Vol. 78 Thursday, No. 114 June 13, 2013

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi ) by Listing It as Endangered; Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf; Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:54 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR proposed rule also constitutes the Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife completion of a status review for gray Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS Fish and Wildlife Service wolves in the Pacific Northwest 2042–PDM; Arlington, Virginia 22203. initiated on May 5, 2011. We will post all comments on http:// 50 CFR Part 17 Finally, this proposed rule replaces www.regulations.gov. This generally [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073; our May 5, 2011, proposed action to means that we will post any personal FXES11130900000C2–134–FF09E32000] remove protections for C. lupus in all or information you provide us (see the portions of 29 eastern states (76 FR RIN 1018–AY00 Public Comments section below for 26086). more information). Submissions of hard Endangered and Threatened Wildlife DATES: Comment submission: We will copy comments on our Proposed and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf accept comments received or Revision to the Nonessential (Canis lupus) From the List of postmarked on or before September 11, Experimental Population of the Mexican Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 2013. Wolf, which also published in today’s and Maintaining Protections for the Public hearings: We must receive Federal Register should be addressed to Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by requests for public hearings, in writing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013– Listing It as Endangered at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 0056 using the method described above. INFORMATION CONTACT by July 29, 2013. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interior. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Headquarters Office, Ecological by one of the following methods: ACTIONS: Proposed rule. Services; telephone (703) 358–2171. (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal Direct all questions or requests for SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and eRulemaking Portal: http:// additional information to: GRAY WOLF Wildlife Service (Service) evaluated the www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification status of gray wolves enter FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073, which Service, Headquarters Office, (Canis lupus) currently listed in the is the docket number for this Endangered Species Program, 4401 contiguous United States and Mexico rulemaking. Please ensure you have North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, under the Endangered Species Act of found the correct document before Arlington, Virginia 22203. Individuals 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our submitting your comments. If your who are hearing-impaired or speech- evaluation, we propose to remove the comments will fit in the provided impaired may call the Federal Relay gray wolf from the List of Endangered comment box, please use this feature of Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY and Threatened Wildlife but to maintain http://regulations.gov, as it is most assistance. endangered status for the Mexican wolf compatible with our comment–review by listing it as a subspecies (Canis lupus procedures. If you attach your SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: baileyi). We propose these actions comments as a separate document, our Executive Summary because the best available scientific and preferred file format is Microsoft Word. commercial information indicates that If you attach multiple comments (such This document contains a proposed the currently listed entity is not a valid as form letters), our preferred format is rule to remove the current listing for species under the Act and that the a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. gray wolf, Canis lupus, from the List of Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) is an Submissions of electronic comments on Endangered Wildlife and Threatened endangered subspecies. our Proposed Revision to the (List) and add an endangered listing for In addition, we recognize recent Nonessential Experimental Population the Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi. taxonomic information indicating that of the Mexican Wolf, which also The evaluations that are included in this the gray wolf subspecies, Canis lupus published in today’s Federal Register, proposed rule are summarized in Table lycaon, which occurs in southeastern should be submitted to Docket No. 1. While later in this document we Canada and historically occurred in the FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056 using the discuss our recognition of Canis lycaon northeastern United States and portions method described above. as a separate species based on recent of the upper Midwest (eastern and (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail taxonomic information, we have not western Great Lakes regions) United or hand-delivery to: Public Comments completed a status review on this States, should be recognized as a Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–ES–2013– species to date and, therefore, do not separate species, Canis lycaon. This 0073; Division of Policy and Directives include it in this table.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Valid Unit of assessment Description listable Determination entity?

Canis lupus ...... current listed entity—all or portions of 42 States and Mexico ...... no ...... Delist. Canis lupus ...... species—rangewide ...... yes ...... Listing not warranted. Canis lupus nubilus ...... subspecies—rangewide ...... yes ...... Listing not warranted. Canis lupus occidentalis ...... subspecies—rangewide ...... yes ...... Listing not warranted. Canis lupus baileyi ...... subspecies—rangewide ...... yes ...... List as endangered. C. lupus in Pacific Northwest ...... Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northern California ...... no ...... Not a listable entity.

Purpose of the Regulatory Action current scientific and commercial States. After a thorough evaluation of information with respect to the status of the best available science we have This proposed rulemaking is intended C. lupus and any subspecies and determined that, with the exception of to ensure the List of Endangered and potential distinct population segments Mexican wolves (from here on referred Threatened Wildlife reflects the most of C. lupus in the contiguous United to by the scientific name, Canis lupus

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35665

baileyi), C. lupus and C. lupus NRM Northern Rocky Mountain As this proposal is intended to subspecies in the contiguous United ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and replace our May 5, 2011, proposal to States do not warrant listing under the Wildlife remove protections for C. lupus in all or Act. This evaluation was based on new OMB Office of Management and portions of 29 eastern contiguous states data that has become available since the Budget (76 FR 26086), we ask that any original listing, including new ORS Oregon Code of Regulations comments previously submitted that information on C. lupus taxonomy PARC Predator and Rodent Control may be relevant to the proposal (Chambers et al. 2012 and Rutledge et RCW Revised Code of Washington presented in this rule be resubmitted at Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service al. 2012). Canis lupus baileyi continues this time. SNP single-nucleotide polymorphisms You may submit your comments and to warrant endangered status under the SPR significant portion of its range materials by one of the methods listed Act. SSP Species Survival Plan UBI Ungulate Biomass Index in ADDRESSES. We will not accept Major Provision of the Regulatory comments sent by email or fax or to an Action USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture WAC Washington Administrative address not listed in ADDRESSES. This proposed action is authorized by Code Comments must be submitted to http:// the Act. We are proposing to amend WDFW Washington Department of www.regulations.gov before midnight § 17.11(h), subchapter B of chapter I, Fish and Wildlife (Eastern Daylight Time) on the date title 50 of the Code of Federal WGL Western Great Lakes specified in DATES. Finally, we will not Regulations by removing the entries for consider hand-delivered comments that Public Comments ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under MAMMALS in the we do not receive, or mailed comments List of Endangered and Threatened We intend that any final action that are not postmarked, by the date Wildlife and adding entries for ‘‘Wolf, resulting from this proposal will be as specified in DATES. Mexican’’ in alphabetic order. accurate and as effective as possible. We will post your entire comment— Therefore, comments, new information, including your personal identifying Costs and Benefits or suggestions from the public, other information—on http:// We have not analyzed the costs or concerned governmental agencies, the www.regulations.gov. If you provide benefits of this rulemaking action scientific community, industry, or any personal identifying information, such because the Act precludes consideration other interested party concerning this as your street address, phone number, or of such impacts on listing and delisting proposed rule are hereby solicited. In email address, you may request at the determinations. Instead, listing and particular, we are seeking targeted top of your document that we withhold delisting decisions are based solely on information and comments on our this information from public review. the best scientific and commercial proposed removal of C. lupus from the However, we cannot guarantee that we information available regarding the List of Endangered and Threatened will be able to do so. status of the subject species. Wildlife and addition of C. l. baileyi as Comments and materials we receive, an endangered subspecies. We also seek as well as some of the supporting Acronyms and Abbreviations Used comment on the following categories of documentation we used in preparing We use several acronyms and information. this proposed rule, will be available for abbreviations throughout the preamble (1) Biological, commercial trade, or public inspection on http:// of this proposed rule. To assist the other relevant information concerning www.regulations.gov at Docket No. reader, we list them here: our analysis of the current C. lupus FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073, or by Act Endangered Species Act 0f 1973, listed entity and the adequacy of the appointment, during normal business as amended approach taken in this analysis, with hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and particular respect to our interpretation Headquarters Office, Endangered Game of the term ‘‘population’’ as it relates to Species Program, 4401 North Fairfax AGFD Arizona Game and Fish the 1996 Policy Regarding the Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203. Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Department Public Hearings APA Administrative Procedure Act Population Segments (DPS policy) (61 BRWRA Blue Range Wolf Recovery FR 4722, February 7, 1996) and In accordance with Section 4(b)(5) of Area specifically to gray wolves. the Act, we intend to hold public CDV Canine distemper virus (2) Information concerning the hearings on the proposal prior to the CFR Code of Federal Regulations genetics and taxonomy of the eastern close of the public comment period. The CITES Convention on International wolf, Canis lycaon. dates, times, and places of those Trade in Endangered Species of Wild (3) Information concerning the status hearings, as well as how to obtain Fauna and Flora of the gray wolf in the Pacific Northwest reasonable accommodations, will be COSEWIC Committee on the Status of United States and the following gray presented subsequently in the Federal Endangered Wildlife in Canada wolf subspecies: Canis lupus nubilus, Register and local newspapers at least CPV Canine parvovirus Canis lupus occidentalis, and C. l. 15 days before any such hearings. DPS distinct population segment baileyi, including: Peer Review ESA Endangered Species Act (a) Genetics and taxonomy; FR Federal Register (b) New information concerning In accordance with our joint policy on IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on range, distribution, population size, and peer review published in the Federal Climate Change population trends; Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), IUCN International Union for (c) New biological or other relevant we will seek the expert opinions of at Conservation of Nature data concerning any threat (or lack least three appropriate and independent LEOs Law Enforcement Officers thereof) to these subspecies, their specialists regarding scientific data and List Federal List of Endangered and habitat, or both; and interpretations contained in this Threatened Wildlife (d) New information regarding proposed rule. The purpose of such MWEPA Mexican Wolf Experimental conservation measures for these review is to ensure that our decisions Population Area populations, their habitat, or both. are based on scientifically sound data,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35666 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

assumptions, and analyses. We will sought to clarify that the gray wolf was Society of the United States v. Salazar, invite these peer reviewers to comment only listed south of the Canadian 1:09–CV–1092–PLF (D.D.C.)), by the during this public comment period on border. However, the 1978 rule also spring of 2010 the listing for C. lupus in our proposed actions. stipulated that ‘‘biological subspecies 50 CFR 17.11 remained unchanged from We will consider all comments and would continue to be maintained and the reclassification that occurred in information we receive during this dealt with as separate entities’’ (43 FR 1978 except for the addition of the three comment period on this proposed rule 9609), and offered ‘‘the firmest experimental populations (Yellowstone during our preparation of the final assurance that [the Service] will Experimental Population Area (59 FR determination. Accordingly, the final continue to recognize valid biological 60252, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, decision may differ from this proposal. subspecies for purposes of its research January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, Previous Federal Actions and conservation programs’’ (43 FR 2008), Central Idaho Experimental 9610, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, we Population Area (59 FR 60266, Gray wolves were originally listed as implemented three gray wolf recovery November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January subspecies or as regional populations of programs in the following regions of the 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), subspecies in the contiguous United country: the Western Great Lakes and the Mexican Wolf Experimental States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed C. (Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Population Area (63 FR 1752, January l. lycaon in the Great Lakes region (32 administered by the Service’s Great 12, 1998)). For additional information FR 4001, March 11, 1967), and in 1973 Lakes, Big Rivers Region), the Northern on these Federal actions and their we listed C. l. irremotus in the northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Montana, and associated litigation history refer to the Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June 4, Wyoming, administered by the Service’s relevant associated rules (68 FR 15804, 1973). Both listings were promulgated Mountain–Prairie Region and Pacific April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, under the Endangered Species Region), and the Southwest (Arizona, 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; Conservation Act of 1969; subsequently, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico, 74 FR 15070; and 74 FR 15123, April 2, on January 4, 1974, these subspecies administered by the Service’s Southwest 2009) or the Previous Federal Actions were listed under the Endangered Region). Recovery plans were developed sections of our recent gray wolf actions Species Act of 1973 (39 FR 1171). We in each of these areas (the northern (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 76 FR listed a third gray wolf subspecies, C. l. Rocky Mountains in 1980, revised in 81666, December 28, 2011; 77 FR 55530, baileyi, as endangered on April 28, 1976 1987; the Great Lakes in 1978, revised September 10, 2012). (41 FR 17736), in the southwestern in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982, the In the northern Rocky Mountains, on United States and Mexico. On June 14, revision of which is now underway) to May 5, 2011, we published a final rule 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed a fourth establish and prioritize recovery criteria that implemented Section 1713 of gray wolf subspecies, C. l. monstrabilis, and actions appropriate to the unique Public Law 112–10, reinstating our as endangered in Texas and Mexico. April 2, 2009, delisting rule which In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR local circumstances of the gray wolf. A separate recovery effort for gray wolves identified the Northern Rocky Mountain 9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the (NRM) population of gray wolf as a gray wolf as an endangered population formerly listed as C. l. monstrabilis was not undertaken because this subspecies distinct population segment (DPS) and, at the species level (C. lupus) with the exception of Wyoming, throughout the contiguous United States was subsumed with C. l. baileyi and thus addressed as part of the recovery removed gray wolves in the DPS from and Mexico, except for the Minnesota the List (76 FR 25590). Although gray plan for the Southwest. gray wolf population, which was wolves in Wyoming were not included classified as threatened. At that time, we Between 2003 and 2009 we published in the May 5, 2011, final delisting, we considered the gray wolf group in several rules revising the 1978 have since finalized the removal of gray Minnesota to be a listable entity under contiguous United States and Mexico wolves in Wyoming from the List (77 FR the Act, and we considered the gray listing for C. lupus in an attempt to 55530, September 10, 2012). wolf group in Mexico and the 48 recognize the biological recovery of gray In the western Great Lakes, on May 5, contiguous United States other than wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain 2011, we also published a proposed rule Minnesota to be another listable entity and western Great Lakes populations to revise the List for C. lupus in the (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, but leave the gray wolf in the eastern United States (76 FR 26086). March 9, 1978). The separate subspecies southwestern United States and Mexico This proposal included (1) revising the listings thus were subsumed into the listed as endangered (except for the 1978 listing of the Minnesota listings for the gray wolf in Minnesota nonessential experimental population in population of gray wolves, identifying it and the gray wolf in the rest of the Arizona and New Mexico) (68 FR 15804, as the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS contiguous United States and Mexico. In April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, (the DPS includes all of Minnesota, that 1978 rule, we also identified critical 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; Wisconsin, and Michigan and portions habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, of the adjacent states), and removing promulgated special regulations under 2009). However, each of these revisions that WGL DPS from the List, and (2) section 4(d) of the Act for operating a was challenged in court. As a result of revising the range of the gray wolf (the wolf management program in court orders (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. species C. lupus) by removing all or Minnesota. The special regulation was v. Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. parts of 29 eastern states that we later modified (50 FR 50793, December Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, recognized were not part of the 12, 1985). et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d historical range of the gray wolf. The 1978 reclassification was 553 (D. Vt. 2005); Defenders of Wildlife, On December 28, 2011, we published undertaken to ‘‘most conveniently’’ et al. v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 a final rule that revised the listing of the handle a listing that needed to be (D. Mont. 2008); Defenders of Wildlife, Minnesota population of gray wolves, revised because of changes in our et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F.Supp.2d identified it as part of the WGL DPS, understanding of gray wolf taxonomy, 1207 (D. Mont. 2010); Humane Society and removed the DPS from the List (76 and in recognition of the fact that of the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 FR 81666). We also notified the public individual wolves sometimes cross F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)) and, in one that we had separated our determination subspecific boundaries. In addition, we case, a settlement agreement (Humane on the delisting of the WGL DPS from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35667

the determination on our proposal Rewilding Institute requesting that we Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, regarding all or portions of the 29 list the Mexican wolf as an endangered Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, eastern states we considered to be subspecies and designate critical habitat Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, North outside the historical range of the gray under the Act. On October 9, 2012, we Carolina, Nebraska, New Hampshire, wolf and stated that a subsequent published a 12-month finding in the New Jersey, Nevada, New York, decision would be made for the rest of Federal Register stating that, because all Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, the eastern United States. individuals that constitute the South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, In the southwest, on August 11, 2009, petitioned entity already receive the Vermont, and West Virginia; those we received a petition from the Center protections of the Act, the petitioned portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and for Biological Diversity requesting that action was not warranted at that time Texas not included in the experimental we list the Mexican wolf as an (77 FR 61375). endangered subspecies or DPS and As a result of the actions described population, and portions of Iowa, designate critical habitat under the Act. above, the current C. lupus listed entity Indiana, Illinois, North Dakota, Ohio, On August 12, 2009, we received a now includes all or portions of 42 states Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and petition dated August 10, 2009, from (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Washington), and Mexico (Figure 1). WildEarth Guardians and The Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

On February 29, 2012, we concluded National Wolf Strategy unintended consequences for other a 5-year review of the C. lupus listed populations; and (3) be explicit about entity, recommending that the entity We first described our national wolf the role of historical range in the currently described on the List should strategy in our May 5, 2011, proposed conservation of extant wolf populations. rule to revise the List for the gray wolf be revised to reflect the distribution and in the eastern United States (76 FR The strategy is based on three status of C. lupus populations in the 26086). This strategy was intended to: precepts. First, to qualify for listing, contiguous United States and Mexico by (1) Lay out a cohesive and coherent wolf entities must conform to the Act’s removing all areas currently included in approach to addressing wolf definition of ‘‘species,’’ whether as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) conservation needs, including taxonomic species or subspecies or as range except where there is a valid protection and management, in DPSs. Second, the strategy promotes the species, subspecies, or DPS that is accordance with the Act’s statutory continued representation of all threatened or endangered. framework; (2) ensure that actions taken substantially unique genetic lineages of for one wolf population do not cause gray wolves found historically in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP13JN13.000 35668 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

contiguous United States. Third, wolf Taxonomy section below. With respect 15266, March 27, 2006; 74 FR 15123, conservation under the Act is concerned to the status of C. lycaon, our analysis April 2, 2009; 75 FR 46894, August 4, with reducing extinction risk to is ongoing (see C. lycaon section below). 2010; and 76 FR 81666, December 28, imperiled species, subspecies, or valid With regard to C. rufus, red wolves 2011). Gray wolves are the largest wild DPSs. The May 5, 2011, proposed rule currently are listed as endangered where members of the Canidae, or dog family, further stated that our strategy focused found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967); the with adults ranging from 18 to 80 on conservation of four extant gray wolf red wolf listing is not affected by this kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)), populations: (1) The WGL population, proposal, and recovery efforts for red depending on sex and geographic locale (2) the NRM population, (3) the wolves will continue (Red Wolf (Mech 1974, p. 1). Gray wolves have a southwestern population of Mexican Recovery and Species Survival Plan; circumpolar range including North wolves, and (4) a potential population of Service 1990). America, Europe, and Asia. A recent gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest. genetic study found that gray wolves All of our actions to date are Approach for This Proposed Rule also occur in portions of North Africa consistent with this focus. As stated In this proposed rule we consider (Rueness et al. 2011, pp. 1–5; Gaubert et above (see Previous Federal Actions), whether and to what extent gray wolves al. 2012, pp. 3–7). In North America, we published final rules delisting the should be listed in the contiguous wolves are primarily predators of NRM DPS, except for Wyoming, on May United States and Mexico. Our analysis medium and large mammals, such as 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590), and the WGL begins with an evaluation of the current moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus DPS on December 28, 2011 (76 FR C. lupus listed entity (Figure 1), with a elaphus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 81666). On September 10, 2012, we focus on current taxonomic information virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus published a final rule delisting the and statutory and policy requirements hemionus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Wyoming portion of the NRM DPS (77 under the Act. Consistent with our 5- muskox (Ovibos moschatus), bison FR 55530). year review, we conclude that the (Bison bison), and beaver (Castor We have completed our evaluation of current C. lupus listed entity is not a canadensis). Gray wolves have long legs the status of gray wolves currently valid species under the Act and now that are well adapted to running, occupying portions of the Pacific propose to remove this entity from the allowing them to move fast and travel Northwest, and our assessment to List (see Evaluation of the Current C. far in search of food (Mech 1970, p. 13), determine if they qualify for Listing lupus Listed Entity). However, our 5- and large skulls and jaws, well suited to under the Act is presented in this year review further recommends that we catching and feeding on large mammals proposed rule. The status of the consider whether there are any valid (Mech 1970, p. 14). Wolves also have southwestern population (i.e., C. l. species, subspecies, or DPSs of gray keen senses of smell, hearing, and baileyi) was reviewed pursuant to our wolf that are threatened or endangered vision, which they use to detect prey 90-day finding on two listing petitions in the contiguous United States and and one another (Mech 1970, p. 15). Pelt (75 FR 46894, August 4, 2010). We Mexico. Thus, in this rule we consider color varies in wolves more than in published a not warranted 12-month whether the current C. lupus listed almost any other species, from white, to finding on October 9, 2012 (77 FR entity is part of a valid species or grizzled gray, brown, to coal black 61375). However, in that finding we includes any valid subspecies, or DPSs (Mech 1970, p. 16). stated that we could not, consistent with of gray wolf that warrant protections Wolves share an evolutionary history the requirements of the Act, take any under the Act. Because we are with other mammalian carnivores action that would remove the considering whether protections need to (Order Carnivora), or meat eaters, which protections accruing to the remain in place for any of the gray are distinguished by their long, pointed southwestern population under the wolves that are included in the current canine teeth, sharp sheering fourth existing C. lupus listing without first C. lupus listed entity, we are focusing upper premolars and first lower molars, determining whether the southwestern our evaluation on valid listable entities simple digestive system, sharp claws, population warranted listing separately (i.e., C. lupus and subspecies and and highly developed brains (Mech as a subspecies or a DPS, and, if so, potential DPSs of C. lupus) with ranges 1970, pp. 20–21). Divergence among the putting a separate listing in place (77 FR that are at least partially within the ancestral mammalian carnivores began 61377, October 9, 2012). Therefore, contiguous United States or Mexico. In 40 to 50 million years ago (Mech 1970, because we are now proposing to this rule we also consider recent p. 21), and at some point during the late remove protections for the current C. scientific information with respect to Miocene Epoch (between 4.5 to 9 lupus listed entity, we must reconsider eastern wolf taxonomy. See Taxonomy million years ago) the first species of the listing the southwestern population as a section for detailed discussions of the genus Canis arose, the forerunner of all subspecies or DPS, and we present our subspecies we evaluate and the modern wolves, coyotes (Canis latrans), analysis and determination regarding Service’s position on eastern wolf and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) that matter in this proposed rule. (Nowak 2003, p. 241). The lineage of taxonomy. Our national wolf strategy also wolves and coyotes diverged between addresses the two other wolf taxa that Species Information 1.8 to 2.5 million years ago (Nowak fall within the range described for C. 2003, p. 241). Domestication of wolves Biology and Ecology lupus in the 1978 reclassification, the led to all modern domestic dog breeds eastern wolf (C. lycaon) and the red wolf The biology and ecology of the gray and probably started somewhere (Canis rufus). Consistent with our wolf has been widely described in the between 135,000 to 13,000 years ago current understanding of C. lycaon scientific literature (e.g., Mech 1970, (reviewed by Honeycutt 2010, p. 3). taxonomy and the historical range of C. Mech and Boitani 2003), in Service Gray wolves are highly territorial, lupus, our proposal to remove the recovery plans (e.g., Northern Rocky social animals and group hunters, current C. lupus entity from the List Mountain Recovery Plan (Service 1987) normally living in packs of 7 or less, but addresses the error of continuing to and Recovery Plan for the Eastern sometimes attaining pack sizes of 20 or include all or parts of 29 eastern states Timber Wolf (Service 1992)), and in more wolves (Mech 1970, pp. 38–40; in the current C. lupus listing. For a previous proposed and final rules (e.g., Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 8, 19). complete discussion of this issue, see 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR Packs are family groups consisting of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35669

breeding pair, their pups from the of the pack may disperse, starve, or rates and self-regulation of the current year, offspring from the previous remain in the territory until an population remain low, human-caused year, and occasionally an unrelated wolf unrelated dispersing wolf arrives and mortality can replace up to 70 percent (Mech 1970, p. 45; Mech and Boitani mates with one of the remaining pack of natural mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, 2003, p. 2). Normally, only the top- members (Brainerd et al. 2008, pp. 93– p. 186). ranking male and female in each pack 94, Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 28–29). Taxonomy breed and produce pups, although Yearling wolves frequently disperse, sometimes maturing wolves within a although some remain with their natal The taxonomy of the genus Canis has pack will also breed with members of pack (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11– a complex and contentious history (for the pack or through liaisons with 17). Dispersers may become nomadic an overview of the taxonomic history of members of other packs (Mech and and cover large areas as lone animals, or the genus Canis in North America, see Boitani 2003, p. 3). Females and males they may locate suitable unoccupied Chambers et al. 2012, pp. 16–22). The typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds habitats and members of the opposite literature contains at least 31 published and may produce young annually until sex to establish their own territorial names for species or subspecies in the they are over 10 years old. Litters are pack (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11– genus (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 849; born from early April into May and can 17). Dispersal distances in North Chambers et al. 2012, Table 1). Hall range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally America typically range from 65 to 154 (1981) and Nowak (1995), who include 5 to 6 pups (Mech 1970, p. 119; km (40 to 96 miles) (Boyd and Pletscher conducted the most recent Fuller et al. 2003, p. 176). Normally a 1999, p. 1102), although dispersal comprehensive reviews based on pack has a single litter annually, but 2 distances of several hundred kilometers morphology, both recognize two species litters from different females in a single are occasionally reported (Boyd and of wolves, C. lupus and C. rufus. Hall pack have been reported, and in one Pletscher 1999, pp. 1094, 1100; Mech (1981), however, recognized 27 instance 3 litters in a single pack were and Boitani 2003, pp. 14–15, Oregon subspecies (24 in North America) of C. documented (reviewed by Fuller et al. Department of Fish and Wildlife lupus while Nowak (1995) recognized 2003, p. 175). Offspring usually remain (ODFW) 2011, p. 55). These dispersal 14 subspecies (5 in North America) of C. with their parents for 10–54 months movements allow a wolf population to lupus. before dispersing, meaning that packs quickly expand and colonize areas of More recently, the advance in may include the offspring from up to 4 suitable habitat that are nearby or even molecular genetic capabilities has led to breeding seasons (reviewed by Mech those that are separated by a broad area even greater controversy regarding and Boitani 2003, p. 2). of unsuitable habitat. interpretations of wolf taxonomy Packs typically occupy and defend a Wolf populations are remarkably (Chambers et al. 2012, pp. 4–5). territory of 33 to more than 2,600 square resilient as long as food supply (a Chambers et al. (2012) reviewed the kilometers (sq km) (13 to more than function of both prey density and prey available scientific literature to assess 1,016 square miles (sq mi)), with vulnerability), habitat, and regulation of the taxonomic classification of wolves territories tending to be smaller at lower human-caused mortality (Fuller et al. in North America. They believe the latitudes (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 2003, pp. 187–189; Creel and Rotella current literature supports recognition 21–22; Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 172–175). 2010, pp. 4–6) are adequate. In naturally of three subspecies of gray wolf in North The large variability in territory size is occurring populations (in the absence of America (C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis, likely due to differences in pack size; hunting), wolves are likely limited by a and C. l. baileyi) and is not definitive prey size, distribution, and availability; density-dependent, intrinsic regulatory with regard to a potential fourth population lags in response to changes mechanism (e.g., social strife, subspecies (Canis lupus arctos) of gray in prey abundance; and variation in territoriality, disease) when ungulate wolf in North America. Researchers prey vulnerability (e.g., seasonal age densities are high, and are limited by continue to debate such questions as to structure in ungulates) (Mech and prey availability when ungulate the identity of the wolves in the Great Boitani 2003, pp. 21–22). densities are low (Carriappa et al. 2011, Lakes (Wilson et al. 2000, Leonard and Pack social structure is very adaptable p. 729). Where harvest occurs, high Wayne 2008, Koblmu¨ ller et al. 2009), and resilient. Breeding members can be levels of reproduction and immigration the northern extent of C. l. baileyi quickly replaced either from within or can compensate for mortality rates of 17 historical (pre-1900s) range (Leonard et outside the pack, and pups can be to 48 percent ([Fuller et al. 2003 +/– 8 al. 2005), whether wolves in the western reared by another pack member, should percent], pp. 184–185; Adams et al. United States are truly differentiated their parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; 2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and (for example, vonHoldt et al. 2011 show Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; little genetic separation between the 1482). Consequently, wolf populations Sparkman et al. 2011 [25 percent], p. 5; purported C. l. occidentalis and C. l. can rapidly recover from severe Gude et al. 2011 [48 percent], pp. 113– nubilus), and the taxonomy of wolves in disruptions, such as very high levels of 116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 the Pacific coastal region (Munoz- human-caused mortality or disease. percent]). Recent studies suggest the Fuentes et al. 2009, Weckworth et al. Wolf populations have been shown to sustainable mortality rate may be lower, 2011, pp. 5–6). increase rapidly if the source of and that harvest may have a partially The lack of consensus among mortality is reduced after severe additive or even super additive effect researchers on these issues prompted declines (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181– (i.e., harvest increases total mortality Chambers et al. (2012, entire) to conduct 183; Service et al. 2012, Table 4). beyond the effect of direct killing itself, an evaluation and synthesis of the A wolf pack will generally maintain through social disruption or the loss of available scientific literature related to its territory as long as the breeding pair dependent offspring) on wolf mortality the taxonomy of North American wolves is not killed, and even if one member of (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2514; Creel and to date. This is the only peer-reviewed the breeding pair is killed, the pack may Rotella 2010, p. 6), but there is synthesis of its kind conducted for hold its territory until a new mate substantial debate on this issue (Gude et North American wolves and arrives (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 28– al. 2012, pp. 113–116). When summarizes and synthesizes the best 29). If both members of the breeding populations are maintained below available scientific information on the pair are killed, the remaining members carrying capacity and natural mortality issue. Chambers et al. (2012, entire)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35670 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

employed the general concordance southeastern United States was indicate that the gray wolf (C. lupus) did approach of Avise (2004, entire) to occupied by the red wolf (C. rufus) not occur in the eastern United States. recognize subspecies. The nature of rather than the gray wolf. Based on these recent studies, we available data does not permit the At the time the gray wolf was listed view the historical range of the gray application of many traditional in 1978, and until the molecular wolf in the contiguous United States as subspecies criteria (i.e., 75-percent rule, genetics studies of the last few years, the the central and western United States, Mayr 1963, p. 348; 1969, p. 190; 90 range of the gray wolf prior to European including portions of the western Great percent separation rule, Patten and settlement was generally believed to Lakes region, the Great Plains, portions Unitt, 2002, p. 27; reciprocal include most of North America. The of the Rocky Mountains, the monophyly, Zink 2004, entire). The only areas believed to have lacked gray Intermountain West, the Pacific states, Avise (2004, entire) method is the most wolf populations were the coastal and and portions of the Southwest. applicable to the disparate data sets interior portions of California, the arid In sum, we now recognize three wolf available on wolves, and evaluates deserts and mountaintops of the western species with ranges in the contiguous concordance in patterns from measures United States, and parts of the eastern United States: C. lupus, C. lycaon, and of divergence from morphology and and southeastern United States (Young C. rufus. various genetic marker systems. and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech Gray Wolf Subspecies of the Contiguous While many experts reject the 1974, and Nowak 1995). However, some United States and Mexico recognition of subspecies due to the authorities have questioned the reported often arbitrary nature of the division of historical absence of gray wolves in Within C. lupus, individuals are intraspecific variation along lines across parts of California (Carbyn in litt. 2000, generally similar with some small which entities may freely move and Mech in litt. 2000). differences in the details of morphology, interbreed, the Act is explicit that Furthermore, we note long-held average body mass, and genetic lineage, threatened or endangered subspecies are differences of opinion regarding the as might be expected in a widespread to be protected. Given the available extent of the gray wolf’s historical range species with geographic barriers that data, we accept the conclusions of in the eastern and southeastern United restrict or temporarily inhibit gene flow Chambers et al. (2012) regarding States. Some researchers regarded (Nowak 2003, p. 244). A number of taxonomic subdivisions, including Georgia’s southeastern corner as the taxonomists have attempted to describe species and subspecies, of North southern extent of gray wolf range and organize this variation by American wolves and approximate (Young and Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); designating subspecies of gray wolf historical ranges, and use them to others believed gray wolves did not (reviewed by Nowak 2003, pp. 244– inform this rule. This is consistent with extend into the Southeast at all (Hall 245). As stated above, gray wolf Service regulations that require us to 1981) or did so to a limited extent, taxonomy at the subspecific level has rely on standard taxonomic distinctions primarily at somewhat higher elevations long been debated with evolving views and the biological expertise of the (Nowak 1995). The southeastern and on the validity of various subspecies. Department of the Interior and the mid-Atlantic states were generally Generally, the trend in gray wolf scientific community concerning the recognized as being within the historical taxonomy has been toward subsuming relevant taxonomic group (50 CFR range of the red wolf (C. rufus), and it subspecies, resulting in fewer 424.11). Even recognizing continued is not known how much range overlap recognized subspecies over time (Young uncertainty on a number of specific historically occurred between these two and Goldman 1944, pp. 413–415; Hall issues (e.g., the issues of continued Canis species. Morphological work by 1981, p. 76; Mech 1974, p. 1–6; Nowak debate noted above), we believe Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported 1995, pp. 375–397, Figure 20; vonHoldt Chambers et al. (2012) is reflective of extending the historical range of the red et al. 2011, pp. 7–10; Chambers et al. this standard. However, it should be wolf into southern New England or even 2012, Figures 1–3). Because of questions noted that, while we accept the farther northward, indicating either that about the validity of some of the conclusions of Chambers et al. (2012) the historical range of the gray wolf in originally listed subspecies, the 1978 for use in this analysis, Canis taxonomy the eastern United States was more final rule (43 FR 9607; March 9, 1978) has long been complicated and limited than previously believed, or that reclassified all gray wolves in the continuously evolves with new data. the respective ranges of several wolf contiguous United States and Mexico, Therefore, we do not view this issue as species expanded and contracted in the except for those in Minnesota, into a ‘‘resolved,’’ and we fully expect that eastern and northeastern United States, single listed entity. However, the 1978 Canis taxonomy will continue to be intermingling in postglacial times along rule also stipulated that ‘‘biological debated for years if not decades to come, contact zones. subspecies would continue to be and scientific opinion on what The results of recent molecular maintained and dealt with as separate represents the current best available genetic analyses (e.g., Wilson et al. entities’’ (43 FR 9609), and offered ‘‘the science could well shift over time. 2000, Wilson et al. 2003, Wheeldon and firmest assurance that [the Service] will White 2009, Wilson et al. 2009, Fain et continue to recognize valid biological Wolf Species of the Contiguous United al. 2010, Wheeldon et al. 2010, Rutledge subspecies for purposes of its research States and Mexico et al. 2012) and morphometric studies and conservation programs’’ (43 FR Our review of the best available (e.g., Nowak 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) 9610, March 9, 1978). taxonomic information indicates that C. explain some of the past difficulties in Due to the complicated taxonomy of lupus did not historically occupy large describing the gray wolf’s range in the the genus Canis and the fact that some portions of the eastern United States: eastern United States. These studies subspecies of gray wolves are more That is, the northeastern United States show that the mid-Atlantic and strongly supported in the scientific and portions of the upper Midwest southeastern states historically were literature than others, it is important to (eastern and western Great Lakes occupied by the red wolf (C. rufus) and be explicit about what taxonomic regions) were occupied by the eastern that the Northeast and portions of the entities we are considering in this wolf (C. lycaon), now considered a upper Midwest (eastern and western evaluation. As stated above, for the separate species of Canis rather than a Great Lakes regions) historically were purposes of this rulemaking, we are subspecies of C. lupus, and the occupied by C. lycaon; they also considering the conservation status of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35671

the gray wolf, C. lupus, and those evolved elsewhere coming into contact. lycaon, and probably that of C. rufus, purported subspecies with described Historical or modern boundaries should creating ambiguous zones of admixture historical ranges at least partially within also not be viewed as static or frozen in (Chambers et al. 2012, pp. 39–42). the contiguous United States. We are any particular time. The hypothesized Recent molecular ecology studies of taking this approach in an effort to three wolf invasions that resulted in the wolves in North America have reported thoroughly consider what C. lupus current subspecific structure would differentiation between coastal and listing(s) that include gray wolves in have resulted in considerable movement inland wolves in western Canada based portions of the contiguous United States of subspecies boundaries as newer on microsatellite DNA (Weckworth et and Mexico, if any, would be invaders coopted territory once held by al. 2005, p. 921), mitochondrial DNA appropriate if the existing listing were earlier invaders. We have no reason to (Leonard et al. 2005, pp. 13–15; Mun˜ oz- removed. In this rule we follow believe that this process of geographic Fuentes et al. 2009, p. 5; Weckworth et Chambers’ et al. (2012) interpretation of replacement had reached its conclusion al. 2010, p. 921), and single-nucleotide available scientific literature, and are prior to European contact, rather this polymorphisms (SNPs) (von Holdt et al. thus considering the following three process likely continued into the 2011, p. 4). These coastal-inland subspecies, with the following historic period. Our understanding of patterns of divergence support Nowak’s approximate historical ranges, in our the historical interactions between (1995, Fig 20) boundary between C. l. analysis: (1) C. lupus baileyi, which subspecies or genetically different nubilus and C. l. occidentalis in the occupies the southwestern United States populations (e.g., Leonard et al. 2005) is Pacific Northwest. Although Leonard et and Mexico; (2) C. lupus occidentalis, that they are dynamic processes and al. (2005, pp. 13–15) asserted that which occurs throughout west-central boundaries are in constant (and coastal wolves were evolutionarily Canada, Alaska (except coastal continuing) flux.’’ distinct from C. l. nubilus, the large southeast Alaska), and the NRM region; We include details on the specific proportion of unique, and apparently and (3) C. lupus nubilus, which occurs taxonomy of the three subspecies in our extinct, haplotypes in their historical throughout central Canada and into evaluations below. sample likely exaggerated the measure northern Ontario and Quebec, in the Canis lupus nubilus of divergence between the coastal Pacific Northwest (including coastal populations and historical inland C. l. British Columbia, and southeast Say (1823) first defined C. l. nubilus nubilus (Chambers et al. 2012, pp. 41– Alaska), and in the WGL region and based on wolves he observed in the 42). Chambers et al. (2012, pp. 41–42) historically occurred in the Great Plains central United States. Goldman’s (1944) reevaluated the haplotypes in Leonard states of the United States. classification included a range map of et al. (2005) and Weckworth et al. (2010) The taxonomic synthesis by Chambers 24 subspecies in North America, and and found that the most common et al. (2012, p. 42) includes a general described the distribution of C. l. haplotype in west-coastal Canada also evolutionary interpretation of the nubilus as formerly Great Plains region occured in the central Great Plains of conclusions of their review in the from south-central Canada south to the United States, and nearly all coastal context of the evolutionary history of south-central United States. Earlier haplotypes are in the same phylogroup modern North American Canis. This taxonomies had C. l. nubilus as the historical western C. l. nubilus evolutionary scenario describes at least intergrading on the north with haplotypes (Weckworth et al. 2010, p. three separate invasions of North occidentalis, on the west with irremotus 368). These relationships are consistent America by C. lupus from Eurasia to and youngi, on the east with lycaon, and with west-coastal Canada and southeast account for the patterns of genetic on the south with monstrabilis Alaska wolves (and probably coastal variation seen in extant North American (Goldman 1944, p. 442). wolves in the Pacific Northwest) being wolves. The first of these North Goldman (1944, p. 414) recognized 23 a northward extension of C. l. nubilus. American invasions was by the subspecies of gray wolves in North Genetic study of wolf skins and bones ancestors of C. l. baileyi, followed by the America, with C. l. fuscus, or the collected from the historical wolf ancestors of C. l. nubilus, which Cascades Mountains wolf, occupying population in the Pacific Northwest has displaced C. l. baileyi in the northern the Pacific Northwest. His recognition of not yet been accomplished, but would part of its range. The final invasion was C. l. fuscus was based on the be valuable in further evaluating the by C. l. occidentalis, which displaced C. examination of 28 specimens (skulls historical taxonomic placement of gray l. nubilus in the northern part of its and skins) from the west coast of wolves from that region. former range. Delineation of the extent Canada south through the Pacific of the historical range of these Northwest (Young and Goldman 1944, Canis lupus occidentalis subspecies is difficult given the p. 458). Nowak later revised the Richardson (1829) described C. l. existence of zones of reproductive subspecific classification of North occidentalis based on type material from interaction, or intergradation, between American wolves based on examination the Northwest Territories. Goldman neighboring gray wolf populations. of 580 wolf skulls (10 from the Pacific (1944) described the distribution of C. l. Zones of intergradation have long Northwest) and a multivariate statistical occidentalis generally as interior been a recognized characteristic of analysis of 10 skull measurements, to western Canada including the Rocky historical gray wolf distribution include only 5 subspecies, lumping the Mountains. throughout their circumpolar Pacific Northwest wolves with those Since publication of Goldman (1944), distribution (Mech 1970, p. 223; from the west coast of Canada and revisions of wolf taxonomy have tended Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 372). As southeast Alaska, most of the Rocky toward recognition of fewer subspecies. Chambers et al. (2012, p. 43) describe, Mountains, the Great Plains within the Nowak’s (1995) delineation of ‘‘delineation of exact geographic United States, and northeastern Canada subspecies and depiction of boundaries presents challenges. Rather and describing them as the plains wolf approximate historical ranges indicate than sharp lines separating taxa, (C. l. nubilus) (Nowak 1995, p. 396; that, under his taxonomy, C. l. boundaries should generally be thought Nowak 2003, Table 9.3). occidentalis ranged across Alaska of as intergrade zones of variable width. The approximate historical range of C. except for the coastal Southeast, and These ‘fuzzy’ boundaries are a l. nubilus borders each of the other C. from the Beaufort Sea in the north to the consequence of lineages of wolves that lupus subspecies’ ranges, with C. Rocky Mountains of the contiguous

