legislation snowfall, are also susceptible to caribou in Canada. (i.e., Forest and Range Practices Act, environmental stochastic factors such as Wildlife Act) that enables the BCMOE to avalanches. According to Seip and Local Ordinances implement regulations for the protection Cichowski (1996, p. 76), avalanches are The Service sought but was unable to of wildlife, which it has done for a natural source of mortality to caribou. find any local regulatory mechanisms caribou. A recovery plan, the MCRIP, This has been a notable threat to caribou addressing caribou habitat management has been endorsed by British Columbia. within the Revelstoke area of Canada, or protection within the United States or While efforts have been made towards within the southern mountain caribou Canada. meeting the goals identified in that DPS, where the terrain is particularly recovery plan, additional work and time steep and rugged with very high Private are needed to meet all the goals. snowfall (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. Currently, we are unaware of any Presently, there is not a hunting season 76). Although avalanches are generally regulatory mechanisms addressing in Canada for caribou within the a natural phenomenon, the threat of caribou habitat management or southern mountain caribou DPS. avalanches to caribou may be increasing protection on private lands within the Caribou subpopulations continue to because caribou may be displaced into United States. decline within the southern mountain steeper, more avalanche-prone terrain DPS despite regulatory mechanisms during the winter from snowmobile and Summary for Factor D being in place in the United States and other winter recreational activities The vast majority of caribou habitat in Canada. However, U.S. Federal and (Simpson 1987, p. 1; Seip and the Selkirk Mountains of the United State, and Canadian national and Cichowski 1996, p. 79). States is located on USFS land, provincial, regulations are providing Threats of all stochastic events such specifically the CNF and IPNF. Both the some protection for the caribou within as avalanches become more serious as CNF and IPNF have incorporated the southern mountain caribou DPS. subpopulations become isolated and caribou habitat management standards The current status of caribou habitat is population numbers decrease. This is into their LRMPs. Therefore, we expect largely an artifact of historical (and in the case in the southern extent of the both the CNF and IPNF to continue some cases current) silvicultural southern mountain caribou DPS. For managing for caribou and their habitat practices and wildfires that reset the example, a small population of fewer into the future. successional forest stage and structure than 10 individuals in Banff National While the IDL also manages a favoring early successional ungulate Park (just outside the southern substantial portion of caribou habitat species (e.g., deer, elk, moose) that in mountain caribou DPS) was extirpated within the southern Selkirk Mountains turn support higher densities and in April of 2009, from a single subpopulation, they are not required to distribution of predators that prey avalanche event (Hebblewhite et al. manage their land for caribou. The IDL’s opportunistically on caribou. The reality 2010, p. 342). As discussed in ‘‘Biology’’ under land management plans, particularly is that it will require several decades of Species Information in our proposed timber harvest plans, do not currently appropriate forest management to rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. consider caribou and do not address the reduce habitat fragmentation and 26507), caribou also have low identified threats to woodland caribou. achieve the old-growth forest structure reproductive rates compared to other IDL does consider caribou in their that will begin to restore the natural cervids, with females typically predator-prey ecology of this ecosystem winter access plan and has, in the past, reproducing for the first time at 3 years and, thus, reduce the predation pressure closed snowmobile trails to prevent of age and producing only a single calf on caribou. Remedies to address threats winter disturbance; however, some of per year (Cicchowski et al. 2004, p. 230; such as control of predators are not these trail closures have been recently Shackleton 2010, p. 1). This low logistically easy to implement, may be relaxed and will remain open to winter reproductive rate can affect the motorized use unless there is a expensive to address, and may meet resiliency 5 of the subpopulation to confirmed caribou sighting. Because social resistance. withstand demographic and IDL’s land management plans, including We have determined that, while environmental stochastic impacts. Calf timber harvest and winter access, do not existing regulatory mechanisms in the United States and Canada enable both consider woodland caribou, we 5 Resiliency describes the ability of a species to conclude that management of IDL’s the United States and Canada to withstand stochastic disturbance. Resiliency is lands is likely not alleviating or ameliorate to some extent the identified positively related to population size and growth addressing the threat of habitat loss, threats to the southern mountain rate, and may be influenced by connectivity among caribou DPS, the existing mechanisms populations. Generally speaking, populations need habitat fragmentation, or disturbance abundant individuals within habitat patches of from winter recreation to caribou within do not completely alleviate the potential adequate area and quality to maintain survival and the Selkirk Mountains subpopulation. for the identified threats to adversely reproduction in spite of disturbance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52626 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

mortality averages 50 to 70 percent Cumulative Effects published in the Lewiston Morning within their first year (COSEWIC 2002, As alluded to in the discussions Tribune, Idaho Statesman, Coeur p. 35). Low reproductive rates and high above, many of the causes of caribou d’Alene Press, Spokesman Review, calf mortality reduce the resiliency of population declines are linked, often by Bonners Ferry Herald, Bonner County the subpopulation. the threat of habitat alteration. For Daily Bee, Priest River Times, and The Additionally, the two subpopulations example, predation is one of the most Miner. Subsequently, on June 10, 2014, we extended the public comment period predicted not to be extirpated within 90 significant threats to caribou within the until August 6, 2014 (79 FR 33169). We years are located at the far north of the southern mountain caribou DPS. received requests for public hearings. DPS’s range; in fact, they are the two Predation is directly linked, in part, to Public informational sessions and most northern subpopulations within habitat alteration and the associated hearings were held on June 25, 2014, in the DPS. Thus, after 90 years, it is introduction of early seral vegetation Sandpoint, Idaho, and on June 26, 2014, and the creation of roads within caribou predicted that the DPS will have been in Bonners Ferry, Idaho (79 FR 33169). habitat in the southern mountain extirpated from over 65 percent of its On March 24, 2015, we reopened the caribou DPS. Specifically, the current range, including most of the public comment period for an introduction of early seral habitat and southern portion, which would severely additional 30 days, ending on April 23, 6 new forest roads has altered the reduce representation of the southern 2014, to allow the public time to review predator/prey ecology of the southern mountain caribou DPS within its range. new scientific information received after mountain caribou DPS by creating Based on observed declines in the previous public comment period (80 suitable habitat for alternate ungulate abundance, the subpopulations that may FR 15545). We also reopened the public remain are already exhibiting reduced prey and accessibility for their comment period on April 19, 2016, for resiliency. Therefore, the decreased predators, respectively, into caribou an additional 30 days, ending on May redundancy 7 and reduced resiliency of habitat. Human disturbance, another of 19, 2016, addressing a U.S. District the southern mountain caribou DPS the threats to caribou within the Court for the District of Idaho remand of places it at greater risk of extinction southern mountain caribou DPS, is also the final critical habitat rule to correct sooner than 100 years as predicted by linked to habitat alteration because of a procedural error (81 FR 22961). Wittmer (2004, p. 88), due to existing the increased accessibility of caribou Including all public comment periods demographic and environmental habitat that new forest roads have for the proposed rule, we received over stochastic factors. provided. Habitat alteration, in turn, is 400 individual comments. Additionally, directly tied to and caused by another, we received a form letter representing Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other and possibly two other, threats listed comments from almost 2,000 different Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting above—human development and individuals. During the June 25, 2014, Its Continued Existence climate change. Specifically, human public hearing in Sandpoint, Idaho, six development and the resources it individuals or organizations made We are not aware of any conservation requires, probably in concert with measures currently being implemented comments, and during the June 26, climate change, have altered caribou 2014, public hearing in Bonners Ferry, to reduce impacts to caribou from habitat within the southern mountain avalanches or other stochastic events. Idaho, five individuals or organizations caribou DPS. This alteration has provided comments on the proposed Summary for Factor E occurred through forest harvest and the rule. All substantive information creation of new infrastructure. It is provided during comment periods has Caribou are susceptible to stochastic reasonable to expect that human either been incorporated directly into events such as avalanches due to small development and the resources it this final determination or is addressed subpopulation sizes and isolation of demands will continue to alter and below. these subpopulations. Subpopulations fragment caribou habitat in the future. are increasingly at risk from impacts of This, in turn, will continue to promote Peer Reviewer Comments stochastic events as they become more altered predator/prey ecology and In accordance with our peer review isolated and their population numbers associated increases in caribou policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR decline. The threat from avalanches is predation, and human disturbance in 34270), we solicited expert opinion amplified further when caribou are caribou habitat within the southern from four knowledgeable individuals displaced from their preferred habitat mountain caribou DPS. The suite of all with scientific expertise that included into steeper, more dangerous habitat as these related threats, combined with familiarity with the southern mountain a consequence of human recreation. each other, have posed and continue to caribou DPS and its habitat, biological Therefore, we have determined these pose a significant threat to caribou needs, and threats. We received other natural or manmade factors within the southern mountain caribou responses from all four of the peer affecting its continued existence pose DPS. reviewers. threats to the continued existence of the We reviewed all comments received Summary of Comments and southern mountain caribou DPS. from the peer reviewers for substantive Recommendations issues and new information regarding 6 Representation describes the ability of a species In the proposed rule published on the listing of the southern mountain to adapt to changing environmental conditions May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26504), we caribou DPS. The reviewers provided overtime. It is characterized by the breadth of requested that all interested parties comments and clarifications pertaining genetic and environmental diversity within and submit written comments on the to the taxonomy of mountain caribou, among populations. proposal by July 7, 2014. We also status of the DPS, type and degree of 7 Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events. It is about spreading contacted appropriate Federal and State threats affecting the status of the DPS, risk among multiple populations to minimize the agencies, scientific experts and and our proposal to list the DPS as potential loss of the species from catastrophic organizations, and other interested threatened. Peer reviewer comments are events. Redundancy is characterized by having parties and invited them to comment on addressed in the following summary multiple, resilient populations distributed within the species’ ecological settings and across the the proposal. Newspaper notices and incorporated into the final rule as species’ range. inviting general public comment were appropriate.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52627

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52628 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52629

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52630 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52631

zone) that are important to the that individual caribou in this southern mountain population have conservation of the species, both inside population are physically and evolved unique life-history strategies, and outside the critical habitat behaviorally separated from individual enabling their persistence in an designation, will continue to be subject caribou in other populations. According ecological setting unique among to: (1) Conservation actions to the State’s comments, this woodland caribou. This ‘‘unique implemented under section 7(a)(1) of population’s unique adaptation to behavior and ecological setting’’ is the Act, (2) regulatory protections subsisting on arboreal lichens, whereas markedly different from other woodland afforded by the requirement in section other caribou do not, is not a behavior caribou populations. 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to that is ‘‘markedly separate’’ from other (18) Comment: The State of Idaho’s insure their actions are not likely to woodland caribou populations. The OSC commented that the southern jeopardize the continued existence of State used the polar bear as an example mountain caribou does not occupy an any endangered or threatened species, where we determined that polar bear ecological setting unique to woodland and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of populations are not markedly separate caribou, and cite gray squirrels and the the Act if actions occurring in these because their differences ‘‘do not boreal population of woodland caribou areas may affect the species. These outweigh the similarities that are most in Canada to refute the Service’s protections and conservation tools will relevant to the polar bear’s conservation assessment. Relative to gray squirrels, continue to contribute to recovery of status—in particular, the species’ the State commented that the Service this species. universal reliance on sea ice for critical determined that certain populations of life functions.’’ gray squirrels’ reliance on pine tree Comments From States Our Response: As we described in our seeds was not unique because, across (16) Comment: The State of Idaho response to Comment (16), several lines their range, gray squirrels consume a questioned the Service’s justification of evidence support our conclusion that variety of tree seeds. The State that the southern mountain population caribou in the southern mountain commented that, because the boreal is discrete and significant, and asserted caribou DPS are geographically population of woodland caribou also that our DPS determination is (Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 408–409; utilizes arboreal lichens, the Service conclusory and unsupported by current COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van Oort et al. cannot use the southern mountain available information. 2011, pp. 222–223), behaviorally caribou’s reliance on arboreal lichens as Our Response: We appreciate the (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; a rationale for supporting their State of Idaho’s comments. Since Edmonds 1991, p. 91; Stevenson et al. occupancy of a unique ecological issuing the May 8, 2014, proposed rule 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. setting. (79 FR 26504), as described earlier in 224, 230–231; MCST 2005, p. 2; Our Response: As discussed in our this rule, we have determined that, in COSEWIC 2011, p. 50), and response to Comment (17), the accordance with our DPS policy, the reproductively (van Oort et al. 2011, pp. uniqueness of the ecological setting best available scientific information 221–222) isolated and discrete from occupied by southern mountain caribou supports our conclusion that the other woodland caribou populations. hinges on the fact that they are the only southern mountain caribou population Thus, we did not rely on a single woodland caribou population that is geographically, reproductively, and measure to assess discreteness. occurs in high-elevation, mountainous behaviorally discrete from other caribou Additionally, unlike the polar bear habitats in the wet and very wet populations. example, where the species exhibits subzones of the Engelmann Spruce– Under our DPS policy, assessing the universal reliance on sea ice for its Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone, the significance of a discrete population to survival, caribou in the southern wet and very wet subzones of the the taxon may consider several lines of mountain caribou DPS occupy different Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, and the evidence or analysis. Under the DPS habitats in a very different ecological very wet subzones of the Sub-Boreal policy only one line of evidence is setting from other woodland caribou Spruce zone that typically receive needed to demonstrate that the southern populations, and have evolved a very between 2 to 5 meters of snow during mountain caribou population is unique foraging strategy to secure their the winter (van Oort 2010, p 216). The significant relative to the woodland life-history needs. Other neighboring occupancy of this type of ecological caribou subspecies. We have identified caribou populations occupy less steep, setting is unique among woodland two: (1) Persistence in a unique drier terrain with less winter snow pack, caribou; other woodland caribou ecological setting, and (2) evidence that and do not feed on arboreal lichens populations occupy less steep, drier loss of the discrete population segment during the winter (Thomas et al. 1996, terrain with less winter snow pack, and would result in a significant gap in the p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 50). Caribou do not feed almost exclusively on range of the taxon. In summary, the best in the southern mountain caribou DPS arboreal lichens during the winter available science supports our occur in high-elevation, mountainous (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC determination that this population habitats in the wet and very wet 2011, pp. 50). Adaptation to this unique exists in an ecological setting unique to subzones of the Englemann Spruce– ecological setting has resulted in the the taxon, and its loss would represent Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone, the southern mountain caribou’s almost a significant gap in the range of the wet and very wet subzones of the complete reliance on arboreal lichens taxon, and, therefore, it is a DPS Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, and the during winter to support their pursuant to our DPS policy. very wet subzones of the Sub-Boreal nutritional requirements (as previously (17) Comment: The State of Idaho’s Spruce zone that typically receive discussed), as well as their very unique Office of Species Conservation (OSC) between 2 to 5 meters (6 to 16 ft) of migration behavior. Caribou within this commented that we have relied snow during the winter (van Oort et al. population undertake as many as four primarily on the fact that caribou in the 2011, p. 216). Caribou in this population altitudinal migrations per year southern mountain caribou DPS occupy have adopted a foraging strategy that is (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) between ‘‘high elevation, mountainous habitats unique among other woodland caribou seasonal habitats, which is unique with deep snowfall’’ that forces them to populations wherein they rely almost among caribou. While the boreal rely on arboreal lichens as the single entirely on arboreal lichens during the population of woodland caribou may measure supporting our determination winter months. Thus, caribou in the consume arboreal lichens, they do not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52632 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

rely on arboreal lichens (almost environmental change (Lesica and assertion by noting that the spruce exclusively) as the only source of forage Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Bunnell et al. component of the total net volume of for 3 to 4 months of the year as southern 2004, p. 2,242). Additionally, data tend merchantable trees obtained from IDL mountain caribou do. In addition, boreal to show that peripheral populations are ownership comprised only 5.4 percent caribou occur in lower elevation persistent when species’ range collapse in 1968, and 7.3 percent in 1980. As habitats characterized by mature to old- occurs (Lomolino and Channell 1995, p. such, IDL recommended removing growth coniferous forest composed of 342; Channell and Lomolino 2000, pp. Evans (1960) as a scientific source of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and black 84–86; Channell 2004, p. 1). Of 96 information used in the analysis. spruce (Picea mariana) with abundant species whose last remnant populations Our Response: We assume the Forest lichens, or muskegs and peat lands were found either in core or periphery Supervisor of the Kanisku National intermixed with upland or hilly areas of the historical range (rather than some Forest at that time was knowledgeable (Environment Canada 2012, p. 9). in both core and periphery), 91 (95 about the conditions on the forest under (19) Comment: The State of Idaho’s percent) of the species were found to his supervision. Therefore, we have no OSC commented that we analyzed exist only in the periphery, and 5 (5 reason to question the accuracy of his inappropriately the significance of the percent) existed solely in the center statements as reflected in Evans (1960). loss of the southern mountain caribou (Channell and Lomolino 2000, p. 85). Additionally, the time frame IDL uses relative to the British Columbia Also, as described previously, caribou (i.e., 1968 to 1980) to refute the spruce population of woodland caribou instead within the southern mountain caribou timber harvest volume is much later of the entire woodland caribou DPS occur at the southern edge of than the 1950s time span upon which subspecies. The State also questioned woodland caribou range (i.e., they are a Evans (1960, pp. 123–124) bases his the significance of a loss of 2.5 degrees peripheral population), and have assessment. Thus, we take Evans (1960) in the range of the woodland caribou adapted to an environment unique to at face value and consider it to represent subspecies. woodland caribou. Peripheral the best available science, providing an Our Response: Our ‘‘gap in the range’’ populations adapted to different accurate record of historical timber analysis discussed the decline of environments may facilitate speciation harvest composition on the forest in the woodland caribou within British (Mayr 1970 in Channell 2004, p. 9). 1950s. Columbia that has resulted from habitat Thus, the available scientific literature (22) Comment: The IDL stated that the loss and fragmentation, overhunting, data support the importance of Service portrayed timber harvest and the effects of predation. We also peripheral populations for conservation management of caribou habitat on IDL discussed the fact that the woodland (Fraser 1999, entire; Lesica and lands incorrectly. The IDL maintains caribou population in British Columbia Allendorf, 1995, entire). that caribou are considered in timber has declined by about 40 percent. (20) Comment: The State of Idaho’s management planning on IDL-owned However, our significance finding rested OSC commented that we did not lands in the Priest Lake area through on analyzing what the loss of the support our finding in the proposed rule adjustments borne out of discussions southern mountain caribou population that the southern mountain caribou DPS with the IDFG. would represent to the entire woodland is threatened. Our Response: Currently, the Service caribou subspecies. In this case, we Our Response: Upon receiving is not aware of any specific management determined that the southern mountain numerous comments along this line standards the IDL has developed and caribou population represents (i.e., the DPS should or should not be implemented to maintain or enhance approximately 2.5 degrees in the range listed, should or should not be listed as caribou habitat. However, the Service of the entire woodland caribou either threatened or endangered), we re- recognizes that IDL considers the subspecies, and its loss would represent assessed our analysis pertaining to the potential effect to caribou during a significant gap in the range of the status of the DPS. Consequently, based discussions with IDFG when planning woodland caribou subspecies. on our re-assessment, we determined timber harvest within caribou habitat. Regarding the significance of 2.5 degrees that the DPS is endangered, and have The Service also recognizes that the Act latitude loss of woodland caribou range, provided additional analysis in this affords caribou protection through the Service has not established a final rule supporting our determination section 9 prohibitions. Section 9 of the threshold of degrees latitude loss or under Status of the Southern Mountain Act prohibits taking a listed species. percent range reduction for determining Caribou DPS and C: Disease or The definition of take includes harm, significance to a particular taxon. The Predation, above. Also see and harm is defined at 50 CFR 17.3 as importance of specific degrees latitude Determination, below. ‘‘an act which actually kills or injures loss and/or percent range reduction, and (21) Comment: The Idaho Department wildlife. Such act may include the analysis of what such loss or of Lands (IDL) questioned the use of significant habitat modification or reduction ultimately means to Evans (1960) as best available science in degradation where it actually kills or conservation of individual species/ describing the historical composition of injures wildlife by significantly subspecies necessarily will be specific forests and the effects of fires, insect and impairing essential behavioral patterns, to the biology of the species/subspecies disease outbreaks, and logging on including breeding, feeding or in question. However, as we explained caribou habitat in the United States, as sheltering.’’ Incidental take of a listed in our proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May much of Evans’ information was species cannot be exempted where such 8, 2014, see p. 79 FR 26512), peripheral obtained from a personal interview with incidental take would lead to the populations can possess slight genetic the Forest Supervisor of the Kanisku jeopardy of the species or prevent its or phenotypic divergences from core National Forest. The IDL questioned recovery and/or conservation. However, populations (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, Evans’ (1960) assertion, based on the Section 10 of the Act allows for certain p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50). The interview, that harvest (both salvage and exceptions such as permits; one avenue genotypic and phenotypic non-salvage) of spruce trees was a is through development of habitat characteristics peripheral populations significant component of timber volume conservation plans (section 10(a)(1)(B)). may provide to the core population of obtained from forests during the early (23) Comment: The Washington the species may be central to the 1950s as a result of insects, disease, and Department of Fish and Wildlife species’ survival in the face of blow-down. IDL calls into questions this (WDFW) stated its support of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52633

