Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12929

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition expeditious progress is being made to Public Law 104–13. In addition, finding. add or remove qualified species from therefore, it does not contain any the Lists of Endangered and Threatened proposed information collection burden SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer Wildlife Service (Service), announce a the Act requires that we treat a petition than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 12-month finding on a petition to list as for which the requested action is found Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of an endangered or threatened species to be warranted but precluded as though 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. under the Endangered Species Act of resubmitted on the date of such finding, 3506(c)(4). 1973, as amended (Act), the population that is, requiring a subsequent finding to Provisions of the Regulatory of the North American wolverine (Gulo be made within 12 months. We must Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to gulo luscus) that occurs in the publish these 12-month findings in the this proceeding. contiguous United States. After a review Federal Register. of the best available scientific and Members of the public should note Previous Federal Actions that from the time a Notice of Proposed commercial information, we have Rule Making is issued until the matter determined that the population of North We received a petition dated August is no longer subject to Commission American wolverine occurring in the 3, 1994, from the Predator Project (now consideration or court review, all ex contiguous United States does not named the Predator Conservation parte contacts are prohibited in constitute a listable entity under the Alliance) and Biodiversity Legal Commission proceedings, such as this Act. Therefore, we find that the petition Foundation to list the North American one, which involve channel allotments. to list the North American wolverine wolverine in the contiguous United See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules (Gulo gulo luscus) that occurs in the States as a threatened or endangered governing permissible ex parte contacts. contiguous United States is not species under the Act and to designate For information regarding proper warranted for listing. The Service will critical habitat concurrent with listing. filing procedures for comments, see 47 continue to seek new information on the On April 19, 1995, we published a CFR 1.415 and 1.420. taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status finding (60 FR 19567) that the petition of the North American wolverine and did not provide substantial scientific or List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 we will continue to support cooperative commercial information indicating that Television, Television broadcasting. conservation of wolverines in the listing the North American wolverine in contiguous United States. the contiguous United States may be For the reasons discussed in the warranted. We did not make a preamble, the Federal Communications DATES: This finding was made on March 11, 2008. determination as to whether the Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR contiguous United States population of ADDRESSES: This finding is available on part 73 as follows: the North American wolverine the Internet at http:// constituted a distinct population PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST www.regulations.gov. Supporting SERVICES segment or other listable entity. documentation we used to prepare this On July 14, 2000, we received another finding is available for public 1. The authority citation for part 73 petition dated July 11, 2000, submitted inspection, by appointment, during continues to read as follows: by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, normal business hours at the U.S. Fish Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. Predator Conservation Alliance, and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Defenders of Wildlife, Northwest § 73.202 [Amended] Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT Ecosystem Alliance, Friends of the 59601; telephone (406) 449–5225. Please Clearwater, and Superior Wilderness 2. Section 73.622(i), the DTV Table of submit any new information, materials, Allotments under California, is Action Network, to list the North comments, or questions concerning this American wolverine within the amended by substituting channel 35 for finding to the above street address. channel 45. contiguous United States as a threatened FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or endangered species under the Act Federal Communications Commission. Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, U.S. and to designate critical habitat for the Clay C. Pendarvis, Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana species concurrent with the listing. Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Field Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use On October 21, 2003, we published a Bureau. a telecommunications device for the 90-day finding that the petition to list [FR Doc. E8–4909 Filed 3–10–08; 8:45 am] deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information the North American wolverine in the BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. contiguous United States did not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that Background DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR listing as threatened or endangered may Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 be warranted (68 FR 60112). We did not Fish and Wildlife Service U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for determine whether the contiguous any petition containing substantial United States population of the North 50 CFR Part 17 scientific and commercial information American wolverine constituted a that listing may be warranted, we make distinct population segment (or other [FWS–R6–2008–0029; 1111 FY07 MO–B2] a finding within 12 months of the date listable entity), because sufficient Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of receipt of the petition on whether the information was not available at the and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, time. Petition To List the North American (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but that On September 29, 2006, as a result of Wolverine as Endangered or immediate proposal of a regulation a complaint filed by Defenders of Threatened implementing the petitioned action is Wildlife and others alleging we used the precluded by other pending proposals to wrong standards to assess the wolverine AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, determine whether species are petition, the U.S. District Court, Interior. threatened or endangered, and Montana District, ruled that our 90-day

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 12930 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules

petition finding was in error and 579; Banci 1994, pp. 111–113). resorb or spontaneously abort litters ordered us to make a 12-month finding Wolverines have an excellent sense of when food availability is so low as to for the wolverine (Defenders of Wildlife smell that enables them to find food prevent successful completion of et al. v. Norton and Hogan (9:05cv99 beneath deep snow (Hornocker and pregnancy or lactation to the time of DWM; D. MT)). On April 6, 2007, the Hash 1981, p. 1297). Wolverines weaning (Magoun 1985, pp. 30–31; Court approved an unopposed motion to consume large ungulate carrion when Copeland 1996, p. 43; Persson et al. extend the deadline for this 12-month available. The most important food 2006, p. 77; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70). finding to February 28, 2008, so that we items in wolverine diets are large Supplemental feeding of females would be able to use information ungulate species, followed by small increases reproductive potential published in the September 2007 animals such as beaver, marmots, (Persson 2005, p. 1456) and success at edition of the Journal of Wildlife ground squirrels, rabbits, hares, raising kits to the time of weaning, and Management containing a special porcupine, voles, ground nesting birds, indicates that food availability is likely section on North American wolverine and insects (Banci 1994, p. 112; to be a limiting factor for wolverine biology. On June 5, 2007, we published Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, populations. In one study of known- a notice initiating a status review for the pp. 498–499). The large ungulates in aged females, none reproduced at age 2; wolverine (72 FR 31048). wolverine diets are assumed to be the 3 of 10 first reproduced at age 3; and 2 result of scavenging, although did not reproduce until age 4. The Species Biology wolverines are able to occasionally kill average age at first reproduction for this The currently accepted taxonomy large ungulates in deep snow conditions study was 3.4 years (rather than 2 years classifies wolverines worldwide as a when ungulate mobility is impaired for the carcass studies above) (Persson et single species, Gulo gulo. The wolverine (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, al. 2006, pp. 76–77). From these studies, has a holarctic distribution. Old and pp. 498–499). Large ungulates comprise we conclude that, by age three, nearly New World wolverines are divided into a larger proportion of the diet in winter all female wolverines become pregnant separate Old World and New World than in snow-free seasons (Banci 1994, every year, but energetic constraints subspecies. Wolverines of Eurasia (Old Table 5). The availability of large resulting from low food availability World) comprise the subspecies G. g. ungulate herds is of paramount result in loss of pregnancy about every gulo. Wolverines in the contiguous importance for wolverines and the other year. It is likely that, in many United States are a part of the New availability of large mammals underlies places in the range of wolverines in the World or North American (United States the wolverine’s distribution, survival, lower 48 States, it takes 2 years of and Canada) subspecies, G. g. luscus and reproductive success (Banci 1994, foraging for a female to store enough (Kurten and Rausch 1959, p. 19; p. 111). energy to successfully reproduce Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. Wolverines have delayed onset of (Persson 2005, p. 1456; Inman et al. 1). The two subspecies differ in minor reproduction in females and small litter 2007c, Table 3). aspects of skull morphology (Kurten and sizes. Studies of wolverine carcasses Breeding generally occurs from late Rausch 1959, p. 19), but significant from trapper harvest have provided spring to early fall (Magoun and differences in ecology, behavior, some useful data on reproductive Valkenburg 1983, p. 175; Mead et al. demography, or natural history do not parameters (Rausch and Pearson 1972, 1991, pp. 808–811). Females undergo appear to exist. Most authors, when pp. 253–267; Liskop et al. 1981, pp. delayed implantation until the discussing these aspects of wolverine 472–476; Banci and Harestad 1988, pp. following winter to spring, when active biology, refer to New and Old World 266–268). These carcass studies indicate gestation lasts from 30 to 40 days wolverines interchangeably (e.g., that a large number of female (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 254– Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, wolverines (40 percent) are apparently 257). Litters are born between February entire). We consider the Old and New capable of giving birth at 2 years old, and April and contain 1 to 5 kits, with World subspecies to be similar and become pregnant most years, and an average in North America of between reliable enough to refer to information produce average litter sizes of 1 and 2 kits (rather than 3.4 kits, as on Old World wolverines (G. g. gulo) as approximately 3.4 kits. However, indicated by carcass studies) (Magoun a surrogate for the North American carcass studies are subject to 1985, pp. 28–31; Copeland 1996, p. 36; wolverine in this finding when such overestimating frequency of Krebs and Lewis 1999, p. 698; Copeland information is not available specifically reproduction and the number of kits per and Yates 2006, pp. 32–36; Inman et al. for the North American subspecies. litter, and underestimating the age at 2007c, p. 68). The wolverine is the largest terrestrial first reproduction because embryos are Several aspects related to member of the family Mustelidae. Adult often resorbed by females that are reproductive denning are significant to males weigh 12 to 18 kilograms (kg) (26 energetically unable to complete wolverine reproductive success (Banci to 40 pounds (lb)), and adult females pregnancy (Persson et al. 2006, p. 75; 1994, p. 110; Magoun and Copeland weigh 8 to 12 kg (17 to 26 lb) (Banci Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70). These aborted 1998, p. 1319; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 71). 1994, p. 99). The wolverine resembles a pregnancies result in corpora lutea Female wolverines use two kinds of small bear with a bushy tail. It has a (uterine scarring) in the female dens for reproduction. Females use broad, rounded head; short, rounded reproductive tract, leading to the natal (birthing) dens to give birth and ears; and small eyes. Each foot has five erroneous conclusion that a female had raise kits early postpartum, and in some toes with curved, semi-retractile claws reproduced at an early age and that litter cases females may raise kits to weaning used for digging and climbing (Banci sizes are relatively large. in the natal den. However, in most 1994, p. 99). Field studies using radio telemetry are situations prior to weaning, females may Wolverines are opportunistic feeders better able to determine the actual age move kits to one or multiple alternative and consume a variety of foods at first reproduction and the actual den sites, which are referred to as depending on availability. They number of kits successfully raised to maternal dens. The female then raises primarily scavenge carrion, but also weaning. Based on these studies, her kits to weaning in the maternal den. prey on small animals and birds, and eat average age at first reproduction is likely The movement of kits from natal to fruits, berries, and insects (Hornocker more than 3 years (Inman et al. 2007c, maternal dens may be a response by the and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Hash 1987, p. p. 70). Pregnant females commonly female to den disturbance, better food

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12931

availability in the new location, Habitat and Home Range wolverines naturally occur in low predation risk, or deteriorating den In North America, wolverines occur densities that average about one 2 2 conditions in the natal den (Magoun within a wide variety of arctic, sub- wolverine per 150 km (58 mi ) and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316–1319). arctic and alpine habitats, primarily (Hornocker and Hash 1981, pp. 1292– Female wolverines use natal dens that boreal forests, tundra, and western 1295; Hash 1987, p. 578; Copeland 1996, pp. 31–32; Copeland and Yates are excavated in snow. Persistent, stable mountains throughout Alaska and 2006, p. 27; Inman et al. 2007a, p. 10; snow greater than 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet Canada; however, the southern portion Squires et al. 2007, p. 2218). (ft)) deep appears to be a requirement of their range extends into the for natal denning, presumably because it contiguous United States, including Wolverine Status in Canada and Alaska provides security for offspring and Washington, Idaho, Montana, and The bulk of the range of North buffers cold winter temperatures Wyoming (Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash American wolverines is found in (Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; Copeland 1987, p. 576; Banci 1994, p. 102, Canada and Alaska. Wolverines inhabit 1996, pp. 92–97; Magoun and Copeland Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. alpine tundra, boreal forest, and arctic 1998, pp. 1317–1318; Banci 1994, pp. 499; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152). In the habitats in western Canada and Alaska 109–110; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71–72). contiguous United States, wolverines (Slough 2007, p. 78). Wolverines in Female wolverines go to great lengths to are restricted to high-elevation habitats Canada have been divided into two find secure den sites, suggesting that in the Rocky Mountains and North populations for management by the Cascades containing the arctic and sub- predation is a concern (Banci 1994, p. Canadian government: an eastern arctic conditions they require. 107). Natal dens consist of tunnels that population in Labrador and Quebec; and Home ranges of wolverines are large, a western population that extends from contain well-used runways and bed but vary greatly depending on sites, and that may naturally incorporate Ontario to the Pacific coast, and north availability of food, gender, age, and to the Arctic Ocean. The eastern shrubs, rocks, and downed logs as part differences in habitat. The availability of their structure (Magoun and population is currently listed as and distribution of food is likely the endangered under the Species At Risk Copeland 1998, pp. 1315–1316; Inman primary factor in determining wolverine et al. 2007c, pp. 71–72). In Idaho, natal Act in Canada, and the western movements and home range size population is designated as a species of den sites occur above 2,500 m (8,200 ft) (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1298; special concern (COSEWIC 2003, p. 8). on rocky sites, such as north-facing Banci 1994, pp. 117–118). Wolverines The current status of wolverines in boulder talus or subalpine cirques in travel long distances over rough terrain eastern Canada is uncertain. Wolverines forest openings (Magoun and Copeland and deep snow, and adult males have not been confirmed to occur in 1994, pp. 1315–1316). In Montana, natal generally cover greater distances than Quebec since 1978 (Fortin et al. 2005, p. dens occur above 2,400 m (7,874 ft) and females (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 4). Historical evidence of wolverine are located on north aspects in 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117–118). Home presence in eastern Canada is also avalanche debris, typically in alpine ranges of adult wolverines are suspect because no evidence exists to habitats near timberline (Inman et al. approximately 100 square kilometers show that wolverine pelts attributed to 2007c, pp. 71–72). (km2) to over 900 km2 (38.5 square miles Quebec or Labrador actually came from 2 2 Dens (natal and maternal) are (mi ) to 348 mi ) (Banci 1994, p. 117). that region; possibly animals were typically used from early February Average home ranges of resident adult trapped elsewhere and the pelts were 2 through late April or early May females in central Idaho are 384 km shipped through the eastern provinces 2 (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun and (148 mi ), and average home ranges of (COSEWIC 2003, p. 20). Wolverines in resident adult males are 1,522 km2 (588 eastern Canada may currently exist in Copeland 1998, pp. 1314–1317; Inman 2 et al. 2007b, pp. 55–59). Occupation of mi ) (Copeland 1996, p. 50). Wolverines an extremely low-density population, or in Glacier National Park have average natal dens is variable, ranging from may be extirpated. Wolverines in male home ranges of 496 km2 (193 mi2) approximately 9 to 65 days depending eastern Canada, both historically and and female home ranges of 141 km2 (55 on whether or not the female wolverine currently, could represent migrants from mi2) (Copeland and Yates 2006, p. 25). western populations that never became perceives the need to move her kits Wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone resident animals (COSEWIC 2003, pp. (Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316– Area have average adult male home 20–21). The government of Canada has 1317). Females may use multiple ranges of 797 km2 (311 mi2) and average completed a recovery plan for the secondary (maternal) dens (Pulliainen adult female home ranges of 329 km2 eastern population with the goal of 1968, p. 343; Myrberget 1968, p. 115), or (128 mi2) (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 4). establishing a self-sustaining population use of maternal dens may be minimal Home ranges for carnivores of similar through reintroduction and protection (Inman et al. 2007c, p. 69). Timing of body size are smaller than wolverine (Fortin et al. 2005, p. 16). den abandonment is related to home ranges at their southern range Wolverines in western Canada and accumulation of water in dens (snow terminus. Canada lynx in the United Alaska inhabit a variety of habitats from melt), the maturation of offspring, States Rocky Mountains average 122 sea level to high elevations in disturbance, and geographic location km2 (47 mi2) (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. mountains (Slough 2007, pp. 77–78). In (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun 1985, 383–384), and coyote home ranges Canada, they occur in Ontario, p. 73). Post-weaning dens are called extend from 2.5 to 15 km2 (1 to 5.8 mi2) Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, rendezvous sites. These dens may be (Chronert 2007, p. 2). British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest used through early July. Females leave Wolverine home ranges at the Territories, and Nunavut (Slough 2007, their kits at rendezvous sites while southern terminus of the current range pp. 77–78). Since European foraging, and return periodically to are large for mammals of the size of colonization, a generally recognized provide food for the kits. These sites are wolverines, and may indicate that range contraction has taken place in characterized by natural (unexcavated) wolverines have high energetic boreal Ontario and the aspen parklands cavities formed by large boulders, requirements and at the same time of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta downed logs (avalanche debris), and occupy relatively unproductive niches (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20–21; Slough snow (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 55–56). (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 11). In addition, 2007, p. 77). This range contraction

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 12932 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules

occurred concurrently with a reduction have been reduced in numbers or approach when dealing with in wolverine records for the Great Lakes geographic range in Alaska. extralimital records (i.e., records from region in the lower 48 States (Aubry et outside of established, reproducing Wolverine Status in the Contiguous al. 2007, pp. 2155–2156). Causes of populations). Aubry et al. (2007, p. United States these changes are uncertain, but may be 2155) concluded that these records related to increased harvest, habitat The delineation of the historical and represent individuals dispersing from modification, or climate change present distribution of wolverine is natal ranges that often end up in (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20–21; Aubry et al. inherently difficult for several reasons. habitats that cannot support wolverines, 2007, pp. 2155–2156; Slough 2007, pp. Wolverines tend to live in remote and and their use in determining the 77–78). Analysis supports climate inhospitable places away from human potential range of wolverine can change as a contributing factor to populations. Wolverines naturally occur overestimate the area that can actually declines in wolverine populations in at low densities and are rarely and be used by wolverines for home ranges southern Ontario, because snow unpredictably encountered where they and breeding. conditions necessary to support do occur. Wolverines often move long Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2147–2148) wolverines do not currently exist in the distances in short periods of time when divided records into ‘‘historical’’ Great Lakes region of the lower 48 dispersing from natal ranges (Aubry et (recorded prior to 1961), ‘‘recent’’ States, and are marginal in southern al. 2007, p. 2147), making it difficult to (recorded between 1961 and 1994), and Ontario (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154). distinguish with confidence between ‘‘current’’ (recorded after 1994). Wolverines occurred historically on occurrence records that represent Historical records occurred before Vancouver Island and have been given established populations and those that systematic surveys and encompass the status as a separate subspecies by some represent short-term occupancy without time during which wolverine numbers (Hall 1981, p. 109). The Vancouver the potential for establishment of home and distribution were hypothesized to Island population is now regarded as ranges and reproduction. These natural be at their lowest, in the first half of the possibly extirpated; no sightings have attributes of wolverines make it difficult 1900s (Wright and Thompson 1935; occurred since 1992 (COSEWIC 2003, p. to determine their present range, or Grinnell et al. 1937; Allen 1942; Newby 18). trends in range expansion or contraction and Wright 1955, all as cited in Aubry Wolverines in western Canada and that may have occurred in the past. et al. 2007, p. 2148). The recent time Alaska appear to persist where habitat Therefore, we must be cautious when interval covers a hypothesized and climate conditions are favorable trying to determine where past population expansion and rebound from (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 13–21; Aubry et al. wolverine populations occurred, and an earlier low (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2007, pp. 2152–2155; Slough 2007, p. where application of conservation 2148–2149). Current records are 79). Throughout this area, wolverines actions may be possible in the future. considered by Aubry et al. (2007, p. are managed by regulated harvest at the Aubry et al. (2007, entire) represents 2148) to be a reliable depiction of where Province and State level. Population the best available science on the populations occur now. estimates for Canada and Alaska are wolverine’s geographic range in the approximate because no wolverine contiguous United States. This study Wolverine Distribution in the surveys have taken place at the State or (2007, pp. 2147–2148) used verifiable Contiguous United States national scale. However, the population and documented records from museum Using data from Aubrey et al. 2007, in western Canada includes an collections, literature sources, and State we assessed the historical, recent, and estimated 15,089 to 18,967 individuals, and Federal institutions to trace changes current distribution data for each of six based on population densities and in geographic distribution of wolverines geographical regions to determine the occupied area (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22). in the historic record. Aubry et al.’s likelihood of the presence of historical The number of wolverines in Alaska is (2007) focus on verifiable and populations (rather than extralimital unknown, but they appear to exist at documented records corrected past dispersers). Table 1 illustrates wolverine naturally low densities in suitable overly broad approaches to wolverine numbers in the six geographic areas habitats throughout Alaska (Alaska range mapping (Nowak 1973, p. 22; Hall assessed by Aubry et al. (2007, Table 1). Department of Fish and Game 2004, pp. 1981, p. 1009; Wilson 1982, p. 644; More detail on wolverine distribution 1–359). We have no information to Hash 1987, p. 576) that used a more over time is included in the text that indicate that wolverine populations inclusive but potentially misleading follows.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12933 1800s g record verifiable

Most recent TATE 12 2005 16 2005 f 187 2005 b S e 2005 – records 1995 31 149 a d EGION AND 1994 – R 121 c 1980 1981 TATES BY – S NITED U 1970 1971 – 1960 1961 ONTIGUOUS – 50 years. were radiocollared by Hornocker and Hash (1981) in northwestern MT from 1972 C e locations obtained from 2002 to 2005 during radiotelemetry studies. om 2003 to 2005 during a radiotelemetry study. 1950 1951 – 1940 1941 CCURRENCE IN THE – O 1930 1931 – OLVERINE W Historical records Recent records Current [Reproduced from Aubrey et al. 2007, p. 2151] 1920 1921 – ECORDS OF R 1910 1911 – OCUMENTED D 1800s 1901 ERIFIABLE AND V — 1. ABLE T Region and State Washington ...... Oregon ...... California ...... 2003 Idaho10 3 4 7 ...... 17 3 7 0 0 1 1 1992 1922 Montana ...... Mexico...... Wyoming 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 30 0 0 1 0 0 ...... 11 7 9 UtahDakota...... NevadaDakota...... Colorado5 3 4 5 2 0 6 5 1860 14 ...... 39 New 9 0 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 6 1 None 1921 North 1972 1962 8 0 1 35 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1919 South 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 22 7 5 0 0 0 Nebraska ...... Minnesota ...... Wisconsin ...... 1887 Michigan ...... 0 0 0 0 1 0 1899 IowaYork...... Indiana0 1 0 1 0 1 2 6 0 ...... Hampshire...... 1868 0 0 0 12 1 0 Ohio ...... 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 1960 Pennsylvania1811 ...... None New None 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1943 New 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Vermont 0 0 1 0 0 0 ...... None Maine ...... 0 0 0 0 4 0 None None 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Includes 16 initial capture locations obtained from 1992 to 1994 during a radiotelemetry study. Includes 3 initial capture locations obtained in 1995 during a radiotelemetry study and 4 fr Includes 146 harvest records from 1981 to 1994 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Includes 115 harvest records from 1995 to 2004 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 49 initial captur Jackson (1954) found 2 wolverine specimens in a cave southwestern WI 1920 that he estimated had been the deposit for > Includes 94 harvest records from 1974 to 1980 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 24 wolverines that Includes 9 initial capture locations obtained from 1998 to 2005 during telemetry studies. a b c d e f g Pacific Coast Mountains: Rocky Mountains: Central Great Plains: Great Lakes: Upper Midwest: Northeast: to 1977.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 12934 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules

Northeast and Upper Midwest. The and mappable records for this region, small numbers, indicating a population low number of records and the scattered along with the suggestion of population persists in this area. Records from nature of their distribution suggest that centers or strongholds, suggests that British Columbia, Canada indicate that wolverines were likely to have been wolverines existed in reproducing the North Cascades population may be occasional transients to the area and not populations throughout much of the connected with, and possibly dependent present as a reproducing population Rocky Mountains during the historical on, the larger Canadian population for after 1800. interval. During the recent interval, the viability over the long term. Great Lakes. The low number of lack of records for Colorado and Utah Summary of Wolverine Distribution verifiable records in this area of suggest that the southern Rocky relatively high human population Patterns in the Contiguous United Mountain population of wolverines was States density (compared with, for example, extirpated by the middle 1900s, the Rocky Mountains) suggests that concurrent with widespread systematic Historical wolverine records were wolverines did not exist in this area as predator control by government found across the northern tier of the a viable population after 1900. Widely agencies and livestock interests. The lower 48 States with peninsular scattered records generally before 1900, northern Rocky Mountain population extensions south into the southern with an occasional record after that (north of Wyoming) was reduced to Rockies and the Sierra Nevada (Aubry et year, suggest that if a reproducing historic lows during the early 1900s, al. 2007, p. 2152). population existed in the Great Lakes, it and then increased dramatically in the Currently, wolverines appear to be predated 1900, and that post-1900 second half of the 1900s as predator distributed in two regions in the lower records represent dispersal from a control efforts subsided and trapping 48 States: the North Cascades in receding Canadian population. regulations became more restrictive Washington (and possibly Oregon), and Wolverine distribution in Ontario, (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2151). This the northern Rocky Mountains in Idaho, Canada appears to have receded north increase may indicate that the Montana, and Wyoming. Wolverines from the Great Lakes region beginning population rebounded from historic were extirpated in historical times from in the 1800s, and currently wolverines lows in this period, but we cannot rule the Sierra Nevada and the southern occupy only the northern portion of the out that the apparent rebound is an Rocky Mountains. We conclude that the province, a distance of over 650 km (404 artifact of improved monitoring of current range of the species in the mi) from the U.S. border (COSEWIC wolverine trapping by government contiguous United States includes the 2003, p. 9). The pattern of declining agencies. Wolverine records from 1995 North Cascades Mountains and the numbers of records for the Great Lakes to 2005 show that wolverine northern Rocky Mountains. We also conclude that wolverines region illustrated in Aubry et al. (2007, populations currently exist in the likely either did not exist as established p. 2152) is consistent with what would northern Rocky Mountains. Ongoing populations or were extirpated prior to be expected if those records were of legal trapping in Montana removes an settlement and the compilation of dispersing individuals from a Canadian average of 10.5 individuals from this historical records in the Great Lakes population that receded progressively population each year (Montana region. The widely scattered records farther north into Canada after 1900. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Central Great Plains. The lack of from this region are consistent with 2007, p. 2). During all time periods, verifiable and mappable records from dispersing individuals from a Canadian populations of wolverines in British the Great Plains States leaves little population that receded north early in Columbia and Alberta may have been a evidence on which to determine if the 1800s. We cannot rule out the source of surplus wolverines during reproducing populations of wolverines possibility that wolverines existed as population lows (COSEWIC 2003, pp. ever inhabited this area. Thirty-five of established populations prior to the 18–19). 36 records from North Dakota are from onset of trapping in this area, but we the journals of a single fur trader, and Pacific Coast. Historically, records have no evidence that they did. it is not clear that the records represent from Washington, Oregon, and No evidence in the historical records actual collection localities or localities California clearly coalesced around two suggests that wolverines were ever where trades or shipments occurred population centers in the North present as established populations in (Aubry et al. 2007, entire). The habitat Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. the Great Plains, Midwest, or Northeast. relationships of wolverines include the Records from these areas are separated Habitat Relationships and Wolverine Hudsonian life zone, subarctic, and by a lack of historic records in southern Distribution in the Contiguous United tundra with persistent spring snow, all Oregon and northern California, States features that the Central Great Plains indicating that the distribution of lack and lacked throughout the historic wolverines in this area is best Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2152–2156) period (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2151– represented by two disjunct populations compared several broad-scale habitat 2152). Therefore, it is unlikely that these rather than a continuous peninsular types to historic, recent, and current records represent established wolverine extension from Canada. This conclusion wolverine records to investigate individuals or populations, or that this is supported by genetic data indicating correlations in habitat use and area contained wolverine habitat. that the Sierra Nevada and North determine what habitat types might best Rocky Mountains. Five Rocky Cascades wolverines were separated for predict wolverine occurrence. Spring Mountains States (Idaho, Montana, at least 2,000 years prior to extirpation snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah) as a of the Sierra Nevada population best overall predictor of wolverine region contain numerous wolverine (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2174). One occurrence. Snow cover during the records over all time intervals. Sierra Nevada record exists from after denning period is essential for Mappable records appear to coalesce 1930, indicating that this population successful wolverine reproduction around several areas that may have been was extirpated in the first half of the rangewide (Hatler 1989, p. iv; Magoun population centers, such as central 1900s concurrent with widespread and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et Colorado, the Greater Yellowstone Area, systematic predator control programs. al. 2007c, pp. 71–72; Persson 2007, p. and northern Idaho/northwestern Records from the North Cascades 1). Wolverine dens tend to be in areas Montana. The large number of verifiable continue into present times in relatively of high structural diversity such as logs

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12935

and boulders with deep snow (Magoun induced extirpation, and where Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et reestablishment of populations is (DPS) al. 2007c, pp. 71–72; Persson 2007, possible given current habitat entire). Reproductive females dig deep conditions and management (the Sierra Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we snow tunnels to reach the protective Nevada mountains in California and must determine whether any species is structure of logs and boulders where southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado); an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five threat they produce offspring. This behavior and (3) areas where historical presence factors identified in the Act. Section presumably protects the vulnerable kits of wolverines in reproducing and 3(16) of the Act defines ‘‘species’’ to from predation by large carnivores, potentially self-sustaining populations including other wolverines (Pulliainen include ‘‘any subspecies of fish or is doubtful, and where the current 1968, p. 342; Zyryanov 1989, pp. 3–12), wildlife or plants, and any distinct habitat conditions preclude the but may also have physiological benefits population segment of any species of for kits by buffering them from extreme establishment of populations in the vertebrate fish or wildlife which cold, wind, and desiccation (Pullianen foreseeable future (Great Plains, interbreeds when mature’’ (16 U.S.C. 1968, p. 342; Bja¨rvall et al. 1978, p. 23). Midwest, Great Lakes, and Northeast). 1532 (16)). To interpret and implement All of the areas in the lower 48 States Further, on the basis of the historic and the distinct population segment portion for which good evidence of persistent current records and distribution of of the definition of a species under the wolverine populations exists (i.e., suitable habitat, we consider the current Act and Congressional guidance, the Cascades, Sierra Nevada, northern and range of wolverines to include suitable Service and the National Marine southern Rockies) contain large and habitat in the North Cascades of Fisheries Service (now the National well-distributed areas with deep snow Washington and Oregon, and northern Oceanic and Atmospheric cover that persists through the Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Wyoming, Administration-Fisheries) published, on wolverine denning period (Brock et al. and Montana. February 7, 1996, an interagency Policy 2007, pp. 36–53; Aubry et al. 2007, p. Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Wolverine Population Estimate for the 2154). The Great Plains, Great Lakes, Vertebrate Population Segments under Midwest, and Northeast lack the spring Contiguous United States the Act (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The snow conditions thought to be required Current population level and trends policy allows for more refined by wolverines for successful remain unknown because no systematic application of the Act that better reflects reproduction (Aubry et al. 2007, p. the conservation needs of the taxon 2154). This finding supports the population census exists over the entire current range of the wolverine in the being considered, and avoids the exclusion of the Great Plains, Great inclusion of entities that may not lower 48 States. However, we can Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast from the warrant protection under the Act. current range of wolverines. Whether estimate the potential carrying capacity wolverines once existed as established of a population in a given region by Under our DPS Policy, three elements populations in any of these regions is using available data on population are considered in a decision regarding unknown, but the consistent lack of density, extent of habitat, and wolverine the status of a possible DPS as deep spring snow in these regions distribution. Using the projections of endangered or threatened under the Act. appears to currently preclude the wolverine habitat found in Brock et al. These are applied similarly for wolverine’s presence as a reproducing (2007, pp. 36–53), Montana, Idaho, and additions to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, population. Wyoming could potentially support reclassification, and removal from the Large areas of habitat with between 499 and 655 individual Lists. They are: (1) Discreteness of the characteristics suitable for wolverines wolverines (Inman 2007a, entire). This population segment in relation to the still occur in the southern Rocky range is almost certainly an Mountains and Sierra Nevada where remainder of the taxon; (2) the overestimate of actual wolverine significance of the population segment wolverines have been extirpated (Aubry numbers because it assumes that all et al. 2007, p. 2154; Brock et al. 2007, to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) suitable habitat is currently occupied, p. 26). The occurrence data suggest that the population segment’s conservation wolverine extirpations in these areas which is not the case (Murphy et al. status in relation to the Act’s standards were coincidental with systematic 2007, p. 2). Therefore, we consider the for listing (i.e., whether the population predator eradication efforts in the early lower range estimate of about 500 segment is, when treated as if it were a 1900s, which have been discontinued wolverines from Inman (2007a, entire) species, endangered or threatened). for many years. Wolverines failed to to be a reasonable estimate of the Discreteness refers to the isolation of a recolonize these areas since the current wolverine population in the population from other members of the cessation of eradication programs, by northern Rocky Mountains. The three species, and we evaluate this based on the mid-20th century, of widespread northern Rocky Mountain States specific criteria. If a population segment predator control efforts. This may be the provide the bulk of currently occupied is considered discrete, we must consider result of the long dispersal distance habitat in the contiguous United States, whether the discrete segment is between these areas and extant with the only additional known ‘‘significant’’ to the taxon to which it populations. occupied area being the North Cascades belongs by using the best available We conclude that areas of wolverine mountain range in Washington State. scientific information. If we determine historical occurrence can be placed in The size of the North Cascades that a population segment is discrete one of three categories: (1) Areas where population is unknown, but is likely to and significant, we then evaluate it for wolverines are extant as reproducing be much smaller than the northern endangered or threatened status based and potentially self-sustaining Rocky Mountain population due to the on the Act’s standards. The DPS populations (North Cascades, northern small size of the occupied area (Aubry evaluation in this finding concerns the Rocky Mountains); (2) areas where segment of the wolverine species et al. 2007, Fig. 4) and is unlikely to wolverines historically existed as occurring within the contiguous United increase the estimated population reproducing and potentially self- States, including the northern Rocky significantly. sustaining populations prior to human- Mountains and the North Cascades.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 12936 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules

Analysis for Discreteness the inadequacy of existing regulatory of wolverine habitat in the contiguous Under our DPS Policy, a population mechanisms. In order to demonstrate United States that results in smaller, segment of a vertebrate species may be that a population is discrete based on isolated, ‘‘sky island’’ patches separated considered discrete if it satisfies either international governmental boundaries, by unsuitable habitats. These three one of the following conditions: (1) It is it is not enough that there are factors are explained in more detail below; in addition, we summarize how markedly separated from other differences in control of exploitation, they relate to section 4(a)(1)(D) of the populations of the same taxon as a management of habitat, conservation Act. consequence of physical, physiological, status, or regulatory mechanisms across ecological, or behavioral factors the international boundary; the Small Total Population Size differences must be significant and (quantitative measures of genetic or The total population sizes for morphological discontinuity may relate to inadequate regulatory mechanisms.. Following is our wolverines in Canada and Alaska, and provide evidence of this separation); or the contiguous United States, differ by (2) it is delimited by international assessment of the U.S. population and wolverines in the rest of North America more than an order of magnitude. As governmental boundaries within which explained in the ‘‘Wolverine Population differences in control of exploitation, in terms of differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, Estimate for the Contiguous United management of habitat, conservation States’’ section above, the contiguous status, or regulatory mechanisms exist conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. U.S. population likely numbers that are significant in light of section approximately 500 adult individuals 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (see ‘‘International Differences in Management of Habitat (Inman 2007a, entire). This total Border Issues’’ section below for a Wolverine habitat in North America population is divided into smaller sub- discussion of the standard set by section occurs in arctic, sub-arctic, and alpine populations inhabiting semi-isolated 4(a)(1)(D)). Below is our discussion of habitats, and typically in areas remote habitat fragments in major mountain the wolverine population within the from human presence and development. ranges (Aubry et al. 2007, Figs. 2b, 4). contiguous 48 United States relative to In the contiguous United States, The population in western Canada is the discreteness criterion of the DPS wolverines are restricted to high- much larger—estimated at 15,089 to policy. elevation habitats in the Rocky 18,967 individuals (COSEWIC 2003, p. Markedly Separated From Other Mountains and North Cascades 22). Wolverine population size in Populations of the Taxon containing the arctic and sub-arctic Alaska is unknown; however, the conditions that they require (Wilson average annual harvest consistently The population of the North 1982, p. 644; Hash 1987, p. 576; Banci exceeds 500 individuals, and the American wolverine addressed in the 1994, p. 102, Pasitschniak-Arts and population does not appear to be in petition, and that we have evaluated for Lariviere 1995, p. 499; Aubry et al. decline based on trapper reports and the consideration as a DPS, incorporates 2007, p. 2152). Wolverine habitat is assessments of State wildlife managers wolverine populations south of the generally characterized by the absence (ADF&G 2004, entire). If the population international border with Canada, of human presence and development is truly not declining, it is likely to inclusive of the States of Idaho, (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1299; number over 8,000 individuals, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming Banci 1994, p 114; Landa et al. 1998, p. calculated using demographic data in (hereafter referred to as the U.S. 448; Rowland et al. 2003 p. 101; Lofroth and Ott (2007, pp. 2196–2198), population). The U.S. population is Copeland 1996, pp. 124–127; Krebs et and assuming sustainable annual connected to wolverine populations in al. 2007, pp. 2187–2190). In both the harvest of 6 percent (if 500 represents 6 Canada and is likely dependent on them contiguous United States and Canada, percent of the population, total to some degree for maintaining genetic little habitat management occurs in population equals 8,333). Wolverine diversity. Therefore, the U.S. population populations number 2,089 to 3,567 in areas frequented by wolverines. of the North American wolverine does British Columbia and 1,500 to 2,000 in Therefore, we find that there are no not meet the markedly separated Alberta (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22), the two significant differences in management of criterion of the DPS Policy. provinces immediately adjacent to the habitat for wolverines that relate to the contiguous U.S. population. Small International Border Issues status of the species between the populations, such as the contiguous contiguous United States and Canada. A population segment of a vertebrate U.S. population, face higher extinction species may also be considered discrete Differences in Conservation Status risk than large ones such as the Canada if it is delimited by international and Alaska population (Pimm et al. Biological Status governmental boundaries within which 1988, p. 762). differences in control of exploitation, Throughout its current range in management of habitat, conservation Canada and Alaska, wolverines exist in Effective Population Size status, or regulatory mechanisms exist well-distributed, interconnected, large Population ecologists use the concept that are significant in light of section populations. Conversely, wolverines in of a population’s ‘‘effective’’ size as a 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1)(D) the contiguous United States appear to measure of the proportion of the actual of the Act is the factor concerning the exist in small, fragmented, and semi- population that contributes to future adequacy of existing regulatory isolated populations that put them at generations (for a review of effective mechanisms in the Act’s ‘‘5-factor’’ greater risk of being lost due to population size, see Schwartz et al. analysis for determining whether a catastrophic or stochastic events than 1998, entire). Effective population size species is threatened or endangered. In those populations to the north in may be less than actual population size assessing a population for discreteness Canada and Alaska. These risks result if the population has any of the based on delimitation by international from three main factors: (1) Small total following characteristics: (1) Unequal governmental boundaries, we focus population size, (2) effective population sex ratio, (2) individuals have a specifically on whether the factors size below that needed to maintain disproportionate probability of named above are significantly different genetic diversity and demographic contributing offspring to the next between the two countries because of stability, and (3) the fragmented nature generation, (3) population size

