Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 435

(3) Reporting. Unless the permittee is your NOI, but you are not required to normal business hours at the U.S. Fish relying on another entity to satisfy its file the periodic reports.* * * and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Fish NPDES permit obligations under * * * * * and Wildlife Field Office, 4700 BLM § 122.35(a), the permit must require the [FR Doc. 2015–33174 Filed 1–5–16; 8:45 am] Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507–2546. Please permittee to submit annual reports to BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submit any new information, materials, the NPDES permitting authority for the comments, or questions concerning this first permit term. For subsequent permit finding to the above street address. terms, the permit must require that DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: permittee to submit reports in year two Soch Lor, Field Supervisor, Anchorage and four unless the NPDES permitting Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see authority requires more frequent ADDRESSES); by telephone at 907–271– reports. The report must include: 50 CFR Part 17 2787; or by facsimile at 907–271–2786. (i) The status of compliance with If you use a telecommunications device permit conditions, an assessment of the [Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2015–0167; for the deaf (TDD), please call the appropriateness of the permittee’s FF07C00000 FXES11190700000 167F1611MD] Federal Information Relay Service identified best management practices (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. and progress towards achieving its Endangered and Threatened Wildlife identified measurable goals for each of and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the minimum control measures; Petition To List the Alexander Background (ii) Results of information collected Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered or and analyzed, including monitoring Threatened Species Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 data, if any, during the reporting period; U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for (iii) A summary of the storm water AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, any petition to revise the Federal Lists activities the permittee plans to Interior. of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife undertake during the next reporting ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition and Plants that contains substantial cycle; finding. scientific or commercial information (iv) A change in any identified best that listing the species may be management practices or measurable SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and warranted, we make a finding within 12 goals for any of the minimum control Wildlife Service (Service), announce a months of the date of receipt of the measures; and 12-month finding on a petition to list petition. In this finding, we will (v) Notice that the permittee is relying the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis determine that the petitioned action is: on another governmental entity to lupus ligoni) as an endangered or (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) satisfy some of the permit obligations (if threatened species and to designate warranted, but the immediate proposal applicable), consistent with § 122.35(a). critical habitat under the Endangered of a regulation implementing the (e) Qualifying local program. If an Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). petitioned action is precluded by other existing qualifying local program The petitioners provided three listing pending proposals to determine whether requires the permittee to implement one options for consideration by the Service: species are endangered or threatened, or more of the minimum control Listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf and expeditious progress is being made measures of paragraph (b) of this throughout its range; listing Prince of to add or remove qualified species from section, the NPDES permitting authority Wales Island (POW) as a significant the Federal Lists of Endangered and may include conditions in the NPDES portion of its range; or listing the Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section permit that direct the permittee to population on Prince of Wales Island as 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we follow that qualifying program’s a distinct population segment (DPS). treat a petition for which the requested requirements rather than the After review of the best available action is found to be warranted but requirements of paragraph (b) of this scientific and commercial information, precluded as though resubmitted on the section. A qualifying local program is a we find that listing the Alexander date of such finding, that is, requiring a local, State or Tribal municipal Archipelago wolf is not warranted at subsequent finding to be made within stormwater management program that this time throughout all or a significant 12 months. We must publish these 12- imposes the relevant requirements of portion of its range, including POW. We month findings in the Federal Register. paragraph (b) of this section. also find that the Alexander ■ This finding is based upon the ‘‘Status 4. Amend § 122.35 by revising the Archipelago wolf population on POW Assessment for the Alexander second and third sentences of paragraph does not not meet the criteria of the Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus ligoni)’’ (a)(3) to read as follows: Service’s DPS policy, and, therefore, it (Service 2015, entire) (hereafter, Status does not constitute a listable entity Assessment) and the scientific analyses § 122.35 As an operator of a regulated under the Act. We ask the public to small MS4, may I share the responsibility to of available information prepared by implement the minimum control measures submit to us any new information that Service biologists from the Anchorage with other entities. becomes available concerning the Fish and Wildlife Field Office, the (a) * * * threats to the Alexander Archipelago Alaska Regional Office, and the (3) * * * In the reports you must wolf or its habitat at any time. Headquarters Office. The Status submit under § 122.34(d)(3), you must DATES: The finding announced in this Assessment contains the best scientific also specify that you rely on another document was made on January 6, 2016. and commercial data available entity to satisfy some of your permit ADDRESSES: This finding is available on concerning the status of the Alexander obligations. If you are relying on another the Internet at http:// Archipelago wolf, including the past, governmental entity regulated under www.regulations.gov at Docket No. present, and future stressors. As such, section 122 to satisfy all of your permit FWS–R7–ES–2015–0167. Supporting the Status Assessment provides the obligations, including your obligation to documentation we used in preparing scientific basis that informs our file periodic reports required by this finding will be available for public regulatory decision in this document, § 122.34(d)(3), you must note that fact in inspection, by appointment, during which involves the further application

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

of standards within the Act and its Alexander Archipelago wolf under the work on a 12-month finding for the implementing regulations and policies. revised Tongass Land and Resource Alexander Archipelago wolf. Management Plan. Therefore, the On September 14, 2015, the Service Previous Federal Actions Service reopened the public comment received a petition to list on an On December 17, 1993, the Service period on the status review of the emergency basis the Alexander received a petition, from the Alexander Archipelago wolf from June Archipelago wolf as an endangered or Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Eric 12, 1997, to July 28, 1997 (62 FR 32070, threatened species under the Act. The Holle, and Martin Berghoffen, to list the June 12, 1997), and we then reevaluated petition for emergency listing was Alexander Archipelago wolf as an all of the best available information on submitted by Alaska Wildlife Alliance, endangered or threatened species under the Alexander Archipelago wolf, as well Cascadia Wildlands, Center for the Act. On May 20, 1994, we as long-term habitat projections for the Biological Diversity, Greater Southeast announced a 90-day finding that the Tongass National Forest included in the Alaska Conservation Community, petition presented substantial 1997 Tongass Land and Resource Greenpeace, and The Boat Company. information indicating that the Management Plan Revision. On The petitioners stated that harvest of the requested action may be warranted, and September 4, 1997, we published a 12- Alexander Archipelago wolf in Game we initiated a status review of the month finding that listing the Alexander Management Unit (GMU) 2, in light of Alexander Archipelago wolf and opened Archipelago wolf was not warranted (62 an observed recent population decline, a public comment period until July 19, FR 46709). would put the population in danger of 1994 (59 FR 26476). On August 26, On August 10, 2011, we received a extinction. On September 28, 2015, the 1994, we reopened the comment period petition dated August 10, 2011, from the Service acknowledged receipt of the on the status review to accept comments Center for Biological Diversity and petition for emergency listing to each of until October 1, 1994 (59 FR 44122). Greenpeace, requesting that the the petitioners. In those letters, we The Service issued its 12-month finding Alexander Archipelago wolf be listed as indicated that we would continue to that listing the Alexander Archipelago an endangered or threatened species evaluate the status of the Alexander wolf was not warranted on February 23, under the Act and critical habitat be Archipelago wolf as part of the 1995 (60 FR 10056). designated. Included in the petition was settlement agreement and that if at any On February 7, 1996, the Southwest supporting information regarding the point we determined that emergency Center for Biological Diversity, subspecies’ taxonomy and ecology, listing was warranted, an emergency Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Save the distribution, abundance and population rule may be promptly developed. West, Save America’s Forests, Native trends, causes of mortality, and This document constitutes the 12- Forest Network, Native Forest Council, conservation status. The petitioners also month finding on the August 10, 2011, Eric Holle, Martin Berghoffen, and Don requested that we consider: (1) Prince of petition to list the Alexander Muller filed suit in the U.S. Court for Wales Island (POW) as a significant Archipelago wolf as an endangered or the District of Columbia challenging the portion of the range of the Alexander threatened species. For additional Service’s not-warranted finding. On Archipelago wolf; and (2) wolves on information and a detailed discussion of October 9, 1996, the U.S. District Court POW and nearby islands as a distinct the taxonomy, physical description, remanded the 12-month finding to the population segment. We note here that distribution, demography, and habitat of Secretary of the Interior, instructing him a significant portion of the range is not the Alexander Archipelago wolf, please to reconsider the determination ‘‘on the a listable entity in and of itself, but see the Status Assessment for Alexander basis of the current forest plan, and instead provides an independent basis Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) status of the wolf and its habitat, as they for listing and is part of our analysis to (Service 2015, entire) available under stand today’’ (96 CV 00227 DDC). The determine whether or not listing as an Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2015–0167 at Court later agreed to the Service’s endangered or threatened species is http://www.regulations.gov, or from the proposal to issue a new finding on June warranted. We published the 90-day Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field 1, 1997. On December 5, 1996, we finding for the Alexander Archipelago Office (see ADDRESSES). published a document announcing the wolf on March 31, 2014, stating that the Current Taxonomy Description continuation of the status review for the petition presented substantial Alexander Archipelago wolf and information indicating that listing may Goldman (1937, pp. 39–40) was the opening a public comment period until be warranted (79 FR 17993). first to propose the Alexander January 21, 1997 (61 FR 64496). The On June 20, 2014, the Center for Archipelago wolf as a subspecies of the comment period was then extended or Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, Inc., gray wolf. He described C. l. ligoni as a reopened through three subsequent and The Boat Company (collectively, dark colored subspecies of medium size publications (61 FR 69065, December plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the and short pelage (fur) that occupied the 31, 1996; 62 FR 6930, February 14, Service for failure to complete a 12- Alexander Archipelago and adjacent 1997; 62 FR 14662, March 27, 1997), month finding for the Alexander mainland of southeastern Alaska. until it closed on April 4, 1997. Archipelago wolf within the statutory Additional morphometric analyses Prior to the publication of a 12-month timeframe. On September 22, 2014, the supported the hypothesis that wolves in finding, however, the U.S. Forest Service and the aforementioned southeastern Alaska were Service (USFS) issued the 1997 Tongass plaintiffs entered into a stipulated phenotypically distinct from other gray Land and Resource Management Plan settlement agreement stating that the wolves in Alaska (Pedersen 1982, pp. Revision, which superseded the 1979 Service shall review the status of the 345, 360), although results also version of the plan. In keeping with the Alexander Archipelago wolf and submit indicated similarities with wolves that U.S. District Court’s order that a finding to the Federal Register a 12-month historically occupied coastal British be based upon the ‘‘current forest plan,’’ finding as to whether listing as Columbia, Vancouver Island, and the District Court granted us an endangered or threatened is warranted, perhaps the contiguous western United extension until August 31, 1997, to not warranted, or warranted but States (Nowak 1983, pp. 14–15; Friis issue our 12-month finding so that the precluded by other pending proposals, 1985, p. 82). Collectively, these findings petitioners, the public, and the Service on or before December 31, 2015. In demonstrated that wolves in could reconsider the status of the Fiscal Year 2015, the Service initiated southeastern Alaska had a closer affinity

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 437

to wolves to the south compared to harbored genetic material that also was remnant population of C. l. nubilus. For wolves to the north, suggesting that found only in historical samples of C. l. the purpose of this 12-month finding, either C. l. ligoni was not confined to nubilus (Chambers et al. 2012, p. 41), we assume that the Alexander southeastern Alaska and its southern suggesting that prior to extirpation of Archipelago wolf (C. l. ligoni) is a valid boundary should be extended wolves by humans in the western subspecies of gray wolf that occupies southward (Friis 1985, p. 78) or that United States, C. l. nubilus extended southeastern Alaska and coastal British C. l. ligoni should be combined with C. northward into coastal British Columbia Columbia and, therefore, is a listable l. nubilus, the subspecies that and southeastern Alaska. However, this entity under the Act. historically occupied the central and study was conducted at a broad spatial western United States (Nowak 1995, p. scale with a focus on evaluating Species Information 396). We discuss these morphological taxonomy of wolves in the eastern and Physical Description studies and others in detail in the Status northeastern United States and therefore Assessment (Service 2015, was not aimed specifically at addressing The Alexander Archipelago wolf has ‘‘Morphological analyses’’). the taxonomic status of coastal wolves been described as being darker and More recently, several molecular in western North America. Further, smaller, with coarser and shorter hair, ecology studies have been conducted on Chambers et al. (2012, p. 41) recognized compared to interior continental gray wolves in southeastern Alaska and that understanding the phylogenetic wolves (Goldman 1937, pp. 39–40; coastal British Columbia, advancing our relationship of coastal wolves to other Wood 1990, p. 1), although a knowledge of wolf taxonomy beyond wolf populations assigned as C. l. comprehensive study or examination morphometric analyses. Generally, nubilus is greatly impeded by the has not been completed. Like most gray results of these genetic studies were extirpation of wolves (and the lack of wolves, fur coloration of Alexander similar, suggesting that coastal wolves historical specimens) in the western Archipelago wolves varies considerably in southeastern Alaska and coastal United States. Lastly, Chambers et al. from pure white to uniform black, with British Columbia are part of the same (2012, p. 2) explicitly noted that their most wolves having a brindled mix of genetic lineage (Breed 2007, pp. 5, 27, views on subspecific designations were gray or tan with brown, black, or white. 30; Weckworth et al. 2011, pp. 2, 5) and not intended as recommendations for Based on harvest records and wolf that they appear to be genetically management units or objects of sightings, the black color phase appears differentiated from interior continental management actions, nor should they be to be more common on the mainland of wolves (Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 924; preferred to alternative legal southeastern Alaska and coastal British Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2009, p. 9; classifications for protection, such as Columbia (20–30 percent) (Alaska Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 368; Cronin those made under the Act. Instead, the Department of Fish and Game [ADFG] et al. 2015, pp. 1, 4–6). However, authors stated that the suitability of a 2012, pp. 5, 18, 24; Darimont and interpretation of the results differed subspecies as a unit for legal purposes Paquet 2000, p. 17) compared to the with regard to subspecific designations; requires further, separate analysis southern islands of the Alexander some authors concluded that the level of weighing legal and policy Archipelago (2 percent) (ADFG 2012, p. genetic differentiation between coastal considerations. 34), and some of the gray-colored and interior continental wolves We acknowledge that the taxonomic wolves have a brownish-red tinge constitutes a distinct coastal subspecies, (Darimont and Paquet 2000, p. 17). The C. l. ligoni (Weckworth et al. 2005, pp. status of wolves in southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia is variation in color phase of Alexander 924, 927; Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2009, p. Archipelago wolves is consistent with 12; Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 372; unresolved and that our knowledge of wolf taxonomy in general is evolving as the level of variation observed in other Weckworth et al. 2011, p. 6), while gray wolf populations (e.g., Central other authors asserted that it does not more sophisticated and powerful tools become available (Service 2015, Brooks Range, Alaska) (Adams et al. necessitate subspecies status (Cronin et 2008, p. 170). al. 2015, p. 9). Therefore, the ‘‘Uncertainty in taxonomic status’’). subspecific identity, if any, of wolves in Nonetheless, based on our review of the Alexander Archipelago wolves older southeastern Alaska and coastal British best available information, we found than 6 months weigh between 49 and Columbia remained unresolved. As a persuasive evidence suggesting that 115 pounds (22 and 52 kilograms), with cautionary note, the inference of these wolves in southeastern Alaska and males averaging 83 pounds (38 genetic studies depends on the type of coastal British Columbia currently form kilograms) and females averaging 69 genetic marker used and the spatial and an ecological and genetic unit worthy of pounds (31 kilograms) (British temporal extent of the samples analysis under the Act. Although zones Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands analyzed; we review these studies and of intergradation exist, contemporary and Natural Resource Operations their key findings as they relate to wolf gene flow between coastal and interior [BCMO] 2014, p. 3; Valkenburg 2015, p. taxonomy in detail in the Status continental wolves appears to be low 1). On some islands in the archipelago Assessment (Service 2015, ‘‘Genetic (e.g., Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 923; (e.g., POW) wolves are smaller on analyses’’). Cronin et al. 2015, p. 8), likely due to average compared to those on the In the most recent meta-analysis of physical barriers, but perhaps also mainland, although these differences are wolf taxonomy in North America, related to ecological differences not statistically significant (Valkenburg Chambers et al. (2012, pp. 40–42) found (Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2009, p. 6); 2015, p. 1) (also see Service 2015, evidence for differentiating between moreover, coastal wolves currently ‘‘Physical description’’). The range and coastal and inland wolves, although represent a distinct portion of genetic mean weights of Alexander Archipelago ultimately the authors grouped wolves diversity for all wolves in North wolves are comparable to those of other in southeastern Alaska and coastal America (Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 363; populations of gray wolves that feed British Columbia with wolf populations Weckworth et al. 2011, pp. 5–6). Thus, primarily on deer (Odocoileus spp.; e.g., that historically occupied the central we conclude that at most, wolves in northwestern Minnesota) (Mech and and western United States (C. l. southeastern Alaska and coastal British Paul 2008, p. 935), but are lower than nubilus). One of their primary reasons Columbia are a distinct subspecies, C. l. those of adjacent gray wolf populations for doing so was because coastal wolves ligoni, of gray wolf, and at least, are a that regularly feed on larger ungulates