amendment to the listed entity and (25) Comment: The State of Idaho’s peer reviewers, Tribes, British considers it an appropriate OSC stated that it has been a committed Columbia, Canada, the states of interpretation of the DPS policy that partner in the conservation of caribou Washington and Idaho, and the general should be applied consistently. The and will continue to support efforts to public. We also acknowledge that we WDFW would like the Service’s conserve this population, and is are aware that COSEWIC has continued support and partnership currently working with the Service and recommended to the Canadian Federal working with other State and Tribal the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to develop Environment Minister that the legal partners to conserve and recover the an updated recovery plan for caribou. status of southern mountain caribou DU species. Our Response: We appreciate the (which is equivalent to our DPS) be Our Response: We look forward to State’s significant interest and active changed from threatened to endangered working with WDFW, IDFG, and Tribes involvement in the conservation of the under SARA. in a coordinated effort to achieve caribou and its habitat, and look (28) Comment: The Kalispel Tribe of recovery of this species. forward to continued work with the Indians recommended that a (24) Comment: The State of Idaho’s State of Idaho, as well as the State of transboundary recovery strategy be OSC supported the Service’s Washington, Tribes, USFS, and developed to neutralize the threats commitment to transparency during the Canadian partners in a coordinated responsible for the decline. listing process. The OSC also effort to achieve recovery of this species. Our Response: Although recovery commented that the Service should not (26) Comment: The State of Idaho’s planning is beyond the scope of this rely on COSEWIC’s assessment and OSC stated that it supports the Service’s listing decision, we are committed to recommendation to list the southern final rule designating 30,010 ac (12,145 achieving the conservation and recovery mountain caribou DU as endangered ha) of critical habitat in the United of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To under SARA as supporting a listing States. The State believes the final rule, that end, the Service has recently determination of either endangered or which is a reduction from the proposed renewed recovery planning efforts that threatened under the Act, primarily 375,562 ac (151,985 ha) of critical includes coordination with our partners because the protections afforded species habitat, represents the best available within the United States (e.g., WDFW, listed under SARA differ from those scientific information, appropriately IDFG, Tribes, and others) as well as our listed under the Act, but also because recognizes the area occupied by the Canadian partners (e.g., British COSEWIC’s recommended listing species at the time of listing, and Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, Lands, determination to SARA is advisory. adequately analyzes the area providing and Natural Resource Operations; Our Response: The Act requires that the physical and biological features Ktunaxa Nation; and others), with the the Service base its listing decisions on essential to ‘‘conserve’’ (emphasis in ultimate goal of developing an updated the best available scientific and original) the Selkirk population of recovery plan for this transboundary commercial data. Therefore, we utilized woodland caribou. DPS. the COSEWIC 2014 status assessment, Our Response: The Service (29) Comment: In a letter to the as well as other scientific data and appreciates the State’s support. Service on August 6, 2014, the Kootenai information, in our final listing Tribe of Idaho commended the Service’s Comments From Native American decision. However, we are not relying analysis and proficiency in collecting Tribes on the ultimate decision that Canada the best available scientific and may make with regard to COSEWIC’s (27) Comment: In a letter to the commercial information to support the listing recommendation under SARA to Service on August 6, 2014, the Kalispel proposed rule. The Tribe commented support our final listing decision Tribe of Indians recommended that the that it is proud of the close working pursuant to the Act. We did, however, Service list the southern mountain relationship the Tribe has with the consider the significant and caribou DPS as endangered. The Tribe Service in working cooperatively to comprehensive analysis COSEWIC was specifically concerned about address impacts to Kootenai Territory completed, specific to the southern declines in the Selkirk Mountain herd and the Kootenai Tribe. The Tribe also mountain caribou, in their 2014 status over the past 4 years, citing a decline acknowledged that the Service has assessment on the Northern Mountain, from 46 animals to 18 animals. The worked government-to-government with Central Mountain, and southern Tribe also mentioned that the Canadian the Tribe on issues affecting caribou. mountain caribou populations in portion of the DPS is currently in the The Tribe requested the continuation of Canada (COSEWIC 2014, entire) as process of being listed as endangered by government-to-government relations to substantively informing our analysis on the Canadian Ministry of Forests, Lands, further address caribou conservation. the status of the southern mountain and Natural Resource Operations. The Tribe agreed with the Service’s caribou DPS in accordance with the Act Our Response: We appreciate the determination that the southern and other laws, policies, and regulations Kalispel Tribe of Indians concern over mountain caribou population meets the governing review of species considered the decline of the southern Selkirk DPS criteria and that the southern for listing under the Act. Additionally, Mountains subpopulation. With regard Selkirk Mountain subpopulation alone while it is important for the Service to to the Tribe’s comment that the does not meet the DPS criteria. understand COSEWIC’s rationale for its southern mountain caribou DPS should Our Response: The Service values its listing recommendations to the be listed as endangered, pursuant to our government-to-government relationship Canadian government, the Service must analysis of new information pertaining with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and base its listing decisions in accordance to the status of subpopulations within greatly appreciated the formal with our laws, regulations, and policy, this DPS, we find that the southern discussion on May 22, 2014, regarding the legal underpinnings of which may mountain caribou DPS should be listed the Service’s proposed rule, as well as not be the same as Canada’s Federal as endangered under the Act. We have conservation of caribou in general. In laws. Thus, based on differences in provided our analysis for the accordance with the President’s statutory language between the endangered classification of this DPS in memorandum of April 29, 1994 Canadian and U.S. laws, listing this final listing determination, which is (Government-to-Government Relations decisions may differ between Canada based upon the best available scientific With Native American Tribal and the United States. information, as well as comments from Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52634 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52635

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52636 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

the designation and management of that document, we determined the basis for recommendations to list critical habitat for the southern Selkirk designation of critical habitat was not species. Mountains subpopulation of woodland prudent at that time. That determination Primary or original information caribou. was based on the conclusion that sources are those that are closest to the (42) Comment: The Kootenai Tribe of increased poaching could result from subject being studied, as opposed to Idaho commented that caribou recovery the publication of maps showing areas those that cite, comment on, or build is more important than critical habitat used by the species. The 1984 listing upon primary sources. The Act and our designation or a proposed rule to amend rule identified that poaching regularly regulations do not require us to use only the listing, and ideally, habitat occurred and that a radio-collared peer-reviewed literature, but instead conservation, population viability, and caribou was shot in 1983 (49 FR 7390), they require us to use the ‘‘best recovery efforts would work together to and cited poaching of at least one scientific and commercial data provide a holistic approach to caribou animal from the southern Selkirk available’’ in a listing determination. We recovery. The Kootenai Tribe indicated caribou herd in 1980, 1981, 1982, and use information from many different that it looks forward to working 1983 (49 FR 7392). The proposed rule’s sources, including articles in peer- government-to-government with the other reference to poaching (see 79 FR reviewed journals, scientific status Service and with all our co-sovereigns 26517) is a reference to Evans (1960, p. surveys, and studies completed by in the United States and Canada toward 131) who, based on his studies of qualified individuals; Master’s thesis caribou recovery and protecting and caribou in the northwestern United research that has been reviewed but not enhancing the Kootenai Tribe’s Treaty- States, believed that, at that time, published in a journal; other reserved rights. poaching may have been impacting the unpublished governmental and Our Response: Although recovery status of caribou in the area he studied. nongovernmental reports; reports planning for the southern mountain Additionally, according to the Service’s prepared by industry; personal caribou DPS is beyond the scope of this 1994 recovery plan (p. 22), poaching communication about management or rule, section 4(f)(4) of the Act states that was known to be a significant cause of other relevant topics; conservation plans the Secretary shall, prior to final caribou mortality in the Selkirk developed by States and counties; approval of a new or revised recovery Mountains. For example, a mortality of biological assessments; other plan, provide public notice and an a transplanted caribou in Washington in unpublished materials; experts’ opportunity for public review and 1988 was being investigated, one case in opinions or personal knowledge; and comment on such plan, and shall Idaho in 1990 was successfully other sources. consider all information presented prosecuted, and two more caribou Threats during the public comment period. Any mortalities in Idaho in 1992 were being (44) Comment: One commenter successful recovery planning effort will investigated. Furthermore, in 1984, asserted that the Service did not fully require input and participation by British Columbia closed all big game assess new threats, such as new human appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, local, hunting within a portion of caribou development, particularly increased and private stakeholders to identify range in southern British Columbia in infrastructure for energy extraction, measures needed to conserve any an effort to reduce illegal shooting of pipelines, power lines, and mines, to species listed under the Act. The caribou (Service 1994a, p. 23). Finally, the DPS in its analysis. Service looks forward to working with Johnson (1985, entire), who analyzed Our Response: We have added the Tribe as well as other partners and caribou mortality in the Selkirk and additional discussion on these threats to stakeholders within the United States Purcell Mountains in British Columbia, the Summary of Factors Affecting the and Canada interested in recovery of Canada, from 1967 through 1983, Species section of this final rule (see this population. determined that illegal hunting ‘‘Human Development’’ under the Public Comments accounted for 75 percent of caribou Factor A analysis). mortality within these populations over (45) Comment: We received a few Poaching this time frame. comments pertaining to silvicultural (43) Comment: One commenter In accordance with section 4(b)(1) of management within caribou habitat. questioned the Service’s inclusion of the Act, the Service is required to use One commenter suggested that logging poaching as a serious threat to the the ‘‘best available scientific and operations should be restricted in Selkirk Mountain caribou population, commercial data’’ in its listing caribou habitat. One commenter without citing poaching data in both the determinations. Our Policy on suggested that logging of old growth proposed rule and in the 1994 recovery Information Standards under the Act forest has nothing to do with decreases plan (p. 24). The commenter stated that (published in the Federal Register on in the caribou population. Another the use of anecdotal poaching July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the commenter stated that proper harvesting information from 1980 to 1990 should Information Quality Act (section 515 of and management of the forest in the area not be included in the proposed rule if the Treasury and General Government of the proposed caribou habitat would it cannot be confirmed by citable facts. Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 go far toward creating a habitat that is Our Response: In the May 8, 2014, (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our conducive to the return of caribou to the proposed rule (79 FR 26504), we associated Information Quality area, and that the Idaho Department of determined that there is no information Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/ Lands has amply demonstrated that they indicating that, currently, illegal killing informationquality/) provide criteria have incorporated excellent of caribou is a threat (see 79 FR 26523). and guidance, and establish procedures management procedures that would The commenter may be referring to the to ensure that our decisions are based facilitate such a return. following two instances we referenced on the best scientific data available. Our Response: Loss and fragmentation poaching in the proposed rule. The They require our biologists, to the extent of caribou habitat (including old-growth proposed rule’s first reference to consistent with the Act and with the use forests) in an ecosystem that has been poaching (see 79 FR 26505) was related of the best scientific and commercial significantly altered from historical to the Service’s February 29, 1984, data available, to use primary and forest conditions due to a combination listing determination (49 FR 7390). In original sources of information as the of timber harvest, wildfires, and road