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12937

fluctuates over time, and (4) generations drift and loss of genetic diversity depression or stochastic demographic overlap such that individuals may (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 206). effects (Frankham 1995, p. 795). The reproduce in more than one generation. Genetic studies have highlighted the small effective population size in the Effective population size is important essential role that genetic exchange contiguous United States contrasts with because it determines rates of loss of plays in maintaining genetic diversity in the situation in Canada and Alaska genetic variation, fixation of deleterious small wolverine populations. Genetic where wolverines are relatively alleles, and the rate of inbreeding. drift has occurred in the remaining abundant and exist in habitats with a Populations with small effective populations in the contiguous United high level of connectivity (COSEWIC population sizes show reductions in States where wolverines contain four of 2003, p. 8; Slough 2007, p. 78). Due to population growth rates and increases nine haplotypes found in Canadian the lack of inbreeding reported for these in extinction probabilities (Leberg 1990, populations (Kyle and Strobeck 2001, p. populations, it is likely that effective p. 194; Jimenez et al. 1994, pp. 272–273; 343; Cegelski et al. 2003, pp. 2914–2915; population sizes are much larger than in Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360; Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208; Schwartz et the contiguous United States. Although Saccheri et al. 1998, p. 492; Reed and al. 2007, p. 2176). The reduced number these differences in biological Bryant 2000, p. 11; Schwartz and Mills of haplotypes indicates not only that conservation status between the United 2005, p. 419; Hogg et al. 2006, pp. 1495, genetic drift is occurring, but also that States and Canadian wolverine 1498; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. there is some level of genetic separation; populations exist, they are not 338–342). Franklin (1980, as cited in if these populations were freely significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D). interbreeding, they would share more Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 359) Habitat Availability and Connectivity proposed an empirically based rule haplotypes (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 205). suggesting that the short-term effective The reduction of haplotypes is likely a Wolverine habitat in the contiguous population size should not be less than result of the fragmented nature of United States consists of small, isolated 50, and the long-term effective wolverine habitat in the United States ‘‘islands’’ of high-elevation, alpine population size should not be less than and is consistent with an emerging habitats containing sufficient depth of 500 (for appropriate use of this rule and pattern of reduced genetic variation at snow during the denning period, its limitations, see Allendorf and the southern edge of the range separated from each other by low Luikart 2007, pp. 359–360). There are documented in a suite of boreal forest valleys of unsuitable habitats (Copeland two main ways to estimate the effective carnivores (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2007, Map 1). The large distances between suitable wolverine habitats population size of populations: 2177). As stated previously, the low result in wolverines existing in an demographic and genetic. effective population size and archipelago of semi-isolated, suitable Demographically-based methods accompanying reduction in genetic habitats near mountain tops, incorporate life history parameters, such diversity is a concern because surrounded by a sea of unsuitable as unequal sex ratios, fluctuations in populations with low genetic diversity habitats. Wolverines occupy habitat in a population size over time, and variance are more vulnerable to extinction. No effective population size estimate high-elevation band from 2,100 m to in reproductive success, into abundance exists for populations in Canada or 2,600 m (6,888 ft to 8,528 ft) in the and demographic models of a species. Alaska. However, none of the Canadian mountains of the lower 48 States. The Genetically-based methods use multi- or Alaskan populations tested show intervening valleys in this area range locus genetic data to estimate an signs of genetic drift or inbreeding (Kyle from 975 m to 1,500 m (3,198 ft to 4,920 effective population size (Tallmon et al. and Strobeck 2001, p. 343; Cegelski et ft), and are unsuitable for long-term 2004, p. 979; Waples 2006, pp. 171–178; al. 2006, p. 209), and all Canadian and wolverine habitat because they do not Tallmon et al. 2007, entire). Alaskan populations contain higher have the snow conditions or other Effective population for wolverines in genetic variation than the U.S. northern habitat features required by wolverines the Rocky Mountains averaged 39 Rocky Mountain populations (Kyle and (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2151–2153). (Schwartz 2007, entire). This effective Strobeck 2001, p. 341). In addition, The low population densities and population size is exceptionally low because of the large and contiguous reduced genetic diversity of wolverines (Schwartz 2007, entire), and is below nature of the populations (based on in the contiguous United States means what is required for short-term habitat contiguity and genetic similarity, that, to avoid further inbreeding or local maintenance of genetic diversity. see ‘‘Habitat Availability and extirpation due to demographic The concern with the low effective Connectivity’’ below) (Kyle and stochasticity, regular exchange of population size is highlighted by recent Strobeck 2002, p. 1146; Cegelski et al. individual wolverines between islands research determining that at least 400 2006, p. 209), and the relatively high of habitat must occur. Intermountain breeding pairs would be necessary to genetic diversity in Canada and Alaska, valleys are increasingly the sites of sustain the long-term genetic viability of we conclude that the effective human residential and commercial the contiguous U.S. wolverine population size is large enough to not be developments and transportation population (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 197). a cause for conservation concern. This corridors, and represent semi-permeable However, the entire population is information indicates that the barriers to wolverines. Although estimated to consist of only 500 populations in Alaska and Canada are crossings of valleys, primarily by males individuals (Inman 2007a, entire), with less vulnerable to extinction pressures (e.g., Packila et al. 2007, Fig. 2, 3), have a substantial number of them being associated with a low effective been documented, these crossings are nonbreeding subadults. Furthermore, population size. not common, and movements within the contiguous U.S. population appears The small effective population size in valleys occur less frequently than to be split into at least five smaller the contiguous U.S. wolverine movements in suitable wolverine subpopulations (North Cascades, population has led to inbreeding and habitats (Packila et al. 2007, p. 110). Crazybelts, Idaho, Greater Yellowstone consequent loss of genetic diversity Wolverine populations in the Area, and northern Montana) which are (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208). Over time, Canadian Rockies also exist on habitat semi-isolated from each other, meaning if the current effective population size islands, but the islands are much larger that genetic exchange does not occur remains stable, the population will be at (Copeland 2007, p. 24) and host larger frequently enough to prevent genetic risk of extinction due to inbreeding populations so that exchange of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 12938 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules

individuals is likely to be less critical State regulates the species relative to its Krebs 2007, pp. 2164–2165; Lofroth and for short-term maintenance of genetic existing populations. In Washington, the Ott 2007, p. 2193; Petersen 1997, pp. 4– diversity and demographic stability. wolverine is listed as State Endangered 5). Farther north into Canada and Alaska, (State of Washington 2007, p.3); Idaho the climate becomes progressively and Wyoming designate it as a protected Summary of Differences in colder and persistent spring snow and nongame species (State of Idaho 2006, p. Conservation Status Hudsonian/arctic/sub-arctic habitat 9; State of Wyoming 1996, pp. 151–154); As described above, the wolverine has associations occur progressively lower and in Montana it is a regulated a range of legal statuses under State on mountain slopes, until near the furbearer (State of Montana 2007, p. 2). regulations in the United States and Arctic Circle where these conditions are Oregon, while currently not considered Canadian Provincial designations. The found at sea level. Wolverines track to have any individuals other than differences in legal conservation status these latitudinal and elevation gradients possible unsuccessful dispersers, has a conveyed by the States and Provinces by inhabiting progressively lower closed season on trapping of wolverines are mixed in each country, but do not elevations in northern Canada and (State of Oregon 2006, p. 2). appear significantly different from each Alaska until valley bottom habitats The Canadian government has listed become suitable habitat and wolverines other. Some differences exist in terms of its eastern population of wolverine in biological conservation status related to exist over large expanses of contiguous Quebec and Labrador, where it may be habitat in well-connected populations small and effective population sizes, extirpated due to trapping and hunting, and habitat availability and (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 7–8). In the far and declining caribou herds, as north of Canada, wolverine habitat connectivity. When evaluating whether Endangered under the Species at Risk these differences are significant enough extends into low-elevation valleys and Act (SARA) (www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca). the vast expanses of low-elevation to use the international boundary under Because wolverines in this area appear the discreteness criterion, our policy boreal forest and tundra. Although these to have been extirpated since the early differences in biological conservation directs that these differences must be 1900s, we do not consider this area to significant in light of 4(a)(1)(D) of the status between the United States and be in the wolverine’s current range, and Canadian wolverine populations exist, Act (61 FR 4725). We have concluded thus its status is not relevant to the that the differences in biological they are not significant in light of question of whether significant conservation status between the United section 4(a)(1)(D). differences in status exist between States and Canadian wolverine In the contiguous United States, Canada and the contiguous 48 United populations are not significant in light wolverines must cross unsuitable States. The Western population of of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because habitats to achieve connectivity among wolverine occurs in eight Canadian these differences appear to be a result of subpopulations, which is required to Provinces, two of which (British avert further genetic drift and continued the relatively small and patchy Columbia and Alberta) are contiguous to loss of genetic diversity (Cegelski et al. distribution of wolverine habitat at the the lower 48 United States. This 2006, p. 208; Copeland 2007, entire; southern terminus of its range in the population in Canada has no status Brock et al. 2007, pp. 36–53). The highly contiguous United States rather than as under SARA, but has a designation of fragmented nature of the habitat in the a result of inadequate regulatory Special Concern (Vulnerable) under the contiguous United States contributes to Committee on the Status of Endangered mechanisms. Therefore, we determine the low effective population size for Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (http:// that the contiguous United States wolverines in this area by dividing the www.speciActtrisk.gc.ca). British population of wolverine is not discrete population among semi-isolated Columbia and Alberta have Provincial due to differences in conservation subpopulations, making the continued status. persistence of the population precarious species conservation lists, which are relative to the Canadian population. priority-setting tools for establishing Differences in Control of Exploitation Canadian habitats are generally baseline ranks and conservation and Regulatory Mechanisms contiguous blocks that have few or no activities (Province of British Columbia Contiguous U.S. populations are impediments to demographic or genetic 2002, p. 1). Both Provinces include the largely not harvested, with the connectivity. The fragmented nature wolverine on their provincial ‘‘blue exception being an average of 10.5 and distribution of wolverine habitat in list,’’ indicating that it may be at risk the lower United States results in a (Petersen 1997, p. 1), except on wolverines taken a year in Montana. In contiguous U.S. population that is more Vancouver Island where the wolverine Canada and Alaska, harvest is vulnerable to extirpation because of lack is possibly extirpated and is ‘‘red listed’’ widespread within the current range. of connectivity between subpopulations, (threatened, endangered, or candidate; Although we do not have which contributes to inbreeding and not harvested) (Lofroth and Ott 2007, p. comprehensive numbers for the annual reduces the chances of recolonization of 2193; Province of British Columbia wolverine harvest in Canada, we have habitat patches after local extinction. 2002, p. 2). estimated a total annual harvest of 719 Although these differences in biological Because British Columbia and Alberta animals (see Table 2) based on the best conservation status between the United are contiguous to a larger, and currently information available to us. The States and Canadian wolverine more robust, portion of the wolverine’s numbers below are likely populations exist, they are not range in northwestern Canada, underestimates because they are based significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D). documented declines in wolverine on reported harvests, which in Canadian populations in the southern portions of territories likely accounts for only one- Legal Status Conveyed by National, both Provinces have not raised the fifth to one-third of the total harvest State and Provincial Governments status of the species to a level of because of unreported harvest by local The United States currently confers concern that would result in its communities (Melchoir et al. 1987 as no Federal status on the wolverine. Each consideration under SARA (Lofroth and cited in Banci 1994, p. 101).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12939

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL WOLVERINE HARVEST IN CANADA

Estimated Province or territory annual Source harvest

British Columbia ...... 175 Lofroth and Ott, 2007, pp. 2196–2197. Alberta ...... 37 Province of Alberta 2006, p. 14. Saskatchewan ...... 10 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Manitoba ...... 48 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Ontario ...... 8 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Yukon ...... 150 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1. Northwest Territories ...... 209 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.* Nunavut ...... 82 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.∧

Total ...... 719 *Corrected to adjust for majority being unreported in pelt production statistics. ∧ Corrected using Dumond and Krizan 2002 as cited in COSEWIC 2003 p. 17.

Based on these harvest numbers and Management Program, which means it is allowing trapping or hunting of a minimum population estimate of regulated regionally in consultation wolverine. In Alaska, an average of 500 15,089 (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22), we with local trappers. No quotas are wolverines are harvested per year from conservatively estimate that harvest in established, but reporting and a population of unknown size (assuming Canada is a minimum of 4.7 percent of inspection of carcasses is required in a 6 percent harvest rate, the population the population annually. Human-caused most regions of the Province. The would be approximately 8,000 mortality of wolverines is likely trapping season is open for 3 to 4 individuals). In Canada, an average of additive to natural mortality due to the months, from November 1 through 719 wolverines are harvested per year low reproductive rate and relatively January or February, depending on the (4.7 percent of a population of long life expectancy of wolverines region (Province of British Columbia approximately 15,000; see table 2). (Krebs et al. 2004, p. 499; Lofroth and 2007, pp. 90–96). Approximately 175 We conclude that differences in Ott 2007, pp. 2197–2198; Squires et al. wolverines are harvested each year control of exploitation and regulatory 2007, pp. 2218–2219). under this system (out of a total mechanisms between the contiguous An estimated 15,089 to 18,967 estimated population of 3,532), equating United States and Canada are not wolverines occur in Canada where to a harvest of 5 percent (Lofroth and significantly different. When evaluating suitable habitat is plentiful (COSEWIC Ott 2007, pp. 2196–2197). However, as whether differences are significant 2003, pp. 14–22). Because of this stated above, in Canada, due to local enough to use the international abundance of habitat, protection and use, a significant portion of the harvest boundary under the discreteness intensive management are not necessary may go unreported. criterion, our policy directs that these to conserve wolverines in western The Canadian Province of Alberta has differences must be significant in light Canada. This situation contrasts with regulated wolverine trapping since of 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 Federal the situation in the contiguous United 1989. An average of 37 animals per year Register 4725). We conclude that the States, where habitat is fragmented and is harvested within the Province differences in control of exploitation limited to higher elevations over (Province of Alberta 2006, p. 14). between the United States and Canadian portions of four States (Washington, Trapping seasons are established for Fur wolverine populations are not Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). Management Zones (FMZs) within the significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) Of the four lower 48 States where the Province and run for 3 months, from of the Act because in both countries wolverine currently persists, trapping November 1 to January 31. Quotas are exploitation appears to be adequately and hunting of the species is prohibited designated in 6 FMZs, and establish an regulated according to what the overall in all except Montana where the bulk of annual trap limit of 1 wolverine per population can sustain. This conclusion the species resides. Montana trapping trapper in each Wildlife Management is supported by the fact that wolverine and hunting regulations define the Unit (Province of Alberta 2006, p. 8). populations appear to be able to sustain wolverine as a furbearer, and establish Two additional FMZs, that comprise a the current rate of mortality due to a 2.5-month season for both hunting and large area of southeastern Alberta, are trapping and hunting (approximately 6 trapping that runs from December 1 to closed to trapping (Province of Alberta percent in Alaska, 4.7 percent February 15. A quota of 1 animal per 2006, pp. 8, 11, 14); however, these throughout western Canada, and 2.1 person, up to a total of 12 wolverines areas are outside the species’ normal percent in the contiguous United per season across all Wolverine range (Petersen 1997, p. 5) and, States). Therefore, we determine that the Management Units is established; the although they are adjacent to the United contiguous United States population of quota limits the number of wolverines States, are not adjacent to wolverine wolverine is not discrete due to that may be taken in each of three populations in the United States. differences in control of exploitation. Management Units so that take of The regulation of exploitation of animals is distributed across drainages wolverines is mixed within its current Summary for Discreteness (State of Montana 2007, pp. 2–3, 5, 8). range in the contiguous United States, The international boundary between Across the border from the U.S. Alaska, and Canada. Controls on the Canada and the United States currently wolverine population, the Canadian exploitation of wolverine exist in the leads to some differences in the control Province of British Columbia defines the contiguous United States, with an of exploitation and conservation status wolverine as a commercial furbearer, average of 10.5 wolverine taken in of the wolverine. However, we find that and assigns it a Regulated Harvest status Montana (2.1 percent of the estimated these differences between Canada and as a Class 2 Species under its Fur U.S. population of 500), the only State the contiguous United States do not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 12940 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules

result in significant differences in light to the species are essentially uniform to the genetic diversity of the species. of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because throughout its range, no portion is likely The loss of genetically based diversity they are not the result of inadequate to warrant further consideration. may substantially reduce the ability of regulatory mechanisms that place the Moreover, if any concentration of the species to respond and adapt to U.S. population at risk. Therefore, we threats applies only to portions of the future environmental changes. A have determined that the U.S. portion of range that are unimportant to the peripheral population may contribute the range does not meet the discreteness conservation of the species, such meaningfully to representation if there criteria in our DPS Policy (61 FR 4725). portions will not warrant further is evidence that it provides genetic The Service finds that the existing consideration. diversity due to its location on the data do not indicate that North If we identify any portions that margin of the species’ habitat American wolverines in the contiguous warrant further consideration, we then requirements. United States are ‘‘markedly separated’’ determine whether the species is Because the petition to list the from those in Canada and Alaska. threatened or endangered in any wolverine only specified the portion of Consequently, the Service is unable to significant portion. If we determine that the subspecies’ range in the contiguous conclude at this time that the petitioned a portion of the range is not significant, United States, we assessed whether this entity is discrete according to our DPS we do not determine whether the portion is important to the conservation policy. Therefore, the North American species is threatened or endangered of the subspecies because it contributes wolverine in the contiguous United there. meaningfully to the representation, States does not qualify as a distinct The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ resiliency, or redundancy of the species. population segment and is not a listable ‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are For resiliency, we evaluated whether entity under the Act. Because we have intended to be indicators of the the contiguous U.S. wolverine determined that the population of the conservation value of portions of the population occupies relatively large or North American wolverine in the range. Resiliency of a species allows it particularly high-quality habitat, or if its contiguous United States is not discrete to recover from periodic disturbances. A location or characteristics make it less and therefore not a DPS and a listable species will likely be more resilient if susceptible to certain threats than other entity under the Act, we do not need to large populations exist in high-quality portions of the range. We determined consider whether the population is habitat that is distributed throughout its that the contiguous U.S. wolverine significant with regards to the DPS range in a way that captures the population constitutes a relatively small policy or the conservation status environmental variability available. A area of patchily distributed lower- pursuant to Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. portion of the range of a species may quality habitat when compared to the make a meaningful contribution to the Gulo gulo luscus range overall. Significant Portion of the Range resiliency of the species if the area is Additionally, we find that the Analysis relatively large and contains particularly characteristics of the contiguous U.S. Because the petitioned action was to high-quality habitat, or if its location or wolverine population make it more list the wolverine in the contiguous characteristics make it less susceptible susceptible to certain threats than other United States, after determining that the to certain threats than other portions of portions of the range because of the wolverine in this portion of its range is the range. When evaluating whether or isolated patchy ‘‘sky island’’ habitats at not a distinct population segment (DPS), how a portion of the range contributes the southern terminus of its range. we analyzed whether it would to resiliency of the species, we evaluate Additionally, we evaluated the constitute a significant potion of the the historical value of the portion and historical value of the contiguous U.S. range of the North American subspecies. how frequently the portion is used by portion of the wolverine range and how On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion the species, if possible. The range frequently the portion is used by the was issued by the Solicitor of the portion may contribute to resiliency for species, and whether the portion Department of the Interior, ‘‘The other reasons; for instance, it may contains an important concentration of Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are Throughout All or a Significant Portion certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its of Its Range’’’ (DOI 2007). A portion of necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, a species’ range is significant if it is part life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or of the current range of the species and feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. We found that the contiguous is important to the conservation of the wintering. U.S. wolverine population does not species because it contributes Redundancy of populations may be meaningfully contribute to resiliency meaningfully to the representation, needed to provide a margin of safety for because the habitats necessary for resiliency, or redundancy of the species. the species to withstand catastrophic breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, The contribution must be at a level such events. This concept does not mean that or wintering are found distributed that its loss would result in a decrease any portion that provides redundancy is throughout its range and are not solely in the ability of the species to persist. per se a significant portion of the range found in the contiguous United States. In determining whether the petitioned of a species. The idea is to conserve Therefore, we conclude that the entity warranted listing as threatened or enough areas of the range so that contiguous U.S. wolverine population endangered throughout a significant random perturbations in the system does not contribute meaningfully to the portion of its range, we first determine only act on a few populations. resiliency of G. g. luscus. whether there is substantial information Therefore, we examine each area based In analyzing redundancy, we indicating that (1) the petitioned entity on whether that area provides an evaluated whether the contiguous U.S. constitutes a significant portion of the increment of redundancy that is portion of the wolverine range is range, and (2) the species may be in important to the conservation of the necessary to provide a margin of safety danger of extinction there or likely to species. for the species to withstand catastrophic become so within the foreseeable future. Adequate representation ensures that events. We also examined the In practice, a key part of this analysis is the species’ adaptive capabilities are contiguous U.S. portion of the whether the threats are geographically conserved. Specifically, we evaluate a wolverine range to determine whether concentrated in some way. If the threats range portion to see how it contributes that area provides an increment of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12941

redundancy that is important to the United States that is no longer occupied DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE conservation of the species. In North would not raise the status of this portion America, wolverines occur within a of the range as being significant to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric wide variety of arctic, sub-arctic and subspecies. Administration alpine habitats, primarily boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains Finding 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 throughout Alaska and Canada, with We have carefully assessed the best RIN 0648–XF03 two small peninsulas of habitat scientific and commercial information extending into the North Cascades and Listing Endangered and Threatened the Northern Rocky Mountains in the available regarding threats to the contiguous United States population of Wildlife and Designating Critical contiguous United States. The portion of Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to the wolverine. We reviewed the the range that extends into the Reclassify the Loggerhead Turtle in petition, and available published and contiguous United States is small in the Western North Atlantic Ocean relation to the entire range of the unpublished scientific and commercial subspecies. Additionally, the actual area information. This 12-month finding AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries amount of habitat in the contiguous reflects and incorporates information Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and United States is more fragmented in that we received during the public Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), nature than habitat found elsewhere comment period or that we obtained Commerce. throughout the range, which results in through consultation, literature ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request a smaller proportion of actual habitat in research, and field visits. for information and comments; the contiguous U.S. portion than what is On the basis of this review, we have correction. generally indicated on ‘‘range’’ maps determined that the contiguous United (see ‘‘Habitat Availability and SUMMARY: This document corrects the States population of the North American Connectivity’’ section above). Finally, a fax number in the ADDRESSES section of small proportion of the total wolverine wolverine does not constitute a distinct a proposed rule published in the population occurs in the contiguous population segment (DPS) under the Act Federal Register of March 5, 2008. United States. Assuming 8,333 and therefore a listable entity unto itself. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: wolverine occur in Alaska (as described We also find that the contiguous United Marta Nammack at 301–713–1401. States population of the North American in the control of exploitation section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: above), 15,089 wolverine occur in wolverine is not a significant portion of Canada, and 500 wolverine occur in the the range of the North American Correction contiguous United States, the subspecies and does not warrant further In proposed rule FR Doc. E8–4231, contiguous United States portion consideration under the Act. Therefore, beginning on page 11849 in the issue of accounts for only 2 percent of the entire we find that the petition to list the March 5, 2008, make the following G. g. luscus population. Thus, we North American wolverine that occurs correction, in the Preamble. On page determined that the contiguous U.S. in the contiguous United States is not 11849, column two, line 8 of the wolverine population does not warranted for listing. ADDRESSES section, replace ‘‘978–281– significantly contribute to the 9394’’ with ‘‘301–713–0376’’. redundancy of G. g. luscus. References Cited In determining whether the Dated: March 6, 2008. contiguous U.S. wolverine population A complete list of all references cited John Oliver, contributed to representation, we is available upon request from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for evaluated whether it contributes to the Supervisor, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Operations, National Marine Fisheries genetic diversity of the species. Service, Montana Field Office (see Service. Adequate representation ensures that ADDRESSES). [FR Doc. 08–1000 Filed 3–6–08; 2:54 pm] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S the species’ adaptive capabilities are Author conserved. Wolverines in the contiguous United States contain a The primary author of this document DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE subset of the genetic haplotypes found is staff of the Mountain-Prairie Region of in the Canadian populations, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 National Oceanic and Atmospheric therefore do not represent a unique Union Blvd., Ste. 145, Lakewood, Administration population. Thus, the species does not Colorado 80228 (also see ADDRESSES). meaningfully contribute to 50 CFR Part 648 representation of Gulo gulo luscus. The Authority populations in Canada and Alaska are [Docket No. 071017601–7812–02] The authority for this action is section relatively large and contiguous, and are RIN 0648–AW17 not dependent on connectivity to the 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et contiguous U.S. population. Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Based on the discussion above, we seq.). Fisheries of the Northeastern United determined that the contiguous United Dated: February 28, 2008. States; Northeast Multispecies States portion of the current range of the H. Dale Hall, Fishery; 2008 Georges Bank Cod Fixed North American wolverine is not Gear Sector Operations Plan and significant to the Gulo gulo luscus Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8–4197 Filed 3–10–08; 8:45 am] Agreement, and Allocation of Georges subspecies, and therefore does not Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch warrant further consideration to BILLING CODE 4310–55–P determine if it is a significant portion of AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the range that is threatened or Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and endangered. In addition, we find that Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), historical habitat in the contiguous Commerce.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS