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



[[Page 52597]]

Vol. 84

Wednesday,

No. 191

October 2, 2019

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR 17





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

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

[[Page 52598]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for the southern mountain caribou distinct population 
segment (DPS) of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This 
determination amends the current listing of the southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou by defining the southern 
mountain caribou DPS. The southern mountain caribou DPS of woodland 
caribou consists of 17 subpopulations (15 extant and 2 extirpated). 
This DPS includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou, a transboundary population that moves 
between British Columbia, Canada, and northern Idaho and northeastern 
Washington, United States. We have determined that the approximately 
30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) designated as critical habitat on 
November 28, 2012, for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of 
woodland caribou is applicable to the U.S. portion of the endangered 
southern mountain caribou DPS and, as such, reaffirm the existing 
critical habitat for the DPS. This rule amends the listing of this DPS 
on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective November 1, 2019.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Hughes, State Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. 
Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; telephone 208-378-5243; 
facsimile 208-378-5262. Persons who are hearing impaired or speech 
impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY 
(telephone typewriter or teletypewriter) assistance 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant 
protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an 
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by rulemaking. 
Any proposed or final rule designating a DPS as endangered or 
threatened under the Act should clearly analyze the action using the 
following three elements: discreteness of the population segment in 
relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; the 
significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it 
belongs; and the conservation status of the population segment in 
relation to the Act's standards for listing (DPS policy; 61 FR 4722, 
February 7, 1996). Under the Act, any species that is determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species requires critical habitat to be 
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. 
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed 
through rulemaking. Here we reaffirm the designation of approximately 
30,010 acres (ac) (12,145 hectares (ha)) in one unit within Boundary 
County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, Washington, as critical habitat 
for the southern mountain caribou DPS.
    This rule amends the current listing of the southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou as follows:
     By defining the southern mountain caribou DPS, which 
includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population of 
woodland caribou;
     By designating the status of the southern mountain caribou 
DPS as endangered under the Act; and
     By reaffirming the designation of approximately 30,010 ac 
(12,145 ha) as critical habitat for the southern mountain caribou DPS.
    The basis for our action. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and 
its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 
for determining whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered 
species'' or ``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered 
species'' as a species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' 
as a species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Under the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered 
species or threatened species because of any one or a combination of 
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1): (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that 
threats described under factors A, C, and E pose significant threats to 
the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou DPS.
    We listed the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland 
caribou as endangered under the Act on February 29, 1984 (49 FR 7390). 
According to our ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS 
policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), the appropriate application of 
the policy to pre-1996 DPS listings shall be considered in our 5-year 
reviews of the status of the species. We conducted a DPS analysis 
during our 2008 5-year review, which concluded that the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou met both the 
discreteness and significance elements of the DPS policy. However, we 
now recognize that this analysis did not consider the significance of 
this population relative to the appropriate taxon. The purpose of the 
DPS policy is to set forth standards for determining which populations 
of vertebrate organisms that are subsets of species or subspecies may 
qualify as entities that we may list as endangered or threatened under 
the Act. In the 2008 5-year review, we assessed the significance of the 
southern Selkirk Mountains

[[Page 52599]]

population to the ``mountain ecotype'' of woodland caribou. The 
``mountain ecotype'' is neither a species nor a subspecies. The 
appropriate DPS analysis for the southern Selkirk Mountains population 
of woodland caribou should have been conducted relative to the 
subspecies woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Listing or 
reclassifying DPSs allows the Service to protect and conserve species 
and the ecosystems upon which they depend before large-scale decline 
occurs that would necessitate listing a species or subspecies 
throughout its entire range.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our amended listing proposal. We also considered all 
comments and information we received during the comment period.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 52600]]

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

Background

Previous Federal Actions

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

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

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

Species Information

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the southern mountain 
caribou DPS (79 FR 26504; May 8, 2014) for a summary of species 
information. Except for the following correction, there are no changes 
to the species information provided in that proposed rule. The sentence 
reading, ``Their winter pelage varies from nearly white in Arctic 
caribou such as the Peary caribou, to dark brown in woodland caribou 
(COSEWIC 2011, pp. 10-11)'' at 79 FR 26507 should instead read, 
``Breeding pelage is variable in color and patterning (Geist 2007), and 
winter pelage varies from almost white to dark brown.''

Evaluation of the Southern Mountain Caribou as a Distinct Population 
Segment

Introduction and Background

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service 
published a joint ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS 
Policy) on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). According to the DPS policy, 
any proposed or final rule designating a DPS as endangered or 
threatened under the Act should clearly analyze the action using the 
following three elements: Discreteness of the population segment in 
relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; the 
significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it 
belongs; and the conservation status of the population segment in 
relation to the Act's standards for listing. If the population segment 
qualifies as a DPS, the conservation status of that DPS is then 
evaluated to determine whether it is endangered or threatened.
    A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered 
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It 
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental 
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms 
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    If a population is found to be discrete, then it is evaluated for 
significance under the DPS policy on the basis of its importance to the 
taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not 
limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population 
segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon; (2) 
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the 
population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of the 
taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population 
outside of its historical range; or (4) evidence that the population 
differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics.
    If a population segment is both discrete and significant (i.e., it 
qualifies as a potential DPS), its evaluation for endangered or 
threatened status is based on the Act's definitions of those terms and 
a review of the factors listed in section 4(a) of the Act. According to 
our DPS policy, it may be appropriate to assign different 
classifications to different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon.
    Section 3(16) of the Act defines the term ``species'' to include 
``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' We have always understood the phrase 
``interbreeds when mature'' to mean that a DPS must consist of members 
of the same species or subspecies in the wild that would be 
biologically capable of interbreeding if given the opportunity, but all 
members need not actually interbreed with each other. A DPS is a subset 
of a species or subspecies, and cannot consist of members of a 
different species or subspecies. A DPS may include multiple populations 
of vertebrate organisms that may not necessarily interbreed with each 
other. For example, a DPS may consist of multiple populations of a fish 
species separated into different drainages. While these populations may 
not actually interbreed with each other, their members are biologically 
capable of interbreeding.
    Distinctive, discrete, and significant populations of the woodland 
caribou have been identified, described, and assessed by the Committee 
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC is 
composed of qualified wildlife experts drawn from Federal, provincial, 
and territorial governments; wildlife management boards; Aboriginal 
groups; universities;

[[Page 52601]]

museums; national nongovernmental organizations; and others with 
expertise in the conservation of wildlife species in Canada. The role 
of COSEWIC is to assess and classify, using the best available 
information, the conservation status of wildlife species, subspecies, 
and separate populations suspected of being at risk. In addition, they 
make species status recommendations to the Canadian government and the 
public. Once COSEWIC makes this recommendation, it is the option of the 
Canadian Federal government to decide whether a species will be listed 
under Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA). The southern mountain 
caribou population, which includes the transboundary southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou (and is the subject of this 
final amended listing), is currently designated as ``threatened'' under 
SARA (COSEWIC 2011, p. 74). This designation was reached because the 
population of southern mountain caribou is mostly made up of small, 
increasingly isolated herds (most of which are in decline) with an 
estimated range reduction of up to 40 percent from their historical 
range (COSEWIC 2002, p. 58; COSEWIC 2011, p. 74).
    In August 2014, COSEWIC, in accordance with SARA, submitted its 
assessment to the Canadian Federal Environment Minister for 
consideration of changing the legal status of the southern mountain 
caribou in Canada under SARA to endangered (COSEWIC 2014, p. iv). The 
recommended change in the legal status under SARA is pending review and 
decision by the Federal Environment Minister.
    Because we now consider the southern Selkirk Mountains population 
of woodland caribou part of the larger southern mountain caribou 
population, as recognized by COSEWIC (2011, entire), we recognize that 
our evaluation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population is more 
appropriately conducted at the scale of the larger southern mountain 
caribou population. Therefore, below we evaluate whether, under our DPS 
policy, the southern mountain caribou population segment (i.e., 15 
extant and 2 extirpated subpopulations) of woodland caribou occurring 
in British Columbia, Canada, and northeastern Washington and northern 
Idaho, United States, qualifies as a DPS under the Act.
    We completed a 5-year review of the endangered southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in 
2008 (USFWS 2008). Because this population was listed prior to the 
Service's 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), the 5-year 
review included an analysis of this population in relation to the DPS 
policy. In conducting the DPS analysis, we considered the discreteness 
and significance of this population in relation to the mountain caribou 
metapopulation (USFWS 2008, pp. 6-13) (i.e., mountain caribou ecotype). 
From this analysis, we concluded that the southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou met both the discreteness and 
significance elements of the DPS policy and was a distinct population 
segment of the mountain caribou metapopulation (USFWS 2008, p. 13). 
However, we acknowledged in our December 19, 2012, 90-day finding (77 
FR 75091) on a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou that the DPS analysis in our 2008 5-year 
review was not conducted relative to the appropriate taxon. 
Specifically, we should have conducted the DPS analysis of the southern 
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou relative to the 
woodland caribou subspecies (Rangifer tarandus caribou) instead of the 
mountain caribou metapopulation.
    For this final amended listing and DPS analysis of the southern 
mountain population of woodland caribou to the subspecies woodland 
caribou, we reviewed and evaluated information contained in numerous 
publications and reports, including, but not limited to: Banfield 1961; 
Stevenson et al. 2001; COSEWIC 2002, 2011, 2014; Cichowski et al. 2004; 
Wittmer et al. 2005b, 2010; Hatter 2006, in litt.; Geist 2007; van Oort 
et al. 2011; and Serrouya et al. 2012.
    In 2002 and 2011, COSEWIC completed status assessments of caribou 
subspecies and species populations in North America. The 2002 COSEWIC 
Report evaluated woodland caribou ``nationally significant 
populations'' (NSPs). The more recent COSEWIC (2011) Report described 
``Designatable Units'' (DUs) as the appropriate ``discrete and 
significant units'' useful to conserve and manage caribou populations 
throughout Canada. Information used in COSEWIC's 2011 report is useful 
to our DPS analysis. Canada's DUs are identified based on the criteria 
that there are ``discrete and evolutionarily significant units of a 
taxonomic species, where `significant' means that the unit is important 
to the evolutionary legacy of the species as a whole and if lost, would 
likely not be replaced through natural dispersion'' (COSEWIC 2011, p. 
14). They consider a population or group of populations to be 
``discrete'' based on the following criteria: distinctiveness in 
genetic characteristics or inherited traits, habitat discontinuity, or 
ecological isolation (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15).
    It should be noted that COSEWIC's DU designation does not 
necessarily consider the conservation status or threats to the 
persistence of caribou DUs. Consistent with its 2009 guidelines, the 
COSEWIC used five lines of evidence to determine caribou DUs; these 
include: (1) Phylogenetics; (2) genetic diversity and structure; (3) 
morphology; (4) movements, behavior, and life-history strategies; and 
(5) distribution (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15). As a general rule, a DU was 
designated when several lines of evidence provided support for 
discreteness and significance (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 15-16). Twelve caribou 
DUs were classified by COSEWIC in 2011, including the southern mountain 
caribou population (DU9), which includes the southern Selkirk Mountains 
population of woodland caribou (COSEWIC 2011, p. 21). The information 
used to describe the southern mountain DU is reviewed and evaluated in 
our DPS analysis, as it includes numerous local woodland caribou 
populations that all possess similar and unique foraging, migration, 
and habitat use behaviors, and that are geographically separated from 
other caribou DUs.

Discreteness

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

I. Physical (Geographic) Discreteness

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

[[Page 52602]]

2011, pp. 222-223), indicating that mountain caribou appear to lack the 
inherent behavior to disperse long distances (van Oort, et al. 2011, 
pp. 215, 221-222). For the purposes of this DPS analysis, this 
collection of woodland caribou subpopulations, which, as noted above, 
includes the southern Selkirk Mountains population, constitutes the 
southern mountain population of caribou; we also refer to it herein as 
``southern mountain caribou.''
    Telemetry research by Wittmer et al. (2005b) and van Oort et al. 
(2011) supports the physical (geographic) discreteness of southern 
mountain caribou. One exception is that there is some limited annual 
range overlap between a few local caribou populations at the far north 
of the southern mountain caribou population. Although all caribou and 
reindeer worldwide are considered to be the same species (Rangifer 
tarandus) and are presumed able to interbreed and produce offspring 
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 9), the distribution of the southern mountain caribou 
does not overlap with other caribou populations during the rut or 
mating season (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Previous telemetry studies were 
completed by Apps and McLellan (2006, pp. 84-85, 92) to determine 
occupancy across differing landscapes. These studies confirmed that 
woodland caribou within the geographic area that defines the southern 
mountain caribou population are strongly associated with the steep, 
mountainous terrain characterizing the ``interior wet-belt'' of British 
Columbia (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 3), located west of the continental 
divide. This area is influenced by Pacific air masses that produce the 
wettest climate in the interior of British Columbia (Stevenson et al. 
2001, p. 3). Forests consist of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii or 
P. glauca x engelmannii)/subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) at high 
elevation, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata)/western hemlock (Tsuga 
heterophylla) at lower elevations. Snowpack typically averages 5 to 16 
feet (ft) (2 to 5 meters (m)) in depth (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 4; 
COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Apps and McLellan (2006, p. 92) noted that the 
steep, complex topography within the interior wet-belt provides 
seasonally important habitats. Caribou access this habitat by migrating 
in elevational shifts rather than through the long horizontal 
migrations of other subspecies in northern Canada. Woodland caribou 
that live within this interior wet-belt of southern British Columbia, 
northeastern Washington, and northern Idaho are strongly associated 
with old-growth forested landscapes (Apps et al. 2001, pp. 65, 70). 
These landscapes are predominantly cedar/hemlock and spruce/subalpine 
fir composition (Stevenson et al. 2001, pp. 3-5; Apps and McLellan 
2006, pp. 84, 91; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 231; COSEWIC 2011, p. 
50) that supports woodland caribou's late-winter diet consisting almost 
entirely of arboreal hair lichens (Cichowski et al. 2004, p. 229).
    The southern mountain caribou population is markedly separate from 
other populations of woodland caribou as a result of physical 
(geographic) factors. The distribution of this population is primarily 
located within the interior wet-belt of southern British Columbia, 
occurring west of the continental divide and generally south of 
Reynolds Creek (which is about 90 miles (mi) (150 kilometers (km)) 
north of Prince George, British Columbia). Its geographic range is such 
that it does not reproduce with other subpopulations of woodland 
caribou.

II. Behavioral Discreteness

    In addition to being physically (geographically) discrete, 
individuals within the southern mountain caribou population are 
behaviorally distinguished from woodland caribou in other populations 
(including the neighboring Northern Mountain and Central Mountain 
populations). Southern mountain caribou uniquely use steep, high-
elevation, mountainous habitats with deep snowfall (about 5 to 16 ft (2 
to 5 m)) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50), and, as described below, are the only 
woodland caribou that depend on arboreal lichens for forage. This 
habitat use contrasts with the behavior of other woodland caribou, 
which occupy relatively drier habitats that receive less snowfall. With 
less snowfall in these areas, these woodland caribou primarily forage 
on terrestrial lichens, accessing them by ``cratering'' or digging 
through the snow with their hooves (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 
2002, pp. 25, 27).
    Extreme, deep snow conditions have led to a foraging strategy by 
the southern mountain caribou that is unique among woodland caribou. 
They rely exclusively on arboreal (tree) lichens for 3 or more months 
of the year (Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; Edmonds 1991, p. 91; 
Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230-231; 
MCST 2005, p. 2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Arboreal lichens are a critical 
winter food for the southern mountain caribou from November to May 
(Servheen and Lyon 1989, p. 235; Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 1; Cichowski 
et al. 2004, p. 233). During this time, a southern mountain caribou's 
diet can be composed almost entirely of these lichens. Arboreal lichens 
are pulled from the branches of conifers, picked from the surface of 
the snow after being blown out of trees by wind, or are grazed from 
wind-thrown branches and trees. The two kinds of arboreal lichens 
commonly eaten by the southern mountain caribou are Bryoria spp. and 
Alectoria sarmentosa. Both are extremely slow-growing lichens most 
commonly found in high-elevation, old-growth conifer forests that are 
greater than 250 years old (Paquet 1997, p. 14; Apps et al. 2001, pp. 
65-66).
    Another unique behavior of caribou within the southern mountain 
caribou population is their altitudinal migrations. They may undertake 
as many as four of these migrations per year (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). 
After wintering at high elevations as described above, at the onset of 
spring, these caribou move to lower elevations where snow has melted to 
forage on new green vegetation (Paquet 1997, p. 16; Mountain Caribou 
Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC) 2002, p. 11). Pregnant females 
will move to these spring habitats for forage. During the calving 
season, sometime from June into July, the need to avoid predators 
influences habitat selection. Areas selected for calving are typically 
high-elevation, alpine and non-forested areas in close proximity to 
old-growth forest ridge tops, as well as high-elevation basins. These 
high-elevation sites can be food limited, but are more likely to be 
free of predators (USFWS 1994a, p. 8; MCTAC 2002, p. 11; Cichowski et 
al. 2004, p. 232; Kinley and Apps 2007, p. 16). During calving, 
arboreal lichens become the primary food source for pregnant females at 
these elevations. This is because green forage is largely unavailable 
in these secluded, old-growth conifer habitats.
    During summer months, southern mountain caribou move back to upper-
elevation spruce/alpine fir forests (Paquet 1997, p. 16). Summer diets 
include selective foraging of grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, 
willow and dwarf birch leaves and tips, sedges, lichens (Paquet 1997, 
pp. 13, 16), and huckleberry leaves (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2004, 
p. 18). The fall and early winter diet consists largely of dried 
grasses, sedges, willow and dwarf birch tips, and arboreal lichens.
    The southern mountain caribou are behaviorally adapted to the 
steep, high-elevation, mountainous habitat with deep snowpack. They 
feed almost exclusively on arboreal lichens for 3 or more months out of 
the year. They are