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35672 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

United States in the south and including of southwestern gray wolf (Bogan and subspecies’ recognition remains well- much of the interior western Canada Mehlhop 1983, p. 17). Hoffmeister supported. Maps of C. l. baileyi (Nowak 1995, Fig. 20). Under Nowak’s (1986) conducted principal component historical range are available in the classification, C. l. occidentalis analysis of 28 skulls, also recognizing C. scientific literature (Young and subsumes the following formerly l. baileyi as a distinct southwestern Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson, recognized subspecies entirely or in subspecies (pp. 466–468). Nowak (1995) 1959, p. 849; Hall 1981, p. 932; Bogan part: Pambasileus, tundrarum, alces, analyzed 580 skulls using discriminant and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17; Nowak 1995, mackenzii, columbianus, irremotus, and function analysis. He concluded that C. p. 395; Parsons 1996, p. 106). The griseoalbus. l. baileyi was one of only five distinct southernmost extent of C. l. baileyi’s North American gray wolf subspecies Canis lupus baileyi range in Mexico is consistently that should continue to be recognized portrayed as ending near Oaxaca (Hall Researchers have hypothesized that (Nowak 1995, pp. 395–396). 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395). North America was colonized by gray Genetic research provides additional Depiction of the northern extent of the wolves from Eurasia during the validation of the recognition of C. l. C. l. baileyi’s presettlement range among Pleistocene through at least three waves baileyi as a subspecies. Three studies the available descriptions varies of colonization, each by wolves from demonstrate that C. l. baileyi has unique depending on the authors’ taxonomic different lineages; C. l. baileyi may genetic markers that distinguish the treatment of several subspecies that represent the last surviving remnant of subspecies from other North American occurred in the Southwest and their the initial wave of gray wolf migration gray wolves. Garcia-Moreno et al. (1996, related treatment of intergradation into North America (Nowak 1995, p. p. 384) utilized microsatellite analysis zones. 396; Nowak 2003, p. 242; Wayne and to determine whether two captive Hall’s (1981, p. 932, based on Hall Vila´ 2003, pp. 226–228; Chambers et al. populations of C. l. baileyi were pure C. and Kelson 1959) map depicted a range 2012, p. 10). The distinctiveness of C. l. l. baileyi and should be interbred with for C. l. baileyi that included extreme baileyi and its recognition as a the captive certified lineage population southern Arizona and New Mexico, subspecies is supported by both that had founded the captive breeding with Canis lupus mogollonensis morphometric and genetic evidence. We program. They confirmed that the two occurring throughout most of Arizona, are unaware of any published study that captive populations were pure C. l. and C. l. monstrabilis, Canis lupus does not support the recognition of C. l. baileyi and that they and the certified youngi, C. l. nubilus, and C. l. baileyi as a valid subspecies. lineage were closely related. Further, mogollonensis interspersed in New This subspecies was originally they found that as a group, the three Mexico. Bogan and Mehlhop (1983, p. described by Nelson and Goldman in populations were the most distinct 17) synonymized two previously 1929 as Canis nubilus baileyi, with a grouping of North American wolves, recognized subspecies of gray wolf, C. l. distribution of ‘‘Southern and western substantiating the distinction of C. l. mogollonensis and C. l. monstrabilis, Arizona, southern New Mexico, and the baileyi as a subspecies. Sierra Madre and adjoining tableland of Hedrick et al. (1997, pp. 64–65) with C. l. baileyi, concluding that C. l. Mexico as far south, at least, as southern examined data for 20 microsatellite loci baileyi’s range included the Mogollon Durango (Nelson and Goldman 1929, from samples of C. l. baileyi, northern Plateau, southern New Mexico, Arizona, pp. 165–166).’’ Goldman (1944, pp. gray wolves, coyotes, and dogs. They Texas, and Mexico. This extended C .l. 389–636) provided the first concluded that C. l. baileyi was baileyi’s range northward to central comprehensive treatment of North divergent and distinct from other Arizona and central New Mexico American wolves, in which he renamed sampled northern gray wolves, coyotes, through the area that Goldman (1944) C. n. baileyi as a subspecies of lupus and dogs. Leonard et al. (2005, p. 10) had identified as an intergrade zone (i.e., C. l. baileyi) and shifted the examined mitochondrial DNA sequence with an abrupt transition from C. l. subspecies’ range farther south in data from 34 preextermination wolves baileyi to C. l. mogollensis. Bogan and Arizona. His gray wolf classification collected from 1856 to 1916 from the Mehlop’s analysis did not indicate a scheme was subsequently followed by historical ranges of C. l. baileyi and C. sharp transition zone between C. l. Hall and Kelson (1959, pp. 847–851; l. nubilus. They compared these data baileyi and C. l. mogollensis, rather the Hall 1981, p. 932). Since that time, gray with sequence data collected from 96 wide overlap between the two wolf taxonomy has undergone wolves in North America and 303 subspecies led them to synonymize C. l. substantial revision, including a major wolves from Eurasia. They found that baileyi and C. l. mogollensis. taxonomic revision in which the the historical wolves had twice the Hoffmeister (1986, p. 466) suggested number of recognized gray wolf diversity of modern wolves, and that that C. l. mogollonensis should be subspecies in North America was two-thirds of the haplotypes were referred to as C. l. youngi but reduced from 24 to 5, with C. l. baileyi unique. They also found that haplotypes maintained C. l. baileyi as a subspecies, being recognized as a subspecies associated with C. l. baileyi formed a stating that wolves north of the ranging throughout most of Mexico to unique southern clade distinct from that Mogollon Rim should be considered C. just north of the Gila River in southern of other North American wolves. A l. youngi. Nowak (1995, pp. 384–385) Arizona and New Mexico (Nowak 1995, clade is a taxonomic group that includes agreed with Hoffmeister’s synonymizing pp. 375–397). all individuals that have descended of C. l. mogollonensis with C. l. youngi, Three published studies of from a common ancestor. and further lumped these into C. l. morphometric variation conclude that In another study, vonHoldt et al. nubilus, resulting in a purported C. l. baileyi is a morphologically distinct (2011, p. 7) analyzed SNP genotyping northern historical range for C. l. baileyi and valid subspecies. Bogan and arrays and found C. l. baileyi to be the as just to the north of the Gila River in Mehlhop (1983) analyzed 253 gray wolf most genetically distinct group of New southern Arizona and New Mexico. skulls from southwestern North World gray wolves. Most recently, Nowak (1995) and Bogan and Mehlhop America using principal component Chambers et al. (2012, pp. 34–37) (1983) differed in their interpretation of analysis and discriminant function reviewed the scientific literature related which subspecies to assign individuals analysis. They found that C. l. baileyi to classification of C. l. baileyi as a that were intermediate between was one of the most distinct subspecies subspecies and concluded that this recognized taxa, thus leading to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35673

different depictions of historical range refers to the range in which the species analogous to delisting upon a for C. l. baileyi. currently exists, and the word determination that a species is not Subsequently, Parsons (1996, p. 104) ‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that threatened or endangered because the included consideration of dispersal portion of the range being considered to original data for classification were in distance when developing a probable the conservation of the species. The error. historical range for the purpose of ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the period of Evaluation of the Current C. lupus reintroducing C. l. baileyi in the wild time over which events or effects Listed Entity pursuant to the Act, by adding a 322-km reasonably can or should be anticipated, (200-mi) northward extension to the or trends extrapolated. Determinations Our analysis begins with an most conservative depiction of C. l. as to the status of a species must be evaluation of the current C. lupus listing baileyi historical range (i.e., Hall and made solely on the basis of the best (Figure 1), which derives from the 1978 Kelson 1959). This description of scientific and commercial data available reclassification (43 FR 9607; March 9, historical range was carried forward in (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)). 1978). In our May 5, 2011, proposed the Final Environmental Impact Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) rule to revise the List for the gray wolf Statement ‘‘Reintroduction of the and its implementing regulations (50 in the eastern United States we Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range CFR part 424) set forth the procedures acknowledged that the current C. lupus in the Southwestern United States’’ in for adding species to, reclassifying listed entity should be revised. The the selection of the Blue Range Wolf species on, or removing species from the recent 5-year status review for this Recovery Area as a reintroduction Federal List of Endangered and entity further provides the basis for this location for C. l. baileyi (Service 1996). Threatened Wildlife (List). We may assertion (Service 2012). Below we Recent molecular genetic evidence determine a species to be an endangered present our evaluation and conclusion from limited historical specimens or threatened species due to one or more in support of removing the current C. supports morphometric evidence of an of the five factors described in section lupus entity from the List. Pursuant to intergradation zone between C. l. baileyi 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors this evaluation, our proposed and northern gray wolves (Leonard et al. are: (A) The present or threatened determination as to which entities 2005, pp. 15–16). This research shows destruction, modification, or warrant the protections of the Act is that, within the time period that the curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) included under Status of Gray Wolf historical specimens were collected overutilization for commercial, Listable Entities in the Contiguous (1856–1916), a northern clade (i.e., recreational, scientific, or educational United States and Mexico later in this group that originated from and includes purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) proposed rule. all descendants from a common the inadequacy of existing regulatory Is the currently listed C. lupus entity a ancestor) haplotype was found as far mechanisms; and (E) other natural or valid listable entity under the Act? south as Arizona, and individuals with manmade factors affecting its continued southern clade haplotypes (associated existence. We must consider these same As discussed above, the Act allows us with C. l. baileyi) occurred as far north five factors in reclassifications of to list species, subspecies, and distinct as Utah and Nebraska. Leonard et al. species (changing the status from population segments of any species of (2005, p. 10) interpret this geographic threatened to endangered or vice versa), vertebrate fish or wildlife (16 U.S.C. distribution of haplotypes as indicating and removing a species from the List 1532(16)). The current C. lupus listing gene flow was extensive across the because it is not endangered or (Figure 1) is not an entire species (the subspecies’ limits during this historical threatened (50 CFR 424.11(c), (d)). species C. lupus was never deemed period, and Chambers et al. (2012, p. 37) The Act’s implementing regulations threatened or endangered given its agree this may be a valid interpretation. clarify that a species that is listed may abundance across its holarctic range) or only be delisted if it is neither an entire single gray wolf subspecies Statutory Background endangered nor threatened for one of (the current listing occurs across an area The Act authorizes the Service to three reasons: The species is extinct, the occupied by multiple purported ‘‘determine whether any species is an species has recovered and is no longer subspecies; see Taxonomy section). endangered species or a threatened endangered or threatened, and the Therefore, if the current listing is to be species’’ (16 U.S.C 1533(a)(1)). original scientific data used at the time maintained, it must be as a DPS. ‘‘Species’’ is a defined term under the the species was classified were in error The concept of a DPS is unique to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)), and only (50 CFR 424.11(d)). This language does Act—it does not have an independent ‘‘species’’ as so defined may be included not, however, address the circumstance scientific meaning. Unlike species and on the lists of threatened and in which the Service concludes based subspecies, a DPS is not a taxonomic endangered species (see 16 U.S.C. on the best available data that a group term. Rather, the term ‘‘distinct 1533(a)(1), (c)(1)). The Act defines of organisms currently included on the population segment’’ refers to certain ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any subspecies of List does not in fact qualify as a populations of vertebrates (i.e., less than fish or wildlife or plants, and any ‘‘species’’ under the Act. In that the entire range of a taxonomic distinct population segment of any circumstance, the Service is not vertebrate species or subspecies) as species of vertebrate fish or wildlife determining that a species is not explained in the DPS policy. The Act’s which interbreeds when mature’’ (16 endangered or threatened, the Service is implementing regulations define a U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines determining that a group of organisms is ‘‘population’’ as a ‘‘group of fish or ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species not a ‘‘species.’’ Although the wildlife . . . in common spatial which is in danger of extinction implementing regulations do not arrangement that interbreed when throughout all or a significant portion of expressly address this circumstance, the mature’’ (50 CFR 17.3). That group may its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and Service has the authority under section consist of a single collection of threatened species as a species which is 4(c)(1) to remove a purported species organisms, or multiple loosely bounded, likely to become an endangered species from the List if the Service determines regionally distributed collections of within the foreseeable future throughout that it does not qualify as a ‘‘species’’ organisms all of the same species or all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)). We note, subspecies. Therefore, consistent with (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). The word ‘‘range’’ however, that delisting on this basis is our standard practice (see 74 FR 15125

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35674 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

‘‘Defining the Boundaries of the NRM existed or where gray wolf recovery covered all gray wolf populations DPS,’’ April 2, 2009, and 76 FR 81670 would occur. Thus, the 1978 confirmed in the contiguous United ‘‘Geographical Area of the Western reclassification resulted in inclusion of States since passage of the Act, and Great Lakes DPS,’’ December 28, 2011), large areas of the contiguous United either these efforts have worked, or are before applying the discreteness and States where gray wolves were working, to conserve all of the genetic significance tests laid out in the DPS extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic diversity remaining in gray wolves Policy, we must first identify one or and southeastern United States—west to south of Canada after their widespread more populations and the spatial central Texas and Oklahoma—an area extirpation (Leonard et al. 2005, entire). arrangement or range which they share. that is generally accepted not to be Thus, the goal of the Act has been To meet the definition of a within the historical range of C. lupus achieved in the Northern Rocky ‘‘population,’’ for the purposes of the (Young and Goldman 1944, pp. 413– Mountains (76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011 DPS Policy the group of vertebrate fish 416, 478; Nowak 1995, p. 395, Fig. 20). and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012) or wildlife identified must be in While this generalized approach to the and Western Great Lakes (76 FR 81666, ‘‘common spatial arrangement’’: In other listing appropriately protected December 28, 2011) and is still a work words, there must first be a reasonable dispersing wolves throughout the in progress in the Southwest (see C. l. correlation between the group and the historical range of C. lupus and baileyi analysis below). geographic area used to describe its facilitated recovery in the NRM and Recent scientific information relevant range. WGL regions, it also erroneously to the validity of the C. lupus listing— To consider whether the currently included areas outside the species’ In addition to the issues identified listed entity describes a population of C. historical range and was misread by above, recent scientific research further lupus in an appropriate range that some members of the public as an necessitates our revisiting the current should be evaluated against the expression of a larger gray wolf recovery listing for C. lupus. The most recent standards of the 1996 DPS Policy, we effort not required by the Act and never scientific information indicates that the first discuss how the history of gray intended by the Service. eastern wolf, previously described as wolf listing and recent scientific The Act does not require us to restore the subspecies C. l. lycaon, with a information relate to this question. the gray wolf (or any other species) to historical range that includes the Based on this information we conclude all of its historical range or even to a northeastern United States and portions that neither the 1978 reclassification nor majority of the currently suitable of the upper Midwest United States the current listing represent valid habitat. Instead, the Act requires that we (eastern and western Great Lakes species under the Act. We then analyze recover listed species such that they no regions) should be recognized as a the current data regarding wolves longer meet the definitions of separate species, C. lycaon (See within the current listed entity, the ‘‘threatened species’’ or ‘‘endangered Taxonomy section). These new data degree to which that data confirms species.’’, i.e., are no longer in danger of indicate that additional geographic areas relevant populations of gray wolves, and extinction now or in the foreseeable contained within the current listed area the relationship any such populations future. For some species, recovery may were not historically occupied by gray bear to the geographic scope of the require expansion of their current wolves (specifically, the northeastern current listing. Based on this distribution, but the amount of United States) and thus are erroneously information, we further conclude that expansion is driven by a species’ included in the current gray wolf listing. the ‘‘spatial arrangement’’ identified in biological needs affecting viability and Synthesis—Combining the erroneous the current listing does not correlate to sustainability, and not by an arbitrary inclusion of the southeastern United the current population(s) of C. lupus percent of a species’ historical range or States in the 1978 reclassification with found within that range. currently suitable habitat. Many other the new data further restricting the History of the C. lupus listing as it species may be recovered in portions of historical range of C. lupus, we relates to DPS—When the gray wolf was their historical range or currently determine that essentially the entire reclassified in March 1978 (replacing suitable habitat by removing or eastern third of the contiguous United multiple subspecies listings with two C. addressing the threats to their continued States was erroneously included in the lupus population listings as described existence. And some species may be 1978 listing, and is still included in the further in the Previous Federal Actions recovered by a combination of range current listing. As a result, there was not section), it had been extirpated from expansion and threats reduction. There a reasonable correlation between the much of its historical range in the is no set formula for how recovery must group of gray wolves in the contiguous contiguous United States. Although the be achieved. United States (minus Minnesota) and 1978 reclassification listed two gray As stated previously, the 1978 Mexico in 1978, nor is there today. wolf entities (a threatened population in reclassification stated that ‘‘biological Therefore, the 1978 listing did not Minnesota and an endangered subspecies would continue to be describe, nor does the current listing population throughout the rest of the maintained and dealt with as separate describe, a valid ‘‘population,’’ which is contiguous United States and Mexico), entities’’ (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). a prerequisite for a DPS. This these listings were not predicated upon Accordingly, regional recovery plans determination alone requires that the a formal DPS analysis, because the were developed and implemented in the current listed entity be delisted reclassification predated the November Western Great Lakes in 1978 (revised in pursuant to section 4(c)(1) because it is 1978 amendments to the Act, which 1992) (Service 1978, entire; Service not a ‘‘species’’ under the Act. revised the definition of ‘‘species’’ to 1992, entire), the Northern Rocky Distribution of gray wolves within the include distinct population segments of Mountains in 1980 (revised in 1987) described boundary of the currently vertebrate fish or wildlife, and our 1996 (Service 1980, entire; Service 1987, listed entity—Even if C. lupus DPS Policy. entire), and the Southwest in 1982 (this historically had been found throughout The broadly defined geography of the plan is currently being revised) (Service the contiguous United States, with the 1978 reclassification was employed as 1982, entire). This approach was an recent recovery and delisting of gray an approach of convenience (as noted in appropriate use of our discretion to wolf populations in the NRM and WGL 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978), rather than determine how best to proceed with (see Previous Federal Actions section) an indication of where gray wolves recovery actions. These recovery efforts and the associated revisions to the 1978

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35675

listing, the described boundary of the C. central Arizona and New Mexico dispersing south from the NRM DPS lupus listed entity has been modified (Figure 2). In Mexico, efforts to was trapped near Morgan, Utah in 2002 and now includes all or portions of only reestablish a wild population in Mexico and another was killed in an agency 42 States, as opposed to the original 48 began in 2011. Of eight wolves released control action in Utah in 2010 (Jimenez States, and Mexico (Figure 1). The gross between October 2011 and October in litt. 2012). In addition, we have two mismatch between the group of wolves 2012, two wolves are ‘‘fate unknown,’’ records for individual wolves near protected by the current listing (see four are confirmed dead, and two are Idaho Springs and Rifle, Colorado, in below) provides an independent basis alive as of January 2, 2013 (Service, our 2004 and 2009, respectively (Jimenez in for determining that the current listed files). Additional releases in Mexico are litt. 2013). An adult gray wolf killed by entity is not a DPS. expected in 2013. In addition, a captive a vehicle near Sturgis, South Dakota, As stated above, our regulations population of 240 to 300 C. l. baileyi was a disperser from the Greater define a ‘‘population’’ as a ‘‘group of exists in the United States and Mexico Yellowstone area in the Rocky fish or wildlife . . . in common spatial today in about 50 captive breeding Mountains to the west (Fain et. al. 2010 arrangement that interbreed when facilities. For more information on gray cited in 76 FR 26100). A few individual mature’’ (50 CFR 17.3). We have refined wolves in the southwestern United dispersing gray wolves have been that definition in experimental gray States and Mexico see the C. l. baileyi reported in other areas of the Midwest, wolf reintroduction rules to mean ‘‘at analysis below. including a gray wolf that dispersed least two breeding pairs of gray wolves There are currently three confirmed from Michigan to north-central Missouri that each successfully raise at least two gray wolf packs in the western two- (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 16; Treves young’’ annually for 2 consecutive years thirds (where gray wolves are listed as et al. 2009, p. 194) and another that (59 FR 60252 and 60266, November 22, endangered) of Washington State dispersed from Wisconsin to eastern 1994). This definition represents what (Lookout pack, Teanaway pack, and Indiana (Thiel et al. 2009, p. 122 and we believe are the minimum standards Wenatchee pack). Reproduction was Treves et al. 2009, p. 194). At least two for a gray wolf population (Service confirmed in the Teanaway pack in June wolves have been reported in Illinois, 1994). The courts have supported this 2012, has not been documented since one in 2002 and one in 2005 (Great definition. The U.S. Court of Appeals 2009 in the Lookout pack, and has not Lakes Directory 2003, unpaginated). for the Tenth Circuit found that ‘‘by yet been documented in the Wenatchee Two individual wolves were also definition lone dispersers do not pack. To date, two radio-collared wolves reported (on different occasions) in constitute a population or even part of from the Imnaha pack in northeast Nebraska (Anschutz in litt. 2003, a population, since they are not ‘in Oregon have dispersed west, across the Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman in litt. common spatial arrangement’ sufficient NRM DPS boundary, and are currently 1995). to interbreed with other members of a in the portion of Oregon where they Although it is possible for these population’’ (Wyoming Farm Bureau have endangered status. One of these dispersers to encounter and mate with Federation v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, wolves spent over 1 year in northern another wolf outside the primary range 1234 (10th Cir. 2000)). The Court of California before returning to Oregon in of the recovered populations, we have Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, March of 2013. However, no packs or no information demonstrating that any despite ‘‘sporadic sightings of isolated reproduction have been documented in of these naturally dispersing animals indigenous wolves in the release area [a those portions of Oregon or California. have formed persistent reproducing gray wolf reintroduction site], lone For more information on the gray packs or constitute a population (for a wolves, or ‘dispersers,’ do not constitute wolves in the Pacific Northwest, see the more thorough discussion on Pacific a population’’ under the Act (U.S. v. Pacific Northwest DPS analysis below. Northwest wolves and whether they McKittrick, 142 F. 3d 1170, 1175 (9th We also have recent records of a few constitute a population, see the Pacific Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1072 lone long-distance dispersing individual Northwest DPS analysis below). Thus, (1999)). Thus, the courts have upheld gray wolves within the boundary of the C. l. baileyi is the only population our interpretation that a ‘‘population’’ current C. lupus listed entity; however, within the area where gray wolves are must include two or more breeding these lone individuals are believed to be currently listed, with a likelihood that pairs. dispersing away from the more wolves in the Pacific northwest will Below, we provide specific saturated habitat in the primary range of soon meet this standard (again, see the information on the distribution of gray the recovered NRM and WGL DPSs or Pacific Northwest DPS analysis below wolves within the described boundary Canada populations into peripheral for more information on the status of of the current C. lupus listed entity. areas where wolves are scarce or absent wolves in this area). We are not aware A single wild gray wolf population (C. (Licht and Fritts 1994, p. 77; Licht and of any other confirmed gray wolf l. baileyi), of at least 75 wolves (as of Huffman 1996, pp. 171–173; 76 FR populations occurring within the December 31, 2012), inhabits the 26100, May 5, 2011; Jimenez in litt. described boundary of the current C. southwestern United States today in 2012. For example, a gray wolf lupus listed entity (Figure 1).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35676 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Figure 2: Current distribution of gray wolves (c. lupus), including the recovered and

delisted populations, in the contiguous United States and Mexico. Light-gray areas

represent the approximate historical distribution of gray wolves. Cross-hatched areas

represent the boundaries of the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Distinct Population

Segment (DPS), Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS, and Mexican Wolf Experimental

Population Area (MWEPA). Both the NRM DPS and WGLDPS are recovered and

delisted and not part of the currently listed entity (see Figure 1). Darker areas within the

cross-hatched areas represent our estimation of currently occupied range within the DPSs

or MWEPA. Gray wolf packs that currently exist in: (1) Washington and (2) Mexico are

illustrated as black polygons. Map is for illustrative purposes only and does not address

suitable habitat for gray wolves.

Based on the current distribution of baileyi) in the southwestern United Canadian border). As we explain in gray wolves in the contiguous United States (see C. l. baileyi analysis below detail below (see Pacific Northwest—Do States and Mexico, we determine that for a detailed discussion of the wolves Wolves in This Area Constitute a the only gray wolves that currently meet occupying that region) and possibly the Population?), although the gray wolves our definition of a gray wolf population, gray wolves currently occupying the in the Pacific Northwest do not yet outside of the recovered and delisted Pacific Northwest (specifically, those constitute a population according to our NRM and WGL gray wolf populations, wolves outside of the NRM DPS’s 1994 definition, it is possible that is the population of gray wolves (C. l. western boundary and south of the additional breeding pairs have gone

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP13JN13.001 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35677

undetected or that the documented contiguous United States and Mexico within the contiguous United States and breeding pairs have successfully bred in reclassification and subsequent targeted Mexico. Thus, this phase of the analysis consecutive years without detection. delistings of the recovered NRM and begins with a consideration of the status Synthesis—Instead of identifying an WGL gray wolf populations (see of C. lupus rangewide followed by appropriate geographic area from Previous Federal Actions section). analyses of potential threats facing each scratch for the purpose of analyzing a Further, the 1978 listing erroneously of three North American gray wolf potential new DPS listing, as is our included the eastern United States, a subspecies—C. l. nubilus, C. l. standard practice, we have an existing region of the contiguous United States occidentalis, and C. l. baileyi—as well listing. Therefore, we must compare the that the best scientific information as consideration of a potential DPS of C. geographic scope of the existing listing indicates is outside of the historical lupus. If we determine that the species with the population identified. range of C. lupus (see Wolf Species of (C. lupus), or a subspecies (C. l. nubilus, It is evident that the listed entity as the United States section). Therefore, C. l. occidentalis, C. l. baileyi), or a DPS it is currently described in the CFR based on the best scientific information of C. lupus is threatened or does not (Figure 1) does not correlate with the available we find that the 1978 listing warrant the protections of the Act, then existing C. lupus population, which did not represent a valid ‘‘species’’ we will consider whether there are any includes the population inhabiting the under the Act. The C. lupus listed entity significant portions of their ranges southwestern United States and the as it is currently described on the List where they are in danger of extinction possible existing (or future) population derives from the 1978 listing and shares or likely to become endangered within inhabiting the Pacific Northwest United the same deficiency. In addition, the the foreseeable future. States (Figure 2). The current C. lupus current listing suffers from the Summary of Factors Affecting the listing includes large areas of the additional problem that there is not a Species contiguous United States that the best reasonable correlation between the available information indicates are remaining population and the As stated previously (see Statutory outside of the historical range of the geographic scope of the listing. Background section above), Section 4 of species. Additionally, no other areas Therefore, the current C. lupus listed the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its within the boundary of the current C. entity is not a ‘‘species’’ as defined by implementing regulations (50 CFR part lupus listed entity, outside of those the Act, and we propose to remove it 424) set forth the procedures for adding areas being evaluated for C. l. baileyi from the List in accordance with 16 species to, reclassifying species on, or recovery, have been identified as U.S.C. 1533(c)(1). removing species from the Federal List necessary for recovery of any existing Nonetheless, we must also consider of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife listable C. lupus entity. Therefore, we whether this entity should be replaced (List). We may determine a species to be conclude that the current listed C. lupus with a valid listing for the C. lupus an endangered or threatened species entity does not appropriately describe species, or a subspecies, or a DPS of C. due to one or more of the five factors the existing gray wolf population, and is lupus that is threatened or endangered described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. therefore not a valid DPS. Furthermore, in the contiguous United States and The five listing factors are: (A) The the current listing does not reflect what Mexico. If any gray wolf population present or threatened destruction, is necessary or appropriate for wolf occupying any portion of the current C. modification, or curtailment of its recovery under the Act for the existing lupus listed entity is deemed part of a habitat or range; (B) overutilization for gray wolf population. valid listable entity that is threatened or commercial, recreational, scientific, or For these reasons we also conclude endangered under the Act, the educational purposes; (C) disease or that it would not be appropriate to population must be separately listed predation; (D) the inadequacy of conduct a DPS analysis on the extant concurrent with any final decision to existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) population of gray wolves occurring in remove the current C. lupus listed entity other natural or manmade factors the southwestern United States from the List. Therefore, currently listed affecting its continued existence. We combined with the possible C. lupus gray wolves that warrant listing under must consider these same five factors in population occurring in the Pacific the Act will never experience a lapse in reclassifications of species (changing the Northwest United States using the the Act’s protections due to this action. status from threatened to endangered or broadly defined geography of the The remainder of this rule considers vice versa), and removing a species from currently listed entity as its boundary. It this question. the List because it is not endangered or is instead more logical to take a fresh threatened (50 CFR 424.11(c), (d)). Status of Gray Wolf Listable Entities in comprehensive look at the status of gray Under section 3 of the Act, a species the Contiguous United States and wolves in the contiguous United States is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of Mexico and Mexico by employing a standard extinction throughout all or a significant process of analysis and the best Given our intention to remove the portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), available information to carefully current C. lupus entity from the List, we and is ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to consider whether the gray wolves that now consider whether and to what become endangered in the foreseeable make up the current C. lupus listed extent any subspecies or populations of future throughout all or a significant entity are part of the C. lupus species, C. lupus should be listed in the portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 or a subspecies, or DPSs of C. lupus that contiguous United States and Mexico. (20)). The word ‘‘range’’ refers to the warrant protections under the Act. More specifically, we address whether range in which the species currently any gray wolves covered by the current exists, and the word ‘‘significant’’ refers Conclusion C. lupus listed entity (Figure 1) belong to the value of that portion of the range As stated previously, the current C. to a valid listable entity that warrants being considered to the conservation of lupus listed entity is neither an entire the protections of the Act. Because we the species. The ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is species nor an entire single subspecies. are focused on the status of gray wolves the period of time over which events or It was listed prior to the November 1978 in the contiguous United States and effects reasonably can or should be amendments to the Act and the issuance Mexico, we concentrate our analyses on anticipated, or trends extrapolated. of the 1996 DPS policy, and is the the C. lupus species and subspecies or In considering what factors might outcome of a broad, generalized DPSs of C. lupus with ranges that are constitute threats, we must look beyond

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35678 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

the exposure of the species to a approximately one-third (Mech and developed countries; (2) exaggerated particular factor to evaluate whether the Boitani 2010, p. 5). A majority of this concern by the public concerning the species may respond to the factor in a range contraction has occurred in threat and danger of wolves; and (3) way that causes actual impacts to the developed areas of Europe, Asia, fragmentation of habitat, with resulting species. If there is exposure to a factor Mexico, and the United States by areas becoming too small for and the species responds negatively, the poisoning and deliberate targeted populations with long-term viability factor may be a threat, and during the elimination (Boitani 2003 pp. 318–321; (Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 5). status review, we attempt to determine Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 5). Canis The Convention on International how significant a threat it is. The threat lupus currently occupies portions of Trade in Endangered Species of Wild is significant if it drives or contributes North America, Europe, North, Central Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an to the risk of extinction of the species, and South Asia, the Middle East, and international agreement between such that the species warrants listing as North Africa (Mech and Boitani 2004, governments aimed to ensure that endangered or threatened as those terms pp. 125–128; Linnell et al. 2008, p. 48; international trade in specimens of wild are defined by the Act. However, the 77 FR 55539; 76 FR 81676; Rueness et animals and plants does not threaten identification of factors that could affect al. 2011, pp. 1–5; Gaubert et al. 2012, their survival. CITES works by a species negatively may not be pp. 3–7). Summaries of rangewide subjecting international trade in sufficient to compel a finding that the population data, by range country, are specimens of selected species to certain species warrants listing. The available in Boitani 2003 (pp. 322–323) controls. The species covered by CITES information must include evidence and Mech and Boitani 2004 (pp. 125– are listed in three Appendices according sufficient to suggest that the potential 128). In addition, a detailed overview of to the protection they need. Appendix II threat is likely to materialize and that it C. lupus populations in Europe includes species not necessarily has the capacity (i.e., it should be of (including the European part of Russia) threatened with extinction, but in which sufficient magnitude and extent) to can be found in Linnell et al. 2008 (pp. trade must be controlled in order to affect the species’ status such that it 48, and 63–67). Available population avoid utilization incompatible with meets the definition of endangered or data for North America are presented in their survival. Appendix I includes threatened under the Act. detail in our recent rulemakings (77 FR species threatened with extinction. We considered and evaluated the best 55539, September 10, 2012 and 76 FR Trade in specimens of these species is available scientific and commercial 81676, December 28, 2011) and in the permitted only in exceptional information for these analyses. status reviews below. Based upon recent circumstances. Canis lupus is listed as Information pertaining to C. lupus, C. l. available population data for the Appendix II (except the populations of nubilus, C. l. occidentalis, and C. l. species, C. lupus number more than Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan; baileyi in relation to the five factors 160,000 individuals globally (Mech and which are included in Appendix I). provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is Boitani 2004, pp. 125–128; Linnell et al. These listings exclude the domesticated discussed below. 2008, p. 48; 77 FR 55539; 76 FR 81676) form and the dingo which are and, according to one estimate, may referenced as Canis lupus familiaris and Does the rangewide population of C. number as high as 200,000 (Boitani Canis lupus dingo (www.cites.org, lupus warrant the protections of the 2003, pp. 322–323). accessed on July 13, 2012). Act? Current Status of C. lupus Conclusion Our first evaluation considers whether the gray wolves that are The most recent global assessment by Although C. lupus has undergone included in the current C. lupus listing the International Union for significant range contraction in portions (Figure 1) warrant the protections of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species of its historical range, the species Act as part of a species-level rangewide Survival Commission Wolf Specialist continues to be widespread and, as a listing of C. lupus. We begin this Group classifies the species C. lupus as whole, is stable. The species is currently evaluation by summarizing the Least Concern globally (Mech and protected in many countries; however, historical and current global Boitani 2010, entire), although at the in some portions of the range, C. lupus distribution of gray wolves, followed by regional level some populations are populations are so abundant that they a discussion of the species’ current seriously threatened. Plants and animals are managed as furbearers with open status and threats. that have been evaluated to have a low hunting and trapping seasons. In risk of extinction are classified as Least addition, C. lupus is currently C. lupus—Historical Global Distribution Concern. Widespread and abundant taxa categorized as Least Concern by the Canis lupus historically occurred are included in this category. The IUCN. We have found no substantial across much of North America, Europe, worldwide population trend for the evidence to suggest that gray wolves are and Asia (Mech 1970, pp. 32–33). species is currently identified as stable at risk of extinction throughout their Recent genetic work now suggests gray (Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 4). Gray global range now or are likely to become wolves also occurred (and still occur) in wolves are found in 46 countries around so in the foreseeable future. Further, we portions of North Africa (Rueness et al. the world, and the species maintains can point to the recovered, and delisted, 2011, pp. 1–5; Gaubert et al. 2012, pp. legal protections in 21 countries populations in the northern Rocky 3–7). In North America, C. lupus (Boitani 2003, pp. 322–323). The arrest Mountains and the western Great Lakes formerly occurred from the northern of wolf population declines and and our analyses for the North reaches of Alaska, Canada, and subsequent natural recolonization American subspecies C. l. nubilus and Greenland to the central mountains and occurring since 1970 is attributed to C. l. occidentalis below as evidence that the high interior plateau of southern legal protection, land-use changes, and the species is not at risk of extinction Mexico (Mech 1970, p. 31; Nowak 2003, human population shifts from rural throughout all of its range; therefore, we p. 243). areas to cities (Mech and Boitani 2010, will not consider this question further p. 5). Mech and Boitani generally for the purposes of this proposed rule. C. lupus—Current Global Distribution identify the following as ongoing threats See the Significant Portion of the Range The historical worldwide range for C. to the species: (1) Competition with Analysis section below for our lupus has been reduced by humans for livestock, especially in evaluation as to whether C. lupus may

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35679

or may not be in danger of extinction in occurring in (1) coastal British Columbia approximately 2,200 wolves occupy the a significant portion of its range. (C. l. nubilus) and (2) northeastern Pacific Ecological Area, which coincides British Columbia (C. l. occidentalis), with the historical range of C. l. nubilus. Does the North American subspecies C. northwestern Alberta (C. l. occidentalis), Northwest Territories and Nunavut— l. nubilus warrant the protections of the or the reintroduced populations in An estimated 10,000 gray wolves Act? central Idaho and the greater inhabited the Northwest Territories and C. l. nubilus—Historical Distribution Yellowstone area (C. l. occidentalis) Nunavut in 2001 (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22). The COSEWIC report does not The historical range of C. l. nubilus (Pollinger 2008, in litt.; Nowak 1995, p. 397). Intergrade zones, or zones of differentiate among subspecies; was described by Nowak (1995, p. 396) reproductive interaction, between however, many of these wolves were generally as coastal southeastern Alaska, neighboring wolf populations have long likely to be C. l. nubilus due to their western Canada, the contiguous United been a recognized characteristic of geographic location, including those States from the Pacific to the Great historical gray wolf distribution (Mech wolves found in most of mainland Lakes region, and eastern Canada except 1970, p. 223; Brewster and Fritts 1995, Nunavut and a portion of mainland the extreme southeast, and occasionally p. 372). While historical subspecies Northwest Territories. west central Greenland. delineations based on morphology Manitoba—Canis lupus nubilus C. l. nubilus—Current Distribution suggest that a biological boundary occupies boreal forests and tundra in limiting dispersal or reproductive northern Manitoba. The total wolf For purposes of this review we will population numbers approximately discuss the current distribution of C. l. intermixing likely existed between eastern and western Oregon and 4,000 to 6,000 and appears to be stable nubilus by state, province, or region in (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21; Hayes and which it is found. Management of the Washington prior to the extirpation of wolves from the region (Bailey 1936, pp. Gunson 1995, p. 22). Although a gray wolf species is carried out by 272–275; Young and Goldman 1944, p. population estimate for each subspecies individual states and provinces, 414; Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 849, does not exist, most of the high quality complicating the discussion of status by Figure 6), the boundary was likely not wolf habitat occurs in northern biological population. No state or impermeable by dispersers. Manitoba, where human densities and province in the range of C. l. nubilus Additionally, Chambers et al. (2012, p. rates of agriculture are lower; therefore, monitors wolf populations to the extent 43) argues that historical or modern we expect at least half of the 4,000– that precise estimates of population size boundaries should not be viewed as 6,000 wolves occupy the north, where can be made. For this reason, static or frozen in any particular time they fall into C. l. nubilus range. population estimates should be regarded but instead, as the result of dynamic Ontario—Ontario is home to both C. as estimates based on professional processes, boundaries can shift over l. nubilus and C. lycaon. Wolves judgment of the agencies involved. time. currently occupy approximately 85 United States—Canis lupus nubilus We expect dispersal from both percent of their historical range in this does not occupy its historical range in sources (western British Columbia and province, and although current ranges of the United States with the exception of the NRM DPS) to continue, but the the two taxa are not entirely clear, C. l. the western Great Lakes region (delisted recolonization of this area is in its nubilus likely dominates the boreal and due to recovery, 76 FR 81666, December infancy, and the ultimate recolonization tundra regions of the province in the 28, 2011), southeastern Alaska, and a pattern of wolves in historical C. l. north, while C. lycaon probably small number of wolves in the Pacific nubilus range is unpredictable. originally occupied most of southern Northwest that appear to be an British Columbia—Wolves currently Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Natural admixture with C. l. occidentalis (Figure range throughout most of British Resources 2005, p. 4). Population 2). The first account of breeding by Columbia, with C. l. nubilus occupying estimates suggest that around 5,000 wolves (the Lookout pack) in the western and coastal regions and C. wolves (C. l. nubilus) occupy the Washington State since the 1930s was l. occidentalis occupying the inland northern regions and that a total of documented in the North Cascades in portion of the province. C. l. nubilus has 8,850 wolves (C. l. nubilus and C. 2008. In the spring of 2011, a new pack reoccupied most of its historical range, lycaon) exist province-wide (Ontario (the Teanaway pack) was documented, including Vancouver Island and other Ministry of Natural Resources 2005, pp. and genetic testing of a member of the islands along the mainland coast. 7–9). pack confirmed that it was a gray wolf Surveys in 1997 estimated 8,000 wolves Quebec—Wolves (C. l. nubilus and C. closely related to (consistent with being in British Columbia, and populations lycaon) currently occupy the entire an offspring of) the Lookout pack are believed to be increasing (COSEWIC province of Quebec except the regions breeding pair (Robinson et al. 2011, in 2001, p. 22; Hatler et al. 2003, p. 5). south of the St. Lawrence River litt., pp. 1–2). In the spring of 2013, a More recent information suggests that (Jolicoeur and He´nault 2010, p. 1). Like group of two wolves, the Wenatchee wolf populations are increasing in some Ontario, the purported boundaries pack, was documented in the listed areas as a result of natural range between the two subspecies have always area. It is unknown whether these expansion following control efforts in been approximate and vary among wolves will remain resident in the area. the 1950s and 1960s, and stable in other studies. Canis lupus nubilus generally Dispersing wolves have been areas. Overall, the province-wide wolf occupies areas north of Quebec City, documented in Oregon, and one in population is thought to have increased within the distribution of moose and California, but there currently are no since the 1990s, but not substantially caribou. The total population is packs of known C. l. nubilus origin in (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, estimated at 7,000 individuals (Jolicoeur either state. Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Henault 2010, p. 1), with an Despite the fact that the area is 2012). Agencies generally do not increasing trend the past 10 years, recognized as historical C. l. nubilus distinguish among subspecies when following deer population trends and range, microsatellite genotyping reporting harvest or estimating despite heavy exploitation (Jolicoeur indicated that the two packs currently population sizes; however, COSEWIC and Henault 2010, p.3). Subspecies occupying Washington west of the NRM (2001 p. 38) estimated wolf numbers by population estimates are not available; DPS are descended from wolves ecological areas. They concluded that however, the area occupied by C. lycaon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35680 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

is small compared to that occupied by threats currently facing the subspecies Our 2009 NRM DPS delisting rule C. l. nubilus, and it is likely that the and threats that are reasonably likely to includes more information on wolf majority of the 7,000 wolves in Quebec affect the subspecies if the protections suitable-habitat models (74 FR 15123, are C. l. nubilus. of the Act were not in place. Within the pp. 15157–15159). In that document we Newfoundland/Labrador—Canis likely historical range of C. l. nubilus in concluded that the most important lupus nubilus is extirpated from the central United States, the Southern habitat attributes for wolf-pack Newfoundland. Approximately 1,500 Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau, persistence are forest cover, public land, wolves occupy Labrador (COSEWIC and the Pacific Northwest of the United high ungulate (elk) density, and low 2001, p. 18). States, wolves were extirpated soon livestock density. Unsuitable habitat is The Committee on the Status of after colonization and establishment of characterized by low forest cover, high Endangered Wildlife in Canada European-style agriculture and livestock human density and use, and year-round (COSEWIC) published an assessment growing. This range contraction appears livestock presence (Oakleaf et al. 2006, and status report on C. lupus in 2001 to be permanent (with the exception of Fig. 2). We conclude that similar areas (COSEWIC 2001, entire). The the Pacific Northwest, which is actively in adjacent Canada are also unsuitable assessment evaluates the status and being recolonized) and does not appear for wolf colonization and occupation for protection level of wolves across to be contracting further at this time. the same reasons. jurisdictions. Assessments are complete The analysis of the Five Factors below Canis lupus nubilus maintains robust for C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis, and does not consider the potential for populations across much of its historical C. lycaon. The subspecific ranges affects to C. l. nubilus in areas where the range, with the exception of prairie described are not entirely consistent subspecies has been extirpated, rather areas and large intermountain valleys in with those used in this proposed rule effects are considered in the context of southern portions of Canada where (C. l. occidentalis range described by the present population. We do not conflicts with humans preclude wolf COSEWIC included Manitoba, Ontario, consider historical range contraction, by presence, large portions of the central Quebec, and Newfoundland-Labrador, itself, to represent a threat to a species, United States that have been irreversibly which the Service now considers part of but loss of range is reflected in the modified for human use, and C. l. nubilus range, following Nowak current status of a species. In all cases, throughout the Southern Rocky (2002, pp. 395–596)). This discrepancy threat factors are evaluated in the Mountains and Colorado Plateau, is inconsequential, however, as context of the current species status, northern California, western Oregon, COSEWIC found that both C. l. nubilus therefore in some cases, historical range and western Washington. It is not and C. l. occidentalis are ‘‘Not at Risk’’ contraction can affect the outcome of uncommon for recolonization to occur based on widespread, large, stable the Five Factor analysis. by subspecies other than those populations, with no evidence of decline over the last 10 years despite Factor A. The Present or Threatened historically present because of changes liberal harvest (COSEWIC 2001, p. ii). Destruction, Modification, or in distribution. Furthermore, Environment Canada Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Sufficient suitable habitat exists in the found that export of legally obtained Wolves are habitat generalists (Mech area occupied by C. l. nubilus to harvested wolves is nondetrimental to and Boitani 2003, p. 163) and once continue to support wolves into the the survival of C. lupus in Canada occupied or transited most of the United future (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 286– (Environment Canada 2008). Supporting States and Canada. However, much of 289; Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 41–43; information included biological the historical range of C. l. nubilus Carroll et al. 2006). Wolf populations characteristics, current status, harvest (Chambers et al. 2012, pp. 34–42) should remain strong in these areas with management, control of harvest, harvest within this area has been modified for management activities that focus on trend, harvest monitoring, benefits of human use. While lone wolves can wolf population reduction areas as harvest, and protection of harvest. The travel through, or temporarily live, needed to maintain populations of wild finding describes stable to increasing almost anywhere (Jimenez et al. In ungulates and reduce conflicts with populations, a lack of threats, and high review, p. 1), much of the historical livestock. Traditional land–use practices confidence in the current Canadian range is no longer suitable habitat to throughout the vast majority of the harvest management system. Most support wolf packs (Oakleaf et al. 2006, subspecies’ current range do not appear jurisdictions operate under an adaptive p. 559; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32, to be affecting viability of wolves, and management strategy, which imposes Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 287), regardless do not need to be modified to maintain strict control of harvest and is reactive of subspecies. The areas that wolves the subspecies. We do not anticipate to changing conditions, with the aim of currently occupy correspond to overall habitat changes in the ensuring sustainable harvest and ‘‘suitable’’ wolf habitat as modeled by subspecies’ range to occur at a maintaining biodiversity. Oakleaf et al. (2006, entire), Carroll et al. magnitude that would impact the (2006, entire), Mladenoff (1995, entire), subspecies rangewide, because wolf Summary of Information Pertaining to and Mladenoff et al. (1999, entire). populations are distributed across the the Five Factors Although these models analyzed only current range, are strong, and are able to The portion of the range of C. l. habitat in the contiguous United States, withstand high levels of mortality due nubilus encompassed by the Western the principles of suitable wolf habitat in to their high reproductive rate and Great Lakes DPS was recently delisted Canada are similar; that is, wolves vagility (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163; due to recovery (76 FR 8166). Therefore, persist where ungulate populations are Boitani 2003, pp. 328–330). Much of the this analysis focuses on assessing adequate to support them and conflict subspecies’ range occurs on public land threats to wolves in the remaining with humans and their livestock is low. where wolf conservation is a priority portion of the subspecies’ range. Gray The areas considered ‘‘unsuitable’’ in and conservation plans have been wolves that occur in the historical range these models are not occupied by adopted to ensure continued wolf of C. l. nubilus in the contiguous United wolves due to human and livestock persistence (73 FR 10514, p. 10538). States, outside of the WGL DPS, are presence and the associated lack of Areas in Canada within the subspecies’ currently listed as endangered under the tolerance of wolves due primarily to range include large areas with little Act. Thus, in this analysis we evaluate livestock depredation. human and livestock presence and,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35681

therefore, little to no effect on wolf available for or suitable to intensive habitat for prey species as well as persistence. levels of land development. wolves. Other Components of Wolf Habitat— Development on private land near Management plans of appropriate Another important factor in maintaining suitable habitat will continue to expose land-management agencies and wolf populations is the native ungulate wolves to more conflicts and higher risk governments manage public lands to population. Primary wild ungulate prey of human-caused mortality. However it limit resource impacts from human use within the range of C. l. nubilus include is likely that the rate of conflict is well of those lands, and these plans are more elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, within the wolf population’s biological than adequate to support a viable wolf moose, bison, and caribou. Bighorn mortality threshold (generally between population across the range of C. l. sheep, dall sheep, mountain goats, and 17 to 48 percent ([Fuller et al. 2003 nubilus. In Canada, large expanses of ¥ pronghorn also are common but not +/ 8 percent], pp. 184–185; Adams et remote and inaccessible habitat important as wolf prey. Each state or al. 2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and accomplish the same thing. Habitat province within the range of C. l. Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; suitability for wolves will change over nubilus manages its wild ungulate Sparkman et al. 2011 [25 percent], p. 5; time with human population growth, populations to maintain sustainable Gude et al. 2011 [48 percent], pp. 113– land development, activities, and populations for harvest by hunters. Each 116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 attitudes, but not to the extent that it is state or province monitors big game percent]), especially given the large likely to affect the subspecies populations to adjust hunter harvest in amount of secure habitat that will rangewide. support a viable wolf population and response to changes in big game Summary of Factor A population numbers and trends. will provide a reliable and constant We do not foresee that impacts to Predation is a factor that affects those source of dispersing wolves (Mech 1989, pp. 387–388). Wolf populations persist suitable and potentially suitable habitat numbers and trends, and is considered will occur at levels that will when setting harvest quotas. We know in many areas of the world that are far more developed than the range of C. l. significantly affect wolf numbers or of no future condition that would cause distribution or affect population growth a decline in ungulate populations nubilus currently is or is likely to be in the future (Boitani 2003, pp. 322–323). and long–term viability of C. l. nubilus. significant enough to affect C. l. nubilus See the recent WGL DPS delisting rule throughout its range. Habitat connectivity in the range of C. l. nubilus may be reduced below current (76 FR 81688, pp. 81688–81693) for a Human population growth and land levels, but wolves have exceptional full discussion of this factor for C. l. development will continue in the range abilities to disperse through unsuitable nubilus. In Canada, even higher levels of of C. l. nubilus, including increased habitat (Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1), certainty of habitat availability and development and conversion of private and such impacts would still not affect security are provided by large areas of low-density rural land to higher density the subspecies rangewide. relatively inaccessible land, in addition urban developments, road development Given the large number of wolves to lands with protections provided by and transportation facilities (pipelines across the subspecies’ range and the government regulations. These large and energy transmission lines), resource species’ natural vagility, natural habitat areas of wolf habitat are likely to remain extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, connectivity is ensured over most of the suitable into the future. and wind development in certain areas), range. We have not identified any Factor B. Overutilization for and more recreationists on public lands. occupied areas in Canada or the United Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Despite efforts to minimize impacts to States where lack of connectivity is Educational Purposes wildlife (Brown 2006, pp. 1–3), some of affecting C. l. nubilus now or is likely this development will make some areas to do so in the future. Wolves in the western Great Lakes of the subspecies’ range less suitable for The large amount of public lands and were delisted (76 FR 81693) based in wolf occupancy. However, it is unlikely lands that are naturally inaccessible due part on the existence of well-managed that these potential developments and to topography and/or remoteness from programs for legal take for commercial, increased human presence will affect human settlement that cannot or will recreational, scientific, or educational the subspecies in the future for the not be developed within the range of the purposes for that population. In Canada, following reasons: (1) Wolves are habitat subspecies assures that adequate where the vast majority of C. l. nubilus generalists and one of the most suitable habitat for wolves will exist exist, overutilization for commercial, adaptable large predators in the world, into the future. Even though some recreational, scientific, or educational and became extirpated in the southern habitat degradation will occur in purposes has not had a significant effect portion of the subspecies’ range only smaller areas of suitable habitat, the on the subspecies. Mortality rates because of sustained deliberate human quantity and quality of habitat that will caused by commercial, recreational, targeted elimination (Fuller et al. 2003, remain will be sufficient to maintain scientific, or educational purposes are p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328–330); (2) natural connectivity into the future (e.g., not anticipated to exceed sustainable land-use restrictions on land Carroll et al. 2006 p. 32). levels in the future. These activities development are not necessary to ensure Human populations in the southern have not affected the viability of the the continued conservation of the portion of the subspecies’ range are wolves in the past, and we have no subspecies—even active wolf dens can expected to increase (Carroll et al. 2006, reason to believe that they would do so be quite resilient to nonlethal p. 30). Increasing human populations do in the future. In Canada, wolf disturbance by humans (Frame and not necessarily lead to declining populations are managed through public Meier 2007, p. 316); and (3) vast areas predator populations. Mortality can be hunting and trapping seasons. of suitable wolf habitat and the current limited with adequate management Scientific Research and Monitoring— wolf population are secure in the programs (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348), Each of the states and provinces in the subspecies’ range (national parks, research and monitoring, and outreach range of C. l. nubilus conduct scientific wilderness, roadless areas, lands and education about living with research and monitoring of wolf managed for multiple uses, and areas wildlife. In Canada and the United populations. Activities range from protected by virtue of remoteness from States, government lands such as surveys of hunter observations of wolf human populations) and are not national parks and Crown Land provide locations and numbers to aerial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35682 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

counting surveys to darting wolves from deterrent to illegal killing of wolves by unknown, it is believed to be relatively airplanes and fixing them with radio the public in the absence of Federal insignificant (COSEWIC 2001, p. 25). collars for intensive monitoring. Even protections. The average annual number of wolves the most intensive and disruptive of Hunting and trapping occurs across killed in the Northwest Territories and these activities (anesthetizing for the the range of C. l. nubilus in Canada, and Nunavut by hunting, trapping, and purpose of radio-collaring) involves a are managed through provincial and control for livestock protection from very low rate of mortality for wolves (73 territorial wildlife acts whose 1986 to 1991 was 793 wolves, totaling FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We regulations provide a framework for 7 to 8 percent of the population (Hayes expect that capture-related mortality by sustainable harvest management and and Gunson 1995, p. 23). governments, Tribes, and universities monitoring (Environment Canada 2008). Wolves are classified as big game and conducting wolf monitoring, nonlethal Harvest strategies are reviewed annually furbearer in Manitoba (Manitoba 2012a, control, and research will remain below and involve regulatory controls as well entire). Hunters and trappers can take three percent of the wolves captured, as management plans. Seasons do not anywhere from one to unlimited wolves and will be an insignificant source of distinguish between subspecies of C. during a 5.5- to 12-month season mortality to C. l. nubilus. lupus and vary across jurisdictions and (Manitoba 2012a, entire; Manitoba Education—We are unaware of any management unit from ‘‘no closed 2012b, entire). Most recent available wolves that have been removed from the season’’ to ‘‘no open season’’ with an data estimate the average annual wild solely for educational purposes in average open season of 9 to 10 months. number of wolves killed in Manitoba by recent years. Wolves that are used for In some provinces, harvest is also hunting, trapping, and control for such purposes are typically privately monitored by mandatory carcass checks, livestock protection, from 1986 to 1991 held captive-reared offspring of wolves reporting, or questionnaires. Where at 295 wolves, totaling 7 to 10 percent that were already in captivity for other local wolf populations are declining or of the population (Hayes and Gunson reasons. However, states may get of concern, seasons and harvest 1995, p. 23). We have no information requests to place wolves that would strategies may be more restrictive and that there has been a significant change otherwise be euthanized in captivity for bag limits or quotas may be applied in harvest since this report. research or educational purposes. Such (COSEWIC 2001, pp. 18–24), and where Wolves are classified as small game requests have been, and will continue to concern is low, liberal regulations and furbearers in Ontario. Hunting and be, rare; would be closely regulated by typically prevail. Hunting of gray trapping seasons last from September 15 the state and provincial wildlife- wolves is not allowed in Washington, through March 15, with a bag limit of management agencies through the Oregon, or California; however, lethal two wolves for hunters and no bag limit requirement for state permits for removal of depredating wolves has been for trappers (Ontario Ministry of Natural protected species; and would not allowed in eastern Washington and Resources 2005, pp. 21–22). Annual substantially increase human-caused eastern Oregon (i.e., in the NRM DPS) wolf harvest by hunters is likely in the wolf mortality rates. where wolves are no longer federally range of 110 to 260 wolves per season Commercial and Recreational Uses— protected. and trapper harvest in Ontario averaged Wolves in Oregon and Washington are Wolves in British Columbia are 337 wolves (range: 285 to 1,248) protected by state Endangered Species currently designated as both a game annually from the 1971–1972 season to Acts (Washington Administrative Code animal and a furbearer. Seasons run the 2002/2003 season (Ontario Ministry (WAC) 232–12–014 and 232–12–011; from 4.5 months to 8 months long, and of Natural Resources 2005, pp. 21–22). Oregon Code of Regulations (ORS) bag limits range between two wolves The combined harvest equates to 496.171 to 496.192 and 498.026). and unlimited wolves depending on approximately 6 percent (range: 4 to 17 Wolves in California are currently location. Average annual numbers of percent) of the provincewide population undergoing a status review to determine wolves killed by hunting, trapping, and of C. lupus in Ontario. Numbers of whether listing is warranted under the control for livestock, along with wolves killed for livestock protection is state Endangered Species Act (California estimated percent of the population unknown, but Ontario Ministry of Department of Fish and Wildlife Code, taken annually from 1986 to 1991 were Natural Resources (2005, p. 23) Sections 2050–2085). While in 945 wolves, totaling 11 percent of the estimates that the numbers are likely candidacy status, wolves in California population in British Columbia (Hayes small. will be treated as a state-listed species. and Gunson 1995, p. 23). Estimated wolf In Quebec, wolves are classified as big Wolf management plans in Oregon harvest has increased to nearly 1,400 game and furbearer, and seasons range (ODFW 2010, entire) and Washington wolves in 2009 and 2010 as a result of from 4.5 months for trapping to 6 (Wiles et al. 2011, entire) establish higher wolf populations (British months for hunting (Jolicoeur and recovery goals for each state and help Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands Henault 2010). Harvest rates, based on protect wolves from overutilization for and Natural Resource Operations 2012, annual fur sales and population commercial, recreational, scientific, and pp. 17–18). estimates, average 5.9 percent (range: educational purposes. Since their listing The Northwest Territories and 2.8 to 29.5 percent) for the entire under the Act, no wolves have been Nunavut manage wolves as a big game province. Most recent available data legally killed or removed from the wild and furbearing species through hunting estimate the average annual number of in the northwest United States (outside and trapping seasons (Nunavut 2012, wolves killed in Quebec by hunting, of the NRM DPS) for either commercial pp. 1–9). Harvest numbers are known trapping, and control for livestock or recreational purposes. Some wolves only for wolf pelts sold on the open protection from 1986 to 1991 at 945 may have been illegally killed for market as pelts used domestically are wolves, totaling 11 percent of the commercial use of the pelts and other not counted by the Provincial population (Hayes and Gunson 1995, p. parts, but illegal commercial trafficking governments (COSEWIC 2001, p. 23). In 23). We have no information that there in wolf pelts or parts and illegal capture the past 10 years, fur auction sales have has been a significant change in harvest of wolves for commercial breeding ranged from 711 to 1,469 pelts annually since this report. purposes happens rarely. We believe from these 2 territories (COSEWIC 2001, In Labrador, wolves are classified as these state Endangered Species Acts p. 25). Although the amount to which furbearers and can be hunted or trapped will continue to provide a strong domestic use adds to the total harvest is during the 6-month season.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35683

Approximately 100 to 350 wolves are any potential wolf take resulting from characterized by severe hemorrhagic killed by hunters annually. commercial, scientific, or educational diarrhea and vomiting; debility and Wolf populations can maintain purposes in the range of the subspecies subsequent mortality (primarily pup themselves despite sustained human- does not appear to be affecting the mortality) is a result of dehydration, caused mortality rates of 17 to 48 viability of C. l. nubilus. Furthermore, electrolyte imbalances, and shock. percent ([Fuller et al. 2003 +/– 8 states and provinces have regulatory Canine parvovirus has been detected in percent], pp. 184–185; Adams et al. mechanisms in place to ensure that nearly every wolf population in North 2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and populations remain viable (see America including Alaska (Bailey et al. Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; discussion under factor D). 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Sparkman et al. 2011 [25 percent], p. 5; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211; Johnson et Factor C. Disease or Predation Gude et al. 2011 [48 percent], pp. 113– al. 1994), and exposure in wolves is 116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 This section discusses disease and thought to be almost universal. Nearly percent]). Recent studies suggest the parasites, natural predation, and all 100 percent of the wolves handled in sustainable mortality rate may be lower, sources of human-caused mortality not Montana (Atkinson 2006), Yellowstone and that harvest may have a partially covered under factor B above (the factor National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, additive or even super additive (i.e., B analysis includes sources of human- p. 18), and Minnesota (Mech and Goyal harvest increases total mortality beyond caused mortality for commercial and 1993, pp. 331) had blood antibodies the effect of direct killing itself, through recreational uses). The array of diseases, indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. social disruption or the loss of parasites, and predators affecting C. l. The impact of disease outbreaks to the dependent offspring) (Creel and Rotella nubilus is similar to that affecting other overall NRM wolf population has been 2010, p. 6), but substantial debate on wolf subspecies. The following analysis localized and temporary, as has been this issue remains (Gude et al. 2012, pp. focuses on wolves in the WGL because documented elsewhere (Bailey et al. 113–116). When populations are it is the most intensively studied 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; maintained below carrying capacity and population of C. l. nubilus and is a good Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211). natural mortality rates and self- surrogate for assessing the rest of the Despite these periodic disease regulation of the population remain low, subspecies’ range. Although we lack outbreaks, the NRM wolf population human-caused mortality can replace up direct information on disease rates and increased at a rate of about 22 percent to 70 percent of natural mortality (Fuller mortality rates from disease for the annually from 1996 to 2008 (Service et et al. 2003, p. 186). Wolf pups can also subspecies rangewide, it is likely that al. 2009, Table 4). Mech et al. (2008, p. be successfully raised by other pack the impact of disease and predation is 824) recently concluded that CPV members, and breeding individuals can similar for other parts of the range; that reduced pup survival, subsequent be quickly replaced by other wolves is, disease and predation have a variety dispersal, and the overall rate of (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 1). Collectively, of sources, rates of disease are largely population growth in Minnesota (a these factors mean that wolf populations density-dependent, and disease and population near carrying capacity in are quite resilient to human-caused predation are not significantly affecting suitable habitat). After the CPV became mortality if it is adequately regulated. the subspecies. endemic in the population, the This trend is evident in this subspecies A wide range of diseases and parasites population developed immunity and in that, despite liberal harvest imposed have been reported for the gray wolf, was able to withstand severe effects across the range of C. l. nubilus in and several of them have had significant from the disease (Mech and Goyal, 1993, Canada, populations are still high and but temporary impacts during the pp. 331–332). These observed effects are trends stable to increasing. recovery of the species in the 48 consistent with results from studies in In Canada, some wolves may have contiguous United States (Brand et al. smaller, isolated populations in been illegally killed for commercial use 1995, p. 419; Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan of pelts and other parts, but because Natural Resources 1999, p. 61, Kreeger (Wydeven et al. 1995, entire; Peterson et licenses are not required to hunt wolves 2003, pp. 202–214). We fully anticipate al. 1998, entire) but indicate that CPV in several provinces, illegal commercial that, in the range of C. l. nubilus, these also had only a temporary population trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and diseases and parasites will follow the effect in a larger population. illegal capture of wolves for commercial same pattern seen in other members of Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an breeding purposes happens rarely. We the genus in North America (Brand et al. acute disease of carnivores that has been do not expect the use of wolves for 1995, pp. 428–429; Bailey et al. 1995, p. known in Europe since the sixteenth scientific purposes to change in 445; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–204; century and infects dogs worldwide proportion to total wolf numbers. Atkinson 2006, pp. 1–7; Smith and (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). This disease Although exact figures are not available Almberg 2007, pp. 17–19; Johnson generally infects dog pups when they throughout the range, such permanent 1995a, b). Although destructive to are only a few months old, so mortality removals of wolves from the wild have individuals, most of these diseases in wild wolf populations might be been very limited, and we have no seldom cause significant, long-term difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. substantial information suggesting that changes in population growth (Fuller et 420–421). Mortality from CDV among this is likely to change in the future. al. 2003, pp. 176–178; Kreeger 2003, pp. wild wolves has been documented only In summary, states and provinces 202–214). in two littermate pups in Manitoba have humane and professional animal- Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112), in two handling protocols and trained wolves, domestic dogs (Canis Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. personnel that will ensure population familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin monitoring and research result in little coyotes, skunks (Mephitis mephitis), wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in unintentional mortality. Furthermore, and raccoons (Procyon lotor). The 2002 (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven the states’ and provinces’ permitting population impacts of CPV occur via and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 20)). Carbyn process for captive wildlife and animal diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to (1982, pp. 113–116) concluded that CDV care will ensure that few, if any, wolves abnormally high pup mortality was partially responsible for a 50- will be removed from the wild solely for (Wisconsin Department of Natural percent decline in the wolf population educational purposes. We conclude that Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical CPV is in Riding Mountain National Park

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35684 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

(Manitoba, Canada) in the mid-1970s. from 2003 to 2008 (Jimenez et al. 2010; Natural Predation Serological evidence indicates that Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg No wild animals habitually prey on exposure to CDV is high among some 2007, p. 19). In packs with the most wolves. Other predators, such as wolf populations—29 percent in severe infestations, pup survival mountain lions (Felis concolor), black northern Wisconsin and 79 percent in appeared low, and some adults died bears (Ursus Americanus), and grizzly central Wisconsin from 2002 to 2003 (Jimenez et al. 2010); however, evidence bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) (Service (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, pp. suggests infestations do not normally 2005, p. 3), or even large prey, such as 23–24, Table 7) and 2004 (Wydeven and become chronic because wolves often deer, elk, and moose (Mech and Nelson Wiedenhoeft 2004, pp. 23–24, Table 7), naturally overcome them. Mange has 1989, pp. 676; Smith et al. 2001, p. 3), and similar levels in Yellowstone been detected in Wisconsin wolves occasionally kill wolves, but this has National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, every year since 1991, with no impact been documented only rarely. Other p. 18). However, the continued strong on population growth (Wydeven et al. wolves are the largest cause of natural recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere 2009, pp. 96–97). Despite its constant predation among wolves (less than three in North American wolf populations presence as an occasional mortality percent rate of natural wolf mortality in indicates that distemper is not likely a factor, the wolf population expanded the NRM). Intraspecific-strife mortality significant cause of mortality (Brand et from 39 to 41 wolves in 1991 to its is normal behavior in healthy wolf al. 1995, p. 421). These outbreaks will present level of 815 or more in winter populations and is an expected outcome undoubtedly occur when wolf densities 2011 to 2012 (Wydeven et al. 2012). of dispersal conflicts and territorial are high and near carrying capacity, but Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) defense. This form of mortality is as documented elsewhere, CDV will not commonly feed on domestic dogs, but something with which the species has likely significantly affect C. l. nubilus. can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete evolved, and it should not affect C. l. et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p. nubilus. bacterium, is spread primarily by deer 404). The lice can attain severe ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species infestations, particularly in pups. The Human-Caused Mortality include humans, horses (Equus worst infestations can result in severe Wolves are susceptible to human- caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule scratching, irritated and raw skin, caused mortality, especially in open deer, elk, white-footed mice substantial hair loss particularly in the (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern habitats such as those that occur in the groin, and poor condition. While no western United States (Bangs et al. 2004, chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes, wolf mortality has been confirmed, and wolves. Lyme disease infections in p. 93). An active eradication program is death from exposure and/or secondary wolves have been reported only in the the sole reason that wolves were infection following self-inflicted trauma, WGL. In this region, the disease might extirpated from their historical range in caused by inflammation and itching, be suppressing population growth by the United States (Weaver 1978, p. i). appears possible. Dog-biting lice were decreasing wolf pup survival Humans kill wolves for a number of first confirmed on two wolves in (Wisconsin Department of Natural reasons. In all locations where people, Montana in 2005, on a wolf in south- Resources 1999, p. 61); Lyme disease livestock, and wolves coexist, some central Idaho in early 2006 (Service et has not been reported from wolves wolves are killed to resolve conflicts al. 2006, p. 15; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; beyond the Great Lakes regions and is with livestock (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; Jimenez et al. 2010), and in 4 percent of not expected to be a factor affecting C. Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86–107, 345– l. nubilus rangewide (Wisconsin Minnesota wolves in 2003 through 2005 347). Occasionally, wolves are killed Department of Natural Resources 1999, (Paul in litt. 2005), but their infestations accidentally (e.g., wolves are hit by p. 61). were not severe. Dog-biting-lice vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, Mange (Sarcoptes scabeii) is caused infestations are not expected to have a or caught in traps set for other animals) by a mite that infests the skin. The significant impact even at a local scale (Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346). irritation caused by feeding and in C. l. nubilus. However, many wolf killings are burrowing mites results in intense Other diseases and parasites, intentional, illegal, and never reported itching, resulting in scratching and including rabies, canine heartworm, to authorities. Wolves may become severe fur loss, which can lead to blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, unwary of people or human activity, mortality from exposure during severe granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, increasing their vulnerability to human- winter weather or secondary infections leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, caused mortality (Mech and Boitani (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208). Advanced hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine 2003, pp. 300–302). The number of mange can involve the entire body and hepatitis have been documented in wild illegal killings is difficult to estimate can cause emaciation, staggering, and wolves, but their impacts on future wild and impossible to accurately determine death (Kreeger 2003, p. 207). In a long- wolf populations are not likely to be because they generally occur with few term Alberta wolf study, higher wolf significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– witnesses. Illegal killing was estimated densities were correlated with increased 429; Hassett in litt. 2003; Johnson to make up 70 percent of the total incidence of mange, and pup survival 1995b, pp. 431, 436–438; Mech and mortality rate in a north-central decreased as the incidence of mange Kurtz 1999, pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. Minnesota wolf population and 24 increased (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 427– 1998, Thomas in litt. 2006, Wisconsin percent in the NRM (Liberg et al. 2011, 428). Mange has been shown to Department of Natural Resources 1999, pp. 3–5). Liberg et al. (2011, pp. 3–5) temporarily affect wolf population- p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). suggests more than two-thirds of total growth rates and perhaps wolf Continuing wolf range expansion, poaching may go unaccounted for, and distribution (Kreeger 2003, p. 208). however, likely will provide new that illegal killing can pose a severe Mange has been detected in wolves avenues for exposure to several of these threat to wolf recovery. In the NRM, throughout North America (Brand et al. diseases, especially canine heartworm, poaching has not prevented population 1995, pp. 427–428; Kreeger 2003, pp. raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis recovery, but it has affected wolf 207–208). In Montana and Wyoming, (Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006), distribution (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93) proportions of packs with mange further emphasizing the need for preventing successful pack fluctuated between 3 and 24 percent disease-monitoring programs. establishment and persistence in open

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35685

prairie or high desert habitats (Bangs et status review to determine whether land-management regimes provide al. 1998, p. 788; Service et al. 1989– listing is warranted under the California protection for wolves and wolf habitat 2005). We would expect a similar Endangered Species Act (California throughout the range of C. l. nubilus. pattern for C. l. nubilus in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Code Canadian National Parks in the southern northwestern United States, but not in 2050–2069). portion of the range of C. l. nubilus do Canada, where harvest regulations are Oregon and Washington also have not allow hunting, while National Parks liberal and social tolerance of wolves is adopted wolf-management plans in the northern portion of the range higher. (California is currently developing a allow hunting by Native Peoples only Vehicle collisions contribute to wolf wolf-management plan) intended to (COSEWIC 2001, p. 26). National Parks mortality rates throughout North provide for the conservation and and Monuments also exist in America. They are expected to rise with reestablishment of wolves in these states Washington (three National Parks and increasing wolf populations, and as (ODFW 2010, entire; Wiles et al. 2011, three National Monuments) totaling wolves colonize areas with more human entire). These plans include population 7,707 km2 (1,904,451 million acres) and development and a denser network of objectives, education and public Oregon (one National Park and two roads and vehicle traffic. Highway outreach goals, damage-management National Monuments) totaling 800 km2 mortalities will likely constitute a small strategies, and monitoring and research (197,656 acres); some of these areas will proportion of total mortalities. plans. Wolves will remain on each likely act as refugia once recolonized by Populations of C. l. nubilus are high state’s respective endangered species wolves. These land-management and stable to increasing in the many list until the population objectives (four regimes provide refugia for wolf areas throughout Canada. We have no breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years in populations from hunting, trapping, and reason to believe that threats of disease Oregon and four breeding pairs for 3 control activities, and in turn these and predation have increased recently consecutive years in each of three protected populations may serve as a or will increase. Therefore, we conclude geographic regions plus three breeding source of dispersing wolves for low- that neither disease nor predation, pairs anywhere in Washington) have density populations. including all forms of human–caused been reached. Once the objectives are We have long recognized that control mortality, is significantly affecting C. l. met, wolves will be either reclassified to of wolf numbers and especially nubilus throughout its range. threatened or removed from the state’s depredating wolves was central to Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing endangered species lists. Once removed, maintaining public support for wolf Regulatory Mechanisms the states will use regulated harvest to conservation. Much of the impact of manage wolf populations. Wolves in the livestock production on C. l. nubilus The Act requires us to examine the western two thirds of Oregon will occurred during the period between adequacy of existing regulatory maintain protected status until four settlement and the mid-20th century mechanisms with respect to those breeding pairs occupy that region for 3 when wolves were extirpated from most existing and foreseeable threats consecutive years. of the United States due to depredations discussed under the other factors that Both plans also recognize that on livestock. Wolves have not may affect C. l. nubilus. Wolves within management of livestock conflicts is a repopulated these regions due to the WGL DPS were delisted based in necessary component of wolf continued lack of human tolerance to part on the fact that there would be management (Service 1980, p. 4; Service their presence and habitat alteration. In adequate regulatory mechanisms in 1987, p. 3; Hayes and Gunson 2005, p. Canada, outside of relatively high- place following delisting to facilitate the 27). Control options are currently human-density areas, wolf populations maintenance of the recovered status of limited within C. l. nubilus’ historical have remained strong since the the wolves in the western Great Lakes. range in Oregon and Washington, where cessation of widespread predator For a full discussion of the regulatory they are federally protected. If Federal poisoning campaigns in the 1950s. We mechanisms in place for gray wolves in delisting occurs, guidelines outlined in have no information to suggest that the the western Great Lakes, see the each state’s plan define conditions current regulatory regime in Canada is December 28, 2011, final delisting rule under which depredating wolves can be not adequate to provide for the (76 FR 81666, pp. 81701–81717). harassed or killed by agency officials conservation of C. l. nubilus, and so we Wolves are classified as endangered (ODFW 2010, pp. 43–54; Wiles et al. conclude that the jurisdictions in these under both the Washington and Oregon 2011, pp. 72–94). areas have been successful in their State Endangered Species Acts (WAC Within the range of C. l. nubilus in search for an appropriate balance 232–12–014 and 232–12–011; ORS Canada, wolf populations are managed between wolf conservation, human 496.171 to 496.192 and 498.026). as big game and as furbearers; hunting tolerance, and providing for human Unlawful taking (when a person hunts, and trapping are the principal uses. Therefore, both in Canada, and in fishes, possesses, maliciously harasses management tools used to keep the United States, in the absence of the or kills endangered fish or wildlife, and populations within the limits of human Act, the existing regulatory mechanisms the taking has not been authorized by tolerance. Each province within the are currently adequate to provide for the rule of the commission) of endangered range has committed to maintain long-term conservation of C. l. nubilus. fish or wildlife is prohibited in sustainable populations while allowing Washington (RCW 77.15.120). for harvest and minimizing conflict with Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Prohibitions and limitations regarding livestock (COSEWIC 2001, pp. 18–29, Factors Affecting Its Continued endangered species in Oregon are 44–46). Maintaining wild ungulate Existence established by the Oregon Fish and populations in numbers that allow for Wolves in the western Great Lakes Wildlife Commission to ensure the liberal human harvest for local were delisted based in part on the survival of the species and may include consumption is also a priority in many conclusion that other natural or take avoidance (‘‘to kill or obtain areas (COSEWIC 2001, pp. 18–26). manmade factors are unlikely to affect possession or control of any wildlife,’’ Although wolves are not dependent the viability of wolves in the western ORS 496.004) and protecting resource on specific habitat features other than Great Lakes in the future. For a full sites (ORS 496.182). Wolves in an adequate food supply and human discussion of factor E for C. lupus California are currently undergoing a tolerance, state, provincial, and Federal nubilus in the Western Great Lakes DPS,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

see the December 28, 2011, final lethal and nonlethal methods, using rebound, pressure to continue the delisting rule (76 FR 81666, pp. 81717– public hunting and trapping seasons, control actions is reduced, leading to 81721). aerial gunning by government agents, reduction or cessation of the program to Public Attitudes Toward the Gray and experimentation with predator reduce expenditures. This dynamic Wolf—Throughout much of Canada, in exclosures, sterilization, and likely supplies some added protection contrast to the contiguous United States, supplemental feeding (Russell 2010, pp. to the long-term viability of the wolves are not dependent on human 6–12). subspecies. tolerance for their conservation. Even Predator-control programs as they Climate Change—Our analyses under during the height of wolf control that currently exist are not affecting the the Act include consideration of included indiscriminate poisoning and viability of C. l. nubilus for several ongoing and projected changes in trapping campaigns by the public and reasons: (1) The types of control climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and by government agencies, wolves were measures that have resulted in effective ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the able to maintain viable populations in extirpation of wolf populations from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate much of C. l. nubilus’ historical range large areas are no longer permitted or Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the simply by virtue of remote and rugged prescribed by the states and provinces mean and variability of different types terrain and low human population that pursue wolf control. Historically, of weather conditions over time, with 30 densities. However, in southern Canada wolves were persecuted by people years being a typical period for such and in the United States today public seeking to eliminate wolves from the measurements, although shorter or attitudes toward wolves are important landscape using any means necessary. longer periods also may be used (IPCC conservation issues. In these areas with These means included government 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ higher human densities and the agencies systematically poisoning and thus refers to a change in the mean or presence of livestock, the primary trapping wolves. The goal of wolf- variability of one or more measures of determinant of the long-term control programs and associated climate (e.g., temperature or conservation of gray wolves will likely research in Canada today is to maintain precipitation) that persists for an be human attitudes toward this large sustainable (though low-density) wolf extended period, typically decades or predator. These attitudes are largely populations. Control programs do not longer, whether the change is due to based on the real and perceived employ indiscriminant broadcast natural variability, human activity, or conflicts between human activities and poisoning, and trapping or shooting of both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types values and wolves, such as depredation wolves is limited by estimates of of changes in climate can have direct or on livestock and pets, competition for population numbers with the goal of indirect effects on species. These effects surplus wild ungulates between hunters reducing but not eliminating wolf may be positive, neutral, or negative and and wolves, concerns for human safety, populations. they may change over time, depending wolves’ symbolic representation of (2) Wolf control is very expensive and on the species and other relevant wildness and ecosystem health, killing so is not likely to be applied broadly considerations, such as the effects of of wolves by humans, and the wolf- enough and consistently enough to interactions of climate with other related traditions of Native American reduce the rangewide population of C. variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) Tribes or local culture. l. nubilus substantially. Typically, wolf- (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our It is important to find a balance in control areas are repopulated within 4 analyses, we use our expert judgment to wolf management that will sustain wolf years of cessation of control efforts, weigh relevant information, including populations but also address other indicating that population control is uncertainty, in our consideration of human concerns in a way that maintains temporary and reliant on constant various aspects of climate change. tolerance of wolves among the human application of control efforts (Boertje et Throughout their circumpolar populations that live with them (Bangs al. 2010, p. 920). distribution, gray wolves persist in a et al. 2009, p. 111; 62 FR 15175, April (3) Wolf control must be applied over variety of ecosystems with temperatures 2, 2009). Addressing these concerns will a large area to be effective (National ranging from ¥70 °F to 120 °F (¥57 °C often involve lethal take of wolves or Research Council 1997, p. 10). This fact to 49 °C) with wide-ranging prey type other removal methods (Bangs et al. combined with number 2 above ensures and availability (Mech and Boitani 2009, pp. 107–111. These activities, that wolf control is not likely to be 2003, p. xv). C. l. nubilus are historically when employed in an overall applied unless wolf populations are and currently known to inhabit a range management framework, are essential high enough for the perceived benefits of ecotypes subsisting on large ungulate wolf-conservation activities as they to outweigh the costs. This situation is prey as well as small mammals. Due to provide the public with assurances that not likely to exist over a large portion this plasticity, we do not consider C. l. human interests and needs will be of the subspecies’ range simultaneously. nubilus to be vulnerable to climate considered appropriately during wolf- (4) Wolves are extremely resilient change. Similarly, elk, the primary prey management decisions (Bangs et al. with high population-growth potential in many areas, are known to be habitat 2009, pp. 111–114. and high rates of dispersal. After control generalists due to their association with Predator control—Wolf numbers have operations, wolf populations recover to wide variation in environmental been the subject of control efforts to precontrol levels within a few years. conditions (Kuck 1999, p. 1). We reduce conflicts with livestock and to (5) Wolf control will be applied only recognize that climate change may have increase ungulate numbers in Canada where wolf populations are high. This detectable impacts on the ecosystems since the turn of the 20th century means that wolf control may act as a that affect C. l. nubilus. For example, to (Boertje et al. 2010, p. 917). Since the density-dependent population-control the degree that warmer temperatures 1970s, wolf control has been focused on mechanism. When wolf populations are and decreased water availability limit increasing populations of wild high, ungulate populations become prey abundance, we would also expect ungulates, mostly moose but also depressed, leading to pressures for decreased wolf densities. However, we caribou, for human consumption and in management authorities to employ do not consider these potential impacts some cases to conserve caribou herds predator control actions to address the of climate change to be affecting C. l. that were at risk (Russell 2010, pp. 6– situation. As predator populations are nubilus now or to likely do so in the 12). Wolf control has included both reduced and ungulate populations future. For a full discussion of potential

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35687

impacts of climate change on wolves, may not be resulting in a population substantial additional range contraction please see our recent final delisting rule decline (e.g., vehicle collisions, natural is likely. We determined that it is not. for the gray wolf in Wyoming (77 FR sources of mortality) could collectively The past range contraction was caused 55597–55598, September 10, 2012). do so. Combined effects from disease, largely by conflict with man resulting catastrophe, or hybridization events that from the introduction of intensive Summary of Factor E normally could be sustained by a larger, livestock growing and agriculture in Natural or manmade factors are not resilient population have the potential suitable areas concurrent with European affecting the viability of C. l. nubilus. to affect the size, growth rate, and expansion across the continent; as Positive public attitudes continue to be genetic integrity of a smaller C. l. discussed above most of the remaining fostered through management of nubilus population. The combined range of C. l. nubilus is not suitable for conflicts and hunting and trapping effects of genetic and environmental conversion to intensive livestock opportunities and their associated events to a small population could growing and agriculture, nor has there economic benefits. Wolf control to represent a significant effect. However, been significant expansion of those increase ungulate numbers is pursued in given the current size of the C. l. nubilus activities or human population growth local areas but is not likely to population in Canada, we do not find into occupied wolf habitat for many significantly affect the subspecies. In the combination of factors to be decades. This conclusion is consistent addition, control actions are not aimed significant at this time. with the observed pattern of C. l. at extirpation of wolf populations, but Conclusion nubilus range over time: The contraction instead seek to reduce overall density of occurred as intensive human use of the wolves while maintaining viable As required by the Act, we considered land expanded; both that expansion and populations. the five factors in assessing whether the C. l. nubilus range contraction halted subspecies C. l. nubilus is threatened or Cumulative Effects many decades ago; and C. l. nubilus endangered throughout all of its range. range is now stable or expanding. This A species may be affected by more We examined the best scientific and than one factor in combination. Within strongly supports the conclusion that commercial information available the factors that were responsible for the the preceding review of the five listing regarding the past, present, and future factors, we discussed potential factors C. l. nubilus’ range contraction will not threats faced by the subspecies. We cause further range contraction, and will that may have interrelated impacts on C. reviewed the information available in l. nubilus. Our analysis did not find any not result in the subspecies becoming our files, other available published and endangered in the foreseeable future. significant effects to C. l. nubilus. unpublished information, and we See the Significant Portion of the Range However, we recognize that multiple consulted with recognized experts and Analysis section below for our sources of mortality acting in other Federal, state, and tribal agencies. evaluation as to whether this subspecies combination have greater potential to We found that wolves occupying C. l. may or may not be in danger of affect wolves than each source alone. nubilus’ historical range are widespread extinction in a significant portion of its Thus, we consider how the combination and exist as large, stable populations, range. of factors may affect C. l. nubilus. Canis with no evidence of decline over the last lupus nubilus occurs as widespread, 10 years despite liberal harvest. During Does the North American subspecies C. large, and resilient populations across this process we did not identify any l. occidentalis warrant the protections of much of its historical geographic range threats to the subspecies, indicating that the Act? and in recent years has expanded in C. l. nubilus is not in danger of distribution. Given the current size of extinction throughout its range and does C. l. occidentalis—Historical the C. l. nubilus population in Canada not, therefore, meet the definition of an Distribution and the lack of identified threats, we do endangered species. It is also not likely The historical range of C. l. not find any combination of factors to be to become endangered within the occidentalis includes all of Alaska a significant threat. foreseeable future throughout all of its except for the southeastern Coast, Isolation of C. l. nubilus in the Pacific range. interior western Canada, and the Northwest, including western British C. l. nubilus was extirpated from the northern Rocky Mountains of the Columbia and western Washington, central United States, the Southern contiguous United States. C. l. from the larger population of C. l. Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau, occidentalis range is bordered on the nubilus in central and eastern Canada, and the Pacific Northwestern United east and west by the subspecies C. l. in combination with small population States by the 1930s and, with the nubilus, and on the northeast by C. l. size, could exacerbate the potential for exception of the Pacific Northwest, arctos (Nowak 1995, Fig. 20). other factors to disproportionately affect which is actively being recolonized by that population. While the current C. l. nubilus and C. l. occidentalis, has C. l. occidentalis Current Distribution population estimate is large (2,200 not re-established populations in these For purposes of this status review we wolves), increased mortality (resulting areas. It is likely that land uses will discuss the current distribution of from hunting, vehicle collisions, associated with agriculture and C. l. occidentalis by state, province, or poaching, natural sources of mortality) livestock make the majority of these region in which it is found. Across the could reduce the population to a level areas unsuitable for wolf occupation in range of the subspecies, management is where effects of small population size the future. Past range contraction can be carried out by individual states and take effect. Small population size evidence of threats that may still be provinces—complicating the discussion directly and significantly increases the acting on the species, and is therefore of status by biological population. No likelihood of inbreeding depression, relevant in considering the status of the state or province in the range of C. l. which may decrease individual fitness, species in its remaining range. Thus, we occidentalis monitors wolf populations hinder population growth, and increase considered whether the extirpation of C. to the extent that precise estimates of the population’s extinction risk. Small l. nubilus from these areas suggests that population size can be made. For this population size also increases the the remaining range may likewise be reason, population estimates should be likelihood that concurrent mortalities subject to the threats that caused the regarded as estimates using professional from multiple causes that individually past range contraction such that judgment of the agencies involved.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Contiguous United States—The l. nubilus range). This discrepancy, l. occidentalis is widely distributed on historical range of C. l. occidentalis in however, is inconsequential as the inland portion of the province. the contiguous United States included COSEWIC found that both C. l. nubilus Generally, government agencies do not the northern Rocky Mountains and and C. l. occidentalis are ‘‘Not at Risk’’ distinguish between subspecies when surrounding areas (delisted due to based on widespread, large, stable reporting take or estimating population recovery 76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011). populations, with no evidence of sizes. Therefore, determining exactly Recent expansion of populations of this decline over the last 10 years despite what portion of reported numbers for subspecies in this region in response to liberal harvest (COSEWIC 2001, p. ii). British Columbia are C. l. nubilus and recovery actions has resulted in a large For the purposes of this analysis, where which are C. l. occidentalis is not recovered population and the recent the COSEWIC report differs from Nowak possible. Where possible, we have delisting of gray wolves in the northern (1995, Fig. 20) in interpretation of separated accounts of wolves in coastal Rocky Mountains (76 FR 25590, May 5, subspecies boundaries, we have used areas from those inland, but our ability 2011, and 77 FR 55530, September 10, Provincial population estimates to infer to do this is limited by the lack of 2012) recovered population. Currently subspecies numbers. subspecific reporting. An estimated there are only a few members of C. l. Furthermore, Environment Canada 8,000 wolves were present in British occidentalis known in the contiguous published a Non-Detriment Finding for Columbia in 1997 (COSEWIC 2001, p. United States outside of the delisted the export of legally harvested C. lupus 22). The COSEWIC report estimates that areas; these wolves are in the Pacific in Canada in 2008 (Environment Canada 2,200 wolves were in the ‘‘Pacific’’ Northwest. The first account of breeding 2008, entire). Supporting information region of British Columbia in 1999, and by wolves (the Lookout pack) in analyzed in this finding included this estimate likely refers to C. l. Washington State since the 1930s was biological characteristics, current status, nubilus, leaving the remaining 5,800 documented in the North Cascades harvest management, control of harvest, wolves in British Columbia referable to (outside of the delisted area) in 2008. harvest trend, harvest monitoring, C. l. occidenalis (COSEWIC 2001, Table Preliminary genetic testing of the benefits of harvest, and protection from 7). breeding male and female suggested harvest. The finding describes stable to Alberta—C. l. occidentalis range they were descended from wolves increasing populations, a lack of threats, across Alberta with the exception of the occurring in (1) coastal British Columbia and high confidence in the current prairie area in the southeastern portion (C. l. nubilus) and (2) northeastern Canadian harvest-management system. of the province where wolves were British Columbia (C. l. occidentalis), Most jurisdictions operate under an extirpated in the early 1900s (COSEWIC northwestern Alberta (C. l. occidentalis), adaptive-management strategy, which 2001, p. 13). An estimated 5,000 wolves or the reintroduced populations in imposes strict control of harvest and is were present in 1997. central Idaho and the greater reactive to changing conditions, with Saskatchewan—C. l. occidentalis Yellowstone area (C. l. occidentalis) the aim of ensuring sustainable harvest range across Saskatchewan outside of (Pollinger 2008, pers. comm.; Nowak and maintaining biodiversity. prairie areas where wolves were 1995, p. 397). In the spring of 2011, a Yukon Territories—An estimated extirpated in the early 1900s (COSEWIC new pack was documented, and genetic 4,500 wolves inhabited the Yukon in 2001, p. 13). In 1997 an estimated 2,200 testing of a pack member confirmed that 2001 (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22). Wolves to 4,300 wolves inhabited the province, this individual was a gray wolf that was are managed as big game and as with an average harvest of 238 per year closely related to (consistent with being furbearers with bag limits set for (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21). an offspring of) the Lookout pack residents and nonresidents. Manitoba—C. l. occidentalis inhabits breeding pair (Robinson et al. 2011, in Northwest Territories and Nunavut— western and southern Manitoba and litt., pp. 1–2). An estimated 10,000 wolves existed in shares an intergradation zone with C. l. Alaska—Alaska has a robust the Northwest Territories and Nunavut nubilus in the north-central portion of population of C. l. occidentalis found in 2001 (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22); these the province (Chambers et al. 2012, Fig. over most of its historical range at wolves compose three subspecies: C. l. 13). Provincial records and accounts densities that are strongly correlated occidentalis, C. l. nubilus, and C. l. generally do not distinguish between with variations in ungulate biomass arctos. The distribution of the three these subspecies, so it is impossible to (Orians et al. 1997, p. 3). Alaska’s wolf subspecies is known only in a general determine which subspecies is being population is estimated by Alaska sense, and the boundaries between referred to in government documents. Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) to subspecies are not discrete. In general, An estimated 4,000 to 6,000 wolves of be 7,000 to 11,000 (ADFG 2007, p. 8). C. l. arctos inhabits the Arctic Islands of either subspecies existed in Manitoba in A small number of C. l. nubilus also Nunavut, C. l. nubilus inhabits most of 1997, and average harvest was 366 occur in southeastern Alaska. the mainland portion of Nunavut, and (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21). C. l. occidentalis inhabits all of C. l. occidentalis in Canada Northwest Territories and the western Summary of Information Pertaining to The COSEWIC published an edge of mainland Nunavut (Nowak the Five Factors assessment and status report on C. lupus 1995, Fig. 20). The COSEWIC report Gray wolves were recently delisted in 2001 (COSEWIC 2001, entire). The does not differentiate between C. l. due to recovery in a portion of the range assessment evaluates the status and occidentalis and C. l. arctos; however, of C. l. occidentalis in the contiguous protection level of wolves across many of the estimated numbers were United States (76 FR 25590, May 5, jurisdictions for C. l. nubilus, C. l. likely to be C. l. occidentalis due to their 2011; 77 FR 55530, September 10, occidentalis, C. l. lycaon, and C. l. geographic range, including most of 2012). Therefore this analysis focuses on arctos. The subspecific ranges described mainland Northwest Territories and a assessing threats to wolves in the are not entirely consistent with those portion of mainland Nunavut. remaining portion of the subspecies’ used for this status review (C. l. British Columbia—Two gray wolf range. Within the likely historical range occidentalis range described by subspecies are present in British of C. l. occidentalis in the Great Plains COSEWIC included Manitoba, Ontario, Columbia: C. l. occidentalis and C. l. portion of southern Canada and Quebec and Newfoundland-Labrador, nubilus. C. l. nubilus inhabits coastal northern United States, wolves were which the Service considers part of C. areas including some coastal islands. C. extirpated soon after colonization and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35689

establishment of European-style livestock density. The area depicted in Predation is a factor that affects those agriculture and livestock growing. This Oakleaf et al. (2006, Fig. 2) illustrates numbers and trends and is considered range contraction appears to be where suitable wolf habitat occurs in when setting harvest quotas. We know permanent and is relatively small the southern portion of C. l. occidentalis of no future condition that would cause compared to the historical and current distribution. In this area, habitat is a decline in ungulate populations range of the subspecies, and the range generally suitable in the large, forested significant enough to affect C. l. does not appear to be contracting further public-land complexes in Idaho, occidentalis rangewide. at this time. The analysis of the Five Montana, and Wyoming and unsuitable Human population growth and land Factors below does not consider the in prairie habitats where forest cover is development will continue in the range potential for effects to C. l. occidentalis lacking, human density and use is high, of C. l. occidentalis, including increased in this area where the species has been and livestock are present year-round. development and conversion of private extirpated, rather effects are considered We conclude that similar areas in low-density rural land to higher density in the context of the present population. adjacent Canada are also unsuitable for urban developments, road development We do not consider historical range wolf colonization and occupation for and transportation facilities (pipelines contraction, by itself, to represent a the same reasons. and energy transmission lines), resource threat to the species, but loss of Wolves referable to C. l. occidentalis extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, historical range is reflected in the currently occupy nearly the entire and wind development in certain areas), current status of the species. Threat historical range of the species; the only and more recreationists on public lands. factors are always evaluated in the exceptions are areas that have been Despite efforts to minimize impacts to context of the current species status, modified for human use such as prairies wildlife (Brown 2006, pp. 1–3), some of therefore in some cases, historical range and some valley bottoms. We believe this development will make some areas contraction can affect the outcome of that enough suitable habitat exists in the of the subspecies’ range less suitable for the Five Factor analysis. currently occupied area to continue to wolf occupancy. However, these support wolves into the future. Wolf potential developments and increased Factor A. The Present or Threatened populations will likely remain viable in human presence are unlikely to affect Destruction, Modification, or these areas, and management activities the subspecies in the future for the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range will continue to focus on wolf following reasons: (1) Wolves are habitat Canis lupus occidentalis ranges over population reduction in many areas to generalists and one of the most portions of 13 states and provinces in maintain populations of wild ungulates adaptable large predators in the world, the western United States and western and reduce conflicts. We do not and only became extirpated in the Canada. This area represents nearly all anticipate overall habitat changes in the southern portion of the subspecies’ of the subspecies’ historical range subspecies’ range to occur at a range because of sustained deliberate (Chambers et al. 2012) with the magnitude that would pose a threat to human targeted elimination (Fuller et exception of prairie areas and large the subspecies because wolf populations al. 2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328– intermountain valleys in the southern are distributed across the current range, 330); (2) land-use restrictions on human and eastern portion of the range where populations are stable, and are able to development are not necessary to ensure conflicts with livestock preclude wolf withstand high levels of mortality due the continued conservation of the presence. Within this area, wolves to their high reproductive rate and subspecies—even active wolf dens can maintain robust populations in virtually vagility. Much of the subspecies’ be quite resilient to nonlethal all areas where wild ungulate southern range (i.e., within the disturbance by humans (Frame et al. populations are high enough to support contiguous United States) is in public 2007, p. 316); and (3) vast areas of wolves and where human and livestock ownership where wolf conservation is a suitable wolf habitat and the current presence are low enough to tolerate wolf priority and management plans have wolf population are secure in the populations. The areas that wolves been adopted to ensure continued wolf subspecies’ range (national parks, occupy correspond to ‘‘suitable’’ wolf persistence (74 FR 15123, pp. 15159– wilderness, roadless areas, lands habitat as modeled by Oakleaf et al. 15160; 77 FR 55530, pp. 55576–55577). managed for multiple uses, and areas (2006, entire) and Carroll et al. (2006 Areas in Canada and Alaska within the protected by virtue of remoteness from entire). Although these models analyzed subspecies’ range include large areas human populations) and are not only habitat in the contiguous United with little human and livestock available for or suitable to intensive States, the principles of suitable wolf presence where there are no threats to levels of human development. habitat in Canada and Alaska are wolf persistence. Development on private land near similar; that is, wolves persist where Other Components of Wolf Habitat— suitable habitat will continue to expose ungulate populations are adequate to Another important factor in maintaining wolves to more conflicts and higher risk support them and conflict with humans wolf populations is the native ungulate of human-caused mortality. However it and their livestock is low. The areas population. Primary sources of wild is likely that the rate of conflict is well considered ‘‘unsuitable’’ in these ungulate prey within the range of C. l. within the wolf population’s biological models are not occupied by wolves due occidentalis include elk, white-tailed mortality threshold (generally from 17 to human and livestock presence and deer, mule deer, moose, bison, and to 48 percent ([Fuller et al. 2003 +/¥ 8 the associated lack of tolerance of caribou. Bighorn sheep, dall sheep, percent], pp. 184–185; Adams et al. wolves and livestock depredations. See mountain goats, and pronghorn also are 2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and our April 2, 2009, Northern Rocky common but not important as wolf prey. Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; Mountains DPS final delisting rule for Each state or province within the range Sparkman et al. 2011 [25 percent], p. 5; more information on wolf suitable- of C. l. occidentalis manages its wild Gude et al. 2011 [48 percent], pp. 113– habitat models (74 FR 15123, pp. ungulate populations to maintain 116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 15157–15159). In that document we sustainable populations for harvest by percent]), especially given the large concluded that the most important hunters. Each state or province monitors amount of secure habitat that will habitat attributes for wolf pack big game populations to adjust hunter support a viable wolf population and persistence are forest cover, public land, harvest in response to changes in big- will provide a reliable and constant high ungulate (elk) density, and low game population numbers and trends. source of dispersing wolves (Mech 1989,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

pp. 387–388). Wolf populations persist Summary of Factor A and will be an insignificant source of in many areas of the world that are far mortality to C. l. occidentalis. more developed than the range of C. l. We do not foresee that impacts to Education—We are unaware of any occidentalis currently is or is likely to suitable and potentially suitable habitat wolves that have been removed from the be in the future (Boitani 2003, pp. 322– will occur at levels that will wild solely for educational purposes in 323). Habitat connectivity in the range significantly affect wolf numbers or recent years. Wolves that are used for of C. l. occidentalis may be reduced distribution or affect population growth such purposes are typically privately below current levels, but wolves have and long-term viability of C. l. held captive-reared offspring of wolves exceptional abilities to disperse through occidentalis. See the NRM DPS delisting that were already in captivity for other unsuitable habitat (Jimenez et al. In rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) for a reasons. However, states may receive review, p. 1) and such impacts would full discussion of this factor for the requests to place wolves that would still not have a significant effect on the contiguous United States. In Canada and otherwise be euthanized in captivity for subspecies. Alaska, even higher levels of certainty of research or educational purposes. Such habitat availability and security are requests have been, and will continue to Given the large number of wolves provided by large areas of relatively be, rare; would be closely regulated by across the subspecies’ range and the inaccessible land, in addition to lands the state and provincial wildlife- species’ natural vagility, natural habitat with protections provided by management agencies through the connectivity is ensured over most of the government regulations. These large requirement for state permits for range. We have not identified any areas of suitable wolf habitat will protected species; and would not occupied areas in Canada or the United remain suitable into the future. substantially increase human-caused States where lack of connectivity is wolf-mortality rates. affecting C. l. occidentalis now or is Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial and Recreational Uses— likely to do so in the future. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Across the subspecies’ range any legal The large amount of public lands and Educational Purposes take is regulated by provincial or state lands that are naturally inaccessible due Wolves within the NRM DPS were law to maintain sustainable wolf to topography and/or remoteness from delisted based in part on the existence populations while also protecting big- human settlement that cannot or will of well-managed programs for legal take game numbers and providing for not be developed within the range of the for commercial, recreational, scientific, recreational hunting and trapping (See subspecies assures that adequate or educational purposes for that factor D). Because wolves are highly suitable habitat for wolves will exist population. For a full discussion of the territorial, wolf populations in saturated into the future. Even though some management of wolves in the NRM DPS, habitat naturally limit further habitat degradation will occur in see the final delisting rules (74 FR population increases through wolf-to- smaller areas of suitable habitat, the 15123, April 2, 2009 and 77 FR 55530, wolf conflict or dispersal to unoccupied quantity and quality of habitat that will September 10, 2012). In Canada and habitat. As stated previously, wolf remain will be sufficient to maintain Alaska overutilization for commercial, populations can maintain themselves natural connectivity (e.g., Carroll et al. recreational, scientific, or educational despite high human-caused mortality 2006 p. 32). purposes has not had a significant effect rates (Mech 2001, p. 74; Fuller et al. Human populations in the southern on C. l. occidentalis. We do not 2003, pp. 184–185; Adams et al. 2008, portion of the subspecies’ range are anticipate that mortality rates caused by p. 22; Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 5; expected to increase (Carroll et al. 2006, commercial, recreational, scientific, or Sparkman et al. 2011, p. 5; Gude et al. p. 30). Increasing human populations do educational purposes will exceed 2011, pp. 113–116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review). Wolf pups can be not necessarily lead to declining sustainable levels in the future. These successfully raised by other pack predator populations. Mortality can be activities have not affected the viability members, and breeding individuals can limited with adequate management of the wolves in the past, and we have be quickly replaced by other wolves programs (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348), no reason to believe that they would do (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 1). Collectively, research and monitoring, and outreach so in the future. In Canada and Alaska these factors mean that wolf populations and education about living with wolves are managed for harvest by are quite resilient to human-caused wildlife. In Canada and the United recreational hunters and trappers. mortality if it is regulated. States, government lands such as Scientific Research and Monitoring— States and provinces within the range national parks and Crown Land provide Each of the states and provinces in the of C. l. occidentalis regulate human- habitat for prey species as well as range of C. l. occidentalis conducts caused mortality to manipulate wolf wolves. scientific research and monitoring of distribution and overall population size Management plans of appropriate wolf populations. Activities range from to help reduce conflicts with livestock land-management agencies and surveys of hunter observations of wolf and, in some cases, human hunting of governments manage public lands to locations and numbers to aerial big game, just as they do for other limit resource impacts from human use counting surveys to darting wolves from resident species of wildlife. States, of those lands, and these plans are more airplanes and fixing them with radio provinces, and some tribes allow than adequate to support a viable wolf collars for intensive monitoring. Even regulated public harvest of surplus population across the range of C. l. the most intensive and disruptive of wolves for commercial and recreational occidentalis. In Canada and Alaska, these activities (anesthetizing for radio purposes by regulated private and large expanses of remote and telemetry) involves a very low rate of guided hunting and trapping. Such take inaccessible habitat accomplish the mortality for wolves (73 FR 10542, and any commercial use of wolf pelts or same thing. Habitat suitability for February 27, 2008). We expect that other parts is regulated by state or wolves will change over time with capture-caused mortality by provincial law (see discussion of state human development, activities, and governments, Tribes, and universities and provincial laws and regulations attitudes, but not to the extent that it is conducting wolf monitoring, nonlethal under factor D). The regulated take of likely to affect the subspecies control, and research will remain below those wolves is not affecting the rangewide. three percent of the wolves captured, viability of the subspecies because the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35691

states and provinces allow such take known, it is not thought to be significant do not pose a significant threat to that only for wolves that are surplus to (COSEWIC 2001, p. 25). population. For a full discussion of this maintaining a sustainable population. In British Columbia wolves are legally factor in the NRM DPS, see the final We do not expect this to change in the classified as a furbearer and as big game delisting rules (74 FR 15162–15166, future. and may be taken during fall and winter April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55582–55588, Alaska’s wolves are managed as a (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22; British September 10, 2012). The array of furbearer (ADFG 2011, entire), and also Columbia Ministry of Environment diseases, parasites, and predators as a predator species that may be subject 2011, entire). Official records from 1992 affecting C. l. occidentalis is similar to to control measures to increase big-game to 1997 indicate that from 287 to 588 that affecting other wolf subspecies. For numbers (Titus 2007, entire; ADFG wolves were harvested during these a full discussion of the effects of 2007, entire). The state of Alaska years. Again, it is likely that most of disease, parasites, and predators on monitors wolf populations using a these animals were C. l. occidentalis due wolves, see factor C in the C. l. nubilus variety of methods including aerial to their wide range in the province. section above—the information there surveys in winter and reports by Wolves are managed as ‘‘furbearing applies to C. l. occidentalis as well. No trappers (ADFG 2007, p. 10). Alaska’s carnivores’’ in Alberta and can be diseases or parasites, even in wolf management is guided by the harvested during open seasons with combination, are of such magnitude that principle of sustainable yield, such that proper license on Crown (government) they are significantly affecting C. l. annual harvest should not exceed the Land and any time without a license on occidentalis. Similarly, predation, annual regeneration of a resource unless private property (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21; including human-caused mortality, is management goals encompass reducing Government of Alberta 2011a, entire; not significantly affecting the a population to a lower, but still 2011b, entire). Wolves are also lethally subspecies. The rates of mortality sustainable, level (ADFG, 2007, p. 6). In removed in response to livestock caused by disease, parasites, and designated Intensive Predator Control depredation (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21). predation are well within acceptable Areas high numbers of ungulate species Wolves are classified as a furbearer in limits, and we do not expect those rates are maintained by law for human Saskatchewan and can be taken only by to change appreciably in the future. consumption. In these areas, if ADFG licensed trappers during trapping determines that wild ungulate (generally season (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21; Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing moose and caribou) populations are Government of Saskatchewan 2011, Regulatory Mechanisms being depressed below predetermined entire). In Manitoba, wolves are The Act requires us to examine the population objectives, ADFG must managed as a big-game species and can adequacy of existing regulatory consider and evaluate intensive be taken by hunters and trappers in mechanisms with respect to those management actions (which may season or on agricultural lands at any existing and foreseeable threats, include wolf population reduction) as a time (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21; discussed under the other factors that means of attaining the objectives (ADFG Government of Manitoba 2011a, entire; may affect C. l. occidentalis. Wolves 2007, p. 6). This control program has 2011b, entire). within the NRM DPS were delisted been thoroughly scientifically vetted; In summary, the states and provinces based in part on our conclusion that see Orians et al. 1997 (entire) for further have regulatory and enforcement adequate regulatory mechanisms would information on the scientific basis of systems in place to limit human-caused be in place for that population following Alaska’s predator control program. mortality of wolves in all areas of the delisting. For a full discussion of the The Yukon has a wolf-management subspecies’ distribution where regulated regulatory mechanisms in place for gray policy and has implemented wolf take is important to maintaining wolf wolves in the NRM DPS, see the final control to increase ungulate populations populations into the future. Canadian delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22; Government of Provinces and Alaska maintain wolf 2009; and 77 FR 55530, September 10, Yukon 2012, entire). The total take of populations to be sustainably harvested 2012). Within the range of C. l. wolves due to hunting, trapping, and by hunters and trappers. The states and occidentalis in Canada and Alaska, wolf control efforts has not exceeded three provinces have humane and populations are managed as big game percent of the population per year since professional animal-handling protocols and as a furbearer and with hunting and 1993, when control efforts began and trained personnel that will continue trapping the principal management tool (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22). to ensure that population monitoring used to keep populations within the The Northwest Territories manage and research result in few unintentional limits of human tolerance. Each state wolves as a harvestable species both mortalities. Furthermore, the states’ and and province within the range has through hunting and trapping with provinces’ permitting processes for committed to maintain sustainable specific seasons for harvest for both captive wildlife and animal care will populations while allowing for harvest aboriginal and nonaboriginal hunters continue to ensure that few, if any, and minimizing conflict with livestock. (COSEWIC 2001, p. 23; Government of wolves will be removed from the wild Maintaining wild ungulate populations Northwest Territories 2011, pp. 7–12). solely for educational purposes. We in numbers that allow for liberal human There is no bag limit for aboriginal conclude that any potential wolf take harvest for local consumption is also a hunters but nonaboriginal hunters are resulting from commercial, scientific, or priority in many areas. limited to one wolf per season. Harvest educational purposes in the range of the Although wolves are not dependent numbers are known only for wolf pelts subspecies is and will continue to be on specific habitat features other than sold on the open market as pelts used regulated so that these factors are not an adequate food supply and human domestically are not counted by the affecting the viability of C. l. tolerance, state, provincial, and Federal Provincial Government (COSEWIC occidentalis now and are not likely to land-management regimes are in place 2001, p. 23). In the past 10 years, fur do so in the future. that provide protection for wolves and auction sales have ranged from 711 to wolf habitat throughout the range of C. 1,469 pelts annually from these 2 Factor C. Disease or Predation l. occidentalis in Alaska and Canada. In territories (COSEWIC 2001, p. 25). Wolves within the NRM DPS were Alaska, lands managed by the National Although the amount to which domestic delisted based in part on our conclusion Park Service and the Service are not use adds to the total harvest is not that impacts from disease and predation subject to predator control by the state

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

of Alaska (Boertje et al. 2010, p. 923). In unlikely to pose a threat to the wolves been focused on increasing populations addition, National Parks do not allow in the NRM DPS in the future. For a full of wild ungulates, mostly moose but hunting. In Canada, National Parks in discussion of this factor for the NRM also caribou, both for human the southern portion of the range of C. DPS, see the final delisting rules (74 FR consumption and in some cases to l. occidentalis do not allow hunting, 15123, April 2, 2009 and 77 FR 55530, conserve caribou herds that were at risk while National Parks in the northern September 10, 2012). (Russell 2010, pp. 6–12). Wolf control portion of the range allow hunting by Public Attitudes Toward the Gray has included both lethal and nonlethal Native Peoples (COSEWIC 2001, p. 26). Wolf—In much of Alaska and Western methods using public hunting and These land-management regimes Canada, in contrast to the contiguous trapping seasons, aerial gunning by provide refugia for wolf populations United States, wolves are not dependent government agents, and from hunting, trapping, and control on human tolerance for their experimentation with predator activities, and in turn these protected conservation. Even during the height of exclosures, sterilization, and populations may serve as a source of wolf-control efforts that included supplemental feeding (Russell 2010, pp. dispersing wolves for low-density broadcast indiscriminate poisoning and 6–12). The state of Alaska has been the populations. trapping campaigns by the public and most active in wolf control since the We have long recognized that control government agencies, wolves were able 1970s, maintaining predator control of wolf numbers and especially to maintain viable populations in much areas where wolf numbers are reduced depredating wolves is central to of Canada and Alaska simply by virtue to increase moose populations for maintaining public support for wolf of remote and rugged terrain and low human harvest (see Titus 2007, entire, conservation. Much of the impact of human population densities. However, for a review of Alaska’s Intensive livestock production on C. l. in much of coastal Alaska and southern Predator Management program). Other occidentalis in Alaska and Canada Canada today, public attitudes toward jurisdictions have employed wolf occurred during the period between wolves are important conservation control to address specific perceived settlement and the mid-twentieth issues. In these areas with higher human problems or experimentally to century when wolves were extirpated densities and the presence of livestock, determine if wolf control is an effective from the prairie regions and larger the primary determinant of the long- ungulate–management tool (Russell intermountain valleys of southern term conservation of gray wolves will be 2010, pp. 6–12). Canada due to depredations on human attitudes toward this large Predator-control programs as they livestock. Wolves have not repopulated predator. These attitudes are largely currently exist are not a threat and are these regions due to continued lack of based on the real and perceived not expected to become a threat to C. l. human tolerance to their presence. conflicts between human activities and occidentalis for several reasons: Outside of these relatively high human values and wolves, such as depredation (1) The types of control measures that density areas, wolf populations have on livestock and pets, competition for have resulted in effective extirpation of remained resilient since the cessation of surplus wild ungulates between hunters wolf populations from large areas are no widespread predator poisoning and wolves, concerns for human safety, longer permitted or prescribed by the campaigns in the 1950s. wolves’ symbolic representation of states and provinces that pursue wolf We have no information to suggest wildness and ecosystem health, killing control. Historically, wolves were that the current regulatory regime in of wolves by people, and the wolf- persecuted by people seeking to Alaska or Canada is not adequate to related traditions of Native American eliminate wolves from the landscape provide for the conservation of C. l. Tribes or local culture. We strive to find using any means necessary. These occidentalis. The subspecies appears to a balance in wolf management that will means included government agencies maintain healthy populations and sustain wolf populations but also systematically poisoning and trapping relatively high numbers across most of address other human concerns in a way with the expressed goal of extirpation of its historical range and is actively that maintains tolerance of wolves wolves if at all possible. Wolf-control managed to provide for sustainable among the human populations that live programs and associated research in populations while at the same time with them. Addressing these concerns Alaska and Canada today have as their address conflicts with humans. The will often involve lethal take of wolves goal the maintenance of sustainable jurisdictions in these areas have been or other removal methods. These (though low-density) wolf populations. successful in their search for an activities, when employed in an overall They do not employ indiscriminate appropriate balance between wolf management framework, are essential broadcast poisoning, and trapping or conservation, human tolerance, and wolf-conservation activities as they shooting of wolves is limited by providing for human uses. Therefore, provide the public with assurances that estimates of population numbers with we have determined that both in Canada human interests and needs will be the goal of reducing but not eliminating and the United States the existing considered appropriately during wolf- wolf populations. regulatory mechanisms are currently management decisions. At this time, (2) Wolf control is very expensive and adequate to provide for the long-term this balance appears to have been so is not likely to be applied broadly conservation of C. l. occidentalis. This achieved across the range of C. l. enough and consistently enough to will remain the case after the current C. occidentalis through the many reduce the rangewide population of C. lupus listed entity is delisted as only a management actions employed in the l. occidentalis substantially. For few C. l. occidentalis are known to many jurisdictions involved, and public example, in Alaska, where wolf control reside outside of the already delisted attitudes do not constitute a threat to the is most active, control areas are located area in the northern Rocky Mountains. subspecies. near human populations and cover Predator control—Wolf numbers have approximately nine percent of the state. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade been the subject of control efforts to This relatively small area of coverage by Factors Affecting Its Continued reduce conflicts with livestock and to control activities leaves most of the state Existence increase ungulate numbers in Alaska as ‘‘refuge’’ for wolf populations where Wolves in the NRM DPS were delisted and Canada since the turn of the regulated hunting and trapping occurs, based in part on our conclusion that twentieth century (Boertje et al. 2010, p. but special control efforts are not other natural or manmade factors are 917). Since the 1970s, wolf control has prescribed. Typically, wolf control areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35693

are repopulated within 4 years of fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, that may have interrelated impacts on C. cessation of control efforts, indicating 18–19). In our analyses, we use our l. occidentalis. Our analysis did not find that population control is temporary expert judgment to weigh relevant any significant effects to C. l. and reliant on constant application of information, including uncertainty, in occidentalis. However, we recognize control efforts (Boertje et al. 2010, p. our consideration of various aspects of that multiple sources of mortality acting 920). climate change. in combination have greater potential to (3) Wolf control must be applied over Throughout their circumpolar affect wolves than each source alone. a large area to be effective (National distribution, gray wolves persist in a Thus, we consider how the combination Research Council 1997, p. 10). This fact, variety of ecosystems with temperatures of factors may affect C. l. occidentalis. combined with number 2 above, ensures ranging from ¥70 °F to 120 °F (¥57 °C Canis lupus occidentalis occurs as well- that wolf control is not likely to be to 49 °C) with wide ranging prey type connected, resilient populations across applied unless wolf populations are and availability (Mech and Boitani most of its historical geographic range high enough for the perceived benefits 2003, p. xv). C. l. occidentalis are and has expanded into some areas of to outweigh the costs. This situation is historically and currently known to historical C. l. nubilus range in recent not likely to exist over a large portion have inhabited a range of ecotypes, years. Given the current size of the C. l. of the subspecies’ range simultaneously. subsisting on large ungulate prey as well occidentalis population in Canada and (4) Wolves are extremely resilient as small mammals. Due to this Alaska and the lack of identified effects, with high population-growth potential plasticity, we do not consider C. l. we do not find any combination of and high rates of movement. After occidentalis to be highly vulnerable to factors to be a significant threat. control operations, wolf populations climate change. Similarly, elk and recover to precontrol levels within a few bison, the primary prey in many areas, Conclusion years. are known to be habitat generalists due As required by the Act, we considered (5) Wolf control will be applied only to their association with wide variation the five factors in assessing whether the where wolf populations are high. This in environmental conditions (Kuck subspecies C. l. occidentalis is means that wolf control may act as a 1999, p. 1). We recognize that climate threatened or endangered throughout all density-dependent population-control change may have detectable impacts on of its range. We examined the best mechanism. When wolf populations are the ecosystems that affect C. l. scientific and commercial information high, ungulate populations become occidentalis. For example, temperature available regarding the past, present, depressed, leading to pressures for and precipitation changes could lead to and future threats faced by the management authorities to employ changes in tree cover over large areas in subspecies. We reviewed the predator control actions to address the boreal Canada and Alaska. These information available in our files and situation. As predator populations are changes could result in increased forage other available published and reduced and ungulate populations and lower rates of winter die-off for unpublished information, and we rebound, pressure to continue the ungulates, and possible beneficial consulted with recognized experts and control actions is reduced, leading to effects to wolves. We have no indication other Federal, state, and tribal agencies. reduction or cessation of the program to that these potential impacts of climate We also reviewed the report from reduce expenditures. This dynamic change are affecting C. l. occidentalis at COSEWIC (1999, entire) for status and likely supplies some added protection the current time or in the future. For a threats to Canadian wolf populations and makes it even less likely that wolf full discussion of potential impacts of (See Canada in the Status section control will become a threat to the climate change on wolves, please see above). During this process we did not subspecies. our recent final delisting rule for the identify any effects to the subspecies Climate Change—Our analyses under gray wolf in Wyoming (77 FR 55597– that would rise to the level of the Act include consideration of 55598, September 10, 2012). threatening or endangering this ongoing and projected changes in subspecies. C. l. occidentalis was climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and Summary of Factor E extirpated from the Great Plains of ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the Natural or manmade factors are not southern Canada and northern United IPCC. ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and affecting the viability of C. l. States by the 1930s and have not re- variability of different types of weather occidentalis nor are they likely to do so established populations in these areas. It conditions over time, with 30 years in the future. Positive public attitudes is likely that land uses associated with being a typical period for such continue to be fostered through agriculture and livestock make these measurements, although shorter or management of conflicts and hunting/ areas unsuitable for wolf occupation in longer periods also may be used (IPCC trapping opportunities and their the future. Past range contraction can be 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ associated economic benefits. Genetic evidence of threats that may still be thus refers to a change in the mean or viability is good with no prospects for acting on the species, and is therefore variability of one or more measures of widespread loss of genetic diversity. relevant in considering the status of the climate (e.g., temperature or Wolf control to increase ungulate species in its remaining range. Thus, we precipitation) that persists for an numbers is pursued in local areas but is considered whether the extirpation of C. extended period, typically decades or not likely to have a significant effect on l. occidentalis from these areas suggests longer, whether the change is due to wolves. In addition, control actions are that the remaining range may likewise natural variability, human activity, or not aimed at extirpation of wolf be subject to the threats that caused the both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types populations, but instead seek to reduce past range contraction such that of changes in climate can have direct or overall density of wolves while substantial additional range contraction indirect effects on species. These effects maintaining viable populations. is likely. We determined that it is not. may be positive, neutral, or negative, The past range contraction was caused and they may change over time, Cumulative Effects largely by conflict with man resulting depending on the species and other A species may be affected by more from the introduction of intensive relevant considerations, such as the than one factor in combination. Within livestock growing and agriculture in effects of interactions of climate with the preceding review of the five listing suitable areas concurrent with European other variables (e.g., habitat factors, we discussed potential factors expansion across the continent; as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

discussed above most of the remaining C. l. nubilus and the previously of livestock and game . . . . The total range of C. l. occidentalis is not suitable recognized subspecies C. l. monstrabilis, recorded take indicates a much sparser for conversion to intensive livestock C. l. mogollonensis, and C. l. youngi) number of wolves in the treated areas growing and agriculture, nor has there inhabited montane forests and than the complaints of damage state or been significant expansion of those woodlands in portions of New Mexico, signify, even when one remembers that activities or human population growth Arizona, and Texas (Young and these figures do not reflect the into occupied wolf habitat for many Goldman 1944, p. 471; Brown 1988, pp. additional numbers of wolves taken by decades. This conclusion is consistent 22–23) (see Taxonomy). In southern ranchers, bounty-seekers and other with the observed pattern of C. l. Arizona, C. l. baileyi inhabited the Santa private individuals (Service 1982, p. occidentalis range over time: The Rita, Tumacacori, Atascosa-Pajarito, 4).’’ contraction occurred as intensive Patagonia, Chiricahua, Huachuca, C. l. baileyi populations declined human use of the land expanded; both Pinaleno, and Catalina mountains, west rapidly in the early and mid-1900s, due that expansion and C. l. occidentalis to the Baboquivaris and east into New to government and private efforts across range contraction halted many decades Mexico (Brown 1983, pp. 22–23). In the United States to kill wolves and ago; and C. l. occidentalis range is now central and northern Arizona, C. l. other predators responsible for livestock stable or expanding. This strongly baileyi and other subspecies of gray wolf depredation. By 1925, poisoning, supports the conclusion that the factors were interspersed (Brown 1983, pp. 23– hunting, and trapping efforts drastically that were responsible for the C. l. 24). C. l. baileyi and other subspecies reduced C. l. baileyi populations in all occidentlais’ range contraction will not were present throughout New Mexico, but a few remote areas of the cause further range contraction, and will with the exception of low desert areas, southwestern United States, and control not result in the subspecies becoming documented as numerous or persisting efforts shifted to wolves in the endangered in the foreseeable future. in areas including the Mogollon, Elk, borderlands between the United States See the Significant Portion of the Range Tularosa, Diablo and Pinos Altos and Mexico (Brown 1983, p. 71). Analysis section below for our Mountains, the Black Range, Datil, Bednarz (1988, p. 12) estimated that evaluation as to whether this subspecies Gallinas, San Mateo, Mount Taylor, breeding populations of C. l. baileyi may or may not be in danger of Animas, and Sacramento Mountains were extirpated from the United States extinction in a significant portion of its (Brown 1983, pp. 24–25). Gray wolf by 1942. The use of increasingly range. distribution (of other subspecies) effective poisons and trapping continued eastward into the Trans- Does the North American subspecies C. techniques during the 1950s and 1960s Pecos region of Texas and northward up l. baileyi warrant the protections of the eliminated remaining wolves north of the Rocky Mountains and to the Grand Act? the United States–Mexico border, Canyon (Young and Goldman 1944, pp. although occasional reports of wolves Subspecies Description 23, 50, 404–405). crossing into the United States from C. l. baileyi is the smallest extant gray Population estimates of gray wolves, Mexico persisted into the 1960s. Wolf wolf in North America. Adults weigh 23 and specifically C. l. baileyi, prior to the distribution in northern Mexico to 41 kg (50 to 90 lb) with a length of late 1800s are not available for the contracted to encompass the Sierra 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft) and height at southwestern United States or Mexico. Madre Occidental in Chihuahua, shoulder of 63–81 cm (25–32 in) (Brown Some trapping records and rough Sonora, and Durango, as well as a 1988, p. 119). C. l. baileyi are typically population estimates are available from disjunct population in western Coahuila a patchy black, brown to cinnamon, and the early 1900s, but do not provide a (from the Sierra del Carmen westward). cream color, with primarily light rigorous estimate of population size of Leopold (1959, p. 402) found conflicting underparts (Brown 1988, p. 118). Solid C. l. baileyi in the United States or reports on the status of the Coahuila black or white coloration, as seen in Mexico. For New Mexico, a statewide population and stated that wolves were other North American gray wolves, does carrying capacity (potential habitat) of likely less abundant there than in the not exist in C. l. baileyi. Basic life about 1,500 gray wolves was Sierra Madre Occidental. history for C. l. baileyi is similar to that hypothesized by Bednarz, with an When C. l. baileyi was listed as of other gray wolves (Mech 1970, entire; estimate of 480 to 1030 wolves present endangered under the Act in 1976, no Service 1982, p. 11; Service 2010, pp. in 1915 (ibid, pp. 6, 12). Brown wild populations were known to remain 32–41). summarized historical distribution in the United States or Mexico. McBride records for the wolf from McBride (1980, pp. 2–8) conducted a survey to Historical Distribution and Causes of (1980, p. 2) and other sources, showing determine the status and distribution of Decline most records in the southwestern wolves in Mexico in 1977. He mapped Prior to the late 1800s, C. l. baileyi United States as being from the Blue 3 general areas where wolves were inhabited the southwestern United Range and the Animas region of New recorded as still present in the Sierra States and Mexico. In Mexico, C. l. Mexico (Brown 1983, p. 10). In Mexico, Madre Occidental: (1) Northern baileyi ranged from the northern border Young and Goldman (1944, p. 28) stated Chihuahua and Sonora border (at least of the country southward through the that from 1916 to 1918 C. l. baileyi was 8 wolves); (2) western Durango (at least Sierra Madre Oriental and Occidental fairly numerous in Sonora, Chihuahua, 20 wolves in 2 areas); and (3) a small and the altiplano (high plains) to the and Coahuila, although McBride area in southern Zacatecas. Although Neovolcanic Axis (a volcanic belt that comments that C. l. baileyi apparently occasional anecdotal reports have been runs east–west across central-southern did not inhabit the eastern and northern made during the last three decades that Mexico) (SEMARNAP 2000, p. 8), portions of Coahuila, even in areas with a few wild wolves still inhabit forested although wolf distribution may not have seemingly good habitat (1980, p. 2). The areas in Mexico, no publicly available been continuous through this entire 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan documented verification exists. Several region (McBride 1980, pp. 2–7). C. l. cautioned; ‘‘It is important . . . not to individuals of C. l. baileyi captured in baileyi is the only subspecies known to accept unquestioningly the accounts of the wild in Mexico became the basis for have inhabited Mexico. In the United the 1800s and early 1900s that speak of the captive-breeding program that has States, C. l. baileyi (and, in some areas, huge numbers of wolves ravaging herds enabled the reintroduction of C. l.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35695

baileyi to the wild (see below, Current annual reports and the 2010 Mexican (Siminski and Spevak 2012, p. 2). The Distribution—In Captivity). Wolf Conservation Assessment (Service purpose of the SSP is to reestablish C. 2010) available at: www.fws.gov/ l. baileyi in the wild through captive C. l. baileyi—Current Distribution— southwest.es/mexicanwolf. breeding, public education, and United States research. This captive population is the C. l. baileyi—Current Distribution— Today, a single wild population of a sole source of C. l. baileyi available to Mexico minimum of 75 C. l. baileyi (December reestablish the species in the wild and 31, 2012 population count) inhabits the Mexico initiated the reestablishment is imperative to the success of the C. l. United States in central Arizona and of C. l. baileyi to the wild (see Historical baileyi reintroduction project and any New Mexico. We began reintroducing Distribution) with the release of five additional efforts to reestablish the captive-born C. l. baileyi to the wild in captive-bred C. l. baileyi into the San subspecies that may be pursued in the 1998 as a nonessential experimental Luis Mountains just south of the U.S.– future in Mexico by the General del population under section 10(j) of the Mexico border in October 2011. As of Vida Silvestre or by the Service in the Act in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery February 2012, four of the five released United States. Area (BRWRA) within the Mexican Wolf animals were confirmed dead due to Captive C. l. baileyi are routinely Experimental Population Area ingestion of illegal poison. The status of transferred among the zoos and other (MWEPA). The BRWRA consists of the the fifth wolf is unknown. A sixth wolf SSP holding facilities to facilitate entire Gila and Apache National Forests was released in March 2012; its fate is genetic exchange (through breeding) and in east-central Arizona and west-central unknown as only its collar was found in maintain the health and genetic New Mexico (6,845 mi2 or 17,775 km2). April 2012 (Service, our files). In diversity of the captive population. The The MWEPA is a larger area October 2012, a pair of wolves was SSP strives to house a minimum of 240 surrounding the BRWRA that extends released and both are alive as of March wolves in captivity at all times to ensure from Interstate Highway 10 to Interstate 3, 2013. Mexico plans to release the security of the species in captivity, Highway 40 across Arizona and New additional wolves in this area, and while still being able to produce surplus Mexico and a small portion of Texas possibly several other locations in animals for reintroduction. north of U.S. Highway 62/180 (63 FR Mexico in 2013; however, a schedule of In the United States, C. l. baileyi from 1752; January 12, 1998). releases is not publicly available at this captive SSP facilities that are identified C. l. baileyi associated with the time. We expect the number of wolves for potential release are first sent to one BRWRA also occupy the Fort Apache in Mexico to fluctuate from zero to of three prerelease facilities to be Indian Reservation of the White several wolves or packs of wolves evaluated for release suitability and to Mountain Apache Tribe, adjacent to the during 2013 in or around Sonora, undergo an acclimation process. All western boundary of the BRWRA. Since Durango, and Chihuahua. wolves selected for release in the United 2000, an agreement between the Service States and Mexico are genetically C. l. baileyi—Current Distribution—In and the White Mountain Apache Tribe redundant to the captive population, Captivity permits the release, dispersal, and meaning their genes are already well establishment of C. l. baileyi onto the Due to the extirpation of C. l. baileyi represented. This minimizes any reservation, providing an additional in the United States and Mexico, the adverse effects on the genetic integrity 6,475 km2 (2,500 mi2) of high-quality first step for the recovery of the of the remaining captive population in forested wolf habitat for the subspecies was the development of a the event wolves released to the wild do reintroduction (Service 2001, p. 4). captive-breeding population to ensure not survive. Information about the number and the subspecies did not go extinct. A location of wolves on the reservation is binational captive-breeding program Habitat Description not publicly available by request of the between the United States and Mexico, Historically, C. l. baileyi was White Mountain Apache Tribe. referred to as the Mexican Wolf Species associated with montane woodlands Since 1998, we have been striving to Survival Plan (SSP), was initiated in characterized by sparsely to densely establish a population of at least 100 1977 to 1980 with the capture of the last forested mountainous terrain consisting wild wolves in the BRWRA. This known C. l. baileyi in the wild in of evergreen oaks (Quercus spp.) or population target was first Mexico and subsequent addition of pinyon (Pinus edulus) and juniper recommended in the 1982 Mexican wolves from captivity in Mexico and the (Juniperus spp.) to higher elevation pine Wolf Recovery Plan as an interim goal United States. The individual wolves (Pinus spp.), mixed-conifer forests, and upon which to base future recovery used to establish the captive-breeding adjacent grasslands at elevations of goals and expectations and was program are considered the ‘‘founders’’ 4,000 to 5,000 ft (1,219 to 1,524 m) subsequently brought forward in our of the breeding population. Seven where ungulate prey were numerous. 1998 Final Rule, ‘‘Establishment of a founder wolves represent three Factors making these vegetation Nonessential Experimental Population founding lineages (family groups): communities attractive to C. l. baileyi of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona McBride (also known as the Certified likely included the abundance of and New Mexico.’’ We continue to lineage; three individuals), Ghost Ranch ungulate prey, availability of water, and acknowledge that this population target (two individuals), and Aragon (two the presence of hiding cover and is appropriate as an interim objective individuals). Through the breeding of suitable den sites. Early investigators (Service 1982, p. 28, Service 1996, p. seven founding wolves from these three reported that C. l. baileyi probably 1–1) but insufficient for recovery and lineages and generations of their avoided desert scrub and semidesert delisting of C. l. baileyi, as the offspring, the population has expanded grasslands that provided little cover, subspecies would still be in danger of through the years to its current size. food, or water (Brown 1988, pp. 19–22). extinction with a single population of Close to 300 C. l. baileyi are now Prior to their extirpation in the wild, this size (Service 2010, pp. 78–79). housed in captivity as part of the SSP C. l. baileyi were believed to have Detailed information on the status of captive-management program (258 preyed upon white-tailed deer the nonessential experimental wolves in 52 facilities: 34 facilities in (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. population and the reintroduction the United States and 18 facilities in hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), project can be found in the 2001 to 2011 Mexico as of October 12, 2012) collared peccaries (javelina) (Tayassu

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35696 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tajacu), pronghorn (Antilocapra illegal shooting, small population size, boundary to dispersal. We address americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis inbreeding, and inadequate regulatory illegal killing under factor C. Disease or canadensis), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), protection were hindering the ability of Predation, and vehicular collision under cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.), and small the current population to reach the factor E. Other. rodents (Parsons and Nicholopoulos population objective of at least 100 For C. l. baileyi, we define habitat 1995, pp. 141–142); white-tailed deer wolves in the BRWRA (Service 2010, p. destruction, modification, or and mule deer were believed to be the 60). curtailment as a decrease or primary sources of prey (Brown 1988, p. The threats we address in this five- modification in the extent or quality of 132; Bednarz 1988, p. 29). factor analysis and our conclusions forested, montane terrain in currently Today, C. l. baileyi in Arizona and about a given factor may differ from occupied habitat, or a decrease in New Mexico inhabit evergreen pine-oak previous listing actions due to new ungulate populations in currently woodlands (i.e., Madrean woodlands), information, or, in the case of the occupied habitat, such that wolves pinyon-juniper woodlands (i.e., Great Conservation Assessment, the difference would not persist in that area. In order Basin conifer forests), and mixed-conifer in perspective necessitated by the listing to assess whether habitat destruction, montane forests (i.e., Rocky Mountain, process compared to that of the modification, or curtailment is a threat or petran, forests) that are inhabited by Conservation Assessment, which was to C. l. baileyi, we consider information elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer focused on recovery. For example, in related to land status (as a characteristic (Service 1996, p. 3–5; AMOC and IFT this five-factor analysis we analyze of quality related to minimal human 2005, p. TC–3). C. l. baileyi in the currently occupied habitat, whereas the development), ungulate population BRWRA show a strong preference for Conservation Assessment included density, and the effects of catastrophic elk compared to other ungulates (AMOC discussion of unoccupied habitat that wildfire on wolves and ungulates. Our and IFT 2005, p. TC–14, Reed et al. may be important in the future for definitions of suitable habitat and of 2006, pp. 56, 61; Merkle et al. 2009, p. recovery. In this five-factor analysis, we habitat destruction, modification, and 482). Other documented sources of prey are assessing which factors pose a threat curtailment are the same for the United include deer (O. virginianus and O. to the existing population of wolves in States and Mexico. Climate change, hemionus) and occasionally small the BRWRA or would pose a threat to which has sometimes been addressed mammals and birds (Reed et al. 2006, p. these wolves if the protections of the under factor A by the Service in other 55). C. l. baileyi are also known to prey Act were not in place. listing rules, is addressed under factor and scavenge on livestock (Reed et al. E. Other. Factor A. The Present or Threatened 2006, p. 1129). United States—C. l. baileyi currently Destruction, Modification, or occupies the BRWRA and the adjacent Summary of Information Pertaining to Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The the Five Factors As previously discussed, wolves are 17,775 km2 (6,845 mi2) BRWRA has Several threats analyses have been considered habitat generalists with consistently been identified as one of conducted for C. l. baileyi. In the initial fairly broad ecological capabilities and the highest quality sites for C. l. baileyi proposal to list C. l. baileyi as flexibility in using different prey and establishment in the Southwest based endangered in 1975 and in the vegetation communities (Peterson and on its size, public-land status, prey subsequent listing of the entire gray Ciucci 2003, pp. 104–111). Gray wolves abundance, low road density, and wolf species in the contiguous United hunt in packs, primarily pursuing additional characteristics such as States and Mexico in 1978, the Service medium to large hooved mammals. Wolf topography, water availability, and found that threats from habitat loss density is positively correlated to the historical inhabitance by wolves (factor A), sport hunting (factor B), and amount of ungulate biomass available (Johnson et al. 1992, pp. 28–42, 47–48; inadequate regulatory protection from and the vulnerability of ungulates to Service 1996, pp. 2-2–2-4; Carroll et al. human targeted elimination (factor D) predation (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 170– 2005, pp. 1, 30, 31; Carroll et al. 2006, were responsible for C. l. baileyi’s 175). These characterizations apply to C. p. 33). The Fort Apache Indian decline and near extinction (40 FR l. baileyi and form our basis for defining Reservation provides an additional 17590, April 21, 1975; 43 FR 9607, suitable habitat. 6,475 km2 (2,500 mi2) of high-quality March 9, 1978). In the 2003 We define suitable habitat for C. l. forested wolf habitat for the reclassification of the gray wolf into baileyi as forested, montane terrain reintroduction (Service 2001, p. 4) (see three distinct population segments, containing adequate wild ungulate Current Distribution—United States). threats identified for the gray wolf in the populations (elk, white-tailed deer, and Although wolves occasionally occupy Southwestern Distinct Population mule deer) to support a wolf population. areas outside of the BRWRA or Fort Segment (which included Mexico, Suitable habitat has minimal roads and Apache Indian Reservation within the Arizona, New Mexico, and portions of human development, as human access MWEPA, the Service does not currently Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas) to areas inhabited by wolves can result allow C. l. baileyi to establish territories included illegal killing and (negative) in wolf mortality. Specifically, roads on public lands wholly outside of the public attitudes (68 FR 15804, April 1, can serve as a potential source of wolf BRWRA boundaries (63 FR 1754; 2003). The 2010 Mexican Wolf mortality due to vehicular collision and January 12, 1998). In compliance with Conservation Assessment (Conservation because they provide humans with the existing regulations of our Assessment) contains the most recent access to areas inhabited by wolves, nonessential experimental population five-factor analysis for C. l. baileyi which can facilitate illegal killing of designation, wolves that establish (Service 2010, p. 60). The purpose of the wolves. Although the road itself could territories wholly outside the BRWRA Conservation Assessment, which was a be considered a form of habitat but inside the MWEPA are captured and nonregulatory document, was to modification, the primary threat to returned to a recovery area or to evaluate the status of the C. l. baileyi wolves related to roads stems from the captivity. The Service does not BRWRA reintroduction project within activities enabled by the presence of routinely capture and return wolves that the broader context of the subspecies’ roads (i.e., vehicular collision and make occasional forays onto public land recovery. The Conservation Assessment illegal killing) rather than a direct effect outside of the BRWRA (63 FR 1771; found that the combined threats of of the road on the wolf such as a January 12, 1998). Given our current

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35697

regulations for the nonessential Our current estimates continue to baileyi population in two primary experimental population requiring wolf support this finding. In 2005, we ways—by killing of wolves directly or establishment to occur only within the assessed documented predation events by causing changes in the abundance BRWRA (63 FR 1771; January 12, 1998), in the BRWRA and confirmed that prey and distribution of ungulates. Two we do not consider temporary were adequate to support the population recent large wildfires, the Wallow Fire occupation outside the BRWRA or Fort (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. TC–19). More and the Whitewater–Baldy Complex Apache Indian Reservation to be recently, we estimated a ‘‘theoretical Fire, have burned within close relevant to our analysis of habitat biologically supportable wolf proximity to denning wolf packs in the destruction, modification, or population’’ using the number of elk BRWRA. Due to their very large size and curtailment. Elsewhere in today’s and deer presented in the Final rapid spread, both of these fires are Federal Register, we propose revisions Environmental Impact Statement, considered catastrophic wildfires. to our regulations for the nonessential ‘‘Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf On May 29, 2011, the Wallow Fire experimental population. Within Its Historic Range in the began in Arizona and spread to over We consider the public-land status of Southwestern United States’’ (Service 538,000 acres (217,721 ha) in Arizona the BRWRA to be an important 1996), and in more recent estimates (Apache, Navajo, Graham, and Greenlee characteristic of the quality of the (Heffelfinger, unpublished data) that Counties; San Carlos Apache Indian reintroduction area: 95 percent of the relates Ungulate Biomass Index (UBI) to Reservation, Fort Apache Indian BRWRA is U.S Department of wolves per 1,000 km2 (Fuller et al. 2003, Reservation) and New Mexico (Catron Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service p. 171). County) by the end of June lands, made up of the entire Gila and The UBI scales wild ungulates on the (www.inciweb.org/incident/2262; Apache National Forests (with a number landscape to deer equivalents. For accessed July 5, 2011). The Wallow Fire of small private inholdings making up instance, an elk is considered three was human-caused (www.inciweb.org/ the last 5 percent). Public lands such as times the size of deer in the UBI scale, incident/2262; accessed July 5, 2011) National Forests are considered to have whereas the smaller white-tailed deer and is the second largest fire in the most appropriate conditions for wolf were scaled as a 0.5 deer equivalent. Arizona’s recorded history reintroduction and recovery efforts Mule deer were given a score of 1. Our (www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/ because they typically have significantly results suggest that estimated current main/ariz-fire-20110609, accessed lesser degrees of human development ungulate populations in the BRWRA November 1, 2012). and habitat degradation than other land- could support from 203 to 354 wolves. The Wallow Fire burned through ownership types (Fritts and Carbyn However, we recognize that other approximately 11 percent of the 1995, p. 26). We do not have any factors may limit how many wolves BRWRA. Three known or presumed information or foresee any change in the could be supported on the landscape, wolf pack denning locations (Rim pack, size, status, ownership, or management such as management of wolves related Bluestem pack, Hawks Nest pack) were of the Gila and Apache National Forests to interactions with livestock and within the fire’s boundaries (Service in the future. If C. l. baileyi were not humans, patchy distribution of prey, 2011). Although we had initial concern protected by the Act, we cannot foresee uncertainties associated with a that denning pups (which are not as any changes to the status of these multiprey system, and social mobile as adults or may depend on National Forests such that suitability for interactions among wolves. No adults to move them from the den) may wolves would significantly diminish. observation or documentation of not survive the fire due to their The most prevalent biotic behavior (e.g., high levels of proximity to the rapidly spreading fire, communities in the BRWRA include intraspecific strife) or significant levels we did not document any wolf petran montane and great basin conifer of wolf mortality due to starvation have mortalities as a result of the fire. forests, plains and great basin been made during the course of the Telemetry information indicated all grasslands, Madrean evergreen reintroduction, supporting our radio-collared animals survived, and woodland, and semidesert grasslands conclusion that wolves are not food pups from two of the packs whose den (Service 1996, pp. 3–5). Elevation in the limited in the BRWRA (AMOC and IFT areas burned survived through the BRWRA ranges from 1,219 to 3,353m 2005, pp. 20–21; Service files). year’s end to be included in the end-of- (4,000 to 11,000 ft), from the lowlands Current and reasonably foreseeable year population survey. While denning of the San Francisco River to the top of management practices in the Gila and behavior was observed in the third pack, Mount Baldy, Escudilla Mountain, and Apache National Forests are expected to the presence of pups had not been the Mogollon Mountains. In 2011 support ungulate populations at levels confirmed prior to the fire, and no pups (minimum population count of 58), that will sustain the current wolf were documented with this pack at the wolves occupied 6,959 km2 (2,687 mi2) population as it grows toward the year’s end (Service 2011). (approximately 40 percent) of the population objective of at least 100 wild In addition to possible direct negative BRWRA, utilizing habitat throughout a wolves. Prey populations throughout all effects of the Wallow Fire (i.e., mortality wide range of elevations (based on of Arizona and New Mexico continue to of wolves, which we did not document), location of home ranges in 2011, Service be monitored by the state wildlife we also considered whether the fire was 2011, p. 23). (We are in the process of agencies within Game Management likely to result in negative short- or calculating occupied range for 2012, in Units, the boundaries of which are long-term effects to ungulate which our minimum population defined in each state’s hunting populations. The Wallow Fire Rapid estimate rose to 75 wolves.) regulations. If C. l. baileyi was not Assessment Team’s postfire assessment The vegetation communities of the protected by the Act, we do not predict hypothesized that elk and deer BRWRA support elk, white-tailed deer, any significant resulting change to the abundance will respond favorably as and mule deer. Prior to the ungulate populations that inhabit the vegetation recovers, with ungulate reintroduction, the Service determined Gila and Apache National Forests such abundance exceeding prefire conditions that adequate prey was available in the that habitat suitability for wolves would within 5 years due to decreased BRWRA to support a population of at diminish. competition of forage and browse with least 100 wolves based on estimates of Wildfire is a type of habitat fire-killed conifers (Dorum 2011, p. 3). elk and deer (Service 1996, pp. 4–20). modification that could affect the C. l. Based on this information, we recognize

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

and will continue to monitor the 2012, pp. 630–637). Subsequently, Factor B. Overutilization for potential for this fire to result in officials in Mexico reintroduced eight Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or beneficial (increased prey) effects for C. wolves to the wild during 2011 and Educational Purposes l. baileyi over the next few years. 2012 (see Current Distribution— Since the inception of the BRWRA C. On May 16, 2012, the Whitewater- Mexico). Four of these wolves are l. baileyi reintroduction, we have not Baldy Complex fire was ignited by confirmed dead, the status of two authorized legal killing or removal of lightning strikes. It burned at least wolves is unknown, and two wolves are wolves from the wild for commercial, 297,845 acres (www.inciweb.org/ alive (as of January 2, 2013). recreational (i.e., hunting), scientific, or incident/2870, July 23, 2012), including We recognize that wolves are being educational purposes. We are not aware an additional (to the Wallow Fire) 7 reintroduced in Mexico to areas of any instances of illegal killing of percent of the BRWRA. The Whitewater- identified as priority sites based on BRWRA wolves for their pelts in the Baldy Complex Fire was contained 2 mi current research (Araiza et al. 2012). Southwest, or of illegal trafficking in C. (3 km) from a denning wolf pack to the However, we also note that Araiza et. l. baileyi pelts or parts. C. l. baileyi pelts north (Dark Canyon pack) and 5 mi (8 al’s habitat assessment does not include and parts from wolves that die in km) from a denning wolf pack to the assessment of prey availability within captivity or in the wild may be used for east (Middle Fork pack). We have not the six identified areas, which is a documented any adverse effects, critical indicator of habitat suitability. educational or scientific purposes, such including mortality, from the fire to Some information on prey availability is as taxidermy mounts for display, when these packs. We similarly hypothesize, currently being collected and permission is granted from the Service; as with the Wallow Fire, that elk and synthesized by Mexico for specific most wolf parts are sent to a curatorial deer abundance will respond favorably locations, but is not publicly available at facility at the University of New Mexico as vegetation recovers in the burned this time. We also note that, due to the to be preserved, catalogued, and stored. area, with ungulate abundance majority of land in Mexico being held in A recreational season for wolf hunting exceeding pre-fire conditions within private ownership, large patches of is not currently authorized in the several years. secure public land are unavailable in Southwest. Given that we have not observed any Mexico to support reintroduction, We have authorized, through a section wolf mortality associated with the which has been an important 10(a)(1)(A) research-and-recovery Wallow and Whitewater-Baldy Complex characteristic of reintroduction sites in permit under 50 CFR 17.32, as well as fires, these specific fires have not the United States. We will continue to in accordance with the Mexican wolf significantly affected the C. l. baileyi observe the status of the wolf nonessential experimental population population. Moreover, although these reintroduction effort in Mexico. At this rule and section 10(j) management rule fires demonstrate the possibility that a time, because our focus in this analysis under 50 CFR 17.84(k), agency catastrophic wildfire within the is on currently occupied range, the personnel to take any C. l. baileyi in the reintroduction area could result in absence of a wolf population in Mexico nonessential experimental population, mortality of less mobile, denning pups, precludes analysis of habitat threats to as well as to conduct activities related we recognize that adult wolves are C. l. baileyi there. directly to the recovery of reintroduced highly mobile animals and can move nonessential experimental populations out of even a catastrophic fire’s path. Summary of Factor A of C. l. baileyi within Arizona and New While mortality of pups would slow the We have no information indicating Mexico. While some removal of growth of the population over a year or that present or threatened habitat individual C. l. baileyi (including lethal two, the adult, breeding animals drive destruction, modification, or take) has occurred by the Service as a the ability of the population to persist. curtailment is significantly affecting C. result of these measures, these actions We do not consider even these l. baileyi or is likely to do so in the are conducted within the purpose of our catastrophic fires to be a significant future. The BRWRA continues to recovery program to contribute to the mortality risk to adult wolves given provide an adequately sized area of conservation of the Mexican gray wolf. their mobility and, therefore, do not protected, high-quality, forested Several C. l. baileyi research projects consider wildfire to be a significant montane terrain with adequate ungulate occur in the BRWRA or adjacent tribal threat to C. l. baileyi. Further, we populations to support the current lands by independent researchers or predict that these fires will result in population of about 75 wolves. We do project personnel, but these studies changes in vegetation communities and not foresee any changes in the status of have utilized radio-telemetry, scat prey densities that will be favorable to the area (as National Forest land) or analysis, and other noninvasive wolves within a few years. We have no management of ungulates in occupied methods that do not entail direct reason to believe there would be habitat. Further, we do not consider handling of, or impact to, wolves (e.g., changes to the effects of fire on C. l. wildfire to be resulting in habitat Cariappa et al. 2008, Breck et al. 2011, baileyi if they were not protected by the destruction, modification, or Rinkevich 2012). Nonlethal research for Act. curtailment that is threatening C. l. the purpose of conservation is also Mexico—C. l. baileyi appears to have baileyi, although we recognize that conducted on C. l. baileyi in the SSP been extirpated from the wild in Mexico future catastrophic wildfires have the captive-breeding program; projects for more than 30 years. Recently, potential to slow the growth of the include research on reproduction, researchers and officials in Mexico population if pup mortality occurs in artificial insemination, and gamete identified priority sites for several packs. collection and preservation (see Service reintroduction of C. l. baileyi in the We have not conducted an analysis of Mexican Wolf Recovery Program annual states of Sonora, Durango, Zacatecas, threats under factor A in Mexico due to reports online at www.fws.gov/ Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and the lack of a C. l. baileyi population southwest/es/mexicanwolf for Tamaulipas based on vegetation type, there for more than 30 years. Based on descriptions of past and current records of historical wolf occurrence, the mortality of reintroduced wolves in research projects). Research on disease and risk factors affecting wolf mortality Mexico during 2011–2012, we do not and conditioned taste aversion is also associated with proximity to human expect a population to be established being conducted in the SSP captive- development and roads (Araiza et al. there for several years. breeding program. In all cases, any take

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35699

authorized by the Service for scientific, be protected from take related to parvovirus, parainfluenza virus, and educational, and conservation purposes overutilization. adenovirus before release to the wild must benefit C. l. baileyi and promote its Similarly, in Mexico, the General from captive facilities. In addition, recovery. Wildlife Law (‘‘Ley General de Vida common dewormers and external Since reintroductions began in 1998, Silvestre’’, 2000, as amended) provides parasite treatments are administered. we are aware of 18 incidents in which regulation against take of species Wolves captured in the wild are C. l. baileyi were captured in identified by the Norma Oficial vaccinated for the same diseases and nongovernmental (private) traps, 8 of Mexicana NOM–059–SEMARNAT– administered dewormers and external which resulted in injury (including 2 2010, ‘‘Proteccio´n ambiental–Especies parasite treatments. Kreeger (2003, pp. mortalities). Sixteen of the total nativas de Me´xico de flora y fauna 208–211) describes the transmission incidents occurred in New Mexico. silvestres.’’ These regulatory provisions route and effect of these diseases on While these injuries may have a are further discussed under factor D. gray wolves and can be referenced for significant effect on the individual wolf The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory general information. Recent rules for the and may affect that particular animal’s Mechanisms. Western Great Lakes and Northern pack, they are relatively rare Summary of Factor B Rocky Mountain gray wolf populations occurrences (18 known incidences in 15 contain information from studies of years). We conclude that two mortalities Based on available information, disease occurrences in those geographic over the course of the project have not overutilization for commercial, regions, and can also serve as a affected the population’s growth. recreational, scientific, or educational reference for a more comprehensive Absent the protection of the Act, C. l. purposes does not occur or is discussion of these (and other) diseases baileyi could be protected from exceedingly rare in the United States. In than that provided below (72 FR 6051, overutilization in the United States by addition, we have no examples of these February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10513, February State regulations and programs in forms of take occurring in Mexico since 27, 2008). Arizona and New Mexico and Federal the Mexican reintroduction program Rabies, caused by a rhabdovirus, is an law in Mexico. The Arizona Revised began in 2011. Arizona, New Mexico, infectious disease of the central nervous Statutes Title 17 gives the Arizona Game and Mexico have regulatory provisions system typically transmitted by the bite and Fish Commission (Commission) the under which C. l. baileyi could be of an infected animal. Rabies can spread authority to regulate take of wildlife in protected against overutilization if the between infected wolves in a population the state of Arizona. ‘‘Take’’ (to pursue, subspecies were not protected by the (e.g., among and between packs), or shoot, hunt, trap, kill, capture, snare, or Act. Due to the nonexistent or very low between populations, resulting in severe net) of wildlife in Arizona on lands level of overutilization occurring, and population declines. Rabies is under the authority of the Arizona Game the ability of the States and Mexico to untreatable and leads to death. A rabies and Fish Commission is prohibited, regulate overutilization, we do not outbreak in and near the BRWRA began unless a provision (e.g., Commission consider overutilization to be affecting in 2006 in eastern Arizona and Order, special rule, permit) is made to C. l. baileyi now or in the future. continued through 2009, with positive allow take. Arizona Game and Fish rabies diagnoses (fox variant) in both Factor C. Disease or Predation Commission Rules, Article 4, outlines foxes and bobcats. No wolves in the additional restrictions that would A number of viral, fungal, and Blue Range population were diagnosed provide further protections from bacterial diseases and endo- and with rabies during this outbreak overutilization including regulating and ectoparasites have been documented in (Arizona Department of Health Services outlining prohibitions on possession gray wolf populations (Kreeger 2003, 2012; New Mexico Department of and transport of illegally taken wildlife, pp. 202–214). However, little research Health 2011) or throughout the history and regulating and placing restrictions has been done specific to disease in C. of the reintroduction. on scientific collection/handling of l. baileyi, and little documentation Canine distemper, caused by a wildlife. Because Commission Order 14 exists of disease prevalence in wild paramyxovirus, is an infectious disease (Other Birds and Mammals) does not wolves in the BRWRA population. We typically transmitted by aerosol routes open a hunting season on wolves, all obtain the majority of our information or direct contact with urine, feces, and take of C. l. baileyi in Arizona is on documented mortalities (from all nasal exudates. Death from distemper is prohibited (except via special permit, as sources, including disease) in the usually caused by neurological for science and management purposes; BRWRA from animals wearing radio complications (e.g., paralysis, seizures), permits that in-turn require the collars. We may, therefore, or pneumonia. Distemper can cause permittee to secure all required federal underestimate the number of mortalities high fatality rates, though survivors are permits). A hunting season could be resulting from disease (e.g., due to the occasionally documented in canine opened if the agency documented a number of uncollared wolves). populations. Distemper virus may have harvestable surplus or identified a need Typically, infectious diseases (such as been a contributing factor to high levels for population reduction in a specific viruses and bacteria) are transmitted of pup mortality in Yellowstone area. The Arizona Game and Fish through direct contact (e.g., feces, urine, National Park during several summers Department, the administrative, or saliva) with an infected animal, by (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). management, and enforcement arm of aerosol routes, or by physical contact Although wolf populations are known the Commission, is charged with with inanimate objects (fomites). to be exposed to the virus in the wild, carrying out the Commission’s programs Parasites are infective through water, mortality from distemper in wild C. l. and enforcing its regulations. food sources, or direct contact. Wolves baileyi is uncommon. However, we Pursuant to the Wildlife Conservation are able to tolerate a number of expect C. l. baileyi pups, in general, Act of New Mexico, it is unlawful to parasites, such as tapeworms or ticks, would be most susceptible to death from take, possess, transport, export, process, although occasionally such organisms distemper virus at a time period prior to sell, or offer for sale or ship any state or can cause significant disease, or even be when they are captured, collared, and Federal endangered species (17–2–41 lethal (Kreeger 2003, p. 202). vaccinated. Therefore, our collared NMSA), thus, as a state-listed C. l. baileyi are routinely vaccinated sample of pups may not be accurately endangered species, C. l. baileyi would for rabies virus, distemper virus, documenting this source of mortality.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Distemper has been documented in attributed to disease: 1 to canine occurrences we have documented. one wild litter of wolves in the BRWRA. parvovirus, 1 to chronic bacterial Monitoring of Northern Rocky Mountain Two sibling C. l. baileyi pups brought to pleuritis (bacterial infection around the wolf populations demonstrates that a captive-wolf-management facility in lungs), and 1 to bacterial pneumonia. wolf-to-wolf conflicts may be the biggest 2000 from the wild were diagnosed with The pleuritis and pneumonia cases, source of predation among gray wolves, distemper (indicating they were though bacterial diseases, are likely both but this typically occurs from territorial exposed to the disease in the wild) and secondary to other unknown natural conflicts and has not occurred at a level died in captivity (AMOC and IFT 2005, factors, rather than contagious, sufficient to affect the viability of these p. TC–12). (Note: These captive deaths infectious diseases. Potential pup populations (73 FR 10513; February 27, are not included in the BRWRA mortality caused by infectious disease 2008). As the C. l. baileyi population mortality statistics.) These are the only may be poorly documented in the free- begins to saturate available habitat, wolf known mortalities due to distemper ranging population because these pups mortalities resulting from territorial documented in relation to the current are too young to radio collar and thus conflicts may become more prevalent population (AMOC and IFT 2005, p. difficult to detect or monitor. In but this type of mortality is not TC–12). addition, collared animals are currently a concern. We do not foresee Canine parvovirus is an infectious vaccinated, which reduces the potential any change in the occurrence of wild disease caused by a virus that results in for mortality to occur among collared predation on C. l. baileyi if the severe gastrointestinal and myocardial wolves. subspecies was not protected by the Act (heart disease) symptoms. Parvovirus is We do not have evidence that disease and, therefore, do not consider persistent in the environment and can was a significant factor in the decline of predation from wild predators to be be spread by direct contact or viral C. l. baileyi prior to its protection by the affecting C. l. baileyi. particles in the environment. Symptoms Act in the 1970’s. However, we Illegal shooting of wolves has been of an infected adult animal may include recognize that, in a general sense, the biggest single source of mortality severe vomiting and diarrhea, resulting disease has the potential to affect the since the reintroduction began in 1998, in death due to dehydration or size and growth rate of a wolf and the largest single source of mortality electrolyte imbalance. Pups may die population and could have a negative in 8 separate years between 1998 and from myocardial (heart) disease if impact on the BRWRA population if the December 31, 2012 (Service 2013: infected with canine parvovirus while active vaccination program were not in Mexican Wolf Blue Range in utero or soon after birth from cardiac place. We also recognize that some Reintroduction Project Statistics). Out of arrhythmias. Although canine diseases are more likely to spread as 92 wild wolf mortalities documented parvovirus has been documented in wolf-to-wolf contact increases (Kreeger between 1998 and 2012, 46 deaths are wild wolf populations, documented 2003, pp. 202–214), thus the potential attributed to illegal shooting (50 percent mortalities due to parvovirus are few; for disease outbreaks to occur may of total mortalities). Documented illegal researchers hypothesize that parvovirus increase as the current population shootings have ranged from zero to can be a survivable disease, although expands in numbers or density, seven per year between 1998 and less so in pups. Parvovirus is thought to although the effect on the population December 2012, with one or more have slowed various stages of may be lower because a larger wolf occurring every year with the exception colonization and dispersal of wolves in population would be more likely to of 1999. Illegal shooting has varied from the greater Minnesota population (Mech sustain the epidemic. Absent the no impact to the population (e.g., in et al. 2008, pp. 832–834). protection of the Act, the potential for 1999 when no illegal shootings Parvovirus has been documented in disease to affect the C. l. baileyi occurred) to resulting in the known one wild litter of wolves in the BRWRA. population would primarily depend on mortality of about 15 percent of the Three sibling C. l. baileyi pups were whether state wildlife agencies or other population in a given year (e.g., in documented having, and then dying parties provided a similar level of 2001). Forty-five percent of the illegal from, parvovirus in 1999: One pup died vaccination to the population as that shootings have occurred during the last in an acclimation release pen in the which we currently provide. 4 to 5 years (as opposed to 55 percent BRWRA, indicating it had been exposed In addition to disease, we must also in the first 14 years), signaling an to the disease in the wild (AMOC and assess whether predation is affecting C. increasing trend in this threat. IFT 2005, p. TC–12). (This pup is the l. baileyi now or in the future under Documented causes of illegal shooting single disease-related mortality factor C. In our assessment of predation, in other gray wolf populations have documented for the wild population. we focus on wild predators as well as included intentional killing and The other two pups, which also may intentional human killing of wolves. mistaken identity as a coyote or dog have been exposed to the disease in the Wild predators do not regularly prey (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 181). We do not wild, were transferred to, and died at, a on wolves (Ballard et al. 2003, pp. 259– know the reason for each instance of prerelease captive facility and are 271). Although large prey may illegal shooting of C. l. baileyi in the considered captive mortalities). occasionally kill wolves during self- BRWRA. Mortality from canine parvovirus has defense (Mech and Peterson 2003, p. We recognize that some wolf otherwise not been documented in the 134), this occurrence is rare and not populations can maintain themselves BRWRA population. However, we considered predation on the wolf. despite sustained human-caused expect pups, in general, to be most Between 1998 and December 31, 2012, mortality rates of 17 to 48 percent susceptible to death from parvovirus three documented C. l. baileyi ([Fuller et al. 2003 +/– 8 percent], pp. prior to when they are captured, mortalities are attributed to predators 184–185; Adams et al. 2008 [29 collared, and vaccinated. Therefore, our (wolf, mountain lion, and unknown) percent], p. 22; Creel and Rotella 2010 collared sample of pups may not be (Service 2012, Mexican Wolf Blue Range [22 percent], p. 5; Sparkman et al. 2011 accurately documenting this source of Reintroduction Population Statistics). [25 percent], p. 5; Gude et al. 2011 [48 mortality. This may be an underestimate (e.g., due percent], pp. 113–116; Vucetich and Three of 92 total documented wolf to the number of uncollared wolves), Carroll In Review [17 percent]) and that deaths in the BRWRA population but we still consider the overall human-caused mortality sometimes between 1998 and 2012 have been incidence to be low based on the replaces much of the wolf mortality in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35701

a population that would have occurred baileyi or was aimed more generally at The Act provides broad protection of naturally (e.g., due to intraspecific strife predators, especially coyotes, is listed species to prohibit and penalize from territorial conflicts occurring in unknown. However, the poison used illegal take but has not been sufficient populations that have saturated was an illegal substance, and to deter all illegal killing of C. l. baileyi available habitat) (Fuller et al. 2003, p. investigation into these mortalities is in the United States. Section 9 of the 186). However, for the BRWRA ongoing. Illegal killing of four wolves Act (Prohibited acts) prohibits the take population, which is small and is not has significantly hindered Mexico’s of any endangered species. Section 11 near carrying capacity, we think it is initial efforts to establish a population; (Penalties and enforcement) provides likely that the majority of illegal continued monitoring of the wolves civil penalties up to $25,000, and shootings function as additive mortality Mexico releases in the future will be criminal penalties up to $50,000 and/or to the BRWRA population (that is, these necessary to document whether these not more than 1 year in jail for knowing mortalities are in addition to other initial events were by chance or are violations of section 9. Experimental mortalities that occur, rather than indicative of a significant, ongoing populations, such as C. l. baileyi in the compensatory mortality where the threat to C. l. baileyi in Mexico. Mexican Wolf Experimental Population deaths from illegal shooting would Area, are treated as if they are listed as Summary of Factor C substitute for deaths that would occur a threatened species, which limits naturally) (Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2515, Based on the low incidence of disease criminal penalties to up to $25,000 and 2522). Illegal shooting has a negative and mortality from wild predators, we imprisonment for not more than 6 effect on the size and growth rate of the do not consider these factors to be months. BRWRA population, but the effect of significantly affecting C. l. baileyi nor do All cases of suspected illegal shooting these mortalities on the population has we expect them to in the future. Illegal of C. l. baileyi in the United States are likely been masked to some degree by shooting has been a continuous source investigated by the Service’s Office of the number of captive wolves released of mortality to the BRWRA population Law Enforcement Special Agents. On- into the wild over the course of the since its inception, and we expect that the-ground personnel involved in reintroduction effort (92 wolves). if C. l. baileyi were not protected by the preventing illegal take of C. l. baileyi Additionally, we are unable to Act the number of shootings would and apprehending those who commit document all mortalities to the increase substantially in the United illegal take include Service Special population (e.g., uncollared wolves) States. Therefore, we consider illegal Agents, AGFD Game Wardens, New and, therefore, may be underestimating shooting to be significantly affecting C. Mexico Department of Fish and Game the number of mortalities caused by l. baileyi in the United States. In Conservation Officers, U.S. Forest illegal shooting. Mexico, four wolves released in 2011 Service special agents and Law We expect that, absent the protection were illegally poisoned within months Enforcement Officers (LEOs), San Carlos of the Act, killing of wolves would of their release to the wild, significantly Apache Tribe LEOs, and White continue at current levels or, more hindering their reintroduction efforts. Mountain Apache Tribe LEOs. Specific likely, increase significantly because Illegal poisoning may affect the future C. actions to reduce illegal take include Federal penalties would not be in place l. baileyi population in Mexico targeted patrols during high-traffic to serve as a deterrent. C. l. baileyi could significantly if such events continue. periods (hunting seasons and holidays); be protected from take by state Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing the ability to restrict human activities regulations in Arizona and New Mexico Regulatory Mechanisms within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius of release and Federal regulations in Mexico, but pens, active dens, and rendezvous sites; state penalties are less severe than The Act requires us to examine the proactive removal of road kills to reduce Federal penalties (see a description and adequacy of existing regulatory the potential of wolves scavenging, discussion of this under factor D) and mechanisms with respect to those which may result in vehicular collision Federal protection in Mexico does not existing and foreseeable threats, and illegal take of C. l. baileyi; and infer protection for wolves in the United discussed under the other factors, that monetary rewards for information that States. Based on the continuous may affect the Mexican wolf. In this leads to a conviction for unlawful take occurrence of illegal shooting taking five-factor analysis, we consider illegal of the subspecies. Of the 43 wolf place while C. l. baileyi is protected by shooting (factor C), inbreeding (factor E), mortalities classified as illegal shooting the Act and the likelihood of increased and small population size (factor E) to between 1998 and 2011, only 4 positive occurrences of wolf shooting absent the be significantly affecting C. l. baileyi. convictions have been made. protection of the Act, we consider We address regulatory mechanisms If C. l. baileyi were not protected by illegal shooting of C. l. baileyi to be related to illegal shooting, as no the Act, it would be protected by state significant to the population. We further regulatory mechanisms are available to regulations in Arizona and New Mexico, consider the threat of illegal shooting to address inbreeding or small population and by Federal law in Mexico. In C. l. baileyi in ‘‘Combination of Factors/ size beyond the overarching protection Arizona, the (Mexican) gray wolf is Focus on Cumulative Effects.’’ which of the Act. managed as Wildlife of Special Concern discusses this and other threats within As discussed in factor C, illegal (Arizona Game and Fish Commission the context of the small, geographically killing (or ‘‘take,’’ as it is referred to in Rules, Article 4, R12–4–401) and is restricted and isolated BRWRA the Act) of C. l. baileyi currently occurs identified as a Species of Greatest population. at significant levels in both the United Conservation Need (Tier 1a, In Mexico, illegal killing of wolves States and Mexico. In the United States, endangered) (Species of Greatest released to the wild in 2011–2012 has illegal shooting of C. l. baileyi has been Conservation Need 2006, pending). already been documented. Necropsy a continuous source of mortality over Species with these designations are results confirm that four wolves the course of the BRWRA managed under the Nongame and released in Sonora, Mexico, in 2011 reintroduction. In Mexico, illegal killing Endangered Wildlife Management were killed by feeding on poison-laced has resulted in a setback to the program by the AGFD. This program carcasses within several months of their reestablishment of a population of seeks to protect, restore, preserve, and release (Service, our files). Whether the wolves in the state of Sonora and the maintain such species. These poison was intentionally targeting C. l. Western Sierra Madre. provisions, i.e., the Species of Greatest

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35702 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Conservation Need list and the Wildlife the General Wildlife Law range from States, disease, and predation (our of Special Concern list, are 1,246.60 to 311,650 Mexican pesos category ‘‘Natural’’ includes disease and nonregulatory. However, Arizona (approximately U.S. $98 to U.S. predation). In factor E, we assess the Revised Statute Title 17 establishes $24,400) for the four minor infractions, impacts to C. l. baileyi from the AGFD with authority to regulate take of to a range of 3,116 to 3,116,500 Mexican remaining sources of mortality—Vehicle wildlife in the state of Arizona. ‘‘Take’’ pesos (approximately U.S. $244 to U.S. Collision, Natural, Other, and (to pursue, shoot, hunt, trap, kill, $244,400) for the other offenses, Unknown. As stated in our discussions capture, snare, or net) of wildlife in including the killing of a wolf. Penal of disease, predation, and illegal Arizona on lands under the authority of fines are imposed by a judge and are shooting, we may not be documenting the Arizona Game and Fish Commission calculated on the basis of the current all mortalities to the population because is prohibited, unless a provision (e.g., daily wage of the offender including all mortality of uncollared wolves is not Commission Order, special rule, permit) his income. typically detected; similarly, we may is made to allow take. Penalties for We have no reason to believe that, underestimate the number of mortalities illegal take or possession of wildlife can absent the Act’s protections, shooting of attributed to any one cause discussed include revocation of hunting license or C. l. baileyi in the United States would below. We also assess human civil penalties up to $8,000 depending cease. Rather, we believe that shooting intolerance of wolves, land-use on its classification as established of C. l. baileyi could increase, as state conflicts, hybridization, inbreeding, through annual regulations. penalties (assuming wolves were climate change, and small population In New Mexico, C. l. baileyi is listed granted protected status by the States) size. as endangered (Wildlife Conservation would be less severe than current Our category of ‘‘Natural’’ causes of Act, pp. 17–2–37 through 17–2–46 Federal penalties under the Act. Thus, mortality includes a number of NMSA 1978). Pursuant to the Wildlife existing State penalties in Arizona and mortality sources, such as predation, Conservation Act, it is unlawful to take, New Mexico would not serve as an starvation, interspecific strife, lightning possess, transport, export, process, sell, adequate deterrent to illegal take. The strikes, and disease. Because we have or offer for sale or ship any state or illegal killing of four wolves in Mexico documented three or fewer natural Federal endangered species (17–2–41 (see factor C) in 2011–2012 suggests that mortalities per year since 1998, we do NMSA). Penalties for violating the Federal penalties in Mexico may not be not consider natural mortalities to be provisions of 17–2–41 (endangered an adequate deterrent to illegal take occurring at a level, individually or species) may include fines of up to there, although Federal fines in Mexico collectively, that significantly affects C. $1,000 or imprisonment. are potentially higher than those l. baileyi (and see factor C for additional In Mexico, several legal provisions available under the Act in the United discussion of disease and predation) provide regulatory protection for C. l. States. The adequacy of these penalties (Service 2012: Mexican Wolf Blue Range baileyi. C. l. baileyi is classified as ‘‘E’’ to address overutilization (factor B) is Reintroduction Project Statistics). (‘‘probably extinct in the wild’’) by the not an issue, as instances of Therefore, we do not further discuss Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM–059– overutilization do not occur or are these ‘‘Natural’’ causes of mortality. SEMARNAT–2010, ‘‘Proteccio´n exceedingly rare and, therefore, do not Similarly, mortalities caused by ‘‘Other’’ ambiental–Especies nativas de Me´xico significantly affect C. l. baileyi. source of mortality, which also includes de flora y fauna silvestres–Categorı´as de several sources of mortality (capture- Summary of Factor D riesgo y especificaciones para su related mortalities, public-trap inclusio´n, exclusio´n o cambio–Lista de Regulatory mechanisms to prohibit mortality, legal public shooting, etc.) especies en riesgo’’ (NOM–059– and penalize illegal killing exist under and ‘‘Unknown’’ causes are occurring at SEMARNAT–2010), which is a list of the Act, but illegal shooting of wild C. very low levels (4 of 88 mortalities (1 species at risk. This regulation does not l. baileyi in the United States persists. mortality or fewer per year), and 9 of 88 directly provide protection of the listed We believe that absent the protection of mortalities (2 mortalities or fewer per species; rather it includes the criteria for the Act, killing of wolves in the United year), respectively) and are not downlisting, delisting, or including a States would increase, potentially occurring at a level that significantly species or population on the list. The drastically, because state penalties are affects C. l. baileyi. General Wildlife Law (‘‘Ley General de less severe than current Federal Vehicular collision has accounted for Vida Silvestre,’’ 2000, as amended), penalties. The recent poisoning of 15 percent of C. l. baileyi mortalities however, has varying restrictions several wolves reintroduced to Mexico from 1998 to December 31, 2012 (14 out depending on risk status that apply only suggests that illegal killing may be a of 92 total documented C. l. baileyi to species that are listed in the NOM– challenge for that country’s deaths) (Service 2012: Mexican Wolf 059–SEMARNAT–2010. reintroduction efforts as well. Thus, in Blue Range Reintroduction Project Mexico’s Federal Penal Law (‘‘Co´digo the absence of the Act, existing Statistics). Thirteen out of 14 wolf Penal Federal’’ published originally in regulatory mechanisms will not act as mortalities attributed to vehicular 1931) Article 420 assigns a fine of 300 an effective deterrent to the illegal collision throughout the course of the to 3,000 days of current wage and up to taking of wolves, and this inadequacy reintroduction (through December 31, 9 years prison to those who threaten the will significantly affect C. l. baileyi. 2012) occurred along paved U.S. or viability of a species or population, State highways; one wolf died on a transport a species at risk, or damage a Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Forest Service dirt road as a result of specimen of a species at risk. Factors Affecting Its Continued vehicle collision. Five of the vehicle Administrative fines are imposed by an Existence strikes occurred outside of the BRWRA administrative authority (PROFEPA, We document sources of mortality in boundary. The number of vehicular- ‘‘Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al six categories as part of our ongoing related mortalities, which has ranged Ambiente,’’ or the Attorney General for monitoring of C. l. baileyi in the from zero to two per year, with the Environmental Protection) and are BRWRA: Illegal Shooting, Vehicle exception of a high of four vehicular- calculated on the basis of minimum Collision, Natural, Other, Unknown, related wolf deaths in 2003, has not wage in Mexico City ($62.33 daily and Awaiting Necropsy. In factor C, we shown a trend (increasing or decreasing) Mexican pesos). The fines established in assessed illegal shooting in the United over time. Given the occurrence of these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35703

mortalities on highways, it is likely that low road density of not more than 1 disregard for or opposition to the these collisions were accidental events linear mile of road per square mile of reintroduction project is a causative that occurred from vehicles traveling at area (1.6 linear km of road per 2.56 factor in illegal shootings. Similarly, in relatively high speeds. square kilometers; Thiel 1985, pp. 406– Mexico, we do not yet know whether Roads, both paved and unpaved, in 407), particularly during colonization of the illegal poisoning of four the BRWRA primarily exist to support an area (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 301). reintroduced C. l. baileyi was forest management, livestock grazing, In summary, road density in the purposeful and stemmed from recreational access, resource protection, BRWRA remains within opposition to the reintroduction or and transport of forest products on the recommendations for wolf habitat and rather was targeted more generally at Gila and Apache National Forests C. l. baileyi reintroduction efforts. (other) predators. We recognize that (Service 1996, pp. 3–13). Different types Mortalities from vehicular collision humans can be very effective at of roads present different threats to show a strong pattern of occurrence on extirpating wolf populations if human- wolves—paved roads with higher speed high-speed paved State or U.S. caused mortality rates continue at high limits present more risk of wolf Highways rather than on Forest Service levels over time, as demonstrated by the mortality due to vehicular collision than roads, and are occurring at relatively complete elimination of wolves across unpaved roads with lower speed limit, low levels (two or fewer mortalities per the Southwest and Mexico prior to the but both roads and trails can provide year, with the exception of 1 year in protection of the Act; at this time, access into wolf habitat. National which four mortalities were attributed however, we do not have enough Forests contain various road types to vehicular collision). In absence of information to determine whether, or (paved, unpaved, opened, closed, etc.) Federal protection, we expect that the degree to which, human intolerance and trails (motorized, nonmotorized), incidence of wolf-vehicular collision may pose a threat to C. l. baileyi. but are generally considered to be would continue at similar levels, due to Land-Use Conflicts—Historically, driven at relatively low speeds and have the accidental nature of these incidents. land-use conflict between wolves and relatively low traffic volume. Non- At this level, with or without the livestock producers was a primary cause Forest Service roads (e.g., highways and protections of the Act, we conclude that of the wolf’s endangerment due to other paved roads) are limited within vehicular collisions, considered in human killing of wolves that depredated the BRWRA, and include portions of isolation of other sources of mortality, livestock. At the outset of the U.S Highways 191 and 180, and State are not significantly affecting C. l. reintroduction effort, the amount of Highways 260, 152, 90, 78, 32, and 12. baileyi. We further consider the permitted grazing in the recovery area U.S. highway 60 runs immediately to significance of these mortalities in was identified as a possible source of the north of this area. Combination of Factors/Focus on public conflict for the project due to the Road density in the BRWRA was Cumulative Effects. potential for wolves to depredate on estimated at 0.8 mi road per mi2 (1.28 Human Intolerance—Human attitudes livestock (Service 1996, p. 4–4). Service km road per km2) prior to the have long been recognized as a removal of wolves due to livestock reintroduction (Johnson et al. 1992, p. significant factor in the success of gray depredation has occurred in 9 out of 15 48). The USDA Forest Service wolf recovery efforts to the degree that years of the reintroduction effort, Southwest Region recently calculated it has been suggested that recovery may reaching a high of 16 and 19 removals road densities for the Gila and Apache- depend more on human tolerance than in 2006 and 2007, respectively (Service Sitgreaves National Forests during habitat restoration (see Boitani 2003, p. 2012 Mexican Wolf Blue Range Project analysis of alternatives to designate a 339, Fritts et al. 2003; Mech 1995). In Statistics). The Service, other state, system of roads, trails, and areas the Southwest, extremes of public federal, and tribal agencies, private designated for motor vehicle use in opinion vary between those who parties, and livestock producers have compliance with the Travel strongly support or oppose the recovery increased proactive efforts (e.g., hazing, Management Rule. They did not assess effort. Support stems from such feelings fencing, fladry, range riders) to road use in terms of a baseline of traffic as an appreciation of the wolf as an minimize depredations in recent years, volume or projections of traffic volume important part of nature and an interest resulting in fewer removals from 2008 to for the future. Both the Gila and in endangered species restoration, while 2012 than in the first 10 years of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests opposition may stem from negative program. Since 2007, we have removed continue to have an appropriately low social or economic consequences of only one wolf from the BRWRA density of roads for the wolf wolf reintroduction, general fear and population due to confirmed livestock reintroduction effort in the BRWRA, dislike of wolves, or Federal land-use depredation, which occurred in 2012 with no plans to increase road density conflicts. (Service BRWRA Monthly Project in either Forest-road density in the Public polling data in Arizona and Updates, October 2012, http:// Apache portion of the Apache- New Mexico shows that most www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ Sitgreaves National Forest is estimated respondents have positive feelings about mexicanwolf/CEBRWRA.cfm). at 0.94 mi road per mi2 for all roads (1.5 wolves and support the reintroduction The Service is committed to actively km road per km2) (open, closed, of C. l. baileyi to public land (Research managing depredating wolves to decommissioned) and motorized trails, and Polling 2008a, p. 6, Research and improve human tolerance in the or 0.43 mi road per mi2 (0.69 km road Polling 2008b, p. 6). These polls BRWRA, while recognizing that per km2) for open roads and motorized targeted people statewide in locations management removals must be part of trails (USDA 2010a, p. 102); road outside of the reintroduction area, and an overall management scheme that will density in the Gila National Forest is thus provide an indication of regional promote the growth of the nonessential estimated at 1.02 mi per mi2 (1.64 km support. experimental population. Thus these per km2) for open and closed (but not Meanwhile, we suspect that human removals are critical to ameliorating decommissioned) roads and motorized intolerance of wolves is resulting in some conflicts that result from the trails (an overall average of 0.99 mi per some of the illegal shooting occurring in presence of both wolves and livestock in mi2 (1.59 km per km2) (USDA 2010b, p. the BRWRA. Without additional the BRWRA. We are also working to 149). It has been recommended that information, we are unable to confirm establish a Mexican Wolf Livestock areas targeted for wolf recovery have whether, or the degree to which, Interdiction Fund to generate long-term

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35704 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

funding for prolonged financial support hybridization events and effects would (Hedrick et al. 2003, pp. 909–913). to livestock operators within the continue to be rare. Therefore, we Inbreeding is significant because it framework of cooperative conservation conclude that hybridization is not reduces heterozygosity and increases and recovery. Our depredation-response significantly affecting the C. l. baileyi homozygosity (having two of the same removals, proactive efforts to reduce population now nor is it likely to do so alleles) throughout the genome. conflict, and depredation-compensation or in the future. Inbreeding depression is thought to be funding are critical components of our Inbreeding, Loss of Heterozygosity, primarily a result of the full expression overall management approach to and Loss of Adaptive Potential—Canis of deleterious alleles that have become establish a population of at least 100 lupus baileyi has pronounced genetic homozygous as a result of inbreeding wild wolves. Based on these efforts, we challenges resulting from an ongoing (Charlesworth and Willis 2009, entire). conclude that land-use conflicts are not and severe genetic bottleneck (that is, a In other words, rare deleterious alleles, significantly affecting C. l. baileyi. In reduction in a population’s size to a or gene variants that have deleterious absence of protection by the Act, land- small number for at least one effects such as deformities, are more use conflicts would still occur in areas generation) caused by its near likely to be inherited and expressed in where wolves and livestock coexist. extirpation in the wild and the small an offspring of two related individuals However, because C. l. baileyi is number of founders upon which the than of unrelated individuals (that is, protected by state law, we expect that captive population was established. the offspring may be homozygous). livestock producers and state agencies These challenges include inbreeding Theory suggests that although lethal would continue to employ effective (mating of close relatives), loss of alleles (those that result in the death of practices of hazing or other active heterozygosity (a decrease in the individuals with two copies) may be management measures to reduce the proportion of individuals in a purged or reduced in frequency in small likelihood of occurrence of depredation population that have two different populations (Hedrick 1994, pp. 363– incidents. Therefore, we conclude that alleles for a specific gene), and loss of 372), many other mildly and moderately land-use conflicts are unlikely to adaptive potential, three distinct but deleterious alleles are likely to become significantly affect C. l. baileyi if it was interrelated phenomena. fixed in the population (homozygous in not protected by the Act. When a population enters a genetic all individuals) with little or no Hybridization—Hybridization bottleneck the strength of genetic drift reduction in the overall genetic load between wolves and other canids can (random changes in gene frequencies in (amount of lethal alleles) (Whitlock et pose a significant challenge to recovery a population) is increased and the al. 2000, pp. 452–457). In addition, programs (e.g., the red wolf recovery effectiveness of natural selection is there is little empirical evidence in the program) (Service 2007, pp. 10–11) decreased. As a result, formerly scientific literature that purging reduces because species in Canis can interbreed uncommon alleles may drift to higher the genetic load in small populations. and produce viable offspring. In the frequencies and become fixed (the only As previously described, C. l. baileyi BRWRA, hybridization is a rare event. variant that exists), even if they have experienced a rapid population decline Three confirmed hybridization events deleterious effects on the individuals during the 1900s, as predator between C. l. baileyi and dogs have been that carry them. Conversely, beneficial eradication programs sought to documented since the reintroduction alleles may become less common and eliminate wolves from the landscape. project began in 1998. In the first two even be lost entirely from the Subsequently, a captive-breeding cases, hybrid litters were humanely population. In general, rare alleles are program was initiated. The McBride euthanized (Service 2002, p. 17, Service lost quickly from populations lineage was founded with three wolves 2005:16.) In the third case, four of five experiencing bottlenecks. in 1980. The Ghost Ranch and Aragon pups were humanely euthanized; the Heterozygosity is lost much more lineages were each founded by single fifth pup, previously observed by slowly, but the losses may continue pairs in 1961 and around 1976, project personnel but not captured, has until long after the population has respectively. These lineages were not been located and its status is grown to large size (Nei et al. 1975, managed separately until the mid-1990s, unknown (BRWRA Monthly Project entire). The extent of allele and by which time all three lineages had Updates, June 24, 2011, http:// heterozygosity loss is determined by the become strongly inbred. Inbreeding www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ depth (the degree of population coefficients (f) (a measure of how mexicanwolf/CEBRWRA.cfm). No contraction) and duration of a genetically close two individuals are) hybridization between C. l. baileyi and bottleneck. Heterozygosity is important for McBride pups born in the mid-1990s coyotes has been confirmed through our because it provides adaptive potential averaged about 0.23—similar to genetic monitoring of coyotes, wolves, and can mask (prevent the negative inbreeding levels for offspring from and dogs that are captured in the wild. effects of) deleterious alleles. outbred full sibling or parent-offspring Our response to hybridization events Inbreeding can occur in any pairs (f = 0.25). Inbreeding coefficients has negated any potential impact to the population, but is most likely to occur for Aragon and Ghost Ranch lineage BRWRA population from these events in small populations due to limited pups born in the mid-1990s were (e.g., effects to the genetic integrity of choice of mates. The potential for higher, averaging 0.33 for Aragon pups the population). Moreover, the inbreeding to negatively affect the and 0.64 for Ghost Ranch pups (Hedrick likelihood of hybrid animals surviving, captive and reintroduced C. l. baileyi et al. 1997, pp. 47–69). or having detectable impacts on wolf populations has been a topic of concern Of the three lineages, only the population genetics or viability, is low for over a decade (Parsons 1996, pp. McBride lineage was originally managed due to aspects of wolf sociality and 113–114; Hedrick et al. 1997, pp. 65– as a captive breeding program to aid in fertility cycles (Mengel 1971, p. 334; 68). Inbreeding affects traits that reduce the conservation of C. l. baileyi. Vila and Wayne 1999, pp. 195–199). population viability, such as However, out of concern for the low We do not foresee any change in the reproduction (Kalinowski et al. 1999, number of founders and rapid likelihood of hybridization events pp. 1371–1377; Asa et al. 2007, pp. 326– inbreeding accumulation in the McBride occurring, or the potential effect of 333; Fredrickson et al. 2007, pp. 2365– lineage, the decision was made to merge hybridization events, if C. l. baileyi was 2371), survival (Allendorf and Ryman the Aragon and Ghost Ranch lineages not protected by the Act; that is, 2002, pp. 50–85), and disease resistance into the McBride lineage after genetic

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35705

testing confirmed that this approach coefficient of 0.15 (Fredrickson et al. founding male. Unequal founder could improve the gene diversity of the 2007, pp. 2365–2371). Consistent with contributions lead to faster inbreeding captive population (Garcia-Moreno et al. the finding that inbreeding levels of accumulation and loss of founder 1996, pp. 376–389). Consequently, sires affected the probability of alleles. The captive population is pairings (for mating) between McBride producing at least one live pup, Asa et estimated to retain only 3.01 founder wolves and Aragon wolves and between al. (2007, pp. 326–333) found that two genome equivalents, suggesting that McBride and Ghost Ranch wolves began measures of semen quality, sperm cell more than half of the alleles (gene in 1995 with the first generation (F1) of morphology and motility of sperm cells, variants) from the seven founders have these pups born in 1997. Although the declined significantly as inbreeding been lost from the population. parents of these (F1) wolves were levels increased. Among pairs that The genetically effective population strongly inbred, the offspring were produced at least one live pup, size (Ne) of the captive population is expected to be free of inbreeding and increases of 0.1 in the inbreeding estimated to be 20 wolves and the ratio free of the inbreeding depression. Forty- coefficients of both the dam and pups of effective to census size (Ne/N; that is, seven F1 wolves were produced from was estimated to reduce litter size by 2.8 the number of breeding animals as a 1997 to 2002. Upon reaching maturity, pups. Inbreeding levels of the pups were percentage of the overall population the F1 wolves were paired among found to have about twice the size) is estimated to be 0.0846 (Siminski themselves, backcrossed with pure detrimental effect as inbreeding in the and Spevak 2012, p. 7). The genetically McBride wolves, and paired with the dam, suggesting that inbreeding effective population size is defined as descendants of F1 wolves called ‘‘cross- accumulation in pups was causing pups the size of an ideal population that lineage’’ wolves to maintain gene to die prior to being born (Fredrickson would result in the rate of inbreeding diversity and reduce inbreeding in the et al. 2007, pp. 2365–2371). accumulation or heterozygosity loss as captive population. As of October 2012, the captive the population being considered. The Although there was slight statistical population of Mexican wolves consisted effective sizes of populations are almost evidence of inbreeding depression of 258 wolves, of which 33 are always smaller than census sizes of among captive wolves of the McBride reproductively compromised or have populations. A rule of thumb for and Ghost Ranch lineages, the outbred very high inbreeding coefficients, conservation of small populations holds F1 wolves proved to have far greater leaving 225 wolves as the managed Ne should be maintained above 50 to reproductive fitness than contemporary population (Siminski and Spevak 2012). prevent substantial inbreeding McBride and Ghost Ranch wolves The age structure of the population, accumulation, and that small (which were strongly inbred) as well as however, is heavily skewed, with populations should be grown quickly to minimally inbred wolves from early in wolves 7 years old and older comprising much larger sizes (Ne ≥ 500) to maintain the McBride and Ghost Ranch about 62 percent of the population— evolutionary potential (Franklin 1980, pedigrees. Pairings between F1 wolves meaning that most of the population is entire). The low ratio of effective to were 89 percent more likely to produce comprised of old wolves who will die census population sizes in the captive at least one live pup, and mean litter within a few years. This age structure population reflects the limitations on sizes for F1 x F1 pairs were more than has resulted from the high reproductive breeding (due to a lack of cage space) twice as large as contemporary McBride output of the F1 wolves and their over the last several years, while the low pairings (7.5 vs 3.6 pups per litter; descendants in captivity, the effective population size is another Fredrickson et al. 2007, pp. 2365–2371). combination of few releases of captive- indicator of the potential for inbreeding The large increases in reproductive born wolves to the wild in recent years, and loss of heterozygosity. fitness among F1 wolves suggested that removal of wolves from the wild The gene diversity of the reintroduced the McBride and Ghost Ranch lineages population to captivity, and limited pen population of C. l. baileyi can only be were suffering from a large fixed genetic space for pairings, and means that as good as the diversity of the captive load of deleterious alleles. In other additional gene diversity will be lost as population from which it is established. words, McBride and Ghost Ranch the captive population continues to age. Based on information available on July wolves had accumulated identical The SSP strives to minimize and slow 11, 2012, the genetic diversity of the copies of gene variants that had negative the loss of gene diversity of the captive wild population was 74.99 percent of effects on their health or reproductive population but (due to the limited the founding population (Siminski and success at many locations (loci) number of founders) cannot increase it. Spevak 2012, pp. 6–7), with 4.97 throughout their genome. In addition, As of 2012, the gene diversity of the percent and 13.80 percent pups born to cross-lineage dams (mother captive program was 83.37 percent of representation of Aragon and Ghost wolves) had up to 21 percent higher the founding population, which falls Range lineages, respectively. Although survival rates to 180 days than below the average mammal SSP (93 C. l. baileyi (in the reintroduced contemporary McBride lineage pups percent) and below the recognized SSP population) reached an all-time high (Fredrickson et al. 2007, pp. 2365– standard to maintain 90 percent of the population size in 2012 (minimum 2371). founding population diversity. Below 90 estimate of 75 wolves), it is currently a Although the F1 wolves had high percent, the SSP states that poor representation of the genetic reproductive fitness, strong inbreeding reproduction may be compromised by variation remaining in the captive depression among cross-lineage wolves low birth weight, smaller litter sizes, population. Founder representation in in captivity has been documented. and related issues. the reintroduced population is more Inbreeding levels of both dams and sires Representation of the Aragon and strongly skewed than in the captive (father wolves) were found to negatively Ghost Range lineages in 2012 was 18.80 population. Mean inbreeding levels are affect the probability that a pair would percent and 17.65 percent, respectively 61 percent greater (0.1924 versus produce at least one live pup. For (Siminski and Spevak 2012, p. 6). More 0.1197), and founder genome example, the estimated probabilities of specifically, the representation of the equivalents are 33 percent lower (2 vs. a pair producing at least one live pup seven founders is very unequal in the 3.01) than in the captive population. In dropped from 0.96 for F1 × F1 pairs captive population, ranging from about addition, the estimated relatedness of C. (with no inbreeding in the dam and sire) 30 percent for the McBride founding l. baileyi in the reintroduced population to 0.40 for pairs with a mean inbreeding female to 4 percent for the Ghost Ranch is on average 50 percent greater than

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35706 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

that in the captive population actively promote genetic diversity in the extinction. This phenomenon is referred (population mean kinship: 0.2501 vs. reintroduced population by releasing to as demographic stochasticity. As a 0.1663; Siminski & Spevak 2012, p. 8). wolves with appropriate genetic population grows larger and individual This suggests that C. l. baileyi in the ancestry to the population. events tend to average out, the reintroduced population are on average Small Population Size—Rarity may population becomes less susceptible to as related to one another as outbred full affect the viability (likelihood of extinction from demographic siblings are related to each other. extinction or persistence over a given stochasticity and is more likely to Without substantial management action time period) of a species depending on persist. to improve the genetic composition of the species’ biological characteristics At its current size of a minimum of 75 the population, inbreeding will and threats acting upon it. We consider wolves, and even at the current accumulate and heterozygosity and several types of information to population target of at least 100 wild alleles will be lost much faster than in determine whether small population wolves, the BRWRA population is, by the captive population. size is affecting C. l. baileyi, including demographic measures, considered There is evidence of strong inbreeding historical conditions, consideration of small (Shaffer 1987, p. 73; Boyce 1992, depression in the reintroduced stochastic (or, chance) events, p. 487; Mills 2007, p. 101; Service 2010, population. Fredrickson et al. (2007, pp. theoretical recommendations of pp. 63–68) and has a low probability of 2365–2371) estimated that the mean population viability, and applied persistence. The viability of the observed litter size (4.8 pups for pairs population-viability models specific to population when it reaches its target of producing pups with no inbreeding) C. l. baileyi. We discuss three types of at least 100 wolves remains was reduced on average by 0.8 pups for stochastic events—demographic, unquantified, although qualitatively this each 0.1 increase in the inbreeding environmental, and catastrophic—as the target is significantly below estimates of coefficient of the pups. For pairs fourth type of stochastic event— viability appearing in the scientific producing pups with inbreeding genetic—is addressed under the literature and gray wolf recovery plans, coefficients of 0.20, the mean litter size subheading of Inbreeding. We further which suggest hundreds to over a was estimated to be 3.2 pups. Computer discuss the significance of small thousand wolves are necessary for long- simulations of the Blue Range population size in Combination of term persistence in the wild (Service population incorporating the Mexican Factors/Focus on Cumulative Effects, 2010, pp. 63–68). wolf pedigree suggest that this level of below. Two C. l. baileyi population-viability inbreeding depression may substantially Historical abundance and distribution analyses were initiated subsequent to reduce the viability of the population serve as a qualitative reference point the development of the 1982 Mexican (Carroll et al. in prep; Fredrickson et al. against which to assess the size of the Wolf Recovery Plan but prior to the in prep). current population. Prior to European BRWRA reintroduction (Seal 1990 The recent history of Mexican wolves colonization of North America, C. l. entire, IUCN 1996 entire, Service 2010, can be characterized as a severe genetic baileyi were geographically widespread p. 66), although neither was completed. bottleneck that began no later than the throughout numerous populations Population-viability modeling is founding of the Ghost Ranch lineage in across the southwestern United States currently being conducted as part of the 1960. The founding of the three lineages and Mexico. Although we do not have development of draft recovery criteria; along with their initial isolation likely definitive estimates of historical these results will be available to the resulted in the loss of most rare alleles abundance, we can deduce from gray public when the draft recovery plan is and perhaps even some moderately wolf population estimates (Leonard et published. However, initial results common alleles. Heterozygosity loss al. 2005, p. 15), trapping records, and continue to strongly support our was accelerated as a result of rapid anecdotal information that C. l. baileyi understanding that the wild population inbreeding accumulation. The merging numbered in the thousands across its currently faces a high degree of of the captive lineages likely slowed the range in the United States and Mexico. extinction risk simply due to its current loss of alleles and heterozygosity, but We, therefore, recognize that the current size. Given our understanding of the did not end it. The consequences to size and geographic distribution of C. l. high extinction risk of the current size Mexican wolves of the current genetic baileyi (approximately 75 wolves in a of the population and our awareness bottleneck will be future populations single population occurring in a fraction that this rarity is not the typical that have reduced fitness (for example, of its historical range) represents a abundance and distribution pattern for smaller litter sizes, lower pup survival) substantial contraction from its C. l. baileyi, we consider the small due to inbreeding accumulation and the historical (pre-1900s) abundance and population size of the BRWRA to be full expression of deleterious alleles. distribution. significantly affecting C. l. baileyi. The loss of alleles will limit the ability Scientific theory and practice Absent the protection of the Act, the of future Mexican wolf populations to generally agree that a species extinction risks associated with small adapt to environmental challenges. represented by a small population faces population size would remain, and may Based on data from the SSP a higher risk of extinction (or a lower increase if state(s) or other parties did documenting loss of genetic variation, probability of population persistence) not actively support the reintroduced research documenting viability-related than a species that is widely and population through appropriate inbreeding effects in C. l. baileyi, and abundantly distributed (Goodman 1987, management measures. our awareness that the wild population pp. 11–31; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757). The vulnerability of a small is at risk of inbreeding due to its small One of the primary causes of this population to extinction can also be size, we conclude that inbreeding, and susceptibility to extinction is the driven by the population’s vulnerability loss of heterozygosity, and loss of sensitivity of small populations to to decline or extinction due to adaptive potential are significantly random demographic events (Shaffer stochastic environmental or catastrophic affecting C. l. baileyi and are likely to 1987, pp. 69–86, Caughley 1994, p. 217). events (Goodman 1987, pp. 11–31; continue to do so in the future. If C. l. In small populations, even those that are Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757). While we baileyi was not protected by the Act, growing, random changes in average consider these types of events to be these risks would remain, and may birth or survival rates could cause a critically important considerations in increase if states or other parties did not population decline that would result in our recovery efforts for the species, we

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35707

have not identified any single For example, to the degree that warmer Combination of Factors/Focus on environmental event (i.e., disease, temperatures and increased aridity or Cumulative Effects climate change (below)) or catastrophic decreased water availability (Dai 2011, event (wildfire) to be significantly p. 58) limit prey abundance, we would In the preceding review of the five affecting C. l. baileyi based on our also expect decreased wolf densities. factors, we find that C. l. baileyi is most current information and management However, both wolves and their prey are significantly affected by illegal killing, practices (i.e., vaccinations, species that exhibit reasonable adaptive inbreeding, loss of heterozygosity, loss monitoring). However, we reconsider capacity (Dawson et al. 2011, p. 53) of adaptive potential, and small the concept of vulnerability to these such that they could shift habitats in population size. In absence of the Act’s events below, in Combination of response to changing conditions or protections, these issues would Factors/Focus on Cumulative Effects. continue to affect C. l. baileyi, and Climate Change—Our analyses under potentially persist in place. Therefore, based on the relatively low vulnerability would likely increase in frequency or the Act include consideration of severity. We also identify several ongoing and projected changes in and sensitivity of C. l. baileyi to changes in climate, and on the relatively high potential sources of mortality or risk climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and (disease, vehicular collision, wildfire, ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the adaptive capacity of the subspecies to hybridization, etc.) that we do not IPCC. ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and respond to changes, we conclude that currently consider to be significantly variability of different types of weather climate change is not significantly conditions over time, with 30 years affecting C. l. baileyi at the current time affecting C. l. baileyi due to their low being a typical period for such nor do we expect it to do so in the occurrence and minimal impact on the measurements, although shorter or future. The effects of climate change on population or lack of information. longer periods also may be used (IPCC C. l. baileyi would not change if it was However, we recognize that multiple 2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ not protected by the Act. sources of mortality or risk acting in thus refers to a change in the mean or combination have greater potential to variability of one or more measures of Summary of Factor E affect C. l. baileyi than each factor alone. climate (e.g., temperature or Thus, we consider how factors that by Inbreeding, loss of adaptive potential, precipitation) that persists for an themselves may not have a significant loss of heterozygosity, and small extended period, typically decades or effect on C. l. baileyi, may affect the population size are significantly longer, whether the change is due to subspecies when considered in affecting C. l. baileyi. Inbreeding and natural variability, human activity, or combination. both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types loss of heterozygosity has the potential The small population size of the of changes in climate can have direct or to affect viability-related fitness traits in BRWRA population exacerbates the indirect effects on species. These effects C. l. baileyi and therefore to affect the may be positive, neutral, or negative, persistence of the subspecies in the wild potential for all other factors to and they may change over time, in the near term; loss of genetic disproportionately affect C. l. baileyi. depending on the species and other variation significantly affects the The combined effects of demographic, relevant considerations, such as the likelihood of persistence of C. l. baileyi genetic, environmental, and effects of interactions of climate with over longer time frames. Absent the catastrophic events to a small other variables (e.g., habitat protection of the Act, inbreeding, loss of population can create an extinction fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, heterozygosity, and loss of adaptive vortex—an unrecoverable population 18–19). In our analyses, we use our potential would persist and possibly decline—that results in extinction. expert judgment to weigh relevant increase depending on whether the Small population size directly and information, including uncertainty, in states or other parties undertook active significantly increases the likelihood of our consideration of various aspects of promotion of the maintenance of gene inbreeding depression, which has been climate change. diversity. documented to decrease individual Throughout their circumpolar fitness, hinder population growth, and distribution, gray wolves persist in a The small population size of the decrease the population’s probability of variety of ecosystems with temperatures BRWRA population results in a high persistence. Small population size also ¥ ranging from 70 to 120 degrees risk of extinction due to the increases the likelihood that concurrent ¥ Farenheit ( 56 to 48 degrees Celcius) susceptibility of the population to mortalities from multiple causes that with wide ranging prey type and stochastic demographic events. Neither individually may not be resulting in a availability (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. the current population (approximately population decline (e.g., vehicular xv). C. l. baileyi historically inhabited 75 wolves), nor the population target of collisions, natural sources of mortality) and still inhabit a range of southwestern at least 100 wild wolves, is a sufficient could collectively do so, depending on ecotypes subsisting on large ungulate size to ensure persistence into the the population’s productivity, especially prey as well as small mammals. Due to future. Absent the protection of the Act, when additive to an already significant this plasticity and lack of reliance on small population size would continue to microhabit, we do not consider C. l. source of mortality such as illegal significantly affect C. l. baileyi, or may shooting. Effects from disease, baileyi to be highly vulnerable or increase if states or other parties did not sensitive to climate change (Dawson et. catastrophe, environmental conditions, actively support the reintroduced or loss of heterozygosity that normally al 2011, p. 53). Similarly, elk, the population through appropriate primary prey of C. l. baileyi in the could be sustained by a larger, more management measures. BRWRA, are known to be habitat resilient population have the potential generalists due to their association with Vehicular collisions, human to rapidly affect the size, growth rate, wide variation in environmental intolerance, land-use conflicts, and genetic integrity of the small conditions (Kuck 1999, p. 1). We hybridization, and climate change are BRWRA population when they act in recognize that climate change may have not significantly affecting C. l. baileyi, combination. Therefore we consider the detectable impacts on the ecosystems of nor are they expected to do so in the combination of factors B, C, and E to be the Southwest that affect C. l. baileyi. near future. significantly affecting C. l. baileyi.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35708 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Summary of Five-Factor Analysis l. baileyi in the future or if the mortality, all exacerbated by C. l. subspecies was not protected by the Act. bailey’s small population size. We do not find habitat destruction, Illegal shooting is identified as a Conclusion curtailment, or modification to be current threat. Adequate regulatory significantly affecting C. l. baileyi now, protections are not available to protect We recently published a not- nor do we find that these factors are C. l. baileyi from illegal shooting warranted 12-month finding on likely to do so in the future regardless without the protection of the Act. We petitions to list the Mexican wolf as a of whether the subspecies is protected would expect shooting of C. l. baileyi to subspecies or DPS (77 FR 61375, by the Act. The size and federally increase if they were not federally October 9, 2012). Our finding was based protected status of the Gila and Apache protected, as state penalties (assuming on the fact that the population in National Forests are adequate and C. l. baileyi was maintained as a state- question was already fully protected as appropriate for the reintroduction protected species) are less than Federal endangered under the Act (77 FR 61375, project. These National Forests provide penalties. October 9, 2012). However, our finding secure habitat with an adequate prey Inbreeding, loss of heterozygosity, further stated that we could not, base and habitat characteristics to loss of adaptive potential, and small consistent with the requirements of the support the current wolf population. population size are significantly Act, take any action that would remove The Wallow Fire and the Whitewater- affecting C. l. baileyi. We recognize the the protections accruing to the Baldy Complex Fire, while catastrophic, importance of the captive management southwestern population under the were not sources of habitat program and the active reintroduction existing C. lupus listing without first modification, destruction, or project and recovery program in determining whether the Mexican wolf curtailment that affected C. l. baileyi warranted listing separately as a addressing these issues. Absent the because there were no documented wolf subspecies or a DPS, and, if so, putting protection of the Act, their effects on C. mortalities during the fires, and prey a separate listing in place (77 FR 61377, l. baileyi would continue, or possibly populations are expected to increase in October 9, 2012). Therefore, because we increase depending on the degree of response to postfire positive effects on are now proposing to remove active management provided by the vegetation. protections for the current C. lupus states or other parties. listed entity, we must reconsider listing We do not find overutilization for Vehicular collisions, human commercial, recreational, scientific, or the Mexican wolf as a subspecies or intolerance, land-use conflicts, DPS. educational purposes to be significantly hybridization, and climate change are affecting C. l. baileyi because we have We have carefully assessed the best not significantly affecting C. l. baileyi, scientific and commercial data available no evidence to indicate that legal killing nor are they expected to do so in the or removal of wolves from the wild for regarding the past, present, and future near future or if C. l. baileyi was not threats to C. l. baileyi and have commercial, recreational (i.e., hunting), protected by the Act. scientific, or educational purposes is determined that the subspecies warrants Climate change is not significantly listing as endangered throughout its occurring. The killing of wolves for their affecting the Mexican wolf nor would it pelts is not known to occur, and C. l. range. As required by the Act, we do so in the absence of the Act’s considered the five potential threat baileyi research-related mortalities are protections. The effects of climate minimal or nonexistent. Incidence of factors to assess whether C. l. baileyi is change may become more pronounced endangered or threatened throughout its injuries and mortalities from trapping in the future, but as is the case with all (for other animals) has been low. In range. Based on our analysis, we find stressors that we assess, even if we that C. l. baileyi is in danger of absence of Federal protection, state conclude that a species is currently regulations in Arizona and New Mexico, extinction throughout all of its range affected or is likely to be affected in a due to small population size, illegal and Federal regulations in Mexico, negative way by one or more climate- killing, inbreeding, loss of could provide regulations to protect C. related impacts, it does not necessarily heterozygosity and adaptive potential, l. baileyi from overutilization. follow that these effects are significant and the cumulative effect of all threats. Overutilization of C. l. baileyi would not to the species. The generalist Absent protection by the Act, regulatory likely increase if they were not listed characteristics of the wolf and their protection, especially against shooting, under the Act due to the protected primary prey, elk, lead us to conclude poisoning, or other forms of killing, status they would be afforded by the that climate change will not would not be adequate to ensure the states and Mexico. significantly affect C. l. baileyi in the survival of C. l. baileyi. Based on known disease occurrences future. Our finding that C. l. baileyi is in in the current population and the active The cumulative effects of factors that danger of extinction throughout all of its vaccination program, we do not increase mortality and decrease the range is consistent with our consider disease to be a threat to C. l. genetic diversity health of C. l. baileyi administrative approach to determining baileyi. Absent the protection of the Act, are significantly affecting C. l. baileyi, which species are on the brink of a similar vaccination program would particularly within the context of its extinction and, therefore, warrant listing need to be implemented by the states or small population size (a characteristic as endangered. Prior to the early 1900s, other parties, or the potential for disease that significantly decreases the C. l. baileyi was distributed over a large to significantly affect C. l. baileyi could probability of a population’s geographic area that included portions increase. persistence). Cumulative effects are of the Southwest and much of Mexico. Predation (by nonhuman predators) is significantly affecting C. l. baileyi at the C. l. baileyi was nearly eliminated in the not significantly affecting C. l. baileyi. current time and likely will continue to wild by the mid-1900’s due to predator No wild predator regularly preys on do so in the future. Absent the eradication efforts, which led to its wolves, and only a small number of protection of the Act, negative listing as an endangered subspecies in predator-related wolf mortalities have cumulative effects may increase due to 1976 and again as part of the species- been documented in the current C. l. the potential for more killing of wolves, level gray wolf listing in 1978. baileyi population. We do not consider increased risk of inbreeding, disease Therefore, C. l. baileyi is a subspecies predation likely to significantly affect C. epidemics, and other sources of that was formerly widespread but was

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35709

reduced to such critically low numbers the bounds of the current C. lupus listed Mountains of Lassen County, 1 mile east and restricted range (i.e., eliminated in entity (Figure 1) and warrant the of Litchfield, California (Jurek 1994, p. the wild) that it is at high risk of protections of the Act. The gray wolf 2). In addition to these two records, in extinction due to threats that would not populations in the northern Rocky 1962, a gray wolf was shot in the otherwise imperil it. Mountains and the western Great Lakes southern Sierra Nevada Mountains at At the time of its initial listing, no are successfully recovered and delisted Woodlake, near Sequoia National Park robust populations of C. l. baileyi (76 FR 25590, 77 FR 55530, 76 FR (Ingles 1963, pp. 109–110); however, remained in the wild. The establishment 81666). These populations are not part subsequent skull measurements indicate and success of the captive-breeding of the current C. lupus listed entity and that this individual may have been an program temporarily prevented thus are not considered in this analysis. introduced Asiatic wolf (McCullough immediate absolute extinction of C. l. Further, because we have already 1967, pp. 146–153)]. Despite limited baileyi and, by producing surplus determined that C. l. baileyi is an preserved physical evidence for wolves animals, has enabled us to undertake endangered subspecies, we do not need in California, there were many reports of the reestablishment of C. l. baileyi in the to consider any gray wolves wolves from around the state in the BRWRA by releasing captive animals to representative of that population in this 1800s and early 1900s (e.g., Sage 1846, the wild. In the context of our current analysis. Given these facts, only the gray entire, Price 1894, p. 331; Dunn 1904, proposal to list C. l. baileyi as an wolves currently occupying the Pacific pp. 48–50; Dixon 1916, pp. 125; Young endangered subspecies, we recognize Northwest need be considered; we begin and Goldman 1944, pp. 18–19, 56–57; that, even with these significant our evaluation with a description of the Sumner and Dixon 1953, pp. 464–465; improvements in C. l. baileyi’s status, its historical and current distribution of Schmidt 1991, pp. 79–85), with the current geographic distribution in the gray wolves in that region followed by earliest reports noting that they were BRWRA is a very small portion of its a DPS analysis. ‘‘numerous and troublesome’’ and ‘‘a former range. Moreover, within this source of great annoyance to the reduced and restricted range, C. l. Pacific Northwest—Historical Distribution inhabitants by destroying their sheep, baileyi faces significant threats that are calves, colts, and even full-grown cattle intensified by its small population size. Wolves were historically distributed and horses’’ (Sage 1846, p. 196). Cronise Canis lupus baileyi is highly susceptible across most of the Pacific Northwest, (1868, p. 439) described gray wolves in to inbreeding, loss of heterozygosity, except in arid deserts and on the mid-1800s as ‘‘common in the and loss of adaptive potential due to the mountaintops (Young and Goldman northern and higher districts of the state 1944, pp. 10, 18, 30, 44–45; Mech 1970, bottleneck created during its extreme [of California],’’ with the skin being p. 31; Nowak 2003, p. 243). In western population decline prior to protection worth ‘‘one to two dollars.’’ In 1904, Oregon and Washington, wolves were by the Act, the limited number of and Stephens (1906, p. 217) stated, ‘‘A very historically common and widely relatedness of the founders of the few Gray Wolves live in the high Sierras distributed in the Coast Range, Cascade captive population, and the loss of some and in the mountains of northeastern Mountains, Olympic Peninsula, and, genetic material from the founders. The California.’’ Descriptions of early prior to major settlement of the effects of inbreeding have been explorers were sometimes accompanied American west, were also regularly documented in C. l. baileyi and require by little detail, and coyotes were reported from the Willamette Valley and active, ongoing management to sometimes called wolves (California Puget Trough (Suckley 1859, pp. 75, 90; minimize. Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011, Mortality of C. l. baileyi from illegal Suckley and Gibbs 1859, pp. 110–111; pp. 1–2); however, Schmidt (1991, killing, as well as all other sources of Conard 1905, p. 393; Bailey 1936, pp. entire) accounted for this situation in mortality or removal from the wild 272–275; Dalquest 1948, pp. 232–233). his analysis of anecdotal wolf records in population, is occurring within the By the 1940s, wolves in Washington and California by only accepting records that context of a small population. While all Oregon were primarily confined to differentiated between coyotes, foxes, populations sustain some amount of remote mountainous areas, mostly in and wolves. mortality, including that caused by the National Forests of the Cascade humans, the current small population Mountains, although there were a In 1939, the U.S. Forest Service has a low probability of persistence couple of wolf records in eastern Oregon estimated that wolves were present in compared to a larger, more in the 1930s (1 in Grant County and 1 small numbers on the Lassen (16 geographically widespread population. in Lake County) (Young and Goldman wolves), Tahoe (4), Eldorado (12), Absent the protection of the Act, illegal 1944, pp. 53–55). In Oregon, Service Stanislaus (6), Angeles (5) in California, killing would likely increase records indicate that, by 1941, the only although the basis for these estimates is dramatically, further reducing the area west of the Cascades known to not given (Young and Goldman 1944, p. population’s size and increasing its contain wolves was primarily in eastern 55). Charles Poole of the Forest Service vulnerability to genetic and Douglas County (Rowe 1941, entire). confirmed five wolves from northern demographic factors, putting C. l. baileyi Historical range maps show Modoc County on the Oregon-California at imminent risk of extinction. These considerable variation in the gray wolf’s border in the vicinity of Cow Head Lake factors are occurring throughout C. l. former range in California (Shelton and in the 1920s, and one was shot in July baileyi’s range in the wild, resulting in Weckerly 2007, pp. 224–227). There are 1922 in Modoc County (Young and our determination that the subspecies only two known recent museum records Goldman 1944, p. 57). The paucity of warrants listing as endangered of gray wolves from California, both in physical evidence of wolves occupying throughout its range. the possession of the Museum of California is likely an artifact of targeted Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley, elimination associated with the Spanish California (Schmidt 1991, p. 82; Jurek missions and their extensive livestock Is there a DPS of C. lupus in the 1994, p. 2): in 1922, an adult male gray interests (Schmidt 1991, p. 83) prior to contiguous United States or Mexico that wolf was trapped in the Providence the era of collecting specimens for warrants the protections of the Act? Mountains, in eastern San Bernardino natural-history museums. Late We now consider whether there are County (Jurek 1994, p. 2); and, in 1924, Pleistocene remains of gray wolves have any DPSs of C. lupus that occur within a gray wolf was trapped in the Cascade been uncovered in several regions of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35710 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

California (including at La Brea tarpits encouraged to kill wolves on public In the North Cascades of Washington, (Los Angeles County), Maricopa Brea lands to destroy the remaining near the Canadian Border, numerous (Kern County), McKittrick Tar Seeps ‘‘breeding grounds’’ of wolves (Hampton wolf sightings were reported in the (Kern County), Potter Creek Cave 1997, pp. 131–132). In 1915, Congress 1980s and 1990s, including at least (Shasta County), Samwel Cave (Shasta appropriated money to the federal three separate groups of adult wolves County), and Shuiling Cave (San Bureau of Biological Survey and its with pups (Laufer and Jenkins 1989, p. Bernardino County) (Nowak 1979, pp. Division of Predator and Rodent Control 323; North Cascades National Park 2004, 99–100). Moreover, wolves were (PARC) to fund the extirpation of pp. 2–3). Multiple wolf reports from historically known to occupy every wolves and other animals injurious to Okanogan County in 2008 led to habitat containing large ungulates in the agriculture and animal husbandry confirmation of the first fully Northern Hemisphere from about 20 (Hampton 1997, p. 134). Spurred by documented (through photographs, degrees latitude to the polar ice pack Federal, state, and local government howling responses, and genetic testing) (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163). The bounties, the combination of poisoning, breeding by a wolf pack in Washington adaptability of wolves and the early unregulated trapping and shooting, and since the 1930s. A pack (named the firsthand accounts of wolves in the public funding of wolf Lookout Pack) with at least four adults/ California suggest that wolves likely extermination efforts ultimately resulted yearlings and six pups was confirmed in occurred in northern California, the in the elimination of the gray wolf from the western part of the county and Sierra Nevada, and southern California the Pacific Northwest and many other adjacent northern Chelan County (west mountains. areas. of the NRM DPS) in the summer of In Nevada, wolves may have always 2008, when the breeding male and been scarce (Young and Goldman 1944, Pacific Northwest—Current Distribution female were captured and radio- p. 30), but probably occurred in the At the time of the passage of the collared, and other pack members were forested regions of the state (Young and Federal Endangered Species Act of photographed. Preliminary genetic Goldman 1944, pp. 10, 455). During 20 1973, wolves were presumed to be testing of the breeding male and female years of predator control campaigns of extirpated from the Pacific Northwest; suggested they were descended from the early 1900s, six wolves were taken, however, a wolf (OSUFW 8727) was wolves occurring in (1) coastal British only one of which was from the western killed in eastern Douglas County, Columbia and (2) northeastern British half of the state, near the ghost town of Oregon in 1978 (Verts and Carraway Columbia, northwestern Alberta, or the Leadville, NV (Young and Goldman 1998, p. 363). As a result of colonization reintroduced populations in central 1944, p. 30; Hall 1946, pp. 266–269). In from core wolf habitats in Yellowstone Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area addition to this record, there is one and central Idaho where wolves were (J. Pollinger 2008, in litt.). record of early-recent gray wolf bone reintroduced in the mid-1990s, breeding The pack produced another litter of at remains, near Fallon, Nevada (Churchill wolf packs became reestablished in least four pups in 2009, as well as a probable litter in 2007 based on a County) (Morrison 1964, p. 73; Nowak northeastern Oregon and eastern 1979, p. 101). Several wolf observations sighting report of six to eight animals in Washington (Service et al. 2011, p. 5). from western Nevada were also reported nearby northern Chelan County in Because of their connectivity to core in 1852 from around the Humboldt September 2007 (R. Kuntz, National habitats in central Idaho, wolves in the River, Humboldt Sink, and Carson Park Service, pers. comm.) and a report eastern third of Oregon and Washington Valley (Turnbull 1913, pp. 164, 195, of seven to nine animals in Okanogan are now considered part of the NRM 200, 208; Young and Goldman 1944, p. County in the winter of 2007–2008. The DPS (76 FR 25590). 30). pack appears to have suffered In Oregon, there have been several significant human-caused mortality Pacific Northwest—Causes of Decline recent credible reports of wolves west of from illegal killing. In June, 2011, a Extensive unregulated trapping of the NRM DPS, in the western Blue Federal grand jury indictment included wolves for their pelts began with the Mountains, central Cascades, and the alleged killing of up to five wolves arrival of the Hudson’s Bay Company in Klamath Basin, including a lone wolf in 2008 and 2009, believed to be the Pacific Northwest and the that was photographed along Highway members of the Lookout pack. In May establishment of a system of trade for 20 near the Three Sisters Wilderness in 2010, the Lookout breeding female wolf pelts in 1820s (Laufer and Jenkins 2009, and a radio-collared wolf (OR–3) disappeared several weeks after the 1989, p. 323). From 1827 to 1859, more from the Imnaha Pack (one of four suspected birth of a litter. This appeared than 7,700 wolf pelts were traded from known packs located within the NRM to cause a breakdown in pack structure, in or near the Cascade Mountains area DPS) that was photographed by a trail with the breeding male ranging more in Washington and British Columbia camera on July 5, 2011, on the western widely and spending most of the alone (Laufer and Jenkins 1989, p. 323). edge of the Umatilla National Forest in summer alone. The status of this pack This trade was followed by an influx of Wheeler County. The last telemetry was unknown at the end of 2011. settlers to the region in the mid-1800s location for this dispersing wolf was However, sightings of multiple wolves who used strychnine to poison wolves recorded on September 30, 2011, in (including the breeding male) traveling in an effort to protect livestock (e.g., Crook County, Oregon, more than 250 together in the winter of 2011–2012 Putnam 1928, p. 256). As the first km (156 mi) from its natal area (ODFW indicate two wolves still inhabit the provisional governments in the region 2011). In addition, another dispersing Lookout pack’s territory. The pack were formed, they enacted wolf wolf (OR–7), also from the Imnaha pack, occupied an area totaling about 350 bounties, which spawned an industry of has travelled more than 600 km (373 mi) square miles from 2008 to 2010 (Wiles bounty hunters, or ‘‘wolfers,’’ who used straight-line distance from its natal area et al. 2011, p. 23). strychnine to kill large numbers of and ventured as far as northern In the spring of 2011, numerous wolves to collect bounties and to sell California. Evidence of wolves breeding sightings of wolves were reported from wolf pelts (Hampton 1997, pp. 107– west of the NRM DPS in Oregon has not the Cle Elum Ranger District in central 108). Eradication of wolves continued been documented in recent times Washington and the subsequent into the twentieth century, when (personal communication T. Hiller, deployment of remotely activated field government forest rangers were ODFW, 2011). cameras documented four different

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35711

wolflike canids in the area, with one 60252, 60266; November 22, 1994). The Washington) in 2012. Wolves in the photo showing an adult and a subadult. determination justifying this definition NRM DPS and in British Columbia are A lactating female from this group of found that these standards were ‘‘the expanding in number and distribution. canids (named the Teanaway pack) was minimum standards for a wolf (Service 2012, pp. 1, 2; British Columbia subsequently captured, and genetic population’’ and that a ‘‘group of wolves Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural testing confirmed that this individual [meeting this standard] would cease to Resource Operations 2012, p. 4). was a gray wolf that was closely related be a population if one or both pairs do Expansion of wolves into these to (consistent with being an offspring of) not survive, do not maintain their pair– surrounding areas increases the chance the Lookout pack breeding pair bond, do not breed, or do not produce that dispersing wolves will move into (Robinson et al. 2011, in litt., pp. 1–2). offspring, or if both pups do not survive unoccupied areas or areas with low wolf In December 2011, researchers for the specified period’’ (Service 1994, densities (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 181, determined that this pack consisted of Appendix 8). Jimenez et al. In review, entire), such as three adults and four pups occupying an To date, this standard has not been the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, while area of approximately 300 square miles documented in the Pacific Northwest the best available information indicates (Frame and Allen, 2012, p. 8). (specifically, for those wolves outside of our standard for a population has not During the winter of 2010–2011, the NRM DPS’s western boundary and yet been satisfied, this standard will remote cameras recorded images of what south of the Canadian border). While likely be met in the next few years. appeared to be wolves near Hozemeen, two breeding pairs have been It is worth noting that this situation is Washington in the Ross Lake National documented in listed portions of the fundamentally different than past Recreation Area, near the Canadian Pacific Northwest (both in Washington), situations where wolves were evaluated border. In May 2011, biologists from the 2 consecutive years of raising two young against our ‘‘wolf population standard.’’ Washington Department of Fish and has been documented only for one In 1994, we determined that neither the Wildlife (WDFW) conducted an effort to breeding pair. The Teanaway pack was Greater Yellowstone Area nor the trap and radio-collar potential wolves at documented successfully raising at least central Idaho region were ‘‘even close to this location. Abundant canine scat and two young until December 31 in 2011 having a separate population’’ (Service several sets of canine tracks were and 2012 (Frame and Allen 2012, p. 8; 1994, Appendix 8). In this evaluation, observed during the 3-week effort, but Becker et al. 2013). Breeding-pair status Idaho was noted as having the most no animals were captured. At this time in the Lookout pack has not been wolf activity, but even this situation was the genetic status (wolf, dog, or wolf– confirmed since 2009. Otherwise, only described as only ‘‘occasional dog hybrid) and denning location of lone dispersing animals have been immigration of single wolves from a these animals has not been determined. documented in this area. breeding population(s) elsewhere, In March 2013, WDFW remote Even though wolves in the Pacific possible with intermittent reproduction cameras documented two wolves Northwest, when viewed in isolation, in some years’’ (Service 1994, Appendix feeding on an elk carcass together do not yet constitute a population 8). Similarly, in 2010, we concluded southwest of Wenatchee, WA. The according to our 1994 definition, we that a petition to list a northeastern U.S. wolves were spotted in the area several decided to undertake a DPS analysis for wolf DPS ‘‘did not present substantial days later, and were confirmed as the two reasons. First, given the rugged scientific or commercial information Wenatchee pack. One of the wolves is terrain in the North Cascades and the indicating that the petitioned action thought to be a dispersing animal from limited search effort, and the fact that may be warranted’’ primarily because the Teanaway pack, and the other is the Lookout pack has not had any radio- the petition and other readily available unknown. It is unclear at this time collared individuals since 2010, it is information failed to show anything whether these wolves will remain possible that additional breeding pairs more than occasional dispersers and no resident in the area. have gone undetected or that the reproduction (75 FR 32869, June 10, In California, the only wolf confirmed documented breeding pairs have 2010). These situations contrast with the since their extirpation has been the successfully bred in consecutive years Pacific Northwest where the region dispersing wolf (OR–7) from without detection. Over the last 2 years, appears to be approaching our standards northeastern Oregon. In Nevada, there WDFW has collected evidence for a population. Given the above, we have been no confirmed reports of suggesting that a pack may be located on evaluate the discreteness of wolves in wolves since their extirpation, which the Canadian border, but radio collaring this area relative to other wolf likely occurred in the 1940s (Young and efforts have not yet been successful. populations. Goldman 1944, p. 56). Public observations also support the possibility of other wolves in the area, Pacific Northwest—Distinct Vertebrate Pacific Northwest—Do wolves in this but as of the date of this publication, Population Segment Analysis area constitute a population? only two breeding pairs have been Introduction Fundamental to identification of a confirmed in Washington’s North In accordance with the 1996 DPS possible DPS is the existence of a Cascades in recent times. policy, to be recognized as a DPS, a population. As stated previously, our Second, wolf recolonization patterns population of vertebrate animals must regulations define a ‘‘population’’ as a (Frame and Allen 2012, p. 6; Morgan be both discrete and significant (61 FR ‘‘group of fish or wildlife in the same 2011, pp. 2–6) indicate that, even if 4722, February 7, 1996). A population of taxon below the subspecific level, in wolves do not currently meet our a vertebrate taxon may be considered common spatial arrangement that technical definition of a population in discrete if it satisfies either of the interbreed when mature’’ (50 CFR 17.3). the Pacific Northwest, we expect more following conditions: (1) It is markedly We have refined that definition in other dispersing wolves from the Northern separated from other populations of the wolf rulemakings to mean ‘‘at least 2 Rocky Mountains and British Columbia same taxon as a consequence of breeding pairs of wild wolves to occupy the area in the near future. physical, physiological, ecological, or successfully raising at least 2 young Three new packs were documented in behavioral factors (quantitative each year (until December 31 of the year eastern Washington (four additional measures of genetic or morphological of their birth), for 2 consecutive years’’ packs are suspected; three in eastern discontinuity may provide evidence of (Service 1994, Appendix 8; 59 FR Washington and one in northwestern this separation), or (2) it is delimited by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35712 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

international governmental boundaries (§ 1713 of Pub. L. 112–10)) we found covered the entire area of interest, we within which differences in control of that wolves in the NRM were physically also projected Oakleaf et al.’s (2006) exploitation, management or habitat, discrete from any wolves that might wolf-habitat model across Washington, conservation status, or regulatory eventually occupy the area to the west Oregon, and northern California using mechanisms exist that are significant in of the NRM boundary (74 FR 15123). At local data (Service, unpublished data). light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. If that time, only one wolf pack existed Based on this new review of wolf- we determine that a population segment west of the NRM boundary, and genetic habitat models, there is little separation is discrete, we next consider its evidence suggested that at least one of occupied wolf habitat in the NRM biological and ecological significance in member of that pack came from British DPS and suitable habitat in the analysis light of Congressional guidance (see Columbia. The boundary for the NRM area. Furthermore, because most wolf- Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st DPS, finalized in 2008 (73 FR 10518, habitat models are developed based on Session) that the authority to list DPS’s February 27, 2008), was determined the location of wolf territories (rather be used ‘‘. . . sparingly’’ while largely by identifying a breakpoint than dispersing wolves), geographic encouraging the conservation of genetic (three times the average dispersal gaps in suitable habitat may not be diversity. In carrying out this distance) for unusually long-distance reflective of long-term barriers to examination, the Service considers dispersal out from existing pack population interchange (Mladenoff et al. available scientific evidence of its territories in 2004. 1999), as we previously implied (74 FR significance to the taxon to which it Since that time, wolves have 15123), especially as wolf occupancy belongs. This may include, but is not expanded in number and distribution continues to increase on both sides of limited to, the following: (1) Persistence (Service 2012), and the outer edge of the the NRM DPS’ western boundary. of the discrete population segment in an NRM wolf population is now very close Data from habitat mapping efforts ecological setting unusual or unique for to the western boundary of the NRM suggests that any gaps in suitable the taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the DPS in northeast Washington and (breeding) habitat are not so wide as to discrete population segment would Oregon. Wolves, which likely originated preclude dispersing individuals. Wolves result in a significant gap in the range from the NRM DPS, currently occupy are well known to move long distances of the taxon, (3) evidence that the territories within 40 km (25 mi) of the across a variety of habitat types discrete population segment represents DPS boundary in Oregon and within 80 including open grasslands and the only surviving natural occurrence of km (50 mi) of the DPS boundary in agricultural areas (Mech 1995, p. 272), a taxon that may be more abundant Washington (suspected packs in and rivers are not effective barriers to elsewhere as an introduced population Washington; confirmed packs are 135 movement (Young and Goldman 1944, outside of its historic range, and/or (4) km (85 mi)). Furthermore, the Lookout pp. 79–80). Pack (which is outside the NRM DPS evidence that the discrete population In Washington, the NRM DPS segment differs markedly from other boundary in listed portions of boundary runs along the Okanogan populations of the species in its genetic Washington) are within approximately River, which occupies a narrow (15- to characteristics. If a vertebrate 89 km (55 mi) from the nearest pack in 25-km (10- to 15-mi) strip of unsuitable population is determined to be discrete the NRM DPS (Strawberry pack, on the habitat (open sagebrush, agriculture) and significant, we then evaluate the Colville Indian Reservation in north between the Okanogan Highlands and conservation status of the population to central Washington). Similarly, the the Cascade Mountains. Further south, determine if it is threatened or Teanaway pack (also outside the NRM the DPS boundary transects the endangered. DPS boundary in listed portions of The DPS evaluation that follows Washington, in the Cascade Mountains) Columbia Basin, an unforested concerns gray wolves occurring in the is approximately 177 km (110 mi) from agricultural region that likely limits Pacific Northwest (i.e., wolves to the the Strawberry pack. In our rule wolf dispersal to a certain extent. Wolf- west of the Northern Rocky Mountain delisting the NRM DPS of gray wolf we habitat models by Larsen and Ripple DPS within the contiguous United defined likely dispersal distances of (2006, entire) and Carroll (in litt. 2008, States). from 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from p. 2) showed suitable habitat along the a core wolf population. Distances Oregon coast and the Cascade Range, Pacific Northwest—Discreteness between wolves currently occupying with limited separation of suitable Analysis territories on either side of the NRM habitat across the NRM DPS boundary Adjacent to our analysis area are two DPS boundary fall well within our in northeast Oregon. The Blue Mountain wolf population sources, including defined range of likely dispersal range stretches from the extreme wolves to the east in the NRM DPS and distances, suggesting that physical northeast corner of Oregon southwest to wolves to the north, in British distance will not separate these wolves the NRM DPS boundary, where the Blue Columbia. We will analyze discreteness in the long term. Mountains transition into the smaller in relation to the NRM DPS first. If we To further understand physical Aldrich and Ochoco ranges. These determine that wolves in the Pacific separation in the Pacific Northwest, we public lands link together smaller tracts Northwest are not discrete from NRM reviewed several wolf-habitat models of suitable habitat, and arrive at the wolves, an evaluation with respect to (Houts 2003, p. 7; Ratti et al. 2004, p. Middle Deschutes-Crooked River basin British Columbia is not needed. If, 30, Larsen and Ripple 2006, pp. 48, 52, about 175 km (108 mi) west of the NRM however, Pacific NW wolves are 56; Carroll et al. 2001, p. 36; Carroll et DPS, and 65 km (40 mi) east of the discrete from NRM wolves, we will then al. 2006, p. 27, Carroll, in litt. 2008, p. Cascade Mountains (a large tract of analyze discreteness from the wolves in 2) and an analysis of wolf–movement high-quality wolf habitat). Although British Columbia. habitat linkages and fracture zones in somewhat patchy, several juvenile Marked Separation—Physical Washington (Singleton et al. 2002, Fig. wolves have successfully traveled Factors—In our 2009 rule designating 12). We also reviewed a modeling effort through this habitat while dispersing and delisting the NRM DPS (vacated by Washington Department of Fish and from the NRM DPS (ODFW 2011, pp. (Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Salazar Wildlife that combined habitat models 5–6). et al., (729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont.), with movement data (Wiles et al. 2011, Based on our analysis above, we find but later reinstated by act of Congress p. 55). Because none of these models no significant physical separation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35713

delimiting wolves in the analysis area inland wolves (Geffen et al. 2004, pp. are likely to meet our standard for a from the NRM wolf population. 2488–2489; Mun˜ oz-Fuentes et al. 2009, population in the near future. Therefore, Marked Separation—Physiological, pp. 10–12; Weckworth et al. 2010, pp. we moved forward with a DPS analysis Behavioral, or Ecological Factors— 371–372, vonHoldt et al. 2011, pp. 2–8), to see if such a likely future population Information on the current which is indicative of ecological would be discrete from the existing physiological, behavioral, or ecological processes that may extend into the population in the Northern Rocky separation of wolves in the analysis area Pacific Northwest of the United States Mountains and British Columbia. and wolves in the NRM DPS is where climatic and physiographic equivocal. Genetic analysis of a male factors of coastal and inland ecosystems In the absence of identified barriers to and female wolf from the Lookout pack parallel those to the north (Commission intermixing, dispersal of wolves across found that the male possessed a for Environmental Cooperation 1997, the NRM DPS boundary is likely to mitochondrial haplotype unique to pp. 9, 21–22). continue such that a future wolf coastal/southern British Columbia If dispersing gray wolves select population in the Pacific Northwest is region and markedly different than habitats similar to the one in which they not likely to be discrete from wolves in haplotypes present in the NRM DPS were reared (as hypothesized by Mun˜ oz- the NRM DPS. Habitat linkages also (Pollinger et al., in litt. 2008, p. 2). Fuentes et al. (2009, pp. 10–11)), we connect occupied wolf habitat in British However, the female possessed a would expect limited movement and Columbia to available habitat in the mitochondrial haplotype that was interbreeding of wolves in coastal and Pacific Northwest (Carroll in litt. 2008, broadly distributed throughout North inland areas, similar to the historical p. 8, Appendix A). It is reasonable to America (Pollinger et al., in litt. 2008, p. pattern of differentiation. However, the expect that the future population of 2). The fact that the female had a more mechanisms for a subspecific divide in wolves in the Pacific Northwest will be broadly distributed mitochondrial British Columbia is unknown and the an extension, or part of, populations to haplotype means that she could have ultimate recolonization pattern of the north and east, rather than a discrete originated from coastal British wolves in the Pacific Northwest region population. Furthermore, the best Columbia, but the data cannot rule out of the United States and the extent of available information does not indicate the possibility that she may have any future separation from the NRM originated elsewhere (i.e., NRM DPS). DPS is unpredictable. Wolves can that wolves in the Pacific Northwest are Analysis of microsatellites ruled out the disperse long distances across a variety likely to possess physiological, possibility that the two wolves of habitats, as evidenced by OR–3 and behavioral, or ecological traits that originated from the southern Alberta/ OR–7, dispersing wolves from Oregon separate them from wolves in the northwest Montana population, but (Mech 1995, p. 272). Thus, wolves may Northern Rocky Mountains. Therefore, could not clearly determine whether recolonize western Oregon and we find that wolves in the Pacific they were more related to coastal/ Washington and the rest of the region Northwest are not discrete from wolves southern British Columbia wolves or from coastal British Columbia, from in the Northern Rocky Mountains— wolves from the reintroduced eastern Oregon and eastern Washington, rather they constitute the expanding population in Idaho and Yellowstone or from both areas. Whether wolves front of large, robust, and recovered (Pollinger et al., in litt. 2008, p. 3). from one area will possess traits that wolf populations to the north and east. Genetic testing of a female wolf from the allow them to outcompete or exclude Even if we considered a larger DPS, Teanaway pack in the southern wolves from the other area or whether with a northern boundary extending Cascades of Washington State indicated they will regularly intermix is into British Columbia, we would still that she was closely related to the male unknown. However, given their long- find a lack of discreteness from the and female of the Lookout pack (i.e., range dispersal capabilities, known NRM DPS. Due to this lack of probably a descendent of the Lookout long-distance dispersal events across the discreteness, wolves in the Pacific pack’s male and female) (Robinson et NRM boundary, and lack of major Northwest, whether considered in al., in litt. 2011, pp. 1–2). While we habitat barriers, it is more likely that combination with wolves in British expect individuals of markedly different wolves on either side of the NRM Columbia or alone, would not qualify as haplotypes to continue to recolonize the boundary will not form discrete area from coastal British Columbia and populations as defined in our DPS a distinct population segment under our from the NRM DPS, we also expect policy. 1996 DPS policy and are, therefore, not interbreeding to occur, as genetic eligible for protection under the Act. Summary for DPS Analysis evidence of the Lookout pack suggests. We are confident that wolves will Therefore, contemporary genetic Recovery of wolf populations in the continue to recolonize the Pacific information does not lead us to NRM DPS and southern British Northwest regardless of Federal conclude that wolves on either side of Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of protection. Wolves are classified as the NRM DPS line have marked genetic Forests, Lands and Natural Resource endangered under both the Oregon and differences. Operations (2012, p. 4) has contributed Washington Endangered Species Acts to recolonization of new areas in eastern Historical subspecies delineations (WAC 232–12–014 and 232–12–011; Washington and Oregon. While we based on morphology suggest that a ORS 496.171 to 496.192 and 498.026), biological boundary limiting dispersal know of resident wolves occupying and both states have conservation or reproductive intermixing likely territories in the western two thirds of strategies for recovering wolves (ODFW existed between eastern and western Washington (outside the NRM DPS), Oregon and Washington prior to the they do not currently constitute a 2010, entire; Wiles et al. 2011, entire). extirpation of wolves from the region ‘‘population’’ and, therefore, the area In addition, California recently declared (Bailey 1936, pp. 272–275; Young and cannot be defined as a DPS. wolves as a candidate for listing under Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson Nevertheless, given ongoing the California Endangered Species Act. 1959, p. 849, Figure 6). Moreover, recent recolonization and the lack of While it reviews whether to add wolves genetic, behavioral, and morphological substantial dispersal barriers into the to its list of threatened or endangered data in British Columbia and Alaska Pacific Northwest from populations to species, California will treat wolves as show marked separation of coastal and the north and east, wolves in the area a state-listed species.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35714 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Significant Portion of Its Range On December 9, 2011, the U.S. Fish a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we Analysis and Wildlife Service and the National conclude, for the purposes of this The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ Marine Fisheries Service published a finding, that the significance of the as any species which is ‘‘in danger of notice (76 FR 76987) of draft policy to portion of the range should be extinction throughout all or a significant establish a joint interpretation and determined based on its biological portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened application of SPR that reflects a contribution to the conservation of the species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely permissible reading of the law and its species. For this reason, we describe the to become an endangered species within legislative history, and minimizes threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of the foreseeable future throughout all or undesirable policy outcomes, while an increase in the risk of extinction for a significant portion of its range.’’ The fulfilling the conservation purposes of the species. We conclude that a definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant the Act. To date, the draft SPR policy biologically based definition of to this discussion. The Act defines the has not been finalized. Although the ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the term ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term following analyses does not implement purposes of the Act, is consistent with ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish the draft policy as a binding rule, and judicial interpretations, and best or wildlife or plants, and any distinct instead independently lay out the ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for population segment [DPS] of any rational for the SPR analyses, if an SPR the purposes of this finding, a portion species of vertebrate fish or wildlife policy is finalized prior to the Service of the range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ making a final determination on this if its contribution to the viability of the which interbreeds when mature.’’ The proposed action we will ensure that our species is so important that, without phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ final determination is consistent with that portion, the species would be in (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and the final SPR policy. danger of extinction. we have never addressed in our Consistent with the district court We evaluate biological significance regulations: (1) The consequences of a decisions discussed above, and for the based on the principles of conservation determination that a species is either purposes of this finding, we interpret biology using the concepts of endangered or likely to become so the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its redundancy, resiliency, and throughout a significant portion of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of representation. Resiliency describes the range, but not throughout all of its ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened characteristics of a species that allow it range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of species’’ to provide an independent to recover from periodic disturbance. a range as ‘‘significant.’’ basis for listing; thus there are two Redundancy (having multiple Two recent district court decisions situations (or factual bases) under which populations distributed across the have addressed whether the SPR a species would qualify for listing: A landscape) may be needed to provide a language allows the Service to list or species may be endangered or margin of safety for the species to protect less than all members of a threatened throughout all of its range; or withstand catastrophic events. defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife a species may be endangered or Representation (the range of variation v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. threatened in only a significant portion found in a species) ensures that the Mont. 2010), vacated on other grounds of its range. If a species is in danger of species’ adaptive capabilities are (9th Cir. 2012), concerning the Service’s extinction throughout an SPR, it, the conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and delisting of the Northern Rocky species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ representation are not independent of Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, Apr. The same analysis applies to each other, and some characteristic of a 12, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v. ‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the species or area may contribute to all Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 consequence of finding that a species is three. For example, distribution across a (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the endangered or threatened in only a wide variety of habitats is an indicator Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to significant portion of its range is that the of representation, but it may also list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR entire species shall be listed as indicate a broad geographic distribution 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service had endangered or threatened, respectively, contributing to redundancy (decreasing asserted in both of these determinations and the Act’s protections shall be the chance that any one event affects the that it had authority, in effect, to protect applied across the species’ entire range. entire species), and the likelihood that only some members of a ‘‘species,’’ as We conclude, for the purposes of this some habitat types are less susceptible defined by the Act (i.e., species, finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase to certain threats, contributing to subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both as providing an independent basis for resiliency (the ability of the species to courts ruled that the determinations listing is the best interpretation of the recover from disturbance). None of these were arbitrary and capricious on the Act because it is consistent with the concepts is intended to be mutually grounds that this approach violated the purposes and the plain meaning of the exclusive, and a portion of a species’ plain and unambiguous language of the key definitions of the Act; it does not range may be determined to be Act. The courts concluded that reading conflict with established past agency ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions the SPR language to allow protecting practice, as no consistent, long-term under any one of these concepts. only a portion of a species’ range is agency practice has been established; For the purposes of this finding, we inconsistent with the Act’s definition of and it is consistent with the judicial determine whether a portion’s biological ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that, opinions that have most closely contribution is so important that the once a determination is made that a examined this issue. Having concluded portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by species (i.e., species, subspecies, or that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of asking whether, without that portion, DPS) meets the definition of its range’’ provides an independent the representation, redundancy, or ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened basis for listing and protecting the entire resiliency of the species would be so species,’’ it must be placed on the list species, we next turn to the meaning of impaired that the species would have an in its entirety and the Act’s protections ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold increased vulnerability to threats to the applied consistently to all members of for when such an independent basis for point that the overall species would be that species (subject to modification of listing exists. in danger of extinction (i.e., would be protections through special rules under Although there are potentially many ‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). ways to determine whether a portion of not consider the portion of the range at

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35715

issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is biological significance. (We recognize their ranges, we next consider whether sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and that if the species is imperiled in a there are any significant portions of the representation elsewhere in the species’ portion that rises to that level of range where C. lupus, C. l. nubilus, or range that the species would not be in biological significance, then we should C. l. occidentalis is in danger of danger of extinction throughout its conclude that the species is in fact extinction or is likely to become range if the population in that portion imperiled throughout all of its range, endangered in the foreseeable future. of the range in question became and that we would not need to rely on We consider the range of C. lupus to extirpated (extinct locally). the SPR language for such a listing.) include portions of North America, We recognize that this definition of Rather, under this interpretation we ask Europe, North, Central and South Asia, ‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold whether the species would be the Middle East, and North Africa that is relatively high. On the one hand, endangered everywhere without that (Mech and Boitani 2004, pp. 125–128; given that the consequences of finding portion, i.e., if that portion were Linnell et al. 2008, p. 48; 77 FR 55539; a species to be endangered or threatened completely extirpated. In other words, 76 FR 81676; Rueness et al. 2011, pp. in an SPR would be listing the species the portion of the range need not be so 1–5; Gaubert et al. 2012, pp. 3–7). throughout its entire range, it is important that even being in danger of We consider the range of C. l. nubilus important to use a threshold for extinction in that portion would be to include the western Great Lakes ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not sufficient to cause the remainder of the region, and portions of western be meaningful or appropriate to range to be endangered; rather, the Washington and western Oregon, and establish a very low threshold whereby complete extirpation (in a hypothetical southeastern Alaska in the United a portion of the range can be considered future) of the species in that portion States, the western and coastal regions ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible would be required to cause the of British Columbia, most of mainland increase in extinction risk would result remainder of the range to be Nunavut, a portion of mainland from its loss. Because nearly any portion endangered. Northwest Territories, northern of a species’ range can be said to The range of a species can Manitoba, northern Ontario, and most of contribute some increment to a species’ theoretically be divided into portions in Quebec in Canada. viability, use of such a low threshold an infinite number of ways. However, We consider the range of C. l. would require us to impose restrictions there is no purpose to analyzing occidentalis to include Montana, Idaho, and expend conservation resources portions of the range that have no Wyoming, eastern Oregon and disproportionately to conservation reasonable potential to be significant Washington, and most of Alaska in the benefit: listing would be rangewide, and threatened or endangered. To United States, and the Yukon even if only a portion of the range of identify only those portions that warrant Territories, Northwest Territories, the minor conservation importance to the further consideration, we determine western edge of mainland Nunavut, species is imperiled. On the other hand, whether there is substantial information British Columbia, most of Alberta and it would be inappropriate to establish a indicating that: (1) The portions may be Saskatchewan, and western and threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be southern Manitoba in Canada. high. This would be the case if the in danger of extinction there or likely to standard were, for example, that a become so within the foreseeable future. Applying the process described portion of the range can be considered Depending on the biology of the species, above, we evaluated the range of C. ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that its range, and the threats it faces, it lupus, C. l. nubilus, and C. l. portion result in the entire species’ might be more efficient for us to address occidentalis to determine if any portion being currently endangered or the significance question first or the of the ranges of these taxa warranted threatened. Such a high bar would not status question first. Thus, if we further consideration. give the SPR phrase independent determine that a portion of the range is Canis lupus—As stated previously, meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to populations of C. lupus occur in 46 Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 determine whether the species is countries and are distributed across F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). endangered or threatened there; if we several continents. Through our review The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in determine that the species is not we found evidence to indicate that at this finding carefully balances these endangered or threatened in a portion of the regional level some populations are concerns. By setting a relatively high its range, we do not need to determine facing significant threats. For example threshold, we minimize the degree to if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In C. lupus populations in the which restrictions will be imposed or practice, a key part of the portion status southwestern United States (see C. l. resources expended that do not analysis is whether the threats are baileyi analysis above), on the Iberian contribute substantially to species geographically concentrated in some Peninsula of Southern Spain, and in conservation. But we have not set the way. If the threats to the species are Central Europe (Linnell et al. 2008, p. threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a essentially uniform throughout its 63), are significantly affected by illegal significant portion of its range’’ loses range, no portion is likely to warrant targeted elimination, small population independent meaning. Specifically, we further consideration. Moreover, if any size, and isolation. However, the have not set the threshold as high as it concentration of threats applies only to species’ large population levels was under the interpretation presented portions of the species’ range that elsewhere, high reproductive rate, by the Service in the Defenders clearly would not meet the biologically dispersal capabilities, and expansive litigation. Under that interpretation, the based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ those range relative to any of the threatened portion of the range would have to be portions will not warrant further regional populations, along with the so important that current imperilment consideration. lack of any substantial information there would mean that the species indicating otherwise, lead us to would be currently imperiled C. lupus, C. l. nubilus, and C. l. conclude that substantial threats are not everywhere. Under the definition of occidentalis occurring across enough of the range for ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the Having determined that C. lupus, C. l. any of these portions to be considered portion of the range need not rise to nubilus, and C. l. occidentalis are not a significant portion of the range of C. such an exceptionally high level of endangered or threatened throughout lupus.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35716 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Canis lupus nubilus and Canis lupus extirpated in the early 20th century and whole, is stable. We found no occidentalis—Based on our evaluations have not repopulated these areas. substantial evidence to suggest that C. (see C. l. nubilus and C. l. occidentalis Despite the lack of wolf populations in lupus is at risk of extinction throughout analyses above) it is evident that C. l. the plains (where current agricultural its global range now or is likely to nubilus and C. l. occidentalis practices are not compatible with wolf become so in the foreseeable future. populations are well distributed in presence) both subspecies maintain With respect to the North American Canada and currently represented in the secure populations over vast areas subspecies C. l. nubilus and C. l. WGL and NRM regions of the United where effects from human activities occidentalis, we find that wolves States respectively. We evaluated the have been less severe. Therefore, we occupying C. l. nubilus’s and C. l. current ranges of C. l. nubilus and C. l. find that there is not substantial occidentalis’s historical ranges are occidentalis to determine if there is any information for either subspecies widespread and exist as large, stable apparent geographic concentration of indicating that any portion may be both populations, with no evidence of the primary stressors potentially ‘‘significant’’ and in danger of extinction decline over the last 10 years despite affecting the subspecies, including there or likely to become so within the being subject to harvest over much of human-caused mortality, habitat foreseeable future. their range and population reduction alteration, public attitudes/tolerance, actions in local areas. We did not Summary of Finding and predator control. We found that identify any significant effects to these over the vast majority of the range of In summary, we find that neither the subspecies indicating that C. l. nubilus each subspecies, the stressors affecting 1978 listing nor the current C. lupus and C. l. occidentalis are in danger of the species are both diffuse and minor. listed entity as it is described on the List extinction throughout their ranges and, The areas that might possibly qualify as represent valid ‘‘species’’ under the Act. therefore, neither subspecies meets the significant for one of the subspecies We base this conclusion on the definition of an endangered species. (e.g., all of the Canadian Rockies for C. following: (1) The 1978 listing Canis lupus nubilus and C. l. l. occidentalis or coastal British erroneously included the eastern United occidentalis are also not likely to Columbia for C. l. nubilus) clearly do States a region of the contiguous United become endangered within the not face stressors of sufficient States that the best scientific foreseeable future throughout all of their imminence, intensity, or magnitude for information indicates is outside of the ranges. the subspecies to possibly be threatened historical range of C. lupus (see Wolf With respect to C. l. baileyi, we find there. Further, given the robust nature of Species of the United States section); (2) that the subspecies is in danger of C. l. occidentalis populations in Alaska the C. lupus listed entity as it is extinction throughout all of its range and of C. l. nubilus in eastern Canada, currently described on the List derives due to illegal killing, inbreeding, loss of even the Canadian Rockies and coastal from the 1978 listing and shares the heterozygosity, loss of adaptive British Columbia might not meet the same deficiency; and (3) the current potential, small population size, and the threshold for ‘‘significant’’ described listing suffers from the additional combination of factors B, C, and E. above even if substantial threats did problem that there is not a reasonable Canis lupus baileyi used to range exist there. correlation between the remaining throughout central and southern Conversely, any of the local areas in population and the geographic scope of Arizona and New Mexico, a small which there is a notable concentration the listing. Therefore, the current C. portion of Texas, and much of Mexico. of stressors (for example, intermountain lupus listed entity is not a ‘‘species’’ as Its numbers were reduced to near valleys where human populations and defined by the Act, and we propose to extinction prior to protection by the Act agriculture are concentrated), are small remove it from the List in accordance in the 1970’s, such that the captive- and spread throughout the mountainous with 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1). breeding program was founded with western part of the subspecies’ ranges We considered whether the currently only seven wolves. Although our and generally surrounded by listed entity should be replaced with a recovery efforts for C. l. baileyi, which mountainous habitats with healthy wolf valid listing for (1) the C. lupus species, are still under way, have led to the populations. The diffuse nature of these (2) a subspecies of C. lupus that occurs reestablishment of a wild population in pockets where risk factors for wolves are within the contiguous United States and the United States, the single, small concentrated reduce the importance of Mexico, or (3) a DPS of C. lupus that population of C. l. baileyi would face an these areas on the conservation of the includes part of the contiguous United imminent risk of extinction from the two subspecies. In addition, these States and Mexico. As required by the combined effects of small population pockets are individually so small that it Act, we considered the five factors in size, inbreeding, and illegal shooting, is not possible for them to meet the assessing whether C. lupus, C. l. without the protection of the Act. threshold for significance set forth nubilus, C. l. occidentalis, or C. l. baileyi Absent protection by the Act, regulatory above. Further, even if there were no are threatened or endangered protection, especially against shooting, wolves in any of these pockets of throughout all of its range. We poisoning, or other forms of killing, increased risk, the much larger examined the best scientific and would not be adequate to ensure the remaining areas of source populations commercial data available regarding the survival of C. l. baileyi. would not be threatened, much less past, present, and future threats faced by With respect to gray wolves in the endangered, for all of the reasons these taxa. We reviewed the information Pacific Northwest (outside of the NRM discussed above. Wolf populations in available in our files and other available DPS), recovery of wolf populations in North America have historically published and unpublished the NRM DPS and southern British weathered large contractions in their information, and we consulted with Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of geographic ranges without obvious recognized experts and other Federal, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource adverse effects to populations in other state, and tribal agencies. Operations (2012, p. 4) has contributed areas. With respect to C. lupus, we find that, to recolonization of new areas in eastern Within the historical ranges of C. l. although the species has undergone Washington and Oregon. While we nubilus and C. l. occidentalis, plains significant range contraction in portions know of resident wolves occupying populations from the contiguous United of its historical range, C. lupus territories in the western two thirds of States and southern Canada were continues to be widespread and, as a Washington (outside the NRM DPS),

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35717

they do not currently constitute a the range of C. lupus. In addition, we replacing morphological taxonomy as ‘‘population,’’ and, therefore, the area evaluated the current ranges of C. l. the prime determinant in designating cannot be defined as a DPS. nubilus and C. l. occidentalis to species.’’ In considering the different Nevertheless, given ongoing determine if there is any apparent lines of evidence, we conclude that the recolonization and the lack of geographic concentration of the primary findings of the most recent analyses substantial dispersal barriers into the stressors potentially affecting the (Chambers et al. 2012 and Rutledge et Pacific Northwest from populations to subspecies. We found that, over the vast al. 2012, both of which heavily rely on the north and east, wolves in the area majority of the range of each subspecies, genetic data) represent the best available are likely to meet our standard for a the stressors affecting the species are information. population in the near future. Therefore, both diffuse and minor. The areas that We are proposing to delist the current we moved forward with a DPS analysis might possibly qualify as significant for C. lupus entity due, in part, to our to see if such a likely future population one of the subspecies clearly do not face recognition of the eastern wolf taxon as would be discrete from existing stressors of sufficient imminence, C. lycaon, rather than a subspecies of populations in the Northern Rocky intensity, or magnitude for the gray wolf (see Evaluation of the Current Mountains and British Columbia. subspecies to possibly be threatened C. lupus Listed Entity). We now also In the absence of identified barriers to there. And any areas in which the local have information concerning the intermixing, dispersal of wolves across wolves might be threatened or conservation status of C. lycaon within the NRM DPS boundary is likely to endangered are so small and its current range—the status review continue such that a future wolf unimportant, individually or conducted by Thiel and Wydeven population in the Pacific Northwest is collectively, to qualify as significant (2012). Before we can determine not likely to be discrete from wolves in portions of the range of the relevant whether C. lycaon warrants listing as the NRM DPS. Habitat linkages also taxa. Therefore, we find that there is not endangered or threatened, we must first connect occupied wolf habitat in British substantial information for either address outstanding science and policy Columbia to available habitat in the subspecies indicating that any portion questions. We must consider treatment Pacific Northwest (Carroll in litt. 2008, may be both ‘‘significant’’ and in danger of wolf–coyote hybrids in terms of how p. 8, Appendix A). It is reasonable to of extinction there or likely to become they affect the identity of C. lycaon and expect that the future population of so within the foreseeable future. whether they contribute to the species’ wolves in the Pacific Northwest will be Based on the best scientific and viability. Also, we must assess whether an extension, or part of, populations to commercial information, we find that C. the threats identified in Thiel and the north and east, rather than a discrete lupus, C. l. nubilus, and C. l. Wydeven (2012) indicate that the population. Furthermore, the best occidentalis are not in danger of species meets the definition of a available information does not indicate extinction now, and are not likely to ‘‘threatened species’’ or an ‘‘endangered that wolves in the Pacific Northwest are become endangered within the species.’’ In addition, we will likely to possess physiological, foreseeable future, throughout all or a coordinate with COSEWIC regarding its behavioral, or ecological traits that significant portion of their ranges. status assessment for C. lycaon. separate them from wolves in the Therefore, listing C. lupus, C. l. nubilus, Northeast Wolf Petition Northern Rocky Mountains. Therefore, or C. l. occidentalis as threatened or we find that wolves in the Pacific endangered under the Act is not On October 9, 2012, the Service Northwest are not discrete from wolves warranted at this time. received a petition dated September 26, in the Northern Rocky Mountains— 2012, from Mr. John M. Glowa, Sr., Canis lycaon rather they constitute the expanding acting on behalf of himself as President front of large, robust, and recovered Canis lycaon was proposed as the of the Maine Wolf Coalition and 397 wolf populations to the north and east. designation for the eastern wolf by petition signatories. The petition Even if we considered a larger DPS, Wilson et al. (2000), and Nowak (2009) requested continued protection under with a northern boundary extending provisionally stated that, if given the Act for all wolves in the Northeast into British Columbia, we would still species status, the name, Canis lycaon, and a Northeast wolf recovery plan. find a lack of discreteness from the would take precedence over any Section 4 of the Act authorizes petitions NRM DPS. Due to this lack of alternative scientific name; see also to list, reclassify, or delist a species and discreteness, wolves in the Pacific Brewster and Fritts 1995 and Goldman to amend existing critical habitat Northwest, whether considered in 1944. Since Wilson et al.’s (2000) designations. Section 553(e) of the combination with wolves in British proposed species designation, C. lycaon Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Columbia or alone, would not qualify as has been used by Wayne and Vila provides interested parties the right to a distinct population segment under our (2003), Grewal et al. (2004), Kyle et al. petition for the issuance, amendment, or 1996 DPS policy and are, therefore, not (2006), Chambers et al. (2012), Wilson et repeal of a rule. eligible for protection under the Act. al. (2009), Rutledge et al. (2010a,b), and Because the gray wolf, C. lupus, is With respect to whether any of the Rutledge et al. (2012). currently listed in the Northeast and no relevant taxa is threatened or Although the taxonomy of the eastern rulemaking is necessary to provide endangered in a significant portion of its wolf is still being debated, we have protection under the Act, we find that range, we find that, although some considered the best information the request for continued protection of regional populations of C. lupus are available to us at this time and concur wolves under the Act in the Northeast facing significant threats, the species’ with the recognition of C. lycaon. We is not petitionable under the Act at this large population levels elsewhere, high understand that different conclusions time. Also, because no rulemaking is reproductive rate, dispersal capabilities, may be drawn by taxonomists and other necessary to provide the Act’s and expansive range relative to any of scientists depending on whether they protection of wolves in the Northeast at the threatened regional populations give precedence to morphological or this time, we dismiss this request under leads us to conclude that the existing genetic data; however, we also agree the APA. If this proposed rule is made threats are not geographically with Thiel and Wydeven’s (2012) final, however, any wolves that were to concentrated in an area large enough to observation that ‘‘Genetics taxonomy is disperse to the northeast United States be considered a significant portion of still undergoing rapid advances, and is would no longer be protected under the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 35718 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Act. As explained above, the Service is C. l. baileyi listing. In addition, that governments, individuals, businesses, or assessing the extent and status of C. proposed rule includes revisions to the organizations. An agency may not lycaon, the species native to the regulations governing the management conduct or sponsor, and a person is not northeastern United States; the outcome of the nonessential experimental required to respond to, a collection of of this assessment will determine the population. information unless it displays a need for the Act’s protections. This proposed rule does not apply to currently valid OMB control number. With respect to the request for a the separate listing and protection of the Government-to-Government Northeast wolf recovery plan, red wolf (C. rufus). Furthermore, the Relationship With Tribes development and implementation of a remaining protections of C. l. baileyi recovery plan are not identified as under the Act do not extend to C. l. In accordance with the President’s petitionable actions under the Act. Also, baileyi–dog hybrids. memorandum of April 29, 1994, because these actions do not meet the Government-to-Government Relations definition of a rule or rulemaking, they Required Determinations with Native American Tribal are not petitionable actions under the Clarity of the Rule Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, APA either. However, the outcome of and the Department of the Interior’s our assessment of the extent and status We are required by Executive Orders manual at 512 DM 2, we readily of C. lycaon will determine the need for 12866 and 12988 and by the acknowledge our responsibility to a recovery plan. Presidential Memorandum of June 1, communicate meaningfully with 1998, to write all rules in plain recognized Federal Tribes on a Proposed Determination language. This means that each rule we government-to-government basis. In After a thorough review of all publish must: accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 available information and an evaluation (a) Be logically organized; of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal of the five factors specified in section (b) Use the active voice to address Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as readers directly; Responsibilities, and the Endangered consideration of the definitions of (c) Use clear language rather than Species Act), we readily acknowledge ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered jargon; our responsibilities to work directly species’’ contained in the Act and the (d) Be divided into short sections and with Tribes in developing programs for reasons for delisting as specified in 50 sentences; and healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that CFR 424.11(d), we propose to remove (e) Use lists and tables wherever tribal lands are not subject to the same the current C. lupus entity from the List possible. controls as Federal public lands, to of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife If you feel that we have not met these remain sensitive to Indian culture, and (50 CFR 17.11) and replace it with a requirements, send us comments by one to make information available to Tribes. listing for C. l. baileyi (Mexican wolf) as of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES We intend to coordinate the proposed endangered wherever found. The section. To better help us revise the rule with the affected Tribes in order to currently listed C. lupus entity does not rule, your comments should be as both (1) provide them with a complete represent a valid listable entity under specific as possible. For example, you understanding of the proposed changes, the Act, and C. l. baileyi is in danger of should tell us the names of the sections and (2) to understand their concerns extinction throughout all of its range or paragraphs that are unclearly written, with those changes. We will fully and thus warrants the protections of the which sections or sentences are too consider all of the comments on the Act. long, the sections where you feel lists or proposed rule that are submitted by We recognize recent taxonomic tables would be useful, etc. Tribes and Tribal members during the information indicating that the gray National Environmental Policy Act public comment period and will attempt wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon should be to address those concerns, new data, We determined that an environmental elevated to the full species C. lycaon. and new information where appropriate. However, as stated above, we are not assessment or an environmental impact prepared to make a determination on statement, as defined under the References Cited the conservation status of C. lycaon authority of the National Environmental A complete list of all references cited throughout its range in the United States Policy Act of 1969, need not be in this document is posted on http:// and Canada at this time. prepared in connection with regulations www.regulations.gov at Docket No. adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Effects of the Rule FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073 and available Act. We published a notice outlining upon request from the Arlington, This proposal, if made final, would our reasons for this determination in the Virginia, Headquarters Office (see FOR remove the protections of the Act for the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). current C. lupus listing, by removing (48 FR 49244). Data Quality Act this entity from the List of Endangered Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Threatened Wildlife. In developing this rule we did not This proposal, if made final, would Office of Management and Budget conduct or use a study, experiment, or list C. l. baileyi as an endangered (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, survey requiring peer review under the subspecies. which implement provisions of the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). This proposed rule has no effect on Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. the existing nonessential experimental 3501 et seq.), require that Federal Authors population designation for gray wolves agencies obtain approval from OMB This proposed rule was a in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, before collecting information from the collaborative effort throughout, thus the and Texas. However, as a matter of public. This rule does not contain any primary authors of this rule are the staff procedure, in a separate but concurrent new collections of information that members of the Services Endangered rulemaking, we are also reproposing the require approval by OMB under the Species Program in the Idaho Fish and nonessential experimental population to Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will Wildlife Office, Boise, Idaho; the New ensure appropriate association of the not impose recordkeeping or reporting Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, experimental population with the new requirements on state or local Albuquerque, New Mexico; the Midwest

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35719

Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota; recordkeeping requirements, ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) in the List of the Northeast Regional Office, Hadley, Transportation. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under Mammals by: Massachusetts; the Montana Field Proposed Regulation Promulgation Office, Helena, Montana; the Pacific ■ a. Removing both entries for ‘‘Wolf, Southwest Regional Office, Sacramento, Accordingly, 50 CFR part 17 is gray (Canis lupus)’’; and California; and the Headquarters Office, proposed to be amended as follows: ■ b. Adding two entries for ‘‘Wolf, FOR FURTHER Mexican (Canis lupus baileyi)’’ in Arlington, Virginia (see PART 17—[AMENDED] INFORMATION CONTACT). alphabetic order to read as follows: ■ List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 1. The authority citation for part 17 § 17.11 Endangered and threatened continues to read as follows: wildlife. Endangered and threatened species, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– * * * * * Exports, Imports, Reporting and 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. (h) * * *

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

MAMMALS.

******* Wolf, Mexican ...... Canis lupus baileyi Southwestern Entire, except where E ...... NA NA United States and included in an ex- Mexico. perimental popu- lation as set forth in 17.84(k). Wolf, Mexican ...... Canis lupus baileyi Southwestern U.S.A. (portions of XN ...... NA 17.84(k) United States and AZ and NM)—see Mexico. 17.84(k).

*******

* * * * * delist the gray wolf (Canis lupus). The (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal Dated: May 29, 2013. proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an eRulemaking Portal: http:// Daniel M. Ashe, endangered subspecies and delist the www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– gray wolf species necessitates that we R2–ES–2013–0056, which is the docket Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. revise the nonessential experimental number for this rulemaking. You may [FR Doc. 2013–13982 Filed 6–12–13; 8:45 am] population designation of Mexican submit a comment by clicking on BILLING CODE 4310–55–P wolves in order to correctly associate ‘‘Comment Now!’’ this designation with the properly listed (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR entity. In addition, we are proposing several revisions to the section 10(j) Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013– Fish and Wildlife Service rule. We are seeking comment from the 0056; Division of Policy and Directives public on the proposed revisions and on Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 50 CFR Part 17 additional possible modifications that Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS we may analyze and incorporate into 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056; our final determination. We request that you send comments FXES11130900000C2–134–FF09E32000] only by the methods described above. DATES: RIN 1018–AY46 We will accept comments We will post all comments on http:// received on or before September 11, www.regulations.gov. This generally Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 2013. Comments submitted means that we will post any personal and Plants; Proposed Revision To the electronically using the Federal information you provide us (see the Nonessential Experimental Population eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES Information Requested section below for of the Mexican Wolf section) must be received by 11:59 p.m. more information). To increase our Eastern Time on the closing date. We efficiency in downloading comments, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, must receive requests for public groups providing mass submissions Interior. hearings, in writing, at the address should submit their comments in an ACTION: Proposed rule. shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Excel file. CONTACT by July 29, 2013. We will SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: schedule public hearings on this Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. proposal, if any are requested, and revise the existing nonessential Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico announce the dates, times, and places of experimental population designation of Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 those hearings, as well as how to obtain the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) Osuna Road NE., Albuquerque, NM reasonable accommodations, in the under section 10(j) of the Endangered 87113; by telephone 505–761–4704; or Federal Register and local newspapers Species Act of 1973, as amended. This by facsimile 505–346–2542. If you use a at least 15 days before any such hearing. action is being taken in coordination telecommunications device for the deaf with our proposed rule in today’s ADDRESSES: You may submit written (TDD), call the Federal Information Federal Register to list the Mexican comments by one of the following Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. wolf as an endangered subspecies and methods: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 Jun 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP2.SGM 13JNP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2