Vol. 78 Monday, No. 23 February 4, 2013

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR in Helena, MT, on March 27, 2013, from http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., all times local species/mammals/wolverine/, at http:// Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES). Registration for those www.regulations.gov at Docket No. providing testimony in the public FWS–R6–ES–2012–0107, and at the 50 CFR Part 17 hearings will begin at 6:00 p.m. at each Montana Field Office (see FOR FURTHER [FWS–R6–ES–2012–0107: 4500030113] location. INFORMATION CONTACT). ADDRESSES: You may submit comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RIN 1018–AY26 by one of the following methods: Brent Esmoil, Field Supervisor (Acting), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana and Plants; Threatened Status for the eRulemaking Portal: http:// Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Distinct Population Segment of the www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword Montana 59601, by telephone (406) North American Wolverine Occurring box, enter Docket No. FWS–R6–ES– 449–5225. Persons who use a in the Contiguous United States 2012–0107, which is the docket number telecommunications device for the deaf for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search (TDD) may call the Federal Information AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, panel on the left side of the screen, Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Interior. under the Document Type heading, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Proposed rule. click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit Executive Summary SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and a comment by clicking on Comment Why we need to publish a rule. Under Wildlife Service, propose to list the Now!’’ the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as distinct population segment of the (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act or North American wolverine occurring in or hand-delivery to: Public Comments ESA), if a species is determined to be an the contiguous United States, as a Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2012– endangered or threatened species threatened species under the 0107; Division of Policy and Directives throughout all or a significant portion of Endangered Species Act. If we finalize Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife its range, we are required to promptly this rule as proposed, it would extend Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS publish a proposal in the Federal the Act’s protections to this species. The 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Register and make a determination on effect of this regulation is to add the (3) At a public hearing: We are our proposal within 1 year. Critical distinct population segment of the holding three public hearings on this habitat shall be designated, to the North American wolverine occurring in proposed rule (see ADDRESSES for maximum extent prudent and the contiguous United States to the List location information). You may provide determinable, for any species of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife your comments at any of the three determined to be an endangered or in our regulations. We also propose a hearings. threatened species under the Act. special rule under section 4(d) of the We request that you send comments Listing a species as an endangered or Act to apply the specific prohibitions of only by the methods described above. threatened species and designations and the Act necessary to protect the We will post all comments on http:// revisions of critical habitat can only be wolverine. We find that critical habitat www.regulations.gov. This generally completed by issuing a rule. is not determinable at this time. The means that we will post any personal This rule consists of: Service seeks data and comments from information you provide us (see the • A proposed rule to list the distinct the public on this proposed listing rule, Public Comments section below for population segment (DPS) of the North the proposed special rule under section more information). American wolverine occurring in the 4(d) of the Act, and our finding that the Public Informational Sessions and contiguous United States as a threatened designation of critical habitat for the Public Hearings: Public informational species; and species is not determinable at this time. sessions and public hearings will be • A proposed special rule under DATES: We will accept comments held on March 13, 2013, at the Boise section 4(d) of the Act that outlines the received or postmarked on or before Centre on the Grove, 850 West Front prohibitions necessary and advisable for May 6, 2013. Comments submitted Street, Boise, ID 83702. The second is the conservation of the wolverine. electronically using the Federal scheduled on March 19, 2013, at the A proposed rule under section 10(j) of eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES Hampton Inn, 137 Union Boulevard, the Act to establish an experimental section, below) must be received by Lakewood, CO 80228. The third is non-essential population of wolverine 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing scheduled on March 27, 2013, at the in Colorado is published concurrently date. We must receive requests for Red Lion Colonial Inn, 2301 Colonial in this issue of the Federal Register. public hearings, in writing, at the Drive, Helena, MT 59601. At all three Also, a draft Recovery Outline for the address shown in the ADDRESSES section locations the public informational wolverine DPS is available on our Web by March 21, 2013. session will run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 site at http://www.fws.gov/mountain- Public Informational Sessions and p.m., followed by public speaker prairie/species/mammals/wolverine/ or Public Hearing: We will hold 3 public registration at 6:00 p.m., and then the on http://www.regulations.gov. informational sessions and public public hearing for oral testimony from The basis for our action. Under the hearings on this proposed rule. Public 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. People needing Act, we can determine that a species is informational sessions will occur from reasonable accommodations in order to an endangered or threatened species 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and public attend and participate in the public based on any of five factors: (A) The hearings will be held from 7:00 p.m. to hearing should contact Brent Esmoil, present or threatened destruction, 9:00 p.m. at each location. Public Montana Ecological Services Field modification, or curtailment of its informational sessions and public Office, as soon as possible (see FOR habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for hearings will occur in Boise, ID, on FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). commercial, recreational, scientific, or March 13, 2013, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 Any additional tools or supporting educational purposes; (C) Disease or p.m.; in Lakewood, CO, on March 19, information that we may develop for predation; (D) The inadequacy of 2013, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and this rulemaking will be available at existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7865

Other natural or manmade factors of designation such that the designation include sufficient information with your affecting its continued existence. of critical habitat may not be prudent; comments to allow us to verify any We have determined that habitat loss (6) Specific information on the scientific or commercial information due to increasing temperatures and amount and distribution of wolverine you include. reduced late spring snowpack due to habitat, Comments and materials we receive, climate change is likely to have a (7) Information on the projected and as well as supporting documentation we significant negative population-level reasonably likely impacts of climate used in preparing this proposed rule, impact on wolverine populations in the change on the wolverine and its habitat; will be available for public inspection contiguous United States. In the future, (8) Suitability of the proposed 4(d) on http://www.regulations.gov, or by wolverine habitat is likely to be reduced rule for the conservation, recovery, and appointment, during normal business to the point that the wolverine in the management of the DPS of the North hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife contiguous United States is in danger of American wolverine occurring in the Service, Montana Field Office (see FOR extinction. contiguous United States. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We will seek peer review. We are (9) Additional information concerning seeking comments from knowledgeable whether it is appropriate to prohibit Previous Federal Actions individuals with scientific expertise to incidental take of wolverine in the On April 19, 1995, we published a review our analysis of the best available course of legal trapping activities finding (60 FR 19567) that a previous science and application of that science directed at other species in the proposed petition, dated August 3, 1994, and to provide any additional scientific 4(d) rule, including any information submitted by the Predator Project (now information to improve this proposed about State management plans related to named the Predator Conservation rule. Because we will consider all trapping regulations and any measures Alliance) and Biodiversity Legal comments and information received within those plans that may avoid or Foundation to list the wolverine in the during the comment period, our final minimize the risk of wolverine mortality contiguous United States as an determinations may differ from this from incidental trapping for other endangered or threatened species, did proposal. species. not provide substantial information (10) Additional provisions the Service indicating that listing the wolverine in Information Requested may wish to consider to conserve, the contiguous United States may be recover, and manage the DPS of the We intend that any final action warranted. resulting from this proposed rule will be North American wolverine occurring in On July 14, 2000, we received a based on the best scientific and the contiguous United States. petition dated July 11, 2000, submitted commercial data available and be as We will consider all comments and by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, accurate and as effective as possible. information received during the Predator Conservation Alliance, Therefore, we request comments or comment period on this proposed Defenders of Wildlife, Northwest information from the public, other listing rule and special rule under Ecosystem Alliance, Friends of the concerned governmental agencies, section 4(d) of the Act during our Clearwater, and Superior Wilderness Native American tribes, the scientific preparation of a final determination. Action Network, to list the wolverine community, industry, or any other Accordingly, the final decision may within the contiguous United States as interested parties concerning this differ from this proposal. an endangered or threatened species proposed rule. We particularly seek Please note that submissions merely and designate critical habitat for the comments concerning: stating support for or opposition to the species. (1) Biological, commercial trade, or action under consideration without other relevant data concerning any providing supporting information, On October 21, 2003, we published a threats (or lack thereof) to this species although noted, will not be considered 90-day finding that the petition failed to and regulations that may be addressing in making a determination, as section present substantial scientific and those threats. 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that commercial information indicating that (2) Additional information concerning determinations as to whether any listing may be warranted (68 FR 60112). the historical and current status, range, species is an endangered or threatened On September 29, 2006, as a result of distribution, and population size of this species must be made ‘‘solely on the a complaint filed June 8, 2005 by species, including the locations of any basis of the best scientific and Defenders of Wildlife and others additional populations of this species. commercial data available.’’ alleging we used the wrong standards to (3) Any information on the biological You may submit your comments and assess the July 11, 2000, wolverine or ecological requirements of the materials concerning this proposed rule petition, the U.S. District Court, species, and ongoing conservation by one of the methods listed in the Montana District, ruled that our 90-day measures for the species and its habitat. ADDRESSES section. We request that you petition finding (68 FR 60112) was in (4) Current or planned activities in the send comments only by the methods error and ordered us to submit to the areas occupied by the species and described in the ADDRESSES section. Federal Register a 12-month finding for possible impacts of these activities on If you submit information via http:// the wolverine by September 29, 2007. this species. www.regulations.gov, your entire On April 6, 2007, the deadline for this (5) The reasons why we should or submission—including any personal 12-month finding was extended to should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical identifying information—will be posted February 28, 2008. habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 on the Web site. If your submission is On March 11, 2008, we published a U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether made via a hardcopy that includes 12-month finding of ‘‘not warranted’’ for and how the wolverine may benefit personal identifying information, you the wolverine in the contiguous United from such a designation; whether there may request at the top of your document States (73 FR 12929). In that finding we are threats to the species from human that we withhold this information from determined that the wolverine in the activity, the degree to which it can be public review. However, we cannot contiguous United States did not expected to increase due to a critical guarantee that we will be able to do so. constitute a distinct population segment habitat designation, and whether that We will post all hardcopy submissions or a significant portion of the range of increase in threat outweighs the benefit on http://www.regulations.gov. Please a listable entity of the wolverine in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

North America and so was not a listable a threatened species in this section of energy to successfully reproduce entity under the Act. the proposed rule. (Persson 2005, p. 1456). It is likely that, On July 8, 2008 we received a Notice despite the high rate of initiation of Species Information of Intent to Sue from Earthjustice pregnancy, due to the spontaneous alleging violations of the Act in our Taxonomy and Life History abortion of litters resulting from March 11, 2008, 12-month finding. On The wolverine has a Holarctic resource limitation, actual rates of September 30, 2008, Earthjustice filed a (habitats found in the northern successful reproduction in wolverines complaint in the U.S. District Court, continents) distribution including are among the lowest known for District of Montana, seeking to set aside northern portions of Europe, Asia, and mammals (Persson 2005, p. 1456). Supplemental feeding of females and remand the 12-month finding back North America. The currently accepted increases reproductive potential to the Service for reconsideration. taxonomy classifies wolverines (Persson 2005, p. 1456). Food- On March 6, 2009, the Service agreed worldwide as a single species, Gulo supplemented females were also more to settle the case with Earthjustice by gulo, with two subspecies. Old World successful at raising kits to the time of voluntarily remanding the 12-month wolverines are found in the Nordic weaning, suggesting that wolverine finding and issuing a new 12-month countries of Europe, Russia, and Siberia finding by December 1, 2010. Following reproduction and ultimately population and are part of the subspecies Gulo gulo growth rates and viability are food- the settlement agreement, the court gulo. New World wolverines occur in dismissed the case on June 15, 2009, limited. Female wolverines appear to North America. The wolverines in the use a complex strategy of food and ordered the Service to comply with contiguous United States are a part of the settlement agreement. accumulation and caching to attain the New World subspecies, G. g. luscus: enough resources to successfully raise a On April 15, 2010, the Service the North American wolverine (Kurten published a Notice of Initiation of a 12- litter (Inman et al. 2012b, pp. 640–641). and Rausch 1959 p. 19; Pasitschniak- Breeding generally occurs from late month finding for wolverines in the Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. 1). The contiguous United States (75 FR 19591). spring to early fall (Magoun and species is known by several common Valkenburg 1983, p. 175; Mead et al. That finding was published on names, including mountain devil, December 14, 2010, and determined that 1991, pp. 808–811). Females undergo glutton, caracajou, quickhatch, gulon, delayed implantation until the the wolverine in the contiguous United skunk bear, as well as wolverine. States constituted a Distinct Population following winter or spring, when active The wolverine is the largest terrestrial gestation lasts from 30 to 40 days Segment and that the DPS warranted member of the family Mustelidae. Adult listing under the Act, but that listing (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 254– males weigh 12 to 18 kilograms (kg) (26 257). Litters are born from mid-February was precluded by higher priority listing to 40 pounds (lb)), and adult females actions (75 FR 78030). through March, containing one to five weigh 8 to 12 kg (17 to 26 lb) (Banci kits, with an average in North America On September 9, 2011, we reached an 1994, p. 99). The wolverine resembles a agreement with plaintiffs in Endangered of between one and two kits (Magoun small bear with a bushy tail. It has a 1985, pp. 28–31; Copeland 1996, p. 36; Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., broad, rounded head; short, rounded Misc. Action No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL Krebs and Lewis 1999, p. 698; Copeland ears; and small eyes. Each foot has five and Yates 2006, pp. 32–36; Inman et al. Docket No. 2165 (D. DC) (known as the toes with curved, semi-retractile claws ‘‘MDL case’’) on a schedule to publish 2007c, p. 68). used for digging and climbing (Banci Female wolverines use natal (birthing) proposed rules or to withdraw 1994, p. 99). dens that are excavated in snow. warranted findings for the species on A large number of female wolverines Persistent, stable snow greater than 1.5 our list of candidate species. This (40 percent) are capable of giving birth meters (m) (5 feet (ft)) deep appears to agreement stipulated that we would at 2 years old, become pregnant most be a requirement for natal denning, submit for publication in the Federal years, and produce average litter sizes of because it provides security for Register a proposed listing rule for the 1 to 2 kits. In one study of known-aged offspring and buffers cold winter wolverine, or withdraw the warranted females, none reproduced at age 2; 3 of temperatures (Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; 12-month finding, no later than the end 10 first reproduced at age 3; and 2 did Copeland 1996, pp. 92–97; Magoun and of the 2013 Fiscal Year. not reproduce until age 4. The average Copeland 1998, pp. 1317–1318; Banci On April 13, 2012, several parties age at first reproduction was 3.4 years 1994, pp. 109–110; Inman et al. 2007c, filed an action challenging the Service’s (Persson et al. 2006, pp. 76–77). pp. 71–72; Copeland et al. 2010, pp. December 14, 2010 warranted but Another study indicated that the 240–242). Female wolverines go to great precluded finding for wolverine. average age at first reproduction is likely lengths to find secure den sites, Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr., et al. v. more than 3 years (Inman et al. 2007c, suggesting that predation is a concern Salazar, et al., 9:12-cv-00057–DLC (D. p. 70). Pregnant females commonly (Banci 1994, p. 107). Natal dens consist Mont.) On September 20, 2012, the resorb or spontaneously abort litters of tunnels that contain well-used court granted the Service’s motion to prior to giving birth (Magoun 1985, pp. runways and bed sites and may stay that litigation based on the 30–31; Copeland 1996, p. 43; Persson et naturally incorporate shrubs, rocks, and Service’s representation to the Court al. 2006, p. 77; Inman et al. 2007c, p. downed logs as part of their structure that it expected to submit this rule or 70). This may in turn preserve resources (Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1315– withdraw the warranted finding to the to increase reproductive success in 1316; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71–72). In Federal Register by January 18, 2013. subsequent years (Persson 2005, p. Idaho, natal den sites occur above 2,500 Threatened Status for the Contiguous 1456). By age 3, nearly all female m (8,200 ft) on rocky sites, such as United States Wolverine DPS wolverines become pregnant every year, north-facing boulder talus or subalpine but energetic constraints due to low cirques (steep-walled semicircular basin Background food availability result in loss of carved by a glacier) in forest openings It is our intent to discuss below only pregnancy in about half of them each (Magoun and Copeland 1994, pp. 1315– those topics directly relevant to the year. It is likely that, in many places in 1316). In Montana, natal dens occur listing of the contiguous United States the range of wolverines, it takes 2 years above 2,400 m (7,874 ft) and are located DPS of the North American wolverine as of foraging for a female to store enough on north aspects in avalanche debris,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7867