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52637

construction continues to be a primary Range.’’ Additionally, we are committed including habitat loss and long-term threat to caribou. Historical to achieving the conservation and fragmentation, disturbance, and implementation of timber management recovery of the DPS, as is required by increased predation. Additionally, we practices (e.g., large clear cuts) was not the Act. To that end, the Service will appreciate that effective enforcement of compatible with maintaining caribou actively coordinate and participate with caribou habitat protection measures can habitat. To the extent that these same our partners within the United States be challenging. We will continue types of timber harvests would be (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) working with our partners (both within implemented today, such treatments and Canada (e.g., British Columbia’s the United States and Canada) who would similarly be incompatible with Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural manage landscapes within caribou the habitat requirements of caribou. Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; habitat to identify and implement Certain timber harvest treatments may and others) on the development of appropriate management strategies to result in benign or even beneficial management objectives to maintain and reduce, if not eliminate, impacts effects to caribou habitat, and that, in enhance woodland caribou habitat. detrimental to caribou conservation and some situations timber harvest may be Based on an analysis conducted by recovery. used to achieve or promote quicker Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 91), increasing (47) Comment: One commenter attainment of tree species composition proportions of early seral forest (e.g., referenced language in the final critical or certain structural characteristics (e.g., fragmentation) within caribou habitat habitat rule (77 FR 71042; November 28, old-growth). results in increasing rates of extinction 2012) recommending the development Within the United States, a majority of caribou populations. Increased of a wildland fire use plan by the IPNF of the habitat occupied by the southern proportion of young forest supports to deal with management of fire (both Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou higher densities and distribution of natural and human-caused) within the subpopulation of southern mountain other ungulate species that in turn ecosystem. The commenter suggested caribou DPS is administered by national supports higher predator numbers that that all fires within caribou habitat forests, specifically the IPNF and CNF. prey opportunistically on caribou. should be suppressed because of the Federal agencies, pursuant to section 7 Additionally, higher predator numbers fire’s potential to create habitat for other of the Act, are required to coordinate can further accelerate the rate of predators or competitors of caribou. For with the Service on any actions the population decline through example, the commenter referenced agencies undertake, fund, or permit that depensatory 8 mortality effects (Wittmer research conducted by Robinson et al. have the potential to affect listed species et al. 2010, p. 91). It will likely require (2012) that showed wolves select for (in this case, the caribou). Therefore, greater than 150 years (greater than 16 burns and areas adjacent to burns pursuant to section 7 consultation under generations of caribou) of habitat whereas caribou avoid burns, and that the Act, the Service will coordinate with protections for early successional and fires increased the probability of wolf- the Federal agencies (e.g., CNF and fragmented forests to develop the old- caribou overlap. IPNF) during the course of developing growth habitat characteristics Our Response: The Selkirk Ecosystem, timber harvest activities within caribou (vegetative structure and composition) in addition to providing habitat for habitat to appropriately minimize the (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1) that would caribou, also supports habitat for other effects of such activities upon caribou begin to restore the natural predator to species native to the ecosystem, conservation and recovery. prey balance of high-elevation, old- including Canada lynx, grizzly bear, Additionally, we acknowledge that both growth forests, and thus reduce other forest carnivores, and avian the IPNF and CNF have implemented predation pressure on caribou. species including the black-backed extensive measures to protect caribou (46) Comment: One commenter stated woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). The and caribou habitat on their land that the Service must consider Canada lynx and black-backed ownerships, within the existing Selkirk documented snowmobiling violations woodpecker, for example, rely on fires Mountain Caribou Recovery Zone. within the area of Selkirk Mountain to facilitate the development and or We also understand that all other Caribou Recovery Zone closed to maintenance of habitat they utilize to woodland caribou subpopulations snowmobiling by court order until the provide some of their life-history needs. (including the transboundary southern IPNF develops and implements a winter Thus, natural wildfire plays an Selkirk Mountain subpopulation) and travel plan when determining what important role in maintaining a mosaic their habitat occur in British Columbia, habitat protections are necessary for of forest successional stages that Canada. Canada has implemented recovery of the southern Selkirk provides habitat for a variety of species several measures to manage and protect Mountains caribou subpopulation. The native to this ecosystem. However, we caribou habitat from further commenter suggested that these also appreciate the research findings of fragmentation and loss, including, but violations may have affected the Robinson et al. (2012, entire) relative to not limited to: (1) In 2007, Canada functionality of the area to benefit the effects of fire upon caribou habitat endorsed the Caribou Recovery caribou, potentially impairing caribou and wolf/caribou habitat overlap and Implementation Plan (MCRIP) that distribution within the ecosystem as interactions. Thus, in the November 28, protects 5,436,320 ac (2,200,000 ha) well as increasing their susceptibility to 2012, final rule designating critical from logging and road building; and (2) predation. habitat (77 FR 71042), we recommended all national parks (NPs) in Canada are Our Response: We acknowledge that the development of a wildland fire use strictly protected from commercial snowmobiling violations of the area plan that will facilitate assessment of resource extraction, which includes closed by court ordered injunction on the appropriate use of fire or fire Glacier NP and Mount Revelstoke NP the IPNF have occurred. Human activity suppression within the Selkirk that together comprise approximately in caribou habitat can affect caribou Ecosystem to maintain the variety of 333,345 ac (134,900 ha). For more through a variety of mechanisms, habitats and structural stages supporting information, under the Factor A the species native to this ecosystem. analysis, above, see Efforts in the United 8 In population dynamics, depensation is the States under ‘‘Conservation Efforts to effect on a population whereby, due to certain Predator Control causes, a decrease in the breeding population Reduce Habitat Destruction, (mature individuals) leads to reduced production (48) Comment: Several commenters Modification, or Curtailment of Its and survival of eggs or offspring. suggested southern mountain caribou

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52638 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52639

all species (inclusive of both predator pp. 224, 230–231; MCST 2005, p. 2; variable and necessarily specific to the and prey) native to this ecosystem. COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) discrete from biology of the species in question. For other woodland caribou populations. example, a certain number of animals DPS/Genetic Discreteness/Uniqueness While there is limited overlap between within a population might be (50) Comment: Several commenters the annual ranges of some considered significant for a given agreed with our DPS analysis, while subpopulations at the far north of the species that naturally has low density, several others disagreed. Several southern mountain caribou DPS and distribution, and reproductive capacity, commenters suggested that the Service’s other subpopulations of the Central while for another species that naturally statement that the southern mountain Mountain (DU 8) caribou population, occurs at higher densities, larger caribou population is markedly separate this overlap does not occur during the distribution, and possesses higher from other populations of woodland rut or mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. reproductive capacity, that same caribou as a result of physical 50). Furthermore, according to van Oort number of animals might be considered (geographic) factors is not well et al. (2011, pp. 221–222), it is highly insignificant. Furthermore, under our supported and there is no evidence of a likely that caribou subpopulations DPS policy, the number of individual physical barrier preventing movement. within the southern mountain caribou animals in a population is not the basis, One commenter disagreed with our DPS DPS (also known as southern mountain per se, of the significance analysis. analysis indicating that the southern (DU 9)) are reproductively isolated from Rather, the significance test under the Selkirk Mountain caribou one another, let alone between DPS policy assesses the significance of subpopulation is part of the larger neighboring caribou populations (i.e., a population (that theoretically could be southern mountain caribou DPS. One Central Mountain (DU 8), Northern comprised of many or few individuals) commenter stated that there is no new Mountain (DU 7)). Thus, during the to the taxon (i.e., species or subspecies) information proving that the southern mating season, when genetic to which it belongs, and may include, mountain caribou are discrete or interchange would occur, individual but is not limited: (1) Persistence of the significant, and implied we relied on a caribou in the southern mountain discrete population segment in an single characteristic in our significance caribou DPS are reproductively isolated ecological setting unusual or unique for conclusion. One commenter challenged through geographic separation from the taxon; (2) evidence that the discrete the perception that significant numbers other woodland caribou occurring in the population segment differs markedly of caribou occurred in the United States neighboring Central Mountain (DU 8) from other population segments in its prior to or since listing, even with the population. Additionally, caribou genetic characteristics; (3) evidence that augmentation efforts. One commenter within the southern mountain caribou the population segment represents the stated that evidence of historical gene DPS occur in high-elevation, steep, only surviving natural occurrence of the flow between the local southern mountainous terrain supporting deep taxon that may be more abundant mountain subpopulations and other snowfall (about 5 to 16 ft; 2 to 5 m) elsewhere as an introduced population neighboring populations undermines (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that has resulted outside its historical range; and (4) our discreteness analysis, and is in a foraging strategy unique among evidence that loss of the discrete contrary to the Service’s statement that woodland caribou; caribou within this population segment would result in a the southern Selkirk Mountain DPS subsist almost entirely upon significant gap in the range of the taxon. subpopulation is isolated or incapable arboreal lichens during winter months of migrating from their current habitats Relative to connectivity of the within the southern Selkirk Mountains. (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; southern mountain caribou DPS to other Our Response: Regarding Edmonds 1991, p. 91; Stevenson et al. neighboring mountain caribou discreteness, under our 1996 DPS 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. populations (i.e., Northern and Central), policy, a population segment of a 224, 230–231; MCST 2005, p. 2; evidence of historical gene flow vertebrate species may be considered COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Finally, caribou between these populations does not discrete if it satisfies either one of the within this DPS undertake altitudinal contradict evidence suggesting that following conditions: (1) It is markedly migrations as many as four times per these populations are now isolated from separated from other populations of the year, which is also unique among one another. While the conclusions of same taxon as a consequence of woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2,594) indicate physical, physiological, ecological, or 50). Therefore, in accordance with our that historical gene flow (i.e., movement behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited DPS policy, the best available scientific of individuals between populations) did by international governmental information supports our conclusion occur in the past between these boundaries within which differences in that the southern mountain caribou populations, studies investigating recent control of exploitation, management of population is geographically, caribou movement patterns indicate this habitat, conservation status, or reproductively, and behaviorally is no longer the case. A radio-telemetry regulatory mechanisms exist that are discrete from other caribou populations. study conducted by van Oort et al. significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) Regarding the statement that we relied (2011, entire) on all subpopulations of of the Act. Thus, the policy does not on a single characteristic to establish the caribou within this DPS from 1984 require there to be a physical barrier significance of this DPS relative to the through 1987 did not detect any preventing movement of individual woodland caribou taxon, please see our dispersal of juvenile caribou between animals between populations to satisfy responses to Comments (16) and (17). subpopulations, and very little adult the discreteness criteria. The best Regarding significant numbers of dispersal between subpopulations (van available science indicates the southern caribou in the United States, we are Oort et al. 2011, p. 221). Similarly, mountain caribou DPS is both unclear if the comment pertained to the Wittmer et al. (2005b, entire) geographically (Wittmer et al. 2005b, significance analysis we conducted investigated caribou movement patterns pp. 408–409; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van under our DPS policy. The commenter within the same population from 1984 Oort et al. 2011, pp. 222–223) and also did not define what would be through 2004, and found limited behaviorally (Servheen and Lyon 1989, considered a significant number of interaction between the subpopulations p. 235; Edmonds 1991, p. 91; Stevenson animals. However, a definition of (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 414). We et al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, significant number of animals is highly presume a similar lack of dispersal (i.e.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52640 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

connectivity) is currently the case represent a geographic pattern trending caribou DU/DPS in British Columbia, between the southern mountain caribou toward extinction (van Oort et al. 2011, Canada, or the United States. Further, DPS and the other neighboring Northern p. 215). hunting is prohibited in all national Mountain and Central Mountain caribou (51) Comment: We received three parks and ecological preserves in British populations. This presumption is comments pertaining to the provision of Columbia. Thus, according to Seip and supported by COSEWIC (2011, pp. 49– our DPS policy allowing use of Cichowski (1996, p. 73), hunting has not 50), which concludes that the southern international borders to identify discrete been a major limiting factor to caribou mountain caribou population is likely vertebrate populations. One commenter within the southern mountain caribou isolated from the Northern Mountain suggested that differences in DPS since the mid-1970s. Additionally, and Central Mountain caribou management of southern Selkirk British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, populations. We believe that the Mountain caribou and their habitat Lands, and Natural Resource apparent lack of dispersal between between the United States and Canada Operations, recognizing the impact of neighboring caribou populations, as is sufficient enough to warrant use of predation on the status of the well as the observed lack of dispersal the international border provision of the subpopulations within the DPS, is between subpopulations within the DPS policy to delineate the southern undertaking aggressive measures to southern mountain caribou DPS, is an Selkirk Mountains subpopulation as a control predator populations (e.g., artifact of recent anthropogenic habitat DPS and retain its endangered status. targeted wolf removal operations within fragmentation, which is supported by Another commenter suggested a similar the South Peace region in northern the conclusions of Serrouya et al. (2012, use of the international border provision British Columbia and the South Selkirk p. 2,597) and van Oort et al. (2011, p. for similar reasons, but suggested it Mountains). 222). should apply to the southern mountain (52) Comment: Two commenters caribou population and likewise be used questioned the Service’s evaluation of Additionally, we are unclear as to the to list it as endangered. Specifically, the uniqueness based on the use of steep, reference to the isolation of the southern commenter alleges that Canadian mountainous habitats and/or feeding on Selkirk Mountain caribou management of the southern mountain arboreal lichens. One of the commenters subpopulation. The analysis under caribou population has failed to prevent stated that other North American Discreteness in the May 8, 2014, or reverse the decline of the population. species of cervids (i.e., elk, mule deer, proposed rule (79 FR 26504, see p. Another commenter suggested that, American bison) all contain 26509) assessed the discreteness of the because caribou do not adhere to the subpopulations that historically and southern mountain caribou population 49th parallel (i.e., essentially the border currently occupy a diverse range of relative to the neighboring Northern and between the United States and Canada) habitats and food preferences yet are all Central Mountain Caribou populations. the caribou population in the United genetically the same species. This This analysis did not assess the relative States should not be considered a commenter stated that the Service’s connectivity of the southern Selkirk separate population. uniqueness determination is not Mountains subpopulation to other Our Response: Our DPS policy allows sufficiently supported by science. The subpopulations within the southern the use of international borders to other commenter suggested that mountain caribou DPS. Nonetheless, as identify a discrete vertebrate population mountain caribou’s reliance on arboreal just described, the best available science when it is delimited by international lichens is not unique because mountain indicates that the subpopulations within governmental boundaries within which caribou located south of the the southern mountain caribou DPS differences in control of exploitation, international border with Canada will (including the southern Selkirk management of habitat, conservation utilize whatever feed is available to Mountains subpopulation) are now status, or regulatory mechanisms exist them, and, therefore, use of arboreal largely isolated from one another. The that are significant in light of section lichens in and of itself is not evidence physical and reproductive isolation of 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. However, in this that this DPS occurs in a unique these subpopulations may have case, use of the international border to ecological setting. significant implications for the identify a DPS of the southern Selkirk Our Response: The southern conservation of the southern mountain Mountain woodland caribou mountain caribou DPS is the only caribou DPS as mountain caribou subpopulation is inappropriate for the woodland caribou population that appear to lack the inherent behavior to following reasons. First, there would occurs in high-elevation, mountainous disperse long distances (van Oort et al. need to be differences in the habitats in the wet and very wet 2011, pp. 215, 221–222). Dispersal of management of caribou between the subzones of the Englemann Spruce– individuals (natal or breeding) can United States and Canada that would Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone, the facilitate demographic rescue of differentially affect the conservation wet and very wet subzones of the neighboring populations that are in status of the population. In this case, Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, and the decline or recolonization of ranges from there are not. For example, similar to very wet subzones of the Sub-Boreal which populations have been extirpated habitat protections that have been Spruce zone that typically receive (i.e., classic metapopulation theory). implemented within the United States between 2 to 5 m (6 to 16 ft) of snow However, species whose historical for caribou, British Columbia, Canada, during the winter (van Oort 2011, p. distribution was more widely and has endorsed the Mountain Caribou 216). The occupancy of this type of evenly distributed (such as mountain Recovery Implementation Plan whose ecological setting is unique among caribou) (van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221) goal is to protect 2,200,000 ha woodland caribou; other woodland that have been fragmented into (5,436,320 ac) of caribou habitat from caribou populations occupy less steep, subpopulations via habitat logging and road building. There is no drier terrain with less winter snow pack, fragmentation and loss may appear to difference in the exploitation of and do not feed almost exclusively on exist in a metapopulation structure mountain caribou within the southern arboreal lichens during the winter when, in fact, because they may not mountain caribou DU/DPS between the (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC have evolved the innate behavior to United States and Canada; currently 2011, p. 50). Adaptation to this unique disperse among subpopulations, their legal hunting of mountain caribou is not ecological setting has resulted in the fragmented distribution may actually allowed within the southern mountain southern mountain caribou’s almost

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52641

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52642 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52643

