Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 65287

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a

Petition To Delist the Woodland

Caribou

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition

finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a

90-day finding on a petition to remove

the woodland caribou (Rangifer

tarandus caribou) from the Federal list

of endangered species pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). We find that the petition

did not present substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating that

delisting of the woodland caribou may

be warranted.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on October 13,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, or questions concerning this

petition should be submitted to the

Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia River

Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 11103 E. Montgomery

Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206. The

petition finding, supporting data, and

comments are available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Martin, Supervisor, Upper

Columbia River Basin Office, at the

above address (telephone 509/891–6839;

facsimile 509/891–6748).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we

make a finding on whether a petition to

list, delist, or reclassify a species

presents substantial information

indicating that the petitioned action

may be warranted. We base the finding

on information submitted with, and

referenced in, the petition and all other

information available to us at the time

we make the finding. To the maximum

extent practicable, this finding is to be

made within 90 days of the receipt of

the petition, and the finding is to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register. If we find that substantial

information supports the petitioned

action, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act

requires us to promptly commence a

review of the status of the species and

to disclose our findings within 12

months.

On May 27, 1998, we received a

petition dated May 22, 1998, to delist

the endangered population of woodland

caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou),

which is located in the Selkirk

Mountains of northeast Washington,

northern Idaho, and southeast British

Columbia, Canada. The petition was

submitted by Peter B. Wilson,

representing the Greater Bonners Ferry

Chamber of Commerce, Bonners Ferry,

Idaho.

In a letter dated June 12, 1998, we

notified the petitioner that a finding on

their petition would be delayed due to

a backlog of higher priority listing

activities. This backlog resulted from a

moratorium on listing activities enacted

by Congress in 1995 and a subsequent

series of inadequate budgets for listing

activities. We now use funding for

recovery activities to support work on

findings for delisting petitions, and,

therefore, we were able to proceed with

this finding.

The petitioner made a number of

assertions in the petition, but the main

points were—(1) our determination to

list and maintain the listing of the

caribou is based solely on conjecture

and inadequate research, and no

biological reason or need for the listing

has been established by research and

conclusion; (2) there is no significant

biological distinction between the

mountain and woodland caribou, and,

since there are numerous ‘‘woodland’’

caribou in Canada, their listing in the

United States is not warranted (also, the

petitioner contends there is a problem

with mixing mountain and woodland

caribou within the Selkirk population);

(3) the petitioner has several concerns

regarding the historical and current

range of the woodland caribou and

whether or not caribou ever inhabited

the conterminous United States,

including Idaho; (4) no environmental

impact statement was prepared for the

listing; (5) caribou mortalities within

this population have been high; and (6)

old growth forest has not been

established as a requirement for caribou

habitat.

We have reviewed the petition and

other documentation to determine if

substantial information has been

presented to indicate that the requested

action may be warranted. The factors for

listing, delisting, or reclassifying species

are described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may

delist a species only, after conducting a

review of the species status, if the best

scientific and commercial data available

substantiate that it is neither

endangered nor threatened. Delisting

may be warranted as a result of—(1)

extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) a

determination that the original data

used for classification of the species as

endangered or threatened were in error.

Our determination to list the

woodland caribou was made on the

basis of the best scientific and

commercial data available (49 FR 7390;

February 29, 1984). The petition’s

assertion that the listing of the

woodland caribou is based solely on

conjecture comes from the petitioner’s

interpretation of our revised Recovery

Plan for Woodland Caribou in the

Selkirk Mountains (Recovery Plan). The

Recovery Plan stated a number of

unknowns about caribou biology,

population factors, and habitat

variables. These statements were made

in the context of gathering the

information needed to support recovery

actions. Though it is true there is much

to learn about the caribou, at the time

of listing, we had enough information to

warrant the listing of the species,

including substantial information on

habitat fragmentation, poaching, and a

genetic bottleneck.

Regarding the issue of ‘‘woodland’’

versus ‘‘mountain’’ caribou, woodland

caribou occur in two distinct ecotypes (a

locally adapted population of a

widespread species): The northern

ecotype and the mountain ecotype. In

woodland caribou, ecotypic

differentiation is based on habitat use

and behavior patterns. The endangered

Selkirk population is the mountain

ecotype. Both ecotypes are within the

same subspecies; there is no genetic

distinction between caribou inhabiting

the northern ecotype and those

inhabiting the mountain ecotype

(Service 1994).

Historically, woodland caribou were

distributed across the northeastern,

northcentral, and northwestern

conterminous United States

(Fashingbauer 1965, cited in Service

1994; McCollough 1991). It is welldocumented that the species’ range was

once more extensive than it is today.

Caribou once occurred as far south as

the Salmon River in Idaho and as far

east as the North Fork of the Flathead

River in Montana (Evans 1960). Before

1910, they occupied the Selkirk,

Cabinet, Purcell, and Bitterroot

Mountains (Evans 1960; Layser 1974).

By the 1950’s, caribou were reduced to

about 100 animals occupying about

2,590 square kilometers (1,000 square

miles) in the Selkirk Mountains, with

remnant bands in the Cabinet and Yaak

Mountains (Flinn 1956; Evans 1960).

Although by 1983 the distribution of the

65288 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou

population centered around Stagleap

Provincial Park several miles north of

the border in British Columbia, caribou

inhabited the U.S. portion of the Selkirk

Ecosystem as well, and continue to do

so today.

At the time of listing, we did not

distinguish the caribou population by

State. Caribou movement within home

ranges may cross State boundaries, and

the listing decision was based on the

species’ status within the United States.

According to section 3(15) of the Act,

‘‘species’’ can include ‘‘any distinct

population segment of any species of

vertebrate fish or wildlife which

interbreeds when mature.’’ We listed the

woodland caribou as a distinct

vertebrate population segment limited

to Idaho, Washington, and that part of

southeast British Columbia, Canada,

bounded by the United States-Canadian

border, Columbia River, Kootenay River,

and Kootenay Lake. The Selkirk

Mountain population of woodland

caribou was listed because its range and

distribution within the conterminous

United States had undergone a

significant decline and the species was

being affected by a variety of ongoing

threats.

We did not prepare an environmental

impact statement at the time of listing

the woodland caribou. As stated in the

final rule listing the woodland caribou

published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244), we

determined that environmental

assessments and environmental impact

statements need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4 of the Act.

Regulations addressing the listing of

endangered and threatened species (50

CFR 424.11) state that listing,

reclassification, and delisting decisions

are to be based solely on the basis of the

best scientific and commercial

information regarding species status,

without reference to possible economic

or other impacts of such determination.

The petitioners are correct in that the

woodland caribou population has

experienced significant mortalities due

to a number of factors. The population,

which consisted of an estimated 25–30

animals when it was listed in 1984, has

been augmented with a total of 103

animals over an 11-year period between

1987 and 1998. In 1998, the population

consisted of an estimated 44 animals

(includes animals recruited into the

population through reproduction). Fiftynine of the transplanted caribou died

over this 11-year period, and the fate of

21 others is unknown due to radiocollar loss or failure. However, while

this speaks to the difficulty and critical

nature of the recovery program, it does

not provide a reason to delist the

caribou.

Seasonal habitat use patterns and

forage requirements by woodland

caribou have been documented by

research in northern Idaho and British

Columbia. Occasionally, caribou have

been observed feeding on succulent,

newly emerging vegetation in clearcuts

in the spring. However, data show that,

even during spring, caribou

preferentially use old-growth and

mature forest habitats as a source of

forage (Wakkinen et al. 1992). As to use

of old-growth during other seasons of

the year, caribou nearly exclusively use

old-growth forest during early winter

through late spring (Scott and Servheen

1984).

When evaluating petitions for

delisting of species under the Act, our

guidelines state that a ‘‘not-substantial

information’’ finding be made when a

petition to delist a species presents no

new information indicating the original

data for listing the species may be in

error (Service and National Marine

Fisheries Service 1996). We have

reviewed the petition and other

available literature. We conclude the

petition does not present substantial

information to indicate that the original

data for listing the species was in error,

or that delisting the Selkirk Mountains

woodland caribou may be warranted.

Furthermore, the species has not met

the recovery objectives identified in the

1994 Recovery Plan, which calls for an

increasing population and secure

habitat.

References Cited

Evans, H.F. 1960. A preliminary investigation

of caribou in northwestern United States.

Masters Thesis, University of Montana,

Missoula, Montana. 145 pp.

Flinn, P. 1956. Caribou of Idaho.

Unpublished report, Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 57 pp. +

attachments

Layser, E.F. 1974. A review of the mountain

caribou of northeastern Washington and

adjacent northern Idaho. Journal of the

Idaho Academy of Science, Special

Research Issue No. 3, 63 pp.

McCollough, M. 1991. Final Report—Maine

caribou project 1986–1990. University of

Maine, Orono, Maine. 13 pp. and 24 pp.

Scott, M. and G. Servheen. 1984. Caribou

ecology. Unpublished report. Idaho

Department of Fish and Game. Boise,

Idaho. 78 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Selkirk

Mountain woodland caribou recovery plan.

Portland, Oregon. 63 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National

Marine Fisheries Service. 1996.

Endangered species petition management

guidance. Washington, D.C. 20 pp. +

appendices

Wakkinen, W.L., B. Compton, and P. Zager.

1992. Selkirk Mountain caribou transplant.

Unpublished report. Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Pages i, iii,

16–18

Author

The primary author of this document is

Suzanne Audet, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Upper Columbia River Basin Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.).

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27232 Filed 10–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P