[[Page 52603]]

also reproductively isolated, due to their behavior and separation from 
other caribou populations during the fall rut and mating season 
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). Based on these unique adaptations, we consider 
the southern mountain caribou population to meet the behavioral 
``discreteness'' standard in our DPS policy.

III. Genetic Discreteness

    Data from Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2,594) show that genetic 
population structure (i.e., patterning or clustering of the genetic 
make-up of individuals within a population) does exist within woodland 
caribou. Specifically, Serrouya revealed a genetic cluster that is 
unique to southern mountain caribou and different from genetic clusters 
found in surrounding subpopulations of woodland caribou designated as 
part of other Canada caribou DUs (i.e., Central Mountain DU, Northern 
Mountain DU, and Boreal DU). However, Serrouya also revealed genetic 
clusters that occur in both the southern mountain caribou and 
neighboring DUs that suggest some historical gene flow did occur in the 
past, meaning that historically, caribou moved between populations of 
these DUs and interbred when mature.
    This cluster overlap of DU boundaries is not surprising, as genetic 
structure is reflective of long-term historical population dynamics and 
does not necessarily depict current gene flow. Indeed, it does appear 
that recent impediments to gene flow may be genetically isolating 
woodland caribou in the southwest portion of their range (Wittmer et 
al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012, 
p. 2,598). These impediments include anthropogenic habitat 
fragmentation and widespread caribou population declines. Therefore, 
genetic specialization related to unique behaviors and habitat use may 
represent a relatively recent life-history characteristic (Weckworth et 
al. 2012, p. 3,620). Historical gene flow between subpopulations of 
southern mountain caribou and neighboring subpopulations did occur in 
the past. However, study results from Serrouya et al. (2012), combined 
with telemetry data from Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 414) and van Oort et 
al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that isolation of subpopulations is now the 
norm, effecting some genetic differentiation of these subpopulations 
through genetic drift (Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2,597).
    A certain level of genetic differentiation does exist between the 
southern mountain caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou. 
However, we do not presently consider there to be sufficient evidence 
to determine that the southern mountain caribou are genetically 
isolated from other populations of caribou, particularly the Central 
Mountain population. Therefore, at this time, we do not find that this 
population meets the genetic ``discreteness'' standard in our DPS 
policy.

IV. Discreteness Conclusion

    In summary, we determine that the best available information 
indicates that the southern mountain caribou, comprised of 17 woodland 
caribou subpopulations (15 extant and 2 extirpated) that occur in 
southern British Columbia, northeastern Washington, and northern Idaho, 
is markedly separated from all other populations of woodland caribou. 
The southern mountain caribou population is physically 
(geographically), behaviorally, and reproductively isolated from other 
woodland caribou. Therefore, we consider the southern mountain caribou 
population to be discrete per our DPS policy.

Significance

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

I. Persistence of the Discrete Population Segment in an Ecological 
Setting Unusual or Unique for the Taxon

    As previously discussed, woodland caribou within the southern 
mountain caribou population are distinguished from woodland caribou in 
other areas. Southern mountain caribou live in, and are behaviorally 
adapted to, a unique ecological setting characterized by high-
elevation, high-precipitation, and steep old-growth conifer forests 
that support abundant arboreal lichens (COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). In 
addition, all woodland caribou in the southern mountain caribou 
population exhibit a distinct behavior. Specifically, they spend the 
winter months in high-elevation, steep, mountainous habitats where 
individuals stand on the deep, hard-crusted snowpack and feed 
exclusively on arboreal lichens on standing or fallen old-growth 
conifer trees (Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 224, 230-231; MCST 2005, p. 
2; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50). This behavior is unlike that of woodland 
caribou in neighboring areas that occupy less steep, drier terrain and 
do not feed on arboreal lichens during the winter (Thomas et al. 1996, 
p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, p. 50).
    In addition to persisting in a specific environment characterized 
by steep, high-elevation, old-growth forests and being reliant on 
arboreal lichens as primary winter forage, caribou of the southern 
mountain population make relatively short-distance altitudinal 
migrations up to four times per year. These caribou occupy valley 
bottoms and lower slopes in the early winter, and ridge tops and upper 
slopes in later winter after the snowpack deepens and hardens. In the 
spring, they move to lower elevations again to access green vegetation. 
Females make solitary movements back to high elevations to calve. This 
habitat and behavior are unique to the southern mountain caribou 
population. All other populations within the woodland caribou 
subspecies occupy winter habitat characterized by gentler topography, 
lower elevation, and less winter snowpack (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46) 
where their primary winter forage, terrestrial (ground) lichens, is 
most accessible (Thomas et al. 1996, p. 339; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 43, 46). 
Unlike woodland caribou of the southern mountain population, some 
populations in eastern Canada (Eastern Migratory DU (DU4; COSEWIC 2011, 
p. 34)) will migrate relatively long distances across the landscape 
between wintering and calving habitat, where they will calve in large 
aggregated groups (COSEWIC

[[Page 52604]]

2011, pp., 33, 37; Abraham et al. 2012, p. 274).
    We conclude that the southern mountain caribou meets the definition 
of significant in accordance with our DPS policy, as this population 
currently persists in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the 
subspecies of woodland caribou.

II. Evidence That the Discrete Population Segment Differs Markedly From 
Other Population Segments in Its Genetic Characteristics

    Research by Serrouya et al. (2012, p. 2594) indicates that there is 
some genetic population structure between woodland caribou populations 
in western North America. This research identified two main genetic 
clusters within the southern mountain caribou, separated from each 
other by the North Thompson Valley in British Columbia. One of these 
clusters is unique, with few exceptions, to the southern mountain 
caribou (structure analysis; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2594). The other 
cluster, northwest of the North Thompson Valley, is shared with the 
adjacent Central Mountain population. As such, there is limited genetic 
evidence in this study that southern mountain caribou populations north 
of the North Thompson Valley are genetically unique relative to caribou 
of the Central Mountain population.
    As previously discussed, the best available information indicates 
that recent impediments to gene flow such as habitat fragmentation and 
widespread caribou population declines may be genetically isolating 
woodland caribou in the southwestern portion of their range (Wittmer et 
al. 2005b, p. 414; van Oort et al. 2011, p. 221; Serrouya et al. 2012, 
p. 2,598). This genetic isolation has resulted in unique behaviors and 
habitat use (Weckworth et al. 2012, p. 3,620). Study results from 
Serrouya et al. (2012), combined with telemetry data from Wittmer et 
al. (2005b, p. 414) and van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221), suggest that 
while historical gene flow between subpopulations of southern mountain 
caribou and neighboring subpopulations did occur in the past, isolation 
of these subpopulations is now the norm. Research into the genetics of 
the woodland caribou will likely continue and will provide further 
insight into gene flow between these populations.
    Despite some level of genetic differentiation between the southern 
mountain caribou population and neighboring woodland caribou, and a 
predicted continuation of genetic differentiation between 
subpopulations within southern mountain caribou, we do not presently 
consider southern mountain caribou ``genetically unique.'' Therefore, 
at this time we do not find this population meets the genetic 
``significance'' standard in our DPS policy.

III. Evidence That the Population Segment Represents the Only Surviving 
Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That May Be More Abundant Elsewhere as an 
Introduced Population Outside Its Historic Range

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

IV. Evidence That Loss of the Discrete Population Segment Would Result 
in a Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon

    Historically, woodland caribou were widely distributed throughout 
portions of the northern tier of the coterminous United States from 
Washington to Maine, as well as throughout most of southern Canada 
(COSEWIC 2002, p. 19). However, as a result of habitat loss and 
fragmentation, overhunting, and the effects of predation, the 
population of woodland caribou within the British Columbia portion of 
their range has declined dramatically with an estimated 40 percent 
range reduction (COSEWIC 2002, p. 20). Additionally, Hatter (pers. 
comm. as cited in Spalding 2000, p. 40) estimated that the range of 
southern mountain caribou has declined by approximately 60 percent, 
when considering both the Canadian and U.S. range of the population. 
However, because there are no reliable historical estimates of the 
number of southern mountain caribou and their distribution (Spalding 
2000, p. 34), it is difficult to precisely estimate their historical 
range for a comparison to their current range. Nevertheless, according 
to COSEWIC (2014, p. 14), mountain caribou were much more widely 
distributed than they are today, and thus the range of this population 
is decreasing. Further evidence of this decline is supported by 
population surveys. For example, Hatter et al. (2004, p. 7) reported 
there were an estimated 2,554 individuals in the population in 1995, 
but in 2014, COSEWIC (2014, p. xvii) estimated the number of caribou in 
this population has declined to only 1,356 individuals.
    Loss of the southern mountain caribou population would result in 
the loss of the southern-most extent of the range of woodland caribou 
by about 2.5 degrees of latitude. The Service has not established a 
threshold of degrees latitude loss or percent range reduction for 
determining significance to a particular taxon. The importance of 
specific degrees latitude loss and/or percent range reduction, and the 
analysis of what such loss or reduction ultimately means to 
conservation of individual species/subspecies necessarily will be 
specific to the biology of the species/subspecies in question. However, 
the extirpation of peripheral populations, such as the southern 
mountain caribou population, is concerning because of the potential 
conservation value that peripheral populations can provide to a species 
or subspecies. Specifically, peripheral populations can possess slight 
genetic or phenotypic divergences from core populations (Lesica and 
Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50). The genotypic and 
phenotypic characteristics peripheral populations may provide to the 
core population of the species may be central to the species' survival 
in the face of environmental change (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756; 
Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2,242). Additionally, data tend to show that 
peripheral populations are persistent when species' range collapse 
occurs (Lomolino and Channell 1995, p. 342; Channell and Lomolino 2000, 
pp. 84-86; Channell 2004, p. 1). Of 96 species whose last remnant 
populations were found either in core or periphery of the historical 
range (rather than some in both core and periphery), 91 (95 percent) of 
the species were found to exist only in the periphery, and 5 (5 
percent) existed solely in the center (Channell and Lomolino 2000, p. 
85). Also, as described previously, caribou within the southern 
mountain population occur at the southern edge of woodland caribou 
range (i.e., they are a peripheral population), and have adapted to an 
environment unique to woodland caribou. Peripheral populations adapted 
to different environments may facilitate speciation (Mayr 1970 in 
Channell 2004, p. 9). Thus, the available scientific literature data 
support the importance of peripheral populations for conservation

[[Page 52605]]

(Fraser 2000, entire; Lesica and Allendorf, 1995, entire).
    Additionally, loss of the southern mountain caribou population 
would result in the loss of the only remaining population of the 
woodland caribou in the coterminous United States. An additional 
consequence of the loss of the southern mountain caribou population 
would be the elimination of the only North American caribou population 
with the distinct behavior of feeding exclusively on arboreal lichens 
for 3 or more months of the year. This feeding behavior is related to 
their spending winter months in high-elevation, steep, mountainous 
habitats with deep snowpack.
    Finally, extirpation of this population segment would result in the 
loss of a peripheral population segment of woodland caribou that live 
in, and are behaviorally adapted to, a unique ecological setting 
characterized by high-elevation, high-precipitation (including deep 
snowpack), and steep old-growth conifer forests that support abundant 
arboreal lichens.

V. Significance Conclusion

    We conclude that the southern mountain caribou persists in an 
ecological setting unusual or unique for the subspecies of woodland 
caribou, and that loss of the southern mountain caribou would result in 
a significant gap in the range of the woodland caribou subspecies. 
Therefore, the discrete southern mountain caribou population of 
woodland caribou that occur in southern British Columbia and in 
northeastern Washington and northern Idaho meets significance criteria 
under our DPS policy.

Listable Entity Determination

    In conclusion, the Service finds that the southern mountain caribou 
population meets both the discreteness and significance elements of our 
DPS policy. It qualifies as discrete because of its marked physical 
(geographic) and behavioral separation from other populations of the 
woodland caribou subspecies. It qualifies as significant because of its 
existence in a unique ecological setting, and because the loss of this 
population would leave a significant gap in the range of the woodland 
caribou subspecies. For consistency, we will refer to the southern 
mountain DU, described by COSEWIC, as the southern mountain caribou 
DPS. See Figure 1 for a map of the known distribution of subpopulations 
within the southern mountain caribou DPS.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 52606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.000


[[Page 52607]]



Status of the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS

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

[[Page 52608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.001


[[Page 52609]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.002

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

[[Page 52610]]

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

[[Page 52611]]

2004, p. 11). These estimates do not account for the relationship 
between density and adult female survival, and may be a conservative 
estimate of time to extinction (in other words, may underestimate the 
timeframes). Wittmer (2004, p. 88) attempted to account for density-
dependent adult female survival and predicted extinction of all 
subpopulations in the DPS within the next 100 years. More recent 
population viability analyses (PVAs) have predicted quasi-extinction or 
extinction of several of the subpopulations within the DPS. A PVA 
conducted by Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) predicted that the 
probability of quasi-extinction (a number below which extinction is 
very likely due to genetic or demographic risks, considered to be fewer 
than 20 animals in this case) in 20 years was 100 percent for 6 of the 
15 subpopulations, greater than 50 percent for 11 of the 15 
subpopulations, and greater than 20 percent for 12 of the 15 
subpopulations within the DPS. Hatter (2006, p. 7, in litt.) also 
predicted quasi-extinction of another subpopulation (Wells Gray) in 87 
years. Thus, a total of 13 of the 15 subpopulations could be quasi-
extinct within 90 years, leaving only 2 subpopulations (Hart Ranges and 
North Caribou Mountains) remaining at the extreme northern portion of 
the DPS's range. Both the Hart Ranges and North Caribou Mountains 
subpopulations are declining (COSEWIC 2014, p. 41). These two 
subpopulations are subjected to the same threats acting on the other 
subpopulations in this DPS (COSEWIC 2014, p. 56), and are thus at a 
greater risk of extirpation than what we understood at the time of our 
May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504).
    Wittmer et al. (2010, entire) conducted a PVA on 10 of the 
subpopulations assessed by Hatter (2006, entire, in litt.). All 10 
subpopulations were predicted to decline to extinction within 200 years 
when models incorporated the declines in adult female survival known to 
occur with increasing proportions of young forest and declining 
population densities (Wittmer et al. 2010, p. 86). The results of PVA 
modeling by Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 90) also suggested that 7 of the 
10 populations have a greater than 90 percent cumulative probability of 
extirpation within 100 years. Further, Wittmer et al. (2010, p. 91) 
suggested that as subpopulation densities decline, predation (see 
``Predation'' under the Factor C analysis, below) may have a 
disproportionately greater effect, which is defined as depensatory 
mortality. Thus, the length of time to extirpation may be less than the 
timeframes suggested by PVA modeling that does not account for 
depensatory mortality. Therefore, the 200 and 100 year time spans that 
Wittmer et al. (2010, pp. 86, 90) predict for extirpation of all 10 and 
7 of the 10 subpopulations, respectively, may be an overestimate (i.e., 
extirpation of these subpopulations may occur in less time).
    Along with these documented and predicted population declines, 
subpopulations of woodland caribou within the DPS are becoming 
increasingly fragmented and isolated (Wittmer 2004, p. 28; van Oort et 
al. 2011, p. 25; Serrouya et al. 2012, p. 2,598). Fragmentation and 
isolation are particularly pronounced in the southern portion of the 
southern mountain caribou DPS (Wittmer 2004, p. 28). In fact, neither 
Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 409) nor van Oort et al. (2011, p. 221) 
detected movement of individuals between subpopulations in the DPS.
    Fragmentation and isolation are likely accelerating the extinction 
process and reducing the probability of demographic rescue from natural 
immigration or emigration because mountain caribou appear to lack the 
inherent behavior to disperse long distances (Van Oort et al. 2011, pp. 
215, 221-222). As stated previously, mountain caribou were more widely 
distributed in mountainous areas of southeastern British Columbia 
(Canada), northern Idaho, and northeastern Washington. Currently, 
mountain caribou exist in several discrete subpopulations, which could 
be considered a metapopulation structure. However, a functioning 
metapopulation structure requires immigration and emigration between 
the subpopulations within the metapopulation via dispersal of juveniles 
(natal dispersal), adults (breeding dispersal), or both. Dispersal of 
individuals (natal or breeding) can facilitate demographic rescue of 
neighboring populations that are in decline or recolonization of ranges 
from which populations have been extirpated (i.e., classic 
metapopulation theory). Species whose historical distribution was more 
widely and evenly distributed (such as mountain caribou) (van Oort et 
al. 2011, p. 221) that have been fragmented into subpopulations via 
habitat fragmentation and loss may appear to exist in a metapopulation 
structure when in fact, because they may not have evolved the innate 
behavior to disperse among subpopulations, their fragmented 
distribution may actually represent a geographic pattern of extinction 
(van Oort et al. 2011, p. 215). Also, as excerpted from COSEWIC (2014, 
p. 43):

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

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine whether a 
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of any 
one or a combination of the following: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)

[[Page 52612]]

other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 
Listing actions may be warranted because of any of the above threat 
factors, singly or in combination. We discuss each of these factors for 
the southern mountain caribou DPS below.

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

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

[[Page 52613]]

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

[[Page 52614]]

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

[[Page 52615]]

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

[[Page 52616]]

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

[[Page 52617]]

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

[[Page 52618]]

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

[[Page 52619]]

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

[[Page 52620]]

occurring today, despite conservation measures, and are likely to occur 
in the future. These impacts will likely contribute to the decline of 
subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS and further 
impact the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou DPS.
    We have evaluated the best available scientific and commercial data 
on the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of the habitat or range of the southern mountain caribou DPS. Through 
this evaluation, we have determined that the activities identified 
under this factor pose significant threats to the continued existence 
of the southern mountain caribou DPS, especially when considered in 
concert with the other factors impacting the southern mountain caribou 
DPS.

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

    Caribou have been an important game species since they have shared 
the landscape with humans. Native Americans have hunted caribou for 
thousands of years in British Columbia, although the numbers of animals 
taken were probably modest given the relatively limited hunting 
pressure and hunting implements at the time (Spalding 2000, p. 38). The 
introduction of firearms combined with a later increase in human 
populations in British Columbia led to an increase in caribou harvested 
by the late 1800s and into the 1900s (Spalding 2000, p. 38).
    It is thought that an increase in hunting pressure, although it did 
not cause extinction, upset the already delicate balance between 
predators and caribou and catalyzed a general decline in caribou 
populations (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 73; Spalding 2000, p. 39). In 
support of this hypothesis, Spalding (2000, p. 39) cited old field 
reports that hunters, both Native American and non-Native American, 
were killing too many caribou. He also cited several regions of British 
Columbia where, after hunting closures were implemented, caribou 
numbers began to rebound, although this was not the case in all 
populations (Spalding 2000, p. 37). These hunting pressures and 
associated population declines subsided with the hunting season 
closures, and some regions of British Columbia even saw population 
increases and stabilization after the 1940s (Spalding 2000, pp. 37, 
39).
    Hunting of caribou is currently not allowed in any of the lower 48 
United States. While hunting of mountain caribou is allowed within 
certain areas of British Columbia (British Columbia Hunting and 
Trapping Regulations/Synopsis 2014-2016), according to Chris Ritchie 
(2015, pers. comm.), there is no legal harvest of mountain caribou 
allowed within the range of the southern mountain caribou DU/DPS in 
Canada. Further, hunting is prohibited in all national parks and 
ecological reserves in British Columbia, but may be allowed in some 
specific British Columbia parks. Consequently, legal harvest has not 
been a major limiting factor to caribou within the southern mountain 
caribou DPS since the mid-1970s (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 73). 
Therefore, although it may have had a historical impact on caribou 
populations, hunting/harvesting of caribou is not presently impacting 
caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS.
    Although there are historical reports of the illegal harvest of 
caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS (Scott and Servheen 
1985, p. 15; Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76), we do not have data that 
suggest illegal killing is affecting caribou numbers in any of the 
subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
    Aside from State and Provincial regulations that limit hunting of 
caribou, we are unaware of other conservation efforts to reduce 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; however, we do not have information suggesting 
that overutilization is an ongoing threat to caribou within the 
southern mountain caribou DPS.
Summary for Factor B
    Threats from overutilization such as hunting appear to be 
ameliorated, now and in the future, by responsible management. 
Historically, caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS were 
hunted throughout their range. They were likely overharvested when 
human populations increased in British Columbia and with the advent of 
modern weapons. The hunting of caribou has been made illegal within the 
southern mountain caribou DPS, in both the United States and Canada. 
After hunting ceased, certain populations began to recover but others 
did not. Even though there have been known occurrences of humans 
illegally killing caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS in 
the past, we do not have information indicating this is an ongoing 
threat. We have evaluated the best available scientific and commercial 
data on the overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes of the southern mountain caribou DPS and 
determined that activities identified under this factor do not pose 
threats to the continued existence of the southern mountain caribou 
DPS.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    Caribou mortality due to disease and parasitism has been documented 
throughout their range and within the southern mountain caribou DPS 
(Spalding 2000, p. 40; Compton et al. 1995, p. 493; Dauphine 1975 in 
COSEWIC 2002, pp. 20, 54-55). The effects of many types of biting and 
stinging insects on caribou include parasite and disease transmission, 
harassment, and immune system reactions (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). Several 
insects with the potential to affect caribou populations include warble 
flies (Oedemagena spp.), nose bot flies (Cephenemyia trompe), 
mosquitoes (Aedes spp.), black flies (Simulium spp.), horseflies 
(Tabanus spp.), and deer flies (Chrysops spp.) (COSEWIC 2002, p. 54). 
Mature and old woodland caribou are likely to have a relatively high 
incidence and prevalence of hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) in 
their lungs, which can make them more susceptible to predation (COSEWIC 
2002, p. 54). Eggs and larvae of the protostrongylid nematode 
(Parelaphostrongylus andersoni) can develop in woodland caribou lungs 
and can contribute to pneumonia (COSEWIC 2002, pp. 54-55). Finally, a 
related meningeal nematode (P. tenuis) causes neurologic disease in 
caribou. Although this nematode is benign in white-tailed deer, it may 
be a limiting factor to caribou in southern Ontario and west to 
Saskatchewan. Samuel et al. (1992, p. 629) suggested that this 
meningeal nematode may anthropogenically spread in western Canada due 
to game ranching; however, we have no new information to determine if 
this spread has or has not occurred.
    Within the southern mountain caribou DPS, evidence of disease or 
parasitism is limited. We know that several caribou that were shot or 
found dead in a forest near Rooney, British Columbia, in 1918 were 
thought to have a type of pneumonia (Spalding 2000, p. 40). We also 
know that, of 34 caribou that died within 2 years of translocation to 
the southern Selkirk Mountains, only one was confirmed to have died of

[[Page 52621]]

severe parasitism (Sarcocystis sp.) and emaciation (Compton et al. 
1995, p. 493). Additionally, in 2012, 19 caribou were translocated from 
the Level-Kawdy subpopulation in northwestern British Columbia into the 
Purcell Mountains subpopulation in southeastern British Columbia, 
Canada. Of the 19 translocated caribou, one died from malnutrition due 
to ticks (Gordon 2013, in litt.). Although evidence within the southern 
mountain DPS is limited, we are aware that a reintroduction effort of 
51 caribou outside of the southern mountain caribou DPS in the late 
1960s failed, presumably because of meningeal worms 
(Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) (Dauphine 1975 in COSEWIC 2002, p. 20).
    As is the case with most wildlife, caribou are susceptible to 
disease and parasitism. These sources of mortality are likely causing 
some level of impact to individual caribou within the southern mountain 
caribou DPS. However, because no severe outbreaks have been documented 
and because relatively few caribou within the southern mountain caribou 
DPS have been known to succumb to disease or parasitism, these sources 
of mortality are unlikely to have significantly impacted caribou within 
the southern mountain caribou DPS, currently or historically.
Predation
    Natural predators of caribou in the southern mountain caribou DPS 
include cougars (Felis concolor), wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears 
(Ursus arctos), and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Seip 2008, p. 1). 
Increased predation from these natural predators, particularly wolves 
and cougars, is thought to be the most, or one of the most, significant 
contributors to southern mountain caribou DPS declines in recent 
decades (Seip 1992, p. 1,500; Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 161; MCST 2005, 
p. 4, Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415). McLellan et al. (2012, 
entire) investigated whether interactions with forage (bottom-up) or 
predators (top-down) were the principal mechanisms regulating southern 
mountain caribou populations. They concluded that apparent competition 
(i.e., predation) is the proximate mechanism driving the population 
decline of mountain caribou (McLellan et al. 2012, p. 859). Apparent 
competition occurs indirectly between prey populations that share a 
common food-limited predator, whereby the predator asymmetrically 
impacts the prey populations (Holt 1977, pp. 201-202), even without 
resource competition between the prey species. For example, in this 
case, the numerical response of predators (e.g., wolves and cougars) to 
the primary prey (i.e., deer, elk, moose) can depress the population of 
the secondary prey (i.e., caribou), resembling competition between the 
prey species. Predation on the secondary prey can be incidental, can 
increase proportionately as the numbers of secondary prey decline 
(Sinclair et al. 1998 in Wittmer et al. 2005a, p. 259), and can lead to 
extinction of the secondary prey (DeCesare et al. 2010, pp. 353, 355). 
McLellan et al. (2012, p. 859) also concluded that food limitation 
(neither quality nor quantity) is likely not driving the continued 
population decline of mountain caribou.
    As cited previously the decline of this population is accelerating 
(COSEWIC 2014, p. vii). Wittmer et al. (2005b, p. 264) found that 
predation was the primary cause of mortality driving the accelerated 
rate of population decline of mountain caribou. The accelerated rate of 
decline of the overall population composed of small, fragmented, and 
isolated subpopulations is consistent with the Allee effect \2\ 
(Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186), which predicts population growth rates 
to decline as populations become smaller. Increased predation pressure 
on small populations is one example of an Allee effect, but genetic 
drift can also result in an Allee effect (Stephens et al. 1999, p. 
185).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Elevated levels of predation on caribou in the southern mountain 
caribou DPS have likely been caused, in part, by an alteration of the 
natural predator-prey ecology within their range (Wittmer et al. 2005b, 
p. 417; Seip 2008, p. 3). This change in the predator-prey ecology 
within the southern mountain caribou DPS is thought to be catalyzed, at 
least in part, by human-caused habitat alteration and fragmentation 
(Seip 2008, p. 3). Habitat alteration and fragmentation within the 
southern mountain caribou DPS is caused by many things, including, but 
not limited to, forest harvest, fire, human development, and effects 
due to climate change (see Factor A discussion, above). Alteration and 
fragmentation from these and other activities disturb land and create 
edge habitats. These new edges and disturbances allow for the 
introduction of early seral habitat that is preferred by deer, elk, and 
moose, thereby increasing habitat suitability for these alternate 
ungulate prey species within the southern mountain caribou DPS (Kinley 
and Apps 2001, p. 162; Seip 2008, p. 3). The increase in habitat 
suitability for deer, elk, and moose have allowed these alternate prey 
species to subsist in areas that, under natural disturbance regimes, 
would have been dominated by contiguous old-growth forest and of 
limited value to them (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162). The result is an 
altered distribution and increased numbers of these alternative 
ungulate prey species, particularly within summer habitat of caribou 
within the southern mountain caribou DPS (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 162; 
Wittmer et al. 2005a, pp. 263-264). Many studies suggest that increases 
in alternative ungulate prey within caribou summer habitat have 
stimulated an associated increase of natural predators, particularly 
cougars and wolves, in these same areas, consequently disrupting the 
predator-prey ecology within the southern mountain caribou DPS and 
resulting in increased predation on caribou (Kinley and Apps 2001, p. 
162; Wittmer et al. 2005b, pp. 414-415). Additionally, many studies 
conducted across the range of mountain caribou (Northern, Central, and 
Southern DUs) as well as the Boreal DU in Canada suggest these 
populations of caribou are at risk of extirpation where habitat 
altering industrial activities affect predator-prey dynamics (Festa-
Bianchet et al. 2011, p. 427).
    Habitat alteration and fragmentation has resulted in increased 
numbers and distribution of other ungulate prey species (i.e., deer, 
moose, and elk) that

[[Page 52622]]

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

[[Page 52623]]

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

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 52624]]

the illegal harvest of caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS 
(Scott and Servheen 1985, p. 15; Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). 
However, we do not have data that suggest illegal killing is affecting 
caribou numbers in any of the subpopulations within the southern 
mountain caribou DPS, and we do not consider this to be a threat to the 
species.
    Idaho Department of Lands: The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) 
manages approximately 51,000 ac (20,639 ha) of southern mountain 
caribou DPS habitat in the United States. These lands are managed 
primarily for timber harvest, an activity that has, currently and 
historically, the potential to significantly impact caribou and their 
habitat. The IDL contracted for a habitat assessment of their lands 
within the South Selkirk ecosystem (Kinley and Apps 2007, entire). The 
results of this assessment indicated that one of the largest blocks of 
high-priority caribou habitat in the United States is centered on IDL 
property and adjacent USFS lands. The report stated that IDL property 
contributes significantly to caribou habitat within the South Selkirk 
ecosystem. The IDL, with financial assistance from the Service, began 
working on a habitat conservation plan (HCP) several years ago to 
protect caribou and other listed species on their lands. However, 
development of this HCP has not moved forward beyond the initial 
stages. Recently, winter motorized use restrictions were loosened on 
some IDL endowment land in the Abandon Creek area north of Priest Lake. 
Under a revised winter access plan, lands will remain open to winter 
motorized use unless there is a confirmed caribou sighting (Seymour 
2012, in litt.). Because their timber harvest plans currently do not 
incorporate considerations for caribou and because of the recent 
removal of snowmobile restrictions, management of IDL's lands is likely 
not alleviating or addressing the threat of habitat loss, habitat 
fragmentation, or disturbance from winter recreation to caribou.
    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: The southern Selkirk 
Mountains population of woodland caribou was listed as endangered in 
the State of Washington in 1982 (WDFW 2011, p. 38). In addition, this 
population within Washington is considered a Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need by WDFW (WDFW 2005, p. 620). A $12,000 criminal 
wildlife penalty is assessed by WDFW for illegally killing or 
possessing a caribou in Washington State (WDFW 2012, p. 73). We do not 
have data that suggest illegal killing is affecting caribou numbers in 
any of the subpopulations within the southern mountain caribou DPS, and 
we do not consider this to be a threat to the species that needs to be 
addressed by a regulatory mechanism.

Canada

    The woodland caribou southern mountain population, which includes 
the southern mountain caribou DPS (which is equivalent to Canada's 
southern mountain DU), is protected as threatened under Canada's 
Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Statues of Canada (S.C.) chapter 29).\4\ 
However, as noted previously, COSEWIC has recommended that the southern 
mountain DU be listed as endangered under SARA (COSEWIC 2014, pp. iv, 
xix) pending review and decision by the Federal Environment Minister. 
``Endangered'' is defined by SARA as a wildlife species that is facing 
imminent extirpation or extinction. SARA defines a ``threatened'' 
species as ``a wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered 
species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its 
extirpation or extinction'' (S.C. chapter 29, section 2). It is illegal 
to kill, harm, harass, capture, or take an individual of a wildlife 
species that is listed as an endangered or a threatened species (S.C. 
chapter 29, section 32). SARA also prohibits any person from damaging 
or destroying the residence of a listed species, or from destroying any 
part of its critical habitat (S.C. chapter 29, sections 33, 58). For 
species that are not aquatic species or migratory birds, however, 
SARA's prohibition on destruction of the residence applies only on 
Federal lands. Most lands occupied by the woodland caribou southern 
mountain population are not Federal; hence, SARA does little to 
directly protect the population's habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The woodland caribou southern mountain population was assigned the 
status S1 in 2003, by the Province of British Columbia, meaning it is 
considered critically imperiled there (BCMOE 2013, in litt.). The 
Province of British Columbia does not have endangered species 
legislation. This lack of legislation can limit the ability to enact 
meaningful measures for the protection of status species such as 
caribou, especially as it relates to their habitat (Festa-Bianchet et 
al. 2011, p. 423). However, British Columbia has enacted two separate 
pieces of legislation that can provide protections for imperiled 
species, the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and the Wildlife Act 
(WA).
    The FRPA enables the BCMOE to regulate road building, logging, 
reforestation, and grazing through passage of Government Act 
Regulations (GARs) to protect ungulate winter range and wildlife 
habitat areas. As described previously through passage of GARs, BCMOE 
has protected over 5 million ac (over 2 million ha) of high-quality 
ungulate winter range from road building and logging, which equates to 
protecting greater than 95 percent of high-quality caribou habitat in 
British Columbia (Ritchie 2015, pers. comm.). The WA enables BCMOE to 
establish wildlife management areas and issue regulations pertaining to 
the management of such areas. In accordance with the WA, BCMOE has 
prohibited recreational snow machine use on almost 2.5 million ac (over 
1 million ha) of mountain caribou habitat. Additionally, the WA 
contains provisions allowing BCMOE to develop and implement predator 
management plans. The British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands and 
Natural Resource Operations prepared the Management Plan for the Gray 
Wolf in British Columbia as advice to the responsible jurisdiction and 
organizations that may be involved in managing gray wolves in British 
Columbia. Recommendations in the plan are used by provincial agencies 
to guide the development of new, or modification of existing, 
provincial policies and procedures. Consistent with that plan and in 
accordance with the WA, BMCOE has implemented projects to reduce wolf 
predation on mountain caribou.
    The British Columbia's Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural 
Resource Operations currently does not allow hunting of caribou within 
the area where the southern mountain population of caribou occurs. The 
woodland caribou southern mountain population and its habitat are also 
protected by the National Parks Act in numerous national parks in 
Canada (Canada 2013, in litt.). Because of its threatened status, the 
British Columbian government has endorsed the MCRIP, which encompasses 
the southern mountain caribou DPS in Canada (British Columbia Ministry 
of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL) 2007, in litt.). For further 
information on caribou conservation efforts in Canada, under the Factor 
A analysis, above, see Efforts in Canada under ``Conservation Efforts 
to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its

[[Page 52625]]

Range'' and under the Factor C analysis, above, see ``Conservation 
Efforts to Reduce Disease or Predation.''
    Substantial progress has been made for certain MCRIP goals, such as 
protecting habitat through government actions regulation (GAR) orders 
in British Columbia. However, other goals, such as reducing the effects 
from predation and habitat restoration, have seen less progress made. 
Additional work and time are still needed to implement all goals 
identified in the MCRIP to adequately reduce threats to the southern 
mountain population of caribou in Canada.
Local Ordinances
    The Service sought but was unable to find any local regulatory 
mechanisms addressing caribou habitat management or protection within 
the United States or Canada.
Private
    Currently, we are unaware of any regulatory mechanisms addressing 
caribou habitat management or protection on private lands within the 
United States.
Summary for Factor D
    The vast majority of caribou habitat in the Selkirk Mountains of 
the United States is located on USFS land, specifically the CNF and 
IPNF. Both the CNF and IPNF have incorporated caribou habitat 
management standards into their LRMPs. Therefore, we expect both the 
CNF and IPNF to continue managing for caribou and their habitat into 
the future.
    While the IDL also manages a substantial portion of caribou habitat 
within the southern Selkirk Mountains subpopulation, they are not 
required to manage their land for caribou. The IDL's land management 
plans, particularly timber harvest plans, do not currently consider 
caribou and do not address the identified threats to woodland caribou. 
IDL does consider caribou in their winter access plan and has, in the 
past, closed snowmobile trails to prevent winter disturbance; however, 
some of these trail closures have been recently relaxed and will remain 
open to winter motorized use unless there is a confirmed caribou 
sighting. Because IDL's land management plans, including timber harvest 
and winter access, do not consider woodland caribou, we conclude that 
management of IDL's lands is likely not alleviating or addressing the 
threat of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, or disturbance from 
winter recreation to caribou within the Selkirk Mountains 
subpopulation.
    Hunting regulations at the national and State levels provide 
adequate protections regarding the legal take of caribou in the United 
States. We do not have data that suggest illegal killing is affecting 
caribou numbers in any of the subpopulations within the southern 
mountain caribou DPS, and we do not consider this a threat to the 
species.
    In Canada, the southern mountain caribou DPS is protected as 
threatened at the national level under SARA, while British Columbia 
considers them to be critically imperiled. British Columbia, Canada, 
has also enacted legislation (i.e., Forest and Range Practices Act, 
Wildlife Act) that enables the BCMOE to implement regulations for the 
protection of wildlife, which it has done for caribou. A recovery plan, 
the MCRIP, has been endorsed by British Columbia. While efforts have 
been made towards meeting the goals identified in that recovery plan, 
additional work and time are needed to meet all the goals. Presently, 
there is not a hunting season in Canada for caribou within the southern 
mountain caribou DPS.
    Caribou subpopulations continue to decline within the southern 
mountain DPS despite regulatory mechanisms being in place in the United 
States and Canada. However, U.S. Federal and State, and Canadian 
national and provincial, regulations are providing some protection for 
the caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS. The current 
status of caribou habitat is largely an artifact of historical (and in 
some cases current) silvicultural practices and wildfires that reset 
the successional forest stage and structure favoring early successional 
ungulate species (e.g., deer, elk, moose) that in turn support higher 
densities and distribution of predators that prey opportunistically on 
caribou. The reality is that it will require several decades of 
appropriate forest management to reduce habitat fragmentation and 
achieve the old-growth forest structure that will begin to restore the 
natural predator-prey ecology of this ecosystem and, thus, reduce the 
predation pressure on caribou. Remedies to address threats such as 
control of predators are not logistically easy to implement, may be 
expensive to address, and may meet social resistance.
    We have determined that, while existing regulatory mechanisms in 
the United States and Canada enable both the United States and Canada 
to ameliorate to some extent the identified threats to the southern 
mountain caribou DPS, the existing mechanisms do not completely 
alleviate the potential for the identified threats to adversely affect 
the status of southern mountain caribou and their habitat.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Avalanches and Stochastic Events
    As explained previously, predation and genetic drift are two 
examples of demographic stochasticity that can negatively impact the 
status of these small, fragmented mountain caribou subpopulations. 
Mountain caribou, because they live in high-elevation, steep habitats 
that receive deep winter snowfall, are also susceptible to 
environmental stochastic factors such as avalanches. According to Seip 
and Cichowski (1996, p. 76), avalanches are a natural source of 
mortality to caribou. This has been a notable threat to caribou within 
the Revelstoke area of Canada, within the southern mountain caribou 
DPS, where the terrain is particularly steep and rugged with very high 
snowfall (Seip and Cichowski 1996, p. 76). Although avalanches are 
generally a natural phenomenon, the threat of avalanches to caribou may 
be increasing because caribou may be displaced into steeper, more 
avalanche-prone terrain during the winter from snowmobile and other 
winter recreational activities (Simpson 1987, p. 1; Seip and Cichowski 
1996, p. 79).
    Threats of all stochastic events such as avalanches become more 
serious as subpopulations become isolated and population numbers 
decrease. This is the case in the southern extent of the southern 
mountain caribou DPS. For example, a small population of fewer than 10 
individuals in Banff National Park (just outside the southern mountain 
caribou DPS) was extirpated in April of 2009, from a single avalanche 
event (Hebblewhite et al. 2010, p. 342).
    As discussed in ``Biology'' under Species Information in our 
proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014, see p. 26507), caribou also 
have low reproductive rates compared to other cervids, with females 
typically reproducing for the first time at 3 years of age and 
producing only a single calf per year (Cicchowski et al. 2004, p. 230; 
Shackleton 2010, p. 1). This low reproductive rate can affect the 
resiliency \5\ of the subpopulation to withstand demographic and 
environmental stochastic impacts. Calf

[[Page 52626]]

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

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

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

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

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence
    We are not aware of any conservation measures currently being 
implemented to reduce impacts to caribou from avalanches or other 
stochastic events.
Summary for Factor E
    Caribou are susceptible to stochastic events such as avalanches due 
to small subpopulation sizes and isolation of these subpopulations. 
Subpopulations are increasingly at risk from impacts of stochastic 
events as they become more isolated and their population numbers 
decline. The threat from avalanches is amplified further when caribou 
are displaced from their preferred habitat into steeper, more dangerous 
habitat as a consequence of human recreation. Therefore, we have 
determined these other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence pose threats to the continued existence of the 
southern mountain caribou DPS.

Cumulative Effects

    As alluded to in the discussions above, many of the causes of 
caribou population declines are linked, often by the threat of habitat 
alteration. For example, predation is one of the most significant 
threats to caribou within the southern mountain caribou DPS. Predation 
is directly linked, in part, to habitat alteration and the associated 
introduction of early seral vegetation and the creation of roads within 
caribou habitat in the southern mountain caribou DPS. Specifically, the 
introduction of early seral habitat and new forest roads has altered 
the predator/prey ecology of the southern mountain caribou DPS by 
creating suitable habitat for alternate ungulate prey and accessibility 
for their predators, respectively, into caribou habitat. Human 
disturbance, another of the threats to caribou within the southern 
mountain caribou DPS, is also linked to habitat alteration because of 
the increased accessibility of caribou habitat that new forest roads 
have provided. Habitat alteration, in turn, is directly tied to and 
caused by another, and possibly two other, threats listed above--human 
development and climate change. Specifically, human development and the 
resources it requires, probably in concert with climate change, have 
altered caribou habitat within the southern mountain caribou DPS. This 
alteration has occurred through forest harvest and the creation of new 
infrastructure. It is reasonable to expect that human development and 
the resources it demands will continue to alter and fragment caribou 
habitat in the future. This, in turn, will continue to promote altered 
predator/prey ecology and associated increases in caribou predation, 
and human disturbance in caribou habitat within the southern mountain 
caribou DPS. The suite of all these related threats, combined with each 
other, have posed and continue to pose a significant threat to caribou 
within the southern mountain caribou DPS.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
    In the proposed rule published on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26504), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by July 7, 2014. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Lewiston Morning Tribune, Idaho Statesman, Coeur d'Alene Press, 
Spokesman Review, Bonners Ferry Herald, Bonner County Daily Bee, Priest 
River Times, and The Miner. Subsequently, on June 10, 2014, we extended 
the public comment period until August 6, 2014 (79 FR 33169). We 
received requests for public hearings. Public informational sessions 
and hearings were held on June 25, 2014, in Sandpoint, Idaho, and on 
June 26, 2014, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho (79 FR 33169). On March 24, 
2015, we reopened the public comment period for an additional 30 days, 
ending on April 23, 2014, to allow the public time to review new 
scientific information received after the previous public comment 
period (80 FR 15545). We also reopened the public comment period on 
April 19, 2016, for an additional 30 days, ending on May 19, 2016, 
addressing a U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho remand of 
the final critical habitat rule to correct a procedural error (81 FR 
22961).
    Including all public comment periods for the proposed rule, we 
received over 400 individual comments. Additionally, we received a form 
letter representing comments from almost 2,000 different individuals. 
During the June 25, 2014, public hearing in Sandpoint, Idaho, six 
individuals or organizations made comments, and during the June 26, 
2014, public hearing in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, five individuals or 
organizations provided comments on the proposed rule. All substantive 
information provided during comment periods has either been 
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed 
below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

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

[[Page 52627]]

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

[[Page 52628]]

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

[[Page 52629]]

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

[[Page 52630]]

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

[[Page 52631]]

zone) that are important to the conservation of the species, both 
inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to 
be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 
7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the 
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 
insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) the 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions occurring in these 
areas may affect the species. These protections and conservation tools 
will continue to contribute to recovery of this species.

Comments From States

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

[[Page 52632]]

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

[[Page 52633]]

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

Comments From Native American Tribes

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

[[Page 52634]]

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

[[Page 52635]]

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

[[Page 52636]]

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

Public Comments

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

[[Page 52637]]

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

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

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

[[Page 52638]]

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

[[Page 52639]]

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

[[Page 52640]]

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

[[Page 52641]]

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

[[Page 52642]]

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

[[Page 52643]]

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

[[Page 52644]]

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

[[Page 52645]]

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

[[Page 52646]]

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

[[Page 52647]]

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

[[Page 52648]]

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

[[Page 52649]]

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

[[Page 52650]]

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

[[Page 52651]]

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

[[Page 52652]]

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

[[Page 52653]]

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

[[Page 52654]]

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

[[Page 52655]]

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

[[Page 52656]]

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

Determination

Introduction

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine whether a 
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of any 
one or a combination of the following: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted 
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. 
These five factors apply whether we are analyzing the species' status 
throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its 
range.
    The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and ``threatened species'' as any species 
which is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). The definition of ``species'' is also 
relevant to this discussion. On July 1, 2014, we published a final 
policy interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
(SPR) (79 FR 37578). In our policy, we interpret the phrase 
``significant portion of its range'' in the Act's definitions of 
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' to provide an 
independent basis for listing a species in its entirety; thus there are 
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify 
for listing: A species may be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; or a 
species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout a significant portion of its range. If a species is in 
danger of extinction throughout an SPR, the species, is an ``endangered 
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.'' The SPR 
policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for 
the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification 
determinations.

Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range

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

[[Page 52657]]

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

[[Page 52658]]

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

Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

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

Determination of Status

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

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through the listing results in public awareness 
and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private 
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    A Selkirk Mountain Caribou Management Plan/Recovery Plan was 
approved by the Service in 1985 (USFWS 1985), and a revised recovery 
plan for woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains was approved by the 
Service in 1994 (USFWS 1994a). An update regarding the status of this 
recovery plan can be found in the latest 5-year status review for the 
species (USFWS 2008, entire). While actions have been carried out in an 
attempt to recover this subpopulation, the recovery criteria in the 
1994 recovery plan were determined to be inadequate (USFWS 2008, p. 
15). In addition, this recovery plan only applies to this one 
subpopulation, and does not extend to the entire southern mountain 
caribou DPS. Consistent with this final rule, revisions to the existing 
plan, in coordination with British Columbia, Canada, will be required 
to address the entire DPS and the continuing or new threats to the DPS. 
A new recovery plan for this DPS would identify site-specific 
management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors 
that determine whether the listed entity remains endangered or 
threatened or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring 
recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for 
agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of 
the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Development of a recovery plan 
for the southern mountain caribou DPS will be coordinated with species 
experts from Canada, Tribes, and the United States. When completed, the 
draft recovery plan and the final recovery plan will be available on 
our website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Idaho Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions may include 
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, 
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for 
recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including 
Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal 
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. 
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Idaho and 
Washington will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the southern 
mountain caribou DPS. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is

[[Page 52659]]

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include, but may 
not be limited to: Management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the USFS and Bureau of Land 
Management, issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, construction and 
management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, and construction and maintenance of roads 
or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened 
species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued 
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. The 
following activities could potentially result in a violation of section 
9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    1. Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon 
individuals of the southern mountain caribou DPS; and
    2. Unauthorized modification of the old growth, coniferous forest 
landscape within the southern mountain caribou DPS.
    At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that 
would not be considered to result in a violation of section 9 of the 
Act due to the variety and nature of activities that may occur within 
caribou habitat across the range of the DPS. Depending on the 
implementation timing, intensity, and duration of such activities, it 
is likely that site-specific conservation measures may be needed for 
specific activities that may directly or indirectly affect the species.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Idaho Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

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

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need 
not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered 
or threatened species under the section 4(a) of the Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


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

[[Page 52660]]

and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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


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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
    Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Southern Mountain 
Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
* * * * *
    (2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
southern mountain caribou DPS consist of five components: * * *
* * * * *
    (iv) High-elevation benches and shallow slopes, secondary stream 
bottoms, riparian areas, seeps, and subalpine meadows with succulent 
forbs and grasses, flowering plants, horsetails, willow, huckleberry, 
dwarf birch, sedges, and lichens. The southern mountain caribou DPS, 
including pregnant females, uses these areas for feeding during the 
spring and summer seasons.
* * * * *
    (5) Unit 1: Boundary County, Idaho, and Pend Oreille County, 
Washington. The map of the critical habitat unit follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 52661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02OC19.003

* * * * *

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