Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 63926-63932 [E8-25629]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
63926
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
by the petitioners for this threat
category, the previous discussions are
not repeated here.
The petition notes that, while the fire
regime of the North Coast Range of
Oregon is infrequent, with fires
occurring at intervals of 300 to 400
years, the fires that do occur tend to be
stand-replacing (Agee 1993; ODF 2001).
High-severity fires have a similar impact
on red tree voles as logging by removing
trees and directly impacting populations
(Carey 1991, p. 8). In addition, the
proliferation of even-aged, high-density
single species plantations resulting from
clearcutting may be increasing fire risk
because such areas more effectively
carry fire than uneven-aged stands
(USDA and USDI 1994; DellaSalla et al.
1995; Morrison et al. 2000).
The petitioners assert that small,
isolated populations of the dusky tree
vole place the species at risk of
extirpation because of inbreeding
depression and demographic and
environmental stochasticity (USDA and
USDI 2000), leading to irreversible
population crashes (Lehmkuhl and
Ruggiero 1991, p. 37). Low numbers of
dusky tree vole sites and low abundance
at known sites indicate the species
numbers may be at dangerously low
levels (USDA and USDI 2000, 2003;
Forsman et al. 2004; ONHIC 2004).
Stochastic events that put small
populations at risk of extinction include
variation in birth and death rates,
fluctuations in gender ratio, inbreeding
depression, and random environmental
disturbances such as fire, wind, and
climatic shifts (Gilpin and Soule 1986).
Genetic inbreeding due to small,
isolated populations may already be
occurring as evidenced by the
occurrence of cream-colored and
melanistic tree voles (Swingle 2005).
The petitioners assert that because
dusky tree vole populations are already
isolated, declining populations will not
be rescued through genetic interchange
and population augmentation. In
addition, the petitioners assert that due
to narrow habitat requirements, low
reproductive rates, and low mobility,
dusky tree voles are at an increased risk
of extirpation because they are from
small populations that are especially
vulnerable to anthropogenic and
stochastic events (Maser et al.1981;
Carey 1991; USDA and USDI 2000).
The petition asserts that the dusky
tree vole may be threatened by intrinsic
population factors that make it
especially vulnerable to anthropogenic
and stochastic events. Information in
our files relative to the potential impacts
of stochastic events on small
populations is consistent with this
assertion. For these reasons, we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
conclude that the petitioners have
presented substantial information to
indicate that other natural or manmade
factors may be affecting the continued
existence of the dusky tree vole.
Author
Finding
We have reviewed the petition,
supporting information provided by the
petitioner, and information in our files,
and we evaluated that information to
determine whether the sources cited
support the claims made in the petition.
Based on this review, we find that the
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing one
of the following three entities as
threatened or endangered may be
warranted: (1) The dusky tree vole
subspecies of the red tree vole; (2) the
north Oregon coast DPS of the red tree
vole, whose range corresponds to that of
the dusky tree vole; or (3) the red tree
vole in a significant portion of its range.
This conclusion is based on information
that indicates the species’ continued
existence may be affected by loss and
fragmentation of old-growth forest
habitat from timber harvest,
development, and roads (Factor A);
inadequate protection from threats by
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
other natural or manmade factors such
as increased fire severity, small
population size, and genetic isolation
(Factor E). The petition did not contain
information indicating that Factors B
and C are considered a threat to this
species. As a result of this finding, we
are initiating a status review of the
species, including an evaluation of the
north Oregon coast population of red
tree vole and the red tree vole
throughout its range. At the conclusion
of the status review we will issue a 12month finding, in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to
whether or not the Service believes a
proposal to list the species is warranted.
We have reviewed the available
information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats pose an
emergency. We have determined that
although there are apparent threats to
the species, they do not appear to be of
such a magnitude as to pose an
immediate and irreversible threat to the
species such as to warrant emergency
listing at this time. However, if at any
time we determine that emergency
listing of the dusky tree vole is
warranted, we will seek to initiate an
emergency listing.
Authority
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available, upon request, from
the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The primary author of this notice is
the staff of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 17, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–25574 Filed 10–27–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R6–ES–2008–008; 92220–1113–0000;
ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018–AW37
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designating the Northern
Rocky Mountain Population of Gray
Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment
and Removing This Distinct Population
Segment From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On February 8, 2007, we, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
published a proposed rule to establish a
distinct population segment (DPS) of the
gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern
Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United
States and to remove the gray wolf in
the NRM DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) (72 FR 6106).
On February 27, 2008, we issued a final
rule establishing and delisting the NRM
gray wolf DPS (73 FR 10514). Several
parties filed a lawsuit challenging our
final rule and asking to have it enjoined.
On July 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana enjoined the
Service’s implementation of the final
delisting rule, after concluding that
Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on
merits of their claims. In light of this
decision, we asked the court to vacate
the final rule and remand it to us. On
October 14, 2008, the court issued an
order vacating our February 27, 2008,
final rule (73 FR 10514) and remanding
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
it back to the Service for further
consideration.
We announce the reopening of the
comment period for our February 8,
2007, proposed rule (72 FR 6106). We
now intend to reconsider our 2007
proposed rule and issue a new listing
determination. We seek information,
data, and comments from the public
regarding the 2007 proposal with an
emphasis on new information relevant
to this action, the issues raised by the
Montana District Court (described in
more detail below), and the issues
raised by the September 29, 2008, ruling
of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia with respect to the Western
Great Lakes gray wolf DPS (also
described in more detail below). If you
have previously submitted comments,
please do not resubmit them because we
have already incorporated them in the
public record and will fully consider
them in our final decision.
DATES: We request that comments on
this proposal be submitted by the close
of business on November 28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–
AW37; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 585 Shepard Way,
Helena, MT 59601 or telephone (406)
449–5225, extension 204. Individuals
who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we hereby request data,
comments, new information, or
suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, Tribes, industry,
or any other interested party concerning
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Whether it is appropriate or
necessary to revise our recovery goal
(described below) to clarify that the
genetic exchange called for can be
satisfied through either natural
migration or managed genetic exchange.
(2) What additional management,
protections, and regulatory mechanisms
may be needed to facilitate genetic
exchange (including both natural
migration and managed genetic
exchange) including the actions
outlined in the draft memorandum of
understanding regarding the protection
of genetic diversity of NRM gray wolves
(available online at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov).
(3) What portions of Wyoming need to
be managed as a trophy game area, how
Wyoming should manage wolves in the
trophy game area, and the significance
of all portions of the range in the State
of Wyoming in maintaining the viability
of the NRM DPS.
(4) The adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, including whether
Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms do
or should manage for 15 breeding pairs
and 150 wolves in mid-winter and if
Wyoming’s malleable trophy game area
affects its ability to manage for such
numbers of wolves.
(5) If we determine that Wyoming’s
State law and State wolf management
plan do not constitute adequate
regulatory mechanisms, the area in
northwestern Wyoming that is a
significant portion of the range of the
NRM DPS that should retain its
nonessential experimental population
status under section 10(j) of the Act,
even if we determine the rest of the DPS
should be delisted.
(6) How Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming’s management of take
associated with their defense of
property laws and hunting regulations
affects each State’s commitment and
ability to manage for 15 breeding pairs
and 150 wolves in mid-winter.
(7) Whether and under what authority
the Service may identify and designate
a DPS within a broader pre-existing
listing and determine that this DPS
should be removed from the endangered
species list.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an
address not listed in the ADDRESSES
section. We will not accept anonymous
comments; your comment must include
your first and last name, city, State,
country, and postal (zip) code. Finally,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63927
we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive or
mailed comments that are not
postmarked by the date specified in the
DATES section.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information in
addition to the required items specified
above, such as your street address,
phone number, or e-mail address, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Northern Rocky Mountains DPS
Rulemaking and Litigation—On
February 8, 2007, we proposed to
designate the NRM DPS of the gray wolf
and to delist all or most of the NRM DPS
(72 FR 6106). Specifically, we proposed
to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming, and parts of Washington,
Oregon, and Utah. The proposal noted
that the area in northwestern Wyoming
outside the National Parks (i.e.,
Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton
National Park, and John D. Rockefeller
Memorial Parkway) would only be
delisted in the final rule if the Service
subsequently determined that adequate
State regulatory mechanisms were
developed. If adequate regulatory
mechanisms were not developed, we
were considering a final rule that would
have continued to protect wolves under
the Act and retained their nonessential
experimental status in the significant
portion of the range in northwestern
Wyoming, outside the National Parks,
while removing the Act’s protections in
the remainder of the DPS.
On July 6, 2007, the Service extended
the comment period in order to consider
a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf
management plan and State law
(available online at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov) that we stated,
if implemented, could allow the wolves
in northwestern Wyoming to be
removed from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939).
On November 16, 2007, the Wyoming
Game and Fish Commission
unanimously approved the 2007
Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1).
We then determined this plan provided
adequate regulatory protections to
conserve Wyoming’s portion of a
recovered wolf population into the
foreseeable future (Hall 2007, pp. 1–2).
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
63928
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
On February 27, 2008, we issued a final
rule establishing the NRM gray wolf
DPS and removing the entire DPS from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (73 FR 10514).
On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed a
lawsuit challenging the designation and
delisting of the NRM DPS. The plaintiffs
also moved to preliminarily enjoin the
delisting. On July 18, 2008, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana
granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction and enjoined the
Service’s implementation of the final
delisting rule for the NRM DPS of the
gray wolf. The court stated that we acted
arbitrarily in delisting a wolf population
that lacked evidence of genetic
exchange between subpopulations. The
court also stated that we acted
arbitrarily and capriciously when we
approved Wyoming’s 2007 statute and
wolf management plan because the State
failed to commit to managing for 15
breeding pairs and Wyoming’s 2007
statute allowed the Wyoming Fish and
Wildlife Commission to diminish the
trophy game area if it ‘‘determines the
diminution does not impede the
delisting of gray wolves and will
facilitate Wyoming’s management of
wolves.’’ The court’s preliminary
injunction order (available online at:
https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov)
concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely
to prevail on the merits of their claims.
In light of the district court decision, on
September 22, 2008, we asked the court
to vacate the final rule and remand it to
us. On October 14, 2008, the court
vacated the final delisting rule and
remanded it back to the Service for
further consideration.
Western Great Lakes DPS Rulemaking
and Litigation—Some persons who
commented on our proposed rule
asserted that the Service may not
designate a DPS within a broader preexisting listed entity for the purpose of
delisting the DPS. This issue is also the
subject of a recent decision of the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia, which remanded and vacated
the February 7, 2008, final rule that
established the Western Great Lakes
DPS of gray wolves and determined that
it should be delisted (72 FR 6052). The
court found that the Service had made
that decision based on its interpretation
that the plain meaning of the ESA
authorizes the Service to create and
delist a DPS within an already-listed
entity. The court disagreed, and
concluded that the Act is ambiguous as
to whether the Service has this
authority. The court accordingly
remanded the final rule so that the
Service can provide a reasoned
explanation of how its interpretation is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
consistent with the text, structure,
legislative history, judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives of
the Act (Humane Society of the United
States v. Kempthorne, Civil Action No.
07–0677 (PLF) (D.D.C., Sept. 29. 2008)).
The Service is considering how to
proceed with the Western Great Lakes
gray wolf DPS. In the meantime, it is our
view that the plain language of the Act
does provide the Service with the
flexibility to designate a DPS within a
broader pre-existing listed entity and
then to determine the correct
conservation status of the DPS pursuant
to section 4(a)(1) of the Act (i.e.,
endangered, threatened, or neither),
even though the conservation status of
the broader entity may differ.
Alternatively, the Service has
reasonably interpreted the Act through
the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996) and other actions as authorizing
the Service to designate a DPS within a
broader entity and determine its proper
conservation status, even if that means
that the DPS is delisted.
Given the court rulings and orders
described above, we now intend to issue
a revised listing determination for the
NRM gray wolf DPS to address the
issues noted by the courts and other
new information relevant to this action.
We also will comprehensively address
other issues outlined in the complaint
and a notice of intent to sue. Several of
the most important issues being
reconsidered are discussed below.
Comments are also requested on each of
these issues.
Recent Status and Distribution
Information
In mid-September of each year we
estimate the number of wolves, packs,
and breeding pairs, as well as livestock
depredations and wolves killed as a
result of agency-authorized control.
These counts are preliminary, because
wolf counting conditions are most
accurate in early winter due to snow
cover. Consequently, the estimates given
below should be interpreted cautiously.
The only ‘‘official’’ annual wolf
population statistics are provided in the
interagency annual report, which is
normally available in March each year.
Our annual mid-September wolf
population estimate indicates that the
overall NRM wolf population in 2008
will be about the same as it was in 2007.
We also predict that both livestock
depredations and problem wolf removal
in 2008 will be slightly higher than they
were in 2007.
Our mid-September 2007 estimate
indicated that this time last year there
were approximately 1,544 wolves (394
in Montana; 788 in Idaho; 362 in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Wyoming) in 179 packs (71 in Montana;
75 in Idaho; 33 in Wyoming) with 105
of those classified as breeding pairs (37
in Montana; 41 in Idaho; 27 in
Wyoming). Our mid-September 2007
estimate indicated wolves had killed
112 cattle (48 in Montana; 36 in Idaho;
28 in Wyoming), 185 sheep (19 in
Montana; 150 in Idaho; 16 in Wyoming),
10 dogs (1 in Montana; 7 in Idaho; 2 in
Wyoming), and a horse (in Montana). In
response, 135 depredating wolves (50 in
Montana; 40 in Idaho; 45 in Wyoming)
had been killed.
Our mid-September 2008 estimate
indicated there were approximately
1,463 wolves (360 in Montana; 771 in
Idaho; 332 in Wyoming) in 197 packs
(74 in Montana; 89 in Idaho; 34 in
Wyoming) with 97 of those classified as
breeding pairs (36 in Montana; 39 in
Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). Our midSeptember 2008 estimate indicated
wolves had killed 170 cattle (44 in
Montana; 81 in Idaho; 45 in Wyoming),
244 sheep (39 in Montana; 189 in Idaho;
16 in Wyoming), 10 dogs (in Idaho), and
6 llamas (in Montana). In response, 172
depredating wolves (60 in Montana; 81
in Idaho; 31 in Wyoming) had been
killed.
No unusual wolf dispersal events
were documented in the NRM DPS in
2008. A radio-collared wolf from central
Idaho continues to live in Yellowstone
National Park, but it has not joined an
existing pack, nor did it appear to breed
in 2008. A report of a pack of wolves in
northeastern Utah east of Flaming Gorge
Reservoir (outside the proposed NRM
DPS) was investigated in spring 2008.
The existence of this pack was not
confirmed. A report of a wolf pack with
pups in northeastern Oregon (inside the
proposed NRM DPS) was investigated in
August 2008. The existence of this pack
was not confirmed.
A wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was
discovered near Twisp, Washington, in
July 2008. Their territory is outside the
proposed NRM DPS border. Genetic
analysis indicated the two adults did
not come from the wolf population in
the NRM DPS. Instead, they likely
originated from southcentral British
Columbia. The pack is being monitored
via radio telemetry by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). On August 22, 2008, the
WDFW published a draft State wolf
management plan for public review and
comment. The comment period for this
plan runs through October 27, 2008. The
WDFW anticipates their proposed plan
will be revised and sent to the
Washington Fish and Wildlife
Commission for approval in late 2009.
We are reopening the public comment
period on our 2007 delisting proposal to
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
allow the public to consider and
comment on all new information on the
NRM wolf population and issues
regarding the proposed delisting on this
population including that which is
summarized in this notice.
Genetics Relative to Our Recovery
Criteria
The Service’s current recovery goal
for the NRM gray wolf population is:
Thirty or more breeding pairs (an adult
male and an adult female that raise at
least 2 pups until December 31)
comprising 300+ wolves in a
metapopulation (a population that exists
as partially isolated sets of
subpopulations) with genetic exchange
between subpopulations (USFWS 1994;
Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Step-down
recovery targets require Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming to each maintain at least
10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves by
managing for a safety margin of 15
breeding pairs and 150 wolves in midwinter. The NRM wolf population met
the numeric recovery goal of at least 30
breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves
in mid-winter for the first time in 2000.
By the end of 2008, the NRM wolf
population will have surpassed the
numerical recovery goal for 9
consecutive years.
As stated above, the current recovery
goal also notes the goal of a
metapopulation with genetic exchange
between subpopulations. In its
discussion of this issue, our 1994
environmental impact statement
(Service 1994, appendix 9) said a
recovered NRM wolf population would
be composed of three parts or
subpopulations (Yellowstone, central
Idaho, and northwestern Montana),
which in combination would be called
a metapopulation. Such a
metapopulation structure would depend
on wolves from a healthy subpopulation
to rekindle a neighboring subpopulation
should it experience disruptions from
stochastic events like fire, disease,
human-caused mortality, or reduced
genetic viability (Service 1994,
appendix 9). The 1994 environmental
impact statement (Service 1994,
appendix 9) stated that the need for
ongoing genetic exchange is lessened
where the population is large, not
completely isolated, and diversity is
inherently high due to a large number
of genetically diverse founders; all three
NRM DPS subpopulations meet this
standard.
Currently, genetic diversity
throughout the NRM is very high
(Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1084; Forbes
and Boyd 1997, p. 226; vonHoldt et al.
2007, p. 19). Wolves in northwestern
Montana and both the reintroduced
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
populations are as genetically diverse as
their source populations in Canada;
thus, inadequate genetic diversity is not
a wolf conservation issue in the NRM at
this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p.
1089; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). As a
result, there is currently no need for
management activities designed to
increase genetic diversity anywhere in
the NRM DPS.
The July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana decision
cited vonHoldt et al. (2007), which
concluded ‘‘if the Yellowstone [National
Park] wolf population remains relatively
constant at 170 individuals (estimated
to be Yellowstone [National Park’s]
carrying capacity), the population will
demonstrate substantial inbreeding
effects within 60 years,’’ resulting in an
‘‘increase in juvenile mortality from an
average of 23 to 40%, an effect
equivalent to losing an additional pup
in each litter.’’ The court also cited
previous Service statements that call for
‘‘genetic exchange’’ among recovery
areas. The court further stated that
dispersal of wolves between the Greater
Yellowstone Area and the northwestern
Montana and central Idaho core
recovery areas was ‘‘a precondition to
genetic exchange.’’ The preliminary
injunction order cited our 1994
environmental impact statement
(Service 1994) and vonHoldt et al.
(2007) to support its conclusion.
We question many of the assumptions
that underpin the vonHoldt et al. (2007)
study’s conclusions. First, while the
study found no evidence of genetic
exchange into Yellowstone National
Park (8,987 km2 (3,472 mi2)), the Park is
only a small portion of the Greater
Yellowstone Area (63,700 km2 (24,600
mi2)). Further limiting the study’s
ability to detect genetic exchange among
subpopulations is the fact that most
wolves that disperse to the Greater
Yellowstone Area tend to avoid areas
with existing resident packs or areas
with high wolf densities, such as
Yellowstone National Park. Moreover,
even among the Yellowstone National
Park wolves the study was limited to a
subsample of Park wolves from 1995–
2004 (i.e., the radio collared wolves). It
is important to consider that our ability
to detect genetic exchange within the
NRM population is further limited by
the genetic similarity of the NRM
subpopulations. Specifically, because
both the central Idaho and Greater
Yellowstone Area subpopulations
originate from a common source, only
first generation offspring of a dispersing
wolf can be detected. Additional genetic
analysis of wolves from throughout the
NRM population, including a larger
portion of the Greater Yellowstone Area
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63929
than just Yellowstone National Park, is
ongoing.
Second, the vonHoldt et al. (2007)
prediction of eventual inbreeding in
Yellowstone National Park relies upon
several unrealistic assumptions. One
such assumption limited the wolf
population analysis to Yellowstone
National Park’s (8,987 km2 (3,472 mi2))
carrying capacity of 170 wolves, instead
of the more than 300 wolves likely to be
managed for in the entire Greater
Yellowstone Area (63,700 km2 (24,600
mi2)) by Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
The vonHoldt et al., (2007) predictive
model also capped the population at the
Yellowstone National Park population’s
winter low point, rather than at higher
springtime levels when pups are born.
Springtime levels are sometimes double
the winter low.
It is our current professional judgment
that even in the highly unlikely event
that no new genes enter Yellowstone
National Park or the Greater
Yellowstone Area in the next 100 years,
that wolf population’s currently high
genetic diversity would be slightly
reduced, but not to the point the Greater
Yellowstone Area wolf population
would be threatened. Review of the
scientific literature shows that,
throughout the world, truly isolated
wolf populations that are far smaller
and far less genetically diverse than the
Greater Yellowstone Area population
have persisted for many decades and
even centuries (Fritts and Carbyn 1995,
p. 33; Boitani 2003, pp. 322–23, 330–
335; Liberg 2005, pp.5–6; 73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008). Additionally, in
mate selection, wolves have a strong
tendency to avoid inbreeding by
selecting breeders based on genetic
difference; the vonHoldt et al. (2007)
study proved this in Yellowstone
National Park. Thus, the predictions by
the Vortex model used by vonHoldt et
al. (2007) were overly pessimistic
regarding the potential effect of
theoretical future inbreeding, because it
ignored the strong outbreeding selection
by wolves. Natural wolf mate selection
tendencies show that future dispersers
into a system experiencing some level of
inbreeding would be much more likely
to be selected for breeding and have
their genes incorporated into the inbred
population (Bensch et al., 2006, p. 72;
vonHoldt et al., 2007, p. 1; 73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008). Introduction of just
one or two new genetic lines can save
a severely inbred small wolf population
(Vila et al., 2003, p. 9; Liberg et al.,
2004; Liberg 2005, pp. 5–6; Mills 2007,
pp. 195–196; Fredrickson et al., 2007, p.
2365; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008).
Multiple approaches may be taken to
facilitate genetic exchange between
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
63930
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
subpopulations, including natural
migration or, if necessary, genetic
management (moving individual wolves
or their genes into the affected
population segment). We have never
suggested, nor does the recovery goal
require, that natural migration is the
only approach to address this potential
issue (USFWS 1994, appendix 9).
Furthermore, detection of such natural
genetic exchange is not required by the
recovery goal and would not be
practical to require in routine
monitoring protocols. Therefore, a
revised listing determination may
review the recovery goal and any
inaccurate implication that the recovery
goal requires natural connectivity. This
review could result in a revision of our
recovery goal and a clarification of the
appropriate range of options for
maintaining or increasing genetic
diversity in the NRM wolf population.
In terms of natural migration, the
northwestern Montana and central
Idaho core recovery areas are well
connected to each other, and to wolf
populations in Canada, through regular
dispersals. These subpopulations have
established genetic and demographic
linkages. The Greater Yellowstone Area
is the most isolated core recovery area
within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al.,
2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et al., 2007, p.
19). Radio telemetry data indicate that
about one wolf per year disperses into
the Greater Yellowstone Area from the
other recovery areas. However, natural
connectivity is not and has never been
required to achieve our recovery goal.
Human intervention in maintaining
recovered populations is necessary for
many conservation-reliant species and a
well-accepted practice in dealing with
population concerns (Scott et al., 2005).
The 1994 wolf reintroduction
environmental impact statement
indicated that intensive genetic
management might become necessary if
any of the sub-populations developed
genetic demographic problems (USFWS
1994). The 1994 wolf reintroduction
environmental impact statement went
on to say that other wolf programs rely
upon such agency-managed genetic
exchange and that the approach should
not be viewed negatively (USFWS
1994). An example of successful
managed genetic exchange in the NRM
population was the release of 10 wolf
pups/yearlings translocated from
northwestern Montana to Yellowstone
National Park in the spring of 1997.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
Future managed genetic exchange could
include relocating other wolf age and
sex classes, cross-fostering young pups,
artificial insemination, or other means
of introducing novel wolves or wolf
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) into a
recovery area if it were ever to be
needed.
As we continue to evaluate and
possibly reconsider this portion of our
recovery goal, we request comments on
the role, if any, that natural genetic
exchange should play in maintenance of
the NRM wolf population’s genetic
diversity. Applying specific
management practices in targeted
geographic areas may further encourage
successful natural wolf dispersal and
natural genetic exchange. Some possible
management practices to consider
include: reducing the rate of population
turnover and fostering persistent wolf
packs in all or select core recovery
segments or all or select areas of suitable
habitat (Oakleaf et al., 2006; 72 FR 6106,
February 8, 2007); creating occasional
disruptions of wolf pack structure or
reduced wolf density in select areas of
suitable habitat to create social
vacancies or space for dispersing wolves
to fill; maintaining higher rather than
lower overall wolf numbers in all or
select recovery areas; maintaining more
contiguous and broader wolf
distribution instead of disjunction and
limited breeding pair distribution;
minimizing or precluding humancaused wolf mortality between and
around core recovery segments during
critical wolf dispersal and breeding
periods (December through April); and
reducing the rates of or eliminating
human-caused mortality in core
recovery segments during denning and
pup rearing periods (April through
September).
The current post-delisting wolf
management approach encourages, but
does not require, natural dispersal and
natural genetic exchange between core
recovery areas. Under this approach
some State management practices for
delisted wolves could preclude or
significantly reduce the opportunity for
natural genetic exchange between core
recovery segments. Under the current
post-delisting wolf management
approach, should any genetic problems
materialize, they would be addressed
through the managed genetic exchange
committed to by the States.
Given the recent court ruling, we
intend to consider in our new listing
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determination if additional monitoring
and management of wolf dispersal and
natural genetic exchange between core
recovery areas is necessary. A draft
memorandum of understanding
(available at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov) outlines some
of the strategies that we and the States
might use to further facilitate natural
genetic exchange. We welcome
comments on this draft memorandum of
understanding.
Wyoming’s current regulatory
framework for delisted wolves
minimizes the likelihood of successful
migration through the area designated as
predatory animals by Wyoming statute.
As part of an expanded effort to
facilitate natural genetic exchange, we
also intend to consider whether it
would be appropriate or necessary for
Wyoming’s trophy game area to be
expanded and its predatory control area
decreased. Wolf dispersal patterns
suggest dispersing wolves moving into
the Greater Yellowstone Area from
Idaho or Montana tend to move through
the predatory area. Physical barriers
(such as high-elevation mountain ranges
that are difficult to traverse in winter)
appear to discourage dispersal through
the National Parks’ northern and
western boundaries. Limited social
openings in the National Parks’ wolf
packs also direct dispersing of wolves
from Idaho and Montana toward the
predatory area portions of Wyoming.
Finally, Wyoming’s winter elk feeding
grounds attract and could potentially
hold dispersing wolves in the predatory
area. We believe dispersal is more likely
to lead to genetic exchange if dispersers
have safe passage through the predatory
area. Figure 1 illustrates the current
Wyoming trophy game area and the
suitable habitat in Wyoming (Oakleaf et
al., 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007).
We are accepting comments on the
current and adequate alternative
boundaries of Wyoming’s trophy game
area, the current authority of the State
to reduce the trophy game area, as well
as the significance of all portions of the
range in the State of Wyoming in
maintaining the viability of the NRM
wolf population. Additional information
on significant portion of its range can be
found in the 2007 solicitor’s opinion
(available at: https://www.doi.gov/
solicitor/opinions/M37013.pdf) and in
our 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 6106,
February 8, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Implementation of the draft
memorandum of understanding and
protecting wolves throughout a larger
portion of Wyoming would make it even
more unlikely that managed genetic
exchange would be necessary in the
foreseeable future. However, if genetic
problems ever materialize, they could be
resolved by agency-managed genetic
exchange.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
Both the current post-delisting wolf
management approach and the
expanded effort to facilitate natural
genetic exchange described above allow
for eventual managed genetic exchange
should it become necessary. During our
recent litigation, the plaintiffs
contended that delisting required an allnatural approach to maintaining genetic
diversity. We invite the public to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63931
comment on the potential application of
an all-natural approach versus the
alternative approaches laid out above.
New State Laws, Policies, and
Regulations
Since publication of our 2007
proposed rule, a number of State laws,
policies, and regulations have been
developed that could impact the long-
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
EP28OC08.000</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
63932
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 28, 2008 / Proposed Rules
term viability of the NRM gray wolf
population. Below we discuss each of
these regulatory developments.
Wyoming—The U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana’s preliminary
injunction order cited several examples
of what it perceived as deficiencies in
the adequacy of Wyoming’s regulatory
mechanisms. The court stated that
plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their
claim that Wyoming State law did not
commit the State to maintaining 15
breeding pairs of wolves. We have long
maintained that Wyoming, Montana,
and Idaho must each manage for 15
breeding pairs and 150 wolves in midwinter to ensure the population never
falls below the minimum recovery goal
of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per
State. We are accepting comments on
the ability of Wyoming State law and
their management plan to satisfy this
necessary commitment.
Further, the preliminary injunction
order questioned our approval of a
trophy game area that we estimate as 12
percent of the land area of the State and
70 percent of the suitable habitat
(Oakleaf et al. 2006; 72 FR 6106,
February 8, 2007) and that could be
reduced by the Wyoming Fish and
Wildlife Commission. Wolves are
unlikely to survive in the 88 percent of
Wyoming where they are classified as
predatory animals. Potential expansion
of the predatory animal area could
further limit occupancy in Wyoming.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs
were likely to prevail on their claim that
the Wyoming State law and
management plan were not adequate
regulatory mechanisms. Based on the
concerns expressed by the U.S. District
Court, we also are accepting comments
on the size and ‘‘malleability’’ of the
trophy game area, including whether a
larger or Statewide trophy game area
designation for wolves is necessary.
The court also stated that the State
management regime in regard to control
of wolves in defense of property and
take associated with a hunt presented
the possibility of irreparable harm to the
population. The court also was
concerned about the ‘‘expansive’’ nature
of take authorized Wyoming’s
depredation control law. On March 13,
2008, the Wyoming Game and Fish
Commission adopted regulations
(Wyoming Chapter 21) for the
management and control of gray wolves
designated as trophy game animals.
Wyoming’s hunting season was
designed around an allowable huntercaused mortality in each of four hunting
districts in the trophy game area.
Hunting would end by December 31 or
when 25 wolves had been harvested,
whichever is sooner. This level of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Oct 27, 2008
Jkt 214001
hunter-caused mortality would likely
result in a Wyoming wolf population
outside the National Parks of just under
200 wolves by mid-winter 2008. Wolves
in the National Parks would not be
substantially affected by a regulated
public hunt, as hunting is not allowed
in National Parks and our data
demonstrate that wolves rarely leave the
parks during the time period when the
fall hunting season would occur. As a
result of the court’s July 18, 2008, order,
the delisting was preliminarily
enjoined, thus barring the
implementation of the 2008 hunting
season. We invite public comment on
Wyoming’s management regime in
regard to control of wolves in defense of
property and take associated with a
hunt.
The Wyoming State law, their wolf
management plan, their implementing
regulations (Wyoming Chapter 21), and
other supporting information are
available on our Web site at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov.
Idaho—The court stated that Idaho’s
depredation control law was not likely
to threaten the continued existence of
the wolf in Idaho because that State has
committed to managing for at least 15
breeding pairs. However, the court also
specifically noted that Idaho’s final wolf
hunting regulations set a quota of 428
wolves from all causes of mortality
Statewide with the season set to end
December 31, 2008. Mortality limits also
were set by zone so that once reached,
the hunting season for that zone would
be closed. As implemented, Idaho
included all take in defense of property
in the above total allowable mortality
levels. Mandatory reporting of harvest
or defense of property take is required
within 72 hours. The court’s July 18,
2008, order preliminarily enjoining the
delisting rule prevented implementation
of the 2008 hunting season. Had the
hunting season occurred, this level of
wolf mortality would have likely
resulted in a remaining wolf population
in Idaho of at least 518 wolves by midwinter 2008. We invite public comment
on these potential sources of take and
the adequacy of Idaho’s regulatory
mechanisms. Hunt and defense of
property laws, regulations, and other
background information can be viewed
at: https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov.
Montana—The court stated that
Montana’s depredation control law was
also not likely to threaten the continued
existence of the wolf. Montana’s wolf
hunting regulations would have
established a quota-based system in
which the total hunter harvest within a
hunting district was pre-determined
after taking into account the level and
causes of non-hunting wolf mortality,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reproduction, immigration, and
emigration. Montana was to establish
wolf harvest quotas for each district and
sub-area annually. Up to, but not more
than, 25 percent of the total quota for a
district was to be harvested in
December. The agency recommended,
and the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks Commission adopted, a tentative
Statewide total harvest quota of 75
wolves for the fall 2008 season. This
conservative level of harvest would
likely still result in a Statewide increase
in the total wolf population and the
number of breeding pairs from the
previous year. As a result of the court’s
July 18, 2008, order, the delisting was
preliminarily enjoined, thus barring the
implementation of the 2008 hunting
season. Montana’s commitment to
manage for at least 15 breeding pairs
ensured licensed public hunting would
not occur unless this minimum standard
was satisfied. The Montana defense of
property policy is similar to the
Service’s regulations and policies under
the experimental population regulations
for States with approved post-delisting
wolf management plans. Hunt and
defense of property laws, regulations,
and other background information can
be viewed at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov. We invite
public comment on these potential
sources of take and the adequacy of
Montana’s regulatory mechanisms.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 21, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–25629 Filed 10–27–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
RIN 0648–AV80
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Amendment 30B
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Announcement of availability of
fishery management plan amendment;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 28, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63926-63932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2008-008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AW37
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the
Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct
Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 8, 2007, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), published a proposed rule to establish a distinct population
segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky
Mountains (NRM) of the United States and to remove the gray wolf in the
NRM DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (72 FR 6106). On
February 27, 2008, we issued a final rule establishing and delisting
the NRM gray wolf DPS (73 FR 10514). Several parties filed a lawsuit
challenging our final rule and asking to have it enjoined. On July 18,
2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana enjoined the
Service's implementation of the final delisting rule, after concluding
that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on merits of their claims. In
light of this decision, we asked the court to vacate the final rule and
remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court issued an order
vacating our February 27, 2008, final rule (73 FR 10514) and remanding
[[Page 63927]]
it back to the Service for further consideration.
We announce the reopening of the comment period for our February 8,
2007, proposed rule (72 FR 6106). We now intend to reconsider our 2007
proposed rule and issue a new listing determination. We seek
information, data, and comments from the public regarding the 2007
proposal with an emphasis on new information relevant to this action,
the issues raised by the Montana District Court (described in more
detail below), and the issues raised by the September 29, 2008, ruling
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to
the Western Great Lakes gray wolf DPS (also described in more detail
below). If you have previously submitted comments, please do not
resubmit them because we have already incorporated them in the public
record and will fully consider them in our final decision.
DATES: We request that comments on this proposal be submitted by the
close of business on November 28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AW37; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http:/
/www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 585 Shepard Way,
Helena, MT 59601 or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204.
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the
Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we hereby
request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the
public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party concerning
this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Whether it is appropriate or necessary to revise our recovery
goal (described below) to clarify that the genetic exchange called for
can be satisfied through either natural migration or managed genetic
exchange.
(2) What additional management, protections, and regulatory
mechanisms may be needed to facilitate genetic exchange (including both
natural migration and managed genetic exchange) including the actions
outlined in the draft memorandum of understanding regarding the
protection of genetic diversity of NRM gray wolves (available online
at: https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov).
(3) What portions of Wyoming need to be managed as a trophy game
area, how Wyoming should manage wolves in the trophy game area, and the
significance of all portions of the range in the State of Wyoming in
maintaining the viability of the NRM DPS.
(4) The adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, including whether Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms
do or should manage for 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in mid-winter
and if Wyoming's malleable trophy game area affects its ability to
manage for such numbers of wolves.
(5) If we determine that Wyoming's State law and State wolf
management plan do not constitute adequate regulatory mechanisms, the
area in northwestern Wyoming that is a significant portion of the range
of the NRM DPS that should retain its nonessential experimental
population status under section 10(j) of the Act, even if we determine
the rest of the DPS should be delisted.
(6) How Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming's management of take associated
with their defense of property laws and hunting regulations affects
each State's commitment and ability to manage for 15 breeding pairs and
150 wolves in mid-winter.
(7) Whether and under what authority the Service may identify and
designate a DPS within a broader pre-existing listing and determine
that this DPS should be removed from the endangered species list.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your
comment must include your first and last name, city, State, country,
and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive or mailed comments that are not
postmarked by the date specified in the DATES section.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information in addition to the required items
specified above, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail
address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold
this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that
we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Background
Northern Rocky Mountains DPS Rulemaking and Litigation--On February
8, 2007, we proposed to designate the NRM DPS of the gray wolf and to
delist all or most of the NRM DPS (72 FR 6106). Specifically, we
proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and parts of
Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal noted that the area in
northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks (i.e., Yellowstone
National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller
Memorial Parkway) would only be delisted in the final rule if the
Service subsequently determined that adequate State regulatory
mechanisms were developed. If adequate regulatory mechanisms were not
developed, we were considering a final rule that would have continued
to protect wolves under the Act and retained their nonessential
experimental status in the significant portion of the range in
northwestern Wyoming, outside the National Parks, while removing the
Act's protections in the remainder of the DPS.
On July 6, 2007, the Service extended the comment period in order
to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf management plan and State law
(available online at: https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov) that we stated,
if implemented, could allow the wolves in northwestern Wyoming to be
removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR
36939). On November 16, 2007, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
unanimously approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We
then determined this plan provided adequate regulatory protections to
conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the
foreseeable future (Hall 2007, pp. 1-2).
[[Page 63928]]
On February 27, 2008, we issued a final rule establishing the NRM gray
wolf DPS and removing the entire DPS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514).
On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed a lawsuit challenging the
designation and delisting of the NRM DPS. The plaintiffs also moved to
preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana granted the plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction and enjoined the Service's implementation of the
final delisting rule for the NRM DPS of the gray wolf. The court stated
that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf population that lacked
evidence of genetic exchange between subpopulations. The court also
stated that we acted arbitrarily and capriciously when we approved
Wyoming's 2007 statute and wolf management plan because the State
failed to commit to managing for 15 breeding pairs and Wyoming's 2007
statute allowed the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Commission to diminish
the trophy game area if it ``determines the diminution does not impede
the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's management
of wolves.'' The court's preliminary injunction order (available online
at: https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov) concluded that the Plaintiffs were
likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. In light of the
district court decision, on September 22, 2008, we asked the court to
vacate the final rule and remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the
court vacated the final delisting rule and remanded it back to the
Service for further consideration.
Western Great Lakes DPS Rulemaking and Litigation--Some persons who
commented on our proposed rule asserted that the Service may not
designate a DPS within a broader pre-existing listed entity for the
purpose of delisting the DPS. This issue is also the subject of a
recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, which remanded and vacated the February 7, 2008, final rule
that established the Western Great Lakes DPS of gray wolves and
determined that it should be delisted (72 FR 6052). The court found
that the Service had made that decision based on its interpretation
that the plain meaning of the ESA authorizes the Service to create and
delist a DPS within an already-listed entity. The court disagreed, and
concluded that the Act is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this
authority. The court accordingly remanded the final rule so that the
Service can provide a reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is
consistent with the text, structure, legislative history, judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives of the Act (Humane Society of
the United States v. Kempthorne, Civil Action No. 07-0677 (PLF)
(D.D.C., Sept. 29. 2008)).
The Service is considering how to proceed with the Western Great
Lakes gray wolf DPS. In the meantime, it is our view that the plain
language of the Act does provide the Service with the flexibility to
designate a DPS within a broader pre-existing listed entity and then to
determine the correct conservation status of the DPS pursuant to
section 4(a)(1) of the Act (i.e., endangered, threatened, or neither),
even though the conservation status of the broader entity may differ.
Alternatively, the Service has reasonably interpreted the Act through
the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) and other actions as
authorizing the Service to designate a DPS within a broader entity and
determine its proper conservation status, even if that means that the
DPS is delisted.
Given the court rulings and orders described above, we now intend
to issue a revised listing determination for the NRM gray wolf DPS to
address the issues noted by the courts and other new information
relevant to this action. We also will comprehensively address other
issues outlined in the complaint and a notice of intent to sue. Several
of the most important issues being reconsidered are discussed below.
Comments are also requested on each of these issues.
Recent Status and Distribution Information
In mid-September of each year we estimate the number of wolves,
packs, and breeding pairs, as well as livestock depredations and wolves
killed as a result of agency-authorized control. These counts are
preliminary, because wolf counting conditions are most accurate in
early winter due to snow cover. Consequently, the estimates given below
should be interpreted cautiously. The only ``official'' annual wolf
population statistics are provided in the interagency annual report,
which is normally available in March each year.
Our annual mid-September wolf population estimate indicates that
the overall NRM wolf population in 2008 will be about the same as it
was in 2007. We also predict that both livestock depredations and
problem wolf removal in 2008 will be slightly higher than they were in
2007.
Our mid-September 2007 estimate indicated that this time last year
there were approximately 1,544 wolves (394 in Montana; 788 in Idaho;
362 in Wyoming) in 179 packs (71 in Montana; 75 in Idaho; 33 in
Wyoming) with 105 of those classified as breeding pairs (37 in Montana;
41 in Idaho; 27 in Wyoming). Our mid-September 2007 estimate indicated
wolves had killed 112 cattle (48 in Montana; 36 in Idaho; 28 in
Wyoming), 185 sheep (19 in Montana; 150 in Idaho; 16 in Wyoming), 10
dogs (1 in Montana; 7 in Idaho; 2 in Wyoming), and a horse (in
Montana). In response, 135 depredating wolves (50 in Montana; 40 in
Idaho; 45 in Wyoming) had been killed.
Our mid-September 2008 estimate indicated there were approximately
1,463 wolves (360 in Montana; 771 in Idaho; 332 in Wyoming) in 197
packs (74 in Montana; 89 in Idaho; 34 in Wyoming) with 97 of those
classified as breeding pairs (36 in Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in
Wyoming). Our mid-September 2008 estimate indicated wolves had killed
170 cattle (44 in Montana; 81 in Idaho; 45 in Wyoming), 244 sheep (39
in Montana; 189 in Idaho; 16 in Wyoming), 10 dogs (in Idaho), and 6
llamas (in Montana). In response, 172 depredating wolves (60 in
Montana; 81 in Idaho; 31 in Wyoming) had been killed.
No unusual wolf dispersal events were documented in the NRM DPS in
2008. A radio-collared wolf from central Idaho continues to live in
Yellowstone National Park, but it has not joined an existing pack, nor
did it appear to breed in 2008. A report of a pack of wolves in
northeastern Utah east of Flaming Gorge Reservoir (outside the proposed
NRM DPS) was investigated in spring 2008. The existence of this pack
was not confirmed. A report of a wolf pack with pups in northeastern
Oregon (inside the proposed NRM DPS) was investigated in August 2008.
The existence of this pack was not confirmed.
A wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp,
Washington, in July 2008. Their territory is outside the proposed NRM
DPS border. Genetic analysis indicated the two adults did not come from
the wolf population in the NRM DPS. Instead, they likely originated
from southcentral British Columbia. The pack is being monitored via
radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
On August 22, 2008, the WDFW published a draft State wolf management
plan for public review and comment. The comment period for this plan
runs through October 27, 2008. The WDFW anticipates their proposed plan
will be revised and sent to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
for approval in late 2009.
We are reopening the public comment period on our 2007 delisting
proposal to
[[Page 63929]]
allow the public to consider and comment on all new information on the
NRM wolf population and issues regarding the proposed delisting on this
population including that which is summarized in this notice.
Genetics Relative to Our Recovery Criteria
The Service's current recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf
population is: Thirty or more breeding pairs (an adult male and an
adult female that raise at least 2 pups until December 31) comprising
300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially
isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between
subpopulations (USFWS 1994; Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Step-down recovery
targets require Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to each maintain at least
10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves by managing for a safety margin of 15
breeding pairs and 150 wolves in mid-winter. The NRM wolf population
met the numeric recovery goal of at least 30 breeding pairs and at
least 300 wolves in mid-winter for the first time in 2000. By the end
of 2008, the NRM wolf population will have surpassed the numerical
recovery goal for 9 consecutive years.
As stated above, the current recovery goal also notes the goal of a
metapopulation with genetic exchange between subpopulations. In its
discussion of this issue, our 1994 environmental impact statement
(Service 1994, appendix 9) said a recovered NRM wolf population would
be composed of three parts or subpopulations (Yellowstone, central
Idaho, and northwestern Montana), which in combination would be called
a metapopulation. Such a metapopulation structure would depend on
wolves from a healthy subpopulation to rekindle a neighboring
subpopulation should it experience disruptions from stochastic events
like fire, disease, human-caused mortality, or reduced genetic
viability (Service 1994, appendix 9). The 1994 environmental impact
statement (Service 1994, appendix 9) stated that the need for ongoing
genetic exchange is lessened where the population is large, not
completely isolated, and diversity is inherently high due to a large
number of genetically diverse founders; all three NRM DPS
subpopulations meet this standard.
Currently, genetic diversity throughout the NRM is very high
(Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; vonHoldt
et al. 2007, p. 19). Wolves in northwestern Montana and both the
reintroduced populations are as genetically diverse as their source
populations in Canada; thus, inadequate genetic diversity is not a wolf
conservation issue in the NRM at this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p.
1089; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). As a result, there is currently no
need for management activities designed to increase genetic diversity
anywhere in the NRM DPS.
The July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
decision cited vonHoldt et al. (2007), which concluded ``if the
Yellowstone [National Park] wolf population remains relatively constant
at 170 individuals (estimated to be Yellowstone [National Park's]
carrying capacity), the population will demonstrate substantial
inbreeding effects within 60 years,'' resulting in an ``increase in
juvenile mortality from an average of 23 to 40%, an effect equivalent
to losing an additional pup in each litter.'' The court also cited
previous Service statements that call for ``genetic exchange'' among
recovery areas. The court further stated that dispersal of wolves
between the Greater Yellowstone Area and the northwestern Montana and
central Idaho core recovery areas was ``a precondition to genetic
exchange.'' The preliminary injunction order cited our 1994
environmental impact statement (Service 1994) and vonHoldt et al.
(2007) to support its conclusion.
We question many of the assumptions that underpin the vonHoldt et
al. (2007) study's conclusions. First, while the study found no
evidence of genetic exchange into Yellowstone National Park (8,987
km\2\ (3,472 mi\2\)), the Park is only a small portion of the Greater
Yellowstone Area (63,700 km\2\ (24,600 mi\2\)). Further limiting the
study's ability to detect genetic exchange among subpopulations is the
fact that most wolves that disperse to the Greater Yellowstone Area
tend to avoid areas with existing resident packs or areas with high
wolf densities, such as Yellowstone National Park. Moreover, even among
the Yellowstone National Park wolves the study was limited to a
subsample of Park wolves from 1995-2004 (i.e., the radio collared
wolves). It is important to consider that our ability to detect genetic
exchange within the NRM population is further limited by the genetic
similarity of the NRM subpopulations. Specifically, because both the
central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone Area subpopulations originate
from a common source, only first generation offspring of a dispersing
wolf can be detected. Additional genetic analysis of wolves from
throughout the NRM population, including a larger portion of the
Greater Yellowstone Area than just Yellowstone National Park, is
ongoing.
Second, the vonHoldt et al. (2007) prediction of eventual
inbreeding in Yellowstone National Park relies upon several unrealistic
assumptions. One such assumption limited the wolf population analysis
to Yellowstone National Park's (8,987 km2 (3,472
mi2)) carrying capacity of 170 wolves, instead of the more
than 300 wolves likely to be managed for in the entire Greater
Yellowstone Area (63,700 km2 (24,600 mi2)) by
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The vonHoldt et al., (2007) predictive
model also capped the population at the Yellowstone National Park
population's winter low point, rather than at higher springtime levels
when pups are born. Springtime levels are sometimes double the winter
low.
It is our current professional judgment that even in the highly
unlikely event that no new genes enter Yellowstone National Park or the
Greater Yellowstone Area in the next 100 years, that wolf population's
currently high genetic diversity would be slightly reduced, but not to
the point the Greater Yellowstone Area wolf population would be
threatened. Review of the scientific literature shows that, throughout
the world, truly isolated wolf populations that are far smaller and far
less genetically diverse than the Greater Yellowstone Area population
have persisted for many decades and even centuries (Fritts and Carbyn
1995, p. 33; Boitani 2003, pp. 322-23, 330-335; Liberg 2005, pp.5-6; 73
FR 10514, February 27, 2008). Additionally, in mate selection, wolves
have a strong tendency to avoid inbreeding by selecting breeders based
on genetic difference; the vonHoldt et al. (2007) study proved this in
Yellowstone National Park. Thus, the predictions by the Vortex model
used by vonHoldt et al. (2007) were overly pessimistic regarding the
potential effect of theoretical future inbreeding, because it ignored
the strong outbreeding selection by wolves. Natural wolf mate selection
tendencies show that future dispersers into a system experiencing some
level of inbreeding would be much more likely to be selected for
breeding and have their genes incorporated into the inbred population
(Bensch et al., 2006, p. 72; vonHoldt et al., 2007, p. 1; 73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008). Introduction of just one or two new genetic lines
can save a severely inbred small wolf population (Vila et al., 2003, p.
9; Liberg et al., 2004; Liberg 2005, pp. 5-6; Mills 2007, pp. 195-196;
Fredrickson et al., 2007, p. 2365; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008).
Multiple approaches may be taken to facilitate genetic exchange
between
[[Page 63930]]
subpopulations, including natural migration or, if necessary, genetic
management (moving individual wolves or their genes into the affected
population segment). We have never suggested, nor does the recovery
goal require, that natural migration is the only approach to address
this potential issue (USFWS 1994, appendix 9). Furthermore, detection
of such natural genetic exchange is not required by the recovery goal
and would not be practical to require in routine monitoring protocols.
Therefore, a revised listing determination may review the recovery goal
and any inaccurate implication that the recovery goal requires natural
connectivity. This review could result in a revision of our recovery
goal and a clarification of the appropriate range of options for
maintaining or increasing genetic diversity in the NRM wolf population.
In terms of natural migration, the northwestern Montana and central
Idaho core recovery areas are well connected to each other, and to wolf
populations in Canada, through regular dispersals. These subpopulations
have established genetic and demographic linkages. The Greater
Yellowstone Area is the most isolated core recovery area within the NRM
DPS (Oakleaf et al., 2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et al., 2007, p. 19). Radio
telemetry data indicate that about one wolf per year disperses into the
Greater Yellowstone Area from the other recovery areas. However,
natural connectivity is not and has never been required to achieve our
recovery goal.
Human intervention in maintaining recovered populations is
necessary for many conservation-reliant species and a well-accepted
practice in dealing with population concerns (Scott et al., 2005). The
1994 wolf reintroduction environmental impact statement indicated that
intensive genetic management might become necessary if any of the sub-
populations developed genetic demographic problems (USFWS 1994). The
1994 wolf reintroduction environmental impact statement went on to say
that other wolf programs rely upon such agency-managed genetic exchange
and that the approach should not be viewed negatively (USFWS 1994). An
example of successful managed genetic exchange in the NRM population
was the release of 10 wolf pups/yearlings translocated from
northwestern Montana to Yellowstone National Park in the spring of
1997. Future managed genetic exchange could include relocating other
wolf age and sex classes, cross-fostering young pups, artificial
insemination, or other means of introducing novel wolves or wolf DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid) into a recovery area if it were ever to be
needed.
As we continue to evaluate and possibly reconsider this portion of
our recovery goal, we request comments on the role, if any, that
natural genetic exchange should play in maintenance of the NRM wolf
population's genetic diversity. Applying specific management practices
in targeted geographic areas may further encourage successful natural
wolf dispersal and natural genetic exchange. Some possible management
practices to consider include: reducing the rate of population turnover
and fostering persistent wolf packs in all or select core recovery
segments or all or select areas of suitable habitat (Oakleaf et al.,
2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007); creating occasional disruptions of
wolf pack structure or reduced wolf density in select areas of suitable
habitat to create social vacancies or space for dispersing wolves to
fill; maintaining higher rather than lower overall wolf numbers in all
or select recovery areas; maintaining more contiguous and broader wolf
distribution instead of disjunction and limited breeding pair
distribution; minimizing or precluding human-caused wolf mortality
between and around core recovery segments during critical wolf
dispersal and breeding periods (December through April); and reducing
the rates of or eliminating human-caused mortality in core recovery
segments during denning and pup rearing periods (April through
September).
The current post-delisting wolf management approach encourages, but
does not require, natural dispersal and natural genetic exchange
between core recovery areas. Under this approach some State management
practices for delisted wolves could preclude or significantly reduce
the opportunity for natural genetic exchange between core recovery
segments. Under the current post-delisting wolf management approach,
should any genetic problems materialize, they would be addressed
through the managed genetic exchange committed to by the States.
Given the recent court ruling, we intend to consider in our new
listing determination if additional monitoring and management of wolf
dispersal and natural genetic exchange between core recovery areas is
necessary. A draft memorandum of understanding (available at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov) outlines some of the strategies that we and
the States might use to further facilitate natural genetic exchange. We
welcome comments on this draft memorandum of understanding.
Wyoming's current regulatory framework for delisted wolves
minimizes the likelihood of successful migration through the area
designated as predatory animals by Wyoming statute. As part of an
expanded effort to facilitate natural genetic exchange, we also intend
to consider whether it would be appropriate or necessary for Wyoming's
trophy game area to be expanded and its predatory control area
decreased. Wolf dispersal patterns suggest dispersing wolves moving
into the Greater Yellowstone Area from Idaho or Montana tend to move
through the predatory area. Physical barriers (such as high-elevation
mountain ranges that are difficult to traverse in winter) appear to
discourage dispersal through the National Parks' northern and western
boundaries. Limited social openings in the National Parks' wolf packs
also direct dispersing of wolves from Idaho and Montana toward the
predatory area portions of Wyoming. Finally, Wyoming's winter elk
feeding grounds attract and could potentially hold dispersing wolves in
the predatory area. We believe dispersal is more likely to lead to
genetic exchange if dispersers have safe passage through the predatory
area. Figure 1 illustrates the current Wyoming trophy game area and the
suitable habitat in Wyoming (Oakleaf et al., 2006; 72 FR 6106, February
8, 2007). We are accepting comments on the current and adequate
alternative boundaries of Wyoming's trophy game area, the current
authority of the State to reduce the trophy game area, as well as the
significance of all portions of the range in the State of Wyoming in
maintaining the viability of the NRM wolf population. Additional
information on significant portion of its range can be found in the
2007 solicitor's opinion (available at: https://www.doi.gov/solicitor/
opinions/M37013.pdf) and in our 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 6106,
February 8, 2007).
[[Page 63931]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28OC08.000
Implementation of the draft memorandum of understanding and
protecting wolves throughout a larger portion of Wyoming would make it
even more unlikely that managed genetic exchange would be necessary in
the foreseeable future. However, if genetic problems ever materialize,
they could be resolved by agency-managed genetic exchange.
Both the current post-delisting wolf management approach and the
expanded effort to facilitate natural genetic exchange described above
allow for eventual managed genetic exchange should it become necessary.
During our recent litigation, the plaintiffs contended that delisting
required an all-natural approach to maintaining genetic diversity. We
invite the public to comment on the potential application of an all-
natural approach versus the alternative approaches laid out above.
New State Laws, Policies, and Regulations
Since publication of our 2007 proposed rule, a number of State
laws, policies, and regulations have been developed that could impact
the long-
[[Page 63932]]
term viability of the NRM gray wolf population. Below we discuss each
of these regulatory developments.
Wyoming--The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's
preliminary injunction order cited several examples of what it
perceived as deficiencies in the adequacy of Wyoming's regulatory
mechanisms. The court stated that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on
their claim that Wyoming State law did not commit the State to
maintaining 15 breeding pairs of wolves. We have long maintained that
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho must each manage for 15 breeding pairs and
150 wolves in mid-winter to ensure the population never falls below the
minimum recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State. We
are accepting comments on the ability of Wyoming State law and their
management plan to satisfy this necessary commitment.
Further, the preliminary injunction order questioned our approval
of a trophy game area that we estimate as 12 percent of the land area
of the State and 70 percent of the suitable habitat (Oakleaf et al.
2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007) and that could be reduced by the
Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Commission. Wolves are unlikely to survive in
the 88 percent of Wyoming where they are classified as predatory
animals. Potential expansion of the predatory animal area could further
limit occupancy in Wyoming. The court concluded that the plaintiffs
were likely to prevail on their claim that the Wyoming State law and
management plan were not adequate regulatory mechanisms. Based on the
concerns expressed by the U.S. District Court, we also are accepting
comments on the size and ``malleability'' of the trophy game area,
including whether a larger or Statewide trophy game area designation
for wolves is necessary.
The court also stated that the State management regime in regard to
control of wolves in defense of property and take associated with a
hunt presented the possibility of irreparable harm to the population.
The court also was concerned about the ``expansive'' nature of take
authorized Wyoming's depredation control law. On March 13, 2008, the
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission adopted regulations (Wyoming Chapter
21) for the management and control of gray wolves designated as trophy
game animals.
Wyoming's hunting season was designed around an allowable hunter-
caused mortality in each of four hunting districts in the trophy game
area. Hunting would end by December 31 or when 25 wolves had been
harvested, whichever is sooner. This level of hunter-caused mortality
would likely result in a Wyoming wolf population outside the National
Parks of just under 200 wolves by mid-winter 2008. Wolves in the
National Parks would not be substantially affected by a regulated
public hunt, as hunting is not allowed in National Parks and our data
demonstrate that wolves rarely leave the parks during the time period
when the fall hunting season would occur. As a result of the court's
July 18, 2008, order, the delisting was preliminarily enjoined, thus
barring the implementation of the 2008 hunting season. We invite public
comment on Wyoming's management regime in regard to control of wolves
in defense of property and take associated with a hunt.
The Wyoming State law, their wolf management plan, their
implementing regulations (Wyoming Chapter 21), and other supporting
information are available on our Web site at: https://
westerngraywolf.fws.gov.
Idaho--The court stated that Idaho's depredation control law was
not likely to threaten the continued existence of the wolf in Idaho
because that State has committed to managing for at least 15 breeding
pairs. However, the court also specifically noted that Idaho's final
wolf hunting regulations set a quota of 428 wolves from all causes of
mortality Statewide with the season set to end December 31, 2008.
Mortality limits also were set by zone so that once reached, the
hunting season for that zone would be closed. As implemented, Idaho
included all take in defense of property in the above total allowable
mortality levels. Mandatory reporting of harvest or defense of property
take is required within 72 hours. The court's July 18, 2008, order
preliminarily enjoining the delisting rule prevented implementation of
the 2008 hunting season. Had the hunting season occurred, this level of
wolf mortality would have likely resulted in a remaining wolf
population in Idaho of at least 518 wolves by mid-winter 2008. We
invite public comment on these potential sources of take and the
adequacy of Idaho's regulatory mechanisms. Hunt and defense of property
laws, regulations, and other background information can be viewed at:
https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov.
Montana--The court stated that Montana's depredation control law
was also not likely to threaten the continued existence of the wolf.
Montana's wolf hunting regulations would have established a quota-based
system in which the total hunter harvest within a hunting district was
pre-determined after taking into account the level and causes of non-
hunting wolf mortality, reproduction, immigration, and emigration.
Montana was to establish wolf harvest quotas for each district and sub-
area annually. Up to, but not more than, 25 percent of the total quota
for a district was to be harvested in December. The agency recommended,
and the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission adopted, a
tentative Statewide total harvest quota of 75 wolves for the fall 2008
season. This conservative level of harvest would likely still result in
a Statewide increase in the total wolf population and the number of
breeding pairs from the previous year. As a result of the court's July
18, 2008, order, the delisting was preliminarily enjoined, thus barring
the implementation of the 2008 hunting season. Montana's commitment to
manage for at least 15 breeding pairs ensured licensed public hunting
would not occur unless this minimum standard was satisfied. The Montana
defense of property policy is similar to the Service's regulations and
policies under the experimental population regulations for States with
approved post-delisting wolf management plans. Hunt and defense of
property laws, regulations, and other background information can be
viewed at: https://westerngraywolf.fws.gov. We invite public comment on
these potential sources of take and the adequacy of Montana's
regulatory mechanisms.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 21, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-25629 Filed 10-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