typically in alpine habitats near the far north (Copeland et al. 2010, beneath deep snow (Hornocker and timberline (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71– Figure 1). Hash 1981, p. 1297). 72). Offspring are born from mid- In the contiguous United States, Wolverines require a lot of space; the February through March and the dens wolverines likely exist as a availability and distribution of food is are typically used through late April or metapopulation (Aubry et al. 2007, p. likely the primary factor in determining early May (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; 2147, Figures 1, 3). A population is a female wolverine movements and home Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1314– group of interbreeding individuals of range size (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1317; Inman et al. 2007b, pp. 55–59). the same species. A metapopulation is 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117–118). Male Occupation of natal dens is variable, a population composed of a network of wolverine home range size and location ranging from approximately 9 to 65 days semi-isolated subpopulations, each is likely tied to the presence of active (Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316– occupying a suitable patch of habitat in female home ranges and breeding 1317). a landscape of otherwise unsuitable opportunities (Copeland 1996, p. 74). Females may move kits to multiple habitat (Pulliam and Dunning 1997, pp. Female wolverines forage close to den secondary (maternal) dens as they grow 212–214). Metapopulations require sites in early summer, progressively during the month of May (Pulliainen some level of regular or intermittent ranging further from dens as kits 1968, p. 343; Myrberget 1968, p. 115), migration and gene flow among become more independent (May et al. although use of maternal dens may be subpopulations, in which individual 2010, p. 941). Wolverines travel long minimal (Inman et al. 2007c, p. 69). subpopulations support one-another by distances over rough terrain and deep Timing of den abandonment is related providing genetic and demographic snow, and adult males generally cover to accumulation of water in dens (due enrichment through mutual exchange of greater distances than females to snow melt), the maturation of individuals (Meffe and Carroll 1997, p. (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1298; offspring, disturbance, and geographic 678). Individual subpopulations may go Banci 1994, pp. 117–118; Moriarty et al. location (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; extinct or lose genetic viability, but are 2009, entire; Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22– Magoun 1985, p. 73). After using natal then ‘‘rescued’’ by immigration from 28; Brian 2010, p. 3; Copeland and Yates and maternal dens, wolverines may also other subpopulations, thus ensuring the 2006, Figure 9). Home ranges of use rendezvous sites through early July. persistence of the metapopulation as a wolverines are large, and vary greatly in These sites are characterized by natural whole. If metapopulation dynamics size depending on availability and (unexcavated) cavities formed by large break down, either due to changes distribution of food and gender and age boulders, downed logs (avalanche within subpopulations or loss of of the animal. Home ranges of adult debris), and snow (Inman et al. 2007c, connectivity, then the entire wolverines also vary in size depending pp. 55–56). Male wolverines likely mate metapopulation may be jeopardized due on geographic location. Home ranges in with several females, and although they to subpopulations becoming unable to Alaska were approximately 100 square are not known to directly contribute to persist in the face of inbreeding or kilometers (km2) to over 900 km2 (38.5 rearing young, they do tolerate subadult demographic and environmental square miles (mi2) to 348 mi2) (Banci wolverines in their territories (usually stochasticity (Pulliam and Dunning 1994, p. 117). Average home ranges of their own offspring) until they reach 1997, pp. 221–222). The wolverine resident adult females in central Idaho maturity (Copeland 1996, p. 72). metapopulation in the DPS consists of a were 384 km2 (148 mi2), and average network of small subpopulations on home ranges of resident adult males Habitat, Space, and Food mountain tops, some consisting of less were 1,522 km2 (588 mi2) (Copeland In North America, wolverines occur than ten individuals. Persistence of 1996, p. 50). Wolverines in Glacier within a wide variety of alpine, boreal, subpopulations under these conditions National Park had average adult male and arctic habitats, including boreal requires movement between home ranges of 496 km2 (193 mi2) and forests, tundra, and western mountains subpopulations across both suitable and adult female home ranges of 141 km2 throughout Alaska and Canada. The unsuitable wolverine habitat. (55 mi2) (Copeland and Yates 2006, p. southern portion of the species’ range Wolverines prefer to move across 25). Wolverines in the Greater extends into the contiguous United suitable habitat (as defined by persistent Yellowstone Ecosystem had average States, including high-elevation alpine spring snow cover) rather than to cross adult male home ranges of 797 km2 (311 portions of Washington, Idaho, unsuitable habitats during dispersal mi2), and average adult female home Montana, Wyoming, California, and movements (Schwartz et al. 2009, p. ranges of 329 km2 (128 mi2) (Inman et Colorado (Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash 3230). Therefore, we would expect that al. 2007a, p. 4). These home range sizes 1987, p. 576; Banci 1994, p. 102, changes resulting in reduction of are large relative to the body size of Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. suitable habitat conditions would result wolverines, and may indicate that 499; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152; Moriarty in reduced movement rates between wolverines occupy a relatively et al. 2009, entire; Inman et al. 2009, pp. habitat patches if distances between unproductive niche in which they must 22–25). Wolverines do not appear to them became greater. This could affect forage over large areas to consume the specialize on specific vegetation or the metapopulation as a whole if amount of calories needed to meet their geological habitat aspects, but instead movement rates became too low to life-history requirements (Inman et al. select areas that are cold and receive ensure subpopulation demographic or 2007a, p. 11). enough winter precipitation to reliably genetic health. Across their worldwide distribution, maintain deep persistent snow late into Wolverines are opportunistic feeders wolverines are dependent on persistent the warm season (Copeland et al. 2010, and consume a variety of foods spring snow cover for successful entire). The requirement of cold, snowy depending on availability. They reproduction (Pulliainen 1968, pp. 338– conditions means that, in the southern primarily scavenge carrion, but also 341; Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Copeland portion of the species’ range where prey on small animals and birds, and eat 1996, pp. 93–94; Magoun and Copeland ambient temperatures are warmest, fruits, berries, and insects (Hornocker 1998, pp. 1315–1319; Aubry et al. 2007, wolverine distribution is restricted to and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Hash 1987, p. p. 2153; Inman et al. 2012a, p.785; high elevations, while at more northerly 579; Banci 1994, pp. 111–113). Copeland et al. 2010, entire). No records latitudes, wolverines are present at Wolverines have an excellent sense of exist of wolverines denning anywhere lower elevations and even at sea level in smell that enables them to find food but in snow, despite the wide

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7868 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

availability of snow-free denning North America which includes the DPS, and southern Rocky Mountains. Within opportunities within the species’ wolverines are constrained by their the area known to currently have geographic range. The snow tunnels and need for cold conditions and persistent wolverine populations, relatively few complex structure associated with dens spring snow to using only the coldest wolverines can coexist due to their are likely required to protect young from available landscapes (Copeland et al. naturally low population densities, even interspecific and intraspecific predation 2010, Figure 6). if all areas were occupied at or near (Persson et al. 2003, pp. 25–26; Magoun Mean seasonal elevations used by carrying capacity. Given the natural and Copeland 1998, p. 1318). A layer of wolverines in the northern Rocky limitations on wolverine population deep snow may also add crucial Mountains and North Cascades vary density, it is likely that historical insulation from cold temperatures and between 1,400 and 2,600 m (4,592 and wolverine population numbers were wind prevalent in wolverine habitat 8,528 ft) depending on location, but are also low (Inman et al. 2007a, Table 6). (Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; Bja¨rvall et al. always relatively high on mountain Because of these natural limitations, it 1978, p. 24–25; Copeland 1996, p. 100; slopes (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. is possible that densities and population Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. 1318). 1291; Copeland et al. 2007, p. 2207, levels in the northern Rocky Mountains Female wolverines have been Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2153; Inman et al. and North Cascades where populations observed to abandon reproductive dens 2012, p. 782). Elevation ranges used by currently exist may not be substantially when temperatures warm and snow historical wolverine populations in the lower than population densities were in conditions become wet (Magoun and Sierra Nevada and southern Rocky these areas prior to European Copeland 1998, p. 1316); this response Mountains are unknown, but settlement. However, historically, the indicates that the condition of the snow presumably wolverines used higher contiguous United States population is also important to successful elevations, on average, than more would likely have been larger than it is reproduction, and that the onset of northerly populations to compensate for today due to the larger area occupied by spring snowmelt forces female the higher temperatures found at lower populations when the southern Rocky wolverines to move kits into alternate latitudes. In the contiguous United Mountains, Bighorn Mountains, Sierra denning sites with better snow States, valley bottom habitat appears to Nevada, and possibly also the Oregon conditions, if they are available. These be used only for dispersal movements Cascades and mountains of Utah, were movements may be energetically costly and not for foraging or reproduction occupied at full capacity. and subject females and kits to (Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22–28). predation risk. The deep, persistent Wolverine reproductive dens have been Wolverine Status in Canada and Alaska spring snow layer in the Copeland et al. located in alpine, subalpine, taiga, or The bulk of the range of North (2010) model captures all known tundra habitat (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; American wolverines is found in wolverine den sites in the DPS; Pulliainen 1968, pp. 338–341; Bja¨rvall Canada and Alaska, where wolverines however, on average, most denning 1982, p. 318; Lee and Niptanatiak 1996, inhabit alpine tundra, boreal forest, and occurs at higher elevations within the p. 349; Landa et al. 1998, pp. 451–452; arctic habitats (Slough 2007, p. 78). area defined by the model. Female Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1317– Wolverines in Canada have been wolverines establish reproductive dens 1318). Wolverines rarely, or never, den divided into two populations for at elevations higher than average in lower elevation forested habitats, management by the Canadian elevations used by nonreproductive although they may occupy these Government: An eastern population in wolverines (Copeland 1996, p. 94; habitats occasionally (Magoun and Labrador and Quebec, and a western Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1315– Copeland 1998, p. 1317). population that extends from Ontario to 1316; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 71), the Pacific coast, and north to the Arctic Wolverine Densities suggesting that females find the Ocean. The eastern population is conditions necessary for successful Wolverines naturally occur in low currently listed as endangered under the denning in the upper portion of their densities with a reported range from one Species At Risk Act in Canada, and the home range where snow is most animal per 65 km2 (25 mi2), to one western population is designated as a persistent and occurs in the heaviest animal per 337 km2 (130 mi2) species of special concern (COSEWIC accumulations. (Hornocker and Hash 1981, pp. 1292– 2003, p. 8). Wolverine year-round habitat use also 1295; Hash 1987, p. 578; Copeland The current status of wolverines in takes place almost entirely within the 1996, pp. 31–32; Copeland and Yates eastern Canada is uncertain. Wolverines area defined by deep persistent spring 2006, p. 27; Inman et al. 2007a, p. 10; have not been confirmed to occur in snow (Copeland et al. 2010, pp. 242– Squires et al. 2007, p. 2218). No Quebec since 1978 (Fortin et al. 2005, p. 243). Within the DPS, this area is systematic population census exists 4). Historical evidence of wolverine generally centered on the alpine tree over the entire current range of presence in eastern Canada is also line (the maximum elevation beyond wolverines in the contiguous United suspect because no evidence exists to which tree growth is precluded and States, so the current population level show that wolverine pelts attributed to only low-growing vegetation is found). and trends are not known with Quebec or Labrador actually came from In the contiguous United States, certainty. However, based on our that region; animals were possibly wolverine year-round habitat is found at current knowledge of occupied trapped elsewhere and the pelts shipped high elevations centered near the tree wolverine habitat and wolverine through the eastern provinces line in conifer forests (below tree line) densities in this habitat, it is reasonable (COSEWIC 2003, p. 20). Wolverines in and rocky alpine habitat (above tree- to estimate that the wolverine eastern Canada may currently exist in line) and in cirque basins and avalanche population in the contiguous United an extremely low-density population, or chutes that have food sources such as States numbers approximately 250 to may be extirpated. Wolverines in marmots, voles, and carrion (Hornocker 300 individuals (Inman 2010b, pers. eastern Canada, both historically and and Hash 1981, p. 1296; Copeland 1996, comm.). The bulk of the current currently, could represent migrants from p. 124; Magoun and Copeland 1998, p. population occurs in the northern Rocky western populations that never became 1318; Copeland et al. 2007, p. 2211; Mountains, with a few individuals in resident animals (COSEWIC 2003, pp. Inman et al. 2007a, p. 11). In the the North Cascades and one known 20–21). The Federal Government of southern portion of wolverine range in individual each in the Sierra Nevada Canada has completed a recovery plan

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7869

for the eastern population with the goal population in western Canada is misidentification often made in of establishing a self-sustaining estimated to include approximately eyewitness accounts of visual population through reintroduction and 15,089 to 18,967 individuals (COSEWIC encounters of unrestrained animals in protection (Fortin et al. 2005, p. 16). 2003, p. 22). The number of wolverines the wild. Visual-encounter records often Wolverines in western Canada and in Alaska is unknown, but they appear represent the majority of occurrence Alaska inhabit a variety of habitats from to exist at naturally low densities in records for elusive forest carnivores, and sea level to high elevations (Slough suitable habitats throughout the state they are subject to inherently high rates 2007, pp. 77–78). They occur in Alaska, (Alaska Department of Fish and Game of misidentification of the species Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, 2004, pp. 1–359). We have no involved, including wolverines Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, information to indicate that wolverine (McKelvey et al. 2008, pp. 551–552). Northwest Territories, and Nunavut populations have been reduced in These misidentifications can result in (Slough 2007, pp. 77–78). Since numbers or geographic range in Alaska. wildly inaccurate conclusions about European colonization, a generally species occurrence (McKelvey et al. The Complexity of Geographic Range recognized range contraction has taken 2008, pp. 550–553). place in boreal Ontario and the aspen Delineation Aubry et al. (2007, entire) used only parklands of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Information on the nature of historical verifiable and documented records to and Alberta (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20–21; and current locations of wolverine is investigate wolverine distribution Slough 2007, p. 77). This range lacking for several reasons. Wolverines through time. This paper is the only contraction occurred concurrently with tend to live in remote and inhospitable available comprehensive treatment of a reduction in wolverine records for the places away from human settlements, these distribution patterns that attempts Great Lakes region in the contiguous where they are seldom encountered, to distinguish between records that United States (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. documented, or studied. Wolverines represent resident animals versus 2155–2156). Causes of these changes are naturally occur at low population animals that have dispersed outside of uncertain, but may be related to densities and are rarely and suitable habitat. For these reasons, we increased harvest, habitat modification, unpredictably encountered where they find that Aubry et al. (2007, entire) or climate change (COSEWIC 2003, pp. do occur. Wolverines often move long represents the best available summary of 20–21; Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2155– distances in short periods of time; for wolverine occurrence records in the 2156; Slough 2007, pp. 77–78). Analysis example, when dispersing from natal contiguous United States at this time. supports climate change as a factor ranges, wolverines may transit through Since the publication of Aubry et al. contributing to population declines in habitats that are unsuitable for long- (2007, entire), verified records of southern Ontario, because snow term survival (Aubry et al. 2007, p. wolverines have also been documented conditions necessary to support 2147; Moriarty et al. 2009, entire; Inman in Colorado and California, which we wolverines do not currently exist in the et al. 2009, pp. 22–28; Brian 2010, p. 3). will describe in greater detail below. Great Lakes region of the contiguous Such movements make it difficult to Aubry et al. (2007, entire) used United States, and are marginal in distinguish with certainty between verifiable and documented records from southern Ontario (Aubry et al. 2007, p. occurrence records that represent museum collections, literature sources, 2154). It is not known if these snow established populations in suitable and State and Federal institutions to conditions existed historically in the habitats and records that represent trace changes in geographic distribution Great Lakes of the contiguous United short-term occupancy or exploratory of wolverines in the historical record. States; however, the small number of movements without the potential for They then used an overlay of suitable wolverine records from this area establishment of home ranges, wolverine habitats to determine which suggests that they did not. It is possible reproduction, or populations. These records represent wolverines in habitats that suitable snow conditions did reach natural attributes of wolverines make it that may support residency, and, by further south in eastern Canada in 1850 difficult to precisely determine their extension, populations, and which than they do today, making wolverine present range, or trends in range records likely represent wolverines dispersal attempts from Canada to the expansion or contraction, that may have outside the range of suitable habitats, so Great Lakes region of the contiguous occurred in the past. Therefore, we are called ‘‘extralimital’’ records. Aubry et United States more likely than they are cautious and use multiple lines of al.’s (2007, entire) focus on verifiable now. Wolverines occurred historically evidence when trying to determine and documented records corrected past on Vancouver Island and have been where past wolverine populations overly broad approaches to wolverine given status as a separate subspecies by occurred. range mapping (Nowak 1973, p. 22; Hall some (Hall 1981, p. 109). The Throughout the remainder of this 1981, p. 1009; Wilson 1982, p. 644; Vancouver Island population is now proposed rule, we focus on the use of Hash 1987, p. 576), which used a more regarded as possibly extirpated; no verifiable and documented wolverine inclusive but potentially misleading sightings have occurred since 1992 occurrence records to define historical approach when dealing with occurrence (COSEWIC 2003, p. 18). and present range as we have records. Many of the extralimital Wolverines in western Canada and determined that these records constitute records used in these publications Alaska appear to persist everywhere that the best scientific information available represented individuals that dispersed habitat and climate conditions are on the past and present distribution of from natal ranges but ended up in suitable (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 13–21; wolverines (see Aubry et al. 2007, p. habitats that could not support Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2152–2155; 2148; McKelvey et al. 2008, entire). wolverines. Use of these data to Slough 2007, p. 79; Copeland et al. Verifiable records are records supported determine the historical geographic 2010, Figure 2). Throughout this area, by physical evidence such as museum range of wolverines results in gross wolverines are managed by regulated specimens, harvested pelts, DNA overestimation of the area that can harvest at the Provincial and State level. samples, and diagnostic photographs. actually be used successfully by Population estimates for Canada and Documented records are those based on wolverines for the establishment of Alaska are rough because no wolverine accounts of wolverines being killed or populations. Subsequent to publication surveys have taken place at the State or captured. Use of only verifiable and of Aubry et al. (2007, entire), two Provincial scale. However, the documented records avoids mistakes of publications (Copeland et al. 2010,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7870 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

entire; Brock et al. 2007, entire) further search of better habitat conditions, or encompass the time during which refined our understanding of wolverine may actually reproduce, but at a rate wolverine numbers and distribution habitat needs and corroborated the lower than that needed for replacement were hypothesized to be at their highest approach of Aubry et al. (2007, entire). of individuals lost to mortality or (prior to European settlement) and also Thus, despite the paucity of verifiable emigration, leading to eventual at their lowest (early 20th century) records, we now have strong population extinction. (Wright and Thompson 1935; Grinnell information on the areas that are For a widely dispersing species like et al. 1937; Allen 1942; Newby and currently suitable to be occupied by the wolverine, we expect many locality Wright 1955, all as cited in Aubry et al. records to represent dispersal attempts wolverine based on habitat and climate 2007, p. 2148). The recent time interval conditions. into sink habitats or nonhabitat. The covers a hypothesized population We agree with Aubry et al. (2007, p. value to the population (and thus the 2149) that the most appropriate method DPS) of dispersers in these areas is expansion and rebound from the early to determine the current and historical unclear; it is likely that most dispersers 20th century low. Current records offer range of wolverines is to use a into sink habitats or nonhabitat will be the most recent evidence available for combination of occurrence records and lost to the population unless they are wolverine occurrences and potential habitat suitability, along with other able to move back into source habitats. populations. All occurrence records information, such as documented Therefore, it is our conclusion that must be individually analyzed in light successful reproduction events, population sink areas and areas of non- of their context in terms of habitat indicating where reproductive and wolverine habitat, here defined as conditions conducive to wolverine potentially self-sustaining populations places where wolverines may be found population establishment and whether may occur. We also generally agree with but where habitat is not suitable for or not they occur clustered with other their conclusions about the historical long-term occupancy and reproduction, records, which might indicate that and current range of the species. We do not represent part of the species populations have historically occurred find that the species’ range is the area historical range and have little in the area. The authors of Aubry et al. that may support viable populations, conservation value for the DPS, other (2007) did such an analysis as they and does not include extralimital than possibly serving as temporary stop- compiled their records. occurrences outside of habitat that is overs for attempted dispersers as they likely to support wolverine life-history search for suitable habitats. Compared Wolverine Distribution needs. Areas that can support wolverine with broader approaches to defining We assessed the historical, recent, and populations may be referred to as historical geographic range, this focused potential ‘‘source’’ populations because approach (1) results in reducing the bias current distribution data for each of the they provide surplus individuals of extralimital dispersers and (2) regions below to determine the through reproduction beyond what is concentrates conservation attention on likelihood of the presence of historical needed for replacement. Areas that have areas capable of maintaining populations (rather than extralimital some of the habitat attributes of populations. dispersers). Of 729 mappable records wolverine habitat but do not have Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2147–2148) (those records with precise location enough habitat to support viable divided records into ‘‘historical’’ information) compiled by Aubry et al. populations may be referred to as (recorded prior to 1961), ‘‘recent’’ (2007, p. 2150), 188 were from the population ‘‘sinks’’ because wolverines (recorded between 1961 and 1994), and historical time interval (see Table 1). may disperse to these areas and remain ‘‘current’’ (recorded after 1994). The discussion below draws heavily for some time, but will either die there Historical records occurred before from both Aubry et al. (2007, entire) and without reproducing, leave the area in systematic surveys. Historical records Copeland et al. (2010, entire).

TABLE 1—WOLVERINE RECORDS FROM THREE TIME PERIODS FROM AUBRY ET AL. 2007 [Numbers represent total documented and verifiable records with the subset of those records that were verifiable in parentheses]

Historical (<1964) Recent (1961–1994) Current (>1994)

Northeast ...... 13 (1) 0 0 Upper Midwest ...... 4 (2) 0 0 Great Lakes ...... 36 (4) 1 0 Central Great Plains ...... * 71 (2) 1 0 Rocky Mountains ...... 147 (45) 332 (283) 215 (210) Pacific Coast ...... 89 (14) 23 (15) 7

Totals ...... 362 (68) 357 (298) 222 (210) * 35 records from a single source (the journals of Alexander Henry).

Northeast and Upper Midwest—The area of relatively high human represent dispersal from a receding low number of records and scattered population density and the lack of Canadian population. Wolverine nature of their distribution combined suitable habitat suggests that wolverines distribution in Ontario, Canada, appears with a lack of suitable habitat indicate did not exist in this area as a viable to have receded north from the Great that wolverines were likely only population after 1900. Widely scattered Lakes region since the 1800s, and occasional transients to the area and not records generally before 1900, along currently wolverines occupy only the present as a reproducing population with occasional subsequent records northern portion of the province, a after 1800. suggest that if a reproducing population distance of over 644 km (400 mi) from Great Lakes—The lack of large existed in the Great Lakes, it predated the United States border (COSEWIC numbers of verifiable records in this 1900, and that any post-1900 records 2003, p. 9). The distribution pattern of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7871

record illustrated in Aubry et al. (2007, an average of 10.5 individuals from this indicating that the Sierra Nevada and p. 2152) is consistent with what would population each year (Montana Cascades wolverines were separated for be expected if those records were of Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at least 2,000 years prior to extirpation dispersing individuals from a Canadian 2007, p. 2), but harvest mortality has of the Sierra Nevada population population that receded progressively been reduced due to regulatory changes (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2174). further north into Canada after 1800, in 2008 (Montana Department of Fish, Only one Sierra Nevada record exists possibly due to natural climate changes Wildlife and Parks 2008, p. 8). after 1930, indicating that this (COSEWIC 2003, p. 28). Populations in British Columbia and population was likely extirpated in the Central Great Plains—The lack of Alberta, Canada, are extant (COSEWIC first half of the 1900s, concurrent with precise locality records and suitable 2003, pp. 18–19), and may have been a widespread systematic predator control habitat from the Great Plains States source of surplus wolverines to the programs. In 2008, a male wolverine leads us to conclude that reproducing contiguous United States population was discovered in the Sierra Nevada populations of wolverines did not during population lows. Recently, a Range of California, the first verified historically inhabit this area. Of thirty- male wolverine moved on its own from record from California since 1922 six records from North Dakota, 35 are the southern Greater Yellowstone Area (Moriarty et al. 2009, entire). Genetic from the journals of a single fur trader of Wyoming into the southern Rocky testing revealed that this wolverine was (see Table 1), and it is not clear that the Mountains of Colorado, where it still not a descendant of the endemic Sierra records represent actual collection persisted as of November 2012 (Inman Nevada wolverine population, but was localities or are localities where trades et al. 2009, pp. 22–26; Odell 2012, pers. likely derived from wolverines in the or shipments occurred (Aubry 2007, comm.). This attempted dispersal event Rocky Mountains (Moriarty et al. 2009, pers. comm.). Given the habitat is the first verified wolverine occurrence p. 159). This attempted dispersal event relationships of wolverines (e.g., in Colorado since 1919 and may may represent a continuation of the Copeland et al. 2010, Figure 1), it is represent a continuation of the wolverine expansion in the contiguous unlikely that these records represent wolverine expansion in the Rocky United States as detailed above. Other established wolverines or that this area Mountains detailed above. It is possible wolverines may have travelled to the served as wolverine habitat. that other wolverines have traveled to Sierra Nevada and remain undetected. Rocky Mountains—Five Rocky the southern Rocky Mountains and have There is no evidence that California Mountains States (Idaho, Montana, remained undetected. There is no currently hosts a wolverine population Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah) evidence that Colorado currently hosts a or that female wolverines have made, or contained numerous wolverine records. wolverine population or that female are likely to make, similar dispersal Records with precise locality wolverines have made, or are likely to movements. Wolverines were likely extirpated information appear to coalesce around make, similar movements. Female several areas that may have been from the North Cascades in the early dispersal movements tend to be much population centers, such as central 20th century and then recently shorter than males, usually occupying Colorado, the greater Yellowstone recolonized from Canada. Currently, a home ranges adjacent to their natal region, and northern Idaho- small population persists in this area range, and dispersal is documented only northwestern Montana. The large (Aubrey et al. 2011, entire). In 2012, for lesser distances than males routinely number of verifiable and documented reproduction was documented for the travel (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. records for this region, along with the first time in the North Cascades (Aubry 1290; Copeland 1996, p. 91; Kyle and suggestion of population centers or et al. 2012, p. 2). Wolverines have also Strobeck 2001, p. 338; Tomasik and strongholds, suggests that wolverines been documented in the southern Cook 2005, p. 390; Cegelski et al. 2006, existed in reproducing populations portion of the North Cascades, near p. 206, Inman et al. 2011, p. 7). The throughout much of the Rocky Mount Adams, since 2009 (Akins 2010, largest documented female movement Mountains during the historical time p. 4). The North Cascades population occurred in 2010 in the North Cascades interval. The lack of records for may be connected with, and is possibly of Washington (Aubry et al. 2011, pp. Colorado and Utah after 1921 suggests dependent on, the larger Canadian 21–22). In that instance, a radio-collared that the southern Rocky Mountains population for future expansion and female wolverine moved an air-line population of wolverines was extirpated long-term persistence. in the early 1900s, concurrent with distance of approximately 233 km (145 widespread systematic predator control mi) over a 44-day period. During this Summary of Wolverine Distribution by government agencies and livestock movement, her course generally stayed Historical wolverine records were interests. The northern Rocky within suitable wolverine habitat (as found across the northern tier of the Mountains population (north of defined by Copeland et al. (2010, p. contiguous United States, with Wyoming) was reduced to historical 242)) and was never more than about 19 convincing evidence of wolverine lows or possibly even extirpated during km (12 mi) from suitable wolverine populations in the northern and the early 1900s, and then increased habitat. southern Rocky Mountains, Sierra dramatically in the second half of the Pacific Coast—Historical records Nevada Mountains, and North Cascades 1900s (see Table 1) as predator control show that wolverines occurred in two Mountains (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152). efforts subsided and trapping population centers in the North Currently, wolverines appear to be regulations became more restrictive Cascades Range and the Sierra Nevada. distributed as functioning populations (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2151). This However, records do not show in two regions in the contiguous United increase likely indicates a population occurrences between these centers from States: the North Cascades in rebound from historical lows in this southern Oregon to northern California, Washington, and the northern Rocky period. indicating that the historical Mountains in Idaho, Montana, and Wolverine records from 1995 to 2005 distribution of wolverines in this area is Wyoming (this area also includes the indicate that wolverine populations best represented by two disjunct Wallowa Range in Oregon). Wolverines currently exist in the northern Rocky populations rather than a continuous were likely extirpated, or nearly so, Mountains (see Table 1). Legal trapping peninsular extension from Canada. This from the entire contiguous United States in Montana in the recent past removed conclusion is supported by genetic data in the first half of the 20th century

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

(Aubry et al. 2007, Table 1). Although wolverines’ need for deep snow during temperatures thought to be required by the reasons for this extirpation are not the denning period. In addition, wolverines for successful reproduction known with certainty, unregulated wolverines appear to take advantage of and year-round occupancy (Aubry et al. trapping and widespread indiscriminant a cold, low-productivity niche by using 2007, p. 2154; Copeland et al. 2010, predator control likely contributed to food caching in cold habitats to survive Figure 1). The lack of persistent spring population declines. The available food-scarce winters that other snow conditions in the Great Plains, evidence suggests that, in the second carnivores cannot (Inman et al. 2012b, Great Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast half of the 20th century and continuing pp. 640–642). Wolverines’ physiological supports the exclusion of these areas into the present time, wolverine requirement for year-round cold from the current range of wolverines. populations have expanded in the North temperatures may also play a role in Whether wolverines once existed as Cascades and the northern Rocky habitat use (Copeland et al. 2010, pp. established populations in any of these Mountains from sources in Canada, but 242–243). Snow cover during the regions is uncertain, but the current that populations have not been denning period is essential for climate appears to preclude their reestablished in the Sierra Nevada successful wolverine reproduction presence as reproducing populations, Range or the southern Rocky Mountains, range-wide (Hatler 1989, p. iv; Magoun and the sparse historical record of despite the known movement of single and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et wolverine presence in this area makes individual males to each of these areas. al. 2007c, pp. 71–72; Persson 2007; historical occupation of these areas by We conclude that the current range of Copeland et al. 2010, p. 244). Wolverine wolverine populations doubtful. It is the species in the contiguous United dens tend to be in areas of high our conclusion that the ecosystem that States includes the North Cascades structural diversity such as logs and supports wolverines does not exist in Mountains, the northern Rocky boulders with deep snow (Magoun and these areas currently, and may not have Mountains, the southern Rocky Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et al. existed at the time of European Mountains, and the Sierra Nevada 2007c, pp. 71–72; Persson 2007, entire). settlement of these areas. Mountains, but that reestablishment of Reproductive females dig deep snow Large areas of habitat with populations in the southern Rocky tunnels to reach the protective structure characteristics suitable for wolverines Mountains and Sierra Nevada provided by logs and boulders. This still occur in the southern Rocky Mountains has not yet occurred. behavior presumably protects the Mountains and Sierra Nevada, despite We also conclude that wolverines vulnerable kits from predation by large the extirpation of wolverines from those either did not exist as established carnivores, including other wolverines areas (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154, Inman populations, or were extirpated prior to (Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; Zyryanov et al. 2011, Fig. 4; Copeland et al. 2010, settlement and the compilation of 1989, pp. 3–12), but may also have Figure 1). Wolverine extirpations in historical records, in the Great Lakes physiological benefits for kits by these areas were coincident with region, possibly due to climate changes buffering them from extreme cold, wind, unregulated trapping and systematic that occurred through the 1800s and and desiccation (Pullianen 1968, p. 342, predator eradication efforts in the early 1900s. The Great Lakes region lacks Bja¨rvall et al. 1978, p. 23). Wolverines 1900s, which have been discontinued suitable wolverine habitat, and suitable live in low-temperature conditions and for many years. Each of these areas has habitat does not appear to exist in appear to select habitats in part to avoid received at least one and possibly more adjacent Canada (Copeland et al. 2010, high summer temperatures (Copeland et migrants from adjacent populations in the northern Rocky Mountains; Figure 1). The widely scattered records al. 2010, p. 242). Wolverine distribution from this region are consistent with however, there is no evidence that is likely affected by climatic conditions dispersing individuals from a Canadian females have migrated to these areas or at two different scales. Wolverines population that receded north early in that populations of wolverines currently require deep persistent snow for the 1800s. We cannot rule out the exist there (Aubry et al. 2007, Table 1; denning, and this likely determines possibility that wolverines existed as Moriarty et al. 2009, entire; Inman et al. where wolverine populations can be established populations prior to the 2009, entire). found at the grossest range-wide scale onset of trapping in this area, but we We conclude that areas of wolverine (Copeland et al. 2010, p. 244). At have no evidence of this. historical occurrence can be placed in No evidence in the historical records smaller scales, wolverines likely select one of three categories: (1) Areas where indicates that wolverines were ever habitats to avoid high summer wolverines are extant as reproducing present as established populations in temperatures. These cool habitats also and potentially self-sustaining the Great Plains, Midwest, or Northeast. tend to retain snow late into spring, populations (North Cascades, northern leading to wolverines’ year-round Rocky Mountains); (2) areas where Habitat Relationships and Wolverine association with areas of persistent wolverines historically existed as Distribution spring snow (Copeland et al. 2010, p. reproducing and potentially self- Deep, persistent, and reliable spring 244). sustaining populations prior to human- snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the All of the areas in the contiguous induced extirpation, and where best overall predictor of wolverine United States for which good evidence reestablishment of those populations is occurrence in the contiguous United of persistent wolverine populations possible given current habitat States (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2152– (either present or historical) exists (i.e., conditions and management (the Sierra 2156; Copeland et al. 2010, entire). North Cascades, Sierra Nevada, northern Nevada Mountains in California and Deep, persistent snow correlates well and southern Rocky Mountains) contain southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado, with wolverine year-round habitat use large and well-distributed areas of deep New Mexico, Wyoming, Uinta across wolverine distribution in North snow cover that persists through the Mountains and surrounding ranges in America and Eurasia at both regional wolverine denning period (Inman et al. Utah, Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming, and local scales (Copeland et al. 2010, 2011, Fig. 3; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154; and possibly the Oregon Cascades entire; Inman et al. 2012a, p. 785). It is Copeland et al. 2010, Figure 1). The Mountains); and (3) areas where uncertain why spring snow cover so Great Plains, Great Lakes, Midwest, and historical presence of wolverines in accurately predicts wolverine habitat Northeast lack the spring snow reproducing and potentially self- use; however, it is likely related to conditions and low summer sustaining populations is doubtful, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7873

where the current habitat conditions ‘‘significant’’ to the taxon to which it threat (discussed below) in the U.S. preclude the establishment of belongs by using the best available wolverine population but not for the populations (Great Plains, Midwest, scientific and commercial information. Canadian population. Existing Great Lakes, and Northeast). We, If we determine that a population regulatory mechanisms are inadequate therefore, consider the current range of segment is both discrete and significant, to ensure the continued existence of wolverines to include suitable habitat in we then evaluate it for endangered or wolverines in the contiguous United the North Cascades of Washington, the threatened species status based on the States in the face of these threats. northern Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Act’s standards. The DPS evaluation in Therefore, it is our determination that Wyoming, Montana, and eastern this proposed rule concerns the segment the difference in conservation status Oregon, the southern Rocky Mountains of the wolverine species occurring between the two populations is of Colorado and Wyoming, and the within the contiguous 48 States, significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) Sierra Nevada of California. We here including the northern and southern of the Act, because existing regulatory include the Sierra Nevada and southern Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada Range, mechanisms appear sufficient to Rocky Mountains in the current range of and North Cascades Range. maintain the robust conservation status wolverines despite the probability that of the Canadian population, while Distinct Population Segment Analysis functional populations do not exist in existing regulatory mechanisms in the for Wolverine in the Contiguous United these areas. They are included due to contiguous United States are States the known existence of one individual insufficient to protect the wolverine in each area and the possibility that Analysis of Discreteness from threats due to its depleted more, as yet undetected, individuals Under our DPS Policy, a population conservation status. As a result, the inhabit these areas. segment of a vertebrate species may be contiguous United States population of Distinct Population Segment considered discrete if it satisfies either the wolverine meets the discreteness one of the following conditions: (1) It is criterion in our DPS Policy (61 FR Pursuant to the Act, we must consider 4725). Consequently, we use the for listing any species, subspecies, or, markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a international border between the United for vertebrates, any Distinct Population States and Canada to define the Segment (DPS) of these taxa, if there is consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors northern boundary of the contiguous sufficient information to indicate that United States wolverine DPS. such action may be warranted. To (quantitative measures of genetic or interpret and implement the DPS morphological discontinuity may Analysis for Significance provision of the Act and Congressional provide evidence of this separation); or If we determine a population segment guidance, the Service and the National (2) it is delimited by international is discrete, its biological and ecological Marine Fisheries Service published, on governmental boundaries within which significance will then be considered in February 7, 1996, an interagency Policy differences in control of exploitation, light of Congressional guidance that the Regarding the Recognition of Distinct management of habitat, conservation Vertebrate Population Segments under status, or regulatory mechanisms exist authority to list DPSs be used sparingly the Act (61 FR 4722). This policy that are significant in light of section while encouraging the conservation of addresses the recognition of DPSs for 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (inadequacy of genetic diversity. In carrying out this potential listing actions. The policy existing regulatory mechanisms). The examination, we consider available allows for more refined application of wolverine within the contiguous United scientific evidence of the population’s the Act that better reflects the biological States meets the second DPS importance to the taxon to which it needs of the taxon being considered, discreteness condition because of belongs (i.e., the North American and avoids the inclusion of entities that differences in conservation status as wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)). Our DPS do not require its protective measures. delimited by the Canadian-United States policy states that this consideration may Under our DPS policy, three elements international governmental boundary. include, but is not limited to: (1) are considered in a decision regarding In our 12-month finding for the North Persistence of the discrete population the status of a possible DPS as American wolverine DPS (75 FR 78030) segment in an ecological setting unusual endangered or threatened under the Act. we conducted a complete analysis of the or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence These are applied similarly for discreteness of the wolverine DPS that that loss of the discrete population additions to the list of endangered and we incorporate here by reference. In that segment would result in a significant threatened species, reclassification, and analysis we concluded that the gap in the range of the taxon; (3) removal from the list. They are: (1) international boundary between Canada evidence that the discrete population Discreteness of the population segment and the United States currently leads to segment represents the only surviving in relation to the remainder of the taxon; division of the control of exploitation natural occurrence of a taxon that may (2) the biological or ecological and conservation status of the be more abundant elsewhere as an significance of the population segment wolverine. This division is significant introduced population outside its to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) because it allows for potential historical range; or (4) evidence that the the population segment’s conservation extirpation of the species within the discrete population segment differs status in relation to the Act’s standards contiguous United States through loss of markedly from other populations of the for listing (i.e., whether the population small populations and lack of species in its genetic characteristics. segment is, when treated as if it were a demographic and genetic connectivity In our 12-month finding (75 FR species or subspecies, an endangered or of the two populations. This difference 78030), we conducted an exhaustive threatened species). Discreteness refers in conservation status is likely to analysis of the significance of the to the degree of isolation of a population become more significant in light of contiguous United States population of from other members of the species, and threats discussed in the five factors the North American wolverine that we we evaluate this factor based on specific analyzed below. Therefore, we find that incorporate here by reference. In that criteria. If a population segment is the difference in the conservation analysis we concluded that the considered discrete, we must consider statuses in Canada and the United States wolverine population in the contiguous whether the discrete segment is result in vulnerability to the significant United States is significant because its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

loss would result in a significant gap in changes to the availability and both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types the range of the taxon. distribution of wolverine habitat. of changes in climate can have direct or Two efforts to map wolverine habitat indirect effects on species. These effects Summary of the Distinct Population in the contiguous United States have may be positive, neutral, or negative and Segment Analysis been completed (Inman et al. 2012, they may change over time, depending We conclude that the wolverine entire; Copeland et al. 2010, entire). on the species and other relevant population in the contiguous United Both of these habitat models rely on considerations, such as the effects of States is both discrete and significant snow as a primary input. The Copeland interactions of climate with other under our DPS policy. The conservation et al. (2010) model defines wolverine variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) status of wolverines in the contiguous habitat as simply the area continuously (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). United States is less secure than covered by snow from mid-winter until We recognize that there are scientific wolverines in adjacent Canada due to mid-May. The Inman et al. (2012) model uncertainties on many aspects of fragmented habitat, small population is based on snowpack and also climate change, including the role of size, reduced genetic diversity, and their incorporates other habitat variables, natural variability in climate. In our vulnerability to threats analyzed in this such as terrain ruggedness and some analysis, we rely both on synthesis finding. Loss of the contiguous United aspects of human development. The two documents (e.g., IPCC 2007; Karl et al. States wolverines would result in a models result in estimates of wolverine 2009) that present the consensus view of significant gap in the range of the taxon. habitat that are very similar across most a very large number of experts on Therefore, we determine that the of the range of wolverines in the climate change from around the world, population of wolverines in the contiguous United States. Areas of and on five analyses that relate the contiguous 48 States, as currently significant departure between the effects of climate changes directly to described, meets both the discreteness models are the California Sierras and wolverines (Gonzalez et al. 2008, entire; and significance criteria of our DPS Oregon Cascades where the Copeland et Brodie and Post 2009, entire; Peacock policy, and is a listable entity under the al. (2010) model predicts significantly 2011, entire; McKelvey et al. 2011, Act as a DPS. greater habitat area than does the Inman entire, Johnston et al. 2012, entire). To Summary of Factors Affecting the et al. (2012) model. Given the general date, McKelvey et al. (2011) is the most Species agreement between the two models, we sophisticated analysis regarding climate combined the areas depicted by them change effects to wolverines. This report Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), into a composite wolverine habitat is based on data from global climate and its implementing regulations at 50 model that includes all areas described models including both temperature and CFR part 424, set forth the procedures by one or both of these models. This precipitation, downscaled to reflect the for adding species to the Federal Lists composite model serves as the basis for regional climate patterns and of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife our estimates of wolverine habitat topography found within the range of and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the below. Within the four States that wolverines in the contiguous United Act, we may list a species based on any currently harbor wolverines (Montana, States. For this reason we find that of the following five factors: (A) The Idaho, Oregon (Wallowas) and McKelvey et al. (2011, entire) represents present or threatened destruction, Wyoming), an estimated 124,014 km2 the best scientific information available modification, or curtailment of its (47,882 mi2) of wolverine habitat exists. regarding the impacts of climate change habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Habitat in the North Cascades and to wolverine habitat. commercial, recreational, scientific, or Eastern Washington (Kettle Range and Snowpack changes as well as educational purposes; (C) disease or associated habitat) add approximately concomitant changes to wolverine predation; (D) the inadequacy of 20,356 km2 (7859 mi2). Ninety-four habitat suitability result from both existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) percent (135,396 km2; 52,277 mi2) of changes in temperature (negative other natural or manmade factors total wolverine habitat is in Federal relationship) and changes in snowfall affecting its continued existence. Listing ownership with most of that managed (positive relationship). Because many actions may be warranted based on any by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest climate models predict higher of the above threat factors, singly or in Service). precipitation levels associated with combination. Each of these factors is climate warming, the interaction discussed below. Reduction in Habitat Due to Climate between these two variables can be Change quite complex. Consequently, Factor A. The Present or Threatened Our analyses under the Act include predictions about snow coverage that Destruction, Modification, or consideration of ongoing and projected rely only on temperature projections are Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ less reliable than those that rely on both Under Factor A we will discuss a and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the temperature and precipitation. variety of impacts to wolverine habitat Intergovernmental Panel on Climate McKelvey et al. (2011, entire) report including: (1) Climate change, (2) Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the projections for wolverine habitat and human use and disturbance, (3) mean and variability of different types dispersal routes through the time dispersed recreational activities, (4) of weather conditions over time, with 30 interval from 2070 to 2099. infrastructure development, (5) years being a typical period for such transportation corridors, and (6) land measurements, although shorter or Climate Effects to Wolverines management. Many of these impact longer periods also may be used (IPCC Due to dependence of wolverines on categories overlap or act in concert with 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ deep snow that persists into late spring each other to affect wolverine habitat. thus refers to a change in the mean or both for successful reproduction and for Climate change is discussed under variability of one or more measures of year-round habitat, and their restricted Factor A because although climate climate (e.g., temperature or distribution to areas that maintain change may affect wolverines directly precipitation) that persists for an significant snow late into the spring by creating physiological stress, the extended period, typically decades or season, we conclude that deep snow primary impact of climate change on longer, whether the change is due to maintained through the denning period wolverines is expected to be through natural variability, human activity, or is required for wolverines to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7875

successfully live and reproduce. deep snow cover in spring for wolverine to temperature change do lag, with the Reduction of this habitat feature would reproduction, currently suitable habitat magnitude of the lag depending on proportionally reduce wolverine habitat, that loses this feature would be constituent species’ individual or to an even greater extent if habitat rendered unsuitable for wolverines. migratory abilities. Wolverines are reduction involved increasing described as a ‘‘tree-line’’ species Ecosystem Changes Associated with fragmentation. because they are most often found in an Climate Change Based on the information described elevation band that is approximately above, we analyzed the effects of Changes in temperature and rainfall centered on the alpine tree-line at any climate change on wolverines through patterns are expected to shift the given locality within their range (Inman three primary mechanisms: (1) Reduced distribution of ecosystems northward et al. 2012a, p. 785). Alpine tree lines snowpack and earlier spring runoff, (IPCC 2007c, p. 230) and up mountain are maintained by a complex set of which would reduce suitable habitat for slopes (McDonald and Brown 1992, pp. climactic and biotic factors, of which wolverine denning; (2) increase in 411–412; Danby and Hik 2007, pp. 358– temperature is significantly important summer temperatures beyond the 359; IPCC 2007c, p. 232). As climate (Cogbill and White 1991, p. 169; physiological tolerance of wolverines; changes over a landscape, the Ha¨ttenschwiler and Ko¨rner 1995, p. 367; and (3) ecosystem changes due to ecosystems that support wolverines are Jobba´gy and Jackson 2000, p. 259; Pellat increased temperatures, which would likely to move according to the change et al. 2000, pp. 80–81). However, the move lower elevation ecosystems to of temperature, but with a time lag conditions that favor tree establishment higher elevations, thereby eliminating depending on the ability of individual and lead to elevation advance in the tree high-elevation ecosystems on which plant species to migrate (McDonald and line may exist only sporadically, wolverines depend and increasing Brown 1992, pp. 413–414; Hall and increasing time lags associated with tree competitive interactions with species Fagre 2003, p. 138; Peterson 2003, p. line response to warming beyond the that currently inhabit lower elevations. 652). Wolverines are not dependent on species-specific generation time of the These mechanisms would tend to push any particular ecosystem in the sense trees involved (Hessl and Baker 1997, p. the narrow elevation band that that they do not appear to depend on a 181; Klasner and Fagre 2002, p. 54). wolverines use into higher elevation. certain vegetative component or other Within wolverine habitats, tree lines Due to the conical structure of biological ecosystem attribute; however, have advanced up mountain slopes mountains, this upward shift would it is likely that wolverines would since 1850, due to climate warming, and result in reduced overall suitable habitat respond to similar climatic cues as other this trend is expected to continue into for wolverines. members of the alpine ecosystem such the future (Hessl and Baker 1997, p. 176; that changes in tree-line location up or Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 138). We expect Reduced Snow Pack and Earlier Spring down slope would predict a similar Runoff that species reliant on resources change in wolverine distribution. associated with this biome, such as Warmer winter temperatures are Because of their reliance on wolverines, will need to shift reducing snow pack in western North mountainous habitat, wolverines in the accordingly, not necessarily due to their American mountains through a higher contiguous United States will most dependence on the specific vegetation proportion of precipitation falling as likely adjust to climate changes by using conditions, but due to wolverines likely rain and higher rates of snowmelt higher elevations on mountain slopes, being keyed into similar climatic during winter (Hamlet and Lettenmaier not by shifting their latitudinal variables. Since wolverine association 1999, p. 1609; Brown 2000, p. 2347; distribution. Along a latitudinal with tree-line location is likely Mote 2003, p. 3–1; Christensen et al. gradient through the historical coincident with their dependence on 2004, p. 347; Knowles et al. 2006, pp. distribution of wolverines, records tend climatic conditions, and the fact that 4548–4549). This trend is expected to to be found at higher elevations in wolverines can move about in response continue with future warming (Hamlet southern latitudes (Aubry et al. 2007, p. to climate changes, it is not likely that and Lettenmaier 1999, p. 1611; 2153), suggesting that wolverines wolverines would respond to climate Christensen et al. 2004, p. 347; Mote et compensate for increased temperature at changes with a similar time lag. More al. 2005, p. 48). Shifts in the initiation low latitudes by selecting higher likely, wolverines would respond to of spring runoff toward earlier dates are elevations. Therefore, the regional climate changes in real time, shifting also well documented (Hamlet and availability of suitable habitat is not habitat use more rapidly than tree-line Lettenmaier 1999, p. 1609; Brown 2000, likely to significantly change (i.e., at shifts would occur. Given the irregular p. 2347; Cayan et al. 2001, pp. 409–410; least some wolverine habitat will nature of tree-line response to warming, Christensen et al. 2004, p. 347; Mote et continue to be available in all regions tree-line migration is likely to lag al. 2005, p. 41; Knowles et al. 2006, p. where wolverines currently occur), but behind the climate warming that causes 4554). Earlier spring runoff leads to lack within these landscapes, smaller areas it. of snow or degraded snow conditions will remain suitable for wolverines. Magnitude of Climate Effects on during April and May, the critical time Mountain ranges with maximum Wolverine period for wolverine reproductive elevations within the elevation band denning. In addition, a feedback effect that wolverines currently use, such as Several studies relating the effects of hastens the loss of snow cover due to much of the wolverine habitat in central climate changes on wolverines in the the reflective nature of snow and the Idaho, may become entirely unsuitable past, present, and future are now relative heat-absorbing properties of for wolverines with the projected level available (Brock and Inman Personal non-snow-covered ground. This effect of warming reported in McKelvey et al. Communication 2007, entire; Gonzales leads to the highest magnitude of (2011, Figure 3; see below for et al. 2008, pp. 1–5; Brodie and Post warming occurring at the interface of discussion). 2010, entire; McKelvey et al. 2011, snow-covered and exposed areas, entire; Peacock 2011, entire; Johnston et increasing the rate at which melting Timing of Climate Effects al. 2012, entire). The Gonzalez et al. occurs in spring (Groisman et al. 1994a, Unlike snow conditions, which report and the report by Brock and pp. 1637–1648; Groisman et al. 1994b, respond directly to temperature change Inman (Personal Communication 2007) pp. 198–200). Due to the importance of without a time lag, ecosystem responses were both preliminary attempts to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

analyze climate change impacts to temperature and precipitation to that is greater than the overall loss of wolverines, but are not currently wolverine habitat as modeled by habitat area. considered the best available science Copeland et al. (2010, entire). The We expect wolverine populations to because they did not consider the effects authors also present an alternative be negatively affected by changes in the of both changes in temperature and method for evaluating climate impacts spatial distribution of habitat patches as precipitation that may affect the on wolverine habitat, by merely remaining habitat islands become distribution of persistent spring snow projecting onset of spring snowmelt to progressively more isolated from each cover (McKelvey 2011, entire). The occur 2 weeks earlier than it currently other due to climate changes (McKelvey analysis by Peacock (2011) is a does. Based on this information, et al. 2011, Figure 8). Currently, sophisticated look at climate change wolverine habitat in the contiguous wolverine habitat in the contiguous impacts to wolverines, but suffers from United States, which supports United States can be described as a the large-scale data presentation used. approximately 250 to 300 wolverines, is series of habitat islands. Some of these This large scale makes relating specific shrinking and is likely to continue to groups of islands are large and clumped closely together, such as in the North impacts to wolverines difficult, because shrink with increased climate warming Cascades, Glacier Park-Bob Marshall the montane habitat inhabited by (McKelvey et al. 2011, Figure 4). Habitat Wilderness complex in Montana, and wolverines is climatologically complex losses are likely to occur throughout the on a small scale, and without significant the GYA. Other islands are smaller and range of the DPS and are projected to be downscaling of climate results, it is not more isolated, such as the island most severe in central Idaho. However, possible to determine how much habitat mountain ranges of central and large areas of snow cover are likely to may be left after climate change impacts southwestern Montana. Inbreeding and have occurred. Both Brock and Inman remain in the North Cascades, Greater consequent loss of genetic diversity (Personal Communication 2007) and Yellowstone Area (GYA), and the have occurred in the past within these Gonzalez et al. (2008) have been Glacier Park-Bob Marshall Wilderness of smaller islands of habitat (Cegelski et al. superseded by a more sophisticated Montana (McKelvey et al. 2011 Figures 2006, p. 208), and genetic exchange analysis provided by McKelvey et al. 4, 13). The southern Rocky Mountains between subpopulations is difficult to (2011, entire). The course-grain scale of of Colorado retained significant high- achieve (Schwartz et al. 2009, Figure 4). the analysis in Peacock (2011, entire) elevation snow in some models but not Climate change projections indicate limits its use to that of supporting the others, and so may be another area that that, as warming continues, large conclusion that wolverine habitat is could support wolverine populations in contiguous blocks of habitat will likely to decline. Likewise, the limited the face of climate changes (McKelvey et decrease in size and become isolated to area analyzed by Johnston et al. (2012) al. 2011, p. 2889). the extent that their ability to support also limits its use for this wide-ranging Overall, wolverine habitat in the robust populations becomes species. The McKelvey et al. (2011, contiguous United States is expected to questionable (McKelvey et al. 2010b, entire) analysis includes climate get smaller and more highly fragmented Figure 8). Under the moderate climate projections at a local scale for wolverine as individual habitat islands become change scenarios analyzed by McKelvey habitats and analyzes the effects of both smaller and the intervening areas et al. (2011, entire), the current temperature changes and changes to between wolverine habitats become wolverine stronghold in central Idaho precipitation patterns. Lack of larger (McKelvey et al. 2011, Figures 4, begins to look similar to the current accounting for changes in precipitation 13). McKelvey et al. (2011) predict that situation in the more isolated mountain was a weakness of their own work cited 31 percent of current wolverine habitat ranges of southwestern Montana by the authors of both Brock and Inman in the contiguous United States will be (McKelvey et al. 2011, Figure 4) where (Personal Communication 2007) and lost due to climate warming by the time wolverines persist, but subpopulations Gonzalez et al. (2008). interval centered on 2045 (2030–2059) are small. These subpopulations are essentially family groups, which require Brodie and Post (2010, entire) (McKelvey et al. 2011, pp. 2887–2888). correlate the decline in wolverine connectivity with other groups for That loss expands to 63 percent of populations in Canada over the past genetic and possibly demographic wolverine habitat by the time interval century with declining snowpack due to enrichment. This habitat alteration centered on 2085 (2070 to 2099). climate change over the same period. would result in a high likelihood of Estimates for the northern Rocky However, correlation does not infer reduced genetic diversity due to causation; other factors could have Mountain States (Montana, Idaho, and inbreeding within a few generations caused the decline. The Brodie and Post Wyoming) are similar, with an (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 209). Further (2010, entire) analysis used harvest data estimated 32 percent and 63 percent of isolation of wolverines on small habitat to infer population trends in addition to persistent spring snow lost for the 2045 islands with reduced connectivity to its reliance on correlation to infer and 2085 intervals respectively. Central other subpopulations would also causation (McKelvey et al. 2010a, Idaho is predicted to be especially increase the likelihood of entire); in this case, historic climate sensitive to climate change effects losing subpopulations loss due to demographic changes are inferred to have caused the 43 percent and 78 percent of wolverine stochasticity, impairing the declines in harvest returns, which are habitat for the 2045 and 2085 intervals functionality of the wolverine thought by the authors to reflect actual respectively. Conversely, the mountains metapopulation in the contiguous population declines. Due to the above- of Colorado appear to be slightly less United States. stated concerns, we view the analysis of sensitive to climate changes in their We find that McKelvey et al. (2011, Brodie and Post (2010, entire) with analysis losing 31 percent and 57 entire) represents the best available caution, although we do agree that the percent of habitat over the same science for projecting the future impacts posited mechanism, of loss of snowpack intervals. Given the spatial needs of of climate change on wolverine habitat affecting wolverine populations and wolverines and the limited availability for four primary reasons. First, their distribution, likely has merit. of suitable wolverine habitat in the habitat projections are based on global McKelvey et al. (2011, entire) used contiguous United States, this projected climate models that are thought to be downscaled global climate models to gross loss of habitat area is likely to the most reliable predictors of future project the impacts of changes in result in a loss of wolverine numbers climate available (IPCC 2007a, p. 12).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7877

Second, they conducted downscaling Habitat Impacts Due to Human Use and Copeland 1996, pp. 124–127; Krebs et analyses to infer geographic climate Disturbance al. 2007, pp. 2187–2190). This negative variation at a scale relevant to wolverine Because wolverine habitat is generally association with human presence is habitat. Third, they used a hydrologic inhospitable to human use and sometimes interpreted as active model to predict snow coverage during occupation and most wolverine habitat avoidance of human disturbance, but it the spring denning period (the strongest is also federally managed in ways that may simply reflect the wolverine’s correlate with wolverine reproductive must consider environmental impacts, preference for cold, snowy, and high- success). Fourth, they used the habitat wolverines are somewhat insulated from elevation habitat that humans avoid. In model developed by Copeland et al. impacts of human disturbances from the contiguous United States, wolverine (2010, entire), to relate projected climate industry, agriculture, infrastructure habitat is typically associated with high- changes to wolverine habitat. Based on development, or recreation. Human elevation (e.g., 2,100 m to 2,600 m our analysis of the methods and analysis disturbance in wolverine habitat in the (6,888 ft to 8,528 ft)) subalpine forests that comprise the Hudsonian Life Zone used by the authors, we conclude it contiguous United States has likely (weather similar to that found in constitutes the best available resulted in the loss of some minor northern Canada), environments not information on the likely impact of amount of wolverine habitat, although typically used by people for housing, climate change on wolverine this loss has not yet been quantified. industry, agriculture, or transportation. distribution in the contiguous United Sources of human disturbance to However, a variety of activities States. Other analyses of climate change wolverines has been speculated to associated with extractive industry, discussed above (Brock and Inman include winter and summer recreation, such as logging and mining, as well as Personal Communication 2007, entire; housing and industrial development, recreational activities in both summer Gonzales et al. 2008, entire; Brodie and road corridors, and extractive industry, and winter are located in a small Post 2010, entire; Peacock 2011, entire) such as logging or mining. In the all support the conclusion that climate amount of occupied wolverine habitat. contiguous United States, these human For the purposes of this rulemaking, changes caused by warming are likely to activities and developments sometimes negatively affect wolverine habitat in we analyze human disturbance in four occur within or immediately adjacent to categories: (1) Dispersed recreational the future. Based on the analysis wolverine home ranges, such as in presented, we conclude that climate activities with primary impacts to alpine or boreal forest environments at wolverines through direct disturbance changes are likely to result in high elevations on mountain slopes. permanent loss of a significant portion (e.g., snowmobiling and heli-skiing); (2) They can also occur in a broader range disturbance associated with permanent of wolverine habitat in the future. of habitats that are occasionally used by Additional impacts of climate change infrastructure such as residential and wolverines during dispersal or commercial developments, mines, and will be increased habitat fragmentation exploratory movements—habitats that as habitat islands become smaller and campgrounds; (3) disturbance and are not suitable for the establishment of mortality associated with transportation intervening habitat disappears. home ranges and reproduction. Eventually, habitat fragmentation will corridors; and (4) disturbance associated Little is known about the behavioral with land management activities such as likely lead to a breakdown of wolverine responses of individual wolverines to metapopulation dynamics, as forestry, or fire/fuels reduction human presence, or about the species’ activities. Overlap between these subpopulations are no longer able to ability to tolerate and adapt to repeated categories is extensive, and it is often rescue each other after local extinctions human disturbance. Some speculate that difficult to distinguish effects of due to a lack of connectivity. It is also disturbance may reduce the wolverine’s infrastructure from the dispersed likely that loss of genetic diversity ability to complete essential life-history activities associated with that resulting in lower fitness will occur as activities, such as foraging, breeding, infrastructure. However, we conclude population isolation increases. maternal care, routine travel, and that these categories account for most of Summary of Impacts of Climate Changes dispersal (Packila et al. 2007, pp. 105– the human activities that occur in 110). However, wolverines have been occupied wolverine habitat. Wolverine habitat is projected to documented to persist and reproduce in decrease in area and become more areas with high levels of human use and Dispersed Recreational Activities fragmented in the future as a result of disturbance including developed alpine Dispersed recreational activities climate changes that result in increasing ski areas and areas with motorized use occurring in wolverine habitat include temperatures, earlier spring snowmelt, of snowmobiles (Heinenmeyer 2012, snowmobiling, heli-skiing, hiking, and loss of deep, persistent, spring entire). This suggests that wolverines biking, off- and on-road motorized use, snowpack. These climate change can survive and reproduce in areas that hunting, fishing, and other uses. impacts are expected to have direct and experience human use and disturbance. One study documented (in two indirect effects to wolverine populations How or whether effects of disturbance reports) the extent that winter in the contiguous United States extend from individuals to recreational activity spatially and including reducing the number of characteristics of subpopulations and temporally overlapped modeled wolverines that can be supported by populations, such as vital rates (e.g., wolverine denning habitat in the available habitat and reducing the reproduction, survival, emigration, and contiguous United States (Heinemeyer ability of wolverines to travel between immigration) and gene flow, and and Copeland 1999, pp. 1–17; patches of suitable habitat. This ultimately to wolverine population or Heinemeyer et al. 2001, pp. 1–35). This reduction in population size and metapopulation persistence, remains study took place in the Greater connectivity is likely to affect unknown at this time. Yellowstone Area (GYA) in an area of metapopulation dynamics, making it Wolverine habitat is characterized high dispersed recreational use. The more difficult for subpopulations to primarily by spring snowpack, but also overlap of modeled wolverine denning recolonize areas where wolverines have by the absence of human presence and habitat and dispersed recreational been extirpated and to bolster the development (Hornocker and Hash 1981 activities was extensive. Strong genetics or demographics of adjacent p. 1299; Banci 1994, p. 114; Landa et al. temporal overlap existed between subpopulations. 1998, p. 448; Rowland et al. 2003 p. 101; snowmobile activity (February–April)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7878 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

and the wolverine denning period appears to be rare, even under intense amenities (Hansen et al. 2002, p. 151). (February–May). During 2000, six of disturbance associated with capture of Infrastructure development may affect nine survey units, ranging from 3,500 to family groups at the den site (Persson et wildlife directly by eliminating habitats, 13,600 (ha) (8,645 to 33,592 (ac)) in size, al. 2006, p. 76), and other causes of den or indirectly, by displacing animals showed evidence of recent snowmobile abandonment may have acted in these from suitable habitats near use. Among the six survey units with cases. Preliminary results from an developments. snowmobile activity, the highest use ongoing study on the potential impacts Wolverine home ranges generally do covered 20 percent of the modeled of winter recreation on wolverines in not occur near human settlements, and denning habitat, and use ranged from 3 central Idaho indicate that wolverines this separation is largely due to to 7 percent over the other survey units. are present and reproducing in this area differential habitat selection by Snowmobile activity was typically in spite of heavy recreational use, wolverines and humans (May et al. intensive where detected. including a developed ski area, 2006, pp. 289–292; Copeland et al. Three of nine survey units in this dispersed winter and summer 2007, p. 2211). In one study, wolverines study showed evidence of skier activity recreation, and dispersed snowmobile did not strongly avoid developed habitat (Heinemeyer and Copeland 1999, p. 10; use (Heinemeyer et al. 2012, entire). The within their home ranges (May et al Heinemeyer et al. 2001, p. 16). Among security of the den and the surrounding 2006, p. 289). Wolverines may respond the three units with activity, skier use foraging areas (i.e., protection from positively to human activity and covered 3 to 19 percent of the survey predation by carnivores) is an important developments that are a source of food. unit. Skiers also intensively used the aspect of den site selection. They scavenge food at dumps in and sites they visited. Combined skier and Abandonment of natal and maternal adjacent to urban areas, at trapper snowmobile use covered as much as 27 dens may be a preemptive strategy that cabins, and at mines (LeResche and percent of potential denning habitat in females use in the absence of predators Hinman 1973 as cited in Banci 1994 p. one unit where no evidence of (i.e. females may abandon dens without 115; Banci 1994, p. 99). Based on the wolverine presence was detected. We external stimuli), as this may confer an best available science, we conclude that conclude from this study that in some advantage to females if prolonged use of wolverines do not avoid human areas, high recreational use may the same den makes that den more development of the types that occur coincide substantially with wolverine evident to predators. Evidence for within suitable wolverine habitat. habitat. The authors of the study cited effects to wolverines from den There is no evidence that wolverine above chose the study area based on its abandonment due to human disturbance dispersal is affected by infrastructure unusually high level of motorized is lacking. The best scientific development. Linkage zones are places recreational use. Although we do not information available does not where animals can find food, shelter, have information on the overlap of substantiate dispersed recreational and security while moving across the wolverine and winter recreation in the activities as a threat to wolverine. landscape between suitable habitats. remaining part of the contiguous United Most roads in wolverine habitat are Wolverines prefer to travel in habitat States range, it is unlikely that any of low-traffic volume dirt or gravel roads that is most similar to habitat they use the large areas of wolverine habitat such used for local access. Larger, high- for home-range establishment, i.e., as the southern Rocky Mountains, volume roads are dealt with below in alpine habitats that maintain snow Northern Rocky Mountains, GYA, or the section ‘‘transportation corridors. At cover well into the spring (Schwartz et North Cascades get the high levels of both a site-specific and landscape scale, al. 2009, p. 3227). Wolverines may recreational use seen in the portion of wolverine natal dens were located move large distances in an attempt to the GYA examined in this study across particularly distant from public (greater establish new home ranges, but the the entire landscape. Rather, each of than 7.5 km (4.6 mi)) and private probability of making such movements these areas has small (relative to (greater than 3 km (1.9 mi)) roads (May decreases with increased distance wolverine home range size) areas of 2007, p. 14–31). Placement of dens away between suitable habitat patches, and intensive recreational use (ski resorts, from public roads (and away from the degree to which the characteristics motorized play areas) surrounded by a associated human-caused mortality) was of the habitat to be traversed diverge landscape that is used for more also a positive influence on successful from preferred habitat in terms of dispersed recreation such as reproduction. It is not known if the climatic conditions (Copeland et al. backcountry skiing or snowmobile trail detected correlation is due to the 2010, entire; Schwartz et al. 2009, p. use. influence of the roads but we find it 3230). Although we can demonstrate that unlikely that wolverines avoid the type The level of development in these recreational use of wolverine habitat is of low-use forest roads that generally linkage areas that wolverines can heavy in some areas, we do not have occur in wolverine habitat. Other types tolerate is unknown, but it appears that any information to suggest that these of high-use roads are rare in wolverine the current landscape does allow activities have negative effects on habitat and are not likely to affect a wolverine dispersal (Schwartz et al. wolverines. No rigorous assessments of significant amount of wolverine habitat 2009, Figures 4, 5; Moriarty et al. 2009, anthropogenic disturbance on wolverine (see transportation corridors section entire; Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22–28). den fidelity, food provisioning, or below). For example, wolverine populations in offspring survival have been conducted. the northern Rocky Mountains appear to Disturbance from foot and snowmobile Infrastructure Development be connected to each other at the traffic associated with historical Infrastructure includes all residential, present time through dispersal routes wolverine control activities (Pulliainen industrial, and governmental that correspond to habitat suitability 1968, p. 343), and field research developments such as buildings, (Schwartz et al. 2009, Figures 4, 5). activities, have been purported to cause houses, oil and gas wells, and ski areas. However, gene flow between wolverine maternal females to abandon natal dens Infrastructure development on private subpopulations in the contiguous and relocate kits to maternal dens lands in the Rocky Mountain West has United States may not be high enough (Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun and been rapidly increasing in recent years to prevent genetic drift (Cegelski et al. Copeland 1998, p. 1316; Inman et al. and is expected to continue as people 2006, p. 208). To ensure long-term 2007c, p. 71). However, this behavior move to this area for its natural genetic viability, each subpopulation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7879

within the contiguous United States The Trans Canada Highway at Kicking Predictive, broad-scale habitat models, would need an estimated 400 breeding Horse Pass in southern British developed using historical records of pairs, or 1 to 2 effective migrants per Columbia, an important travel corridor wolverine occurrence, indicated that generation (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 209). over the Continental Divide, has a roads were negatively associated with Our current understanding of wolverine negative effect on wolverine movement wolverine occurrence (Rowland et al. ecology suggests that no subpopulation (Austin 1998, p. 30). Wolverines 2003, p. 101). Although wolverines historically or presently at carrying partially avoided areas within 100 m appear to avoid transportation corridors capacity would approach 400 breeding (328 ft) of the highway, and preferred to in their daily movements, studies of the pairs within the contiguous United use distant sites (greater than 1,100 m few areas where transportation corridors States (Brock et al. 2007, p. 26); nor is (3,608 ft)). Wolverines that approached are located in wolverine habitat leads us the habitat capable of supporting the highway to cross repeatedly to conclude that the effects are most anywhere near this number. It is highly retreated, and successful crossing likely local in scale. There are no unlikely that 400 breeding pairs exist in occurred in only half of the attempts studies that address potential effects of the entire contiguous United States. (Austin 1998, p. 30). Highway-related transportation corridors in linkage areas Because no wolverine subpopulations mortality was not documented in the (i.e. outside of wolverine habitat). In the are likely to be large enough to maintain study. Where wolverines did few documented long-distance genetic diversity over time on their own, successfully cross, they used the movements by wolverines, the animals long-term viability of wolverines in the narrowest portions of the highway right- successfully crossed transportation contiguous United States requires of-way. A railway with minimal human corridors (Inman et al. 2009, Fig. 6). The exchange of individuals between activity, adjacent to the highway, had available evidence indicates that subpopulations. little effect on wolverine movements. dispersing wolverines can successfully Wolverines are capable of long- Wolverines did not avoid, and even cross transportation corridors. preferred, compacted, lightly used ski distance movements through variable Land Management trails in the area. The extent to which and anthropogenically altered terrain, Few effects to wolverines from land crossing numerous transportation avoidance of the highway may have affected wolverine vital rates or life management actions such as grazing, corridors (Moriarty et al. 2009, entire; timber harvest, and prescribed fire have Inman et al. 2009, pp. 22–28). history was not measured. In the tri-State area of Idaho, been documented. Wolverines in British Wolverines are able to successfully Montana, and Wyoming, most crossings Columbia used recently logged areas in disperse between habitats, despite the of Federal or State highways were done the summer and moose winter ranges level of development that is currently by subadult wolverines making for foraging (Krebs et al. 2007, pp. 2189– taking place in the current range of the exploratory or dispersal movements 2190). Males did not appear to be DPS (Copeland 1996, p. 80; Copeland (ranges of resident adults typically did influenced strongly by the presence of and Yates 2006, pp. 17–36; Inman et al. not contain major roads) (Packila et al. roadless areas (Krebs et al. 2007, pp. 2007a, pp. 9–10; Pakila et al. 2007, pp. 2007, p. 105). Roads in the study area, 2189–2190). In Idaho, wolverines used 105–109; Schwartz et al. 2009, Figures typically two-lane highways or roads recently burned areas despite the loss of 4, 5). Dispersal between populations is with less improvement, were not canopy cover (Copeland 1996, p. 124). needed to avoid further reduction in absolute barriers to wolverine Intensive management activities such genetic diversity; however, there is no movement. The individual wolverine as timber harvest and prescribed fire do evidence that human development and that moved to Colorado from Wyoming occur in wolverine habitat; however, for associated activities are preventing in 2008 successfully crossed Interstate the most part, wolverine habitat tends to wolverine movements between suitable 80 in southern Wyoming (Inman et al. be located at high elevations and in habitat patches. Rather, wolverine 2008, Figure 6). Wolverines in Norway rugged topography that is unsuitable for movement rates are limited by suitable successfully cross deep valleys that intensive timber management. Much of habitat and proximity of suitable habitat contain light human developments such wolverine habitat is managed by the patches, not the characteristics of the as railway lines, settlements, and roads U.S. Forest Service or other Federal intervening unsuitable habitat (Landa et al. 1998, p. 454). Wolverines agencies and is protected from some (Schwartz et al. p. 3230). in central Idaho avoided portions of a practices or activities such as residential Transportation Corridors study area that contained roads, development. In addition, much of although this was possibly an artifact of wolverine habitat within the contiguous Transportation corridors are places unequal distribution of roads that United States is already in a where transportation infrastructure and occurred at low elevations and management status such as wilderness other forms of related infrastructure are peripheral to the study site (Copeland et or national park (see Factor D for more concentrated together. Examples al. 2007, p. 2211). Wolverines discussion) that provides some include interstate highways and high- frequently used un-maintained roads for protection from management, industrial, volume secondary highways. These traveling during the winter, and did not and recreational activities. Wolverines types of highway corridors often include avoid trails used infrequently by people are not thought to be dependent on railroads, retail, industrial, and or active campgrounds during the specific vegetation or habitat features residential development and also summer (Copeland et al. 2007, p. 2211). that might be manipulated by land electrical and other types of energy At both a site-specific and landscape management activities, nor is there transmission infrastructure. scale, wolverine natal dens were located evidence to suggest that land Transportation corridors may affect particularly distant from public (greater management activities are a threat to the wolverines if located in wolverine than 7.5 km (4.6 mi)) and private conservation of the species. habitat or between habitat patches. If (greater than 3 km (1.9 mi)) roads (May located in wolverine habitat, 2007, p. 14–31). Placement of dens away Summary of Factor A transportation corridors result in direct from public roads (and away from The threat of current, and future loss of habitat. Direct mortality due to associated human-caused mortality) was impacts to wolverine habitat due to collisions with vehicles is also possible a positive influence on successful climate change occurs over the entire (Packila et al. 2007, Table 1). reproduction (May 2007, p. 14–31). range of the contiguous United States

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7880 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

population of the wolverine. This threat Human activities, including dispersed diversity. We do not have information to is likely to have already reduced the recreation activities, infrastructure, and suggest that future levels of residential, overall areal extent and distribution of the presence of transportation corridors industrial, and transportation wolverine suitable habitat. Determining occur in occupied wolverine habitat. development would be a significant whether or not wolverine populations However, the alpine and subalpine conservation concern for the DPS. have been impacted by this threat is habitats preferred by wolverine In summary, the best scientific and complicated by the historical typically receive little human use commercial information available extirpation of wolverines in the early relative to lower elevation habitats. The indicates that only the projected 20th century followed by recolonization majority of wolverine habitat (over 90 decrease and fragmentation of wolverine and expansion. It is possible that percent) occurs within Forest Service habitat or range due to future climate expansion of wolverine populations and National Park Service lands that are change is a threat to the species now through the second half of the 20th subject to activities, but usually not and in the future. The available century has masked climate change direct habitat loss to infrastructure scientific and commercial information effects that would have otherwise development. The best available science does not indicate that other potential reduced populations had they existed at leads us to determine that human stressors such as land management, presettlement levels. Despite the lack of activities and developments do not pose recreation, infrastructure development, detectable population-level impacts, it a current threat to wolverines in the and transportation corridors pose a is still likely that habitat is already contiguous United States. threat to the DPS. Wolverines coexist with some reduced from historic levels due to this Factor B. Overutilization for modification of their environment, as threat. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Suitable wolverine habitat is wilderness characteristics such as Educational Purposes projected to be reduced by 31 percent in complete lack of motorized use or any the contiguous United States by 2045 permanent human presence are likely Over much of recent history, trapping and 63 percent by the time interval 2070 not critical for maintenance of has been a primary cause of wolverine to 2099 due to climate warming. This populations. It is clear that wolverines mortality (Banci 1994, p. 108; Krebs et reduction will likely result in suitable coexist with some level of human al. 2004, p. 497; Lofroth and Ott 2007, wolverine habitat shifting up mountain disturbance and habitat modification. pp. 2196–2197; Squires et al. 2007, p. slopes, and becoming smaller and more We know of no examples where 2217). Unregulated trapping is believed isolated due to the conical structure of human activities such as dispersed to have played a role in the historical mountains. Because wolverine home recreation have occurred at a scale that decline of wolverines in North America ranges tend to be so large, some small could render a large enough area in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Hash mountain ranges are likely to lose the unsuitable so that a wolverine home 1987, p. 580). Wolverines are especially ability to support wolverine range would be likely to be rendered vulnerable to targeted trapping and populations. We expect that the unsuitable or unproductive. Given the predator reduction campaigns due to secondary effects of this habitat loss, large size of home ranges used by their habit of ranging widely in search such as increased habitat fragmentation wolverine, most human activities affect of carrion, bringing them into frequent and isolation, will intensify the overall such a small portion that negative contact with poison baits and traps impacts of habitat loss on wolverines. effects to individuals are unlikely. (Copeland 1996, p. 78; Inman et al. Deep snow that persists into the These activities do not occur at a scale 2007a, pp. 4–10; Packila et al. 2007, p. month of May is essential for wolverine that is likely to have population-level 105; Squires et al. 2007, p. 2219). reproduction. This life-history effects to wolverine. Human-caused mortality of parameter for the species (reproductive Little scientific or commercial wolverines is likely additive to natural rate) is likely to be most sensitive to information exists regarding effects to mortality due to the low reproductive climate changes. Wolverine are wolverines from development or human rate and relatively long life expectancy vulnerable to habitat modification disturbances associated with them. of wolverines (Krebs et al. 2004, p. 499; (specifically, reduction in persistent What little information does exist Lofroth and Ott 2007, pp. 2197–2198; spring snow cover) due to climate suggests that wolverines can adjust to Squires et al. 2007, pp. 2218–2219). warming in the contiguous United moderate habitat modification, This means that trapped subpopulations States. Further, it is likely that year- infrastructure development, and human likely live at densities that are lower round wolverine habitat, not just disturbance. In addition, large amounts than carrying capacity, and may need to denning habitat, will also be of wolverine habitat are protected from be reinforced by recruits from significantly reduced due to the effects human disturbances and development, untrapped subpopulations to maintain of climate warming. Reductions in either legally through wilderness and population viability and persistence. habitat would result in greater habitat National Park designation, or by being A study in British Columbia isolation, thereby likely reducing the located at remote and high-elevation determined that, under a regulated frequency of dispersal between habitat sites. Therefore, wolverines are afforded trapping regime, trapping mortality in patches and the likelihood of a relatively high degree of protection 15 of 71 wolverine population units was recolonization after local extinction from the effects of human activities by unsustainable, and that populations in events. This reduced dispersal ability, if the nature of their habitat. Wolverines those unsustainable population units not compensated for by higher are known to successfully disperse long were dependent on immigration from population levels or assisted dispersal, distances between habitats through neighboring populations or untrapped is likely to result in loss of genetic human-dominated landscapes and refugia (Lofroth and Ott 2007, pp. 2197– diversity within remaining habitat across transportation corridors. The 2198). Similarly, in southwestern patches and population loss due to current level of residential, industrial, Montana, legal trapping in isolated demographic stochasticity. The and transportation development in the mountain ranges accounted for 64 contiguous United States population of western United States does not appear percent of documented mortality and wolverines is already very small and to have precluded the long-distance reduced the local wolverine fragmented and is, therefore, dispersal movements that wolverines subpopulation (Squires et al. 2007, pp. particularly vulnerable to these impacts. require for maintenance of genetic 2218–2219). The observed harvest

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7881

levels, which included two pregnant regulations spread harvest across three population growth, versus population females in a small mountain range, geographic units (the Northern growth attributable to surrounding could have significant negative effects Continental Divide area, the Greater states where wolverines are not trapped, on a small subpopulation (Squires et al. Yellowstone area, and the Bitterroot i.e., population growth driven by the 2007, p. 2219). Harvest refugia, such as Mountains), and established a statewide entire metapopulation versus just the jurisdictions with closed seasons, limit of five wolverines. In the four portion of the metapopulation found in national parks, and large wilderness trapping seasons that have occurred Montana, is unknown. areas, are important to wolverine since these rules were implemented, Current levels of incidental trapping persistence on the landscape because wolverine take averaged 3.25 wolverines (i.e., capture in traps set for species they can serve as sources of surplus annually (Montana Department of Fish other than wolverine) have been individuals to bolster trapped Wildlife and Parks 2010, pp. 8–11; Brian suggested by the petitioners to be a populations (Squires et al. 2007, p. Giddings Pers. Comm. August 30, 2012), threat to wolverines. In the 2008–2009 2219; Krebs and Ott 2004, p. 500). Due with reduced harvest being due to trapping season, two wolverines were to their large space requirements, season closure rather than lack of incidentally killed in traps set for other wolverine population refuges must be wolverines. Under the current species in Beaverhead and Granite large enough to provide protection from regulations, no more than three female Counties, Montana (Montana Fish, harvest mortality; and complete wolverines can be legally harvested Wildlife, and Parks 2010, p. 2). These protection is only available for each year, and harvest in the more two mortalities occurred within the wolverines whose entire home range vulnerable isolated mountain ranges is portion of southwestern Montana that is occurs within protected areas. Glacier prohibited. The size of the wolverine currently closed to legal wolverine National Park, though an important population subjected to trapping in this trapping to ensure that wolverines are refuge for a relatively robust population area is not known precisely but is likely not unsustainably harvested in this area of wolverines, was still vulnerable to not more than about 300 animals in of small, relatively isolated mountain trapping because most resident states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming ranges. Four cases of incidental wolverine home ranges extended into combined (Bob Inman pers. comm. wolverine trapping have occurred in large areas outside the park (Squires et 2010b). Idaho in recent years. One wolverine al. 2007, p. 2219). It is likely that the The Montana Department of Fish, was trapped by a coyote/bobcat trapper largerscale refuges provided by the Wildlife, and Parks conduct yearly in 2006 and was collared and released states of Idaho and Wyoming (which do furbearer monitoring using track after all of its toes and a portion of its not permit wolverine trapping) provide surveys. These surveys involve left front foot were amputated (Inman et wolverine habitat that is fully protected snowmobiling along transect routes al. 2008, p. 1). That animal (a female) from legal harvest in Montana; however, under good tracking conditions and survived and successfully reproduced wolverines with home ranges that visually identifying all carnivore tracks after release. The Department of partially overlap Montana and encountered. The protocol does not use Agriculture Wildlife Services trapped dispersers that move into Montana verification methods such as DNA three wolverines (one each in 2004, would be vulnerable to harvest. Due to collection or camera stations to confirm 2005, and 2010) incidental to trapping the restrictive, low level of harvest now identifications. Consequently, wolves involved in livestock allowed by Montana, the number of misidentifications are likely to occur. depredations. One of these sustained affected wolverines would be Given the relative rarity of wolverines severe injuries and was euthanized. The correspondingly small. and the relative abundance of other other two were released without visible Despite the impacts of trapping on species with which they may be injury. Another wolverine was trapped wolverines in the past, trapping is no confused, such as bobcats (Lynx rufus), in Wyoming in 2006. This animal was longer a threat within most of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and released unharmed (Inman 2012, pers. wolverine range in the contiguous mountain lions (Felis concolor), lack of comm.). The three documented United States. Montana is the only State certainty of identifications of tracks mortalities are possibly locally where wolverine trapping is still legal. makes it highly likely that the rare significant for wolverines in these areas Before 2004, average wolverine harvest species is overrepresented in unverified because local populations in each of the was 10.5 wolverines per year. Due to tracking records (McKelvey et al. 2008, mountain ranges are small and preliminary results of the study reported entire). The Montana Department of relatively isolated from nearby source in Squires et al. (2007, pp. 2213–2220), Fish, Wildlife, and Parks wolverine populations. the Montana Department of Fish, track survey information does not meet Summary of Factor B Wildlife, and Parks adopted new our standard for reliability described in regulations for the 2004–2005 trapping the geographic distribution section, and Legal wolverine harvest occurs in one season that divided the State into three we have not relied on this information state, Montana, within the range of the units, with the goal of spreading the in this finding. DPS. The extent to which this harvest harvest more equitably throughout the Montana wolverine populations have affects populations occurring outside of State. rebounded from historic lows in the Montana is unknown. However, the For the 2008–2009 trapping season, early 1900s while at the same time being State of Montana contains most of the the Montana Department of Fish, subjected to regulated trapping (Aubry habitat and wolverines that exist in the Wildlife, and Parks adjusted its et al. 2007, p. 2151; Montana current range of the DPS, and regulates wolverine trapping regulations again to Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks trapping to reduce the impact of harvest further increase the geographic control 2007, p. 1). In fact, much of the on wolverine populations. Incidental on harvest to prevent concentrated wolverine expansion that we have harvest also occurs within the range of trapping in any single area, and to described above took place under less- the DPS; however, the level of mortality completely stop trapping in isolated restrictive (i.e., higher harvest levels) from incidental trapping appears to be mountain ranges where small harvest regulations than are in place low. Harvest,when combined with the populations are most vulnerable today. The extent to which wolverine likely effects of climate change, may (Montana Department of Fish Wildlife population growth has occurred in contribute to the likelihood that the and Parks 2010, pp. 8–11). Their new Montana as a result of within-Montana wolverine will become extirpated in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7882 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

future. This may occur by increasing the sustainable levels. The best scientific National Environmental Policy Act speed with which small populations of and commercial information available All Federal agencies are required to wolverine are lost from isolated indicates that disease or predation is not adhere to the National Environmental habitats, and also by increasing a threat to the species now or likely to Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. mortality levels for dispersing become so in the future. 4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, wolverines, with the result of reducing authorize, or carry out. The Council on dispersal rates. Regular dispersal and Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Environmental Quality’s regulations for exchange of genetic material are Regulatory Mechanisms implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500– required to maintain the genetics and Based on our calculations using a 1518) state that agencies shall include a demographics of wolverine composite map showing the coverage of discussion on the environmental subpopulations in the contiguous both the Copeland et al. (2010, entire) impacts of the various project United States. The current known level of incidental and Inman et al. (2012, entire) alternatives (including the proposed trapping mortality is low. We note that wolverine habitat models, the majority action), any adverse environmental it is unknown whether or not increased (94 percent) of wolverine habitat effects which cannot be avoided, and trapping of wolves associated with wolf currently occupied by wolverine any irreversible or irretrievable trapping regulations recently approved populations in the lower contiguous commitments of resources involved (40 by the states of Idaho and Montana United States is Federally owned and CFR 1502). The NEPA itself is a would be likely to result in increased managed, mostly by the U.S. Forest disclosure law, and does not require incidental trapping of wolverines. Idaho Service. An estimated 144,371 km2 subsequent minimization or mitigation began its wolf trapping program in the (49,258 mi2) of wolverine habitat occurs measures by the Federal agency winter of 2011–2012, and Montana in the occupied area in Montana, Idaho, involved. Although Federal agencies began theirs in the winter of 2012–2013. Oregon (Wallowa Range), and Wyoming. may include conservation measures for These wolf trapping activities are Of that, 135,396 km2 (46,332 mi2) is in wolverines as a result of the NEPA relatively new in the DPS area, and we Federal ownership. Additionally, 47,150 process, any such measures are typically do not yet have reliable information on km2 (12,973 mi2) (32.7 percent) occurs voluntary in nature and are not required the level of incidental take of in designated wilderness, and 23,062 by the statute. Additionally, activities wolverines that may result from them. km2 (1,630 mi2) (16.0 percent) occurs in on non-Federal lands are subject to Based on the best scientific and inventoried roadless areas. An NEPA if there is a Federal action. commercial information available, we additional 13,784 km2 (3,288 mi2) (9.5 For example, wolverines are conclude that trapping, including percent) are within national parks. designated as a sensitive species by the known rates of incidental trapping in Forest Service, which requires that None of the existing Federal or State Montana and Idaho, result in a small effects to wolverines be considered in regulatory mechanisms were designed number of wolverine mortalities each documentation completed under NEPA. to address the threat of modification of year and that this level of mortality by NEPA does not itself regulate activities wolverine habitat due to the loss of itself would not be a threat to the that might affect wolverines, but it does wolverine DPS. However, by working in snowpack associated with climate require full evaluation and disclosure of concert with habitat loss resulting from change. Several existing regulatory information regarding the effects of climate change, mortality due to harvest mechanisms protect wolverine from contemplated Federal actions on and incidental trapping may contribute other forms of disturbance and from sensitive species and their habitats. overutilization from harvesting; these to population declines. Therefore, we National Forest Management Act conclude that trapping, when are described in more detail below. Under the National Forest considered cumulatively with habitat Federal Laws and Regulations loss resulting from climate change, is Management Act of 1976, as amended likely to become a threat to the DPS (see The Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1600–1614), the Forest discussion under Synergistic Service shall strive to provide for a The Forest Service and National Park diversity of plant and animal Interactions Between Threat Factors, Service both manage lands designated below). communities when managing national as wilderness areas under the forest lands. Individual national forests Factor C. Disease or Predation Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– may identify species of concern that are No information is currently available 1136). Within these areas, the significant to each forest’s biodiversity. on the potential effects of disease on Wilderness Act states the following: (1) Outside of designated wilderness but wild wolverine populations. Wolverines New or temporary roads cannot be built; still on Forest Service-managed lands, are sometimes killed by wolves (Canis (2) there can be no use of motor wolverines occur mainly in alpine areas. lupus), black bears (Ursus americanus), vehicles, motorized equipment, or Their habitat is generally offered more and mountain lion (Burkholder 1962, p. motorboats; (3) there can be no landing protections from timber harvest than 264; Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1296; of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form would otherwise be the case in lowland Copeland 1996, p. 44–46; Inman et al. of mechanical transport; and (5) no areas due to the difficulty of accessing 2007d, p. 89). In addition, wolverine structure or installation may be built. A wolverine habitat, especially in areas reproductive dens are likely subject to large amount of suitable wolverine where motorized access is limited or predation, although so few dens have habitat, about 28 percent for the states absent, such as most National Forest been discovered in North America that of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, land and all designated wilderness determining the intensity of this occurs within Federal wilderness areas areas. predation is not possible. in the United States (Inman personal communication 2007b). As such, a large National Park Service Organic Act Summary of Factor C proportion of existing wolverine habitat The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 We have no information to suggest is protected from direct loss or U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended, states that that wolverine mortality from predation degradation by the prohibitions of the the NPS ‘‘shall promote and regulate the and disease is above natural or Wilderness Act. use of the Federal areas known as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7883

national parks, monuments, and and Colorado. In Idaho and Wyoming it threat of climate change, the trapping reservations to conserve the scenery and is designated as a protected nongame program may contribute to population the national and historic objects and the species (Idaho Department of Fish and declines (see Synergistic Interactions wildlife therein and to provide for the Game 2010, p. 4; Wyoming Game and Between Threat Factors, below). enjoyment of the same in such manner Fish 2005, p. 2). Oregon, while currently Summary of Factor D and by such means as will leave them not considered to have any individuals unimpaired for the enjoyment of future other than possible unsuccessful The existing regulatory mechanisms generations.’’ Where wolverines occur dispersers, has a closed season on appear to protect wolverine from several in National Parks, they and their trapping of wolverines. These of the factors described in Factors A and habitats are protected from large-scale designations largely protect the B above. Specifically, State regulations loss or degradation due to the Park wolverine from mortality due to hunting for wolverine harvest appear to be Service’s mandate to ‘‘* * * conserve and trapping. In Montana, the wolverine sufficient to prohibit range–wide scenery * * * and wildlife * * * [by is classified as a regulated furbearer overutilization from hunting and leaving] them unimpaired.’’ Wolverine (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks trapping in the absence of other threats. harvest and trapping of other furbearers 2010, p. 8). Montana is the only State in However, given that climate change is also prohibited in National Parks. the contiguous United States where impacts are expected to reduce wolverine trapping is still legal. wolverine populations and fragment Clean Air Act of 1970 Wolverines receive some protection habitat, the impact of harvest to On December 15, 2009, the under State laws in Washington, wolverine would be expected to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, increase if harvest levels were published in the Federal Register (74 and Colorado. Each State’s fish and maintained at current levels. Federal FR 66496) a rule titled, ‘‘Endangerment wildlife agency has some version of a ownership of much of occupied and Cause or Contribute Findings for State Comprehensive Wildlife wolverine habitat protects the species Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) Conservation Strategy (CWCS) in place. from direct losses of habitat and of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the These strategies, while not State or provides further protection from many EPA Administrator found that the Federal legislation, can help prioritize of the forms of disturbance described current and projected concentrations of conservation actions within each State. above. Wolverines use habitats affected the six long-lived and directly emitted Named species and habitats within each by human disturbance, and additional greenhouse gases (GHGs)—carbon CWCS may receive focused attention protection is afforded wolverines by the dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, during State Environmental Protection large area of their range that occurs in hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, Act (SEPA) reviews as a result of being designated wilderness and national and sulfur hexafluoride—in the included in a State’s CWCS. However, parks. The current regulatory regime atmosphere threaten the public health only Washington, California, and does not address the potential impacts and welfare of current and future Montana appear to have SEPA-type of dispersed winter recreation outside of generations; and that the combined regulations in place. In addition, each protected areas; however, at this time emissions of these GHGs from new State’s fish and wildlife agency often the available information does not motor vehicles and new motor vehicle specifically names or implies protection suggest that dispersed winter recreation engines contribute to the GHG pollution of wolverines in its hunting and is a threat to the DPS. that threatens public health and welfare trapping regulations. Only the State of Our review of the regulatory (74 FR 66496). In effect, the EPA has Montana currently allows wolverine mechanisms in place at the national and concluded that the GHGs linked to harvest (see discussion under Factor B). State level demonstrates that the short- Before 2004, the Montana Department climate change are pollutants, whose term, site-specific threats to wolverine of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks regulated emissions can now be subject to the from direct loss of habitat, disturbance wolverine harvest through the licensing Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) by humans, and direct mortality from of trappers, a bag limit of one wolverine (see 74 FR 66496). However, specific hunting and trapping are, for the most per year per trapper, and no statewide regulations to limit GHG emissions were part, adequately addressed through limit. Under this management, average only proposed in 2010 and, therefore, State and Federal regulatory wolverine harvest was 10.5 wolverines cannot be considered an existing mechanisms. However, as described per year. Due to preliminary results of regulatory mechanism. At present, we under Factor A, the primary threat with the study reported in Squires et al. have no basis to conclude that the greatest severity and magnitude of (2007, pp. 2213–2220), Montana impact to the species is loss of habitat implementation of the Clean Air Act in Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks due to continuing climate warming. The the future (40 years, based on global adopted new regulations for the 2004– existing regulatory mechanisms climate projections) will substantially 2005 trapping season that divided the currently in place at the national level reduce the current rate of global climate State into three units with the goal of were not designed to address the threat change through regulation of GHG spreading the harvest more equitably to wolverine habitat from climate emissions. Thus, we conclude the Clean among available habitat. In 2008, change. Air Act is not designed to address the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, primary threat to wolverine of the loss and Parks further refined their Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade of snowpack due to the effects of regulations to prohibit trapping in Factors Affecting Its Continued climate change. isolated mountain ranges, and reduced Existence State Laws and Regulations the overall statewide harvest to five wolverines with a statewide female Small Population Size State Comprehensive Wildlife harvest limit of three. Under factor B, Population ecologists use the concept Conservation Strategies and State above, we concluded that trapping, of a population’s ‘‘effective’’ size as a Environmental Policy and Protection including known rates of incidental measure of the proportion of the actual Acts trapping in Montana, by itself, is not a population that contributes to future The wolverine is listed as State threat to the wolverine DPS, but that by generations (for a review of effective Endangered in Washington, California, working in concert with the primary population size, see Schwartz et al.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7884 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

1998, entire). In a population where all and Luikart 2007, pp. 359–360). Others populations are low enough that they of the individuals contribute offspring suggest that even higher numbers are could be vulnerable to loss of genetic equally, effective population size would required to ensure that populations diversity, and may require intervention equal true population size, referred to as remain viable, suggesting that long-term in the future to remain viable. To date, the population census size. For connectivity to the reservoir of genetic no adverse effects of the lower genetic populations where contribution to the resources in the Canadian population of diversity of the contiguous United next generations is often unequal, wolverines will be required for the long- States wolverines have been effective population size will be smaller term genetic health of the DPS (Traill et documented. than the census size. The smaller the al. 2010, p. 32). All evidence suggests Wolverines in the contiguous United effective population size, the more that no habitat area within the States are thought to be derived from a reproduction in each generation is contiguous United States is large recent recolonization event after they dominated by a few individuals in each enough to support a wolverine were extirpated from the area in the generation. For wolverines it is likely population with an effective population early 20th century (Aubry et al. 2007, that high-quality home ranges are size of 500 animals. Given the life Table 1). Consequently, wolverine limited, and individuals occupying history of wolverines that includes high populations in the contiguous United them are better able to reproduce. inequality of reproductive success and a States have reduced genetic diversity Therefore, mature males and females metapopulation of semi-isolated relative to larger Canadian populations that are successful at acquiring and subpopulations, effective population as a result of founder effects or defending a territory may dominate sizes would likely never reach even 100 inbreeding (Schwartz et al. 2009, pp. reproduction. Another contributing individuals at full habitat occupancy as 3228–3230). Wolverine effective factor that reduces effective population this would suggest a census population population size in the northern Rocky size is the tendency in wolverines for a of over 1,000. In this case, population Mountains was estimated to be 35 few males to monopolize the connectivity exchange with the larger (Schwartz et al. 2009, p. 3226) and is reproduction of several females, Canadian/Alaskan population would below what is thought to be adequate for reducing reproductive opportunities for likely be required for long-term short-term maintenance of genetic other males. Although this viability. diversity. Loss of genetic diversity can lead to inbreeding depression and is monopolization is a natural feature of Wolverine effective population size in associated with increased risk of wolverine life history strategy, it can the northern Rocky Mountains, which is lead to lower effective population size extinction (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, the largest extant population in the pp. 338–343). Small effective and reduce population viability by contiguous United States, is reducing genetic diversity. The effective population sizes are caused by small exceptionally low and is below what is actual population size (census size), or population is not static, members of the thought necessary for short-term effective population in 1 year may lose by other factors that limit the genetic maintenance of genetic diversity. contribution of portions of the this status in the following year and Estimates for effective population size possibly regain it again later depending population, such as polygamous mating for wolverines in the northern Rocky systems. Populations may increase their on their reproductive success. When Mountains averaged 35 (credible limits members of the effective population are effective size by increasing census size = 28–52) (Schwartz et al. 2009, p. 3226). or by the regular exchange of genetic lost, it is likely that their territories are This study excluded the small material with other populations through quickly filled by younger individuals population from the Crazy and Belt interpopulation mating. who may not have been able to secure Mountains (hereafter ‘‘CrazyBelts’’) as The concern with the low effective a productive territory previously. they may be an isolated population, population size was highlighted in a Effective population size is important which could bias the estimate using the recent analysis that determined that, because it determines rates of loss of methods of Tallmon et al. (2007, entire). without immigration from other genetic variation and the rate of Measures of the effective population wolverine populations, at least 400 inbreeding. Populations with small sizes of the other populations in the breeding pairs would be necessary to effective population sizes show contiguous United States have not been sustain the long-term genetic viability of reductions in population growth rates completed, but given their small census the northern Rocky Mountains and increases in extinction probabilities sizes, their effective sizes are expected wolverine population (Cegelski et al. when genetic diversity is low enough to to be smaller than for the northern 2006, p. 197). However, the entire lead to inbreeding depression (Leberg Rocky Mountains population. Thus, population is likely only 250 to 300 1990, p. 194; Jimenez et al. 1994, pp. wolverine effective population sizes are (Inman 2010b, pers. comm.), with a 272–273; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. very low. For comparison, estimates of substantial number of these being 360; Saccheri et al. 1998, p. 492; Reed wolverine effective population size are unsuccessful breeders or nonbreeding and Bryant 2000, p. 11; Schwartz and bracketed by critically endangered subadults (i.e., part of the census Mills 2005, p. 419; Hogg et al. 2006, p. species, such as the black-footed ferret population, but not part of the effective 1495, 1498; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, (Mustela nigripes) (4.10) (Wisely et al. population). pp. 338–342). Franklin (1980, as cited in 2007, p. 3) and the ocelot (Leopardus Genetic studies demonstrate the Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 359) pardalis) (2.9 to 13.9) (Janecka et al. essential role that genetic exchange proposed an empirically based rule 2007, p. 1), but are substantially smaller plays in maintaining genetic diversity in suggesting that for short-term (a few than estimates for the Yellowstone small wolverine populations. The generations) maintenance of genetic grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) (greater than concern that low effective population diversity, effective population size 100), which has reached the level of size would result in negative effects is should not be less than 50. For long- recovery under the Act (Miller and already being realized for the term (hundreds of generations) Waits 2003, p. 4338). Therefore, we contiguous United States population of maintenance of genetic diversity, conclude that effective population size wolverine. Genetic drift has already effective population size should not be estimates for wolverines do not suggest occurred in subpopulations of the less than 500 (for appropriate use of this that populations are currently critically contiguous United States: Wolverines rule and its limitations see Allendorf endangered, but they do suggest that here contained 3 of 13 haplotypes found

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7885

in Canadian populations (Kyle and contiguous habitat in Canada and demographic health, and the subsequent Strobeck 2001, p. 343; Cegelski et al. Alaska. The significance of this lower potential future influence of trapping. 2003, pp. 2914–2915; Cegelski et al. genetic diversity to wolverine As discussed in our analysis of the 2006, p. 208; Schwartz et al. 2007, p. conservation is unknown. We do not effects on wolverine habitat from 2176; Schwartz et al. 2009, p. 3229). discount the possibility that loss of climate change under Factor A, The haplotypes found in these genetic diversity could be negatively wolverine habitat in the contiguous subpopulations were a subset of those in affecting wolverines now and continue United States is likely to become the larger Canadian population, to do so in the future. It is important to smaller overall, and remaining habitat is indicating that genetic drift had caused point out, however, that wolverine likely to be more fragmented and a loss of genetic diversity. One study populations in the DPS area are thought fragments more isolated from one found that a single haplotype dominated to be the result of colonization events another than they are today (McKelvey the northern Rocky Mountain wolverine that have occurred since the 1930s. et al. 2011, Figure 8). Given that population, with 71 of 73 wolverines Such recent colonizations by relatively wolverine subpopulations in the DPS sampled expressing that haplotype few individuals and subsequent are already so small, and movement (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2176). The population growth are likely to have between subpopulations so restricted, reduced number of haplotypes indicates resulted in founder effects, which could inbreeding has become likely (Kyle and not only that genetic drift has occurred contribute to low genetic diversity. The Strobeck 2001, p. 343; Cegelski et al. but also some level of genetic effect of small population sizes and low 2003, pp. 2914–2915; Cegelski et al. separation; if these populations were genetic diversity may become more 2006, p. 208; Schwartz et al. 2007, p. freely interbreeding, they would share significant if populations become 2176; Schwartz et al. 2009, p. 3229). more haplotypes (Schwartz et al. 2009, smaller and more isolated, as predicted The longterm maintenance of p. 3229). The reduction of haplotypes is due to climate changes. wolverines in the DPS will require likely a result of the fragmented nature Based on the best scientific and continued connectivity between subpopulations within the DPS, and of wolverine habitat in the United States commercial information available we with populations to the north in and is consistent with an emerging conclude that demographic stochasticity Canada. To the extent that wolverine pattern of reduced genetic variation at and loss of genetic diversity due to habitat becomes more fragmented, and the southern edge of the range small effective population sizes, by fragments become more isolated due documented in a suite of boreal forest itself, is not a threat to the wolverine habitat loss resulting from climate carnivores (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. DPS. However, by working in concert change, these factors will become more 2177). with the primary threat of habitat loss Immigration of wolverines from significant to wolverine conservation. due to climate change, this may Canada is not likely to bolster the The risk factor of small population size, contribute to the cumulative effect of genetic diversity of wolverines in the including measures of effective population declines. Therefore, we contiguous United States. There is an population size and their consequent apparent lack of connectivity between conclude that demographic stochasticity effects on maintenance of genetic wolverine populations in Canada and and loss of genetic diversity due to diversity, is a threat to the North the United States based on genetic data small effective population sizes is a American wolverine DPS when (Schwartz et al. 2009, pp. 3228–3230). threat to wolverines when considered considered cumulatively with habitat The apparent loss of connectivity cumulatively with habitat loss due to loss resulting from climate change. between wolverines in the northern climate change (see discussion under Wolverine populations have been Rocky Mountains and Canada prevents Synergistic Interactions Between Threat expanding in the DPS area since the the influx of genetic material needed to Factors). early 20th century, when they were maintain or increase the genetic Synergistic Interactions Between Threat likely at or near zero (Aubry et al. 2007, diversity in the contiguous United Factors p. 2151). Most of this expansion has States. The continued loss of genetic occurred under trapping regulations that diversity may lead to inbreeding We have evaluated individual threats allowed a higher level of trapping than depression, potentially reducing the to the distinct population segment of the currently occurs (see Montana species’ ability to persist through North American Wolverine throughout Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks reduced reproductive output or reduced its range in the contiguous United 2007, p. 1). Therefore, it might be survival. Currently, the cause for this States. The wolverine DPS faces one argued that wolverine trapping is not lack of connectivity is uncertain. primary threat that is likely to drive its occurring at levels that would Wolverine habitat appears to be well- conservation status in the future: habitat significantly affect conservation of the connected across the border region change and loss due to climate change. DPS. However, future habitat changes (Copeland et al. 2010, Figure 2) and This factor alone is enough to determine due to climate change are predicted to there are few manmade obstructions that the species should be proposed for reduce habitat connectivity and extent. such as transportation corridors or listing under the Act. Other factors, As described above, these changes are alpine developments. However, this though not as severe or geographically likely to exacerbate the problem of loss lack of genetically detectable comprehensive as the potential habitat of genetic diversity and demographic connectivity may be related to harvest effects from climate change may, when stability caused by low effective management in southern Canada. considered in the context of changes population size and insufficient likely to occur due to climate change, movement between populations, leading Summary of Factor E become threats due to the cumulative to inbreeding. Given these likely Small population size and resulting effects they have on wolverine secondary effects of climate change, inbreeding depression are potential, populations. For wolverines, the only human-caused mortality due to harvest though as-yet undocumented, threats to such threat factors found in our analysis is likely to become more significant to wolverines in the contiguous United to have a basis of support as threats to the wolvereine population as States. There is good evidence that wolverines were the effects of small connectivity needs increase and genetic diversity is lower in wolverines subpopulation sizes and subpopulation connectivity simultaneously becomes in the DPS than it is in the more isolation on wolverine genetic and more difficult. As habitats become

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7886 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

smaller and more isolated from one could become significant when working Available Conservation Measures another, more wolverines will be in concert with climate change if they Conservation measures provided to needed to attempt to move between further suppress an already stressed species listed as an endangered or subpopulations to maintain population population. These secondary threats threatened species under the Act viability. Harvest currently removes up include harvest (including incidental include recognition, recovery actions, to five wolverines from the population harvest) (Factor B) and demographic requirements for Federal protection, and every year, reducing the number of stochasticity and loss of genetic prohibitions against certain practices. animals available for dispersal. In diversity due to small effective Recognition through listing results in addition, incidental trapping of population sizes (Factor E). All of these public awareness and conservation by wolverines removes still more. For these factors affect wolverines across their Federal, State, Tribal, and local reasons, we find that harvest and current range in the contiguous United agencies, private organizations, and incidental trapping, when considered States. individuals. The Act encourages cumulatively with habitat loss resulting cooperation with the States and requires from climate change, are likely to The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ‘‘in danger that recovery actions be carried out for become threats to the DPS due to the all listed species. The protection likely synergistic effects they may have of extinction throughout all or a required by Federal agencies and the on the population as habitat becomes significant portion of its range’’ and a prohibitions against certain activities smaller and more fragmented. threatened species as any species ‘‘that are discussed, in part, below. is likely to become endangered Proposed Determination The primary purpose of the Act is the throughout all or a significant portion of We have carefully assessed the best conservation of endangered and its range within the foreseeable future.’’ threatened species and the ecosystems scientific and commercial information We find that the contiguous United available regarding the past, present, upon which they depend. The ultimate States wolverine DPS presently meets goal of such conservation efforts is the and future threats to the wolverine DPS. the definition of a threatened species We have identified threats to the recovery of these listed species, so that due to the likelihood of habitat loss they no longer need the protective contiguous United States population of caused by climate change resulting in the North American wolverine measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of population decline leading to attributable to Factors A, B, and E. The the Act requires the Service to develop breakdown of metapopulation primary threat to the DPS is from habitat and implement recovery plans for the dynamics. Breakdown in and range loss due to climate warming conservation of endangered and (Factor A). Wolverines require habitats metapopulation dynamics would make threatened species. The recovery with near-arctic conditions wherever the DPS vulnerable to further loss of planning process involves the they occur. In the contiguous United genetic diversity through inbreeding, identification of actions that are States, wolverine habitat is restricted to and likely vulnerable to demographic necessary to halt or reverse the species’ high-elevation areas in the West. endangerment as small subpopulations decline by addressing the threats to its Wolverines are dependent on deep could no longer rely on demographic survival and recovery. The goal of this persistent snow cover for successful rescue from nearby populations. At that process is to restore listed species to a denning, and they concentrate their point wolverine populations would point where they are secure, self- year-round activities in areas that meet the definition of an endangered sustaining, and functioning components maintain deep snow into spring and species under the Act. We base this of their ecosystems. cool temperatures throughout summer. determination on the immediacy, Recovery planning includes the Wolverines in the contiguous United severity, and scope of the threats development of a recovery outline States exist as small and semi-isolated described above. Therefore, on the basis shortly after a species is listed, subpopulations in a larger of the best available scientific and preparation of a draft and final recovery metapopulation that requires regular commercial information, we propose plan, and revisions to the plan as dispersal of wolverines between habitat listing the contiguous United State DPS significant new information becomes patches to maintain itself. These of the North American wolverine as a available. The recovery outline guides dispersers achieve both genetic threatened species in accordance with the immediate implementation of urgent enrichment and demographic support of sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. recovery actions and describes the recipient populations. Climate changes process to be used to develop a recovery Under the Act and our implementing are predicted to reduce wolverine plan. The recovery plan identifies site- regulations, a species may warrant habitat and range by 31 percent over the specific management actions that will next 30 years and 63 percent over the listing if it meets the definition of an achieve recovery of the species, next 75 years, rendering remaining endangered or threatened species measurable criteria that determine when wolverine habitat significantly smaller throughout all or a significant portion of a species may be downlisted or delisted, and more fragmented. We anticipate its range. The contiguous United States and methods for monitoring recovery that, by 2045, maintenance of the DPS of the North American wolverine progress. Recovery plans also establish contiguous United States wolverine proposed for listing in this rule is wide- a framework for agencies to coordinate population in the currently occupied ranging and the threats occur their recovery efforts and provide area may require human intervention to throughout its range. Therefore, we estimates of the cost of implementing facilitate genetic exchange and possibly assessed the status of the DPS recovery tasks. Recovery teams also to facilitate metapopulation throughout its entire range. The threats (composed of species experts, Federal dynamics by moving individuals to the survival of the species occur and State agencies, nongovernmental between habitat patches if they are no throughout the species’ range and are organizations, and stakeholders) are longer accessed regularly by dispersers, not restricted to any particular often established to develop recovery or risk loss of the population. significant portion of that range. plans. The recovery outline is available Other threats are minor in comparison Accordingly, our assessment and on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ to the driving primary threat of climate proposed determination applies to the mountain-prairie/species/mammals/ change; however, cumulatively, they DPS throughout its entire range. wolverine/ and on http://

