Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: North American Wolverine

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.
48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12929
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition expeditious progress is being made to
Public Law 104–13. In addition, finding. add or remove qualified species from
therefore, it does not contain any the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
proposed information collection burden SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer Wildlife Service (Service), announce a the Act requires that we treat a petition
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 12-month finding on a petition to list as for which the requested action is found
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of an endangered or threatened species to be warranted but precluded as though
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. under the Endangered Species Act of resubmitted on the date of such finding,
3506(c)(4). 1973, as amended (Act), the population that is, requiring a subsequent finding to
Provisions of the Regulatory of the North American wolverine (Gulo be made within 12 months. We must
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to gulo luscus) that occurs in the publish these 12-month findings in the
this proceeding. contiguous United States. After a review Federal Register.
Members of the public should note of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we have Previous Federal Actions
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter determined that the population of North We received a petition dated August
is no longer subject to Commission American wolverine occurring in the 3, 1994, from the Predator Project (now
consideration or court review, all ex contiguous United States does not named the Predator Conservation
parte contacts are prohibited in constitute a listable entity under the Alliance) and Biodiversity Legal
Commission proceedings, such as this Act. Therefore, we find that the petition Foundation to list the North American
one, which involve channel allotments. to list the North American wolverine wolverine in the contiguous United
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules (Gulo gulo luscus) that occurs in the States as a threatened or endangered
governing permissible ex parte contacts. contiguous United States is not species under the Act and to designate
For information regarding proper warranted for listing. The Service will critical habitat concurrent with listing.
filing procedures for comments, see 47 continue to seek new information on the On April 19, 1995, we published a
CFR 1.415 and 1.420. taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status finding (60 FR 19567) that the petition
of the North American wolverine and did not provide substantial scientific or
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 we will continue to support cooperative commercial information indicating that
Television, Television broadcasting. conservation of wolverines in the listing the North American wolverine in
contiguous United States. the contiguous United States may be
For the reasons discussed in the warranted. We did not make a
preamble, the Federal Communications DATES: This finding was made on March
11, 2008. determination as to whether the
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR contiguous United States population of
part 73 as follows: ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the North American wolverine
the Internet at http://
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST constituted a distinct population
www.regulations.gov. Supporting
SERVICES segment or other listable entity.
documentation we used to prepare this On July 14, 2000, we received another
finding is available for public petition dated July 11, 2000, submitted
1. The authority citation for part 73
inspection, by appointment, during by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation,
continues to read as follows:
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish Predator Conservation Alliance,
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Defenders of Wildlife, Northwest
§ 73.202 [Amended] Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT Ecosystem Alliance, Friends of the
59601; telephone (406) 449–5225. Please Clearwater, and Superior Wilderness
2. Section 73.622(i), the DTV Table of submit any new information, materials,
Allotments under California, is Action Network, to list the North
comments, or questions concerning this American wolverine within the
amended by substituting channel 35 for finding to the above street address.
channel 45. contiguous United States as a threatened
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or endangered species under the Act
Federal Communications Commission. Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, U.S. and to designate critical habitat for the
Clay C. Pendarvis, Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana species concurrent with the listing.
Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Field Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use On October 21, 2003, we published a
Bureau. a telecommunications device for the 90-day finding that the petition to list
[FR Doc. E8–4909 Filed 3–10–08; 8:45 am] deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information the North American wolverine in the
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. contiguous United States did not
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: present substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
Background listing as threatened or endangered may
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 be warranted (68 FR 60112). We did not
Fish and Wildlife Service U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for determine whether the contiguous
any petition containing substantial United States population of the North
50 CFR Part 17 scientific and commercial information American wolverine constituted a
that listing may be warranted, we make distinct population segment (or other
[FWS–R6–2008–0029; 1111 FY07 MO–B2] a finding within 12 months of the date listable entity), because sufficient
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of receipt of the petition on whether the information was not available at the
petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, time.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a