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

such as moose (Alces americanus) (e.g., Alexander Archipelago wolf lies within intergradation zones of variable width Adams et al. 2008, p. 8). southeastern Alaska where it occurs in with interior continental wolves; all of GMUs 1, 2, 3, and 5, but not GMU outside of them, glaciers and ice fields Distribution and Range 4. See the Status Assessment (Service dominate the higher elevations, The Alexander Archipelago wolf 2015, ‘‘Geographic scope’’) for a more separating the coastal forests from the currently occurs along the mainland of detailed explanation on delineation of adjacent inland forest in continental southeastern Alaska and coastal British the range. Canada. Columbia and on several island The historical range of the Alexander Within the range of the Alexander complexes, which comprise more than Archipelago wolf, since the late Archipelago wolf, land stewardship 22,000 islands of varying size, west of Pleistocene period when the last glacial the Coast Mountain Range. Wolves are ice sheets retreated, was similar to the largely lies with State, provincial, and found on all of the larger islands except current range with one minor exception. Federal governments. In southeastern Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof Between 1950 and 1970, wolves on Alaska, the majority (76 percent) of the islands and all of the Haida Gwaii, or Vancouver Island likely were extirpated land is located within the Tongass Queen Charlotte Islands (see Figure 1, by humans (Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2010, National Forest and is managed by the below) (Person et al. 1996, p. 1; BCMO pp. 547–548; Chambers et al. 2012, p. USFS. The National Park Service 2014, p. 14). The range of the Alexander 41); recolonization of the island by manages 12 percent of the land, most of Archipelago wolf is approximately wolves from mainland British Columbia which is within Glacier Bay National 84,595 square miles (mi2) (219,100 occurred naturally and wolves currently Park. The remainder of the land in square kilometers [km2]), stretching occupy Vancouver Island. southeastern Alaska is managed or roughly 932 mi (1,500 km) in length and In southeastern Alaska and coastal owned by the State of Alaska (4 155 mi (250 km) in width, although the British Columbia, the landscape is percent), Native Corporations (3 northern, eastern, and southern dominated by coniferous temperate percent), and other types of ownership boundaries are porous and are not rainforests, interspersed with other (e.g., private, municipal, tribal defined sharply. habitat types such as sphagnum bogs, reservation; 5 percent). In British The majority (67 percent) of the range sedge-dominated fens, alpine areas, and Columbia (entire), most (94 percent) of of the Alexander Archipelago wolf falls numerous lakes, rivers, and estuaries. the land and forest are owned by the within coastal British Columbia, where The topography is rugged with Province of British Columbia (i.e., wolves occupy all or portions of four numerous deep, glacially-carved fjords Crown lands), 4 percent is privately management ‘‘regions.’’ These include and several major river systems, some of owned, 1 percent is owned by the Region 1 (entire), Region 2 (83 percent which penetrate the Coast Mountain federal government, and the remaining of entire region), Region 5 (22 percent of Range, connecting southeastern Alaska 1 percent is owned by First Nations and entire region), and Region 6 (17 percent and coastal British Columbia with others (British Columbia Ministry of of entire region) (see Figure 1, below). interior British Columbia and Yukon Forests, Mines, and Lands 2010, p. 121). Thirty-three percent of the range of the Territory. These corridors serve as BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 439

60"N

140"W

l \

\ \

Alexander Archipelago wolf range

- International border ------Management unit boundaries

0 50 100 200 Miles

Figure 1. Assumed range of the Alexander Archipelago wolfwith Game Management Unit (GMU) boundaries in southeastern Alaska, as used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Region boundaries in coastal British Columbia, as used by the Ministry afForests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations.

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C this 12-month finding, we considered a 2013, p. 3). We delineated wolves into Life History population to be a collection of populations based on GMUs in individuals of a species in a defined southeastern Alaska and Regions in In this section, we briefly describe area; the individuals in a population British Columbia (coastal portions only) vital rates and population dynamics, including population connectivity, of may or may not breed with other groups because these are defined areas and wolf the Alexander Archipelago wolf. For of that species in other places (Mills populations are managed at these spatial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP06JA16.000 440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

scales (see Figure 1). For example, GMU ungulate biomass, and, based on these other landscape features that created 2 comprises one population of wolves data, the provincial wolf population as openings in the forest (Person and on POW and adjacent islands. a whole has been stable or slightly Russell 2008, pp. 1545–1546). increasing since 2000 (Kuzyk and Hatter In 2012, another study was initiated Abundance and Trend 2014, p. 881). In Regions 1, 2, 5, and 6, (and is ongoing) in GMU 2 that involves Using the most recent and best where the Alexander Archipelago wolf collaring wolves, but too few animals available information, we estimate a occurs in all or a portion of each of have been collared so far to estimate current, rangewide population of 850– these regions (see Distribution and annual survival reliably (n = 12 wolves 2,700 Alexander Archipelago wolves. Range, above), the same trend has been between 2012 and May 2015). The majority (roughly 62 percent) observed (BCMO 2015a, p. 1). Because Nonetheless, of those 12 animals, 5 died occurs in coastal British Columbia with estimates of population trend are not from legal harvest, 3 from unreported approximately 200–650 wolves in the specific to the coastal portions of these harvest, and 1 from natural causes; southern portion (Regions 1 and 2; regions only, we make the necessary additionally, the fate of 2 wolves is about 24 percent of rangewide scientific assumption that the trend unknown and 1 wolf is alive still (ADFG population) and 300–1,050 wolves in reported for the entire region is 2015b, p. 4). Thus, overall, harvest of the northern portion (Regions 5 and 6; reflective of the trend in the coastal Alexander Archipelago wolves by about 38 percent of rangewide portion of the region. This assumption humans has accounted for most of the population) (see Figure 1). In applies only to Regions 5 and 6, where mortality of collared wolves in GMU 2. southeastern Alaska, we estimate that small portions (22 and 17 percent, Our review of the best available currently the mainland (GMUs 1 and respectively) of the region fall within information did not reveal any estimates 5A) contains 150–450 wolves (about 18 the range of the Alexander Archipelago of annual survival or mortality of percent of rangewide population), the wolf; all of Region 1 and nearly all (83 wolves on other islands or the mainland islands in the middle portion of the area percent) of Region 2 are within the of southeastern Alaska and coastal (GMU 3) contain 150–350 wolves (about range of the coastal wolf (see Figure 1). British Columbia. 14 percent of rangewide population), Thus, based on the best available Dispersal and Connectivity and the southwestern set of islands information, we found that the wolf (GMU 2) has 50–159 wolves (95 percent populations in coastal British Columbia Similar to gray wolves, Alexander confidence intervals [CI], mean = 89 have been stable or slightly increasing Archipelago wolves either remain in wolves; about 6 percent of rangewide over the last 15 years. See the Status their natal pack or disperse (Person et population) (Person et al. 1996, p. 13; Assessment (Service 2015, ‘‘Abundance al. 1996, p. 10), here defined as ADFG 2015a, p. 2). Our estimates are and density’’) for a more thorough permanent movement of an individual based on a variety of direct and indirect description of data assumptions and away from its pack of origin. Dispersers methods with the only empirical caveats. typically search for a new pack to join estimate available for GMU 2, which or associate with other wolves and comprises POW and surrounding Reproduction and Survival ultimately form a new pack in vacant islands. See the Status Assessment Similar to the gray wolf, sizes of territories or in vacant areas adjacent to (Service 2015, ‘‘Abundance and litters of the Alexander Archipelago established territories. Dispersal can density’’) for details on derivation, wolf can vary substantially (1–8 pups, occur within or across populations; assumptions, and caveats. mean = 4.1) with inexperienced when it occurs across populations, then Similar to abundance, direct estimates breeding females producing fewer pups population connectivity is achieved. of population trend of the Alexander than older, more experienced mothers Both dispersal and connectivity Archipelago wolf are available only for (Person and Russell 2009, p. 216). contribute significantly to the health of GMU 2 in southeastern Alaska. In this Although uncommon, some packs fail to individual populations as well as the GMU, fall population size has been exhibit denning behavior or produce taxon as a whole. estimated on four occasions (1994, 2003, litters in a given year, and no pack has Dispersal rates of the Alexander 2013, and 2014). Between 1994 and been observed with multiple litters Archipelago wolf are available only for 2014, the population was reduced from (Person and Russell 2009, p. 216). Age GMU 2, where the annual rate of 356 wolves (95 percent CI = 148–564) of first breeding of the Alexander dispersal of radio-collared wolves was (Person et al. 1996, pp. 11–12; ADFG Archipelago wolf is about 22 to 34 39 percent (95 percent CI = 23 percent, 2014, pp. 2–4) to 89 wolves (95 percent months (Person et al. 1996, p. 8). n = 18) with adults greater than 2 years CI = 50–159) (ADFG 2015a, pp. 1–2), We found only one study that of age composing 79 percent of all equating to an apparent decline of 75 estimated survival rates of Alexander dispersers (Person and Ingle 1995, p. percent (standard error [SE] = 15), or 6.7 Archipelago wolves. Based on radio- 20). Minimum dispersal distances from percent (SE = 2.8) annually. Although collared wolves in GMU 2 between 1994 the point of capture and radio-collaring the numerical change in population size and 2004, Person and Russell (2008, p. ranged between 8 and 113 mi (13 and over the 20-year period is notable, the 1545) reported mean annual survival 182 km); all dispersing wolves remained confidence intervals of the individual rate of wolves greater than 4 months old in GMU 2 (Person and Ingle 1995, p. point estimates overlap. The most as 0.54 (SE = 0.17); survival did not 23). Successful dispersal of individuals severe reduction occurred over a single differ between age classes or sexes, but tends to be short in duration and year (2013–2014), when the population was higher for resident wolves (0.65, SE distance in part because survival of dropped by 60 percent and the = 0.17) compared to nonresidents (i.e., dispersing wolves is low (annual proportion of females in the sample was wolves not associated with a pack; 0.34, survival rate = 0.16) (e.g., Peterson et al. reduced from 0.57 (SE = 0.13) to 0.25 SE = 0.17). Average annual rates of 1984, p. 29; Person and Russell 2008, p. (SE = 0.11) (ADFG 2015a, p. 2). In the mortality attributed to legal harvest, 1547). remainder of southeastern Alaska, the unreported harvest, and natural Owing to the rugged terrain and trend of wolf populations is not known. mortality were 0.23 (SE = 0.12), 0.19 (SE island geography across most of In British Columbia, regional = 0.11), and 0.04 (SE = 0.05), southeastern Alaska and coastal British estimates of wolf population abundance respectively, and these rates were Columbia, population connectivity are generated regularly using indices of correlated positively with roads and probably is more limited for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 441

Alexander Archipelago wolf compared review key aspects of these studies in 430; Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 331; to the gray wolf that inhabits interior more detail in the Status Assessment Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1871; Darimont continental North America. Of the 67 (Service 2015, ‘‘Genetic analyses,’’ et al. 2009, p. 130; Lafferty et al. 2014, Alexander Archipelago wolves radio- ‘‘Genetic connectivity’’). p. 145). Other prey species regularly collared in GMU 2, none emigrated to a Collectively, the best available consumed, depending on availability, different GMU (Person and Ingle 1995, information suggests that demographic include American beaver (Castor p. 23; ADFG 2015c, p. 2); similarly, and genetic connectivity among canadensis), hoary marmot (Marmota none of the four wolves collared in Alexander Archipelago wolf caligata), mustelid species (Mustelidae northern southeastern Alaska (GMU 1C populations exists, but at low levels for spp.), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and and 1D) attempted long-distance some populations such as that of GMU marine mammals (summarized more dispersal, although the home ranges of 2, likely due to geographical disruptions fully in the Status Assessment, Service these wolves were comparatively large to dispersal and gene flow. Based on the 2015, ‘‘Food habits’’). (ADFG 2015c, p. 2). Yet, of the three range of samples used by Breed (2007, Prey composition in the diet of the wolves opportunistically radio-collared pp. 21–23), gene flow to GMU 2 appears Alexander Archipelago wolf varies on Kupreanof Island (GMU 3), one to be uni-directional, which is across space and time, usually reflecting dispersed to Revillagigedo Island (GMU consistent with the movement data from availability on the landscape, especially 1A) (USFS 2015, p. 1), an event that wolves radio-collared in GMU 2 that for ungulate species that are not required at least four water crossings demonstrated no emigration from that uniformly distributed across the islands with the shortest being about 1.2 mi (2.0 population (ADFG 2015c, p. 2). These and mainland. For instance, mountain km) in length (see Figure 1). Thus, based findings, coupled with the trend of the goats are restricted to the mainland and on movements of radio-collared wolves, GMU 2 wolf population (see Revillagigedo Island (introduced). demographic connectivity appears to be ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above), Similarly, moose occur along the more restricted for some populations suggest that this population may serve mainland and nearby islands as well as than others; however, few data exist as a sink population of the Alexander most of the islands in GMU 3 (e.g., outside of GMU 2, where the lack of Archipelago wolf; conversely, the Kuiu, Kupreanof, Mitkof, and Zarembo emigration is well documented but little northern coastal British Columbian islands); moose distribution is is known about the rate of immigration. population may be a source population expanding in southeastern Alaska and to southern southeastern Alaska, as coastal British Columbia (Darimont et Likewise, we found evidence suggested by Breed (2007, p. 34). This al. 2005, p. 235; Hundertmark et al. suggesting that varying degrees of hypothesis is supported further with 2006, p. 331). Elk also occur only on genetic connectivity exist across genetic information indicating a low some islands in southeastern Alaska populations of the Alexander frequency of private alleles and no (e.g., Etolin Island) and on Vancouver Archipelago wolf, indicating that some unique haplotypes in the wolves Island. Deer are the only ungulate populations are more insular than occupying GMU 2. Nonetheless, we distributed throughout the range of the others. Generally, of the populations recognize that persistence of this Alexander Archipelago wolf, although sampled, gene flow was most restricted population may be dependent on the abundance varies greatly with snow to and from the GMU 2 wolf population health of adjacent populations (e.g., conditions. Generally, deer are (Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 923; Breed GMU 3), but conclude that its abundant in southern coastal British 2007, p. 19; Cronin et al. 2015, demographic and genetic contribution Columbia, where the climate is mild, Supplemental Table 3), although this to the rangewide population likely is with their numbers decreasing population does not appear to be lower than other populations such as northward along the mainland due to completely isolated. Breed (2007, pp. those in coastal British Columbia. increasing snow depths, although they 22–23) classified most wolves in typically occur in high densities on northern coastal British Columbia Ecology islands such as POW, where persistent (Regions 5 and 6) as residents and more In this section, we briefly describe the and deep snow accumulation is less than half of the wolves in the southern ecology, including food habits, social common. portion of southeastern Alaska (GMUs organization, and space and habitat use, Owing to the disparate patterns of 1A and 2) as migrants of mixed of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. ungulate distribution and abundance, ancestry. Further, the frequency of Again, we review each of these topics in some Alexander Archipelago wolf private alleles (based on nuclear DNA) more detail in the Status Assessment populations have a more restricted diet in the GMU 2 wolf population is low (Service 2015, entire). than others. For example, in GMU 2, relative to other Alexander Archipelago deer is the only ungulate species Food Habits wolves (Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 921; available to wolves, but elsewhere Breed 2007, p. 18), and the population Similar to gray wolves, Alexander moose, mountain goat, elk, or a does not harbor unique haplotypes Archipelago wolves are opportunistic combination of these ungulates are (based on mitochondrial DNA), both of predators that eat a variety of prey available. Szepanski et al. (1999, pp. which suggest that complete isolation species, although ungulates compose 330–331) demonstrated that deer and has not occurred. Thus, although some most of their overall diet. Based on scat salmon contributed equally to the diet genetic discontinuities of Alexander and stable isotope analyses, black-tailed of wolves on POW (GMU 2), Kupreanof Archipelago wolves is evident, likely deer (Odocoileus hemionus), moose, Island (GMU 3), and the mainland due to geographical disruptions to mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), (GMUs 1A and 1B) (deer = 45–49 dispersal and gene flow, genetic and elk (Cervus spp.), either percent and salmon = 15–20 percent), connectivity among populations seems individually or in combination, and that ‘‘other herbivores’’ composed to be intact, albeit at low levels for some constitute at least half of the wolf diet the remainder of the diet (34–36 populations (e.g., GMU 2). The scope of across southeastern Alaska and coastal percent). On POW, ‘‘other herbivores’’ inference of these genetic studies British Columbia (Fox and Streveler included only beaver and voles depends on the type of genetic marker 1986, pp. 192–193; Smith et al. 1987, (Microtus spp.), but on Kupreanof used and the spatial and temporal pp. 9–11, 16; Milne et al. 1989, pp. 83– Island, moose also was included, and on extent of the samples analyzed; we 85; Kohira and Rexstad 1997, pp. 429– the mainland, mountain goat was added

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

to the other two herbivore prey species. Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 327). These roads (Person 2001, p. 62), a selection Therefore, we hypothesize that wolves findings and others suggest that marine- pattern that is consistent with den site in GMU 2, and to a lesser extent in parts derived resources are not a distinct characteristics. of GMU 3, are more vulnerable to component of the diet of the Alexander Alexander Archipelago wolves den in changes in deer abundance compared to Archipelago wolf. Nonetheless, marine root wads of large living or dead trees other wolf populations that have a more prey provide alternate food resources to in low-elevation, old-growth forests near diverse ungulate prey base available to coastal wolves during periods of the freshwater and away from logged stands them. year with high food and energy and roads, when possible (Darimont and Given the differences in prey demands (e.g., provisioning of pups Paquet 2000, pp. 17–18; Person and availability throughout the range of the when salmon are spawning; Darimont et Russell 2009, pp. 211, 217, 220). Of 25 Alexander Archipelago wolf, some al. 2008, pp. 5, 7–8) and when and wolf dens monitored in GMU 2, the general patterns in their food habits where abundance of terrestrial prey is majority (67 percent) were located exist. On the northern mainland of low. adjacent to ponds or streams with active southeastern Alaska, where deer occur beaver colonies (Person and Russell in low densities, wolves primarily eat Social Organization 2009, p. 216). Although active dens moose and mountain goat (Fox and Wolves are social animals that live in have been located near clearcuts and Streveler 1986, pp. 192–193; Lafferty et packs usually composed of one breeding roads, researchers postulate that those al. 2014, p. 145). As one moves farther pair (i.e., alpha male and female) plus dens probably were used because south and deer become more abundant, offspring of 1 to 2 years old. The pack suitable alternatives were not available they are increasingly represented in the is a year-round unit, although all (Person and Russell 2009, p. 220). diet, along with correspondingly smaller members of a wolf pack rarely are Home range sizes of Alexander proportions of moose and mountain goat observed together except during winter Archipelago wolves are variable where available (Szepanski et al. 1999, (Person et al. 1996, p. 7). Loss of alpha depending on season and geographic p. 331; Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1869). members of a pack can result in social location. Generally, home ranges are On the outer islands of coastal British disruption and unstable pack dynamics, about 50 percent smaller during Columbia, marine mammals compose a which are complex and shift frequently denning and pup-rearing periods larger portion of the diet compared to as individuals age and gain dominance, compared to other times of year (Person other parts of the range of the Alexander disperse from, establish or join existing 2001, p. 55), and are roughly four times Archipelago wolf (Darimont et al. 2009, packs, breed, and die (Mech 1999, pp. larger on the mainland compared to the p. 130); salmon appear to be eaten 1197–1202). Although loss of breeding islands in southeastern Alaska (ADFG regularly by coastal wolves in low individuals impacts social stability 2015c, p. 2). Person (2001, pp. 66, 84) proportions (less than 20 percent), within the pack, at the population level found correlations between home range although some variation among wolves appear to be resilient enough to size, pack size, and the proportion of populations exists. Generally, the diet of compensate for any negative impacts to ‘‘critical winter deer habitat’’; he wolves in coastal British Columbia population growth (Borg et al. 2015, p. thought that the relation between these appears to be more diverse than in 183). three factors was indicative of a longer- southeastern Alaska (e.g., Kohira and Pack sizes of the Alexander term influence of habitat on deer Rexstad 1997, pp. 429–430; Darimont et Archipelago wolf are difficult to density. We review space and habitat al. 2004, pp. 1869, 1871), consistent estimate owing to the heavy vegetative use of Alexander Archipelago wolf and with a more diverse prey base in the cover throughout most of its range. In Sitka black-tailed deer, the primary prey southern portion of the range of the southeastern Alaska, packs range from item consumed by wolves throughout Alexander Archipelago wolf. We review one to 16 wolves, but usually average 7 most of their range, in detail in the these diet studies and others in the to 9 wolves with larger packs observed Status Assessment (Service 2015, Status Assessment (Service 2015, ‘‘Food in fall than in spring (Smith et al. 1987, ‘‘Space and habitat use’’). pp. 4–7; Person et al. 1996, p. 7; ADFG habits’’). Summary of Species Information One of the apparently unusual aspects 2015c, p. 2). Our review of the best of the Alexander Archipelago wolf diet available information did not reveal In summary, we find that the is consumption of marine-derived foods. information on pack sizes from coastal Alexander Archipelago wolf currently is However, we found evidence suggesting British Columbia. distributed throughout most of that this behavior is not uncommon for southeastern Alaska and coastal British Space and Habitat Use gray wolves in coastal areas or those Columbia with a rangewide population that have inland access to marine prey Similar to gray wolves in North estimate of 850–2,700 wolves. The (e.g., spawning salmon). For example, America, the Alexander Archipelago majority of the range (67 percent) and wolves on the Alaska Peninsula in wolf uses a variety of habitat types and the rangewide population western Alaska have been observed is considered a habitat generalist (approximately 62 percent) occur in catching and eating sea otters (Enhydra (Person and Ingle 1995, p. 30; Mech and coastal British Columbia, where the lutris), using offshore winter sea ice as Boitani 2003, p. xv). Person (2001, pp. population is stable or increasing. In a hunting platform and feeding on 62–63) reported that radiocollared southeastern Alaska, we found trend marine mammal carcasses such as Alexander Archipelago wolves spent information only for the GMU 2 Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus most of their time at low elevation population (approximately 6 percent of divergens) and beluga whale during all seasons (95 percent of the rangewide population) that indicates (Delphinapterus leucas) (Watts et al. locations were below 1,312 feet [ft] [400 a decline of about 75 (SE = 15) percent 2010, pp. 146–147). In addition, Adams m] in elevation), but did not select for since 1994, although variation around et al. (2010, p. 251) found that inland or against any habitat types except the point estimates (n = 4) was wolves in Denali National Park, Alaska, during the pup-rearing season. During substantial. This apparent decline is ate salmon in slightly lower but similar the pup-rearing season, radiocollared consistent with low estimates of annual quantities (3–17 percent of lifetime diet) wolves selected for open- and closed- survival of wolves in GMU 2, with the compared to Alexander Archipelago canopy old-growth forests close to lakes primary source of mortality being wolves (15–20 percent of lifetime diet; and streams and avoided clearcuts and harvest by humans. For the remainder of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 443

southeastern Alaska (about 32 percent of discussed below. In considering what we focus our assessment on this stressor the rangewide population), trends of factors might constitute threats, we must by evaluating possible direct and wolf populations are not known. look beyond the mere exposure of the indirect impacts to the wolf at the Similar to the continental gray wolf, species to the factor to determine population and rangewide levels. We the Alexander Archipelago wolf has whether the species responds to the also consider possible effects of road several life-history and ecological traits factor in a way that causes actual development, oil development, and that contribute to its resiliency, or its impacts to the species. If there is climate-related events on wolf habitat. ability to withstand stochastic exposure to a factor, but no response, or We describe the information presented disturbance events. These traits include only a positive response, that factor is here in more detail in the Status high reproductive potential, ability to not a threat. If there is exposure and the Assessment (Service 2015, ‘‘Cause and disperse long distances (over 100 km), species responds negatively, the factor effect analysis’’). use of a variety of habitats, and a diverse may be a threat; we then attempt to Timber Harvest diet including terrestrial and marine determine if that factor rises to the level prey. However, some of these traits are of a threat, meaning that it may drive or Throughout most of the range of the affected by the island geography and contribute to the risk of extinction of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, timber rugged terrain of most of southeastern species such that the species warrants harvest has altered forested habitats, Alaska and coastal British Columbia. listing as an endangered or threatened especially those at low elevations, that Most notably, we found that species as those terms are defined by the are used by wolves and their prey. demographic and genetic connectivity Act. This does not necessarily require Rangewide, we estimate that 19 percent of some populations, specifically the empirical proof of a threat. The of the productive old-growth forest has GMU 2 population, is low, probably due combination of exposure and some been logged, although it has not to geographical disruptions to dispersal corroborating evidence of how the occurred uniformly across the landscape and gene flow. In addition, not all prey species is likely impacted could suffice. or over time. A higher percentage of species occur throughout the range of The mere identification of factors that productive old-growth forest has been the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and, could impact a species negatively is not logged in coastal British Columbia (24 therefore, some populations have a more sufficient to compel a finding that percent) compared to southeastern limited diet than others despite the listing is appropriate, however; we Alaska (13 percent), although in both opportunistic food habits of wolves. require evidence that these factors are areas, most of the harvest has occurred Specifically, the GMU 2 wolf population operative threats that act on the species since 1975 (85 percent and 66 percent, is vulnerable to fluctuations in to the point that the species meets the respectively). Within coastal British abundance of deer, the only ungulate definition of an endangered or Columbia, the majority of harvest (66 species that occupies the area. We threatened species under the Act. percent of total harvest) has happened postulate that the insularity of this In making our 12-month finding on in Region 1, where 34 percent of the population, coupled with its reliance on the petition we considered and forest has been logged; in the coastal one ungulate prey species, likely has evaluated the best available scientific portions of Regions 2, 5, and 6, timber contributed to its apparent recent and commercial information. harvest has been comparatively lower, ranging from 12 to 17 percent of the decline, suggesting that, under current Factor A. The Present or Threatened conditions, the traits associated with productive forest in these regions. Destruction, Modification, or Similarly, in southeastern Alaska, resiliency may not be sufficient for Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range population stability in GMU 2. logging has occurred disproportionately The Alexander Archipelago wolf uses in GMU 2, where 23 percent of the Summary of Information Pertaining to a variety of habitats and, like other gray forest has been logged (47 percent of all the Five Factors wolves, is considered to be a habitat timber harvest in southeastern Alaska); Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) generalist. Further, it is an opportunistic in other GMUs, only 6 to 14 percent of and implementing regulations (50 CFR predator that eats ungulates, rodents, the forest has been harvested. We 424) set forth procedures for adding mustelids, fish, and marine mammals, discuss spatial and temporal patterns of species to, removing species from, or typically killing live prey, but also timber harvest in more detail in the reclassifying species on the Federal feeding on carrion if fresh meat is not Status Assessment (Service 2015, Lists of Endangered and Threatened available or circumstances are desirable ‘‘Timber harvest’’). Wildlife and Plants. Under section (e.g., large whale carcass). For these Owing to past timber harvest in 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be reasons and others (e.g., dispersal southeastern Alaska and coastal British determined to be endangered or capability), we found that wolf Columbia, portions of the landscape threatened based on any of the populations often are resilient to currently are undergoing succession and will continue to do so. Depending on following five factors: changes in their habitat and prey. (A) The present or threatened Nonetheless, we also recognize that the site-specific conditions, it can take up to destruction, modification, or Alexander Archipelago wolf inhabits a several hundred years for harvested curtailment of its habitat or range; distinct ecosystem, partially composed stands to regain old-growth forest (B) Overutilization for commercial, of island complexes, that may restrict characteristics fully (Alaback 1982, p. recreational, scientific, or educational wolf movement and prey availability of 1939). During the intervening period, purposes; some populations, thereby increasing these young-growth stands undergo (C) Disease or predation; their vulnerability to changes in habitat. several successional stages that are (D) The inadequacy of existing In this section, we review stressors to relevant to herbivores such as deer. regulatory mechanisms; or terrestrial and intertidal habitats used Briefly, for 10 to 15 years following (E) Other natural or manmade factors by the Alexander Archipelago wolf and clearcut logging, shrub and herb affecting its continued existence. its primary prey, specifically deer. We biomass production increases (Alaback In making this finding, information identified timber harvest as the 1982, p. 1941), providing short-term pertaining to the Alexander Archipelago principal stressor modifying wolf and benefits to herbivores such as deer, wolf in relation to the five factors deer habitat in southeastern Alaska and which select for these stands under provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is coastal British Columbia, and, therefore, certain conditions (e.g., Gilbert 2015, p.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 444 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

129). After 25 to 35 years, early seral expected to reduce further modification harvest’’). Therefore, we focus the stage plants give way to young-growth of habitat used by wolves and deer, the remainder of this section on predicted coniferous trees, and their canopies amendment that outlines the transition response of wolves to reduction in deer begin to close, intercepting sunlight and is still in the planning phase. numbers as a result of timber harvest eliminating most understory vegetation. and availability of alternate ungulate Potential Effects of Timber Harvest These young-growth stands offer little prey. nutritional browse for deer and After reviewing the best available In coastal British Columbia, where a therefore tend to be selected against by information, we determined that the greater proportion of productive old- deer (e.g., Gilbert 2015, pp. 129–130); only potential direct effect from timber growth forest has been harvested this stage typically lasts for at least 50 harvest to Alexander Archipelago compared to southeastern Alaska, deer to 60 years, at which point the wolves is the modification of and populations are stable (Regions 1, 2, and understory layer begins to develop again disturbance at den sites. Although 5) or decreasing (Region 6) (BCMO (Alaback 1982, pp. 1938–1939). An coastal wolves avoided using den sites 2015b, p. 1). Yet, corresponding wolf understory of deciduous shrubs and located in or near logged stands, other populations at the regional scale are herbs, similar to pre-harvest conditions, landscape features such as gentle slope, stable or slightly increasing (Kuzyk and is re-established 140 to 160 years after low elevation, and proximity to Hatter 2014, p. 881; BCMO 2015a, p. 1). harvest. Alternative young-growth freshwater had greater influence on den We attribute the stability in wolf treatments (e.g., thinning, pruning) are site use (Person and Russell 2009, pp. numbers, in part, to the availability of used to stimulate understory growth, 217–219). Further, our review of the other ungulate species, specifically but they often are applied at small best available information did not moose, mountain goat, and elk (Region spatial scales, and their efficacy in terms indicate that denning near logged stands 1 only), which primarily have stable of deer use is unknown; regardless, to had fitness consequences to individual populations and do not use habitats date, over 232 mi2 (600 km2) of young- wolves or that wolf packs inhabiting affected by timber harvest. Therefore, growth has been treated in southeastern territories with intensive timber harvest we presume that these wolf populations Alaska (summarized in Service 2015, were less likely to breed due to reduced have adequate prey available and are ‘‘Timber harvest’’). availability of denning habitat. not being affected significantly by We expect timber harvesting to Therefore, we conclude that changes in deer abundance as a result of continue to occur throughout the range modification of and disturbance at den timber harvest. of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, sites as a result of timber harvest does Similarly, throughout most of although given current and predicted not constitute a threat to the Alexander southeastern Alaska, wolves have access market conditions, the rate of future Archipelago wolf at the population or to multiple ungulate prey species in harvest is difficult to project. In rangewide level. addition to deer. Along the mainland southeastern Alaska, primarily in GMUs We then examined reduction in prey (GMUs 1 and 5A), where deer densities 2 and 3, some timber has been sold by availability, specifically deer, as a are low naturally, moose and mountain the USFS already, but has not yet been potential indirect effect of timber goats are available, and, in GMU 3, cut. In addition, new timber sales harvest to the Alexander Archipelago moose occur on all of the larger islands currently are being planned for sale wolf. Because deer selectively use and elk inhabit Etolin and Zarembo between 2015 and 2019, and most of habitats that minimize accumulation of islands. Also, although we expect deer this timber is expected to be sourced deep snow in winter, including abundance in these GMUs to be lower from GMUs 2 and 3; however, based on productive old-growth forest (e.g., in the future, deer will continue to be recent sales, it is unlikely that the Schoen and Kirchhoff, 1990, p. 374; available to wolves; between 1954 and planned harvest will be implemented Doerr et al. 2005, p. 322; Gilbert 2015, 2002, deer habitat capability was fully due to lack of bidders. Also, we p. 129), populations of deer in areas of reduced by only 15 percent in parts of anticipate at least partial harvest of intensive timber harvest are expected to GMU 1 and by 13 to 23 percent in GMU approximately 277 km2 of land in GMU decline in the future as a result of long- 3 (Albert and Schoen 2007, p. 16). Thus, 2 that was transferred recently from the term reduction in the carrying capacity although we lack estimates of trend in Tongass National Forest to Sealaska of their winter habitat (e.g., Person 2001, these wolf populations, we postulate Native Corporation. In coastal British p. 79; Gilbert et al. 2015, pp. 18–19). that they have sufficient prey to Columbia, we estimate that an However, we found that most maintain stable populations and are not additional 17 percent of forest will be populations of Alexander Archipelago being impacted by timber harvest. harvested by 2100 on Vancouver Island wolf likely will be resilient to predicted Only one Alexander Archipelago wolf (Region 1) and an additional 39 percent declines in deer abundance largely population, the GMU 2 population, on the mainland of coastal British owing to their ability to feed on relies solely on deer as an ungulate prey Columbia; however, some of this timber alternate ungulate prey species and non- species and therefore it is more volume would be harvested from old ungulate species, including those that vulnerable to declines in deer numbers young-growth stands. See the Status occur in intertidal and marine habitats compared to all other populations. Assessment for more details (Service (greater than 15 percent of the diet; see Additionally, timber harvest has 2015, ‘‘Future timber harvest’’). ‘‘Food Habits,’’ above) (Szepanski et al. occurred disproportionately in this area, Since 2013, the USFS has been 1999, p. 331; Darimont et al. 2004, p. more so than anywhere else in the range developing a plan to transition timber 1871, Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130). of the wolf except Vancouver Island harvest away from primarily logging Moreover, in our review of the best (where the wolf population is stable). As old-growth and toward logging young- available information, we found nothing a result, in GMU 2, deer are projected growth stands, although small amounts to suggest that these intertidal and to decline by approximately 21 to 33 of old-growth likely will continue to be marine species, non-ungulate prey, and percent over the next 30 years, and, logged. An amendment to the current other ungulate species within the range correspondingly, the wolf population is Tongass Land and Resource of the Alexander Archipelago wolf (i.e., predicted to decline by an average of 8 Management Plan is underway and is moose, goat, elk) are affected to 14 percent (Gilbert et al. 2015, pp. 19, expected to be completed by the end of significantly by timber harvest (Service 43). Further, the GMU 2 wolf population 2016. Although this transition is 2015, ‘‘Response of wolves to timber already has been reduced by about 75

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 445

percent since 1994, although most of the Road Development (Person et al. 1996, p. 22). As reviewed apparent decline occurred over a 1-year Road development has modified the above in ‘‘Timber Harvest,’’ we period between 2013 and 2014 (see landscape throughout the range of the recognize that wolves used den sites ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above), Alexander Archipelago wolf. Most roads located farther from roads compared to suggesting that the cause of the decline were constructed to support the timber unused sites; however, other landscape was not specifically long-term reduction industry, although some roads were features were more influential in den in deer carrying capacity, although it built as a result of urbanization, site selection, and proximity to roads probably was a contributor. These especially in southern coastal British did not appear to affect reproductive findings indicate that for this wolf Columbia. Below, we briefly describe success or pup survival, which is population, availability of non-ungulate the existing road systems in thought to be high (Person et al. 1996, prey does not appear to be able to southeastern Alaska and coastal British p. 9; Person and Russell 2009, pp. 217– compensate for declining deer Columbia using all types of roads (e.g., 219). Therefore, we conclude that roads are not a threat to the habitats used by populations, especially given other sealed, unsealed) that are accessible the Alexander Archipelago wolf, present stressors such as wolf harvest with any motorized vehicle (e.g., although we address the access that they passenger vehicle, all-terrain vehicle). (see discussion under Factor B). afford to hunters and trappers as a See the Status Assessment for a more Therefore, we conclude that timber potential threat to some wolf detailed description (Service 2015, harvest is affecting the GMU 2 wolf populations under Factor B. population by reducing its ungulate ‘‘Road construction and management’’). prey and likely will continue to do so Across the range of the Alexander Oil and Gas Development in the future. Archipelago wolf, the majority (86 We reviewed potential loss of habitat percent) of roads are located in coastal due to oil and gas development as a In reviewing the best available British Columbia (approximately 41,943 information, we conclude that indirect stressor to the Alexander Archipelago mi [67,500 km] of roads), where mean wolf. We found no existing oil and gas effects from timber harvest likely are not 2 road density is 0.76 mi per mi (0.47 km projects within the range of the coastal having and will not have a significant per km2), although road densities are effect on the Alexander Archipelago wolf, although two small-scale notably lower in the northern part of the exploration projects occurred in Regions wolf at the rangewide level. Although province (Regions 5 and 6, mean = 0.21– 1 and 2 of coastal British Columbia, but timber harvest has reduced deer 2 0.48 mi per km [0.13–0.30 km per neither project resulted in development. carrying capacity, which in turn is km2]) compared to the southern part In addition, we considered a proposed expected to cause declines in deer (Regions 1 and 2, mean = 0.85–0.89 mi oil pipeline project (i.e., Northern populations, wolves are opportunistic per mi2 [0.53–0.55 km per km2]), largely Gateway Project) intended to transport predators, feeding on a variety of prey owing to the urban areas of Vancouver oil from Alberta to the central coast of species, including intertidal and marine and Victoria. In southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, covering about 746 mi species that are not impacted by timber nearly 6,835 mi [11,000 km] of roads (1,200 km) in distance. If the proposed harvest. In addition, the majority (about exist within the range of the Alexander project was approved and implemented, 94 percent) of the rangewide wolf Archipelago wolf, resulting in a mean risk of oil spills on land and on the coast population has access to ungulate prey density of 0.37 mi per mi2 (0.23 km per within the range of the Alexander species other than deer. Further, km2). Most of these roads are located in Archipelago wolf would exist. However, currently the wolf populations in GMU 2, where the mean road density is given its diverse diet, terrestrial habitat coastal British Columbia, which 1.00 mi per mi2 (0.62 km per km2), more use, and dispersal capability, we constitute 62 percent of the rangewide than double that in all other GMUs, conclude that wolf populations would population, are stable or slightly where the mean density ranges from not be affected by the pipeline project increasing despite intensive and 0.06 mi per mi2 (0.04 km per km2) even if an oil spill occurred because extensive timber harvest. (GMU 5A) to 0.42 mi per mi2 (0.26 km exposure would be low. Further, oil per km2) (GMU 3). Thus, most of the However, we also conclude that the development occurs in portions of the roads within the range of the Alexander GMU 2 wolf population likely is being range of the gray wolf (e.g., Trans Alaska Archipelago wolf are located in coastal affected and will continue to be affected Pipeline System) and is not thought to British Columbia, especially in Regions by timber harvest, but that any effects be impacting wolf populations 1 and 2, but the highest mean road will be restricted to the population negatively. We conclude that oil density occurs in GMU 2 in development is not a threat to the level. This wolf population represents southeastern Alaska, which is consistent Alexander Archipelago wolf now and is only 6 percent of the rangewide with the high percentage of timber not likely to become one in the future. population, is largely insular and harvest in this area (see ‘‘Timber geographically peripheral to other Harvest,’’ above). In addition, we Climate-Related Events populations, and appears to function as anticipate that most future road We considered the role of climate and a sink population (see ‘‘Abundance and development also will occur in GMU 2 projected changes in climate as a Trend’’ and ‘‘Dispersal and (46 mi [74 km] of new road), with potential stressor to the Alexander Connectivity,’’ above). For these smaller additions to GMUs 1 and 3 Archipelago wolf. We identified three reasons, we find that the demographic (Service 2015, ‘‘Road construction and possible mechanisms through which and genetic contributions of the GMU 2 management’’). climate may be affecting habitats used wolf population to the rangewide Given that the Alexander Archipelago by coastal wolves or their prey: (1) population are low. Thus, although we wolf is a habitat generalist, we find that Frequency of severe winters and expect deer and wolf populations to destruction and modification of habitat impacts to deer populations; (2) decline in GMU 2, in part as a result of due to road development likely is not decreasing winter snow pack and timber harvest, we find that these affecting wolves at the population or impacts to yellow cedar; and (3) declines will not result in a rangewide rangewide level. In fact, wolves predicted hydrologic change and impact to the Alexander Archipelago occasionally use roads as travel impacts to salmon productivity. We wolf population. corridors between habitat patches review each of these briefly here and in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 446 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

more detail in the Status Assessment small portion of the forest and that the be resilient to reduced deer abundance (Service 2015, ‘‘Climate-related wolf is a habitat generalist. because they have access to alternate events’’). Predicted hydrologic changes as a ungulate and non-ungulate prey that are Severe winters with deep snow result of changes in climate are expected not impacted significantly by timber accumulation can negatively affect deer to reduce salmon productivity within harvest, road development, or other populations by reducing availability of the range of the Alexander Archipelago stressors that have altered or may alter forage and by increasing energy wolf (e.g., Edwards et al. 2013, p. 43; habitat within the range of the wolf. expenditure associated with movement. Shanley and Albert 2014, p. 2). Warmer Only the GMU 2 wolf population likely Therefore, deer selectively use habitats winter temperatures and extreme flow is being impacted and will continue to in winter that accumulate less snow, events are predicted to reduce egg-to-fry be impacted by reduced numbers of such as those that are at low elevation, survival of salmon, resulting in lower deer, the only ungulate prey available; that are south-facing, or that can overall productivity. Although salmon however, we determined that this intercept snowfall (i.e., dense forest compose 15 to 20 percent of the lifetime population does not contribute canopy). Timber harvest has reduced diet of Alexander Archipelago wolves in substantially to the other Alexander some of these preferred winter habitats. southeastern Alaska (Szepanski et al. Archipelago wolf populations or the However, while acknowledging that 1999, pp. 330–331) and 0 to 16 percent rangewide population. Therefore, we severe winters can result in declines of of the wolf diet in coastal British posit that most (94 percent) of the local deer populations, we postulate Columbia (Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1871; rangewide population of Alexander that those declines are unlikely to affect Darimont et al. 2009, p. 13) (see ‘‘Food Archipelago wolf likely is not being wolves substantially at the population Habits,’’ above), we do not anticipate affected and will not be affected in the or rangewide level for several reasons. negative effects to them in response to future by loss or modification of habitat. First, in southern coastal British projected declines in salmon We conclude, based on the best Columbia where 24 percent of the productivity at the population or scientific and commercial information rangewide wolf population occurs, rangewide level owing to the available, that the present or threatened persistent snowfall is rare except at high opportunistic predatory behavior of destruction, modification, or elevations. Second, in GMU 2, where wolves. curtailment of its habitat or range does wolves are limited to deer as ungulate not currently pose a threat to the Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat prey and therefore are most vulnerable Alexander Archipelago wolf at the Destruction, Modification, or to declines in deer abundance, the rangewide level, nor is it likely to Curtailment of Its Range climate is comparatively mild and become a threat in the future. severe winters are infrequent (Shanley We are not aware of any et al. 2015, p. 6); Person (2001, p. 54) nonregulatory conservation efforts, such Factor B. Overutilization for estimated that six winters per century as habitat conservation plans, or other Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or may result in general declines in deer voluntary actions that may help to Educational Purposes numbers in GMU 2. Lastly, climate ameliorate potential threats to the The Alexander Archipelago wolf is projections indicate that precipitation as habitats used by the Alexander harvested by humans for commercial snow will decrease by up to 58 percent Archipelago wolf. and subsistence purposes. Mortality of wolves due to harvest can be over the next 80 years (Shanley et al. Summary of Factor A 2015, pp. 5–6), reducing the likelihood compensated for at the population or of severe winters. Therefore, we Although several stressors such as rangewide level through increased conclude that winter severity, and timber harvest, road development, oil survival, reproduction, or immigration associated interactions with timber development, and climate-related events (i.e., compensatory mortality), or harvest harvest, is not a threat to the persistence may be impacting some areas within the mortality may be additive, causing of the Alexander Archipelago wolf at range of the Alexander Archipelago overall survival rates and population the population or rangewide level now wolf, available information does not growth to decline. The degree to which or in the future. indicate that these impacts are affecting harvest is considered compensatory, In contrast to deer response to harsh or are likely to affect the rangewide partially compensatory, or at least winter conditions, recent and ongoing population. First and foremost, wolf partially additive is dependent on decline in yellow cedar in southeastern populations in coastal British Columbia, population characteristics such as age Alaska is attributed to warmer winters where most (62 percent) of the and sex structure, productivity, and reduced snow cover (Hennon et al. rangewide population occurs, are stable immigration, and density (e.g., Murray 2012, p. 156). Although not all stands or slightly increasing even though the et al. 2010, pp. 2519–2520). Therefore, are affected or affected equally, the landscape has been modified each wolf population (or group of decline has impacted about 965 mi2 extensively. In fact, a higher proportion populations) is different, and a (2,500 km2) of forest (Hennon et al. of the forested habitat has been logged universal rate of sustainable harvest 2012, p. 148), or less than 3 percent of (24 percent) and the mean road density does not exist. In our review, we found the forested habitat within the range of (0.76 mi per mi2 [0.47 km per km2]) is rates of human-caused mortality of gray the Alexander Archipelago wolf. In higher in coastal British Columbia wolf populations varying from 17 to 48 addition, yellow cedar is a minor compared to southeastern Alaska (13 percent, with most being between 20 component of the temperate rainforest, percent and 0.37 mi per mi2 [0.23 km and 30 percent (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. which is dominated by Sitka spruce and per km2], respectively). Second, we 184–185; Adams et al. 2008, p. 22; Creel western hemlock and neither of these found no direct effects of habitat-related and Rotella 2010, p. 5; Sparkman et al. tree species appears to be impacted stressors that resulted in lower fitness of 2011, p. 5; Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113– negatively by reduced snow cover (e.g., Alexander Archipelago wolves, in large 116). For the Alexander Archipelago Schaberg et al. 2005, p. 2065). part because the wolf is a habitat wolf in GMU 2, Person and Russell Therefore, we conclude that any effects generalist. Third, although deer (2008, p. 1547) reported that total (positive or negative) to the wolf as a populations likely will decline in the annual mortality greater than 38 percent result of loss of yellow cedar would be future as a result of timber harvest, we was unsustainable and that natural negligible given that it constitutes a found that most wolf populations will mortality averaged about 4 percent (SE

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 447

= 5) annually, suggesting that human- population-level information percent of the estimated population caused mortality should not exceed 34 collectively to evaluate impacts of total (following Person and Russell [2008, p. percent annually. In our review, we did harvest to the rangewide population of 1547], and accounting for natural not find any other estimates of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We mortality), suggesting that harvest likely sustainable harvest rates specific to the present our analyses and other contributed to or caused the apparent coastal wolf. information related to wolf harvest in population decline. In addition, it is Across the range of the Alexander southeastern Alaska and coastal British unlikely that increased reproduction Archipelago wolf, hunting and trapping Columbia in more detail in the Status and immigration alone could reverse the regulations, including reporting Assessment (Service 2015, ‘‘Wolf decline, at least in the short term, owing requirements, vary substantially. In harvest’’). to this population’s insularity (see southeastern Alaska, wolf harvest In coastal British Columbia, ‘‘Dispersal and Connectivity,’’ above) regulations are set by the Alaska Board populations of the Alexander and current low proportion of females of Game for all resident and nonresident Archipelago wolf are considered to be (see ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above). hunters and trappers, and by the Federal stable or slightly increasing (see Thus, we conclude that wolf harvest has Subsistence Board for federally- ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above), and, impacted the GMU 2 wolf population qualified subsistence users on Federal therefore, we presume that current and, based on the best available lands. In all GMUs, each hunter can harvest levels are not impacting those information, likely will continue to do harvest a maximum of five wolves, and populations. Moreover, in Regions 1 and so in the near future, consistent with a trappers can harvest an unlimited 2, where reporting is required, few projected overall population decline on number of wolves; all harvested wolves wolves are being harvested on average average of 8 to 14 percent (Gilbert et al. must be reported and sealed within a relative to the estimated population 2015, pp. 43, 50), unless total harvest is specified time following harvest. In size; in Region 1, approximately 8 curtailed. GMU 2 only, an annual harvest percent of the population was harvested Trends in wolf populations in the guideline is applied; between 1997 and annually on average between 1997 and remainder of southeastern Alaska are 2014, the harvest guideline was set as 25 2012, and in Region 2, the rate is even not known, and, therefore, to evaluate to 30 percent of the most recent fall lower (4 percent). It is more difficult to potential impact of wolf harvest to these population estimate, and in 2015, this assess harvest in Regions 5 and 6 populations, we reviewed reported wolf guideline was reduced to 20 percent in because reporting is not required; harvest in relation to population size response to an apparent decline in the nonetheless, based on the minimum and considered whether or not the high population (see ‘‘Abundance and number of wolves harvested annually rates of unreported harvest in GMU 2 Trend,’’ above). If the annual harvest from these regions, we estimated that 2 were applicable to populations in GMUs guideline is exceeded, then an to 7 percent of the populations are 1, 3, and 5A. Along the mainland emergency order closing the hunting harvested on average with considerable (GMUs 1 and 5A) between 1997 and and trapping seasons is issued. In variation among years, which could be 2014, mean percent of the population coastal British Columbia, the provincial attributed to either reporting or harvest harvested annually and reported was 19 government manages wolf harvest, rates. Overall, we found no evidence percent (range = 11–27), with most of following an established management indicating that harvest of wolves in the harvest occurring in the southern plan. The hunting bag limit is three coastal British Columbia is having a portion of the mainland. In GMU 3, the wolves per hunter annually, and, negative effect on the Alexander same statistic was 21 percent, ranging similar to southeastern Alaska, no Archipelago wolf at the population level from 8 to 37 percent, but with only 3 of trapping limit is set. In Regions 1 and and is not likely to have one in the 18 years exceeding 25 percent. Thus, if 2, all wolf harvest is required to be future. reported harvested rates from these reported, but no compulsory reporting In southeastern Alaska, the GMU 2 areas are accurate, wolf harvest likely is program exists for Regions 5 and 6. wolf population apparently has not impacting wolf populations in In this section, we consider wolf declined considerably, especially in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A because annual harvest as a stressor to the Alexander recent years, although the precision of harvest rates typically are within Archipelago wolf at the population and individual point estimates was low and sustainable limits identified for rangewide levels. Given that harvest the confidence intervals overlapped (see populations of gray wolf (roughly 20 to regulations and the biological ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above). In our 30 percent), including the Alexander circumstances (e.g., degree of insularity; review, we found compelling evidence Archipelago wolf (approximately 34 see ‘‘Dispersal and Connectivity,’’ to suggest that wolf harvest likely percent) (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 184– above) of each wolf population vary contributed to this apparent decline. 185; Adams et al. 2008, p. 22; Person considerably, we examined possible Although annual reported harvest of and Russell 2008, p. 1547; Creel and effects of wolf harvest to each wolves in GMU 2 equated to only about Rotella 2010, p. 5; Sparkman et al. 2011, population by first considering the 17 percent of the population on average p. 5; Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113–116). In current condition of the population. If between 1997 and 2014 (range = 6–33 our review, we found evidence the population is stable or increasing, percent), documented rates of indicating that unreported harvest we presumed that wolves in that unreported harvest (i.e., illegal harvest) occasionally occurs in GMUs 1 and 3 population are not being overharvested; over a similar time period were high (Service 2015, ‘‘Unreported harvest’’), if the population is declining or (approximately 38 to 45 percent of total but we found nothing indicating that it unknown, we assessed mean annual harvest) (Person and Russell 2008, p. is occurring at the high rates harvest rates based on reported wolf 1545; ADFG 2015b, p. 4). Applying documented in GMU 2. harvest. Because some wolves are these unreported harvest rates, we Harvest rates of wolves in harvested and not reported, even in estimate that mean total annual harvest southeastern Alaska are associated with areas where reporting is required, we was 29 percent with a range of 11 to 53 access afforded primarily by boat and then applied proportions of unreported percent, suggesting that in some years, motorized vehicle (85 percent of harvest to reported harvest for a given wolves in GMU 2 were being harvested successful hunters and trappers) (ADFG year to estimate total harvest, where it at unsustainable rates; in fact, in 7 of 18 2012, ADFG 2015d). Therefore, we was appropriate to do so. We used the years, total wolf harvest exceeded 34 considered road density, ratio of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

shoreline to land area, and the total population is being affected by Conservation Efforts To Reduce number of communities as proxies to intermediate rates of reported harvest Overutilization for Commercial, access by wolf hunters and trappers and (annual mean = 17 percent) and high Recreational, Scientific, or Educational determined that GMU 2 is not rates of unreported harvest (38 to 45 Purposes representative of the mainland (GMUs 1 percent of total harvest), which have The ADFG has increased educational and 5A) or GMU 3 and that applying contributed to an apparent population efforts with the public, especially unreported harvest rates from GMU 2 to decline that is projected to continue. We hunters and trappers, in GMU 2 with other wolf populations is not also find that wolf populations in GMUs the goal of improving communication appropriate. Mean road density in GMU 1, 3, and 5A experience intermediate and coordination regarding management 2 (1.00 mi per mi2 [0.62 km per km2]) rates of reported harvest, 19 to 21 of the wolf population. In recent years, is more than twice that of all other percent of the populations annually, but the agency held public meetings, GMUs (GMU 1 = 0.13 [0.08], GMU 3 = launched a newsletter, held a workshop 0.42 [0.26], and GMU 5A = 0.06 [0.04]). that these populations likely do not Similarly, nearly all (13 of 15, 87 experience high rates of unreported for teachers, and engaged locals in wolf percent) of the Wildlife Analysis Areas harvest like those estimated for GMU 2 research. We do not know if these (smaller spatial units that comprise each because of comparatively low access to efforts ultimately will be effective at GMU) that exceed the recommended hunters and trappers. In addition, these lowering rates of unreported harvest. road density threshold for wolves (1.45 GMUs are less geographically isolated We are not aware of any additional mi per mi2 [0.9 km per km2]) (Person than GMU 2 and likely have higher conservation efforts or other voluntary and Russell 2008, p. 1548) are located immigration rates of wolves. Therefore, actions that may help to reduce in GMU 2; one each occurs in GMUs 1 based on the best available information, overutilization for commercial, and 3. In addition, the ratio of shoreline we conclude that wolf harvest of these recreational, scientific, or educational to land area, which serves as an populations (GMUs 1, 3, and 5A) is purposes of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. indicator of boat acess, in GMU 2 (1.30 occurring at rates similar to or below mi per mi2 [0.81 km per km2]) is greater sustainable harvest rates proposed for Summary of Factor B than all other GMUs (GMU 1 = 0.29 gray wolf (roughly 20 to 30 percent) and [0.18], GMU 3 = 1.00 [0.62], and GMU We find that wolf harvest is not the Alexander Archipelago wolf affecting most Alexander Archipelago 5A = 0.19 [0.12]). Lastly, although the (approximately 34 percent) (Fuller et al. human population size of GMU 2 is wolf populations. In coastal British 2003, pp. 184–185; Adams et al. 2008, Columbia, wolf harvest rates are low comparatively smaller than in the other p. 22; Person and Russell 2008, p. 1547; GMUs, 14 communities are distributed and are not impacting wolves at the Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 5; Sparkman throughout the unit, more than any population level, as evidenced by stable et al. 2011, p. 5; Gude et al. 2012, pp. other GMU (GMU 1 = 11, GMU 3 = 4, or slightly increasing populations. In and GMU 5A = 1). 113–116). southeastern Alaska, we found that the Collectively, these data indicate that Although wolf harvest is affecting the GMU 2 wolf population is experiencing hunting and trapping access is greater in GMU 2 wolf population and likely will high rates of unreported harvest, which GMU 2 than in the rest of southeastern continue to do so, we conclude that has contributed to an apparent Alaska and that applying unreported wolf harvest is not impacting the population decline, and, therefore, we harvest rates from GMU 2 to elsewhere rangewide population of Alexander conclude that this population is being affected by wolf harvest and likely will is not supported. Therefore, although Archipelago wolf. The GMU 2 wolf continue to be affected. We determined we recognize that some level of population constitutes a small that wolf harvest in the remainder of unreported harvest likely is occurring percentage of the rangewide population along the mainland of southeastern southeastern Alaska is occurring at rates (6 percent), is largely insular and that are unlikely to result in population- Alaska and in GMU 3, we do not know geographically peripheral to other the rate at which it may be occurring, level declines. Overall, we found that populations, and appears to function as but we hypothesize that it likely is less wolf harvest is not having an effect on a sink population (see ‘‘Abundance and than in GMU 2 because of reduced the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the access. We expect wolf harvest rates in Trend’’ and ‘‘Dispersal and rangewide level, although we recognize the future to be similar to those in the Connectivity,’’ above). Therefore, that the GMU 2 population likely is past because we have no basis from although we found that this population being harvested at unsustainable rates, which to expect a change in hunter and is experiencing unsustainable harvest especially given other stressors facing trapper effort or success. Consequently, rates in some years, owing largely to the population (e.g., reduced prey we think that reported wolf harvest rates unreported harvest, we think that the availability due to timber harvest). for GMUs 1, 3, and 5A are reasonably condition of the GMU 2 population has Thus, based on the best available accurate and that wolf harvest is not a minor effect on the condition of the information, we conclude that impacting these populations nor is it rangewide population. The best overexploitation for commercial, likely to do so in the future. available information does not suggest recreational, scientific, or educational In summary, we find that wolf harvest that wolf harvest is having an impact on purposes does not currently pose a is not affecting most populations of the the rangewide population of Alexander threat to the Alexander Archipelago Alexander Archipelago wolf. In coastal Archipelago wolf, nor is it likely to have wolf throughout its range, nor is it likely British Columbia, wolf populations are an impact in the future. to become a threat in the future. stable or slightly increasing, suggesting that wolf harvest is not impacting those Our review of the best available Factor C. Disease or Predation populations; in addition, mean annual information does not suggest that In this section, we briefly review harvest rates of those populations overexploitation of the Alexander disease and predation as stressors to the appear to be low (2 to 8 percent of the Archipelago wolf due to scientific or Alexander Archipelago wolf. We population based on the best available educational purposes is occurring or is describe information presented here in information). In southeastern Alaska, we likely to occur in the future. more detail in the Status Assessment determined that the GMU 2 wolf (Service 2015, ‘‘Disease’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 449

Disease effect on the Alexander Archipelago the level of a threat to the Alexander Several diseases have potential to wolf now or in the future. Archipelago wolf rangewide, we also did not find the existing regulatory affect Alexander Archipelago wolf Predation populations, especially given their mechanisms authorized by these laws to Our review of the best available social behavior and pack structure (see be inadequate for the Alexander information did not indicate that ‘‘Social Organization,’’ above). Wolves Archipelago wolf. In other words, we predation is affecting or will affect the are susceptible to a number of diseases cannot find an existing regulatory Alexander Archipelago wolf at the that can cause mortality in the wild, mechanism to be inadequate if the population or rangewide level. As top including rabies, canine distemper, stressor intended to be reduced by that predators in the ecosystem, predation canine parvovirus, blastomycosis, regulatory mechanism is not considered most likely would occur by another wolf tuberculosis, sarcoptic mange, and dog a threat to the Alexander Archipelago as a result of inter- or intra-pack strife louse (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419–422). wolf. Nonetheless, we briefly discuss or other territorial behavior. The annual However, we found few incidences of relevant laws and regulations below. rate of natural mortality, which includes diseases reported in Alexander starvation, disease, and predation, was Southeastern Alaska Archipelago wolves; these include dog 0.04 (SE = 0.05) for radio-collared louse in coastal British Columbia (Hatler National Forest Management Act wolves in GMU 2 (Person and Russell et al. 2008, pp. 88–91) and potentially (NFMA) 2008, p. 1545), indicating that predation sarcoptic mange (reported in British The National Forest Management Act is rare and is unlikely to be having a Columbia, but it is unclear whether or (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) is the population or rangewide effect. not it occurred along the coast or inland; primary statute governing the Therefore, we conclude that predation is Miller et al. 2003, p. 183). Both dog administration of National Forests in the not a threat to the Alexander louse and mange results in mortality United States, including the Tongass Archipelago wolf, nor is it likely to only in extreme cases and usually in National Forest. The stated objective of become one in the future. pups, and, therefore, it is unlikely that NFMA is to maintain viable, well- either disease is having or is expected Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease distributed wildlife populations on to have a population- or rangewide-level or Predation National Forest System lands. As such, effect on the Alexander Archipelago We are not aware of any conservation the NFMA requires each National Forest wolf. efforts or other voluntary actions that to develop, implement, and periodically Although we found few reports of may help to reduce disease or predation revise a land and resource management diseases in Alexander Archipelago of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. plan to guide activities on the forest. wolves, we located records of rabies, Therefore, in southeastern Alaska, canine distemper, and canine Summary of Factor C regulation of timber harvest and parvovirus in other species in We identified several diseases with associated activities is administered by southeastern Alaska and coastal British the potential to affect wolves and the USFS under the current Tongass Columbia, suggesting that transmission possible vectors for transmission, but Land and Resource Management Plan is possible but unlikely given the low we found only a few records of disease that was signed and adopted in 2008. number of reported incidences. Only in individual Alexander Archipelago The 2008 Tongass Land and Resource four individual bats have tested positive wolves, and, to the best of our Management Plan describes a for rabies in southeastern Alaska since knowledge, none resulted in mortality. conservation strategy that was the 1970s; bats also are reported to carry Further, we found no evidence that developed originally as part of the 1997 rabies in British Columbia, but we do disease is affecting the Alexander Plan with the primary goal of achieving not know whether or not those bats Archipelago wolf at the population or objectives under the NFMA. occur on the coast or inland. Canine rangewide level. Therefore, we conclude Specifically, the conservation strategy distemper and parvovirus have been that disease is not a threat to the focused primarily on maintaining found in domestic dogs on rare Alexander Archipelago wolf and likely viable, well-distributed populations of occasions; we found only one case of will not become a threat in the future. old-growth dependent species on the canine distemper, and information We also determined that the most Tongass National Forest, because these suggested that parvovirus has been likely predator of individual Alexander species were considered to be most documented but is rare due to the high Archipelago wolves is other wolves and vulnerable to timber harvest activities percentage of dogs that are vaccinated that this type of predation is a on the forest. The Alexander for it. Nonetheless, we found no component of their social behavior and Archipelago wolf, as well as the Sitka documented cases of rabies, canine organization. Further, predation is rare black-tailed deer, was used to help distemper, or canine parvovirus in and is unlikely to be having an effect at design the conservation strategy. wolves from southeastern Alaska or population or rangewide levels. Thus, Primary components of the strategy coastal British Columbia. we conclude that predation is not a include a forest-wide network of old- We acknowledge that diseases such as threat to the Alexander Archipelago growth habitat reserves linked by canine distemper and parvovirus have wolf, nor is it likely to become one in connecting corridors of forested habitat, affected gray wolf populations in other the future. and a series of standards and guidelines parts of North America (Brand et al. that direct management of lands 1995, p. 420 and references therein), but Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing available for timber harvest and other the best available information does not Regulatory Mechanisms activities outside of the reserves. We suggest that disease, or even the In this section, we review laws aimed discuss these components in more detail likelihood of disease in the future, is a to help reduce stressors to the in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, threat to the Alexander Archipelago Alexander Archipelago wolf and its ‘‘Existing conservation mechanisms’’). wolf. We conclude that, while some habitats. However, because we did not As part of the conservation strategy, individual wolves may be affected by find any stressors examined under we identified two elements specific to disease on rare occasions, disease is not Factors A, B, and C (described above) the Alexander Archipelago wolf (USFS having a population- or rangewide-level and Factor E (described below) to rise to 2008a, p. 4–95). The first addresses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

disturbance at and modification of it as enough to deem the entire Plan, or the wolf harvest regulations for GMU 2 active wolf dens, requiring buffers of the existing regulatory mechanisms have been allowing for greater numbers 366 m (1,200 ft) around active dens driving it, to be inadequate for the to be harvested than would be necessary (when known) to reduce risk of Alexander Archipelago wolf rangewide. to maintain a viable wolf population. abandonment, although if a den is Thus, we conclude that the 2008 In March 2014, ADFG and the USFS, inactive for at least 2 years, this Tongass Land and Resource Tongass National Forest, as the in- requirement is relaxed. The second Management Plan is not inadequate to season manager for the Federal pertains to elevated wolf mortality; in maintain high-quality habitat for the Subsistence Program, took emergency areas where wolf mortality concerns Alexander Archipelago wolf and its actions to close the wolf hunting and have been identified, a Wolf Habitat prey. trapping seasons in GMU 2, yet the Management Program will be developed population still declined between fall Roadless Rule and implemented, in conjunction with 2013 and fall 2014, likely due to high ADFG; such a program might include On January 12, 2001, the USFS levels of unreported harvest (38 to 45 road access management and changes to published a final rule prohibiting road percent of total harvest, summarized wolf harvest limit guidelines. However, construction and timber harvesting in under Factor B, above). In early 2015, this element, as outlined in the Plan, ‘‘inventoried roadless areas’’ on all the agencies issued another emergency does not offer guidance on identifying National Forest System lands order and, in cooperation with the how, when, or where wolf mortality nationwide (hereafter Roadless Rule) (66 Alaska Board of Game, adopted a more concerns may exist, but instead it is left FR 3244). On the Tongass National conservative wolf harvest guideline for to the discretion of the agencies. The Forest, 109 roadless areas have been GMU 2, but an updated population only other specific elements relevant to inventoried, covering approximately estimate is not available yet, and, the Alexander Archipelago wolf in the 14,672 mi2 (38,000 km2), although only therefore, we do not know if the recent strategy are those that relate to 463 mi2 (1,200 km2) of these areas have change in regulation has been effective providing sufficient deer habitat been described as ‘‘suitable forest land’’ at avoiding further population decline. capability, which is intended first to for timber harvest (USFS 2008a, p. 7–42; Therefore, based on the best available maintain sustainable wolf populations, USFS 2008b, pp. 3–444, 3–449). All of information, we think that wolf harvest then to consider meeting estimated these roadless areas are located within regulations in GMU 2 are inadequate to human deer harvest demands. The the range of the Alexander Archipelago avoid exceeding sustainable harvest strategy offers guidelines for wolf. However, the Roadless Rule was levels of Alexander Archipelago wolves, determining whether deer habitat challenged in court and currently a at least in some years. In order to avoid capability within a specific area is ruling has not been finalized and future unsustainable harvest of wolves sufficient or not. additional legal challenges are pending; in GMU 2, regulations should consider We find the 2008 Tongass Land and in the meantime, the Tongass is subject total harvest of wolves, including loss of Resource Management Plan, including to the provisions in the Roadless Rule, wounded animals, not just reported the conservation strategy, not to be although the outcome of these legal harvest. Although we found that inadequate as a regulatory mechanism challenges is uncertain. Thus, currently, regulations governing wolf harvest in aimed to reduce stressors to the the Roadless Rule protects 14,672 mi2 GMU 2 have been inadequate, we do not Alexander Archipelago wolf and its (38,000 km2) of land, including 463 mi2 expect their inadequacy to impact the habitats. Although some parts of the (1,200 km2) of productive forest, from rangewide population of Alexander Tongass National Forest have sustained timber harvest, road construction, and Archipelago wolf for reasons outlined high rates of logging in the past, the other development, all of which is under Factor B, above. majority of it occurred prior to the within the range of the Alexander The Alexander Archipelago wolf enactment of the Plan and the Archipelago wolf. receives no special protection as an endangered species or species of conservation strategy. We think that the State Regulations provisions included in the current Plan concern by the State of Alaska (AS are sufficient to maintain habitat for The Alaska Board of Game sets wolf 16.20.180). However, in the draft State wolves and their prey, especially given harvest regulations for all resident and Wildlife Action Plan, which is not yet that none of the stressors evaluated nonresident hunters and trappers, and finalized, the Alexander Archipelago under Factors A, B, C, and E constitutes the ADFG implements those regulations. wolf is identified as a ‘‘species of a threat to the Alexander Archipelago (However, for federally-qualified greatest conservation need’’ because it is wolf. subsistence users, the Federal a species for which the State has high However, we recognize that some Subsistence Board sets regulations, and stewardship responsibility and it is elements of the Plan have not been those regulations are applicable only on culturally and ecologically important implemented fully yet, as is required Federal lands.) Across most of (ADFG 2015e, p. 154). under the NFMA. For example, despite southeastern Alaska, State regulations of evidence of elevated mortality of wolves wolf harvest appear not to be resulting Coastal British Columbia in GMU 2 (see discussion under Factor in overutilization of the Alexander In coastal British Columbia, B, above), the USFS and ADFG have not Archipelago wolf (see discussion under populations of the Alexander developed and implemented a Wolf Factor B, above). However, in GMU 2, Archipelago wolf have been stable or Habitat Management Program for GMU wolf harvest is having an effect on the slightly increasing for the last 15 years 2 to date. The reason for not doing so population, which apparently has (see ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above). is because the agencies collectively have declined over the last 20 years (see Nonetheless, we identified several laws not determined that current rates of wolf ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ above). that ensure its continued protection mortality in GMU 2 necessitate concern Although the population decline likely such as the Forest and Range Practices for maintaining a sustainable wolf was caused by multiple stressors acting Act (enacted in 2004), Wildlife Act of population. Although we think that a synergistically (see Cumulative Effects British Columbia (amended in 2008), Wolf Habitat Management Program from Factors A through E, below), Species at Risk Act, Federal Fisheries would benefit the GMU 2 wolf overharvest of wolves in some years was Act, Convention on International Trade population, we do not view the lack of a primary contributor, suggesting that in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 451

and Flora (CITES), and other regional due to demographic stochasticity, Therefore, while we recognize that land use and management plans. We environmental variability, genetic some populations of the Alexander review these laws in more detail in the problems, and catastrophic events Archipelago wolf are small and insular Status Assessment (Service 2015, (Lande 1993, p. 921), endemism or (e.g., GMU 2 population), our review of ‘‘Existing conservation measures’’). ‘‘rarity’’ alone is not a stressor. the best available information does not In 1999, the gray wolf was designated Therefore, we instead considered suggest that these characteristics as ‘‘not at risk’’ by the Committee on the possible effects associated with small currently are having a measurable effect Status of Endangered Wildlife in and isolated populations of the at the population or rangewide level. Canada, because it has a widespread, Alexander Archipelago wolf. However, given that the GMU 2 large population with no evidence of a Several aspects of the life history of population is expected to decline by an decline over the last 10 years (BCMO the Alexander Archipelago wolf result average of 8 to 14 percent over the next 2014, p. 2). In British Columbia, the gray in it being resilient to effects associated 30 years, inbreeding depression and wolf is ranked as ‘‘apparently secure’’ with small and isolated populations. genetic bottlenecking may be a concern by the Conservation Data Centre and is First, the coastal wolf is distributed for this population in the future, but we on the provincial Yellow list, which across a broad range and is not think that possible future genetic indicates ‘‘secure.’’ We note here that concentrated in any one area, consequences experienced by the GMU Canada does not recognize the contributing to its ability to withstand 2 population will not have an effect on Alexander Archipelago wolf as a catastrophic events, which typically the taxon as a whole. Thus, we conclude subspecies of gray wolf that occupies occur at small scales (e.g., wind-caused that small and isolated population coastal British Columbia, and, therefore, disturbance) in southeastern Alaska and effects do not constitute a threat to the these designations are applicable to the coastal British Columbia. Second, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, nor are province or country scale. Alexander Archipelago wolf is a habitat they likely to become a threat in the and diet generalist with high future. Summary of Factor D reproductive potential and high The laws described above regulate dispersal capability in most situations, Hybridization With Dogs timber harvest and associated activities, making it robust to environmental and We reviewed hybridization with protect habitat, minimize disturbance at demographic variability. However, domestic dogs as a potential stressor to den sites, and aim to ensure sustainable owing to the island geography and the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Based harvest of Alexander Archipelago steep, rugged terrain within the range of on microsatellite analyses, Munoz- wolves in southeastern Alaska and the Alexander Archipelago wolf, some Fuentes et al. (2010, p. 547) found that coastal British Columbia. As discussed populations are small (fewer than 150 to at least one hybridization event under Factors A, B, C, and E, although 250 individuals, following Carroll et al. occurred in the mid-1980s on we recognize that some stressors such as 2014, p. 76) and at least partially Vancouver Island, where wolves were timber harvest and wolf harvest are isolated, although most are not. probably extinct at one point in time, having an impact on the GMU 2 wolf Nonetheless, we focus the remainder of but then recolonized the island from the population, we have not identified any this section on possible genetic mainland. Although hybridization has threat that would affect the taxon as a consequences to small, partially isolated been documented and is more likely to whole at the rangewide level. Therefore, populations of the Alexander occur when wolf abundance is we find that the existing regulatory Archipelago wolf. unusually low, most of the range of the mechanisms authorized by the laws The primary genetic concern of small, Alexander Archipelago wolf is remote described above are not inadequate for isolated wolf populations is inbreeding, and unpopulated by humans, reducing the rangewide population of the which, at extreme levels, can reduce the risk of interactions between wolves Alexander Archipelago wolf now and litter size and increase incidence of and domestic dogs. Therefore, we into the future. skeletal effects (e.g., Liberg et al. 2005, conclude that hybridization with dogs p. 17; Raikkonen et al. 2009, p. 1025). does not rise to the level of a threat at Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade We found only one study that examined the population or rangewide level and is Factors Affecting Its Continued inbreeding in the Alexander not likely to do so in the future. Existence Archipelago wolf. Breed (2007, p. 18) Overexploitation of Salmon Runs In this section, we consider other tested for inbreeding using samples natural or manmade factors that may be from Regions 5 and 6 in northern British As suggested in the petition, we affecting the continued persistence of Columbia and GMUs 1 and 2 in considered overexploitation of salmon the Alexander Archipelago wolf and southern southeastern Alaska, and runs and disease transmission from were not addressed in Factors A through found that inbreeding coefficients were farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in D above. Specifically, we examined highest for wolves in GMU 1, followed coastal British Columbia as a potential effects of small and isolated by GMU 2, then by Regions 5 and 6. stressor to the Alexander Archipelago populations, hybridization with dogs, This finding was unexpected given that wolf (Atlantic salmon are not farmed in and overexploitation of salmon runs. GMU 2 is the smaller, more isolated southeastern Alaska). The best available population, indicating that inbreeding information does not indicate that the Small and Isolated Population Effects likely is not affecting the GMU 2 status of salmon runs in coastal British In the petition, island endemism was population despite its comparatively Columbia is having an effect on coastal proposed as a possible stressor to the small size and insularity. Further, we wolves. First, Alexander Archipelago Alexander Archipelago wolf. An found no evidence of historic or recent wolf populations in coastal British endemic is a distinct, unique organism genetic bottlenecking in the Alexander Columbia are stable or slightly found within a restricted area or range; Archipelago wolf (Weckworth et al. increasing, suggesting that neither a restricted range may be an island, or 2005, p. 924; Breed 2007, p. 18), overexploitation of salmon runs nor group of islands, or a restricted region although Weckworth et al. (2011, p. 5) disease transmission from introduced (Dawson et al. 2007, p. 1). Although speculated that a severe bottleneck may salmon are impacting the wolf small, isolated populations are more have taken place long ago (over 100 populations. Second, in coastal British vulnerable to extinction than larger ones generations). Columbia, only 0 to 16 percent of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

diet of the Alexander Archipelago wolf do not pose a threat to the Alexander statistically significant owing to the is salmon (Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1871; Archipelago wolf, nor are they likely to large variance surrounding the point Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130). Given the become threats in the future. estimates (see ‘‘Abundance and Trend,’’ opportunistic food habits of the coastal above). Nonetheless, we found evidence Cumulative Effects From Factors A wolf, we postulate that reduction or that timber harvest (Factor A) and wolf Through E even near loss of salmon as a food harvest (Factor B) are impacting this resource may impact individual wolves The Alexander Archipelago wolf is population, and these two stressors in some years, but likely would not faced with numerous stressors probably have collectively caused the result in a population- or rangewide- throughout its range, but none of these apparent decline. Given reductions in level effect. Further, our review of the individually constitutes a threat to the deer habitat capability as a result of best available information does not taxon as a whole now or in the future. extensive and intensive timber harvest, suggest that this is happening or will However, more than one stressor may we expect the GMU 2 wolf population happen, or that coastal wolves are act synergistically or compound with to be somewhat depressed and unable to acquiring diseases associated with one another to impact the Alexander sustain high rates of wolf harvest. farmed salmon. Therefore, we conclude Archipelago wolf at the population or However, in our review of the best that overexploitation of salmon runs rangewide level. Some of the identified available information, we found that and disease transmission from farmed stressors described above have potential high rates of unreported harvest are salmon do not constitute a threat to the to impact wolves directly (e.g., wolf resulting in unsustainable total harvest Alexander Archipelago wolf at the harvest), while others can affect wolves of Alexander Archipelago wolves in population or rangewide level and are indirectly (e.g., reduction in ungulate GMU 2 and that roads constructed not likely to do so in the future. prey availability as a result of timber largely to support the timber industry harvest); further, not all stressors are Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other are facilitating unsustainable rates of present or equally present across the total wolf harvest. Based on a Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting range of the Alexander Archipelago Its Continued Existence population model specific to GMU 2, wolf. Gilbert et al. (2015, p. 43) projected that In this section, we consider We are not aware of any conservation the wolf population will decline by cumulative effects of the stressors efforts or other voluntary actions that another 8 to 14 percent, on average, over described in Factors A through E. If may help to reduce effects associated the next 30 years, largely owing to multiple factors are working together to with small and isolated populations, compounding and residual effects of hybridation with dogs, overexploitation impact the Alexander Archipelago wolf logging, but also wolf harvest, which of salmon runs, disease transmission negatively, the cumulative effects results in direct mortality and has a from farmed salmon, or any other should be manifested in measurable and more immediate impact on the natural or manmade that may be consistent demographic change at the population. These stressors and others affecting the Alexander Archipelago population or species level. Therefore, such as climate related events (i.e., wolf. for most populations such as those in coastal British Columbia and in GMU 2, snowfall) are interacting with one Summary of Factor E we relied on trend information to another to impact the GMU 2 wolf We find that other natural or inform our assessment of cumulative population and are expected to continue manmade factors are present within the effects. For populations lacking trend to do so in the future provided that range of the Alexander Archipelago information (e.g., GMUs 1, 3, and 5A), circumstances remain the same (e.g., wolf, but that none of these factors is we examined the severity, frequency, high unreported harvest rates). having a population or rangewide effect and certainty of stressors to those In the remainder of southeastern on the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We populations and relative to the Alaska where the Alexander acknowledge that some populations of populations for which we have trend Archipelago wolf occurs (i.e., GMUs 1, the coastal wolf are small and partially information to evaluate cumulative 3, and 5A), we lack trend and projected isolated, and therefore are susceptible to effects. We then assess the populations population estimates to inform our genetic problems, but we found no collectively to draw conclusions about assessment of cumulative effects, and, evidence that inbreeding or cumulative effects that may be therefore, we considered the intensity, bottlenecking has resulted in a impacting the rangewide population. frequency, and certainty of stressors population or rangewide impact to the In coastal British Columbia, present. We found that generally the Alexander Archipelago wolf. In Alexander Archipelago wolf stressors facing wolf populations in addition, even though some populations populations are stable or slightly GMUs 1, 3, and 5A occur in slightly are small in size, many populations of increasing (see ‘‘Abundance and higher intensity compared to the Alexander Archipelago wolf exist Trend,’’ above), despite multiple populations in coastal British Columbia and are well distributed on the stressors facing these populations at (Regions 5 and 6), but significantly landscape, greatly reducing impacts levels similar to or greater than most lower intensity than the GMU 2 from any future catastrophic events to populations in southeastern Alaska. The population. In fact, the percent of logged the rangewide population. We also stability of the wolf populations in forest and road densities are among the found that the likelihood of hybridation coastal British Columbia over the last 15 lowest in the range of the Alexander with dogs is low and that any negative years suggests that cumulative effects of Archipelago wolf. Although wolf impacts associated with the status of stressors such as timber harvest, road harvest rates were moderately high in salmon in coastal British Columbia are development, and wolf harvest are not GMUs 1, 3, and 5A, given the unfounded at this time; neither of these negatively impacting these populations. circumstances of these populations, we potential stressors is likely to affect the The GMU 2 population of the found no evidence to suggest that they continued persistence of the Alexander Alexander Archipelago wolf apparently were having a population-level effect. Archipelago wolf at the population or experienced a gradual decline between Importantly, our review of the best rangewide level. Therefore, based on the 1994 and 2013, and then declined available information did not suggest best available information, we conclude substantially between 2013 and 2014, that unreported harvest was occurring at that other natural or manmade factors although the overall decline is not high rates like in GMU 2, and hunter

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 453

and trapper access was comparatively petition, information available in our since 1994, and is expected to continue lower (i.e., road density, ratio of files, and other available published and declining by another 8 to 14 percent, on shoreline to land area). In addition, the unpublished information, and we average, over the next 30 years. populations in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A are consulted with recognized wolf experts Nonetheless, we conclude that the most similar biologically to the coastal and other Federal, State, and tribal Alexander Archipelago wolf is stable or British Columbian populations; all of agencies. We prepared a Status slightly increasing in nearly all of its these wolf populations have access to a Assessment that summarizes all of the range (96 percent), representing 94 variety of ungulate prey and are not best available science related to the percent of the rangewide population of restricted to deer, and none is as Alexander Archipelago wolf and had it the taxon. isolated geographically as the GMU 2 peer reviewed by three experts external We then identified and evaluated population. We acknowledge that to the Service and selected by a third- existing and potential stressors to the elements of GMU 3 are similar to those party contractor. We also contracted the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We aimed in GMU 2 (e.g., island geography), but University of Alaska Fairbanks to revise to determine if these stressors are ultimately we found that GMU 3 had an existing population model for the affecting the taxon as a whole currently more similarities to GMUs 1 and 5A and GMU 2 wolf population, convened a 2- or are likely to do so in the foreseeable coastal British Columbia. day workshop with experts to review future, are likely to increase or decrease, Therefore, in considering all of the the model inputs and structure, and had and may rise to the level of a threat to evidence collectively, we presume that the final report reviewed by experts the taxon, rangewide or at the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Gilbert et al. 2015, entire). As part of population level. Because the Alexander populations in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A likely our review, we brought together Archipelago wolf is broadly distributed are stable and are not being impacted by researchers with experience and across its range and is a habitat and diet cumulative effects of stressors because expertise in gray wolves and the generalist, we evaluated whether each these populations face similar stressors temperate coastal rainforest from across identified stressor was expected to as the populations in coastal British the Service to review and evaluate the impact wolves directly or indirectly and Columbia, which are stable or slightly best available scientific and commercial whether wolves would be resilient to increasing. The weight of the available information. any impact. information led us to make this We examined a variety of potential We examined several stressors that presumption regarding the Alexander threats facing the Alexander are not affecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A, Archipelago wolf and its habitats, Archipelago wolf currently and are and we found no information to suggest including timber harvest, road unlikely to occur at a magnitude and otherwise. We think our reasoning is development, oil development, climate frequency in the future that would fair and supported by the best available change, overexploitation, disease, and result in a population- or rangewide- information, although we recognize the effects associated with small and level effect. We found that oil and gas uncertainties associated with it. isolated populations. To determine if development, disease, predation, effects In summary, we acknowledge that these risk factors individually or associated with small and isolated some of the stressors facing Alexander collectively put the taxon in danger of populations, hybridization with Archipelago wolves interact with one extinction throughout its range, or are domestic dogs, overexploitation of another, particularly timber harvest and likely to do so in the foreseeable future, salmon runs, and disease transmission wolf harvest, but we determined that all we first considered if the identified risk from farmed salmon are not threats to but one of the wolf populations do not factors were causing a population the Alexander Archipelago wolf (see exhibit impacts from cumulative effects decline or other demographic changes, discussions under Factors A, C, and E, of stressors. We found that about 62 or were likely to do so in the foreseeable above). Most of these stressors are percent of the rangewide population of future. undocumented and speculative, rarely the Alexander Archipelago wolf is Throughout most of its range, the occur, are spatially limited, or are not stable (all of coastal British Columbia), Alexander Archipelago wolf is stable or known to impact gray wolves in areas of and another 32 percent is presumed to slightly increasing or is presumed to be overlap. Although disease is known to be stable (GMUs 1, 3, and 5A), stable based on its demonstrated high affect populations of gray wolves, we suggesting that approximately 94 resiliency to the magnitude of stressors found few reports of disease in the percent of the rangewide population is present. In coastal British Columbia, Alexander Archipelago wolf, and none not experiencing negative and which constitutes 67 percent of the resulted in mortality. Therefore, based cumulative effects from stressors, range and 62 percent of the rangewide on the best available information, we despite their presence. Therefore, we population, the Alexander Archipelago conclude that none of these stressors is conclude that cumulative impacts of wolf has been stable or slightly having a population- or rangewide-level identified stressors do not rise to the increasing over the last 15 years. In effect on the Alexander Archipelago level of a threat to the Alexander mainland southeastern Alaska (GMUs 1 wolf, or is likely to do so in the Archipelago wolf and are unlikely to do and 5A) and in GMU 3, approximately foreseeable future. so in the future. 29 percent of the range and 32 percent Within the range of the Alexander of the rangewide population, we Archipelago wolf, changes in climate Finding determined that the circumstances of are occurring and are predicted to As required by the Act, we considered these wolf populations were most continue, likely resulting in improved the five factors in assessing whether the similar to those in coastal British conditions for wolves. Climate models Alexander Archipelago wolf is an Columbia, and, therefore, based on the for southeastern Alaska and coastal endangered or threatened species best available information, we reasoned British Columbia project that throughout all of its range. We that the Alexander Archipelago wolf precipitation as snow will decrease examined the best scientific and likely is stable in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A. substantially in the future, which will commercial information available In GMU 2, which includes only 4 improve winter conditions for deer, the regarding the past, present, and future percent of the range and 6 percent of the primary prey species of wolves. threats faced by the Alexander rangewide population, the Alexander Although severe winters likely will Archipelago wolf. We reviewed the Archipelago wolf has been declining continue to occur and will affect deer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

populations, we expect them to occur wolves are projected to decline in GMU unreported harvest from GMU 2 to other less frequently. Therefore, based on the 2 in the future, largely due to long-term wolf populations in southeastern Alaska best available information, we conclude reduction in deer habitat capability. is not appropriate. Thus, based on the that the effects of climate change are not However, we find that the GMU 2 best available information, we think that a threat to the Alexander Archipelago population contributes little to the wolf harvest in most of southeastern wolf, nor are they likely to become a rangewide population because it Alaska (i.e., GMUs 1, 3, and 5A) is not threat in the foreseeable future. constitutes only 4 percent of the range affecting wolves at the population level, We reviewed timber harvest and and 6 percent of the rangewide but that total wolf harvest in GMU 2 associated road development as population, is largely insular and likely has occurred, at least recently, at stressors to the Alexander Archipelago geographically peripheral, and appears unsustainable rates, largely due to high wolf and found that they are not to function as a sink population. rates of unreported harvest, and has affecting wolves directly, in large part Therefore, while we recognize that contributed to or caused an apparent because the wolf is a habitat generalist. timber harvest and associated road decline in the population. However, for Although wolves used den sites farther development has modified a the same reasons described above, we from logged stands and roads than considerable portion of the range of the determined that negative population unused sites, den site selection was Alexander Archipelago wolf, and will impacts in GMU 2 do not affect the more strongly influenced by natural continue to do so, we find that the taxon rangewide population significantly, and, features on the landscape such as slope, as a whole is not being affected therefore, we conclude that wolf harvest elevation, and proximity to freshwater. negatively, in large part because the is not having a rangewide-level effect. In Further, we did not find evidence wolf is a habitat and diet generalist. indicating that denning near logged Based on the best available information, conclusion, we find that overutilization stands and roads resulted in lower we conclude that timber harvest and is not a threat to the Alexander fitness of wolves. Thus, we conclude associated road development do not rise Archipelago wolf, nor is it likely to that timber harvest and associated road to the level of a threat to the Alexander become a threat in the foreseeable development are not affecting wolves at Archipelago wolf, and are not likely to future. the population or rangewide levels by do so in the future. In summary, we found that the decreasing suitable denning habitat. We Throughout its range, the Alexander Alexander Archipelago wolf did not identify any other potential Archipelago wolf is harvested for experiences stressors throughout its direct impacts to wolves as a result of commercial and subsistence purposes, range, but based on our consideration of timber harvest or road development, so and, therefore, we examined the best available scientific and next we examined potential indirect overutilization as a stressor at the commercial information, we determined effects, specifically reduction of deer population and rangewide levels. In that the identified stressors, habitat capability. coastal British Columbia, we presume individually or collectively, do not pose Although the Alexander Archipelago that wolf harvest is not having an effect a threat to the taxon at the rangewide wolf is an opportunistic predator that at the population level given that level now or in the foreseeable future. feeds on a variety of marine, intertidal, populations there are stable or slightly We determined that many of the life- and terrestrial species, ungulates increasing. This presumption is history traits and behaviors of the compose at least half of the wolf’s diet supported by the comparatively low Alexander Archipelago wolf, such as its throughout its range, and deer is the rates of reported wolf harvest in coastal variable diet, lack of preferential use of most widespread and abundant British Columbia, although reporting of habitats, and high reproductive ungulate available to wolves. Timber harvest is required only in Regions 1 potential, increase its ability to persist harvest has reduced deer habitat and 2, and, therefore, we considered in highly modified habitats with capability, which in turn is predicted to these rates as minimum values. numerous stressors. Only one reduce deer populations, especially in Nonetheless, we found no information population of the Alexander areas that have been logged intensively. suggesting that wolf harvest in coastal Archipelago wolf has declined and However, based largely on the stability British Columbia is affecting wolves at likely will continue to decline, but this of wolf populations in coastal British the population level, as evidenced by population contributes little to the taxon Columbia despite intensive timber the stability of the populations. harvest, we conclude that wolves are Within southeastern Alaska, where as a whole, and, therefore, while we resilient to changes in deer populations reporting is required, rates of reported acknowledge the vulnerability of this provided that they have other ungulate harvest on average are similar across all population to stressors such as timber prey species available to them. We populations (17 to 21 mean percent of harvest and wolf harvest, we find that found that nearly all of the Alexander population annually). However, in GMU its status does not affect the rangewide Archipelago wolves (94 percent of the 2, unreported harvest can be a status significantly. Further, we found rangewide population) have access to substantial component of total harvest that approximately 94 percent of the alternate ungulate prey such as (38 to 45 percent), resulting in high rates rangewide population of the Alexander mountain goat, moose, and elk, and, of total harvest in some years, which Archipelago wolf is stable or increasing, based on wolf diet, Alexander likely has contributed to the apparent or presumed with reasonable confidence Archipelago wolves are consuming population decline in GMU 2. Although to be stable. Therefore, based on our these prey species in areas where they unreported harvest probably occurs in review of the best available scientific are available. We identified only one other parts of southeastern Alaska, our and commercial information pertaining Alexander Archipelago wolf population review of the best available information to the five factors, we find that the as an exception. does not indicate that it is occurring at threats are not of sufficient imminence, In GMU 2, deer is the only ungulate the same high rate as documented in intensity, or magnitude to indicate that species available to wolves, and, GMU 2. Further, access by hunters and the Alexander Archipelago wolf is in therefore, wolves in this population trappers is significantly greater in GMU danger of extinction (endangered), or have a more restricted ungulate diet and 2 compared to elsewhere (see discussion likely to become endangered within the likely are being affected by cascading under Factor B, above), and, therefore, foreseeable future (threatened), effects of timber harvest. Both deer and we find that applying rates of throughout all of its range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 455

Significant Portion of the Range no SPR analysis will be required. If the Depending on the biology of the Under the Act and our implementing species is neither in danger of extinction species, its range, and the threats it regulations, a species may warrant nor likely to become so throughout all faces, it may be more efficient to address listing if it is in danger of extinction or of its range, we determine whether the the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the likely to become so throughout all or a species is in danger of extinction or status question first. Thus, if we significant portion of its range. The Act likely to become so throughout a determine that a portion of the range is defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any significant portion of its range. If it is, not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to species which is ‘‘in danger of we list the species as an endangered or determine whether the species is extinction throughout all or a significant a threatened species, respectively; if it is endangered or threatened there; if we portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened not, we conclude that listing the species determine that the species is not species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely is not warranted. endangered or threatened in a portion of When we conduct an SPR analysis, to become an endangered species within its range, we do not need to determine we first identify any portions of the the foreseeable future throughout all or if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ species’ range that warrant further We evaluated the current range of the a significant portion of its range.’’ The consideration. The range of a species Alexander Archipelago wolf to term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any can theoretically be divided into determine if there is any apparent subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, portions in an infinite number of ways. geographic concentration of potential and any distinct population segment However, there is no purpose to threats to the taxon. We examined [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or analyzing portions of the range that are potential threats from timber harvest, oil wildlife which interbreeds when not reasonably likely to be significant and gas development, road mature.’’ We published a final policy and endangered or threatened. To development, climate change, effects of interpreting the phrase ‘‘significant identify only those portions that warrant small and isolated populations, portion of its range’’ (SPR) (79 FR further consideration, we determine hybridization with dogs, 37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy whether there is substantial information overexploitation of salmon runs, disease states that (1) if a species is found to be indicating that (1) the portions may be transmission from farmed salmon, endangered or threatened throughout a significant and (2) the species may be in overutilization, disease, and predation. significant portion of its range, the danger of extinction in those portions or We found that potential threats are entire species is listed as an endangered likely to become so within the concentrated in GMU 2, where they are or a threatened species, respectively, foreseeable future. We emphasize that substantially greater than in other and the Act’s protections apply to all answering these questions in the portions of its range. We considered individuals of the species wherever affirmative is not a determination that adjacent parts of the range that are found; (2) a portion of the range of a the species is endangered or threatened contained in GMUs 1 and 3, but, based species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is throughout a significant portion of its on the best available information, we not currently endangered or threatened range; rather, it is a step in determining did not find any concentrations of throughout all of its range, but the whether a more detailed analysis of the stressors in those parts that were similar portion’s contribution to the viability of issue is required. In practice, a key part in magnitude and frequency to the the species is so important that, without of this analysis is whether the threats potential threats in GMU 2. Therefore, the members in that portion, the species are geographically concentrated in some we then considered whether GMU 2 is would be in danger of extinction, or way. If the threats to the species are ‘‘significant’’ based on the Service’s SPR likely to become so in the foreseeable affecting it uniformly throughout its policy, which states that a portion of its future, throughout all of its range; (3) range, no portion is likely to warrant range is ‘‘significant’’ if the taxon is not the range of a species is considered to further consideration. Moreover, if any currently endangered or threatened be the general geographical area within concentration of threats apply only to throughout all of its range, but the which that species can be found at the portions of the range that clearly do not portion’s contribution to the viability of time the Service or the National Marine meet the biologically based definition of the taxon is so important that, without Fisheries Service makes any particular ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that the members in that portion, the taxon status determination; and (4) if a portion clearly would not be expected to would be in danger of extinction, or vertebrate species is endangered or increase the vulnerability to extinction likely to become so in the foreseeable threatened throughout an SPR, and the of the entire species), those portions future, throughout all of its range. population in that significant portion is will not warrant further consideration. We reviewed population and a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather If we identify any portions that may rangewide metrics in relation to GMU 2 than the entire taxonomic species or be both (1) significant and (2) to estimate the numerical contribution subspecies. endangered or threatened, we engage in of GMU 2 to the viability of the The SPR policy is applied to all status a more detailed analysis to determine Alexander Archipelago wolf. We determinations, including analyses for whether these standards are indeed met. determined that GMU 2 constitutes only the purposes of making listing, The identification of an SPR does not 4 percent of the total range and 9 delisting, and reclassification create a presumption, prejudgment, or percent of the range below 1,312 ft (400 determinations. The procedure for other determination as to whether the m) in elevation where these wolves analyzing whether any portion is an species in that identified SPR is spend most of their time (see ‘‘Space SPR is similar, regardless of the type of endangered or threatened. We must go and Habitat Use,’’ above). In addition, status determination we are making. through a separate analysis to determine based on the most current population The first step in our analysis of the whether the species is endangered or estimate for GMU 2, which was assessed status of a species is to determine its threatened in the SPR. To determine in 2014, we estimated that only 6 status throughout all of its range. If we whether a species is endangered or percent of the rangewide population determine that the species is in danger threatened throughout an SPR, we will occupies GMU 2. Recognizing the of extinction, or likely to become so in use the same standards and apparent recent decline in the GMU 2 the foreseeable future, throughout all of methodology that we use to determine population (see ‘‘Abundance and its range, we list the species as an if a species is endangered or threatened Trend,’’ above), we then estimated that endangered (or threatened) species and throughout its range. in 2013, the GMU 2 population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

composed about 13 percent of the the GMU 2 wolf population meets the Archipelago wolf. It occupies a portion rangewide population. We expect wolf definition of a distinct population of the Alexander Archipelago within the abundance to fluctuate annually at the segment (DPS) under the Act, as range of wolf that is physically population and rangewide scales, but requested in the petition. separated from adjacent populations generally in recent years, we find that To interpret and implement the DPS due to comparatively long and swift the GMU 2 population composes a provisions of the Act and Congressional water crossings and the fact that few somewhat small percentage of the guidance, we, in conjunction with the crossings are available to dispersing rangewide population. Therefore, we National Marine Fisheries Service, wolves. Although low levels of conclude that, numerically, the GMU 2 published the Policy Regarding the movement between the GMU 2 population contributes little to the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate population segment and other viability of the taxon as a whole given Population Segments (DPS policy) in populations likely occur (see ‘‘Dispersal that it composes a small percentage of the Federal Register on February 7, and Connectivity,’’ above), the GMU 2 the current rangewide population and it 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS wolf population is largely insular and occupies a small percentage of the range policy, two basic elements are geographically peripheral to the rest of of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. considered in the decision regarding the the range of the Alexander Archipelago We then considered the biological establishment of a population of a wolf; further, the Service’s DPS policy contribution of the GMU 2 population to vertebrate species as a possible DPS. We does not require absolute separation to the viability of the Alexander must first determine whether the be considered discrete. Archipelago wolf. We found that given population qualifies as a DPS; this In addition, several studies have its insularity and peripheral geographic requires a finding that the population is demonstrated that, based on genetic position compared to the rest of the both: (1) Discrete in relation to the assignment tests, the GMU 2 wolf range, the GMU 2 population remainder of the taxon to which it population forms a distinct genetic contributes even less demographically belongs; and (2) biologically and cluster when compared to other and genetically than it does ecologically significant to the taxon to Alexander Archipelago wolves numerically. In fact, it appears to which it belongs. If the population (Weckworth et al. 2005, pp. 923, 926; function as a sink population with gene meets the first two criteria under the Breed 2007, p. 21). Further, estimates of flow and dispersal primarily occurring DPS policy, we then proceed to the the fixation index (FST, the relative uni-directionally from other areas to third element in the process, which is proportion of genetic variation GMU 2 (see ‘‘Dispersal and to evaluate the population segment’s explained by differences among Connectivity,’’ above). Therefore, conservation status in relation to the populations) are markedly higher overall, we found that GMU 2 represents Act’s standards for listing as an between the GMU 2 population and all a small percentage of the range and endangered or threatened species. These other Alexander Archipelago wolf rangewide population of the Alexander three elements are applied similarly for populations than comparisons between Archipelago wolf, it is insular and additions to or removals from the other populations (e.g., Weckworth et geographically peripheral, and it Federal Lists of Endangered and al. 2005, p. 923; Cronin et al. 2015, p. appears to be functioning as a sink Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 7). Collectively, these findings indicate population to the Alexander genetic discontinuity between wolves in Archipelago wolf. We conclude that, Discreteness GMU 2 and those in the rest of the range although potential threats are In accordance with our DPS policy, of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We concentrated in GMU 2, this portion’s we detail our analysis of whether a review these studies and others in more contribution to the viability of the taxon vertebrate population segment under detail in the Status Assessment (Service as a whole is not so important that, consideration for listing may qualify as 2015, ‘‘Genetic analyses’’). without the members of GMU 2, the a DPS. As described above, we first We found that the GMU 2 population Alexander Archipelago wolf would be evaluate the population segment’s of the Alexander Archipelago wolf is in danger of extinction, or likely to discreteness from the remainder of the markedly separated as a consequence of become so in the foreseeable future, taxon to which it belongs. Under the physical (geographic) features and due throughout all of its range. DPS policy, a population segment of a to genetic divergence from other Our review of the best available vertebrate taxon may be considered populations of the taxon. Therefore, we scientific and commercial information discrete if it satisfies either one of the conclude that it is discrete under the indicates that the Alexander following conditions: Service’s DPS policy. Archipelago wolf is not in danger of (1) It is markedly separated from other Significance extinction (endangered) nor likely to populations of the same taxon as a become endangered within the consequence of physical, physiological, If a population is considered discrete foreseeable future (threatened), ecological, or behavioral factors. under one or more of the conditions throughout all or a significant portion of Quantitative measures of genetic or described in the Service’s DPS policy, its range. Therefore, we find that listing morphological discontinuity may its biological and ecological significance the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an provide evidence of this separation. will be considered in light of endangered or threatened species under (2) It is delimited by international Congressional guidance that the the Act is not warranted at this time. governmental boundaries within which authority to list DPSs be used differences in control of exploitation, ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the Evaluation of the GMU 2 Population of management of habitat, conservation conservation of genetic diversity. In the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as a status, or regulatory mechanisms exist making this determination, we consider Distinct Population Segment that are significant in light of section available scientific evidence of the After determining that the Alexander 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. discrete population segment’s Archipelago wolf is not endangered or We found that the GMU 2 population importance to the taxon to which it threatened throughout all or a is markedly separated as a consequence belongs. As precise circumstances are significant portion of its range and is not of physical, physiological, ecological, or likely to vary considerably from case to likely to become so in the foreseeable behavioral factors from other case, the DPS policy does not describe future, we then evaluate whether or not populations of the Alexander all the classes of information that might

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 457

be used in determining the biological unusual features specific to GMU 2 that Alexander Archipelago wolf. Also, and ecological importance of a discrete were not represented elsewhere in the although rates of immigration to GMU 2 population. However, the DPS policy range. Although karst is more prevalent likely are low (see ‘‘Dispersal and describes four possible classes of in GMU 2, we found no evidence Connectivity,’’ above), recolonization of information that provide evidence of a indicating that wolves selectively use GMU 2 certainly is possible, especially population segment’s biological and karst; in addition, karst is present at low given the condition of the remainder of ecological importance to the taxon to and high elevations in GMUs 1 and 3 the rangewide population. Therefore, which it belongs. As specified in the (Carstensen 2007, p. 24). we conclude that the GMU 2 wolf DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this The GMU 2 wolf population has a population does not meet the definition consideration of the population more restricted ungulate diet, comprised of significance under this element, as segment’s significance may include, but only of deer, than other populations of outlined in the Service’s DPS policy. is not limited to, the following: the Alexander Archipelago wolf (see (1) Persistence of the discrete ‘‘Food Habits,’’ above). However, given Evidence That the Discrete Population population segment in an ecological that the coastal wolf is an opportunistic Segment Represents the Only Surviving setting unusual or unique to the taxon; predator, feeding on intertidal, marine, Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete freshwater, and terrestrial species, we May Be More Abundant Elsewhere as an population segment would result in a find that differences in ungulate prey Introduced Population Outside Its significant gap in the range of a taxon; base are not ecologically unique or Historical Range (3) Evidence that the discrete unusual. In addition, Alexander The GMU 2 population does not population segment represents the only Archipelago wolves feed on deer represent the only surviving natural surviving natural occurrence of a taxon throughout their range in equal or even occurrence of the Alexander that may be more abundant elsewhere as higher proportions than wolves in GMU Archipelago wolf throughout the range an introduced population outside its 2 (e.g., Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 331; of the taxon. Therefore, we conclude historical range; or Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130), that the discrete population of the (4) Evidence that the discrete demonstrating that a diet based largely Alexander Archipelago wolf in GMU 2 population segment differs markedly on deer is not unusual or unique. Thus, does not meet the significance criterion from other populations of the taxon in compared to elsewhere in the range, we of the DPS policy under this factor. its genetic characteristics. found nothing unique or unusual about Given our determination that the Evidence That the Discrete Population the diet or ecological setting of wolves Segment Differs Markedly From Other GMU 2 wolf population is discrete in GMU 2. Further, we did not identify under the Service’s DPS policy, we now Populations of the Taxon in Its Genetic any morphological, physiological, or Characteristics evaluate the biological and ecological behavioral characteristics of the GMU 2 significance of the population relative to wolf population that differ from those of We find that the GMU 2 population the taxon as a whole. A discrete other Alexander Archipelago wolf does not differ markedly from other population segment is considered populations, which may have suggested Alexander Archipelago wolves in its significant under the DPS policy if it a biological response to an unusual or genetic characteristics. As noted above meets one of the four elements unique ecological setting. Therefore, we in Discreteness, the GMU 2 population identified in the policy under conclude that the GMU 2 wolf exhibits genetic discontinuities from significance (described above), or population does not meet the definition other Alexander Archipelago wolves otherwise can be reasonably justified as of significance under this element, as due to differences in allele and being significant. Here, we evaluate the outlined in the Service’s DPS policy. haplotype frequencies. However, those four potential factors suggested by our discontinuities are not indicative of rare DPS policy in evaluating significance of Evidence That Loss of the Discrete or unique genetic characterisics within the GMU 2 wolf population. Population Segment Would Result in a the GMU 2 population that are Significant Gap in the Range of a Taxon significant to the taxon. Rather, several Persistence of the Discrete Population We find that loss of the GMU 2 studies indicate that the genetic Segment in an Ecological Setting population of the Alexander diversity within the GMU 2 population Unusual or Unique to the Taxon Archipelago wolf, when considered in is a subset of the genetic diversity found We find that the GMU 2 population relation to the taxon as a whole, would in other Alexander Archipelago wolves. does not persist in an ecological setting not result in a significant gap in the For example, the GMU 2 population that is unusual or unique to the range of the taxon. It constitutes only 6 does not harbor unique haplotypes; only Alexander Archipelago wolf. To percent of the current rangewide one haplotype was found in the GMU 2 evaluate this element, we considered population, only 4 percent of the range, population, and it was found in other whether or not the habitats used by and only 9 percent of the range below Alexander Archipelago wolves Alexander Archipelago wolves in GMU 1,312 (400 m) in elevation where the including those from coastal British 2 include unusual or unique features Alexander Archipelago wolf selectively Columbia (Weckworth et al. 2010, p. that are not used by or available to the occurs. In addition, the GMU 2 367; Weckworth et al. 2011, p. 2). In taxon elsewhere in its range. We found population is largely insular and addition, the number and frequency of that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is geographically peripheral to other private alleles in the GMU 2 population a habitat generalist, using a variety of populations, and appears to function as is low compared to other Alexander habitats on the landscape and selecting a sink population (see ‘‘Abundance and Archipelago wolves (e.g., Breed 2007, p. only for those that occur below 1,312 ft Trend’’ and ‘‘Dispersal and 18). The lack of unique haplotypes and (400 m) in elevation (see ‘‘Space and Connectivity,’’ above). For these the low numbers of private alleles both Habitat Use,’’ above). Throughout its reasons, we found that the demographic indicate that the GMU 2 population has range, habitats used by and available to and genetic contributions of the GMU 2 not been completely isolated the Alexander Archipelago wolf are wolf population to the rangewide historically from other Alexander similar with some variation from north population are low and that loss of this Archipelago wolves. Finally, these to south and on the mainland and population would have a minor effect genetic studies demonstrate that wolves islands, but we found no unique or on the rangewide population of the in GMU 2 exhibit low genetic diversity

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(as measured through allelic richness, GMU 2 population is not significant in We request that you submit any new heterozygosity, and haplotype diversity) relation to the remainder of the taxon. information concerning the status of, or compared to other Alexander Therefore, this population does not threats to, the Alexander Archipelago Archipelago wolves (Weckworth et al. qualify as a DPS under our 1996 DPS wolf to our Anchorage Fish and Wildlife 2005, p. 919; Breed 2007, p. 17; policy and is not a listable entity under Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 366; the Act. Because we found that the it becomes available. New information Weckworth et al. 2011, p. 2). population did not meet the significance will help us monitor the Alexander Collectively, results of these studies element and, therefore, does not qualify Archipelago wolf and encourage its suggest that the genetic discontinuities as a DPS under the Service’s DPS conservation. If an emergency situation observed in the GMU 2 population policy, we will not proceed with an develops for the Alexander Archipelago likely are the outcome of restricted gene evaluation of the status of the wolf, we will act to provide immediate flow and a loss of genetic diversity population under the Act. through genetic drift or founder effects. protection. Determination of Distinct Population Therefore, although the GMU 2 References Cited population is considered discrete under Segment A complete list of references cited is the Service’s DPS policy based on the Based on the best scientific and available genetic data, it does not harbor commercial information available, as available on the Internet at http:// genetic characteristics that are rare or described above, we find that, under the www.regulations.gov and upon request unique to the Alexander Archipelago Service’s DPS policy, the GMU 2 from the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife wolf and its genetic contribution to the population is discrete, but is not Field Office (see ADDRESSES). taxon as a whole likely is minor. significant to the taxon to which it Moreover, while we found no genetic Authors belongs. Because the GMU 2 population studies that have assessed adaptive is not both discrete and significant, it The primary authors of this document genetic variation of the Alexander does not qualify as a DPS under the Act. Archipelago wolf, the best available are the staff members of the Anchorage genetic data do not indicate that the Conclusion of 12-Month Finding Fish and Wildlife Field Office. GMU 2 population harbors significant Authority adaptive variation, which is supported Our review of the best available further by the fact that the GMU 2 scientific and commercial information The authority for this section is population is not persisting in an indicates that the Alexander section 4 of the Endangered Species Act unusual or unique ecological setting. Archipelago wolf is not in danger of of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Therefore, we conclude that the GMU 2 extinction (endangered) nor likely to seq.). population does not meet the definition become endangered within the Dated: December 15, 2015. of significance under this element, as foreseeable future (threatened), outlined in the Service’s DPS policy. throughout all or a significant portion of Stephen Guertin, its range. Therefore, we find that listing Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Summary of Significance the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an [FR Doc. 2015–32473 Filed 1–5–16; 8:45 am] We determine, based on a review of endangered or threatened species under BILLING CODE 4333–15–P the best available information, that the the Act is not warranted at this time.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:11 Jan 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM 06JAP1 wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS