Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing, 26503-26535 [2014-09601]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26503-26535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09601]



[[Page 26503]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 89

May 8, 2014

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2014 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 26504]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; FXES11130900000C2-123-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AZ74


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This 
species is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that delisting the 
species is not warranted, but rather, a revision to the current listed 
entity to define a distinct population segment (DPS), consistent with 
our 1996 distinct population segment policy, is appropriate. As such, 
we propose to amend the current listing of the southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou by defining the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and we propose to 
designate the status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as threatened 
under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS will be listed as threatened under the Act. This 
DPS includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population 
of woodland caribou, a transboundary population that moves between 
British Columbia, Canada, and northern Idaho and northeastern 
Washington, United States. We have determined that the approximately 
30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) designated as critical habitat on 
November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), for the southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou is applicable to the U.S. portion of the 
proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and, as such, reaffirm the 
existing critical habitat for the DPS should the proposed amendment to 
the listed entity become final.

DATES: We will accept all comments received or postmarked on or before 
July 7, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests 
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by June 23, 2014

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search field, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on the blue ``Comment Now!'' box. If 
your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this 
feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with 
our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a 
separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you 
attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format 
is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Carrier, State Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. 
Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; telephone 208-378-5243; 
facsimile 208-378-5262. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule.
     For any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we are required under the Act to 
promptly publish a finding in the Federal Register within 1 year. 
Listing, removing, or changing the status of a species as an endangered 
or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
     Any proposed or final rule affecting the status of a 
possible DPS as endangered or threatened under the Act should clearly 
analyze the action using the following three elements: Discreteness of 
the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to 
which it belongs; the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs; and the conservation status of the 
population segment in relation to the Act's standards for listing.
     Under the Act, any species that is determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species requires critical habitat to be 
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. 
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed 
through rulemaking. Here we propose to reaffirm the designation of 
approximately 30,010 acres (ac) (12,145 hectares (ha)) in one unit 
within Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, Washington, as 
critical habitat for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS should the 
proposed amendment to the listed entity become final.
    This rule proposes to amend the current listing of the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou as follows:
     By defining the Southern Mountain Caribou distinct 
population segment (DPS), which includes the currently listed southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou;
     By designating the status of the Southern Mountain Caribou 
DPS as threatened under the Act; and
     By reaffirming the designation of approximately 30,010 ac 
(12,145 ha) as critical habitat for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
    The basis for our action. The southern Selkirk Mountains woodland 
caribou was listed under the Act on February 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390). 
According to our ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS 
policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), the appropriate application of 
the policy to pre-1996 DPS listings shall be considered in our 5-year 
reviews. We conducted a DPS analysis during our 2008 5-year review, 
which concluded

[[Page 26505]]

that the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou met 
both the discreteness and significance elements of the DPS policy. 
However, we now recognize that this analysis did not consider the 
significance of this population relative to the appropriate taxon. The 
purpose of the DPS policy is to set forth standards for determining 
which populations of vertebrate organisms that are subsets of species 
or subspecies may qualify as entities that we may list as endangered or 
threatened under the Act. In the 2008 5-year review, we assessed the 
significance of the southern Selkirk Mountains population to the 
``mountain ecotype'' of woodland caribou. The ``mountain ecotype'' is 
not a species or subspecies. The appropriate DPS analysis for the 
southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou should have 
been conducted relative to the subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer 
tarandus caribou). Listing or reclassifying DPSs allows the Service to 
protect and conserve species and the ecosystems upon which they depend 
before large-scale decline occurs that would necessitate listing a 
species or subspecies throughout its entire range.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
review our application of that science, and provide any additional 
scientific information to improve this proposed rule. We will consider 
all comments and information received during the comment period, and as 
a result, our final determination may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly 
seek comments concerning:
    (1) The DPS' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical, current, and projected population levels and trends 
of the local populations of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the DPS, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing or 
delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this DPS and regulations that may be 
addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this DPS, including 
the locations of any additional local populations of this DPS.
    (5) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by the DPS 
and possible impacts of these activities on this DPS.
    (6) Information regarding the current status and population trends 
of the local populations that comprise the Southern Mountain Caribou 
DPS. This information will be used to determine the status of the DPS 
as either not warranted for listing, threatened, or endangered.
    (7) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and its habitat.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. We 
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hard copy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. 
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will 
be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov. All 
comments, materials, and supporting documentation are available by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Idaho Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1980, the Service received petitions to list the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou as endangered under 
the Act from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and Dean 
Carrier, a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) staff biologist and former 
chairman of the International Mountain Caribou Technical Committee 
(IMCTC). At that time, the population was believed to consist of 13 to 
20 animals (48 FR 1722, January 14, 1983). Following a review of the 
petition and other readily available data, the southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus 
caribou) in northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and southeastern 
British Columbia was listed as endangered under the Act's emergency 
procedures on January 14, 1983 (48 FR 1722). A second emergency rule 
was published on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49245). A final rule listing 
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer 
tarandus caribou) as endangered was published on February 29, 1984 (49 
FR 7390). The designation of critical habitat was determined to be not 
prudent at that time. This determination was based on the conclusion 
that increased poaching could result from the publication of maps 
showing areas used by the species. A Selkirk Mountain Caribou 
Management Plan/Recovery Plan was approved by the Service in 1985 
(USFWS 1985). A revised Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou in the 
Selkirk

[[Page 26506]]

Mountains was approved by the Service in 1994 (USFWS 1994).
    Notices of 90-day findings on two petitions to delist the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus 
caribou) were published in the Federal Register on November 29, 1993 
(58 FR 62623), and November 1, 2000 (65 FR 65287). Both petitions were 
submitted by Mr. Peter B. Wilson, representing the Greater Bonners 
Ferry Chamber of Commerce, Bonners Ferry, Idaho. We found that neither 
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that delisting of the southern Selkirk Mountains population 
of woodland caribou was warranted.
    On April 11, 2006, a notice of initiation of 5-year reviews for 70 
species in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Guam was published in 
the Federal Register (71 FR 18345). This notice included the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The Southern Selkirk 
Mountains Caribou Population 5-Year Review was completed December 5, 
2008 (USFWS 2008; see https://www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf).
    On December 6, 2002, the Defenders of Wildlife, Lands Council, 
Selkirk Conservation Alliance, and Center for Biological Diversity 
(plaintiffs) petitioned the Service to designate critical habitat for 
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. On 
February 10, 2003, we acknowledged receipt of the plaintiffs' petition, 
and stated we were unable to address the petition at that time due to 
budgetary constraints. On January 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a 
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (Defenders of Wildlife 
et al., v. Salazar, CV-09-15-EFS) in Federal district court. This 
complaint alleged that the Service's failure to make a decision more 
than 6 years after the petition was submitted violated the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706). Following a 
stipulated settlement agreement, we published a proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018), and a 
final rule on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), designating 
approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) as critical habitat. The 
critical habitat is located in Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille 
County, Washington. Although the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland 
caribou local population is a transboundary species with Canada, in 
accordance with our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h), 
critical habitat was not designated outside of the jurisdiction of the 
United States.
    More recently, we received a petition on May 14, 2012, from the 
Pacific Legal Foundation, representing Bonner County, Idaho, and the 
Idaho State Snowmobile Association. The petition requested that the 
Service ``delist the Selkirk caribou population (Rangifer tarandus 
caribou) from the list of endangered species.'' On December 19, 2012, 
we published a 90-day finding (77 FR 75091) in response to that 
petition. Our finding stated that the petition presented substantial 
information indicating that the current southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou may not be a listable entity under our 
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722). We acknowledged that our analysis in the 
2008 5-year review did not consider the southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou relative to the appropriate taxon 
allowable under our 1996 DPS policy, the subspecies woodland caribou 
(Rangifer tarandus caribou). This proposed rule constitutes our review 
of the population relative to the appropriate taxon.

Species Information

Taxonomy
    All caribou and reindeer worldwide are considered to be the same 
species (Rangifer tarandus). Although they are referred to by different 
names, they are able to interbreed and produce offspring (Committee on 
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2002, p. 9; 
Hummel and Ray, 2008, p. 31). Caribou are in the Order Artiodactyla 
(even-toed ungulates) and Family Cervidae (deer) (Integrated Taxonomic 
Information System (ITIS) 2013, in litt.; Mountain Caribou Science Team 
(MCST) 2005, p. 1; Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 2013, 
in litt.; COSEWIC 2011, p. 11). In Europe, the common name for Rangifer 
tarandus is reindeer. In North America, the common name for the species 
is caribou; only the domesticated forms are called reindeer (Cichowski 
et al. 2004, p. 224). For consistency, the term caribou will be used to 
refer to the species Rangifer tarandus in this Federal Register 
document. According to the American Society of Mammalogists' checklist 
of mammal species of the world (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural 
History 2013, in litt.) and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System 
(ITIS \1\), 14 subspecies of caribou are currently recognized 
worldwide, including the subspecies woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus 
caribou, as defined by Banfield (1961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ITIS is a database created through a partnership amongst 
agencies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, along with other 
organizations and taxonomic specialists (ITIS 2013, in litt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first widely accepted classification below the species level of 
caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in North America was by Banfield in 1961 
(Banfield 1961, entire; Shackleton 2010, p. 3; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 11-
12). In his revision, Banfield primarily used adult (4 years or older) 
skull measurements (Banfield 1961, p. 11) to divide Rangifer tarandus 
in North America into four extant and one extinct subspecies: Barren-
ground caribou--Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus, Grant's caribou--
Rangifer tarandus granti, Peary caribou--Rangifer tarandus pearyi, 
woodland caribou--Rangifer tarandus caribou, and Dawson's caribou--
Rangifer tarandus dawsoni (extinct). Banfield also examined pelage 
(coat/hide) color, and took measurement of hooves, tarsal glands, and 
antlers as taxonomic indicators (Banfield 1961, p. 26). However, 
Banfield noted that antlers were extremely variable among individuals 
and populations (Banfield 1961, p. 24).
    Since the 1960s, much has been learned about caribou ecology, 
distribution, and genetics, revealing substantial diversity within 
Banfield's subspecies classifications (Miller et al. 2007, p. 16). 
There has been some debate over the caribou subspecies classification, 
particularly for the woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer tarandus 
caribou) (Cronin et al. 2005, p. 495). Banfield appeared to use the 
woodland caribou as a ``catch-all'' for all North American caribou not 
included in the other subspecies despite variability in their behavior, 
ecology, and morphology (Geist 2007, p. 25). Many have proposed 
alternative classifications to account for variability within and among 
the various subspecies of caribou. Population units were described with 
terms such as ``ecotypes'' (Bergerud 1996, entire) based on migration 
patterns and calving strategies, and adaptations to a certain set of 
environmental conditions. This has caused confusion because there is no 
universally accepted list of caribou ecotypes or criteria to 
distinguish caribou ecotypes (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 12-13).
    There is also confusion in terminology. For example, in 
Qu[eacute]bec there are migratory and sedentary caribou ecotypes 
(Boulet et al. 2007, p. 4224). Caribou of the sedentary ecotype are 
generally characterized by relatively little movement between seasonal 
ranges. They also generally exhibit a

[[Page 26507]]

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

[[Page 26508]]

open arctic and subarctic tundra to forested habitat, including high-
elevation and steep mountainous slopes (Henttonen and Tikhonov 2008, p. 
3). Variability in habitat occupancy has driven the evolution of many 
different ecosystem-specific behavioral and migratory traits within the 
species. For example, caribou in many ecosystems migrate long distances 
between their calving and wintering grounds. Meanwhile, caribou in 
other ecosystems are relatively sedentary, making short movements 
between these areas. Further, caribou in many ecosystems calve in large 
groups, while others disperse and calve in solitude at high elevations 
away from potential predators (Bergerud 1996, entire).
Distribution and Abundance
    Historically, caribou (Rangifer tarandus) populations occurred in 
nearly all northern latitudes. They have since been extirpated from 
many areas in Europe and eastern North America (MCST 2005, p. 1). In 
Banfield's revision (1961), he reported the southern boundary of 
caribou in the early part of the 19th century to include central Maine 
and extreme northern New Hampshire and Vermont (Banfield 1961, p. 73). 
He also noted their occurrence around the Great Lakes in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan (Banfield 1961, pp. 74-75), and in the 
northwestern United States in Washington, Idaho, and Montana (Banfield 
1961, p. 76). Caribou were reported to be extirpated from Maine after 
about 1908, from New Hampshire after about 1881, and from Vermont after 
about 1840 (Banfield 1961, p. 76). The last caribou in Michigan was 
observed off Isle Royale in 1905, and the last caribou in Wisconsin was 
observed in about 1840 (Banfield 1961, p. 77). An extensive 
investigation by Evans (1960, pp. 94-96) estimated that no more than 
100 caribou still lived in the northwestern United States, primarily in 
northern Idaho. Today, the entire southern Selkirk Mountains population 
of woodland caribou, the only local caribou population \2\ known to 
have a home range that extends into the contiguous United States, is 
estimated to consist of only 27 individuals (Ritchie 2013, in litt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Woodland caribou populations can be further broken down into 
sub-units we are calling ``local populations'' (also referred to 
elsewhere as ``herds'' or ``subpopulations''). These local caribou 
populations represent groupings of individual woodland caribou that 
have overlapping ranges/movement patterns and commonly breed with 
one another more frequently than they breed outside of their local 
population boundary. It is thought that local populations in 
southern British Columbia are a relatively recent artifact within 
the population of woodland caribou and that, historically, movement 
of caribou between local populations was more common. In some cases, 
local population boundaries have been delineated through telemetry 
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, caribou are restricted to the more northern areas of 
North America, Russia, and Scandinavia (MCST 2005, p. 1). In North 
America, caribou occur primarily north of the 50th latitude. The 
majority of caribou occur in boreal, montane, and arctic environments 
in Alaska, most Canadian Provinces, and all Canadian Territories except 
for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island (COSEWIC 2011, 
p. 10). The subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) 
occurs in Canada in the southern Yukon; southwestern Northwest 
Territories; northern, west-central, and southeastern British Columbia; 
west-central and northern Alberta; boreal portions of Saskatchewan and 
Manitoba; the boreal and arctic portions of Ontario, Quebec, and 
Newfoundland; and Labrador; and in the United States in extreme 
northeastern Washington and northern Idaho (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 
225-226; COSEWIC 2002, p. viii).
    The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou 
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) is the southernmost extant, local 
population of woodland caribou in North America (Idaho Comprehensive 
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG CWCS) IDFG 2005, p. 373; USFWS 
2008, p. 12). This population occurs in British Columbia, Canada, and 
northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, United States. Cichowski et 
al. (2004, p. 226) reported the total population of the woodland 
caribou subspecies to be over 1 million. The present distribution of 
woodland caribou in Canada is greatly reduced from historical accounts. 
Reports indicate that the extent of occurrence in British Columbia 
populations has decreased by up to 40 percent in the last few centuries 
(COSEWIC 2002, p. viii).

Evaluation of the Southern Mountain Caribou as a Distinct Population 
Segment

Introduction and Background
    Distinctive, discrete, and significant populations of the woodland 
caribou have been identified, described, and assessed by the COSEWIC. 
COSEWIC is composed of qualified wildlife experts drawn from the 
Federal, provincial, and territorial governments; wildlife management 
boards; Aboriginal groups; universities; museums; national 
nongovernmental organizations; and others with expertise in the 
conservation of wildlife species in Canada. The role of COSEWIC is to 
assess and classify, using the best available information, the 
conservation status of wildlife species, subspecies, and separate 
populations suspected of being at risk. In addition, they make species 
status recommendations to the Canadian government and the public. Once 
COSEWIC makes this recommendation, it is the option of the Canadian 
Federal government to decide whether a species will be listed under 
Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA). For example, the Southern Mountain 
Caribou, a population of the woodland caribou, is currently designated 
as ``Threatened'' under SARA (COSEWIC 2011, Table 1, p. 74). This 
designation was reached because the population of Southern Mountain 
Caribou is mostly made up of small, increasingly isolated herds (most 
of which are in decline) with an estimated range reduction of up to 40 
percent from their historical range (COSEWIC 2002, p. 58; COSEWIC 2011, 
Table 1, p. 74). The Southern Mountain Caribou includes the 
transboundary southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland 
caribou, which is currently listed as endangered under the U.S. 
Endangered Species Act (Act) and is the subject of this 12-month 
finding.
    Because we now know that the southern Selkirk Mountains population 
of woodland caribou is a part of the larger Southern Mountain Caribou 
population, as recognized by COSEWIC, we recognize that our evaluation 
of the southern Selkirk Mountains population is more appropriately 
conducted at the scale of the Southern Mountain Caribou population. 
Therefore, below we evaluate whether, under our DPS policy, the 
Southern Mountain Caribou population segment of woodland caribou 
occurring in British Columbia, Canada, and northeastern Washington and 
northern Idaho, United States, qualifies as a DPS under the Act.
    We completed a 5-year review of the endangered southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in 
2008 (see https://www.fws.gov/idaho/Caribou/Tab5References/USFWS_2008a.pdf). Because this population was listed prior to the Service's 
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722), the 5-year review included analysis of 
this population in relation to the DPS policy. In conducting this DPS 
analysis, we considered the discreteness and significance of this 
population in relation to the mountain caribou metapopulation (USFWS 
2008, pp. 6-13). From this analysis we concluded that the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou met both the 
discreteness and significance elements of the DPS policy and was a

[[Page 26509]]

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

Discreteness

    As outlined in our 1996 DPS policy, a population segment of a 
vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either 
one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from 
other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

[[Page 26510]]

Physical (Geographic) Discreteness

    The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is 
one of 15 (COSEWIC 2011, p. 89) local woodland caribou populations that 
share distinct foraging, migration, and habitat use behaviors. These 
populations are all located in steep, mountainous terrain in central 
and southeastern British Columbia, and extreme northeastern Washington 
and northern Idaho, United States. Little to no dispersal has been 
detected between these local populations and other local caribou 
populations outside this geographic area (Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 
408, 409; COSEWIC 2011, p. 49; van Oort et al. 2011, pp. 222-223). For 
the purposes of this DPS analysis, this collection of local woodland 
caribou populations, which, as noted above, includes the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population, will hereafter be referred to as the 
Southern Mountain Caribou.
    Telemetry research by Wittmer et al. (2005b) and van Oort et al. 
(2011) supports the physical (geographic) discreteness of Southern 
Mountain Caribou. One exception is that there is some limited annual 
range overlap between a few local caribou populations at the far north 
of the Southern Mountain Caribou population. Although all caribou and 
reindeer worldwide are considered to be the same species (Rangifer 
tarandus) and are presumed able to interbreed and produce offspring 
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 9), the distribution of the Southern Mountain Caribou 
does not overlap with other populations during the rut or mating season 
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Previous telemetry studies were completed by 
Apps and McLellan (2006, pp. 84-85, 92) to determine occupancy across 
differing landscapes. These studies confirmed that woodland caribou 
within the geographic area that defines the Southern Mountain Caribou 
population are strongly associated with the steep, mountainous terrain 
characterizing the ``interior wet-belt'' of British Columbia (Stevenson 
et al. 2001, p. 3), located west of the continental divide. This area 
is influenced by Pacific air masses that produce the wettest climate in 
the interior of British Columbia (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3). Forests 
consist of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii or P. glauca x 
engelmannii)/subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) at high elevation, and 
western red cedar (Thuja plicata)/western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) 
at lower elevations. Snowpack typically averages 5 to 16 ft (2 to 5 m) 
in depth (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 4; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Apps and 
McLellan (2006, p. 92) noted that the steep, complex topography within 
the interior wet-belt provides seasonally important habitats. Caribou 
access this habitat by migrating in elevational shifts rather than 
through the long horizontal migrations of other subspecies in northern 
Canada. Woodland caribou that live within this interior wet-belt of 
southern British Columbia, northeastern Washington, and northern Idaho 
are strongly associated with old-growth forested landscapes (Apps et 
al. 2001, pp. 65, 70). These landscapes are predominantly cedar/hemlock 
and spruce/subalpine fir composition (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3-5; 
Apps and McLellan 2006, pp. 84, 91; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 
231; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that supports woodland caribou's late-winter 
diet consisting almost entirely of arboreal hair lichens (Cichowski et 
al. 2004, p. 229).
    The Southern Mountain Caribou population is markedly separate from 
other populations of woodland caribou as a result of physical 
(geographic) factors. The distribution of this population is primarily 
located within the interior wet-belt of southern British Columbia, 
occurring west of the continental divide and generally south of 
Reynolds Creek (which is about 90 miles (mi) (150 kilometers (km)) 
north of Prince George, British Columbia). Its geographic range is such 
that it does not reproduce with other local populations of woodland 
caribou.

Behavioral Discreteness

    In addition to being physically (geographically) discrete, 
individuals within the Southern Mountain Caribou population are 
behaviorally distinguished from woodland caribou in other populations 
(including the neighboring Northern Mountain and Central Mountain 
populations). Southern Mountain Caribou uniquely use steep, high-
elevation, mountainous habitats with deep snowfall (about 5 to 16 ft; 2 
to 5 m) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50), and, as described below, are the only 
woodland caribou that depend on arboreal lichens for forage. This 
habitat use contrasts with the behavior of other woodland caribou, 
which occupy relatively drier habitats that receive less snowfall. With 
less snowfall in these areas, these woodland caribou primarily forage 
on terrestrial lichens, accessing them by ``cratering'' or digging 
through the snow with their hooves (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 
2002, pp. 25, 27).
    Extreme deep snow conditions have led to a foraging strategy by the 
Southern Mountain Caribou that is unique among woodland caribou. They 
rely exclusively on arboreal (tree) lichens for 3 or more months of the 
year (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; Edmonds 1991, p. 91; Stevenson et 
al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230-231; MCST 2005, p. 
2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Arboreal lichens are a critical winter food 
for the Southern Mountain Caribou from November to May (Servheen and 
Lyon 1989, p. 235; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, 
p. 233). During this time, a Southern Mountain Caribou's diet can be 
composed almost entirely of these lichens. Arboreal lichens are pulled 
from the branches of conifers, picked from the surface of the snow 
after being blown out of trees by wind, or are grazed from wind-thrown 
branches and trees. The two kinds of arboreal lichens commonly eaten by 
the Southern Mountain Caribou are Bryoria spp. and Alectoria 
sarmentosa. Both are extremely slow-growing lichens most commonly found 
in high-elevation, old-growth conifer forests that are greater than 250 
years old (Paquet 1997, p. 14; Apps et al. 2001, pp. 65-66).
    Another unique behavior of caribou within the Southern Mountain 
Caribou population is their altitudinal migrations. They may undertake 
as many as four of these migrations per year (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). 
After wintering at high elevations as described above, at the onset of 
spring these caribou move to lower elevations where snow has melted to 
forage on new green vegetation (Paquet 1997, p. 16; Mountain Caribou 
Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) 2002, p. 11). Pregnant females 
will move to these spring habitats for forage. During the calving 
season, sometime from June into July, the need to avoid predators 
influences habitat selection. Areas selected for calving are typically 
high-elevation, alpine and non-forested areas in close proximity to 
old-growth forest ridge tops, as well as high-elevation basins. These 
high-elevation sites can be food limited, but are more likely to be 
free of predators (USFWS 1994, p. 8; MCTAC 2002, p. 11; Cichowski et 
al. 2004, p. 232, Kinley and Apps 2007, p. 16). During calving, 
arboreal lichens become the primary food source for pregnant females at 
these elevations. This is because green forage is largely unavailable 
in these secluded, old-growth conifer habitats.
    During summer months, Southern Mountain Caribou move back to upper 
elevation spruce/alpine fir forests (Paquet 1997, p. 16). Summer diets 
include selective foraging of grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, 
willow and

[[Page 26511]]

dwarf birch leaves and tips, sedges, lichens (Paquet 1997, pp. 13, 16), 
and huckleberry leaves (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2004, p. 18). The 
fall and early winter diet consists largely of dried grasses, sedges, 
willow and dwarf birch tips, and arboreal lichens.
    The Southern Mountain Caribou are behaviorally adapted to the 
steep, high-elevation, mountainous habitat with deep snowpack. They 
feed almost exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or more months out of 
the year. They are also reproductively isolated, due to their behavior 
and separation from other caribou populations during the fall rut and 
mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Based on these unique adaptations, 
we consider the Southern Mountain Caribou population to have met the 
behavioral ``discreteness'' standard in our DPS policy.

Genetic Discreteness

    Data from Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2594) show that genetic 
population structure (i.e., patterning or clustering of the genetic 
make-up of individuals within a population) does exist within woodland 
caribou. Specifically, Serrouya revealed a genetic cluster that is 
unique to Southern Mountain Caribou and different from genetic clusters 
found in surrounding local populations of woodland caribou designated 
as part of other Canada caribou DUs (i.e., Central Mountain DU, 
Northern Mountain DU, and Boreal DU). However, Serrouya also revealed 
genetic clusters that occur in both the Southern Mountain Caribou and 
neighboring DUs that suggest some historical gene flow did occur in the 
past, meaning that caribou did historically move between populations of 
these DUs and interbreed when mature.
    This cluster overlap of DU boundaries is not surprising, as genetic 
structure is reflective of long-term historical population dynamics and 
does not necessarily depict current gene flow. Indeed, it does appear 
that recent impediments to gene flow may be genetically isolating 
woodland caribou in the southwest portion of their range (Wittmer et 
al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012, 
p. 2598). These impediments include anthropogenic habitat fragmentation 
and widespread caribou population declines. Therefore, genetic 
specialization related to unique behaviors and habitat use may 
represent a relatively recent life-history characteristic (Weckworth et 
al. 2012, p. 3620). Historical gene flow between local populations of 
Southern Mountain Caribou and neighboring local populations did occur 
in the past. However, study results from Serrouya et al. (2012), 
combined with telemetry data from Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and 
van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that isolation of local 
populations is now the norm, affecting genetics of these local 
populations differently through genetic drift (Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 
2597).
    A certain level of genetic differentiation does exist between the 
Southern Mountain Caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou. 
However, we do not presently consider there to be sufficient evidence 
to determine that the Southern Mountain Caribou are genetically 
isolated from other populations of caribou, particularly the Central 
Mountain population. Therefore, at this time, we do not find that this 
population meets the genetic ``discreteness'' standard in our DPS 
policy.
Discreteness Conclusion
    In summary, we determine the best available information indicates 
that the Southern Mountain Caribou, comprised of 15 local woodland 
caribou populations that occur in southern British Columbia, 
northeastern Washington, and northern Idaho, is markedly separated from 
all other populations of woodland caribou. The Southern Mountain 
Caribou population is physically (geographically), behaviorally, and 
reproductively isolated from other woodland caribou. Therefore, we 
consider the Southern Mountain Caribou population to be discrete per 
our DPS policy.

Significance

    Under our DPS policy, once we have determined that a population 
segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological 
significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs. Significance is 
not determined by a quantitative analysis, but is instead a qualitative 
finding. It will vary from species to species and cannot be reduced to 
a simple formula or flat percentage. Our DPS policy provides several 
potential considerations that may demonstrate the significance of a 
population segment to the species to which it belongs. These 
considerations include, but are not limited to: (1) Persistence of the 
discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique 
for the taxon; (2) evidence that the discrete population segment 
differs markedly from other population segments in its genetic 
characteristics; (3) evidence that the population segment represents 
the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon that may be more 
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical 
range; and (4) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment 
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. The 
following discussion addresses considerations regarding the 
significance of the Southern Mountain Caribou population to the 
subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou).

(1) Persistence of the Discrete Population Segment in an Ecological 
Setting Unusual or Unique for the Taxon

    As previously discussed, woodland caribou within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou population are distinguished from woodland caribou in 
other areas. Southern Mountain Caribou live in, and are behaviorally 
adapted to, a unique ecological setting characterized by high-
elevation, high-precipitation, and steep old-growth conifer forests 
that support abundant arboreal lichens (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). In 
addition, all woodland caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou 
population exhibit a distinct behavior. Specifically, they spend the 
winter months in high-elevation, steep, mountainous habitats where 
individuals stand on the deep, hard-crusted snowpack and feed 
exclusively on arboreal lichens on standing or fallen old-growth 
conifer trees (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230-231; MCST 2005, p. 
2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). This behavior is unlike that of woodland 
caribou in neighboring areas that occupy less steep, drier terrain and 
do not feed on arboreal lichens during the winter (Thomas et al. 1996, 
p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50).
    In addition to persisting in a specific environment characterized 
by steep, high-elevation, old-growth forests and being reliant on 
arboreal lichens as primary winter forage, caribou of the Southern 
Mountain population make relatively short-distance altitudinal 
migrations up to four times per year. These caribou occupy valley 
bottoms and lower slopes in the early winter, and ridge tops and upper 
slopes in later winter after the snowpack deepens and hardens. In the 
spring, they move to lower elevations again to access green vegetation. 
Females make solitary movements back to high elevations to calve. This 
habitat and behavior are unique to the Southern Mountain Caribou 
population. All other populations within the woodland caribou 
subspecies occupy winter habitat characterized by gentler topography, 
lower elevation, and less winter snowpack (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46) 
where their primary winter forage, terrestrial (ground) lichens, is

[[Page 26512]]

most accessible (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46). 
Unlike woodland caribou of the Southern Mountain population, some 
populations in eastern Canada (Eastern Migratory DU (DU4; COSEWIC 2011, 
p. 34)) will migrate relatively long distances across the landscape 
between wintering and calving habitat, where they will calve in large 
aggregated groups (COSEWIC 2011, pp., 33, 37; Abraham et al. 2012, p. 
274).
    We conclude that the Southern Mountain Caribou meets the definition 
of significant in accordance with our DPS policy, as this population 
currently persists in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the 
subspecies of woodland caribou.

(2) Evidence That the Discrete Population Segment Differs Markedly From 
Other Population Segments in Its Genetic Characteristics

    Research by Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2594) indicates that there is 
some genetic population structure between woodland caribou populations 
in western North America. This research identified two main genetic 
clusters within the Southern Mountain Caribou, separated from each 
other by the North Thompson Valley in British Columbia. One of these 
clusters is unique, with few exceptions, to the Southern Mountain 
Caribou (structure analysis; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2594). The other 
cluster, northwest of the North Thompson Valley, is shared with the 
adjacent Central Mountain population. As such, there is limited genetic 
evidence in this study that Southern Mountain Caribou populations north 
of the North Thompson Valley are genetically unique relative to caribou 
of the Central Mountain population.
    As previously discussed, the best available information indicates 
that recent impediments to gene flow such as habitat fragmentation and 
widespread caribou population declines may be genetically isolating 
woodland caribou in the southwestern portion of their range (Wittmer et 
al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012, 
p. 2598). This genetic isolation has resulted in unique behaviors and 
habitat use (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. 3620). Study results from 
Serrouya et al. (2012), combined with telemetry data from Wittmer et 
al. (2005b, p. 414) and van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that 
while historical gene flow between local populations of Southern 
Mountain Caribou and neighboring local populations did occur in the 
past, isolation of these local populations is now the norm. Research 
into the genetics of the woodland caribou will likely continue and will 
provide further insight into gene flow between these populations.
    Despite some level of genetic structure between the Southern 
Mountain Caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou, and a 
predicted continuation of genetic structuring between local populations 
within Southern Mountain Caribou, we do not presently consider Southern 
Mountain Caribou ``genetically unique.'' Therefore, at this time we do 
not find this population meets the genetic ``significance'' standard in 
our DPS policy.

(3) Evidence That the Population Segment Represents the Only Surviving 
Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That May Be More Abundant Esewhere as an 
Introduced Population Outside Its Historic Range

    All caribou in the world are one species (Rangifer tarandus). In a 
global review of taxonomy of the genus Rangifer, Banfield (1961) 
documented the occurrence of five subspecies in North America. Woodland 
caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), one of the five recognized 
subspecies of caribou, are the southern-most subspecies in North 
America. The range of woodland caribou extends in an east/west band 
from eastern Newfoundland and northern Quebec, all the way into western 
British Columbia. Southern Mountain Caribou represent a discrete subset 
of this subspecies. Because Southern Mountain Caribou are not the only 
surviving natural occurrence of the woodland caribou subspecies, this 
element is not applicable.

(4) Evidence That Loss of the Discrete Population Segment Would Result 
in a Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon

    Historically, woodland caribou were widely distributed throughout 
portions of the northern tier of the coterminous United States from 
Washington to Maine, as well as throughout most of southern Canada 
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 19). However, as a result of habitat loss and 
fragmentation, overhunting, and the effects of predation, the 
population of woodland caribou within the British Columbia portion of 
their range has declined dramatically with an estimated 40 percent 
range reduction (COSEWIC 2002, p. 20). Further evidence of this decline 
was observed within the Southern Mountain Caribou population, where 
there were an estimated 2,554 individuals as recently as 1995 (Hatter 
et al. 2004, p. 7). The most recent estimate of individuals in this 
population was conducted in 2012, and estimated only 1,657 individuals 
(Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Loss of the Southern Mountain Caribou 
population would result in the loss of the southern-most extent of the 
range of woodland caribou by about 2.5 degrees of latitude. This 
includes the only remaining population of the woodland caribou in the 
coterminous United States. An additional consequence of the loss of the 
Southern Mountain Caribou population would be the elimination of the 
only North American caribou population with the distinct behavior of 
feeding exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or more months of the 
year. This feeding behavior is related to their spending winter months 
in high-elevation, steep, mountainous habitats with deep snowpack.
    The extirpation of peripheral populations, such as the Southern 
Mountain Caribou population, is concerning because of the potential 
conservation value that peripheral populations can provide to a species 
or subspecies. Specifically, peripheral populations can possess slight 
genetic or phenotypic divergences from core populations (Lesica and 
Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50). The genotypic and 
phenotypic characteristics peripheral populations may provide to the 
core population of the species may be central to the species' survival 
in the face of environmental change (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756; 
Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242).
    The extirpation of Southern Mountain Caribou would represent a 
significant gap in the range of the woodland caribou subspecies. 
Extirpation of this population segment would result in the loss of a 
peripheral population segment of woodland caribou that live in, and are 
behaviorally adapted to, a unique ecological setting characterized by 
high-elevation, high-precipitation (including deep snowpack), and steep 
old-growth conifer forests that support abundant arboreal lichens.
Significance Conclusion
    We conclude that the Southern Mountain Caribou persists in an 
ecological setting unusual or unique for the subspecies of woodland 
caribou, and that loss of the Southern Mountain Caribou would result in 
a significant gap in the range of the woodland caribou subspecies. 
Therefore, the discrete Southern Mountain Caribou population of 
woodland caribou that occur in southern British Columbia, and in 
northeastern Washington and northern Idaho meet the significance 
criteria under our DPS policy.

[[Page 26513]]

Listable Entity Determination

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

[[Page 26514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY14.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS

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

[[Page 26515]]

individuals (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 7). By 2002, this number had 
decreased to approximately 1,900 individuals (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 
7). Currently, the population is estimated to be 1,657 individuals 
(Ritchie 2013, in litt.). Many local populations within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS are reported to have experienced declines of 50 
percent or greater between 1995 and 2002 (MCST 2005, p. 1). Some of the 
most extreme decreases were observed in the Central Selkirk and South 
Purcells local populations. These populations experienced 61 and 78 
percent reductions in their populations, respectively, during this time 
(Harding 2008, p. 3).
    Population models indicate declines will continue into the future 
for the entire Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and for many local 
populations. Hatter et al. (2004, p. 9) predicted local population 
levels within this DPS under three different scenarios: ``optimistic,'' 
``most likely,'' and ``pessimistic.'' Under these scenarios population 
levels were modeled to decline from the current level of 1,657 
individuals to 1,534 (optimistic), 1,169 (most likely), or 820 
(pessimistic), by 2022. In addition, all three scenarios reported the 
extirpation of two (optimistic), three (most likely), or five 
(pessimistic) local populations by 2022 (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 9). As 
of 2013, George Mountain, one of the local populations within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS recently considered to be at risk by 
Hatter et al. (2004), is now considered to be extirpated (Ritchie 2013, 
in litt.).
    According to Hatter et al. (2004, pp. 9 and 11), no models 
predicted extinction of the woodland caribou population within the 
proposed DPS in the next 100 years (Hatter et al. 2004, p. 11). 
However, reductions in the size of the entire population were 
predicted. Using the same scenarios from Hatter et al. (2004) as 
described above (``optimistic,'' ``most likely,'' and ``pessimistic''), 
the average time until the population of woodland caribou within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is fewer than 1,000 individuals was 
projected to be 100, 84, and 26 years, respectively (Hatter et al. 
2004, p. 11). These estimates do not account for the relationship 
between density and adult female survival, and may be a conservative 
estimate of time to extinction (in other words, may underestimate the 
timeframes). Wittmer (2004, p. 88) attempted to account for density-
dependent adult female survival and predicted extinction of all local 
populations in the proposed DPS within the next 100 years (Wittmer 
2004, p. 88).
    Along with these documented and predicted population declines, 
local populations of woodland caribou within the proposed DPS are 
becoming increasingly fragmented and isolated (Wittmer 2004, p. 28; van 
Oort et al. 2011, p. 25; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2598). Fragmentation 
and isolation are particularly pronounced in the southern portion of 
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Wittmer 2004, p. 28). This 
fragmentation and isolation are likely accelerating the extinction 
process and reducing the probability of demographic rescue from natural 
immigration or emigration. Van Oort et al. (2011, p. 215), observed 
that population fragmentation and isolation in a population with little 
or no ability to disperse between local populations may represent a 
geographic pattern of the extinction process.
    Despite these predictions, some local populations of woodland 
caribou within the proposed DPS appear to be stable. For example, the 
North Mountain region (northern-most populations principally in the 
Hart Range) was estimated at 500 animals in 2005 and is considered 
stable (MCST 2005, p. 4; Ritchie 2013, pers. comm.).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. We discuss each of these factors for the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Threats to caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain DPS include 
forest harvest, forest fires, human development, recreation, and 
climate change. In addition to causing direct impacts, these threats 
often catalyze indirect impacts to caribou, which are also important in 
this analysis. Both direct and indirect impacts to caribou from habitat 
destruction, modification, and curtailment are described below.
    Historically, the caribou populations that make up the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS were distributed throughout the western Rocky 
Mountains of British Columbia, northern Idaho, and northeastern 
Washington (Apps and McLellan 2006, p. 84). As previously discussed, 
caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS are strongly 
associated with high-elevation, high-precipitation, old-growth forested 
landscapes (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3-5; Apps and McLellan 2006, pp. 
84, 91; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 231; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50) that 
support their uniquely exclusive winter diet of arboreal lichens 
(Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 229).
    It is estimated that about 98 percent of the caribou in the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS rely on arboreal lichens as their primary 
winter food. They have adapted to the high-elevation, deep-snow habitat 
that occurs within this area of British Columbia, northern Idaho, and 
northeastern Washington (Apps and McLellan 2006, p. 84). The present 
distribution of woodland caribou in Canada is much reduced from 
historical accounts, with reports indicating that the extent of 
occurrence in British Columbia and Ontario populations has decreased by 
up to 40 percent in the last few centuries (COSEWIC 2002, pp. viii, 
30). The greatest reduction has occurred in local populations 
comprising the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30; 
COSEWIC 2011, p. 49). Hunting was historically considered the main 
cause of range retraction in the central and southern portions of 
British Columbia. However, predation, habitat fragmentation from 
forestry operations, and human development are now considered the main 
concerns (COSEWIC 2002, p. 30).
Forest Harvest
    Forestry has been the dominant land use within the range of the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in British Columbia throughout the 20th 
century. The majority of timber harvesting has occurred since the late 
1960s (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 9-10). Prior to 1966 and before pulp 
mills were built in the interior of British Columbia, a variety of 
forest harvesting systems were utilized, targeting primarily spruce and 
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) sawlogs, and pole-sized western red 
cedar. It was not until after 1966, when market conditions changed to 
meet the demand for pulp and other timber products, that the majority 
of timber harvesting occurred through clear-cutting large

[[Page 26516]]

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

[[Page 26517]]

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

[[Page 26518]]

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

[[Page 26519]]

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

[[Page 26520]]

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

[[Page 26521]]

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

[[Page 26522]]

been described as the largest single private conservation land 
acquisition in Canadian history (USFWS 2008, p. 17). This private land 
was previously owned by a timber company known as the Pluto Darkwoods 
Forestry Corporation, which managed a sustainable harvesting program 
prior to selling the land. The NCC's goal for the Darkwoods property is 
sustainable ecosystem management, including the conservation of 
woodland caribou (USFWS 2008, p. 17).
Summary for Factor A
    Destruction, modification, or curtailment of caribou habitat has 
been and is today a significant threat to caribou throughout the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Specific threats directly impacting 
caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS include forest 
harvest, forest fires, insect outbreaks, human development, recreation, 
and climate change. Each of these threats, through varying mechanisms, 
directly removes and fragments existing habitat and/or impacts caribou 
behavior such that it alters the distribution of caribou within their 
natural habitat.
    Forest harvest, forest fires, insect outbreaks, human development, 
and climate change catalyze other, indirect threats to caribou within 
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. These impacts may be particularly 
prevalent in the southern extent of this DPS. Specifically, direct 
habitat loss and fragmentation limits caribou dispersal and movements 
among local populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS by 
making it more difficult and more dangerous for caribou to disperse. 
Further, habitat loss and fragmentation have and will continue to alter 
the predator-prey ecology of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS by 
creating more suitable habitat and travel corridors for other ungulates 
and their predators. Finally, habitat loss and fragmentation increases 
the likelihood of disturbance of caribou in the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS from human recreation or other activities by increasing the 
accessibility of these areas to humans. Climate change is forecasted to 
exacerbate these impacts by catalyzing forest composition changes, 
increasing forest insect outbreaks, and increasing the likelihood of 
wildfires.
    Another threat, human disturbance from wintertime recreation, 
particularly from snowmobile activity, increases physiological stress, 
energy expenditure, and alters habitat occupancy of caribou. This 
disturbance forces caribou to use inferior habitat with greater risk of 
depredation or avalanche. Human disturbance is likely to continue to 
increasingly impact caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, 
because nature-based recreation and tourism are on the rise in rural 
British Columbia. Projected growth of these activities is estimated at 
approximately 15 percent per year (Mitchell and Hamilton 2007, p. 3). 
In addition, the establishment of new forest roads may be providing 
increased human access to caribou habitat, further amplifying the 
threat of human disturbance and caribou population declines within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the future. Impacts to caribou from 
human disturbance are occurring today, despite conservation measures, 
and are likely to occur in the future. These impacts will likely 
contribute to the decline of local populations within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS and further impact the continued existence of the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
    We have evaluated the best available scientific and commercial data 
on the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of the habitat or range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Through 
this evaluation, we have determined that this factor poses a 
significant threat to the continued existence of the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS, especially when considered in concert with the other 
factors impacting the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Caribou have been an important game species since they have shared 
the landscape with humans. Native Americans have hunted caribou for 
thousands of years in British Columbia, although the numbers of animals 
taken were probably modest given the relatively limited hunting 
pressure and hunting implements at the time (Spalding 2000, p. 38). The 
introduction of firearms combined with a later increase in human 
populations in British Columbia led to an increase in caribou harvested 
by the late 1800s and into the 1900s (Spalding 2000, p. 38).
    It is thought that an increase in hunting pressure, although it did 
not cause extinction, upset the already delicate balance between 
predators and caribou and catalyzed a general decline in caribou 
populations (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 73; Spalding 2000, p. 39). As 
justification for this hypothesis, Spalding (2000, p. 39) cited old 
field reports that hunters, both Native American and non-Native 
American, were killing too many caribou. He also cited several regions 
of British Columbia where, after hunting closures were implemented, 
caribou numbers began to rebound, although this was not the case in all 
populations (Spalding 2000, p. 37). These hunting pressures and 
associated population declines subsided with the hunting season 
closures, and some regions of British Columbia even saw population 
increases and stabilization after the 1940s (Spalding 2000, pp. 37, 
39).
    Hunting of caribou is currently not allowed in any of the lower 48 
United States. Further, hunting is prohibited in all National Parks and 
Ecological Reserves in British Columbia; but may be allowed in some 
specific British Columbia parks. Hunting regulations put out by the 
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource 
Operations for 2012-2014, currently allows hunting of large, 5-point 
adult bull caribou within a few areas within the range of the Southern 
Mountain Caribou local populations (British Columbia Hunting & Trapping 
Regulations/Synopsis (BCHT) 2012-2014). Hunting of adult bull caribous 
are allowed in British Columbia to hunters who have a license and have 
drawn the appropriate Limited Entry Hunting season authorization (BCHT 
2012-2014, p. 19). The range of Mountain Caribou is reported in the 
BCHT regulations (p. 19) to occur within specific sections of four 
Management Units (MU's; MUs 3, 4, 5, 7). Caribou that have been 
harvested are required to be submitted for a Compulsory Inspection with 
the animal's front incisor tooth, antlers, and piece of hide with proof 
of sex within 30 days of harvest (BCHT 2012-2014, p. 21). Hunters are 
limited to 1, 5-point bull during the specified season. We do not know 
the number of licenses that are available to hunters in a given year, 
or the number of adult bull mountain caribou that are harvested. Also 
within the BCHT, there is a section titled, Mountain Caribou Update (p. 
23), describing the current status of the mountain type of woodland 
caribou and ongoing recovery strategies. One of the strategies 
discussed in the BCHT regulations describes obtaining information on 
the predator management/predator-prey dynamics and mountain caribou. As 
part of this study, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource 
Operations office are requesting hunters to submit information on the 
harvest of wolves within the range of the caribou.
    Given our current knowledge of caribou dispersal, it is unlikely 
that many caribou from the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS will be 
harvested in these areas. Consequently,

[[Page 26523]]

legal harvest has not been a major limiting factor to caribou within 
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS since the mid-1970s (Seip and 
Cichowski 1996, p. 73). Therefore, although it may have had a 
historical impact on caribou populations, hunting/harvesting of caribou 
is not presently impacting caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou 
DPS.
    Although there are historic reports of the illegal harvest of 
caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Scott and Servheen 
1985, p. 15; Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76), we do not have data that 
suggest illegal killing is affecting caribou numbers in any of the 
local populations within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
    Aside from State and Provincial regulations that limit hunting of 
caribou, we are unaware of other conservation efforts to reduce 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; however, we do not have information suggesting 
that overutilization is an ongoing threat to caribou within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Summary for Factor B
    Threats from overutilization such as hunting appear to be 
ameliorated, now and in the future, by responsible management. 
Historically, caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS were 
hunted throughout their range. They were likely overharvested when 
human populations increased in British Columbia and with the advent of 
modern weapons. The hunting of caribou has been made illegal within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, in both the United States and Canada. 
After hunting was stopped, certain populations began to recover and 
grow, but others did not. Even though there have been known occurrences 
of humans illegally killing caribou within the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS in the past, we do not have information indicating this is 
an ongoing threat. We have evaluated the best available scientific and 
commercial data on the overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes of the Southern Mountain Caribou 
DPS and determined that this factor does not pose a threat to the 
continued existence of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    Caribou have been occasionally documented to succumb to disease and 
parasitism throughout their range and within the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS (Spalding 2000, p. 40; Compton et al. 1995, p. 493; 
Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, pp. 20, 54-55). The effects of many 
types of biting and stinging insects on caribou include parasite and 
disease transmission, harassment, and immune system reactions (COSEWIC 
2002, p. 54). Several are considered important including: Warble flies 
(Oedemagena spp.), nose bot flies (Cephenemyia trompe), mosquitoes 
(Aedes spp.), black flies (Simulium spp.), horseflies (Tabanus spp.), 
and deer flies (Chrysops spp.) (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Mature and old 
woodland caribou are likely to have a relatively high incidence and 
prevalence of hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) in their lungs, 
which can make them more susceptible to predation (COSEWIC 2002, p. 
54). Eggs and larvae of the protostrongylid nematode 
(Parelaphostrongylus andersoni) can develop in woodland caribou lungs 
and can contribute to pneumonia (COSEWIC 2002, pp. 54-55). Finally, a 
related meningeal nematode (P. tenuis) causes neurologic disease in 
caribou. Although this nematode is benign in white-tailed deer, it may 
be a limiting factor to caribou in southern Ontario and west to 
Saskatchewan. Samuel et al. (1992, p. 629) suggested that this 
meningeal nematode may anthropogenically spread in western Canada due 
to game ranching; however, we have no new information to determine if 
this spread has or has not occurred.
    Within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, evidence of disease or 
parasitism is limited. We know that several caribou that were shot or 
found dead in a forest near Rooney, British Columbia, in 1918 were 
thought to have a type of pneumonia (Spalding 2000, p. 40). We also 
know that, of 34 caribou that died within 2 years of translocation to 
the southern Selkirk Mountains, only 1 was confirmed to have died of 
severe parasitism (Sarcocystis sp.) and emaciation (Compton et al. 
1995, p. 493). Although evidence within the Southern Mountain DPS is 
limited, we are aware that a reintroduction effort of 51 caribou 
outside of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in the late 1960s failed, 
presumably because of meningeal worms (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) 
(Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, p. 20).
    As is the case with most wildlife, caribou are susceptible to 
disease and parasitism. These sources of mortality are likely causing 
some level of impact to individual caribou within the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS. However, because no severe outbreaks have been documented 
and because relatively few caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou 
DPS have been known to succumb to disease or parasitism, these sources 
of mortality are unlikely to have significantly impacted caribou within 
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, currently or historically.
Predation
    Natural predators of caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS 
include cougars (Felis concolor), wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears 
(Ursus arctos), and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Seip 2008, p. 1). 
Increased predation from these natural predators, particularly wolves 
and cougars, is thought to be the most, or one of the most significant 
contributors to Southern Mountain Caribou DPS declines in recent 
decades (Seip 1992, p. 1500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005, 
p. 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415). Elevated levels of predation 
on caribou in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS have likely been 
caused, in part, by an alteration of the natural predator-prey ecology 
within their range (Wittmer et al. 2005b, p. 417; Seip 2008, p. 3).
    This change in the predator-prey ecology within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS is thought to be catalyzed, at least in part, by 
human-caused habitat alteration and fragmentation (Seip 2008, p. 3). 
Habitat alteration and fragmentation within the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS is caused by many things including, but not limited to, 
forest harvest, fire, human development, and climate change (see Factor 
A discussion, above). Alteration and fragmentation from these and other 
activities disturb land and create edge habitats. These new edges and 
disturbances allow for the introduction of early seral habitat that is 
preferred by deer, elk, and moose, thereby increasing habitat 
suitability for these alternate ungulate prey species within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; Seip 2008, 
p. 3). The increase in habitat suitability for deer, elk, and moose 
have allowed these alternate prey species to subsist in areas that, 
under natural disturbance regimes, would have been dominated by 
contiguous old-growth forest and of limited value to them (Kinley and 
Apps 2001, p. 162). The

[[Page 26524]]

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

[[Page 26525]]

the caribou population is not monitored. As such, any potential effects 
on caribou survival and population stability from hunting seasons on 
predators in Idaho and Washington remains unknown.
Summary for Factor C
    Predation, particularly from wolves and cougars, is thought to be 
the most, or one of the most, significant contributors to caribou 
population declines within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS in recent 
decades. Increased predation of caribou within this DPS has likely been 
caused, in part, by an alteration of the natural predator-prey ecology 
of the area. This new predator-prey dynamic has been catalyzed by 
increases in populations of alternative ungulate prey species such as 
elk, deer, and moose within caribou habitat. Ecosystems that favor 
these alternate ungulate prey species also favor predators such as 
wolves and cougars. These changes have likely been catalyzed, in part, 
by human-caused habitat loss and fragmentation, which increases habitat 
favorable to alternative ungulate prey species, and consequently 
attracts increased numbers of predators. Although some conservation 
measures have been implemented to reduce impacts to local populations 
of caribou from predation, more efficient, intensive, and frequent 
action is still needed within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We 
have evaluated the best available scientific and commercial data on 
disease or predation of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and have 
determined that this factor poses a widespread and serious threat to 
the continued existence of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 26526]]

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

[[Page 26527]]

protection on private lands within the United States.
Summary for Factor D
    In the United States, the southern Selkirk Mountains local 
population of woodland caribou of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has 
been listed as endangered since 1984, and critical habitat was 
designated in 2012. Listing the southern Selkirk Mountains local 
population of woodland caribou provided a variety of protections, 
including the prohibition against take and the conservation mandates of 
section 7 for all Federal agencies. Because of the endangered status of 
these caribou and the critical habitat designation, the USFS, the 
primary caribou habitat land manager in the United States, is required 
to consult on actions they carry out, authorize, or fund that may 
affect caribou or their habitat on their lands. Thus, woodland caribou 
are afforded protections under the Act from the potential effects of 
Federal agency activities. Because the Service has regulations that 
prohibit take of all threatened wildlife species (50 CFR 17.31(a)), 
unless modified by a special rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act 
(50 CFR 17.31(c)), the regulatory protections of the Act are largely 
the same for wildlife species listed as endangered and as threatened; 
thus, the protections provided by the Act would remain in place if the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is reclassified as a threatened species.
    While the IDL also manages a substantial portion of caribou 
habitat, they are not required to manage their land for caribou. Many 
of IDL's land management plans, particularly timber harvest plans, do 
not currently consider caribou and do not address the identified 
threats to woodland caribou. IDL does consider caribou in their winter 
access plan and has, in the past, closed snowmobile trails to prevent 
winter disturbance; however, some of these trail closures have been 
recently relaxed and will remain open to winter motorized use unless 
there is a confirmed caribou sighting. Because IDL's land management 
plans, including timber harvest and winter access, do not consider 
woodland caribou, we conclude that management of IDL's lands is likely 
not alleviating or addressing the threat of habitat loss, habitat 
fragmentation, or disturbance from winter recreation to caribou.
    Hunting regulations at the National and State levels provide 
adequate protections regarding the legal take of caribou in the United 
States, and we do not have data that suggest illegal killing is 
affecting caribou numbers in any of the local populations within the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, and we do not consider this as a threat 
to the species.
    In Canada, the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS is protected at the 
national level under SARA, while British Columbia considers them to be 
critically imperiled. A recovery plan, the MCRIP, has been endorsed by 
British Columbia. While efforts have been made towards meeting the 
goals identified in that recovery plan, additional work and time are 
needed to meet all the goals. Presently, there is not a hunting season 
in Canada for caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
    Caribou local populations continue to decline within the Southern 
Mountain DPS despite regulatory mechanisms being in place in the United 
States and Canada. Although U.S. Federal and State, and Canadian 
national and provincial, regulations are providing some protection for 
the caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, the suite of 
regulations is unable to address and ameliorate threats to caribou such 
as predation and loss of habitat. Remedies to address threats such as 
control of predators are not logistically easy to implement and may be 
expensive to address. Currently, the regulatory mechanisms in the 
United States and Canada are not addressing the identified threats to 
the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. We will further evaluate the 
existing regulatory mechanisms and their impact on ameliorating threats 
to caribou in our final determination for this action.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Avalanches and Stochastic Events
    One natural source of mortality for caribou is avalanches (Seip and 
Cichowski 1996, p. 76). This has been a notable threat to caribou 
within the Revelstoke area of Canada, within the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS, where the terrain is particularly steep and rugged with 
very high snowfall (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). Although 
avalanches are generally a natural phenomenon, the threat of avalanches 
to caribou may be increasing because caribou may be displaced into 
steeper, more avalanche-prone terrain during the winter from snowmobile 
and other winter recreational activities (Simpson 1987, p. 1; Seip and 
Cichowski 1996, p. 79).
    Threats of all stochastic events such as avalanches become more 
serious as local populations become isolated and population numbers 
decrease. This is the case in the southern extent of the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS. For example, a small population of fewer than 10 
individuals in Banff National Park (just outside the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS) was extirpated in the spring of 2009 from a single 
avalanche event (Parks Canada 2013, in litt.).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence
    We are not aware of any conservation measures currently being 
implemented to reduce impacts to caribou from avalanches or other 
stochastic events.
Summary for Factor E
    Caribou are susceptible to stochastic events such as avalanches due 
to small local population sizes and isolation of these local 
populations. Local populations are increasingly at risk from impacts of 
stochastic events as they become more isolated and their population 
numbers decline. The threat from avalanches is amplified further when 
caribou are displaced from their preferred habitat into steeper, more 
dangerous habitat as a consequence of human recreation. Therefore we 
have determined other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence pose a threat to the continued existence of the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E
    As alluded to in the discussions above, many of the causes of 
caribou population declines are linked, often by the threat of habitat 
alteration. For example, predation is one of the most significant 
threats to caribou within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Predation 
is directly linked, in part, to habitat alteration and the associated 
introduction of early seral habitat and the creation of roads within 
caribou habitat in the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Specifically, the 
introduction of early seral habitat and new forest roads has altered 
the predator/prey ecology of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS by 
creating suitable habitat for alternate ungulate prey and accessibility 
for their predators, respectively, into caribou habitat. Human 
disturbance, another of the threats to caribou within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS, is also linked to habitat alteration because of 
the increased accessibility of caribou habitat that new forest roads 
have provided. Habitat alteration, in turn, is directly tied to and 
caused by another, and possibly two other, threats listed above--human 
development and climate change. Specifically, human

[[Page 26528]]

development and the resources it requires, probably in concert with 
climate change, have altered caribou habitat within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS. This alteration has occurred through forest 
harvest and the creation of new infrastructure. It is reasonable to 
expect that human development and the resources it demands will 
continue to alter and fragment caribou habitat in the future. This, in 
turn, will continue to promote altered predator/prey ecology and 
associated increases in caribou predation, and human disturbance in 
caribou habitat within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. The suite of 
all these related threats, combined with each other, have posed and 
continue to pose a significant threat to caribou within the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS.

Proposed Determination

    The range of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS has been reduced by 
approximately 40 percent over the last century. The current status and 
distribution of caribou within the DPS is limited to an estimated 1,657 
individuals in 15 local populations. This represents a reduction in 
total population size of 33 percent since 1995, with some individual 
local populations experiencing reductions of more than 50 percent. As 
previously discussed in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, 
significant threats to the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS include: 
increased levels of predation due to changes in the predator/prey 
dynamics, increased accessibility of caribou habitat by humans, 
disturbance of caribou from use of roads and from recreational 
vehicles, and climate change. All these threats are linked with past 
and ongoing habitat alteration and are occurring throughout the entire 
range of the DPS. These threats are expected to continue in the 
foreseeable future.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered 
species'' as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' 
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this 
discussion. The Act defines ``species'' as follows: ``The term 
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and 
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish 
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' Although the Service 
employs the concept of being on the brink of extinction in the wild as 
its general understanding of ``in danger of extinction'' (USFWS 2010, 
in litt.), it does not do so in a narrow or inflexible way. As 
implemented by the Service, to be currently on the brink of extinction 
in the wild does not necessarily mean that extinction is certain or 
inevitable. Ultimately, whether a species is currently on the brink of 
extinction in the wild (including the timing of the extinction event 
itself) depends on the life history and ecology of the species, the 
nature of the threats, and the species' response to those threats 
(USFWS 2010, in litt.).
    We have carefully evaluated the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. As described above, the Southern 
Mountain Caribou DPS still has a relatively widespread distribution 
that has suffered ongoing major reductions of its numbers, range, or 
both, as a result of factors that have not been abated. This decline 
has resulted in the shrinking in size and isolation of local 
populations that make up this DPS.
    A species with a relatively widespread distribution that has 
experienced, and continues to undergo, major reductions in its numbers, 
range, or both as a result of factors that have not been abated can be 
listed as either endangered or threatened. For the reasons outlined 
below, we have determined that the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS meets 
the definition of threatened throughout its entire range, and 
acknowledge that many of the smaller local populations may individually 
fit the definition of endangered. Specifically, we conclude that the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS meets the definition of threatened 
because, although all local populations within this DPS have suffered 
declines in numbers, range, or both, and have become increasingly 
isolated, populations in the northern portion of the DPS have suffered 
these declines to a lesser extent than those in the southern part of 
the range. Because of their relatively higher population numbers, these 
northern local populations have more resiliency to threats than local 
populations in the southern extent of the DPS. For this reason, when 
assessed across its range, we conclude that the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS as a whole is not endangered, because we expect the 
northern populations to persist, at least for the foreseeable future. 
As discussed below, we have determined that caribou within the 
``endangered'' southern local populations do not constitute a 
significant portion of the species' range, according to the Service's 
current policy. In other words, we have determined that the loss of the 
``endangered'' local populations would not substantially increase the 
vulnerability of the ``threatened'' local populations, such that the 
entire DPS would be in danger of extinction (i.e., would become 
endangered). Therefore, on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available and per our policy, we propose to amend the 
current listing of the woodland caribou (southern Selkirk Mountains 
population) as an endangered species, as identified at 50 CFR 17.11(h), 
to reflect the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as a threatened species in 
accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered 
species'' as any species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' 
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this 
discussion. The Act defines ``species'' as follows: ``The term 
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and 
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish 
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The phrase ``significant 
portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute. 
Additionally, we have never addressed in our regulations: (1) The 
consequences of a determination that a species is either endangered or 
likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range, but 
not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a 
range as ``significant.''
    Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR 
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of 
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the 
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and 
WildEarth Guardians v.

[[Page 26529]]

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

[[Page 26530]]

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

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through the listing results in public awareness 
and conservation

[[Page 26531]]

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

[[Page 26532]]

the range of species proposed for listing. The following activities 
could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this 
list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon individuals of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS; and
    (2) Unauthorized modification of the old-growth, coniferous forest 
landscape within the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Idaho Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for 
copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and general 
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th 
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile 503-
231-6243).

Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 26533]]

recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time 
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our listing determination for this species is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite 
these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rule. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearing on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date 
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests 
must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if 
any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those 
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing.
    Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate 
in a public hearing should contact the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 
at 208-378-5243, as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to 
process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the hearing 
date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in 
alternative formats upon request.

Effects of This Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to amend 
the current listing of the transboundary southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou by defining the Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed endangered southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and designate the 
status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS as threatened under the 
Act. This rule formally recognizes that the proposed Southern Mountain 
Caribou DPS is not in imminent danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. However, this proposed designation of 
threatened status for the newly defined DPS would not significantly 
change the protection afforded the currently listed local population of 
the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou under the 
Act. The regulatory protections of section 9 and section 7 of the Act 
are largely the same for species listed as endangered or threatened. 
Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing a Southern 
Mountain Caribou or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 of the 
Act, is still subject to a penalty under section 11 of the Act, unless 
their action is covered under a special rule under section 4(d) of the 
Act. At this time, we are not proposing a special rule under section 
4(d) of the Act for the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. Under section 7 
of the Act, Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.
    This proposal, if made final, would also revise 50 CFR 17.95(a) by 
reaffirming the designation of approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) as 
critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of 
woodland caribou as applicable to the U.S. portion of the proposed 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS.

Required Determinations

Clarity of This Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than 
jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section, above. 
To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific 
as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the 
sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or 
sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables 
would be useful, etc.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the 
State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), remove the entry for ``Caribou, woodland'' and 
add an entry for ``Caribou, Southern Mountain'' in alphabetical order 
under MAMMALS in

[[Page 26534]]

the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species                                                   Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                    Critical     Special
                                                          Historic range       endangered or        Status       When listed      habitat       rules
           Common name              Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Caribou, Southern Mountain......  Rangifer tarandus    U.S.A..............  U.S.A. (wherever     T              128E, 136, 143     17.95(a)           NA
                                   caribou.            (AK, ID, ME, MI,      occurring), Canada
                                                        MN, MT, NH, VT,      (southeastern
                                                        WA, WI), Canada..    British Columbia).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
    Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Southern Mountain 
Caribou Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
* * * * *
    (2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Southern Mountain Caribou DPS consist of five components: * * *
* * * * *
    (iv) High-elevation benches and shallow slopes, secondary stream 
bottoms, riparian areas, seeps, and subalpine meadows with succulent 
forbs and grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, willow, huckleberry, 
dwarf birch, sedges, and lichens. The Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, 
including pregnant females, uses these areas for feeding during the 
spring and summer seasons.
* * * * *
    (5) Unit 1: Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, 
Washington. The map of the critical habitat unit follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 26535]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY14.001

* * * * *

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