have upon caribou. Dumont (1993, pp. 2,471,050 ac (1,000,000 ha) of caribou southern mountain caribou’s 31–33), in a study of the impact of habitat within the Canadian portion of conservation to the point at which the hikers on caribou in the Gaspesie the southern mountain caribou DPS to protections of the Act are no longer Conservation Park, Quebec, Canada, snowmobile use (MCRIPPB 2010, p. 10). required, and the DPS can then be concluded that hikers caused woodland The Service is committed to achieving delisted. As stated previously in the caribou to move from preferred alpine the conservation and recovery of the response to Comment (62), the Service areas into adjacent forested habitat. DPS, as is required by the Act. To that has initiated a process to update the Displacement of caribou into forested end, we will actively coordinate with 1994 recovery plan. Recovery plans are areas may increase their susceptibility our partners in the United States (e.g, intended to identify and establish to predation by moving caribou into WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) and management and conservation needs of areas of reduced visibility (Dumont Canada (e.g., British Columbia’s the species (in this specific case, the 1993, p. 11). Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural DPS) so that when they are achieved, Regarding the management of Resource Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; the species (DPS) can be delisted as the recreational snowmobile access, and others) on the development of protections of the Act will no longer be management of these lands is not under management objectives allowing for required to ensure its conservation. the Service’s purview. In the United snowmobile use and other recreational States, management of lands occupied activities to occur within the range of Cultural Importance by the southern Selkirk Mountain the DPS without resulting in excessive (64) Comment: Several commenters woodland caribou subpopulation is disturbance to caribou or fragmentation stated woodland caribou should be within the purview of the Federal (i.e., of their habitat to the extent that conserved because they are an CNF, IPNF, Bureau of Land conservation of the DPS would be important part of the ecosystem and Management) and State (i.e., Idaho undermined. environmental heritage of northeastern Department of Lands) land managers Washington and northwestern Idaho, Recovery and private landowners. The Service and because they are also culturally and will coordinate with the Federal (62) Comment: Several commenters spiritually important to Tribes. agencies managing the effects of stated that the Service should work Our Response: Although recovery recreational activities (including more closely with Canada on a recovery planning is beyond the scope of this snowmobiling) upon caribou and their plan, and that the Service should listing decision, we are committed to habitat through the development of land contribute more resources to the achieving the conservation and recovery and resource management plans. recovery effort. of the DPS, as is required by the Act. To Development of land and resource Our Response: We have recently that end, the Service will actively management plans are Federal actions (within the past year) initiated a process coordinate and participate in the subject to section 7 consultation under to revise the 1994 recovery plan. To development of a recovery plan with the Act for which Federal agencies must date, this process has included our partners within the United States consult with the Service. participation and coordination with (e.g., WDFW, IDFG, Tribes, and others) The Service acknowledges that some British Columbia, Canada, including as well as our Canadian partners (e.g., seasonal limitations on motorized British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, (primarily pertaining to snowmobiles) Lands, and Natural Resource Lands, and Natural Resource vehicle access to public lands have Operations, and Ktunaxa Nation (First Operations; Ktunaxa Nation; and occurred since listing of the southern Nations Canada), as well as U.S. entities others). Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of including USFS, WDFW, IDFG, woodland caribou under the Act. These Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Kalispel Tribe Request Access to More Information seasonal closures were put in place to of Indians, and local and environmental (65) Comment: One commenter minimize disturbance to caribou, and stakeholders. requested that the Service and State include a 1994 closure for a large area agency websites provide information (or Recovery/Role of Service of the Selkirk Crest on the IPNF. The provide links to the British Columbia’s 1994 closure was put in place to protect (63) Comment: Several commenters websites) about the status of mountain caribou from impacts related to referred to recovery success stories of caribou and recovery efforts in British snowmobiling, in coordination with the the Act (i.e., the eastern red wolf, Pacific Columbia to provide a better overall IDFG. Additionally, we understand that salmon now jumping fish ladders, the picture of the caribou situation. a court-ordered injunction in 2006, reintroduction of the California condor, Our Response: The Service will which was modified in 2007, has revival of the whooping crane, and even consider adding links to Canada’s restricted much of the area used by the comeback of the bison, which was COSEWIC web page on our web page for caribou within the Selkirk Crest from almost exterminated). One commenter woodland caribou. However, until such snowmobiling, until the IPNF develops stated that the Service would be derelict a link is established, information on a winter recreation strategy addressing in its duty by not providing caribou Canada’s efforts to recover woodland the effects of snowmobiling upon the with the same protection afforded to caribou can be found at http:// species. The Service will work closely other animals, such as the wolf and the www.cosewic.gc.ca. State’s web pages with the IPNF on the development of grizzly bear in Idaho. Several are managed by the appropriate State their winter recreation strategy. commenters expressed concern that the agency. Additionally, except for the Service is not enforcing the Act properly transboundary southern Selkirk and questioned the Service’s Taxonomy Mountain subpopulation, all other commitment to protecting threatened (66) Comment: We received many subpopulations of this DPS occur in and endangered species. comments pertaining to the taxonomy of Canada. Canada recognizes the potential Our Response: We hope to achieve caribou. Several agreed with the effect of snowmobile recreation on success with the conservation of the subspecies designation of woodland caribou and their habitat. For example, southern mountain caribou DPS. Listing caribou, while several others stated that in 2009, the British Columbia’s Ministry this DPS as endangered under the Act there is a need for a contemporary of Environment closed approximately requires that we strive to provide for the review and revision of caribou

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52644 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

taxonomy (Geist 2007; COSEWIC 2011, Selkirk caribou subpopulation (Rangifer The Service disagrees with the p. 10), and that the Banfield definition tarandus caribou) from the List of comment that only species, as opposed is outdated and should no longer be Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to subspecies, can be listed as DPSs used. Other commenters suggested that (discussed below) is insufficient and under the Act. The Act defines a the COSEWIC (2011, p. 49) definition is inconsistent with the Act. Some ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any subspecies of the best available definition at the commenters stated that the Act only fish or wildlife or plants, and any present time, and one commenter allows listing DPSs of species, and not distinct population segment of any implicitly questioned our DPS analysis subspecies, while other commenters species of vertebrate fish or wildlife by asserting there is no such thing as a stated that the Act allows designating which interbreeds when mature’’ (16 ‘‘mountain caribou’’ and that there is no DPSs of both species and subspecies. U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Service has long differentiation among caribou (i.e., all Our Response: On May 14, 2012, we interpreted the Act to authorize caribou are alike). received a petition from the Pacific designation of a DPS of both species and Our Response: As noted in our May Legal Foundation, representing Bonner subspecies. The 1996 DPS Policy 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504), County, Idaho, and ISSA requesting that explains the following: ‘‘Restricting while caribou taxonomy continues to be the Service delist the Selkirk caribou listings to full taxonomic species would subject to debate, Banfield’s (1961) subpopulation (Rangifer tarandus render the Act’s definition of species, taxonomic grouping of woodland caribou) from the List of Endangered which explicitly includes subspecies caribou is still currently widely and Threatened Wildlife. On December and DPS’s of vertebrates, superfluous. accepted. Thus, until a scientifically 19, 2012, we published a 90-day finding Clearly, the Act is intended to authorize accepted and peer-reviewed revision to (77 FR 75091) in response to that listing of some entities that are not the taxonomic classification of the petition. Our finding stated that the accorded the taxonomic rank of species, subspecies of caribou (Rangifer petition presented substantial and the Services are obliged to interpret tarandus) is completed, it is appropriate information indicating that the southern this authority in a clear and reasonable to rely on Banfield 1961. We believe Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of manner’’ (61 FR 4722–4723; February 7, that until such a review is completed, woodland caribou may not be a listable 1996). Consequently, the Service Banfield (1961) represents the currently entity under our 1996 DPS policy (61 FR believes ‘‘that the authority to address best available science on the taxonomic 4722, February 7, 1996). We DPS’s extends to species in which classification for the subspecies of acknowledged that our analysis in the subspecies are recognized, since caribou in North America. Additionally, 2008 5-year review did not consider the anything included in the taxon of lower COSEWIC’s 2011 report that established rank is also included in the higher 12 ‘‘Designatable Units’’ of caribou in southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of woodland caribou ranking taxon’’ (61 FR 4724; February 7, Canada is not analogous to and should 1996). Courts have specifically found not be construed with a taxonomic relative to the appropriate taxon allowable under our 1996 DPS policy, that listing a DPS of a subspecies is a analysis at the species or subspecies permissible construction of the Act (e.g., level. Canada’s criteria for establishing the subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Thus, the Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Designatable Units (DU) allows Fish and Wildlife Service, 274 Fed. consideration of separate and discrete Service initiated a review of the status of the woodland caribou subspecies to Appx. 542, 545 *2 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2008) populations of species where the (unpublished) (‘‘FWS has interpreted individually discrete population is determine if delisting the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of the ambiguous language of 16 U.S.C. evolutionarily significant to the overall 1532(16) to allow . . . listing [of a DPS taxon (species). Thus, under COSEWIC, woodland caribou is warranted. of a subspecies]. Because that is a a DU is not dissimilar to our DPS policy, Pursuant to that review, on May 8, 2014, permissible construction of the statute, except that, whereas our DPS analysis we published in the Federal Register we must accord it deference.’’); considers threats when establishing a (79 FR 26504) a 12-month finding on the Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 176 F. DPS, COSEWIC, when establishing a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Supp. 3d 975, 1110–11 (D. Mont. 2016) DU, does not. However, regardless of Mountains population of woodland (The Service may list a subspecies of a whether Banfield’s (1961) taxonomic caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). In species as a DPS because ‘‘[e]very classification for the subspecies of that 12-month finding, we stated that, species necessarily subsumes its own caribou in North America is used or upon review of the best available subspecies, meaning that a DPS of a COSEWIC’s grouping of caribou in scientific and commercial information, North America is used as the gauge for we found that delisting the species was subspecies is also a DPS of the larger assessing the discreteness and not warranted, but rather, a revision to species. Moreover, the Act defines significance of the southern mountain the then current listed entity to define ‘species’ to include subspecies, making caribou DPS relative to caribou in North a DPS, consistent with our 1996 DPS mere reference to a subspecies America, the southern mountain caribou policy, was appropriate. The Service statutorily equivalent to referencing a meets the discreteness and significance acknowledges the commenter’s species.’’), appeal dismissed (9th Cir. criteria for identifying it as a DPS under disagreement with the Service’s 16–35466) (Oct. 7, 2016)). our DPS policy. For a discussion on the determination in that matter. Consistent (68) Comment: One commenter stated relevance of the biological grouping of with our determination, we proposed to that because various closure orders and the southern mountain caribou as a DPS amend the current listing of the restrictions have not increased the and its conformance to our DPS policy, southern Selkirk Mountains presence of caribou in the continental please refer to the DPS analysis subpopulation of woodland caribou by United States, caribou in the continental contained in this final rule. defining the southern mountain caribou United States should be declared (67) Comment: We received a few DPS, which includes the southern extirpated and delisted. The commenter comments regarding listing DPSs under Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of also stated that a population of the Act. One commenter stated that the woodland caribou, and we proposed to woodland caribou did not exist in the Service’s decision on the Bonner County designate the status of the southern United States at the time of listing in and Idaho State Snowmobile mountain caribou DPS as threatened 1983, nor since listing, and that, while Association (ISSA) petition to delist the under the Act. several caribou were released in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52645

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52646 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52647

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52648 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52649

species (see 77 FR 71042, November 28, subpopulation of woodland caribou concurrently with the final rule 2012, for a complete discussion on this only encompasses the States of designating critical habitat for southern topic). Washington and Idaho within the Selkirk Mountains subpopulation of Furthermore, designation of critical United States. While individuals of the woodland caribou on November 28, habitat for the southern Selkirk woodland caribou subspecies 2012 (77 FR 71042). The May 8, 2014, Mountains subpopulation of woodland historically occurred in other States proposed rule (79 FR 26504) to amend caribou occurred well before we within the United States, these the listing of the southern Selkirk undertook the DPS analysis for this individuals were most likely part of Mountains subpopulation of woodland species. Thus, our determination that other subpopulations of woodland caribou to the southern mountain the southern Selkirk Mountains caribou, separate from the southern caribou DPS stated that we are woodland caribou subpopulation was Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou ‘‘reaffirming’’ our November 28, 2012, not a DPS had no bearing on the final subpopulation. final critical habitat designation. As critical habitat designation. However, (80) Comment: One commenter such, the final economic analysis because the southern Selkirk Mountains asserted that, if the Service maintains completed for the designation of critical subpopulation is part of the southern the listing, it must analyze the impacts habitat in 2012 (77 FR 71042, November mountain caribou DPS, and is the only that the listing has on communities, 28, 2012) is incorporated by reference subpopulation within this DPS that residents, and businesses before into this final determination for the occurs within the United States and regulating take or critical habitat. southern mountain caribou DPS. Please where we have the authority to Our Response: Section 4 of the Act see the November 28, 2012, final critical designate critical habitat, we reaffirm (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing habitat rule (77 FR 71042) for an our November 28, 2012, final regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth the analysis of the economic impacts designation of critical habitat for the procedures for adding species to the associated with the designation of southern Selkirk Mountains population Federal Lists of Endangered and critical habitat that is applicable to this of woodland caribou (77 FR 71042, Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under DPS listing. Subsequent to that final November 28, 2012) as critical habitat section 4(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary critical habitat rule, and the reopening for the southern mountain caribou DPS. may determine whether any species is of the comment period on April 19, Finally, the final critical habitat an endangered or threatened species 2016 (81 FR 22961), for the final critical designation of 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) did because of any of the following five habitat rule in response to the March 23, not affect or reduce the size of the factors: (A) The present or threatened 2015, court order to address a existing recovery area (also known as destruction, modification, or procedural error, the Service has not the recovery zone) boundary, and did curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) received any additional or new not signal that habitat outside the overutilization for commercial, economic information or data. designated area is unimportant or may recreational, scientific, or educational Additionally, because we are simply not contribute to the recovery of the purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) ‘‘reaffirming’’ a critical habitat species. As stated previously, the the inadequacy of existing regulatory designation for which an economic purposes of the Act are to provide a mechanisms; or (E) other natural or analysis was completed, it is not means whereby the ecosystems upon manmade factors affecting its continued necessary to complete a new economic which endangered and threatened existence. Listing actions may be analysis. species depend may be conserved, to warranted based on any of the above provide a program for the conservation threat factors, singly or in combination. (81) Comment: One commenter of such endangered and threatened The Act does not provide any language suggested that because the take species, and to take such steps as may allowing the consideration of economic prohibition does not apply to threatened be appropriate to achieve the purposes impacts when making listing decisions species, it is inappropriate to conduct of the treaties and conventions set forth for species; listing decisions must be an incremental effects analysis for in section 2(a) of the Act. Although made solely on the basis of the best assessing economic impacts stemming recovery planning is beyond the scope scientific and commercial data available from critical habitat designations for of this listing decision, we are (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)) pertaining to species listed as, or proposed to be committed to achieving the the biological status of and threats to the listed as, threatened. Several conservation and recovery of the DPS, persistence of the species in question. commenters stated that an economic as is required by the Act. Please see our The Act does require, however, the impact analysis for the 30,010 ac response to Comment (15) for more consideration of economic impacts (12,145 ha) of critical habitat in information on this topic. when making decisions to designate Boundary and Pend Oreille Counties (79) Comment: One commenter critical habitat for listed species. was not included in the proposed rule. questioned why critical habitat was not Relative to this DPS, we completed an One commenter stated that because designated in other States in the lower economic analysis on the designation of critical habitat designations must be 48 States where caribou historically critical habitat for the southern Selkirk made ‘‘on the basis of the best scientific occurred (i.e., Montana, Minnesota, Mountains subpopulation of woodland data available and after taking into Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, New caribou in accordance with section consideration the economic impact, the Hampshire, and Maine). The commenter 4(b)(2) of the Act. We announced impact on national security, and any suggested the Service has not studied all availability of the draft economic other relevant impact, of specifying any historical caribou ranges and critical analysis for review, and reopened a 30- particular area as critical habitat’’ (16 habitat should have been designated in day public comment period to take U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)), the Service should these other States. comment on the draft economic analysis include an economic impact analysis in Our Response: See our analysis under for the proposed designation of critical the final rule. Several commenters Evaluation of the Southern Mountain habitat, on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32075). referenced the economic analysis Caribou as a Distinct Population We published the final economic commissioned by Bonner County and Segment and our response to Comment analysis, which incorporated comments Idaho State Snowmobile Association (78). Additionally, the range of the received on the draft economic analysis (ISSA), stating that the analysis southern Selkirk Mountain during the public comment period, demonstrates the detrimental effect

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52650 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52651

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52652 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52653

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52654 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52655

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52656 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

occurs within Canada. Critical habitat by and is a logical outgrowth of the danger of extinction or likely to become can be revised under section comments provided by the peer so in the foreseeable future throughout 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act as appropriate, reviewers, Federal and State agencies, all of its range; or a species may be in as additional scientific data on climate Tribes, and other organizations and danger of extinction or likely to become change or other significant information individuals. Finally, see our responses so throughout a significant portion of its becomes available. to Comments (78) and (89) for a range. If a species is in danger of (101) Comment: One commenter discussion of the rationale on which we extinction throughout an SPR, the stated that the Service must seek based the final critical habitat species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ additional peer review of the final determination. The same analysis applies to designation of 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of (103) Comment: One commenter ‘‘threatened species.’’ The SPR policy is critical habitat because the final stated that critical habitat designation applied to all status determinations, designation is a drastic departure from must be revised to correspond with the including analyses for the purposes of the Service’s proposal to designate entirety of the existing caribou recovery making listing, delisting, and 375,562 ac (151,985 ha), upon which the zone within the United States. reclassification determinations. Service solicited peer review. Our Response: See our response to Determination of Status Throughout All Our Response: The Service solicited Comment (15). expert opinions on the proposed critical of Its Range habitat rule from four individuals with Determination We proposed to list the southern scientific expertise on the woodland Introduction mountain caribou DPS as threatened in caribou; we received responses from all our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR four peer reviewers. One of the peer Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 26504). However, based on new reviewers commented that the proposed and its implementing regulations at 50 information received since the proposed rule was very thorough and accurate, CFR part 424, set forth the procedures rule and as described previously in this but the reviewer did not submit any for adding species to the Federal Lists rule, we now conclude that the status of additional comments. The other three of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and threats to this DPS warrant listing peer reviewers who provided and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the it as an endangered species. substantive comments indicated that the Act, we determine whether a species is The current abundance and number of area proposed for designation as critical an endangered species or threatened caribou subpopulations within the DPS habitat in the proposed rule was far species because of any one or a are limited to an estimated 1,356 greater than the area actually used by combination of the following: (A) The individuals in 15 extant subpopulations caribou. The peer reviewers stated that present or threatened destruction, (COSEWIC 2014, p. xviii). The ‘‘the major flaw’’ in the proposed rule modification, or curtailment of its population is declining, and based on was designating far too many of these habitat or range; (B) overutilization for population estimates over generations, it unused acres as meeting the definition commercial, recreational, scientific, or appears that the population rate of of critical habitat. The final designation educational purposes; (C) disease or decline is accelerating (see below). of critical habitat (77 FR 71042, predation; (D) the inadequacy of Additionally, while it is difficult to November 28, 2012) reflects the existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) establish a precise historical concerns expressed by the peer other natural or manmade factors distribution of woodland caribou reviewers and is a logical outgrowth of affecting its continued existence. Listing (including the distribution of the their comments. Therefore, the Service actions may be warranted based on any southern mountain subpopulation of is not required to seek additional peer of the above threat factors, singly or in woodland caribou), according to review of the final critical habitat combination. These five factors apply COSEWIC (2014, p. 14), mountain designation. whether we are analyzing the species’ caribou were much more widely (102) Comment: One commenter status throughout all of its range or distributed than they are today, and stated the final critical habitat throughout a significant portion of its based on this information, the range of designation is unlawful because it is not range. this DPS is decreasing. a logical outgrowth of the best available The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ As previously discussed under science and because the designation as any species that is ‘‘in danger of Summary of Factors Affecting the failed to include unoccupied habitats extinction throughout all or a significant Species, significant threats to the that are essential to the recovery of this portion of its range’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) southern mountain caribou DPS include dwindling population. and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species increased levels of predation due to Our Response: In the November 28, which is ‘‘likely to become an changes in the predator/prey dynamics 2012, final critical habitat determination endangered species within the (factor C); increased human access into (77 FR 71042), which the Service foreseeable future throughout all or a caribou habitat, resulting in disturbance proposed to reaffirm in our May 8, 2014, significant portion of its range’’ (16 of caribou from use of roads and off- proposal to amend the listing of the U.S.C. 1532(20)). The definition of road vehicles (factor B); and climate southern mountain caribou DPS (79 FR ‘‘species’’ is also relevant to this change (factor A). All of these threats 26504), the Service based our final discussion. On July 1, 2014, we are linked with continuing habitat designation of critical habitat for the published a final policy interpreting the alteration (factor A) and occur southern Selkirk Mountains phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ throughout the entire range of the DPS. subpopulation of woodland caribou on (SPR) (79 FR 37578). In our policy, we These threats are not adequately the best available scientific information. interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion ameliorated by existing regulatory See our response to Comment (101). of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of mechanisms (factor D). Through this Additionally, several other comments ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened evaluation, we have determined that received from State agencies, Tribes, species’’ to provide an independent these factors pose significant threats to and others agreed with peer reviewers basis for listing a species in its entirety; the continued existence of the southern that the proposed rule was overly thus there are two situations (or factual mountain caribou DPS. These threats expansive. The final designation of bases) under which a species would are expected to continue in the critical habitat, therefore, was informed qualify for listing: A species may be in foreseeable future.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52657

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52658 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

DPS’s range leaves the DPS without Available Conservation Measures endangered or threatened or may be sufficient redundancy to withstand Conservation measures provided to downlisted or delisted, and methods for existing demographic and/or species listed as endangered or monitoring recovery progress. Recovery environmental stochastic threats and threatened under the Act include plans also establish a framework for severely reduces representation of the recognition, recovery actions, agencies to coordinate their recovery population within its range. requirements for Federal protection, and efforts and provide estimates of the cost Additionally, declining and small prohibitions against certain practices. of implementing recovery tasks. subpopulation sizes, low reproductive Recognition through the listing results Development of a recovery plan for the rates, and high calf mortality reduces in public awareness and conservation southern mountain caribou DPS will be the resiliency of this DPS to withstand by Federal, State, Tribal, and local coordinated with species experts from these same threats. Severely reduced agencies; private organizations; and Canada, Tribes, and the United States. When completed, the draft recovery redundancy, resiliency, and individuals. The Act encourages plan and the final recovery plan will be representation greatly increase the risk cooperation with the States and requires available on our website (http:// that recovery actions be carried out for of extinction of the entire DPS. In www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our conclusion, we have determined that all listed species. The protection Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR required by Federal agencies and the the southern mountain caribou DPS FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). prohibitions against certain activities meets the definition of an endangered Implementation of recovery actions species because it is in danger of are discussed, in part, below. generally requires the participation of a The primary purpose of the Act is the extinction throughout all of its range. broad range of partners, including other conservation of endangered and Federal agencies, States, Tribes, Determination of Status Throughout a threatened species and the ecosystems nongovernmental organizations, Significant Portion of Its Range upon which they depend. The ultimate businesses, and private landowners. goal of such conservation efforts is the Examples of recovery actions may Because we found that the species is recovery of these listed species, so that an endangered species because of its include habitat restoration (e.g., they no longer need the protective restoration of native vegetation), status throughout all of its range, we do measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of not need to conduct an analysis of its research, captive propagation and the Act requires the Service to develop reintroduction, and outreach and status in any portions of its range. This and implement recovery plans for the is consistent with the Act because the education. The recovery of many listed conservation of endangered and species cannot be accomplished solely species is currently in danger of threatened species. The recovery extinction throughout all of its range on Federal lands because their range planning process involves the may occur primarily or solely on non- due to high-magnitude threats across its identification of actions that are Federal lands. To achieve recovery of range, or threats that are so high in necessary to halt or reverse the species’ these species requires cooperative particular areas that they severely affect decline by addressing the threats to its conservation efforts on private, State, the species across its range. Therefore, survival and recovery. The goal of this and Tribal lands. the species is in danger of extinction process is to restore listed species to a Following publication of this final throughout every portion of its range, point where they are secure, self- listing rule, funding for recovery actions and an analysis of whether the species sustaining, and functioning components will be available from a variety of is in danger of extinction or likely to of their ecosystems. sources, including Federal budgets, become so throughout any significant A Selkirk Mountain Caribou State programs, and cost share grants for portion of its range would be redundant Management Plan/Recovery Plan was non-Federal landowners, the academic and unnecessary. See the Final Policy approved by the Service in 1985 community, and nongovernmental on Interpretation of the Phrase (USFWS 1985), and a revised recovery organizations. In addition, pursuant to ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the plan for woodland caribou in the section 6 of the Act, the States of Idaho Act’s Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Selkirk Mountains was approved by the and Washington will be eligible for Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (79 Service in 1994 (USFWS 1994a). An Federal funds to implement FR 37578, July 1, 2014). update regarding the status of this management actions that promote the recovery plan can be found in the latest protection or recovery of the southern Determination of Status 5-year status review for the species mountain caribou DPS. Information on (USFWS 2008, entire). While actions our grant programs that are available to We have carefully assessed the best have been carried out in an attempt to aid species recovery can be found at: scientific and commercial information recover this subpopulation, the recovery http://www.fws.gov/grants. available regarding the past, present, criteria in the 1994 recovery plan were Section 7(a) of the Act requires and future threats to the southern determined to be inadequate (USFWS Federal agencies to evaluate their mountain caribou DPS. Because the 2008, p. 15). In addition, this recovery actions with respect to any species that species is in danger of extinction plan only applies to this one is proposed or listed as an endangered throughout all of its range, the species subpopulation, and does not extend to or threatened species and with respect meets the definition of an endangered the entire southern mountain caribou to its critical habitat, if any is species. Therefore, on the basis of the DPS. Consistent with this final rule, designated. Regulations implementing best scientific and commercial data revisions to the existing plan, in this interagency cooperation provision available and per our DPS policy, we coordination with British Columbia, of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part amend the current listing of the Canada, will be required to address the 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires endangered southern Selkirk Mountains entire DPS and the continuing or new Federal agencies to confer with the population of woodland caribou, as threats to the DPS. A new recovery plan Service on any action that is likely to identified at 50 CFR 17.11(h), to reflect for this DPS would identify site-specific jeopardize the continued existence of a the southern mountain caribou DPS as management actions that set a trigger for species proposed for listing or result in an endangered species in accordance review of the five factors that determine destruction or adverse modification of with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. whether the listed entity remains proposed critical habitat. If a species is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52659

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of is listed, those activities that would or government-to-government basis. In the Act requires Federal agencies to would not constitute a violation of accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 ensure that activities they authorize, section 9 of the Act. The intent of this of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal fund, or carry out are not likely to policy is to increase public awareness of Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust jeopardize the continued existence of the effect of a listing on proposed and Responsibilities, and the Endangered the species or destroy or adversely ongoing activities within the range of Species Act), we readily acknowledge modify its critical habitat. If a Federal listed species. The following activities our responsibilities to work directly action may affect a listed species or its could potentially result in a violation of with Tribes in developing programs for critical habitat, the responsible Federal section 9 of the Act; this list is not healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that agency must enter into formal comprehensive: Tribal lands are not subject to the same consultation with the Service. 1. Introduction of nonnative species controls as Federal public lands, to Federal agency actions within the that compete with or prey upon remain sensitive to Indian culture, and species’ habitat that may require individuals of the southern mountain to make information available to Tribes. consultation as described in the caribou DPS; and We address the comments we preceding paragraph include, but may 2. Unauthorized modification of the received from Tribes on our May 8, not be limited to: Management and any old growth, coniferous forest landscape 2014, proposed amended listing rule (79 other landscape-altering activities on within the southern mountain caribou FR 26504) under Comments from Native Federal lands administered by the USFS DPS. American Tribes, above. We had several and Bureau of Land Management, At this time, we are unable to identify informal technical discussions and issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act specific activities that would not be meetings with both the Kalispel Tribe of (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the considered to result in a violation of Indians and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, section 9 of the Act due to the variety during 2014–2017. We had one formal construction and management of gas and nature of activities that may occur government-to-government meeting pipeline and power line rights-of-way within caribou habitat across the range with the Kootenai Tribe on May 22, by the Federal Energy Regulatory of the DPS. Depending on the 2014, as well as two recent meetings Commission, and construction and implementation timing, intensity, and with the Tribe on January 12 and March maintenance of roads or highways by duration of such activities, it is likely 22, 2017, to discuss recovery planning, the Federal Highway Administration. that site-specific conservation measures which included some discussion of the The Act and its implementing may be needed for specific activities listing. regulations set forth a series of general that may directly or indirectly affect the prohibitions and exceptions that apply species. References Cited to all endangered wildlife. The Questions regarding whether specific A complete list of all references cited prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, activities would constitute a violation of in this rule is available on the internet codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered section 9 of the Act should be directed at http://www.regulations.gov or upon wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any to the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office request from the State Supervisor, Idaho person subject to the jurisdiction of the (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, Required Determinations FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt National Environmental Policy Act (42 Authors any of these), import, export, ship in U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) interstate commerce in the course of The primary authors of this final rule commercial activity, or sell or offer for We have determined that are the staff members of the Idaho Fish FOR FURTHER sale in interstate or foreign commerce environmental assessments and and Wildlife Office (see any listed species. Under the Lacey Act environmental impact statements, as INFORMATION CONTACT). (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), defined under the authority of the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, National Environmental Policy Act of carry, transport, or ship any such 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Endangered and threatened species, wildlife that has been taken illegally. need not be prepared in connection Exports, Imports, Reporting and Certain exceptions apply to agents of the with listing a species as an endangered recordkeeping requirements, Service and State conservation agencies. or threatened species under the section Transportation. We may issue permits to carry out 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice Regulation Promulgation otherwise prohibited activities outlining our reasons for this involving endangered and threatened determination in the Federal Register Accordingly, we amend part 17, wildlife species under certain on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the circumstances. Regulations governing Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth Government-to-Government permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for below: Relationship With Tribes endangered species, and at 50 CFR PART 17—ENDANGERED AND In accordance with the President’s 17.32 for threatened species. With THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS regard to endangered wildlife, a permit memorandum of April 29, 1994 must be issued for the following (Government-to-Government Relations ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 purposes: For scientific purposes, to with Native American Tribal continues to read as follows: enhance the propagation or survival of Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive the species, and for incidental take in Order 13175 (Consultation and Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– connection with otherwise lawful Coordination with Indian Tribal 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. activities. Governments), and the Department of It is our policy, as published in the the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR readily acknowledge our responsibility entry for ‘‘Caribou, woodland [Southern 34272), to identify to the maximum to communicate meaningfully with Selkirk Mountains DPS]’’ under extent practicable at the time a species recognized Federal Tribes on a MAMMALS in the List of Endangered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 52660 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

MAMMALS

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

*******

■ 3. In § 17.95(a), amend the entry for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus subalpine meadows with succulent ‘‘Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Southern Mountain Distinct forbs and grasses, flowering plants, caribou) Southern Selkirk Mountains Population Segment (DPS) horsetails, willow, huckleberry, dwarf Population’’ by: * * * * * birch, sedges, and lichens. The southern ■ a. Revising the heading; (2) Within this area, the primary mountain caribou DPS, including ■ b. 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. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv); and conservation of the southern mountain seasons. ■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(5). caribou DPS consist of five components: * * * * * The 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 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 52661

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Oct 01, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER02OC19.003