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7887

www.regulations.gov concurrently with proposed critical habitat. If a species is endangered wildlife, a permit must be the publication of this proposed rule. listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of issued for the following purposes: for When completed, the draft recovery the Act requires Federal agencies to scientific purposes, to enhance the plan and the final recovery plan will be ensure that activities they authorize, propagation or survival of the species, available on our Web site or from our fund, or carry out are not likely to and for incidental take in connection Montana Ecological Services Field jeopardize the continued existence of with otherwise lawful activities. Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION the species or destroy or adversely It is our policy, as published in the CONTACT). modify its critical habitat. If a Federal Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Implementation of recovery actions action may affect a listed species or its 34272), to identify to the maximum generally requires the participation of a critical habitat, the responsible Federal extent practicable at the time a species broad range of partners, including other agency must enter into formal is listed, those activities that would or Federal agencies, States, Tribal, consultation with the Service. would not constitute a violation of nongovernmental organizations, Federal agency actions within the section 9 of the Act. The intent of this businesses, and private landowners. species habitat that may require policy is to increase public awareness of Examples of recovery actions include conference or consultation or both as the effect of a proposed listing on habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of described in the preceding paragraph proposed and ongoing activities within native vegetation), research, captive include management and any other the range of species proposed for listing. propagation and reintroduction, and landscape altering activities on Federal The following activities could outreach and education. The recovery of lands in suitable wolverine habitat potentially result in a violation of many listed species cannot be within the range of the species section 9 of the Act; this list is not accomplished solely on Federal lands administered by the Department of comprehensive: because their range may occur primarily Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unauthorized collecting, handling, or solely on non-Federal lands. To Bureau of Land Management, National possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, achieve recovery of these species Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service; or transporting of the species, including requires cooperative conservation efforts construction and management of gas import or export across State lines and on private, State, and Tribal lands. pipeline and power line rights-of-way in international boundaries, except for If this species is listed, funding for suitable wolverine habitat by the properly documented antique recovery actions will be available from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; specimens of these taxa at least 100 a variety of sources, including Federal construction and maintenance of roads years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) budgets, State programs, and cost share or highways by the Federal Highway of the Act. grants for nonfederal landowners, the Administration in suitable wolverine Questions regarding whether specific academic community, and habitat; and permitting of infrastructure activities would constitute a violation of nongovernmental organizations. In development in suitable wolverine section 9 of the Act should be directed addition, pursuant to section 6 of the habitat for recreation, oil and gas to the Montana Ecological Services Act, the States inhabited by wolverines development, or residential Field Office (see FOR FURTHER or uninhabited states with suitable development by the U.S. Forest Service, INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for habitat would be eligible for Federal National Park Service, Bureau of Land copies of the regulations concerning funds to implement management Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife listed animals and general inquiries actions that promote the protection and Service, or Department of Defense. regarding prohibitions and permits may recovery of wolverines. Information on The Act and its implementing be addressed to the U.S. Fish and our grant programs that are available to regulations set forth a series of general Wildlife Service, Endangered Species aid species recovery can be found at: prohibitions and exceptions that apply Permits, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite http://www.fws.gov/grants. to all endangered wildlife. The 650, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone Although the wolverine DPS is only prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 303–236–4265. proposed for listing under the Act at codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered A determination to list the contiguous this time, please let us know if you are wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any United States DPS of the North interested in participating in recovery person subject to the jurisdiction of the American wolverine as a threatened efforts for this species. Additionally, we United States to take (includes harass, species under the Act, if we ultimately invite you to submit any new harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, determine that listing is warranted, will information on this species whenever it trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt not regulate greenhouse gas emissions. becomes available and any information any of these), import, export, ship in Rather, it will reflect a determination you may have for recovery planning interstate commerce in the course of that the DPS meets the definition of a purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION commercial activity, or sell or offer for threatened species under the Act, CONTACT). sale in interstate or foreign commerce thereby establishing certain protections Section 7(a) of the Act requires any listed species. Under the Lacey Act for them under the ESA. While we Federal agencies to evaluate their (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), acknowledge that listing will not have a actions with respect to any species that it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, direct impact on the loss of deep, is proposed or listed as endangered or carry, transport, or ship any such persistent, late spring snowpack or the threatened and with respect to its wildlife that has been taken illegally. reduction of greenhouse gases, we critical habitat, if any is designated. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the expect that it will indirectly enhance Regulations implementing this Service and State conservation agencies. national and international cooperation interagency cooperation provision of the We may issue permits to carry out and coordination of conservation efforts, Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. otherwise prohibited activities enhance research programs, and Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires involving endangered and threatened encourage the development of Federal agencies to confer with the wildlife species under certain mitigation measures that could help Service on any action that is likely to circumstances. Regulations governing slow habitat loss and population jeopardize the continued existence of a permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for declines. In addition, the development species proposed for listing or result in endangered species, and at 17.32 for of a recovery plan will guide efforts destruction or adverse modification of threatened species. With regard to intended to ensure the long-term

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7888 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

survival and eventual recovery of the due to the small scale of the habitat skins may be transported in interstate lower 48 states DPS of the wolverine. alteration involved in these sorts of trade without permits. activities, we conclude that the overall In this proposed rule, we include a Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the impact of these activities is not prohibition against incidental take of Act significant to the conservation of the wolverine in the course of legal trapping Whenever a species is listed as a species. Dispersed recreation like activities directed at other species. threatened species under the Act, the snowmobiling and back country skiing, However, documented take of wolverine Secretary may specify regulations that and warm season activities like from incidental trapping has been low. he deems necessary and advisable to backpacking and hunting, occur over In the 2008–2009 trapping season, two provide for the conservation of that larger scales; however, there is little wolverines were incidentally killed in species under the authorization of evidence to suggest that these activities traps set for other species in Beaverhead section 4(d) of the Act. These rules, may affect wolverines significantly or and Granite Counties, Montana commonly referred to as ‘‘special rules,’’ have a significant effect on conservation (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks are found in part 17 of title 50 of the of the DPS. Preliminary evidence 2010, p. 2). In Idaho, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in suggests that wolverines can coexist Department of Agriculture Wildlife §§ 17.40–17.48. This special rule for amid high levels of dispersed motorized Services trapped three wolverines (one § 17.40 would prohibit take of any and nonmotorized use (Heinenmeyer et each in 2004, 2005, and 2010) incidental wolverine in the contiguous United al. 2012, entire), possibly shifting to trapping wolves involved in livestock States when associated with or related activity to avoid the most heavily used depredations. One of these sustained to trapping, hunting, shooting, areas within their home ranges. severe injuries and was euthanized. We collection, capturing, pursuing, Transportation corridors and urban are requesting the public, Federal wounding, killing, and trade. In this development in valley bottoms between agencies, and the affected State fish and context, any activity where wolverines patches of wolverine habitat may inhibit wildlife agencies to submit public are attempted to be, or are intended to individual wolverines’ movement comments on this issue, including any be, trapped, hunted, shot, captured, or between habitat patches; however, State management plans related to collected, in the contiguous United wolverines have made several long- trapping regulations and any measures States, will be prohibited. It will also be distance movements in the recent past within those plans that may avoid or prohibited to incidentally trap, hunt, that indicates they are able to navigate minimize the risk of wolverine mortality shoot, capture, pursue, or collect current landscapes as they search for from incidental trapping for other wolverines in the course of otherwise new home ranges. As described above, species. legal activities. All otherwise legal we have no evidence to suggest that Critical Habitat activities involving wolverines and their current levels of transportation habitat that are conducted in accordance infrastructure development or Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines with applicable State, Federal, tribal, residential development are a threat to critical habitat as ‘‘(i) the specific areas and local laws and regulations are not the DPS or will become one in the within the geographical area occupied considered to be take under this future. by the species, at the time it is listed regulation. This includes activities that Land management activities * * * on which are found those occur in and may modify wolverine (principally timber harvest, wildland physical or biological features (I) habitat such as those described below. firefighting, prescribed fire, and Essential to the conservation of the In this proposed listing rule, we silviculture) can modify wolverine species and (II) which may require identified several risk factors for the habitat, but this generalist species special management considerations or wolverine DPS that, in concert with appears to be little affected by changes protection; and (ii) specific areas climate change, may result in reduced to the vegetative characteristics of its outside the geographical area occupied habitat value for the species. These risk habitat. In addition, most wolverine by the species at the time it is listed factors include human activities like habitat occurs at high elevations in * * * upon a determination by the dispersed recreation, land management rugged terrain that is not conducive to Secretaries of Commerce and Interior activities by Federal agencies and intensive forms of silviculture and that such areas are essential for the private landowners, and infrastructure timber harvest. Therefore, we anticipate conservation of the species.’’ Section development. However, the scale at that habitat modifications resulting from 3(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also which these activities occur is relatively these types of land management defines the terms ‘‘conserve,’’ small compared to the average size of activities would not significantly affect ‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ to wolverine’s home range, between 300 the conservation of the DPS, as we mean ‘‘to use and the use of all methods and 500 km2 (186 and 310 mi2). For described above. and procedures which are necessary to example, ski resorts constitute the The proposed special rule under bring any endangered species or largest developments in wolverine section 4(d) of the Act will provide for threatened species to the point at which habitats. In Colorado, the state with the the possession and take of wolverines the measures provided pursuant to this most ski resorts in the range of the that are (1) legally held at the time of chapter are no longer necessary.’’ wolverine, ski resort developments listing (2) legally imported pursuant to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and cover only 0.6 percent of available applicable Federal and state statutes, or implementing regulations (50 CFR wolverine habitat (Colorado Division of (3) captively bred without a permit. The 424.12) require that, to the maximum Wildlife 2010, p. 16). Other special rule will also allow the extent prudent and determinable, we developments are more localized still, continuation of the export of captive- designate critical habitat at the time a such as mines and small infrastructure. bred wolverines provided applicable species is determined to be an It is possible that these forms of habitat Federal and state laws are followed, and endangered or threatened species. alteration may affect individual provide for the transportation of Critical habitat may only be designated wolverines, by causing the temporary wolverine skins in commerce within the within the jurisdiction of the United movement of a few individuals within United States. The export skins from States, and may not be designated for or outside of their home ranges during wolverines documented as captive-bred jurisdictions outside of the United or shortly after construction. However, will be permitted. Legally possessed States (50 CFR 424(h)). Our regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7889

(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), information unless it displays a designation of critical habitat is not we will seek the expert opinions of at currently valid OMB control number. prudent when one or both of the least three appropriate and independent National Environmental Policy Act (42 following situations exist: (1) The specialists regarding this proposed rule. U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) species is threatened by taking or other The purpose of peer review is to ensure activity and the identification of critical that our listing determination and We have determined that habitat can be expected to increase the critical habitat designation are based on environmental assessments and degree of threat to the species; or (2) scientifically sound data, assumptions, environmental impact statements, as such designation of critical habitat and analyses. We have invited these defined under the authority of the would not be beneficial to the species. peer reviewers to comment during this National Environmental Policy Act of Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) public comment period. 1969, need not be prepared in further state that critical habitat is not We will consider all comments and connection with listing a species as an determinable when one or both of the information received during this endangered or threatened species under following situations exists: (1) comment period on this proposed rule the Endangered Species Act. We Information sufficient to perform during our preparation of a final published a notice outlining our reasons required analysis of the impacts of the determination. Accordingly, the final for this determination in the Federal designation is lacking; or (2) the decision may differ from this proposal. Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR biological needs of the species are not 49244). sufficiently well known to permit Required Determinations References Cited identification of an area as critical Clarity of the Rule habitat. A complete list of all references cited Delineation of critical habitat Executive Order 12866 requires each in this proposed rule is available on the requires, within the geographical area agency to write regulations that are easy Internet at http://www.regulations.gov occupied by the DPS of the North to understand. We invite your or upon request from the Field American wolverine in the contiguous comments on how to make this rule Supervisor, Montana Ecological United States, identification of the easier to understand including answers Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER physical and biological features to questions such as the following: (1) INFORMATION CONTACT section). essential to the conservation of the Are the requirements in the rule clearly species. In general terms, physical and stated? (2) Does the rule contain Authors biological features essential to the technical language or jargon that The primary authors of this proposed wolverine may include (1) Areas interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the rule are the staff members of the defined by persistent spring snowpack format of the rule (grouping and order Montana Ecological Services Field and (2) areas with avalanche debris of sections, use of headings, Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (bottom of avalanche chutes where large paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its CONTACT). trees, rocks, and other debris are swept) clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to and talus slopes or boulder fields understand if it were divided into more List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 (debris piles of large rocks, trees, and (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the Endangered and threatened species, branches) in which females can description of the rule in the Exports, Imports, Reporting and construct dens which provide security SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of recordkeeping requirements, and from large predators and buffer against the preamble helpful in understanding Transportation. wind and low temperatures. the rule? What else could we do to make Information regarding the wolverine’s the rule easier to understand? Proposed Regulation Promulgation life functions and habitats associated with these functions has expanded Send a copy of any comments that Accordingly, we propose to amend greatly in recent years. We need concern how we could make this rule part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title additional time to assess the potential easier to understand to Office of 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, impact of a critical habitat designation, Regulatory Affairs, Department of the as set forth below: Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., including whether there will be any PART 17—[AMENDED] benefit to wolverine from such a Washington, DC 20240. You also may designation. A careful assessment of the email the comments to this address: [email protected]. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 habitats that may qualify for designation continues to read as follows: as critical habitat will require a Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– thorough assessment in light of U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) projected climate change and other 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. threats. At this time, we also need more This rule does not contain any new time to analyze the comprehensive data collections of information that require ■ 2. In § 17.11(h) add entries for to identify specific areas appropriate for approval by Office of Management and ‘‘Wolverine, North American’’ to the critical habitat designation. Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork List of Endangered and Threatened Accordingly, we find designation of Reduction Act. This rule will not Wildlife in alphabetical order under critical habitat to be ‘‘not determinable’’ impose recordkeeping or reporting Mammals to read as set forth below: at this time. requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Peer Review organizations. An agency may not wildlife. In accordance with our joint policy on conduct or sponsor, and a person is not * * * * * peer review published in the Federal required to respond to, a collection of (h) * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 7890 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Wolverine, North Gulo gulo luscus ..... U.S.A. (Alaska and Where found within T ...... NA 17.40(a) American. northern contig- contiguous uous States); U.S.A., except Canada. where listed as an experimental pop- ulation. Wolverine, North Gulo gulo luscus ..... U.S.A. (Alaska and U.S.A. (specified XN ...... NA 17.84(d) American. northern contig- portions of CO, uous States); NM, and WY; see Canada. 17.84(d)).

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by revising Dated: January 16, 2013. taking of the wolverine within the paragraph (a) to read as follows: Rowan W. Gould, defined NEP area. The proposed action Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife would not result in reintroduction of the § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. Service. wolverine; rather, the NEP area (a) Wolverine, North American (Gulo [FR Doc. 2013–01478 Filed 2–1–13; 8:45 am] designation would provide the gulo luscus). BILLING CODE 4310–55–P regulatory assurances necessary to facilitate a State-led reintroduction (1) Which populations of the North effort, should the state of Colorado American wolverine are covered by this DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR determine to reintroduce the wolverine. special rule? This rule covers the The best available data indicate that distribution of this species in the Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduction of the wolverine into the contiguous United States. Southern Rocky Mountains is (2) What activities are prohibited? 50 CFR Part 17 biologically feasible and will promote Any activity where wolverines are [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2012–0106] conservation of the species. attempted to be, or are intended to be, DATES: Comment submission: We will trapped, hunted, shot, captured, or RIN 1018–AZ22 accept comments received or collected, in the contiguous United postmarked on or before May 6, 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife States, will be prohibited. It will also be Please note that if you are using the and Plants; Establishment of a prohibited to incidentally trap, hunt, Federal eRulemaking Portal (see Nonessential Experimental Population shoot, capture, pursue, or collect ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting of the North American Wolverine in wolverines in the course of otherwise an electronic comment is Eastern Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico legal activities. Standard Time on this date. Public (3) What activities are allowed? AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, meeting: We will hold a public hearing Incidental take of wolverines will not be Interior. on March 19, 2013 at the Hampton Inn, a violation of section 9 of the Act, if it ACTION: Proposed rule. 137 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, CO occurs from any other otherwise legal 80228. A public informational session activities involving wolverines and their SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and will be held at the same location from habitat that are conducted in accordance Wildlife Service, propose to establish a 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. followed by with applicable State, Federal, tribal, nonessential experimental population speaker registration at 6:00 p.m. and and local laws and regulations. Such (NEP) area for the North American then the public hearing for oral activities occurring in wolverine habitat wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) in the testimony from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. include: Southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado, People needing reasonable northern New Mexico, and southern accommodations in order to attend and (i) Dispersed recreation such as Wyoming. The distinct population participate in the public hearing should snowmobiling, skiing, backpacking, and segment (DPS) of the North American contact Brent Esmoil, Montana hunting for other species; wolverine occurring in the contiguous Ecological Services Field Office, as soon (ii) Management activities by Federal United States is proposed for Federal as possible (see FOR FURTHER agencies and private landowners such listing as a threatened species under the INFORMATION CONTACT). as timber harvest, wildland firefighting, Endangered Species Act. We propose to ADDRESSES: You may submit comments prescribed fire, and silviculture; establish the NEP area for the wolverine by one of the following methods: (iii) Transportation corridor and in the Southern Rockies portion of the Electronically: Go to the Federal urban development; DPS under section 10(j) of the eRulemaking Portal: http:// Endangered Species Act, and to classify www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, (iv) Mining; any wolverines introduced into the area enter FWS–R6–ES–2012–0106, which is (v) Transportation and trade of legally as a nonessential experimental the docket number for this rulemaking. possessed wolverine skins and skins population within the Southern Rocky Then, in the Search panel on the left from captive-bred wolverines within the Mountains. This proposed rule provides side of the screen, under the Document United States. a plan for establishing the NEP area and Type heading, click on the Proposed * * * * * provides for allowable legal incidental Rules link to locate this document. You

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Feb 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP2.SGM 04FEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2