Petition To List the North American (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but that On September 29, 2006, as a result of
Wolverine as Endangered or immediate proposal of a regulation a complaint filed by Defenders of
Threatened implementing the petitioned action is Wildlife and others alleging we used the
precluded by other pending proposals to wrong standards to assess the wolverine
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, determine whether species are petition, the U.S. District Court,
Interior. threatened or endangered, and Montana District, ruled that our 90-day
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM 11MRP1
12930 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules
petition finding was in error and 579; Banci 1994, pp. 111–113). resorb or spontaneously abort litters
ordered us to make a 12-month finding Wolverines have an excellent sense of when food availability is so low as to
for the wolverine (Defenders of Wildlife smell that enables them to find food prevent successful completion of
et al. v. Norton and Hogan (9:05cv99 beneath deep snow (Hornocker and pregnancy or lactation to the time of
DWM; D. MT)). On April 6, 2007, the Hash 1981, p. 1297). Wolverines weaning (Magoun 1985, pp. 30–31;
Court approved an unopposed motion to consume large ungulate carrion when Copeland 1996, p. 43; Persson et al.
extend the deadline for this 12-month available. The most important food 2006, p. 77; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70).
finding to February 28, 2008, so that we items in wolverine diets are large Supplemental feeding of females
would be able to use information ungulate species, followed by small increases reproductive potential
published in the September 2007 animals such as beaver, marmots, (Persson 2005, p. 1456) and success at
edition of the Journal of Wildlife ground squirrels, rabbits, hares, raising kits to the time of weaning, and
Management containing a special porcupine, voles, ground nesting birds, indicates that food availability is likely
section on North American wolverine and insects (Banci 1994, p. 112; to be a limiting factor for wolverine
biology. On June 5, 2007, we published Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, populations. In one study of known-
a notice initiating a status review for the pp. 498–499). The large ungulates in aged females, none reproduced at age 2;
wolverine (72 FR 31048). wolverine diets are assumed to be the 3 of 10 first reproduced at age 3; and 2
result of scavenging, although did not reproduce until age 4. The
Species Biology
wolverines are able to occasionally kill average age at first reproduction for this
The currently accepted taxonomy large ungulates in deep snow conditions study was 3.4 years (rather than 2 years
classifies wolverines worldwide as a when ungulate mobility is impaired for the carcass studies above) (Persson et
single species, Gulo gulo. The wolverine (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, al. 2006, pp. 76–77). From these studies,
has a holarctic distribution. Old and pp. 498–499). Large ungulates comprise we conclude that, by age three, nearly
New World wolverines are divided into a larger proportion of the diet in winter all female wolverines become pregnant
separate Old World and New World than in snow-free seasons (Banci 1994, every year, but energetic constraints
subspecies. Wolverines of Eurasia (Old Table 5). The availability of large resulting from low food availability
World) comprise the subspecies G. g. ungulate herds is of paramount result in loss of pregnancy about every
gulo. Wolverines in the contiguous importance for wolverines and the other year. It is likely that, in many
United States are a part of the New availability of large mammals underlies places in the range of wolverines in the
World or North American (United States the wolverine’s distribution, survival, lower 48 States, it takes 2 years of
and Canada) subspecies, G. g. luscus and reproductive success (Banci 1994, foraging for a female to store enough
(Kurten and Rausch 1959, p. 19; p. 111). energy to successfully reproduce
Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. Wolverines have delayed onset of (Persson 2005, p. 1456; Inman et al.
1). The two subspecies differ in minor reproduction in females and small litter 2007c, Table 3).
aspects of skull morphology (Kurten and sizes. Studies of wolverine carcasses Breeding generally occurs from late
Rausch 1959, p. 19), but significant from trapper harvest have provided spring to early fall (Magoun and
differences in ecology, behavior, some useful data on reproductive Valkenburg 1983, p. 175; Mead et al.
demography, or natural history do not parameters (Rausch and Pearson 1972, 1991, pp. 808–811). Females undergo
appear to exist. Most authors, when pp. 253–267; Liskop et al. 1981, pp. delayed implantation until the
discussing these aspects of wolverine 472–476; Banci and Harestad 1988, pp. following winter to spring, when active
biology, refer to New and Old World 266–268). These carcass studies indicate gestation lasts from 30 to 40 days
wolverines interchangeably (e.g., that a large number of female (Rausch and Pearson 1972, pp. 254–
Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, wolverines (40 percent) are apparently 257). Litters are born between February
entire). We consider the Old and New capable of giving birth at 2 years old, and April and contain 1 to 5 kits, with
World subspecies to be similar and become pregnant most years, and an average in North America of between
reliable enough to refer to information produce average litter sizes of 1 and 2 kits (rather than 3.4 kits, as
on Old World wolverines (G. g. gulo) as approximately 3.4 kits. However, indicated by carcass studies) (Magoun
a surrogate for the North American carcass studies are subject to 1985, pp. 28–31; Copeland 1996, p. 36;
wolverine in this finding when such overestimating frequency of Krebs and Lewis 1999, p. 698; Copeland
information is not available specifically reproduction and the number of kits per and Yates 2006, pp. 32–36; Inman et al.
for the North American subspecies. litter, and underestimating the age at 2007c, p. 68).
The wolverine is the largest terrestrial first reproduction because embryos are Several aspects related to
member of the family Mustelidae. Adult often resorbed by females that are reproductive denning are significant to
males weigh 12 to 18 kilograms (kg) (26 energetically unable to complete wolverine reproductive success (Banci
to 40 pounds (lb)), and adult females pregnancy (Persson et al. 2006, p. 75; 1994, p. 110; Magoun and Copeland
weigh 8 to 12 kg (17 to 26 lb) (Banci Inman et al. 2007c, p. 70). These aborted 1998, p. 1319; Inman et al. 2007c, p. 71).
1994, p. 99). The wolverine resembles a pregnancies result in corpora lutea Female wolverines use two kinds of
small bear with a bushy tail. It has a (uterine scarring) in the female dens for reproduction. Females use
broad, rounded head; short, rounded reproductive tract, leading to the natal (birthing) dens to give birth and
ears; and small eyes. Each foot has five erroneous conclusion that a female had raise kits early postpartum, and in some
toes with curved, semi-retractile claws reproduced at an early age and that litter cases females may raise kits to weaning
used for digging and climbing (Banci sizes are relatively large. in the natal den. However, in most
1994, p. 99). Field studies using radio telemetry are situations prior to weaning, females may
Wolverines are opportunistic feeders better able to determine the actual age move kits to one or multiple alternative
and consume a variety of foods at first reproduction and the actual den sites, which are referred to as
depending on availability. They number of kits successfully raised to maternal dens. The female then raises
primarily scavenge carrion, but also weaning. Based on these studies, her kits to weaning in the maternal den.
prey on small animals and birds, and eat average age at first reproduction is likely The movement of kits from natal to
fruits, berries, and insects (Hornocker more than 3 years (Inman et al. 2007c, maternal dens may be a response by the
and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Hash 1987, p. p. 70). Pregnant females commonly female to den disturbance, better food
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12931
availability in the new location, Habitat and Home Range wolverines naturally occur in low
predation risk, or deteriorating den In North America, wolverines occur densities that average about one
conditions in the natal den (Magoun within a wide variety of arctic, sub- wolverine per 150 km2 (58 mi2)
and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316–1319). arctic and alpine habitats, primarily (Hornocker and Hash 1981, pp. 1292–
Female wolverines use natal dens that boreal forests, tundra, and western 1295; Hash 1987, p. 578; Copeland
mountains throughout Alaska and 1996, pp. 31–32; Copeland and Yates
are excavated in snow. Persistent, stable
Canada; however, the southern portion 2006, p. 27; Inman et al. 2007a, p. 10;
snow greater than 1.5 meters (m) (5 feet
of their range extends into the Squires et al. 2007, p. 2218).
(ft)) deep appears to be a requirement
for natal denning, presumably because it contiguous United States, including Wolverine Status in Canada and Alaska
provides security for offspring and Washington, Idaho, Montana, and The bulk of the range of North
buffers cold winter temperatures Wyoming (Wilson 1982, p. 644; Hash American wolverines is found in
(Pulliainen 1968, p. 342; Copeland 1987, p. 576; Banci 1994, p. 102, Canada and Alaska. Wolverines inhabit
1996, pp. 92–97; Magoun and Copeland Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995, p. alpine tundra, boreal forest, and arctic
1998, pp. 1317–1318; Banci 1994, pp. 499; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2152). In the habitats in western Canada and Alaska
109–110; Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 71–72). contiguous United States, wolverines (Slough 2007, p. 78). Wolverines in
Female wolverines go to great lengths to are restricted to high-elevation habitats Canada have been divided into two
find secure den sites, suggesting that in the Rocky Mountains and North populations for management by the
Cascades containing the arctic and sub- Canadian government: an eastern
predation is a concern (Banci 1994, p.
arctic conditions they require. population in Labrador and Quebec; and
107). Natal dens consist of tunnels that Home ranges of wolverines are large,
contain well-used runways and bed a western population that extends from
but vary greatly depending on Ontario to the Pacific coast, and north
sites, and that may naturally incorporate availability of food, gender, age, and
shrubs, rocks, and downed logs as part to the Arctic Ocean. The eastern
differences in habitat. The availability population is currently listed as
of their structure (Magoun and and distribution of food is likely the
Copeland 1998, pp. 1315–1316; Inman endangered under the Species At Risk
primary factor in determining wolverine Act in Canada, and the western
et al. 2007c, pp. 71–72). In Idaho, natal movements and home range size population is designated as a species of
den sites occur above 2,500 m (8,200 ft) (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1298; special concern (COSEWIC 2003, p. 8).
on rocky sites, such as north-facing Banci 1994, pp. 117–118). Wolverines The current status of wolverines in
boulder talus or subalpine cirques in travel long distances over rough terrain eastern Canada is uncertain. Wolverines
forest openings (Magoun and Copeland and deep snow, and adult males have not been confirmed to occur in
1994, pp. 1315–1316). In Montana, natal generally cover greater distances than Quebec since 1978 (Fortin et al. 2005, p.
dens occur above 2,400 m (7,874 ft) and females (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 4). Historical evidence of wolverine
are located on north aspects in 1298; Banci 1994, pp. 117–118). Home presence in eastern Canada is also
avalanche debris, typically in alpine ranges of adult wolverines are suspect because no evidence exists to
habitats near timberline (Inman et al. approximately 100 square kilometers show that wolverine pelts attributed to
2007c, pp. 71–72). (km2) to over 900 km2 (38.5 square miles Quebec or Labrador actually came from
Dens (natal and maternal) are (mi2) to 348 mi2) (Banci 1994, p. 117). that region; possibly animals were
typically used from early February Average home ranges of resident adult trapped elsewhere and the pelts were
through late April or early May females in central Idaho are 384 km2 shipped through the eastern provinces
(Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun and (148 mi2), and average home ranges of (COSEWIC 2003, p. 20). Wolverines in
Copeland 1998, pp. 1314–1317; Inman resident adult males are 1,522 km2 (588 eastern Canada may currently exist in
et al. 2007b, pp. 55–59). Occupation of mi2) (Copeland 1996, p. 50). Wolverines an extremely low-density population, or
in Glacier National Park have average may be extirpated. Wolverines in
natal dens is variable, ranging from
male home ranges of 496 km2 (193 mi2) eastern Canada, both historically and
approximately 9 to 65 days depending
and female home ranges of 141 km2 (55 currently, could represent migrants from
on whether or not the female wolverine
mi2) (Copeland and Yates 2006, p. 25). western populations that never became
perceives the need to move her kits
Wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone resident animals (COSEWIC 2003, pp.
(Magoun and Copeland 1998, pp. 1316–
Area have average adult male home 20–21). The government of Canada has
1317). Females may use multiple ranges of 797 km2 (311 mi2) and average completed a recovery plan for the
secondary (maternal) dens (Pulliainen adult female home ranges of 329 km2 eastern population with the goal of
1968, p. 343; Myrberget 1968, p. 115), or (128 mi2) (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 4). establishing a self-sustaining population
use of maternal dens may be minimal Home ranges for carnivores of similar through reintroduction and protection
(Inman et al. 2007c, p. 69). Timing of body size are smaller than wolverine (Fortin et al. 2005, p. 16).
den abandonment is related to home ranges at their southern range Wolverines in western Canada and
accumulation of water in dens (snow terminus. Canada lynx in the United Alaska inhabit a variety of habitats from
melt), the maturation of offspring, States Rocky Mountains average 122 sea level to high elevations in
disturbance, and geographic location km2 (47 mi2) (Aubry et al. 2000, pp. mountains (Slough 2007, pp. 77–78). In
(Myrberget 1968, p. 115; Magoun 1985, 383–384), and coyote home ranges Canada, they occur in Ontario,
p. 73). Post-weaning dens are called extend from 2.5 to 15 km2 (1 to 5.8 mi2) Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta,
rendezvous sites. These dens may be (Chronert 2007, p. 2). British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest
used through early July. Females leave Wolverine home ranges at the Territories, and Nunavut (Slough 2007,
their kits at rendezvous sites while southern terminus of the current range pp. 77–78). Since European
foraging, and return periodically to are large for mammals of the size of colonization, a generally recognized
provide food for the kits. These sites are wolverines, and may indicate that range contraction has taken place in
characterized by natural (unexcavated) wolverines have high energetic boreal Ontario and the aspen parklands
cavities formed by large boulders, requirements and at the same time of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta
downed logs (avalanche debris), and occupy relatively unproductive niches (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20–21; Slough
snow (Inman et al. 2007c, pp. 55–56). (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 11). In addition, 2007, p. 77). This range contraction
occurred concurrently with a reduction have been reduced in numbers or approach when dealing with
in wolverine records for the Great Lakes geographic range in Alaska. extralimital records (i.e., records from
region in the lower 48 States (Aubry et outside of established, reproducing
Wolverine Status in the Contiguous
al. 2007, pp. 2155–2156). Causes of populations). Aubry et al. (2007, p.
United States
these changes are uncertain, but may be 2155) concluded that these records
related to increased harvest, habitat The delineation of the historical and represent individuals dispersing from
modification, or climate change present distribution of wolverine is natal ranges that often end up in
(COSEWIC 2003, pp. 20–21; Aubry et al. inherently difficult for several reasons. habitats that cannot support wolverines,
2007, pp. 2155–2156; Slough 2007, pp. Wolverines tend to live in remote and and their use in determining the
77–78). Analysis supports climate inhospitable places away from human potential range of wolverine can
change as a contributing factor to populations. Wolverines naturally occur overestimate the area that can actually
declines in wolverine populations in at low densities and are rarely and be used by wolverines for home ranges
southern Ontario, because snow unpredictably encountered where they and breeding.
conditions necessary to support do occur. Wolverines often move long Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2147–2148)
wolverines do not currently exist in the distances in short periods of time when divided records into ‘‘historical’’
Great Lakes region of the lower 48 dispersing from natal ranges (Aubry et (recorded prior to 1961), ‘‘recent’’
States, and are marginal in southern al. 2007, p. 2147), making it difficult to (recorded between 1961 and 1994), and
Ontario (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2154). distinguish with confidence between ‘‘current’’ (recorded after 1994).
Wolverines occurred historically on occurrence records that represent Historical records occurred before
Vancouver Island and have been given established populations and those that systematic surveys and encompass the
status as a separate subspecies by some represent short-term occupancy without time during which wolverine numbers
(Hall 1981, p. 109). The Vancouver the potential for establishment of home and distribution were hypothesized to
Island population is now regarded as ranges and reproduction. These natural be at their lowest, in the first half of the
possibly extirpated; no sightings have attributes of wolverines make it difficult 1900s (Wright and Thompson 1935;
occurred since 1992 (COSEWIC 2003, p. to determine their present range, or Grinnell et al. 1937; Allen 1942; Newby
18). trends in range expansion or contraction and Wright 1955, all as cited in Aubry
Wolverines in western Canada and that may have occurred in the past. et al. 2007, p. 2148). The recent time
Alaska appear to persist where habitat Therefore, we must be cautious when interval covers a hypothesized
and climate conditions are favorable trying to determine where past population expansion and rebound from
(COSEWIC 2003, pp. 13–21; Aubry et al. wolverine populations occurred, and an earlier low (Aubry et al. 2007, pp.
2007, pp. 2152–2155; Slough 2007, p. where application of conservation 2148–2149). Current records are
79). Throughout this area, wolverines actions may be possible in the future. considered by Aubry et al. (2007, p.
are managed by regulated harvest at the Aubry et al. (2007, entire) represents 2148) to be a reliable depiction of where
Province and State level. Population the best available science on the populations occur now.
estimates for Canada and Alaska are wolverine’s geographic range in the
approximate because no wolverine contiguous United States. This study Wolverine Distribution in the
surveys have taken place at the State or (2007, pp. 2147–2148) used verifiable Contiguous United States
national scale. However, the population and documented records from museum Using data from Aubrey et al. 2007,
in western Canada includes an collections, literature sources, and State we assessed the historical, recent, and
estimated 15,089 to 18,967 individuals, and Federal institutions to trace changes current distribution data for each of six
based on population densities and in geographic distribution of wolverines geographical regions to determine the
occupied area (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22). in the historic record. Aubry et al.’s likelihood of the presence of historical
The number of wolverines in Alaska is (2007) focus on verifiable and populations (rather than extralimital
unknown, but they appear to exist at documented records corrected past dispersers). Table 1 illustrates wolverine
naturally low densities in suitable overly broad approaches to wolverine numbers in the six geographic areas
habitats throughout Alaska (Alaska range mapping (Nowak 1973, p. 22; Hall assessed by Aubry et al. (2007, Table 1).
Department of Fish and Game 2004, pp. 1981, p. 1009; Wilson 1982, p. 644; More detail on wolverine distribution
1–359). We have no information to Hash 1987, p. 576) that used a more over time is included in the text that
indicate that wolverine populations inclusive but potentially misleading follows.
TABLE 1.—VERIFIABLE AND DOCUMENTED RECORDS OF WOLVERINE OCCURRENCE IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES BY REGION AND STATE
[Reproduced from Aubrey et al. 2007, p. 2151]
Historical records Recent records Current Most recent

records
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Region and State verifiable
1800s 1901–1910 1911–1920 1921–1930 1931–1940 1941–1950 1951–1960 1961–1970 1971–1980 1981–1994 record
1995–2005
Pacific Coast Mountains:

Washington .................................. 17 3 7 0 0 1 1 10 3 4 7 2003
Oregon ......................................... 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 1992
California ...................................... 11 7 9 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1922
Rocky Mountains:
17:20 Mar 10, 2008

Idaho ............................................ 6 5 5 2 0 3 4 5 5 a 31 b 16 2005
Montana ....................................... 6 1 1 0 4 9 39 14 c 121 d 149 e 187 2005
Wyoming ...................................... 10 6 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 f 12 2005
Utah ............................................. 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1921
Jkt 214001
Nevada ........................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1972
Colorado ...................................... 22 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1919
New Mexico ................................. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1860
Central Great Plains:
PO 00000
North Dakota ............................... 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
South Dakota ............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1962
Nebraska ..................................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1887
Great Lakes:
Frm 00033
Minnesota .................................... 6 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1899
Wisconsin .................................... 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 1800s
Michigan ...................................... 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1868

Upper Midwest:
Fmt 4702
Iowa ............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1960
Indiana ......................................... 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
Ohio ............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1943
Northeast:
Sfmt 4702
Pennsylvania ............................... 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
New York ..................................... 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1811
New Hampshire ........................... 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
Vermont ....................................... 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
Maine ........................................... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None
a Includes 16 initial capture locations obtained from 1992 to 1994 during a radiotelemetry study.
b Includes 3 initial capture locations obtained in 1995 during a radiotelemetry study and 4 initial capture locations obtained from 2003 to 2005 during a radiotelemetry study.
c Includes 94 harvest records from 1974 to 1980 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and 24 wolverines that were radiocollared by Hornocker and Hash (1981) in northwestern MT from 1972
to 1977.
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
d Includes 146 harvest records from 1981 to 1994 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.
e Includes 115 harvest records from 1995 to 2004 compiled by the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and 49 initial capture locations obtained from 2002 to 2005 during radiotelemetry studies.
f Includes 9 initial capture locations obtained from 1998 to 2005 during telemetry studies.
g Jackson (1954) found 2 wolverine specimens in a cave in southwestern WI in 1920 that he estimated had been in the deposit for > 50 years.
11MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules
12933
Northeast and Upper Midwest. The and mappable records for this region, small numbers, indicating a population
low number of records and the scattered along with the suggestion of population persists in this area. Records from
nature of their distribution suggest that centers or strongholds, suggests that British Columbia, Canada indicate that
wolverines were likely to have been wolverines existed in reproducing the North Cascades population may be
occasional transients to the area and not populations throughout much of the connected with, and possibly dependent
present as a reproducing population Rocky Mountains during the historical on, the larger Canadian population for
after 1800. interval. During the recent interval, the viability over the long term.
Great Lakes. The low number of lack of records for Colorado and Utah
verifiable records in this area of Summary of Wolverine Distribution
suggest that the southern Rocky Patterns in the Contiguous United
relatively high human population Mountain population of wolverines was
density (compared with, for example, States
extirpated by the middle 1900s,
the Rocky Mountains) suggests that concurrent with widespread systematic Historical wolverine records were
wolverines did not exist in this area as predator control by government found across the northern tier of the
a viable population after 1900. Widely agencies and livestock interests. The lower 48 States with peninsular
scattered records generally before 1900, northern Rocky Mountain population extensions south into the southern
with an occasional record after that (north of Wyoming) was reduced to Rockies and the Sierra Nevada (Aubry et
year, suggest that if a reproducing historic lows during the early 1900s, al. 2007, p. 2152).
population existed in the Great Lakes, it and then increased dramatically in the Currently, wolverines appear to be
predated 1900, and that post-1900 second half of the 1900s as predator distributed in two regions in the lower
records represent dispersal from a control efforts subsided and trapping 48 States: the North Cascades in
receding Canadian population. regulations became more restrictive Washington (and possibly Oregon), and
Wolverine distribution in Ontario, (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2151). This the northern Rocky Mountains in Idaho,
Canada appears to have receded north increase may indicate that the Montana, and Wyoming. Wolverines
from the Great Lakes region beginning population rebounded from historic were extirpated in historical times from
in the 1800s, and currently wolverines lows in this period, but we cannot rule the Sierra Nevada and the southern
occupy only the northern portion of the out that the apparent rebound is an Rocky Mountains. We conclude that the
province, a distance of over 650 km (404 artifact of improved monitoring of current range of the species in the
mi) from the U.S. border (COSEWIC wolverine trapping by government contiguous United States includes the
2003, p. 9). The pattern of declining agencies. Wolverine records from 1995 North Cascades Mountains and the
numbers of records for the Great Lakes to 2005 show that wolverine northern Rocky Mountains.
region illustrated in Aubry et al. (2007, We also conclude that wolverines
populations currently exist in the
p. 2152) is consistent with what would likely either did not exist as established
northern Rocky Mountains. Ongoing
be expected if those records were of populations or were extirpated prior to
legal trapping in Montana removes an
dispersing individuals from a Canadian settlement and the compilation of
average of 10.5 individuals from this
population that receded progressively historical records in the Great Lakes
population each year (Montana
farther north into Canada after 1900. region. The widely scattered records
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Central Great Plains. The lack of from this region are consistent with
2007, p. 2). During all time periods,
verifiable and mappable records from dispersing individuals from a Canadian
populations of wolverines in British
the Great Plains States leaves little population that receded north early in
Columbia and Alberta may have been a
evidence on which to determine if the 1800s. We cannot rule out the
source of surplus wolverines during
reproducing populations of wolverines possibility that wolverines existed as
population lows (COSEWIC 2003, pp.
ever inhabited this area. Thirty-five of established populations prior to the
36 records from North Dakota are from 18–19).
onset of trapping in this area, but we
the journals of a single fur trader, and Pacific Coast. Historically, records have no evidence that they did.
it is not clear that the records represent from Washington, Oregon, and No evidence in the historical records
actual collection localities or localities California clearly coalesced around two suggests that wolverines were ever
where trades or shipments occurred population centers in the North present as established populations in
(Aubry et al. 2007, entire). The habitat Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. the Great Plains, Midwest, or Northeast.
relationships of wolverines include the Records from these areas are separated
by a lack of historic records in southern Habitat Relationships and Wolverine
Hudsonian life zone, subarctic, and
Oregon and northern California, Distribution in the Contiguous United
tundra with persistent spring snow, all
indicating that the distribution of States
features that the Central Great Plains
lack and lacked throughout the historic wolverines in this area is best Aubry et al. (2007, pp. 2152–2156)
period (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2151– represented by two disjunct populations compared several broad-scale habitat
2152). Therefore, it is unlikely that these rather than a continuous peninsular types to historic, recent, and current
records represent established wolverine extension from Canada. This conclusion wolverine records to investigate
individuals or populations, or that this is supported by genetic data indicating correlations in habitat use and
area contained wolverine habitat. that the Sierra Nevada and North determine what habitat types might best
Rocky Mountains. Five Rocky Cascades wolverines were separated for predict wolverine occurrence. Spring
Mountains States (Idaho, Montana, at least 2,000 years prior to extirpation snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the
Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah) as a of the Sierra Nevada population best overall predictor of wolverine
region contain numerous wolverine (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2174). One occurrence. Snow cover during the
records over all time intervals. Sierra Nevada record exists from after denning period is essential for
Mappable records appear to coalesce 1930, indicating that this population successful wolverine reproduction
around several areas that may have been was extirpated in the first half of the rangewide (Hatler 1989, p. iv; Magoun
population centers, such as central 1900s concurrent with widespread and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et
Colorado, the Greater Yellowstone Area, systematic predator control programs. al. 2007c, pp. 71–72; Persson 2007, p.
and northern Idaho/northwestern Records from the North Cascades 1). Wolverine dens tend to be in areas
Montana. The large number of verifiable continue into present times in relatively of high structural diversity such as logs
and boulders with deep snow (Magoun induced extirpation, and where Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
and Copeland 1998, p. 1317; Inman et reestablishment of populations is (DPS)
al. 2007c, pp. 71–72; Persson 2007, possible given current habitat
entire). Reproductive females dig deep conditions and management (the Sierra Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we
snow tunnels to reach the protective Nevada mountains in California and must determine whether any species is
structure of logs and boulders where southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado); an endangered species or a threatened
they produce offspring. This behavior species because of any of the five threat
and (3) areas where historical presence
presumably protects the vulnerable kits factors identified in the Act. Section
of wolverines in reproducing and
from predation by large carnivores, 3(16) of the Act defines ‘‘species’’ to
potentially self-sustaining populations
including other wolverines (Pulliainen include ‘‘any subspecies of fish or
is doubtful, and where the current wildlife or plants, and any distinct
1968, p. 342; Zyryanov 1989, pp. 3–12),
habitat conditions preclude the population segment of any species of
but may also have physiological benefits
for kits by buffering them from extreme establishment of populations in the vertebrate fish or wildlife which
cold, wind, and desiccation (Pullianen foreseeable future (Great Plains, interbreeds when mature’’ (16 U.S.C.
1968, p. 342; Bjärvall et al. 1978, p. 23). Midwest, Great Lakes, and Northeast). 1532 (16)). To interpret and implement
All of the areas in the lower 48 States Further, on the basis of the historic and the distinct population segment portion
for which good evidence of persistent current records and distribution of of the definition of a species under the
wolverine populations exists (i.e., suitable habitat, we consider the current Act and Congressional guidance, the
Cascades, Sierra Nevada, northern and range of wolverines to include suitable Service and the National Marine
southern Rockies) contain large and habitat in the North Cascades of Fisheries Service (now the National
well-distributed areas with deep snow Washington and Oregon, and northern Oceanic and Atmospheric
cover that persists through the Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Wyoming, Administration-Fisheries) published, on
wolverine denning period (Brock et al. and Montana. February 7, 1996, an interagency Policy
2007, pp. 36–53; Aubry et al. 2007, p. Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
2154). The Great Plains, Great Lakes, Wolverine Population Estimate for the
Vertebrate Population Segments under
Midwest, and Northeast lack the spring Contiguous United States the Act (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The
snow conditions thought to be required policy allows for more refined
Current population level and trends
by wolverines for successful application of the Act that better reflects
reproduction (Aubry et al. 2007, p. remain unknown because no systematic
population census exists over the entire the conservation needs of the taxon
2154). This finding supports the being considered, and avoids the
exclusion of the Great Plains, Great current range of the wolverine in the
inclusion of entities that may not
Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast from the lower 48 States. However, we can
warrant protection under the Act.
current range of wolverines. Whether estimate the potential carrying capacity
wolverines once existed as established of a population in a given region by Under our DPS Policy, three elements
populations in any of these regions is using available data on population are considered in a decision regarding
unknown, but the consistent lack of density, extent of habitat, and wolverine the status of a possible DPS as
deep spring snow in these regions distribution. Using the projections of endangered or threatened under the Act.
appears to currently preclude the wolverine habitat found in Brock et al. These are applied similarly for
wolverine’s presence as a reproducing (2007, pp. 36–53), Montana, Idaho, and additions to the Lists of Endangered and
population. Threatened Wildlife and Plants,
Wyoming could potentially support
Large areas of habitat with reclassification, and removal from the
between 499 and 655 individual
characteristics suitable for wolverines Lists. They are: (1) Discreteness of the
wolverines (Inman 2007a, entire). This
still occur in the southern Rocky population segment in relation to the
range is almost certainly an remainder of the taxon; (2) the
Mountains and Sierra Nevada where overestimate of actual wolverine
wolverines have been extirpated (Aubry significance of the population segment
numbers because it assumes that all to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3)
et al. 2007, p. 2154; Brock et al. 2007,
suitable habitat is currently occupied, the population segment’s conservation
p. 26). The occurrence data suggest that
wolverine extirpations in these areas which is not the case (Murphy et al. status in relation to the Act’s standards
were coincidental with systematic 2007, p. 2). Therefore, we consider the for listing (i.e., whether the population
predator eradication efforts in the early lower range estimate of about 500 segment is, when treated as if it were a
1900s, which have been discontinued wolverines from Inman (2007a, entire) species, endangered or threatened).
for many years. Wolverines failed to to be a reasonable estimate of the Discreteness refers to the isolation of a
recolonize these areas since the current wolverine population in the population from other members of the
cessation of eradication programs, by northern Rocky Mountains. The three species, and we evaluate this based on
the mid-20th century, of widespread northern Rocky Mountain States specific criteria. If a population segment
predator control efforts. This may be the provide the bulk of currently occupied is considered discrete, we must consider
result of the long dispersal distance habitat in the contiguous United States, whether the discrete segment is
between these areas and extant with the only additional known ‘‘significant’’ to the taxon to which it
populations. occupied area being the North Cascades belongs by using the best available
We conclude that areas of wolverine mountain range in Washington State. scientific information. If we determine
historical occurrence can be placed in The size of the North Cascades that a population segment is discrete
one of three categories: (1) Areas where population is unknown, but is likely to and significant, we then evaluate it for
wolverines are extant as reproducing endangered or threatened status based
be much smaller than the northern

and potentially self-sustaining Rocky Mountain population due to the on the Act’s standards. The DPS
populations (North Cascades, northern small size of the occupied area (Aubry evaluation in this finding concerns the
Rocky Mountains); (2) areas where segment of the wolverine species
et al. 2007, Fig. 4) and is unlikely to
wolverines historically existed as occurring within the contiguous United
increase the estimated population
reproducing and potentially self- States, including the northern Rocky
significantly.
sustaining populations prior to human- Mountains and the North Cascades.
Analysis for Discreteness the inadequacy of existing regulatory of wolverine habitat in the contiguous
Under our DPS Policy, a population mechanisms. In order to demonstrate United States that results in smaller,
segment of a vertebrate species may be that a population is discrete based on isolated, ‘‘sky island’’ patches separated
considered discrete if it satisfies either international governmental boundaries, by unsuitable habitats. These three
one of the following conditions: (1) It is it is not enough that there are factors are explained in more detail
differences in control of exploitation, below; in addition, we summarize how
markedly separated from other
management of habitat, conservation they relate to section 4(a)(1)(D) of the
populations of the same taxon as a
status, or regulatory mechanisms across Act.
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors the international boundary; the Small Total Population Size
(quantitative measures of genetic or differences must be significant and
relate to inadequate regulatory The total population sizes for
morphological discontinuity may wolverines in Canada and Alaska, and
provide evidence of this separation); or mechanisms.. Following is our
assessment of the U.S. population and the contiguous United States, differ by
(2) it is delimited by international more than an order of magnitude. As
governmental boundaries within which wolverines in the rest of North America
in terms of differences in control of explained in the ‘‘Wolverine Population
differences in control of exploitation, Estimate for the Contiguous United
management of habitat, conservation exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, and regulatory States’’ section above, the contiguous
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist U.S. population likely numbers
that are significant in light of section mechanisms.
approximately 500 adult individuals
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (see ‘‘International Differences in Management of Habitat (Inman 2007a, entire). This total
Border Issues’’ section below for a Wolverine habitat in North America population is divided into smaller sub-
discussion of the standard set by section occurs in arctic, sub-arctic, and alpine populations inhabiting semi-isolated
4(a)(1)(D)). Below is our discussion of habitats, and typically in areas remote habitat fragments in major mountain
the wolverine population within the from human presence and development. ranges (Aubry et al. 2007, Figs. 2b, 4).
contiguous 48 United States relative to In the contiguous United States, The population in western Canada is
the discreteness criterion of the DPS wolverines are restricted to high- much larger—estimated at 15,089 to
policy. elevation habitats in the Rocky 18,967 individuals (COSEWIC 2003, p.
Markedly Separated From Other Mountains and North Cascades 22). Wolverine population size in
Populations of the Taxon containing the arctic and sub-arctic Alaska is unknown; however, the
conditions that they require (Wilson average annual harvest consistently
The population of the North exceeds 500 individuals, and the
1982, p. 644; Hash 1987, p. 576; Banci
American wolverine addressed in the population does not appear to be in
1994, p. 102, Pasitschniak-Arts and
petition, and that we have evaluated for decline based on trapper reports and the
Lariviere 1995, p. 499; Aubry et al.
consideration as a DPS, incorporates assessments of State wildlife managers
2007, p. 2152). Wolverine habitat is
wolverine populations south of the (ADF&G 2004, entire). If the population
generally characterized by the absence
international border with Canada, is truly not declining, it is likely to
of human presence and development
inclusive of the States of Idaho, number over 8,000 individuals,
(Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1299;
Montana, Washington, and Wyoming calculated using demographic data in
Banci 1994, p 114; Landa et al. 1998, p.
(hereafter referred to as the U.S. Lofroth and Ott (2007, pp. 2196–2198),
448; Rowland et al. 2003 p. 101;
population). The U.S. population is and assuming sustainable annual
Copeland 1996, pp. 124–127; Krebs et
connected to wolverine populations in harvest of 6 percent (if 500 represents 6
al. 2007, pp. 2187–2190). In both the
Canada and is likely dependent on them percent of the population, total
contiguous United States and Canada,
to some degree for maintaining genetic population equals 8,333). Wolverine
little habitat management occurs in
diversity. Therefore, the U.S. population populations number 2,089 to 3,567 in
areas frequented by wolverines.
of the North American wolverine does British Columbia and 1,500 to 2,000 in
Therefore, we find that there are no
not meet the markedly separated Alberta (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22), the two
significant differences in management of
criterion of the DPS Policy. provinces immediately adjacent to the
habitat for wolverines that relate to the
International Border Issues contiguous U.S. population. Small
status of the species between the
populations, such as the contiguous
A population segment of a vertebrate contiguous United States and Canada.
U.S. population, face higher extinction
species may also be considered discrete Differences in Conservation Status risk than large ones such as the Canada
if it is delimited by international and Alaska population (Pimm et al.
governmental boundaries within which Biological Status
1988, p. 762).
differences in control of exploitation, Throughout its current range in
management of habitat, conservation Canada and Alaska, wolverines exist in Effective Population Size
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist well-distributed, interconnected, large Population ecologists use the concept
that are significant in light of section populations. Conversely, wolverines in of a population’s ‘‘effective’’ size as a
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1)(D) the contiguous United States appear to measure of the proportion of the actual
of the Act is the factor concerning the exist in small, fragmented, and semi- population that contributes to future
adequacy of existing regulatory isolated populations that put them at generations (for a review of effective
mechanisms in the Act’s ‘‘5-factor’’ greater risk of being lost due to population size, see Schwartz et al.
analysis for determining whether a catastrophic or stochastic events than 1998, entire). Effective population size
species is threatened or endangered. In those populations to the north in may be less than actual population size
assessing a population for discreteness Canada and Alaska. These risks result if the population has any of the
based on delimitation by international from three main factors: (1) Small total following characteristics: (1) Unequal
governmental boundaries, we focus population size, (2) effective population sex ratio, (2) individuals have a
specifically on whether the factors size below that needed to maintain disproportionate probability of
named above are significantly different genetic diversity and demographic contributing offspring to the next
between the two countries because of stability, and (3) the fragmented nature generation, (3) population size
fluctuates over time, and (4) generations drift and loss of genetic diversity depression or stochastic demographic
overlap such that individuals may (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 206). effects (Frankham 1995, p. 795). The
reproduce in more than one generation. Genetic studies have highlighted the small effective population size in the
Effective population size is important essential role that genetic exchange contiguous United States contrasts with
because it determines rates of loss of plays in maintaining genetic diversity in the situation in Canada and Alaska
genetic variation, fixation of deleterious small wolverine populations. Genetic where wolverines are relatively
alleles, and the rate of inbreeding. drift has occurred in the remaining abundant and exist in habitats with a
Populations with small effective populations in the contiguous United high level of connectivity (COSEWIC
population sizes show reductions in States where wolverines contain four of 2003, p. 8; Slough 2007, p. 78). Due to
population growth rates and increases nine haplotypes found in Canadian the lack of inbreeding reported for these
in extinction probabilities (Leberg 1990, populations (Kyle and Strobeck 2001, p. populations, it is likely that effective
p. 194; Jimenez et al. 1994, pp. 272–273; 343; Cegelski et al. 2003, pp. 2914–2915; population sizes are much larger than in
Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360; Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208; Schwartz et the contiguous United States. Although
Saccheri et al. 1998, p. 492; Reed and al. 2007, p. 2176). The reduced number these differences in biological
Bryant 2000, p. 11; Schwartz and Mills of haplotypes indicates not only that conservation status between the United
2005, p. 419; Hogg et al. 2006, pp. 1495, genetic drift is occurring, but also that States and Canadian wolverine
1498; Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. there is some level of genetic separation; populations exist, they are not
338–342). Franklin (1980, as cited in if these populations were freely significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D).
Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 359) interbreeding, they would share more
haplotypes (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 205). Habitat Availability and Connectivity
proposed an empirically based rule
suggesting that the short-term effective The reduction of haplotypes is likely a Wolverine habitat in the contiguous
population size should not be less than result of the fragmented nature of United States consists of small, isolated
50, and the long-term effective wolverine habitat in the United States ‘‘islands’’ of high-elevation, alpine
population size should not be less than and is consistent with an emerging habitats containing sufficient depth of
500 (for appropriate use of this rule and pattern of reduced genetic variation at snow during the denning period,
its limitations, see Allendorf and the southern edge of the range separated from each other by low
Luikart 2007, pp. 359–360). There are documented in a suite of boreal forest valleys of unsuitable habitats (Copeland
two main ways to estimate the effective carnivores (Schwartz et al. 2007, p. 2007, Map 1). The large distances
2177). As stated previously, the low between suitable wolverine habitats
population size of populations:
effective population size and result in wolverines existing in an
demographic and genetic.
accompanying reduction in genetic archipelago of semi-isolated, suitable
Demographically-based methods
diversity is a concern because habitats near mountain tops,
incorporate life history parameters, such
populations with low genetic diversity surrounded by a sea of unsuitable
as unequal sex ratios, fluctuations in
are more vulnerable to extinction. habitats. Wolverines occupy habitat in a
population size over time, and variance
No effective population size estimate high-elevation band from 2,100 m to
in reproductive success, into abundance
exists for populations in Canada or 2,600 m (6,888 ft to 8,528 ft) in the
and demographic models of a species.
Alaska. However, none of the Canadian mountains of the lower 48 States. The
Genetically-based methods use multi-
or Alaskan populations tested show intervening valleys in this area range
locus genetic data to estimate an from 975 m to 1,500 m (3,198 ft to 4,920
signs of genetic drift or inbreeding (Kyle
effective population size (Tallmon et al. ft), and are unsuitable for long-term
and Strobeck 2001, p. 343; Cegelski et
2004, p. 979; Waples 2006, pp. 171–178; wolverine habitat because they do not
al. 2006, p. 209), and all Canadian and
Tallmon et al. 2007, entire). Alaskan populations contain higher have the snow conditions or other
Effective population for wolverines in genetic variation than the U.S. northern habitat features required by wolverines
the Rocky Mountains averaged 39 Rocky Mountain populations (Kyle and (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2151–2153).
(Schwartz 2007, entire). This effective Strobeck 2001, p. 341). In addition, The low population densities and
population size is exceptionally low because of the large and contiguous reduced genetic diversity of wolverines
(Schwartz 2007, entire), and is below nature of the populations (based on in the contiguous United States means
what is required for short-term habitat contiguity and genetic similarity, that, to avoid further inbreeding or local
maintenance of genetic diversity. see ‘‘Habitat Availability and extirpation due to demographic
The concern with the low effective Connectivity’’ below) (Kyle and stochasticity, regular exchange of
population size is highlighted by recent Strobeck 2002, p. 1146; Cegelski et al. individual wolverines between islands
research determining that at least 400 2006, p. 209), and the relatively high of habitat must occur. Intermountain
breeding pairs would be necessary to genetic diversity in Canada and Alaska, valleys are increasingly the sites of
sustain the long-term genetic viability of we conclude that the effective human residential and commercial
the contiguous U.S. wolverine population size is large enough to not be developments and transportation
population (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 197). a cause for conservation concern. This corridors, and represent semi-permeable
However, the entire population is information indicates that the barriers to wolverines. Although
estimated to consist of only 500 populations in Alaska and Canada are crossings of valleys, primarily by males
individuals (Inman 2007a, entire), with less vulnerable to extinction pressures (e.g., Packila et al. 2007, Fig. 2, 3), have
a substantial number of them being associated with a low effective been documented, these crossings are
nonbreeding subadults. Furthermore, population size. not common, and movements within
the contiguous U.S. population appears The small effective population size in valleys occur less frequently than
to be split into at least five smaller the contiguous U.S. wolverine movements in suitable wolverine
subpopulations (North Cascades, population has led to inbreeding and habitats (Packila et al. 2007, p. 110).
Crazybelts, Idaho, Greater Yellowstone consequent loss of genetic diversity Wolverine populations in the
Area, and northern Montana) which are (Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 208). Over time, Canadian Rockies also exist on habitat
semi-isolated from each other, meaning if the current effective population size islands, but the islands are much larger
that genetic exchange does not occur remains stable, the population will be at (Copeland 2007, p. 24) and host larger
frequently enough to prevent genetic risk of extinction due to inbreeding populations so that exchange of
individuals is likely to be less critical State regulates the species relative to its Krebs 2007, pp. 2164–2165; Lofroth and
for short-term maintenance of genetic existing populations. In Washington, the Ott 2007, p. 2193; Petersen 1997, pp. 4–
diversity and demographic stability. wolverine is listed as State Endangered 5).
Farther north into Canada and Alaska, (State of Washington 2007, p.3); Idaho
the climate becomes progressively and Wyoming designate it as a protected Summary of Differences in
colder and persistent spring snow and nongame species (State of Idaho 2006, p. Conservation Status
Hudsonian/arctic/sub-arctic habitat 9; State of Wyoming 1996, pp. 151–154); As described above, the wolverine has
associations occur progressively lower and in Montana it is a regulated a range of legal statuses under State
on mountain slopes, until near the furbearer (State of Montana 2007, p. 2). regulations in the United States and
Arctic Circle where these conditions are Oregon, while currently not considered Canadian Provincial designations. The
found at sea level. Wolverines track to have any individuals other than differences in legal conservation status
these latitudinal and elevation gradients possible unsuccessful dispersers, has a conveyed by the States and Provinces
by inhabiting progressively lower closed season on trapping of wolverines are mixed in each country, but do not
elevations in northern Canada and (State of Oregon 2006, p. 2). appear significantly different from each
Alaska until valley bottom habitats The Canadian government has listed
become suitable habitat and wolverines other. Some differences exist in terms of
its eastern population of wolverine in biological conservation status related to
exist over large expanses of contiguous Quebec and Labrador, where it may be
habitat in well-connected populations small and effective population sizes,
extirpated due to trapping and hunting, and habitat availability and
(COSEWIC 2003, pp. 7–8). In the far and declining caribou herds, as
north of Canada, wolverine habitat connectivity. When evaluating whether
Endangered under the Species at Risk these differences are significant enough
extends into low-elevation valleys and Act (SARA) (www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca).
the vast expanses of low-elevation to use the international boundary under
Because wolverines in this area appear the discreteness criterion, our policy
boreal forest and tundra. Although these to have been extirpated since the early
differences in biological conservation directs that these differences must be
1900s, we do not consider this area to significant in light of 4(a)(1)(D) of the
status between the United States and be in the wolverine’s current range, and
Canadian wolverine populations exist, Act (61 FR 4725). We have concluded
thus its status is not relevant to the that the differences in biological
they are not significant in light of question of whether significant
section 4(a)(1)(D). conservation status between the United
differences in status exist between
In the contiguous United States, States and Canadian wolverine
Canada and the contiguous 48 United
wolverines must cross unsuitable populations are not significant in light
States. The Western population of
habitats to achieve connectivity among of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because
wolverine occurs in eight Canadian
subpopulations, which is required to these differences appear to be a result of
Provinces, two of which (British
avert further genetic drift and continued the relatively small and patchy
Columbia and Alberta) are contiguous to
loss of genetic diversity (Cegelski et al. distribution of wolverine habitat at the
the lower 48 United States. This
2006, p. 208; Copeland 2007, entire; southern terminus of its range in the
population in Canada has no status
Brock et al. 2007, pp. 36–53). The highly contiguous United States rather than as
under SARA, but has a designation of
fragmented nature of the habitat in the a result of inadequate regulatory
Special Concern (Vulnerable) under the
contiguous United States contributes to mechanisms. Therefore, we determine
Committee on the Status of Endangered
the low effective population size for that the contiguous United States
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (http://
wolverines in this area by dividing the population of wolverine is not discrete
www.speciActtrisk.gc.ca). British
population among semi-isolated due to differences in conservation
Columbia and Alberta have Provincial
subpopulations, making the continued status.
persistence of the population precarious species conservation lists, which are
relative to the Canadian population. priority-setting tools for establishing Differences in Control of Exploitation
Canadian habitats are generally baseline ranks and conservation and Regulatory Mechanisms
contiguous blocks that have few or no activities (Province of British Columbia
2002, p. 1). Both Provinces include the Contiguous U.S. populations are
impediments to demographic or genetic
wolverine on their provincial ‘‘blue largely not harvested, with the
connectivity. The fragmented nature
list,’’ indicating that it may be at risk exception being an average of 10.5
and distribution of wolverine habitat in
the lower United States results in a (Petersen 1997, p. 1), except on wolverines taken a year in Montana. In
contiguous U.S. population that is more Vancouver Island where the wolverine Canada and Alaska, harvest is
vulnerable to extirpation because of lack is possibly extirpated and is ‘‘red listed’’ widespread within the current range.
of connectivity between subpopulations, (threatened, endangered, or candidate; Although we do not have
which contributes to inbreeding and not harvested) (Lofroth and Ott 2007, p. comprehensive numbers for the annual
reduces the chances of recolonization of 2193; Province of British Columbia wolverine harvest in Canada, we have
habitat patches after local extinction. 2002, p. 2). estimated a total annual harvest of 719
Although these differences in biological Because British Columbia and Alberta animals (see Table 2) based on the best
conservation status between the United are contiguous to a larger, and currently information available to us. The
States and Canadian wolverine more robust, portion of the wolverine’s numbers below are likely
populations exist, they are not range in northwestern Canada, underestimates because they are based
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D). documented declines in wolverine on reported harvests, which in Canadian
populations in the southern portions of territories likely accounts for only one-
Legal Status Conveyed by National, both Provinces have not raised the fifth to one-third of the total harvest
State and Provincial Governments status of the species to a level of because of unreported harvest by local
The United States currently confers concern that would result in its communities (Melchoir et al. 1987 as
no Federal status on the wolverine. Each consideration under SARA (Lofroth and cited in Banci 1994, p. 101).
TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL WOLVERINE HARVEST IN CANADA

Estimated
Province or territory annual Source
harvest
British Columbia ....................................................... 175 Lofroth and Ott, 2007, pp. 2196–2197.
Alberta ...................................................................... 37 Province of Alberta 2006, p. 14.
Saskatchewan .......................................................... 10 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.
Manitoba ................................................................... 48 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.
Ontario ...................................................................... 8 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.
Yukon ....................................................................... 150 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.
Northwest Territories ................................................ 209 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.*
Nunavut .................................................................... 82 COSEWIC 2003, Table 1.∧
Total .................................................................. 719

*Corrected to adjust for majority being unreported in pelt production statistics.
∧ Corrected using Dumond and Krizan 2002 as cited in COSEWIC 2003 p. 17.
Based on these harvest numbers and Management Program, which means it is allowing trapping or hunting of
a minimum population estimate of regulated regionally in consultation wolverine. In Alaska, an average of 500
15,089 (COSEWIC 2003, p. 22), we with local trappers. No quotas are wolverines are harvested per year from
conservatively estimate that harvest in established, but reporting and a population of unknown size (assuming
Canada is a minimum of 4.7 percent of inspection of carcasses is required in a 6 percent harvest rate, the population
the population annually. Human-caused most regions of the Province. The would be approximately 8,000
mortality of wolverines is likely trapping season is open for 3 to 4 individuals). In Canada, an average of
additive to natural mortality due to the months, from November 1 through 719 wolverines are harvested per year
low reproductive rate and relatively January or February, depending on the (4.7 percent of a population of
long life expectancy of wolverines region (Province of British Columbia approximately 15,000; see table 2).
(Krebs et al. 2004, p. 499; Lofroth and 2007, pp. 90–96). Approximately 175 We conclude that differences in
Ott 2007, pp. 2197–2198; Squires et al. wolverines are harvested each year control of exploitation and regulatory
2007, pp. 2218–2219). under this system (out of a total mechanisms between the contiguous
An estimated 15,089 to 18,967 estimated population of 3,532), equating United States and Canada are not
wolverines occur in Canada where to a harvest of 5 percent (Lofroth and significantly different. When evaluating
suitable habitat is plentiful (COSEWIC Ott 2007, pp. 2196–2197). However, as whether differences are significant
2003, pp. 14–22). Because of this stated above, in Canada, due to local enough to use the international
abundance of habitat, protection and use, a significant portion of the harvest boundary under the discreteness
intensive management are not necessary may go unreported. criterion, our policy directs that these
to conserve wolverines in western The Canadian Province of Alberta has differences must be significant in light
Canada. This situation contrasts with regulated wolverine trapping since of 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 Federal
the situation in the contiguous United 1989. An average of 37 animals per year Register 4725). We conclude that the
States, where habitat is fragmented and is harvested within the Province differences in control of exploitation
limited to higher elevations over (Province of Alberta 2006, p. 14). between the United States and Canadian
portions of four States (Washington, Trapping seasons are established for Fur wolverine populations are not
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). Management Zones (FMZs) within the significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)
Of the four lower 48 States where the Province and run for 3 months, from of the Act because in both countries
wolverine currently persists, trapping November 1 to January 31. Quotas are exploitation appears to be adequately
and hunting of the species is prohibited designated in 6 FMZs, and establish an regulated according to what the overall
in all except Montana where the bulk of annual trap limit of 1 wolverine per population can sustain. This conclusion
the species resides. Montana trapping trapper in each Wildlife Management is supported by the fact that wolverine
and hunting regulations define the Unit (Province of Alberta 2006, p. 8). populations appear to be able to sustain
wolverine as a furbearer, and establish Two additional FMZs, that comprise a the current rate of mortality due to
a 2.5-month season for both hunting and large area of southeastern Alberta, are trapping and hunting (approximately 6
trapping that runs from December 1 to closed to trapping (Province of Alberta percent in Alaska, 4.7 percent
February 15. A quota of 1 animal per 2006, pp. 8, 11, 14); however, these throughout western Canada, and 2.1
person, up to a total of 12 wolverines areas are outside the species’ normal percent in the contiguous United
per season across all Wolverine range (Petersen 1997, p. 5) and, States). Therefore, we determine that the
Management Units is established; the although they are adjacent to the United contiguous United States population of
quota limits the number of wolverines States, are not adjacent to wolverine wolverine is not discrete due to
that may be taken in each of three populations in the United States. differences in control of exploitation.
Management Units so that take of The regulation of exploitation of
animals is distributed across drainages wolverines is mixed within its current Summary for Discreteness
(State of Montana 2007, pp. 2–3, 5, 8). range in the contiguous United States, The international boundary between
Across the border from the U.S. Alaska, and Canada. Controls on the Canada and the United States currently
wolverine population, the Canadian exploitation of wolverine exist in the leads to some differences in the control
Province of British Columbia defines the contiguous United States, with an of exploitation and conservation status
wolverine as a commercial furbearer, average of 10.5 wolverine taken in of the wolverine. However, we find that
and assigns it a Regulated Harvest status Montana (2.1 percent of the estimated these differences between Canada and
as a Class 2 Species under its Fur U.S. population of 500), the only State the contiguous United States do not
result in significant differences in light to the species are essentially uniform to the genetic diversity of the species.
of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act because throughout its range, no portion is likely The loss of genetically based diversity
they are not the result of inadequate to warrant further consideration. may substantially reduce the ability of
regulatory mechanisms that place the Moreover, if any concentration of the species to respond and adapt to
U.S. population at risk. Therefore, we threats applies only to portions of the future environmental changes. A
have determined that the U.S. portion of range that are unimportant to the peripheral population may contribute
the range does not meet the discreteness conservation of the species, such meaningfully to representation if there
criteria in our DPS Policy (61 FR 4725). portions will not warrant further is evidence that it provides genetic
The Service finds that the existing consideration. diversity due to its location on the
data do not indicate that North If we identify any portions that margin of the species’ habitat
American wolverines in the contiguous warrant further consideration, we then requirements.
United States are ‘‘markedly separated’’ determine whether the species is Because the petition to list the
from those in Canada and Alaska. threatened or endangered in any wolverine only specified the portion of
Consequently, the Service is unable to significant portion. If we determine that the subspecies’ range in the contiguous
conclude at this time that the petitioned a portion of the range is not significant, United States, we assessed whether this
entity is discrete according to our DPS we do not determine whether the portion is important to the conservation
policy. Therefore, the North American species is threatened or endangered of the subspecies because it contributes
wolverine in the contiguous United there. meaningfully to the representation,
States does not qualify as a distinct The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ resiliency, or redundancy of the species.
population segment and is not a listable ‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are For resiliency, we evaluated whether
entity under the Act. Because we have intended to be indicators of the the contiguous U.S. wolverine
determined that the population of the conservation value of portions of the population occupies relatively large or
North American wolverine in the range. Resiliency of a species allows it particularly high-quality habitat, or if its
contiguous United States is not discrete to recover from periodic disturbances. A location or characteristics make it less
and therefore not a DPS and a listable species will likely be more resilient if susceptible to certain threats than other
entity under the Act, we do not need to large populations exist in high-quality portions of the range. We determined
consider whether the population is habitat that is distributed throughout its that the contiguous U.S. wolverine
significant with regards to the DPS range in a way that captures the population constitutes a relatively small
policy or the conservation status environmental variability available. A area of patchily distributed lower-
pursuant to Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. portion of the range of a species may quality habitat when compared to the
make a meaningful contribution to the Gulo gulo luscus range overall.
Significant Portion of the Range resiliency of the species if the area is Additionally, we find that the
Analysis relatively large and contains particularly characteristics of the contiguous U.S.
Because the petitioned action was to high-quality habitat, or if its location or wolverine population make it more
list the wolverine in the contiguous characteristics make it less susceptible susceptible to certain threats than other
United States, after determining that the to certain threats than other portions of portions of the range because of the
wolverine in this portion of its range is the range. When evaluating whether or isolated patchy ‘‘sky island’’ habitats at
not a distinct population segment (DPS), how a portion of the range contributes the southern terminus of its range.
we analyzed whether it would to resiliency of the species, we evaluate Additionally, we evaluated the
constitute a significant potion of the the historical value of the portion and historical value of the contiguous U.S.
range of the North American subspecies. how frequently the portion is used by portion of the wolverine range and how
On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion the species, if possible. The range frequently the portion is used by the
was issued by the Solicitor of the portion may contribute to resiliency for species, and whether the portion
Department of the Interior, ‘‘The other reasons; for instance, it may contains an important concentration of
Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are
Throughout All or a Significant Portion certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its
of Its Range’ ’’ (DOI 2007). A portion of necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding,
a species’ range is significant if it is part life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or
of the current range of the species and feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. We found that the contiguous
is important to the conservation of the wintering. U.S. wolverine population does not
species because it contributes Redundancy of populations may be meaningfully contribute to resiliency
meaningfully to the representation, needed to provide a margin of safety for because the habitats necessary for
resiliency, or redundancy of the species. the species to withstand catastrophic breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal,
The contribution must be at a level such events. This concept does not mean that or wintering are found distributed
that its loss would result in a decrease any portion that provides redundancy is throughout its range and are not solely
in the ability of the species to persist. per se a significant portion of the range found in the contiguous United States.
In determining whether the petitioned of a species. The idea is to conserve Therefore, we conclude that the
entity warranted listing as threatened or enough areas of the range so that contiguous U.S. wolverine population
endangered throughout a significant random perturbations in the system does not contribute meaningfully to the
portion of its range, we first determine only act on a few populations. resiliency of G. g. luscus.
whether there is substantial information Therefore, we examine each area based In analyzing redundancy, we
indicating that (1) the petitioned entity on whether that area provides an evaluated whether the contiguous U.S.
constitutes a significant portion of the increment of redundancy that is portion of the wolverine range is
range, and (2) the species may be in important to the conservation of the necessary to provide a margin of safety
danger of extinction there or likely to species. for the species to withstand catastrophic
become so within the foreseeable future. Adequate representation ensures that events. We also examined the
In practice, a key part of this analysis is the species’ adaptive capabilities are contiguous U.S. portion of the
whether the threats are geographically conserved. Specifically, we evaluate a wolverine range to determine whether
concentrated in some way. If the threats range portion to see how it contributes that area provides an increment of
redundancy that is important to the United States that is no longer occupied DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
conservation of the species. In North would not raise the status of this portion
America, wolverines occur within a of the range as being significant to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
wide variety of arctic, sub-arctic and subspecies. Administration
alpine habitats, primarily boreal forests,
tundra, and western mountains Finding 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
throughout Alaska and Canada, with
We have carefully assessed the best RIN 0648–XF03
two small peninsulas of habitat
scientific and commercial information
extending into the North Cascades and Listing Endangered and Threatened
the Northern Rocky Mountains in the available regarding threats to the
contiguous United States population of Wildlife and Designating Critical
contiguous United States. The portion of Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to
the range that extends into the the wolverine. We reviewed the
Reclassify the Loggerhead Turtle in
contiguous United States is small in petition, and available published and
the Western North Atlantic Ocean
relation to the entire range of the unpublished scientific and commercial
subspecies. Additionally, the actual area information. This 12-month finding AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
amount of habitat in the contiguous reflects and incorporates information Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
United States is more fragmented in that we received during the public Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
nature than habitat found elsewhere comment period or that we obtained Commerce.
throughout the range, which results in through consultation, literature ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request
a smaller proportion of actual habitat in research, and field visits. for information and comments;
the contiguous U.S. portion than what is On the basis of this review, we have correction.
generally indicated on ‘‘range’’ maps
determined that the contiguous United SUMMARY: This document corrects the
(see ‘‘Habitat Availability and
States population of the North American fax number in the ADDRESSES section of
Connectivity’’ section above). Finally, a
small proportion of the total wolverine wolverine does not constitute a distinct a proposed rule published in the
population occurs in the contiguous population segment (DPS) under the Act Federal Register of March 5, 2008.
United States. Assuming 8,333 and therefore a listable entity unto itself. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
wolverine occur in Alaska (as described We also find that the contiguous United Marta Nammack at 301–713–1401.
in the control of exploitation section States population of the North American SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
above), 15,089 wolverine occur in wolverine is not a significant portion of
Canada, and 500 wolverine occur in the the range of the North American Correction
contiguous United States, the subspecies and does not warrant further In proposed rule FR Doc. E8–4231,
contiguous United States portion consideration under the Act. Therefore, beginning on page 11849 in the issue of
accounts for only 2 percent of the entire we find that the petition to list the March 5, 2008, make the following
G. g. luscus population. Thus, we North American wolverine that occurs correction, in the Preamble. On page
determined that the contiguous U.S. in the contiguous United States is not 11849, column two, line 8 of the
wolverine population does not warranted for listing. ADDRESSES section, replace ‘‘978–281–
significantly contribute to the 9394’’ with ‘‘301–713–0376’’.
redundancy of G. g. luscus. References Cited
Dated: March 6, 2008.
In determining whether the
contiguous U.S. wolverine population A complete list of all references cited John Oliver,
contributed to representation, we is available upon request from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
evaluated whether it contributes to the Supervisor, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Operations, National Marine Fisheries
genetic diversity of the species. Service, Montana Field Office (see Service.
Adequate representation ensures that ADDRESSES). [FR Doc. 08–1000 Filed 3–6–08; 2:54 pm]
the species’ adaptive capabilities are Author
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
conserved. Wolverines in the
contiguous United States contain a The primary author of this document
subset of the genetic haplotypes found DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
is staff of the Mountain-Prairie Region of
in the Canadian populations, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
therefore do not represent a unique Union Blvd., Ste. 145, Lakewood, Administration
population. Thus, the species does not Colorado 80228 (also see ADDRESSES).
meaningfully contribute to
Authority 50 CFR Part 648
representation of Gulo gulo luscus. The
populations in Canada and Alaska are [Docket No. 071017601–7812–02]
relatively large and contiguous, and are The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of RIN 0648–AW17
not dependent on connectivity to the
contiguous U.S. population. 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Based on the discussion above, we seq.).
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
determined that the contiguous United Dated: February 28, 2008. States; Northeast Multispecies
States portion of the current range of the Fishery; 2008 Georges Bank Cod Fixed
H. Dale Hall,
North American wolverine is not Gear Sector Operations Plan and
significant to the Gulo gulo luscus Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8–4197 Filed 3–10–08; 8:45 am] Agreement, and Allocation of Georges
subspecies, and therefore does not Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch
warrant further consideration to BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
determine if it is a significant portion of AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
the range that is threatened or Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
endangered. In addition, we find that Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
historical habitat in the contiguous Commerce.

Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: North American Wolverine

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: North American Wolverine

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.

48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Proposed Rules 12929

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a

Historical records Recent records Current Most recent

Pacific Coast Mountains:

17:20 Mar 10, 2008

Michigan ...................................... 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1868

be much smaller than the northern

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL WOLVERINE HARVEST IN CANADA

Total .................................................................. 719

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen